A Five Mile Circle Around The Courthouse To Be The City Limits, Really?
Is the city really in the process of annexing everything within a five mile circle of the Courthouse into the city?
There will be two Public Meetings, both on the same day to discuss this plan. The meetings are scheduled for 9 AM and 1 PM on 30 September 2014 in the Courthouse Annex Basement Conference Room. Anyone who wishes to speak must send a written request to the County Executive's Office. If acceptable to the County Executive they will be allowed to speak for three minutes.
There will be two Public Meetings, both on the same day to discuss this plan. The meetings are scheduled for 9 AM and 1 PM on 30 September 2014 in the Courthouse Annex Basement Conference Room. Anyone who wishes to speak must send a written request to the County Executive's Office. If acceptable to the County Executive they will be allowed to speak for three minutes.
If other public meetings held by the County Executive are an indication don't expect any answers or responses to your enquiries, only three minutes to express your views and ask your questions.
posted by Allen Barrett | 6:57 PM
181 Comments:
WAB - Go away! You are such a dumb ass and grand stander!
They are talking about the growth plan. This is related to, but not extending the city limits.
Drum roll please! Barrett's next victims: Jerry Bryant, Pat Miles and David Crane! He has qualifed to be a write-in candidate for alderman! Oh and add Hardin Franklin to his list, he qualifed for alderman too! Here we go again!
If you two (probably same one) had just ignored this you wouldn't look just like WAB.
Looks like someone possibly in the election office or on the election commission does not seem a fan of WAB.
And who said this blog does not break news? I have not seen the announcement of WAB's candidacy published by any other news sources so it is reasonable to believe the attacks on WAB are coming from the direction of the election office or commission.
The other explanation would be WAB has a stalker and spy near by. They have spied on his house and posted their findings on here before.
It would not surprise me to find out the enabler follows Barrett around. He has admitted to driving by his house to check on various topics from time to time. That man do have a problem.
When you go to buy a pair of pants you probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about washing and ironing them but eventually it comes around to washing and ironing.
I know that the Urban Growth Plan does not mean an immediate expansion of the city limits but it's the precursor for that expansion.
If there is no idea of expansion then why expand the current plan?
Here's a simple question for the 733 poster, Will the city limits be expanded in any direction if the Urban Growth Plan is expanded? Can that expansion of the city limits be done without an expansion of the Urban Growth Plan?
9:18 There is without question problems in the election office/election commission. Are you aware that in response to a request for records I was told in writing that they don't keep records including minutes of meetings, communications with other departments and records of what actions were taken in response to resolutions passed by the Election Committee or where the money came from to pay an attorney they hired.
On the question of breaking news, how much has anyone read in the paper or heard on the radio about the sexual harassment scandal at the 9-1-1 office. This is just one of many issues that have been ignored by the local media. To date they haven't even reported that there is an investigation taking place. Not even a hint of anything wrong at 9-1-1.
I wouldn't have even known about the 911 scandal if not for this blog. Maybe it's just me, but is that not a newsworthy event? Go figure.
Just call the election office they will tell you who has qualified. It's no secret! And I'm not part of that group!
8:43 Just wondering why you would call the election office to see has qualified.
Why do you think 8:50? A beetle-dung like him has to have some crap to start off with.
Why is the county involved in the city's 20 yr growth plan?
So Barrett opposes the growth if the city? Odd. Particularly when he harps that we need to attract better jobs, restaurants, and amenities. The population has to rise to achieve those things. Otherwise we become the "retirement community" he warns of.
To the 6:49 poster on 17 Sept. First, I am not opposed to growth and have been very supportive of things that would increase the growth of the county.
Please tell how increasing the city limits will "attract better jobs, restaurants and amenities"? It will not increase the population of the county by one single person but will force some in the county into the city with exactly the same distance to drive to town. The only thing that it will increase is the number of people paying taxes to the city.
So how does increasing the city limits add anything to anything but the city treasury?
WAB. You continue to show your arrogance and stupidity!
If any body believes just because the city of Pulaski increases its population will attract better jobs, restaurants, and amenities is the real idiot.
Wasn't it a few years ago if we widen the highways?
The best thing we could do to attract jobs here is fire Speer from the EDC job and replace Rackley and the other board members who have to be bought a free lunch to attend EDC meetings.
Another thing would be to stop harassing businesses they don't want because they can't personally profit from it, like Wilson Stevens and another business that is about to file suit against Pulaski.
CG, You continue to show your arrogance and stupidity!
Typical cg. Don't answer the question just try to get a jab in against Allen. There's your arrogance and stupidity folks.
No. Arrogance and stupidity are foaming off at the mouth (pen) withiout taking the time to gather the appropriate amount of information. Totally irresponsible and typical.
Come on David tells us about arrogance and stupidity.
What has Barrett put on here that shows arrogance or stupidity? Tell us all that the growth plan has nothing to do with the city limits. Come on David let us in on all that wisdom you think you have.
8:36 & 11:42 has to be the same person or one of them is acting like a parrot. You make a statement with no explanation or proof of any kind. Just posting "you continue to show your arrogance and stupidity" is as good as saying nothing.
Kinda like what you did in your post, right Dick? Pretty much what you do in all your posts. You are about the best at saying nothing on this blog.
And if you want to actually use your real name, I will address you better in person.
If you want this blog to be a useful site for news that's not reported in the newspaper (and there is definitely need for such a service) you need to change the comment policy so that commenters must identify themselves, even if it's with a nickname. As it stands now, it appears to be a number of insiders sniping at each other and I can't follow the comments. Thanks.
Great post Christina. You might have posters who would use a nickname, but there are several on here who will never use their real names. These are the ones who feel they can say anything, regardless of the facts, because they are hidden by a cloak of anonymity. Some of these same posters make personal and vindictive comments for the same reason. It's sad that some posters need parental supervision on here, but it's true.
7:37 And they are adults. What a shame.
