10-16-2016, 08:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
Well, it went as expected. The Ethics Board circled the wagons and dismissed both complaints. There was some false and misleading testimony from a building official...
I sensed that, some lying from Brandon Gonzales. Yet I'd like to see the structure he's complaining about. Though it seems he's singling out your structure because he doesn't want to see advertising. I don't think you have to be using a structure for a utility as purposely intended in your case. That is, if somebody placed one on their property yet, left it empty, would the country, or building department stop by regular to check if it's empty or not? I doubt that, and if they did, their ethics would be in question.
So, rather the issue Brandon is complaining about is advertising, and I don't think that's an issue for the building department's structural status but planning and zoning. Whether it's in violation of commercial advertising codes.
Yet, that's not the issue Brandon purported.
On the 1st issue, Danial Lee states: Paraphrased "I can provide concrete proof I spent 12 days, blah, blah, blah working on those plans". In that issue again, I'd have to review WTF he "spent 12 days on" However, I think he's FOS and was an idiot to try and make the point of you or whoever 'had the plans back for 2 months'. And then simply not volunteer why it all took so long. And when he did that, there was a sense, in his tone, as it were, as if he had some personal issues with Rob or, that may have added into the dely. that took 10 months!! NOT 2, nor 12 days but 10! Then when he got on his platform to say. "I approved it in 6 days!" that sounded like BS too because by this time, 10 months later, there's a sense he only did it because of the complaints he was receiving for the waste of time and money 'engineer' clause.
I sense those two boys were exaggerating, lying, and BSing. which as an ethics issue would have required an investigation before dismissing either of these two cases.
However based on Brandon's and Lee's testimony I understand why the ethics board dismissed both issues.
Unless the Board conducted unbiased investigations on each issue prior to the hearing, which I didn't hear any members state or claim, these were dismissed with prejudice against Rob. and in general, moreover, in essence many other cases could be handled in the same manor, favoring they're own kind or insiders, prejudicial against Hawaii's citizens.
Without my having any other cases to compare I can't say they are. However, I have been to other types of city building board meetings. They'd tried to ram rod me, made an issue in the local paper and TV news before the the 1st meeting. .A very similar type of prejudice was thwarted against me. Whereas, in my case, the City's Electrical inspector was attempting to force action to the benefit of a privet electric company And, he claimed I had other electrical and fire safety issues biased on a fire department's report, yet the idiot hadn't reviewed that I resolved them quick, a year prior. . So quick that the fire marshal was very pleased. So pleased he told me that he didn't expect me to resolve them as other businesses usually fail, delay and stall for quite some time. . . Once I brought up that I wasn't going to pay for the electrical company's convenience, the City's attorney had to go to work. On the 2nd meeting find that they didn't have the authority to cause a convenience for the Electric company, the city's attorney advised against.
So, although the rest didn't make the news, I gave em a good slapping. The real issue was that Electrical inspector. he had met with me 6-8 months prior to this, telling me that I had to cause a bunch of changes regarding my emergency fire lighting and I ended up teaching him what was code and what was not, it P.O.-ed him. which later, he tried to get even, aligned with the electrical company.. the dope! [grin]
Regardless the prejudice against me, the manor in which the board treated me was just like that, pure favoritism for that idiot. They ignored the BS he claimed about my fire safety in the same way this board ignored your siting and Lee's lack to volunteer why he didn't have "Concrete evidence" for the fricken other 8 months. . I also didn't know until later, he was a failure as a painting contractor so took a city job, and they gave him a short electrical course, tried pushing his weight around, 'Inspector idiot'. A few years later he tried bullying around the wrong guy and resigned er something.
I would have stood up and disputed those boys on each of their defensive claims.
I think I'd appeal Call for an independent investigation, at county's expense, to discover whether those two boy's are and were just covering their own A--'s. or screw them, Join both issues into a civil liability case against the county. . Require that "Concrete proof" and WTF was he doing for 8 months, WTF is the deal with reporting that you need an engineer yet not claim which, which incidentally, the ethics board ignored, that caused undo expenses and personal delay and validate whether #1 is a building code issue or advertising. I think it is an advertising issue but they made it personal. Even that it may be a zoning issue, that it would need to be a commercial space to host the unit, they failed to make any point for this, rather, their 'personal' feelings. 'It has a sign therefor it's improperly placed'. Stick a fricken manual, non-gas, old time, push lawn mower in it! 'utility storage' [grin]
yeee-ha! 
