I appreciate good, passionate discourse. I know where Crompton is coming from: there are many that are EXTREMELY zealous about protecting the environment. But when talking about this ONE issue he got very agitated and literally pouted after his outburst, pushing the mic away. Really? Is that what we want on Council? And the vote went 5-2 in his favor.

It was VERY overdramatic, as only the British can adequately demonstrate.

Can someone explain to me how Wind Watts is going to pay for these trees? They stated $25K is available from Wind Watts in 2009 and up to $250K would be availabe in future years. How is this under-subscribed program generating that kind of "extra" revenue?

Herschel86, I'm with you - I'm still trying to figure out how WindWatts has any extra money in their funds to fund these trees to begin with, if, from what I understand, they're not at the break-even point in having the number of subscribers to pay for the program!

As they say, the devil is in the details. If WindWatts doesn't have the funds for this project, and since they approved it going forward, I would suspect to see WindWatts borrowing from either the utility fund or the general fund to pay for these trees.

To paraphrase Dr. Crompton, THAT would be so stupid, so irresponsible, so lacking of integrity like all the other public officials, that they refused to safeguard our future.

This is what 'at-large' council positions get you - politicians that represent nature, trees, the environment, etc. and not the people. The attitude becomes, 'give me your money and shut the %$#& up because I am smarter than you and working for the greater good'.

The other question begged is, why doesn't someone on the council stand up to krompton's bullying. He twice characterized those who would dare vote against his trees as stupid. When a bully hits you you have to hit him back twice as hard and twice as often.

quote:

---

And so, I go forward in my lifetime I'll get by before the catastrophe happens, before the apocalypse happens, but my grandchildren won't. And in 50 years time, Bethany will say to Sherwood, "Look at Grandad's journal. And on September 24th, 2009, look what he wrote: 'The city council declined to start the beginning of an urban forest which will be a carbon sink because they couldn't raise 5 or 10 thousand dollars.'"

---

There are at least two logical problems with Mr. Crompton's argument.

First, many experts have disputed the notion of man-made global warming. Some point out that the earth has actually cooled in recent years and that predictions from global warming alarmists like Al Gore are proving false. Therefore, Mr. Crompton's premises are uncertain at best, false at worst.

Second, this is a non sequitur. It does not follow that if the council approves the "urban forest" that the "apocalypse" (assuming it is coming in the first place) will be averted. At best, it would merely make it infinitesimally less likely.

Of course to have a steward of the public treasury announce that "economics is absolutely trivial" on ANY measure before the council is beyond troubling. This is environmental extremism at its worst.

quote:

---

public treasury announce that "economics is absolutely trivial"

---

THAT single comment was the most shocking. I can go along with a bumbling diatribe about how we need to play our part in protecting the environment, whatever... But to tell a sitting council they're a bunch of degenerates and state that money should play no part in this decision-making is preposterous. When/if it comes time for re-election, this will come back up.

You know, from reading these posts, it sounds to me like this Crompton person has a screw loose- maybe several. Maybe he has been sitting under two many trees and had too many acorns hit his skull.

It reminds me of a line from a classic tune:

"I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me..."

I watch his diatribe and was thinking, finally, the rest of the council is going to see this guy has a screw loose and vote him down...maybe even cause him to go off the deep end.

But no, he gets 5 to 2...heck, even the mayor reversed himself without so much as a word!

I suspect the mayor changed his vote because of the bond issues and restrictions on the use of the money. He asked if it could be used elsewhere and was told, "no".

The question I have is how is the city expecting income from WindWatts? $250,000 is a lot of money from a program that isn't pulling its own weight at the moment. Plus, all future phases of Crompton's Forest are going to be funded from WindWatts revenue. Since WindWatts is actually funded by regular electrical utility revenue isn't this just a way of obscuring the fact that it's going to come straight from our electrical utility bills?

I'm all for the trees but not if it means tanking the general fund or deceiving the public to fund the installation. Responsible stewardship requires that the city, like the rest of us, live within its means.

[This message has been edited by zbeagle (edited 9/29/2009 9:30p).]

