Home > Education, Elected Officials, Flagstaff Liberty Alliance, New Media > The City Of Flagstaff Donates Your Tax Dollars To…

The City Of Flagstaff Donates Your Tax Dollars To…

By Elisha Dorfsmith

Several of my readers have asked for a list of outside organizations that the City of Flagstaff donates tax dollars to.  I was able to get a copy of the proposed City of Flagstaff FY 2013 Contribution Overview. A couple categories do not have a dollar amount yet. Here’s what it includes:

General Fund

Events:

FUSD Grad Night  $745

4th Of July $19,800

Route 66  $3,746

New Year’s Eve $3,746

Agencies:

United Way $293,781

Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership $19,725

FACTS $247,319

Weed & Seed $5,503

Coalition for Children and Youth $19,669

NACOG Rural Transport $4,152

Intake Triage $74,250

Sister Cities $2,775

Victim Witness $41,304

NACASA $15,627

Humane Society $161,985

Emergency Housing $20,000

Rural Policy ?

Boys & Girls Club ?

Total: $934,127

________________________________________

Economic Development

Agencies:

Rural Policy-University to Business $30,000

Rural Policy-Alliance Work $25,000

NACOG EDA Grant $4,500

Science Foundation $50,000

SEDI $20,000

ECONA $40,000

Workforce Development $17,500

TOTAL: $187,000

________________________________________

Arts and Science

Agencies:

FCP Administrative Fee $69,825

FCP A&S Grant Awards $293,000

FCP A&S Grant To Agencies 1x ?

Riordan Mansion $20,000

Total: $382,825

________________________________________

Click picture to enlarge.

flagstafflibertyalliance.com

Advertisements
  1. Bob
    February 19, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Clarification with some FACTS about these monies:

    The voters – the taxpayers – voted in the last election to renew the BBB (Bed, Board and Booze) tax revenues (with almost 80% of the voters in favor). Those revenues go to five areas, by decree of the voter-approved initiative: Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Beautification, and Arts & Sciences. The lowest amount of the entire stack goes to Arts & Sciences at 7.5%. The City contracts with FCP (Flagstaff Cultural Partners) to administer these funds in the community. The City used to have its own commission for this purpose, but found they could save taxpayer dollars by going with a local non-profit that could leverage City support with volunteer and private resources.

    It’s a smart business move that saves taxpayer money. Not a “contribution.”

    The other areas approved by voters for funding are mostly conducted in house, with the exception of Economic Development. ECONA – the Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona is the official title – is a public/private partnership between many major institutions in northern Arizona to work collaboratively on economic development issues. I’ve spoken before that I think it’s questionable about government spending on econ/dev, because then gov’t is choosing winners and losers in the free market. However, it is a taxpayer and voter approved initiative to spend the money on economic development. ECONA is a better option than the City spending those dollars in house and working without partners in the community.

    Also, further clarification about some of the monies listed above:

    BBB Revenues are a tax on hotel and bed/breakfast stays, restaurant dining, and alcohol buys in bars/restaurants.

    As for funded agencies at the top of the list (funds are not from the BBB): again, this is about the City relying on outside agencies to do work that it does not want to do itself, or cannot do itself without greater cost. FACTS, for instance, is an after-school program that provides inexpensive child care to working families. It provides a service that I can attest to as a single parent. Without it, I likely would not have been able to raise young children in Flagstaff and would have moved away. Could you imagine how much more it would cost if the City provided this service on its own? United Way provides funding to agencies that help the less fortunate. The City’s support of these activities is to keep from having to provide those services on its own at greater cost.

    Don’t forget – and this is the most important point – that non-profits raise money in the community and leverage volunteer resources and grants, bringing resources to the table that a government cannot. This makes it so that the City putting its money into United Way is NOT a contribution, but a tax-saving initiative that allows the City to focus money on other essential services.

    Go ahead, tell me that I called you names.

