The Curious Case of the Councilman and the Flaming Pants
Posted by Buzz Beeler on 21st January 2017
| 783 views

January 20, 2016 8:38 am ET

Crandell insulted, accuses me of attacking his integrity

Source: The Curious Case of the Councilman and the Flaming Pants

Photo credit/I have no clue.com

We all know what type of person ends up with pants on fire, right?

Here’s a hint: Jim Carey made a whole movie about the subject.

This curious case all started at the North Point Peninsula Community Coordination Council meeting (which would have an acronym of “NPPCCC,” which is a mouth full—hence, I will use the acronym “NPC” instead.)

With that out of the way, we can cut to the chase and discuss Councilman Crandell’s grandiose assessment of his bill 86-15, which deals with the Sparrows Point Partnership. I know, they have a new name now, but it’s still the same old game.

I’m quite sure others may have more appropriate words to use to describe Mr. Crandell’s words, but, out of deference to the office, I will digress on that one for the moment.

I attended the NPC meeting because I was informed that Councilman Crandell would be there and attempt to explain to the audience the merits of the greatest of all bills ever written by a public servant.

Everyone who has read this blog knows that I take exception to such a statement, since the bill is full of bull.

And I am not referring to the animal that runs through the streets of Pamplona in July. Rather, I mean the colloquialism that refers to the droppings of said animal.

Before proceeding further, I must also point to another rather lame individual—a so called “community activist/environmental analyst” who published his letter of disapproval concerning bill 86-15 in another blog I wrote.

More on that in a moment.

If you care to listen to the audio recording of the latter type of bull, click here!

If the “bull stuff” gets too deep and you only want to hear the debate between myself and the councilman, then forward the audio to the 11:52 mark to listen to a spiritedargument between the Councilman and me.

I love the part where Mr. Crandell refers to my discourse with him as “foolishness.” To that I say a PIA is not silliness—it’s a legal document filed with the county to reveal the truth.

Speaking of the truth, there is another piece to this curious case—a person by the name of Russell Donnelly, who is a board member of the NPC and also a supposed critic of Mr. Crandell’s flawed bill.

You may remember that Mr. Donnelly’s words were featured in a previous blog. After reading his displeasure at Mr. Crandell’s bill, one would believe that Mr. Donnelly would have stood up to repeat those words of opposition in the councilman’s presence.

Instead of speaking up regarding his “CALL TO ACTION”diatribe, Mr. Donnelly sat and said nothing. Not a word of objection came from his lips. I think the phrase for a situation like this is “he cowered in is seat,” which is rather surprising since he is a board member of NPC and a supposed critic of Mr. Crandell’s bill.

I found it rather strange and disgusting that a leader within the same community association that asked the councilman to delay his vote sat there in stone silence swallowing the swill, a term I use quite often, as Mr. Crandell spoke of 10,000 new jobs, many of which pay far from a living wage.

That nugget of truth is documented in the PIA, which is posted here. Also make sure you look at page two.

By the way, did I mention that the NPC voted unanimously in asking for the delay?

I have already written about this before and laid out the ground work of this troubling bill, so now I will be detailed in my response to Mr. Crandell’s accusations. I will do that with the help of Mr. Mike Pierce, who examined the audio of Mr. Crandell’s response. Mr. Pierce’s complete response is available by clicking here.

Mr. Crandell not only ignored the question I posed to him but, as you can tell when you listen to the audio, he basically ducked for cover, hid, acted mortified, and so on.

We refer to that as “dodging the issue.”

So here we go.

My first question to Mr. Crandell after listening to his version of the bill was to ask:

“Councilman Crandell I filed a PIA after you refused to let the community review the bill…”

Mr. Crandell interrupted with his response of:

“That’s inaccurate!”

In order to save time, I will paraphrase further comments; however, those who may doubt my attention to detail may listen to the audio recording.

Mr. Crandell mentions the publications that carried the announcement of the bill appeared in: The East County Times (twice), the Sun, the Dundalk Eagle, and Facebook.

First, a quote from the Dundalk Eagle:

“The community is excited by the plan, and I am proud to support it,” Crandell noted.

If that is the case, why did many of these same community groups ask for the Councilman to delay the vote?

Another quote in the Eagle is rather telling:

“By passing this bill, the Council will have helped expedite Sparrows Point in getting to market, and get government red tape out of the way.” he added.”

Then we have the Sun:

“Without the zoning bill, Sparrows Point Terminal would have to go through more cumbersome processes such as seeking a zoning change in the comprehensive rezoning process or submitting a planned-use development plan, Crandell said.”

Listen to some very enlightened remarks by Mr. Mike Pierce, who reviewed the bill and all of the hoopla surrounding it. You will find his sentiments quite revealing.

Mr. Pierce said the following:

What Mr. Crandell is glossing over is that there are two very different levels of “limited exemption” defined in Section 32-4-106 of the Code.”

Mr. Pierce goes on to say the following:

“Mr. Crandell is correct that the process to request an exemption (A or B) is open to the public, and there is an opportunity for the public to comment or object and, if they feel strong enough, they can appeal the decision. I have personally been involved in such proceedings to oppose a “B” exemption. What is wrong with the bill is that it takes that “open process” away from citizens and grants a de facto exemption, without the right to object or appeal. This is apparently the “cumbersome processes” which the Sun article referred to.”

That will do it for now, folks, but stay tuned for more political shenanigans. My phone continues to ring … and wring out the truth!

Don’t touch that dial—I’m just taking a quick commercial break for some fresh air.

The curious case is to be continued…

Please disable your AdBlocker so our free service can continue delivering you breaking news, insightful analysis, and a collection of aggregated content that will keep you informed like no other.