|
Post by longtimelurker on Apr 14, 2016 9:20:21 GMT -6
That someone would be the City. Lansford and Wrighton couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon.It seems like I've been reading that type of statement more often lately. They certainly were not shy about making their very public (and false) declarations for the press that business owners were illegal when there was just a simple and clear code violation by others. Why do you suppose that they now seem to be so unresponsive about speaking to the press? Perhaps the building could be their new hotel, instead of tearing down the good condition theatre building that tax payers contributed so much to build. With the closing of our hospital supposedly lowering employers' health care costs so much that our City Manager thinks it is going to help repatriate so many jobs that were lost overseas over the last 25 years, it seems that there should be plenty of future uses for the building, don't you think? I look forward to reading our leaders' comments to the press. I certainly hope that their not having time to try to help keep the public informed is some type of sign that they are busy doing something to try to produce some better results for the community. Wrighton was not city manager when "They were not shy about making their very public (and false) declarations for the press that business owners were illegal when there was just a simple and clear code violation by others. " Who is making false declarations now?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 14, 2016 9:42:45 GMT -6
Lansford and Wrighton couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon.It seems like I've been reading that type of statement more often lately. They certainly were not shy about making their very public (and false) declarations for the press that business owners were illegal when there was just a simple and clear code violation by others. Why do you suppose that they now seem to be so unresponsive about speaking to the press? Perhaps the building could be their new hotel, instead of tearing down the good condition theatre building that tax payers contributed so much to build. With the closing of our hospital supposedly lowering employers' health care costs so much that our City Manager thinks it is going to help repatriate so many jobs that were lost overseas over the last 25 years, it seems that there should be plenty of future uses for the building, don't you think? I look forward to reading our leaders' comments to the press. I certainly hope that their not having time to try to help keep the public informed is some type of sign that they are busy doing something to try to produce some better results for the community. Wrighton was not city manager when "They were not shy about making their very public (and false) declarations for the press that business owners were illegal when there was just a simple and clear code violation by others. " Who is making false declarations now? Gee, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I have corrected my post. I really didn't intend to imply that Scott Wrighton was involved. Sorry, I had assumed that most people knew what I was referring to. Just because our City's established leadership re-hired a different face to carry out their objectives doesn't really change much though, does it?
|
|
|
Post by longtimelurker on Apr 14, 2016 11:04:33 GMT -6
Spewing assumptions as facts is not good for anyone.
At least you tried changing the post for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Apr 14, 2016 11:05:38 GMT -6
Short-timer, the former hospital will never be a veterans or old folks home. Bruce and his family & the government , want no part of a dump , like that . Clean the sh•t off your monocle & look at the big picture. This talk is only, talk.
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on Apr 14, 2016 12:19:46 GMT -6
it would be awesome if the government made it in a veterans hospital and a veterans living facility but I cant see it happening since the veterans administration just opened a new place in Joliet at the old sliver cross hospital last year. I just hope it doesn't become another empty lot for parking in Streator.
|
|
|
Post by antamaleen on Apr 14, 2016 12:31:40 GMT -6
With the backlog in veteran's health care, they could turn every unused hospital into a veteran's facility, and it still wouldn't be enough.
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on Apr 14, 2016 12:42:47 GMT -6
With the backlog in veteran's health care, they could turn every unused hospital into a veteran's facility, and it still wouldn't be enough. that is true but you have to be able to staff the place. the government is broke according to Obama and Madigan.
|
|
|
Post by antamaleen on Apr 14, 2016 12:52:58 GMT -6
Money could be found for that, if they truly wanted to. They already got their use out of them. So they don't care. Rather brush them under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 14, 2016 12:58:37 GMT -6
Spewing assumptions as facts is not good for anyone. At least you tried changing the post for clarity. Do you think? "Not being good" doesn't seem to stop our City leaders from doing it though, does it? When they spew in front of the press that business owners are illegal, without even reading or allowing the business owners to first present the Accessory Use portion of their own ordinances, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to uphold, in my opinion. I don't even have that requirement, but do usually attempt to try to identify the assumptions, opinions, hearsay, etc. that I may post as what it is. Are you really that worried about my insignificant opinions on a little online forum? It's not like I am a official of an entire City making unfounded claims in front of reporters to end up on the cover of the newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by longtimelurker on Apr 14, 2016 14:29:34 GMT -6
Do you think? "Not being good" doesn't seem to stop our City leaders from doing it though, does it? When they spew in front of the press that business owners are illegal, without even reading or allowing the business owners to first present the Accessory Use portion of their own ordinances, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to uphold, in my opinion. I don't even have that requirement, but do usually attempt to try to identify the assumptions, opinions, hearsay, etc. that I may post as what it is. Are you really that worried about my insignificant opinions on a little online forum? It's not like I am a official of an entire City making unfounded claims in front of reporters to end up on the cover of the newspaper. I'm not worried about opinions. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. You complain about others spewing non factual garbage and then do it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 14, 2016 15:16:27 GMT -6
I'm not worried about opinions. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. You complain about others spewing non factual garbage and then do it yourself. Are you sure that complaining about others spewing untrue crap is the best description for it or could standing up to their crap and trying to expose it for what it really is be a better description of what I do? I am certainly not one of the many who make riduculous claims and then don't stand behind what I've said or correct myself when pointed out that I said something wrong. You may notice that it is others who disappear from the conversations here. Yes, it does seem that it is our City leaders and many of their supporters who seem to be spewing the most untrue crap but then refuse to stand behind what they have said. I can provide many examples if you want. When our City leaders spew their untrue crap about citizens in front of the press without first giving them a chance to defend against the charges, it is a violation of our Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Do you think that they just don't know what's in the Constitution, or that they feel they are above all of our laws?
|
|
|
Post by longtimelurker on Apr 15, 2016 5:11:23 GMT -6
"Are you sure that complaining about others spewing untrue crap is the best description for it or could standing up to their crap and trying to expose it for what it really is be a better description of what I do?"
