Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
This is a 'threat'?
This morning, Taylor Batten, the Observer's editorial page editor, discusses the Foxx-Lassiter who's-beholden-to-developers spat in his column. Three paragraphs in, Batten makes a strange comparison:
The real estate development community, in and of itself, is not a threat. Over-development is a threat. Development that bulls its way along, heedless of neighborhoods and communities, is a threat. A mayor wrapped around the development community's little finger would be a threat. But developers are critical players in the city's future. They're just not the only ones, and their needs have to be balanced with the community's.
Here are a few of the ways Anthony sees the development community's role:
What you see here is a pretty common affliction of the Observer and other corporate media outlets: the false equivalence. Batten is trying, presumably for balance's sake, to set up a dichotomy of pro-development Lassiter vs. anti-development Foxx; the reality is outrageously pro-development Lassiter vs. a more measured pro-development Foxx.
We don't doubt that some developers view an Anthony Foxx victory Tuesday -- and a potential brake on their blank-check dominance of Charlotte's growth -- as a threat. That doesn't mean Anthony sees them the same way.
The two differ in a number of ways. But what became most clear Wednesday night was that Foxx and Lassiter have sharply opposing views of the development-building-real estate industry. Lassiter sees the industry, primarily, as vital to the city's rejuvenation. Foxx sees the industry, primarily, as a threat that needs to be closely regulated.A threat?
The real estate development community, in and of itself, is not a threat. Over-development is a threat. Development that bulls its way along, heedless of neighborhoods and communities, is a threat. A mayor wrapped around the development community's little finger would be a threat. But developers are critical players in the city's future. They're just not the only ones, and their needs have to be balanced with the community's.
Here are a few of the ways Anthony sees the development community's role:
Anthony will continue to work to leverage private sector investment to create jobs, needed goods and services and tax-base expansion in some of our most challenged areas. Creative collaborations with area financial institutions and venture capitalists will promote economic development in these areas and benefit the collaborators. In addition, a portion of this new job growth will be in the emerging industries that will help diversify our economy.Sound like someone who considers developers a "threat"?
Anthony will reduce the red tape involved in the permitting process. He will also extend the life of building and master use permits to give developers more time to finish projects without added paperwork.
Anthony will actively recruit and push for incentives to bring new corporate headquarters to Charlotte, expand existing operations and create smart new manufacturing facilities.
Anthony knows the high level of business talent in our community. By forming an Economic Development Cabinet, he will harness that talent to originate new ideas for diversifying our economy, creating jobs, and promoting sustainable development. These new ideas will form the basis of long-term strategies for Charlotte to prosper far into our One Future.
What you see here is a pretty common affliction of the Observer and other corporate media outlets: the false equivalence. Batten is trying, presumably for balance's sake, to set up a dichotomy of pro-development Lassiter vs. anti-development Foxx; the reality is outrageously pro-development Lassiter vs. a more measured pro-development Foxx.
We don't doubt that some developers view an Anthony Foxx victory Tuesday -- and a potential brake on their blank-check dominance of Charlotte's growth -- as a threat. That doesn't mean Anthony sees them the same way.
Friday, October 30, 2009
How to be dumb
OK, here we go. The dumbest quote of the 2009 Charlotte mayoral race:
It's the race's big ninth-inning kerfuffle, over campaign contributions, and from whom they come, and where those people live, as detailed in this morning's Observer story.
Anthony and Lassiter have raised roughly the same amount of money (as of the Oct. 26 campaign filing deadline, Anthony had raised $561,892, Lassiter $511,529). Lassiter has raised more, far more, from real estate developers; Anthony has raised more from out of state (though still only 10 percent of his total).
John Lassiter seems to think this is a big ol' deal. From the Observer:
We've already covered the beholden-to-developers angle. Just recognize this whole dust-up for what it is: a bright-red herring served up by a candidate who senses he's about to lose.
In Wednesday's fundraising e-mail, Lassiter asked supporters for $70,000 "in the next 72 hours" to help "send a message to my opponent's campaign that Charlotte cannot be bought."We'll leave you to chew on the, er, somewhat obvious logical contradiction there.
It's the race's big ninth-inning kerfuffle, over campaign contributions, and from whom they come, and where those people live, as detailed in this morning's Observer story.
Anthony and Lassiter have raised roughly the same amount of money (as of the Oct. 26 campaign filing deadline, Anthony had raised $561,892, Lassiter $511,529). Lassiter has raised more, far more, from real estate developers; Anthony has raised more from out of state (though still only 10 percent of his total).
