Comment 60870

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted March 10, 2011 at 10:56:54 in reply to Comment 60863

I'd like to be positive about this but it just seems like another 11th hour utterance designed to act as a layer of Teflon should a plan assented to by council go awry – just as with his Pan Am Stadium/SJAM stance, it gives him an out while always making time for more studies and more consideration before moving forward with anything. That's not necessarily transformative – it's just a reiteration of the study-it-to-death-and-then-then-bring-in-the-consultants culture that has been a political tarpit since, well, you make the call.

Bob has been in City Hall since 2004 (the Port Authority being a notable part of his ward constituency) and in local talk radio long before that – long enough to have been apprised of the Randle Reef issue and the plans to resolve it, long enough to influence the course of events during due process. And yet he's only now voicing his concerns. His curious intellect may always be playing with ideas, but I don't know if he's overly quick to voice his thoughts; often enough, the opposite is true.

The optics are of course sub-optimal. What this kind of turn often resembles is political disengagement and/or disregard for protocol. ("It's never too late to hop in the time machine.") In this case, we're talking about an intensely divisive, organizationally complicated multi-stakeholder, tri-governmental solution involving intransigent corporate actors (that have, since this dialogue began in the early to mid 90s, been sold to international concerns). Ripping the scab off of a 16-year-old debate is a good way to ensure that we continue to enjoy the toxic legacy. The long-game stamina required to pull off the best case scenario is especially suspect when it is widely held that this is a single-term mayor.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools