Report a Comment

Great owning up DAl. Grrreaaat owning up!

I would argue that what has gotten to those who didn't agree w/your approach is that idea that you based the entire story on a very false premise. I believe it's perfectly fine to argue that the CM's shouldn't get tickets at all. But you've taken this three steps further and now ultimately holding Evans responsible for striking the deal in the first place. I think that's unfair. It's unfair because the council voted for this, not Evans alone. So if anyone's to blame, it's the council. Yet, you singled out Evans.

I certainly disagree with your belief that "most" residents have a problem w/this. I don't think they do. It's the rhetoric and sensational headlines (like the WPOST one that misled you) that in some sick way encourages people to protest something. Then the very vocal few become the voices of the majority.

There is a big difference between a law that says the council gets some tickets, and a law that explicitly divvies them up among members.

Really? So does this mean you would still have an issue w/the law if it had already clarified the distrubution of tickets? Likely not. But of all the things to make a big stink about. This one? This? Something that's already law? And that is somehow Evans' fault?

It seems as if this community has taken a side..and Evans has another. How has the city benefitted from this discussion?

by HogWash on Jun 6, 2012 10:38 am • link • report