There's an old saying that
“all
politics is local,” and to some degree that certainly does ring
true especially in matters concerning what I believe to be a mean-spirited and inconsistent elected
official who has their eye set on moving up the political ladder, an official who...sadly it seems...will willingly sell their city and constituents out in the process of doing so. And
this is more than a bit troubling in that said official, who is term limited
out...will...if the rumors are true...be moving out of the city once their allotted time left in office is served.
And
individuals such as this do, at times, deem themselves to be above
the law regarding a constituent's First Amendment right to “free
speech”
as “they”...“they”
most times being a city or town's mayor in their role as
parliamentarian...will sit on the dais barking out threats of one
being removed from the speaker's podium by the police if one dares to
criticize, even politely criticize with proof in hand, their actions or votes
taken. Basically hijacking a constituent's constitutionally given
right to verbally and in person address via publicly stating their
grievances, said official has then set themselves up as both judge
and jury of the constituent's words spoken. And why...simply because those words might dare to help expose possible wrong doings on the officials
part or might even reek of possible “appearance
of impropriety”...which by state statute could lead to said official having to recuse
themselves from voting on the issue pertaining to stated grievance, being
officially and/or publicly reprimanded, or in some cases all three.
And
when said vote regards an issue that the overwhelming majority of a
city's constituents are against, one has to wonder why the deciding
vote would be cast by the very person said constituent(s) tried to expose,
but were silenced from doing so via threats of bodily removal from
the meeting's premises.
Sadly,
such is the case in my small city...the name of which and the persons
involved I legally dare not put in writing...a case revolving around
a petitioned for structure that not only goes against the
long-standing architectural integrity of our city but the safety and
well being of city residents as well. And just as importantly, said
structure would predominately serve non-city residents instead of
those who call our city home.
And
why would said structure be serving non-city residents as opposed to
residents... because the latest official U.S. government census report, along with the campaign donations of the official involved, definitively shows
this very disparity as being truth. And by my saying the “official
involved,” to that I must also add those individuals who knowingly or
even unknowingly might be involved to a lesser but just as important
degree.
How
and why so? The act of misinterpreting the law has, at times, proven
to be just as dangerous as not following the letter of the law, and
in this case especially being when the wishes of outsiders...as in
non-residents...non-residents whose pockets run deep...are more
important to some on the dais than the
“health,
safety, and welfare”
of the constituents they were elected to serve. And when fear of a
petitioner's possible
“legal reprisal” is thrown into the mix a dangerous
situation usually arises as fear alone does tend to temper down and cloud ones better judgment and use of common sense.
We've
all heard the term
“block busting” which
as per Merriam-Webster Dictionary means “profiteering
by inducing property owners to sell hastily and often at a loss by
appeals to fears of depressed values because of threatened minority
encroachment and then reselling at inflated prices.”
And while this is the most known and accepted definition of said
term, and in the past primarily referred to black families moving
into white neighborhoods that definition, thankfully, no longer
applies to persons “of
color”...most
especially
not in this case...but instead encompass a certain so-called
“religious
minority”...a
“religious
minority” whose long range goal, I and others believe, is not to stay a minority much longer and
do so by any and every means possible.
And it's here where this particular issue comes into play for my city...a
small sized city...a city now predominately comprised, dollar wise, of
mid-to-high end single-family homes along with A-rated public schools...a
city with no real
“urban
center”
that would normally tend to draw outsiders in. And said city now sees
a structure being proposed that would...possibly...be the multiple times per
day destination point of those whose demographics do not reside in our
city. In fact, our city's current population, in regards to those residents who would be using said structure, sees those very folks comprising but -1.0% of our city's total religiously affiliated population,
and yet their same non-resident demographics, but in way larger numbers, contributed large sums
of money, in one month, to what was the then candidate, now term limited out
reelected official...the very official who was the deciding vote
after the petitioner's original variance request was denied. But
with said official's vote cast...after having basically silenced
resident's dissenting voices who were against the
structure...
“conditional
approval” in a 3-to-2 vote (and thanks to both commissioners who stood strong with their constituents) was approved for the very structure the overwhelming
majority of residents do not in any guise want.
But
I'm sure some of my readers are curious as to why this particular
structure is so rightfully opposed by most of our residents...in my
opinion it's simply because we all know what will come next. All
anyone has to do is just drive down the road about three or so miles from where the proposed structure is to be built to see
exactly what will come next, but in my city's case, and again in my
opinion, it will be the aforementioned “block
busting”
but on a city wide scale.
How
and why so...because down said road a huge mega “compound”
pretending to be one family's home...it's actually as per my research
being built to house an entire greatly extended family village of
sorts...is still undergoing construction against that city's
residents wishes, with huge sums of money also coming into play. And
while said “compound”
will house folks of the same minority religious denomination as those
who likely will attend our
city's structure in question, most of the “compound's”
neighboring
residents for blocks around have
“For Sale”
signs on their property as they watch their multi-million dollar
property values drop simply because of what is being built in an upscale residential area of their city. And know that
the “compound's”
owner has been busy buying up surrounding properties to expand not
only said “compound's” size,
but to firmly establish his presence into said neighboring city.
And
that will also happen here in our city if this unwanted structure is
built, as residents will surely start selling their homes and our
overall property values will also start dropping, first in said
structure's surrounding neighborhoods and move outward throughout our
small city from there. Yes, one structure can destroy a city...a city
known statewide for its American hometown feel...and do so when, in my opinion, “appearances of improprieties” are being ignored; when the majority of
residents...of constituents...wishes are also ignored in favor of
outsiders with money; and when I, and many others, tend to believe that a certain elected official acts as if saying the hell with the constituents; property
values be damned; I'm eyeing higher political office; and besides
I'll be out of here before the last brick is laid.
So
it's now up to “We
the People” to help stop incursions like my city is facing, and do so via our legal right to work towards changing or updating zoning and permitting laws previously passed that are not now, nor will they be in the future, in the constituents best
interest. So how do we do this...simply by petition. And this means that it is up to us to garner support...as in collect enough
signatures...to be able to force what are now, and possibly will remain, very divisive issues, and having them be placed on the
ballot instead of their being commission decided. And we need to do this in the name of all resident's
whose voices are being silenced yet who are willing to fight back against injustices rendered, and do so
no matter the amount of administrative red tape some city officials most
assuredly will throw in our way. Not to take a stand now...for us to just
roll over and surrender to those who I, and many others, believe have now overstepped ethical/impropriety bounds...means that what's currently happening in my small city
just might come to your small city next. Copyright
© 2023 / Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved.
**************************************************************************************************
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, Insurrection, Lies, and Video Tape.
*******************************************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!
Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 14th, from 7-8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS
Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'The Ramifications of Silencing Free Speech'; 'Insurrection, Lies, and Video Tape'; and important news of the day. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT
SIDE PATRIOTS
on
https://rspradio1.com. Click 'LISTEN
LIVE' starting
at 6:50 pm EST with show beginning at 7pm EST.
