advertisement

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Trial D is a divisive solution to ward redistricting

Friday, October 7, 2011 | 3:54 p.m. CDT

To the Editor:

Throughout the ward redistricting process, we have seen an unprecedented level of community involvement.

Citizens have joined the discussion to make their voices and their opinions heard.

Trial D has been widely criticized and rejected by neighborhoods and citizens alike. Yet Trial D — championed by two council members for their own political gain — has reappeared again and again, after overwhelming opposition in public testimony, after failing to receive a majority vote of the bipartisan Reapportionment Committee, and after it was judged illegal by non-partisan city staff.

It has now been pushed forward once more by Fourth Ward Councilman Daryl Dudley. In its "amended" form, it will be considered equally along with compromise Trial E (the only trial receiving a majority vote of the Reapportionment Committee and trials A and B (both of which were rejected by a majority of the committee).

It is difficult to draw any other conclusion: Councilmen Dudley and Gary Kespohl would like to eliminate the exact precincts that voted most decisively for their opponents in the last election.

Columbia citizens should be outraged that personal political ambitions are being put before the needs of neighborhoods throughout the city.

The public is being disregarded by the people who took an oath to serve all citizens of Columbia.

A process intended to be nonpolitical has become completely about the gains of a few at the expense of many.

As Hank Waters wrote in last Friday’s editorial in the Columbia Tribune:

"(The) Trial D attempt to move the progressive Old Southwest out of the Fourth Ward is seen by political skeptics as a way to secure the ward for Dudley or his like. Trial D also would move progressive Benton-Stephens from the Third Ward, making the district safer for conservative incumbent Gary Kespohl.

"This political baggage gives the council good reason to reject Trial D for a better option. Trial E simply extends the First Ward west above Broadway without affecting Benton-Stephens or the Old Southwest, gaining the needed population and leaving current voting patterns relatively intact."

Trial D is divisive. It will result in hostility toward the council in Columbia’s most politically active neighborhoods. The lasting effects of Trial D will be a Columbia divided.

Segregating wards by voting patterns will lead to stronger and more pronounced divisions on the City Council and pit wards against one another. We must ask the mayor and the City Council if Trial D is worth a divided community.

Do the mayor and the council want the narrow political interests of two council members to saturate city government? Obviously, the answer should be no.

Trial E is a straightforward solution to ward reapportionment. It moves population to balance the wards numerically without benefiting one political ideology over another. Unlike all the other options presented, it has been met with little or no opposition in the community.

Demand Trial E be passed. Say no to partisan politics. Tell the mayor and the council to oppose a wildly unpopular and divisive Trial D.

Kip Kendrick is president of the Benton-Stephens Neighborhood Association.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Paul Allaire October 7, 2011 | 5:35 p.m.

From an earlier article, although slightly late...

"Dudley will host a public meeting at 4 p.m. Friday in Conference Room B at Columbia Public Library."

I have trouble believing the lowness of the actions I clearly see take place in front of me.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger October 7, 2011 | 6:15 p.m.

To which "low actions" do you refer, Mr. Allaire?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 7, 2011 | 6:44 p.m.

The individual is attempting to redraw the lines so that a large amount of the progressives from his ward and a similar ward where he and the existing councilperson narrowly avoided defeat are shifted into another ward, a ward that is already invariably represented by a progressive of some sort. The town has a reputation for voting liberally. His goal is to make sure that, when tallied, those liberal votes will add up to one liberal on the council and five people laying down for the almighty dollar. He wants to make it so that a large number of people's votes don't have a bat's chance in hell of counting for anything.
But I was told by a bystander at the meeting that it was packed and that many people raised angry voices against his plan and that one person spoke for it. I also heard that some people are getting ready to launch a recall petition. I wish I had remembered to get a point of contact. Sigh.

(Report Comment)
Kip Kendrick October 7, 2011 | 6:56 p.m.

Daryl Dudley suggested other council members were in favor of Plan D. When asked who he responded, "Gary Kespohl."

Priceless moment. I could not have said it better myself!

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance October 7, 2011 | 10:38 p.m.

Cesspool is another hack and a liar. (I was against Landmark before I was for it). We need to recall him as well and anyone else who votes for Plan D.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 8, 2011 | 7:56 a.m.

Go with trial E.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock October 8, 2011 | 9:12 a.m.

Does anyone really think if the shoe was on the other foot that a liberal would be any different? Assuming that you think the issue is about voting tendencies.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 8, 2011 | 9:24 a.m.

People in other wards support Mr. Dudley's voice on Council, as well. Therefore, would it not be impossible for the shift to be in any ward that does not, to some extent, support his views?

:)

(Report Comment)
Kip Kendrick October 8, 2011 | 11:08 a.m.

Mr. Sharrock,

The shoes were on both feet. More "Liberal" council members had the opportunity to put a Democratic strategist on the committee. Dudley put a longtime Republican strategist on the committee and he created a gerrymandered plan. The "Liberals" are not pushing an agenda. This SHOULD NOT be PARTISAN POLITICS.

Political ideologies should not be favored during reapportionment. Ideologies should be left to elections. That is Democracy.

(Report Comment)
Kip Kendrick October 8, 2011 | 11:25 a.m.

Mrs. Crockett,

With all due respect, would you please share why you support Plan D?
Specifically:
1. what it is about Plan D that is better for Wards? Why it's better for Columbia?
2. Why should a plan with such HUGE political consequences win out over a plan (Plan E) that has received little to no criticism?
3. How will dividing Columbia by voting patterns not create divisions in the community?

I haven't heard from many who support Plan D. These questions/answers would help me understand an alternative point of view.

Respecfully,

Kip

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 8, 2011 | 11:44 a.m.

@"I haven't heard from many who support Plan D. These questions/answers would help me understand an alternative point of view."

That's because a group of the other side holler instead of listen. You have your golden opportunity to listen to the Councilman, and - yet- he was there and he was shouted down. You see what I mean? That gets you nowhere. Now, if you want a discussion, learn from this. Meetings are no good if you are only going to "shout someone down" and not listen to all sides. If you want to understand all sides, then have the folks meet again, and be nice when the other side starts to talk - namely Mr. Dudley as spokesman. That is my point. You pushy-pushed the opportunity away for everyone to get a chance to interact and learn. You decided Mr. Dudley was going "to get told," and you shut out what anyone would be there to discuss/learn. That is what the discussion was for - for people to hear all sides. Was I going to stand up and argue? No. No more than I am going to get out in the street and argue with the crazy bully there. If you want to argue, you go ahead. If you want to give Mr. Dudley (or anyone else you disagree with) a chance to speak without insults and labeling, then you will have your chance to learn. Unless people decide they will remain quiet and stay out of your bid for power in a shouting match and all the talk that comes after. I care enough to respect Mr. Dudley and vote for him. If you don't then you have just missed your chance to understand anything about it, or what he stands for, by shouting him down every time he gives everyone the chance to discuss anything. The time comes when folks just get tired of it, and walk away and then do what they think is right in their life about it. They are the better person in the long run for it. Because that meanness is out of their life forever- no matter how much it tries to get back in. If in doubt, look up the meaning of the word "council."

:)

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin October 8, 2011 | 1:48 p.m.

@Delcia: What in the world are you talking about?

