Comments for chrisishardcore.com

Jill Chambers (R - Enron)

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:11:27 -0500

Author: cascada
Date: Apr 11, 2006 1:17 PM

Regarding the concept of attempting to de-politicize the oversight process: the boards of all three organizations are completely and utterly political creatures, before you even get to the legislature committee level. What I think needs to be done is to change the board structure of each agency to require a transportation background. This would result in all three being run more competently, but it would not resolve the issue of the oversight process being political. Or else make them elected positions - at least this way we'd be getting real politicians, not backdoor patronage people. You know, of the three (MARTA GRTA GDOT), isn't it true that only MARTA has a state-level oversight committee? And GDOT is spending waaaay more money. Wouldn't it be interesting if MARTOC were given oversight responsibilities for MARTA, GRTA, AND GDOT? MARTOC being a committee of the legislature means that whoever chairs it and invests the time and effort to understand what's going on will do so expecting a political gain. And whether it's going to be one that helps transit will just depend on who they perceive their base to be. Maybe the whole concept is flawed.

Jill Chambers (R - Enron)

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:11:27 -0500

Author: cascada
Date: Apr 11, 2006 1:05 PM

Chris, you're too funny. Wish we could start referring to JC this way in press releases (R-Enron).

Good Hackett Quote

Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:57:23 -0500

Author: Tim
Date: Mar 5, 2006 1:16 PM
URL: http://www.dekalbyd.com

Here's to clean elections and making them publicly funded. Interestingly my friends in Arizona say it's really leveled to playing field and not always for the Dems or Progressive candidates. The biggest challenge is still getting decent candidates to run and work a real field campaign.

Nobody Asked For Dunwoody...

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:00:45 -0500

Author: Joe
Date: Feb 28, 2006 7:31 AM
URL: http://www.joeventures.com

Let me get this straight.. The boundary will go as far east as the decidedly un-Dunwoody-like Peachtree Industrial, but not as far north as to include the Dunwoody Country Club? All the zigzagging around on the east side is a bit confusing, especially at Tilly Mill & Peachtree Industrial. Eva G would be smart to reach across county lines and annex some of that area. The tax revenues coming from the Perimeter area would be worth the trouble for Sandy Springs, even if that means they would have to rename the city, "Sandy-Woody."

Nobody Asked For Dunwoody...

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:00:45 -0500

Author: GetReal
Date: Feb 23, 2006 3:51 PM

Dan Weber is a fool for doing this. When everyone's property taxes in Dunwoody go up, he and Fran Millar will be to blame. That should help turn those districts that much quicker. This seems to be nothing more than shallow aping of the Sandy Springs movement. Weber's problem is that there is no movement pushing for his bill and he hasn't made any effort to sell it to his constituents. That means he gets all of the bad of doing this (blame for higher property taxes resulting from the cost of creating a new layer of local government) and none of the good (people who are dissatisfied with local services and want to improve them, even if it costs them money).

Hillary Boosterism