One reason LAKE permits anonymous posts is that occasionally
some useful information like this comes in that way;
received yesterday on
Graphic horse case. -jsq
Ga. Ag Equine Division is authorized to impound animals if animal cruelty is suspected.
However, if you take the time to read the state law (Ga. Code Section), you’ll see that local animal control and law enforcement are also authorized to impound horses/equine.
Counties need to understand that Ag is REGULATORY – they are NOT a criminal office. They cannot legally conduct a criminal investigation, nor file criminal charges.
Criminal investigations, and charges, have to be handled by local law enforcement.
The below excerpt is from “The Ga. Animal Protection Act” – which is – a state law.
.
4-11-9.2. Inspection warrant; impounding of animals
(a) At any time there is probable cause to believe that a violation of this article or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this article has occurred, the Commissioner, his or her designated agent, or an animal control officer who is an employee of state or local government may apply to the appropriate court in the county in which the animal is located for an inspection warrant under the provisions of Code Section 2-2-11.
(b) Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or other peace officer shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this article and Code Sections 16-12-4 and 16-12-37.
These videos are not all labeled, which is unfortunate,
since some of them reflect quite well on some things the
Industrial Authority is doing.
But after all, they have paid staff who could be taking,
labelling, and posting their own videos, and
their new executive director says she wants transparency,
so who knows? Maybe VLCIA will do this kind of thing themselves.
They meet again tonight. You could go ask them.
Irregular Meeting, Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority (VLCIA),
Norman Bennett, Roy Copeland, Tom Call, Mary Gooding, Jerry Jennett chairman,
J. Stephen Gupton attorney, Allan Ricketts Acting Executive Director,
Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 14 June 2011.
Videos by John S. Quarterman for LAKE, the Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange.
The “public dialog” at that meeting consisted of written questions
being selected by CUEE.
Even so, the answers sufficed to demolish all of CUEE’s main selling
points, including
CUEE’s own hired expert said
“If you believe in the end that running one system is cheaper than
running two school systems. If in the end you are going to cast a vote
for a single system because you think it would save money, I wouldn’t
cast my vote. I do not think it will save money.”
The Kick-Off meeting was used to roll out the education committee,
to paper over the little problem that CUEE has no plan to improve education.
If anything was said of it reporting before the referendum,
I must have missed it.
Received today on
Three things to actually improve education.
This CUEE supporter completely ignores all three things
I recommended to improve education; I will respond in more detail in
the next post. -jsq
I have actually attended several of the public meetings and listened to
the discussions from the Education Planning Committee. I’m not sure if
you realize this or not, but the committee consists of parents, concerned
residents and educators from both school systems and VSU. The committee
also has members who are supportive and opposed to school unification,
and it includes both city and county residents. In fact, Sam Allen even
attended and participated in the last meeting.
The objective of the Education Planning Committee is to
When it comes to the proposed biomass facility and maintaining a healthy
relationship with the Georgia Department of Economic Development,
which assisted the Industrial Authority in attracting the project,
Schruijer believes staff and board members will be able to work through
the situation.
“With economic development, it can be difficult to juggle a lot of
different items,” said Schruijer. “It’s a balancing act to make sure
you have all the parties involved and educated on the situation. The
Department of Economic Development was there to help us recruit the
project and they did just what they were supposed to do. In fact, they
went above and beyond their duties by brushing over this project with a
fine tooth comb. We worked with them and they worked with us. It seemed
like a good project, and I think we’ll be able to work through this,
maintain a good relationship with them as long as we keep the avenues
for communication open.”
That sounds like Industrial-speak for they’re going to
“move on to” things that do work.
However she chooses to phrase it, it’s about time.
The Arizona Department of Corrections has given a green light to
four private, for-profit correctional management corporations for the
construction and management of an additional 5,000 state prison beds.
The American Friends Service Committee condemns this action as unnecessary
and deeply irresponsible given the state’s economic crisis and the
dismal safety records of all four of the corporations involved.
Arizona’s Auditor General estimates this expansion will cost us over
$640 million by 2017. Yet our prison population only grew by only 65
inmates in 2010.
This year, our corrections budget is over $1 billion, consuming 11%
of the state general fund. The Department of Corrections was the only
state agency whose budget saw an increase this year.
the attached is the drug test every employee had after the GDA turned
the statements over to the county manager… he “Joe Prichard” stated
some employees were interviewed EVERYONE even Linda was Drug tested…
she was the only one that showed concern for the drug test, she stated
because she mixed the pentasol she may test positive to the drug.
But all employees were certified to euthenis and we get it all over our
fingers and some of us have even had the syringes explode from the
needles and get in our eyes and mouth and we were not scared of testing
positive. And “all” employees were interviewed not “some”! And I might
add we all passed! Notice it is also under reasonable suspicion not
random…
Somebody finally called a developer’s bluff!
Answering Commissioners’ questions about
his opposition to rezoning for Nottinghill on Cat Creek Road,
Calvin Marshall did what I’ve never seen anyone do before in opposing a subdivision:
he upped the ante.
Commissioner Richard Raines said he would require Nottinghill lots to have:
“Not perhaps, but a fence around the edge of the property.
…
Need to make sure that bicycles and fourwheelers, that children are not playing
in a field that is used to grow crops.”
Seems fair, except that he seemed to be talking about each individual
eventual property owner having to put up a fence, and I can tell you by
experience that that won’t happen without the neighboring landowner
personally insisting to each lot owner.
Unless the Commission insists that county code enforcement actually
enforce such a condition, which would be a good thing for a change.
Then Commissioner Raines asked Calvin Marshall:
“Is it still your position that 12-15,000 square foot lots are OK?”
Neighboring landowner demolishes developers’ arguments; explains agriculture to Lowndes County Comission.
Neighboring landowner Calvin Marshall,
speaking against rezoning for
REZ-2011-10 Nottinghill,
said neighbors,
“We’re not interested in a Bluepool,
We’re not interested in a Chatham Place.
And we’re certainly not interested in what they built out on Val Del Road.
We’ve also looked at what they’ve done with Old Pine,
and we’re definitely not interested in that, either.
Too small lots, small homes.”
That last one is presumably
Glen Laurel,
which had a roomful of neighbors opposing it last year.
Calvin Marshall asked for the Commissioners to deny the Nottinghill
rezoning request.
He also asked:
“The other thing that we asked the developer … what you going to do about
the neighbors that have got a farm on each side?
What kind of buffer are you going to put there?
…
We farm that land, we grow crops,
we run cows,
we run goats,
we run hogs,
and we’re going to continue to do that.
…
We don’t have an answer as to what they’re going to do for a buffer.”
Calvin Marshall continued with the economic argument:
“There’s three or four generations of property owners in this room tonight.
These people go back for three or four generations.
And these people have worked hard.
City Council rules on public participation at meetings…they could allow comments at the time of an agenda item if they chose to do that….