"Urban Growth" comes when entrepreneurs & investors make calculated risks with private capital. Urban Inertia comes when bureaucrats enjoy their group hugs, wax eloquent at public meetings, spend the public's capital, & seek innovative means to stifle economic growth.
How about this - take a depressed area of town that needs revitalizing - mark it out at 1 square mile - and make it an enterprise zone. Make it free of all county/city tax free for 5 years, and advertise it so. Let investors do the work ... keep the EDC, county/city government completely out of it. Then watch good things happen. Won't happen though, because elected officials are more interested in talking about growth than actually allowing it too happen.
The only one talking about stifling growth is Barrett and his two supporters.
6:16 Please tell everyone how I have suggested "stifling" growth.
This is what I wrote on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:41:00 AM
"Please tell how increasing the city limits will "attract better jobs, restaurants and amenities"? It will not increase the population of the county by one single person but will force some in the county into the city with exactly the same distance to drive to town. The only thing that it will increase is the number of people paying taxes to the city.
So how does increasing the city limits add anything to anything but the city treasury?"
I ask you the same question again, "How will increasing the city limits actually benefit Giles County? The only benefit I can see is that the city will reap more taxes from those forced into the city limits. So please enlighten me.
I would challenge you and the city leaders to examine the post of G.S. Stowe and why that would not be an idea that would actually provide the growth only spoken of in empty promises to date.
WAB - Your knoledge of city and county government, and your ability to lead are purely smoke and mirrors.
knowledge. Sorry for the typo.
Are you saying that the city services are not worth what is paid in taxes? Police protection, fire protection, lower insurance rates and water and sewer are just some of the benefits for living in the city. In addition, stores, restaurants and entertainment opportunities come with a larger city population.
This growth plan was done by request, because potential owners want to be located in the city.
Further, property owners in the county can not be annexed without requesting or agreeing.
Do some research before spouting off.
So the last time the city annexed property you say everyone brought into the city agreed to come in? Sue there are benefits to be in the city but you got people in the city right now that don't have those benefits.ask the people on hillside.WAB is right on this.
10:12,
Your opinion is not fact. There are many people who use to live in the county because they got sick of the b.s. that goes on in Pulaski. There are others who hate Pulaski and have no desire to be annexed into it.
If you want to build the population, you allow the people to locate and develop the businesses they want as opposed to what the ones in power want them to have.
So falsely propping up your population by expanding your territory so you can say Pulaski is really growing is B.S. It will just be a bigger area people want to move out of.
If the leaders in Pulaski and the ones acting as gatekeepers to industry had been doing their jobs the last twenty years and not been trying to turn this into a retirement town their would be natural growth instead of a need to pad the numbers.
Last time it was we will not see growth until we have better access to the interstate now it is expanding the urban growth plan.
And no the city services are not worth what you pay in taxes and a lot of people in the county agree.
The best idea I have seen with minimal impact to city and county residents to spawn the growth you need was Stowe's enterprise zone. But outside the box thinking does not belong in Pulaski and Giles County.
11:52 - You my friend, don't know what you are talking about!
I hope Stowe is not commenting on this blog, because if it really is him, he will lose all credibility with the voters.
What has WAB ever really done to improve the community?
If you want some background info on the state law governing annexation, look up "Growth Policy, Annexation, and Incorporation Under Public Chapter 1101 of 1998: A Guide for Community Leaders" on the Internet.
Also, there should be a corresponding map in the court house which shows the boundaries for the "urban growth" areas and the FAR (Forrestry, agriculture and Residential Area.) There are 3 categories of land classifications with only the 2 being utilized in Giles Countqy. Under this law there is allowed a "planned growth" classification, but it was not utilized by our "community leaders" when they drew up the map. The FAR classification basically is a taking of property value. FAR property cannot be subdivided for residential purposes. FAR property cannot be utilized (preserved) for any use other than agriculture, forests, recreational or wildlife management. All land outside city boundaries are in the FAR.
This is my understanding unless changes have occurred since this law was originally implemented.
Heard of Agenda 21? This is it. You may thank AlGore and others of his ilk for this.
I remain amazed at how misguided and misinformed some of you are. 11:52 and 2:08 have not a clue.
Damn cg, your all for saying that someone is wrong or doesn't know what they're are talking about, yet you never show why you say this is so. You should never talk about credibility as you don't know the meaning of the word.
I'll make it simple. Name one person who has ever been annexed into the city without asking to be. You can't because it has never happened. And then recognize that no one can be annexed without their consent and you will then see how useless, albeit inflammatory, this thread is.
So what you are saying is there is no need to expand the urban growth area 4:14? I agree with you.
And the citizens time should not be wasted with public hearings when the decision has already been made to expand it? I agree with you as well.
If everyone is so full of BS then why is it that no one will say what that BS is and why.
4:14 is a damn liar if he says no one has ever been annexed into the city against their will, I was. They took my home on Vales Mill into the city against my will and they took my property on Bennet Drive into the city against my will so don't be spreading the lie that they don't take nothing unless the people agree to it.
What about that cg? You gonna call that poster a liar or what? Just another example of something you "know for a fact" being completely false.
Yes. He is a liar.
Wasn't the control of land within a 5 mile radius of Pulaski for subdivision control implemented in the 1970's? Wasn't there a huge outcry against this action from those whose property would be effected? Any local historian know the facts on this?
I know there was a tremendous amount of discord, sorrow, etc. when school consolidation took place in the 70's. Some of you may remember that several schools just happened to burn down around that time. I may have my timelines mixed up. Would appreciate any input from someone who knows. CG, that would leave you out.
Should have consolidated 50 years ago
I take it, 9:14, that you attended GCHS? The schools and the communities in the rest of the county be damned?
Lol. We can't hire one chemistry teacher and you would want to try to find 6? Yes. That makes a lot of sense.