And what's all that stuff about being a "kept woman" and living in a "warped little world" you posted at the Trib have to do with Ward reapportionment or Pat Fowler's comment?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley October 8, 2011 | 1:53 p.m.

Delcia,

With all due respect, it would seem to me that you don't have a position on anything... I have never once seen you give an opinion as to WHY YOU FEEL THAT YOUR POSITION IS CORRECT or WHY YOU SUPPORT A GIVEN OPINION on a given topic.

Giving the reason of: "Because he/she said so"; is not telling us WHY YOU FEEL THAT YOUR POSITION IS CORRECT or WHY YOU SUPPORT A GIVEN OPINION. Maybe you don't have an opinion and are not capable of thinking for yourself, so you just support the opinions of thosepeople that you like and respect?

Do you even know why you support Trial D? Do you have any of YOUR OWN reasons for supporting TRIAL D? Or is your reason for supporting Trial D "because Mr. Dudley said so"?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle October 8, 2011 | 3:54 p.m.

I can tell you, because I live here, that W Broadway really is a dividing line of sorts between neighborhoods, and should roughly be kept as a ward boundary. Our neighborhood association spans the dividing line because the road itself and many of the structures built along it are an important, historic part of the city.

If I wound up in Dudley's ward, I'd almost certainly vote for a different candidate in the next election. But I don't think ward boundaries have that much council influence. I don't think our neighborhood association's collective voice will change whether we have one official ward rep or two, either. I can't see any practical difference to which ward I wind up in.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 8, 2011 | 4:06 p.m.

I for one would very much like to read a reply to Rick Gurley's above post dated 10-8 at 1:53 pm.

A reply to the above post (10-8, 1:48 pm) by Mike Martin might also be of interest. "Kept woman?" Sounds like a steamy plot for paperback novel or a soap opera. I may decide to subscribe to the Tribune.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 8, 2011 | 4:28 p.m.

Send the tribune to Iraq with a FLAGPOLE!!!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley October 8, 2011 | 4:32 p.m.

And a flag on the flagpole that reads "I HATE IRAQ"!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 8, 2011 | 4:50 p.m.

And you know that it was two days before that election that cesspool and the dud barely won that I was blocked from posting on that tribune. That lasted for a couple weeks. There were a few morons who were slinging quite a bit of mud at me because they didn't like who I was endorsing and defending. They were busy trying to hang one candidate for having someone take their comments from that same paper. Can you blame anyone for that?

Well hell no. No citizen can remove their comments - only the partisan hacks who work at the tribune can do that!!! And I can remember someone lamenting about how they were irretrievable, stating that they otherwise would have been restored. Personally I think they were about the best written and appropriate comments that I remember viewing. I remember one of the other bad things the candidate had going for her was an education and a lot of experience volunteering in a similar capacity to what she was running for. A few people (probably more like one or two with different screen names) didn't like that she had a hyphenated last name. Yes, they were successful in appealing to the lowest demeanor, knowing that the stupid outnumber the intelligent by a wide margin. The voters got what they deserved.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 8, 2011 | 4:55 p.m.

And then there was the smear campaign against Scala. I can't remember the specifics, but I'm sure the "issues" will resurface the next time he runs for office and I'm hoping that he will. It was about on par with the other smear campaign. I can't believe how you all sucked that up.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley October 8, 2011 | 5:14 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Paul Allaire October 8, 2011 | 7:02 p.m.

The two people who crawled out of nowhere just before the election posted almost entirely on articles dealing with the election. Their comment history went from zero to several hundred in a matter of weeks. When looking through them I noted that there were a few canned arguments that were repeated with each new article regardless of how badly they went. When the individuals got tired of having their arguments defeated, they began attacking me personally, bringing up things from years before, things that had been settled repeatedly, years before. When that was insufficient they began escalating their language. When I responded in kind they complained and had my comments removed and came back on to gloat about it. When I asked for some comments to be removed on the grounds that they were personal attacks against me and had nothing to do at all with the issue I was debating I sometimes got compliance and occasionally not. When I went to the tribune to air my grievance over a repeating double standard someone decided to delete all my posts and to disallow any more.

So what kind of sham is it when the same paper launches an article about how a candidate for a local office asked one of the people working at the paper to do the same? Obviously the paper sucks and has an agenda to follow. Many people couldn't understand the difference between an action essentially equaling the closing of a my space account and the destruction of public records. Those who did pretended not to, repeating their stupid assertions vigorously every time they got an excuse. That's but one reason that newspaper doesn't get a dime from me. There are others. It's not like I can't afford to post on it. I don't think about it much anymore, but those elections were very close and I wonder how much difference I made both ways and what the outcome would have been if I were allowed to continue arguing with the dishonest scumbags who were trying to pretend to be cute and folksy and just as stupid as their intended audience.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 8, 2011 | 7:31 p.m.

And I do feel that the policy of removing comments is one that should be dealt with with the maximum amount of restraint possible. My experience has shown me that most of the people who complain and have comments pulled are doing so mainly because they would like to silence those speaking against their opinion and not out of any actual offense. My experience has shown me that those who complain and get comments removed generally are the same as the people who provoked the comment in the first place, with their own. It is a sort of bullying that is the same kind of behavior that makes a mockery out any set of rules or system of justice. Generally those who complain are the ones who are doing more of exactly what they are complaining about than anybody else. So Rick should be proud that someone removed his comment. I have confidence that he will not return the favor being as there is really no issue at hand anyway.

Yesterday I had three comments pulled because I gave an estimate of the intelligence of some others. Possibly that was fair, but if you could read any of their comments and find intelligence then I question your integrity or feel sorry for you. And, of course, someone came back to gloat about and suck up to whoever it was who decided to do it. By my recollection of the characteristics of the arguments, I'm fairly sure that is the same individual who got on the Tribune to troll just before that election. I'm guessing that he owns or works for a local construction company of some type or other and possibly has some local real estate. Another possibility is that someone or a group of people with the same characteristics paid him to get on here and make an ass of himself in the manner I've described.

At this point he can deny anything he wants to and ridicule my conclusion, but it is exactly that. I believe that the other individual I spoke of is also on here. They were both very much in favor of tearing up that forty acre trailer park a couple weeks ago, among other things. This is really an educational experience for me.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer October 8, 2011 | 7:39 p.m.

Thanks to all for your thoughtfulness here. I'm really interested in hearing where you think the line should be drawn for comment removal. I'll also be interested in hearing from people who don't comment about whether any policy changes would encourage them to join the discussion.

@Paul, questioning the validity of a person's argument is fair. Making comments about their intelligent is not, according to the Missourian's current policy.

You'll notice that a computer glitch we've been working to fix for awhile has been fixed, and when we remove a comment, the thread will indicate that, as it has above.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

— Joy Mayer, director of community outreach, Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams October 8, 2011 | 9:13 p.m.

Joy,

You must be doing something right with the policy....it's pretty much the same folks over and over again.

Of course, it's not their fault. Rather, it's a conspiracy.

I'm ok with your current setup.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley October 8, 2011 | 9:26 p.m.

I have a saying that is becoming more and more dear to me all of the time..

"In the land of the idiot, the moron is king".....

IF that quote goes down in history for some reason, be sure to attribute it to me........ LOL.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer October 8, 2011 | 9:39 p.m.

Thanks, @Michael!

