WISHING JOEKIRKWOOD BLOGSPOT READERS ...
A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS ...
AND A BLESSED NEW YEAR!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Stop By The CHOOSE KIRKWOOD Booth At Greentree Festival
Hello Folks,
I hope you will come by the CHOOSE KIRKWOOD booth this weekend. The booth is located across from the new pavilion added to Kirkwood Park with the total revamping of the Lions Pavilion and Lions Barbeque Pit area.
Or better yet … first grab a cold, frosty Fitz’s Root Beer or a delicious Ronnie’s Rocky Mountain Ice Cream Cone at the Lions Club booth, then come right around the corner – just two booths over – to the CHOOSE KIRKOOD booth.
Once there you will have an opportunity to:
I hope you will come by the CHOOSE KIRKWOOD booth this weekend. The booth is located across from the new pavilion added to Kirkwood Park with the total revamping of the Lions Pavilion and Lions Barbeque Pit area.
Or better yet … first grab a cold, frosty Fitz’s Root Beer or a delicious Ronnie’s Rocky Mountain Ice Cream Cone at the Lions Club booth, then come right around the corner – just two booths over – to the CHOOSE KIRKOOD booth.
Once there you will have an opportunity to:
- Sign the CHOOSE KIRKWOOD proposal – IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY.
- Find out more about why Kirkwoodians need to VOTE NO on Prop. 1 – ONCE AGAIN
- Get a free CHOOSE KIRKWOOD sticker to proudly wear – WHILE SUPPLIES LAST
Hope to see you there!
Joe
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Challenge We As A Community Now Face
Below is the email I sent to Mike Brown, our City Administrator, concerning the "war of attrition" the members of HAK have waged, are waging and will continue to wage on our community.
In the nearly 12 years I have been a citizen of Kirkwood I have never seen any group of residents act in such irresponsible and unreasonable way like the members of HAK are in our community.
I have talked with numerous life-long residents that are dumbfounded and dismayed the members of HAK would treat fellow citizens and our community as a whole with such disdain and disrespect.
But unfortunately this is ... The Challenge We As A Community Now Face ...
=====================================================================
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am writing you in regards to the Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) Citizen’s Initiative Petition that will be voted on by fellow Kirkwoodians this November.
This is the second Citizen’s Initiative Petition on the issue of a smoking ban from the same group of surrogate citizens. In each case, there was no community dialogue on how these proposals were drafted. There was no dialogue on how these proposals could impact our entire community. These surrogate citizens for various outside organizations chose to totally ignore fellow Kirkwoodians. They simply set about forcing a community-wide vote on their proposal by abusing the Citizen’s Initiative Petition process. Then, they used various methods of political manipulation to stack the deck against any opposition to their outside agenda. It is unfortunate that these surrogate citizens continue to act in such an irresponsible and self-serving way.
The challenge we as a community now face is the fact that HAK has already declared they will continue forcing their outside agenda on our community, even if the voters for a second time defeat their rehashed proposal.
At the August 6, 2009 City Council meeting I asked this question in my speech to the City Council:
“If they (HAK) are defeated AGAIN by the good citizens of Kirkwood … how many more times will these folks abuse the citizens’ initiative petition process and try to force their outside agenda on our entire community?”
We as a community were given a response by HAK member Michelle McDonald in her speech that followed mine when she said,
“I would like to respond to Joe Toenjes. We are going to keep doing this until it passes.”
Ms. McDonald and the rest of HAKs leadership have stood by that statement.
Kirkwoodians can easily conclude one thing from HAKs previous actions and their stated future intentions. HAK will continue to abuse the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their outside agenda on the rest of our community. Sadly, these surrogate citizens want to create a revolving door of protracted “duke it out” battles against the clear will of the citizens of Kirkwood expressed by their vote. This kind of belligerent and unreasonable waging of a “war of attrition” on fellow citizens is unprecedented in Kirkwood’s history.
The past actions of HAK combined with their overbearing future agenda places a new and, I suspect, unforeseen burden on the administrative staff and the elected leadership of our community to protect the rights of other citizens in this matter.
Given these facts, I would like to know what steps will be taken to inform the citizens of Kirkwood in the future when any group submits a proposed Citizens Initiative Petition, Referendum or Recall and begins to form a Petitioner’s Committee?
It is clear there needs to be a concise and extremely time sensitive process developed to address this issue. The citizens of Kirkwood deserve the right to know what they are facing given the precedent set by HAK. I would hope you, our City Clerk Ms. Montano and the rest of the administrative staff would begin to offer various options in conjunction with our City Council to protect the rights of all Kirkwood citizens.
It is unfortunate that this issue was created by those in our community more desirous of demanding and abusing a right at the expense of fellow citizens, rather than being responsible and reasonable citizens.
Finally, I have several ideas about how to accomplish this goal. Yet, I am unsure how they would apply within running the day-to-day operations of our city with the unique and specific requirements that entails. I am more than willing to discuss my ideas with you or anyone else involved in trying to bring a solution to this unprecedented challenge our community is facing. If I can be of any assistance in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,
Joe Toenjes
329 Rose Lane
Kirkwood, MO 63122
cc: Betty Montano, City Clerk
Kirkwood City Council
===================================================================
Note - You can see the video of Michelle McDonald's statement before the City Council at:
http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php
Just go to the August 6th meeting video. Let it download. It will take a few minutes. You can move the slider bar to the closest time-mark. You can view Michelle McDonald's statement starting around the 13:26 time-mark. If you are interested, you can view my speech to the City Council at about the 6:21 time-mark.
I will keep you updated on this issue as it proceeds.
If you want to express your thoughts on this issue, please hit the "Comment" link below.
In the nearly 12 years I have been a citizen of Kirkwood I have never seen any group of residents act in such irresponsible and unreasonable way like the members of HAK are in our community.
I have talked with numerous life-long residents that are dumbfounded and dismayed the members of HAK would treat fellow citizens and our community as a whole with such disdain and disrespect.
But unfortunately this is ... The Challenge We As A Community Now Face ...
=====================================================================
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am writing you in regards to the Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) Citizen’s Initiative Petition that will be voted on by fellow Kirkwoodians this November.
This is the second Citizen’s Initiative Petition on the issue of a smoking ban from the same group of surrogate citizens. In each case, there was no community dialogue on how these proposals were drafted. There was no dialogue on how these proposals could impact our entire community. These surrogate citizens for various outside organizations chose to totally ignore fellow Kirkwoodians. They simply set about forcing a community-wide vote on their proposal by abusing the Citizen’s Initiative Petition process. Then, they used various methods of political manipulation to stack the deck against any opposition to their outside agenda. It is unfortunate that these surrogate citizens continue to act in such an irresponsible and self-serving way.
The challenge we as a community now face is the fact that HAK has already declared they will continue forcing their outside agenda on our community, even if the voters for a second time defeat their rehashed proposal.
At the August 6, 2009 City Council meeting I asked this question in my speech to the City Council:
“If they (HAK) are defeated AGAIN by the good citizens of Kirkwood … how many more times will these folks abuse the citizens’ initiative petition process and try to force their outside agenda on our entire community?”
We as a community were given a response by HAK member Michelle McDonald in her speech that followed mine when she said,
“I would like to respond to Joe Toenjes. We are going to keep doing this until it passes.”
Ms. McDonald and the rest of HAKs leadership have stood by that statement.
Kirkwoodians can easily conclude one thing from HAKs previous actions and their stated future intentions. HAK will continue to abuse the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their outside agenda on the rest of our community. Sadly, these surrogate citizens want to create a revolving door of protracted “duke it out” battles against the clear will of the citizens of Kirkwood expressed by their vote. This kind of belligerent and unreasonable waging of a “war of attrition” on fellow citizens is unprecedented in Kirkwood’s history.
The past actions of HAK combined with their overbearing future agenda places a new and, I suspect, unforeseen burden on the administrative staff and the elected leadership of our community to protect the rights of other citizens in this matter.
Given these facts, I would like to know what steps will be taken to inform the citizens of Kirkwood in the future when any group submits a proposed Citizens Initiative Petition, Referendum or Recall and begins to form a Petitioner’s Committee?
It is clear there needs to be a concise and extremely time sensitive process developed to address this issue. The citizens of Kirkwood deserve the right to know what they are facing given the precedent set by HAK. I would hope you, our City Clerk Ms. Montano and the rest of the administrative staff would begin to offer various options in conjunction with our City Council to protect the rights of all Kirkwood citizens.
It is unfortunate that this issue was created by those in our community more desirous of demanding and abusing a right at the expense of fellow citizens, rather than being responsible and reasonable citizens.
Finally, I have several ideas about how to accomplish this goal. Yet, I am unsure how they would apply within running the day-to-day operations of our city with the unique and specific requirements that entails. I am more than willing to discuss my ideas with you or anyone else involved in trying to bring a solution to this unprecedented challenge our community is facing. If I can be of any assistance in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,
Joe Toenjes
329 Rose Lane
Kirkwood, MO 63122
cc: Betty Montano, City Clerk
Kirkwood City Council
===================================================================
Note - You can see the video of Michelle McDonald's statement before the City Council at:
http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php
Just go to the August 6th meeting video. Let it download. It will take a few minutes. You can move the slider bar to the closest time-mark. You can view Michelle McDonald's statement starting around the 13:26 time-mark. If you are interested, you can view my speech to the City Council at about the 6:21 time-mark.
I will keep you updated on this issue as it proceeds.
If you want to express your thoughts on this issue, please hit the "Comment" link below.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Something Strange Happens In Kirkwood…
Have you asked a member of HAK anything about their 2006 proposal and seen the reaction?
Have you noticed when you start asking members of HAK the right questions about the key players in their campaign to force their outside agenda on our community something strange happens?
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Pat Lindsey of Florissant, the Executive Director of Tobacco-Free Missouri, the state-wide group that in 2006 paid thousands of dollars for four different billboards at Kirkwood Rd. and Big Bend to support HAKs proposal during that election campaign, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about how Pat Lindsey wants to “duke it out” (Pat’s direct quote: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-2669.113117_Smoke_Free_Is_No_Brainer.html) in Kirkwood with our fellow citizens and our fellow business owners, but will not do the same in her own community of Florissant, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about HAK’s fellow signature gatherers for their alleged Kirkwood Citizen Initiative Petition, people like Baker Symes of Webster Groves, MO or Mike Doran of Fenton, MO, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Charles Gatton of Ballwin, MO, the former Ballwin City Council member who was not re-elected by the citizens after he shoved a smoking-ban upon his community, then he comes to Kirkwood to shove an even more unreasonable smoking-ban upon Kirkwood with HAKs 2006 proposal, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Richard Hyer of Troy, MO, the “co-circulator” (Jean’s own statement: http://joekirkwood.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-question-to-kirkwood-city-council.html) with HAKs own Jean Loemker for HAKs alleged “Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition” from 2006, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Martin Pion of Ferguson, MO, the founder of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution (MO GASP), the foremost anti-smoking group in Missouri, who also circulated HAKs supposed Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
The members of HAK quickly do the whole gag of …
… like the Three Stooges would do whenever they got caught red-handed.
The members of HAK pretend like they have no clue about their fellow campaign members when they are in Kirkwood. They pretend they do not know … who these people are … or what these people stand for … or what these people have done to shove their outside agenda on our entire community. It is amazing the reaction in Kirkwood!
But, what is it like outside of Kirkwood?
Well that is a totally different story. These very same folks that HAK members supposedly have no clue about are HAKs good ol’ chums outside of Kirkwood!
See what we find here on Martin Pion’s own MO GASP web site in the picture he took at the July 28th St. Louis County Council meeting:
http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/second-st-louis-county-council-meeting-on-smoke-free-air-bill/
Have you noticed when you start asking members of HAK the right questions about the key players in their campaign to force their outside agenda on our community something strange happens?
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Pat Lindsey of Florissant, the Executive Director of Tobacco-Free Missouri, the state-wide group that in 2006 paid thousands of dollars for four different billboards at Kirkwood Rd. and Big Bend to support HAKs proposal during that election campaign, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about how Pat Lindsey wants to “duke it out” (Pat’s direct quote: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-2669.113117_Smoke_Free_Is_No_Brainer.html) in Kirkwood with our fellow citizens and our fellow business owners, but will not do the same in her own community of Florissant, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about HAK’s fellow signature gatherers for their alleged Kirkwood Citizen Initiative Petition, people like Baker Symes of Webster Groves, MO or Mike Doran of Fenton, MO, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Charles Gatton of Ballwin, MO, the former Ballwin City Council member who was not re-elected by the citizens after he shoved a smoking-ban upon his community, then he comes to Kirkwood to shove an even more unreasonable smoking-ban upon Kirkwood with HAKs 2006 proposal, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Richard Hyer of Troy, MO, the “co-circulator” (Jean’s own statement: http://joekirkwood.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-question-to-kirkwood-city-council.html) with HAKs own Jean Loemker for HAKs alleged “Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition” from 2006, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
When you start asking members of HAK questions about Martin Pion of Ferguson, MO, the founder of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution (MO GASP), the foremost anti-smoking group in Missouri, who also circulated HAKs supposed Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition, something strange happens in Kirkwood…
The members of HAK quickly do the whole gag of …
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
… like the Three Stooges would do whenever they got caught red-handed.
The members of HAK pretend like they have no clue about their fellow campaign members when they are in Kirkwood. They pretend they do not know … who these people are … or what these people stand for … or what these people have done to shove their outside agenda on our entire community. It is amazing the reaction in Kirkwood!
