Demand accountability this Tuesday at 6:00pm at 1 North Ave (Burlington Police Department).

This Tuesday evening come show your support for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the police brutality in Burlington.

Mayor Weinberger has let the Burlington Police investigate themselves as to whether shooting protesters performing civil disobedience on July 29th was justified. The police preliminary incident report itself is marked by many factual errors and misrepresentation and a sheer lack of accountability that many feared would be the result of having an organization with such a vested interest investigate themselves. T

Tuesday August 28th, Burlington Police Commission will receive the BPD incident report about July 29th. The meeting is open to the public.

Last week, four City Councilors (Vince Brennan, Sharon Bushor, Rachel Siegel, and Max Tracy) wrote Mayor Weinberger, demanding an independent investigation. Their request echoed many, many Burlington citizens wishes at a City Council meeting on August 13.

Here is part of their letter:

"While we are grateful to the BPD for conducting their own investigation, we hope that an independent investigation will help build public trust in our police force and provide a forum through which to answer pressing questions...

"It is our sincere hope that with a complete and independent review, we can determine the sequence of events and why actions were taken and, more importantly, how we can respond differently in the future."

Some of the questions that this preliminary action/incident report (conducted by the police themselves) did not answer and still need answering include:

■ An understanding of the kind of training officers receive to deal with “de-escalating protests.”
■ The mayor’s involvement in preparation for the protest and whether he authorized the use of “pepper spray and rubber bullets.”
■ Whether the police had exhausted methods short of force to disperse the protesters.
■ Why, as no arrests were made, the police used pellets and pepper spray.
■ Why those pellets were beyond their expiration date.
■ Whether officers removed their badges, and if so, why?
■ Whether all of the officers involved in the use of force were Burlington police officers.
■ Whether the officer who gave the order to use force was present.

Neither of our Ward 5 City Councilors, Joan Shannon nor Chip Mason, have signed on to their colleagues' letter to the mayor. Why haven't they? Don't they have questions, too? Why are they not demanding an independent review? As City Council President, why has Joan Shannon not demanded that the police incident report be presented to the full city council on the day that the police commission receives their copy?

I've seen first hand how police wrongdoing and abuse has lead to a breach of trust in other cities where I've lived. And I won't stand by and let that happen in Burlington.
With people's rights being trampled by police all over the country, it is crucial that we set a precedent that this is unacceptable in Vermont, and that Vermonters
don't just let something like this happen and then do nothing and forget about it.

Show up, pay attention, speak out on August 28.

Seven Days Biases

Seven Days, Burlington's "alternative" weekly, has become mainstream. (This move to bland, yuppie-liberal-hipster reporting has been going on ever since I moved to Burlington ten years ago.) The letters below call attention to the paper's anti-alternative biases. Kevin Kelley's article they critique concerns the recent city council candidates from Ward 3.

What I found instead was a biased article giving a voice to only the candidates with major party affiliations and marginalizing the independent candidates, Franco Salese and Ron Ruloff.

At a time when so many people are disappointed with the performance of the major parties, one might think this journalist would have offered a window into the ideologies of the alternative independent candidates. Not only did Mr. Kelley fail in that regard, he additionally referred to these two individuals as “long shots.” Does Mr. Kelley have any statistical data to back up this assertion?

I watched the Ward 3 debates on public access, and from them I learned that candidate Salese is more than just an “Alpine ski coach” “offering a little bit for everyone.” Mr. Salese stated a long list of professional credentials, as well as concrete solutions to many of the transparency concerns voiced by his constituents.

Through these debates I also learned that Ron Ruloff is not just a man who lives in his car. He offered an informed perspective on the city’s financial situation. Did Kelley not tune in? Did he not interview these candidates before sending this article to press? I must assume that Kelley either failed in his journalistic responsibilities or that he views non-Progressive and non-Democrat ideologies as unworthy of print. Additionally, referring to candidate Ruloff as just a guy who lives in his car truly perpetuates a problem in this country: that the homeless are voiceless and irrelevant. Overall, irresponsible journalism permeates this article.

The other letter was written by Ron Ruloff, one of the independent candidates.

I was never interviewed by Kevin J. Kelley or anyone else for the article on the Ward 3 city council race. My views and positions go far beyond stating, to paraphrase your “reporting”: “I live in a truck.” (Which is a statement I never made to you.) You had a reasonably good photo of me, but you might have said you failed to contact me for the article, rather than portraying me as a meaningless entity surviving in an old motor vehicle on the streets.