I wonder how it is that homeschooled kids are doing so well with testing, behavior, real knowledge, etc. Must be from from consolidation of schools and those highly educated teachers that are required to teach the tests forced to conform all minds to government thought. No ability to think just repeat. The more government is involved the worse things get, the more distance between the decision makers and the enforcers the more out of touch the education system becomes. I was a teacher before I got fed up with not being able to actually teach, so don't come back saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
I just want to see highly qualified math and science teachers in our schools. Sorry if that goal touched a nerve with a disgruntled former teacher.
Not disgruntled just faced reality 8:07. The problem isn't in just getting good teachers but allowing them to actually teach. I also want highly qualified teachers in every position at school.
I asked about homeschoolers because they are far outshining public school systems and it's primarily because they are actually being taught instead of indoctrinated.
8:07 So you are saying the teachers teaching Math and Science aren't qualified. If they aren't why didn't the Directors try to get them?
What a shame.
Are you dense 10:15? Nowhere did I say that teachers teaching math and science were not highly qualified.
What I said was that teachers are not allowed to actually teach only indoctrinate because of government interference and mandates. The more qualified and dedicated the teacher the more frustrated they become. I'm afraid that it's attitudes like yours that continue to hold students back.
Friday, September 19, 2014 2:08:00 PM did you actually mean that "FAR" stands for "Forestry, Agriculture and Recreational", instead of "Forrestry, agriculture and Residential Area"?
And, Saturday, September 20, 2014 10:45:00 AM, what you said regarding government interference of our teaching professionals is oh so true.
I was reading that under Chapter 1101 a referendum would be required for land classified as rural before it could be annexed. If Giles county is subdivided only in categories, Rural and urban growth, then it may be that all the land outside any city limits is classified rural. Someone may want to find the map. Dan Speer should know something about it since he was mayor at the time this law was implemented.
10:45
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I just want to see highly qualified math and science teachers in our schools. Sorry if that goal touched a nerve with a disgruntled former teacher.
Saturday, September 20, 2014 8:07:00 AM
Sounded like you thought the ones we have aren't qualified.
I'm not a teacher nor mind reader, just concerned about my child.
Your attitude is the one that is bad. Read the above post, you didn't say in it what you said in 10:45.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if WAB won an alderman seat in the City of Pulaski?
I'm voting for him just to see what would happen if ever gets elected to any office in Giles County.
Come on everybody let's vote him in!
I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher for fear of a rabies outbreak.
I'm voting for him. Imagine what would have happened if WAB would have been on the council when the council knowingly passed the un-constitutional pseudoephedrine ordinance. I bet the law would have been considered instead of what the Mayor and a few members of the city council wanted.
I noticed in the newspaper they were trying to cover for the council and stated the state made the ordinance illegal after the city council enacted the ordinance which in itself is a lie. I thought the paper had a duty to report the truth. I guess it is the area we live in that the local government controls what is in the paper. That is one of the reasons they hate WAB. He feels the citizens should know the truth.
11:28 Excellent post.
The excellent post is mistaken and not accurate.
WAB put a letter from MTAS, the people the city pays for advice, that plainly stated the city did not have the authority to pass a ban on pseudo ephedrine. Not a single authority said it was legal to pass the ordinance but they did it anyway and therein lies the problem, no regard for the law when it conflicts with what they want.
Why is cg so against WAB and always making negative comments?
Think WAb his CG and his buddies number and tells on them?
The meth promoters certainly do.
So by promoting the city council should act within their authority(a.k.a. the law) and uphold their oath of office you have twisted that is some how tied to the promotion of meth. A very twisted person you are and I hope you are not an elected or appointed representative of our local governments. Very dangerous to have authoritarians like you in our government.
Why can Pulaski and the Giles County Sheriff's department not find ways to combat the problem within their authority. If what they were doing is not working then react or take a different approach to the problem but within the scope of the granted authority.
The actions of the city council show the lack of respect for the people they are supposed to serve.
I'm not. But thank goodness you aren't either.
Let's get down to brass tax regarding the pseudoephedrine conversation that is transpiring. Do you honestly think that the City Attorney would allow the council to vote the law into place if it was in any way a violation of an outstanding law? More importantly are you familiar with surfing? What the council was stating to the citizens that it owes everything to is that Meth does not belong in Giles County or the city of Pulaski. The council had a right to protect Giles County and took whatever steps it needed to take in order to do that. The reason the council took the steps it did in regards to the state is the fact that the Attorney General made a decision that the state needed to regulate this as a whole versus leaving it up to the different cities and counties. At the same time, if you are a tax payer in the city of Pulaski then follow this. At the end of this year the Federal Funds for Meth clean up will run out and had the council not acted to repeal the ban and abide by the state then it could have simply left the city holding the bag for any property that was deemed a meth lab, if a landlord or owner felt the need not to claim the property, and buy it back and then pay for the clean up. Ultimately hurting who??? The tax payers. My suggestion would be is to deep dive into what you are writing, get educated, and maybe come to a council meeting sometime and see what COUNCILMEN and WOMEN are voting for.
Nice post 7:42. I am totally confident that the city is represented well, that the city makes sound decisions and that the city is financially strong.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
If people are willing to trade their freedoms for the illusion of no meth labs they are fools. There is currently a town in New Jersey where the city council is considering an ordinance that would allow a police office to enter any home that they "think" may be allowing underage drinking... without a warrant.
Should underage drinking be stopped of course just as meth labs need to be stopped, doctor shopping, abuse of prescription drugs, illegal drugs and hundreds of other things THAT already are against the law but how many freedoms are you willing to give up to achieve such a thing? If police were able to simply follow every move known drug dealers make they could catch them a lot quicker. If the military were called in to make a house to house search all the illegal drugs and massive prescription stockpiles could be found and destroyed.
The problem is that we are a nation, or at least once upon a time, of laws and not of convenience. Anyone who takes an oath to uphold those laws are obligated to follow the laws of the state and the nation. The problem with the ordinance passed by the city council, was not just in conflict with the state that could be debated, it was in direct violation of federal law that gives control of drug distribution to the FDA. Try reading TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I - CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Good intentions should be commended but those intentions must follow the law to avoid being over burdensome to citizens and abusive in nature.
