On Delegate Smigiel's blog, his latest post is about Commissioner Hodge and the budget process. I am curious on why he is focusing on Hodge. This is the first time in years that the county commissioners have done something in trying to reduce the pain of paying property taxes. I know that my property taxes have doubled in the 10+ years that I have lived here. We all would have loved if the county kept the property taxes at the constant yield which would have meant a 6.3 cent reduction. But after a $5.5 million cut in state revenues flowing to Cecil County, we all should be happy about a 2 cent reduction. When is the last time any of us have seen a reduction?
It is amazing how folks can complain about the budget, yet never show up during the budget process. I am fiscally conservative and probably would have ideas where to cut more. But my priorities are not the same as everyone else in the county and a lot of people would not be happy. The budget process is a balancing act, not everyone will be happy.
Commissioner Hodge is only one voice along with 4 other commissioners. His job is also a balancing act. He is trying to present a lean budget while maintaining his promise to improve public safety and education. The budget will not be adopted until May 26, please voice your concerns with Commissioner Hodge and the others before the budget process is done, not after.
Monday, May 18, 2009
What is Delegate Smigiel's Point with Latest Blog Posting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think Smigiel is attacking Hodge because he hasn't genuflected to Lord Mike on every issue. Anyone who disagrees with Smigiel gets similar treatment. And Smigiel did NOTHING to help Hodge in the Commissioner's election even though both are Republicans.
I am glad you understand that the commissioners are proposing a two-cent cut in the tax rate. Smigiel and his pals either don't understand-- or are deliberately ignoring for political gain-- the interaction of state property assessments and locally set tax rates to produce the actual tax bill a property owner gets in the mail.
Welcome to the club, Cecil County Blog. Now Smigiel is attacking you personally for daring to ask your question, "What is Delegate Smigiel's Point."
So a six year old can understand it...if I paid $2,400 last year, and my house is assessed higher by the GOVERNMENT, and I have to pay $2,600 this year, why do you call this a tax decrease? Now throw this into your factor...does anyone today really expect to sell their home for the assessed value? You sound like that crazy in Washington who says you have a tax decrease, pointing to the income tax, then raises taxes on cigarettes, soda, gas, etc. THE POINT: If I pay one cent more to the government, its an INCREASE. I don't care if you call it something else. Can you spell "flush tax." Republicans acting like big spending Democrats is not what we expected when we voted.
OMG - what are you reading? Where do you see in the post that I am calling it a tax decrease. I'm not. I said it was a reduction in the amount that we could have been paying. I agree, it is still an increase, just not as much.
Watch out now....you might get threatened with a "de-formation" of "character" law suit. How DARE you approach the GREAT OZ?
Let's get real: if a new building gets built, it gets added to the tax rolls. By Smigiel's faulty math, that property should not be counted in the expansion of the tax base. It is common sense math, and Fairness, that new properties added to the tax rolls count for something. To do an absolute "constant yield" tax rate is to give these developers a free ride. But then of course Smigiel is all about giving his pals a free ride and attacking anyone who DARES to disagree with him. Just because he is a lawyer he thinks he can threaten, harass and bully everyone else in the county. And they will have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer to respond or counter-act him. Smigiel is nothing but a big fat bully!
Thank you, Cecil County Blog, for having the guts to stand up to Smigiel. Very few people in this county are willing to say anything to even remotely upset His Highness Smigiel! He is an absolute embarrassment to our county throughout the state!
Sorry if I got under you skin Tim. We are playing a semantics game. Now we have clarified you original blog. The Council IS increasing taxes, only not as much. Here again, if HODGE votes for it, he violates his pledge.
I also see anonymous has joined in with their "off the wall" insulting comments. This blogger is easy to spot since they have their own blog "Canal Side." The comments it wrote there were just as inflamatory and false as the ones in this recent blog. Those comments were removed, but the editor still claims a 1st Amendment violation because of a possible lawsuit...so anonymous is the way to go. Could it be that the editor's lawyer told them that they would lose in a lawsuit? I hope they do get sued and it gets in the Whig. Then we would know their name.
I also noticed that this blogger filters dissenting opinions, respectfully submitted, on its blog. Anonymous surely believes in the 1st amendment, just not on their blog.
Gold Bond powder. Works wonders for chafing.
I noticed that blog posts articles from other blogs like Someone Noticed and Canalside and then allows readers to comment on the articles.
I wonder if this is to make the blog appear more interesting than it actually is or to avoid personal responsibility? Why no original articles about the Cecil SPCA? I wonder if this has anything to do with prior litigation?
I wonder if that blog has permission to post copyrighted content from other blogs?
Tea Party Goer should know about being "easy to spot"! I think they should go back to their bogus little event and have a few more scones. I am sure they will find it a lot more satisfying and rewarding than trying to control every blog and blogger in Cecil county (although it is obvious Goer's control issues run quite, shall we say, "deep". It drives Goer insane when they can't identify someone who doesn't like them, doesn't it? Why is that? Does it make it harder to sue them or what? Maybe they should try the serenity prayer.
TeaPartyGoer left some comments on a blog I'm connected with, that leads us to believe that he is none other than Delegate Smigiel himself. Of course, we could be wrong, but it's just an opinion.
Of note though, on Delegate Smigiel's very own website, we see that he is now rallying against bloggers. Maybe my friend should study case law on the subject, before inserting his foot in his mouth publicly.
On his blog today, Delegate Smigiel refers to our lowly space in the blogosphere, and says, I quote:
If you were to publish a piece of paper with the exact same information that appear on this Web site, State law would require that there be an “authority line” so a reader would know who the author is and who is responsible for the content.
Maybe he should look at each post - the sources are linked to each and every post made.
I also quote:
There is a loop hole in the law that allows someone to claim to be a journalist and thus claim they are not covered by the State authority line requirements when blogging, on line. I have some attorneys looking into this matter now to determine if the fact that the annonymous author is hiding behind a site name that gives the public the impression that the site is associated with me is enough to make the State laws apply. In addition to my attorneys reviewing the matter the appropriate State authorities are reviewing for violations of State law.
I hope this is not the case, as he is likely to use up a valuable favor, or spend money to find that there is no cause on this, or any other blog that mentions his name.
There have been several cases that went to the Supreme Court, in which public officials tried to file suit claiming actual malice.
An example of this is Masson v New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 US 496, 516 [1991]
The test for this, as set by Supreme Court, is that the Plaintiff would have to prove that the Respondent knew that something presented by them as fact to be wrong, and that in doing so, the Respondent intended malice.
"In Masson, the Supreme Court defined "actual malice" in accordance with this ‘historical understanding’ of libel law, which ‘would absolve a defendant even if she cannot 'justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter'’ (id. at 516-517, quoting B. Witkin, Summary of California Law § 495 [9th ed. 1988]).
However, this blog posts OPINION and stories garnered from other blogs and news sources, all of which are referenced in each post. The other blogs we have read, show OPINION or quotes from people with whom Delegate Smigiel has a professional relationship with. In fact, out of all the blogs that we have read pertaining to Delegate Smigiel, the only blog that comes close to any actual malice
would be Mike Smigiel's own blog, where he constantly refers to Commissioner Hodge, but this too would be hard to prove, as the Plaintiff would have to prove that Delegate Smigiel knew the content in his posts to be false.
So there you have it, a concise legal opinion on empty threats against the blogosphere.
Post a Comment