There is a rational solution to making our sewer utility permanently viable.
But demagoguery is blocking it. By appealing to the least common denominator in the populace, the regrettably naive and ignorant (ignorant=unknowledgeable, which is not to say that they are stupid, just gullible and susceptible to the machinations of politicians who prosper at their expense), the entrenched regressive majority of the council is both pandering and insulting the constituency it purports to represent.
Mrs. Shirley Baird today took keyboard in hand to praise Mr. Coffey and Mrs. Benedetti in their attempt to stifle a homeownership study, evidencing her support in the pages of The Tribune. I, for one, believe that Mrs. Baird would be a much better representative for the former 1st District than the incumbent, but we cannot help but be deterred in supporting her ambitions when we see her lending her own support to these two.
Claiming to be in support of the downtrodden, the proverbial "fixed income" minority, these two are prepared to squander the city's resources on behalf of our municipalitiy's most profligate users of water, and accordingly, sewer services.
If, in fact, they (Coffey, Benedetti, Price, and unnamed other members of council) desire to protect the interests of those of limited income, they should be honest enough to propose direct subsidies to those deserving residents of our fair city.
Instead, they propose to boost the checking accounts of industrial and commercial users of our sewer system by depleting the limited resources of the EDIT tax fund. With admitted, imprecision, the EDIT funds available each year to the city measure about $2 million. Of that sum, the Coffey-Benedetti Cotillion propose to subsidize the Wal-Marts, the SamTecs, the Pillsburys, even the Destinations Booksellerses with EDIT tax funds so as to make their sewer bills lower.
In addition, they propose to deplete the city's EDIT fund resources by artificially lowering the sewer bills of non-residents, those whose EDIT taxes, if they pay them, are paid into another jurisdiction's coffers.
Why not, shadowna5 asks, make the sewer utility self-sustaining? If, as the Coffey-Benedetti Cotillion claims, they want to "keep sewer rates low" so as to "protect" the least among us, they would propose direct subsidies to those "least among us."
Our sewer utility should be self-sustaining and self-supporting. If, as a policy, our representatives wish to "protect" the most vulnerable, they should appropriate funds directly from EDIT funds to subsidize those ratepayers.
Instead, with transparent pandering objectives, they propose to deplete critical municipal resources (EDIT funds) to give handouts to corporate and commercial entities, the ratepayers who are exerting the greatest pressure on our sewer treatment resources, all in the name of "protecting" an indefinable class of amorphous residents.
Why, we ask, should the most profligate users of our water/sewer resources be rewarded at the expense of the city as a whole?
Worth much further examination, and as yet unexamined in public discourse, is the fact that non-residents, who do not pay EDIT taxes to the city, would be rewarded from the resources of the EDIT fund and would see their sewer rates kept artificially low at the expense of New Albany taxpayers.
We choose to believe, for the moment, that our representatives just don't understand the consequences of diverting EDIT funds to sewer subidies. Any other interpretation requires a belief in either abject corruption or in irredeemable stupidity.
And yet, as this is written, it seems a foregone conclusion that the Coffey-Benedetti coalition intend to divert precious city resources to the most intensive users of the sewer utilty. By keeping sewer rates low by using tax resources, they are saying that it is a city priority to strip voters of dollars in order to give them to business interests.
Who's crazy? Us or them?
Showing posts with label coffey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coffey. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Triskadekaphobia: We're For It
One local blogger coined the appelation of "Open Air Museum of Superstition and Ignorance" for our fair city. It couldn't be more appropriate, then, that Friday the 13th approaches, a day when triskadekaphobia (fear of the number 13) reaches its pinnacle.
For once, the progressive movement in New Albany needs to cultivate, foster, and nurture a fear of the number 13. But unlike the forces of regress, we aren't trying to grow an unreasoned fear.
For 13 is how many times more expensive it is to the taxpayers of this city to use edit funds to subsidize sewer rates. It takes more than $13 in EDIT money to knock $1 off the sewer rate. That's right.
The council members plotting to arrest a coming sewer rate increase talk loudly and often about how they are looking out for nickels and dimes, how they are watching the corporate purse, but their plan is exactly the opposite of financial prudence.