But, what is it like outside of Kirkwood?
Well that is a totally different story. These very same folks that HAK members supposedly have no clue about are HAKs good ol’ chums outside of Kirkwood!
See what we find here on Martin Pion’s own MO GASP web site in the picture he took at the July 28th St. Louis County Council meeting:
http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/second-st-louis-county-council-meeting-on-smoke-free-air-bill/
Martin Pion of MO GASP took this snapshot of (L to R) Pat Lindsey of Tobacco-Free Missouri with HAKs own Jean Loemker and HAKs own Michelle McDonald along with another gentleman. Sure looks like they know each other in Clayton. Plus, notice three of the folks in the picture are even wearing the same blue button.
Interesting … when you start asking the right questions in Kirkwood …
Something Strange Happens!
==================================================================
If you have a take on the issue please hit the "Comment" link below.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Two Questions to the Kirkwood City Council
Below is a copy of my prepared speech before the Kirkwood City Council on 08-06-09. I presented to the City Council a packet with several different pieces of information that prove how incredibly misleading the members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) were at the last City Council meeting. I can not believe these folks continue to try to pretend they were not and are not surrogates for numerous State-wide anti-smoking organizations.
The facts presented below show they have been surrogates citizens from the very beginning of the fight they picked in our community. Sadly, they are more interested in misleading our entire community while they try to force this outside agenda on us.
======================================================================
Tonight I present you a packet of simple information.
All of you have this 2-page handout at the top of your pack.
(Note: The packet contained the “Print Screen” of the Tree Logo on the Healthy Air for Kirkwood Web Site. Here is a reduced version for the sake of brevity.)
(Note: The next page was the scan of the Tree Logo from the Letterhead of HAK’s previous group in 2006, when they called themselves “Citizen’s for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood.” Here is a reduced version for the sake of brevity.)
Same logo tree, same base members … but somehow not the same group? Is that what they were claiming at the last City Council meeting … and they keep claiming?
Now please read from this 2-page pack the quote from October 19, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Deb Cotton:
“I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html
Now please read the quote from November 2, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Ingrid Florman:
“As a founding member of Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I would like to set the record straight that our group is comprised solely of Kirkwood residents. … We are not supported or funded by any outside special interest groups or organizations.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3248.113117_Prop_1_A_Local_Campaign.html
Now please read the quote from October 26, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Franklin McCallie:
“It is unfortunate that Kirkwood citizens of good will are at odds over Smoke Free Kirkwood.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3197.113117_Voters_Owe_Children_SmokeFree_Restaurants.html
Now please read the quote from July 23, 2009 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Allan Cotton:
“Sadly, a small but vocal minority has decided to try to defeat this citizens' initiative effort through empty accusations and baseless personal attacks on their fellow citizens.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16677.113118_SmokeFree_Initiative_Is_True_Citizen_Effort.html
Now please look at this 6-page packet with some of the petition signatures from their 2006 proposal.
(Note: Once again for the sake of brevity, I only included the 2006 Petition Circulators name and signature section. Plus, I have only included one page from each of them. Keep in mind this is for a supposedly Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition proposal. The facts are these 5 individuals from outside of Kirkwood made up 20% of all the Petition Circulators. These 5 individuals from outside of Kirkwood gathered over 15% of all the signatures of Kirkwood voters needed to place that proposal on a Kirkwood ballot. This is clearly showing the outside organizations these folks represent were directly and intimately involved in HAKs 2006 Citizens’ Initiative Petition.)
(Note: Mike Doran has not brought a smoking-ban proposal to his own town of Fenton, but he will try to bring one to Kirkwood?)
(Note: Baker Symes is a resident of Webster Groves. He was also the musician for HAKs campaign kick-off event at Station Plaza on near the end of June. No one was drawn to the event. He too has failed to bring a smoking-ban proposal to his community, but will work on bringing one twice to Kirkwood?)
(Note: Charles Gatton is the former Ballwin City Alderman who forced through a smoking ban in his community. He was not re-elected for another term.)
(Note: Martin Pion is the founder of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution – MO GASP. According to his web site MO GASP is one of the foremost grass roots advocacy groups on this issue in the state. See more at: http://mogasp.wordpress.com/
(Note: Richard Hyer, from Troy, MO, was the leader of Lincoln County Smoke-Free Workplaces. He was a “Co-Circulator” with Ms. Jean Loemker of HAK.)
As you can see there were “outside special interest groups or organizations” involved with HAK from the beginning.
As you can see these folks were not “citizens of good will” on this issue in our community.
As you can see these are not “accusations” and they are not “empty.” They are not “attacks” and they are not “baseless” or “personal.”
These folks were never forced to misrepresent themselves or their organization to our entire community in this way. This did not need to happen. The choice was theirs’.
So, I ask you two questions tonight City Council:
The facts presented below show they have been surrogates citizens from the very beginning of the fight they picked in our community. Sadly, they are more interested in misleading our entire community while they try to force this outside agenda on us.
======================================================================
Tonight I present you a packet of simple information.
All of you have this 2-page handout at the top of your pack.
(Note: The packet contained the “Print Screen” of the Tree Logo on the Healthy Air for Kirkwood Web Site. Here is a reduced version for the sake of brevity.)
(Note: The next page was the scan of the Tree Logo from the Letterhead of HAK’s previous group in 2006, when they called themselves “Citizen’s for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood.” Here is a reduced version for the sake of brevity.)
Same logo tree, same base members … but somehow not the same group? Is that what they were claiming at the last City Council meeting … and they keep claiming?
Now please read from this 2-page pack the quote from October 19, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Deb Cotton:
“I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html
Now please read the quote from November 2, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Ingrid Florman:
“As a founding member of Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I would like to set the record straight that our group is comprised solely of Kirkwood residents. … We are not supported or funded by any outside special interest groups or organizations.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3248.113117_Prop_1_A_Local_Campaign.html
Now please read the quote from October 26, 2006 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Franklin McCallie:
“It is unfortunate that Kirkwood citizens of good will are at odds over Smoke Free Kirkwood.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3197.113117_Voters_Owe_Children_SmokeFree_Restaurants.html
Now please read the quote from July 23, 2009 in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag written by Allan Cotton:
“Sadly, a small but vocal minority has decided to try to defeat this citizens' initiative effort through empty accusations and baseless personal attacks on their fellow citizens.”
Link to the entire Mailbag Letter:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16677.113118_SmokeFree_Initiative_Is_True_Citizen_Effort.html
Now please look at this 6-page packet with some of the petition signatures from their 2006 proposal.
(Note: Once again for the sake of brevity, I only included the 2006 Petition Circulators name and signature section. Plus, I have only included one page from each of them. Keep in mind this is for a supposedly Kirkwood Citizens Initiative Petition proposal. The facts are these 5 individuals from outside of Kirkwood made up 20% of all the Petition Circulators. These 5 individuals from outside of Kirkwood gathered over 15% of all the signatures of Kirkwood voters needed to place that proposal on a Kirkwood ballot. This is clearly showing the outside organizations these folks represent were directly and intimately involved in HAKs 2006 Citizens’ Initiative Petition.)
(Note: Mike Doran has not brought a smoking-ban proposal to his own town of Fenton, but he will try to bring one to Kirkwood?)
(Note: Baker Symes is a resident of Webster Groves. He was also the musician for HAKs campaign kick-off event at Station Plaza on near the end of June. No one was drawn to the event. He too has failed to bring a smoking-ban proposal to his community, but will work on bringing one twice to Kirkwood?)
(Note: Charles Gatton is the former Ballwin City Alderman who forced through a smoking ban in his community. He was not re-elected for another term.)
(Note: Martin Pion is the founder of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution – MO GASP. According to his web site MO GASP is one of the foremost grass roots advocacy groups on this issue in the state. See more at: http://mogasp.wordpress.com/
(Note: Richard Hyer, from Troy, MO, was the leader of Lincoln County Smoke-Free Workplaces. He was a “Co-Circulator” with Ms. Jean Loemker of HAK.)
As you can see there were “outside special interest groups or organizations” involved with HAK from the beginning.
As you can see these folks were not “citizens of good will” on this issue in our community.
As you can see these are not “accusations” and they are not “empty.” They are not “attacks” and they are not “baseless” or “personal.”
These folks were never forced to misrepresent themselves or their organization to our entire community in this way. This did not need to happen. The choice was theirs’.
So, I ask you two questions tonight City Council:
- How many more times will these folks be given free reign to misrepresent who and what they really are to our entire community as they once AGAIN force their outside agenda on our entire community?
- If they are defeated AGAIN by the good citizens of Kirkwood … how many more times will these folks abuse the citizens’ initiative petition process and try to force their outside agenda on our entire community?
You were elected to serve our entire community … I would hope you would protect our tax dollars and our rights by finding out the answers to these two questions. Then, let us all know the answers before you place this on a ballot.
Remember … This did not need to happen. The choice was theirs’.
They could easily according to our City Charter choose to withdraw their proposal and not continue to act in this way in our community.
======================================================================
What do you think about the issue? Click the "Comments" link below.Sunday, July 19, 2009
HAKs Pointless And Wasteful “War Of Attrition”
Below is a copy of my speech from Thursday's City Council Meeting. What a meeting. I have not seen displays like the ones from HAKs members in a long while at City Hall.
Here is a link to the video of the meeting:
http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php
I can not wait to present over the next few postings the information that HAK presented for:
Why these surrogate citizens are once again singling out and targeting our community?
Why these surrogate citizens continue to abuse our citizen initiative process with their outside agenda?
What are the next possibilities for their “duke it out” battles to be done under the ruse of “public health” and “protecting the health of the worker” in Kirkwood?
===================================================================
Tonight I ask our City Council to take no action on the HAK proposal that is before you. You have that option provided to you by our City Charter.
Why …
Very simply from its inception in 2006 this smoking ban issue has never been a Kirkwood issue. It was forced on our community via the Citizens Initiative Petition process by surrogate citizens working for outside forces.
In the words of their own leader Pat Lindsey, Director of Tobacco-Free Missouri, these folks came to our community – with those surrogate citizens in tow – for a political battle. They were going to "duke it out" against our supposedly "stubborn" City Council and our supposedly "stubborn" business community. They threw everything they could at our community. They set the agenda. They had the billboard advertising. They had the outside campaign workers.
Yet, they forgot about one thing – the good citizens of Kirkwood.
But, now with HAKs rehashed proposal it is clear all these folks no longer want just a political “duke it out” battle anymore. They do not want to work with the citizens of our community. This time they want more.
They want a pointless and wasteful “war of attrition” against our City Council, against our business community and .... now against all the good citizens of Kirkwood who did the right thing for their community and stood up against them in 2006.
How many more times City Council? How many more times?
Please take no action on HAKs proposal. Please send a clear message they will not run rough-shod over our community once again.
But, most importantly … give the citizens of Kirkwood the possibility of a real say in the Citizens Initiative Petition process.
The Choose Kirkwood – Informed Health Choice proposal gives the citizens of our entire community – against smoking or not – a choice:
- A choice for a common-sense approach to the issue of smoking bans.
- A choice for private citizens to make their own health decisions
- A choice for private business owners to make their own business plans
This time around the citizens need you to stand up for our rights to have a choice on this issue. We ask you to Choose Kirkwood.
I continue to urge the members of HAK to withdraw their pointless and wasteful petition. Sit down at a table of community dialogue with our City Council and other interested parties to resolve this issue within our community.
Save the community the tax dollars they are demanding to be spent by forcing a vote with the citizen initiative process. HAK already spent over $10,000 of our tax dollars on their issue of a smoking ban for the voters of Kirkwood to decide in 2006.
The HAK folks in 2006 stacked the deck against our entire community. HAK got caught at it with their billboards and their outside campaign workers for their supposedly "Kirkwood issue." HAK did not withdraw their petition like they easily could have. No, the members of HAK arrogantly played their hand as surrogate citizens for numerous outside groups.
HAK was dealt a defeat by the voters. They said "NO."
Now HAK is screaming “Do Over!”
How is that fair to our entire community?
What is your take? Please post at the "Comments" button below.
Here is a link to the video of the meeting:
http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php
I can not wait to present over the next few postings the information that HAK presented for:
Why these surrogate citizens are once again singling out and targeting our community?
Why these surrogate citizens continue to abuse our citizen initiative process with their outside agenda?
What are the next possibilities for their “duke it out” battles to be done under the ruse of “public health” and “protecting the health of the worker” in Kirkwood?
===================================================================
Tonight I ask our City Council to take no action on the HAK proposal that is before you. You have that option provided to you by our City Charter.
Why …
Very simply from its inception in 2006 this smoking ban issue has never been a Kirkwood issue. It was forced on our community via the Citizens Initiative Petition process by surrogate citizens working for outside forces.
In the words of their own leader Pat Lindsey, Director of Tobacco-Free Missouri, these folks came to our community – with those surrogate citizens in tow – for a political battle. They were going to "duke it out" against our supposedly "stubborn" City Council and our supposedly "stubborn" business community. They threw everything they could at our community. They set the agenda. They had the billboard advertising. They had the outside campaign workers.
Who could stop them?
Yet, they forgot about one thing – the good citizens of Kirkwood.
The citizens persevered, spoke and said “NO.”
HAK lost. It was time to move on.
But, now with HAKs rehashed proposal it is clear all these folks no longer want just a political “duke it out” battle anymore. They do not want to work with the citizens of our community. This time they want more.
They want a pointless and wasteful “war of attrition” against our City Council, against our business community and .... now against all the good citizens of Kirkwood who did the right thing for their community and stood up against them in 2006.
