Shawn Faulkingham
-
The Basics
-
Shawn on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Maplewood Council Agenda: For Now, No QuikTrip Items
-
On the article Maplewood Council Agenda: For Now, No QuikTrip Items
Shawn Faulkingham
12:07 pm on Tuesday, April 9, 2013
ReplyJane - You are preaching to the choir. I voted no on this ordinance. Nor am I being petty and vindictive. All I am saying is that instead of focusing energy here, you should be calling and emailing the other 6 Councilmembers that voted yes and convince them. I am seeking to make the changes and I will do my best to do that, as I did prior to Prop Q; however, the voters of Maplewood need to TALK and EMAIL Councilmembers and let them know how you feel. We have a Council meeting this evening at 7:30pm. Why don't you come up and have a conversation with them? You can't have that conversation with the rest of them on the Patch. We need your involvement, which includes coming to meetings, emailing / phoning / stopping by and having these discussions with Councilmembers and the Mayor about issues like this. Continuing to write negative rhetoric without talking with us isn't solving the problem. It's actually dividing us, which is sad. I have tried to open up any conversation with anyone here about this; only ONE person has contacted me directly. Ian and Jane - don't lose faith; get involved and have a face to face conversation with your elected officials. That's how we can get things changed.
-
On the article Maplewood Council Agenda: For Now, No QuikTrip Items
Shawn Faulkingham
9:49 am on Tuesday, April 9, 2013
ReplyJeffrey, that is not true. You have not read the article in it's entirety. In good faith the Council read an amended ordinance twice that I mentioned. The "deal" so to speak was that if the School Board dropped their opposition to the ordinance, the Council would read it for a third time passing it April 9th. Since the School Board did not drop their opposition, the Council deleted it from the Agenda. I surprised to find that you continue with negative rhetoric here on the Patch. Instead of focusing your energy here, you should strike up a dialog with Councilmembers one on one to voice your concerns, especially those that feel the current ordinance is ok to move forward on.
-
On the article Proposition Q Voters Will Vote Separately, On Paper
Shawn Faulkingham
8:18 am on Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Sorry for the delay Nick. TP is correct. No matter how you vote, paper or electronic, you will get a separate paper ballot for Prop Q. Now, get out there and VOTE!
-
On the article Proposition Q Voters Will Vote Separately, On Paper
Shawn Faulkingham
7:33 am on Friday, March 29, 2013
ReplyNick -
The reason everyone thinks it was late had to do with timing of passing the Ordinance. We did everything that we had to including going to a judge to get this on the April 2 ballot. Had it been 2 weeks later that we passed the ordinance and then add 30+ days for referendum and signature validation, we would of missed the April 2 ballot and probably would had to of done a special ballot. 2 weeks earlier and no issues. So no need to change the charter; just a case of timing. -
On the article Amended QuikTrip Ordinance to be Tabled or Deleted at Council Meeting
Shawn Faulkingham
10:52 pm on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
ReplyKen -
I talked to Doug, who wrote the article about it, and he corrected it. Not sure why you came to me at a Council meeting instead of the author of the article. Also, I did talk to a number of Citizens about this; and you are right, there are many different views and issues that people have about the move. Since you have never really spoken with me one on one, I invite you to chat with me about your particular issues. Talking through public forums and Public hearings are not very effective and too easy to make accusations and use negative rhetoric.. Stop by or give me a call.
-
On the article Proposition Q Voters Will Vote Separately, On Paper
Shawn Faulkingham
9:57 am on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
ReplyI would just make sure you get a paper ballot, so you have everything there in front of you. The Board of Elections should not even have the Electronic Voting machines if they can't put Prop Q on it. (You would think it would be easy to do, seeing how it's electronic, which baffles me). I am calling them to see if they can just use the paper ballots to get rid of the confusion.
-
On the announcement Clarification of Proposition Q - Part B
Shawn Faulkingham
9:52 am on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
ReplyI did (past) have a sign in my yard. Sadly, I believed the School Board was going to support the amended QT PUD. That is why I originally had the Vote Yes sign in my yard. I am not sure why I assumed that, but you know what happens when you assume something...
And if it does pass, I will continue to push for the above amendments. If it comes before the Council again, I will continue to push for more safety. But I am only one vote. The majority of the Council voted differently then I did. You will need to talk to them.
-
On the announcement Clarification of Proposition Q - Part B
Shawn Faulkingham
9:41 am on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Ian-
I believe the changes would have been much better and created a even safer Ordinance. The Council deleted the amended Ordinance from the Agenda last night due to hearing from the BOE not supporting the amended PUD. As for the rest of the Council, you will have to ask them. The relationship between the Council and the BOE has, in my view, always been excellent; we have worked well together and will continue to do so. We have worked on several developments without much issue including one that also had a Referendum (see Walmart). I think this just a hiccup; differing views on safety and a couple of other items. If you would like to discuss further, please contact me. -
On the announcement Clarification of Proposition Q - Part B
Shawn Faulkingham
9:23 am on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Where do I say I support the original Ordinance? I don't. I voted no. What I did support (again, moot point) was the amendments to the original Ordinance that I proposed to the Council after that meeting. And the Council read the amended Ordinance twice, unanimously and in good faith that we would finally have the BOE on board with this project. We made all the changes they wanted, and they still did not want to get behind it. What's wrong with working on a deal that, in my view, created a safer ordinance, and ordinance that addressed the additional issues that the BOE brought to us, Citizens brought to us and Referendum Committee members brought to us? The amendments were additional safety measures and included the unblocking of Martini. I do agree, creating ordinances is a difficult and sometimes confusing process. Maplewood Council and the BOE have done a great job serving the Citizens of Maplewood; this is just a disagreement about the Ordinance and nothing more. One side has their view which is different from the other side. And what's great is that the Democratic process is in full swing, as we now have a Referendum. That's why we have these processes in our Charter; to insure that Citizens have an opportunity for their voices to be heard.
Shawn Faulkingham
12:12 pm on Tuesday, April 9, 2013
"...had agreed to make these changes to the PUD IF the MRH School Board would drop their opposition to Proposition Q" is in my article for Clarification of Prop Q - Part B. It's unfortunate that you have lost faith. Again, I welcome any one on one conversation with you.