Instead of investing our tax money into projects that will save us money (New Albany's atrocious roads cost the average driver $800 a year more than residents of the average American city - $800 in lower mileage from misaligned wheels, damaged tires, and wholesale destruction of the working and resale value of our cars), they want to spend it on recurring individual rate-payer expenses. To some extent, sewer rates can be elastic. Yes, there is a minimum charge. We've often spoken in favor of keeping the minimum charge low (thus giving a boost to those who use the least water) and making up the difference in higher rates.
But no, that would actually accomplish something. That would actually protect the proverbial "fixed-income" resident from unwelcome added expenses.
However, it's worse than that. While robbing the city coffers to try to fool the voters, while robbing New Albany of any hope of having its sewer utility operate on its own without tax subsidies, and while stripping the city of any ability to invest in infrastructure, this crazy plan will take money from New Albany taxpayers and transfer it directly to the biggest users of the system.
That's right. This plan removes incentives to conserve water, especially for businesses (who don't pay EDIT taxes), since the taxpayer will pick up part of the bill.
It's ironic that when anyone proposes actual targeted investments to give incentives to business practices, types of businesses, or specific locations, the hidebound council members howl "corporate welfare." And yet, their plan is an enormous piece of corporate and business pork.
If we had more respect for their ability to ratiocinate, we'd suspect they are in the pocket of big businesses. But we presume that they just don't see it, and since the only people speaking up about it are THEM people, they feel certain they can proceed with this foolish plan.
They've done it before and it looks like they're going to try to do it again.
There's another set of sewer ratepayers who will be sharing in this subsidy, too. The several thousand ratepayers who live outside the city (and who do not pay EDIT taxes into the city) who will receive 150% of the subsidy city residents would "receive."
Now one can argue that they shouldn't be paying 150% of what we do. But if this plan goes through, they'll be getting 150% of the discount, too.
We'd estimate that when it comes to comparing the typical residence in New Albany versus those in the fringe and those in Georgetown, 40% of the subsidy to residences will be going to people who don't pay EDIT taxes.
Drop the subsidy now. Stop diverting our investable tax money (originally designed for economic development purposes) to prop up the checking accounts of businesses and ratepayers outside the city.
Stop trying to fool the people that you are looking out for their best interests. Just stop.
If you truly want to help the poorest among us to deal with rising costs of living, propose a subsidy directly to those taxpayers. Craft a solution and gather the support for direct subsidies to specific ratepayers. At least then the debate will be honest.
For once, the progressive movement in New Albany needs to cultivate, foster, and nurture a fear of the number 13. But unlike the forces of regress, we aren't trying to grow an unreasoned fear.
For 13 is how many times more expensive it is to the taxpayers of this city to use edit funds to subsidize sewer rates. It takes more than $13 in EDIT money to knock $1 off the sewer rate. That's right.
The council members plotting to arrest a coming sewer rate increase talk loudly and often about how they are looking out for nickels and dimes, how they are watching the corporate purse, but their plan is exactly the opposite of financial prudence.
Instead of investing our tax money into projects that will save us money (New Albany's atrocious roads cost the average driver $800 a year more than residents of the average American city - $800 in lower mileage from misaligned wheels, damaged tires, and wholesale destruction of the working and resale value of our cars), they want to spend it on recurring individual rate-payer expenses. To some extent, sewer rates can be elastic. Yes, there is a minimum charge. We've often spoken in favor of keeping the minimum charge low (thus giving a boost to those who use the least water) and making up the difference in higher rates.
But no, that would actually accomplish something. That would actually protect the proverbial "fixed-income" resident from unwelcome added expenses.
However, it's worse than that. While robbing the city coffers to try to fool the voters, while robbing New Albany of any hope of having its sewer utility operate on its own without tax subsidies, and while stripping the city of any ability to invest in infrastructure, this crazy plan will take money from New Albany taxpayers and transfer it directly to the biggest users of the system.
That's right. This plan removes incentives to conserve water, especially for businesses (who don't pay EDIT taxes), since the taxpayer will pick up part of the bill.
It's ironic that when anyone proposes actual targeted investments to give incentives to business practices, types of businesses, or specific locations, the hidebound council members howl "corporate welfare." And yet, their plan is an enormous piece of corporate and business pork.
If we had more respect for their ability to ratiocinate, we'd suspect they are in the pocket of big businesses. But we presume that they just don't see it, and since the only people speaking up about it are THEM people, they feel certain they can proceed with this foolish plan.
They've done it before and it looks like they're going to try to do it again.
There's another set of sewer ratepayers who will be sharing in this subsidy, too. The several thousand ratepayers who live outside the city (and who do not pay EDIT taxes into the city) who will receive 150% of the subsidy city residents would "receive."
Now one can argue that they shouldn't be paying 150% of what we do. But if this plan goes through, they'll be getting 150% of the discount, too.
We'd estimate that when it comes to comparing the typical residence in New Albany versus those in the fringe and those in Georgetown, 40% of the subsidy to residences will be going to people who don't pay EDIT taxes.
Drop the subsidy now. Stop diverting our investable tax money (originally designed for economic development purposes) to prop up the checking accounts of businesses and ratepayers outside the city.
Stop trying to fool the people that you are looking out for their best interests. Just stop.
If you truly want to help the poorest among us to deal with rising costs of living, propose a subsidy directly to those taxpayers. Craft a solution and gather the support for direct subsidies to specific ratepayers. At least then the debate will be honest.
Habits of Thought are Death to Truth
The ideological struggle for the future of New Albany continues unabated. On one side are advocates for a better New Albany who believe change is in order. On the other side are people who believe everything is just fine the way it is and who fear change.
Change can be a good thing. When change involves risk, a certain level of concern is justified. But when failing to change is dead-certain to bring fearful consequences, it makes no sense to hunker down and try to wait out the apocalypse.
One might forgive members of the general public for cowering fearfully in the dark. But the same response from elected officials is unacceptable, if only because they control the light switch while we pay the electric bill.
Our goal here is to push back the darkness. This week, the darkness is tax subsidies for sewers. Next week it will be something else.
Although we can't verify that it is original (and we doubt it is), we were struck by the words Rivka Galchen put into a character's head in his recent novel, Atmospheric Disturbances.
Change can be a good thing. When change involves risk, a certain level of concern is justified. But when failing to change is dead-certain to bring fearful consequences, it makes no sense to hunker down and try to wait out the apocalypse.
One might forgive members of the general public for cowering fearfully in the dark. But the same response from elected officials is unacceptable, if only because they control the light switch while we pay the electric bill.
Our goal here is to push back the darkness. This week, the darkness is tax subsidies for sewers. Next week it will be something else.
Although we can't verify that it is original (and we doubt it is), we were struck by the words Rivka Galchen put into a character's head in his recent novel, Atmospheric Disturbances.
- "His response was neither random nor spontaneous; it was predetermined by his previous ideas about me; habits of thought are death to truth; I was outside of my habits; and he - he was wrong."
New Albany is being endangered. Not by "novelty lighters," as a recent council ordinance averred, but by habits of thought.
One of those habits of thought that should be recognizable is a belief by an influential faction on the city council that is so self-centric as to be bathetic. It involves the projection of one's own motives onto another. If a decision-maker looks at each choice as an opportunity for self-enrichment, then that decision-maker presumes that all others are making choices based on the same motives and motivations. That's very Darwinian, but hardly admirable.
A second habit of thought is that any proposal that is difficult to understand must have been created that way in order to confuse and thus exploit. Thus, when a decision-maker is presented with that difficult to understand idea, she becomes suspicious that she is being fooled. The habit of thought becomes a habit of action - that action being to say "no." It is foolish to think that "no" is always the safe choice, but we have a city council that certainly leans that way.
It's hard to credit the fact that a majority of this council, the second council in a row in which the voters essentially cleaned house and turned out half the members, could be steered by such habits of thought. But it is so.
Based on my reading of the tea leaves, this council is leaning toward a foolish plan to use tax dollars to subsidize sewer rates. If that is, in fact, the plan, I offer a serious alternative that ought to pass with just as little reference to the consensus view of reality.
On a council that pays regular homage to a "fixed magical belief" that they have special insights into public finance, this proposal ought to fly through three readings.
Instead of diverting $875,000 in EDIT funds to subsidize sewers (and sewer rates are based on water usage), let's divert it to pay for gasoline. Granted, many of the people who buy gas in New Albany don't pay EDIT taxes. But then many of the people who use sewers/water in New Albany don't pay EDIT taxes here. Gas prices are climbing rapidly and, let's face it, people are hurting. Under the Steve Price Plan, that's reason enough to spend tax dollars on it.
