| Author | Post |
|---|
greydog
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1252 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:10 pm |
|
| I dont know, the developers name has appeared in many a local news article and in the minutes of the city council. I'm not sure it is such a big deal to print his name here, but we'll see if the thread gets pulled..........I would say, if he starts to get really bashed, trashed and called names, then its out of here............
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
Prediction - now that the developer's name is just about printed outright, watch a complaint be filed, and the whole thread pulled.
But it's perfectly ok to malign other people like some of our elected and appointed officials.
God bless,
Pete
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 03:56 pm |
|
I have been told the owner of the building, who I have never seen, has the same surname as, the Obama financial adviser, Larry summers.
Some say there is a physical resemblance.
This begs the question are they related.
That would possibly explain the governors interest.
Does anyone have any information, Pro or Con, on this quetion?
|
CAPT WINKY
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:44 pm |
|
Farmer wrote: Downtown looks 10x better today than 5 years ago. That's a fact.
Is that because of all the trashy buildings that burnt down or what, or maybe thats because you can't see it from your house?Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:45 pm by CAPT WINKY
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:22 pm |
|
| Downtown looks 10x better today than 5 years ago. That's a fact.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 12:30 pm |
|
Lochness and Leaning Left -- pitifully twisted on your part.
4GNC - Great post. Keep up the good work.
God bless,
Pete
|
LeaningLeft
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3645 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 12:20 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: Wonderfully negative, 4GNC. Thank you. Keep it up. Whatever you're doing is certainly helping Cambridge to move forward.
Isnt he great? He would set a perfect example for youngsters of the world. Pick, pick, pick, pick.
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:21 am |
|
Wonderfully negative, 4GNC. Thank you. Keep it up. Whatever you're doing is certainly helping Cambridge to move forward.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:55 am |
|
Main Street I am sure as an organization is good. But who polices Main Street? MainStreet has become so intertwined into City and now County and state politics, that it is more of a political organization, watching over their own property and businesses. Voting, MainStreet Board members, have no business as City council people. Up until recently the council member voted on everything in the City that dealt with Main St. I have noticed recently that he seems to be abstaining, not sure why all of the sudden. This can also be said for the ex-efficio board member of Main street that sits on the Liquor board, and is a County Council member.
The sign in the Window of a prominent MainStreet board member, and developer that holds stake in numerous downtown buildings, craftily tells people who to vote out, and who to leave in. This has no place in an organization with 501 C3 status. How can Mainstreet use Government money (tax payers money) and involve themselves in politics? The sign may not be directly from MainStreet, but it certainly IS the sentiment of Main Street, and we all know it.
As you can see, If the group stopped being about politics, and more about solving the real problems in town many folks might no be so skeptical. Cambridge can barely support the Restaurants it currently has, much less add more. If more are added, those that already exist lose customers. The Mexican Restuarant is gone already. Jimmy and Sooks replaced The Cambridge Grill, the restaurant behind Hardees is gone. A more comprehensive plan for downtown might work if many other aspects are included, especially Rt 50. If not, sorry to say, downtown will never be any more than it already is, or less. We are not Easton, we are not St. Michael's. this is Cambridge. We must find what works for us. The current path is just plain not working.The problem is, as Mainstreet continues it's folly and enlarges it's political infiltration soon they dominate all aspects of City and County politics. Maybe then they will change their name from MainStreet to EveryStreet.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:46 am |
|
Ok Sue, np. But one can have a negative view of Main Street and still think it can have a chance-- if you know what I mean.
Goin fishin while I can.
God bless,
Pete
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
Sorry Pete, I was not specifically singling out anyone.
It was a general statement to anyone who has a negative view of mainstreet, nothing more.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:39 am |
|
Sue Carol writes.... To all those naysayers who dont think mainstreet Cambridge has a chance...
And who would that be? If on this forum, would you care to copy and paste their comments that line up with your statement above?
