|
Post by job on Apr 12, 2014 13:52:15 GMT -6
Kyle.
Your actions, or inactions, show a lack of guts. Although you rail on continually about how the City violates your civil rights, you do not file any lawsuits. Why don't you file a federal civil rights suit? Check it out; the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees in addition to actual and punitive damages. No issue of the Tort Immunity Act in a federal law suit.
There is, of course, one problem. If the court finds that you have filed a frivolous law suit, it will nail you for the City's attorney's fees. Also, the City's attorney is a first-rate lawyer, easily one of the best in the county. Don't let that bother you, however. Filing a law suit would be a good way to get at some of the City's leaders, guys who have done extremely well in the working world. A law suit would give you a Walter Mitty moment: loser sues successful people.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 12, 2014 14:26:33 GMT -6
Kyle. Your actions, or inactions, show a lack of guts. Although you rail on continually about how the City violates your civil rights, you do not file any lawsuits. Why don't you file a federal civil rights suit? Check it out; the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees in addition to actual and punitive damages. No issue of the Tort Immunity Act in a federal law suit. There is, of course, one problem. If the court finds that you have filed a frivolous law suit, it will nail you for the City's attorney's fees. I made a suggestion to him that there would probably be at least one civil liberties organization that would represent him free of charge. If I recall, he said he didnt want to burden the taxpayer with the added expense of bringing a lawsuit against the city.I disagree. If his constitutional right was violated, he needs to pursue it. I am beginning to wonder though if his right was actually violated. I am a little fuzzy on what the city actually denied him. Was the thing in the park supposed to be a garbage pick up event and an impromptu forum for candidates? Was the city denying the garbage pick up, which in turn also eliminated the candidates speeches? I would think it would be in the cities right to cancel the event as a whole. Now if it was just billed solely as a pre-election political rally and was denied,then I would consider that a violation of free speech. Best way to solve it is to let the courts decide. One a side note, I thought the main purpose was to beautify the park. I doubt many people would have shown up anyway to listen to what the candidates had to say. If I remember correctly, it was held at Scoops and More? How many people actually showed up for that?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 12, 2014 14:37:46 GMT -6
I remember it costing me more, but I'll check my records and certainly apologize if I am wrong. Either way though is it really that big of a deal compared to our Mayor stopping a business from opening with a requirement that is not even supported by our laws? My paying some taxes late didn't really keep a building vacant and stop some jobs, tax revenue and tourism form coming here. Compared to trying to keep voters from hearing the ideas that other candidates may have when deciding who should lead our community, an insignificant individual paying some taxes late hardly seems worth mentioning. Do you think they were afraid that they couldn't win the election if voters were allowed to hear the ideas of others, or do they just despise the U.S. Constitution? You are right, it isnt really a big deal that you never had paid your taxes on time. The only time it is relevant is when you attack others for not paying their taxes. It is your use of certain adjectives that embellish your stories that draws the objections, such as in this case, the use of the word "considerable". I had questioned you when you used the word "tourist" when you could have easily said "fellow bar patron" You wanted to give the impression that any visitor for any reason, would not be safe walking down the street.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 12, 2014 15:43:56 GMT -6
Kyle. Your actions, or inactions, show a lack of guts. Although you rail on continually about how the City violates your civil rights, you do not file any lawsuits. Why don't you file a federal civil rights suit? Check it out; the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees in addition to actual and punitive damages. No issue of the Tort Immunity Act in a federal law suit. There is, of course, one problem. If the court finds that you have filed a frivolous law suit, it will nail you for the City's attorney's fees. Also, the City's attorney is a first-rate lawyer, easily one of the best in the county. Don't let that bother you, however. Filing a law suit would be a good way to get at some of the City's leaders, guys who have done extremely well in the working world. A law suit would give you a Walter Mitty moment: loser sues successful people. Gee, are you sure that you aren't doing anything unethical by providing legal advice, like dog was concerned about? I don't need to file a law suit. Our founding fathers when laying the framework for our free society, made it possible for me to talk about what our elected officials do without having to file any law suits. Besides that, I should have the opportunity to defend what I talk about in a court room according to Mr. Hart, but I still haven't received any notices about the date or any of the other details. If you want to think it is gutless for me to use the very first civil right given to me by my insightful founding fathers, then go ahead. Maybe you, the Mayor, and Mr. Hart should start a campaign to just over turn our Constitution, since you seem to despise it so much. If they do not like that I talk about what they do, then maybe they should start doing things differently?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 12, 2014 15:50:25 GMT -6
Talking about 'problems' constantly and overblowing the situations on here is certainly perpetuating Streator's bad reputation to 'out of towners' more than it is helping to create positive change. Do you really think that it is my talking about the fights that is the problem and not the actual fighting? Something that sorta goes with what maskedman is saying: I borrowed it from your editorial last year: "The bar has shirts that say "Alcoholics don't go to meetings, they go to (the bar)". It is one thing to admit that your customers have a problem that they refuse to deal with, but promoting throughout the community, a disease that many people struggle with, seems distasteful to me. If you want to drink until you are out of control and fight in the streets with no consequences, Streator is the place to be." Arent you pretty much telling undesirable "tourists" from the surrounding areas to come to Streator and drink and fight without having to worry about consequences? Arent you taking the chance of increasing the problem, rather than fixing the problem? Dont you think you could come up with another course of action to correct the problem, rather than make the problem bigger?
