" I agree completely that the city council and city manger need to be replaced by some people that know how to correctly run a city and get rid of the " good ole boy " way of doing things. What do you expect when the current city manager was hired he was a parks & recreation employee. We have too many peple on the city council that are biased in their votes and then when one of their friends has something up for a vote I noticed they don't attend that council meeting for some reason. "

" It's pretty obvious that the eviction notice was the result of some criticism of an official at city hall in Charleston.

Perhaps there is more to the story than we are being told.

If there isn't, this was a very cowardly act on the part of the city manager of Charleston. This sounds like the act of a bully or a very revengeful person. I would add that this is not the first time I have heard of something like this, on the part of Mr Smith.

Our friend Tom Andres talks a lot about people using pseudonyms while posting on this site, but after reading this story, perhaps Tom, and others who make the same complaint, will see why some choose to do that.

It has become increasingly more obvious that the elected and appointed officials in both Mattoon and Charleston stayed tuned to this website, so that would seem to make this a good place for people to call them out for their actions, or in cases like the weed situation at lake Paradise, their lack of actions.

After this inexcusable situation, that is the revengeful action taken with Mr Patterson, I would suggest that folks continue to post anonymously, especially if they are criticizing our local officials. "

" I have been hearing very reliable reports of Scott Smith's excessive spending and vindictive behavior for years...do you think that maybe the qualifications for this overtly powerful position could include the word "adult"? That would be a big step forward. If the new wording were immediately implemented, Smith would be gone....oh, wait---he doesn't meet the qualifications now and it still her....nevermind. "

" I don't know much about this whole business, but I do know the writer of this letter. Steve's been a close family friend for many years and he "calls'em as he sees'em"! I have a feeling he did his research. "

" It has been my experience that Scott Smith is very effective at his job. He is also passionate about his endeavors. While we are fortunate to have him as the city manager, I implore caution to the Charleston constituency regarding our officials power. The move to Home Rule will give the "Fab 5" (mayor, attorney, manager and 2 city planners) more police powers. Perhaps Mr. Patterson will end up in jail for exercising his rights when we get Home Rule. I encourage active participation in the process of government. Hopefully the talk on this message board will translate into action. "

" Raptor is right. This situation does make an excellent argument against home rule powers. "

" Raptor -- Providing that the job description of City Manager includes running roughshod over citizens to attain even personal whim results and using the full weight of that office (by, for instance, dispatching a police officer to deliver a due bill on lot rent) to intimidate and silence any opposition, then yes, I'd agree with you that Scott Smith has gone about that business with zeal, industry and passion.

It is fortunate that your personal experience in dealings with our City Manager has been positive; though you may find yourself to be in a minority in that regard. Not all feel so fortunate as you describe.

On the issue of Home Rule, I couldn't agree more. Home Rule would play right into the old adage of "Power corrupts -- absolute power corrupts absolutely." Best to stick with at least some semblance of the Constitutional model where the Rule of Law (supposedly) forestalls the use of official powers to satisfy personal notions, wishes and pleasures. No troupe of characters should be trusted with the powers Home Rule would provide; especially with the cast of characters we have aboard at present. Better to remain Citizens than to become Loyal (docile, cowed, powerless and muted) Subjects. "

" "Some hearts, like evening primroses, open more beautifully in the shadows of life." "

" You know what the Lord said." Vengance is mine" ......
watch out those whom taunt a sick veteran. Your day will come and it will not be pleasant. "

" The issue of home rule is a scary one. It will be very important to make voters aware of the "unspun truth" of such a move.

As you said, Raptor, Smith is passionate---as long as it is something that he wants. Home rule means more power and, mark my words, Smith will be spin-doctoring the pee-wadding out of the issue. Home rule will be portrayed as the most wonderful opportunity to ever cross our paths...it will benefit all...(and, drum roll, the biggest lie) it won't cost anything!!!

You do remember the pool, don't you? It didn't cost anything...just all the monies that had previously been publicly committed to infrastructure---hence the state of our streets.

Raptor...you've never been "Smithed", and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I think you are enchanted by the tornado and are overlooking its destruction. "

" Mattoon, heads up! Is this the kind of city government we want? Not me, thank you very much. I think Mr Patterson has opened quite a few eyes with his story. You have our thanks Mr. Patterson for your strengths and your convictions. And it seems like you have many, many friends coming to your aid. Good luck! "

" 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!'
What a funny word Enough is.
Steve Harrison, I like your style! "

" Early Bird, your point on the pseudonyms issue doesnt hold water - even in this situation. Sandy Patterson's protest could not have been made anonymously. Exposing Smith's supposed vindictiveness could have been done anonymously (and has been), but if Pattersons charges had been made anonymously, he would not have been taken seriously. I have a feeling that Mr. Patterson is used to direct confrontations with his detractors and foes. More power to him!

In the real world, apart from city manager environments, an insurance company sees the falling tree situation quite differently from the way Smith sees it. In the real world, if a tree belonging to an adjacent property owner falls and damages a neighbors property, and if that tree fell because it was not a healthy tree, the tree owner is held liable. It is the tree owners legal responsibility to maintain the health of the tree, or remove it before it causes damage to others. On the other hand, if the tree that fell was a healthy tree that was blown down in a storm, its considered an act of God and the homeowner is indeed required to do the repairs to his property as his own expense (or to file a claim with his own insurance company).

