| Author | Post |
|---|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 07:49 pm |
|
There is no conflict of interest issue to my mind that comes in to play on the committees. First of all all the people on the parks committee are for parks and ballfields that is a conflict in that we have already made up our minds on the issue. Also the committees are only advisory so do not make the final decision.
I told everybody who came to the 158 site that the surveys were only part of the information that went into the decision as to where the ballfields would be put and that lots of other issues would come into play. I think there is no question that the surveys eliminated the 158 site but the other two sites had equal but different problems.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 07:55 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: Say what you want but if you really wanted to preserve quality of life and safety you would have put the KIDs at the top of your list with their quality of life and saftey as priorty,. and your personal, quality of life and safety next.
When you back away and think about it, that's a pretty extreme statement to make now isn't it? Your approach presumes that a serious decision boiled down to only one of two choices available, when in fact, there are (were) other choices available (such as no ballfields at all).
Perhaps you lose sight that this poster (neighbor) has the same rights to his opinion as you and others who share your views do. For that poster and similarly affected residents, perhaps they might choose no ballfields over the inconvenience of having more of them in their neighborhood.
Why can't someone be opposed to having to shoulder more of a burden of ballfields in their neighborhood (as Jane mentioned this morning in her earlier post) without being attacked or labelled as a member of some group, however sinister or not?
Doesn't it really just boil down to the fact that there will always be those neighblors who are opposed simply because of 'their' legitimate concerns which translate into opposition best understood as NIMBY?
Individuals always act in accordance with their own (perceived) best interests. Institutions often times do as well.
In an ideal world perhaps your suggestion would be substantially correct. But often times, idealism is illusory at best.
Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 08:25 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 08:02 pm |
|
They all have the right to act upon the 1ST amendment--
I asked earlier if number of ball fields could be decreased for the Friddle property--because it was stated the 8-10 were too much of a detriment on quality of life for the occupants of 100 year old houses. But no one will tell me if that was even considered.
We all agreed that we were for the kids and we needed to give them something--but when their lives are at risk you endanger their quality of life.
Thanks Jim I knew you would correct me---now let's not flame. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 08:22 pm by GRITS
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 08:07 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: They all have the right to act upon the 5th amendment--
How and what in the world does the 5th Amendment (the legal right to not self incriminate and compensation for takings) have to do with this discussion of ballfields? Are you advocating for Eminent Domain in the instant situation?
That one flies right over my head......What am I missing?
5th Amendment to the US Constitution
Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 08:12 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 08:28 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: They all have the right to act upon the 1ST amendment--
Thanks Jim I knew you would correct me---now let's not flame.
Grits, I agree with you on not flaming. Not my intention.
But please explain now what you mean in context your comment regarding 1st Amendment rights? Somehow or other, I am still missing the point you are really trying to make.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 08:41 pm |
|
I and everyone participating in this discussion is entitled to enact upon their freedom of speech--standing up and voicing for what they feel is correct. We all are engaging in our 1st amendment looking for ballfields.
Whether the comments come across as negative, positive, factual or assumptions -- people are still entitled to say what they want. Sometimes negative comments can be reality to some and eventually become positive. That is usually hard to acheive if someone is not willing to reach an agreement. That is why we get so many Agree to Disagree final words. It is an easy way out, end of topic so to say. That's just my opinion.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 2nd, 2007 12:43 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: There is no conflict of interest issue to my mind that comes in to play on the committees. First of all all the people on the parks committee are for parks and ballfields that is a conflict in that we have already made up our minds on the issue. Also the committees are only advisory so do not make the final decision.
I told everybody who came to the 158 site that the surveys were only part of the information that went into the decision as to where the ballfields would be put and that lots of other issues would come into play. I think there is no question that the surveys eliminated the 158 site but the other two sites had equal but different problems.