How many more times City Council? How many more times?
Please take no action on HAKs proposal. Please send a clear message they will not run rough-shod over our community once again.
But, most importantly … give the citizens of Kirkwood the possibility of a real say in the Citizens Initiative Petition process.
The Choose Kirkwood – Informed Health Choice proposal gives the citizens of our entire community – against smoking or not – a choice:
- A choice for a common-sense approach to the issue of smoking bans.
- A choice for private citizens to make their own health decisions
- A choice for private business owners to make their own business plans
This time around the citizens need you to stand up for our rights to have a choice on this issue. We ask you to Choose Kirkwood.
===================================================================
I continue to urge the members of HAK to withdraw their pointless and wasteful petition. Sit down at a table of community dialogue with our City Council and other interested parties to resolve this issue within our community.
Save the community the tax dollars they are demanding to be spent by forcing a vote with the citizen initiative process. HAK already spent over $10,000 of our tax dollars on their issue of a smoking ban for the voters of Kirkwood to decide in 2006.
The HAK folks in 2006 stacked the deck against our entire community. HAK got caught at it with their billboards and their outside campaign workers for their supposedly "Kirkwood issue." HAK did not withdraw their petition like they easily could have. No, the members of HAK arrogantly played their hand as surrogate citizens for numerous outside groups.
HAK was dealt a defeat by the voters. They said "NO."
Now HAK is screaming “Do Over!”
How is that fair to our entire community?
What is your take? Please post at the "Comments" button below.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Your Opportunity To Be Heard - Thursday's City Council Meeting
Hello Folks,
I hope you will come to this Thursday's City Council Meeting (7pm at City Hall) and speak out against the rehashed smoking ban being proposed by the members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK). HAK can easily withdraw their petition and not put our community through another contentious battle over a smoking ban like they did in 2006.
I want to remind you of a few facts:
The core members of HAK are the same core members of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK). CSFK was the surrogate citizen group for numerous state-wide, anti-smoking groups that tried to force a dictatorial smoking ban on our community in 2006 via the citizens' intitiative process. The voters of Kirkwood rejected that plan.
Here is what Pat Lindsey, the Director of Tobacco Free Missouri said in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag regarding the November 2006 smoking ban proposition. Keep in mind Ms. Lindsey's group spent thousands of dollars paying for FOUR different billboards supporting CSFKs smoke free agenda. Here is that letter (my bold added):
Smoke Free Is “No Brainer”
Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood should be commended for doing what the St. Louis County Council failed to do. They are taking the issue of clean indoor air and smoke-free workplaces to the voters in November.
The St. Louis County Council could have helped these advocates and the residents of the other 92 municipalities by putting one smoke-free ordinance on the November ballot. Instead, concerned citizens in each municipality will have to duke it out with stubborn legislators and business people who have been convinced revenues will decrease if businesses are smoke free.
Why are people fighting for the right to pollute the air? This issue is a no-brainer. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air and legislators have the duty to insure that right. The solution is simple. Smokers can take their toxic pollutants outside and everyone will be able to breathe a lot easier inside.
Pat Lindsey
Florissant
August 24, 2006
Link to Mailbag letter: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-2669.113117_Smoke_Free_Is_No_Brainer.html
Two things Ms. Lindsey forgot to tell you in her letter was that she wasted your tax dollars paying for a vote so she could "duke it out" with you and your community over her issue. The members of CSFK-HAK tried to run roughshod over our community with outside support like this and more.
Now they are back to rehash their wasteful and pointless political battle. It is time for the members of CSFK-HAK to quit pushing their outside agenda on our community. It is time for them to sit down along with our City Council and other interested parties to work out a proposal that works for our entire community.
I hope you will urge the members of CSFK-HAK to with work with our entire community on Thursday night at the City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7pm, so arrive early to get a seat and fill out a comment card.
Have a great day!
Joe
I hope you will come to this Thursday's City Council Meeting (7pm at City Hall) and speak out against the rehashed smoking ban being proposed by the members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK). HAK can easily withdraw their petition and not put our community through another contentious battle over a smoking ban like they did in 2006.
I want to remind you of a few facts:
The core members of HAK are the same core members of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK). CSFK was the surrogate citizen group for numerous state-wide, anti-smoking groups that tried to force a dictatorial smoking ban on our community in 2006 via the citizens' intitiative process. The voters of Kirkwood rejected that plan.
Here is what Pat Lindsey, the Director of Tobacco Free Missouri said in the Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag regarding the November 2006 smoking ban proposition. Keep in mind Ms. Lindsey's group spent thousands of dollars paying for FOUR different billboards supporting CSFKs smoke free agenda. Here is that letter (my bold added):
Smoke Free Is “No Brainer”
Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood should be commended for doing what the St. Louis County Council failed to do. They are taking the issue of clean indoor air and smoke-free workplaces to the voters in November.
The St. Louis County Council could have helped these advocates and the residents of the other 92 municipalities by putting one smoke-free ordinance on the November ballot. Instead, concerned citizens in each municipality will have to duke it out with stubborn legislators and business people who have been convinced revenues will decrease if businesses are smoke free.
Why are people fighting for the right to pollute the air? This issue is a no-brainer. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air and legislators have the duty to insure that right. The solution is simple. Smokers can take their toxic pollutants outside and everyone will be able to breathe a lot easier inside.
Pat Lindsey
Florissant
August 24, 2006
Link to Mailbag letter: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-2669.113117_Smoke_Free_Is_No_Brainer.html
Two things Ms. Lindsey forgot to tell you in her letter was that she wasted your tax dollars paying for a vote so she could "duke it out" with you and your community over her issue. The members of CSFK-HAK tried to run roughshod over our community with outside support like this and more.
Now they are back to rehash their wasteful and pointless political battle. It is time for the members of CSFK-HAK to quit pushing their outside agenda on our community. It is time for them to sit down along with our City Council and other interested parties to work out a proposal that works for our entire community.
I hope you will urge the members of CSFK-HAK to with work with our entire community on Thursday night at the City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7pm, so arrive early to get a seat and fill out a comment card.
Have a great day!
Joe
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Public Challenge To Franklin McCallie
Here is my speech to the City Council tonight. In it I publicly challenge HAK committee member Franklin McCallie to do what he has proclaimed he has wanted in Kirkwood for so many years.
-----------------------------------------
Tonight I wish to talk about the one key element that has been missing in Kirkwood when it comes to the two smoking ban proposals we have faced and are facing. It is the core aspect of the word “community” that was ignored in 2006 by the proponents of the smoking ban, which lead to their proposal’s defeat by Kirkwood’s voters. This core aspect of “community” has once again been ignored by Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) as they try to force a rehashed smoking ban on all of Kirkwood.
The One Key Element Missing – The Core Aspect Ignored – Is Dialogue.
I find this fact interesting when I review the list of HAK committee members. The new list is not much different than the list of residents that forced the 2006 proposal on our community. What is most surprising is the one name that shows up on each list. Both lists contain the name of our publicity seeking former Kirkwood High School Principal, Franklin McCallie.
Who can forget Franklin’s various calls for community “dialogue” about issues over the years? Who can forget his whirlwind publicity tour after the City Hall tragedy where he was referred to by an adoring local press with such glowing statements as the, “Lincolnesque ... self-appointed … liberal conscience of a conservative community” (St. Louis Magazine, May, 2008). As a founding member of CFUH he was the community activist “promoting respect, acceptance, and reconciliation among all citizens in our Kirkwood community through reflective dialogue.” Franklin has constantly proclaimed to the media over the years how our community needs “dialogue” to solve issues.
Yet, in 2006 there was no “dialogue” offered for our community by Franklin and his cohorts with their dictatorial smoking ban. They had the help of numerous State-wide anti-smoking groups with lots of money for advertising and lots of campaign workers from around the state to force their “duke it out” battle on Kirkwood. Even after stacking the deck against our entire community in this manner, Franklin and his cohorts still lost with their uncontested 2006 proposal.
Here we are less than 3 years later and Franklin and his cohorts are forcing another dictatorial smoking ban on our entire community. This time their proposal will be contested by the citizens of Choose Kirkwood and their proposal. We are working to engage all interested parties in Kirkwood in the process.
Franklin’s pattern is demand – Dialogue, Dialogue, Dialogue … Except – where it does not suit him.
I have twice privately reached out to Franklin for dialogue on this issue and was rejected. On Saturday, as HAKs event crumbled before them, with no one showing up for their big kick-off, I privately went up to HAK President, Mary Murphy-Overmann and asked for dialogue on this issue and was rejected.
From Franklin’s private rejections it is clear, his very public proclamations that dialogue is how we need to resolve issues in our community were just empty, hollow words – just sound bites – for consumption and regurgitation by the press. It seems dialogue is only for certain issues in Kirkwood, but definitely not the dictatorial proposals Franklin and his cohorts want to force on our entire community.
Tonight, I publicly challenge Franklin to live up the press he has created about himself. I challenge him to act like the image of the “Lincolnesque ... self-appointed … liberal conscience of our conservative community” he has fashioned. I challenge him to put his smoking ban issue where his mouth has been for so long – sit down with other interested parties to find a solution from our community – for our community. I challenge him to lay aside his monologue and prove dialogue is the way to resolve issues in Kirkwood.
I have since June 4th tried to keep our community from having to unnecessarily waste time, energy and ever tightened financial resources on another pointless, political battle over the smoking ban issue. I hope you, our City Council, will work with the members of Choose Kirkwood and other interested parties to provide our community the dialogue Franklin has proclaimed he has wanted for so many years.
----------------------------------------- I can only hope Franklin and the rest of HAK will decide to work with the rest of Kirkwood and come to a solution - from our community - for our community.
Post you thoughts below by hitting the "Comments" link below.
-----------------------------------------
Tonight I wish to talk about the one key element that has been missing in Kirkwood when it comes to the two smoking ban proposals we have faced and are facing. It is the core aspect of the word “community” that was ignored in 2006 by the proponents of the smoking ban, which lead to their proposal’s defeat by Kirkwood’s voters. This core aspect of “community” has once again been ignored by Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) as they try to force a rehashed smoking ban on all of Kirkwood.
The One Key Element Missing – The Core Aspect Ignored – Is Dialogue.
I find this fact interesting when I review the list of HAK committee members. The new list is not much different than the list of residents that forced the 2006 proposal on our community. What is most surprising is the one name that shows up on each list. Both lists contain the name of our publicity seeking former Kirkwood High School Principal, Franklin McCallie.
Who can forget Franklin’s various calls for community “dialogue” about issues over the years? Who can forget his whirlwind publicity tour after the City Hall tragedy where he was referred to by an adoring local press with such glowing statements as the, “Lincolnesque ... self-appointed … liberal conscience of a conservative community” (St. Louis Magazine, May, 2008). As a founding member of CFUH he was the community activist “promoting respect, acceptance, and reconciliation among all citizens in our Kirkwood community through reflective dialogue.” Franklin has constantly proclaimed to the media over the years how our community needs “dialogue” to solve issues.
Yet, in 2006 there was no “dialogue” offered for our community by Franklin and his cohorts with their dictatorial smoking ban. They had the help of numerous State-wide anti-smoking groups with lots of money for advertising and lots of campaign workers from around the state to force their “duke it out” battle on Kirkwood. Even after stacking the deck against our entire community in this manner, Franklin and his cohorts still lost with their uncontested 2006 proposal.
Here we are less than 3 years later and Franklin and his cohorts are forcing another dictatorial smoking ban on our entire community. This time their proposal will be contested by the citizens of Choose Kirkwood and their proposal. We are working to engage all interested parties in Kirkwood in the process.
Franklin’s pattern is demand – Dialogue, Dialogue, Dialogue … Except – where it does not suit him.
I have twice privately reached out to Franklin for dialogue on this issue and was rejected. On Saturday, as HAKs event crumbled before them, with no one showing up for their big kick-off, I privately went up to HAK President, Mary Murphy-Overmann and asked for dialogue on this issue and was rejected.
From Franklin’s private rejections it is clear, his very public proclamations that dialogue is how we need to resolve issues in our community were just empty, hollow words – just sound bites – for consumption and regurgitation by the press. It seems dialogue is only for certain issues in Kirkwood, but definitely not the dictatorial proposals Franklin and his cohorts want to force on our entire community.
Tonight, I publicly challenge Franklin to live up the press he has created about himself. I challenge him to act like the image of the “Lincolnesque ... self-appointed … liberal conscience of our conservative community” he has fashioned. I challenge him to put his smoking ban issue where his mouth has been for so long – sit down with other interested parties to find a solution from our community – for our community. I challenge him to lay aside his monologue and prove dialogue is the way to resolve issues in Kirkwood.
I have since June 4th tried to keep our community from having to unnecessarily waste time, energy and ever tightened financial resources on another pointless, political battle over the smoking ban issue. I hope you, our City Council, will work with the members of Choose Kirkwood and other interested parties to provide our community the dialogue Franklin has proclaimed he has wanted for so many years.
-----------------------------------------
Post you thoughts below by hitting the "Comments" link below.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thank Yous And The Response Not Printed
The latest edition of the Webster-Kirkwood Times did not carry the Mailbag letter I submitted in response to the June 18th Mailbag letter from CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes.
But, when you have to make a choice between printing my very good letter and the brilliant, on-point letter written by McArthur Bakery’s own Dave McArthur, I have to say the Times Editors made the right call. Thanks Times Editors! Yes, thanks!
