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.
The process did work. The buck should ALWAYS stop with elected officials, not appointed or hired ones. In this case, the mayor can veto the approval and then the city council can override the veto, or not. The process is not corrupt because the result is not what we want. That's the way it works in a democracy.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,799 posts, read 2,696,474 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
The process did work. The buck should ALWAYS stop with elected officials, not appointed or hired ones. In this case, the mayor can veto the approval and then the city council can override the veto, or not. The process is not corrupt because the result is not what we want. That's the way it works in a democracy.
It's a shame that you'd let this drive you away. You should know by now that anything major in this state involves corruption. It may be a hard pill to swallow at times but unfortunately that's just the way it is.
No one should resign themselves to corruption. We should all be striving for better government.
Idealistic- of course- but if we give up power it impedes the democratic progress and none of us want to live under a dictatorship at any level of government. 1800+ people have spoken already on this particular issue, that should over ride a few on the council who represent special interests.
No one should resign themselves to corruption. We should all be striving for better government.
Idealistic- of course- but if we give up power it impedes the democratic progress and none of us want to live under a dictatorship at any level of government. 1800+ people have spoken already on this particular issue, that should over ride a few on the council who represent special interests.
The mayor wasn't elected by just 1800 residents. If he vetoes the action of the majority of the city council, unless the veto is overridden (doubtful), the deal will be dead. If the mayor doesn't veto, it assumes at least a degree of support for the Tower. Will this mean that not only the majority of the council, but even the mayor is corrupt??
The mayor wasn't elected by just 1800 residents. If he vetoes the action of the majority of the city council, unless the veto is overridden (doubtful), the deal will be dead. If the mayor doesn't veto, it assumes at least a degree of support for the Tower. Will this mean that not only the majority of the council, but even the mayor is corrupt??
I think you're misunderstanding what I am writing. The elected officials are not supposed to act in their own vacuum to overturn established law- they are supposed to be enforcing existing law and also listening to the will of the people.
Yes, we have representative democracy, but I can't understand why people think that being an "elected official" gives someone carte blanche to do whatever they like. Where are their loyalties and accountability- that is the question.
I think you're misunderstanding what I am writing. The elected officials are not supposed to act in their own vacuum to overturn established law- they are supposed to be enforcing existing law and also listening to the will of the people.
Yes, we have representative democracy, but I can't understand why people think that being an "elected official" gives someone carte blanche to do whatever they like. Where are their loyalties and accountability- that is the question.
I guess we disagree not only on the tower, but who should have the last word. If this is approved by the elected city council, they are legitimately overriding the decisions of the appointed bodies over which they have legitimate jurisdiction. In their judgement, in this instance, building the tower is of more value to the city than the height limitation in the zoning law. If the mayor doesn't veto and this does come to pass, saying it's a result of corruption is so unfair. Such an unjust evaluation of the process.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
I think you're misunderstanding what I am writing. The elected officials are not supposed to act in their own vacuum to overturn established law- they are supposed to be enforcing existing law and also listening to the will of the people.
Yes, we have representative democracy, but I can't understand why people think that being an "elected official" gives someone carte blanche to do whatever they like. Where are their loyalties and accountability- that is the question.
The accountability is at the ballot box. Not on a petition signed by very few people.
We elect officials not to do what we want personally on every issue, but to lead and make the best decisions based on our values (which is how we select who we vote for).
The accountability is at the ballot box. Not on a petition signed by very few people.
We elect officials not to do what we want personally on every issue, but to lead and make the best decisions based on our values (which is how we select who we vote for).
This is NOT about what we "personally want"! It is about enforcing the already established zoning law not simply over riding it!
It was already established that NO 600 foot skyscrapers were to be built downtown.
1800 and counting is not a few and the people have a right to redress and a right to be heard. As to your second sentence, elected officials can often do the exact opposite of what we expect and we can't get rid of them until the next election. That is a BIG problem.
I think you're misunderstanding what I am writing. The elected officials are not supposed to act in their own vacuum to overturn established law- they are supposed to be enforcing existing law and also listening to the will of the people.
Yes, we have representative democracy, but I can't understand why people think that being an "elected official" gives someone carte blanche to do whatever they like. Where are their loyalties and accountability- that is the question.
Article 19 of the City of Providence Zoning Ordinance is part of that established law and allows the petitioner and the Council to do what they have done.The will of the people was heard at public hearings in accordance with that established law.
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.
