Catching on
"It was a poorly disguised effort to obtain pubic support for previously made decisions," said Jannuzzi who attended the workshop. "They aren’t particularly interested in what you or I think. But now they can say they held a public meeting."
| Posted at 9:49 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (8)
"Pubic decisions"?
Once again, spellcheck is no substitute for copy editors at the brave new Tribune.
Posted by Kevin | August 17, 2008 10:10 PM
Sorry - I meant "pubic support."
Which is even funnier.
Posted by Kevin | August 17, 2008 10:11 PM
You almost want to print the daily bloopers out and mail them to the owner, but you're afraid he'd rather fold it than run it right.
Posted by Jack Bog | August 17, 2008 10:27 PM
I got your pubic support right here.
Posted by John Fairplay | August 17, 2008 11:10 PM
I'm willing to sacrifice a few pubes for a good cause.
Posted by Bark Munster | August 17, 2008 11:37 PM
The truth is that Jannuzzi is absolutely right in his analysis. I went to many public meetings and was dispirited by the contempt shown by the public servants, in other words this was placating to the public and had no bearing on the preordained outcome. Same applied to the hoax of dimmo meetings with Kate Brown's dog and pony shows...all of them fixed with their planted questioners.
Posted by KISS | August 18, 2008 5:44 AM
Good example of staying on point, Jack.
Posted by David E Gilmore | August 18, 2008 6:48 AM
"... out-of-the-box ideas were also put on the table, such as ... even building underground bike lanes."
Yes! We've finally graduated from semi-plausible nonsense that can dupe people, to completely outlandish sci-fi-level nonsense. I love it. Next is the jet packs!
On the issue of public involvement, it seems to me just based on common sense that you couldn't elicit any valid public feedback through these public meetings, because the sample size is so small and self-selecting. Some other way to gather a much larger sample would be needed.
Posted by Dr. Manhattan | August 18, 2008 8:21 PM