Saturday, January 22, 2005

Petition Goes to Registrar Despite Doubts

Executive Summary:
"'Honestly, we're not sure how it will work,' Supple said. 'This is the only thing we know to do"
Honestly, that's all you need to know.
The saga of the petitioners who couldn't get it right goes on. Both the Advocate and the Advertiser runs stories on the petitioners submitting their document to the registrar for signature validation.

These guys continue to look for the absolutely easiest way out. Having started with a law that, upon reflection seems unlikely to produce a valid petition, they up the wishful thinking quotient by hopefully asserting that only need to get enough signatures to meet the number required from city voters--a number smaller than the city-parish signatories. Trouble is, as all who attended the council meetings will recall, is that the council had to go through a series of double votes of both city and city-parish members to make sure that the parish, under whose authority the bonds were issued would be legally obliged, as well as the city, which had formal control of LUS. No one doubt the city-parish is the issuing authority. But the silliness doesn't end there. Since they collected signatures from city-parish citizens all along (and none of their petition locales were, in fact, inside the city limits) it must be that they had another interpretation in mind when they began collect signatures? Look for a large number of invalid signatures under their interpretation. At some point you don't need to be a lawyer to recognize how poorly this whole project was conceived. And they expect the people to trust their judgment about LUS and fiber? Really now.

The Advocate has the better story, as we've come to expect. Go there first.

Move on to the Advertiser if you're interested in quotes from two signatories who work for BellSouth or it's subsidiaries. (Neither paper reports the number of signatures gained for the petition during that window between Williams issuing the petition to his employees to carry around the city while they worked and his memo demanding that they not work on it during company time. --The petitioners aren't the only ones having trouble getting it straight.)

At the Advertiser you'll also be able to review the Advertiser's first take on the now week and a half old story that Cox is in talks with the city on this issue. Maybe next week they'll notice that BellSouth has also been down to city hall.

No comments: