MCRI Spokesman and frequent commenter sent me this link — the Michigan Court of Appeals has overridden a vote of the Board of State Canvassers and ordered the Secretary of State to put the proposal on the ballot. MCRI opponents are expected to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
> My posts on Obama
Public Participation in Urban Planning Month
- Introduction
- Part 1: Urban Planning and E-Government
- Part 2: A Brief History of Public Participation in Urban Planning
- Part 3: Participation Theory
- Part 4: The Internet as a Participation Tool
- Conclusions
- Sidebars: Government as Data Source, Software for e-Government, more
My ULI Posts
What I'm Reading
Latest Entries
- Report Finds Public Participation Improves Policy
- What Neighborhoods Will Be The Next Hot Spots?
- Examining the Redlands Dam
- Tolls More Equitable Than Sales Tax For Funding Freeways
- Shared Vans Already Here … and Illegal
- Green Gas?
- The Economics of Redevelopment
- District Bike Sharing Launches
- Subprime Mortgages and Race
- The Equity of Housing Tax Benefits
Dec 20th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Rob, you never cease to amaze me. Nice touch on this headline.
The headline this time is accurate, but I find it odd that you gave emphasis to the “… for now” point this time when you didn’t last time. It’s funny how the media in general gives us neutral headlines when the facts are so crystal cut that they have to, but they slant and bias them againt us when they feel they can. You are no different from the mainstream journalist Rob. It’s unfortunate that you fail to distinquish yourself.
I’m also disappointed that you failed to correct (or simply agree that it could have been more precise) your previous headline, especially in light of this one.
Dec 20th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Rob, you never cease to amaze me. Nice touch on THIS headline.
It’s funny how the mainstream media will give us a neutral headline when the facts are crystal clear in our favor, but that it will use every other opportunity to slant or bias its headlines in other cases. Your no different than the mainstream, and its unfortunate you’ve failed to distinquish yourself. It’s unfortunate that you refuse to correct (or simply admit) the previous headline could have been more precise while you my recommendation here.
By the way, my website now contains the raw text of the court ruling
(www.chetlyzarko.com/essays/12202005-courtorder.html) and a plethora of other valuable information for those willing to judge for themselves.
Would like to wager on whether there’ll be a vote? I’ll grant you 10,000 to one odds - your penny to my hundred spot.
Dec 22nd, 2005 at 11:50 pm
Sorry about the double entry, your comment form sometimes locks up and its difficult to know if the first was on.