    • February 19, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      Hi Bob,

      I added a picture of the official City document to my blog above. The official City document calls this list a “Contribution Overview”. This is the document Susan Alden sent me when I submitted an information request. Hope that helps.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:33 am

      Again, United Way is PRIMARILY a lobbyist. Public Funds toward Campaign Contributions.
      Swell. Yammer for another two pages, it won’t change reality. In fact, your efforts provide further reasons as to exactly Why governments should Not be mixed with private-sector “charities”.

      • Bob
        February 21, 2012 at 11:08 am

        I haven’t seen the local United Way’s financial reports. Have you? I highly doubt your assertion that they are “primarily a lobbyist.” But if you have proof of this, please show us. (I’m not interested in how the national UW spends its money, so it’s specifically United Way of Northern Arizona that applies here.)

      • SlimStrontem
        February 22, 2012 at 12:44 am

        Read their own description on their own web site, there Bob.
        I don’t care what your personal requirements are, and I’m sure you don’t care about mine.
        Facts is facts.

      • Bob
        February 22, 2012 at 7:42 am

        Here’s what the local UW site says:

        “Our mission: To improve lives by mobilizing communities to make lasting changes in community conditions.
        Opportunities for a better tomorrow. UWNA is a local nonprofit organization that brings our community together and focuses resources on the most critical human-care needs in Northern Arizona. Although UWNA is part of the network of United Ways across our country, we are governed by a local volunteer board of directors. We have partnerships with government, business, the faith community, education, nonprofits and individuals.”

        Where is the lobbying?
        http://www.nazunitedway.org/

      • SlimStrontem
        February 22, 2012 at 10:51 am

        On their national site, of course, which is why you specified the local site, with a pretense of it’s absolute autonomy.
        Nevertheless, I find the ills herein discussed to be codified in your quoted description.
        Government’s only partner should be it’s employer, it’s contract holder, it’s property owner, it’s paycheck provider. It should do so with all due diligence, without double-talk or even the appearance of of impropriety. Any who argue otherwise are either fools or beneficiaries, whether their only benefit is exercise of their idealism at the expense of others, or for public praise, or for other personal gain–All at the expense of others, all threat of force, all at the expense of freedom–Which in any case, are foolish to not measure their own supposed gains against their own imminent loss.

  2. February 19, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    The information above is from an official City document called a “Contribution Overview”. The majority of those contributions come from the general fund. The above blog post is for informational purposes only.

  3. Eddie Parrino
    February 19, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    I like the weed and seed thing. Thats money well spent, wherever you’re from

  4. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 8:04 am

    Clearly, the City has categorized some of those incorrectly.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:36 am

      Further demonstrating their competence, skills, judgment, and discretion.

  5. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Of course, if you want people to believe as you have asserted (that your blog is filled with “facts”), I recommend you dig a little deeper than simply requesting documents from the City. Especially since you want to be an elected public official.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:37 am

      Yes, one obviously cannot use government documents to establish fact.

  6. Bill Tippett
    February 20, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Bob, you don’t provide any facts either to support your major contentions. Show the analysis supporting your contention that FACTS is effective and/or even needed. That the city couldn’t solely fund FACTS isn’t sufficient because I would contend that the city shouldn’t even provide, or subsidize, child care to begin with. If you can’t afford to live somewhere than you should either consider how you spend your money, get a different job, or, “gasp…how could you say this” move to a location that provides a better job and/or lower cost of living. It isn’t the rest of the community’s, nor the government’s, job to mitigate every problem in life, especially for circumstances that are the result of choices we make. So, by all means, show some concrete analysis that proves the program is truly needed and effective aside from your personal anecdote.

    “United Way provides funding to agencies that help the less fortunate. The City’s support of these activities is to keep from having to provide those services on its own at greater cost.” United Way is a clearing house for charitable donations and has a poor track record with regard to expense ratios and fraud (at the national level). It also distributes funding to many programs that have nothing to do with the less fortunate. If there is a demonstrated need in our community for funds to be directed towards those needs, then why not just give them direct, after sufficient due diligence, instead of funneling through a quasi-political group. Please provide the data supporting your contention that the city would incur greater costs if they supported these activities in a different manner.

