Opinion26 Feb 2005 11:09 pm
Why dosen’t Aycock Neighborhood Association Vice-President and open comment advocate David Hoggard not enable comments on his neighborhood’s website?
I would like to comment on the Stategic Plan for the Aycock Neighborhood.
The taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a good part of that investment-in what Im sure is going to be the "star" of his upcoming Council bid.I have questions I wish to ask and thoughts I would like to share.
I would like to be able to comment directly on this plan without having to go thru his campaign blog or one of those of his neighborhood buddies.
C’mon Hog open it up!
May I suggest a ShoutBox?
Tag, you’re it!
February 27th, 2005 at 12:54 am
Yes, you may suggest a shout box, thanks… but,
I’m not the guy in charge of the site but I’ll pass your request along, as you may know it is a static information site …not a blog.
In the meantime, I have made space available on my blog so you may comment on the Aycock Strategic Plan. I’ll be pleased to pass your comments to the Aycock board. Go to Hoggs Blog to leave your ideas.
If I decide to run, it sounds like you might not be a supporter. Why not?
February 27th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Ross, the Strategic Plan is in the public domain and is available at the Aycock site for download: http://www.historicaycock.org/StrategicPlan.pdf
You’ve got your own public forum right here. If you want to comment, no one is stopping you.
The Strategic Plan was forged with full public participation, and you’ll see at the end of it the flyers and postcards that went out to all residents. I notice your name is not among the participants: had you already left the neighborhood at that point?
I also remember that you attended the city council meeting at which the plan was adoopted. You chose not to speak about it at the council meeting. Did you voice your questions and concerns to members of council?
In short, you could have voiced your opinions at a time when they might have been productively incorporated into the plan — or you could have tried to stop its adoption entirely.
You did neither.
Given all of the above, I don’t think the Aycock board will be enthusiastic about reworking the site so that you can express your opinions about the Plan *now*, when the time for constructive participation has passed.
February 27th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
As long as tax dollars are being used or positioned as a part of the neighborhood plan, “constructive”, open participation is continuously validated. Oversight of the oversight is necessary. You & David have conflicts of interest in overseeing public particiapation –or lack thereof when presenting your personal venues as a forum for the tax payers at large or for Aycock.
Why not improve the neighborhood site by making conversation open? Link a blog, a tag board where the public can conveniently & openly discuss current & future issues? A place where information is presented neutrally where the neighborhood, not individuals are positioned as host?
Representing many others, I spoke out against your approaching the COUNTY for financial support after the mismanaged initiative found itself short of change. The decision was made to violate county vendor policies in support of a plan that took money and opportunity away from this community.
You want public support, but refuse to explore improving the use of public input? What justifications have you to defend such impropriety other than proving yourselves as political opportunists? “Reworking” the site would demonstrate that you have the community’s best interest at heart.
Ross speaks for many tax payers who have an interest in knowing about the plan and its execution . . .Flyers and postcards are “publicity”, not paticipation.
Do you think tax payers “will be enthusiastic about reworking” the public dole for parties restricting community input to personal sites for the self-interest of building political traction?
February 27th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
HaloScan.com provides a free, easy to use commenting system for web logs and websites, allowing visitors to leave instant feedback.
By copying and pasting just 2 lines of code that are generated for you, your weblog or website can have links that your visitors can click to leave their feedback, opinion or a “comment.” The commenting links can be added to receive feedback on a particular subject, weblog post, picture or anything else you would like to receive visitor feedback on. You can see a demo here.
http://haloscan.com/faq/faq.php?answer=6&cat_name=General%20Information&category_id=2#6
February 28th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Tara Sue, you are a trip.
I’m not sure I understand your point on “conflicts of interest,” but if it’s a problem for me to oversee discussion of the plan on my blog, it seems that the same problem would exists on the neighborhood’s website, since I run that, too, and everyone in Aycock has the same conflict of interest that I do.
What better venue for a disinterested discussion is there than a blog run by non-Aycock neighbors — namely, this one?
Since the Aycock site gets about 10 hits a day, I think you’ll get more publicity here, anyway — assuming Ross’s site gets more traffic than that.
February 28th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Spare me the indignities Wharton and answer the questions.
February 28th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
I must respectfully decline your offer Mr. Warton. I have no interest in “oversee”ing any part of the Aycock Neighbohood’s efforts. This community has enough overseers of the community tax base.
As a taxpayer and advocate for “enabling comments” I would like to have input, and continue to feel that the Aycock Neighborhood’s site would provide an appropriate venue to facilitate that effort.
February 28th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Tara Sue, I thought I HAD answered your questions. If I read you right, you believe the Aycock site would NOT be the proper venue for public comment, because it is controlled by the Aycock neighborhood association, which is a promoter of the Aycock Strategic Plan, and because its operations are overseen by me. Both of these would appear to constitute a conflict of interest in your eyes (”oversight of the oversight,” as you put it); I have suggested an alternative venue that is not controlled by the neighborhood, and it has been refused. Well, you have a blog, too, Tara Sue. Use it.
The neighborhood has an e-mail discussion list for neighbors, on which there’s complete freedom of expression. Ross knows this because he used it many times when he lived in Aycock.
I’m curious why you’re not also calling for openness at the Lindley Park neighborhood webiste: http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/LindleyPark/. They, too, have a neighborhood plan which has cost, and will cost, taxpayer dollars.
The Westerwood neighborhood has undertaken to lobby the city with regard to a park project and to some transportation projects: http://www.westerwoodneighborhood.org/. What about them?
And the neighbors in Ole Asheboro are very politically active, where there’s a whole lot of redevelopment going on:
http://www.ci.greensboro.nc.us/HCD/ole_asheboro_redevelopment_plann.htm.
Have you contacted those neighborhood associations to make similar demands of interactivity? — but wait, they have conflicts of interest too.
Anyway . . .
It WAS very nice of the County to help us speed up the payment of our loan from PGI, which partially funded the Aycock TND plan (not the Strategic Plan). But we were not “short of change;” we were up to date on all our payments. You made your case to the public and the commissioners regarding the county’s grant, and you did not persuade them. Even Mary Rakestraw voted in favor of it, and she’s pretty tight-fisted.
But neither you nor Ross have answered my questions about your lack of participation early in the planning process. The flyers and postcards were not propaganda, they were invitations to public meetings where neighbors were encouraged to share their views. Ross attended none of those meetings. Nor did you speak in an open forum to city council to oppose the adoption of the Strategic Plan, though you and Ross were present that night.
Finally, Tara Sue, you’re a fine one to get touchy about modes of address, after you accused me of “improprieties” and called me a “political opportunist.” I’ve never run for political office, and I doubt I ever will.
You, however, have run for both local and national office. I’d remind you of a proverb about a pot and a kettle, but the pot is the only item on the stove here, and you’re it.
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Look spin doctor, I don’t care if you “oversee” the sight or if the Hog does so himself . .
The suggetion was made that you open the discussion to the public at the neighborhood’s venue rather than restrict the opportunity to input on personal blogs. That’s where the conflict of interest lies. If you can’t see the good reason in that then, wtf?
Whether it was you or a rakestraw who violated county vendor policies is irrelevant . . .They were violated. http://www.tarasue4u.com/discuss/msgReader$656?mode=topic
As for participation . .I could care less whether you go with the stone facade or the brick, the Maples or Pines . .My interest is the adherence to government policy and those principles within. Get some.