Dayton Board of Ed votes 4-3 to donate taxes to GE/UD
To the school board members, my firm, The Next Wave, is not under contract to do PR for you, we’re working on process improvement and improving enrollment. But, had we been giving PR advice- and trying to help you prepare for any future levy, we would have recommended a few things:
- Legislation that arrives on your desk at the beginning of the meeting- that you haven’t had time to properly review is disrespectful to you, and to the community. It should always be tabled for public examination and review. You represent the community- and without opportunity for community input, you are neglecting your duties. I couldn’t find a required inspection period in Ohio Revised Code for legislation- but, I always believed there was a 48-hour period required- unless voted on as an emergency.
- A review of all previous TIF agreements that the Dayton Public Schools has been asked to sign off on over the last 20 years- with proof that these deals actually do provide “economic development.”
This shouldn’t be too difficult, since Ohio Revised Code requires a “Tax Incentive Review Council” which should include a designated appointee from your organization:
A The legislative authority of a county, township, or municipal corporation that grants an exemption from taxation under Chapter 725. or 1728. or under section 3735.67, 5709.28, 5709.40, 5709.41, 5709.62, 5709.63, 5709.632, 5709.73, or 5709.78 of the Revised Code shall create a tax incentive review council. The council shall consist of the following members:1 In the case of a municipal corporation eligible to designate a zone under section 5709.62 of the Revised Code, the chief executive officer or that officer’s designee; a member of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation, appointed by the president of the legislative authority or, if the chief executive officer of the municipal corporation is the president, appointed by the president pro tempore of the legislative authority; the county auditor or the county auditor’s designee; the chief financial officer of the municipal corporation or that officer’s designee; an individual appointed by the board of education of each city, local, exempted village, and joint vocational school district to which the instrument granting the exemption applies; and two members of the public appointed by the chief executive officer of the municipal corporation with the concurrence of the legislative authority. At least four members of the council shall be residents of the municipal corporation, and at least one of the two public members appointed by the chief executive officer shall be a minority. As used in division A1 of this section, a “minority” is an individual who is African-American, Hispanic, or Native American.
The vote, 4-3 in favor of corporate handouts to GE had the backing of county employee Joe Lacey- who was elected because he opposed the buying of the Reynolds HQ to become the DPS administration building. However, he seems to see no problem with giving up of millions of potential dollars to fund Dayton Public Schools and instead be directed to his alma mater, the University of Dayton, through this deal.
Voting Yes for the abatement with Mr. Lacey were board president Nancy Nearny, Sheila Taylor and Ron Lee. Voting No were Yvonne Isaacs, Stacy Thompson and newcomer Reverend William Schooler, who vowed to explore legal remedies to stop this deal. Schooler is the only one of the No votes facing re-election in November; Nearny and Taylor are also up for re-election.
The abatement to GE should make every single business in Dayton reconsider their property tax liabilities. While many small businesses have paid willingly to fund a school system that they perceive as failing, it seems that any new employer entering the community gets the option to redirect their share to benefit them. Imagine if I, decided to pay my property taxes to a neighborhood non-profit, Historic South Park, instead of paying them to support schools. Or better yet, I make my “payments in lieu of taxes” to my landlord, to thank him (me) for the restoration of a vacant building so I can get subsidized rent? (full disclosure, my building did get a tax abatement on improvements for a period of 12 or 15 years, but we still had to pay the value and increases on the original building during that period. The building was bought for $2,600 plus $2,400 in back taxes).
I wasn’t able to attend the full meeting, but was there for the final vote. When it came time for the roll-call vote, Mr. Lacey felt it necessary to become the mad parliamentarian, interrupting those who wanted to explain their vote when they made it- screaming for Madame President to cut them off- that discussion period was over- and that only a yes or no response was called for. I’ll try to find the link to the complete 3 hour+ debacle and post it.
UPDATE July 7. 6:30 PM: The video is online, http://dpstv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=9349ce9f41ed262552c71cf8aef00119 the voting begins at 2:5o or so, at 2:51:15 is when Mr. Lacey starts his screaming- while Yvonne Isaacs makes her justification, when Schooler does the same thing later- he speaks at a more normal tone. I was in the room- and I felt that he was screaming. [end update]
Also, I made a public records request for the full legislation as presented and passed. I will also post that for you to review. The Dayton City Commission is probably voting on this same TIF agreement tonight at their 6 p.m. meeting.