God bless,
Pete
|
alostchild
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:32 am |
|
HarleyRider wrote: I heard the new italian restaurant in Cambridge might be possibly closing in 3 weeks if they don't pick up on business.
From what I have heard Sook's is far better and definitely more worth your money than that place is.
|
HarleyRider
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | Cambridge |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:04 am |
|
| I heard the new italian restaurant in Cambridge might be possibly closing in 3 weeks if they don't pick up on business.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 12:44 am |
|
Just got home from Jimmie and Sooks.....the place was packed, the food was excellent.
The restaurant seems to be doing very well and I am glad to see it.
I hope people give it a try.....
Race street had cars parked on both sides of the street and seemed very busy.
To all those naysayers who dont think mainstreet Cambridge has a chance....I say you are wrong.
|
madam x
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
| so as of right now there is no restaurant coming to fill this building? every one has pulled out of the deal and the building owner is now looking for someone to open up a restaurant? is that correct?
|
CAPT WINKY
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 08:02 pm |
|
| I never see a sign what does it say?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 07:59 pm |
|
LL writes,..
How is the developer obstructing progress? By not allowing a church? first your last question is way off base and I am tempted , but I guess I should "Yeild not to Temptation," to think you are purposely trying to confuse the topic.
And I gave the answer to your first question.
God bless,
Pete
|
LeaningLeft
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3645 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 07:50 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: LL writes...
My apologies for the ones that try to obstruct progress. Yes, like the developer who did not ample research and is apparently incapable of coming up with a work around solution.
God bless,
Pete
How is the developer obstructing progress? By not allowing a church?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 06:24 pm |
|
LL writes...
My apologies for the ones that try to obstruct progress. Yes, like the developer who did not ample research and is apparently incapable of coming up with a work around solution.
God bless,
Pete
|
LeaningLeft
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3645 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 06:19 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: You are a crazy, crazy person 4GNC.
It's also laughable how much you hate Main Street. You REALLY have an axe to grind with an organization that plants trees, hosts a farmer's market, puts on jazz fests, and prepares one of the largest street festivals around celebrating all things crab. Shame on Main Street for trying to revitalize downtown!
Very negative views from that chap.
Thank you Mainstreet for what you have done and are trying to do for Cambridge. My apologies for the ones that try to obstruct progress. Not all of us here are as negative as some.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 06:08 pm |
|
And I see you have not changed LochNess, still twisting, twisting, twisting posts.
Here's exactly what 4GNC posted before your current reply:
The developer IS a Board member of Mainstreet, and thus should have thought of the ramifications, and implications of the sign, and it's linkage back to the organization. It would appear that for a bright ,educated person, The developer doesn't look at the big picture, and does things without fully thinking it through, IMO. As far as all those you have mentioned above, with the exception of the public, are all in the tank with Mainstreet, the real citizens of Cambridge were not heard in this matter, especially the City because they were not asked, until AFTER the fact. If the Restaurateur left, than we didn't need him any way. Another fine example of an "outsider" trying to dictate policy, and if they don't change us...they move on. People that are really interested in Cambridge, and not just their wallet, see things through. I am sure that if Mrs. Saunders, Dolan, Satterfield had extensive window frontage available to them, as the Developer does, that such a malicious and slanderous poster would never have been put up by them. So, tell me again, WHO is unprofessional?? Not the Liquor Board, and not the County Council members that this sign seeks to malign through craftiness of speech. We ALL know the intent. This sign, however is and will continue to do damage to the cause, not help it. With the backlash I am already hearing I guess I should THANK THE DEVELOPER for being so vindictive. It is actually helping folks to see the truth, which is what I have been trying to do..
Then you counter:
It's also laughable how much you hate Main Street.
It does not look like to me 4GNC was focused on Mains Strreet in that post.
Just 2 people.
But, twist away, as a Loch Ness creature would.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 05:58 pm |
|
You are a crazy, crazy person 4GNC.
It's also laughable how much you hate Main Street. You REALLY have an axe to grind with an organization that plants trees, hosts a farmer's market, puts on jazz fests, and prepares one of the largest street festivals around celebrating all things crab. Shame on Main Street for trying to revitalize downtown!
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 05:16 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: I'll say this one time and one time only. Main Street did not put up that sign, or have any knowledge of the sign prior to it going up. In fact, the sign has already had some negative reaction for Main Street, which is completely unfair since Main Street was no way involved in it.
That being said, it is a free country, the owner of the building has the right to make any political comments he wants, and I sure as hell do not blame him for doing it. The fact remains that if the County Council and the Liquor Board had been proactive, encouraged business, and tried to help solve the problem like the majority OF THE PUBLIC, the City Council, the Mayor, our State Legislators, the Chamber, and Main Street, then the restauranteur wouldn't have gotten fed up and left. The restauranteur who was going to rent the building from the developer and employ 40-50 people decided to call it quits right about the time the liquor board started mentioning moratoriums. He had enough, he didn't trust the county to do what's right for business, so he left.
And now we don't have a restaurant and that's why the developer put that sign up. Who can blame him?
The developer IS a Board member of Mainstreet, and thus should have thought of the ramifications, and implications of the sign, and it's linkage back to the organization. It would appear that for a bright ,educated person, The developer doesn't look at the big picture, and does things without fully thinking it through, IMO.
As far as all those you have mentioned above, with the exception of the public, are all in the tank with Mainstreet, the real citizens of Cambridge were not heard in this matter, especially the City because they were not asked, until AFTER the fact.
If the Restaurateur left, than we didn't need him any way. Another fine example of an "outsider" trying to dictate policy, and if they don't change us...they move on. People that are really interested in Cambridge, and not just their wallet, see things through. I am sure that if Mrs. Saunders, Dolan, Satterfield had extensive window frontage available to them, as the Developer does, that such a malicious and slanderous poster would never have been put up by them. So, tell me again, WHO is unprofessional?? Not the Liquor Board, and not the County Council members that this sign seeks to malign through craftiness of speech. We ALL know the intent. This sign, however is and will continue to do damage to the cause, not help it. With the backlash I am already hearing I guess I should THANK THE DEVELOPER for being so vindictive. It is actually helping folks to see the truth, which is what I have been trying to do..
Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 05:18 pm by 4Godncountry
|
CAPT WINKY
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
| So exactly whats so very important about a sign?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:23 pm |
|
LN writes...
And now we don't have a restaurant and that's why the developer put that sign up. Who can blame him? Looks like me and others on here that, in our freedom of speech, feel that the sign is in poor taste.
Me and others on here that put the full blame on the developer, as it should be.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:19 pm |
|
I'll say this one time and one time only. Main Street did not put up that sign, or have any knowledge of the sign prior to it going up. In fact, the sign has already had some negative reaction for Main Street, which is completely unfair since Main Street was no way involved in it.
That being said, it is a free country, the owner of the building has the right to make any political comments he wants, and I sure as hell do not blame him for doing it. The fact remains that if the County Council and the Liquor Board had been proactive, encouraged business, and tried to help solve the problem like the majority OF THE PUBLIC, the City Council, the Mayor, our State Legislators, the Chamber, and Main Street, then the restauranteur wouldn't have gotten fed up and left. The restauranteur who was going to rent the building from the developer and employ 40-50 people decided to call it quits right about the time the liquor board started mentioning moratoriums. He had enough, he didn't trust the county to do what's right for business, so he left.
And now we don't have a restaurant and that's why the developer put that sign up. Who can blame him?
|
CHURCHCREEKREDNECK
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 11:36 am |
|
Sign in Window says: Closed
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:18 am |
|
imagine wrote: 4Godncountry wrote: LiberalMinded wrote: I'll be more direct. How do you know the majority didn't want change?
How do you know that the majority didn't want change? I want to know exactly how you know this to be true without any vote and no support for your side seen at the meetings.
