Must be some Browns fans in League City
Published March 25, 2011 There is an election coming up, so you can expect some hyperbole. But the notion that something has gone fundamentally wrong with government in League City in the past two years — that things are getting worse at city hall, rather than better — is a view that has lost touch with reality.
Today, people in La Marque are in the same position that people in League City were in two years ago. There have been so many miscues in the handling of its public affairs that it’s hard to keep track.
It’s that way in Galveston County because it’s that way in life. In any classroom, some kid gets the highest grades and some kid gets the lowest. On the athletic field, one team ends up in first place and someone must finish last.
The idea that municipal government in League City was somehow a model before some fundamental changes in the past two years is astonishing — in the same way that a claim that the St. Louis Browns were the most successful baseball franchise of all time would be astonishing.
In early 2008, League City was, without a doubt, the most colorful, most outrageous source of political entertainment in the county. It wasn’t a close call.
An editorial in The Daily News, published April 30, 2008, put it this way:
“The workings of city government in League City often have been bewildering.
“For years, people pointed to Galveston’s city hall as an endless source of amusement. But League City’s decision to oust one garbage contractor in favor of another — and the way it awarded the bid — could only have happened in League City.
“That action would have failed the smell test in Galveston. It would have been unthinkable in Texas City.
“If that were the only example, voters could write it off as an unusual lapse in judgment. But League City’s list of examples of questionable dealings is long. Of the major cities in Galveston County, it has the shakiest administration at the top.”
Since then, municipal government in League City hasn’t reached perfection but it has come a long way.
Of course, it’s an election year. People are going to peddle nonsense. It doesn’t mean you have to buy it.
17 comments:
you know, that anti-current admin site looks pretty slick. This is not the work of a lone wolf, obviously an orchestrated campaign by someone with an axe to grind.
Amen!
What? The appellate court sent the Glen Cove bridge case back to Galveston again (where it should have been heard in the first place)? So the case is NOT dead? You mean Glen Cove did NOT "lose" their case?
Oh my. What will The Hallisey Fallacy have to say now? Oh Patty Melt, where art thou? Here, Patty, Patty. Come out and play. What great words of wisdom do you have for us today, Pat? Inquiring minds want to know. What's a'matter, Pat? Cat got yer tongue?
I invite everyone to join me at League City Vote 2011 since that seems to be the "new Place to be". Let's be thorns in the side of the hucksters.
Did I mention our old friend Joe has been there as well...
I've been asking myself why a website would be called Leaguecityvote2011 when it doesn't outwardly endorse any candidate(s). Then I realized that there are emerging similarities between the most recent post on that website regarding our new form of city government and the platform of one particular council candidate. Those views were published on March 22 in Galveston Daily News.
Hmmmm.
This would also explain the shadow domain registration.
Interestingly enough, some of my posts (not all), or should I say challenging questions, submitted have since been removed from the LCV website. Obviously the host believes in censorship.
Operating in the cloud...censorship...trumped up accusations. They need to be outed, and I say "they" because I now believe there is an alliance between 2 candidates.
Out 'em!
Just 2?
well, well, well it seems that someone has turned the tables, nice try BHL but if I remember correctly this site started it all, how does that medicine taste?
Joe,
When did Chris delete posts simply because he disagreed with what was said.
I'm not bothered by my posts being deleted. (You must have me confused for someone else.) It only indicts the LCV2011 host and his claim of seeking to make things transparent.
I like how Centerpointe Mod said it on his blog. The host is either dumb or deceptive. I believe the 2nd option is in order until proven wrong.
Who knew "mechanical designer" was code for "advertising"?
From LCV "UPDATE: The League City WatchDog Community welcomes all communications under the “comments section” of this website. We invite anyone to submit city documents which counter the presently posted documents (See items below). The League City WatchDogs will gladly remove or add additional documents to the website. "
This is a boldfaced lie. I have posted and those posts have been deleted. Do not say you welcome all communications and then promptly delete communications. If the host disagrees with the positions I state, then he should simply refute me and let the viewers of the website decide which of the two opposing statements makes the most sense.
@BHL, Centerpointe Mod is a she, not a he, but thank you! On the subject of outing, I asked a friend in politics about options there, and this is what was said: Apparently some of the material on LCV derived from open records requests. So the way to potentially narrow down the list of suspects is to make an open records request for a list of all open records requests. Looking at the recipients, their cohorts, their retrievals, and the corresponding timeframes might bear fruit. But that would take more time and energy than the average working person would care to devote to it. I dunno - like I said, I don't get into that scene. I just get PO'd same as the rest of you when my intelligence is insulted in the name of "democracy".
ok Centerpointe, here is a question for you. IF the info was provided by open records meaning they just put the facts on there, why do you care to find out who's behind the site? SO you can threaten them? exactly.
Joe,
Do you believe that if someone states they are for transparency that they should not be deleting posts challenging their positions, provided that such posts are not vulgar?
And if such person does take action contrary to their stated position, that their desire to remain anonymous should be held suspect, and that it may be in the interest of the people to have some idea as to who the individual is and whether or not they have some undisclosed agenda or connections to the current slate of candidates?
Post a Comment