Great Minds Think Alike

Our friend Firefly, as she often does, beat me to the punch on a post about the City Commission's recent decision to deny a zoning change request that would have returned our local Elmer's restaurant back to General Commercial zoning, a classification the owner lost when the new land use code was implemented. My thoughts echo much of what Firefly has to say, but I am hoping that I can add to the discussion.

First, Firefly points out that Ben Forsyth, of Forsyth's Paint, suggested that Mayor Stebbins should recuse herself from the vote on the issue "because she had received campaign contributions from gaming supporters." This ludicrous suggestion demonstrates that Mr. Forsyth is truly a nut.

A politician is not a judge. There is no "conflict of issue" question. Mayor Stebbins is supposed to represent her supporters. Can you imagine what Mr. Forsyth and the rest of the self-annointed would say to the suggestion that the Commissioners they supported should recuse themselves?

And here's another memo to those supposedly more righteous than the rest of us: Mayor Stebbins was wrongly painted as the "pro-casino" candidate by, among others, her predecessor. I say wrongly because she had widespread support in the community.

But you know what, Mr. Forsyth and the rest of your folly? She won. She kicked Randy Gray's ass. So, maybe this community groundswell against gaming in this community ain't the groundswell you paint it (pun intended) to be? Maybe, just maybe, the majority of the people in this town just wish you'd take both of your two goody-two shoes and march 'em right on home and shut your proverbial pie hole? I'd suggest that, at least, the last election's results would suggest just such a thing.

(By the way, one of the knocks on the casinos is that they are ugly. Next time you're out and about, swing by Forsyth Paint. Beautiful business, huh?)

The article goes on to state that Forsyth "mentioned a 16-year-old boy in the Fox Farm area who attempted suicide because of a gambling habit, and a teenage girl who turned to prostitution to support a gambling addiction." This is 'argument' of the worst possible kind, and the Tribune should be ashamed to publish it. Unsubstantiated anecdotal allegations by an ideologue. Why should we believe it to be true? Why (and how) would Forsyth know it to be true?

I am one of those "gaming supporters" that Forsyth refers to in the article. Do I think that the Commission did the right thing here? No, I don't. But I recognize that you win some and lose some. Dona Stebbins did what she thought was right and I respect that. She was not attacking an industry in a crusade of moral indignation; she wanted to respect the Land Use Code. There is no need to impugn her integrity.

Then, today, the Tribune weighed in on the issue. The Editorial Board "applaud[s] the vote, not just because it checks the advance of casinos in one neighborhood." No, but they do applaud it because it checks the advance of casinos. Finally, they stated overtly what we "gaming supporters" have suspected all along: the Tribune is anti-casino. Maybe this explains why they print B.S. like Forsyth's ramblings?

But, like Forsyth and the rest, the Tribune will gladly accept gambling money in their business; they sure don't seem to turn down casino ads (I also happen to know that Forsyth has personally received gambling money in his business.)

And, finally, here's something that no one seems to have mentioned. Elmer's restaurant was in a general commercial zone, a zone that allowed certain uses, including gambling. With the stroke of a pen our City Commission changed and limited the uses allowed on his private property, thereby reducing its value by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. I wonder if the anti-gaming zealots, or for that matter, the Editorial Board at the Tribune, would be so quick to "applaud the vote" if it was their money that vanished.

Pro-business, my ass.