The rules for this post are none-say whatever you like (leave Ruby alone).Why I am NOT voting for Matt C.:Fred Black has said we shouldn’t be talking about values in this election, but I think we should. For example, let’s take a look at Mr. Czajkowski’s values:He says he loves downtown Chapel Hill,But he has promised not to move the homeless shelter out of downtown.“unless there is a complete level of comfort that crime isn't an issue” – M Czajkowski, CH News 10/18/2009“which I don't think can be achieved." – M Czajkowski CHN 10/18/2009He wants to expand Chapel Hill’s commercial taxbase,But he opposes East54. CHN 2/18/2009He wants to make development easier,But he is critical of high-density developments like Greenbridge,Except that he supports Zinn’s high density development in a wildlife protection area.I am NOT voting forDeHart because I heard him say that he thought his children should be able to play in the road. This has been a pet peeve of mine since I was on the counciland I heard countless people justify some concern or the other based on their children playing in the road. I raised three kids on Cameron Ave. and RosemarySt. It never once occurred to me that they should be playing in the road. In response to a question about the rural buffer, it was clear that he didn't know what it is....I am NOT voting for Matt Pohlman because he wrote a letter to the editor of the CHN on August 16ththat said:” As a Chapel Hill citizen, it feels wrong for my tax dollars to support the campaign of a candidate that I may not support.” Imagine that-your tax dollars supporting something you don’t like……Do you really not get it? Czajkowski will say anything he needs to say in order to win. But on bottom, it is clear that Czajkowski, DeHart and Pohlman are in the pocket of real estate and development interests. Just look at who is supporting them. Just look how many realtors there are on DeHart’s recent petition. Why do you think that is?NOW GO VOTE!. just not for these three....
Issues:
Comments
Front page
How do I get there?Cam
by what you just did
by commenting on your own blog post. Which I believe you already knew. :)
Like getting to Carnegie Hall
...except it's patience instead of practice. ;-) Also, read this: http://www.orangepolitics.org/news/how-do-i-get-my-post-on-the-front-page Fortunately for you, the baby is napping right now and I'm able to check in and see what's going on here - who know for how long.
To the top?
How do I get there? ;)Cam
Why oh Why?
Cam says: "Fred Black has said we shouldn’t be talking about values in this election."Show me that's what I said because again, you have missed the whole point that I made. No surprise here, however.
You were unambiguous
You were unambiguous:http://orangepolitics.org/2009/09/those-values"Personally, I think it is a mistake for any one candidate for mayor to claim that they represent town "values." Not only does it come across as arrogant, but it could very well backfire with voters who just don't see the world as the candidate does."Also, at least one other commenter clearly interpretted your admonishment the same way: http://orangepolitics.org/2009/10/the-election-is-not-about-money#comment-10066"I agree with the "values" (sorry Fred) that Mr. Lister represents here . . ."
I guess
"represent" means something different to you than it does to me. Oh well again.
Oh
Did I say "Fred Black"?, I meant to say "Some citizens"Cam