BCC Meeting - Say What?

Finder,

Even if the legislature igmores the referendum in the future it will validate or repudiate the permanent, irrevocable and potentially harmful decision of three members of the Orange Park Town Council.

There are many of us who believe they voted against the will of the people they were elected to serve, to agree with the Lobbyist who were paid to make it possible.

I have no idea who you are refering to when you say “the people of Orange Park…….. decided what he thought was irrelevant “unless you are talking about Cummings Renninger and Morgan.

I have disagreed with Mr. Bush on many occasions over his thirty years of public service. However the thought that he was influenced by anything other than what he perceived as the will of the majority of his constituents was never part of the disagreement.

RonRaymond

Ron;

I didn't know their names, but if they are the 3 that voted yes, then that's who I was talking about. I hear what you're saying and can understand it if you were apposed to the card room at OPKC. However, I still have the same question. What purpose does the referendum serve?

As a private citizen, Mr. Bush is allowed to think and feel anything he wants. I just don't think it is right that he use his position as a BCC member to put a referendum on the ballot so he can say 'I told you so' if it turns out the way he wants it to. I'm pretty sure he won't be quite as vocal if it goes the other way.

Whichever way it goes, you will still not know how the people of OP would have voted, only the county as a whole. Though I guess if you counted the votes on that issue for only the voting districts inside the incorporated area of OP you could find out. That seems a bit much to go through, but perhaps that is already done, I don't know. But then I don't live in incorporated OP and would have voted yes on the card room if given the opportunity.

The referendum cannot change what has happened in OP, and it cannot stop anything that may happen in any other community that has the right to vote gambling in or out. If that city council wants to have a vote, they will. If not, they will do it just like the OP council did and there isn't thing one that Mr. Bush's referendum can do to stop it.

If the majority of the people in OP really disagree with what those 3 members voted in, then vote them out the next time they are up for re-election. But to waste time and money to stuff a county wide ballot with meaningless fodder just seems like an effort in futility to me. But then, that is just me being me.

It's kind of like why you can buy a class of wine with your lunch on Sunday at noon in Carrabas on Wells, but you can't buy one until 2 in the Red Lobster a quarter mile away across Blanding. Incorporated and unincorporated. Yet we have to stuff the ballot with more fodder before the BCC can make up their mind on this issue.

Finder

Finder,

Not to "pick nits" but Carrabas on Wells is not in the town of Orange Park and I don't know if you can buy a Glass of wine or not but agree totally with your challange.

When I was a member of the OP town Council I made the remark that I didn't understand why I would go to hell for having a drink at between 2:00 AM and 2:00 PM on Sunday and it was ok before and after. I was reminded that I as a member of the council, I represented the people of Orange Park and the majority did not want Sunday Liquor sales changed at that point in time.

To ask a changing constituency for feed back to help determine the community values is the right thing to do and I applaud the commision

When I asked state representitve Kravits why he had voted the change in the Gambling law his explanation was he wanted state law to reflect local control. The refeerendum will "send the community value message to Tallahassee.

The vote on Gambling or any ballot item is reported by precinct.

Ron Raymond 

Thanks Ron. Some data in there I did not know. I think your question about going to hell was a valid question. Probably would have asked the same question in the same way. Obviously the other members of the council didn't find it humorous.

Carabas might have been a bad choice of a place of business, but the point is the same.

I could concede the point about getting feedback from the community, but I believe that in today's electronic capabilities it might be cheaper and faster to set up an electronic vote web sight. It's pretty easy to set them up so that the same person can't vote multiple times.

Finder

I don't understand all the in's and out's of politics but one thing I DO KNOW.....Cummings,Renninger and Morgan DID NOT represent the people of Orange Park when they voted in favor of 'poker rooms' at The Orange Park para-mutial facility.  Cummings is running for the County Commission District 3 seat ... that's my district!  He'll NOT get my vote, as he showed his true colors by voting FOR poker rooms...going against the will of the people he was elected to serve.  How can we ever trust him to represent/serve us on any matter that comes before the BCC? 

This is truly a question I have about elected representatives.  Given a controversial issue - say, allowing a poker room at a dog track - how should the representative vote?  Vote their conscience?  Or vote how they think the majority of their constituents want them to vote?

Sometimes the elected representative may agree with the majority of the constituents - no problem.  But sometimes, the elected representative's conscience may be different than the opinion of the majority of the constituents.

Is an elected representative elected to vote based on the merits of the issue, from their perspective?  Or were they simply elected to be a mouthpiece of the majority of the voters?

Serious question.  To me, I vote for people based on their position on issues they have talked about during their campaign.  I expect the person to have a brain, and a conscience, of their own, and to do thorough research before casting a vote.  Part of that research should involve talking to voters.  But at the time to cast the vote, I expect my elected representative to make what they feel is the best vote for the county/city/state, etc.

It is a given they will not agree with me 100% of the time.  At the next election, I get to vote my conscience.

I keep reading in this discussion about the will of "the majority of Orange Park residents"

As far as I know, there has been no poll or referendum that would determine what the majority of the town's voters think on this matter - or on the alchohol sales issue. Those who maintain they know what the majority think, need to provide some facts to back up their claims, not just assume that since that's their opinion everyone must obviously agree with them.

Bobrinker,

Actually a poll was conducxted at the request of Councilman Jones and presented to the council members before the vote, I don't remember the exact numbers, but  my memory is of 400 voters polled only a FEW were in favor a few more didn't have a preference and the larger majority was opposed.  but maybe someone out there will know the exact numbers ,I suggest you ask Councilman Jones for the number and post it here.

RonRaymond 

Ronraymond

Do you know off hand who actually did the polling?  

RonRaymond;

Your statement was:

Even if the legislature ignores the referendum in the future it will validate or repudiate the permanent, irrevocable and potentially harmful decision of three members of the Orange Park Town Council.

Isn't the referendum to determine whether the county should control these decisions, not whether the majority of people in OP wanted or didn't want the Card Room?

I suppose you could count how many people in OP voted to move the control to the county and assume that they didn't want the card room, but that seems like a long stretch to me.

Regardless of the outcome, I just don't see how the county can control the city decision. It just seems to me to be an effort in futility just so some politician can try to say I told you so through some questionable extrapolation.

Finder