The proposal from Mr. Coffey that sewer rates be subsidized is a clear statement from him that he does not believe the sewer utility should be run like a business that supports itself. We have a number of industrial and commercial users of water that, as entities, pay no EDIT taxes, but use enormous amounts of water. The Coffey/Price plan would have you, the taxpayer, subsidizing their rates, too, but in the name of "the people."
From this vantage point, the only thing being done to the people by these two is to keep 'em in the dark.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Inanities Abound Tonight
It ought to be a rollicking affair tonight with grandstanding galore.
We won't address the substance of two pieces of legislation before the council tonight, but we invite you to explore how inartfully they are drawn.
First up is Mr. Coffey's "resolution" to declare the blocks around his house as a permanent reserve for homeowners. Self-styled West Enders have held out gallantly ever since the Interstate highway condemnations separated them from downtown. The triangle of about 13 small blocks would, under this "resolution," be declared a no-man's land for business development. Take a look at the area on a satellite map below or at this link.
View Larger Map
But what is being presented as R-08-33 is a muddled petition, not a resolution, signed by 13 residents of the area to be preserved or hindered by a rezoning. It's doubtful anyone would object to a rezoning - except for those precise property owners now negotiating with a developer to sell their land for a mixed-use project that could well increase the value of the entire West End, enriching its residents and its property owners in more ways than one. But it would create, at least, a temporary impediment to one variety of "progress." I suppose a property owner could easily petition to have the zoning modified again by PUDD application, but this seems to be an awkward way to approach things. For your edification, here is the text of the agenda item:
After many years of rumor and confusion, the people living in said areas ask that a zoning change take place to protect our neighborhood. Boundaries are hereby described: West 4th Street west to west 10th Street and Falling Run Creek south to Main Street. This will not include the properties of: Main Street, or the properties between West 4th Street and West 5th Street. The new zoning will not affect existing businesses and allows their current zoning to be maintained. Proposed zoning will be RN1, Neighborhood Residential. This zoning is designated for higher-density single-family development and and two- family dwellings where approved through conditional use.
The signatures of 8 people are attached, including Mrs. Councilman Coffey, and five others have their names and addresses affixed.
Again, though there is no expectation that anyone will object tonight, it sure would be interesting to know what kinds of rumors and confusion prompted this eleventh-hour measure.
I'll let you read the "Novelty Lighter" ordinance for yourself. Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti has drafted/presented an more formal document, but it utterly fails as a piece of enforceable legislation. Once a citation is made under it, a first-year law student will be able to declaw the ordinance as it is currently written.
We won't address the substance of two pieces of legislation before the council tonight, but we invite you to explore how inartfully they are drawn.
First up is Mr. Coffey's "resolution" to declare the blocks around his house as a permanent reserve for homeowners. Self-styled West Enders have held out gallantly ever since the Interstate highway condemnations separated them from downtown. The triangle of about 13 small blocks would, under this "resolution," be declared a no-man's land for business development. Take a look at the area on a satellite map below or at this link.
View Larger Map
But what is being presented as R-08-33 is a muddled petition, not a resolution, signed by 13 residents of the area to be preserved or hindered by a rezoning. It's doubtful anyone would object to a rezoning - except for those precise property owners now negotiating with a developer to sell their land for a mixed-use project that could well increase the value of the entire West End, enriching its residents and its property owners in more ways than one. But it would create, at least, a temporary impediment to one variety of "progress." I suppose a property owner could easily petition to have the zoning modified again by PUDD application, but this seems to be an awkward way to approach things. For your edification, here is the text of the agenda item:
After many years of rumor and confusion, the people living in said areas ask that a zoning change take place to protect our neighborhood. Boundaries are hereby described: West 4th Street west to west 10th Street and Falling Run Creek south to Main Street. This will not include the properties of: Main Street, or the properties between West 4th Street and West 5th Street. The new zoning will not affect existing businesses and allows their current zoning to be maintained. Proposed zoning will be RN1, Neighborhood Residential. This zoning is designated for higher-density single-family development and and two- family dwellings where approved through conditional use.
The signatures of 8 people are attached, including Mrs. Councilman Coffey, and five others have their names and addresses affixed.