Your liberal-radical left bias is showing. The Dems and the Progs, with their self-serving, politically correct and anti-Semitic rant, are “objectively” reported as the front-runners. They’re just brainwashed yuppies with a rant: I invited all of them in person to debate me on my show, “Radio Free Brooklyn,” and none showed. None wanted to subject their views to any sort of rational analysis.

Remember, it was the Dems and Progs on the council who paid no attention to the city’s deteriorating finances over the past six or seven years because they’re “volunteers.” Remember, it was Bob Kiss the Progressive who introduced total secrecy into the mayor’s office and an authoritarian form of city government, and who has been allowed to skate free of criminal charges although he illegally diverted some $17 million in city funds. And the same people who are friends of Kiss and Clavelle should be allowed to stay in office? Sure, because of the backing of propaganda sheets like Seven Days, which carefully covers up all liberal malfeasance.

Haik Bedrosian interviews Bram Kranichfeld

Burlington's Democratic caucus will choose its 2012 mayoral candidate next Sunday, November 13. My choice is Bram Kranichfeld, and fellow Burlington blogger Haik Bedrosian has interviewed him.

What you can do: Burlington's controversial partnership with Lockheed-Martin

Burlington neighbors are concerned:
at the prospect of Lockheed engineers working with kids inside Burlington schools; at the lack of transparency and public comment with which the Kiss administration brokered this most unlikely of partnerships; at Lockheed's long reputation for fraud, discrimination, environmental degradation and war profiteering; and at how this could let Lockheed privatize existing climate change efforts.

More background can be found here: http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/americas/2245-lockheed-martin-and-burlington

What you can do:
The obvious, first easy step is to get folks to call and email Mayor Kiss.
802-865-7272 mayor@ci.burlington.vt.us

Set up a meeting with your City Councilor to discuss your concerns over this secretive deal with the world's largest war profiteer. Ask City Councilors to pass a resolution asking for transparency and partnering the City with our award winning local climate change non-profits and companies instead of Lockheed. Contact info for all 14 Councilors can be found here: http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/citycouncil/councilors/

Organize your neighbors against the controversial Lockheed deal this Sunday January 30th 11am at Viva Espresso. We'll fan out across the city with fliers and petitions:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=104963586245888

Make and hang art standing up for Burlington and against Lockheed. Feel free to print and display the attached art by Burlington artist Liza Cowen

Have a Letter to the Editor writing party with friends:
http://www.7dvt.com/feedback
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/section/OPINION02/My-Turn
The more media activism the better: letters to the editor, op=eds, radio call in shows, social media, etc.

Join the Facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_192503360762465

Come Speak Out at the February 7th City Council Meeting: Public Comment starts at 7:30 p.m.

Then there is the Workers Center's Climate Change Event, Thursday, January 27 · 6:00pm 294 North Winooski: another great opportunity to build opposition to this awful contract across movements.http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152059668180042

If we do all of the above well and organize amongst our friends and communities, we will get successive waves of media coverage,and we will build momentum going into the February 7th City Council Meeting and we will win.

BURLINGTON'S BRIGHT FUTURE

Remind me again why we should be optimistic about this sort of "transparency" about Burlington Telecom when the Kiss administration plans - without question or public discussion - to collude with war profiteers.

Burlington Local: Get outta my way!

Good turn out for the Burlington City Council Ordinance Cmte meeting last night!

70 or so folks were there... The Ordinance committee has decided to reject sitting ban ordinance passed to them and pursue a community awareness resolution instead.

Recap: Sharon Bushor (I) proposed the above action that the cmte followed, Bram Kranichfeld (D) said he'd like to scrap the ordinance altogether, and still will feel that way unless Sharon's plan shows a real need, and Joan Shannon (D) seemed reluctant to go along with the Bushor plan, appearing to be more satisfied with the proposed ordinance. They will re-evaluate in the Fall.

Burlington Bans Smoking in Parks & Beaches

On Monday the Burlington city council voted unanimously to ban smoking at beaches and parks and has future plans to include a total ban on Church Street. (In 2004, the city banned smoking in restaurants and bars.) Explaining Monday's ruling, councilor Joan Shannon and current chair of the ordinance committee writes in her local Front Porch Forum, "there will be cleaner air in the areas of our parks where people tend to congregate." Surely this will displease some smokers and civil libertarians. We all know about the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke in enclosed areas. While it may appear as common sense to ban smoking outdoors, scientific studies on the effects of second-hand smoke outdoors remain inconclusive.