I’m interested to see what GE actually promised in writing in exchange for this deal. Guarantees of employment? Income tax generation? Actual hours of volunteer time in the schools.
If there had been time for citizen review, I could answer those questions, and you could ask more- before the vote.
a later thought The best economic development tool cities have: good schools. I wonder how many TIF agreements in Centerville, Kettering or Oakwood have been passed with total abatement- including the schools.
George Carlin had it right. You don’t own anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtgfzzwoyK4
David, what about the news today of the City paying $450,000 to UD for it’s research on sensor technology (via WDTN’s 5 things you need to know on 7/6/11). Why is everyone giving away everything to people who don’t care a bit for anything except money?
@SheilaO- I dunno- because the voters didn’t vote for me? I’ll need to find that link. And the next time the politicians ask for a tax increase…. remind them of all the money they gave away.
GE aside, any project with new construction and job creation is probably eligble for some kind of property tax abatement. This is not really new or different. Generally speaking, it’s one of the only ways that most urban cities can facilitate (or subsidize, if you prefer) new investment in their communities.
And yes, the TIRCs do exist in Ohio. Ask your County officials about them.
Strange that it was a split vote, since this project has been in the news for months. What’s up with that?
To claim that I was “screaming” is a pretty effeminate description. Does your perception of me color your description a bit much?
@Joe Lacey- I was a bit taken aback by your tone- and “screaming” would be an apt description- but, if you prefer “yelling” – I would be willing to change- however, now I think back- “screaching” might even be a better description- because your voice was breaking by my recollection. The reality is- asking Ms. Nearny- as Madam President, to rule over the board is a lesson in futility.
This board is a pretty diverse group. It’s actually refreshing to see some arguing- however, the tone that you were using was inappropriate- as was the volume.
I could care less about your sexual orientation- I was actually a pretty big supporter of you, but severely question your judgement on allowing this vote to take place in such a hurry over such an important issue. Doesn’t seem like the same Joe Lacey who railed against the purchase of the former Reynolds and Reynolds HQ. I’d guess this deal will about equal the amount the board “wasted” in your opinion on the HQ- as you just gave away to UD via GE.
If someone is speaking out of order as Ms. Isaacs was then someone has to raise their voice over hers to be heard and understood. My volume was louder than hers. There was no change in pitch. If you want to characterize me as some screaming queen then your description betrays more about your perception than you may be aware of.
@Joe Lacey- I never used the word “Queen” – you did.
I found your tone- and your attitude out of line. As to Roll Call only being yes- no- when you want to follow all the rules- you can be the ruler.
For instance- you either, by law, must leave the doors open- or – post a sign showing that a PUBLIC MEETING IS IN SESSION- and that ALL ARE WELCOME.
How about also making sure all items to be voted on are available to the public for inspection- before you vote.
There are all kinds of rules that one can bandy when handy- but, it doesn’t make up for your behavior.
Frankly- even trying to get something to follow the rules in this community is like herding cats. You should know that.
The fact that you agreed with me that the board should not have spent $20 million on a new admin building doesn’t demonstrate that you are ok with people.
The fact that you try to make me sound like Penelope Pitstop simply because disagree with me on an issue says a lot about your perspective.
I didn’t say that you said “queen”. I said that you were trying to characterize me as a screaming queen and I said that because you tried to claim that I was screaming and screaching when no the statement that I made at the board meeting could possibly meet any definitions of the words “scream” or “screach”. Your description of the event made no sense except as an attempt to charactarize me.
Roberts Rules, to be effective, are enforced on an “if there is no objection” basis. We do not need to enforce RRO all the time. I objected, which was my right, because the 2 hours of discussion that we had already been through was more than enough and members were going over material that they had previously addressed and discussion had previously been closed without objection from any member. That’s not out of line. “Out of line” assumes that I was the rule breaker. What rule did I break?
Correction.
The fact that you agreed with me that the board should not have spent $20 million on a new admin building doesn’t demonstrate that you are ok with gay people.
Maybe the Reverend voted no because that’s what Jesus would have done. General Electric is one of the world’s largest war profiteers, with a questionable history of dealings around the world that would make Lucifer blush.
