Expose, Rebuke, Return

Follow up on lack of response to Quality of Place questions

Print the article

This entry was posted on 2/8/2010 5:55 PM and is filed under City Politics,city government offenses.

THE LEADERSHIP OF FORT SMITH—what does it mean and where is it taking us?

Gentlemen:                                                                                    February 8, 2010

Last week I sent a memo to each of you asking some basic questions regarding your knowledge of the history and meaning of “Quality of Place” and ICLEI (“International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives”), or if you had any understanding of the aforementioned.

To this day I have had only one response.  Mayor Baker informed me he would instruct City Manager Kelly to answer my questions.  As yet, no response from Kelly.  Apparently Mayor Baker did not read the missive carefully:  I asked that Kelly, the Mayor and all of the Board of Directors answer the questions posed. Please allow me some latitude to make suppositions.

1.      I believe City Mgr Kelly, Assistant Mgr Gosack and Director Campbell are familiar with Quality of Place and ICLEI’s history & goals.  Correct me if wrong, but the city of Ft. Smith, under the leadership of City Mgr Harding entered into an agreement with an international operation that empowered the city with any number of edicts, i.e. control over homeowners’ property.

2.      In all likelihood Mayor Baker is remotely aware of the two projects by the mere fact that mayors seem to be the primary targets.  It seems reasonable to assume that top management in the city government, along with city planners are also cognizant of the invasive process being carried out by Quality of Place and ICLEI.

3.      By the same token, it would be surprising if the remaining Board of Directors had any inkling re the proposed takeover of citizens’ rights and property.

Facts & Deductions: Since 90% of all federal & state income taxes are paid by 10% of the population the question becomes—who will use the enormously expensive entertainment venues the city is proposing and why are they being proposed?  It is highly unlikely that the 10% of the population paying 90% of income taxes will utilize these venues—then who will?  Of course it is the masses who have no financial obligations in government that benefit from these enormous redistribution schemes, which are Utopist at best in nature.

It is not a proper function of government to provide entertainment and the real winners are politicians, bureaucrats and those involved in the construction of the ill-gotten gains.  These proposed programs result in expansion of government, theft of producer’s resources, vote buying, and the implementation of the Marxist philosophy—redistribution of income and dependency on government.

Questions: Are the principals in this inquiry hunkered down because they got their hands caught in the cookie jar, or are they positioned in an arrogant stance, or are they colossally ignorant of what is being proposed & implemented?  Or in the instance of a cover-up they may want to fly the “Conspiracy Flag”?

In any case, each of you has refused so far to answer the simple questions posed. 

Obama transparency?

Assistant Gosack, in true government arrogant brute force, is suggesting that the city government bypass voters on the new one cent prepared food tax, designed to subsidize the debt-ridden Civic Center and other proposed entertainment extravaganzas.

Kindest regards,

Joe McCutchen

 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    • No comments exist for this entry.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.