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 12, 2014 16:12:50 GMT -6
Kyle, I won't "quote" your latest commentary. I will simply repeat what I said earlier. Specifically, you do not have the guts to file a law suit against the City. Someone has probably told you that you not only have no case, but that you would be eaten alive. You have obviously decided to continue your border-line defamatory comments about the local elected officials.
It has to be very hard for you, a person who has been a total failure in the business world to have to deal with people on the City council who have been very successful.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 12, 2014 16:42:47 GMT -6
Arent you pretty much telling undesirable "tourists" from the surrounding areas to come to Streator and drink and fight without having to worry about consequences? Arent you taking the chance of increasing the problem, rather than fixing the problem? Dont you think you could come up with another course of action to correct the problem, rather than make the problem bigger? No, it is the City that is attracting the undesirable tourists, by sending the message that there are no consequences. All they have to do is let people start seeing the fighters take a ride in a Police car and start showing arrests and citations in the Police log and it will not take long for people to start to know that it is no longer being tolerated. Better than that though, would be for our liquor commission to encourage bar owners to be more responsible for what goes on out side their establishments and control these things without using as much of our police resources. The reputation that keeps people and their money away will not be able to be lived down as long as the activities are allowed to continue so often. It's not like the reputation had gone away before I started talking about the problems. Some people don't even want to allow others to talk about ideas to clean it up though.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Apr 12, 2014 16:55:21 GMT -6
Once again, so you can understand, I asked a police officer again today what he could do if he pulled up to a fight in progress. He replied that if neither party involved wants to press charges that there is nothing they can do unless it is on public property. Then they could charge them with a misdemeanor drunk in public charge which carries a $50 city fine. He didn't think that it would deter these things from happening. He said in most instances by the time he arrives they are usually over with. He said it is unfortunate that one person wouldn't want to press charges against the person who beat him up. So until the victims start pressing charges the police are most often helpless in doing something to help.
Maybe the numbers were higher here because bar owners are encouraged to call the police and other towns maybe don't call.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 12, 2014 16:56:36 GMT -6
Kyle, I won't "quote" your latest commentary. I will simply repeat what I said earlier. Specifically, you do not have the guts to file a law suit against the City. Someone has probably told you that you not only have no case, but that you would be eaten alive. You have obviously decided to continue your border-line defamatory comments about the local elected officials. It has to be very hard for you, a person who has been a total failure in the business world to have to deal with people on the City council who have been very successful. I did not seek any legal advise on this, I already knew that I had first amendment rights to talk about what my elected officials do without filling any attorneys' pocketbooks. You can see me as a gutless business failure if it makes you feel better, but at least I am not the one responsible for the condition Streator is in today, other than creating two less vacant buildings of course. With so many vacancies, declining population and property values, the highest tax rate in the county with some of the lowest levels of service, has our City Council really been successful? Some people, myself included, disagree. It is not hard at all, I hold my head high when I go into Council meetings because I know that they work for me, they are responsible for what Streator is, and they are the ones that have not followed our laws.