Again, though there is no expectation that anyone will object tonight, it sure would be interesting to know what kinds of rumors and confusion prompted this eleventh-hour measure.
I'll let you read the "Novelty Lighter" ordinance for yourself. Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti has drafted/presented an more formal document, but it utterly fails as a piece of enforceable legislation. Once a citation is made under it, a first-year law student will be able to declaw the ordinance as it is currently written.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Head Games
We can't help it, but sometimes we simply have to speculate about what goes through the minds of our council members. The Lucy Van Pelt strategy used by, among others, Pat McLaughlin (D4), to yank the football from the tee just as Jack Messer prepared to kick off a new council year, positively begs for psychoanalysis. Here's my take, speculative as it is.
While I had looked forward to a council presided over by the senior at-large council member, I could never quite trust the head counts I overheard. Messer was clearly the best choice, and Jack was determined to lead the council in a focused and deliberate manner, independent of but collaborative with the incoming administration. In fact, more than one of the new council members had sought him out and encouraged him to run for president. Weeks prior to being sworn in, all the council members had the opportunity to meet and discuss goals for the next four years. Messer expected to win and was looking forward to the challenge. He was willing to step back from the debate and preside impartially. So what happened to prevent that?
McLaughlin, following the established pattern for New Albany Democrats, ran a careful, if not timid, campaign. He, on the advice of his counselors, decided to take no stands, support no positions, and promise nothing to anyone. His platform was nonexistent. Even if Pat didn't know where the middle of the road was, he was determined to find that middle and plant himself there. This seems to have carried over into his term.
Pat likes (and is liked by) practically everyone. If you've read this blog before you know I don't consider that to be a pre-eminent qualification for leadership - a person who tries to keep everybody happy ultimately satisfies no one.
Having staked out that position, Pat was supremely vulnerable to being persuaded to seek what I am sure he understands to be a compromise. It was a given that Dan Coffey and Steve Price would have cut off their hands before voting for Messer. Let's call it a violent opposition to having Jack in the chair. Three or four other council members would have gagged before voting to support Coffey. But Coffey wasn't running, at least not after he read the tea leaves.
How then, could Coffey prevent Messer's election? He couldn't run and beat him. The solution was simple, however. During the past year since Jeff Gahan stepped down from the chair and began to engage more fiercely in the debate, Coffey occasionally supported Gahan, resulting in an alliance that grew more solid during the insane attempt to give away the municipal sewer utility to an unaccountable board. Both Coffey and Gahan saw that as a way to handcuff elected officials. That it would have removed accountability to the voters was a price they were both willing to pay if it would rein in what they believed to be a secretive and corrupt operation.
Gahan and Coffey rarely came into conflict in 2007 and by the end of the term were voting in lockstep most of the time. The "reasonable" Gahan respected Coffey's legitimacy and Coffey returned that respect. That made Gahan the perfect tool to accomplish Coffey's objective of keeping Messer out of the chair.
With a candidate in place to oppose Messer, Coffey needed only to pick up one more vote (Gahan and Coffey, of course; Price, obviously; and it appears that Benedetti is determined to learn at Master Coffey's institution of "higher" learning).
Imagine, then, this confidential gathering, in twos and threes.
Jack "can't get along" with Price and Coffey (a reason to endorse, to my way of thinking, but I digress). That duo, inalterably opposed to Messer, put that forward as evidence that Jack can't "bring the council together." Well, duh! Gahan, on the other hand, hasn't opposed the dumb ideas put forward by D1 and D2. During his terms in the chair he permitted Coffey to ramble on with his "expert" opinions, his "legal expertise," his sophistry, and his demagoguery - something Messer could be counted on to put a limit on. So Price and Coffey "could" support Gahan.
Hey, Pat. You don't want to start out your term with a situation where the president doesn't have the support of the whole council, do you? Then Gahan's your man. You know him, you like him, he's pretty smart. And he's experienced. He has even been president of the council before.
So, in essence, Pat McLaughlin, hewing to the center line, fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Here's another translation: We despise Jack because he doesn't fall for our schtick. Jeff at least pretends to. So, because Jack would resist our idiocies, we should have a veto. We should be able to stop his election. You, Pat, are our patsy. With your vote, we can veto Jack. Everybody wins, because we wind up with Gahan as the compromise, and you like compromise, don't you? Why can't we all just get along?
