- Local every day in
Matt Flamm
-
The Basics
-
Matt on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the blog post Candlelight Vigil Illuminates Need for Gun Violence Prevention
-
On the blog post Candlelight Vigil Illuminates Need for Gun Violence Prevention
Matt Flamm
9:10 pm on Monday, April 15, 2013
ReplyI'm not going to try to persuade those of you who think you're safer owning or carrying guns. I will ask you to agree that we're NOT safer if convicted felons, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill people can buy guns, as they can now over the Internet or at gun shows. That's all we're talking about. If you want to safeguard your right to keep and bear arms, you should support universal background checks. Otherwise, people will become increasingly angry about incidents like Aurora and Newtown (and Englewood), and they'll support more drastic limitations on guns and on law-abiding gun owners.
-
On the blog post Candlelight Vigil Illuminates Need for Gun Violence Prevention
Matt Flamm
8:08 am on Monday, April 15, 2013
Buddy, you couldn't be more wrong. Background checks have already stopped 2 million convicted felons, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill from buying guns. 30 percent of gun crime investigations involve guns bought at gun shows or online. And the bill explicitly states that there can be no gun registry. Background checks have saved lives and would save more if the covered all commercial purchases.
-
On the blog post Candlelight Vigil Illuminates Need for Gun Violence Prevention
Matt Flamm
9:09 pm on Sunday, April 14, 2013
ReplyDan, no one is talking about taking guns away from "law abiding citizens." We're talking about keeping guns away from convicted felons (the "gun using criminals" McCloud refers to), domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. If you believe those groups should have access to guns, you're in a very small minority.
-
On the blog post Palatine Township Rejects Voter Initiative
Matt Flamm
10:16 pm on Thursday, April 4, 2013
ReplyClerk Moran, I appreciate your response, but it misses the point. The annual town meeting is the one forum where citizens are encouraged to participate in decisionmaking for their government. The law specifically allows any 15 citizens to put an item on the agenda of that meeting. Sure, those same people could choose to appear at a monthly Board meeting, but that doesn't justify denying them their right to appear at a meeting where their fellow citizens are present.
The Board's attorney can give advice, but it's not her job to decide. Even if the attorney advised the Board that it was not required to include the agenda item, the Board could decide to let the people have a chance to be heard at their annual meeting. Did the Board take a vote? Has the roll call been made public? The people have a right to know which Trustees voted to prevent them from discussing this issue at their annual meeting.
-
On the blog post Palatine Township Rejects Voter Initiative
Matt Flamm
10:07 pm on Thursday, April 4, 2013
Clerk Moran, I appreciate your response, but it misses the point. The annual town meeting is the one forum where citizens participate in decisionmaking for their government. The law allows any 15 citizens to put an item on the agenda of that meeting. Sure, those same people could choose to appear at a monthly Board meeting, but that doesn't justify denying them their right to appear at a meeting where their fellow citizens are present.
The Board's attorney can give advice, but it's not her job to decide. Even if the attorney advised the Board that it was not required to include the agenda item, the Board could decide to let the people be heard at their annual meeting. Did the Board take a vote? Has the roll call been made public? Citizens have a right to know which Commissioners voted to prevent them from discussing this issue at their annual meeting.
-
On the blog post Palatine Township Rejects Voter Initiative
Matt Flamm
12:08 pm on Thursday, April 4, 2013
Jim, it may be less expensive to the Village in the short run, but we're paying taxes to the Road District, too. So it's not cheaper to the taxpayers (including you and me).
-
On the blog post Local Progressives to Host Immigration Reform Discussion
Matt Flamm
12:42 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
ReplyCatherine, I'm sorry you feel that way. I've lived here for 25 years. It's a great, diverse community with a mixture of sincere conservatives and progressives, along with many open-minded independents.
-
On the article Dozens of Residents Sign Petition to Abolish Palatine Township Road District
Matt Flamm
10:26 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
ReplySorry, Guy, but that doesn't make sense. Public schools are why my wife and I moved to Palatine, and the teachers and other unionized school workers (including bus drivers) were responsible for the excellent education our daughters received. But whether or not we agree about schools, why would you want to waste money on the road district?
-
On the article Dozens of Residents Sign Petition to Abolish Palatine Township Road District
Matt Flamm
12:03 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
ReplyThe township would have to contract with the municipalities to maintain the unincorporated roads. See my previous comment for an example of how that might work. For $16,000 per mile, the municipality could more than cover its cost. The township could pay double that amount per mile and still save more than half of what the road district is spending now.
Matt Flamm
7:34 pm on Sunday, April 21, 2013
Wally, I am a moderate, centrist Democrat. If you view me as a "far-left lunatic," then you are characterizing a majority of the American people (who, like me, voted for President Obama and support background checks) as "far-left lunatics." There's obviously nothing I could say that you would listen to. Fortunately, people like you alienate moderate citizens from your cause. Please keep up the good work.