| ▲ | aprilthird2021 an hour ago |
| > We are angry that our local city council is representing a corporation instead of the citizens that they are supposed to. We're protesting against citizens losing their rights in their own city. No amount of money is worth that. What rights are they losing? |
|
| ▲ | defrost an hour ago | parent [-] |
| Representative government in which sufficient time is granted for all with an opinion to speak, a broad community vote on specific decisive issues. You know, the opposite of a very few deciding without paying attention to the many that stood outside locked doors in the cold. |
| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I like the idea of everyone speaking, but 4 hours of speakers with 3 minutes each should have been more than enough to hear all the important viewpoints. If they didn't listen, it wasn't for lack of physically hearing the arguments and seeing significant support. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's one of two things mentioned. There's the lack of a specific community vote on a large decisive issue affecting the entire town and utility availability and prices for at least a decade. For small towns such things are over and above the usual day to day of town council business and often warrant a community referendum and some time spent on presenting options. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think a vote would have been great, yeah. I don't know how difficult that would have been logistically. But specifically in terms of how much representation they allowed at the meetings, I give them a C. |
| |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | If there's enough interest to fill 4h of 3m speaking shots, maybe it deserves a direct vote by the people? |
|
|
