Why are light rail and new roads combined in bond proposal? (Austin: sales, home)

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Komeht

In other words, it won't be unconstitutional.

In other words, the language they wanted to use would have resulted in a constitutionally invalid election. They are trying to come up with a different wording - but the truth might not sell.

I guess you admit and didn't take issue with the point regarding deceptive/fraudulent accounting in pursuit of a rail agenda.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

In other words, the language they wanted to use would have resulted in a constitutionally invalid election. They are trying to come up with a different wording - but the truth might not sell.

I guess you admit and didn't take issue with the point regarding deceptive/fraudulent accounting in pursuit of a rail agenda.

This is the road that is being taken by the opposition:

Make an accusation - does not matter how absurd.

Demand people prove otherwise.

Please - I'm not going to go down that road with you. Have fun with games.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You have any facts to back up your outlandish claims of corruption? I mean, since you're slandering public officials, people who have put themselves out to be our community leaders, you have anything actual to back this up?

Gotta laugh at your naivete, but keep on believing your city council cares about you and the little people.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Gotta laugh at your naivete, but keep on believing your city council cares about you and the little people.

I'll take that as confirmation that you have no proof and are merely slandering the good name of people, real people, friends and neighbors, who have chosen to sacrifice careers and time with families to be leaders in the community.

Some thanks.

[Trainwreck20]

who have chosen to sacrifice careers

Somehow, I do not think many council members suffer damage to their careers (whatever that may be/have been) by being a council member.

[austin-steve]

Regarding the District 10 comments several pages ago, and in considering the different districts in general, the statesman has a decent, if imperfect, summary here of what is important to each.

D6 for example was doing just fine back when as mostly a collective of MUDs and water districts before all that area was involuntarily annexed and then underserved by the City of Austin. Many are still resentful. Most out there could give a rats *ss about the sort of stuff that ruffles the feathers of the central Austinites and the ANC. They simply feel overtaxed and underserved, and not truly a part of "Austin".

I think it's healthy for the city to have these districts because it gives a voice and accountability to areas that previously didn't matter to those current candidates who get elected by bowing at the throne of the ANC.

Steve

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Somehow, I do not think many council members suffer damage to their careers (whatever that may be/have been) by being a council member.

It takes a tremendous investment of time in the community to even begin to think of running for office with a legitimate chance. Unless you're Richie Rich and funding your own campaign - these people have spent years and years going to community meeting after community meeting, serving on boards and commissions, volunteering and untold numbers of events before becoming an even semi-credible candidate. That time comes at the expense of people's families and careers. It's not a good way to get rich either - you get a decent wage for a job that takes up 2 or 3 times the amount of time most people put into their full-time job. That doesn't even count having to run.

It's offensive to me that people can throw out baseless accusations without a shred of evidence to support it, at people who are, whether you agree with them or not, serving the community.

Corruption. People go to jail for that. And gutless anonymous posters here and elsewhere bandy such accusations about with equal parts vindictive and certainty offering NOTHING to support it. It's not only obnoxious, its deleterious to the entire system.

City leaders haven't earned my support, but all of them have earned my respect and goodwill. And they will have it until someone demonstrates they should not. That applies equally to all city council members, including the two that I disagree with on just about every. single. issue.

There are rules in this forum that prevent people from posting consumer complaints because "they don't give the other side to the opportunity to present their side of the argument." I guess that same logic doesn't apply to slanderous allegations against individuals who happen to be public servants.

Noxious.

[Kauaibrad]

To answer the original question, light rail and roads have NOT BEEN COMBINED on the ballot. Voters are ONLY voting on approval or not for $600M in bonds for Rail. The $400M in funding for Roads voters are not voting on. If voters pass the $600M in bonds for Rail, then before those bonds can be issued, a condition upon them is that first the City Council has to arrange for $400M in funding for Roads. City Council could pass that $400M in the form of higher interest Certificates of Obligation or City Council could put that $400M for Roads on the ballot in 2015 or 2016 in lower interest General Obligation Bonds for voter approval, or City Council could just not pass $400M in funding for Roads, in which case Rail does not move forward. The two HAVE NOT BEEN LEGALLY COMBINED ON THE BALLOT, and voters are only voting on a conditioned $600M for Rail.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Kauaibrad

To answer the original question, light rail and roads have NOT BEEN COMBINED on the ballot. Voters are ONLY voting on approval or not for $600M in bonds for Rail. The $400M in funding for Roads voters are not voting on. If voters pass the $600M in bonds for Rail, then before those bonds can be issued, a condition upon them is that first the City Council has to arrange for $400M in funding for Roads. City Council could pass that $400M in the form of higher interest Certificates of Obligation or City Council could put that $400M for Roads on the ballot in 2015 or 2016 in lower interest General Obligation Bonds for voter approval, or City Council could just not pass $400M in funding for Roads, in which case Rail does not move forward. The two HAVE NOT BEEN LEGALLY COMBINED ON THE BALLOT, and voters are only voting on a conditioned $600M for Rail.

If that is not political double talk, I don't know what is! You are brand new here. Why should we believe you?

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Komeht

It takes a tremendous investment of time in the community to even begin to think of running for office with a legitimate chance. Unless you're Richie Rich and funding your own campaign - these people have spent years and years going to community meeting after community meeting, serving on boards and commissions, volunteering and untold numbers of events before becoming an even semi-credible candidate. That time comes at the expense of people's families and careers. It's not a good way to get rich either - you get a decent wage for a job that takes up 2 or 3 times the amount of time most people put into their full-time job. That doesn't even count having to run.

It's offensive to me that people can throw out baseless accusations without a shred of evidence to support it, at people who are, whether you agree with them or not, serving the community.

Corruption. People go to jail for that. And gutless anonymous posters here and elsewhere bandy such accusations about with equal parts vindictive and certainty offering NOTHING to support it. It's not only obnoxious, its deleterious to the entire system.

City leaders haven't earned my support, but all of them have earned my respect and goodwill. And they will have it until someone demonstrates they should not. That applies equally to all city council members, including the two that I disagree with on just about every. single. issue.

There are rules in this forum that prevent people from posting consumer complaints because "they don't give the other side to the opportunity to present their side of the argument." I guess that same logic doesn't apply to slanderous allegations against individuals who happen to be public servants.

Noxious.

If you did not sound like a naive shill for the current council members before, you sure do now!