Analyzing why Benedetti would throw away her incumbency by becoming a disciple of the Wizard of Westendia would take too long. Let's just assume she has thrown it away and start planning for 2011.
Oh yeah. John Gonder. Let no one forget that Gonder, too, cast his vote for Gahan. I have my thoughts on that one, too. But since it's raining so hard, I think I'll keep my powder dry for the time being and let John explain his vote in his own good time. Tick, tock.
While I had looked forward to a council presided over by the senior at-large council member, I could never quite trust the head counts I overheard. Messer was clearly the best choice, and Jack was determined to lead the council in a focused and deliberate manner, independent of but collaborative with the incoming administration. In fact, more than one of the new council members had sought him out and encouraged him to run for president. Weeks prior to being sworn in, all the council members had the opportunity to meet and discuss goals for the next four years. Messer expected to win and was looking forward to the challenge. He was willing to step back from the debate and preside impartially. So what happened to prevent that?
McLaughlin, following the established pattern for New Albany Democrats, ran a careful, if not timid, campaign. He, on the advice of his counselors, decided to take no stands, support no positions, and promise nothing to anyone. His platform was nonexistent. Even if Pat didn't know where the middle of the road was, he was determined to find that middle and plant himself there. This seems to have carried over into his term.
Pat likes (and is liked by) practically everyone. If you've read this blog before you know I don't consider that to be a pre-eminent qualification for leadership - a person who tries to keep everybody happy ultimately satisfies no one.
Having staked out that position, Pat was supremely vulnerable to being persuaded to seek what I am sure he understands to be a compromise. It was a given that Dan Coffey and Steve Price would have cut off their hands before voting for Messer. Let's call it a violent opposition to having Jack in the chair. Three or four other council members would have gagged before voting to support Coffey. But Coffey wasn't running, at least not after he read the tea leaves.
How then, could Coffey prevent Messer's election? He couldn't run and beat him. The solution was simple, however. During the past year since Jeff Gahan stepped down from the chair and began to engage more fiercely in the debate, Coffey occasionally supported Gahan, resulting in an alliance that grew more solid during the insane attempt to give away the municipal sewer utility to an unaccountable board. Both Coffey and Gahan saw that as a way to handcuff elected officials. That it would have removed accountability to the voters was a price they were both willing to pay if it would rein in what they believed to be a secretive and corrupt operation.
Gahan and Coffey rarely came into conflict in 2007 and by the end of the term were voting in lockstep most of the time. The "reasonable" Gahan respected Coffey's legitimacy and Coffey returned that respect. That made Gahan the perfect tool to accomplish Coffey's objective of keeping Messer out of the chair.
With a candidate in place to oppose Messer, Coffey needed only to pick up one more vote (Gahan and Coffey, of course; Price, obviously; and it appears that Benedetti is determined to learn at Master Coffey's institution of "higher" learning).
Imagine, then, this confidential gathering, in twos and threes.
Jack "can't get along" with Price and Coffey (a reason to endorse, to my way of thinking, but I digress). That duo, inalterably opposed to Messer, put that forward as evidence that Jack can't "bring the council together." Well, duh! Gahan, on the other hand, hasn't opposed the dumb ideas put forward by D1 and D2. During his terms in the chair he permitted Coffey to ramble on with his "expert" opinions, his "legal expertise," his sophistry, and his demagoguery - something Messer could be counted on to put a limit on. So Price and Coffey "could" support Gahan.
Hey, Pat. You don't want to start out your term with a situation where the president doesn't have the support of the whole council, do you? Then Gahan's your man. You know him, you like him, he's pretty smart. And he's experienced. He has even been president of the council before.
So, in essence, Pat McLaughlin, hewing to the center line, fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Here's another translation: We despise Jack because he doesn't fall for our schtick. Jeff at least pretends to. So, because Jack would resist our idiocies, we should have a veto. We should be able to stop his election. You, Pat, are our patsy. With your vote, we can veto Jack. Everybody wins, because we wind up with Gahan as the compromise, and you like compromise, don't you? Why can't we all just get along?
Analyzing why Benedetti would throw away her incumbency by becoming a disciple of the Wizard of Westendia would take too long. Let's just assume she has thrown it away and start planning for 2011.