Whatever you feel about the meetings doesn't matter. Its irrelevant to my question. How do you know what you say is true?
I travel the City and County extensively, and come in contact with hundreds of people on a regular basis. I also have many friends in varing places, business owners, Church pastors, etc.. I can Assure you if this went to Referendum it would have been voted down. Do you think I would have hired a lawyer, beat the streets, and tested the waters for the signatures needed for a referendum if I didn't know it would pass? I think not. The one and only reason this is not going to referendum is because it cannot, not because we did not have the support!
I disagree. I think if it went to referendum it would have passed.
You have a right to disagree, but the fact remains that we will not have the chance to prove that I am correct, because we cannot referendum any liquor matter, which makes absolutely no sense!
|
imagine
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 17th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 210 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:15 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: LiberalMinded wrote: I'll be more direct. How do you know the majority didn't want change?
How do you know that the majority didn't want change? I want to know exactly how you know this to be true without any vote and no support for your side seen at the meetings.
Whatever you feel about the meetings doesn't matter. Its irrelevant to my question. How do you know what you say is true?
I travel the City and County extensively, and come in contact with hundreds of people on a regular basis. I also have many friends in varing places, business owners, Church pastors, etc.. I can Assure you if this went to Referendum it would have been voted down. Do you think I would have hired a lawyer, beat the streets, and tested the waters for the signatures needed for a referendum if I didn't know it would pass? I think not. The one and only reason this is not going to referendum is because it cannot, not because we did not have the support!
I disagree. I think if it went to referendum it would have passed.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:14 am |
|
oldmarylander wrote: Yes it makes it less significant when the whole debacle was started and organized by Mainstreet. If you believe for a second that most of the voting public wanted this change, you are misinformed. This was a concentrated effort by Mainstreet to flex it's political muscle, something it should not be doing...they are not to be political in any way...The sign is once again a precursor to what they will be doing in the up-coming election. The meetings were a farce, especially the one in the City. They were nothing more than PR meetings to "legitimize" what was already settled upon. No matter how many people showed up in opposition, the end result was already settled. Mainstreet is more about politics, and profit, and less about revitalization.
This makes no sense. Why should they not be involved politically?
Mainstreet must have a lot of members...
But I bet it would have been OK for a church to show up and be political right?
What do you think the goal of revitalization is? To make a profit! Or do you think all of the downtown building should be fixed up and look great, but be empty.
The members of Mainstreet have invested their own money in starting their businesses. If you were one of them would you not want to be involved to protect and grow your business and make a return on your investment?
NO! it would not have ok for a 501 3c Church to be political. Any church that is 501 c3 cannot by law, endorse any candidate. In times past we have not seen this enforced, but as time progresses, even in the last election this was an issue. MainStreet has no business endorsing, or trying to oust any candidate that does not go along with their agenda.
MainStreet members have invested very little of their own money...much of it comes form government grants. They are actually using a large quantity of taxpayer money.
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:13 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote:
LiberalMinded wrote: I'll be more direct. How do you know the majority didn't want change?
How do you know that the majority didn't want change? I want to know exactly how you know this to be true without any vote and no support for your side seen at the meetings.
Whatever you feel about the meetings doesn't matter. Its irrelevant to my question. How do you know what you say is true?
I travel the City and County extensively, and come in contact with hundreds of people on a regular basis. I also have many friends in varing places, business owners, Church pastors, etc.. I can Assure you if this went to Referendum it would have been voted down. Do you think I would have hired a lawyer, beat the streets, and tested the waters for the signatures needed for a referendum if I didn't know it would pass? I think not. The one and only reason this is not going to referendum is because it cannot, not because we did not have the support!
I could just as easily say I traveled the city and county extensively and came in contact with hundred of people on a regular basis. I also have a lot of friends in varying places, business owners (I'll be honest and say no so much the pastors), ect.