Ask any competent property and casualty insurance agent. He or she will tell you that, if the tree was unhealthy, the city should have paid for Pattersons damage. I suspect Smith knows this, and I suspect the citys self-insured deductible for liability coverage is much higher than the $2,000 cost of repair. What I think it boils down to is that Smith simply doesnt like Patterson and Smith has put Patterson in a position where he must spend thousands in legal expenses to force the city to do the right thing. Even if the lease does contain language requiring a non-expert to be able to recognize an unhealthy tree, that language would surely be ruled invalid in a court of law. The average citizen cannot be expected to evaluate the health of a tree. The problem is Patterson cant afford the trip to the courtroom, and Smith knows that! "

" The Supreme Court has ruled that anonymous speech, an American tradition that dates back to the Revolutionary War era, is protected with or without fear of retribution.
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court found that "[t]he decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible... Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous... is an aspect of freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." "

" Good Letter Mr. Harrison.
I hope it gets good results. "

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuco_(the_Ugly) "

" Considering that over 99 percent of those who post on here use a pseudonym, I would say you are in a minority with your thinking Tom.

As a matter of fact I have noticed several people supporting the idea of posting anonymously, while you seem to be the only one who ever complains. Well you, and now Harry who refers to those who use this site as cowards. LOL!

It looks like even the old gasbag himself, Bryant L isn't supporting you on this one. And I thought you right wingers were usually in sync on most issues. If you and I ever agree on anything, old Bryant will swear we are one in the same. LOL! "

" "If you and I ever agree on anything, old Bryant will swear we are one in the same. LOL!" Neva happen, GI. "

" I want to comment on something that I witnessed today while driving my car down 14th street where Harrison and 14th Y. I saw a person in an electric wheelchair being forced to drive in the road because of the poor condition of the sidwalks in that area, as well as many other areas in this town. I slowed and moved over to allow them room, but this is a narrow road, and has a curve that is dangerous. This person was having trouble even driving in the road as the condition of the road is as bad as the sidwalk. This road is also a very busy road. A few days ago I also saw a blind gentleman trying to walk on the sidewalk, but struggling because of the condition of the sidewalk. I do not live on this road, but I do use it often. I find it rather riduculous that we can spend thousands of dollars on a renovation of City Hall, and yet the city cannot repair and replace the sidewalks, and roads in town to make them safe not only for the disabled, but for our children.

In the area that I live there are no sidewalks at all, nor curbs and guttering. My neighbors and I pay taxes the same as everyone else here, but just do not have the same amenities. I believe our tax dollars could have been spent more wisely than on the renovation of City Hall.

A couple of the reasons given for the renovation was for first impressions, and to make the building accessable to the disabled. I am sure that there are a few prospective business owners, and others that do visit City Hall, but overall I feel sure that most visiters to Charleston do not come to town to visit City Hall. We don't get many new businesses here, and more businesses seem to be leaving than coming into Charleston. What most visiters see is Lincoln Avenue with all of the empty buildings that are in worse shape than City Hall was to begin with. As for the building being accessible to the diabled, City Hall should be accessible to them as well as everyone else. The problem lies in getting to City Hall without getting hurt because of the condition of the sidewalks, and roads.

I do not know Scott Smith, but just from my own observations I think he has had his chance and it hasn't worked out. As for the Mayor, I really had high hopes when he was elected, but those hopes are about gone. It is obvious that our City Leaders do not care about the disabled when they can send an eviction notice to Mr. Patterson. It is time for some change here in Charleston. I think the best place to start would be with City Hall. The City Manager form of government just doesn't work, at least not with the City Manager we have here. "

" Tom Andres makes a VERY interesting point when he says: "Even if the lease does contain language requiring a non-expert to be able to recognize an unhealthy tree, that language would surely be ruled invalid in a court of law. The average citizen cannot be expected to evaluate the health of a tree."

The Patterson situation may set an interesting precedent -- If a tree on city-owned property, be it on the Lake Island or in town on a city boulevard, topples onto a privately-owned vehicle or structure, will it be deemed by the City to have been an "act of God," thus relieving the City of any liability, IF that tree had not been previously reported as having the potential to do such damage?

After all, if Mr. Patterson is to be held responsible for being botanist enough, or psychic enough, that he should have called that tree to the attention of the City Manager prior to its falling, can anyone risk NOT calling in every city-owned tree that might hold some potential for doing damage to private property should it happen to fall?

Who among us can diagnose heart rot in a soft maple at 20 paces? No matter how healthy a tree may appear to the non-arborist citizen, it could be grossly weakened by some old lightning damage, or by some insidious borer, and be just waiting for the next little gust to come crashing down on that citizen's property.

Nutshell: As this new precedent would seem to establish, if ANY City-owned tree within reach of private property is not reported as a potential hazard, it'll be deemed an act of God if it comes down, or drops a limb, and does damage to private property.

Better make that call to City Hall now. Storm clouds have been sighted on the horizon. "

" What are you, Tuco...a mind reader? I just made the "call early and often" suggestion on the blog after Harry's article. You and I seem to think alike---and you should be very afraid. "

" "granny" says it well.

We need to keep this going. The misdirected spending is rampant in this town. What will happen when the funds run out. Another big auction to dispose of "excess" equipment and then a rebuy of the same equipment with borrowed funds? "