Everyone hates smokers anyway, so the city council ruling was an easy, feel-good change to the city's ordinance.

How to enforce this new law is another matter. That's not been worked out. The smoking ban at the Cherry Street CCTA bus stop has not been enforced. (It should be noted that neither the city's pesticides ordinance nor the dogs-on-leash law is enforced to their full extent.) Appearance matters. The news of Monday's ruling is certainly a diversion from the bad press city council got from the Burlington Telecom mess (councilors knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it), so Monday's ruling gives the temporary positive impression that the council is doing some work.

The city allows car idling for three minutes. If the intention was to promote better health, what about cars idling while stopped on streets crossing the pedestrian Church Street? Exhaust is linked to increased rates of asthma in children and contributes to air pollution, too - probably more than SHS. What about the plethora of cars that park at beaches and parks. City Hall Park is surrounded on three sides by parking. What about run-off into our precious Lake? A total pedestrian zone downtown is unlikely. The tourists and merchants would complain and the city would lose lucrative revenue.

[Over a year ago, the Board of Health recommended to city council that Burlington stop water fluoridation, in light of new findings in the NRC Report on fluoride in drinking water, citing particularly its effects on infants, kidney patients, diabetics and the elderly. There have been a couple of hearings by the public safety committee, but the recommendation has been untouched by city council. Politics and priorities are at play here, of course. Common sense would tell us that a decision to remove fluoride should be easy as the one the council took on Monday evening, but I won't hold my breath.]

WCAX: IRV repeal expected to sail through legislature

WCAX: Montpelier, Vermont - March 8, 2010:

IRV repeal expected to sail through legislature

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say they are going to follow the will of Burlington voters and approve a charter change repealing Instant Runoff Voting. Some had been pushing for a delay on the vote.

When Burlington residents voted to repeal Instant Runoff Voting, it still needed to go through one more step to become final. The legislature must approve any charter change, and both leaders in the House and Senate say they will take it up and pass it.
"Our hope is to bring it forward as quickly as possible," said Rep. Shap Smith/D-Vt. House Speaker.

Sen. Peter Shumlin/D-Vt. Senate President Pro Tem: "I expect the legislature will move and support the will of the voters."

Reporter Kristin Carlson asked: "And that includes you?"

Sen. Shumlin replied, "Absolutely."

"It seems to me that the people of Burlington have spoken on this issue and I would concur with them on their viewpoint," said Rep. Smith.

A united front that hurts the effort of people still fighting to save IRV, and bolsters IRV opponents who had worried Progressives would seek a delay. Some had talked behind the scenes about trying to stall a legislative vote for a year, so Instant Runoff Voting could be brought back to Burlington residents. Both House and Senate Leaders say if there's a change, then they'll simply hold another vote.

"It's our job to follow the will of the voters and that's what we do here in charter change requests," said Sen. Shumlin.

In response Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss says he remains disappointed in the outcome of the IRV vote, but that the charter change is not his decision, it's the legislatures, and he will leave it to them.

Pillow Fight Update II: Stern Words

Worth repeating, it is still really about power and control in Burlington. The authorities give the police the role of maintaining not just civil but political order (because the two are often linked). How can something done "all in good fun" be threatening the civil order? It became political when Darin Cassler was led off to be arrested. Although the charges were dropped against Mr Cassler, an increased threat to political order worries the authorities to no end.

Pillow Fight Update....

Blurt

Pillow fight organizer Darin Cassler is officially off the hook.

The Burlington Police Department does not plan to press disorderly conduct charges against Cassler, the 21-year-old who Facebook-organized last Friday's Church Street pillow fight.

Freeps Fluff Piece...

Adam Silverman, BFP's police beat reporter, quoting Darin Cassler, the organiser of Friday's Flash-Mob pillow fight,

'“If we’re not allowed to have pillow fights in our city, if we’re not allowed to organize and have fun with each other — is that what Burlington’s really about? Is that what America’s really about?

“I hope not.”'

Mr Cassler has been cited for disorderly conduct.

Pillow Talk

Following up on yesterday's post, there's more coverage on Friday's Pillow Flash-Mob Action from Eva Sollberger in Blurt. Green Mountain Daily reports that Church Street is safe once again. Here is Eva's video:



COMMENT: All of this is really about power and control. In this country (and in this city), the authorities give the police the role of maintaining not just civil but political order (because the two are often linked - witness the arrests of Burlington anti-war protesters back in 2007). How can something done "all in good fun" be threatening the civil order? As a participant stated on Eva Sollberger's video, it became political in Burlington when the organiser was led off to be arrested. An increasing threat to political order worries the authorities to no end. Burlington has become increasingly uptight, but as a commenter on my post yesterday writes "They can always do some pillow fighting down on Brattleboro. They won't get arrested."

WATCH CHANNEL 17 THIS WEEK

*WATCH*
~ City of Burlington: State of the City & New City Council - Monday, 4/6/09
~ Under the Dome: Same-Sex Marriage Veto Override Debate Live Video from Montpelier - Tuesday, 4/7/09
~ Anti-Nuclear Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott Live Interview and Talk - Wednesday, 4/8/09

VERMONT: MORE SURPRISES FROM YESTERDAY'S EQUAL MARRIAGE VOTE

In my limited experience, I'm learning that politics work very strangely in Vermont. Shay Totten (Blurt/Seven Days), tweets today from Montpelier,

Drag Queens heart Republican Kurt Wright

with a link to the Sisters LeMay blog post about one of the most surprising affirmative votes in yesterday's decision by the House on the equal marriage bill.

In last night's (4/2/09) historic vote by the Vermont House of Representatives to approve the same-sex marriage bill, there were a few "yea" votes that were unexpected. And one of them was from Burlington's only Republican representative, Kurt Wright.



While running for mayor two short months ago, during one of the debates, as reported by Shay Totten of Seven Days, "Wright was the only candidate at last week’s Seven Days mayoral forum who balked at the yes-no question: “Do you support same-sex marriage?”

Wright is also known as a surrogate spokesman for Governor Douglas, thus his change in position on the same-sex bill is even more surprising.

I greeted Kurt yesterday in Montpelier, but honestly thought asking him to vote yes was a lost cause, given he's a rabid Republican (especially in Montpelier). It was a personal letter from former state rep and former Burlington mayor Peter Brownell that conviced Kurt to vote yes. Brownell had lost his re-bid to the House due to his support of civil unions in 2000.

Wright said he didn't make up his mind on the issue until Thursday. Reading from Brownell's letter, one line resonated, "I don't regret my decision for a minute."

Photo courtesy of the Sisters LeMay.

LOCAL: VINCE DOBER WINS WARD 7 RUN-OFF

Dober: 515
Lesser-Goldsmith: 425

I don't even live in Ward 7, but if I did, I would have very begrudgingly voted for neo-liberal mainstream Democrat Eli Lesser-Goldsmith. Adam Silverman/Free Press misspelled Eli's surname (laziness, bad copy editing, again).

True to form, everyone has an opinion (I don't have a strong one), and you can read 'em at BurlingtonPol.

LOCAL: CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP CHILDISHNESS AND HYPOCRISY

John Odum writes a remarkably astute - and not very benign - diary on Green Mountain Daily concerning the continuing discussions surrounding the contrariness of last week's Burlington City Council meeting:-- In any event, it should be plain that ten minutes of Roberts-rules-neener-neenerisms before an incompetent Chair do not merit that Chair compounding his failure by calling the police. Such a decision was not simply ridiculous, it was unethical. So why are so many self-identifying lefties on the internet so eagerly defending the action (and, in the process - or as part of the process - so badly mischaracterizing the supposed transgressions of a few City Councilors)?

It's all Partisan Derangement Syndrome. Otherwise sensible people getting caught up in the mass hysteria of partisan groupthink. What we've got is a few lefties who identify with the Progressive Party - as well as some die-hard Republicans - absolutely losing their shit because of their contempt for Democrats (or their personal animosity towards Ed Adrian). Honestly, after looking at that video, its all I can figure, and its all very childish.

I'll tell you one thing, though. This whole embarrassing dustup is another reminder that Burlington City Politics is in serious need of an enema. Some Progs & Repubs would do well to take a lesson from folks like Rama and see it for what it is and not for the mass indictment of the Democratic Party they'd desperately like it to be.

Predictions on what's in store at the next City Council meeting (from a commenter on the Odum piece):-- So here is my prediction -- Some of the same folks who supported the use of police force over the use of democracy & the rule of law will start singing the "victim song" when Wright's "Height Vote" is repeated.

Prepare to hear them say "they [insert random (Adrian/Brezniak etc.) Democrat here] made us screw up the meeting and now they are making us take the vote all over;" or some variation on that theme.

Here is the collateral problem for the citizens of Burlington who need to live with Kurt Wright's antics. Wright poisoned Thursday's vote to the point where no developer, landowner, lender, residential or commercial builder will rely on the new zoning law. It's now too expensive a proposition becuase of the risk of ending up in court on a permit appeal. Who wants to go to court and waste months or years on a screwed up law? Developers know they will end up with an appeal before they find themselves on a new top floor with a view of the lake. Savory, huh?

Still, do not expect Wright to take responsibility for poisoning the change in building heights. Instead he will say "they made me do it" and wimp out of acknowledging his own failure when the re-vote occurs. Similarly, some of the folks who advocated the use of dictatorial conduct and police force instead of respecting lawful, orderly (or even disorderly) parliamentary process, will also blame council members other than Mr. Wright.

Hypocrisy watch will be looking for those blaming council members who were following our established civic traditions and who were advocating within the established rules (Adrian, Brezniack et al.) rather than looking to Wright and his enablers who abandoned bedrock rule of law & order principles over a zoning amendment.

COMMENT: I've lead public meetings and can say from experience using Robert's Rules effectively can be unwieldy. Ed Adrian and David Berezniak - elected councilors for their respective wards - were representing the interests of their constituents and used proper means to question procedures at the meeting. Kurt Wright's decision to call the police on them was just plain pathetic and unethical.

Having read a lot of the comments about what happened, I'm convinced that Burlington's citizenry is ignorant about government. And when you factor in that only 28% of registered voters participated in the last city election, they really don't give a shit about electing our democratic representatives. Easy to complain and name-call, but when it comes to active civic engagement: fagetaboutit!

LOCAL NEWS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SPARRING SAGA CONTINUES

Shay Totten has added several updates to his original post about the March 12th city council meeting. The discussion has continued on BurlingtonPol and Green Mountain Daily, too.

The majority of the comments on the blogs and Free Press coverage were made the day after by people who were not at the meeting - most of them had relied on the coverage in the Free Press:

Police called to City Council meeting

You'd think Steve Ekberg had streaked around Contois, disrupting the proceedings. But it was council president Kurt Wright who'd called BPD to quell what he claimed as possible unruly behavior by councilors Adrian and Berezniak.

I was not at the meeting. But from the reactions on the BFP site and the buzz on the blogs, I was expecting Adrian's and Berezniak's behaviour to be worse than was reported. What amazed me was that the police being called and their presence at the meeting was acceptable to people. I would even say that the Free Press encouraged this response with its headline.



After viewing Channel 17's rebroadcast of the Downtown Use and Height Ordinance segment - where Adrian and Berezniak questioned the procedural aspects of the agenda - it is very clear there was no reason for Wright to phone the police. He was flustered, but he was also over-reacting. As a mayoral candidate he bragged how he was a conciliator in working with opponents on the council. Calling the cops was an inappropriate remedy if we take seriously democracy in our municipal government. Councilor Berezniak is correct in making a formal complaint to city attorney Schatz.

I agree with Jack McCullough's (GMD) comments after having seen the council meeting video:

1. The entire period of the so-called disruption and confrontation regarding the points of order and points of information lasted maybe five minutes or so.

2. It appears that there were a number of different points of order and points of information that the Democrats were raising. As I could make them out, they included whether the Council was holding a new meeting or a continuation of the previous meeting; what agenda they were working from in light of the fact that the clerk had issued a new agenda but Councilor Knodell initially seemed to be addressing an item on the original agenda; whether it was in order to take up the ordinance without its first having gone through the ordinance committee; and whether the current Council was bound by a resolution that laid out a special process for this ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a change of council membership since the adoption of the original resolution. (I may be missing one or two points, but I think that's the gist of it.)

3. From what I could tell, the Democrats tried to get rulings on their points of order (or information ), but I didn't see them pushing any particular point of order once there was a ruling from the Chair on it.

4. There were a number of times when the Chair tried to reject or rule a point of order out of order before hearing it.

5. The Chair eventually informed the objecting members that they had the right to appeal his rulings and seek a vote on their point of order if they disagreed with his ruling; they never did so.

6. At no point did the Chair as for a vote on whether the Democrats were obstructing the proceedings and should be removed.

I think #6 is an important point. There is a parliamentary process for removing members who are obstructing the work of the body, but they don't involve the Chair calling the police. There may have been people other than Kurt Wright and Jane Knodell who were annoyed at the objections of the Democrats, but we didn't hear from them. We can't know what they would have done if it had been put to a vote, but it is at least possible that members of the Council who would need to maintain a working relationship with the minority might take a different view of how to proceed than the lame duck Council President and Councilor.

