City Commission candidate has questions about registry / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, February 21, 2007

February 21, 2007

City Commission candidate James Bush said Tuesday that he was "opposed to discrimination in any form," but had questions about a proposed domestic partnership registry in Lawrence.

"I do know the city has an ordinance that addresses discrimination in hiring practices," he said. "The questions I have in regard to this registry is what the economic impacts are from such a registry, and have these consequences been fully considered?"

Bush, the senior pastor at Lawrence's First Southern Baptist Church, made his comments Tuesday during an online chat at LJWorld.com.

On other topics, Bush said:

l He supports a 32nd Street alignment for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

"I believe it is a long-overdue transportation improvement that needs to happen," he said, later adding: "This is an example of how local government has to make decisions that provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people while doing the least amount of harm."

l He believes the planning process has been used improperly to stall development at the behest of vocal opponents.

"I don't like changing the rules in the middle of the game," he said. "I think that is what has led in a large part to a negative image of Lawrence by prospective business and industries looking to grow here."

l He advocates a new, expanded library in Lawrence - though he said he is unsure how to pay for the proposed $30 million construction and operating costs.

The primary election is Tuesday; the top six candidates will advance to the April 3 general election, where three will be chosen to take office.

Candidates Boog Highberger and Mike Dever will take questions online at 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. today, respectively. All other candidates are chatting throughout the week; the transcripts can be found at LJWorld.com.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

21 February 2007
at 5:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“”I don't like changing the rules in the middle of the game,” he said. “I think that is what has led in a large part to a negative image of Lawrence by prospective business and industries looking to grow here.”

The negative image has been created by some local developers who want nothing to get in their way. Wal-Mart is being met with much resistence throughout the USA because they do not like no for an answer. There have been no rejections since that I am aware of. There were more building permits issued in 2006 than in 2005 so how is that unfriendly?

Not only that high downtown rents and high dollar property costs are truly what is unfriendly to new business thus new jobs. Our local real estate industry is responsible for this unfriendly mechanism. High personal property taxes to pay for cost of community services only add fuel to the unfriendly fire again largely controlled by the real estate industry through inflated propety values.
21 February 2007
at 7:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“The questions I have in regard to this registry is what the economic impacts are from such a registry, and have these consequences been fully considered?”

What economic impacts is he talking about? Unless he can be really specific, then I'll just consider this code signaling to his religious-right base his intention to vote against it for strictly religious reasons.
21 February 2007
at 7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“I believe it is a long-overdue transportation improvement that needs to happen,” he said, later adding: “This is an example of how local government has to make decisions that provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people while doing the least amount of harm.”

More code words— translation— (white) people who commute are important, Indians and their land are not.
21 February 2007
at 7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

He believes the planning process has been used improperly to stall development at the behest of vocal opponents.

“I don't like changing the rules in the middle of the game,” he said. “I think that is what has led in a large part to a negative image of Lawrence by prospective business and industries looking to grow here.”
–––––––––––—
Is he talking about the Wal-Mart debacle in which his growth-addict predecessors abused the process in order to get it approved in the first place?

Are there other examples? Again, he needs to be specific, rather than throwing out unsupported generalities. Otherwise, this is just more code meaning he'll just rubberstamp whatever comes before him.
21 February 2007
at 10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

Bozo
The land you ref to was given by Haskell to Baker long ago. It was a field until it was turned into a man made wetlands. All of the games played over the years are stall tactics. I really have a hard time believing Haskell would have given up any sacred lands to Baker without researching it first…especially if they planned on flooding the area.

I jogged 31st Street six days a week from 1988 to 1990 and it was mostly a field until they redirected the water drainage.
21 February 2007
at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Demonstrating your willful ignorance again, eh, monkeywrench.
21 February 2007
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

Quite clear you have nothing in the factual data area again and only resort to name calling.

Having been a nature buff I can tell the differences in the early land formation of the late 80s and the current flooding which has started to move to the north side of 31 st Street toward Haskell campus.

Demonstrating on “false issues” is more up your alley Bozo.

21 February 2007
at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Quite clear you have nothing in the factual data area again and only resort to name calling.”

I didn't call any names. You exclude a good deal of very significant history in your account— history that as been recounted numerous time on these forums. Hence, “willful ignorance.”

If you don't like being called on it, don't practice it.
21 February 2007
at 1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

I have read the “accounts” that typically tend to be ruled out all the way back to the endangered “frog”. I actually had saved the original article I read about the controversy from the Kansan when I was at KU in the late 80s. I re-read it and just threw it away prior to my most recent move two months ago.

Where is that frog?

Where is the Burial Ground in the Wetlands?

Were you even old enough to read when this orignally started making the “papers” and not the blogs.
21 February 2007
at 1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I'm old enough to have experienced this controversy over this roadway from its inception, so I don't have the option of your willful ignorance.
21 February 2007
at 1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

So you could not read at this time and were only able to “experience” it.

New catch phrase for those who don't want to believe they took up arms for the claims that have been false concerning this issue.
21 February 2007
at 9:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Hey, Joel, why did you think you had a responsibility to reduce the hour long dialogue to a few seconds that misrepresented the entirety of the give-and-take? Why did your editor just not print the entire “chat” for those who do not read the online journal?