Be sure to visit the official website of The Law Office of Michael Dylan Brennan, LLC

  • Take me there NOW
  • LEGAL: All Original Material (c)2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Michael Dylan Brennan and The Audient Files, with no claim to any original works borrowed pursuant to and consistent with the Fair Use Doctrine, 17 U.S.C. 107.

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Wednesday, February 06, 2008

    The Waterway Saga Continues.

    The nogasstation site proclaims:
    164 valid signatures for the online petition and counting!!! 1578  visitors on the website and counting! This must account for something!
    Let us assume that these numbers are valid: 164 signatures versus 1578 visitors to the site.  
    What it accounts for is this: almost 90% of the people who visited the site did NOT sign the petition.
    Now, I don't know where all those visitors are from.  The authors of the site decline to tell us. If they are Waterway execs, curious onlookers or other non-residents of University Heights, then of course they would not be signing the petition.  But how many of the 1578 visitors would fall into these categories?  Most of the visitors have got to be other University Heights residents who got fliers taped on their doors (like I did), checked out the site (like I did), weighed their arguments (like I did), and weren't persuaded (as I was not).
    Nine out of ten people who visited the site did not see fit to sign the petition.  I think this says something, just as the 10% that did sign accounts for something.  What exactly it says is open for interpretation.  Admittedly, not signing a petition is not the equivilent as a positive endorsement of the contrary position.  I will not go so far as to argue that since 90% didn't sign, that 90% must actually be in strong favor of the Waterway proposal.  But I will go this far: 9 out of 10 people that took the time to visit their website, given the opportunity to sign a petition objecting to the proposal, declined to object.  I repeat: almost 90% declined to object. 
    City council should take note of that.  The opposition may be loud, but the opinion is far from unanimous.  They are well in the minority, as their own website reveals.

    Comments on "The Waterway Saga Continues."


    Blogger Simply Minded said ... (4:16 PM, February 07, 2008) : 

    I looked at the waterway site, and the proposal they have for download. I also looked at the no gas station site, and the online petition.

    After seeing what waterway has to offer, I think it would be good for the area. It would be a competitor to Al Paul, and the other two BP stations. If their service is as good as they claim, it would indirectly improve service at the other establishments.

    As for the environmental concerns, I think they are over rated. Yes there is a possibility of a leak or a spill, but no more chance than getting hit by a bus crossing the street.

    I can understand the concern about traffic on Bushnell and Landsdale (forgive if the names are wrong, I could have just wrote "sidestreets"), but from looking at the placement of the curb cuts on the site plan view in their proposal I would think that the general flow would from Warrensville.

    I almost wish I lived in UH so I could go the council meeting and argue FOR the business. The argument could be made that increased tax revenue would help offset that which is being lost on foreclosed homes and the impact the mortgage situation is having on home in general.

    Another interesting point about the petition. I counted 18 anonymous posts, more than 10%. No way to verify where they live. Now to the people that used their names, I'd be interested to see the proximity of their homes to the gas station.

    Anyway, I wish there was one in my neighborhood.


    Anonymous Jason Sonenshein said ... (9:20 PM, February 07, 2008) : 

    What constitutes a "valid" signature on an on-line petition anyway? I also noticed the anonymous signatures. Are the No Gas Station people counting these as "valid" too?


    post a comment