I did manage to post the Top story poll to the right. It's a cliche question, I know, but one I thought was worth tossing out there.
I haven't voted yet. I'll save it for the last few days, but if I had to vote today I admit it'd be a tough call to make.
It's interesting how the year played out. I'll review the many issues over the next few posts.
STEVE KARP COMES TO TOWN: I'd say Steve Karp was clearly the story of the year in the first four or five months of 2008. The speculation and worry drove everyone a bit bonkers. Hell, even the Daily News kicked in some dough to buy Stephen Tait a ferry ticket to Nantucket.
The March meeting was THE single biggest event of the year, forget about Yankee Homecoming. But he grew largely irrelevant as the year passed and the economy sag. He's still out there, no doubt, but I'm sure he'll be sitting on the money making enterprises along the waterfront for the next few years.
DEBT EXCLUSION FALLS SHORT: This was clearly the biggest story that wasn't. In this blogger's humble opinion the mayor's campaign for the override was feeble. At several times I asked no on in particular--and sometimes people in particular--if he really wanted the thing to pass.
His retail sale approach made sense if it was done in concert with a larger, more headline driven campaign. But that never happened. Instead, the front pages of the paper were filled with headlines about squabbles over city contracts and solar deals.
Still, the damn thing almost passed. I might be wrong but I firmly think it would have passed if the mayor helped create a larger political movement. And I'm sorry I have no patience for blaming the state because the required wording on the ballot was so confusing. The ballot requirements have been in place for years and should have been part of the entire equation.
Oh, and I won't be voting for it if the city seeks and received special permission to send out "informational" fliers on the city's dime. I don't think that's proper use of city funds.
CLAM SHACK: Okay, this one isn't a winner but I thought it was worth a mention. At least it gives me the opportunity to ask a few questions, again:
1. Does some or all of the Clamshack sit on city land?
2. If yes,how is this legal?
Personally, I don't care if the fellow lives there or not. But if that is city property I'd like to see either a) him buy the land he needs from the city at some price or b) an explanation from the city as to how we can allow a privately owned structure to rest on city land. That just seems like an immensely dangerous precedent, particularly after reading about all the small scale land takings by residents along the city's rail trail in a recent Liberator.
No comments:
Post a Comment