    “Don’t forget – and this is the most important point – that non-profits raise money in the community and leverage volunteer resources and grants, bringing resources to the table that a government cannot.” Frankly, I really don’t understand this last point because it seems somewhat contradictory. Yes, non-profits do raise money to fill a more specific need that isn’t sufficiently met in the community. Do you think the people you are arguing with are against non-profits? We’re just against the city using monies taken from our pockets through legislation and used outside its basic legislative mandate.

    “This makes it so that the City putting its money into United Way is NOT a contribution, but a tax-saving initiative that allows the City to focus money on other essential services.” Again, please provide some analysis to back your opinion. Government spending to support charities has been shown in many studies to “crowd out” contributions that would have come from private donors.

    Your “facts” at the beginning of your post don’t support anything you contend. By all means support United Way or any other charity you like, just don’t use tax payer money . Voting for the taxes doesn’t imply free reign with regard to spending.

  7. February 20, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Bob said:

    “ECONA is a better option than the City spending those dollars in house and working without partners in the community.”

    For the record, the City does spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in house on redundant programs like ECONA. The biggest being the Flagstaff Department of Economic Vitality.

    This document shows that ECONA was not intended to replace the Flagstaff Department of Economic Vitality:

    http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=11607

    Hope that helps.

  8. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Well, I’m not running for political office. You ARE. So, I definitely expect your blog to be filled with facts, and I expect that you’d dig deeper into issues than just looking at the surface of what’s available from city documents. Clearly, you have not done that research and don’t fully understand the machinations of this City.

    I stated both facts as well as opinions. I have that right, as do you. I also took a moment to clarify your incorrect reporting of the facts.

    As for FACTS (the after-school program), I don’t care about what analysis you want. It works for me. You can call it wasteful and unnecessary spending all you want. I can also call snow removal wasteful and unnecessary. You can cherry pick ANY government spending and call it unnecessary. If you can’t handle snow removal on your own, then go to a City or town where it doesn’t snow, or make more money and pay for it on your own. Otherwise, don’t complain if the City doesn’t provide it when you want it. Same goes for police protection. Buy a gun. Or schools. Do home schooling at your own expense and quit expecting government to do your own damn work.

    As for the non-profit point of view, I’ll try to simplify it for you.

    The voters have mandating spending on a program. The City could:
    a) Spend that money in-house at a high cost to taxpayers, with considerable waste and no additional resources to support that work.
    Or…
    b) Contract with a non-profit (the out-sourcing that Republicans love when it goes to companies they own stock in) which can leverage considerable volunteer and financial resources and do the work at half the cost of the City. Non-profits are not required to spend on expensive salary benefits like the City is, and they can apply for private grants not available to the City, and get far more volunteer support than any government. Boom, save money. Again, if the spending is mandated by the voters, why not spend wisely? I’m not going to provide deeper analysis than this… you either get it or you don’t.

    I understand your point of view: cut government spending, reduce taxes, focus on “core” essential services.

    The real fact is… you live in a community in which you are BY FAR in the minority. People here support taxpayer money going to FACTS, United Way, and programs like arts, tourism, econ/dev, parks and recreation. Hell, this town overwhelmingly supports spending on a trail system! (FUTS)

    So, by all means, support your political viewpoint. But if you don’t like the fact that by democratic process, you are out-voted on just about every issue, perhaps another town (gasp!) is for you. I hear Mesa and Glendale need more people.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:38 am

      You don’t need any reason for double-standards. They are always acceptable.

  9. February 20, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Hi Bob,

    Thanks for your thoughts. My readers requested this document and I supplied them with it. The purpose of the above blog post was to share public information. Not to editorialize. I’m just the messenger.

    If you have a problem with the wording of the document I recommend that you contact the City of Flagstaff and ask them to word it the way you feel is best.

    I am still in the process of going through this document line by line and seeing where each dollar comes from and how each dollar is spent. So far I have found that the majority comes from the general fund. Expect another blog post coming soon with more facts.

