Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:57:48 -0500
From: Tom Glendinning
Subject: Subject: Ban The Bunky
I am glad to see that Bunkey’s opposition respects the first amendment so vigorously #:-o
“If he or his ghost writers had something valid to contribute for The Common Good, sure. But to keep hammering away with a single issue used as a tool for political revenge is wearisome…..Life is tough enough…..let’s limit the negativity here if we can…….ChainBreaker”
When the chatham coalition rants and floods the chatlist, media, blogs, surveys and polls everything is fine. Another point of view and the debate becomes limited to approved dictums.
I won’t bother to quote what political systems practiced this censorship, but Brer Adolph and Uncle Joe come to mind, however.
Best of all, it’s Chathamcentric.
Now, let’s talk property rights, business friendly policies, spending, jobs! These are topics of political vengeance? They effect all of us, especially in the neglected half of the county where just paying the tax bill is an onerous privilege. If proponents of the limited first amendment are for the Common Good, then, why are these issues important to the other half the county?
To my friend Lawrence London, the loss of forest land to development was happening long before Bunkey got here and will continue long after we are gone. Demands of population growth, employment in the Triangle, and the focus of Chatham to survive solely on residential development cast a die for the county’s future.
If our tax base had more industry, as it did when Moncure industries paid one-third of county taxes, we would have less residential sprawl, more jobs for residents, and a balanced tax base. But the ‘green’ proponents deny the logic of this argument. And what is sustainable anyway? To me, it means that which survives, not a designer
definition of what is supposed to be.
Pro Bono Publicorum