In law there is a process to ask the judge to allow you a continuing objection when you know you will need to make the same objection repeatedly in the course of a witness's testimony, but it doesn't apply to an objection based on different grounds. As far as I could tell, these were new objections based on different grounds, so each time an objection was made it was the first time it was being presented to the chair.

Either way, it just boggles my mind that a presiding officer would call the police and threaten to remove elected officials trying to represent their constituents, even if they were in the minority.

LOCAL NEWS: ABOUT LAST NIGHT.....

Shay Totten writing in Blurt:--

About 50 people were inside Contois Auditorium tonight to hear The Burlington City Council debate a host of issues related to downtown development and on-campus housing and development at the University of Vermont and Champlain College.

Three Burlington City police officers were called to Contois Auditorium after a testy exchange between two Democratic city councilors — David Berezniak (Ward 2) and Ed Adrian (Ward 1) — and Republican City Council President Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) threatened to put a halt to yet another evening of debate on several major issues.

Councilors Berezniak and Adrian made repeated requests for "points of order" and "points of information" which angered Wright and clearly frustrated other councilors. Wright and otehrs were convinced the Democrats were pulling procedural stunts to derail discussion on whether to publicly warn a hearing on changes to the city's zoning rules.

The furor continues. Today Shay updates his post and provides the text of the BPD police report:--

Here, in its entirety, is Lt. Emmett Helrich's incident report (I've confirmed the veracity of this report with Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling):

"City Council President Kurt Wright called to say that he would like police presence as there had been some disruptive behavior on the part of some in attendance prior to the break. Cpl. Edwards and I went to Contois. Wright told me that Councilors Adrian and Bresniak [sp] had been disrupting the council meeting to the point that he might be compelled, as a point of order, to have them removed from Contois. Some in attendance had said that it had been quite disruptive prior to our arrival. Nothing happened after we got there and remained orderly until after the proposed amendment in question had been voted on. (raising the height of buildings in the city) At one point Councilor Adrian asked President Wright why the police were there and Wright told him he had called for police in case the members continued to be disruptive.

"After the vote we left as it was clear our presence was not needed."

Adrian said he was circulating the incident report to show that Wright called the police for no other reason than "to remove councilors that he thought were disruptive ... in particular myself and Councilor Berezniak."

Adrian reasserted his belief that Wright was "manipulating the police to intimidate city councilors from speaking and asserting their parliamentary rights."

As I noted last night, I think this is very, very far from "end of story."

The intimidating games people play. Remember, these are our elected representatives, all adults.

LOCAL NEWS: IRV RE-COUNT BEGINS AND ENDS EARLY

Shay Totten/Seven Days reported about the Burlington Mayoral IRV Re-count which started on Monday evening. At just about Midnight, Haik Bedrosian informed us...

The count is on!

...And the count off. [Republican candidate Kurt}Wright calls off recount after only wards 1,2,3 and part of 6 are counted. Knodell left early. Russ Ellis stayed late.

We'll probably learn more about the Wright decision tomorrow, but I think it was the wrong decision. After all, Kurt had stated that he wanted to see how the IRV counting process worked. And a lot of us wanted to be assured it was legit. Now, we've lost our chance.

LOCAL NEWS: UP, UP AND AWAY

Burlington Free Press:-- Burlington’s City Council argued Monday night over a proposal to permit developers to build about 20 feet higher — to a maximum height of 127 feet (10 stories) — on commercial buildings in downtown Burlington.

The council never got around to voting on whether to vote on the proposal at its March 30 meeting. Councilor Joan Shannon, D-Ward 5, proposed to reduce the height limit to 105 feet. The council rejected Shannon’s amendment, 8-5.

Haik Bedrosian has an informal poll at BurlingtonPol.com - "Should Burliington's maximum allowed building height be raised to 127 feet?"

I didn't participate in the poll, but did comment at Haik's blog:--

To paraphrase Kurt Wright, this is not a question that can get a straightforward yes or no answer.
If I'm thinking of more affordable housing developed downtown, then I would pick "yes" (even mixed-use - businesses and housing - buildings would be a "yes" as my choice). If it's just for more business development downtown, I'd go with "no." If increased height allowances happen, we must remind city council and the governing committees/boards of their shameful role in the horrible Westlake/Marriott fiasco and its ultimate outcome with no affordable housing.