Oh yeah. John Gonder. Let no one forget that Gonder, too, cast his vote for Gahan. I have my thoughts on that one, too. But since it's raining so hard, I think I'll keep my powder dry for the time being and let John explain his vote in his own good time. Tick, tock.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Break Me Off a Piece of That. bup,bup,bup
As promised, I'll be providing a brief recap of Thursday's council meeting. The dominant topic for the evening was the animal control ordinance, which passed on first reading. Mr. Coffey, the designated "sponsor" for the ordinance, sought unanimous approval to proceed through three readings but failed to persuade all of his fellow council members that the ordinance was so cut-and-dried that it needed no study or deliberation.
One suspects that a final approval AFTER the elections fit the desires of the council in any event. After much muddled discussion of drugs, pit bulls, rottweilers, feral and other uncorraled cats, and carp (expensive and delicately beautiful carp, mind you, but carp nonetheless), plus a tutorial in dog-fighting "conventions," spillover from Metro Jefferson County's dramatic animal control ordinance, and "corner fights," the ordinance passed 9-0 on first reading.
In many respects it was a night of education, admittedly a rarity in the third floor assembly room, a room whose city occupants show regular disdain for the "E" word. Ominous, secret, expert knowledge was conveyed by Professor Coffey about where you can lay bets on dog fights and how failing to pass an animal control ordinance will invite slumlords, meth labs, and blissed out minorities bent on ruining our neighborhoods. Funny, Coffey has never seemed concerned about other initiatives that might stop the ruin of our neighborhoods, but he did have to demonstrate his superior knowledge of all things "thug." But we already knew that.
Anyway, the ordinance will pass, but two weeks from now instead of immediately. Those seeking protection from angry "pet" owners can claim, prior to the election, that no final ordinance has been passed, while those seeking protection from animal-rights folk and other good government types can say they voted "for" the ordinance. My own cat animus has no champion...except for the koi kommandos.
Seriously, that last was just for entertainment. I (shadow5), like Beverly Crump (real5), favor the ordinance. I just don't care for the theatrics. Really, I love koi. I just never realized that a koi pond might cause my property tax assessment to rise by five figures.
Oh, the council voted 7-2 to pass the Schmidt plan for newly drawn districts. Crump voted in favor of the flawed DOA plan. She also voted (along with Messer and Zurschmeide) to settle the lawsuit with the plaintiffs. I have to admit that were I in her seat, I would have done the same thing.
Please remember the names of Coffey, Price, Schmidt, Crump, Gahan, Blevins, and Kochert when the city has to come up with as much as $200,000 to take care of the mess they created. Only Coffey will be an elected official for sure, and only Price and Gahan might be in office, but all 7 are responsible for this irresponsible act and breach of their fiduciary duty.
Bev, who exclaimed "just don't call ME after December 31st," has a better excuse than 6th District council member Jeff Gahan, who inexplicably rejected a settlement of the case.
I spent the post-meeting hours at a venue that included among its attendees two of the plaintiffs in the district boundaries lawsuit. Some speculated that Gahan, genuinely concerned that the Republican nominee in Tuesday's election might have real horsepower, cast his vote to ensure that there would be no additional anti-Gahan party treason generated by his Democratic colleagues.
It's a bad bargain, Jeff. They will betray you, anyway. And you've lost any respect I might have held for your integrity. Count this as an endorsement of Sam Anderson, whoever he might be. Anything beats the hypocrisy shown by Mr. Gahan over the last 18 months in the equal protection lawsuit. Mr. Gahan's platform is clearly "Constitution, Schmonstitution." I believe Gahan is a smart man. I had believed he was an honorable man. But I cannot support his reelection.
Mr. Gahan, you might remember, was the council president who said "We have more important things to deal with" than the clearly unconstitutional inequity and inequality of voting districts. I guess that's still his stance.
But, you will ask, what does the header on this entry have to do with any of that? Well, beyond the fact that the council "broke it off" in the dorsal canal of the taxpayers Thursday night, the title refers to a piece of campaign literature that found its way into the old mailbox today.
A killer, nay, devastating flyer, destined to be the final nail in the Hubbard coffin, compares Randy Hubbard to a "cheese-eating surrender monkey." Mr. England's supporters fired a mortal blow with this piece of mail that positively kills the Hubbard campaign. Game, set, match. "Don't mess with our troops and hope to get elected" is the clear message, and the Hubbard cohort is helpless to defend at this late date.
