In general, I do not like to respond to critics who hide behind pseudonyms because it implicitly rewards intellectual cowardice. If a person doesn’t believe seriously enough in his/her position to attach his/her name to it, then I do not see any reason to spend my time responding to it.
That said, I cannot help but respond to a couple of points made by my two disguised critics yesterday:
Reader Misinterpreted Fact wrote:
Cory your post is a misinterpretation of many facts. 1. The RDA financials were put on the city’s website the day of release. Had you bothered to look you would have found them.
He or she thinks that I should have checked the city’s web site to find the RDA financials that my client had to sue to get. Bad criticism. click here to see the city’s web site on July 31 (the day the lawsuit was filed) where I should have been able to find the financials; there is no link for the FY 2003 or FY 2004 annual financial report. And click here to see the same web site today, where only the FY 2003 link is. In other words, the FY 2004 report still isn’t available.
Misinterpreted Fact had two other criticisms:
2. The RDA financials are compiled using the same controls as the city’s CAFR thus RDA financials had the same problems (and many restatements) that is why there release was delayed. Being a legally seperate entity has nothing to do with it and even if it did, lets not forget that our indicted council members also compose the RDA board. 3. The fact that there are very little terms to RDA debt is by design, because it provides the RDA flexibility in providing maximum redevelopment benefit to the community.
There is a troubling inconsistency in this critique. You rightly point out that the incompetent (my nicer term than “indicted”) City Council oversees the SDRA but then you praise the “flexibility” of no strings attached to SDRA debt. Am I the only one who thinks that we shouldn’t give incompetent (or indicted) decision-makers flexibility in spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money?
The criticism by reader Public Voice is mildly provocative.
I’m so sick of the MILITANT MINORITY that blogs and posts comments to this Cafe. They have a conspiracy theory for everything and criticize any attempt to improve a situation. They can’t govern, because with rare exception they can’t get elected to anything. So they challenge the entire system as in the pockets of power barons. Here’s a clue guys: the people decide and they’ve rejected the left-of-center ideas you spout.
He/she says that the “militant minority”— I don’t even know who that is, but for the record I don’t own a gun (though I do own two Swiss Army knives) — can’t govern because they can’t get elected. The implication is that those in the majority who get elected can govern. But who thinks that the majority, revered by Public Voice, is governing well? That was the point of my piece: a challenge to those in power. It’s too bad that Public Voice chose to attack the messenger instead of offering any sort of rebuttal to the message.
— CORY BRIGGS