At the Commission Discussion meeting last night, the Planning Board let the Commissioners know that they were not supporting their decision of changing the wording of the sign ordinance for the Save Our School signs that are "all over the neighborhoods." By changing the ordinance, it would be inviting and encouraging more signs and hate speech. It was explained that while everyone is in favor of free speech, no one wants to limit free speech. The harm that would be done by that exercise could outweigh the right. It would be like yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. It would cause injury. Another example given was, "My religion is right and your religion is wrong." Listen to the podcast at Commission discussion, part 1 on 3/28/11. The Planning Board saw no reason to change the ordinance for the SOS signs. Thank you, Planning Board, for taking a stand.
What a waste of everyone's time. The groundbreaking ceremony is April 28.
Ms. Gillen, putting aside the merits of the sign argument, I'd like to think that a candidate for Commissioner would never think that giving our residents a chance to be heard or allowing the process to run its course is a "waste of time".
ReplyDeleteDave Franklin
Mr. Franklin,
ReplyDeleteA candidate for Commissioner shouldn't put aside the merits of the sign argument. This is the same group that wants inspection fees waived.
Ms. Gillen
My point was that it is the PROCESS that matters and warrants our respect, even if the ideas/arguments themselves are hollow or lack merit. If elected, would you try to deny people the opportunity to be heard or raise issues that are important to them simply because you think that their ideas are silly or have no chance of passing muster with Commission?
ReplyDeleteDave Franklin
Dave,
ReplyDeleteDo I deny people the opportunity to be heard on this blog? Why would it be any different as a Commissioner?
Elaine
Mr. Franklin, Ms. Gillen gives residents more of a chance to be heard than you did as president of the traffic board. David Huston
ReplyDeleteI think the minutes from our 2-3 hour meetings would reflect differently and I don't recall you suggesting otherwise while we were on the Board together Mr. Huston. In fact, the single most consistent objection that I received as TB president was that we let TOO MANY people have a voice in the process. Nevertheless, I can assure you that I never publicly referred to anyone's concerns as a "waste of everyone's time."
ReplyDeleteGood luck with the campaign.
Dave Franklin
Dave,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you privately referred to anyone's concerns as a waste of everyone's time?
If you listened to the podcast, Alan London, from the Planning Board, said that there was no reason to change the ordinance for the SOS signs.
The problem that I have is that we need to move on. We have a splintered community. Neighbors and families have been divided over this high school renovation. Keeping the SOS signs up, with the groundbreaking just four weeks away, could be viewed as rubbing salt in the wounds. The school was "saved."
The Planning Board does not want to encourage more signs, unless they are political signs. And there are rules that we must follow for political signs.
Dave, I don't deny you the opportunity to be heard, even when I don't agree with you. I am the only candidate running for either the Commission or the School Board who permits comments on blogs. Public input should not be discouraged.
Thanks for reading Lebo Citizens.
Elaine
If people want to put signs bearing political speech in their yards – and I think the SOS signs are political speech – what’s the rationale for denying them? You can certainly ask them to take the signs down, but on what grounds can the government deny them the right to express their beliefs as yard signs?
ReplyDelete