Really - the only difference between us is that I also have the meetings as support for my statement that the majority was in support of this change.
|
resisto
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:09 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: The support you are speaking of is the Mainstreet Crowd. An organized effort to flood the County and City, and BOLC meetings brought Mainstreet volunteers out in force. The majority you speak of is from ONE group, and one group only. A couple of people may not have been Mainstreet related, but the majority were...just ask the county and city to show you the correspondence, and match the names up to the volunteer and board member list of Mainstreet..you will be amazed. Several Pastors showed up, and numerous letters were sent from many different groups of people.
The majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change. It would have went to referendum, but since it was concerning Liquor, the Maryland constitution would not allow a referendum on the matter. (This from my Lawyer). Richard Colburn, Addie Eckart and J. Haddaway are the ones that need to be voted out, as they are in the Mainstreet tank. The Majority of the Cambridge city officials are in the tank as well. I hope folks wake up during the up-coming election and make sure that these folks go, not the ones looking out for the best interest of Dorchester County residents. Mr. Travers does not need to stay either given his track record.
The commentary you may be speaking of, came from Ms. Gail Dean, editor of the Dorchester Star...also in the Mainstreet tank. If you are looking for anything fair and un-biased don't look to the Dorchester star.
Let me first say: group not lest you be grouped. 4, I know because of your beliefs that you have articulated hear that you get grouped all the time. But I would be cautious before I grouped anyone on either side of this issue. I know people on both sides, and neither side is having secret cabal meetings to overthrow the other group.
As far as the bigger picture, our local Republicans legislators are far from "in the tank" for Mainstreet or any other group.
I know you are conservative politically, so I would strongly advise advocating voting them out of office. You know as well as I do the ridiculous ideas that get passed into law in Annapolis. I know they can't do everything, but our local lawmakers do a miraculous job of shielding us from as many kooky policies, taxes, and programs as possible.
If you are upset with their actions they would be glad to speak with you directly. But please, for all of our sakes, do not push for them to be voted out of office if they should continue to seek it.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:08 am |
|
LiberalMinded wrote: I'll be more direct. How do you know the majority didn't want change?
How do you know that the majority didn't want change? I want to know exactly how you know this to be true without any vote and no support for your side seen at the meetings.
Whatever you feel about the meetings doesn't matter. Its irrelevant to my question. How do you know what you say is true?
I travel the City and County extensively, and come in contact with hundreds of people on a regular basis. I also have many friends in varing places, business owners, Church pastors, etc.. I can Assure you if this went to Referendum it would have been voted down. Do you think I would have hired a lawyer, beat the streets, and tested the waters for the signatures needed for a referendum if I didn't know it would pass? I think not. The one and only reason this is not going to referendum is because it cannot, not because we did not have the support!
|
oldmarylander
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1837 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:06 am |
|
Yes it makes it less significant when the whole debacle was started and organized by Mainstreet. If you believe for a second that most of the voting public wanted this change, you are misinformed. This was a concentrated effort by Mainstreet to flex it's political muscle, something it should not be doing...they are not to be political in any way...The sign is once again a precursor to what they will be doing in the up-coming election. The meetings were a farce, especially the one in the City. They were nothing more than PR meetings to "legitimize" what was already settled upon. No matter how many people showed up in opposition, the end result was already settled. Mainstreet is more about politics, and profit, and less about revitalization.
This makes no sense. Why should they not be involved politically?
Mainstreet must have a lot of members...
But I bet it would have been OK for a church to show up and be political right?
What do you think the goal of revitalization is? To make a profit! Or do you think all of the downtown building should be fixed up and look great, but be empty.
The members of Mainstreet have invested their own money in starting their businesses. If you were one of them would you not want to be involved to protect and grow your business and make a return on your investment?
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:01 am |
|
imagine wrote: For the record, I am for the change as is EVERYONE that I know. It's an archaic law that needs to be looked at and legitimately assessed.
Edit: Why shouldn't the Mainstreet Committee have a political voice? They are for the betterment of main street, which they obviously feel that this law (and some elected officials) are not in line with the betterment of main street.
They are a non-profit organization that receives government money. They receive your money and mine...they do not have a right to use taxpayer money to involve themselves in politics. They cannot endorse any candidate, or legislation. They are for the betterment of the properties that they own downtown. The Fox should not be in charge of the Hen House. Common sense would tell anyone this.
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:45 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote:
LiberalMinded wrote: 4Godncountry wrote:
SueCarol wrote: Pete....it is not an exaggeration.
The naysayers were way outnumbered by those in support of the change.
There were usually very few people in attendance at any of the meetings that were against the proposed change and most of the commentary that I saw written was also in favor of the change.
The majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change.
You keep saying that the majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change..
How do you know this? Cause all physical evidence points to the opposite. Most of the City and County residents DID want this change.
I've heard you said you've asked a lot of people - but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to have asked all of the residents of the city and county. By the look of all the open meetings held over this subject - which is physically witnessed - most people wanted this change.
Besides 'people you've talked to' how do you know this statement you make over and over is true? I can say just as easily that most of the people I've talked to want change. If this was all of the evidence of support for change I had - I wouldn't go on the limb and say that is the majority. I say it is the majority because of the meetings.
And what does it matter if those who went to the meeting in support were for the mainstreet redevelopment? Because they are for revitalization of downtown somehow that makes the overwhelming show of support less significant? Not everyone at those meetings in support of change had money invested in downtown redevelopment.
Yes it makes it less significant when the whole debacle was started and organized by Mainstreet. If you believe for a second that most of the voting public wanted this change, you are misinformed. This was a concentrated effort by Mainstreet to flex it's political muscle, something it should not be doing...they are not to be political in any way...The sign is once again a precursor to what they will be doing in the up-coming election. The meetings were a farce, especially the one in the City. They were nothing more than PR meetings to "legitimize" what was already settled upon. No matter how many people showed up in opposition, the end result was already settled. Mainstreet is more about politics, and profit, and less about revitalization.
I'll be more direct. How do you know the majority didn't want change?
How do you know that the majority didn't want change? I want to know exactly how you know this to be true without any vote and no support for your side seen at the meetings.
Whatever you feel about the meetings doesn't matter. Its irrelevant to my question. How do you know what you say is true?
|
imagine
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 17th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 210 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:39 am |
|
For the record, I am for the change as is EVERYONE that I know. It's an archaic law that needs to be looked at and legitimately assessed.
Edit: Why shouldn't the Mainstreet Committee have a political voice? They are for the betterment of main street, which they obviously feel that this law (and some elected officials) are not in line with the betterment of main street.
Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:42 am by imagine
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:39 am |
|
SueCarol wrote: There were more than just the Mainstreet "crowd" at those meetings.
In fact I saw people from all parts of the county and the majority of them supported the change for a variety of reasons.
I know why I supported it and it had more to do with the autonomy of the town I represented than any other reason but I understood and believed that Cambridge should also have the same right to decide for themselves issues on the placement of businesses through their zoning.
Cambridge citizens, NOT MAINSTREET, and NOT THE IN THE MAINSTREET TANK, Mayor and council! The Citizens will have NO imput on this now, that Carte-Blanche approvals have been given by our elected officials.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:35 am |
|
LiberalMinded wrote: 4Godncountry wrote:
SueCarol wrote: Pete....it is not an exaggeration.
The naysayers were way outnumbered by those in support of the change.
There were usually very few people in attendance at any of the meetings that were against the proposed change and most of the commentary that I saw written was also in favor of the change.
The majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change.
You keep saying that the majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change..
How do you know this? Cause all physical evidence points to the opposite. Most of the City and County residents DID want this change.
I've heard you said you've asked a lot of people - but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to have asked all of the residents of the city and county. By the look of all the open meetings held over this subject - which is physically witnessed - most people wanted this change.
