message board home
Next
1/10/2005 8:10:17 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: First Things First Msg# 165030
|
||||||
|
Where did I question their motives? You have consistently, by implication, questioned the motives of the 4 with whom you disagree-- they're all about lawyers, money, and developers, right? That's what I have a problem with. The US Supreme Court often splits decisions 4-3, after excellent advocates have presented excellent, reasoned, principled arguments for both sides. The issues are most often complex and multi-faceted, with very little left to the black and white analysis you so often employ in your commentaries concerning this issue. I know you have the best of motives, Joe, though I tend to disagree with what I perceive as your "chicken little" approach to this issue. Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to the 4 Commissioners with whom you disagree . . . I have no idea what their motives may be or not be. I have questioned their decision - a decision that stuck us with a $1 million risk instead of the developer. It's my understanding that Pennington Commons will pay Ocean Pines $1 million to take that $1 million risk. Is that correct? If so, you appear to be giving that fact short shrift in your analysis. Second, at least 4 commissioners, one of whom is from Ocean Pines, appear to believe that this risk is highly unlikely to occur, and, as such, worth taking. The existence of the risk is only part of the equation. The degree of the risk is also relevant. And I would suggest that the split between our 2 Ocean Pines Commissioners indicates that this issue is far less black and white than you would have us believe. There are competing visions as to how development should occur in the north end of the County, and how sewer and water services should be allowed to evolve so as to serve that development. There are risks and benefits inherent in both visions. The commissioners just made a tight 4-3 decision in favor of one vision. You are right to point out that their is a risk involved. You are wrong to question the motives of the 4 commissioners with whom you disagree, when, as far as I can tell, their position is both reasonable and persuasive. It's just different from yours. Lawyers represent the people with money. I saw no lawyer there representing the people of Ocean Pines. Dan Stachurski is a better oral advocate than most paid lawyers I know. Ocean Pines was well represented.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: I have, however, attempted to defend the motives of all 7 commissioners relative to their individual votes (3 of which you agree with, and 4 of which you don't), and I do not need to have been at the meeting to do that. Where did I question their motives? I have no idea what their motives may be or not be. I have questioned their decision - a decision that stuck us with a $1 million risk instead of the developer. You may disagree with their vision, but that doesn't mean that their vision is unreasonable, or that their votes are cast at the behest of lawyers, money, and/or developers. Lawyers represent the people with money. I saw no lawyer there representing the people of Ocean Pines. What sort of "vision" is it for a commissioner to place a $1 million risk on the taxpayers and not the developer when the deal being struck is as much about helping the developer as some vague, not very well supported notion of helping the county. This discussion at this point is not about whether or not Pennington comes in - that is a done deal, like it or not. The issue is financial fairness for Ocean Pines ratepayers in how they come in. How does "the county" benefit by making the Ocean Pines ratepayers take a $1 million risk and letting the developer off the hook for that risk? If you can explain that, I'd like to hear it. In this case, I submit their "vision" is very suspect. I submit their "motive" is very suspect. Again, your need to to discredit the other side, as if your position is the only reasonable one on the table, is painfully obvious. There is wisdom in acknowledging that the other side has a reasonable position, though you may disagree. Hummm. Again, what is reasonable about making OP ratepayers take the $1 million risk and letting the developer off the hook? Again, please explain why this is reasonable. Time may tell that his position was ultimately favorable for Worcester County AND Ocean Pines. Time may tell the same relative to your position. Only time will tell. Another hummmm. If I am correct it means OP ratepayers could be out a lot of money. If Cetola is correct it means we are not out a lot of money. Even if he is correct, there will be little or no benefit for the people of Ocean Pines. I'll stick with my guiding principle on this issue -- first do no harm to Ocean Pines. |
| Calendar |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
1/25/2025 - 9: A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
2/22/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
3/29/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
4/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |