Pick a Side
There’s nothing funny about it, folks. Whether they are truly just paranoiac conspiracy theorists or witting tools of a criminal political machine, there is an element at large determined to poison the atmosphere of political discussion and to stifle free speech.
It’s unfortunate that they also seem to have been smoking dope when they should have been paying attention in English class. Their composition skills, incredibly, are even worse than their reasoning skills.
The Hon. Maury Goldberg, the former city council member for the 3rd District, has attempted to give us a history of the atrocious management of New Albany’s sanitation department. Speaking loutly, if incoherently, certain elements have willingly misinterpreted these histories to support their own miserable preconceptions.
How anyone could possibly take what Mr. Goldberg reports and twist it to support a belief that trash collection user fees are “propping up” the city’s sewer utility operations is beyond me.
Mr. Goldberg is earnestly seeking answers. He clearly favors a solution to our sanitation problems that would necessitate a 50% increase in user fees. That’s a solution that I believe, after 15 years of an ongoing subsidy from the general fund and other fund accounts, is untenable. Nonetheless, I do believe MG is being intellectually honest, no matter how much I may disagree.
For one thing, New Albany is the home of a large proportion of residents on fixed incomes. Proportionally, this city has a large number of lower-income residents and an out-of-proportion number of elderly single-person households who do not have the ability to shoulder the burden of a trash-collection fee of $21 a month.
No one, least of all the cave-dwelling troglodytes, has made a convincing case that maintaining sanitation as a purely civic service is worth the cost to our fixed- and limited-income population.
No, the psychotic strain spews the canard that the only explanation is greed, corruption and an inherent desire to harm the community.
I, and many, many others are here to make the case that the current administration is demonstrating courage by addressing an intractable problem that has plagued this city for nigh unto a generation. The sanitation operations of this city have been so miserably mismanaged, with no easy solution in sight, that the only choice is to consider contracting this service to a private company.
Adhering to core principles of accountability and recognizing the valuable contributions made to municipal services by the current workforce, this mayor has continued to make the continued employment of the existing employees a priority. James Garner has not once descended to the tactic of criticizing the work ethic of the current workforce.
Of course, he will not be given credit for retaining these jobs. Political enemies will cast this as a callous betrayal of public employees. Reasonable people, however, will see that there has been nothing hasty or callous about the mayor’s course of action.
His plan maintains municipal control over the level of service. His plan strives to keep a maximum number of current workers employed. Furthermore, his plan fulfills the city’s obligation to the cooperative venture that is the Clark-Floyd landfill.
Continuation of services is jeopardized by the ongoing obstruction by the Gang of Four. As requests for proposals issue this week, the mayor and his administration are committed to the absolute minimum of job losses (the preference is zero job losses) and to maintaining our obligations to utilize the community landfill operations.
It is clear that opponents either don’t understand the basic mathematics of fund accounting or that they are committed to a political agenda to keep the city operating inefficiently.
It is beyond ironic that the mayor’s opponents claim to be champions of the “little people” while insisting that the poorest of our citizens carry the burden of a provably inefficient sanitation operation.
There is no question but that 50 years of outrageous cronyism and preferential treatment would give rise to such an unreasoned anger and vitriol. What’s most ironic, however, is that those who decry it most strenuously are ignoring the first, best chance to destroy the machine that has perpetuated this abomination of government accountability.
At long last, New Albany has a reform mayor, a mayor who is willing to disrupt the old boy network no matter the political cost. Those criminal and near-criminal elements who assumed that Garner would be “their boy” are angry and embittered. Clumsily, but evidently, they have enlisted a cadre of already disillusioned citizens to do their dirty work.
Whether that dirty work involves disinformation (the Schmidt modus operandi), craven populism and self-evident disdain of every communitarian instinct (the Price modus operandi), pure ignorance (the Coffey modus operandi), or naked political calculation (the Kochert M.O.), it is drawing the attention of the citizenry.
New Albanians are not stupid. They may have, in the past, paid little attention to the day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month machinations of city government. That day has passed.
Citizens are paying attention. They see who is seeking to move this city forward. They see who is making the tough decisions. They see who is timid and who is bold.
And now, the desperation of Garner’s political opponents has ramped up to a fever pitch. No tactic is beneath them. Slander is but the poisoned tip of their arrows. They do not hesitate to employ any tactic. These vandals, these Klansmen, these Nazis, see their hegemony threatened by a mayor who will not submit to their direction. They see an awakened constituency no longer accepting of an attitude of “it’s always been this way.”
New Albanians will not be cowed by criminal violence. They will not be fooled by crackpots pressing an agenda of racism, religious persecution, theocracy, homophobia, and xenophobia. They will react. They will reject the appeal to nativism and intolerance. They will, no matter which party banner it marches under, declare a preference. Choose YOUR side very carefully.
It’s unfortunate that they also seem to have been smoking dope when they should have been paying attention in English class. Their composition skills, incredibly, are even worse than their reasoning skills.
