Submitted by m pierre, Mar 9, 2007 23:55

I am sure that Dr. Eugene, like many ordinary folk, got ensnared by (among other things) the difference between regular understanding of a common concept, and the legalistic meaning that is held by the world of law, government and politics. For him to have moved in to an apartment with his toothbrush, some clothes and a few pots and pans would have been obviously child's play. However, under the circumstances, one is confronted by the idea that the law proposes: hey! you may live here, but naa-ha! you haven't established RESIDENCE, mon ami! Documentary and evidentiary rules apply. You can't just move in with your friend's truck - go pay a mover and get a receipt, properly dated. Don't just work a friendly deal on your apartment - get that lease signed and notarized in good time. No room to be loosey-goosey on this matter dude! Call up and get those utilities hooked up in good time - what's a extra month's worth of rent and utilities when you are playing for all the marbles? Get those credit card bills re-directed to your new dwelling place, no, RESIDENCE. Get that drivers license re-registered to the new RESIDENCE. Never mind you are maintaining your wife and kids in their regular routine until your dream comes true.

So you believe that a partial move-in may not satisfy the elections folks, and decide not to uproot your family on the basis of a caper (and exposing yourself to the accusation that you didn't believe you might actually win!), then you are really now gambling with a PR disaster if you actually DO win. In this hypothetical, I am talking here strictly about the mis-interpretation or mis-use of a word - living here vs residing here. Without having read the law, I am sure the election law must be clear that simply living is not acceptable - one must RESIDE baby.

This error is clear to all law abiding, upstanding citizens, like the other dozen candidates in this race (check their RESIDENTIAL behaviors) a potentially costly one. It is easy to point fingers.

In case you haven't figured my position by the above, I believe that the LAW is clearly at variance with expected normal behavior by a reasonable person. One can imagine what the conversation would be between a candidate and his/her un-compliant spouse : "you want me to WHAT? Have you lost your *#@& MIND? The law says we can move in later..."

The mandate in this election was clear and decisive. Yet now we the voters must go through a costly and embarassing exercise - those deciding this matter have no historic care for this district, this constituency - they could care less about delayed representation for this constituency - during a crucial decision-making period for the City Council. "Let them wait - what the hell, no skin off my nose". Perhaps they backed someone else in the dogfight - and are hoping for better outcome in a re-run, which would certainly be a different type of race.

One has to wonder. Let us watch their actions over the next weeks.

What is the INTENT of the law? Clearly the law contemplates that a candidate in a special election would not move in until winning, or at least more certain of winning. Clearly several of these candidates did not move in - period. This is reasonable behavior. The voters knew the candidates. Their place of residence was regular fodder for debate and discussion. Yet this one got a resounding majority of the vote. Are the voters stupid? Who dares make that assertion? Before you respond, I mean who among the elected?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.