But, more importantly – THANK YOU … DAVE McARTHUR – for giving a damn enough about our wonderful Kirkwood businesses and the rest of our community to take such a public and poignant stand!
If you missed Dave’s letter here is the link to his Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter:http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16585.113118_Government_Regulation_Of_The_Unwilling.html
Since, I hate to let a very good letter go to waste, I present for you my response to CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes’ June 18th Mailbag letter:
“Choose Kirkwood” a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.
What is the point in citizens like Reese Forbes and a few others proposing another smoking ban in Kirkwood?
I have to ask this question after reading Reese Forbes’ letter last week. He claims their rehashed proposal “does not ‘Ban Smoking In Kirkwood,’ because smoking would still be allowed in 99.65 percent of the entire area of Kirkwood.” I have no idea how he came up with that figure.
But, it sure shows to what extreme lengths these anti-smoking folks will go. In 2006 these folks along with activists from numerous state-wide anti-smoking groups descended on our community, grossly misled us about their dictatorial proposal, forced a vote via the citizens initiative petition process and spent thousands of dollars on four billboards and other campaigning to ban smoking in Kirkwood. Their proposal failed.
Now they want to pick another “duke it out” battle by forcing their rehashed dictatorial smoking ban proposal on our community for allegedly ONLY 0.35% of Kirkwood?
Just like in 2006, these surrogate citizens of outside anti-smoking forces have refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a law that affects us, our business community and our tax dollars. They are trying to force another vote via the citizens’ initiative petition process, rather than sitting down to work out a sensible solution.
A group of only Kirkwood citizens, called “Choose Kirkwood” has decided to intervene before another “duke it out” battle starts all over again. “Choose Kirkwood” is presently working with other interested parties in our community to bring a "Kirkwood Informed Health Choice" proposal. Our goal is to provide a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.
If you would like to review what CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes said, here is the link to his June 18th Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16556.113118_Does_Not_Ban_Smoking.html
===================================================================
Give your take on the issue. Hit the "Comments" link below ...
But, when you have to make a choice between printing my very good letter and the brilliant, on-point letter written by McArthur Bakery’s own Dave McArthur, I have to say the Times Editors made the right call. Thanks Times Editors! Yes, thanks!
But, more importantly – THANK YOU … DAVE McARTHUR – for giving a damn enough about our wonderful Kirkwood businesses and the rest of our community to take such a public and poignant stand!
If you missed Dave’s letter here is the link to his Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter:http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-16585.113118_Government_Regulation_Of_The_Unwilling.html
-------------------------------------
Since, I hate to let a very good letter go to waste, I present for you my response to CFSK-HAK spokesperson Reese Forbes’ June 18th Mailbag letter:
“Choose Kirkwood” a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.
What is the point in citizens like Reese Forbes and a few others proposing another smoking ban in Kirkwood?
I have to ask this question after reading Reese Forbes’ letter last week. He claims their rehashed proposal “does not ‘Ban Smoking In Kirkwood,’ because smoking would still be allowed in 99.65 percent of the entire area of Kirkwood.” I have no idea how he came up with that figure.
But, it sure shows to what extreme lengths these anti-smoking folks will go. In 2006 these folks along with activists from numerous state-wide anti-smoking groups descended on our community, grossly misled us about their dictatorial proposal, forced a vote via the citizens initiative petition process and spent thousands of dollars on four billboards and other campaigning to ban smoking in Kirkwood. Their proposal failed.
Now they want to pick another “duke it out” battle by forcing their rehashed dictatorial smoking ban proposal on our community for allegedly ONLY 0.35% of Kirkwood?
Just like in 2006, these surrogate citizens of outside anti-smoking forces have refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a law that affects us, our business community and our tax dollars. They are trying to force another vote via the citizens’ initiative petition process, rather than sitting down to work out a sensible solution.
A group of only Kirkwood citizens, called “Choose Kirkwood” has decided to intervene before another “duke it out” battle starts all over again. “Choose Kirkwood” is presently working with other interested parties in our community to bring a "Kirkwood Informed Health Choice" proposal. Our goal is to provide a fair, democratic and inclusive alternative.
Our goal is to bring a common-sense approach to smoking restrictions - from our community ... for our community. Find out more at: www.choosekirkwood.org
-------------------------------------
===================================================================
Give your take on the issue. Hit the "Comments" link below ...
Friday, June 26, 2009
If They Are Not Surrogates ...
.
In case you missed the article on the proposed smoking ban in Kirkwood written by Phil Sutin at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here is a link to the article:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/01121987BF304A24862575DD0077A28C?OpenDocument
I was surprised to see the smoking ban folks selected a new spokeswoman for their group, Mrs. Debra Hacke Cotton. In 2006 she showed an extreme inability to present the facts about her smoking ban in a forthright manner to our community.
Who can forget Mrs. Cotton’s Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter from October 19, 2006 where she said about Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood’s (CFSK) proposal,
“This initiative is being brought forth to the voters by a committed group of Kirkwood citizens, who care deeply about their neighbors and their community. Having recently become involved in supporting this issue and Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.” (my bold)
Mrs. Cotton’s full letter can be found here:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html
Yes, Mrs. Cotton wrote this letter of “assurance” while there were not one, not two, not three but FOUR billboards at the intersection of Big Bend and Kirkwood Rd, paid for by the state-wide group Tobacco-Free Missouri.
The thousands of dollars spent by Tobacco-Free Missouri for those billboards was not the act of a "special interest group" trying to force their outside agenda on our community?
Now according to Phil Sutin’s article Mrs. Cotton and her fellow surrogate citizens are going to hold a rally at Station Plaza this Saturday from 10am to 2pm to "clean the air." They are going to have music provided by Baker Symes of Webster Groves.
That is an interesting name of a Webster Groves’ citizen to see once again involved in forcing a smoking ban proposal on the community of Kirkwood.
Mrs. Cotton should know that name, since Mr. Baker Symes of Webster Groves was one of five anti-smoking zealots from outside our community who were conscripted by Ms. Jean Loemker to gather signatures from Kirkwood citizens for their 2006 citizens initiative petition.
Yes, the last time these surrogates citizens for outside anti-smoking groups forced a vote via a citizens’ initiative petition it was “fueled by outsiders” like Mr. Baker Symes. Even though Mrs. Cotton “assured” us this was not the case. Those are the facts regardless of what Mrs. Cotton wishes to exert on our community then or now.
The interest grows even more in the name Baker Symes when you realize it has not been used in relation to a smoking ban being forced on his own community of Webster Groves. Webster has a citizen's initiative process provided in their City Charter. Yet, why has Mr. Symes failed to abuse his City Charter and shove that agenda on his own community with the help of his cohorts in Kirkwood and the anti-smoking groups they serve from around the State of Missouri? I guess Mr. Symes is more interested in making the anti-smoking zealot "duke it out" battle count to be: Kirkwood 2 / Webster 0.
Now these same folks in Kirkwood want to pretend their new group in not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders?"
These same folks want us to believe they are not surrogates for outside anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri?
If they are not surrogates, then why did they once again fail to work within our community to develop a smoking ban proposal?
If they are not surrogates, then why did they draft a proposal that other members of our community had no say in?
If they are not surrogates, then why are they once again forcing a vote on this issue by abusing the citizen’s initiative process?
===================================================================
What's your take? Post your thoughts by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.
In case you missed the article on the proposed smoking ban in Kirkwood written by Phil Sutin at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here is a link to the article:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/01121987BF304A24862575DD0077A28C?OpenDocument
I was surprised to see the smoking ban folks selected a new spokeswoman for their group, Mrs. Debra Hacke Cotton. In 2006 she showed an extreme inability to present the facts about her smoking ban in a forthright manner to our community.
Who can forget Mrs. Cotton’s Webster-Kirkwood Times Mailbag letter from October 19, 2006 where she said about Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood’s (CFSK) proposal,
“This initiative is being brought forth to the voters by a committed group of Kirkwood citizens, who care deeply about their neighbors and their community. Having recently become involved in supporting this issue and Citizens for Smoke-Free Kirkwood, I can assure you that this movement is not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders," as purported on a flyer distributed by those opposing the ordinance.” (my bold)
Mrs. Cotton’s full letter can be found here:
http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Letters-3141.113117_Make_Kirkwood_Healthier_With_Prop_1_Vote.html
Yes, Mrs. Cotton wrote this letter of “assurance” while there were not one, not two, not three but FOUR billboards at the intersection of Big Bend and Kirkwood Rd, paid for by the state-wide group Tobacco-Free Missouri.
The thousands of dollars spent by Tobacco-Free Missouri for those billboards was not the act of a "special interest group" trying to force their outside agenda on our community?
Now according to Phil Sutin’s article Mrs. Cotton and her fellow surrogate citizens are going to hold a rally at Station Plaza this Saturday from 10am to 2pm to "clean the air." They are going to have music provided by Baker Symes of Webster Groves.
That is an interesting name of a Webster Groves’ citizen to see once again involved in forcing a smoking ban proposal on the community of Kirkwood.
Mrs. Cotton should know that name, since Mr. Baker Symes of Webster Groves was one of five anti-smoking zealots from outside our community who were conscripted by Ms. Jean Loemker to gather signatures from Kirkwood citizens for their 2006 citizens initiative petition.
Yes, the last time these surrogates citizens for outside anti-smoking groups forced a vote via a citizens’ initiative petition it was “fueled by outsiders” like Mr. Baker Symes. Even though Mrs. Cotton “assured” us this was not the case. Those are the facts regardless of what Mrs. Cotton wishes to exert on our community then or now.
The interest grows even more in the name Baker Symes when you realize it has not been used in relation to a smoking ban being forced on his own community of Webster Groves. Webster has a citizen's initiative process provided in their City Charter. Yet, why has Mr. Symes failed to abuse his City Charter and shove that agenda on his own community with the help of his cohorts in Kirkwood and the anti-smoking groups they serve from around the State of Missouri? I guess Mr. Symes is more interested in making the anti-smoking zealot "duke it out" battle count to be: Kirkwood 2 / Webster 0.
Now these same folks in Kirkwood want to pretend their new group in not being supported by "special interest groups" or "fueled by outsiders?"
These same folks want us to believe they are not surrogates for outside anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri?
If they are not surrogates, then why did they once again fail to work within our community to develop a smoking ban proposal?
If they are not surrogates, then why did they draft a proposal that other members of our community had no say in?
If they are not surrogates, then why are they once again forcing a vote on this issue by abusing the citizen’s initiative process?
===================================================================
What's your take? Post your thoughts by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Claytonization of Kirkwood – The New Brand
.
Below is my speech from last night's City Council meeting ...
I sat in utter disbelief at the last City Council meeting as I watched Ms. Loemker re-establish her pattern of misinformation to you our City Council and to our community as a whole.
It is clear the “duke it out” battle Ms. Loemker and her allies like Ms. Pat Linsdey of Tobacco-Free Missouri (T-FMo) are going to wage in our community will be filled with similar disingenuous statements as their 2006 campaign was rife with.
Ms. Loemker came before this body and tried to extol the virtues of the process in Clayton. She talked about how fair and equitable the process was in how Clayton came up with their alleged smoking ban. She even invited us to come and see the process unfold. She alluded to the idea that we in Kirkwood could be more “progressive.” Yes, Ms. Loemker is all for her own brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood.
Yet, is there really a “smoking ban” in Clayton as Ms. Anna Forder reported in her Webster-Kirkwood Times article? No – not at all.
The facts show there were multiple re-writes by the Clayton City Council to ensure a certain … shall I say … Ritzy establishment … would be excluded from their alleged “smoking ban.”
Yes, in the City of Clayton if you are rich and powerful, then the powers that be will bend over backwards to ensure you can smoke and imbibe in adult beverages no matter if an employee has to be exposed to second-hand smoke or not.
So just how is the Clayton City Council’s alleged smoking ban treating all parts of its community fairly and equitably? How could anyone think this kind of legislative hypocrisy is “progressive” or needed in our community?
I guess if every bar in Kirkwood that wanted to cater to smoking patrons just added “RC” in front of their name, then they would be exempted and acceptable to Ms. Loemker with her new brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood?
It is interesting how in Ms. Loemker’s view it is “progressive” for a certain bar in Clayton to get an exemption, but in Kirkwood our only choice is whatever she and her anti-smoking allies from throughout the state of Missouri have already decided for us.
Ms. Loemker and her group of surrogate citizens have once again refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a smoking ban that affects us all. It proves not a single one of them is interested in working with our community as a whole.
For this group to once again try to use the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their one-sided proposal on our community is an abuse of that very process. It is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.
I once again call upon the leaders of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK) or Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) or whatever name they want to call themselves next, to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw their Initiative Petition.
===================================================================
I hope fellow Kirkwoodians would echo my call for these folks to put aside their pointless, political battle in our community.
You can post your thoughts on the subject, by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.
Below is my speech from last night's City Council meeting ...
I sat in utter disbelief at the last City Council meeting as I watched Ms. Loemker re-establish her pattern of misinformation to you our City Council and to our community as a whole.
It is clear the “duke it out” battle Ms. Loemker and her allies like Ms. Pat Linsdey of Tobacco-Free Missouri (T-FMo) are going to wage in our community will be filled with similar disingenuous statements as their 2006 campaign was rife with.
Ms. Loemker came before this body and tried to extol the virtues of the process in Clayton. She talked about how fair and equitable the process was in how Clayton came up with their alleged smoking ban. She even invited us to come and see the process unfold. She alluded to the idea that we in Kirkwood could be more “progressive.” Yes, Ms. Loemker is all for her own brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood.