Hoover has before. It is on record. The ordinance had to be changed. It was in the news a short time ago.
I am not familiar to how "surfing" is relevant. On the other hand show me written statistics showing the ordinance reduced smurfing. Show me the numbers where it reduced the number of meth arrests and meth production.
And no they are not allowed to take actions outside the written powers granted to them by the citizens for any reason. That is in violation of their oath of office.
And the Attorney General's Opinion did not change anything. It supported the MTAS opinion that warned Municipalities not to take such actions because it was specifically a power not granted to municipalities by T.C.A.
The city council decided to leave the ordinance until after the General Assembly met in hopes they would make pseudo-ephedrine available by prescription. They didn't.
That is all part of public record and reported in the news.
Actually you are wrong. The state Attorney General disagreed with MTAS. The legislature's action became law in July.
7:42! If the city and county are so eagar to protect themselves and their citizens, why don't they make it a dry county? They can do that legally. Look how much money that cost with DUI's and medical expenses.
So exactly how much does it cost in DUI's and medical expenses.
There you go spouting off at the mouth again.
Why don't the city and county ban all fast food? That would potentially make us all healtier.
And better yet, let's raise the minimum wage in the county to $20.00 per hour. Then we would all be earning a decent living.....except a lot of businesses would have to change their way of doing business.
9:33 You sound like a spoiled little baby!
Thank You 8:41 / 10:16. It is not an easy task trying to get someone to see something other than own opinion after they have suspended reality. You did an excellent job of showing the facts of the matter.
I have found facts and the laws are not what our city council base their actions that effect the citizens and taxpayers.
Our city officials have represented the constituents well. Our city manager has done a very good job managing the city's business.
If you think otherwise, you are just looking for stirring and causing trouble.
No one is going to bat 1000. In this particular instance, the city was asked by local law enforecement to help. Several other cities had passed ordinances. When the state said that the city had overstepped their authority, the city corrected it on the books.
In my experience, the city officials try to do the right thing.
Sept 23, 10:00. Nice statement. Anyone can make an off of the wall statement.
A little evidence or support would add credibility.
The psuedo orinance is not a good example.
11:03
You just can not tell the truth. It is part of the public record and you have been proven wrong so why are you still trying to promote the lies? Are you a council member? The law reads as it did in 2013 they did not have the authority in the first place. Two opinions supporting the law stating municipalities did not have the authority were issued in 2013. The city took the stance they were just opinions and the state did not know what they were talking about and left the ordinance on the books until after the General Assembly met. That was reported on WKSR. Then when the state did not pass legislation the way the city had predicted they changed the ordinance for fear of being sued for trying to enforce the ordinance. Are you going to try to make the public believe it takes over 7 months to strike the unconstitutional ordinance from the books? Nice try. You earn the title enabler.
It seems to me the city council should try a little harder to do what is right.
What is your point?
Can you not read?
It seems to me the city council should try a little harder to do what is right.
And you do not think that they do? Idiot!
Have you ever heard of verdicts and/or judges decisons getting reversed? It's the same thing.
Move on. You made your point. Many, many others disagree. Move on!
Wasn't it reported in the news that it was illegal to issue beer permits on public property? I think the Chief of Police was quoted in an article it was in violation of state law. Didn't Andy Hoover sign off on that ordinance?
Didn't a couple of beer permits get issued and beer distributed on public property?
I may be wrong but wasn't it reported in the news that way. Didn't they have to amend the ordinance to make it compliant with state law.
It is not unusual for the newspaper to report incorrectly, however, a beer permit can not be issued on public property. I'm not aware of any that have been.
3:15 you're kidding right. You don't remember the beer bust on the square a few years ago even Bud sent their horses and wagon. They were even in the courthouse drinking. they also had beer on the square at other times. Guess selective memory is as good as just denial of facts.
You are on a constant barrage to find fault. That was several years ago. At the time, it was discussed this event occured, it was understood that this was leagal. Since then, it has been understood that the permits can only be issued on private property.
Continue your losing battle and your losing ways. I'm sure that you and your family are happy and productive.
4:13,
No your wrong again. I was just stating the truth. Can I not be a concerned citizen. Sorry it hurts you so much but the city council has rules and procedures to follow. T.C.A § 57-5-105 read in 2009 as it does now.
(g) (1) Temporary beer licenses or permits not to exceed thirty (30) days' duration may be issued at the request of the applicant upon the same conditions governing permanent permits. Such a temporary license or permit shall not allow the sale, storage or manufacture of beer on publicly owned property.
(2) Notwithstanding the prohibition concerning beer sales on publicly owned property in this subsection (g), in Class B counties and counties having a population in excess of three hundred thousand (300,000), according to the 2000 federal census or any subsequent federal census a temporary permit authorizing the sale of beer on public property may be issued to a bona fide charitable or nonprofit or political organization as defined in § 57-4-102, subject to the approval of the appropriate governmental authority charged with the management of such publicly owned property and the approval of the county beer board.
Maybe you can answer this for me? Does the city have the authority to grant beer permits to entities of the city, such councils, committees, boards, associations or any agency of the municipality in which it has funded? Bicentennial Committee and the recent issuance of the beer permit to the Chamber of Commerce.
You know way more than I know!
And you judge way better too!
6:28,
But you were such an authority earlier today and you sure did lay down judgment in your 1:31 and 4:13 posts. Did the facts change your mind or are you going to try find a way to enable the city councils unconstitutional actions?
I'm glad you do admit you were posting about things you know nothing about. That is a step in the right direction any way. Notice in a previous post you said "why don't you come to a meeting" not go to a meeting and I also saw you did not post during the city council meeting today. You posted right before it and right after but not during, wander why, hmmmm?
Spreading a little propaganda before a meeting. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but it appears nowhere.
I just think that you should know that the city or the county can pass any law that they choose. Those laws can be challenged and upheld.
You supposed knowledge of what is going on is decent at best, but you do not know as much as you think!
