CITY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP AND THE UNASKED QUESTIONS
Once again Doug Knight shows leadership and gumption (as does our beloved mayor) in the debate over qualifications to be on City Council. That debate should not have occurred at all. The good citizens of Bend should have considered the financial implications of having someone who is in the business of selling water governing an organization that sells them water before casting their votes... Let's see, should the City use water from the creek or buy it from me? Talk about a conflict of interest.
IN REPLY TO "TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL: CASEY ROATS" (12/4)
From everything I've seen and heard Casey Roats has been an active member of this city for many, many years. Not only did he choose to build a home within the city limits, but he assisted in the whole process. Casey has given his time to numerous committees within this city. I'd say he's a pretty dedicated person to our community. Sorry to see such a great member of our city have to go through this. I'm sure it's taken away from his huge accomplishment. It's sad that so much time has been wasted on trying to bring down an active member of this wonderful community.
—Rainie Stein (via bendsource.com)
So is this whole thing about Casey not being a resident of Bend (within the Bend city limits)...or is there some other underlying agenda going on here? Here's a 4th generation Bendite, who during his run for council was in the process of constructing a home, and while under construction he and his family stayed at his parents' house (which is still in Bend, just not within the "Bend city limits"). It sounds to me his intent was always to stay in Bend, so why is he being penalized for having his family stay with family, isn't that what family is for? Were they supposed to pitch tents on the property and weather the elements while construction was going on? This whole thing is ridiculous and a waste of time. It sounds to me like there are some pretty sore losers out there, who feel that since they recently found their little slice of Heaven here in Bend that they can develop it the way they feel fit, while shutting the door behind them and burying those who aren't on board with their agendas. Wish someone would have shut the door earlier before letting these newbies come in and try and make Bend the next Eugene or Portland.
—BuddyB (via bendsource.com)
IN REPLY TO "BEND CITY COUNCIL FINDS COUNCILOR-ELECT CASEY ROATS QUALIFIED" (12/1)
I have thought all along that—at some point—there has to be some clarity in the very important matter of who should be deemed qualified to run for public office. Because the Bend City Charter was not specific enough, the door has been opened to this very contentious debate. It has been drummed into our heads all our lives (and rightfully so) that we are a "government of laws and not of men" (John Adams). When the law is not specific enough, as is the case here, then the interpretation of how it is enforced gets muddied by politics and perceived favoritism. This is a case where, I believe, it is entirely proper for the judiciary to step in to rule; then, it should be up to the City Council to clarify the language of the Charter.
Poor Rondo is failing to see the humor the rest of the nation will enjoy if the AP picks up this story. Imagine the fun headline of: "Ringo & Rondo launch RESIDERS to Rid Resort town of Roats." The story might be: "Following in Donald Trump's fabulous successes with the BIRTHER movement, local politicians Charlie Ringo and Ron (Rondo) Boozell have set out to prove that newly elected Bend Councilor Casey Roats should not be considered an eligible resident, hence the moniker RESIDERS. Ringo and Rondo concede that the last four Roats generations have been born in the Bend hospital, but note that Casey's grandfather was not born in Bend and only lived in that town for 60 years. They also concede that there's a road in town named after the Roats family, but note that it is only a few blocks long. They point out that Casey's only real connection to the community is he runs the Roats water company, which his family has operated for nearly 100 years, that he has never lived in a town other than Bend, that he attended Bend schools, and that he is a member of several Bend organizations."
IN REPLY TO "CALLING BULLSH*T ON 10 BARREL 'SELLING OUT TO LOCALS' CRITICISM (12/3)
She couldn't be more wrong. Craft brew enthusiasts aren't complaining about Big Business in general, but instead complaining about AB InBev. InBev's recent craft beer acquisitions (now totaling four throughout the country) have malicious intent. They wish to eliminate privatized craft breweries. We are in the very beginning stages of this process. If we dig our heels in now, craft breweries will not meet the same fate that those Ma and Pa stores did generations ago due to corporate greed. Okay, so it does have a little to do with Big Business, but mostly it doesn't. InBev has very questionable ethics. I fail to feel swayed by their unionization to make the company feel somehow more ethical and American (they are a foreign owned company). That smells like bullsh*t to me. One of their sleazy tactics is to file lawsuits that have no claim against up and coming craft breweries. This process has little effect on InBev's financial health, but causes massive strain on a craft brewery, sometimes even bankruptcy. They are trying to stunt the growth of our craft breweries, because as a whole, craft brewing is taking over the market. It's time to take a stand. We have the foresight to see what could happen here. It's time to take a stand against InBev's unethical behavior. We can use our purchasing power to say that we won't allow it, and that's just what I plan on doing. InBev will never spend my hard working money on a frivolous lawsuit to hurt small business. I won't tolerate that type of conduct, it can stay in their own country. I will miss Pray for Snow and Apocalypse more than you know, but it is the price I am willing to pay.
—Mrs. Beer Geek