Yet, is there really a “smoking ban” in Clayton as Ms. Anna Forder reported in her Webster-Kirkwood Times article? No – not at all.
The facts show there were multiple re-writes by the Clayton City Council to ensure a certain … shall I say … Ritzy establishment … would be excluded from their alleged “smoking ban.”
Yes, in the City of Clayton if you are rich and powerful, then the powers that be will bend over backwards to ensure you can smoke and imbibe in adult beverages no matter if an employee has to be exposed to second-hand smoke or not.
So just how is the Clayton City Council’s alleged smoking ban treating all parts of its community fairly and equitably? How could anyone think this kind of legislative hypocrisy is “progressive” or needed in our community?
I guess if every bar in Kirkwood that wanted to cater to smoking patrons just added “RC” in front of their name, then they would be exempted and acceptable to Ms. Loemker with her new brand of the Claytonization of Kirkwood?
It is interesting how in Ms. Loemker’s view it is “progressive” for a certain bar in Clayton to get an exemption, but in Kirkwood our only choice is whatever she and her anti-smoking allies from throughout the state of Missouri have already decided for us.
Ms. Loemker and her group of surrogate citizens have once again refused to allow any other part of our community to have any say in the drafting of a smoking ban that affects us all. It proves not a single one of them is interested in working with our community as a whole.
For this group to once again try to use the Citizens Initiative Petition process to force their one-sided proposal on our community is an abuse of that very process. It is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.
I once again call upon the leaders of Citizens for a Smoke Free Kirkwood (CSFK) or Healthy Air for Kirkwood (HAK) or whatever name they want to call themselves next, to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw their Initiative Petition.
===================================================================
I hope fellow Kirkwoodians would echo my call for these folks to put aside their pointless, political battle in our community.
You can post your thoughts on the subject, by hitting the "Comments" link below ...
.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?
Hello Folks,
I happen to be in downtown Kirkwood today dropping off my bike at Bicycles of Kirkwood for some new add-ons. The black bike rack is going be such a great addition to my total “old school” look.
As I was scooting doing Kirkwood Road in my pickup there is Jean Loemker of CFSK and now HAK getting a signature from a gentleman … I can only imagine for her and Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's new smoking ban proposal in Kirkwood.
And the first question that came to my mind was …
I wonder if the poor guy that just signed Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's petition being circulated by Ms. Loemker knew she was really asking him …
I happen to be in downtown Kirkwood today dropping off my bike at Bicycles of Kirkwood for some new add-ons. The black bike rack is going be such a great addition to my total “old school” look.
As I was scooting doing Kirkwood Road in my pickup there is Jean Loemker of CFSK and now HAK getting a signature from a gentleman … I can only imagine for her and Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's new smoking ban proposal in Kirkwood.
And the first question that came to my mind was …
I wonder if the poor guy that just signed Tobacco Free Missouri’s and GASP's petition being circulated by Ms. Loemker knew she was really asking him …
How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?
Yes, if you get down to the reality of it …every signature on that petition is like a Kirkwoodian going to City Hall and demanding the City Administration waste at least $10,000 of their own tax dollars on an issue the voters rejected November 2006.
I sure hope you read that last sentence carefully … especially the two most important words.
Do you know what the two most important words are?
They are “at least.”
“At least" are the two most important words, because this is an off-election year. So, St. Louis County is not going to be holding as many elections this year.
Since these outside groups chose to target Kirkwood once again for a rehash of their proposal, but in an off-election year … (for strategic reasons we will discuss later) … they run the possibility of our tax dollars carrying the entire bill from the St. Louis County Election Board for this election in Kirkwood.
The last time our tax dollars paid the bill for a vote in Kirkwood in an off-election year was the 2003 Ward Proposal. The bill from the St. Louis County Election Board for that November 2003 vote was over $19,000. Keep in mind that was 2003, so the costs could be higher.
So, please think about what you are really doing if someone walks up to you and asks you to sign a petition to ban smoking in Kirkwood.
These folks are really coming up to you and asking you ...
How Would You Like To Blow $10,000 Without Even Trying?
Do not forget to do the neighborly thing and let all your family and friends in Kirkwood know exactly what they are really being asked when these folks hand them the rehashed smoke-free petition.
===================================================
Post your thoughts by clicking on the Comments link below.
.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
This Does Not Need To Happen. The Choice Is Yours.
Yes, it is confirmed “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” is back with yet another proposal they are getting signatures for. The defeat of their November 2006 proposal was not good enough for them. They want to keep rehashing this issue over and over. This time they have reformulated themselves as “Healthy Air for Kirkwood.”
Yes, at this time these folks and their coalition of numerous anti-smoking organizations from throughout Missouri are targeting our community for yet another pointless political battle.
Below is my snail-mail letter I sent to these folks. I used it as my speech at tonight’s City Council meeting.
===================================================================
Healthy Air for Kirkwood
1271 Oakshire Lane
Kirkwood, MO 63122
June 4, 2009
Dear Members of Healthy Air for Kirkwood,
As a fellow citizen of Kirkwood, I am writing to you in response to your Initiative Petition for a Smoke-Free Ordinance you have filed at City Hall. I ask you at this time to do the right thing and the honorable thing for our entire community and withdraw this Initiative Petition.
Your reformulated group from “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” to “Healthy Air for Kirkwood” is akin to nothing more than a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You are the same group serving outside interests as before. So nothing has changed. The issue of smoking versus non-smoking is the same as before. So nothing has changed. The ability of patrons to not support smoking establishments is the same as before. So nothing has changed. The need for you and your fellow anti-smoking activists from across Missouri to take this state-wide issue to Jefferson City is the same as before. So nothing has changed.
For your group to once again try to use the Initiative Petition process is an abuse of that very process. When looking at the facts and the history of your group this Initiative Petition is an abuse of the community good faith and trust our City Charter was founded upon. It is an abuse of our City government. It is an abuse of our business community. It is an abuse of our tax dollars. It is an abuse of the clear decision made by voters in November 2006.
Please, therefore, do not continue to waste your fellow Kirkwoodians’ valuable time and their ever tightened resources on this issue. Have the conscience and the courage to do the right thing and the honorable thing by taking this fight to where it belongs – Jefferson City.
I will remind you of this fact: Anti-smoking activists in 33 states have been able to get fair and equitable state-wide smoking bans passed. So, you have no excuse not to avail yourselves of the legislative process provided in Jefferson City. There is no reason for you and the numerous state-wide anti-smoking coalitions you are working for to continue to abuse our community, our tax dollars and our Initiative Petition process with this issue here in Kirkwood.
If you refuse to withdraw this Initiative Petition, then you will force a citizens group to be formed to defeat your wasteful and unnecessary, rehashed proposal. Fellow Kirkwoodians, like myself, will not sit idly by as you continue forcing outside proposals on our community. This does not need to happen. The choice is yours.
Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,
Joe Toenjes
===================================================================
Given the impromptu comments of Ms. Jean Loemker, the leader of “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood", to the City Council in response to my speech, it is safe to say our community has confirmation that …
“Your reformulated group from “Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood” to “Healthy Air for Kirkwood” is akin to nothing more than a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. You are the same group serving outside interests as before. So nothing has changed.”
If you have a response please click on the "Comment" link below.
.
Letter to Park Board President Bob Sears
Dear Bob,
After reading the May 29, 2009 article in the Webster-Kirkwood Times on “Quinnette Cemetery” I was struck by your two quotes in the article,
"This property is unique and historic," said Sears. "It really deserves the respect and care it's receiving now after decades of neglect by everyone except a few descendents who wanted to be sure it was not forgotten ...The cemetery has a careful and good custodian in the park board." …
Sears said some community members were concerned that the cemetery had been designated a park, but Sears said putting the cemetery under the care of the park board was the most practical way to ensure it is taken care of.
"That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it. Nobody should expect any changes other than the ones we just talked about," Sears said, referring to the new signage, the walkway and the two memorials.
First, I have to wonder why you made the statement, "That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it.”
I presently am unfamiliar with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer? Just how was the property ever going to a developer when it has been owned by the City of Kirkwood since 2001?
Yet, I do know the history of how Mayor Swoboda along with City Council secured and protected that historic and hallowed ground for our community. It was not until more than 2 years after this achievement that I got to know and become friends with the Mayor. But, even then he was still working with other dedicated citizen volunteers on commissions like Landmarks and Architectural Review, in addition to Parks to see Quinette’s restoration and preservation was moving forward. He was so thankful for all the hard working, teenage volunteers of Youth-In-Action, who cleared portions of the cemetery. Plus, the hard work of members of Kirkwood’s VFW Post to bring proper honor to the veterans buried there. Mayor Swoboda not only set in motion the protecting of Quinette from any possible development, but he also worked hard to rally many other resources in our community to do their part, thus making Quinette Cemetery that much better.
Just to present the facts, here is the record of the vote taken. It shows exactly who among our elected officials in 2001 cared enough to ensure Quinette Cemetery was put into public hands:
July 19, 2001 – Resolution 69-2001A – Roll Call Vote as Follows:
Council Member Godi --- “No”
Council Member Griffin --- “Yes”
Council Member Lynch --- “Yes”
Council Member McDonnell --- “Yes”
Council Member Noonan --- “Yes”
Mayor Swoboda --- “Yes”
Council Member Ward --- “Yes”
It is interesting to note that none of the six City Council members that voted “Yes” were/are members of any of the alleged Greenspace or Restoration or Preservation groups in our community. Yet, these public servants knew how historic and important it was to preserve the hallowed ground of Quinette Cemetery. Their actions speak louder than any words. Their actions speak louder than any endorsements from in-name-only groups that have for years produced little to nothing in the way of additional Greenspace, increased Restoration or productive Preservation for our community.
Given your quote, therefore, could you please enlighten me and the readers of this blog with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer?
Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,
Joe Toenjes
===================================================================
If you would like to make a comment, then hit the "Comment" link below.
.
After reading the May 29, 2009 article in the Webster-Kirkwood Times on “Quinnette Cemetery” I was struck by your two quotes in the article,
"This property is unique and historic," said Sears. "It really deserves the respect and care it's receiving now after decades of neglect by everyone except a few descendents who wanted to be sure it was not forgotten ...The cemetery has a careful and good custodian in the park board." …
Sears said some community members were concerned that the cemetery had been designated a park, but Sears said putting the cemetery under the care of the park board was the most practical way to ensure it is taken care of.
"That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it. Nobody should expect any changes other than the ones we just talked about," Sears said, referring to the new signage, the walkway and the two memorials.
First, I have to wonder why you made the statement, "That's what was important to me," Sears said. "No more sale to a developer. Once it gets into private hands, you don't know what they're going to do to it.”
I presently am unfamiliar with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer? Just how was the property ever going to a developer when it has been owned by the City of Kirkwood since 2001?
Yet, I do know the history of how Mayor Swoboda along with City Council secured and protected that historic and hallowed ground for our community. It was not until more than 2 years after this achievement that I got to know and become friends with the Mayor. But, even then he was still working with other dedicated citizen volunteers on commissions like Landmarks and Architectural Review, in addition to Parks to see Quinette’s restoration and preservation was moving forward. He was so thankful for all the hard working, teenage volunteers of Youth-In-Action, who cleared portions of the cemetery. Plus, the hard work of members of Kirkwood’s VFW Post to bring proper honor to the veterans buried there. Mayor Swoboda not only set in motion the protecting of Quinette from any possible development, but he also worked hard to rally many other resources in our community to do their part, thus making Quinette Cemetery that much better.
Just to present the facts, here is the record of the vote taken. It shows exactly who among our elected officials in 2001 cared enough to ensure Quinette Cemetery was put into public hands:
July 19, 2001 – Resolution 69-2001A – Roll Call Vote as Follows:
Council Member Godi --- “No”
Council Member Griffin --- “Yes”
Council Member Lynch --- “Yes”
Council Member McDonnell --- “Yes”
Council Member Noonan --- “Yes”
Mayor Swoboda --- “Yes”
Council Member Ward --- “Yes”
It is interesting to note that none of the six City Council members that voted “Yes” were/are members of any of the alleged Greenspace or Restoration or Preservation groups in our community. Yet, these public servants knew how historic and important it was to preserve the hallowed ground of Quinette Cemetery. Their actions speak louder than any words. Their actions speak louder than any endorsements from in-name-only groups that have for years produced little to nothing in the way of additional Greenspace, increased Restoration or productive Preservation for our community.
Given your quote, therefore, could you please enlighten me and the readers of this blog with what “important” actions were done by you or the Park Board while you have served on it to take or keep the Quinette Cemetery property out of private hands or from a developer?
Your Fellow Kirkwoodian,
Joe Toenjes
===================================================================
If you would like to make a comment, then hit the "Comment" link below.
.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Yet Again?
I happened to pick the RFT on Sunday after getting some breakfast ... to read the latest restaurant review. I did not get a chance to read it until late Sunday night.
I noticed the main article was on area smoking bans. So, I decided to take a read.
This sentence in the article caught my eye …
“Separately, the cities of Clayton, Kirkwood and Wildwood are all looking at potential bans.”
Wow ... when has this gone on in Kirkwood?
Could it be true … the Riverfront Times has better information about what’s going on in Kirkwood than the “Your Hometown Newspaper” – the Webster-Kirkwood Times?
Could it be true … Tom Finkel’s crew out scooped Scoop Corrigan’s crew?
But, most importantly as I asked in a Mailbag letter back in February …
“Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?”
Well if this is true ... it looks like Jean Loemker and the rest of her well-financed, anti-smoking zealots from throughout the state are going to descend once again on our community to force their agenda on us.
