With the recent release of the hundreds of thousands of government documents describing new war crimes committed by the US military, the question arises of what to do about these two unpopular wars.
A panel of four acclaimed writers and analysts met yesterday to discuss ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of the four experts discussed one at a time their thoughts on the two wars and ways to end it. Afterwards, they took questions from both supporting and opposing audience members.
The first of the four panelists to speak was Miriam Pemberton, author of the book Lesson from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War. Pemberton focused on the War in Iraq and the policies used that failed or were unethical. She picked a few lessons from her book she feels we should learn from and ensure our policy makers never make the same mistake again. These lessons include a preventative war doctrine, an imperialistic strategy involving US presence and operation in foreign countries, and torture as a means to extract information. She firmly believes that these mistakes and others made for this war to be unsuccessful and unpopular.
The second analyst to speak was Iraqi born Raed Jarrar and co-author of the Iraq War Blog. Jarrar focus was mainly on the recent release of the 400,000 documents released by Wikileaks regarding the War in Iraq. Admitting that he has only read about a dozen of the documents, he states that they do not actually give the people of Iraq, Afghanistan or even the US any information that is surprising.
The third speaker was Phyllis Bennis, author of the book Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer. Bennis said her most important point she wanted to make on this war is many Americans are not convinced we should leave this war through moral arguments. Arguments like it is wrong to kill and stating how many lives have been lost on both sides, both military and civilian casualties are ineffective. She believes the argument we should be making is cost. She cites that the cost of one solider to be kept in Afghanistan for one year costs one million dollars. She states with the money spent on this war, we could be fixing all of our social problems.
The final speaker was Gareth Porter a historian and journalist as well as a policy analyst. His main point was the people need to understand why the policy makers brought us into these two wars, and then to mobilize to demand an exit from these wars. Porter feels that the US people are put at risk in order to serve the military. He quotes a military officer in the 90’s as saying “It is worth a few terrorist attacks against the US in order to be a superpower.”
All four speakers agreed we should pull out of the two wars and pursue diplomatic means to fix the two countries. One common theme was before we fix the mess we made and apologize, we need to pull out. Jarrar said “when you step on someone’s foot on a bus you don’t apologize and keep your foot there, you first move your foot, then apologize.”
Not everyone in the audience agreed with what four analysts had to say. One former military man and veteran of the War in Iraq, Blake said “You can’t rationalize with irrational people. And we can’t just pick up and leave like the panelists want. It’s not that simple.” However after making a similar statement to the panelists he was met with laughs and disrespect. And outside the Kay Center, a few kids passed him mocked and laughed at Blake. More discussion and intellegent discourse is needed in order for us to make the correct descion on these two wars.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
ANC 3E Monthly Meeting
OPEFM was created in 2007 for the purpose of modernizing DC Public School facilities. OPEFM states on their website that their mission is “to provide the children of the District of Columbia with safe, healthy and technologically current environments for learning.”Last night they presented their development plan for the modernization of Janney Elementary School, located in Northwest DC.
They plan on adding 41,000 square feet of new space, including a gym, media center, terrace and classrooms. OPEFM plans on refurbishing floors and walls, as well. Janney Elementary School is the highest enrolled school in DC, so the expansion to the school will be an “addition very much needed,” program manager of the reconstruction Mel Butler, Jr. said.
Butler said they want the design and aesthetic of the building to be “very fresh and clean, and provide a clean backdrop for what the kids might put on the walls.” In the media center, the carpeted floor will have the design of a tree on it, weaving between colored, organic shapes. The design is an homage to the school’s symbol, the Janney Oak Tree, which was cut down recently due to age.Despite the excitement of the new school, however, some residents voiced their concerns with the expansion. “There’s no buffer,” said a woman, whose home borders the school’s soccer field. She and a neighbor complained that the noise from soccer games on weekend mornings is too loud.
Councilman Sam Serebin challenged these complaints, questioning how bad the sound really can be.
“I wish you could hear the sound,” one said to the council, “it’s extraordinarily loud.” She said that her kids played soccer and she has no problem with people playing it nearby, but the lack of distance and the cheering so early in the morning, she said, is too much. “These are our homes. Kids come and go, teachers come and go, but this is our life.”
“I’m not persuaded [this is] an unmanageable situation,” Chairman Matthew Frumin said. He said that maybe games can start later, but the discussion, which was becoming a bickering match, would need to be postponed until another date.
