\n
![](\"https:\/\/i2.ytimg.com\/vi\/ej8QTXRYHxc\/default.jpg\")
<\/a>\nIn the
\n
\nLowndes County Commission Regular Session Tuesday 13 May 2013<\/a>,
\nI spoke in Citizens Wishing to Be Heard, noting
\na trust indenture is a legal contract, and since
\nas building a well often leads to development, as someone
\n(Commissioner Page a few minutes before)<\/a>
\npointed out, why don’t trust indenture decisions lead to public hearings?
\nThis might be a legal question for the state (although I would guess
\nthe County Commission could hold a public hearing on whatever it likes,
\neven if the state doesn’t require it).<\/p>\n
\nBut a lot of commissions actually let the public speak on any item.
\nFor example, the Tallahassee Council lets anyone sign up at the beginning
\nand say I want to speak on X. It’s a thought.<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/a>
\nBut during that particular item I found it particularly refreshing to
\nhear Commissioner Page say that he was concerned about what the majority
\nof the neighbors and property owners think about the use or potential use
\nof the property, and nearby property owners and the majority of people
\nwho live in that area.<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/a>
\nNow it’s curious how we did not hear much concern about that
\non an item a few meetings back about
\n
\nOld State Road<\/a>.
\n
\nThe majority of the people who live in that area<\/a>
\ndid not want that road closed.
\n
\nThe majority of the property owners<\/a>, as near as I can tell from the names
\non the petition, did not, but no one seemed concerned about that.
\nIt is a nice concern to have.<\/p>\n\nNow at that time I heard through various people that the main reason,
\nand correct me if I’m wrong here,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
\nthe main reason the Commission decided to close that road was that they
\nwere afraid that the applicant might sue.
\nNow I cannot believe that any Commissioners personally would be afraid
\nof that, because you’re all veterans of elections, so why would you
\nbe afraid of a simple lawsuit; surely things happen in elections that
\nare much worse than that.
\nSo I’m guessing it must have been because of the expense, of the legal expense
\nof a lawsuit.
\nI’m guessing you wouldn’t want the taxpayers to have to pay for a thing like that.
\nEven though I assume you have Directors and Officers insurance, but still.<\/p>\n\nSo that leads to my question, which is:
\nWhy, if it wasn’t a good use of taxpayer money to defend a lawsuit
\nthat was only potential,
\nthat might not even happen,
\n
\n<\/a>
\n
\nwhy is it a good use of taxpayer money to initiate
\na lawsuit against a business in the county that has a valid business permit<\/a>?
\nLike
\n
\none of the previous speakers<\/a>, I don’t really understand that.
\nAnd I’m wondering if perhaps the Commissioners
\nand the Chairman could explain that to the public,
\nnot just to an individual.
\nThat’s my question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n<\/a>
\nAnd the Chairman’s answer:\n<\/p>\n\nAt this time we can’t discuss that issue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nSo I thanked them and sat down.
\nThey proceeded to go into
\n
\nExecutive Session for the purpose of attorney-client communication<\/a>.
\nHm, I wonder what legal case they could be discussing?
\nThe Chairman didn’t say why they couldn’t discuss the trash case at this time,
\nbut could it be because of the lawsuit?
\nIf so, they apparently spent much longer in Executive Session discussing it than
\nit took me and Tom Hallman to ask the questions that never got answered.
\nWhy does the County Commission think it’s a good use of taxpayer funds
\n
\nto sue a legitimate local business on behalf of investors in New York City<\/a>,
\nand why won’t they explain that to the public?\n<\/p>\n\nHere’s
\n
\nthe video:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n