Besides 'people you've talked to' how do you know this statement you make over and over is true? I can say just as easily that most of the people I've talked to want change. If this was all of the evidence of support for change I had - I wouldn't go on the limb and say that is the majority. I say it is the majority because of the meetings.
And what does it matter if those who went to the meeting in support were for the mainstreet redevelopment? Because they are for revitalization of downtown somehow that makes the overwhelming show of support less significant? Not everyone at those meetings in support of change had money invested in downtown redevelopment.
Yes it makes it less significant when the whole debacle was started and organized by Mainstreet. If you believe for a second that most of the voting public wanted this change, you are misinformed. This was a concentrated effort by Mainstreet to flex it's political muscle, something it should not be doing...they are not to be political in any way...The sign is once again a precursor to what they will be doing in the up-coming election. The meetings were a farce, especially the one in the City. They were nothing more than PR meetings to "legitimize" what was already settled upon. No matter how many people showed up in opposition, the end result was already settled. Mainstreet is more about politics, and profit, and less about revitalization.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 01:11 am |
|
There were more than just the Mainstreet "crowd" at those meetings.
In fact I saw people from all parts of the county and the majority of them supported the change for a variety of reasons.
I know why I supported it and it had more to do with the autonomy of the town I represented than any other reason but I understood and believed that Cambridge should also have the same right to decide for themselves issues on the placement of businesses through their zoning.
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 11:57 pm |
|
4Godncountry wrote:
SueCarol wrote: Pete....it is not an exaggeration.
The naysayers were way outnumbered by those in support of the change.
There were usually very few people in attendance at any of the meetings that were against the proposed change and most of the commentary that I saw written was also in favor of the change.
The majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change.
You keep saying that the majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change..
How do you know this? Cause all physical evidence points to the opposite. Most of the City and County residents DID want this change.
I've heard you said you've asked a lot of people - but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to have asked all of the residents of the city and county. By the look of all the open meetings held over this subject - which is physically witnessed - most people wanted this change.
Besides 'people you've talked to' how do you know this statement you make over and over is true? I can say just as easily that most of the people I've talked to want change. If this was all of the evidence of support for change I had - I wouldn't go on the limb and say that is the majority. I say it is the majority because of the meetings.
And what does it matter if those who went to the meeting in support were for the mainstreet redevelopment? Because they are for revitalization of downtown somehow that makes the overwhelming show of support less significant? Not everyone at those meetings in support of change had money invested in downtown redevelopment.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: Pete....it is not an exaggeration.
The naysayers were way outnumbered by those in support of the change.
There were usually very few people in attendance at any of the meetings that were against the proposed change and most of the commentary that I saw written was also in favor of the change.
The support you are speaking of is the Mainstreet Crowd. An organized effort to flood the County and City, and BOLC meetings brought Mainstreet volunteers out in force. The majority you speak of is from ONE group, and one group only. A couple of people may not have been Mainstreet related, but the majority were...just ask the county and city to show you the correspondence, and match the names up to the volunteer and board member list of Mainstreet..you will be amazed. Several Pastors showed up, and numerous letters were sent from many different groups of people.
The majority of City and County residents did NOT want this change. It would have went to referendum, but since it was concerning Liquor, the Maryland constitution would not allow a referendum on the matter. (This from my Lawyer). Richard Colburn, Addie Eckart and J. Haddaway are the ones that need to be voted out, as they are in the Mainstreet tank. The Majority of the Cambridge city officials are in the tank as well. I hope folks wake up during the up-coming election and make sure that these folks go, not the ones looking out for the best interest of Dorchester County residents. Mr. Travers does not need to stay either given his track record.
The commentary you may be speaking of, came from Ms. Gail Dean, editor of the Dorchester Star...also in the Mainstreet tank. If you are looking for anything fair and un-biased don't look to the Dorchester star.
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:46 pm by 4Godncountry
|
oldmarylander
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1837 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:12 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: oldmarylander writes...
I really don't understand the Anti restaurant crowd. Is Point Break the entire reason you all are so against this? No. If you remember from my, and 4GNC's, numerous previous post on the topic, and besides, if you scroll down, I had other reasons.
The sign is an example of freedom of speech. Too bad if you don't like it. There have been much worse said on this very website about people. Well, imo, too bad you seem to like it. IMO it's immature, in poor taste, and waste of money.
Shows me how far that fine dining restaruant would have went.
Can someone answer my question below please? Thanks.
God bless,
Pete
I didn't say that I liked it, but I do believe in free speech. I wound not have worded it that way but I will not fault someone else for exercising their right to do so.
I didn't really follow the old thread on this subject. I don't have a dog in the hunt but I did want to point out to a few people, not you Pete, who have said much worse about other on this website.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
oldmarylander writes...
I really don't understand the Anti restaurant crowd. Is Point Break the entire reason you all are so against this? No. If you remember from my, and 4GNC's, numerous previous posts on the topic, and besides, if you scroll down, I had other reasons.
The sign is an example of freedom of speech. Too bad if you don't like it. There have been much worse said on this very website about people. Well, imo, too bad you seem to like it. IMO it's immature, in poor taste, and waste of money.
Shows me how far that fine dining restaruant would have went.
Can someone answer my question below please? Thanks.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:12 pm by Pete Macinta
|
oldmarylander
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1837 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:56 pm |
|
I really don't understand the Anti restaurant crowd. Is Point Break the entire reason you all are so against this?
For those of you who did not attend the meetings and say that the majority of the people in the county are against the change when the majority of the people at the meetings we for the change - how do you support your statement?
The sign is an example of freedom of speech. Too bad if you don't like it. There have been much worse said on this very website about people.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:44 pm |
|
farmer writes...
In all honesty, I have not been to Bella Luna. I've been to Snappers many times and never had a real complaint. I don't know how they would compare to Bella Luna, but can tell you with the greatest of confidence that they are far superior to McDonald's, Both in quality and service!!  Must agree on the McDonald's point (I've been at Snappers- nice).
What I meant was the restaraunt at 450 Race was supposed to be "fine dining." I think that includes fine wines??? Anyhow, I was wondering if Bella, Snappers, and the French Restaruant (can't think of the name) would be in the same league as "fine dining."
I would not know. The hardest thing I drink is Dr. Pepper, Mt. Dew, or three day old coffee!
Correction-I have been known to ingest dandelion wine for a cold.
God bless,
Pete
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:39 pm |
|
Bella Luna is great, and it's fairly reasonable. The Bistro is, at least for me, more of a go-on-a-special-occasion sort of place, but my meals there have been lovely.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: farmer writes...
Pete, with all due respect, I don't believe downtown restaurants are competing with Burger King, Wendy's, McDonald's, Hardee's, Denny's, Dairy Queen, Arby's, etc. Possibly Plaza Tapitia and Ocean dessy, perhaps Peking House and Cambridge Diner. But, even those draw a "different" clientel, IMO. And I think your opinion is correct.
Yes I do realize the delveloper was shooting for a fine dining restaraunt. Is, and I really don't know, Snappers in the same league with that or Bella Luna? I forgot- that new French Restaraunt too?
Thanks,
God bless,
Pete
In all honesty, I have not been to Bella Luna. I've been to Snappers many times and never had a real complaint. I don't know how they would compare to Bella Luna, but can tell you with the greatest of confidence that they are far superior to McDonald's, Both in quality and service!!
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:33 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: So funny! Loser.
What a shame. i am not the loser here. Cambridge, Secretary and the good people, who wan't to live in peace and harmony, are the real losers.
It is to your discredit that you can't argue, facts, so you resort to name calling.
Most, good and honest, people see that as a mark of ignorance.
I forgive you and hope the webmaster doesn't throw you off.
|
Current time is 02:13 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|