[Vision2020] Weitz is a civic terrorist?
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Tue May 8 17:44:34 PDT 2007
Well, that's the thing about fools and curmudgeons -- you can't figure what they'll do next, and sometimes it's worse than you'd have ever imagined.keelyDate: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:33:27 -0700From: vpschwaller at gmail.comTo: vision2020 at moscow.comSubject: Re: [Vision2020] Weitz is a civic terrorist?BL -
It seems to me a huge amount of administrative time and a sizable chunk
of money was paid out a short time ago in what many perceived to be a
misguided attempt to build a new high school. I don't remember
the district nor its patrons being overly concerned about this expense
- but then it was something MSD wholly embraced. I got the
impression this (a new high school) was something so wonderful and
necessary that only a fool or a curmudgeon could be against it.
Huh. I think MSD was a bit off-target on that particular issue.
Now we have an issue which seems to have a significant amount of
interest and support from the locals (read taxpayers), yet it is
probably NOT something MSD is totally embracing. So this makes an
attempt to resolve this issue with prejudice (i.e. end of story) a
totally unnecessary expenditure of time and money?? And if Dr.
Weitz loses, cannot the district have court costs and associated legal
fees paid for by the plaintiff?
I think MSD has a concern, but I'm not so sure it's main focus is an unnecessary expenditure of time and money.
"Be concerned. Be very concerned."
(with apologies to Veronica Quaife)On 5/8/07, Bill London <london at moscow.com> wrote:
your question: "If Dr. Weitz's claim has no legal merit, then why would MSD have any
my response: a huge amount of administrative time and a sizable chunk of
money (as in paid by local taxes to the district) will have to be used to fight
this suit. Of course the district, and its patrons, are concerned.
----- Original Message -----
vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Weitz is a civic
Ms. Emerinemix,I don't know if there is any merit to
Dr. Weitz's claim. I believe that the foundation for any argument is "is
this position valid?" With something as complex and potentially
dangerous and damaging as the illlegality of a tax-based ballot measure, I
have no problem with someone questions its validity. Dr. Weitz has
wisely chosen to use the law to determine if his claim has merit. Many
will discount this as "frivolity" and cite a laundry list of reasons based on
gut-wrenching emotion (oh the poor kids! The poor teachers! The
poor administration!) and avoid considering a more insidious outcome of
allowing a group to unfairly and inappropriately tax the public for whatever
it is they want (be it schools, roads, parks, athletic centers). This
potentially could set a precedence by which any group could do the same
thing. If Dr. Weitz's claim has no legal merit, then why would MSD have
any concern? I for one would rather see the law surrounding this issue
clearly delineated than to see some other, possibly more unsavory group, use
the same tactics to fund their particular
interest.Schwaller"The bigger they are, the harder they fall
on you" Mark Knopfler
services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
Add some color. Personalize your inbox with your favorite colors.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020