An Open Letter To Bryan Hough

You may have gotten elected through a very small percentage of Mount Hollyians. Most people are so busy eeking out a living they don't have time for silly politics and don't even vote. However, I realize the importance of it and vote every time we have an election no matter how small the office is to be filled. I will admit this much, you got my vote, not because I think you have done anything for our city but simply for the fact that I do not like Phyllis Harris. I know your past record as mayor and how you like to spend money that doesn't belong to you and how you like to spend the taxpayers money on attractions that aren't even in our county. Well I am here to say Mount Holly is a different city in a time and place now. You will not be free to quander money this time.

Resident Of Mount Holly wrote:

You may have gotten elected through a very small percentage of Mount Hollyians. Most people are so busy eeking out a living they don't have time for silly politics and don't even vote. However, I realize the importance of it and vote every time we have an election no matter how small the office is to be filled. I will admit this much, you got my vote, not because I think you have done anything for our city but simply for the fact that I do not like Phyllis Harris. I know your past record as mayor and how you like to spend money that doesn't belong to you and how you like to spend the taxpayers money on attractions that aren't even in our county. Well I am here to say Mount Holly is a different city in a time and place now. You will not be free to quander money this time.

Resident of Mount Holly may I ask how you plan on preventing him from Quandering Money this time. I totally agree with you but I am curious as to why you think he can`t do as he has in the past. He is the last MAYOR`S Puppet and everyone should see this. He put Whitt on the Utility Committee so he could have a voice in the outcome of Buying into the Big City of Charlottes Waste Water system which in reality will cost the Taxpayer`s more in the end than it would to upgrade their own plant. You better Buckle up and hang on for the next 2 years because it is going to be a Hellavu ride. You can say that I don`t know what I am talking about if you wish but in 2 years I am sure you will see what I am saying is True. And last but not Least have a MERRY CHRISTMAS.

Quander isn't a word.

just sayin wrote:

Quander isn't a word.

Sorry I guess It should have been Squander, or is that a word. Or if you wish it means Pissing money away without thinking.

Barry M
SQUANDER PONDER QUANDER FLOUNDER POUNDER ASSTOUNDER
Does not matter the word or spelling you speak the truth.Just sayin must sit with finger on spell check button all day or with dictionary in lap.

outrageous wrote:

Barry M
SQUANDER PONDER QUANDER FLOUNDER POUNDER ASSTOUNDER
Does not matter the word or spelling you speak the truth.Just sayin must sit with finger on spell check button all day or with dictionary in lap.

Thanks outrageous, I also guess I need to Clarify my spelling of the word Hellavu. It should have been quoted as Hell of a ride. Sorry for the confusion on those 2 misspelled words or is it spelled mispelled.

I like the things said so far, except the segment of Whitt being some sort of pawn of Hough, you could not be more wrong. Whitt announced he was running because (in his words) he "could not sit by any longer with these things going on". The stuff he tells about spending time with his kids was an attempt to save face. Hough so bruised by law suits and protesters sworn to oppose him and knowing he could not beat Whitt, he decided not to run. Most of his statement was in reference to Hough backing outrageous developer plans that ignited citizens to picket city hall during council meetings. The news coverage was not flattering. So I just suggest you be careful on how his decision to be mayor is characterized. Robert is one of the most blunt and straight forward people in this town. If you have a conversation with him you will more than likely change your opinion of him being a pawn for anyone else. Just ain't gonna happen. And by-the-way, I spelled it like I wanted to...

Set it straight...you need to open your eyes. If Whitt wasn't a pawn, why would he bother being on any committees in which Hough appointed him? Whitt is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I'm sure when you talk to him face to face...he can win you over. That's what politicians and lawyers do..and what do you know, Whitt is both!

Your suppositions do not have merit when you know the individual being discussed. For those of us that do, we pity your unintelligible point of view. Make no mistake, my attempt to shake you up to reason is not an attack on you since I do not know you. But your supposition is not valid and acceptance is the first step to wellness.

Your post may be valid, except for the fact that I DO know Whitt...very well actually.

set it straight now wrote:

Your suppositions do not have merit when you know the individual being discussed. For those of us that do, we pity your unintelligible point of view. Make no mistake, my attempt to shake you up to reason is not an attack on you since I do not know you. But your supposition is not valid and acceptance is the first step to wellness.

