01
Nov
2005
I'll say it again: By casting your vote in next Tuesday's election (November 8), you contribute to enlarging the political playing field for future elections. What this does is force the candidates to deal with a broader range of issues that more accurately reflects the public's concerns.
As it stands now, so few people vote that candidates and their political consultants have very little work to do. This low number of voters is precisely what allows special interests to prevail, because they don't have to convince many people to vote their way.
Consider that most elections are won on the margins, so the more people who actually cast a ballot, the more unpredictable the outcome is. This causes candidates to have to consider a wider variety of issues to appeal to those potential voters. The more voters a community has, the stronger the possibility for elected officials to truly represent public consensus because if they don't, they won't be reelected next time. This is the power of voting, and why every single vote absolutely matters.
I can't help thinking of the 2,000 men and women who have lost their lives fighting in Iraq to establish the very political process that many Americans cavalierly dismiss. How is it possible that we allow our young men and women to be put in harm's way so that another country can implement a representative democracy through voting, yet in our own backyard, 50 percent of us ignore local and national elections by avoiding the polls? If for no other reason than to show respect for those who have sacrificed everything, vote next Tuesday.
The chief excuse citizens use for not voting is that it won't make a difference. Most of our elected officials do the bidding of special interests, and those running against them are usually no better. The catch is that this is true primarily because we don't vote. By not participating in elections by voting, citizens encourage special interests and give them a free pass to accomplish their agendas, often at taxpayers' expense.
Sadly, those Americans who neglect the polls are as responsible for the demise of our democracy as are the special interests that corrupt our economy via undue influence in government. These two factions (rooted in apathy and greed) act in unison to marginalize public consensus and undermine the political process by which we have remained a free people.
With regard to local elections, an argument can be made that voting is difficult because the candidates are often uninformed, disingenuous, or one-issue ponies. Add to this the lack of proper dissemination of meaningful information relative to current issues, and it is easy to see how the public becomes disenfranchised from the political process.
The mainstream media is an integral part of the problem, ignoring the relevant news in favor of infotainment that is homogeneous, irrelevant, and, as such, incapable of provoking constructive thought.
In Davenport's upcoming election, nine incumbents are running again, except that Steve Ahrens is running for mayor instead of at-large, and Charlie Brooke is running for Sixth Ward as Bob McGivern's replacement. In addition, two candidates, Dan Vance and Pat Gibbs, also previously held offices but were voted out several terms ago. Of these eleven candidates, six of the incumbents - Brooke, Howard, Englemann, Barnhill, Ahrens, and Bushek - have consistently ignored public consensus with their votes on critical issues during this last term, including the Isle of Capri's casino hotel project on downtown Davenport's riverfront, the implementation of what is arguably an excessive stormwater utility fee; and the Prairie Heights grading project (which vacated the required public hearing before a vote was taken), to name only a few.
Furthermore, Bushek, Englemann, Barnhill, and Brooke supported the Cobblestone development project in direct opposition to a well-organized, comprehensive grassroots constituency whose input was grossly ignored.
(Both Vance and Gibbs voted contrary to public sentiment relative to the 53rd Street and Eastern development project and TIF districts for various corporations, such as Sentry, Lee Enterprises, Brammer, etc.)
The voting records demonstrate the mindset of these candidates. Voting records are telling and should carry considerable weight at the polls. Equally important is the manner in which these issues were handled during this last term. Recall the casino hotel proposal, perhaps the largest development project to ever occur in downtown Davenport, yet this council gave it all of two weeks' deliberation in the public forum before voting to approve it. Every one of the aldermen admitted to significant flaws with the proposal, and acknowledged that the public was against it. Regardless, only three voted against it (Lynn, Ambrose, and Meyers), while the other seven voted for approval.
This obstinate lack of due diligence for such serious matters as these, which capriciously obligate tax dollars while exposing taxpayers to unnecessary financial risk, is not an action that should be rewarded with reelection. At a minimum, cast your vote to protest such conduct and send the message that you will not tolerate this kind of civic incompetence.
Some would argue that such a protest vote might do more damage than good because the incumbents' opponents could be worse. This is a legitimate concern. But at a minimum, these candidates offer at least the hope of a better process. We know there is no hope with the above incumbents, evidenced by their voting records.
One of the more serious problems at city hall is the relentless influence DavenportOne exercises over the current council. Because of the prevalent lack of leadership, and what appears to be a lack of capacity on most of the council's part to grasp the specifics of projects brought before them, most of the council behaves timidly, suggesting an inability to synthesize pertinent data. What other explanation is there for the complete negligence in asking the hard questions and informing the public?
Just how many of the candidates are influenced by DavenportOne, the like-minded Grow Davenport PAC, and Victory Enterprises' direction as a political consultant remains to be seen. We know that the current council's sphere of influence was more often than not narrowly limited to DavenportOne and selected developers and their attorneys.
The way to ensure accountability is to elect candidates who have the leadership skills to cause debate over the issues to occur in the public arena instead of myriad clandestine meetings that have characterized this current council. All aspects of a project can be deliberated during committee and council meetings by asking questions, imposing a standard of due diligence, requiring staff and relative parties to be prepared with answers, and, if those answers are not forthcoming or are unsatisfactory, then tabling the issue or voting it down.
This process should not discourage development, but instead guarantee the best possible outcome for such projects. The fact that this process is circumvented time and again is reason enough to vote these particular individuals out and give others a chance to do it right. There is nothing worse than an elected official who cannot defend his or her vote on an issue. Yet this is commonplace with this council.