The Hon. Maury Goldberg, the former city council member for the 3rd District, has attempted to give us a history of the atrocious management of New Albany’s sanitation department. Speaking loutly, if incoherently, certain elements have willingly misinterpreted these histories to support their own miserable preconceptions.
How anyone could possibly take what Mr. Goldberg reports and twist it to support a belief that trash collection user fees are “propping up” the city’s sewer utility operations is beyond me.
Mr. Goldberg is earnestly seeking answers. He clearly favors a solution to our sanitation problems that would necessitate a 50% increase in user fees. That’s a solution that I believe, after 15 years of an ongoing subsidy from the general fund and other fund accounts, is untenable. Nonetheless, I do believe MG is being intellectually honest, no matter how much I may disagree.
For one thing, New Albany is the home of a large proportion of residents on fixed incomes. Proportionally, this city has a large number of lower-income residents and an out-of-proportion number of elderly single-person households who do not have the ability to shoulder the burden of a trash-collection fee of $21 a month.
No one, least of all the cave-dwelling troglodytes, has made a convincing case that maintaining sanitation as a purely civic service is worth the cost to our fixed- and limited-income population.
No, the psychotic strain spews the canard that the only explanation is greed, corruption and an inherent desire to harm the community.
I, and many, many others are here to make the case that the current administration is demonstrating courage by addressing an intractable problem that has plagued this city for nigh unto a generation. The sanitation operations of this city have been so miserably mismanaged, with no easy solution in sight, that the only choice is to consider contracting this service to a private company.
Adhering to core principles of accountability and recognizing the valuable contributions made to municipal services by the current workforce, this mayor has continued to make the continued employment of the existing employees a priority. James Garner has not once descended to the tactic of criticizing the work ethic of the current workforce.
Of course, he will not be given credit for retaining these jobs. Political enemies will cast this as a callous betrayal of public employees. Reasonable people, however, will see that there has been nothing hasty or callous about the mayor’s course of action.
His plan maintains municipal control over the level of service. His plan strives to keep a maximum number of current workers employed. Furthermore, his plan fulfills the city’s obligation to the cooperative venture that is the Clark-Floyd landfill.
Continuation of services is jeopardized by the ongoing obstruction by the Gang of Four. As requests for proposals issue this week, the mayor and his administration are committed to the absolute minimum of job losses (the preference is zero job losses) and to maintaining our obligations to utilize the community landfill operations.
It is clear that opponents either don’t understand the basic mathematics of fund accounting or that they are committed to a political agenda to keep the city operating inefficiently.
It is beyond ironic that the mayor’s opponents claim to be champions of the “little people” while insisting that the poorest of our citizens carry the burden of a provably inefficient sanitation operation.
There is no question but that 50 years of outrageous cronyism and preferential treatment would give rise to such an unreasoned anger and vitriol. What’s most ironic, however, is that those who decry it most strenuously are ignoring the first, best chance to destroy the machine that has perpetuated this abomination of government accountability.
At long last, New Albany has a reform mayor, a mayor who is willing to disrupt the old boy network no matter the political cost. Those criminal and near-criminal elements who assumed that Garner would be “their boy” are angry and embittered. Clumsily, but evidently, they have enlisted a cadre of already disillusioned citizens to do their dirty work.
Whether that dirty work involves disinformation (the Schmidt modus operandi), craven populism and self-evident disdain of every communitarian instinct (the Price modus operandi), pure ignorance (the Coffey modus operandi), or naked political calculation (the Kochert M.O.), it is drawing the attention of the citizenry.
New Albanians are not stupid. They may have, in the past, paid little attention to the day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month machinations of city government. That day has passed.
Citizens are paying attention. They see who is seeking to move this city forward. They see who is making the tough decisions. They see who is timid and who is bold.
And now, the desperation of Garner’s political opponents has ramped up to a fever pitch. No tactic is beneath them. Slander is but the poisoned tip of their arrows. They do not hesitate to employ any tactic. These vandals, these Klansmen, these Nazis, see their hegemony threatened by a mayor who will not submit to their direction. They see an awakened constituency no longer accepting of an attitude of “it’s always been this way.”
New Albanians will not be cowed by criminal violence. They will not be fooled by crackpots pressing an agenda of racism, religious persecution, theocracy, homophobia, and xenophobia. They will react. They will reject the appeal to nativism and intolerance. They will, no matter which party banner it marches under, declare a preference. Choose YOUR side very carefully.
posted by All4Word at 9:40 PM
5 Comments:
Mr.Smith, I thank you for the opportunity to post a response.
The debate over the raising of Garbage Fees has reached a point of redundancy. A debate has to have an exchange of ideas. So far it has been one sided in talking about retaining current garbage service. No ideas for privatization have been discussed. Just saying I disagree with you is not enough.
