I believe Romney was just a little better. I do think that the media should be fair on both ends. It is to bad to hear everything about the Obama and almost nothing about Romney and his views. Last night the answer about what he siad in the Rose Garden was just not ture and the President did not say it was a terroriest attack for two weeks. The media has gotten so bad and we depend on getting a fair view from them. What has happened to them?

With all respect, President Obama did call the attacks terrorist. Here is a portion of the rose-garden speech:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

However, I think that Romney won the debate simply because he coined the new term "Binder full of women."

The mediator stated Obama had said it was a act of terror but she said it in such a way it sounded like she was siding with Obama especialy after Obama said "can you say that a little louder". The moderator cut Romney off from making the point that he was correct. What is the media doing injecting anything in a debate? I can answer your question about what happened to the media. Go to any college class, especial a journalism class, and you are brainwashed into left is good & the right is bad. Any if you make it known you don't agree your grades will suffer and your life will be made a living hell by your tenured liberal professor.
My ballot will have a lot or Rs marked on it including Barrington candidates. Certain council members could have fought the affordable (subsidized) housing with a much more vigor. It also seems like some are embracing the idea. Time for a change in Barrington also.

Having lived in Barrington for most of my life, it is apparent that the town could use some economic diversity. However, RI's affordable housing act is still a bad idea because forced racial and economic intermixing causes tension, not harmony. I'm not sure whether the town should fight the legislation because, first of all, it's not that onerous, and second of all, it was enacted punitively and specifically for Barrington. If Barrington fights back against this legislation, the RI legislature will likely just dig in their heels, or even make the law more difficult for the town.

That said, I'd love to see a nice, big, low income housing development plopped right in the middle of Rumstick Rd.

Anon, once you fully understand the implications of all the relevant legislation, it becomes clear why the legislation is onerous.

Gary Morse's "Patch" blog discusses the issues:
http://barrington.patch.com/blog_posts/is-barrington-the-worst-of-worst

There is no reason for the RI legislature to "dig in" or "make the law even more difficult for the town" if the town asks (no "fight" here) their reps to take another look. Barrington is not alone among municipalities wrestling with these issues.

Forced racial and economic intermixing"? Not at all. No one is "forced" to live in Barrington if they don't want to. But folks of all races and socioeconmic status are, of course, free to live in Barrington.

About 1/3 of all of the residential property in Barrington is already "affordable" but most of that is not counted in the faulty formula. That's the problem.

And as to your stated desire "to see a nice, big, low income housing development plopped right in the middle of Rumstick Rd.", well, we have to consider the safety of the kiddies, so maybe Kate & June will put it on the side of the road instead of right in the middle.

Don't worry, Kate & June have seen to it that the whole town will be built out with "affordable" housing - whether it is needed or not. Whether the "non-affordable" taxpayers can afford it or not.

Dear Manifold - This town will NOT be built out with "affordable" housing as long as I am breathing !! This town MUST set that aside and make room for the senior population ! The State should create a mandate that a % of housing be available for seniors in each and every community !! Otherwise they are being unfair and discriminatory towards seniors. Perhaps we could send K & J to the state house to fight for this instead of thrusting affordable housing upon the town !!! Barbara Donovan PS: Election day cometh soon.

Some senior living would be great. My wife and I would be happy to pay market rates for nice accomidations or buy a single floor home in a 55+ community. It looks like it's not going to happen in Barrington. If I had any idea the Swoams property was for sale I could possibly have found some like minded residents and bought it to develop it for senior living. Even then it seems the town isn't intrested in private or public senior housing. We will remember this when election day comes.

Excellent points, folks. It seems that senior housing should be a priority yet Barrington's current government isn't offering responses to concerns on that issue. Our government doesn't seem to hear the call.

As Barbara says, election day cometh.

The immediate task now?

Get the discussion going as to this key question:
How do we use our votes to ensure that 3 good candidates get elected to fill the 3 Town Council vacancies?

There are so many candidates that Kate & June could wind up winning.

So who do we vote for? Here are my choices and why.

1. Ann Strong (D). Ann has served the town well in the past. She is an independent thinker and she seems willing to listen and consider all points of view.

2. Margaret Kane (R). Margaret has great experience and is also known for thoughtful consideration of the issues. Last evening (see Patch article) she indicated that she understands the concerns about the lack of senior housing.

3. Don Nessing (R). Mr. Nessing also indicated that he understands the “affordable” housing issues. I would, however, request that Mr. Nessing light a fire under the Ad Hoc Taxation Committee because they still have work to be done.

The resultant Town Council would be made up of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The Republicans, above, seem to be moderate and reasonable. Knowing the personalities and ideals that these folks have, the issues would not necessarily be decided by “party lines” either.

Thoughts?

Manifold - you miss my point. I agree, no one is forced to live in Barrington if they don't want to. It's the opposite - people who want to live here are forced out because there is no way for them to afford the town because of the cost of real estate in town. Since (in RI), the upper classes are predominantly white upper/middle and upper classers, it results in practically zero diversity in the town.

So these are some great ideas. Let's continue to circle the wagons so that the 47% is locked out of town. Let's keep Barrington white and rich - why change its longstanding history? That's really what you're proposing by trying to push out the affordable housing. Your tax argument is a thin veil. While you're at it, maybe you should also petition the Yacht Club and Country Club to go back to their old policies of denying memberships to Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews. That should help keep the town nice and homogeneous for you.

Respectfully, Anon, this is purely about the price of the taxes in Barrington & an effort to make homes truly affordable for everyone, including seniors.

It’s generous of Barrington government to want to share the perceived remaining wealth, but the flaws in the theory are quickly revealed in a small town.

The government doesn’t yet realize they can’t continue to point to a shrinking few in town & say, "pay, pay, pay.... & keep paying".

A third of the residences in Barrington are affordable but not counted as "affordable". So the government keeps building more - even if they go vacant.

This causes unfair & unsustainable burdens to those perceived as "rich" - even if that group includes seniors getting by on a fixed income.

The government's continued use of a flawed formula to build-out toward an infinite number (not 10%) of their narrowly defined "affordable" housing will quickly take a tax toll. The result? Schools, recreation, & other services won’t be affordable.

The state of RI has to come to terms with the fact that the current plan is not financially sustainable. As more and more unsupportable & unnecessary build-out continues (and the displaced wild life continues to invade the residential areas), the practical realities of the financial implications will become clearer and clearer even to those who fail to be able to understand those of us who are speaking based upon theory.

It’s purely financial & will soon impact everyone.