Sandbags stir charges of special treatment

Started by Steve, August 23, 2008, 02:38:59 PM

Driven1

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
The protocol itself is the problem.
Adam did what the city should have been doing for everyone.

strongly disagree.  this is not an essential govt function.  especially here in jax with the amount of shorelines we have with the river, ocean and intracoastal.  more govt is not the solution to every problem.  protecting private homeowner property is the job of the homeowner (through insurance if by no other means) - not the local gov't's job.


Driven1

Quote from: Charleston native on August 27, 2008, 07:31:04 PM
None.

What's pathetic is that Fay was just a TS. I hate to see what Corrine or Adam would do if faced with an actual major category hurricane.

think "Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans" - now that New Orleans has been wiped out, maybe Jax is the new corrupt capital of the south?

apvbguy

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
The protocol itself is the problem.

Adam did what the city should have been doing for everyone.
the city cannot nor should it be doing that for everyone, city resources are scarce. It just goes to show you that while we all are treated equally, some are more equal than others
When you put clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and clobber you with his experience

apvbguy

Quote from: Driven1 on August 27, 2008, 07:56:53 PM
Quote from: Charleston native on August 27, 2008, 07:31:04 PM
None.

What's pathetic is that Fay was just a TS. I hate to see what Corrine or Adam would do if faced with an actual major category hurricane.

think "Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans" - now that New Orleans has been wiped out, maybe Jax is the new corrupt capital of the south?
apparently, from what I've heard there is nothing new about government corruption in Duval
When you put clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and clobber you with his experience

jbm32206

Quote from: Driven1 on August 27, 2008, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: jbm32206 on August 27, 2008, 07:55:04 PM
There's no argument about that

see above.
I said that there would be no argument, given the circumstances of the issue at hand. Meaning, that if the city, and Hollingsworth was indeed acting as a agent of the city, then if such resources are made for one, they should be made for all.

I'm not in support of having a larger government...no way, no how.

uptowngirl

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
The protocol itself is the problem.

Adam did what the city should have been doing for everyone.

How do you fund it? How do you ensure you have enough resources for everyone that requests it? How do you ensure you can get itt o everyone who requests it? In theory what a wonderful idea, in practice it would be a nightmare and impossible to support.

Driven1

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 08:34:45 PM
We did it for decades.

You can't tell me that its more difficult now than it was in the 50s because its not.

where do you see that we did this? 

also, yes, much more difficult now because we have much more developed riverfront now than we did then.  i know for a fact that my father-in-law moved over to the "boonies" when he moved out to Beaclerc on the river there - he was one of the first ones and that was in 1976.  we've developed far south of there along the river and much more along the intracoastal since then. 

even if we DID do it in the 50s, it was bad policy then and would be worse policy now.

Driven1

police and fire are essential local govt functions.

protecting private property (that the govt forced not a single individual to purchase) is not.  btw, i say this as someone who lives along a tributary of the river.

Lunican

I think someone will point out that police and fire departments do in fact protect private property.

apvbguy

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 09:41:25 PM
Yes, Lunican, they do in fact protect private property.

With increased storm activity, its one more of those old fashioned things that we lost in the 70s-80s era that we need to return to.


ok kiddies, you're getting way off track, the issue is a government official diverting resources to help another government official, he gave away services that were NOT accessible to the average citizen. That is known as corruption, and the obtuse one defending this must either be a sycophant or just likes seeing politicians getting special perks that the average person has no access to
When you put clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out

never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and clobber you with his experience

RiversideGator

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 08:34:45 PM
We did it for decades.

You can't tell me that its more difficult now than it was in the 50s because its not.

Where did you get the idea that the City government barricaded people's houses against storms in the 1950s?

RiversideGator

Quote from: stephendare on August 27, 2008, 11:02:25 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

nice name calling and argument ponte vedra guy.

Im just not some knee jerk asshole who doesnt think through my position before making statements.  I don't think we should argue against a service that we used to think of as a standard part of our civil defense.

As a ponte vedra resident, you arent actually paying taxes to either our county or our city, so exactly what is your point, pvbguy?

I feel worse about rich people in your county using our basic services and expecting our county to pay for it.

Perhaps you should consider (1) how the City could organize such a massive relief effort and (2) how this would be paid for.  It is a lot more complicated and expensive than just pontificating on a website.   ;)

RiversideGator

I expect individual property owners to take care of their properties as best they can.  Of course, the government should try to do what it can but it is totally unrealistic to provide flood defense to everyone in a tropical storm and this whole discussion seems to be nothing more than you making excuses for Corrine Brown's special treatment by her former aide.

Jimmy Olsen

Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2008, 04:53:46 PM
huh?

This is the basic services that the city should be providing.

Is it because Corrine is black?  Would anyone have had a problem if it was a 60 year old white woman in San Marco instead?  Im sorry, but I think the city should be commended for doing it, no matter who it was for.

It sounds like political viciousness to me in all seriousness.

Did she make some kind of profit off of the sand?

This is not a service the city should be providing... If you take the risk of buying waterfront property, you should be responsible for any flood damage that comes with it. There have been reports that neighbors of Corrine were denied the same help that she was given. If that's not corruption (of course on a small scale), I don't know what is.

I don't think she made a profit from the sand (except maybe a deductible), but she sure has made some in the past. Which is why we question her character....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrine_Brown#Complaints_and_investigations