Read this homies: http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=16
Perhaps he just has a problem with looking himself in the mirror, knowing that he would have forfeited money to help educate children, into the hands of a large cog in the military industrial complex?
Just sayin’
“…however, the tone that you were using was inappropriate…” – DE
“I found your tone- and your attitude out of line.” – DE
Joe Lacey – I really think you need to listen to David on this one. If there’s one area in which David’s gained a TON of experience over the last 25+ years, it’s the use of inappropriate tone of voice and out of line attitudes!!! He is truly the master in that arena.
I also don’t think the board should have spent $20M on a new admin building. The Beavercreek Board of Education probably wishes that they hadn’t spent millions on a fancy admin building several years ago either. Ever since they did that they’ve had a lot of trouble getting any levies to pass.
And, I’m OK with gay people.
I was raising a point of order. Ms. Isaacs refused to quit speaking so that I could explain the point of order to the President so in order to be understood I spoke over her.
@Joe Lacey- Despite the fact that the “Stonewall Democrats” of which your significant other was one time president- endorsed Clay Dixon over me-
I’m absolutely fine with gay people. I don’t think you are OK with them- you seem to think it’s a gay thing- trust me- I’ve seen lots of people screaming- and looking like morons.
The reality is – as Durpa Durr pointed out- you voted to hand over money that was for to educate poor black kids to General Electric. To me- that says you obviously think getting bent over is fine.
Leave your sexual preferences out of the discussion.
You just screwed the district for 30 years- I WILL not be backing you in your next run for office. Has nothing to do with who you have sex with- it’s about who you let screw the taxpayers.
OK, I have to laugh and comment. I do not interpret screaming as an effeminate adjective. Screaming fast, Screaming Eagles, Screaming for Help, Screaming PO’d etc. etc. Conversation just went:
DE: “Critical comment of Joe Lacey, using the adjective of screaming”
JL: ” You hate gay people”
DE: “Defining of critical comment”
JL: “Screaming = Queen and Queen is another negative connation representing your hate of gay people”
DE: “I supported you before”
JL:”you hate gay people”
Joe Lacey, clam down and stop playing the (gay) card.
The Stonewall Democrats didn’t exist when Clay Dixon ran for office.
Mr. Esrati, it is you who is bringing sexual orientation into this thread and not in a positive way. Your statements are written to appeal to those who hate gay people.
I don’t live in the city, and I am not familiar with Joe Lacey. I often find fault with David’s writing, and even a lot of his ideas, but I still enjoy reading his blog and other readers comments. I did not get from David’s post that Joe Lacey is homosexual. I only learned that from Joe Lacey. IMO, nothing is as deflecting as throwing out sexual orientation or race to avoid the real issue.
Joe, since you’re here, I’d be interested in hearing your substantive defense of your vote, in response to Mr. Esrati’s case against it. I think this would be quite a bit more interesting to most readers of this blog than a debate about the homophobic content (or lack thereof) in Mr. Esrati’s word choice.
Hmmm….if only we had a reasonable (though often wrong) homosexual person who usually read and posted at this site to arbitrate the dispute as to does “screaming” only occur from homosexual people or women. I have never wanted David L. to post as much as I do right now to get to the bottom of this.
To scream is to utter a loud, piercing cry, especially of pain, fear, anger or excitement. There is no exclusivity to gender or orientation.
Definition of screaming queen is a homosexual man who is so overtly camp as to drive everybody, including more moderate homosexuals to the brink of distraction.
Also, somebody whose gay persona is so patently overacted as to be ridiculous.
Me thinks heterosexuals and homosexuals alike can raise their voice to a level probably found on the Kinsey scale somewhere between yelling and screeching and safely not be confused for a screaming queen.
Shortwest,
You obviously hate gay people and are only saying this in defense of David’s (gay hating, written for gay hating appeal, blog).
And for the record, I’ve always said I was a bigot. I hate stupid people. But, I hate them all equally.
With his latest rant, about his screaming, I think Joe has joined that privileged category.
But, also, for the record- G-d must have loved stupid people- for he made so many of them.
Update: I’ve updated the post with this link to the video- you can judge for yourself:
Allison, “Homosexual” is the clinical term, and is used to pathologize gays and lesbians.