Ironically, today was the day that new evidence of Mr. England's naked lust for votes was revealed, making it even harder to rationalize casting a vote for the English Restoration. Still, it seems inevitable that Doug England will be our next mayor. May as well get used to it.
One suspects that a final approval AFTER the elections fit the desires of the council in any event. After much muddled discussion of drugs, pit bulls, rottweilers, feral and other uncorraled cats, and carp (expensive and delicately beautiful carp, mind you, but carp nonetheless), plus a tutorial in dog-fighting "conventions," spillover from Metro Jefferson County's dramatic animal control ordinance, and "corner fights," the ordinance passed 9-0 on first reading.
In many respects it was a night of education, admittedly a rarity in the third floor assembly room, a room whose city occupants show regular disdain for the "E" word. Ominous, secret, expert knowledge was conveyed by Professor Coffey about where you can lay bets on dog fights and how failing to pass an animal control ordinance will invite slumlords, meth labs, and blissed out minorities bent on ruining our neighborhoods. Funny, Coffey has never seemed concerned about other initiatives that might stop the ruin of our neighborhoods, but he did have to demonstrate his superior knowledge of all things "thug." But we already knew that.
Anyway, the ordinance will pass, but two weeks from now instead of immediately. Those seeking protection from angry "pet" owners can claim, prior to the election, that no final ordinance has been passed, while those seeking protection from animal-rights folk and other good government types can say they voted "for" the ordinance. My own cat animus has no champion...except for the koi kommandos.
Seriously, that last was just for entertainment. I (shadow5), like Beverly Crump (real5), favor the ordinance. I just don't care for the theatrics. Really, I love koi. I just never realized that a koi pond might cause my property tax assessment to rise by five figures.
Oh, the council voted 7-2 to pass the Schmidt plan for newly drawn districts. Crump voted in favor of the flawed DOA plan. She also voted (along with Messer and Zurschmeide) to settle the lawsuit with the plaintiffs. I have to admit that were I in her seat, I would have done the same thing.
Please remember the names of Coffey, Price, Schmidt, Crump, Gahan, Blevins, and Kochert when the city has to come up with as much as $200,000 to take care of the mess they created. Only Coffey will be an elected official for sure, and only Price and Gahan might be in office, but all 7 are responsible for this irresponsible act and breach of their fiduciary duty.
Bev, who exclaimed "just don't call ME after December 31st," has a better excuse than 6th District council member Jeff Gahan, who inexplicably rejected a settlement of the case.
I spent the post-meeting hours at a venue that included among its attendees two of the plaintiffs in the district boundaries lawsuit. Some speculated that Gahan, genuinely concerned that the Republican nominee in Tuesday's election might have real horsepower, cast his vote to ensure that there would be no additional anti-Gahan party treason generated by his Democratic colleagues.
It's a bad bargain, Jeff. They will betray you, anyway. And you've lost any respect I might have held for your integrity. Count this as an endorsement of Sam Anderson, whoever he might be. Anything beats the hypocrisy shown by Mr. Gahan over the last 18 months in the equal protection lawsuit. Mr. Gahan's platform is clearly "Constitution, Schmonstitution." I believe Gahan is a smart man. I had believed he was an honorable man. But I cannot support his reelection.
Mr. Gahan, you might remember, was the council president who said "We have more important things to deal with" than the clearly unconstitutional inequity and inequality of voting districts. I guess that's still his stance.
But, you will ask, what does the header on this entry have to do with any of that? Well, beyond the fact that the council "broke it off" in the dorsal canal of the taxpayers Thursday night, the title refers to a piece of campaign literature that found its way into the old mailbox today.
A killer, nay, devastating flyer, destined to be the final nail in the Hubbard coffin, compares Randy Hubbard to a "cheese-eating surrender monkey." Mr. England's supporters fired a mortal blow with this piece of mail that positively kills the Hubbard campaign. Game, set, match. "Don't mess with our troops and hope to get elected" is the clear message, and the Hubbard cohort is helpless to defend at this late date.
Ironically, today was the day that new evidence of Mr. England's naked lust for votes was revealed, making it even harder to rationalize casting a vote for the English Restoration. Still, it seems inevitable that Doug England will be our next mayor. May as well get used to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)