Very interesting to know that the city council can pass anything they want without regard to the legality of what they pass. Didn't the members take an oath to uphold the law? Sounds like they have chosen to ignore the law in favor of what ever the hell suits them on a particular day, and they wonder why the place isn't growing.
The point is, that any group can choose to act on any item that they choose to act on. For example, the county commission gave a beer permit that was not within the stated limits.
According to you, the city should not have acted on the pseudoephedrine ordinance. They both passed. Neither were challenged. They probably could have been.
Is this stifling growth, or is this blog and the negative people on it?
Goodnight!
You really should educate yourself enabler. The county gave a beer permit to a person in violation of the distance requirements and then went back and changed the distance requirements after the fact so the permit would then be legal. I agree other businesses distributing beer should have sued the county especially if that stores beer sales impact negatively the sales of beer in any stores in close proximity.
So if you don't get caught then it is legal? You really do know your law don't you?
Good night enabler.
To 9.44 it was Vansant who did the beer permit.
It needed two thirds to pass but it tied and she used her tie break to make it pass and cleared the screen before we could read it had failed. Plus she called the store and told them to apply today for the beer permit. Henson at our next meeting said we could not change it as we would have a law suite. Well we should have and the truth would have come out.
If calling me, or anyone else an enabler makes you feel better, I'm very proud for you!
If you think that coming on this blog and griping, or that by calling someone an enabler makes you any better, you are misguided.
If you a such an un-enabler, you will quit calling names, and quit calling WAB and asking him to do your dirty work for you, and get out and do something about it yourself.
Bottom line, this country is set up where representatives have majority rule.
7:05,
You really should know what you are talking about before you spout off. You have time and time again been caught plain out lying and making statements you have no clue as to the facts. Your 7:05 post just shows more proof you will spout off and make unsubstantiated comments to try to belittle people. You have always done it on this blog but you are always quick to defend the ones who cause the most harm to the majority of the citizens because you are one of them with your enabling ways. That is why I refer to you as an enabler. Facts play no part in separating right from wrong in your little world, but friendships, family relations and Good Ole Boy associations do.
And from your statement I know you know absolutely nothing about me.
Now as far as your boy Andy Hoover, a short time will tell if he has in fact complied with the scope of his appointment. More than enough proof has been shown he will sign of on ordinance in conflict with state law and the constitutions.
This blog is a forum for entertainment, not facts! If you believe otherwise, then you are misled!
My boy Hoover? That is funny. And no mention of Hensen or Speer? You think that you are onto something, but you are not! And you can't handle the truth.
I have to say when you post I will agree there are no facts presented and I read your posts merely for amusement 9:48. But I guess people get mighty pissed off when there entertainment steps all over their toes and is the first and often only to inform the citizens of news the elected and appointed are trying to hide. EDC/IDB lawsuit comes to mind. Speaking of Speer, how much did he and the EDC/IDB cost the taxpayers in legal fees and settlements for their wrongful actions? 9 million? Are we still paying a mortgage to First National Bank with no asset attached? You have so many facts and are on the inside track with the Good Oily Boys so why don't you enlighten us with your facts so we all can get a good laugh at the only amusement on this blog.
This blog is only viewed by a handful of people. As for facts, if the radio and newpaper did a better job of reporting, we would all be better informed, don't you think?
I laugh at your comment about being one of the good ole boys. Nothing could be further from fact!
Hey you two. A lot of people don't have a computer, but they ask the ones who do, "What's on the blog?"
So it gets around. I usually answer, "a lot of BS and the one claims to be a Christian Gentleman is still whining."
If T.C.A § 57-5-105 reads:
(g) (1) Temporary beer licenses or permits not to exceed thirty (30) days' duration may be issued at the request of the applicant upon the same conditions governing permanent permits. Such a temporary license or permit shall not allow the sale, storage or manufacture of beer on publicly owned property.
and
P.M.C. 8-216 paragraph (2) reads:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer will be issued for any place of business located on the public square of Pulaski, or within an area of one block on all sides thereof, unless the applicant for such permit operates a restaurant meeting the following criteria:
(1) Having adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment and a seating capacity for at least fifty (50) persons at tables,
(2) Serving one (1) meal a day at least five (5) days a week with the exception of holidays and the serving of meals shall be the principal business conducted,
(3) Deriving at least fifty percent (50%) of its gross revenue from food sales,
(4) No outdoor sign, advertisement or display that advertises beer may be erected or maintained on the property nor in the window of the permit holder, and
(5) On or before January 1 of each year, the permit holder shall furnish the City Recorder of the City of Pulaski a certified breakdown of all revenue derived from the sale of food, the sale of beer and the sale of alcoholic beverages, respectively. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the board of mayor and aldermen may demand such receipts be furnished to the city recorder more frequently.
How did they legally issue the temporary permits for the courthouse lawn when none of the conditions were followed?
Aren't distance requirements to be adhered when issuing temp beer permits as well?
Just Wandering.
If Temp permits are "not to exceed thirty (30) days' duration", how is P.M.C. 8-228(2) compliant? Last time I checked there were 365 days in a year and not 30. I guess it's some of that dang gone new fangled math I wouldn't understand.
Temporary permits.
(2) A multiple event permit. A multiple event permit may be issued for a fixed number of events during a calendar year. The exact dates and locations of each event must be approved by the beer board at the time of issuance of the permit, or if exact dates are not known at the time of permit issuance, subsequent approval at a future beer board meeting must be obtained prior to the event.
Just wandering
You Democrats are nuts.
The point is that the city and county do as they please and the law be damned. With an attitude of lawlessness in the leadership how can the people be expected to respect the law or that leadership.
To 11:pm---- Why didn't you run for office and get this lawlessness cleaned up ?
I agree with 11:31. It's majority rule. Run. If you are capable of getting elected, your vote can be cast.
Lawless? Ha!
If T.C.A § 57-5-105 reads:
(g) (1) Temporary beer licenses or permits not to exceed thirty (30) days' duration may be issued at the request of the applicant upon the same conditions governing permanent permits.