DJW, I have included my defense of this contract in previous posts. State tax law pits communities against each other for these development projects and opting out would mean opting out of any such development. It would do nothing to change the real problem which is state tax policy.
He did not scream and it was and is totally unfair to say that he did, when he obviously did not. Whether Lacey practiced good political manners is another debate. To say Mr. Lacey screamed makes one wonder if Mr. Esrati spent Army basic training with cotton stuffed in his ears because I’ve been screamed at plenty (especially during those influential 8-weeks I spent in Ft. Jackson, SC), and that was more like a chirp on the scale of real world screams that I’ve endured.
However, Mr. Lacey did commit the lead singer’s cardinal sin (which I’ve done plenty of times due to weak monitors): getting too close to the mic.
@David Sparks- as a fellow video professional, I’m sure you’ve normalized audio tracks to balance different speakers. Even iMovie has the function. I was in the room- I was surprised and taken aback when he started his whatever one wants to call it.
The point of this post wasn’t to discuss Screamin Joe- it was the fact that 4 of the “Stalwart Democrats” on the BOE all voted a tax break to one of the richest corporations in America- only because they believe that GE would pick up their toys and leave.
Blaming other communities on why companies don’t want to locate here is pathetic- esp. since the number one reason I know people don’t want to live in Dayton is the perception of our school system followed closely by perception of a higher crime rate.
Maybe if the school board focused more on instruction instead of how their tone of voice was described- we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
It was obvious that he was too close to the mic. Sound check 101. I’m sure it might have sounded even louder in person too, but it was clear from the clip that his voice had that muffled, but too close sound of someone’s lips resting atop of the mic. It was obviously louder than Ms. Issac’s, who was a proper six-inches away from the mic (at least). But it wasn’t delivered in any kind of overtly super dramatic way, other than perhaps perhaps a bit too bluntly for most.
I certainly may agree with the rest of your response. However, the screaming remark only served to distract from the real issue of your post, which is why the highlighting of superfluous dramatics so often fail to enlighten, but almost always achieve titillation. Here we are almost 30 responses into this, and we’re talking about an alleged scream, something completely irrelevant to children attending Dayton Public Schools.
To be fair, I also don’t think the clip portrays Mr. Lacey as screaming. According to my copy of Roberts though, Mr. Lacey should have called for a point of order and waited to be recognized by the chair rather than raising his voice and attempting to talk over Ms. Isaacs. It is the chair’s place to rule someone out of order. In my opinion, Ms. Isaacs and Mr. Lacey were both out of order in this clip.
Wow, neglect to check in on Esrati.com for a day or two and you miss a real cat fight.
I’ve just watched the relevant section of the posted video, and I have to say that I don’t think Joe was screaming. He certainly was speaking over Ms. Isaacs, but it didn’t seem like screaming at all to me.
However, I also don’t agree with Joe that screaming is something “effeminate.” Google returns about 4,200,00 results for the search phrase “He screamed” and only about 3,650,000 results for the phrase “She screamed.” Perhaps all the men Google has found screaming are queens?
And I don’t think David Esrati is at all homophobic. I know him and I know his girlfriend Teresa and they’re not afraid of us queers and in fact like us and support equal rights for us. Sure, I think David was mistaken in characterizing Joe’s speech as screaming, but I do not think at all that he did so with any thought whatsoever of Joe’s sexual orientation.
Joe’s insistence on a strict adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order during the vote was interesting. The board president seemed to have a point that Joe had in the past said more than just “yes” or “no” during prior votes. I’ve never attended a Dayton school board meeting, so I don’t know if she was right about Joe or if the Dayton school board always adheres strictly to parliamentary procedure, but I was reminded of another vote I watched recently, that of the New York State Senate on marriage equality, and the president of the Senate was a failure at keeping his colleagues to their allotted time frames — he let a real homophobe and idiot State Senator Ruben Diaz ramble on much longer than he should have (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/06/flashback-diaz-gets-smacked-down.html).
The board president didn’t say that I had in the past said more than just “yes” or “no” during prior votes. That was board member Thompson, interjecting without asking to be recognized by the president. I have never tried to interject debate or discussion while voting. I addressed the president and told her that I had a point of order.