Neither you,Sir, or the Honorable Mayor Garner provide a rationale why Privatization of the Sanitation Department is for the good of the Citizens of New Albany. One can not say Mayor Garner says so or one lacks the courage of change.
Sir, you have yet to define you "Core Mission of Governemnt." The role of the Sanitation Union in a private company? In so far as Unions are concerned, what role Unions play in our society? Yes, one of the issues is about dissolving the Sanitation Union.Remember one cannot say he or she is for unions and promote privatization.
One has to do better in advocating their position than pointing to a power point presentation print out for justification of your views. I respect you for your beliefs. But one has yet to make the case for privatization.
I thank you for not putting words in my mouth. I have not mentioned any figure of how much an increase is need. If you take a look on what I have posted on my blog-New Albany Today,Sir, not one specific figure is suggested or written anywhere for an increase in Garbage Fees.
I disagree with you that privatization is a way of controlling rising cost of sanitation service. The mechanism to controlling increases in fees lends itself to political corruption, as I point out on my blog. The argument for privatization,on its face, to control fee increase is not self evident. One has yet to see an explanation of how privatization is cheaper for Citizens of New Albany or keeping Sanitation Department is a burden on the poor. As a point of fact, under the Mayor's plan fees are kept in place for only one year. Such a cost saving arguement is an "Ad Populum" fallacy of Logic,Sir.
In conclusion, I say to you to quit the hyperboles and make a case for privatization. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable. I know you are earnest and sincere in your view of the Sanitation Department no matter how much I may disagree.
Maury, following your own logic, has anyone made the case why the preservation of the union is the first cause in all of this?
Or why political corruption is somehow restricted to privatization, and not conceivable in a union that is an appendage of patronage in the traditional system?
You start by assuming points like these, and you do not make the case.
Must we take water back? That's a basic service, isn't it?
You've identified one very important point above all else: Virtually no participant in the debate has been able to separate the political from the philosophical.
It's been predictably disappointing waiting for the council's alternative.
As All4Word mentioned, the mayor at least took on the problem and proposed a solution. Some like it. Some don't.
The council, on the other hand, acted terribly offended that the mayor didn't consult with them about his decision. Some members even went on their usual grandstanding warpath, shouting about a better way and demanding time to think about it.
A couple hundred thousand dollars and months later, their only public statement on the matter thus far is that "It's the Mayor's decision."
Isn't that the behavior that got the city and the sanitation employees into this mess?
Maury said: "Remember one cannot say he or she is for unions and promote privatization."
Either this, or that ...
This is at the heart of my earlier question. Can we have a dialogue about which elements of these positions are better, without being bound by preconceived notions?
What is the problem with going back to basics, discussing the nature of unions, the nature of privatization, and letting the chips fall where they may?
Unless, of course, there are funadmental positions that are sacrosanct?
Maury, I'm sorry you haven't been reading the blog since July. Over that time, on the blog and in discussions with you, I have addressed your issues. That is, I have provided a rationale.
From the start, municipal control over refuse collection has been a paramount concern. Keeping the current workforce has been a priority. And controlling costs is the bugaboo.
If the city contracts out the management of the current sanitation operations, maximizes job retention, places the contract with a firm that isn't hostile to unionization, and negotiates a term and rate increase schedule that provides predictability, we have the best of both worlds.
Political power is being yielded here, because any number of politicians will have less opportunity for patronage hires. Opportunities to demagogue on rates will disappear when a reasonable inflation-based fee increase schedule is negotiated.
Your "plan" seems to insist that we don't retool the operation, just pay the piper. That's irresponsible and damaging to a large number of residents.
The mayor says FIX IT, and offers a plan. You say everything's just fine, we just need to pay more.
Why pay more, Maury, if we don't have to?
These user fees haven't been paying the freight. If the current rate were sufficient to do that, there would be no discussion of subsidies from the Sewer Board.
You say raise the rate, no matter what it costs (and it will require a 50% increase). I say look for alternatives while addressing as many of the core missions of government as possible.
Finally, the only reason you are mentioned at all is to use your postings as an example of how facts are twisted. Waiting for you to actually express an opinion is like Chinese water torture. Your enemies are using your factoids for their own purposes, and you still haven't disavowed them or corrected the record.
Did you say "sanitation is propping up sewers?" No. Are you aware that you are credited with saying that? Yes. Have you made it clear that it's neither true nor your belief? No.
One last thing: It does a disservice to the community to look at the costs of sanitation service in little bites.
We collect $1.8 million in fees and pay out $2.97 million. That's a budget shortfall. And yes, there is a budget, just not a "fund."
Hiding sanitation in the sewer fund was a convenience, but it masked the ongoing deficit. It enabled the city council to ignore the unfunded operation by eating the "seed corn" every year.
The politicians didn't want this issue to be brought into the light. They don't want it in the light now, but Garner shone the spotlight on the problem. He offered a solution. We're still waiting on an alternative.
Post a Comment
<< Home