And P.M.C. 8-228. Temporary permits reads
(d) A temporary permit holder shall not be subject to the annual privilege tax or application fee of § 8-210 of the municipal code. There is hereby imposed an application fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for applying for a temporary permit and all other provisions of § 8-210 governing the issuance of a permit shall apply.
P.M.C.8-210. Application for retail permit; requirements as to applicants; regulations to be followed and shown in the application-
(5) The City of Pulaski, prior to its consideration of an application to
engage in the sale of beer under this section for consumption for on or off
premises, shall collect an application fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for use in offsetting the expenses of investigating the applicant. Regardless of whether an application is approved or denied, any portion of the fee collected in excess of that actually used in investigation shall become the property of the City of Pulaski at the end of each calendar year, to be used at the discretion of the governing body, and the city shall not require periodic renewal of beer permits or licenses in conformity with § 57-5-108, Tennessee Code Annotated.
(6) Privilege tax. There is hereby imposed on the business of selling,
distributing, storing or manufacturing beer an annual privilege tax of one hundred dollars ($100.00)
How can this be in compliance with state law? It doesn't look like the temp permits are issued under "the same conditions as the permanent, does it? Maybe this is what Colby Baddour meant in his interview in the Citizen when he said the board had passed some well intended exceptions to the beer ordinance. Who wrote the temporary beer permit ordinance in the first place? Was it Mr. Budweiser himself Colby Baddour? And how did the city attorney let something so glaringly in conflict with state law get his seal of approval? Hmmm.
Just wandering
Well that's the problem Mr. Baddour using "well intended exceptions" that only benefit a small group of favored friends and supporters instead of applying the law equally to everyone.
No one is going to be elected to the city council with out the endorsement of Dan Speer.
12:46. Those are two of the least thought out, most inaccurate, jealous statements that I have ever heard.
I'm not a Dan Speer fan either, but he has little influence on the council and the voters, and Mr. Baddour's "well intended" exceptions went through a committee and the entire council with the blessings of some anti-alcohol citizens.
The negativity and the small minds on this blog continues!
It don't matter how they went through the fact is they went through and did not matter that they were illegal, outside the power of the city's authority.
You may think Speer no longer has power but you are wrong to many of his appointees are still in important positions.
2:22,
I can only assume you refer to the Bicentennial Committee.
Who were the anti-alcohol members,
*Karen Spivey (in charge of beer distribution and Colby Baddour's boss at the time)
*Dan Speer(Mayor)don't think so
*Brenda Speer(the Mayor's wife)don't think so
*Joe Fowlkes (been to keg parties at his place so don't think so)
*Preston Murrey( don't think so)
*Grant Vosburgh( see him playing in establishments serving beer and liquor)
or one of the following-
*Bill Dunavant
*Judy Pruett
*Steve Lake
*Margaret Liles
*Carolyn Thompson
*Maxie Trotter
*Cathy Wood
*Janet Vanzant
*George Newman
*Jenny Hobbs
*Tim Turner
and I have seen some of those people drink as well.
Maybe the anti-alcohol people were on the City Council?
Dan Speer
Colby Baddour
Charles Jenkins
Chuck Paysinger
Vickie Harwell
Pike Gentry
Pat Miles
Don't think so they voted unanimously for the ordinance.
Maybe it was their legal advisers,
Andy Hoover
Terry Harrison
Don't think so.
So basically if you get the right people with the right influence on a committee that has nothing to do with making laws then they have the influence to have special "well intended exceptions" to state laws and the constitutions passed?
Just wandering
There you go again spitting off irrelevant fact to fool some of the sheep into believing that you actually know what you are talking about.
The well intended exceptions were to the recent changes in the local beer sales, not the bicentenial committee several years ago.
You can foam off all you want with your twenty or so friends. You will virtually always be in the minority. Get used to it.
More than one or two friends. LOL
I believe the election with Mrs. Vanzant only winning by 146 votes and most people not wanting her has changed your mine about how many friends a little bit.
I'm talking about all of the Sheep. Even Manson had blind followers, like WAB.
7:31,
First I apologize for the error I made in my previous post. You are right there were no "well intended exceptions" to the beer ordinances.
But maybe you can help clear up the poor reporting by Paul Manke in the Feb 11, 2014 issue of the Pulaski Citizen containing an interview with Colby, after the beer ordinance committee revised the ordinances to supposedly make them compliant with state law .
"A lot of things government does do not make sense, he said, and the revised beer ordinance may have cleared up some things.
Well meaning exemptions to the city beer ordinance granted by city councils in past years have led to inconsistencies in the application of the beer ordinance."(notice past years not recent years)
Are you claiming the temporary beer permit ordinance Colby drafted in 2009 so his employer could distribute beer on public property through a committee established by the city and county was not a "well meaning exemption"?
And are you claiming the temporary beer permit rules were compliant with state law? If so why did they have to be changed?
And what recent "well intended exception" were you referring?
Just wandering
The well meaning exemptions were the distance requirements (from parks, churches, cemetarys, schools, etc) in order to get a permit. These distance requirements are what is currently on record for the City of Pulaski. It has nothing to do with temporary permits. That belongs to the State.
12:49,
Your vagueness leaves much to question. And I do not feel you are correct in your statement.
If all state laws are applicable to municipal corporations, unless specifically expressed otherwise, and the powers granted to the municipal corporation are granted from the state, do not all ordinances belong to the state? And if the state law specifically states the temporary permits are to be issued under the same conditions as permanent permits and the city does not enforce those conditions set out in their ordinance for permanent applicants, including distance requirements from "schools, churches, or other places of public gathering", how is it not an "exemption", "well meaning" or otherwise?
If the law is followed shouldn't the temp permittee be subject to the $250 application fee and the $100 privilege tax as is a condition of the permanent permittee?
If the law is followed shouldn't they be subject to the restaurant restrictions as is a condition of permanent permittee doing business on the square?
