- Crawford: Yes. Disappointing, but predictable. WE don't know what his principles are.
- Kremen: Yes. Certainly! It's his baby. He set the table as administrator, and ate the meal as councilman. A principled leader would recuse himself.
- Brenner: No. Barbara has been opposed to this in principle for quite some time.
- Kershner: Yes. Very disappointing. At least Solomon didn't actually cut the baby.
- Mann: Yes. Arguably another case for recusal - nope.
- Knutzen: No. Bill has been opposed to this in principle. He knew this was driven by environmental collectivists who resent logging and discovered the reconveyance loophole to end it.
- Weimer: Yes. A park is love. You can't make this stuff up.
Bill's motion failed 4 - 3 (Knutzen, Kershner and Brenner approved), despite lip service lauding the intent. The reason given to reject was that they feared that any change to the language might spook the legal eagles and derail the deal.
The reason this is important is that while DNR is a public trust, subject to transparency laws, auditing and information requests, private land trusts, though acting as agents of the state, have no such responsibility.
One big reason for opposition to the reconveyance, as one correspondent pointed out, involves concern about special interests, unmonitored and unrepresentative rent-seeking opportunists scheming to leverage government at the expense of the people. WE're not saying they are, although the usual suspects have been circling overhead since the inception. WE prefer something more accountable and transparent.