    Hope that helps.

  10. Bill Tippett
    February 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Again Bob, you’ve only provided opinion with no fact or real analysis. If city staff doesn’t take the time to do the due diligence then they’ve only abdicated the responsibility to use public money effectively and efficiently. Sorry, that is not good business, common sense, or otherwise, and you clearly don’t get that because at the end of the day, as you said, “I don’t care about what analysis you want. It works for me.”

    Last time I checked dissenting viewpoint was part of the democratic process but I get the impression you are one of those types that only tolerate people who agree with your adolescent sensibilities. There are trade offs any community has to make and the time has come for us to decided what can and can’t be done with limited revenues.

    And lastly, if you really had the courage of your convictions, you wouldn’t take cowardly swipes at Elisha under a pseudonym. You clearly have a political agenda and did not come here to discuss the issues. But by all means, keep going. You are flushing out the image of a narrow minded, short sighted fool we are all starting to imagine.

  11. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Bill, you have chosen to get personal and offensive, calling me adolescent, cowardly and narrow minded. That’s your choice. I’m not going there.

    I’m not here for the reasons you stated. I’ve commented to provide facts and my opinions about those facts, as well as to provide some greater detail and insight about the monies that Elisha has criticized.

    If you go back and read carefully, you’ll find that my first comment on this post is almost entirely factual, sprinkled with a few opinionated comments. I was providing backstory about the monies listed above. You can contact the City and check on what I said. I know it to be true. You also can note that I have not resorted to name calling. It’s all there.

    You don’t like my opinions. That’s fine. But to clarify:

    This is FACT: “The voters – the taxpayers – voted in the last election to renew the BBB (Bed, Board and Booze) tax revenues (with almost 80% of the voters in favor). Those revenues go to five areas, by decree of the voter-approved initiative: Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Beautification, and Arts & Sciences. The lowest amount of the entire stack goes to Arts & Sciences at 7.5%. The City contracts with FCP (Flagstaff Cultural Partners) to administer these funds in the community. The City used to have its own commission for this purpose, but found they could save taxpayer dollars by going with a local non-profit that could leverage City support with volunteer and private resources.”

    This is OPINION: “It’s a smart business move that saves taxpayer money. Not a “contribution.” ”

    That’s how I started, and I provided additional factual statements along the way. But you claim I’ve provided no facts. Oh well.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:41 am

      Spending is saving.

  12. Bill Tippett
    February 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    You already went there Bob. Are you really that imbecilic? How could I get personal, I don’t know who you are because, yes, you are a coward for not using your real name. Your presentation of the facts is week at best and your opinions are based largely in feeling and less in the reasoning sensibilities of a self actualized adult. That the way I see it, sorry if you’re offended.

  13. Bill Tippett
    February 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    *weak*

  14. February 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    LOL! Lots of people who read my blog think Bob is Stephen Knutson. I guess these kinds of assumptions are just begging to be made when people don’t post under their real or full name. For the record Bob, attacking people online while using an alias is considered by many to be a cowardly act.

  15. Bill Tippett
    February 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    I should have known. I felt like I was being sucked into a familiar vortex.

  16. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    I don’t know Stephen Knutson, and I’m not interested in “attacking people.” I’m also not interested in announcing my name to a group of strangers in a forum that is designed for anonymity. Bill may or may not be who he claims to be, nor do I care if he is. I can discuss matters without worrying about identity, because it doesn’t impact the issues at hand. Obviously, given the way you represent Stephen Knutson, it’s clear that it would matter TO YOU who is stating a point of view. But to me, it doesn’t.

    If this blog isn’t open for discussion from those with dissenting viewpoints, then just say so. Otherwise, I’ll continue to address points. If you want to call me cowardly, imbecilic, or whatever crap you can come up with, go ahead. Too bad you can’t directly refute the points I make.

    The disappointing part, for me, is that I agree with some of the points you make here. But I wouldn’t support your bid for elected position given this level of response.

    Let’s discuss the issues clearly and without the nastiness. Would that be so hard?