As it stands now, so few people vote that candidates and their political consultants have very little work to do. This low number of voters is precisely what allows special interests to prevail, because they don't have to convince many people to vote their way.
Consider that most elections are won on the margins, so the more people who actually cast a ballot, the more unpredictable the outcome is. This causes candidates to have to consider a wider variety of issues to appeal to those potential voters. The more voters a community has, the stronger the possibility for elected officials to truly represent public consensus because if they don't, they won't be reelected next time. This is the power of voting, and why every single vote absolutely matters.
I can't help thinking of the 2,000 men and women who have lost their lives fighting in Iraq to establish the very political process that many Americans cavalierly dismiss. How is it possible that we allow our young men and women to be put in harm's way so that another country can implement a representative democracy through voting, yet in our own backyard, 50 percent of us ignore local and national elections by avoiding the polls? If for no other reason than to show respect for those who have sacrificed everything, vote next Tuesday.
The chief excuse citizens use for not voting is that it won't make a difference. Most of our elected officials do the bidding of special interests, and those running against them are usually no better. The catch is that this is true primarily because we don't vote. By not participating in elections by voting, citizens encourage special interests and give them a free pass to accomplish their agendas, often at taxpayers' expense.
Sadly, those Americans who neglect the polls are as responsible for the demise of our democracy as are the special interests that corrupt our economy via undue influence in government. These two factions (rooted in apathy and greed) act in unison to marginalize public consensus and undermine the political process by which we have remained a free people.
With regard to local elections, an argument can be made that voting is difficult because the candidates are often uninformed, disingenuous, or one-issue ponies. Add to this the lack of proper dissemination of meaningful information relative to current issues, and it is easy to see how the public becomes disenfranchised from the political process.
The mainstream media is an integral part of the problem, ignoring the relevant news in favor of infotainment that is homogeneous, irrelevant, and, as such, incapable of provoking constructive thought.
In Davenport's upcoming election, nine incumbents are running again, except that Steve Ahrens is running for mayor instead of at-large, and Charlie Brooke is running for Sixth Ward as Bob McGivern's replacement. In addition, two candidates, Dan Vance and Pat Gibbs, also previously held offices but were voted out several terms ago. Of these eleven candidates, six of the incumbents - Brooke, Howard, Englemann, Barnhill, Ahrens, and Bushek - have consistently ignored public consensus with their votes on critical issues during this last term, including the Isle of Capri's casino hotel project on downtown Davenport's riverfront, the implementation of what is arguably an excessive stormwater utility fee; and the Prairie Heights grading project (which vacated the required public hearing before a vote was taken), to name only a few.
Furthermore, Bushek, Englemann, Barnhill, and Brooke supported the Cobblestone development project in direct opposition to a well-organized, comprehensive grassroots constituency whose input was grossly ignored.
(Both Vance and Gibbs voted contrary to public sentiment relative to the 53rd Street and Eastern development project and TIF districts for various corporations, such as Sentry, Lee Enterprises, Brammer, etc.)
The voting records demonstrate the mindset of these candidates. Voting records are telling and should carry considerable weight at the polls. Equally important is the manner in which these issues were handled during this last term. Recall the casino hotel proposal, perhaps the largest development project to ever occur in downtown Davenport, yet this council gave it all of two weeks' deliberation in the public forum before voting to approve it. Every one of the aldermen admitted to significant flaws with the proposal, and acknowledged that the public was against it. Regardless, only three voted against it (Lynn, Ambrose, and Meyers), while the other seven voted for approval.
This obstinate lack of due diligence for such serious matters as these, which capriciously obligate tax dollars while exposing taxpayers to unnecessary financial risk, is not an action that should be rewarded with reelection. At a minimum, cast your vote to protest such conduct and send the message that you will not tolerate this kind of civic incompetence.
Some would argue that such a protest vote might do more damage than good because the incumbents' opponents could be worse. This is a legitimate concern. But at a minimum, these candidates offer at least the hope of a better process. We know there is no hope with the above incumbents, evidenced by their voting records.
One of the more serious problems at city hall is the relentless influence DavenportOne exercises over the current council. Because of the prevalent lack of leadership, and what appears to be a lack of capacity on most of the council's part to grasp the specifics of projects brought before them, most of the council behaves timidly, suggesting an inability to synthesize pertinent data. What other explanation is there for the complete negligence in asking the hard questions and informing the public?
Just how many of the candidates are influenced by DavenportOne, the like-minded Grow Davenport PAC, and Victory Enterprises' direction as a political consultant remains to be seen. We know that the current council's sphere of influence was more often than not narrowly limited to DavenportOne and selected developers and their attorneys.
The way to ensure accountability is to elect candidates who have the leadership skills to cause debate over the issues to occur in the public arena instead of myriad clandestine meetings that have characterized this current council. All aspects of a project can be deliberated during committee and council meetings by asking questions, imposing a standard of due diligence, requiring staff and relative parties to be prepared with answers, and, if those answers are not forthcoming or are unsatisfactory, then tabling the issue or voting it down.
This process should not discourage development, but instead guarantee the best possible outcome for such projects. The fact that this process is circumvented time and again is reason enough to vote these particular individuals out and give others a chance to do it right. There is nothing worse than an elected official who cannot defend his or her vote on an issue. Yet this is commonplace with this council.
