Who's Looking Out For Whom?

First of all, a hearty thanks to the folks at the library who hosted the mayoral candidates forums on Wednesday. A very healthy crowd turned out on the occasion of serial appearances by Republican Randy Hubbard and Democrat Doug England.

The forums provided sufficient material to report for days, and I don't envy the mainstream press who must pick and choose for tomorrow's editions.

Greg Sekula of the Indiana Historic Landmarks Foundation regional office was the question-reader. I put it that way because the forums were not moderated ones. Sekula clearly had a hand in the speech-like questions he read, but when the candidates failed to answer the questions, the reader failed to follow up and seek clarification.

The room was set up as if it were a television studio, with the questioner in a comfortable chair to the audience's left and the candidate under a spotlight to the audience's right. Neither candidate appeared to be comfortable with the setup. In such an obviously conversational setting, it was jarring to hear scripted questions, sometimes followed by scripted answers.

Hubbard raced through the questions in about 12 minutes (8 minutes of questions made his total time on "stage" about 20 minutes. England, of course, used the entire allotment of 45 minutes, and then some, but no one seemed to be bothered by that, since the Democrat never failed to have something interesting to say.

Truly, we could go on for hours with a play-by-play, and perhaps we'll revisit our notes at some future date. But for tonight, we'll try to drop a few tidbits. The forums were taped for posterity and perhaps someday before the election you'll be able to see them for yourselves, online.

Malaprops were at a minimum. Hubbard advocated "plagiarizing the Scribner Place model," but I think most people understood his meaning. England pointed out that "Veterans Parkway...gets all the foreplay in the papers." Again, no harm, no foul, and it is not our purpose to poke fun...unless it's really worth it.

Both candidates expressed a willingness to export our economic development tax dollars to the behemoth regional One Southern Indiana, and both promised the DNA members present that they would give them a handout, too.

England seemed to stumble (or maybe it just grated on my ears) when he said the perception in the region was that downtown (New Albany) is not doing anything right.

Hubbard walked a carefully noncommital line on all but a few issues, basically saying nothing of consequence, and if he veered close to making a commitment, he always came back with a caveat. In pledging his support to the Historic Preservation Commission, he backed quickly away from the pledge by introducing the idea that the HPC had perhaps not been reasonable in its decisions to date. On what Sekula called "rental licensing," Hubbard turned in his GOP credentials and proudly displayed his Mugwumpery. My favorite historian, Richard Amory, described mugwumps as politicians with their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other.

Where did the candidates differ?

England came out foursquare for a city court, part-time to begin with and possibly staffed by Circuit Court Judge Glenn Hancock until it begins to pay for itself. He rejected the idea of a full-time city attorney. Hubbard took the exact opposite tack, promising a full-time city attorney and rejecting the idea of a municipal court.

On traffic calming and reconfiguration of the notorious one-way traffic patterns in the city's core, Hubbard repeated his pledge to ask the people and asked for a feasibility study that has already been done...twice! In fact, he didn't actually answer the question because Sekula phrased it as "downtown" streets, giving Hubbard the opportunity to define downtown as from East 4th to West 4th.

England fully supported a return to 2-way streets and eloquently explained why it was critical to the rejuvenation of downtown.

England was articulate in explaining that investment property owners must be willing to accept regulation that includes inspections. Hubbard hemmed and hawed, bowing to the pleas of the much put-upon landlord class.

Neither candidate grasped the question about sprawl and tax preferences for building out and both jumped straight into the rental property problem. And neither candidate adequately understood the phrase "alternative means" of public transport. I believe what was meant by that was pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly concourses, local buses, etc. Hubbard seemed baffled by the mere idea (suggesting that cabs might be available to take people to and from Louisville, but it would be awfully expensive), but England didn't address the question, either.

A nice spreadsheet comparing the two's answers to Sekula's 18 questions could be created. I have the notes if anyone would like to make one. I'll be glad to post it here.