Senator Steve Hobbs
March 31st, 2008 at 10:17pm |
I emailed Senator Hobbs during the first week of February and received a reply just last week. He mentioned that keeping the Chicken out in front of the drive-in “may take a change of statute or a motion by the Chicken’s owner.” He also stated that should the owner be willing to compromise that the city council is “eager to find a compromise and keep the Chicken in Lake Stevens.” Out of all the input gathered on this site, I believe the post left by Mike Tagstad is the most appropriate.
I appreciate the Senator’s reply and am glad to see that he has expressed continuing interest in the community, even upon this level. I am eager myself to see how the city along with the owner come to a resolution on this, as I am sure all of us are.
Posted in Current News
I’m glad you’ve come to the conclusion that working with the city instead of against them is a good idea. That’s how things get done - by compromise.
I wish you luck in coming up with something that meets the needs of both sides of this debate.
Has the theft of the chicken been resolved?
I did not state that I came to any conclusion in “that working with the city instead of against them” is in fact my resolution. Also, because I disagree with the city trying elect permit fees upon the owner doesn’t mean I am working against the city, I almost think it’s the other way around. Mike Tagstad suggested the best solution so far by having Special Dispensation for the Lake Stevens Chicken based on its historical relevance. Sometimes compromise is not the answer unless one believes in riding fences and eating milk toast.
The Chicken is still missing as far as I know. I wish the city could have seen their way through this early on as I believe the Chicken would still be quietly sitting there tucked up against the drive-in wall. Obviously somebody either wanted to be malicious or they are looking for their 28 seconds of fame and ceased upon their once in a life time chance. The drive-in looks naked with out it.
Anonymous; It’s obvious that you don’t have all the facts regarding this issue. The owner, and those who support her desire to display the chicken at the drive-in, have tried from the beginning to “work things out with the city”. Unfortunately, the city decided that the only one who should compromise was the owner, by paying the city $600 for a “permit”. $600 is not “chicken feed” for someone trying to start a new business. Neither is $500 from the senior class to “steal” the chicken. That being said, your comment that we’ve just now “come to the conclusion” that we should “work with the city”, is erroneous. If your idea of “compromise” is for a business owner to have to “cave in” to what amounts to paying a “ransom” to free the chicken, then I question your understanding of “fair practice” and “free enterprise”. As far I know, there is nothing in the city codes that alludes to the paying for “permits” if signage doesn’t comply with code. Neither does it mention what scale was used to to come up with the amount for the “permit”, or what code was used to back up the $500 fee for the seniors to “steal” the chicken.
As to Mr Hobbs having better things to do than to get involved with his constituents over this small issue, what seems small to some ,may be a large issue to others, especially to those who are trying to making a success of a business in the community while keeping tradition alive for the seniors. I guess his involvement means you’re disappointed in him.
While the right to display the chicken at the drive-in was foremost in our mind when this protest started, the conduct of the city over this issue has become a bigger concern. Also of concern, is the theft of the chicken by someone with no respect for the law, who felt they had the right to destroy someone else’s property because they didn’t like the idea of keeping the chicken. I wonder if that person realizes that if they are caught, because of the value of the property stolen, the charges won’t be a misdemeanor, but a felony. I would hope that Lake Steven’s Police Department will continue to investigate this until the perp is found.
From my understanding of the facts, the chicken was originally erected with the knowledge that it broke code. I don’t have time to dig up the quote, but anyone would be able to find it.
I was merely complimenting whomever is writing this site on making progress with the city in the form of compromise. That is all.
Because of the anger expressed here and the inherent inability not to attach rude comebacks each and every time a comment is left that doesn’t 100% support The Chicken and go against the city, it is obvious to me that the administrator of this site isn’t interested in hearing a different point of view.
I thought that was the purpose of having a site like this - to hear ALL of the opinions, equally, and not attack people for differing from yours. I thought you would not allow comments that are accusatory and/or false. By allowing the negativity to seep through in the above commenters several comments, you are doing just that.
And please, don’t tell me who I will be disappointed in. Right now, I’m disappointed with all the negativity surrounding what could be a very huge asset to our town: The Chicken. That is, if we could all work together.
Dear Anonymous,
I am sorry you feel this way, it is my intention to provide a fair forum. I do have a slew of nasty comments that I have declined to post which have far more anger than anything expressed here. I can post them all if everyone would like to read them but I have tried to responsibly hold back such venomous comments that are shocking and outright mean! There are other avenues to post such comments such as with the Lake Steven’s Journal, for they chose to publish a letter to the editor by J.D. Nelson that allowed the comment “boycott the drive-in” if that is what is meant as fair discourse then I opt out. To date the Lake Steven’s Journal hasn’t published the story and has chosen to ignore it outright, except for that letter. I don’t believe these comments should be allowed, at least not here, because it won’t solve anything, and it is mean. This site is a forum and I try to keep it tactful for the most part. You sent your rebuttal to Irish and in part to my comments and it is present for everyone to read. Check out other blogs such as http://www.huffingtonpost.com or http://www.youtube.com for a real eye opener into mean comments.
At times it has been difficult finding that imaginary moral line of what to post and what not to post. Even to the point of shutting it down. Believe me, what replies you received is nothing like what I have had to read. Take heart, for your opinions are here and published for everyone to read and reply to. Anyone will at least get that much here.
In closing, I can’t speak for Irish but my response to your post was merely to clarify that I wasn’t so much on the side of compromise as you had stated. I do not agree that charging the owner and then the senior class is right. That’s double dipping in my opinion.
Anonymous; The purpose of this site is “discussion” and “debate”. I am sure the administrator appreciated your compliment, as did I. That being said, there were no “personal” attacks, anger, or negativity in my posts, just discussion and/or debate of your first post, which is exactly what was included in your second post, discussion and/or debate. No one was “attacking” YOU. I made no “accusatory” or “false” comments. And to be fair, it was your own statement of being “disappointed” in Hobbs if he took the time to respond to this issue, that I addressed. As to the issue of “negativity”, it’s in the “eye of the beholder” I’m afraid, because many see an opposing view as a negative.
It is not the duty of the administrator to weed out comments that MAY be misconstrued by former posters. It is the administrator’s job to keep the blog free of offensive language, threats, name-calling, and racial epithets.
In closing, it’s apparent by your last post, that you’ve joined in the discussion/debate arena. Welcome. I’m sorry you felt personally attacked, but I don’t address people, I address ideas put out by people. That’s what a discussion/debate is.