I never called David a homophobe and I’ve never posted anything about his girlfriend. He does however use personal attacks when discussing issues and I don’t care how many google hits you get, describing a man as screaming when that man is in no danger or has no reason to scream is meant to belittle him. Little girls scream. Calling a man a screamer is an attempt at school yard bullying and it shouldn’t have to rise to the level of Ruben Diaz to call it out.
Esrati’s posting that I think “getting bent over is fine” is also designed to bring to mind images that people don’t like in part because some people don’t like gay people.
Joe, you’re being overly sensitive, although my saying that is probably not going to make you feel any less sensitive. Whether one agrees or disagrees with David E that you were screaming (I don’t), he’s factually correct that you “interrupt[ed] those who wanted to explain their vote when they made it” and that you had to raise your voice to do so. That’s not a personal attack but rather a statement of fact. “Mad parliamentarian” may be a bit ad hominem but only just a bit — there’s certainly room for debate as to whether people casting votes may explain their votes as they cast them. Back to my example from the New York State Senate — they do have rules in place expliciting allowing senators to make statements explaining their votes (although those rules include a two minute time limit, something that was repeatedly violated during the vote on marriage equality). The Dayton school board may not have those same rules, but I think reasonable people may disagree as to whether those casting votes should be allowed any time to explain their votes. Saying that “you obviously think getting bent over is fine” does not necessarily have to have a anti-gay intent. People use the somewhat distasteful metaphor of getting sodomized or raped as a way to say that a deal is unfair or one-sided. For an example of this metaphor being used in a situation in which the people being linked to getting bent over are not gay, see the article titled “Icelanders, For Some Reason, Not Interested in Getting Bent Over.”) You may think that David E specifically chose that metaphor knowing full well that you are gay and that he wanted to cast aspersions against you. I don’t give David E that much credit. I think he would have used that same metaphor even if you weren’t gay. Fighting anti-gay prejudice is a worthwhile activity, but there are times when we can be way too PC. If the most you can do to counter David E’s arguments criticizing your vote is to… Read more »
@David L au contraire mon ami- I chose “bent over” full well because of the metaphorical dual meaning. But, as I’ve said before I don’t care who Joe Lacey sleeps with.
I do care that he just screwed the kids in the district for 30 years for nothing in return other than a brand new shiny building for Jeff Immelt’s empire- and the people at UD- who were also the beneficiary’s of a bunch of other tax donations- grants etc-for this project to move forward.
Dayton operates under Robert’s Rules of Order and RRO doesn’t allow discussion or debate after discussion or debate has been closed. New York’s Senate apparently allows it.
Why should I tolerate any bullying? Tell the gay kid whose peers like to point out that he sounds funny that he’s being overly sensitive.
Telling a man you know to be gay “you obviously think getting bent over is fine” is not acceptable in discussion of an issue, but Esrati can say it because you don’t give him credit for understanding what he is saying?
Saying you were screaming is not bullying. Saying “hey fag, shut the fuck up” would be bullying.
Now obviously, since David E has admitted it, I was wrong about the “getting bent over” comment, although I still stand by my contention that it’s not always, or even usually, anti gay.
Not that any of this matters. You think you were gay bashed, you think Esrati is a homophobe, oops, you say you didn’t say that, but you do think he’s been acting in an anti-gay way, he thinks you were wrong on your vote, and he thinks you’re stupid, and you two are never going to kiss and make up. I think Esrati can be insensitive but I also think in this matter you’ve been overly sensitive. However, it’s not my battle, and I’m sure both you and Esrati and lead perfectly happy lives without each other’s approval.
