The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-27-2018 06:08 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:56 PM)UABFRENCHY Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:31 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  TC Cannon is going to have some awkward tailgate interactions next season as more and more people watch this council meeting.

Why is that ?

Because he basically went up there in UAB gear and said that the UAB Athletic Foundation is a BOT plant with the only members being trustees and a couple of people that just want their names recognized, that the new stadium is a horrible idea, and that we should remodel Legion Field so that area could become an "absolute Utopia". LOL

His views were shocking to me. I assumed that as big a UAB fan as he is, he was going to be a thoughtful, compelling advocate for this major step forward for Birmingham and UAB. Didnt happen.

Maybe Quinn was hearing footsteps...just gonna leave this here

https://twitter.com/jfaustin/status/978615903263731712

(03-27-2018 09:16 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote:  Maybe Quinn was hearing footsteps...just gonna leave this here

https://twitter.com/jfaustin/status/978615903263731712

Austin is trolling. He was the chief cheerleader for the project before the election. The fact that certain people (Bell, Austin) were pushing this is why it has been like pushing molasses uphill to get this done

(03-27-2018 09:18 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 09:16 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote:  Maybe Quinn was hearing footsteps...just gonna leave this here

https://twitter.com/jfaustin/status/978615903263731712

Austin is trolling. He was the chief cheerleader for the project before the election. The fact that certain people (Bell, Austin) were pushing this is why it has been like pushing molasses uphill to get this done

Oh I agree. Austin will use anything he can against him he can.

(03-27-2018 04:18 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  He knew he wasn't going to vote for it yesterday, and apparently enough people knew about how he was going to vote that this thread was started. I don't believe he was open to it at all.

This is not true. Period.

Having talked to him myself, I know that Darrell and his constituents had Zero time to look at the agreement that was being voted. While he has seen previous versions, his constituents overwhelmingly told him that without them being able to see what was in the agreement or have a chance to voice their opinion, chance to say anything about it, they didn't want to support it.

Given adequate time, I believe that he probably would have supported it. Darrell proved he's not a mindless drone and voted for his people (and frankly I believe his conscience).

(03-27-2018 04:23 PM)BlazerMatt Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:05 PM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  Folks, gotta say that you're not giving Darrell a fair shake. He was open to it (unlike Scales, who was adamantly against it), but wasn't provided with enough info and guarantees.

Be disappointed. I get that. But please don't attack his character or competence based on one issue. Looking at you fatkid and blazerman.

Not attacking his character, but it is absolutely fair to question his competence.

This was not a tough vote. He voted against the best interests of his city, his district, and UAB. He will be held accountable for it.

Disagree. You're not sitting in his seat, Matt. And it's your opinion that he voted against the best interests of the city. Not his.

I believe he voted in alignment with the opinion of the people in his district (see above). And, while I HATE he voted against it, I believe it shows a greater level of competence than anyone here (wearing our famous green-and-gold glasses) are willing to give him credit for.

He was looking to have his mind changed, unlike Scales, who (I believe) made up her mind long before this 3mm/30yr plan came to pass.

(03-27-2018 04:10 PM)Blazer85 Wrote:  I don’t claim to know Darrell on a personal level. But I will say that a lot of what is wrong with Birmingham is people who are “open to” things but to afraid to act or make a difficult decision.

True, 85. I do not believe that's the case here. And I do know Darrell personally.

(03-27-2018 05:55 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:05 PM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  Folks, gotta say that you're not giving Darrell a fair shake. He was open to it (unlike Scales, who was adamantly against it), but wasn't provided with enough info and guarantees.

Be disappointed. I get that. But please don't attack his character or competence based on one issue. Looking at you fatkid and blazerman.

Here's my thoughts behind the O'Quinn situation. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans since I don't live there anymore, but I did live in District 5 at one point in time.

Darrell is probably the whitest guy on the board, and he definitely doesn't have the whitest district on the council. I get that his district represents some of the starkest divides between the haves and have-nots within the city limits between North Birmingham/Norwood and Avondale/Southside/etc. Guy is a doctor twice over (DVM and Ph.D). He doesn't look like or sound like some very politically active people of his district. He's already facing an uphill battle without looking like the marauding white people swooping in to run everyone out who has lived there for 40 years. Also, he's an employee of UAB, in the School of Medicine. Represents probably the most anti-athletics constituencies at UAB outside of the President's Office. I don't expect him to be a cheerleader for UAB football or sports arenas.

Here's my problem though. He needs to have the courage of his convictions and say that he's not in favor. It feels like he's trying to please both constituencies, the pro-economic development, pro-gentrification, pro UAB crowd from Avondale and Southside, and the anti-gentrification, push them back to Shelby County crowd in Norwood. He can't have it both ways. Nothing gets me riled up like a politician who can't stand up for what they believe in. I'd be disappointed if he didn't agree with my views, but I'd respect it. But from the get-go he's been wishy-washy and non-committal. It just rubs me the wrong way, and even if he had voted against it, if he had been strong and firm about it, I'd probably still vote for him. But the way this was handled, if I still lived in South Avondale, I probably wouldn't even consider it.

IMHO, he did EXACTLY what you just said: he had the courage to say "My constituents needs are not being met from what I have seen. Give me more information/satisfaction that you're meeting those needs, and I'll get on board." He was never a no, he was a "not yet".

And while you may think that Darrell doesn't "look like or sound like some very politically active people of his district", i promise you he has been. DOQ (Darrell O'Quinn) is a great guy with a passion for people. For years, he's been not only run the Crestwood neighborhood association, he's been regularly meeting with all the other local neighborhood associations (Gate City, Norwood, Druid Hills, and others).

And while he may appear "whiter than white bread", he's put in the work to build relationships with ALL the people in his district, not just the ones in Avondale and Crestwood.

I suspect that he knew he was going to get hung out to dry on this one, especially with the UAB crowd. And this text thing, the way it was framed to be him when it was someone else, is VERY suspicious to me. If feel like people are trying to paint him as anti-UAB when he's not at all.

(03-27-2018 07:52 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  It was a cop out for him to use the I haven’t read it excuse. Now he looks like a *******

How fast can you read a legal document? Can you read 100 pages of a legal document in ~3-4 hours? I seriously doubt it.

Please at least try to be realistic, blazerman

(03-27-2018 08:12 PM)Bham Blazer Wrote:  If he didn't have enough information to vote for it, he didn't have enough information to vote against it.......he should have abstained.

Rational argument and thought-process. Love it.

Well deserved Blazer faithful! I know losing your football team sucked, but I would have to imagine that the renewed energy around that travesty has been worth not having it for 2 years.

The Alabama Board must just be seething right now.

(03-28-2018 09:16 AM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:18 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  He knew he wasn't going to vote for it yesterday, and apparently enough people knew about how he was going to vote that this thread was started. I don't believe he was open to it at all.

This is not true. Period.

Having talked to him myself, I know that Darrell and his constituents had Zero time to look at the agreement that was being voted. While he has seen previous versions, his constituents overwhelmingly told him that without them being able to see what was in the agreement or have a chance to voice their opinion, chance to say anything about it, they didn't want to support it.

Given adequate time, I believe that he probably would have supported it. Darrell proved he's not a mindless drone and voted for his people (and frankly I believe his conscience).

You're clearly a good friend to him, but he deserves to lose his seat over this vote. He had 4 hours of discussion yesterday to help him decide how to vote, with far more questions than were necessary. I don't care that he didn't have the time to read through standard legal jargon in a final agreement that wouldn't really say anything different than anything he'd already seen.

(03-28-2018 09:38 AM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  How fast can you read a legal document? Can you read 100 pages of a legal document in ~3-4 hours? I seriously doubt it.

I can. If reading legal documents is part of your job, there's no excuse to not be able to read that size document in that time frame.

If you can't, it's time to find other work.

(03-28-2018 10:28 AM)BlazerFromMD Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:38 AM)Blzer4Life Wrote:  How fast can you read a legal document? Can you read 100 pages of a legal document in ~3-4 hours? I seriously doubt it.

I can. If reading legal documents is part of your job, there's no excuse to not be able to read that size document in that time frame.

If you can't, it's time to find other work.

Exactly. Most of the junk in legal documents wouldn't even be pertinent to anything he should be concerned about. Does he feel like he can't trust the City's attorneys?

If the measure passed, why is everyone beating up on someone who voted against it. Always focusing on the negative rather than the positive

(03-28-2018 10:44 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  If the measure passed, why is everyone beating up on someone who voted against it. Always focusing on the negative rather than the positive

Yep....Let's move on.

BTW he had the documents for a while. He just didn't have the alterations that were made at the last minute by the council members but yea lets move on. He knew it was going to pass and I bet he thought he can be for it and vote against it knowing it would pass and save face with his constituents. That's my take.

The Buddy Syndrome. It's more difficult to be objective about someone you've met in person and gotten to know a little. Been a lot of that over the years on BlazerTalk.

(03-28-2018 11:21 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  BTW he had the documents for a while. He just didn't have the alterations that were made at the last minute by the council members but yea lets move on. He knew it was going to pass and I bet he thought he can be for it and vote against it knowing it would pass and save face with his constituents. That's my take.

Politics 101 a good vote when you get what you want at the same time voting against it..

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No problems with him wanting to review a document before voting on it.

Just believe he had plenty of time to read the original document as well as any changes.

If there were questions about the additions, yesterday would have been a great time to bring them up.

& from there, if not truly sure how to vote, abstain.

(03-28-2018 11:25 AM)BlazerGreen Wrote:  The Buddy Syndrome. It's more difficult to be objective about someone you've met in person and gotten to know a little. Been a lot of that over the years on BlazerTalk.

Disagree. While you make a very valid point, there was a lot of misinformation going into yesterday. Because I had the relationship, I chose to reach out and get the facts. I do my best to primary source info. I've been a project manager and I rarely trust secondary sources or conjecture.

Now, the whole point about abstaining is a very interesting one. it's something I'll probably ask him one of the next times I see him.

Well, like with any game thread, I would like to tell the opposition they played a good game...Not!