Quote:
Originally Posted by flambers
In my view it does not equal a public discussion. Nor should a public discussion be required. That type of thing always derails the topic.
I watched the video, it was well done. There is no harm for the alumni to send out this type of message.
|
I'm not criticizing the video at all (though I am curious about who quarterbacked it).
I'm criticizing CSEC's demand for [apparently one-sided] radio silence. They're not happy that the ridiculous things they asked for in the last round got out. Maybe they should never have asked for them, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ST20
I agree if you had public discussions on everything, nothing would ever get done. Public input for the most part occurs during voting.
I'm not saying that the public discussion should never occur. I'm just saying it's already happened and minds on either side aren't being changed at this point so it's unproductive.
|
Public discussion does not have to slow things down (a venture of this size shouldn't happen that quickly to begin with) or de-rail them. Sunlight only offers the negotiators some guidance in term of public sentiment. For instance, the mixed-response in here, one of the biggest die-hard Flames fan communities, should give the city pause to how much more generous they/we are willing to be.
I'll also call BS on public input mostly happening through elections. While this may be somewhat true for a lot of people, it is the monitoring of issues and provision of feedback throughout the term that paves the way for people to actually base their votes on something (such as, how well the candidate addressed public feedback/concerns).
Seeing which councillors trot out pathetic ideas is an important part of 'public discussion', as is people disagreeing with them.