Another resident and parent of a Janney student complained that the construction, which has already begun, has forced children to play in the parking lot, and said she’s already heard of one kid receiving a concussion. Chuck Guntner, the project’s construction manager, said that he would take that into consideration. Butler added, “most of the play area will be in the existing green spaces.”
Frumin said that American University has offered their fields on Tenley Campus as space for Janney students to play.
Security was also a concern for many residents. “We see people on the property all night long,” said one resident, “We’ve called the police several times.” Butler said that since construction began 66 cameras have been installed around “all corners of the building.” A police car is also stationed by the school every day and patrols the area, he said.
People are also concerned about the environmental impact of Janney’s modernization. People wanted to know how air quality will be effected, if traffic and noise level will increase.
Butler put the second two concerns to rest, saying, “at the end of the day, we’re not increasing enrollment much at all.” The modernization of Janney Elementary School is intended to open up space for current students, not to increase the amount of students. How air quality will be effected was left unaddressed.
“One of the good things about the modernization program is that we provide capacity,” Director of Communication at OPEFM Tony Robinson said. There are about 480 students enrolled at Janney Elementary School right now.
In addition to Janney Elementary School, the council raised the proposal to have the N8 bus route changed. “It’s the least utilized route in the city,” said Melissa Sherrill, who lives right on the route. She and others complained that the bus created unwanted and unnecessary noise in a residential area and that not enough people use it to justify cutting through neighborhoods.
“The bus could just as easily follow Massachusetts [Avenue] and Nebraska,” Sherrill said. Sherrill said that she has two kids and worries about buses in the street being unable to stop in time. This issue was also set to be reconsidered at a later date.
The new head of Georgetown Day School, Russell Shaw, came to the meeting to introduce himself to the community. He said that the school will be celebrating its 65th anniversary this year, but was surprised when he received scrutiny from a resident.
The resident complained that parents of Georgetown Day School students were parking their cars at Safeway, making shopping difficult for customers. She also complained about a school dance held last spring that resulted in massive traffic congestion on Wisconsin Avenue due to the amount of kids who attended.Cultural Tourism DC, a group devoted to celebrating and keeping alive DC’s cultural history, is going to create a heritage trail in DC’s Tenleytown. The trail will be launched at 1 p.m. on November 13.
Panelists say that Republicans will undoubtedly take the House in 2010 mid-term elections
A panel of Republican activists expressed confidence that the 2010 mid-term elections will be good ones for their party. Bryon York, Jim Geraghty, and Patrick Ruffini, along with moderator Professor Christopher Malagisi, discussed their prediction for the November elections, and what the Republican Party should focus on if they take the majority in the House of Representatives.
All panelists said that they were confident that Republicans would gain control of the House of Representatives after mid-term elections. “This win would be huge for Republicans and a natural disaster for Democrats,” said Ruffini. “I am predicting a 57 member victory for us in the House.” Ruffini said that he is not sure if his party will also take majority in the Senate.
Recent controversies however – including the witchcraft accusations of Rep. Christine O’Donnel (R- Del.) and racial insensitivities of Rep. Carl Paladino (R – N.Y.) – have slowed Republican momentum in some states. Since September 14, Democrats have taken leads in Delaware and New York, while GOP leads narrowed in Pennsylvania, Maine, Ohio and Illinois.
Nonetheless, these setbacks in the Midwest and Northeast did not change opinions of the conservative panelists. With fiery rhetoric and talks of a “Republican Revolution,” the panelists said they are unhappy with decisions made by the current Democratic representatives in the House and Senate. “Americans are fed up with the Democrats’ bad decisions and broken promises,” said Geraghty.
If the Republican Party takes the majority in the House of Representatives, the question then becomes – which political issue should be dealt with first? York said that he thinks Republicans should focus on spending, starting with a reduction of federal salaries.
American University student and Republican Party member, Kate Froehlich, agreed with York. “They (Republicans) really need to focus on jobs and the economy,” said Froehlich. Panelists Geraghty and Ruffini said that in addition to the economy, the recent health care bill – which they referred to as “Obama Care” – must be repealed. Geraghty said that for an amendment to happen in health care, a republican president need be in office; but, repealing the bill is the first step to creating a bipartisan law.
Scott Marturano, American University student and Democratic Party member, said that he thought the panel spent too much time “bashing Democrats,” but he agrees that Republicans will likely take majority of the House. “If they (Republicans) take the House, it will make the president fight for what he wants,” he said. “Though I support the Democratic Party, I think that a republican House majority may end-up a good thing for our country.”
Green Party member Alyssa Myers had a similar reaction to the panel. “A Republican takeover will not be the best for me or the Green Party, but I do think that it will add some balance so that spending will be less extreme,” she said. Myers also said however, that she is concerned by the “us” (Republicans) versus “them” (Democrats) mentality of the panelists.
The entire discussion was dominated by conservative activism. “The Republican Party has not seen a better environment than we’ve seen this year,” said Geraghty. “I have the mentality that we are going to ‘beat the heck out of you.’ I want all Republicans to expect to win.”
Meet the moderator and panelists:
· Christopher Malagisi is President of the Young Conservatives Coalition (YCC), a young conservative leadership organization whose goal is to organize the next generation of the conservative movement. He is also a political science professor at American University.
· Bryon York is The Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent. He also blogs throughout the week at Beltway Confidential.
· Jim Geraghty is a regular contributor to the National Review Online and National Review. Geraghty is the author of Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership, which argues that national security during high level terrorist threat is the chief issue in U.S. politics.
· Patrick Ruffini is a founder and partner at Engage, a political media firm, where he helps political affairs clients to navigate the shifts in today’s media landscape. In 2008, Ruffini was named a “Rising Star in American Politics” by Campaigns and Elections’ Politics magazine.
All panelists said that they were confident that Republicans would gain control of the House of Representatives after mid-term elections. “This win would be huge for Republicans and a natural disaster for Democrats,” said Ruffini. “I am predicting a 57 member victory for us in the House.” Ruffini said that he is not sure if his party will also take majority in the Senate.
Recent controversies however – including the witchcraft accusations of Rep. Christine O’Donnel (R- Del.) and racial insensitivities of Rep. Carl Paladino (R – N.Y.) – have slowed Republican momentum in some states. Since September 14, Democrats have taken leads in Delaware and New York, while GOP leads narrowed in Pennsylvania, Maine, Ohio and Illinois.
Nonetheless, these setbacks in the Midwest and Northeast did not change opinions of the conservative panelists. With fiery rhetoric and talks of a “Republican Revolution,” the panelists said they are unhappy with decisions made by the current Democratic representatives in the House and Senate. “Americans are fed up with the Democrats’ bad decisions and broken promises,” said Geraghty.
If the Republican Party takes the majority in the House of Representatives, the question then becomes – which political issue should be dealt with first? York said that he thinks Republicans should focus on spending, starting with a reduction of federal salaries.
American University student and Republican Party member, Kate Froehlich, agreed with York. “They (Republicans) really need to focus on jobs and the economy,” said Froehlich. Panelists Geraghty and Ruffini said that in addition to the economy, the recent health care bill – which they referred to as “Obama Care” – must be repealed. Geraghty said that for an amendment to happen in health care, a republican president need be in office; but, repealing the bill is the first step to creating a bipartisan law.
Scott Marturano, American University student and Democratic Party member, said that he thought the panel spent too much time “bashing Democrats,” but he agrees that Republicans will likely take majority of the House. “If they (Republicans) take the House, it will make the president fight for what he wants,” he said. “Though I support the Democratic Party, I think that a republican House majority may end-up a good thing for our country.”
Green Party member Alyssa Myers had a similar reaction to the panel. “A Republican takeover will not be the best for me or the Green Party, but I do think that it will add some balance so that spending will be less extreme,” she said. Myers also said however, that she is concerned by the “us” (Republicans) versus “them” (Democrats) mentality of the panelists.
The entire discussion was dominated by conservative activism. “The Republican Party has not seen a better environment than we’ve seen this year,” said Geraghty. “I have the mentality that we are going to ‘beat the heck out of you.’ I want all Republicans to expect to win.”
Meet the moderator and panelists:
· Christopher Malagisi is President of the Young Conservatives Coalition (YCC), a young conservative leadership organization whose goal is to organize the next generation of the conservative movement. He is also a political science professor at American University.
· Bryon York is The Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent. He also blogs throughout the week at Beltway Confidential.
· Jim Geraghty is a regular contributor to the National Review Online and National Review. Geraghty is the author of Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership, which argues that national security during high level terrorist threat is the chief issue in U.S. politics.
· Patrick Ruffini is a founder and partner at Engage, a political media firm, where he helps political affairs clients to navigate the shifts in today’s media landscape. In 2008, Ruffini was named a “Rising Star in American Politics” by Campaigns and Elections’ Politics magazine.
meeting story
Janney Elementary School Construction causes complaints amongst residents.
Noise was one of the main complaints as there is no buffer where the new soccer field is in relation to where the residents live.
A resident who lives near the school said, “its really loud.” And another resident Judy Downey said, “Its been going on for a while…this is our home, this is our life…we don’t want to fight for it.”
The Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (OPEFM) presented the modernization development of the Janney Elementary School. According Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization website, the mission of the OPEFM is to utilize best management practices of both the public and private sectors to provide the children of the District of Columbia with a safe, healthy and technologically current environments for learning.
The OPEFM was created by the Historic D.C. Education Reform Act of 2007 to undertake large-scale capital projects. As well as the construction and modernization of D.C. public schools facilities. Additionally, Andrew Lam leads the OPEFM project. He was recruited by Former Mayer Fenty to oversee the massive effort to transform the design, construction and maintenance of DC public schools.
The Janney School reconstruction’s program manager is Mel Butler, Jr. The school was built in 1925. And according to Butler,” It needs to be remodeled.”
Currently the school houses 480 students and the scope of the work for 2010 and 2011 includes the full modernization of the existing school building. This includes the classrooms, new mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection systems and interior finishes.
Also, the program will include the construction of a 40,000 square feet addition on the west side of the existing building. Including additional classrooms, a science lab, a media center and a multi physical educational space.
According to Butler the reconstruction has “hit big milestones in the last six months.” He is referring to the west side addition to the school.
Residents who live near the neighborhood were complaining about the noise due to the soccer field, which was previously built. Additionally, the residents said there is no buffer zone from the school to the houses were people live near the school.
Before the soccer field was built there used to be a playground in its spot, therefore the commissioners at the meeting did not see a problem with the soccer field. As Sam Serebin, a commissioner at the meeting, said,” What is the difference between a soccer field and a playground.” Additionally, Jonathan Bender, a commissioner at the meeting, said “The soccer field will not be used that much.”
There were no serious solutions to this problem raised. One resident said, “You could put high trees up…however there is no way to but out the noise.”
Another resident raised the issue of security in an around the Janney Elementary School since the area around the school would be less visible. He was concerned that the area of the construction would be vulnerable. Butler said “a cruiser sits until (the end of) aftercare during the school year.”
Also, cameras will be set up in and around the school. It was reported during the meeting that 66 cameras are currently in and around the school.
A parent who has children who go to school at Janney Elementary School also raised the issue of the safety of the children playing. The parent said,” kids are starting to fall and get hurt…I am concerned if the surface of the playground is hard and the children will get hurt.” As a solution to this issue, Butler said,” The area(playground for the children) will be in the green space, there will be nice grass fields.”
The final issue raised by residents was the environmental impact. Some residents were concerned about the air quality due to the construction.
Another important issue raised during the meeting during the open floor was by resident Peter Carleston. Carleston was concerned, as there was an increased fee on D.C. Water Bill. Carleston said there was a 5,000% increase in his water bill last month; the water bill was increased by 33%. The commissioners at the meeting said the resident should take this issue up with the People’s Council and the Water and Sewer Authority. However, they are not sure if this will help or not.
Also, a resident at the St. Mary’s Apostolic Church raised the issue of the fact that they had to erect their banners for a 4-day festival they previously had. The people in charge of this festival were supposed to have a banner up for the festival however they were prohibited from putting up the banner. And now they are prohibited from putting up any banners. The resident wanted to bring this to the attention of the councilmen so they could provide a letter to be allowed to put permits up.
Other issues, which were raised during the meeting, were robbers in the area have been occurring due to residents not locking their doors or windows. Also, Cultural Tourism D.C. Grant Application to support the launch of the Tenleytown Heritage Trail was passed. The new route for the N8 bus was passed and the Special Exceptions for the 5011 and 5009 Belt Road were passed.
Republicans are Optimistic as the Mid-Term Election Approaches
Republicans exuded confidence in their abilities to take over the House as they discussed the current challenges facing Democrats with the 2010 Mid-term Election less than three weeks away.