Like BCS-Ag, I listened to the Crompton diatribe and was certain the other council members would realize what a buffoon he is and would, finally, show some leadership. While Massey and Lyles did, the other yahoos acquiesed. They are either spineless, very much out-of-touch, or both. I suspect both.


[This message has been edited by thebaldone (edited 10/1/2009 8:13a).]

Sometimes you can't see the forest for trees...

Of course the biggest logical problem with Crompton's rant was the ad hominem attacks on his fellow council members. He literally called them "stupid" if they didn't vote his way.

I don't know about you, but I want issues that come before the council to be decided on their merits, not by who shouts the loudest or who can cow the others into falling lockstep in line behind him.

This clip would make a great ad for his political opponent. "Crompton in his own words..."

Wow I feel like I'm a part of something huge here.

A handful of live oak trees in College Station Texas will save the entire planet from Armageddon.

Well, that is unless someone a few years from now cuts down the trees to build a rowboat to sail the Pacific ocean.

EDIT



[This message has been edited by qreply (edited 10/2/2009 12:17a).]

^
|
|
Awesomeness

Cromptons diatribe aside I don't think you can fault Maloneys logic.

You cant spend the money that was issued in a bond without incurring a fine and having to give the money back. The money was allocated in a bond, the project can go forward. I also agree that it will be several years before any serious maintenance will be incurred.

Now, Crompton's little fiction.... WOW. It is easy to garner support when you tug at the heartstrings. Where is the real proof that this is man made and if it is, where is the plan for man to turn it around since he is surely in control of something so monumental?

BTW Q, I love the pic

[This message has been edited by SparkyDClown (edited 10/2/2009 9:45a).]

But its in the top journals.

Good thing I can't read.

quote:

---

Cromptons diatribe aside I don't think you can fault Maloneys logic.

You cant spend the money that was issued in a bond without incurring a fine and having to give the money back. The money was allocated in a bond, the project can go forward. I also agree that it will be several years before any serious maintenance will be incurred.

---

I agree. The mayor's questions were on the mark and I believe he changed his vote based on the answers. There are lots of good reasons to do this: restrictions on the bond use, beautification, decrease sound pollution, and relatively low maintenance cost just to name a few.

Why in the world we had to go on the rowboat excursion and get a sermon on global warming is beyond me.

We're all dying in 2012 anyway...What's the point!

I was at church today and saw the state of the trees planted as part of the renovation of Church St. If you want to see an example of city tree planting, go by. I did not count, but I would estimate that half are dead! And, those were large, very expensive trees! Somedbody needs to investigate!

You should see the trees...or what's left of them...that the city planted along Bee Creek after the floodway mitigation project. Look especially behind the new scuba place next to the old KMart center. 90% of the trees or better have either died or been uprooted by rains / creek drainage. There are dozens of them in this condition.

quote:

---

Sometimes you can't see the forest for trees...

---

But there aren't any trees to hide the forest...

Wait...I'm confused.

quote:

---

But there aren't any trees to hide the forest...

Wait...I'm confused.

---

I was categorizing the logical errors in Crompton's rant (the trees) but missed the most glaring and obvious one - the ad hominem attack on his fellow council members voting in opposition (the forest).

Gotta vote folks! This joker got 65% of the vote while claiming to be a conservative.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But there aren't any trees to hide the forest...

Wait...I'm confused.

---

I was categorizing the logical errors in Crompton's rant (the trees) but missed the most glaring and obvious one - the ad hominem attack on his fellow council members voting in opposition (the forest).

---

What is even more astounding is that this joke of a man is not going to even stick around to see how his way of thinking is and will affect this community........it is my understanding that as soon as he is done with being a city council, he will pack his bags and leave?! I think he is moving back to England.

andyv94, sometimes that's a good thing because they don't have a personal agenda. See: Robert Gates. But having a park named after you kind of flies in the face of that.

"Three words: single member districts" -duffelpud

One word. Amen.

That should be the #1 requirement for everyone running for local office next time.

Then we can move on to term limits nationally.





[This message has been edited by davido (edited 10/12/2009 6:52p).]