    • February 20, 2012 at 3:26 pm

      I did refute your points. I explained that the majority of the contributions are from the general fund. I also explained that ECONA replaces nothing. If you actually read my responses to you you would know this.

      Bob said:

      “ECONA is a better option than the City spending those dollars in house and working without partners in the community.”

      For the record, the City does spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in house on redundant programs like ECONA. The biggest being the Flagstaff Department of Economic Vitality.

      This document shows that ECONA was not intended to replace the Flagstaff Department of Economic Vitality:

      http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=11607

      Hope that helps.

      • Bob
        February 20, 2012 at 4:38 pm

        I read your posts, Elisha. The ECONA discussion is certainly worthy of looking into. It’s more complex than you paint it, here. This certainly doesn’t count as a refutation, but you do address it, I’ll give you that.

        But how the City handles Economic Development is a much, much bigger issue… and again, it’s voter approved. Perhaps that’s for another post that isn’t messy with all this other stuff, yes?

  17. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    The sad part is… my last comment wasn’t even about the opening points of this blog post or the clarifying comments I made about how the City spends its money. Instead, I’m having to defend having a point of view and providing additional information about the topic at hand…

  18. February 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    “Let’s discuss the issues clearly and without the nastiness. Would that be so hard?”

    LOL. Sigh, how do I respond to this with a straight face.

  19. February 20, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    And Bob, if you know anything about Flagstaff and Flagstaff City Hall you know who Stephen Knutson is.

  20. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    I mean that I have not met Stephen Knutson. I have only heard his name, and I’m aware that he ran for Council at some point.

    Where’s my nastiness? Quote it, please.

  21. February 20, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Do you even read what you write? You used the word “nastiness”. My posts have been very patient with you. If anything, your posts have been filled with “nastiness”.

  22. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Read my first post in response to this blog. Tell me where the nastiness is. QUOTE IT. Don’t just say “all your posts are filled with” and don’t show what you are talking about.

  23. February 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    You accused me of nastiness which must be pretty funny to those following along at home. Read my first post in response to you. Tell me where the nastiness is?

    Bottom line Bob, you’re looking for a fight and I’m not going to give you one. Have a great evening.

  24. February 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    I’ll let you have the last word because I know you’re going to insist on it.

  25. Bob
    February 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Actually, I said it’d be nice to have a discussion without the nastiness. That was in direct response to Bill, not you.

    Later, you accused me of nastiness, saying “If anything, your posts have been filled with “nastiness”. ” In another thread, you accused me of name calling when I hadn’t done any name calling. Also, I see that you have gone back and edited your responses. Hmm.

    I’m not interested in a fight. Only discussion of the issues. Let’s get to those, shall we? Any thoughts on how non-profits can save money for the taxpayers?

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:49 am

      A consistent undermining of false accusations, i.e., faulting one for providing city documents as valid evidence with the suggestion that such provision is misleading, inadequate, or unprofessional or lazy, seems to me to be pretty danged nasty–But, it could be a hormonal thing, and not nasty at all…

      • SlimStrontem
        February 21, 2012 at 4:50 am

        ‘undermining BY …’

  26. February 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Listen Rick or Stephen or Bob or whatever your name is, In the other thread you called me “ignorant” among other things.

    I clarified my point in a couple posts to make sure I was clear but did not edit anything that affected content or the spirit of the post.

    I have been talking about the issues. Unfortunately, you refuse to stick to the issues.

    Your last question is trying to trick me into giving you my opinion and then you will complain that I didn’t include enough “facts” to back it up. Simply put, If the City of Flagstaff stopped paying into every one of the non-profits above the world would still turn and life would go on as usual. If the taxpayers were able to keep their own money for themselves they could step up and donate it to any charity they want. If there was a huge need people would step up to fund it. Big government is a copout. It assumes that people are evil and will never help each other. I believe in the goodness of people and I know that if there is a need people will join together to solve the problem.

    This can be done without the layers of bureaucracy and cronyism that government fosters. If I am able to get on the council I will advocate for a smaller, more sensible government.