A panel of Republican political analysts met in Ward 2 at American University last night to discuss the current state of the 2010 Mid-term Election and what the Republican Party can expect come November 2. Panelist Patrick Ruffini of The Next Right explained that the country is “built on a uniquely shaky platform. Republicans have a reason to optimistic,” he said. The House is looking hopeful for a Republican majority while “the Senate is tough,” Ruffini said.
The panelists agreed that the Democrats have a reason to be concerned because the traditionally blue states are looking competitive. “They have no one to blame but themselves,” said Jim Geraghty of the National Review Online. “They ignored every warning sign.” The panel highlighted issues such as the grim job market, health care, border security, and runaway spending as source of public frustration. “It is a negative agenda, people want to check in on the President,” said Byron York from the Washington Examiner.
Republicans are noticing the unease of the Democratic Party as the election nears. Geraghty explained some Democratic “what the heck is going on?” indicators. The most prominent include Democratic attack ads against the Republicans and “acting like if I don’t hustle I’ll lose this year,” said Geraghty.
The Democrats on the other hand label themselves as self-assured with maintaining majorities. "There will be in Washington, D.C., a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. That will be the case,” said Vice President Joe Biden at the Democratic National Committee’s Meeting this summer in St. Louis. An American University junior and Democrat in attendance was surprised by the Republican’s suspected hold over the House, “It was a lot more seats than I would think,” he said. “A lot of what they are saying is true. If they don’t win, a small majority in the House would be a tremendous loss.”
Geraghty pointed out the likelihood that the Republicans will take over the House but he warned to not “count your chickens before they hatch.” He explained that there is no excuse for the Republicans to not get thirty nine seats. “It’s the best environment!” Geraghty joked. “If you can’t, you should have a long cold winter!”
Alyssa Myers, an American University Freshman and a Green Party supporter, did not like the assurance of the Republican panel and their negative criticism of the Democrats. “My biggest thing- it’s not us versus them. It should be issues over the label,” Myers said. She did agree however, that the Republicans have the ability to take over the House. But she, like others, remained unsure about the future of the Senate.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Hank's Expansion Problem
A hearing took place yesterday at the Alcohol Beverage Regulation Administration to decide to terminate or amend the voluntary agreement for DuPont’s Hanks Oyster Bar. Hank’s owner and head chef Jamie Leeds came in front of the five-man committee with her lawyer, Andrew Klien, looking to terminate the agreement originally signed back in 2005 in order to expand her restaurant. Leeds wants to expand into a vacant property next door to her bar, however the voluntary agreement states that she cannot expand and must limit her seating capacity. According to statute, after five years she can request a termination of the agreement.
However, a group of five protesters and the DuPont Circle Citizens Association have been fighting this motion for months, citing appropriations saying the added noise and privacy issues will drive down the property values. If true, these claims could prevent Hank’s voluntary agreement from being terminated.
One resident and observer Jacqueline Reed said “I am very much opposed to terminating the voluntary agreement. The entire purpose of a voluntary agreement has been thrown out. It’s the only leverage that a community has to keep a business in check.”
The DCCA representative Robin Diener played a small part in the process, although she was dismissed from the process for the second time for not formally protesting Hank’s Oyster Bar. Early on, she expressed the concerns of the citizens of DuPont that a termination of this agreement would result in a lowered standard of living. After being dismissed as a protestant however, she was able to come back and serve as a witness. She testified that in other communities, property values drop because of noise pollution resulting in a lower standard of living when more bars are allowed into a community or expanded.
The decision to terminate will be made within a few weeks, but the seven hour meeting was not without conflict. The first came from a disagreement over wording and definitions. The lawyer representing the protesters, Mike Hibey, cited DC code 25-446 which states that the person seeking a termination of a voluntary agreement must make a “good faith attempt” at amending the agreement first. He claims that no such attempt had occurred and instead Leeds had insisted on a termination from the beginning. However Chairperson Brodsky stated “a good faith attempt does not mean that both sides agree.” Brodsky went on to describe how the emails sent between the two parties were in fact good faith attempts to reach out to the protesters despite not having reached a mutually agreeable amendment.
Code 25-446 was a source of confusion in other ways two. Three sections of A, B, and C are listed and the language of the intro and section C were argued over by the protestants, Hank’s, and the Chairmen. In the intro states that for termination the restaurant must do A, B, and C however Klein maintained that in section C the word “if” implied that if the voluntary agreement complies with all laws, then he can skip the first two steps. Hibey stated that the intro over ruled that “if” because the word “each” appears and means that all three steps must be taken. The chairmen interviewed both sides for a while trying to determine which language was more important and settled with Hank’s lawyer.
