1/21/2010

"Moral" Concert Objection?

Posted by MJ

LUSJ and The Buffalo News reported that Alderman Chapman (R-4th Ward) asked to delay the extension of the concert series contract because he found some information online about Mrs. Paradowski and a gentleman's club.

Fourth Ward Alderman Andy Chapman cast one of two “no” votes to protest the city doing business with someone whom he claims “exploits women.”
He referred to series promoter Kathy Paradowski, who through her husband Joseph’s not-for-profit Canal Concert Series Inc. recruits the bands and manages food and drink vending at the weekly free shows. Kathy Paradowski personally also is listed, in state business records, as the CEO of Colonie Lounge Inc., a Buffalo-based gentleman’s club....“I wouldn’t spend (tax) money with someone who exploits women,” Chapman said. “My vote is based on a moral stance.”

Chapman is misjudging her, Paradowski responded in a late Wednesday telephone interview.
Paradowski said she has a less than 20 percent ownership interest in the Colonie Lounge, dating back to 1996, and is not involved with the club management.
-------

Chapman said he unearthed Paradowski’s ownership of the Colonie Lounge on Hertel Avenue through Internet research. “I think people will be blown away when they find out,” he said, vowing to “dig into everything I’m going to vote on.”
While I respect Chapman's effort to research the items he is voting on (as all members should), I question the basis for this objection. Nothing illegal is being done by Paradowski. Does anyone here feel "blown away" by the information? I do not see the reason to threaten a sucessful downtown event because of some "moral" obligations over a small connection to a legal activity happening in Buffalo.

We already have a morality group on the corner of Main and Market during the shows letting us know that attending the Devil's Rock-n-Roll shows is threatening our afterlife. ;)

Keep up the reseach Mr. Chapman. As I have mentioned, it is a plus. As my alderman, I just ask for a little more secular reasoning during the votes: especially an event of this magnitude. These shows are not easy to promote. Look at the effort in Tonawanda to recover from losing this series.

18 comments:

LockportGal said...

The fact she owns part of an adult club doesnt bother me in the least. She isnt doing anything illegal..so i think this objection is a bit off the wall. Let the moral majority sit at Main and Market..or in front of TOPS. Let me listen to my ole rock an roll!

Anonymous said...

I'm glad there is an alderman questioning things, but give it a break!
Next he will want to ban beer sales there too if that's against his religion!!!!!

Rocketboy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

How many times have we had elected people complain they didnt understand a contract after they voted. We dont hold them accountable yet after an newly elected aldermen raises questions people complain about that persons vote.I am glad to see a person not rubberstamp a vote. I am glad to see an elected person take a stand,another complaint most posters have, and this community could certainly use some moral integrity.The most important item I take from this is that Chapman knew his vote would not stop this concert series. But his vote sure as hell pissed off King Tuck. The next 2 years should be fun to watch

Anonymous said...

I think there was much more to it than was stated in the paper. Mr. Chapman happened to say there are "in fact 10 different issues" involving the promoter and the contract(as he stated on WLVL). I personally would have liked to know what they are! All he wanted was more time to review the contract and do some research. He also stated he is all for Lockport having a concert series! (infact lets not forget his involvement in the security cameras he had loaned for these concerts.)
The council members only got the contract a day or two before and probably didn't even know what they were signing. There was really no hurry to have it signed until October!) So let's not jump to all these crazy conclusions. He probably wasn't happy knowing she's the CEO of a strip club but there were many more issues!

Anonymous said...

Yeah like who is she connected to....

Anonymous said...

Well then it's his fault for not opening his mouth in public about the rest of the issues. They had that 'closed door meeting' (was that legal?) but he should have publicly stated his issues with it/her.

Anonymous said...

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.

Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.

Rocketboy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catchphrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let man label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country- hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.

Mark Twain

I love opposition that has convictions.

(Frederick II) Frederick The Great

I believe that nothing enjoys a higher estate in our society than the right given by the First and Fourteenth Amendments freely to practice and proclaim one's religious convictions.

Frank Murphy

MJ said...

Chapman is welcome to express his thoughts on the vote. As part of his ward I'm welcome to express my disagreement. Fellow council members and the mayor were able to give their view points as are the rest of us.

As was said above, it is great to see Chapman researching as they all should. He can even bring up his moral objections. But when it comes down to it nothing illegal was bring done (and nothing "immoral" actually being done here.) The rest of the council voted as they saw fit. Maybe if it was an event at the Chapel at Crosspoint the vote could have been different and rightfully so.

Time to move on to the next order of business.

Chris P. Lettuce said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rocketboy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rocketboy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rocketboy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MJ said...

I cleaned the tail end of this one up a bit. Please keep it relevant, non-personal, and give complete thoughts. ;)

Xavier said...

Chapman gets bogged down in minutiae far too often which results in delay after delay after delay.
And he's not the only one who gets on the Morality Bandwagon. In fact, he's better than the other one. The other one decides that something is immoral when it suits him - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Post a Comment

Please be be respectful. Diverse opinions are welcome and encouraged. Trolling/baiting/personal attacks/spam will be deleted on sight, as will respnding to one that has yet to be deleted. Do not encourage the behavior.