    I should know better than to feed the troll but there you go. Again, I’ll let you have the last word. Gripe and complain away.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 4:54 am

      …And citizens seeing a need and a charity worthy of support will find a way to do what is conscionable for them, as opposed to unconscionably having others contribute what is NONE of theirs in the first place.

  27. SlimStrontem
    February 21, 2012 at 5:01 am

    Politicians sing public funds to buy favors and praise is bad enough.
    Directly receiving a tiny portion of those funds returned to the politicians campaigns through lobbyists, or board memberships, or “free” lunches should inspire old-time visions of justice–Just enough so, that the laws are amended to prevent abuses that, in other times, WOULD have had the rat-bastards at the end of a rope.

    • SlimStrontem
      February 21, 2012 at 5:02 am

      “…Using…”

  28. Bob
    February 21, 2012 at 7:40 am

    I agree wholeheartedly that we could take less taxes and have government be more efficient. I believe this very strongly on the state and federal levels, where I almost never see my tax dollars put to work to benefit me or my community. On the local level, however, tax dollars impact my life and those in the community at large. My focus will always be on eliminating wasteful spending by GIGANTIC bureaucracies at the state and federal level. On the local level? In Flagstaff? I just don’t see the level of waste you are talking about.

    What none of you are willing to address (apparently your feelings are hurt) is that the voters approved collecting taxes and spending money on five areas: parks and rec, tourism, econ/dev, beautification and arts/science. These are democratically approved measures.

    City staff and council have chosen to spend some of that voter-mandated money (arts/sciences) through a contract with a non-profit. The non-profit can do the work at less cost and bring more resources to the table than the City can. So tell me: how is this inappropriate? If it’s inappropriate, how would you recommend that the City spend this voter-mandated fund set aside specifically for arts and sciences?

    The money spent on economic development is voter-mandated. By nearly 80% of the voters. So, Elisha (and I open this question up to others), how would you recommend we spend that money? We can’t give it back to the voters – they have demanded it is spent on econ/dev programs. How would you spend it? Would you involve non-profits? Would you involve the 10 other agencies in N. Arizona also working on econ/dev, or would you ignore them? Those 10 (approx) are represented through ECONA, by the way, and many of them contribute as much or more than the City to the work that ECONA is doing. Important side question: are you familiar with how that money is spent now? Not just the lump sum, but how the work is actually done?

    I recognize that you have responded about FACTS and United Way. We disagree. I believe this is valuable spending that serves the citizenry (much in the same way snow removal does), and you do not. That’s fine, we disagree.

    I invite you to: a) call me a troll for asking questions related to the topic at hand while ignoring my points, and focus on the word “ignoring” like it’s a troll attack, or b) actually answer these questions and stay on topic. Expressing your opinion will not be a problem for me, nor will I call you out on it. These are complex issues. Tell us what you’d do, and how you’d spend the money. I’m not going to attack, nor should you fear it. Hell, I know every word I write is going to be attacked, but I have conviction in my views, so I don’t much care what names you or others call me.

    • Bill Tippett
      February 21, 2012 at 10:03 am

      If you had real conviction in your views you wouldn’t hide behind a pseudonym. “What none of you are willing to address (apparently your feelings are hurt)…” Your smug condescension with similar remarks throughout all of your posts elicited the more direct shots I took at you because it is obvious you are not here to discuss anything. Your tactics are amateurish and boorish.

  29. February 21, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Bob = Rick Krug.

    I addressed the voter mandated money and explained that it’s a very small portion of the City contribution list published above. The majority of the above list comes from the general fund.

    That said,

    Voter mandated money should certainly be spent the way the voters intended it to be spent. I have no problem with that. But some of the economic development money listed above comes from the General Fund. I’ve discussed this with several people who are familiar with the matter and the consensus was that the city should eliminate the Flagstaff Department of Economic Vitality and put the voter mandated money into ECONA. No need for redundant programs and it would save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. Keep in mind that I’m not a fan of ECONA but it’s the lesser of the two evils. The City should not be sending tax dollars to SEDI or any other extremist groups that promote handing American sovereignty over to the United Nations.

