Reply to a comment

I understand that people have different perspectives, but I thought Islandeye's last comment was a tongue-in-cheek or is it facetious remark. That is how I read it and I thought it was comical in the sense that we are speaking of the need to address this new safety (fire) concern. His reference to Nero was funny in the sense that a catastrophic event as the burning of Rome fit with his scenario. I took it as a joke.

I wish there was a font for sarcasm. But to all the bloggers out there I encourage the medium, because sometimes I believe there are great points raised that I are not raised in council or expressed by city management.

I will go on record expressing my appreciation for the services provided by those employed and serve this city. But I will point out those things that seem to be unsound. I respect all that serve and that is why I tend not to engage in name calling, but at times it is soooooooooooooooooo tempting.

They way I look at life is to frame most concerns with respect to establishing priorities against an environment of limited resources and that will never change. Government has a propensity to spend with the intent of solving problems. Sometimes, I believe doing nothing is an effective response that does not get much credit.

Using the shell driveway as an example, I believe the city did not have to change an ordinance and spend two years debating the issue. The proper response was to address one city employee's interpretation (Mr. Olmstead). I am vigilant of those that serve this island misinterpreting their responsibilities and extending the reach of government.

And as you had said in your opening, it is only an opinion.