I don't care if you stand up to "their crap" as long as you get the correct "they". If the info is true and factual, type with your little fingers all you want.
"I am certainly not one of the many who make riduculous claims and then don't stand behind what I've said or correct myself when pointed out that I said something wrong."
I've noticed that. Your replies typically start with "Gee"
"When our City leaders spew their untrue crap about citizens in front of the press without first giving them a chance to defend against the charges, it is a violation of our Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Do you think that they just don't know what's in the Constitution, or that they feel they are above all of our laws?"
No, I don't think you know what's in the constitution. What article/ section or amendment was this a violation of?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 15, 2016 9:09:02 GMT -6
"Are you sure that complaining about others spewing untrue crap is the best description for it or could standing up to their crap and trying to expose it for what it really is be a better description of what I do?" I don't care if you stand up to "their crap" as long as you get the correct "they". If the info is true and factual, type with your little fingers all you want. "I am certainly not one of the many who make riduculous claims and then don't stand behind what I've said or correct myself when pointed out that I said something wrong." I've noticed that. Your replies typically start with "Gee" and then there is a slight admittance that you were wrong. And there is a deflection about you thought people would be smart enough to know what you are talking about. When "they" (the established leadership that controls what does and doesn't go on here) start thinking more about the people who they very publicly and falsely declare "illegal" (without providing them Constitutional Due Process rights), I'll start worrying more about my mistake in clearly identifying who "they" are. Yes, I do believe that most people should be smart enough to be able to see that although a face may have changed at City Hall, just because the established leadership here rehired another puppet to carry out their objectives, not much of anything has really changed. Obviously the City Manager position in Streator does not handle the day to day operation of our City, otherwise an event at City Park approved and scheduled by the City Manager wouldn't suddenly need Council approval when the Mayor receives his invitation to participate and a clear code violation would be directed by our City Manager to the code enforcement officer that works under him for proper enforcement of our laws instead of the issue being grand-standed in front of the Council (and local press), don't you think? "When our City leaders spew their untrue crap about citizens in front of the press without first giving them a chance to defend against the charges, it is a violation of our Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Do you think that they just don't know what's in the Constitution, or that they feel they are above all of our laws?" No, I don't think you know what's in the constitution. What article/ section or amendment was this a violation of? Gee "longtimelurker", don't you already know from your "long time lurking" which sections of our Constitution I speak of? Certainly if you knew what is in our Constitution you wouldn't have to question which amendment numbers, would you? Try reading numbers 5 and 14.
|
|
|
Post by longtimelurker on Apr 15, 2016 9:22:36 GMT -6
"Are you sure that complaining about others spewing untrue crap is the best description for it or could standing up to their crap and trying to expose it for what it really is be a better description of what I do?" I don't care if you stand up to "their crap" as long as you get the correct "they". If the info is true and factual, type with your little fingers all you want. "I am certainly not one of the many who make riduculous claims and then don't stand behind what I've said or correct myself when pointed out that I said something wrong." I've noticed that. Your replies typically start with "Gee" and then there is a slight admittance that you were wrong. And there is a deflection about you thought people would be smart enough to know what you are talking about. When "they" (the established leadership that controls what does and doesn't go on here) start thinking more about the people who they very publicly and falsely declare "illegal" (without providing them Constitutional Due Process rights), I'll start worrying more about my mistake in clearly identifying who "they" are. Yes, I do believe that most people should be smart enough to be able to see that although a face may have changed at City Hall, just because the established leadership here rehired another puppet to carry out their objectives, not much of anything has really changed. Obviously the City Manager position in Streator does not handle the day to day operation of our City, otherwise an event at City Park approved and scheduled by the City Manager wouldn't suddenly need Council approval when the Mayor receives his invitation to participate and a clear code violation would be directed by our City Manager to the code enforcement officer that works under him for proper enforcement of our laws instead of the issue being grand-standed in front of the Council (and local press), don't you think? "When our City leaders spew their untrue crap about citizens in front of the press without first giving them a chance to defend against the charges, it is a violation of our Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Do you think that they just don't know what's in the Constitution, or that they feel they are above all of our laws?" No, I don't think you know what's in the constitution. What article/ section or amendment was this a violation of? Gee "longtimelurker", don't you already know from your "long time lurking" which sections of our Constitution I speak of? Certainly if you knew what is in our Constitution you wouldn't have to question which amendment numbers, would you? Try reading numbers 5 and 14. Gee, I must be an idiot then. How exactly were your rights from these amendments violated? The guy who "looked at you" has since passed. You were never brought up on criminal charges in a court of law, nor were you sentenced without due process. You were never personally named either.
|
|
|
Post by kickstand on Apr 15, 2016 9:26:31 GMT -6
Amendment 5 states due process be part of any criminal or civil legal proceedings that denies a citizen "life, liberty or property". Did they take you to court? If not your rights were not violated.
Amendment 14 states the same thing about due process by appropriate legislation. How did they violate this? You weren't charged therefore your rights weren't violated.
|
|