    As far as beautification funds, the City has borrowed that money and used it for other things. It should be set aside for what the voters approved it for. I know you’re supporting Kulpinski but Jerry Nabours is the only mayoral candidate who has addressed this.

  30. Bob
    February 21, 2012 at 10:18 am

    I will ignore Bill’s comments.

    Elisha, thank you. I appreciate your comments here (except for the Rick Krug reference… I don’t agree with his politics). I agree with your sentiment about ECONA… put the money into a non-profit and let them do the work and find additional resources, and then require detailed reporting and accountability. Same with FCP.

    I don’t know much about SEDI or why you call them “extremist.” I’d like to know more. Have you posted about that before? If so, can you reference it? … or another link that would explain?

    I don’t support Kulpinski. I am undecided about Mayor, as I am not convinced of any candidate just yet. Nabours seems to sit on one side extreme opposite of Kulpinski and White… I’d prefer somebody who can handle the middle ground. I know little about Reilly, but he does not give me confidence.

  31. February 21, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    The SEDI website currently seems to be having problems but I have a well researched future blog planned showing that their focus is on implementing Agenda 21:

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

  32. Bill Tippett
    February 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Since Elisha has maintained the high road throughout this exchange I feel it is important to note, for those of you who might be reading these comments, that Elisha and I have no affiliation, alliance, close friendship or otherwise. I appreciate sincerely all the efforts he makes to inform our community about the issues. This is not an apology for what I’ve said or for the barbs thrown in Bob’s direction. I just don’t want anyone to presume my views and thoughts are in any way synonymous with Elisha’s.

    Elisha deserves consideration for city council on his merits and his public behavior should be weighed against those in consideration, as well as those who are currently seated on the council. Many behave and speak in a similar way as Bob. They demagogue, deflect, and cry foul all in attempt to gain sympathy where none is deserved which has made it incredibly difficult for those who have good intent and are not out to further their own personal interests at others’ expense.

  33. Bob
    February 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Lol Bill… I’d definitely suggest that you put as much distance between yourself and Elisha if you want him to get onto Council.

    As for Elisha and Council, I’ll say this: when you are an elected official, people will bring opposing viewpoints to you all the time. You will be criticized regularly. People will challenge your statements, some in nice ways, some in not-so-nice ways.

    If you think my manners here have been boorish, you probably aren’t cut out for it. But if you can listen to my views stated as they are, and respond with respect and dignity (to the actual points addressed)… and then also listen to someone like Bill who might call you “imbecilic,” or “narrow minded short sighted fool,” (or worse) and still respond with respect and dignity, then perhaps you are cut out for public office after all.

    As an aside, if I were really here just to be an ass (or whatever “fight” or other you think I’m trying to provoke), I promise you my behavior would be FAR worse than it is. I would not refrain from name calling, and I’d get downright nasty. Perhaps this is a clue.

    • Bill Tippett
      February 22, 2012 at 5:53 am

      Childish threats and advice from someone who has some serious character flaws.

  34. SlimStrontem
    February 22, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Bob, you’ve missed an excellent opportunity to show us how such ‘respect and dignity’ might be employed.

    So, your clue is that in real-life you are a nasty name-caller… Noted.

    About agenda 21: I surmise that these public/private ‘partnerships’, and their lobbying, are the only way to get delusional elitist powermongers in small towns to have any influence in helping the UN accomplish it’s intended goal of having non-sovereign subjects.

    Legally, cities and towns have zero influence on state or federal issues, other than through the courts, as necessary. Really, this is a battle of ideas, not yet embodied by legal powers. Stop the progression of the ill legal powers. Stop the appearance of impropriety. Stop giving taxpayer funds to private agencies. Stop the stupidity.

  1. October 22, 2012 at 7:33 am
  2. February 1, 2013 at 11:10 am
  3. June 11, 2013 at 9:00 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: