|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2005 Sapp & Slander a column by by Ron West
The following dictionary
definitions are offered so that when attributed to Mr. Sapp, they can be
clearly understood in view of the facts that follow. lie n.
v.
lied, lying, lies
slan·der - n. - A false and malicious statement or report about someone. slan·dered, slan·der·ing, slan·ders - v. v. tr.To utter a slander about. v. intr. To utter or spread slander. ma·lign tr.v. ma·ligned, ma·lign·ing, ma·ligns To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of. adj.
The latest column by Ken
Sapp is so filled with slanderous statements based on knowingly and
deliberately false information that his column must
be based on his fear of losing his appointment to the Planning &
Zoning Commission. He was
appointed by a council member who is being opposed in the upcoming
election. Mr. Sapp’s term
expires in June.
Quoting Sapp from his diatribe:
“The first volley of the 2005 NRH election season has
been filed by candidates with ties to the Libertarian Party.”
This statement contains two significant errors or falsehoods. First
the reference is to my publication of a debate invitation issued
to both the challengers and the incumbents in the upcoming May
elections. You can read the
“Issues” (see below) for yourself.
Secondly, the challengers to the incumbents have absolutely no
“ties” to the Libertarian Party or their positions at all.
None are Libertarians and none have ever espoused or supported
the views that Mr. Sapp maliciously attributes to them.
Since Mr. Sapp speaks with
such “knowledge” (one must wonder if) perhaps he is the one that is
for “legalization of drugs,
legalization of Internet Pornography and the elimination of Social
Security”. Neither I, nor any
of the challengers have ever supported any of these positions.
His accusations relate to my personal candidacy for State
Representative two years ago. I
ran on the Libertarian ticket for two reasons:
1) It cost nothing to file for that office and
2) I was opposed to the
Republican candidate who had no other opposition.
I felt that by running, at least I and other
folks had a choice. I am
basically an Independent who crosses all party lines by agreeing with
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and other Independents depending on
the issues. As you can see
from this information, Sapp’s attempt at tying a “label” on the
challengers is deliberately and totally false.
Skipping other meaningless and
false statements, we come to the following “(challengers)….run
for office more as a means to disrupt local government than to work for
the benefits of citizens. This tactic is quite clear for the self
defined "slate" of opposition this year “.
I can certainly assure readers that the neither the challengers nor I
have any wish or intent to “disrupt local government”!
The challengers are giving up a significant part of their lives
in order to open this closed body to citizen input and participation.
I am confident that Mr. Sapp and the incumbents have little or no
respect for open government and view citizen participation with
contempt.
Next Mr. Sapp says
“(challengers) are very
clear as to what they oppose but are extremely and purposefully vague
when it come down to the specifics of what they are for.”
A completely false statement. Anyone
who wishes to see what the challengers are for can read for themselves
the positions they have publicly supported by looking at the issues (see
below). All
challengers are articulate and are in the process of developing web
sites to further expound on the basic issues.
Unfortunately, the incumbents are the ones who will not enter
into discussions on real issues facing the city.
I wonder if there is anything in print anywhere as to what the
incumbents are for in their own words?
If they plan to run on their records, you can review them for
yourself by visiting Suzette Christopher's web site, Click
Here.
Sapp’s next paragraph
contains a series of lies: “Some
of the issues they have shown opposition to are: neighborhood parks for
our children, two new fire stations that were built this year, new
development like Home Town and street improvements such as North Tarrant
Parkway. In their continuing mantra of being "against" they
also suggest that the city spend down all reserve funds so that future
emergencies or financial crisis will need to be addressed by other
means.” No
challenger has stated any opposition to: neighborhood parks, the two new
fire stations, Hometown subdivision or street improvements.
No challenger has said anything about spending down reserves.
In fact, published statements of the challengers indicate
continued support for the initiatives already underway in our city.
No challenger has any plan to “spend down all reserve funds”
so this is simply another lie. I challenge Mr. Sapp to produce documentation for any part of
his slanderous attributions to any challenger.
Sapp’s
next false statement is based on the lie shown above: “They
do not explain that after they have depleted city reserves to pay for
existing services and buy down the current tax rate, what happens next?
What programs or services do they then plan to cut (they say none but
where is their budget?).”
This lie is based on the previous lie.
Apparently Mr. Sapp assumes if you buy his lies above, you will
accept additional lies built on the prior ones.
The facts are that the challengers wish to increase the funds
available for city services by reducing the very large slush fund.
Mr. Sapp apparently ignored my prior column asking the incumbents
to comment on the $4.8 Million dollar slush fund that represents 20.9%
of the total property tax revenue for NRH for this year.
These two “non-departments” could be cut in half, property
taxes lowered by 10% and still leave over $2 Million for their slush
needs. This one cut would
still allow all normal city growth and would not impact or cut any other
city budget item. The
incumbents didn’t even question about
this runaway spending in public and Mr. Sapp ignores it to perpetuate
his lies.
Mr. Sapp thinks this is a game
where the truth and facts can be ignored.
For myself and I know for the folks who have given up a big
portion of their lives for the next two months to challenge the
incumbents, this is not a game. Truth
and facts are vitally important. There
are significant real issues facing our city that deserve attention.
NRH is a first class city worthy of personal sacrifice –
without personal gain.
I would encourage readers to look at the real issues and to ask
real questions to both the challengers and the incumbents.
The type of article written by Mr. Sapp is an attempt to distract
people from the very real opportunity to make NRH a really nice place to
live which is both citizen and business friendly.
Wouldn’t it be great if Mr. Sapp and the incumbents joined in
meaningful discussions of the issues?
They could start by explaining the slush fund that represents
over 20% of the total property taxes we will pay this year.
|
Please tell our
advertisers you saw them on LNO!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