— Joy Mayer

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley October 8, 2011 | 11:34 p.m.

I call for a public debate with joy Mayer on her "heavy handed and unfair moderation" of this forum. Anyone here think she would accept? LMAO!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 9, 2011 | 2:47 p.m.

"@Paul, questioning the validity of a person's argument is fair. Making comments about their intelligen[ce] is not, according to the Missourian's current policy."

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 3:10 p.m.

Rick, you are a guest here. The editor has the right to pick and choose what is appropriate or not for what the forum is for one and all. Some comments are left that might be considered rude by some readers, and some comments are stricken that might seem alright to others. However, we are all guests here, and the editors of the Missourian can ask us to leave, edit out our comments, or place restrictions so that we cannot ever post again. That is only the policy of just about every opinion piece space available in the modern world. The editor has that option, or administrator of any forum. So, Rick, if you want full control of everything that is left or said at any time night or day, all you have to do is own your own forum. Sorry, the Missourian opinion spaces for posters are not yours to dictate by what you consider policy should be - but that of the Missourian to decide. I think you already know that - enough people - including me - have said this over the past several years every time you bring it up. Paul knows, too. He can have a brilliant, thought-invoking post many a time, just as you can - but you both know that you carry it over the top sometimes. And, I know that you do so on purpose. Let the editor be.

:)

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 9, 2011 | 3:16 p.m.

Oh and regarding this opinion, the article that followed it, and the comments that followed the article... Where are they???

Did the Missourian find a need to suck up???

We're not just talking about deleting comments anymore. We're talking about deleting news, and that which I find to be more important than say:
"Families join in on fun at Fairview Fever Festival"
or
"Hartsburg Pumpkin Festival: After 20 years, three founders are retiring."
or
"Mid-Missouri mushroom-hunting group makes first foray into woods"

I want to read about the * recall petition.
If you keep this up I might find a need to go subscribe (gag) to the tribune.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 3:29 p.m.

Paul,
Our house gets both - a gift subscription from one of our very grow-up children. We hear the "thud" of the morning edition of the Missourian hit the pavement, and Hub and I discuss it over coffee.

We hear the "thud" of the evening edition "Trib" hit the pavement in the evening during newscast, and so we discuss that in his studio later in the evening.

The two papers, though carrying same stories sometimes, are definitely not duplicates. They both have various/different articles - and Missourian often has excellent daily photo essay and Trib has some things that Missourian will not have, and other way around.

A lot of the times I am not even online to read either, unless there is something I find interesting to comment on, in the print version, or if I travel over here from the citizens for change forum (Chuck Dudley) where I read and maybe post every day.

You really should subscribe to the written Trib and Missourian, and then post on here when you choose. You will get a lot out of both the local papers. We do.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 3:36 p.m.

@Mike: People in the know, do know. If you don't then must be best that you don't. Either way. No problem.

:)

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 9, 2011 | 3:39 p.m.

Ellis Smith [said on] October 8, 2011 | 4:06 p.m.
"I for one would very much like to read a reply to Rick Gurley's above post dated 10-8 at 1:53 pm.
A reply to the above post (10-8, 1:48 pm) by Mike Martin might also be of interest. "Kept woman?" Sounds like a steamy plot for paperback novel or a soap opera. I may decide to subscribe to the Tribune."

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 3:43 p.m.

Rick, I do know, but that is not the point. Read that article again. If someone truly wanted to know, then all they had to do was to ask those questions at that meeting, not all get to blasting away at one side. Granted the one side had the right to be heard - but so did the other sides have the right to be heard, as well. If you know, too - then good for you!

I have said they could move my little bit of land and house right smack dab into the middle of Ward One, and I would be all for it.

See, I never ask for your comments to be removed. I am used to you. If you really want to get in an argument with me, just hi-dee over to the citizens' forum. You might even manage to get edited there, too - but it won't be I who will edit you. Administration there, too. Reads all the comments and is carefully inclined to forum policy there. Try it, if you think you are brave enough. Looks as if the editor here follows policy, as well.

Best wishes. Where ever you go - even Iraq!

: )

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 3:47 p.m.

Ellis: I would have thought you read both the Trib and Missourian. If not, you - too- should subscribe to both. Having the print version in your hand is quite different than the shiny screen of links on the online version - very likable.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 9, 2011 | 3:48 p.m.

Michael Williams said...
"Of course, it's not their fault. Rather, it's a conspiracy."

Mike, until about two days ago I can remember having only one or two comments pulled by someone from this newspaper. It is possible that more were removed and that I fail to remember because they probably should have been. But then I also remember you getting snippy and telling me that you suggested someone remove my comments and finding that they removed YOURS. I don't believe that was the only time someone removed your comments. I see you are again relying on the faultiness of our collective short memories by attempting to mock the message that I relayed yesterday about a real problem that happens when people are using the media for a power play. Nice (cheap) shot. What a good shot, man.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 9, 2011 | 4:01 p.m.

"Granted the one side had the right to be heard - but so did the other sides have the right to be heard, as well."

I must admit that I missed the actual meeting. However, I found two people who were still in the room discussing it when I arrived. From what I understand there was only one person on hand that spoke who was for the proposal and that he was given a chance to speak. I also understand that the room was packed and that everyone else who was in attendance other that Dudley himself was against it. Therefore I have difficulty concluding that there were any "other sides" that didn't get heard. Were you there?

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 4:21 p.m.

Paul, read the article again. The reporter says it all, as to whom said what, or who did not say anything. Thanks. For the most part, I do not disclose where I go, when I arrived or when I left. But those who would have seen me would know if they know me. Do you know me? I think you would make an interesting next-door neighbor.

:)

Anyway, it is a given that one is touch with certain people in other ways than if they were at a meeting at the same time as someone else. And, most people mostly are and keep up by reading.

Sorry you missed the meeting.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley October 9, 2011 | 4:53 p.m.

The moderator has lost her mind.. There was no need to delete the comment of mine she did, every word of every sentence in that post was true, and there were no negative connotations in the post, and stating one's vocation is not an advertisement.. We have "Ginger Lopez 2.0" moderating the forum......

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 7:36 p.m.

Rick,
I don't mind if the editor removes one of my comments - or any of them - or all of them.

Sometimes it is just the way it is.

Goodness, I was banned from a forum that allows libel and identity theft and links that put viruses into computers of folks who link on there to read - and I was banned for posting too many Scriptures, of all things.

I am used to editors, and I have been one myself. Sometimes a thankless job.

Just get a thicker skin and post some more on what is important to you. If you are removed, don't feel bad.

It is just an editor being an editor.

Like you do your job as it should be done.

Have a good evening...

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 9, 2011 | 8:26 p.m.

Rick, check your October 8, 2011 post at 3:31P.M. on this link:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

It has your vocation and the description of how you handle client confidentiality.

It also has my statement response to you.

I am not sure what post you saw removed as I am not on here all the time, and some could have been removed that I have not been aware.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 10:42 a.m.

So then I'm guessing that either you weren't at the meeting or that you were the one person who spoke on behalf of Dudley's agenda.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 10:55 a.m.

Thanks for implying that I didn't read the article in question. It is unfortunate, however, that you couldn't elaborate on what I missed. And since you state here that the reporter said it all, (as if you know), that gives more validity to the question that Rick asked you on the other thread that pertains to this that you are still commenting on.

Specifically the article says that >>>> 1! <<<< person spoke on behalf of the agenda, other than (I'm assuming) Dudley. It does not state whether any participant in the meeting shouted over that person. It does, however, state that people did talk over one another. If all the participants but Dudley and one other were against the agenda then I'm forced to conclude that it was merely the intensity of their opposition that motivated this and that it was not a problem being as this means that anybody who was potentially interrupted was trying to say the same thing as the person "talking over" them.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 11:02 a.m.

And I suppose that if you showed up to a meeting to propose a plan to a room full of people who intensely disliked your plan that the behavior of the participants WOULD seem quite rude, at best.

All of that is EXTREMELY irrelevant and you know it. You aren't half as imperceptive as you intend yourself to appear. That, thinly veiled threats, repetition, obfuscation, and false sincerity are among your leading weapons. You cannot have developed them to the point that you have and still be so imperceptive as to fail to see the weight of the concerns that people have with this problem.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 10, 2011 | 11:09 a.m.

@"So then I'm guessing that either you weren't at the meeting or that you were the one person who spoke on behalf of Dudley's agenda."

Paul, next time be on time, please.

Thank you.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 10, 2011 | 11:13 a.m.

@"...forced to conclude..."

Your choice. Same as anyone who attended and anyone who read the article. No one is actually "forced to conclude" anything. That limits the listening to all sides and wanting to know all sides. Next time, give everyone a chance, and others might not walk away or others might even want to attend these discussions, besides simply the ones who have an agenda to push and get really pushy about it. Civility is in order. I defend Mr. Dudley on this. What is done, is done - but others can learn from it. Thank you. Have a nice day!

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 10, 2011 | 11:19 a.m.

@"And I suppose that if you showed up to a meeting to propose a plan to a room full of people who intensely disliked your plan that the behavior of the participants WOULD seem quite rude, at best.
"All of that is EXTREMELY irrelevant and you know it. You aren't half as imperceptive as you intend yourself to appear. That, thinly veiled threats, repetition, obfuscation, and false sincerity are among your leading weapons. You cannot have developed them to the point that you have and still be so imperceptive as to fail to see the weight of the concerns that people have with this problem."

I do attend meetings, and everywhere I go, civility and common courtesy are the mainstays. Your word choice here proves nothing that you can wax verbose, when you could be brilliant, instead.

Catch up with you later. I am doing a mural today way down in the basement, so there is where I will be and what I am meeting up with today. Very quiet in the basement and my mural should proceed nicely. Happy? Have updated you in where I will be today and what I will be doing - and the atmosphere in which I am working. Which is about as much on topic as your statements are, so maybe the editor can have a good laugh about it, too. LOL

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 12:10 p.m.

1."Paul, next time be on time, please."
2."@"...forced to conclude..."

Your choice. Same as anyone who attended and anyone who read the article. No one is actually "forced to conclude" anything. That limits the listening to all sides and wanting to know all sides. Next time, give everyone a chance, and others might not walk away or others might even want to attend these discussions, besides simply the ones who have an agenda to push and get really pushy about it."
3."Which is about as much on topic as your statements are, so maybe the editor can have a good laugh about it, too. LOL""
4."Civility is in order." "I do attend meetings, and everywhere I go, civility and common courtesy are the mainstays. Your word choice here proves nothing that you can wax verbose, when you could be brilliant, instead."

Regarding #4, I really don't see much civility in Delcia's comments. This "discussion" is like talking to the automated voice that sometimes comes on a telephone. Who pays someone to degrade themselves by trolling that hard? How many years can a [wo]man shake [her] head pretending [she] just doesn't see? (The answer, my friend, is glowing in the print.)
#3 doesn't really justify a comment. The only thing that has me even slightly off point is Delcia.
#2 is a great example of intentionally adding context that was not there as a method of distraction. When I've examined all available information regarding an argument I'm forced to reach a decision. If someone can provide some kind of meaningful new information then I force myself to reconsider. But I'm not anticipating that.
#1 is as irrelevant as any comment I've read today and is, at most, a weak attempt to discredit someone when better means are lacking. I never obliged myself to attend. I rarely plan activities in advance,if at all. It leaves me more flexible and less predictable than otherwise. So Delcia, consider what you said in #1 and #3 and apply it to yourself before making similar comments.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 10, 2011 | 12:12 p.m.

Delcia,
I agree with you one way to learn is to shut up and listen. Yelling really doesn't solve anything neither so mud slinging. And just because you want to calmly listen to all points of view doesn't mean you don't have your own opinion, just an open mind. Maybe we could get further if we learned to listen to each other.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 12:15 p.m.

So let's go ahead and gain some new information. I don't recall an actual answer to two other people's questions regarding why that plan is better than plan E, which everyone, including myself, seems to want.

Can ANYBODY tell me why this plan Dudley is a good idea?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 8:37 p.m.

Really?

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 11, 2011 | 12:00 p.m.

@"Who pays someone to degrade themselves by trolling that hard? How many years can a [wo]man shake [her] head pretending [she] just doesn't see? (The answer, my friend, is glowing in the print.)"

Paul,
I am not on here as often as you are, and have not been on any forum that we both have been on, that you have not dallied and dallied far more than anyone else who posts. You addict yourself to posting and then lament that you are some sort of victim by labeling. It is a pattern for you, and always has been. Your choice. That said, thank you for your comments, nonetheless. Every once in a while we get to see a tree of brilliance in your forests of lamenting. Your tirade here is not one of those. Sorry. And, I stand by my support of Mr. Dudley, and I would gladly be in Ward One if the City Council decided I should be. Has that been decided? No, people are still in the discussion mode. And all should be seen and heard, not just one very vocal group shouting down someone they do not agree with for political reasons. There should be some sort for reasoning a civility in public discussions that affect everyone. Thank you. Have a nice day.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 11, 2011 | 12:04 p.m.

@Sally Willis.

Exactly. That works in all sorts of communication, as well. Very often people who aggressively are rude on a continual basis simply make others not want to listen to the shouting and rudeness anymore. In the voting booth is where it counts. And that is the real poll of determining what private citizens actually think in these circumstances/events that happen in life affecting us all.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 11, 2011 | 12:33 p.m.

You're starting to remind me of the leading nurse on "One Flew Over the Coo Coo's nest."
The only other forum I know you from is the Tribune. I post much and so do you. One difference between our posts is that I at least appear to have a general understanding of the issue at hand, whether anybody finds my opinion to be agreeable or not. In this case and in so many others you appear to not understand much of anything. I believe that you do this intentionally. That is the reason for my reference to "Blowing in the Wind". You are pretending you just don't see.

The main point I should make here is that there IS no other side to that issue. The only thing you have presented is that you have some friends in ward one and that you think it would be neat if you were in the same ward with them, for whatever reason it is that you think that is important. I suppose that is the limit of your answer to the question that I and at least two others have repeated, and that you are the only one on here defending the gerrymandering. But you are a republican and that leads me to believe that you are simply pretending not to understand this and then shifting, at every opportunity, the focus of the discussion to the allegation that people spoke too loudly and possibly even out of turn. The fact remains that there was only one person at that meeting who actually took up for Dudley's plan and that the remaining forty were against it.
In the voting booth is definitely one place where it counts and there has been no end to the dirt involved with influencing the outcome of that. However, you failed to note that there is one other place where things are being counted and that is in the streets. At some point you can probably expect to be confronted with a recall petition for the politician who's actions you are defending.
CHECKMATE

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 11, 2011 | 12:49 p.m.

Paul,
If I am the nurse, then who are you in the drama you are creating yet again?

For the record, I have often been labeled an Ultra-Conservative. (I take it as a compliment.)

My choice, not yours.

But, the record shows that I voted for both Governor Nixon and President Obama, so most people who know me really well often call me a Conservative Democrat.

I vote on issues not partisan divide. I did not like Blunt campaigning support, because I could not agree with what happened to students in MOHELA when the money was going to be set aside for contractors, buildings, etc. instead of being placed into the funding for more scholarships and lower loan rates for students. I am not sorry I voted for Nixon - as far as I can see, he is int corner of the working person, and if he continues in this sense, I will support him for President if he runs in 2016. I hope he does. It would be great to see a Democratic President Nixon in the White House, as opposed to what happened with the Republican President Nixon.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 11, 2011 | 12:52 p.m.

@"The fact remains that there was only one person at that meeting who actually took up for Dudley's plan and that the remaining forty were against it."

But there is only one side, according to your count in an above post.

Paul, Paul, Paul...I like to read your posts and you are one of the main reasons I read here, even when I do not post.

Maybe you should repeat your above question that got lost in this forest, and see if anyone else will respond. I have a great afternoon off the computer planned.

Catch up with you later...

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 11, 2011 | 12:54 p.m.

Here, I will do this for you before I head out of here. Have a good day!

Paul Allaire October 10, 2011 | 12:15 p.m.

So let's go ahead and gain some new information. I don't recall an actual answer to two other people's questions regarding why that plan is better than plan E, which everyone, including myself, seems to want.

Can ANYBODY tell me why this plan Dudley is a good idea?
(Report Comment)

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 11, 2011 | 1:38 p.m.

The problem isn't with Daryl Dudley trying to do what he thinks is best for his ward, his career or his town.
The problem isn't with those fueling the fire for a 4th wards man recall.
The problem isn't with Kespohl trying to block Skala from having another chance at a council seat or a first time bid for mayor.
The problem isn't even with those who are trying to stop a pest control firm from political domination.
The problem is with the first ward.
The first ward. An underachiever in the population numbers game, according to a 2010 federal census.
Why should this first ward be rewarded for its supposed failure to grow in general population by intruding itself onto "successful" wards?
And, if it were to grow its boundaries to bring in more populace, then what better way to do so than by extending its boundaries southward to absorb as many college students as possible and a bit eastward of College to contain as many student rentals as possible.
Population numbers for the first ward would increase and there'd be no old neighborhood associations slighted, no liberal progressives to complain about infringements on their ideology or their self-imposed "white man's burden" or chamber of commerce types trying to prevent the city council pendulum from swinging back to the days of Hindman.
The first ward is the problem.
Everything else is self-interest opportunism.
And if anyone was truly interested in what's best for the city, as a whole, then we could just disband the first ward and have it absorbed into the surrounding wards and phase out one council seat.
Problem solved.
Then, just maybe then, all of this town's resident association presidents would realize that their cul-de-sac city could benefit from a viable council of neighborhood resident associations to offset the "divide and conquer" dynamics resulting from years of a city council government and real estate developers working to pit neighbor against neighbor and ward against ward.
Without such a viable council of neighborhood resident associations, as the endgame, we are destined to be represented by elitist progressives or business owners to shape our lives.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 11, 2011 | 2:01 p.m.

"The problem is with the first ward.
The first ward. An underachiever in the population numbers game, according to a 2010 federal census.
Why should this first ward be rewarded for its supposed failure to grow in general population by intruding itself onto "successful" wards?"

DUDE. You just somehow exceeded Delcia. I don't know how you managed to, but you sure did. Where do I start?
There are whole blocks of houses in that ward where the properties are much more restricted regarding height, width, or spacing of any possible structure than they were when the houses on them were constructed. Most of the lots are already built at or beyond their capacity because of current zoning laws. It is physically smaller than the other wards. There are only a few empty lots where someone could build if they were available to a builder. I could go on for pages, but lets examine more of what you just said...

"Why should this first ward be rewarded for its supposed failure to grow in general population by intruding itself onto "successful" wards?"

You have that completely backwards. It would "reward" the first ward if the boundaries were to remain static because that would allow a smaller number of people the ability to control the same portion of the council that larger wards do.

Since you obviously have failed to understand those two basic things I will avoid commenting on the remainder of what you said. It appears to be largely intelligible anyway. Did you write that mess so that none of the readers could see through the failed logic of your faulty arguments or are you really that confused?

And, as I said before, you really have it in for the first ward.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 11, 2011 | 2:29 p.m.

@Paul:
You say:
("You have that completely backwards. It would "reward" the first ward if the boundaries were to remain static because that would allow a smaller number of people the ability to control the same portion of the council that larger wards do.")
I say:
People are using a general population body count.
Three year olds are included in those numbers.
I suspect the "larger wards" have more children in their general population body count as first ward college students don't move in with little ones.
Also, what percent of ward one black voters came out to the last city council rep campaign. Maybe if you want more representation of your wards' population you should be cultivating college student and minority involvement in your ward's local politics, DUDE.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 11, 2011 | 2:41 p.m.

I live in the county not the city!!!!!! WOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I do like to read this drama as it unfolds...and just so you all stop wasting your time,
your all wrong BECAUSE PAUL HAS TO BE RIGHT! Why you ask? Because he said so! And he is the king of the newspaper. Paul is an online bully I wonder if he is so forceful in person? Is your face getting red Paul? GET MAD GET REAL MAD! :)hhahahahahahahahhaahhaha!

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield October 11, 2011 | 2:41 p.m.

"Also, what percent of ward one black voters came out to the last city council rep campaign."

A few years ago, didn't the city move the borders in an attempt to give First Ward blacks a bigger voice in government because historically they rarely vote?

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 11, 2011 | 2:46 p.m.

Man I wish this paper had a thumbs up button and maybe another finger ;P

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders October 11, 2011 | 3:15 p.m.

Just think how great the world could be if all of you people spent this much energy minding your own business, instead of "fighting over the gun" trying to mind everyone else's.

No matter how you paint it, mob-rule will ALWAYS be mob-rule.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 11, 2011 | 3:33 p.m.

Richard you get a thumbs up!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams October 11, 2011 | 4:13 p.m.

"It appears to be largely intelligible anyway. Did you write that mess so that none of the readers could see through the failed logic of your faulty arguments or are you really that confused?"
_____________________

Given your point, somebody needs to look up the definition of "intelligible".

Or perhaps it's opposite day.

PS: This whole thing is amusing. Folks yell at Dudley because they think he's trying for a political advantage (which he very well may be), yet fail to understand they are doing the same damn thing with their own plan!

You just can't make this stuff up.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin October 11, 2011 | 5:13 p.m.

@Michael Williams:

Trial E confers the LEAST political advantage to any one group, merely being a westward extension of the First Ward that doesn't even reach Columbia's western boundary.

If you read the Trib article today, you can see why Trial D has become such a politically advantageous hot potato for Mr. Dudley's supporters.