If the law is followed shouldn't the temp applicant be subject to the same distance requirement for distributing the same product as is a requirement by the state and city of the permanent applicant?
If T.C.A. states beer permits can not be issued within the distance requirement of schools, churches, and other places of public gathering set by the city but the city does not enforce the requirement in the issuance of the temp permits, as has been the case with all temp permits that have been issued in Pulaski, how is that not an exemption to general law?
If T.C.A § 57-5-105 reads:
(g) (1) Temporary beer licenses or permits not to exceed thirty (30) days' duration may be issued at the request of the applicant upon the same conditions governing permanent permits.
and P.M.C.8-228 reads:
Temporary permits. Temporary beer permits may be issued to nonprofit applicants at the request of an applicant upon the same terms and conditions governing permanent permits.
How is that not discriminatory and an exemption to general law?
How is this not unfair competition practices against those competing and distributing the same product? Especially when the city is making the rules so they may be the only ones to benefit from these well meaning exemptions?
But obviously you were referring to something else so please be specific.
Just wandering
"I kiss 'em and I love 'em 'cause to me they're all the same
I hug 'em and I squeeze 'em they don't even know my name
They call me the wanderer
Yeah, the wanderer
I roam around, around, around"
Perhaps you have been meaning "just wondering".
BEER !!!!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=asylum+street+spankers+music&FORM=VIRE6#view=detail&mid=10E708AFA5558CA78CFB10E708AFA5558CA78CFB
Maybe the "well meaning exemption" to the beer distance requirement was the ordinance which allows grocery stores with 5000 sq ft of retail space to distribute and advertise beer zero feet from churches, schools and other places of public gathering.
Didn't that ordinance violate the distance requirement in itself and allow them to distribute beer zero feet from a public park and to hang beer signs so members of the First Baptist Church would have to look at them. This is not allowed of other businesses distributing the same product.
Why was this business allowed and Ritchie Rose was forbid to invest over a million dollars to improve a property and create 25-30 much needed jobs? Could it be there were no members of the council that attended First Baptist Church when the ordinance was passed and there were members of the council who attend the First Presbyterian Church when Rose wished to develop the property? Doesn't seem like the council is playing by the same rules when it comes to their religious establishment?
8:55, I do wonder why you try to change the subject when such a short time ago you were an authority. Maybe you can enlighten us. Or will you just try to change the subject again? Then again maybe you should just continue repeating old song lyrics. Then again, I guess you should stick with what you know.
(cont)
Just wandering
You are way off base again, and again.
You should probably ask Mr. Baddour or someone on the committee what was meant by "well meaning exceptions" because you obviously do not know.
Furthermore, Richie Rose was not forbidden to invest anything. He never pursued it.
I laugh at you and your attempt to try to impress the few readers on this blog.
5:03 and 12:24 Neither one of you impressed me.
Was the "well meaning exemption" when the city council disregarded the states distance requirement from places of public gathering and issued the beer permit to the Rusty Spur?
Just wandering
Where did you come up with the idea that the state set distance requirements?
What about unsavory jack's beer license passed by the aldermen that were giver free food!!! Is it still open?
Why have distance requirements to sell beer in the first place? How stupid.
Are you sure that Savory Jack's didn't get their alcohol license from the State?
The city council made a "well meaning exemption" to the law. I wonder if they would have done the "well meaning exemption" to the beer ordinance had Savory Jack's been situated across the street from the First United Methodist Church? True Faith does not have any members who sit on the council.
Just wandering
You are continueing to show your ignorance!
Nope he is just "wandering".
"wander": 1. to ramble without a definite purpose or objective; roam, rove, or stray;
2. to go aimlessly, indirectly, or casually; meander.
3. to deviate in conduct, belief, etc.; err; go astray.
He was right. I was wrong. He IS just wandering.
Why are beer sales restricted and distance requirements mandated in the first place?
Because those who are Church of Christ and Baptist are more righteous than us. They don't drink; at least not in the town where they sleep.
2:54, is that anything like what you are doing? "Continueing?" My damn fool, you really have to have your house in order before you talk about someone else's.
Other than the fact that I did not run spell check, and had an e in continuing, I meant what I said! You are continuing to show your ignorance.
Didn't this get turned into a grammar and English lesson by you 3:06?
Did I get mad when you made an uneducated guess to what I meant when signing wandering? No.
Did I show instances where the city council has acted in the interest of their churches as opposed to theirs similarly situated? Yes.
Did you try to change the subject when I posted the laws to support my statements? Yes.
Did you get so mad you attacked me and made a grammatical error that someone else called you on because they see your hypocrisy? Yes.
Have I signed all the posts I have made on this thread Just wandering or (cont) the Just wandering to show the previous post was mine? yes.
I wonder why you act in the defensive manner as you do and make accusations you could not possibly know to be true?
Just wandering
I had nothing to do with the term "wander". That was another poster.
You are jumping to too many conclusions, which is one of your major faults!
None of these posts make me angry. I find it quite humorous to see the different ways people can be led, and the way different people think.
One thing I did notice in your comments below are that you made six statements about what you think you know, and you responded incorrectly to all six of them. How do you defend that?
Didn't this get turned into a grammar and English lesson by you 3:06? Wrong!
Did I get mad when you made an uneducated guess to what I meant when signing wandering? No. Wrong!
Did I show instances where the city council has acted in the interest of their churches as opposed to theirs similarly situated? Yes. Totally wrong!
Did you try to change the subject when I posted the laws to support my statements? Yes. Totally wrong!
Did you get so mad you attacked me and made a grammatical error that someone else called you on because they see your hypocrisy? Yes. Laughable and wrong!
Have I signed all the posts I have made on this thread Just wandering or (cont) the Just wandering to show the previous post was mine? yes. I doubt it.
I wonder why you act in the defensive manner as you do and make accusations you could not possibly know to be true? Because you don't know.