Main Entry: sup·po·si·tion
Pronunciation:\ˌs ə-pə-&#7 12;zi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supposicioun, from Anglo-French supposicion, from Late Latin supposition-, suppositio, from Latin, act of placing beneath, from supponere
Date: 15th century
1 : something that is supposed : hypothesis
2 : the act of supposing

WHAT THE HECK? Do you mean suspicions? Talk about bad English!
Whitt is a typical 2 faced politician and I know him well. He says to your face what you want to hear and he may even "put a bug in your ear" when you aren't looking :)
...All around nice guy is the public persona.

the supposition (hypothesis, used correctly) was that Whitt in some form is a pawn of Hough. Going further, given the law of cause and effect, when he or anyone has a conversation with you one on one and then seems to take a difference stance publically as do politicians, there is usually a cause. Exposure to other information is usually the most common culprit. It can also be due to "for the greater good". Have you never capitulated on an issue because of overwhelming opposition. This is known as majority rule. I can only imagine why you have your opinion, I can only surmise that we all sometimes hold others to higher standards than we do ourselves. Give people a chance to make the appropriate judgement calls when they make them, if you otherwise have no reason to doubt their ability to make just judgement calls. Unfortunately we often do get politicians elected that are incapable of making just judgement calls. Hough is a prime example, Whitt quite the opposite. Sorry, that you embarrassed yourself over the "supposition" word thing.

"different" instead of "difference"....pard on before you post another correction.

also, I don't know if you are from here or not, but usually in polite society there is a level of respect to allow folks to not feel attacked when you respond in a manner that does not necessarily reveal your disapproval during a face to face discourse. Elected officials would spend all of their time if they tried to retract or correct uninformed petitioners on every occassion. Nothing would get done in those cases. So, what we have come to is a break down in dialog when the uninformed make large cases out of issues without all of the facts. Whitt being an attorney is trained to deal only with ALL of the facts. He just like anyone is allowed a period of "discovery". What we would like for them to do is only deal with the facts we present. We would ultimately be mis-served in that instance.

i HAVE KNOWN WHITT FOR 30 YEARS AND HE IS NOT ANYONE'S PAWN. HE MAKES UP HIS OWN MIND AND DOES HIS OWN THING WITHOUT LETTING ANYONE TELL HIM WHAT TO DO. HE IS HIS OWN PERSON AND A GOOD ONE AT THAT. HE PROBABLY GOT TIRED OF ALL THE POLITICAL BS THAT GOES ON IN MT. HOLLY POLITICS.

hopefully someone out there can answer this. I have been told that the loans that the city has for things like the city hall is done as a lease contract. that way the bank can write off the payments because of cost of the loan making it free income to the bank. Does anyone out there know if that is true? If so, why does the city do that? What is the payback to the city? and can someone explain the process?

you people just talk about people and call out names on here like your sitting gossiping in your own homes...seems to me you could discuss without calling actual names..oh that is called class and from what I see you have none.

I have a question wrote:

hopefully someone out there can answer this. I have been told that the loans that the city has for things like the city hall is done as a lease contract. that way the bank can write off the payments because of cost of the loan making it free income to the bank. Does anyone out there know if that is true? If so, why does the city do that? What is the payback to the city? and can someone explain the process?

First, let me say, that I do not work at the city and I am not affiliated with the City or the Bank. I attended the meetings when the bank loans were considered, and yes, they are bank loans. The city has excellent credit and was able to get the lowest interest though the bank. The city got a twenty-year LOAN from Citizens South, which was before that certain someone even worked there. In my opinion, they should have gone with the loan agreement that BB&T offered but the Council did not fully understand the language and the City's Finance Manager did not fully explain it to them. It would have saved thousands of dollars (taxpayers' dollars)

why do financial people keep calling it a lease agreement? also, she was at that bank at that time. I know she denied it online somewhere but when the time line was checked, she did work there and her councilman husband was allowed to vote (lobby) for her bank to get the deal. after i read your post earlier I made a call and was told this plus was told about the other bank you mentioned and it wasn't thousands but hundreds of thousands in interest that the city would have saved, she said about a million or there at.....that is criminal isn't it? or at least unethical. Aren't the staff and council hired to understand the language?

I thought it was more like a million or so, but I was going off my memory and didn't have the figures in front of me. I will do some research and see what I can find out but I know for a fact that the person you are talking about worked for Wachovia at the time of the loan. I will get back with more precise info...just give me a day or two.