In the comments below the article, there's partisan hatchet man Rob Monsees (thinly disguised as his initials, RMM) taking whacks at people he incorrectly labels "radicals" and naming names (Karl Skala for the umpteenth time) simply because he devised Trial D and wants to demonize its opponents with over-the-top rhetoric:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011...

You can read more about RMM here, and how outmatched, politically, Trial D's opponents are with him on the Trial D team:

http://www.columbiaheartbeat.com/2011/07...

Unfortunately, Mr. Dudley let "Pandora" Monsees out of his box by appointing him to the Ward Reapportionment Committee at the urging of Scott Atkins and Larry Grossman.

The results are now evident as our town devolves into a partisan battle over a non-partisan City Council. Mr. Dudley is caught in the crossfire, which is unfortunate IMHO.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 11, 2011 | 5:14 p.m.

I see you all got fairly courageous once I stepped away from a computer.

Mind my own business? Really? I live in one of those wards. And I've got at least two people on here who don't even live in the city barking at me about this and then one of them suggests I mind my own business. And I don't think that plan E is "my own damn plan." I sure didn't draw it up. But the people WHO ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE WARDS being redrawn sure seem to like it. And the city council seems to like it. And people are circulating a recall petition for Dudley.

But hey, who are the people who live in the city to decide what applies to them? Self determination is just something they teach you in school. Otherwise you shut up and pay your taxes to contribute to corporate welfare. Right?

Maybe I wouldn't be so persistent about this if it weren't for all the slime I witnessed before the last election. Or if not for the fact that some people took it on themselves to try to smear my name around. Or If yahoos from out in the county didn't just tell me to mind my own business. Do any of you know how to make an ethical statement?

Oh and Sally, I'm smiling right now. That's a shame about whatever happened to your fingers.

And Richard, you are a leading example of "mob rule."

And yes, Mike. You caught an error. I meant to type unintelligible and goofed it while I was rewording. It is opposites day. What he wrote was an incoherent mess.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 11, 2011 | 5:20 p.m.

And Ray and Jimmy, could you please be a bit more racially motivated in expressing your contempt for the residents of ward one. You just aren't racial enough.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 11, 2011 | 5:22 p.m.

Maybe the police could let you attend one of their special sessions.

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 11, 2011 | 8:23 p.m.

@Paul:
When did discussing the truth about trends and what the progressives are throwing out to justify their position become racially motivated?
It's a topic regarding race, accurate observations and my conclusions based on my experiences.
Too bad you try to shut down discourse by implying that a comment has "racial overtones" as if that's a bad thing, especially if the topic includes racial issues.
It's all pertinent, especially when discussing voting trends and the first ward. Don't you think?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 11, 2011 | 8:52 p.m.

Oh golly, I think I'm going to find a mud wrestling match on the slim chance that I might find some intelligent discourse...

The wards are apportioned by the amount of people counted in the census. You understand that much. Right? The wards are not apportioned by how many people are of voting age, how many people registered, or how many actually voted. Voter turn out is generally low in these elections because they are often held at times when there is little else being decided. The number of people who voted in any given local election does not influence the amount of representation that a ward takes, nor should it. If you have an issue with any of that should probably work to change in your city's laws.

Also, I don't recall anybody in the entire course of this thread complaining about the representation that the first ward gets. You have that idea for some reason and I can't tell if you are stuck on that through your own persistent misunderstanding of everything going on around you or if you are attempting to distract the argument by grasping at straws. My hunch is that the problem is both.

You might try throwing out some actual numbers to support your assertion. Jimmy's recollection is the most ridiculous thing I have heard all day, and at this point that is an amazing feat.

Says Jimmy: "A few years ago, didn't the city move the borders in an attempt to give First Ward blacks a bigger voice in government because historically they rarely vote?"

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield October 11, 2011 | 9:46 p.m.

Paul, according to http://m.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/aft...

"The First Ward was established in 1991 as a way to get a black resident elected to the Columbia City Council. . . . This year, reshaping the First Ward has become less about strengthening the black vote, and more about preserving the character of the ward, as far as some committee members are concerned. Others have said that politically-savvy residents should be added to the First Ward to help give residents more influence and hopefully call more attention to issues facing the aging central city, such as its crumbling infrastructure. . . . According to previous Tribune articles, black residents made up more than 25 percent of the First Ward’s population when the lines were redrawn in 1991. Since then, five different councilpersons have represented the First Ward. Only one – Almeta Crayton, who represented the ward from 1999 to 2008 – was black."

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 1:21 a.m.

Yes and here is another sentence from that blog...
"The Trial A and Trial D maps extend the First Ward eastward to annex the neighborhood, and residents there say it is an attempt to gerrymander the district to clear out potential opposition to Third Ward Councilman Gary Kespohl in a presumed election bid."

And this is what you said...

"A few years ago, didn't the city move the borders in an attempt to give First Ward blacks a bigger voice in government because historically they rarely vote?"

Changing the boundaries is quite different than adding a ward. Given that only twenty five percent of the current ward is black and that only eleven percent of the city is, there is a larger obstacle than what you perceive. Since you and Ray are both insisting that blacks don't participate in the political process neither of you would be keen on voting for one. If the remainder of the population had a similar bias and a black candidate ran, blacks would need to vote three times as much as everyone else just to tie an election. But obviously a black candidate was elected twice, so not every black is as far from the political process as you would like to suggest.
The reason someone is shoving plan D down your throat is to put a regressive majority into the two surrounding wards so that the councilpersons can vote for the developers at the expense of everyone else in the city and to punish those who don't vote regressive by putting them in a ward that historically is underrepresented and even looked down upon by characters like yourself and Ray. The reason I oppose the plan being shoved down your throat is what I discussed above on the negative end and because there needs to be a ward representing the center portion of the city because the center portion of the city has different needs than the remainder. It's probably the only way to see that those needs are met. I've seen the center portions of too many other cities to think otherwise.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 1:24 a.m.

And I should also note that what you quoted was a BLOG and not an article, which means that much of what was said is only the OPINION of the author.

You should know what I have said about people who make their arguing points out of opinion pages. It's not very nice.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield October 12, 2011 | 7:21 a.m.

Paul, Andrew Denney wrote that blog. He's a Tribune reporter. The post appeared on the Trib's website. And that post covers a lot of what appeared in a print and online article: www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/sep/04.... See the last three paragraphs in the "First Ward Questions" section.

Here's another article (www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/apr/18...

"Past efforts to redraw boundaries have generated debate about racial demographics. In the 1970s, the ward map was drawn irrespective of Columbia’s black population, according to a 1972 Tribune article. The Second Ward then included half the city’s black population, but blacks made up less than a fifth of the ward’s residents.

"Twenty years later, there was large support for creating a central-city ward to help concentrate the black vote, although Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren said it was impossible to make minorities the majority in any ward.

“'The numbers just aren’t there,'” she told the Tribune in 1991. “'But you can reduce the dilution of their voting power.'”

"The 1991 map tried to do that, creating a central ward that was 26 percent black. In 2001, the ward had to expand to keep its population equal to the other five. Although that could happen again, Gene Robertson, the First Ward representative during the 2001 boundary-redrawing, said he would like to see the concept of a central ward continue.

“'I would like to see some consistency and recognition of the heritage of African-Americans — in whatever ward they may be in,'” said Robertson, a professor emeritus at the University of Missouri."

