dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

nice to see that the west end gets the special stuff once again

July 28, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I knew someone was going whine about that, I just didn't think it would be the first person.

July 28, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

A perfect opportunity to discuss our city's form of government. We are governed by 5 commissioners elected at large. There are several other forms available, but the most common is a city council with its members representing districts with a mayor elected at large. Another form is to have four elected commissioners from 4 districts, with a 5th (the Mayor) being elected at large. There are several variants on each.

Under our current form, all 5 commissioners typically come from the same area of town. There is no conspiracy about that - the area that they come from votes in higher density than any other part of town. The down side is that that part of town gets better service. Why? Some would say it's because the commissioners live there. Another, and probably more accurate reason, is that that part of town votes heavier than any other, and the commission (like any other political body) will keep them happy. Of course, the other parts of town don't get the same attention.

Some would say that this is a bad result, and perhaps it is. Others would say that this guarantees that the city will be governed by those who are the most responsible citizens of the community - the so-called "movers and shakers."

(Continued to a second post)

July 28, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

(Continued from post above)

To me, even though I see the other argument and I admit that it has merit, in a Republican form of government like ours, all areas should be at the table. I would suggest the following:

Create 4 equally populated districts, give each a commissioner, elect them for a term of four years. Have a 5th commissioner, call him the mayor, with a two year term. However, even though he is the mayor, he is merely the first among equals, having no more authority than any other commissioner, except that he would preside during meetings. Continue the City Manager as is, the CEO of city government. In this fashion, each citizen of Emporia would have two commissioners representing them, the commissioner from their district and the mayor. Each election, everyone would be able to vote on the office of mayor, and every other election, they would vote for the mayor and one commissioner from their district. Stagger the terms of the 4 in order that, like now, only 3 of the 5 commissioners would be up in order that there would be some stability and continuity on the commission.

How would this change Emporia? Besides being more Republican (not the party, but the form of government), it would allow for each part of town to have a say. There would still be two commissioners of the five from the same area of town as now (the mayor and the commissioner from that district), which would still give the "movers and shakers" a strong voice in governance. I submit that the commissioners from the other districts would likewise be responsible people, with an investment in the community, by virtue of their interest and work in getting elected. Instead of seeing improvements primarily going to one area of town, it would be more spread out and, I think, be in the long term best interest of Emporia.

July 28, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

In theory your idea is great, but it will never work.

The first problem I see it that certain quadrants of the city will have much more community involvement than others, which makes the workload of each commissioner vary greatly.

The second problem is that you would still more than likely have the majority of the commissioners from one area because they will be the ones who want to be "more involved" in the process. So, if you use this method then who gets to be over the less desireable quadrant.

If, to become a commissioner of said quadrant, you had to live in the same quadrant, then you are limiting the power of the people's choice. Why should there be 3 or 4 strong canidates in one quadrant and only one get elected and then in another you have 3 or 4 weak ones? Why not choose the best of the best?

July 28, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck: You have identified exactly the issues in changing the form of government. In the end, it would be however we decided to set it up.

My suggestion is that the commissioners (other than the mayor) must live in his district and be elected only from that district. It is really no different than we do now with State Representative, State Senate, Congress and even our own County Commission. Having someone from that district would make him/her represent the interests of that district. Since every part of town would have a commissioner, the ebb and flow and back and forth of compromise would result in all areas having a voice in government.

July 28, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

I agree with jayhawker's suggestion. Maybe other area's aren't as involved because they don't believe their opinion matters as much? Just guessing, but by ignoring what some in the community identify as a trend (west development at the detriment of the rest of the city), we risk a community more fractured than the one we see today.

July 28, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Absolutely, momus. We risk fracturing now more than ever with the difficult economic times upon us. We are in this together. Perhaps having ideas from all parts of town would lead us to a solution. Lord knows that our current form has not helped in that regard. Besides, this is the just, fair and right thing to do.

July 28, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker--

I don't disagree with what you said at all but that would require a lot of change and for the most part people are afraid of change regardless of whether it would be for the betterment of the majority.

Not to bring up other topics but just look at the proposed smoking ban. That is a major potential change that for the most part, one could argue, would be for the betterment of the majority. Look at the outcry we have had so far on the message boards from that issue.

But, I digress, your idea is good.

Are the city commissioners paid or are they elected as volunteers?

