U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-03-2014, 04:41 PM
 
149 posts, read 477,565 times
Reputation: 158

Advertisements

Two things I don't like, and I think get in the way of any potential valid argument that they are attempting to convey.

1. Its too long. Too much detail, too many pages with no apparent 'new' info or insight.
I work for a corporation, we produce a lot of presentations. This one would have been edited to about 20 pages, tops. Very few people will read each slide, most will glance over.

2. The inference that Kevin Stewart is somehow benefitting from the development in Waxhaw.
There is a slide that basically says: he works for a company that clears land + developers need to clear land = excerpt from BOE conflict of interest policy. The inference being he is what? taking bribes or getting a big bonus to vote for redistricting?

I understand there are high emotions, but making baseless accusations goes over the line for me, and takes away a lot of credibility of any of the data in this presentation.

Other than that....maybe I'm missing any new, well researched and feasible alternatives to redistricting?

 
Old 02-03-2014, 04:46 PM
 
49 posts, read 52,209 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMARIA View Post
Two things I don't like, and I think get in the way of any potential valid argument that they are attempting to convey.

1. Its too long. Too much detail, too many pages with no apparent 'new' info or insight.
I work for a corporation, we produce a lot of presentations. This one would have been edited to about 20 pages, tops. Very few people will read each slide, most will glance over.

2. The inference that Kevin Stewart is somehow benefitting from the development in Waxhaw.
There is a slide that basically says: he works for a company that clears land + developers need to clear land = excerpt from BOE conflict of interest policy. The inference being he is what? taking bribes or getting a big bonus to vote for redistricting?

I understand there are high emotions, but making baseless accusations goes over the line for me, and takes away a lot of credibility of any of the data in this presentation.

Other than that....maybe I'm missing any new, well researched and feasible alternatives to redistricting?


so being to detailed, in your opinion, invalidates an the argument against redistricting….is it your feeling that "well the report is too long, i don't want to read it, so lets go ahead with redistricting because you should have condensed the report"….seriously?
 
Old 02-03-2014, 04:53 PM
 
149 posts, read 477,565 times
Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewarts Little Marbles View Post
so being to detailed, in your opinion, invalidates an the argument against redistricting….is it your feeling that "well the report is too long, i don't want to read it, so lets go ahead with redistricting because you should have condensed the report"….seriously?
Nope, that is not even close to what I mean.
This presentation needs to persuade and convince. If there is a valid argument it should be presented in a manner that allows the reader to understand it.
I actually read each page. I don't think most people will.
Seriously.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 04:55 PM
 
1,226 posts, read 2,058,408 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewarts Little Marbles View Post
so being to detailed, in your opinion, invalidates an the argument against redistricting….is it your feeling that "well the report is too long, i don't want to read it, so lets go ahead with redistricting because you should have condensed the report"….seriously?
just go edit it and make it more relevant and factual. It might actually have some facts that need to be considered, can't really tell, thought. When you do, look at the bottom rows in the UCPS proposed numbers, the ones with the special schools.... those are the numbers you are missing to compare to the McKibben report. Fix that first.... it just makes you look completely ignorant.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 05:00 PM
 
49 posts, read 52,209 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMARIA View Post
Nope, that is not even close to what I mean.
This presentation needs to persuade and convince. If there is a valid argument it should be presented in a manner that allows the reader to understand it.
I actually read each page. I don't think most people will.
Seriously.
the BOE didn't ask for an "argument", they asked for viable alternatives….it is very easy to just shout out alternatives. This person actually took the time and backed up his alternatives with data. It is very long, but if he didn't back it up, the detractors would shout out that "you left this out". You said you read the entire report, so you see the alternatives he lays out
 
Old 02-03-2014, 05:07 PM
 
451 posts, read 610,178 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
I have several thoughts on the document. Surprise, right? But I'd like to hear other opinions as well, so I'll keep quiet for the time being.
One long, hot mess.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Union County
5,789 posts, read 8,442,928 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc0789 View Post
Mike... pray do tell...... who... who????

You don't know either, do you? How about the fact that their neighboring subdivision is in fact NOT going to Sun Valley like stated, "he knows" that, too?

nah.... there is a Helms, but there are about 1,000 Helms in Union County, and its neither of the ones serving on BOCC or BOE. Is it one of their grandpa's second cousin twice removed.... maybe....there's your smoking gun!
I am missing it completely... High Gate has direct access to 16 right to Hemby - which makes sense to take to Antioch. Steeple Chase has no direct access to 16 and would come out on 16 South of 84 - taking 84 would lead them to Wedd Elem.

This appears to be logical.. so to me it just distracts from the presentation.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 05:20 PM
 
1,226 posts, read 2,058,408 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
I am missing it completely... High Gate has direct access to 16 right to Hemby - which makes sense to take to Antioch. Steeple Chase has no direct access to 16 and would come out on 16 South of 84 - taking 84 would lead them to Wedd Elem.

This appears to be logical.. so to me it just distracts from the presentation.
And the fact that the accusation states the others are going to Sun Valley.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 05:31 PM
 
527 posts, read 638,430 times
Reputation: 267
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. Again, this is one guys analysis that can contribute to the discussion as much as any other piece of analysis that has been done. Some is good, some needs to be thrown out, but the more data and the more viewpoints, the better.

At the end of the day, a large portion of the anti-redistricting crowd isn't really anti-redistricting at all. They, or we, are pro-community involvement that considers all alternatives. Given that the redistricting proposal was done behind closed doors without involvement from all stakeholders and that viable alternatives were never really considered it makes sense to slow down... that is really all that is being asked. So, if that means an extra trailer or two across the district for '14-'15, I don't think that's unreasonable.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 05:46 PM
 
49 posts, read 52,209 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. Again, this is one guys analysis that can contribute to the discussion as much as any other piece of analysis that has been done. Some is good, some needs to be thrown out, but the more data and the more viewpoints, the better.

At the end of the day, a large portion of the anti-redistricting crowd isn't really anti-redistricting at all. They, or we, are pro-community involvement that considers all alternatives. Given that the redistricting proposal was done behind closed doors without involvement from all stakeholders and that viable alternatives were never really considered it makes sense to slow down... that is really all that is being asked. So, if that means an extra trailer or two across the district for '14-'15, I don't think that's unreasonable.
well said Mike
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top