"Here's the problem, Hoffman not only voted for the ordinance she is violating, she helped craft a more-stringent version (that did not pass) and was unmoved by concerns expressed at the time by follow council person T. Dianne Bellamy-Small about "expediting improvements versus compassionate treatment of property owners."
But it doesn't end there. According to Joe Killian of the News & Record that was only the beginning of Hoffmann's special entitlement:
"The city had sent the company a note but not an official warning, which is necessary before a citation is issued."
It's only been 11 months.
John Robert Kernodle III wrote:
"I'm sorry, but this smacks of a level of insider favoritism that would never, NEVER be extended to ordinary residents. I could be wrong, but it sure would be nice if the News and Record would at least push as hard on stories like this as it did with its 3-part series earlier this week. I'm not saying that story didn't need telling, but the double standard from our major daily turns my stomach."
I seem to remember a time when public officials were expected to avoid even the appearance of corruption. What happened to that time? There is no way in which to frame this in which it does not appear to be somehow corrupt. And the retraction only makes it appear to be more corrupt.
Ed Catalano wrote:
"If you're going to push for a city ordinance, the least you can do is follow it after it's implemented. Just saying......."
My thoughts expressed to Katei:
"So in other words, because the building was owned by a City Council Member, the inspections Department failed to do their job and issue the citation they should have issued months ago. They said it, not me."
No matter how you slice it, dice it or arrange it, all it amounts to is just more special entitlement for Greensboro's elitist status quo... Same as it ever was...