|
|
|
Post by cmon on Apr 12, 2014 18:31:49 GMT -6
Kyle, for the love of God, please slow the heck down. That little gerbil in your head is at Mach 3 and it's only rated at 2.6.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 13, 2014 8:04:17 GMT -6
It is your use of certain adjectives that embellish your stories that draws the objections, such as in this case, the use of the word "considerable". I had questioned you when you used the word "tourist" when you could have easily said "fellow bar patron" You wanted to give the impression that any visitor for any reason, would not be safe walking down the street. So what do you consider to not be a considerable amount? If everyone was charged 17% more on their tax bill, don't you think many people would consider that to be a considerable amount? If the City received 2200 phone calls to complain about something they did, I bet they'd consider that to be a considerable amount. Maybe the reason that I remember it being a considerable amount is because it was just the second half that was redeemed, when the extra expenses for that portion are considered, we are talking about 31%. I am sorry if you disagree, but I consider 31% to be a considerable amount. tour·ist noun \ˈtu̇r-ist\ : a person who travels to a place for pleasure That is what Merriam Webster says, when I think of the definition of tourist, I think of someone that earned his money someplace else and chose to come spend it in our community. Either way, I think that person did meet both definitions. Can you provide a definition that excludes someone that lived here in the past or that goes to a bar? Because I was told by two people that a responding officer told the victim that nothing would be done about it because he was on someone else's turf, "I think" his tourist status may have been part of why the State's Attorneys office called me almost a week later to ask the victim's name saying that SPD couldn't provide a report. You may see my using words like considerable and tourist as not being credible, but I stand behind them. Attacking my credibility has been a nice distraction, but how about the real issues? There is less than a year left before voters get a chance to judge the credibility of our leaders, if they are beaten by a 31% margin, would that be considerable? When do you think the Main Street sidewalk will re-open?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 13, 2014 13:40:13 GMT -6
It is your use of certain adjectives that embellish your stories that draws the objections, such as in this case, the use of the word "considerable". I had questioned you when you used the word "tourist" when you could have easily said "fellow bar patron" You wanted to give the impression that any visitor for any reason, would not be safe walking down the street. So what do you consider to not be a considerable amount? If everyone was charged 17% more on their tax bill, don't you think many people would consider that to be a considerable amount? If the City received 2200 phone calls to complain about something they did, I bet they'd consider that to be a considerable amount. Maybe the reason that I remember it being a considerable amount is because it was just the second half that was redeemed, when the extra expenses for that portion are considered, we are talking about 31%. I am sorry if you disagree, but I consider 31% to be a considerable amount. tour·ist noun \ˈtu̇r-ist\ : a person who travels to a place for pleasure That is what Merriam Webster says, when I think of the definition of tourist, I think of someone that earned his money someplace else and chose to come spend it in our community. Either way, I think that person did meet both definitions. Can you provide a definition that excludes someone that lived here in the past or that goes to a bar? Because I was told by two people that a responding officer told the victim that nothing would be done about it because he was on someone else's turf, "I think" his tourist status may have been part of why the State's Attorneys office called me almost a week later to ask the victim's name saying that SPD couldn't provide a report. You may see my using words like considerable and tourist as not being credible, but I stand behind them. Attacking my credibility has been a nice distraction, but how about the real issues? There is less than a year left before voters get a chance to judge the credibility of our leaders, if they are beaten by a 31% margin, would that be considerable? When do you think the Main Street sidewalk will re-open? Just so we can agree here, I do think that 31% is a considerable amount, but when we talk in terms of dollars, that $190 or something isnt really not a lot, from my perspective. For some, it could be a considerable amount. In an election, yes, I would consider a 31% margin a considerable amount. If the current officials get voted out by that margin, then I would say you were successful in creating change. You dont think that the reason the States Attorney called you was because you called him first? You think that the States Attorney heard thru another source that a tourist was sightseeing in Streator and was beaten? We can use the term sight-seeing in this matter right? Was he part of a tour group too? I havent been attacking your credibility just to attack you, and yes, it would be nice to actually be talking about the real issues. Change your approach and outlook and work on the problem. It has been said time and time again, that the people who argue with you here, are not against reducing bar fights or creating growth in this town. It is how you present yourself that is what many of us are against. To say you were civil and polite up to 3 years ago, dont mean crap really because of the approach you are using now. I dont get your question about the sidewalk. Wouldnt it be up to the property owner to fix it? Does the city own that building too? Should the city be fining them for a bad structure? Could you donate a ladder and some mortar to fix it? I would think the sidewalk would reopen when the owner fixes it and the safety hazard is gone. I think it will open in 2 weeks. What about you?
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Apr 13, 2014 21:08:23 GMT -6
I think it's awesome that streator has tourists!!!
Next weekend, the town will be inundated with them!! My kids are coming up. I need more info on that sight seeing tour. We've never been.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 13, 2014 21:58:44 GMT -6
Just so we can agree here, I do think that 31% is a considerable amount, but when we talk in terms of dollars, that $190 or something isnt really not a lot, from my perspective. For some, it could be a considerable amount. In an election, yes, I would consider a 31% margin a considerable amount. If the current officials get voted out by that margin, then I would say you were successful in creating change. You dont think that the reason the States Attorney called you was because you called him first? You think that the States Attorney heard thru another source that a tourist was sightseeing in Streator and was beaten? We can use the term sight-seeing in this matter right? Was he part of a tour group too? I havent been attacking your credibility just to attack you, and yes, it would be nice to actually be talking about the real issues. Change your approach and outlook and work on the problem. It has been said time and time again, that the people who argue with you here, are not against reducing bar fights or creating growth in this town. It is how you present yourself that is what many of us are against. To say you were civil and polite up to 3 years ago, dont mean crap really because of the approach you are using now. I dont get your question about the sidewalk. Wouldnt it be up to the property owner to fix it? Does the city own that building too? Should the city be fining them for a bad structure? Could you donate a ladder and some mortar to fix it? I would think the sidewalk would reopen when the owner fixes it and the safety hazard is gone. I think it will open in 2 weeks. What about you? I didn't call the State's Attorney. The call to me was in response to me mentioning the incident in a letter that I sent him. Actually it was a third letter to Mr. Towne questioning if his 2006 Times comments, “I want to make sure this office is accessible to the public and very importantly, victims of crime. I want us to be a safe haven for those who need us.”, and “I would like the public to view my office as a place where they can seek answers" were just political rhetoric since his office refused to talk to me about the lack of enforcement here since I didn't have a police report. I believe that the tourist was out socializing with old friends, if you want to call that sight seeing then go ahead. I doubt he was part of a tour group, since I don't think we have any tour groups that operate here. Do I detect some attitude over my standing behind calling him a tourist? If our police are not going to take action because the victim does not live here, then I feel the term tourist is justified. I want people to be able to bring their money to visit and spend in our community and be safe. I wonder if he has come to visit again. Too bad we have such a reputation of these incidents that was obviously substantiated and perpetuated by the 34 incidents of violence mentioned in the Times (be clear that it is the incidents I am referring to not the article). I do think the incidents keep people away and hurts our community. The article is part of the solution in my opinion, pointing out to more people that we should start doing things differently. Wouldn't it be great if our City made it a point to try to improve what the numbers will look like over the next few years? It does seem like you really reach to try to discredit and attack me; you repeatedly talk about the word tourist as if someone coming home and socializing with friends is some huge jump from the definition of a tourist. Perhaps my approach and how I present myself have not been up to your standards, but I haven't been trying to do things to gain your approval. My approach has been to try to inform many others of what our City does to try to get things to be done differently. My approach hasn't trampled Constitutional rights, the open election process, or our zoning ordinance like some of the actions of our leaders. My saying that I was civil for years was to only point out that my current approach is the result of years of a civil approach not producing any results. I don't care what it means to you, since you are just an anonymous poster who seems eager to only attack and discredit me. Please keep in mind that I am just one individual citizen talking about the job being done by people that work for me and using my rights to ask for what I want. If you approve of the job they have been doing, why worry so much about my talking about what they do? What's there not to get? The question about the sidewalk is because the sidewalk being closed is what the thread was about before being taken over with attacks on me and my credibility. Yes, I think it is up to the building owner to fix it. No, I don't think the City owns that building. No, I would hope that the City wouldn't have to fine them to get it fixed, but I am sure that they can and would. Sure, I'll donate a bag of mortar. I would think that scaffold would be more appropriate, I have some but it is in Ottawa right now. We know how hard it is to try to be profitable in downtown Streator with the lack of customer parking and other problems, so we'd be interested in helping them get it fixed if they can't afford it. Maybe they could help us create more customer parking too. I think you are right that the sidewalk will re-open when the building is fixed and the safety hazard is gone. I would think that they would get it done soon, but have known sidewalks in downtown Streator to be closed for long periods in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 14, 2014 6:39:37 GMT -6
I think it's awesome that streator has tourists!!! Next weekend, the town will be inundated with them!! My kids are coming up. I need more info on that sight seeing tour. We've never been. I don't think there is any tour groups operating at this point, but maybe we should start one. It could be called Dilapidated and Deplorable; we could start at 220 E. Main St. to tour the former military surplus store. I doubt there would be a problem going in there, it's not marked "no trespassing" and with knowingly leaving the building wide open, I don't see how they could claim there is an expectation for people to know that the City does not want them inside the building. They would probably have a hard time getting a trespass conviction, it's not like you'd have to break anything to enter. When they start buying more properties, we will probably even be able to expand the tour.
|
|