Why does our community and its businesses need to be their pawns yet again?
===================================================================
What is your take? Hit the "Comment" link below ...
I noticed the main article was on area smoking bans. So, I decided to take a read.
This sentence in the article caught my eye …
“Separately, the cities of Clayton, Kirkwood and Wildwood are all looking at potential bans.”
Wow ... when has this gone on in Kirkwood?
Could it be true … the Riverfront Times has better information about what’s going on in Kirkwood than the “Your Hometown Newspaper” – the Webster-Kirkwood Times?
Could it be true … Tom Finkel’s crew out scooped Scoop Corrigan’s crew?
But, most importantly as I asked in a Mailbag letter back in February …
“Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?”
Well if this is true ... it looks like Jean Loemker and the rest of her well-financed, anti-smoking zealots from throughout the state are going to descend once again on our community to force their agenda on us.
Why does our community and its businesses need to be their pawns yet again?
===================================================================
What is your take? Hit the "Comment" link below ...
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Great Rivers Greenway’s proposed walking/biking trail for Dee Koestering Park
Hello Fellow Kirkwodians ...
The Kirkwood Park Board and their Trail Subcommittee presently have before them a proposal from Great Rivers Greenways to build a walking/biking trail in Dee Koestering Park ... also known as the Meramec Highlands Quarry Park. The Dee Koestering Park is a 9.5 acre passive park located at the top of Marshall Road.
The City of Kirkwood’s Park System page describes the park as “a nature park with walking trails; site of the historic Meramec Highlands Quarry. Many large stones, left over from the quarrying operation that operated at the site over 100 year ago remain visible today. Acquisition was partially funded by a grant from the Land and Water Conversation Fund.” (I suspect that is “Conservation Fund” – I sent correction to City Hall.)
If you have not gone to this park, then you really need to go. But, be ready for a good strong walk. Think walking down Marshall Road on foot, meandering around for a good long while, then hoofing back up that little bugger of a hill! Now add a lovely wooded setting with some impressive boulders and rock formations, plus the remnants of an old quarry. It is just a great little passive park.
After 18 months of work on this proposal, the Park Board has had some public sessions on the proposal. I have some very deep reservations about any park going from passive to active with this kind of proposal. Simple natural settings to get away from it all are hard to find these days. What information that I could readily find on the City’s web site and Great Rivers Greenway’s web site leaves a bit to be desired. No decent view of the proposed trail in relation to the Park. No real information about what this trail is going to cost taxpayers. The Park Board and Great Rivers Greenway both exist, thanks only to our tax dollars.
So yesterday, I sent the below email to Murray Pounds - Parks & Recreation Director, Bob Sears – Park Board President and the 6 members of the City Council that have email addresses.
Hopefully all citizens can get better informed about this proposal if my three requests are fulfilled.
==================================================================
Dear Members of the Kirkwood Parks Trail Committee and the Kirkwood Park Board,
I finally got a chance to look at Great Rivers Greenway’s proposed walking/biking trail for Dee Koestering Park. This trail is supposed to link the walking/biking trail that presently ends in Greentree Park at the bottom of Marshall Rd., bring it out of that valley, through the streets of Kirkwood to the Grant’s Trail trailhead on the edge of Kirkwood near Holmes Ave. and I-44.
As a citizen with a regular job trying to make it to a 4:30pm Trail Subcommittee meeting is nearly impossible. I did take the time to look at all the information I could readily find on the proposal. I first went to Great Rivers Greenway’s web site and found nothing of substance. Then, I went through everything provided on the City of Kirkwood’s web site. I reviewed the maps and schematics provided. I read the citizen comments that were collected. I familiarized myself once again with the Park Master Plan.
I found the information provided about this proposal woefully inadequate. Once I pieced together the two maps provided on the City’s web site, then fully ascertained how the proposed path actually goes through Dee Koestering Park, I was shocked by this proposal. Neither overlay map when pieced together provides a complete and clear picture of all the boundaries of Dee Koestering Park and its various neighbors in relationship to the trail that is being proposed. This failure to present a full view clearly distorts the impact of this proposal on the Park. I would love to see a private developer (much maligned by some in our community) try to slide a proposal that is as poorly put together as this one is before our City Council for review. Given the vast and overwhelming landscape issues in this proposal, it would likely not see the light of day in its presented form before that body. Which makes me wonder why the Kirkwood Parks Trail Committee and the Kirkwood Park Board failed to demand a proper representation of the proposal from Great Rivers Greenway, a public developer, before it was presented to citizens?
In addition, there is no cost estimate coming from Great Rivers Greenway for the Dee Koestering Park portion of the proposed trail. How can Kirkwood citizens fully grasp what is being proposed to be done to Dee Koestering Park without knowing how their own tax dollars are going to be spent by Great Rivers Greenway?
At this time I request three issues get clarified in this proposal before the next subcommittee or regular Park Board meeting. I believe this will aid the citizens of Kirkwood to have a fair, accurate and balanced look at this proposal.
First, post a map or series of maps that allow folks to clearly and completely see all the boundaries of Dee Koestering Park in relation to the proposed path, the property lines of the parks’ various neighbors, clearly delineating what is public property, private property, right of ways for railroads or governmental bodies. The two maps provided are completely inadequate to show even the simple boundaries of Dee Koestering Park. I believe providing a map that shows all lanes of Big Bend Rd as a Northern boundary and all lanes of I-270 as a Western boundary would go far in providing an adequate perspective.
Second, request Great Rivers Greenway provide a cost estimate (a range) for the Dee Koestering Park portion of the proposal based on the construction work they have paid for or received bids for on similar type of steep grade trails.
Third, request Great Rivers Greenway provide examples – pictures, schematics, distances etc. – of bike paths that have dealt with similar steep grades they or other similar organizations have been able to bring to completion and are in use. Plus, the projected costs and actual total costs of those completed projects.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Have a great day!
Joe Toenjes
===================================================
What is your take on this proposal? Hit "Comment" link below and share your thoughts.
The Kirkwood Park Board and their Trail Subcommittee presently have before them a proposal from Great Rivers Greenways to build a walking/biking trail in Dee Koestering Park ... also known as the Meramec Highlands Quarry Park. The Dee Koestering Park is a 9.5 acre passive park located at the top of Marshall Road.
The City of Kirkwood’s Park System page describes the park as “a nature park with walking trails; site of the historic Meramec Highlands Quarry. Many large stones, left over from the quarrying operation that operated at the site over 100 year ago remain visible today. Acquisition was partially funded by a grant from the Land and Water Conversation Fund.” (I suspect that is “Conservation Fund” – I sent correction to City Hall.)
If you have not gone to this park, then you really need to go. But, be ready for a good strong walk. Think walking down Marshall Road on foot, meandering around for a good long while, then hoofing back up that little bugger of a hill! Now add a lovely wooded setting with some impressive boulders and rock formations, plus the remnants of an old quarry. It is just a great little passive park.
After 18 months of work on this proposal, the Park Board has had some public sessions on the proposal. I have some very deep reservations about any park going from passive to active with this kind of proposal. Simple natural settings to get away from it all are hard to find these days. What information that I could readily find on the City’s web site and Great Rivers Greenway’s web site leaves a bit to be desired. No decent view of the proposed trail in relation to the Park. No real information about what this trail is going to cost taxpayers. The Park Board and Great Rivers Greenway both exist, thanks only to our tax dollars.
So yesterday, I sent the below email to Murray Pounds - Parks & Recreation Director, Bob Sears – Park Board President and the 6 members of the City Council that have email addresses.
Hopefully all citizens can get better informed about this proposal if my three requests are fulfilled.
==================================================================
Dear Members of the Kirkwood Parks Trail Committee and the Kirkwood Park Board,
I finally got a chance to look at Great Rivers Greenway’s proposed walking/biking trail for Dee Koestering Park. This trail is supposed to link the walking/biking trail that presently ends in Greentree Park at the bottom of Marshall Rd., bring it out of that valley, through the streets of Kirkwood to the Grant’s Trail trailhead on the edge of Kirkwood near Holmes Ave. and I-44.
As a citizen with a regular job trying to make it to a 4:30pm Trail Subcommittee meeting is nearly impossible. I did take the time to look at all the information I could readily find on the proposal. I first went to Great Rivers Greenway’s web site and found nothing of substance. Then, I went through everything provided on the City of Kirkwood’s web site. I reviewed the maps and schematics provided. I read the citizen comments that were collected. I familiarized myself once again with the Park Master Plan.
I found the information provided about this proposal woefully inadequate. Once I pieced together the two maps provided on the City’s web site, then fully ascertained how the proposed path actually goes through Dee Koestering Park, I was shocked by this proposal. Neither overlay map when pieced together provides a complete and clear picture of all the boundaries of Dee Koestering Park and its various neighbors in relationship to the trail that is being proposed. This failure to present a full view clearly distorts the impact of this proposal on the Park. I would love to see a private developer (much maligned by some in our community) try to slide a proposal that is as poorly put together as this one is before our City Council for review. Given the vast and overwhelming landscape issues in this proposal, it would likely not see the light of day in its presented form before that body. Which makes me wonder why the Kirkwood Parks Trail Committee and the Kirkwood Park Board failed to demand a proper representation of the proposal from Great Rivers Greenway, a public developer, before it was presented to citizens?
In addition, there is no cost estimate coming from Great Rivers Greenway for the Dee Koestering Park portion of the proposed trail. How can Kirkwood citizens fully grasp what is being proposed to be done to Dee Koestering Park without knowing how their own tax dollars are going to be spent by Great Rivers Greenway?
At this time I request three issues get clarified in this proposal before the next subcommittee or regular Park Board meeting. I believe this will aid the citizens of Kirkwood to have a fair, accurate and balanced look at this proposal.
First, post a map or series of maps that allow folks to clearly and completely see all the boundaries of Dee Koestering Park in relation to the proposed path, the property lines of the parks’ various neighbors, clearly delineating what is public property, private property, right of ways for railroads or governmental bodies. The two maps provided are completely inadequate to show even the simple boundaries of Dee Koestering Park. I believe providing a map that shows all lanes of Big Bend Rd as a Northern boundary and all lanes of I-270 as a Western boundary would go far in providing an adequate perspective.
Second, request Great Rivers Greenway provide a cost estimate (a range) for the Dee Koestering Park portion of the proposal based on the construction work they have paid for or received bids for on similar type of steep grade trails.
Third, request Great Rivers Greenway provide examples – pictures, schematics, distances etc. – of bike paths that have dealt with similar steep grades they or other similar organizations have been able to bring to completion and are in use. Plus, the projected costs and actual total costs of those completed projects.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Have a great day!
Joe Toenjes
===================================================
What is your take on this proposal? Hit "Comment" link below and share your thoughts.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
New for March @ www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com
Hello Fellow Kirkwoodians,
Hope you will notice a few of the additions I have added lately ...
First, I spruced up the page with some additional pictures I have taken around town.
Also, you might have also noticed a familiar logo diplayed on the site. Yes, http://www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com/ is now a member of the Chamber of Commerce. This is a exciting additional step to take with this publication. When I had Frank 'N Patty's, I found it useful and productive to be a member of the Chamber. So, I look forward to working with the Chamber and its members to build and strengthen our community and the Kirkwood-Des Peres area.
Even more exciting news ...
The folks at InCityNews.com have come to Kirkwood to give a hands-on take of local news. They have started video taping our City Council meetings.
How cool is this service to our community?
Can not make it to a City Council meeting to hear about an issue? Want to know what really went on?
Follow the link below and you will be able download and view the meeting:
http://www.incitynews.com/stlc-kirkwood-/council-meetings/index.php
So, I have added a new "video link" section to the left-hand side of the site, so you can easily access InCityNews and its videos of our City Council meetings.
I hope everyone that attends the City Council meetings will "Thank" the good folks at InCityNews.com for this unique informational service. Or if you like send an email to Daniel Brewster - InCityNews.com Publisher at dbrewster@dimbyville.com.
Finally, if you find something new or interesting going on in Kirkwood that I can highlight and add to this site, please do not hesitate to contact me at joekirkwood1@gmail.com.
Have a great day!
Joe
Monday, March 9, 2009
"Your Hometown Newspaper" ... Right?
Below is the email I sent to the Editorial Staff of the Webster-________ Times on 02-28-09 in response to the 02-27-09 edition of the Mailbag. As of this posting for Sunday 03-08-09 I have not received a response from any editor at the Webster-________ Times. I had even left a voicemail message for "Scoop" Corrigan, but not a peep from him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times,
By printing Reese Forbes’ Mailbag letter this week you once again proved how you have no understanding of issues in Kirkwood. In addition, you in characteristic fashion proved how you are inherently jaded and stilted in how you handle Mailbag letters. The changes you made to my letter, its title and its first paragraph, changed my letter’s meaning. Then, without an ounce of decency or journalistic ethics you printed the letter by Mr. Forbes that calls into question the changes one of you made to my letter.
First to point out how you are inherently jaded and stilted, I had to submit my letter two weeks in a row in response to Ms Loemker’s letter before it got printed in the Mailbag. Mr. Forbes of course got his printed the first time around. And I suspect, so did Ms. Loemker's letter I was responding to.
Here is what I submitted to you each time for the title and first paragraph of the letter:
Smoke-Free Battle Bad For Kirkwood
What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6th Mailbag letter "Smoke Free Is Good Business?" Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?
Here is what you finally printed for the title and first paragraph of the letter:
Another Fight Against Smoking?
What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6 letter, Smoke Free Is Good Business? Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by thousands of voters?
Please note I put in bold the differences.
Your changing of the title couches my letter so differently from what is reality. Proving once again how you do not understand issues in Kirkwood and how stilted you are in presenting Kirkwood issues anywhere in your paper. Yet, all the while you are proclaiming the Times as “Your Hometown Newspaper.”
Your change in the title frames the discussion going on in our community as if it were “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” Ms. Loemker and her zealots love framing the discussion as “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” It works so well for them, because it allows them to play on peoples' heart strings and play to folks’ emotions due to the health issues related to “smoking.”
Yet, the reality is the issue in Kirkwood has never been about “smoking.” The issue has always been about how we as a community will properly legislate a “smoke-free” ordinance for businesses. Your change undercuts my stance on the issue and hands it to the opposition. Displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters.
Keep in mind, I had a “smoke-free” business in Kirkwood at the time we had the last “smoke-free” battle. At my business, I required the smoking employees to walk out the front door, they could not simply go out the back door, then they had to walk all the way to the back of the building in order to smoke. I even annoyed the smoking employees further by only responding to the question, “Can I go have a cancer treatment?” when they were requesting a “smoke break.” So, I am all for “smoke-free” businesses and do not support “smoking” public building or even in my home.
In addition, those of us that opposed Ms. Loemker’s poorly drafted proposal had no issue with a state-wide law for “smoke-free” businesses. We simply asked Ms. Loemker’s group and the numerous advocacy groups backing her to take that battle to where it belongs – Jefferson City. We wanted a fair and even field for our business community. We did not want our business community to be singled out as they planned to "duke it out" municipality by municipality across St. Louis County. See Mailbag letter from Pat Lindsey - Executive Director of Tobacco FreeMO.org from August 2006. That is what they were attempting to do and did not mind telling us they were going to use our businesses and our community as pawns in thier battle. Yet, Ms. Loemker and her zealots ignored us and drafted their own proposal that did not ban just “smoking.” No, the very laborious and cobbled together legal definition they created for "smoking" essentially would have banned “smoke” in Kirkwood. Go look up the proposal that what was submitted by Ms. Loemker at City Hall and read it for yourself.
Your further changes not only manipulated the framing of the issue, but changed the meaning of my letter. Which I find ridiculous to begin with, given you consistently refuse to print my letters if they do not fit within your word length or what you feel violates some other known or unknown code you have about Mailbag letters. So, I spend hours parsing my words and framing a letter that perfectly says what I want to say hoping it will fit within all your constraints. Then, you go and change my words and change the meaning of what I wanted to say.
This is what you did to the original second question of my letter. My second question, before you changed it, was in response to Ms. Loemker’s statement trying to pump up how her flawed proposal was supported by Kirkwood voters. In her letter she said:
In 2006, Kirkwood Council Member Tim Griffin advised Kirkwood voters: "Just don't go there," rather than endorse a Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance supported by thousands of Kirkwood voters.
My original question put her statement in the correct light by reminding folks that “thousands of MORE” Kirkwoodians voted against her proposal. Your change made it a numbers game that Mr. Forbes could easily exploit. Which Mr. Forbes did in his letter you printed without a word from you that you had changed my letter’s wording and my letter’s meaning.
You hold me publicly accountable and allow someone to attack me and my position for your words? How ethical is that? How does that show an ounce of decency? How does that show fairness, accuracy or balance on your part as journalists?
Then, to make matters even worse you did not have the common sense to check if Mr. Forbes’ statement matched “the facts” of the numbers game he was playing. This would have taken about 5 minutes at the most.
Here are the results readily available on-line at the St. Louis County Election Board’s web site for the November 7, 2006 election:
PROPOSITION 1 - CITY OF KIRKWOOD
NO 7,831
YES 6,504
The difference is 1,327. Divide the difference by 2 and round it up and you get is 664.
So, it is not “The fact is that if 671 voters had changed their vote to "yes" from "no," the ban on smoking cigarettes in workplaces would have passed” as Mr. Forbes’ letter said. They only needed 664 to switch.
Also, please tell me what I misstated in my letter that would cause you to so readily print Mr. Forbes letter? I think this is quite a reasonable request given the fact that Mr. Forbes never backs a single one of his “misstatement” attacks against me and my position with a single fact.
Here let’s take a look at what I said and how it matches to the facts:
Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?
Correct: The facts are 7,831 voted NO.
Does anyone remember a single Kirkwood elected official, past or present, who publicly endorsed and campaigned for her flawed proposal?
Correct: The facts are no Kirkwood elected official publicly endorsed or campaigned for her flawed proposal.
Did she think those of us who campaigned against her unfair proposal forgot how outrageously punitive it was to Kirkwood businesses rather than to smokers?
Correct: The facts are Kirkwood businesses would have outrageously been fined for anyone smoking within 25 feet of their building. How can you control what someone does within 25 feet outside your building? Plus, the punitive fines were set to be higher for business than they were for the violating smoker. In addition, the punitive fines were set to increase at a greater rate for each additional offense for businesses than the fines did for violating smokers.
Did she think we forgot the fact that she had "anti-smoking" zealots shipped into Kirkwood from as far away as Lincoln County, MO to fight for their agenda?
Correct: Here is the list of official petition signature gatherers from “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” who lived outside of Kirkwood:
Martin Pion, 6 Manor Lane, Ferguson, MO 63135
Mike Doran, 1477 Bent Oak Ridge Court, Fenton, MO 63026
Charles Gatton, 647 Lemonwood, Ballwin, MO 63021
Baker Symes, 465 Catalina, Webster Groves, MO
Richard Hyer, 252 S. Moore School Rd., Troy, Mo. 63379
The facts are nearly 20% of the required signatures from Kirkwoodian voters for a supposedly Kirkwoodian proposal, were gathered by folks that did not live in Kirkwood.
Did she think we forgot the thousands of dollars spent by a state-wide "anti-smoking" coalition that was magically targeting Kirkwood with an anti-smoking ad campaign using four big billboard signs at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend at the same time her flawed proposal was before voters?
Correct: The facts are if you contact the billboard company that owns the ones at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend, you will find that TobaccoFreeMO.org paid for 4 billboards around November, 2006.
I want you to know I would not be so rightfully aggravated with you if you would have had the decency to put an editor’s note pointing out how you changed my letter, how the issue is not about “smoking” and how Mr. Forbes can not get his facts straight regarding what he and Ms Loemker submitted in their proposal.
You had ample opportunity to set the record straight when you read Mr. Forbes’ letter. Just how did Mr. Forbes know, “There was overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians until all those old misstatements, which Mr Toenjes again reiterated in his letter, caused citizens to tell us they were going to switch from "yes" to "no" because they feared they could not barbecue in their backyard (which had nothing to do with the ordinance).” Go read the proposal submitted by “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” and tell me how you can print that statement much less the rest of his letter with a straight face? Plus, how did Mr. Forbes get this grand understanding to know there was “overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians?” Does he possess the clairvoyance to read the minds of all Kirkwood voters who rejected his proposal or did not vote at all?
This kind of nonsense attack is par for course for the folks in Kirkwood you have courted with your paper. You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” in our community to try to blame others for their failures. Ms. Loemker, Mr. Forbes and the rest of the “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” drafted their proposal to their liking and to fit their agenda, they conscripted zealots from far and wide to push their agenda, they timed their proposal to hit while TobaccoFreeMO.com was doing their advertising campaign, then they want to blame the opposition for their proposal failing. How ridiculous!
How many more times do we have to play this game? You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” to muddy the waters and fail to clear up the issue for your readers in Kirkwood. You did the same and continue to do the same for the K-FAIR folks and their ridiculous ward proposal that went down in flames. These two groups of folks have no one to blame, but themselves for their failures. But, they lack what it takes to accept responsibility for their own actions. Then, you make matters worse by letting them perpetrate the blame game on others in our community.
Yet, you do not have any issues clearing up an ignorant Mailbag letter when it comes to a Webster issue. Need I remind you of the DQ – Flowerama sign issue letter you corrected with an editor’s note. You showed you gave a damn about that letter concerning a Webster issue where the writer was making a charge that was not correct. But, you have consistently failed to show you give a damn about a Kirkwood issues when someone is factual incorrect in their letter. Further displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters for the community of Kirkwood.
So, the questions I have that deserve an answer are…
How are you going to clear up the mess you created?
How are you going to clear my name and my position on the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?
How are you going to point out how Ms. Loemker and Mr. Forbes do not have a factual grasp of the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?
How are you going set the record straight for the “Hometown” you supposedly serve regarding the entire issue of the “smoke-free” battle?
At this point I do not have any hope of being able to clear up the mess you created with a less than 300 word response to Mr. Forbes and his “misstatements” attack letter. Plus, I have no expectation my original submission would get printed by you as written.
I have included our community's business leaders and our comunity's elected leaders in on this email. I want to to remind them of my last two questions of my Mailbag letter ...
Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?
It is time you, the Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times, start acting with journalistic ethics and with simple decency in the community of Kirkwood.
Joe Toenjes
---------------------------------------------------------------
With the newest edition of the Webster-________ Times out, it is clear the Editors continue to be more interested in creating controversy in Kirkwood, than being journalist out to present the facts to its readers in Kirkwood. They show they would rather twist people's words. They show they would rather change completely the subject of a Mailbag letter. They show its is more important for them to muddy the waters of an issue, rather than bring clarity and thoughtfulness. Dwight Bitikofer and Don Corrigan prove they are not interested in being fair, accurate or balanced journalists when dealing with issues in Kirkwood.
The Webster-________ Times proclaims "Your Hometown Newspaper" ... I would like to know when?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times,
By printing Reese Forbes’ Mailbag letter this week you once again proved how you have no understanding of issues in Kirkwood. In addition, you in characteristic fashion proved how you are inherently jaded and stilted in how you handle Mailbag letters. The changes you made to my letter, its title and its first paragraph, changed my letter’s meaning. Then, without an ounce of decency or journalistic ethics you printed the letter by Mr. Forbes that calls into question the changes one of you made to my letter.
First to point out how you are inherently jaded and stilted, I had to submit my letter two weeks in a row in response to Ms Loemker’s letter before it got printed in the Mailbag. Mr. Forbes of course got his printed the first time around. And I suspect, so did Ms. Loemker's letter I was responding to.
Here is what I submitted to you each time for the title and first paragraph of the letter:
Smoke-Free Battle Bad For Kirkwood
What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6th Mailbag letter "Smoke Free Is Good Business?" Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?
Here is what you finally printed for the title and first paragraph of the letter:
Another Fight Against Smoking?
What was Jean Loemker trying to pull with her Feb. 6 letter, Smoke Free Is Good Business? Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by thousands of voters?
Please note I put in bold the differences.
Your changing of the title couches my letter so differently from what is reality. Proving once again how you do not understand issues in Kirkwood and how stilted you are in presenting Kirkwood issues anywhere in your paper. Yet, all the while you are proclaiming the Times as “Your Hometown Newspaper.”
Your change in the title frames the discussion going on in our community as if it were “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” Ms. Loemker and her zealots love framing the discussion as “smoking” versus “non-smoking.” It works so well for them, because it allows them to play on peoples' heart strings and play to folks’ emotions due to the health issues related to “smoking.”
Yet, the reality is the issue in Kirkwood has never been about “smoking.” The issue has always been about how we as a community will properly legislate a “smoke-free” ordinance for businesses. Your change undercuts my stance on the issue and hands it to the opposition. Displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters.
Keep in mind, I had a “smoke-free” business in Kirkwood at the time we had the last “smoke-free” battle. At my business, I required the smoking employees to walk out the front door, they could not simply go out the back door, then they had to walk all the way to the back of the building in order to smoke. I even annoyed the smoking employees further by only responding to the question, “Can I go have a cancer treatment?” when they were requesting a “smoke break.” So, I am all for “smoke-free” businesses and do not support “smoking” public building or even in my home.
In addition, those of us that opposed Ms. Loemker’s poorly drafted proposal had no issue with a state-wide law for “smoke-free” businesses. We simply asked Ms. Loemker’s group and the numerous advocacy groups backing her to take that battle to where it belongs – Jefferson City. We wanted a fair and even field for our business community. We did not want our business community to be singled out as they planned to "duke it out" municipality by municipality across St. Louis County. See Mailbag letter from Pat Lindsey - Executive Director of Tobacco FreeMO.org from August 2006. That is what they were attempting to do and did not mind telling us they were going to use our businesses and our community as pawns in thier battle. Yet, Ms. Loemker and her zealots ignored us and drafted their own proposal that did not ban just “smoking.” No, the very laborious and cobbled together legal definition they created for "smoking" essentially would have banned “smoke” in Kirkwood. Go look up the proposal that what was submitted by Ms. Loemker at City Hall and read it for yourself.
Your further changes not only manipulated the framing of the issue, but changed the meaning of my letter. Which I find ridiculous to begin with, given you consistently refuse to print my letters if they do not fit within your word length or what you feel violates some other known or unknown code you have about Mailbag letters. So, I spend hours parsing my words and framing a letter that perfectly says what I want to say hoping it will fit within all your constraints. Then, you go and change my words and change the meaning of what I wanted to say.
This is what you did to the original second question of my letter. My second question, before you changed it, was in response to Ms. Loemker’s statement trying to pump up how her flawed proposal was supported by Kirkwood voters. In her letter she said:
In 2006, Kirkwood Council Member Tim Griffin advised Kirkwood voters: "Just don't go there," rather than endorse a Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance supported by thousands of Kirkwood voters.
My original question put her statement in the correct light by reminding folks that “thousands of MORE” Kirkwoodians voted against her proposal. Your change made it a numbers game that Mr. Forbes could easily exploit. Which Mr. Forbes did in his letter you printed without a word from you that you had changed my letter’s wording and my letter’s meaning.
You hold me publicly accountable and allow someone to attack me and my position for your words? How ethical is that? How does that show an ounce of decency? How does that show fairness, accuracy or balance on your part as journalists?
Then, to make matters even worse you did not have the common sense to check if Mr. Forbes’ statement matched “the facts” of the numbers game he was playing. This would have taken about 5 minutes at the most.
Here are the results readily available on-line at the St. Louis County Election Board’s web site for the November 7, 2006 election:
PROPOSITION 1 - CITY OF KIRKWOOD
NO 7,831
YES 6,504
The difference is 1,327. Divide the difference by 2 and round it up and you get is 664.
So, it is not “The fact is that if 671 voters had changed their vote to "yes" from "no," the ban on smoking cigarettes in workplaces would have passed” as Mr. Forbes’ letter said. They only needed 664 to switch.
Also, please tell me what I misstated in my letter that would cause you to so readily print Mr. Forbes letter? I think this is quite a reasonable request given the fact that Mr. Forbes never backs a single one of his “misstatement” attacks against me and my position with a single fact.
Here let’s take a look at what I said and how it matches to the facts:
Did she think Kirkwoodians forgot that her so-called "Smoke-Free Workplace Ordinance" from 2006 was defeated by "thousands" of more voters?
Correct: The facts are 7,831 voted NO.
Does anyone remember a single Kirkwood elected official, past or present, who publicly endorsed and campaigned for her flawed proposal?
Correct: The facts are no Kirkwood elected official publicly endorsed or campaigned for her flawed proposal.
Did she think those of us who campaigned against her unfair proposal forgot how outrageously punitive it was to Kirkwood businesses rather than to smokers?
Correct: The facts are Kirkwood businesses would have outrageously been fined for anyone smoking within 25 feet of their building. How can you control what someone does within 25 feet outside your building? Plus, the punitive fines were set to be higher for business than they were for the violating smoker. In addition, the punitive fines were set to increase at a greater rate for each additional offense for businesses than the fines did for violating smokers.
Did she think we forgot the fact that she had "anti-smoking" zealots shipped into Kirkwood from as far away as Lincoln County, MO to fight for their agenda?
Correct: Here is the list of official petition signature gatherers from “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” who lived outside of Kirkwood:
Martin Pion, 6 Manor Lane, Ferguson, MO 63135
Mike Doran, 1477 Bent Oak Ridge Court, Fenton, MO 63026
Charles Gatton, 647 Lemonwood, Ballwin, MO 63021
Baker Symes, 465 Catalina, Webster Groves, MO
Richard Hyer, 252 S. Moore School Rd., Troy, Mo. 63379
The facts are nearly 20% of the required signatures from Kirkwoodian voters for a supposedly Kirkwoodian proposal, were gathered by folks that did not live in Kirkwood.
Did she think we forgot the thousands of dollars spent by a state-wide "anti-smoking" coalition that was magically targeting Kirkwood with an anti-smoking ad campaign using four big billboard signs at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend at the same time her flawed proposal was before voters?
Correct: The facts are if you contact the billboard company that owns the ones at Kirkwood Road and Big Bend, you will find that TobaccoFreeMO.org paid for 4 billboards around November, 2006.
I want you to know I would not be so rightfully aggravated with you if you would have had the decency to put an editor’s note pointing out how you changed my letter, how the issue is not about “smoking” and how Mr. Forbes can not get his facts straight regarding what he and Ms Loemker submitted in their proposal.
You had ample opportunity to set the record straight when you read Mr. Forbes’ letter. Just how did Mr. Forbes know, “There was overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians until all those old misstatements, which Mr Toenjes again reiterated in his letter, caused citizens to tell us they were going to switch from "yes" to "no" because they feared they could not barbecue in their backyard (which had nothing to do with the ordinance).” Go read the proposal submitted by “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” and tell me how you can print that statement much less the rest of his letter with a straight face? Plus, how did Mr. Forbes get this grand understanding to know there was “overwhelming support by Kirkwoodians?” Does he possess the clairvoyance to read the minds of all Kirkwood voters who rejected his proposal or did not vote at all?
This kind of nonsense attack is par for course for the folks in Kirkwood you have courted with your paper. You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” in our community to try to blame others for their failures. Ms. Loemker, Mr. Forbes and the rest of the “Citizens’ for a Smoke Free Kirkwood” drafted their proposal to their liking and to fit their agenda, they conscripted zealots from far and wide to push their agenda, they timed their proposal to hit while TobaccoFreeMO.com was doing their advertising campaign, then they want to blame the opposition for their proposal failing. How ridiculous!
How many more times do we have to play this game? You consistently allow the “alleged disenfranchised” to muddy the waters and fail to clear up the issue for your readers in Kirkwood. You did the same and continue to do the same for the K-FAIR folks and their ridiculous ward proposal that went down in flames. These two groups of folks have no one to blame, but themselves for their failures. But, they lack what it takes to accept responsibility for their own actions. Then, you make matters worse by letting them perpetrate the blame game on others in our community.
Yet, you do not have any issues clearing up an ignorant Mailbag letter when it comes to a Webster issue. Need I remind you of the DQ – Flowerama sign issue letter you corrected with an editor’s note. You showed you gave a damn about that letter concerning a Webster issue where the writer was making a charge that was not correct. But, you have consistently failed to show you give a damn about a Kirkwood issues when someone is factual incorrect in their letter. Further displaying for all how jaded, stilted, unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced you are when it comes to how you handle Mailbag letters for the community of Kirkwood.
So, the questions I have that deserve an answer are…
How are you going to clear up the mess you created?
How are you going to clear my name and my position on the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?
How are you going to point out how Ms. Loemker and Mr. Forbes do not have a factual grasp of the "smoke-free" issue in Kirkwood?
How are you going set the record straight for the “Hometown” you supposedly serve regarding the entire issue of the “smoke-free” battle?
At this point I do not have any hope of being able to clear up the mess you created with a less than 300 word response to Mr. Forbes and his “misstatements” attack letter. Plus, I have no expectation my original submission would get printed by you as written.
I have included our community's business leaders and our comunity's elected leaders in on this email. I want to to remind them of my last two questions of my Mailbag letter ...
Is Jean Loemker with her letter trying to lay the ground work for Kirkwood to once again be the battleground for an agenda she and her cohorts need to take to legislators in Jefferson City? Do Kirkwoodians really want our community and its businesses to once again be abused like meaningless pawns and subjected to another pointless political battle?
It is time you, the Editors of the Webster-Kirkwood Times, start acting with journalistic ethics and with simple decency in the community of Kirkwood.
Joe Toenjes
---------------------------------------------------------------
With the newest edition of the Webster-________ Times out, it is clear the Editors continue to be more interested in creating controversy in Kirkwood, than being journalist out to present the facts to its readers in Kirkwood. They show they would rather twist people's words. They show they would rather change completely the subject of a Mailbag letter. They show its is more important for them to muddy the waters of an issue, rather than bring clarity and thoughtfulness. Dwight Bitikofer and Don Corrigan prove they are not interested in being fair, accurate or balanced journalists when dealing with issues in Kirkwood.
The Webster-________ Times proclaims "Your Hometown Newspaper" ... I would like to know when?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Turning a Blind Eye
I have a few questions for you tonight Mayor.
Do you think the subject and the information presented in my budget speech will make it into Mr. Hopefl’s Kmail notes of this council meeting? Or will they be excluded as I and other citizens of this community have been excluded by Kmail and its leaders?
Which makes me wonder just how in the world anyone could call Mr. Hopefl’s Kmail meeting notes an “asset” to the community as you called them at the 1st city council meeting in February?
The community of Kirkwood is not included or served by Kmail as you asserted from that dais. The facts are Kmail from its inception has been an exclusionary cause that allows no public scrutiny of what it has to present. In fact, to make matters worse its leader Mr. Williams publicly vilifies and misrepresents anyone that does not kowtow to his frequent and overbearing demands. Or, God forbid, anyone who dares to call into question anything he spews in his Kmails.
Please Mayor … remember the other members of our community you were elected to represent who have been the targets of Mr. William’s and Mr. Hopefl’s unwarranted false accusations and vilifications. Please … remember especially those sitting up there with you on that dais serving our community, since some of them have been the past targets of Mr. Williams' and Mr. Hopefl's Kmail. Please … remember our community has never seen either one of them apologize publicly for their very public, false and destructive accusations.
Turning a blind-eye to their actions does not benefit or further our community.
========
Please note:
I also responded to the comments of another citizen regarding single-stream curbside recycling. I did not have a response written and prepared to deal with the misinformation presented by that citizen.
Since my comments were extemporaneous in nature, I would not want to try to recreate them here. If you are interested in understanding the reality of curbside recycling service in Kirkwood, then please see my past postings on “Recycling.”
Do you think the subject and the information presented in my budget speech will make it into Mr. Hopefl’s Kmail notes of this council meeting? Or will they be excluded as I and other citizens of this community have been excluded by Kmail and its leaders?
Which makes me wonder just how in the world anyone could call Mr. Hopefl’s Kmail meeting notes an “asset” to the community as you called them at the 1st city council meeting in February?
The community of Kirkwood is not included or served by Kmail as you asserted from that dais. The facts are Kmail from its inception has been an exclusionary cause that allows no public scrutiny of what it has to present. In fact, to make matters worse its leader Mr. Williams publicly vilifies and misrepresents anyone that does not kowtow to his frequent and overbearing demands. Or, God forbid, anyone who dares to call into question anything he spews in his Kmails.
Please Mayor … remember the other members of our community you were elected to represent who have been the targets of Mr. William’s and Mr. Hopefl’s unwarranted false accusations and vilifications. Please … remember especially those sitting up there with you on that dais serving our community, since some of them have been the past targets of Mr. Williams' and Mr. Hopefl's Kmail. Please … remember our community has never seen either one of them apologize publicly for their very public, false and destructive accusations.
Turning a blind-eye to their actions does not benefit or further our community.
========
Please note:
I also responded to the comments of another citizen regarding single-stream curbside recycling. I did not have a response written and prepared to deal with the misinformation presented by that citizen.
Since my comments were extemporaneous in nature, I would not want to try to recreate them here. If you are interested in understanding the reality of curbside recycling service in Kirkwood, then please see my past postings on “Recycling.”
There are now 5 posts on the subject of "Recycling" you can easily find by going to the "for posts on a specific subject" list on the left-hand side of the blog.
===================================================================
I want readers to know I am not against Art McDonnell. He has been a friend, my neighborhood grocer and a fellow campaigner on a variety of causes in our community. In fact, he is the first Kirkwoodian I struck up a friendship with almost a dozen years ago when I first moved to Kirkwood.
But, I will not sit by and see the Mayor - who is elected to represent all - publicly praise Kmail and its leaders without raising my voice at the proper time. Mr. Keith Williams and Mr. Alan Hopefl and their very public, incredibly false and outrageously destructive comments in Kmail over the years, have not been an "asset" to this community. They work together on Kmail. They are the public faces of Kmail. Their "meeting notes" as well as their "dispatches" need to be held to the light of public scrutiny and equally judged accordingly.
When weighed in the balance - Kmail is found wanting.
So, what is your take ... take this opportunity to express your thoughts ... just click on the "Comments" link below.
Budget Speech: Promise Made - Promise Kept
Below is my speech tonight regarding the City Budget ...
I found Tuesday morning’s budget work session meeting quite interesting to listen to. I have a few things to say about the 2009-2010 budget tonight.
First, as someone who campaigned for Prop. C in 2007 … this citizen is looking for this Council to unequivocally be able to say to the good citizens of Kirkwood.
First, as someone who campaigned for Prop. C in 2007 … this citizen is looking for this Council to unequivocally be able to say to the good citizens of Kirkwood.
PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT
As someone who walked the streets of Kirkwood, going door to door, working along side, Police Officers, Firefighters, other City employees and scores of citizen volunteers using these two pieces of material.
PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT
Please read and re-read the copies of these two pieces I made for you. Read what was said to the voters regarding police, fire and city staff salaries. Read what was said about streets. Then, deliver.
PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT
You Mrs. Jaksetic definitely need to read these two pieces since your only budgetary leadership on this issue was to sit on the sidelines more worried about a legacy than willing to work hard and deal with the reality of what our community was and is now facing.
If the citizens of Kirkwood would have followed your leadership … or should I say the lack thereof on this issue. If the citizens had listened to the nonsense of Keith Williams with his Kmails and his accusations of the city having all these big surpluses and big slush funds. If the citizens of Kirkwood had listened to your City Council running mate Gary Reim Jr. and his incredibly irresponsible claim our community should borrow more to deal with these long-term budgetary issues. If that had happened … Dear God … then, where would we be today … in this present economic environment … with these present doubled wholesale electric rates and … with the continued stagnant sales tax revenues?
Finally, I wish to remind you all, it was the leadership of our former Mayor, the leadership of the majority of our former City Council, the leadership of numerous city employees, the leadership of an incredible group of citizen volunteers that have helped this City Council to have in reality … in the scope of things … some of the easiest budgetary decisions to make for 2009-2010.
PROMISE MADE – PROMISE KEPT
=============================================================
What is your take? Take a moment and add your comments. Just click on the "Comment" link below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