The Dayton Daily News weighed in with this article today: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/ges-multimillion-dollar-tax-abatement-deal-goes-to-final-vote-this-week-1203898.html In it- apparently the district treasurer is pointed out to be giving the board faulty info: Lucas told school board members the district would be sacrificing $373,000 in property taxes for each of the first 15 years of the proposed TIF, then would receive $320,000 for each of the second 15 years. Lucas said those were city of Dayton estimates based on DPS getting 60 percent of standard property tax collections. But a Dayton Daily News analysis, confirmed by Montgomery County auditor’s office officials, shows DPS currently receives more than 65 percent of commercial property tax collections, meaning the schools would be giving up almost $406,000 each of the first 15 years, and would receive about $311,000 annually in the second 15 years under current distribution rates. Via the TIF agreement, the schools also waived any right to income tax sharing, which under TIF law can split income tax revenue in half between the city and the schools once a TIF project generates annual payroll of $1 million. Schooler is quoted: “Three years out, we’re going to go to this community and ask for a levy, and (now) we’re going to give away $6 million to a private institution and a nonprofit, and then say to this community, we did the best thing for you by giving away all our rights,” Schooler said. Thompson says: “I simply cannot see any measurable benefits even remotely competitive with the costs of this deal,” Thompson said. “We’re being asked to … sign off on an ordinance sacrificing millions, and I couldn’t get the promise of a tutoring program in writing.” And as to the law- and having to have a public inspection period before the legislation is voted on- I got an arcane answer from the State open government office: Thank you for contacting the office of the Auditor of State. Your inquiry of July 6th was forwarded to the Legal Division for review and a response. You are asking if there is a required review period between the time a school board approves… Read more »
“Saying you were screaming is not bullying. Saying ‘hey fag, shut the fuck up’ would be bullying.”
“Calling someone out for being effeminate is a way of being negative about them for being gay without actually having to fess up to actual full-blown homophobia because our society has a tacit understanding that effeminacy is just a euphemism for faggot.” Alan Cumming
David I don’t think that the threshhold you set up for what would be bullying would work under most bullying laws.
@Jow- I don’t really give a rats pa-toot about bullying, your gayness or the definition of screaming.
What’s more interesting is how you could vote on a deal that you didn’t have verified numbers on- and why the numbers your treasurer and the county auditors numbers don’t match.
Care to answer that?
Joe, I asked a coworker this morning, without giving any details, whether she thought saying “He screamed” would be calling someone effeminate, and she was surprised that I’d even ask that but that no, she didn’t think “screaming” was an effeminate trait.
Then I explained the circumstances, that you’d been described as having been screaming and that you’d taken offense at it. She was surprised. (She also, by the way, hadn’t realized you were gay, although she did know you were on the school board.)
So you’ve got a hurdle to get over, which is convincing people that “screaming” is A) effeminate and thus B) anti-gay when applied to a gay man. Good luck with that. (I guess it’s just part of my internalized self-loathing and self homophobia that I don’t get what you see to be obvious.)
School boards should make every effort to work harmoniously together and should find ways, whenever possible, to work through issues to find as much consensus as possible. Because of Ohio’s screwy laws concerning school finance, even very well run districts must consistently ask the public for additional funding. A 4-3 split on such an important issue ultimately undermines a district’s capacity to maintain public support.
In this post, Esrati is obviously taking aim at Joe Lacey, one of the four “yes” votes who denied the minority more time to consider this issue. Whether it accurate to characterize Lacey as “screaming” in protest when Yvonne Isaacs explained her vote, seems pretty unimportant. When I read the original post, I didn’t pick up any hint that Esrati was trying to demean Lacey in terms of some anti-gay bigotry. In these many comments, Lacey’s over the top protest at this imagined affront succeeded in turning the focus of Esrati’s main point — Lacey might have acted out of inappropriate motive. Esrati wrote:
If the majority was determined to approve this deal, it is hard to understand why they didn’t accommodate Yvonne Isaacs. In her comments, that Lacey interrupted, Ms Isaacs indicated that she would probably be a “yes” vote if she simply was given more time to think about the matter and more time to consult with others. A 5-2 vote would have been a much better way to pass this issue. What was the majority thinking?
The vote had already been postponed two weeks to allow Ms. Isaacs to study it. There was no reason to postpone again unless we wanted GE to walk.
If a gay coworker had asked me or my coworkers if it was ok for a guy to scream I’m sure we would all say that it was ok and that men should be free to express themselves any way they please even if they sould like little girls. That doesn’t mean that society believes that it’s ok for a grown man to scream.
He said that I screamed when I clearly did not scream. Esrati clearly intended it as an insult. And why is it an insult? Too loud? If that were true he would have used “yelling”. The insult is that grown men don’t scream over something like this.
@Joe Lacey- get over yourself and your gayness. My choice of adjectives to describe your outburst is so far from the point of this post- so immaterial- so unimportant- it shows that you are overly sensitive about your vote.
And- Yvonne didn’t have 2 weeks to study this- nor did you, the final language ended up on the dais at 6pm.
What are you trying to hide?