Just wandering
Please don't sign posts using my moniker 3:59. I have always known you to be a liar and now you support my 3:24 statement with the 3:59 statement. I don't care to argue the points already posted earlier that show the council has acted in one way when their churches were at stake and acted another when churches were at stake there were no members of the council.
Answer this since you are in a question answering mood. Does the city have the right to pass ordinances that are arbitrary, discriminatory, and supersede the state laws and constitutions?
Just wandering
Itty bitty children posting.
Once again, Just wandering is wrong again. I would like to know if Just wandering will ever be right??
I cut and pasted your post. I did not sign.
I like how you mis spelled "wondering" and covered it up by calling it a clever name!
I wonder why you are so afraid to answer this little question? I will post it again.
Does the city have the right to pass ordinances that are arbitrary, discriminatory, and supersede the state laws and constitutions?
And in regards to your post, "I would like to know if Just wandering will ever be right??" We will both have the answer to that question from someone who matters shortly.
Just wandering
I usually do not get onto people for lack of education and proper grammar, but since you are such a know it all 6:43 how do you spell "mis spelled" correctly? Since your terrible spelling is not caused from anger it must be lack of education. Wouldn't you agree?
Just wandering
You must be right....for once.
Jenkins wants the five mile before he leaves office and the other alderman will vote for this for him!! Our city taxes will go up so please call our alderman and ask them to vote NO.
Please explain how our city taxes will go up.
Red Solo cup
I fill you up
Let's have a party
Let's have a party....
That is beautiful!
Of course our taxes will go up. There's no way the taxes paid by the people being annexed can possibly cover the cost of the services that will be provided them if they are in the city limits.
Hey Just Wandering, I think it was quite nice of you not to point out 6:43's redundant use of "again" at the end of his first sentence. No need for you to rub salt into the idiot's wound. I, on the other hand, have no problem with that. Peace.
6:43, you dumbass you. You did not simply cut and paste. You used Just wandering's post as a template and added to it. Why were you too stupid, if you were going to do that, not to sign your pathetic name? You would benefit from a class in grammar as you screwed up your 3:06 comment as well. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
I'm pretty sure that you just embarrassed yourself!
Get a life!!
My my dumbass, that certainly was an original comment. Did you stay up very long thinking of that? You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just cutting and pasting, but I guess you were too stupid to think of that.
And you think that you are adding to the conversation with your comments??
I'm sure that your mother and you are proud of you!
At least they are original and not just rewrites of other posts. I guess, with your obvious lack of intelligence, that's the best you can do. Be patient, I hear they are making great advances in brain transplants.
Whoa! That was deeeeeeep! And original!
While the subject of the five mile circle around the courthouse got a little confusing it has not completely gone away.
The recent idea to annex a small area into the county was an appropriate action under the circumstance but the idea of turning creating a circle that extends for five miles in every direction from the courthouse has not met its demise and very well may be brought back soon.
What's your point?
Ding-a-ling, I thought it was to let us know the 5 mile deal hasn't completely gone away.
As it shouldn't!
Hey WAB, I thought the concept was the city annexing small parts of the county, not vice versa as you state in your 8:05 AM post?
How does this urban growth plan affect the permitting of liquor by the drink permits? Does the city have to annex the property in the urban growth plan or will properties in the urban growth plan area be able to be permitted liquor by the drink permits?
And will the county or city issue beer permits in the urban growth plan area if extended?
What we need is Alderman from different areas of the City.
At present we have four that are selfish, arrogant and do not represent the people. We need someone from the north end of town.
Actually we have 7 Aldermen who are selfish and only represent specific interests. I do not think the location of a person is as much a factor as who can take an oath and care enough about it to keep it.
Don't we have a 7th district commissioner from the north end of town who has a hard time keeping her oath?
You guys are a joke! I don't know too many commissioners or aldermen that I would consider selfish and represent self interests. These folks donate a lot of time and effort to the commuity.
Any decent elected official has a core set of beliefs. And they should vote according to those beliefs.
What a joke 7:50. They should vote according to the law and uphold their oath.
And what do you contribute?
I can ask you the same.
I am not the one calling names and making accusations.
I thought the commissioner's responsibility was to vote the way their constituents wanted them to. There are few that do anything but follow their own agenda. Once they get elected, they seem to think the voters are too stupid to know what's best for them. Try calling them and see how many have time for you.
Well that is where you and I strongly differ. There are many times where the constituents do not have all of the information to make an informed decision, and I would never expect a representative to vote against something that he/she feels strongly about. If you don't like the way they vote, then vote them out!
How will a commissioner ever know how ALL of their constituents want them to vote??
One more thought. If it were the case that the commissioners were required to vote the way their constituents wanted, why would we need more than one commissioner per district?
Looks like Commissioner Harwell found out how they felt about him in the last election.
8:03, they might start by answering the phone when their constituents call. You are right though, they can't vote as all want them to but they could take the voter's opinion into consideration. Very few do that as we don't know shit from shinola as far as they are concerned.
And that, folks, is just the way it is.
7:27 most of the voters in Giles County (and most of America for that matter) are too stupid to know what is best for them, after all, ignorance is bliss. An ignorant population is easier to control than an informed one. It requires knowledge to rise above the dumb-masses. To gain knowledge requires effort. The people around here are too lazy and stupid to gain knowledge on their own. They rely on the hearsay they obtain from their imam at their local mosque. You all need to continue to vote the same old same old. Be satisfied. Relax. Think Monday Night Football, high school athletics, comfort foods like corn bread and beans, catfish and hush puppies, Barbeque, You know comfort - foods. Let it be easy on you. Us Democrats are in charge. We got your back ......
Slowly...
Slowly...
Catchy monkey.
God Bless Amerika.
I hope you understood your post cause I'm reasonably sure no one else did. Nice try though.
5:06 it seems that you understood 2:03's post. There's not a lot of people around here that can recognize sarcasm.
As you probably know there are none so blind as those who refuse to open their eyes in order to see.
5:06 is so typical of exactly what 2:03 was talking about. People who are content with what they don't know will always be dumber than they think.
Post a Comment
<< Home