Maybe this would not be so hard to swallow if in fact the Parks and Rec. committee remained advisory instead of influential which aided Mark Brown to primarily quote the P&R is in favor of the Marshall property therefore as the tie breaking vote I am in favor of the 220 property as well due to this recommendation. I know that is not word for word his quote, but his statement was strong enough that even though you guys were not the deciding factor, Brown sure made it sound that way.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jun 2nd, 2007 10:50 pm |
|
| Just a thought. The Summerfield Rd, Oak St, Shadyside Dr and Rabbit Hollow people need to work on getting the old Food Lion building in shape if they are sooo worried about their property value. This EYESORE is detrimental to all in the area. Ballfields would have been an improvement of property. This is a dilapidated and hazardous building with no future. Maybe your efforts are needed here? But I'll bet we never hear or see any of you until it effects you at home. I have never seen any of you come out to volunteer to do any work in the Town to make it a better place. You only show up for your self serving needs. Shadyside could use a good clean up and what about those for sale lots on that side of Pleasant Ridge? Looking at what might happen in your back yard where you will never see it because of the natural buffer instead of looking at your front yard and what all can see every day.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 4th, 2007 02:07 pm |
|
| Baseball Buddy, I do own property on Shadyside. I do volunteer many hours for this town. I wish also that I could do something about the food lion but until the ordinances change or until someone is willing to pay the unreasonable price that the slum lord that owns that property wants for it there isn't much I can do about it. When he lets those buildings slid beyond code then he gets a letter of enforcement and he then brings them just up to code. If you or anyone else has an idea I would love it, because I too think the food lion is an eye sore and Summerfield deserves better.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 6th, 2007 01:46 am |
|
While it is not entirely on topic, there is an excellent article in today's Raleigh News and Observer entitled Soccer Fields Win Johnston (County) Approval with a secondary headline which reads, Rural Residents Wanted Their Quiet.
The article describes the rather spirited zoning battle between a large number of supporters and opponents and the strong feelings if both sides. It might be helpful in the instant situation to more fully appreciate that there are generally two sides to so many of these zoning cases in our contemporary society.
Read the article to see what happened and the conditions which were also imposed to limit some of the concerns of opponents.
The article can be found and read at the following weblink:
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/591850.html
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 6th, 2007 01:11 pm |
|
Sally Lawings persuaded Mr. Friddle to sell her an extra 30 acres of land for the reasoning of needed pasture land for her horses. Funny thing, those are some strange looking show horses grazing in her extra pasture.
Instead she used the land to put a cell tower there. How do the resident's feel about this blinking light. I personally can see this emitting flash of light from across 220. No lie, I have been woken up in the middle of the night noticing my bedroom would come to life every 10-15 seconds. The residents argue ball lights disrupt their lives, at least they are not used every night and are turned off.
Also, what about their quality of life now with the proof of cell waves being hazardous causing cancer? EMF, electronic magnetic field emits electronic magnetic radiation and poses a risk to your health.
As people use cellular phones to make phone calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The radio waves produced at the base station are emitted into the environment, where people can be exposed.
Exposure to baseball is not a carcinogen.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 6th, 2007 01:56 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: Also, what about their quality of life now with the proof of cell waves being hazardous causing cancer? EMF, electronic magnetic field emits electronic magnetic radiation and poses a risk to your health.
As people use cellular phones to make phone calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The radio waves produced at the base station are emitted into the environment, where people can be exposed.
Grits, are you suggesting that society do away with cell phones and that perhaps Summerfield should impose a ban on their use within the town limits to protect the health, safety and welfare of Summerfield residents?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 6th, 2007 02:23 pm |
|
| Nope
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 8th, 2007 10:46 am |
|
Last night the Bronco baseball teams finished their season with the Summerfield Cardinals. Congratulations Cardinals--well deserved win; and going undefeated for the season.
What really warmed my heart was the small, robust boy on the opposite team that gleamed and showed pure admiration to his team mates, coaches, opposing team and Jay Copeland, SRA president while handing out the trophies. He had the greatest smile on a child even though his team had just lost. Great, great sportsmanship, I can't say more on how this child portrayed himself.
SRA baseball brings out the best in every child, and I am proud to say that my family has had the opportunity to participate in this wonderful atmosphere. The Summerfield Baseball group really does bring a sense of family to the community. Good, positive and great enthusiastic fun is what I love for my children to experience, learning and knowing that their community is home.
Last edited on Jun 8th, 2007 10:54 am by GRITS
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 8th, 2007 12:11 pm |
|
| Thanks fer sharin' that, Grits. That's the kind o' thing ol' Pappy likes to hear.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