Joe Lacey,
Are you going to keep going? You must be some kind of fragile individual to go on and on about this. You should come over to my house and hear me scream when Shang Tsung kicks my ass……………. I guarantee you will no longer think of screaming as effeminate. Or go watch Braveheart. There is tons of guys screaming in that movie. I think you see things through a jaded lens. I question your ability to even understand the proper meaning of words, as you seem to define them in which ever manner makes you a victim. Not a healthy attitude Joe.
But, I do not like you because you think it is ok treat people differently under the law, albeit with law breaking laws. You must lack a certain amount of virtue and justice IMO. You proclaimed that you think the law is for sale, as you may very well be perceived as a benefactor of the proceeds. You may increase your social peer standing among your alma mater, it may gain you social favor. Who knows, but either way, you said it is ok for one particular group to circumvent the laws in place. Your reason………..fear. That if we do not let someone circumvent our laws, then they may not stick around. Just seems a little shady to me.
The final language added a couple of sentences that weren’t enforceable, no real change.
Joe Lacey, you write:
The rule that you broke, it seems to me, was the rule that says that if you want to be an effective member of a group, you should show grace and courtesy to fellow members in the group. Resentments build up and eventually can be the reason for a group’s ineffectiveness.
You’re not helping yourself with the board or with the public by coming across as discourteous. You weren’t “screaming” but you were using your mic to speak over Ms Isaacs. And for what purpose? What did it gain you? If the already long meeting was extended five more minutes, how could that matter?
Your attitude that because communities compete, the Dayton Board must automatically give every tax abatement request that comes down the pike, seems indefensible. Board members are elected to use their good judgment, not make automatic responses. To suppose that this GE/UD deal would be the best possible deal for Dayton Schools ignores the fact that this prime piece of real estate is without comparison to anything in Huber Heights or Centerville and as time goes on will only become more valuable.
Were any of the other “yes” votes alumni of UD?
Okay, with David Esrati’s having bullied Joe Lacey by calling him effeminate in so many words (well in just one word, really, the blatantly homophobic word “screaming”), it seems apropos to point out another recent case of straight white men bullying gay men by calling them effeminate. Mark Driscoll, pastor of Michigan megachurch Mars Hill, recently posted the following on his Facebook page:
Driscoll later removed that post, but not before enough people saw it to get upset. For example, see this post entitled “Mark Driscol is a bully. Stand up to him.“
David L– Driscoll is a serious piece of work. Before moving to Dayton I lived for the better part of the last decade a few blocks away from Driscoll’s flagship church in Seattle, and witnessed the distressingly and increasingly large hordes of hipsters filing into his services every Sunday morning (and clogging up my favorite neighborhood bar every Sunday afternoon). His theology obviously has significant appeal, even in one of the country’s theoretically most liberal and secular cities, but it’s utterly bizarre. It seems to attempt to blend three things: bog standard 21st century evangelical conservative christianity, a cartoonish sort of worship of NASCAR/”The Man Show”/frat boy masculinity, and neo-calvinism.
I went to a service once, on a drunken bar bet. I was prepared for a worldview very different than mine; I was not prepared for the sheer depth of misogyny he had to offer. The long, rambling sermon was all about how men have to be careful that women don’t thwart their ambition and drive–either through being gold-diggers, or through manipulating them to place too much emphasis on emasculating “family time” over various manly projects. I grew up in a church and still go with my parents and grandparents, and am very comfortable in those settings, but I couldn’t get out of MHC fast enough when it was over.
Pretty good backgrounder from the NY Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html
For a serious WTF reaction, look up his real time reaction to Ted Haggard being caught with a gay meth-dealing prostitute. His first impulse is to blame Haggard’s wife for being too fat.
djw, thanks for the comments on Driscoll (and for the correction that he’s in Seattle, not Michigan, which I should have known). Sounds like Driscoll is someone who’s consistently anti-women and anti-gay.
I wonder if Driscoll has ever endorsed marriage equality, as some other anti-gay politicians have done publicly–okay, somewhat publicly–in a comment buried on Esrati.com in which this other anti-gay politician to whom I refer says that he believes “Marriage is between two people. I don’t care what sex they are, or if they have sex.” A shame that someone who would endorse marriage equality would ruin it all by going on such a horrible anti-gay attack as we’ve witnessed on this page.