Forum comments

The $150,000 for the bathrooms, the $1.8 million dollar gym, the losses in the state fund, the breakeven at the golf course, the obvious lies about the pool finances, the $75,000, no make that $80,000 no wait $89,000 a year rec director,etc. This poster has accurately captured some of my thoughts about the City Managers performance, or lack of it, over the past couple years. The Giglio incident was another example of poor judgement and the vetting process was nonexistent prior to the situation growing out of control. One could also add the CC fiasco and the 350k that disappearred there, etc. If elected, and the other Council members wanted to give Gym another chance to redeem himself, I could live with a brief period, say six months, where his performance would be closely monitored and supervised. A re-evaluation would be conducted at that point and some kind of decision made then. regarding mr Stiff, I am not demeaning any contributions he has made to our community in the past. I AM saying that if he WAS elected and had to vote on the new gym issues it could be seen as an obvious conflict of interest if he WAS one of the contractors, no? It is a potential conflict of interest because he isnt officially one of the subs YET. I am merely pointing out that fact. If he is for honesty, transparency and accountability in government, he will address that issue I am sure. For Best to say he believes that due diligence WAS done in deciding on a new gym is an incredulous statement! When, exactly, was the Pistorino option discussed and debated by the Council? I would like to know the exact date that happened so I can get the verbatim transcription, videotape, or CD of that meeting. To me, the best idea to come out of the Forum was the possibility of diverting traffic around the Circle and adding rumble strips to the incoming bridge entrance to slow down traffic. Local traffic only would be allowed to enter our business district, at 20 MPH, and the rest would be diverted around the Circle. It could allow customers for our businesses while protecting the pedestrians from fast traffic cutting thru downtown. It is not necessarily my idea but a synthesis and merger of the ideas presented last night. I would favor a further look at the possibilities in the form of a traffic analysis. Dr. Mel P. Johnson

commentary

The Gazette once again acts as a PR subsidiary of the City, regurgitating the questionable resume word for word, as if it was accurate and confirmed. I ask again, can a variance be requested for a building that doesnt even exist yet? Isnt there a conflict of interest if the Council that decided to build a new gym bill is also the ones deciding whether to grant a variance? When, if ever, is the Council going to do anything close to DUE DILIGENCE with regard to annexation? Perhaps pollution issues, mitigation fees, zoning questions, and the disposition of the FEC properties are not important to the other communities involved, but they ARE to MS residents. Why would we annex polluted properties? One multi-million dollar cleanup would wipe out ANY possible benefits we might receive. Only if the County would stipulate, in writing, that THEY would be responsible for any cleanups needed, would this part of annexation make ANY sense. Dr. Mel Johnson