And another (www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/...

"Throughout its history, Columbia’s reapportionment committees have looked to consolidate areas with high numbers of black residents to increase representation. . . .

"According to a Missourian article published on June 6, 1981, consolidating areas with the highest black populations was the primary topic of consideration for the committee.

"The solution was minor shifting of wards to place 42 percent of the city’s black population in the First Ward and 22 percent in the Second Ward.

“'We’d rather have one councilman that’s representing the majority of the black community,'” then-Second Ward Commissioner Sarah Belle Jackson said in the 1981 Missourian article. “'When you add more (white) people to the ward, it automatically dilutes the black vote.”

BTW, Paul, if you're so concerned about this, why don't you register to vote?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 9:44 a.m.

What? And make things easy for a busybody with an agenda like yourself? I have a lot of reasons for not casting my vote in this county. At a point in the not so distant future I won't even be casting my vote in this state. I don't know whether I will engage in local discussions at that time.

I'm going to stand by my assertion that "because they rarely vote" is a negative generalization made by yourself.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield October 12, 2011 | 9:55 a.m.

"And make things easy for a busybody with an agenda like yourself?"

Explain.

"'I'm going to stand by my assertion that 'because they rarely vote' is a negative generalization made by yourself."

Lots of people have made that claim. I got it from reading the Tribune, the Missourian and other outlets. For example, after the most recent election, Mike Martin's April 8 e-newsletter lamented "Black Columbia's long-running apathy" and wondered, "Where in the world were Black voters in the First Ward? "

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 10:16 a.m.

Explain? It should be obvious to yourself.

What business is it of yours? Explain your object in looking up my voting registration.

"Lots of people have made that claim."

No doubt. And if you repeat it like chicken little enough times it will be true... At least in the eyes of your fellow hate radio suck ups. Why must you choose to make engaging in politics such a disgusting process?

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 12, 2011 | 10:22 a.m.

Thumbs up Ray thumbs down Paul! Paul how much longer until your gone many of us will count down the days.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 10:27 a.m.

Thumbs up Ray[!] [T]humbs down Paul! Paul[,] how much longer until you[']r[e] gone[?] [M]any of us will count down the days.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 12, 2011 | 10:53 a.m.

You didn't answer my question silly! You're not really leaving are you? Are you teasing us?

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 12, 2011 | 11:01 a.m.

Again Paul do you really think this was set up behind police lines???????????????? Come on I know you're smarter than that! Or maybe you don't have any common sense.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 12, 2011 | 11:04 a.m.

lmbo, My bad wrong artical! I'm having too much fun with this!

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield October 12, 2011 | 11:06 a.m.

Paul, it's possible for someone to be disgusted by the political process and still vote. Maybe you're right: "Self determination is just something they teach you in school."

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 11:13 a.m.

Well, being as the police were also some of the people complaining I don't have much alternative but to. After all, the police are always right. Right?

And my common sense tells me that as a courtesy to those who actually read you should probably direct your questions regarding that article to the thread following it rather than to a thread following something completely unrelated.

And I'm not teasing, but I have no specific time frame. You might temper your enthusiasm. I will probably still spend a bit of time on the internet and it's hard to forget people as special as YOU.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 11:19 a.m.

Jimmy, I know that not everything is easy for you to understand and that you are kind of nosy, but in principle you should not vote in more than one location in any given election. Therefore I must choose. Trifle me about it once more and I'll go down to the courthouse and find out where you live.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield October 12, 2011 | 11:52 a.m.

Why didn't you just come right out and say that you're registered in another community?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2011 | 1:42 p.m.

Paul:
I really don't have "it in" for the first ward.
But I do know that it's the only ward where, (excluding the special business district and college campus areas), it's been the only ward having the distinction of being called "The Hood."
It is also considered by many to have "blighted properties."
Do you think that perhaps some private owner occupied home neighbors are concerned about already stressed property values and negative impacts should they suddenly become first warders, thanks to some redistricting decision?
It might even be that some are just too silent about how they feel due to the restraints of political correctness.
That is one reason why I believe it's either best to disband the first ward and have it absorbed into the other surrounding wards, OR have its boundaries include as many college student residential rentals as possible OR divide Columbia up into quadrants along an agreeable/future adjustable axis. (That's of course after doing an analysis to see if the 2010 federal census needs to be adjusted based on uncounted college students, recent apartment buildings, and projected growth in the first ward due to rehabilitation projects.)
I can understand your concern about preserving some kind of idealistic image of the first ward, but I don't believe that "The District" a special business district, the colleges, followers of the arts, the hippies, the academiacs, Victorian home owners, black people, residents of Oak Towers or Paquin Tower, students renting, or anyone else will lose their personal or collective identities or representative capabilities as a result of the ideas I present.
At best it should encourage local neighborhood resident associations to form an association of associations and take on city development issues and government management accordingly, instead of everything being decided by the Mule Skinners or Pachyderms. I have no political aspirations or am I an agent for any particular party, unlike many on the committee and council.
These are just one man's opinions and ideas posted on a "College Newspaper."
Take what you want and leave the rest behind.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 2:19 p.m.

The worst neighborhood in town is Demerit Street, which includes properties that are owned by Kespohl. There is nothing in "the hood" that approaches it. A large portion of the second ward is much worse than anything in the first ward. There are too many bad areas to list. The third ward also contains extensive areas that are much worse than anything in the first, including the Demerit Street that I already mentioned. The sixth ward includes the trailer park that has been so maligned recently, other trailer parks, including one where a murder recently occurred, and many high density high crime areas. The fourth and fifth ward seemingly have little or no high crime areas because the city has declined to annex them, leaving them as unincorporated patches of ground surrounded by the city on most sides. The second, third, and sixth ward all would have neighborhoods as bad or worse than any in the first if the city had been less selective in it's annexation.

I'm going to guess that your home is one of those that would become part of the first ward.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2011 | 2:55 p.m.

("Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 2:19 p.m.

The worst neighborhood in town is Demerit Street, which includes properties that are owned by Kespohl. There is nothing in "the hood" that approaches it. A large portion of the second ward is much worse than anything in the first ward. There are too many bad areas to list. The third ward also contains extensive areas that are much worse than anything in the first, including the Demerit Street that I already mentioned. The sixth ward includes the trailer park that has been so maligned recently, other trailer parks, including one where a murder recently occurred, and many high density high crime areas. The fourth and fifth ward seemingly have little or no high crime areas because the city has declined to annex them, leaving them as unincorporated patches of ground surrounded by the city on most sides. The second, third, and sixth ward all would have neighborhoods as bad or worse than any in the first if the city had been less selective in it's annexation.

I'm going to guess that your home is one of those that would become part of the first ward.")

Paul:
You are correct about everything except your last sentence.
However my comment about where the old hood resides is still a widely held perception by many.
New hoods are springing up all over Columbia.
Why do you think that is?
Also, if Columbia is now widely hoodish, this might be a perfect time to disband the first ward and divide this town into quadrants, similar to the way Chief Burton manages Columbia.
Might just make this town a better place to live, visit and invest in.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 3:31 p.m.

"However my comment about where the old hood resides is still a widely held perception by many."

You should probably know what I think about perceptions.

I think at this point I should just leave you alone in your opinion.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2011 | 3:49 p.m.

