TO: CCR Tweet-less
Here’s what you recently missed by not following
Dylan Westie @DylanWestie1 on Twit-er.
PetRock @bradlamorgese can't admit queen's dictated anti-ARK vote goes from inane to insane on blog posting. See controversialcommittee.blogspot.com info
PostScript: While CCR reports, with a tinge of bias, and the non-biased reporting(1) of the DMN appeared to cover just about ever angle in the saga of QueenB VD dictating Pet Rocks to vote against the recent ARK resolution, staff of the CCR believed the topic had been thoroughly covered.
This was foolish thinking. Pet Rock LaMorgese just had to dust off his spin manual and illegally remove the catalytic Torofeca-filter on his computer to spew a lengthy screed on a social media site (FaceBook: KIA blog,10-11-14) for good measure.(2)
Never has one council member thrown such a load of Torofeca into the fan than PR-LaMorgese attempting to sway public opinion for his non-mea culpa for his wrongheaded vote.
If the vote by QueenB VD and the pet Rocks (LaMorgese, Farris, Spink and Ward) had not been so serious, PR-LaMorgese’s failed attempt at justifying his vote on the blog site would actually be comical. But this really isn’t a laughing matter when average citizens completely understood what four city council members couldn’t comprehend with the issue before them.
PR-LaMorgese only needed to understand one word in the ARK agenda item to fathom the proper course of action to take. This word was Resolution. And the resolution on the agenda, as written and explained ad infinitum by professionals, was rather simple. The resolution clearly reflected the city’s assurances to ARK the city would not be able to meet the anticipated time, as noted in the contractual agreement with ARK, for a hotel on the Convention Center site by 2017. PERIOD! NO MORE! NO LESS!
The resolution had nothing (for emphasis: NOTHING) to do with: number of possible rooms in a boutique hotel; number of parking spaces for a boutique hotel; possible profit ARK might make if a hotel was built; or requesting any master plan changes for the Entertainment Center. IF ARK even decided to build a boutique hotel, these issues would have to be brought back to the council for consideration and approval. And the added attraction to this would be the project being totally funded by ARK. No city funding required! Zilch!
The anti-ARK vote by QueenB VD and Pet Rocks also places the State hotel sales tax rebates in jeopardy for the entire Entertainment Center. Now, this is serious business when a petty personal agenda is enacted to the detriment of the city and its citizens.
All of the anti-ARK issues were apparently fabricated, espoused and dictated by the queen to the Pet Rocks to have them align with her vindictive and personal agenda against ARK…and the Entertainment Center in general. Her history for this PPP-attitude probably traces back to her Sugar Daddy-String Pulling handlers wanting only their single source selection to develop this city project.
And to think PR-LaMorgese believed this simple resolution required PowerPoint presentations, legal contractual documents or any other "finding of facts" to be considered is not only preposterous, but verges on being slow-witted with what was actually before him.
Perhaps, PR-LaMorgese was again too busy tweeting about "budget beards" and did not hear the professional staff, on more than one occasion, present the time line for why the city’s Convention Center hotel would not be on the ground and up and running by 2017. Even with poor hearing, staff of the CCR heard this reiterated in the work session and council meeting at least three times.
The ARK agenda resolution was only about: Stating to ARK what city professionals knew to be an upcoming reality of development affairs…no city hotel on the Convention Center property by 2017. Again, period with no superfluous discussions required!
(Frankly, staff of the CCR does not use an Ouija board, but it appears PR-Spink might to be able to state assurances a hotel could be in place by 2017. Why didn’t PR-LaMorgese ask PR-Spink for his "finding of facts" or where his PowerPoint presentation was to make a counter claim to city professionals? Did PR-Spink have official documents that were not shared with the council?)
Pure and simple, the vote by PR-LaMorgese was wrong for a developer wanting to do businesses with the city. The vote was wrong for blindly following the queen’s dictates. And basically, the vote was wrong for the inane spin attempting to justify the queen’s vendetta against ARK specifically…and the Entertainment Center via his social media posting.
Of course, it would be extremely difficult for PR-LaMorgese to admit he was merely following a queenly dictate instead of voting for the betterment of the city. One even has to wonder if the queen scripted his ‘talking points’ for his blog posting!
While PR-LaMorgese penned his epistle to a sympathetic crowd of mead-spiked Flying Harpies on the FaceBook blog, he did spare total embarrassment by not having this screed sent to the DMN as a "Letter to the Editor." Had he done this, the entire metroplex would have chuckled at his feeble attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Additionally, has PR-LaMorgese forgotten all the actual "fact finding" of what a recent tax rate decrease vote accomplished at the queen’s direction? Does he not remember the ‘facts’ that his vote would not actually reduce homeowners property taxes, and the $900,000K cut from the budget would imperil public safety via not providing what the Irving Fire Department needed and required? Is "fact finding" only important to PR-LaMorgese when it is convenient and agrees with his voting as dictated by the queen? Just when does PR-LaMorgese heed the advice of professionals who certainly know more about running a city then he might?
Sorry, PR-LaMorgese, your fabricated spin and verbose verbiage on social media failed the vote-justification test. A simple explanation of "the queen made me do it" would have been sufficient and honest. But then, this couldn’t be accomplished without legally-lathering up blog readers for a cup of tea and sympathy.
Finally, PR-LaMorgese, it is not the number of words one uses to defend an issue, but rather the quality and accuracy of those words as they specifically relate to the reality of the problem under consideration.
And if, or should ARK return to the council with a boutique hotel proposal, citizens will anxiously tune in to see if PR-LaMorgese has completed rehab for independent thinking and voting for the best interest of the city this time around.
Okay, PR-LaMorgese, you may now resume your inane tweeting during important city council meetings.
(1) DMN article which clearly defines the resolution before the Irving city council that was voted down by QueenB VD and her Pet Rock collection: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/northwest-dallas-county/headlines/20141011-after-fumbling-key-hotel-project-irving-council-forfeits-another.ece …
(2) Readers requiring a good chuckle and want to read LaMorgese’s legal-lathering of blog spin can obtain a copy by requesting one from the CCR.
Legal disclaimer and Glossary at: controversialcommittee.blogspot.com