July 28, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

City Commissioners, unlike School Board Members, are paid, although not well. To be honest, I'm not sure how much - $500.00 per month sticks in my mind (could someone help us on that?). You are correct about the resistance to change. I strongly oppose the smoking ban, but not because it represents change, but because I believe that it thwarts the free market and the freedom of business owners over their own property, an anti-democratic idea. But you're right, that is a discussion for a different thread.

I believe that this idea deserves consideration. Will it happen in the end? Probably not, not the least reason being that the area of town that controls things now will not want to give up their influence, and since they are more responsible about voting, it would take a significant voter interest in the other parts of town to overcome that. I hope that it can get a fair hearing, though.

July 28, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck

The commissioners are paid - $500 per month.

I ran for office. I live near downtown. When all was said and done I saw what Jayhawker and Momus have already mentioned. In the in town districts less than 15% of the registered voters cast ballots. The same was true in east and south Emporia. I spoke with Hispanic groups and they felt that change was needed, but also said that few Hispanics would vote because voting in the past hadn't changed things appreciably for them. What's sad is that Hispanics represent 25-30% of this city's population and it seems to me that city government should be as responsive to their needs as they are anyone else's. When I would canvass the neighborhoods near my home people would tell me that they liked what I had to say but weren't going to vote. The reason they most often cited was that the city's leadership hadn't represented them and they couldn't see one person changing that. Interestingly, I won the majority of the small number of ballots cast in the downtown district and did pretty well in the east and south areas. The other candidates, who all reside in northwest Emporia each won about the same majority of the ballots cast in the areas from the Country Club west. It was a block vote - if you vote for one, you have to vote for the other two. And about 40% of the eligible voters in those areas cast ballots. The numbers were impossible to reverse at that time. I think they could have been if people in the under represented areas believed that voting would improve their collective lots.

I don't see that changing any time soon. The political power currently resides in northwest Emporia and it would/will take a Herculean effort on the part of people in the under represented areas to effect any change like that.

July 28, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Any proposed change would have to come by way of petition (the number of signatures required escapes me), then ballot proposal. My guess is that those currently in power would fight it tooth and nail.

July 28, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

You nailed it netloafer. I also thought that it was interesting that people outside of northwest Emporia felt that the couldn't beat "city hall" and had given up trying. The political reality of this is that it would be very difficult to change, but the truth is, it would be the right, fair and just thing to do. Unfortunately, right, justice and fairness often don't have anything to do with it. I wonder if there is someone out there that is willing to give this a try, to be its advocate? I hope so. The 300 Spartans and the Texans of the Alamo were covered in glory for time immemorial for having a righteous cause. Who knows, maybe there is a David who is willing to take on the King.

July 28, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker

Do you live close to downtown, east, or south?

Momus

How about you?

I've had my little flirtation with the political arena. I'm enjoyring retirement too much these days to throw my hat into the ring again. Besides, the hat is giving me perfect cover for the bald spot.

July 28, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Well, what is sad is that this more probably the norm for other cities as well. If a change is too come there needs to be people who are not afraid to speak out against those who are in control or perhaps....they just need to speak up. It seems to me that if they are apathetic enough to not vote because they don't feel a change can be made, then they probably don't speak up about the changes that they feel need to be made to the people who are there to make them. I would guess that they probably sit and home and grumble about it, or perhaps vent their frustrations on message boards but when it comes down to it, that is as far as they get. A mindset change is what needs to happen and it's not just here, its everywhere. For change to happen, people need to get off their backsides and do something about it.

July 28, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

whining? maybe....but i think rightfully so. the current commission does not have the best interests of ALL of the citizens in mind when it does things like this. those streets are all in one subdivision, in an upscale neighborhood, on the northwest side of town. what happened to the rest of the city streets??

when year after year it's so obvious that the west side of town is treated to numerous improvements such as upgraded streets and water parks, somebody has to say something.

if you check online, mr longbine, mr agler, and mr kessler all live within about a 2 block area of each other..you can find that out by googling their names. i have no idea of the areas nelson and johnson live in, but i'd be willing to say it's probably northwest of 6th and prairie, or close to it. i don't think that we've had a commissioner since tom myers that has lived east of commercial or south of 12th ave. so i guess that puts me in the "I agree" category with those of you for making districts. let me know when and where to sign the petition.

p.s....none of this "i own a house in that district" thing...you would have to live in that house before and during your term. that would keep some of the multi-house owning people from being elected out of district,if that makes sense.

