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.
Speaker Mattiello is busy busy busy consorting with the hyper-wealthy owners of the PawSox and their desire to build a stadium in Providence. Trouble is, the speaker doesn't want any proposal brought to a public vote! Now, maybe good ole Mattie is a stout fellow, a bully chap, trustworthy as the day is long (though growing shorter as we whip through this summer). But this august body also gave us 38 Studios. So, why should he, and they, be trusted to act in the best interests of the state's taxpayers? These clowns couldn't drive a clown car!
Quote:
In a one-on-one interview with GoLocalProv, Rhode Island House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello said that he is negotiating a new "revenue positive" deal for the proposed Providence stadium for the Pawtucket Red Sox.
In his discussions with the team's new ownership group, Mattiello made it clear he is trying to broker a more palatable deal than the one first put forth.
"I understand the frustration," sad Mattiello of the public's reaction to the first proposal. "I didn't like the first deal, I didn't support it either. Ultimately, it's up to the public."
"That doesn't mean we'll do a referendum," said Mattiello.
I see. "Ultimately, it's up to the public," yet the public won't get to vote. So, like, how is it "up to the public?"
Absolutely not- why trust him if he won't put it to a referendum? The land is still slated for a public park- why should he decide we don't want one?
Because it's Mattie! He's the speakah! We should trust him because he says we should!
Where do backroom back-scratching bottom-feeders "hear the people?" Why does "Mattie" fear a vote? If the business proposition is so favorable for the citizens, why wouldn't he want it affirmed by popular vote?
^ Massa Mattie too impo'tent to talk to the little people -- he only consorts with lobbyists and billionaire baseball owners. Ah, let's see, what happened to the last RI Speakah? He's on a federally funded three year vacation, isn't he?
When I was a kid, we learned in school that the U.S. was a republic, not a democracy. (In recent years I've noticed conservatives love to say this, often apropos of nothing, probably because they've fallen in love with word games and "Republican" contains the word "republic" while "Democrat" has the same root as "democracy.") The reason is that most citizens don't have time to follow politics with the commitment needed to make intelligent choices on individual issues. Instead we elect representatives to do the heavy lifting for us. This system is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got.
It seems to me that you make something a referendum when you want to take advantage of the public's ignorance. That's why embarrassing and unconstitutional same-sex marriage bans swept the country in the 2000s. Basically, it seems that if you want to legislate on emotion rather than fact, you conjure up a referendum.
I do like the idea of referendums as a sort of utopian ideal, but ultimately I don't think I support them and definitely like the fact that Rhode Island doesn't have them.
When I was a kid, we learned in school that the U.S. was a republic, not a democracy. (In recent years I've noticed conservatives love to say this, often apropos of nothing, probably because they've fallen in love with word games and "Republican" contains the word "republic" while "Democrat" has the same root as "democracy.") The reason is that most citizens don't have time to follow politics with the commitment needed to make intelligent choices on individual issues. Instead we elect representatives to do the heavy lifting for us. This system is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got.
It seems to me that you make something a referendum when you want to take advantage of the public's ignorance. That's why embarrassing and unconstitutional same-sex marriage bans swept the country in the 2000s. Basically, it seems that if you want to legislate on emotion rather than fact, you conjure up a referendum.
I do like the idea of referendums as a sort of utopian ideal, but ultimately I don't think I support them and definitely like the fact that Rhode Island doesn't have them.
I understand what you're saying, but I think the circumstances are a bit different. This state government is incompetent and corrupt to its very gills. These aren't trustworthy people, they are leeches, They cannot be trusted to be honest, competent, or in any way transparent. Given their track record over DECADES, they never fail to fail.
In normal circumstances, yes, let our elected officials do the job of governance, but as they are so utterly incapable, big dollar items like this need public approval.
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.
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.
