A copy of the 3 ladies' lawsuit is included in this week's Council Update.
Reading it further convinces me that it doesn't stand a chance. The IOC proposal is indeed mentioned, even though it has nothing to do with the bond issue.
Reading this, it becomes clear the lawsuit is basically 3 citizens suing a city for doing things that they personally don't agree with. Its filled with opinions and hearsay, and I didn't see anything in there that would make a judge mandate what Davenport elected officials can do during the term they were elected for.
EVERYONE should read it, if they haven't already.
21 comments:
Just because you can't see any relevance, QCI( Charlie Jr.) doesn't mean others can not.
Exactly right. And, maybe the plaintiff's missed the boat on ONE of their claims in their lawsuit, but the information about the police department being built on land with environmental problems is right on the money. So, I would have to say that the judge, if he has an ounce of sense in him, will nuke the current council's spending.
Oh My!!! Thanks for posting the link QCI. I thought it was silly at first and now I am just embarassed that this type of thing happens so often in Davenport. Why do these LOL's think they have a right to make the decisions for this city just because they sat through 97% of the council meetings? Nobody voted for them! Like it or not, this council has the right.
I do think it's wrong of this council to push through so many things with long term impact, but that's life. The next council has every right to make new rules to stop this from happening in the future.
Dosen't matter if anybody voted for them. All it takes is for them to have a valid point about EPA concerns over the police station and the court system can trump the Council anytime.
Sorry Charlie!
I don't see how concerns over EPA regulations is relevant to any lawsuit. If there are contamination problems I am sure the city is aware of it and will take whatever steps are necessary to correct the situation.
Filing a lawsuit in an attempt to stonewall the construction serves absoleutely no purpose other than to bolster the egos of a couple of citizens who feel that they rather than the elected officials know whats best for the city.
The current police station was a temporary fix 25 years ago and continues to be an embarassment to a city of this size. Let's knock off the BS and get on with the construction of something all the citizens of Davenport can be proud of.
Well, I just read the Writ. What a woke...err joke!! I don't remember any of these three ladies name appearing on the ballots last month. Who do they think they are?
And to say the council is showing it's resentment for losing the election...come on, only two aldermen lost(Donna and Tom).
And I was just starting to think that things down at city hall could start to move along, now that Niky has FINALLY given up on tormenting city hall (of course she's out of sight now that she got what she wanted...and she claimed to be sticking up for the "citizens of Davenport". Ha, she was looking out for number one!).
Does anyone know what's up with McGivern's DUI? Wasn't he due in court sometime at the end of last month?
Not so fast. Several points of contention...
The poster at 10:14 am said:
"I don't see how concerns over EPA regulations is relevant to any lawsuit".
These concerns are quite relevant, because if there is contamination, then the City should not commit public funds to the project until we have a cost estimate to fix it. After receiving a cost estimate for this contamination, the facts may dictate another (less expensive) site for the new station. The judge gets to rule on this, not some anonymous blogger, or even the voters. Don’t like it? Move out of the U.S. That is our system.
The 12:34 pm poster said:
"I don't remember any of these three ladies name appearing on the ballots last month". That is simply not the point. The point is that these three ladies are exercising their rights as taxpayers, and they have the right to question illegal spending through the courts. Spending taxpayer dollars and hiding costs from the taxpayers is flat out illegal; that’s just life. The Council did not get elected to commit funds to public projects and hide EPA stuff. More to the point, if a court should agree to hear this and the Council votes to commit funds anyway, they can be held individually liable.
Then, the same poster continued his rant:
"And to say the council is showing it's resentment for losing the election...come on, only two aldermen lost (Donna and Tom)".
Let me remind you that Howard and Brooke barely skated by, Moritz and McGivern were afraid to run again, and Meyer and Lynn both fended off attacks from the majority of the current council who wanted both of them to lose. Is the current council resentful? Do bears shit in the woods?
Finally, this poster said"
Niky has FINALLY given up on tormenting city hall (of course she's out of sight now that she got what she wanted...and she claimed to be sticking up for the "citizens of Davenport". Ha, she was looking out for number one!).
Nice try, but no dice. I understand she will be back in full force soon. She has been rather busy with her project (which does not get a dime from the taxpayers), but City Hall is not free from Nicky Bowles. Not even close, and thank God for that. You may not like her demeanor, or have voted for her for Mayor, but I don't no anybody that does not agree that she is a tremendous watchdog. Everybody I know WANTS Nicky down in City Hall, with the exception of a few members of the Council and City Staff.
Truth Teller- glad you used your real name instead of "anonymous" buy I would be really pissed if my parents named me Truth.
Liberal Lion has a very interesting thread over on QC Backstage, everyone should read it.
Liberal dork's (er, I mean lion's) thread is a bunch of huey. More important are the first two responses on that thread.
OK "Truth Teller", you say
"Let me remind you that Howard and Brooke barely skated by, Moritz and McGivern were afraid to run again, and Meyer and Lynn both fended off attacks from the majority of the current council who wanted both of them to lose."
Lets see, "Howard & Brooke barely skated by"....but "Meyer fended off an attack". Interesting! In this country, majority rules. A win is a win.
And, "Moritz and McGivern were afraid to run again".
Come on they where on the council for 6 years!! What have YOU contributed to the city?
And finally, "but I don't no anybody that does not agree that she is a tremendous watchdog".
We need to meet so then you will know someone who does not agree! Or better yet, get out of your cave and meet some people with half a brain!!
Give me a break, "Truth Teller", nobody wants Nicky down at city hall!
A win is not necessarily a win. In the case of Brooke and Howard, both expected coronations. Both expected a mandate. Both almost lost. In the case of Meyer, he was suppossed to be the crazy guy that lost. Everybody just knew that Boom would win. Everybody was wrong.
What have I contributed to this City? I pay my taxes, just like you. Enough of us are mad as hell, and that is why Moritz and McGivern were afraid to run again.
In Moritz we lost one of the better aldermasn that the city had. She was one of the few that seemed genuinely concerned about the people in her ward and when it came to city issues you could tell that she knew what was going on.
She will be missed, but I bet there are bigger things in her future.
Oh yeah. Moritz was very concerned about whether Bob Tappendorf ever had a band outside his bar on Saturday night. After all, she would not want to take away from the ambience of the freeway noise.
Bob Tappendorf is an idiot, anyone who would build a bar in a residential neighborhood has very little consideration or respect for the neighbors who live there.
It sounds like you are the idiot, the land that Tappendorf built on is zoned comercial. Anyone who has bought a house down there knows this. A bunch of babies!
How about we don't call anyone idiots.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but clearly the person describing Tappendorff's bar as a "residential" neighborhood is missing something upstairs. All I can say is it is right next to the freeway. Perhaps that person is a bit intellectually challenged.
The person who claims that the city of davenport will surely address any environmental issues before building must live on Mars. THe city would build on a toxic waste dump (or allow anyone else to) as long as it meant $$$$ for them and their real estate developers. The powers that be don't give a crap. They care about $$. People have to force the issue of the environment on the city. Perfect examples include the Arlington dump and JLCS Cobblestone. The city and developers like to sweep problems under the rug - especially if those problems are in the central city.
Post a Comment