July 28, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

There is unfortunately a lot of truth in the "west gets the best" philosophy of governance here. I remember again when I ran, speaking about the problems in the area east of Commercial, from 12th to 6th. My wife and I had run into a couple of situations where there was shooting about two blocks east of where we live. We called the police and they responded, but little else happened. Their theory (they told us this directly) was that the shooting stemmed from an ethnic rivalry at Tyson. In the campaign phase I rode with the city police at night. The first thing I heard was that none of the commissioners had ever asked to do something like that. I told them I wanted to see some of the bad parts of Emporia. They took me to 12th and Sylvan, then went south. Now I grew up in a government housing project and what I saw rivaled the environment I remember growing up in. It was that bad. I spoke about it in a campaign forum. One of the other candidates said I was just being negative. My response was that I really cared and that I'd really seen how bad things were and how badly the situation needed to be fixed. I was again told that everything in Emporia was just fine. About a week later the commissioner who had challenged me admitted that after my comments he'd decided to take a drive by the area. He said he'd never really been in that part of town. He was appalled by what he'd seen and admitted that I was right! Of course, the election came and went and nothing has been done since. I also mentioned during the campaign that if the shooting were going on in the northwest part of town you could bet the farm that the problem would get solved even if it meant calling out the National Guard. But since the things that happen seem to be a world away and there is no important constituency to please in that part of town it gets ignored or rubber stamped.

I suppose that's the nature of politics anywhere, but it seems to me that it is an art from, and practiced with great skill here in the Heartland.

July 28, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Earlier this year the city put in new sidewalks all along South Avenue, but I have yet to hear that brought up.

Yes, the NW side of town is the definitely the nicer part of town, but not all parts of Emporia can be nice. Their has to be a place for lower income housing. That happens to be the South and East. There are some very nice homes there, but there are also alot of homes with trash all around them or that are falling down. The streets, for the most part are fine. I am sure there are pot holes and yes the crime would typically be higher in areas of people with less money. With all that being said though, people need to get off their butts and do something about it. Take pride in what you own, where you live, and how things are ran. If you don't like something do something about it other than whine on a message board.

And yes Mr. Longbine, Kessler and Agler all live on the NW end of town but not in the section where they are slurrying. Mr. Nelson lives just outside of town. So, I am not sure what your point is.

July 29, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck

I can tell you that there are a lot of folks in the downtown neighborhoods who do care. Part of me wanted to take your message about whining personally, but since I know it isn't true I have just taken what you said at face value.

The things I've said are true. I've tried to get city cooperation, and will continue to do so. I care and so do many of my neighbors. My wife and I moved here in '99 and sunk a lot of our savings into restoring a hundred year old house. The equity we have is almost purely sweat. And here's one of the net results. Our property taxes have doubled since we've moved here. Yet, within a block there are two or three slumlords who take advantage of folks living on this city's economic margins and reaping further benefit because their property taxes don't increase year over year because they refuse to do anything about the decript property they own. I've been an activist in this regard. I've pleaded with city officials (Jeff Lynch and others) to do something about the problem, but have been told that it is someone else's problem to solve. About six months ago or more the HRC propsed a rental ordinance that was crafted in an attempt to solve the problem. I was at the meeting at Grace United Methodist, pleading for the proposed ordinance to become a reality. What I saw was that the rental owners, most of whom are responsible, constitute a powerful lobby. Not only would they not admit there was a problem, a few even said that since we have poor people the rest of us just have to accept the fact that there will be deplorable conditions to accomodate them, We were just going to have to accept some of these conditions as one of the collateral prices of progress. I later spoke with one of the commissioners about the proposal. As I was with the crime situation, I was told I was right, but also told that political realities are political realities. I understood. These guys know which side the bread is buttered on. And they know it's not downtowners, Hispanics, or others living on the margins who provide the butter.

I'm trying not to get angry but I must admit that it's difficult when I hear things like, "Stop whining and do something about the situation." Well, a lot of us have been trying to change things. To be honest, friend, you probably don't know the half of it. And we'll probably keep on trying and we'll probably continue hearing folks like you say "stop whining and do something about it." Thanks, you're a real friend in need.....indeed.