("You should probably know what I think about perceptions.")
With real estate, home values and criminal activity...perceptions should never be discounted.
But then again, this isn't only about you.

("I think at this point I should just leave you alone in your opinion.")

I'm cool with that.
See you in the funny papers.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 6:32 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Joy Mayer October 12, 2011 | 6:53 p.m.

Threatening language will not be tolerated in these comments, folks. I ask you to please be vigilant about helping us monitor. Click the "report comment" link if you see comments that you think violate our policy, which can be found here: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/p/miss...

— Joy Mayer, director of community outreach, Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 7:17 p.m.

Sally Willis says...

"Yelling really doesn't solve anything neither so mud slinging."

and then says...

"your all wrong BECAUSE PAUL HAS TO BE RIGHT! Why you ask? Because he said so! And he is the king of the newspaper. Paul is an online bully I wonder if he is so forceful in person? Is your face getting red Paul? GET MAD GET REAL MAD! :)hhahahahahahahahhaahhaha!"

and then says...

"Man I wish this paper had a thumbs up button and maybe another finger ;P"

and...

"Or maybe you don't have any common sense."

Now THAT is leadership by example!

(or maybe not)

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 7:41 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Paul Allaire October 12, 2011 | 8:34 p.m.

Your comments will come from an assortment of racists, classists, senile citizens who think they are winning an argument by repeating lies they have been told to those who don't believe them, people who don't understand what they are reading, and spam. You will have the greedy advocating removing all safety nets from society and starting new wars. You will have fascist apologists and naive idealists insulting one another. But mostly you will have nothing. You will be a declining memory of what you could have been - a pale comparison to what once was - a yawning imitation of a mundane small town small time flyer exceeded by all that is around it - a useless exercise in uselessness. And I will be here for the sole purpose of reminding you and your readers of that fact.
I have been online for several years, studying something I first dabbled in at Chumpyville Junior College where I earned the best available scholarship to come to Mizzou to study drunk spoiled bourgeoisie and watch the lifestyles of the phony and apathetic. The area of interest was politics. I was not able to study this without first mastering psychology, which included such advanced classes as "The Limits of Human Understanding", "Fake Civility", "Stonewalling Your Neighbor", and "Getting Over". While I realize that there is a lifetime worth of study that is available in this direction, I am going to take a break from it for now and probably not seek to formalize a degree of any kind or even improve my understanding for the time being. It has never been a favorite subject of mine and I initially had great trouble with it. It was also necessary to study journalism. The classes included "Mock Sincerity", "Misunderstanding", "Hacking", "Revisionism", "Apathy", "Debasement", "Brush Strokes", and "Avoiding Personal Responsibility". Included for honors was "The Pretense of Ethics" and "Appealing to the Lowest Common Denominator".
While there has been no formal acknowledgement, I consider myself to have successfully graduated from your "school." Thus, the need for me to be a welcome presence has subsided. If anyone thought I was rude and unforgiving now they have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

I cannot really discuss my plans for the future except to say that I will be pursuing an offer that was made to me long ago and that I look forward to it with enthusiasm.

I will close this by reminding the huddled masses that they got who they deserved when they voted.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 14, 2011 | 9:29 a.m.

On alert:

Plan D people who were so rude to Mr. Dudley, Please do not arrive on my private home property with your paper to sign for his drummed-up recall. I, for one, have better things to do with my time than entertain rude people, and so I don't.

I not only support Mr. Dudley, but you folks can know, as of this post, that I will vote for him, not against.

Please take your aggressive shouting-down elsewhere. Lack of manners is not tolerated at our address.

Thank you.

This is a happy, peaceful home and we keep it that way. People are safe from the games played by the rude here. Matter of record now.

:)

~Mrs. Delcia Crockett
1605 Highridge Circle

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis October 14, 2011 | 1:49 p.m.

Delcia, just call the police. You should not be subject to harassment in your home! Some people just think they can shove their ideals down your throat and you should swallow them. Not the case. Even if I do not agree with you I commend you for having the courage to stand up to the bullies! Don't be a robot think for yourself. I respect you for expressing your thoughts and viewpoints in a respectful way. I also like your open-mindedness and willingness to listen to others views even if they differ from your own. I would have thought that would have been a trait admired by more.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 14, 2011 | 11:51 p.m.

Thank you, Sally.

I have stood to them last May and then want nothing else to do with them. I do not want to speak to them, or them on my property, and the police have told them as much. They keep trying to draw me into a confrontation and use behavior that is where I do not want to even go and look like, in front of my family and friends. When I made my stand to them that I do not want anything else to do with them and why, there were only more accusations and more bully behavior and telling things that are just not true. Some people that have involved themselves in this, too, have records of breaking the law, but the other is just mentally unbalanced and a general troublemaker who calls the police trying to use the police to get everyone else in trouble. I think too much of the nice people who live around/near me to get them involved in shouting with this person in the street or to play into the remarks and aggressive behavior. I actually have very good advice from the police, and I cherish those words dearly in handling this, and I have been asked to something for the police, by one of the upper authority figures within the police staff, and I honor the privilege to do that request.

I think the strongest people are those who do not give in to emotions and just tell people that they do not want involved with them and what they are doing.

I have done that, and now I am following through on a request from the police.

Both things have made me very happy. I am my own person. I do not need anyone's approval, I just need to know that I have done the right thing, and now that is validated.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett October 14, 2011 | 11:59 p.m.

(Continued to Sally):
Today was my birthday, and I was given a lovely dinner, received lots of presents and cards from friends and loved ones. I do not have to get into the street and get into a shouting match with anyone to prove anything to anybody.

The police have helped me through, and now God has better things for me to do in my work and with my time than to play into a bully fest, or try to make someone who has broken the law think that I owe them a appearance, nor do we have to be "friends" or "liked" by anyone whose behavior we do not want to be part of, or do not approve of.

Who needs that?

These people will never be in my life again, try all they might. I have placed them out of it and I smile and am happy. Their behavior is their choice, not mine. We laugh and we enjoy our home and our family and our friends. No more of that rude and negative behavior around us or near us, because we have just not noticed it as being there anymore, so to us, it isn't. Good riddance. We smile and are very happy.

We have some of the nicest people in the world in our lives; we have no need for the liars, gossips or the bullies who think we have to look at them, because we are not - nor are we playing into that behavior.

We are not involving anyone else, and we appreciate the kind and the good of those who do think for themselves beyond this, so that we can peacefully communicate with them, if we choose to and they choose to. We respect their privacy and their manners about our privacy, as well.

We are so happy and we readily welcome the nice into our home. And that has nothing to do with the ones who have been so mean.

Neither do I want any part of the people who have been so mean to Mr. Dudley.

And, I do feel very well about calling the police and talking to them; they have made me comfortable in welcoming my calls - and trying to help with anything that should happen.

I am very happy that now I do not have to call them, but that the folks who are so into bad behavior are only shooting themselves in the feet - and they will have to shoot themselves or each other - because I am out of their range - though one of them did say, "I could just kill her" and another one plays games with the police - like doing something hoping to get called on then stop doing the thing when the police begin to come into view.

The thing is, I have learned, the police do their best work when no one sees them, and I do not have to call them, at all.

;)

Thanks for your suggestion/advice, and you are right on target.

Appreciated.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements