Oct 25 2009
Asheville City Council Candidates Unveil Their Priorities
ASHEVILLE — From budgets to bike lanes to combating drug dealing, priorities listed by City Council candidates covered a wide range as their campaigns hit the final stretch.
Though candidates listed few common top priorities, both Smith and Manheimer mentioned transportation, with Smith talking about affordable housing, but also the need for “a multi-modal transportation system.”
Manheimer said it was “incumbent upon the council” to carry out master plans, one of which was for greenways. Bellamy also pointed to master plans for downtown, transit and the water system.
“The one thing I would say is, ‘finish,” the mayor said.
Croft said the major need was infrastructure, saying he didn’t like “the way we manage our maintenance, upgrading and building projects.”
One candidate, Jackson, pointed to declining revenues and increasing costs, saying the priority was “getting this budget back under control.”
Mumpower stuck by a regular theme of his, saying hard drug dealing in the city “remains under the radar” and he would continue to fight it.
Bothwell said he would try to get publicly financed elections to fight the influence of “big money in Asheville city races.
Smith said he wanted to encourage housing built for people making 30-140 percent of median income.
Cape said downtown development should be encouraged on Coxe Avenue, where a lower elevation could better accommodate taller buildings.
So here they are. Six hopefuls ready to forge their legacy upon the City of Asheville. Let’s pick them apart.
Esther Manheimer – On her candidate Web site she states the following:
This diverse group illustrates Esther’s broad backing and highlights her ability to work with all of our citizens to move our community forward on important issues such as economic and community development; multi-model transportation; sustainable, affordable tax rates; repairing critical public infrastructure; and fostering a business climate that grows quality jobs.
That’s a good agenda. I like that agenda, which is why I am somewhat baffled she would choose to focus on greenways as a priority. With a down economy vivacious vegetarian and grassy knolls are going to be the furthest things from peoples’ minds as they walk into the voting booth. A growing business climate and affordable tax rates would have been a much more obvious choice here, but then again, I wasn’t at the forum and can only rely on the reporting. Perhaps all is not as it seems.
Neal Jackson wants to focus on the budget and that is again a wise and responsible goal. We don’t want our cities to end up with like the Feds now, do we.
Ryan Croft – Focus on the infrastructure. I am always amazed that cities haven’t learned from the business world when it comes to maintaining infrastructure. In corporate America we use something called the Systems Development Life Cycle, a method of maintaining and upgrading infrastructure, primarily technology, to keep it up to ever improving business standards. You allocate money yearly for this purpose. You’d think cities around America would do the same for their sewer systems, buildings, etc. Ever been to Detroit? If you are ever unfortunate enough to drop in someday, take a walk downtown and look at all the old buildings with the cracks going up the side and bathrooms that haven’t been remodeled since 1955. It’s a real treat.
Carl Mumpower – You’ll remember Mr. Mumpower from his unsuccessful bid to unseat Heath Shuler last year. Personally, I think Mumpower is a bit off his rocker, but he has been arguably the most responsible councilman with the peoples’ tax dollars, so I give him a thumbs up for that.
Cecil Bothwell – Ah yes, publicly financed elections, or better yet known as the incumbent protection campaign. Oh please, forcibly extract my wealth from me through the bondage of taxation and hand it out to all of the political whores who want to exploit public service for their own personal gain. Don’t allow me to make the choice of who to give my money to. Not to mention, that with every candidate getting equal financing, challengers to incumbents end up with a grave disadvantage. Incumbents already have name recognition which is usually to their favor unless they’re a complete douche bag. In most cases the only way a challenger can compete with that is to raise enough money to buy the media necessary to get their own name out there. By denying that ability, you are only securing another term for the power entrenched incumbent. Mr. Bothwell, you get a thumbs down. And piss off.
Gordon Smith – Gordon administrates the Web site Scrutiny Hooligans. I am not crazy about what is otherwise known as affordable housing, but Smith is smart enough to focus on an issue that will likely resonate with folks during bad economic times.
Robin Cape – Lower elevation to build taller buildings. That’s the best she could come up with? No wonder she couldn’t make it on the ballot.
So there you go. If you live in Asheville here are your choices. Vote wisely, although I’m not holding my breath.
Share
Public finance of elections is a good idea in that it removes the corporate backing and behind-the-scenes deals that come of it (think Easley/Perdue/Burr/Myrick).
Our democratic republic fosters a system of poor choices backed by big money (think McCain/Palin/Obama/What-his-name/Clinton etc.). Do you really think the current system works? Just a question, not an attack.
The idea about building taller buildings at lower elevations? WTF?!? She apparently doesn’t understand the idea of phallic symbolism (and the importance of it to men).
Asheville is a beautiful town. More greenways will further enhance what is already there. A progressive agenda is expensive but some things will never be cheaper to do than they are now. Quality of life means a lot to Asheville, moreso than most cities. I wish them well but with the number of candidates they have to choose from doesn’t reflect a townspeople happy with where they currently are. That, or the economy is flush with jackasses who think THEY know better what to do with a vote, being incompetent in their current lives/jobs they seek election.
[Reply]
Re: public finance: “Do you really think the current system works? Just a question, not an attack.”
The current system in which donations are strictly limited, forcing candidates to promise the world to every special interest group in sight in the hopes of gaining a new donor or two?
Nope, that system sucks (and seems unconstitutional to little ol’ me) but replacing it with what is essentially welfare for politicians would be even worse.
You’ll get politicians entering into races where they have no shot, just to have a guaranteed income. Just imagine all the losers who will come out of the woodwork when that reality sets in…
“Want to quit your job (assuming you ever had one) to live large while traveling the state demagogue-ing for socialism? Then you too can be this year’s token Democratic challenger to Howard Coble! (If you’re going to use campaign funds (aka tax dollars) to replace the drywall in your foyer like Mike Easley, please remember to check in with the FEC.)”
[Reply]
If you do nothing because of the fear something else will happen (you say: “You’ll get politicians entering into races where they have no shot, just to have a guaranteed income. Just imagine all the losers who will come out of the woodwork when that reality sets in” you have not addressed the initial problem which DOES exist.
I agree with you, however, overall.
To write legislation which actually prevents the problem that does exist and does not cause its own problems, that piece of legislation has yet to be written. If this were not the case we might have government today that actually resembles the initial document ratified by the states beginning over 200 years ago.
[Reply]
“To write legislation which actually prevents the problem that does exist and does not cause its own problems, that piece of legislation has yet to be written.”
Here’s the core problem: People aren’t perfect.
No legislation will solve that.
I think all we can really do is end contribution limits, but make the process as transparent as we can get it – donations from individuals only (no groups of any sort) so that every dollar is attached to a person’s name; every contribution has to immediately go on the public record for everyone to see, before it can be accepted; and the public record has to be something easily accessed, like a special website, where the contributions are listed by the campaigns in real time.
Of course, there is also the issue of how to report spending – would it be fair to make a campaign tell their opponents in real time what they just spent their money on, essentially giving away a large part of their strategy? But beyond that, I’d actually argue that a campaign can spend that money on anything they want, without legal consequences, since there would be plenty of natural consequences.
Since this level of transparency allows for immediate public scrutiny, and with it the likelihood of galvanizing the opponent’s base, it would act as a counter-weight to things like George Soros or Richard Mellon-Scaife dumping a billion dollars into somebody’s campaign.
[Reply]
I believe there is little difference in our thinking on this. But i also believe neither of us think things will really change.
People aren’t perfect? People are perfect bastards. That’s how politics was invented, for one man to take advantage of another with is consent.
“And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” He’s laughing up his sleeve.
[Reply]