One last thing. This will keep bubbling up. And in the end people with means will do something. They are going to start leaving and moving vans constitute votes. And if things continue as they are median incomes here will fall further, property values will remain stagnant, the effects of neglect will spread, taxes will go up, and the cycle will spiral downward till Emporia looks like Strong City did five years or so ago.

July 29, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

netloafer--

If you truly are one of the few who go out and politic and try to make changes, then I commend you for it. You are not the problem. You should not take offense to my comment but instead pass my comment on to those who live in your neighborhood or to those who sit back and complain about things not changing.

Government officials are not mind readers. They need to be told what they can do to help. If the people don't utilize their ability to speak out and ask for help then they have very little to complain about. Who is causing the problem? Is it the Govenment or the people? It is a very fine line.

In my opinion, individuals who don't vote, who don't write their commissioners, who don't attend open forums or meetings because they believe their voice won't be heard is the problem. I guarantee that 100% of the time that people don't say something they won't be heard.

I am just tired of reading negative blogs and responses about the lack of what our city does for it's people. If the people want change then they have to request it. Can one person make a difference? Yes, but the masses is who controls the decisions.

July 29, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck: I understand your point and largely agree that, in general, people who won't do anything to help themselves, other than complain, lack standing to be taken very seriously. I have voted in every election, every time that the polls were open, since I was first eligible to vote over 40 years ago. I am proud of that; yet, some in my own family don't vote. I think that we can agree on most of your post. I think that what you are missing in netloafer's post (and he can speak for himself, certainly) is that the system in Emporia is "rigged" against people not in the circle. As many of these elections as I have seen come and go over these many years, I can predict who will not win just by where the candidate lives, his occupation and income. Our all elected at large system predetermines the profile of the winning candidates. I don't recall a single exception in over 40 years. This system was set up on purpose to concentrate power in a few. It's our community’s "dirty little secret." There is actually a decent argument to be made that that is not a bad thing, depending on your values and philosophy of government, because we guarantee that the people elected will be "movers and shakers" with an investment in the city. I personally believe that this rigging (a form of Gerrymandering) has hurt the community by excluding some our own citizens from the process. Honestly, I don't think that we would have anything to fear from letting others participate. These folks might even have some good ideas. Plus, if it is gerrymandered correctly with the new districts, the current power holders can continue to have 3 of the five seats (split the northwest into two districts, thereby electing two members from there, plus the mayor at large), so I don't think that they have a lot to fear. netloafer is correct though - those in power will circle the wagons and fight to the last man to preserve the current system.

July 29, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

jayhawker--

While I do believe that certain individuals in town have a greater liklihood of becoming elected, I do not believe that it is rigged. The people on the commission are very well known throughout the community. They are prominent business owners who are constantly in the media and in the public's eye all year round, not just during election time. In my opinion, they are voted in more on name recognition than due to their platforms, so in a way I agree with you, but I don't believe the process to become elected is rigged. I think that at the end of the day when the votes are counted they are just the ones that rise to the top.

Most people that can vote don't. And, I would wager, that most who do vote don't have a really good understanding of each of the potential candidates available, so they go with the names that they hear the most. If I have heard of Jeff Longbine and have not heard of Joe Smith, and I know that Jeff runs a successful business in town and that he attends every ESU and EHS game, I will probably vote for him without knowing what he stands for.

July 29, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck: Are the wagons circling already? The argument that you make, having some merit, is but one of many that can be made on both sides of this issue. I submit that when all the arguments are on the table, it is very difficult to ignore 40 years of history and a logical examination of our current system. Frankly, I don't think that the wagons need to circle, because it is totally unlikely that this will ever be seriously promoted because it would require sponsors and lots of hard work by people who are willing to take on City Hall. That is unlikely. Therefore, an honest discussion of the matter is no threat to the current system. I am willing to acknowledge the merits of your side. Perhaps if everyone would honestly look at the other side, they may see there is merit there, too.

