Tuesday, July 01, 2008

crap or do I mean craps

afternoon pontifications:

From JG is a heads up to a WSJ article on the travails of financing across the board these days in the gambling industry. See: Debt-Laden Casinos Squeezed by Slowdown. For fun... some interesting video history of Dan Barden when he first was awarded the casino license here. Update: The Riverlife Task force has a press release with some annotated illustrations of what is being cut from the casino plan in order to bring costs down. See the Press Release here..... for more, read the story here.

Speaking of gambling in general and stealing an idea from Florida, I expect to see Gus working the pumps pretty soon.

whiskey t...... %^*&(%........ can someone explain this to me.. No, please don't try. There is this little matter of a legal bill and city council. First it should be paid, then it shouldn't, then it will be paid and now... get this, the city solicitor says that HALF of it should be paid. Does this mean that half of Reverend Burgess should leave his council seat when they discuss the matter. Does the new opinion specify which half? Seriously, if I were in charge of a PSYOPS campaign to disrupt the politics of city council, I could not have thought of anything better than these opinions coming from the city. update: How much has this all cost? Burgher Jon does the back of the envelope analysis of the city's direct costs over just the legal bill pertaining to Lamargate. If you ask me he way underestimates all the people/time involved, but you get the point. And the cost of Lamargate itself? priceless.

and for the record... this is a crime. and an awfully lot more important than the matter of who pays $10K $5K.


Blogger Bram Reichbaum said...

Actually, this has something of a rational explanation. Our Solicitor is having no part of subsidizing the action the 4 (sort of 5, or maybe 6) councilors took in appealing the illegal permit to the city Zoning Board some weeks ago.

However, after they did that, they got sued by the advertising company in a court of law, and GS is saying the City does in fact have a clear obligation to defend (or at least furnish the defense) city officers who get sued in the course of their duties.

"In the course of their duties". Yes that would seem to negate the excuse for not paying the former half. But that's just me and my Burgh Report cronies talking; the Trib obviously disagrees for example.

Anyway, I don't think they split the bill 50-50 like King Solomon; I think it's an itemized, approximate 50% reimbursement.

Expect this issue to reenter the physical realm of electronic signs going up and coming down off of buildings towards the end of the month. I label this a continuing outrage because although the law makes clear the process for handling a request such as this, the powers that be continue to blithely ignore said law and challenge us, "Figure out a way to stop us before we can finish the job." That's no way to run a city government, IMO.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:49:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

so it's rational to say half the bill should be paid by the city, but if councilpersons in question even discuss said bill they forfeit their office. Yeah, I get that logic.

I think they are all wrapped so tight on this that none of them are making any sense at this point. They all think they are doing the 'right' thing and if you asked me I would say I believe that they all really do believe that. The right thing at this point has been convoluted beyond recognition and at some point you have to cut your losses. This scorched earth sqaubbling is going to leave a council that is a ghost of itself in terms of effectiveness as a body and useless as a balance of power in the city.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:28:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home