After an hour and a half, the board broke for advisement to privately determine certain main issues. For about 45 minutes, observers walked around discussing the hearing, and the lawyers talked to the people supporting their cause. The chairmen came back and read out three things they had deliberated on. The first a motion was to dismiss the DCCA from the meeting on the grounds that she had not filed a proper protest against Hank’s Oyster Bar which passed five votes to none. The second motion was to dismiss the group of five which lost three to two. The third motion was to dismiss the group of five’s protest against the dismissal of the voluntary agreement which passed five votes to none.
Following the advisement the process continued with both sides presenting witnesses and cross examining the witnesses. The witnesses were generally local residents who complained of noise violations and worried about property values.
Although no decision was reached, the mood in the room seemed to suggest Hank’s will have its voluntary agreement terminated. Even Mike Hibey was heard to remark during the break “it doesn’t look good for us.” One observer was already talking to Hibey about appealing. Board member Donald Brooks even told the protesters that he had “fundamental disagreement about what a voluntary agreement is used for.” With the one and only motion from the group of five protesters dismissed, it seems more than likely that the voluntary agreement will be terminated.
However, a group of five protesters and the DuPont Circle Citizens Association have been fighting this motion for months, citing appropriations saying the added noise and privacy issues will drive down the property values. If true, these claims could prevent Hank’s voluntary agreement from being terminated.
One resident and observer Jacqueline Reed said “I am very much opposed to terminating the voluntary agreement. The entire purpose of a voluntary agreement has been thrown out. It’s the only leverage that a community has to keep a business in check.”
The DCCA representative Robin Diener played a small part in the process, although she was dismissed from the process for the second time for not formally protesting Hank’s Oyster Bar. Early on, she expressed the concerns of the citizens of DuPont that a termination of this agreement would result in a lowered standard of living. After being dismissed as a protestant however, she was able to come back and serve as a witness. She testified that in other communities, property values drop because of noise pollution resulting in a lower standard of living when more bars are allowed into a community or expanded.
The decision to terminate will be made within a few weeks, but the seven hour meeting was not without conflict. The first came from a disagreement over wording and definitions. The lawyer representing the protesters, Mike Hibey, cited DC code 25-446 which states that the person seeking a termination of a voluntary agreement must make a “good faith attempt” at amending the agreement first. He claims that no such attempt had occurred and instead Leeds had insisted on a termination from the beginning. However Chairperson Brodsky stated “a good faith attempt does not mean that both sides agree.” Brodsky went on to describe how the emails sent between the two parties were in fact good faith attempts to reach out to the protesters despite not having reached a mutually agreeable amendment.
Code 25-446 was a source of confusion in other ways two. Three sections of A, B, and C are listed and the language of the intro and section C were argued over by the protestants, Hank’s, and the Chairmen. In the intro states that for termination the restaurant must do A, B, and C however Klein maintained that in section C the word “if” implied that if the voluntary agreement complies with all laws, then he can skip the first two steps. Hibey stated that the intro over ruled that “if” because the word “each” appears and means that all three steps must be taken. The chairmen interviewed both sides for a while trying to determine which language was more important and settled with Hank’s lawyer.
After an hour and a half, the board broke for advisement to privately determine certain main issues. For about 45 minutes, observers walked around discussing the hearing, and the lawyers talked to the people supporting their cause. The chairmen came back and read out three things they had deliberated on. The first a motion was to dismiss the DCCA from the meeting on the grounds that she had not filed a proper protest against Hank’s Oyster Bar which passed five votes to none. The second motion was to dismiss the group of five which lost three to two. The third motion was to dismiss the group of five’s protest against the dismissal of the voluntary agreement which passed five votes to none.
Following the advisement the process continued with both sides presenting witnesses and cross examining the witnesses. The witnesses were generally local residents who complained of noise violations and worried about property values.
Although no decision was reached, the mood in the room seemed to suggest Hank’s will have its voluntary agreement terminated. Even Mike Hibey was heard to remark during the break “it doesn’t look good for us.” One observer was already talking to Hibey about appealing. Board member Donald Brooks even told the protesters that he had “fundamental disagreement about what a voluntary agreement is used for.” With the one and only motion from the group of five protesters dismissed, it seems more than likely that the voluntary agreement will be terminated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)