July 29, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

I agree 100% with slvrnblk. The decision not vote and take part in the political process with the tired old excuse of social envy doesn't fly with most of the public. There's a reason those from the Westside are successful and are often voted into public office. It's because they worked for their success and didn't sit around complaining while expecting things to happen for them. They got involved instead of sitting on the sidelines whining. There are far more less known common citizens in Emporia then there are "important" people. If this one sided political machine has been in place for over 40 yrs as it has been claimed, it says something about the other side of the issues. Claiming that the aging Becker Addition area is an elitist neighborhood and getting special treatment due to social status is comical to me. How quickly people forget about streets in the downtown and Southern parts of the city getting "slurried" in recent years when nothing took place on the streets on the Westside of town. They do a different section of town every year. I recall the streets being done down in SE Emporia in recent years as well. Maybe the folks in Country Club Heights and Crestview Lakes should raise Caine because 6th is getting a new overlay right now, like it does every couple of years it seems. They are not getting their fair share of the tax monies! Sounds to me like someone living outside the NW District should spend their entire campaign getting folks educated about the political process, getting them registered to vote and offering them rides to the polls instead of campaigning about the evils of social status.

July 29, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I agree that we are debating something that will probably never happen and that most everything that we have stated is speculation. I do respect your opinion and I definitely understand where you are coming from. However, I do not believe that the elections are rigged or set up. I believe exactly what I posted previously. I suppose that there is a chance that I am completely in the dark about what goes on behind closed doors, but I would be very surprised if that was the case.

What I do agree with you completely on is that not everyone is being represented currently, nor have they been for a long while. And, I do think that should change. Your proposal for splitting the city definitely has merit and would possibly help but I see that as an idea that, while sound, will be very hard to put into action.

Furthermore, my whole point is that we as a community need to stand up and let the commissioners and City Manager know what we expect. We can do very little behind a computer or in our living rooms. And until we are ready to do that change will be slow if at all.

July 29, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

Maybe part of Emporia's (our) problem is that we haven't looked at changing our local government based on what attracts new blood into the area. Which form is more respondent to the people while encouraging new business? Is there data available to evaluate this? Are term limits one way to get things rolling in the right direction?

July 29, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

tell me why we are even discussing this. somebody who knows how start a petition, start it already. they can fight it all they want, but if we pass it, they have to abide. if nothing else, put a term limit on the commission so that they can only be there for two terms PERIOD. look at what 20 years of pretty much the same commissioners did for us...how deep a financial hole is this city in that we can't even buy a new firetruck when one breaks down beyond repair??

July 29, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Good discussion. I think that I may have been misunderstood when I said that the elections were "rigged" in favor of one part of town. I did not mean that in an illegal or even dishonest way. Some years ago, when the current system was put in place, it was no accident that it was set up so that commissioners were elected at large. I think that that effectively disenfranchised most of the voters. However, I admit fully that the folks who set it up that way were playing by the rules. They knew that other parts of town would vote only in small numbers, and therefore they could acquire exclusive power. That is exactly what happened. Remember the vote on how to finance the new Courthouse? Multiple votes occurred, each time resulting in the proposed sales tax failing. However, on the last vote they scheduled it simultaneously with a primary for City Commission and School Board. These folks knew exactly how to play the rules, because they knew that very few would turn out, and that most of those who would vote would be from the northwest part of town. They were right, and it passed (still by only 200 votes). Did they do anything illegal? Of course not, but they did take advantage of the masses who are uneducated about such matters and not responsible in voting. No one believes for a minute that the courthouse sales tax had majority support, but it passed. That is the way things work in Emporia. I certainly am not blaming those who have acquired power this way; they did it by being smarter and knowing the rules better. I just don't think that year after year having the same neighborhood in charge of the entire machinery of city government is good for the city as a whole. I have also observed the workings of city government for a long time, and anyone who takes on a proposal to change it, beware. They will fight you to the last, they'll pull every stop and unleash the dogs. They will outspend you in a campaign, they will have speakers at every civic group, they will have editorials by the paper and the radio station attacking you and your cause, letters to the editor, and yard signs in all their yards plus the cheap rentals that many of them own. It would get ugly. I am too old to even think about it, but if someone wants to try, don't expect to have many friends left at the Country Club Christmas Party.

July 29, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Since I didn't make it clear what I meant by saying that the elections were "rigged" in favor of the northwest part of town, let me take another stab at explaining. By having an at large system, where one part of town dominates by turning out more voters than any other, the outcome of the election is rigged in the sense that the system was purposefully designed to make sure that only candidates from that part of town, or acceptable to that part of town, would have a chance of winning. I am not accusing anyone of voter or election fraud or anything like that. I am only saying that the system itself is designed to make sure that only candidates acceptable to one area of town will win. It has worked, and worked very well. I can't recall a single exception in the many years that I have observed this process.

July 29, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

jayhawker,
I normally agree with most of your posts, but I do have one question for you or anyone actually. You stated that the votes were done in such a way to "take advantage of the masses who are uneducated about such matters and not responsible in voting" - would you rather have a whole bunch of uneducated people voting? My question is in general - not just about the courthouse because I, too, believe that was a huge waste, but I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this. Don't get me wrong - I am in no way saying only certain people should be allowed to vote, but your comment made me think. Personally I think I would rather have people who are actually educated on a topic that understand all the implications, pros/cons of it vote, rather than seeing a 99% voter turnout and have people who know nothing about it checking yes or no. It's unfortunate I guess because we all have the right to vote and at the same time have the responsibility to educate ourselves, but not everyone chooses to follow through with the latter.

July 30, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

Not Jayhawker,

But, I'm not sure I would call other voters "uneducated". I simply think that we have segments of the population that don't believe their votes matter. When segments of the community feel like they are excluded, for whatever reason, it is more difficult to engage participation. I would rather have an entire community that felt like they were a part of the political process, thus educating themselves about certain issues, than "1%" in a specific area making decisions for the other 99%. Although, I completly agree with you that an educated populace is the ideal. However, I wonder if people are truley that educated, or if they simply know the candidate (or recognize their name), so they cast their vote for the familiar.

July 30, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

If a person believes their vote does not count are they really educated about the process. As jayhawker stated earlier, the courthouse was passed by only 200 votes, so if the, as momus stated, "educated non voter" would have voted it would have made a difference.

jayhawker--

I understand what you are saying and I agree with your idea I am just not sold on the idea that what happens is all planned out. I am sure that when a bill is proposed, or a commissioner runs for office that someone has an idea of what will happen in the polls due to historical data, but history does not always dictate the past. For instance, if I run for office and I campaign only one area where there is an area of historically high # of voters, it does not guarantee I win the election. All it does is increase my liklihood. But what happens if/when the area of historically low # of voters decide to go out and vote---I lose.

All it takes is for people to decide that they can and will make a difference but until that happens very little will change.

And, I agree with emporialifer. I would much rather have educated people vote than uneducated.

However, I enjoy this debate and appreciate everyone being respectful. So many times I read these message boards and become frustrated with the completely unnecessary insults and attacks of other posters.

July 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

emporialifer and momus: You both make excellent points, and both get to the heart of this whole question. When we were founded as a nation, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams engaged this very question. Adams and the Federalists thought that only the educated and landed (those who owned land) should be given a vote because the masses were too uneducated to make wise choices. Jefferson and the Democrats, on the other hand, believed that while it might be ugly, that the democratic, fair and just way was to give everyone (except, of course, in those days women and slaves) the vote and though we would muddle along, we would be fine. In fact, we have over the years gone more to the Jeffersonian thinking, though not exclusively (Federal Judges, for example, are appointed). I think each person has to ask himself these questions, because our form of City government leans more to the Adams model. Personally, I subscribe to Jefferson's thinking, but I admit that there is merit to the other viewpoint. I guess in the end it is whether we want to accept a large part of our population being left out of our local government in order to have the more educated run things, or whether we want to be more democratic. There is no right or wrong answer, it just comes down to a choice.

July 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Sorry, slvrnblck, we were apparently preparing posts at the same time. I want to thank you for your comments about being respectful to each other on these boards. There is no reason to hate each other just because we have a different opinion. It is fair to disagree, but not fair to be personal or to accuse others when there is no evidence to support the accusation. We tend to see those with whom we agree as the "good people" and those with whom we disagree as the "bad people". It is amazing how sometimes we find out that it is just the opposite. That should not shake a person's belief system.

July 30, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Very well said jayhawker.

July 30, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sadinemporia (anonymous) says...

Can anyone tell me how to get a street that is in dire need of repair, repaired? Who do we complain to?

July 30, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Start with Public works. If that doesn't get the action you desire, go to City Hall and speak with the City Manager and City Engineer. If nothing happens there, speak with each individual City Commissioner. Climb the ladder until you get where you need to be. If that doesn't work, take pictures of the damaged road, pictures of any damage your vehicle may have gotten from the poorly maintained street, and a list of the people you made contact within the City government, then try to get the Gazette to do a story about your efforts. Negative publicity, even outside the campaign, is a bad thing for politicans.

July 31, 2008 at 1:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )