Who supports the Magic Bus millage? The usual suspects, of course. Endorsements include the local Dem establishment, the River City RINO's, the goo-goo gushers, and the Portlanders. The last of these are those dreary souls who fall to their knees and sing their wearisome hosannas to that urban heaven on Earth -- Portland, Oregon. You know, high-tax, pricey, latte-sipping, boomer-cratic, slacker-infested Portland, Oregon.
My fellow residents of Grand Rapids should also note that each and every one of our city commissioners and the mayor have told us to vote "yes" on May 3rd. Let's name names: Rosalyn Bliss, Walt Gutowski, Ruth Kelly, Elias Lumpkins, Dave Shaffer, Jim White, and George Heartwell. Not one of them has explained why we should shovel more of our tax dollars into a system that can only get its users to pay a dime to cover every dollar of costs. These are also the people we are relying upon to balance the city books during this nationwide sea-change in the public fisc. Knee-jerk support for public spending is bad enough in boom times. It's unacceptable, irresponsible, and idiotic when on the road to ruin.
-- wqt3
City Commissioner Walt Gutowski is making some good money on this campaign. The pro-tax people are spending a lot with his printing company... and of course he made a nice donation to ensure the gravy train keeps rolling.
Posted by: steve | April 25, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Thanks for the tip. The campaign contribution and expenditure filings by RapidYes.org will be interesting.
Posted by: Bill Tingley | April 25, 2011 at 01:33 PM
Thought you might be interested. Thanks for your coverage of this issue:
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/04/guest_column_the_rapid_needs_e.html
Posted by: jimbo | April 27, 2011 at 03:18 PM
Some good old fashioned cronyism, right here in Grand Rapids!
http://www.itpwatch.org/2011/04/democracy-in-action-or-backroom-deals-and-cronyism-in-action/
Posted by: jimbo | April 28, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Interesting reading, Jimbo. Thanks for posting the links.
Posted by: Bill Tingley | April 28, 2011 at 07:26 PM
Bill Tingley, with regard to your "peacock" project, it is my opinion that you need to get a hobby of some sort.
Sincerely sad. Profoundly, deeply, sad. It is people like you that make the world needlessly complicated for the rest of us.
Posted by: Lisa Harrison | June 28, 2011 at 10:26 PM
Lisa,
Direct your sanctimony elsewhere. As I told Fox-17 News, I am not the William Tingley in the lawsuit and you are ignorant of the facts.
Posted by: Bill Tingley | June 29, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Hey Lisa,
If you like the peacocks so much, are you willing to:
1) Have them relocated to your property so, they can roam on your car hood and roof whenever they feel like it (they jump high you know),
2) Hoot and hollar all night long and keep people up when they are either mating or deciding noise is too much for them and they respond in kind,
3) Have them eat your plants and destroy your landscaping;
4) Finally, have them crap all over your property after they've gorged on local food put out by those who should not be feeding them let alone keeping them?
Seems for someone who is not vested in what happens here and who is not directly impacted, you are loaded with opinions and zero facts.
Welcome to Lisa Land...
Posted by: Mary - Sparta | June 29, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Anybody else watch the Fox 17 puff piece on this? This is the best they can do for news in GR? What a joke.
As it stands, the reporter tossed around a bit of info., but I question how much research was really done?
No interview with the plantiff?
No interview with the city?
No interview with the county?
Seems to me that when you are putting out a story of interest, they need more than just one side. Typical reporting in today's news world - one side and one side only.
I'm sure there is much more than presented.
Fox 17, you can do better than this. Get your facts, then fully report. Not a rush job to make it to air time.
Posted by: Jerry G. | June 29, 2011 at 03:58 PM
Dear L.A.W. Readers,
We are getting e-mails at our main box and on line here at the L.A.W. website about a peacock matter in the city limits.
Note that Bill is not the one who filed this case - it is not him. It is another individual altogether so, please don't confuse the two.
If we choose to write an article about this issue, feedback can be posted there.
For now, this is not our matter.
Thanks.
Bridget Dupont-Tingley
Posted by: Editor, Local Area Watch | June 29, 2011 at 04:33 PM