John Lassiter seems to think this is a big ol' deal. From the Observer:
"Their agenda is set on priorities that are not aligned with the priorities of the citizens of Charlotte," he said Thursday. "We have focused our fundraising on folks who live and work in this community."Really. What do you say? Dude: Ten percent. Anthony, you see, has friends and colleagues outside of Mecklenburg County who are willing to back him because they know him and the kind of man he is. That's the purest, most quid pro quo-resistant kind of contribution. It's not like James Bernfield of Brooklyn, N.Y. ($50 contribution, Sept. 16), is expecting a little reciprocal on a rezoning in Dilworth. And aren't we supposed to be strengthening our ties with people and places outside of Charlotte?
We've already covered the beholden-to-developers angle. Just recognize this whole dust-up for what it is: a bright-red herring served up by a candidate who senses he's about to lose.
Enough already on the police officers
Throughout the campaign, John Lassiter has consistently dissembled about one of the key differences between his record and Anthony's.
It concerns, as we've noted before, the 2006 budget process. (See here; scroll to the bottom.) The record could not be clearer:
Heading into City Council discussions about the 2006-07 budget, then-Police Chief Darrel Stephens had asked for 70 new police officers.
Then-City Manager Pam Syfert, in her budget proposal, included money for 55.
Lassiter and the other council Republicans floated a budget proposal that would have paid for 35.
Anthony and his fellow council Democrats proposed the budget that ultimately passed, with money for all 70 of the officers Stephens had asked for, plus $398 million in badly needed capital improvements, including road resurfacings for the first time in five years. The GOP proposal would have paid for $82 million in capital improvements -- 21 percent of what the city eventually agreed to spend.
More than three years later, during the campaign and in debates, Lassiter has claimed he found savings in that budget that would have enabled the city to hire all 70 extra officers without a tax increase.
Sorry. No sale. There's nothing in the record to back that up. If Lassiter and the council Republicans found those "savings" during the budget process in '06, they should have ponied up and put something on the table, taking care to explain what services were going to be cut in the backwash. They did not. End of discussion.
So here comes John Lassiter last week, suggesting a rollback of the tax hike.
Great idea, John. Tell you what: Go ahead and tell us which cops we should let go, and which streets scheduled for maintenance will just have to stay axle-busters. This is the guy who claims on his television ads that he's "law enforcement's friend, committed to getting repeat criminals off Charlotte's streets." Some friend.
You have to make choices in government, as you do in life; nobody likes higher taxes, but people tend not to like unpaved roads, suspended garbage pickup and rampant crime in the absence of police officers, either. So how do you decide?
Lassiter apparently would have ... both! One of his main goals, he says, is to keep taxes low and services high. We're happy he cleared that up. That's an evergreen, the primary challenge of governments since Ancient Mesopotamia. It says nothing. The trick is, how do you do it? Do you sacrifice public safety and road resurfacing -- which no one sane would consider luxuries -- to satisfy a no-tax-increase fetish?
Anthony doesn't think so. He's obviously not a fan of higher taxes, either, and he's not looking to line his pockets; unlike his opponent, he not only voted against the last council pay increase, he refused to accept it when it passed. But he's not going to ignore the community's needs when they're staring him, and all of us, in the face.
Think national for a minute. Think back to 1988, and George H.W. Bush, and "Read my lips: No new taxes." Poppy Bush, of course, eventually had to ask Congress to raise taxes. Conservatives did, and do, see this as a shameful capitulation to the forces of Creeping Socialism. That's certainly the lesson the elder Bush's son took with him into the White House. Worked out wonderfully for all of us, didn't it?
The thing is, though, that Bush 41's reneging on his promise may have been his finest hour, at least domestically. It saved the country from the kind of economic catastrophe we've been coping with for the last year or so, and it kept the recession of 1991-92 from being far, far worse. The lesson here shouldn't have been, "Never raise taxes." It should have been, "Don't make that promise in the first place, and do what you have to do for the good of the country."
Or, on a smaller scale, the city of Charlotte.
It concerns, as we've noted before, the 2006 budget process. (See here; scroll to the bottom.) The record could not be clearer:
Heading into City Council discussions about the 2006-07 budget, then-Police Chief Darrel Stephens had asked for 70 new police officers.
Then-City Manager Pam Syfert, in her budget proposal, included money for 55.
Lassiter and the other council Republicans floated a budget proposal that would have paid for 35.
Anthony and his fellow council Democrats proposed the budget that ultimately passed, with money for all 70 of the officers Stephens had asked for, plus $398 million in badly needed capital improvements, including road resurfacings for the first time in five years. The GOP proposal would have paid for $82 million in capital improvements -- 21 percent of what the city eventually agreed to spend.
More than three years later, during the campaign and in debates, Lassiter has claimed he found savings in that budget that would have enabled the city to hire all 70 extra officers without a tax increase.
Sorry. No sale. There's nothing in the record to back that up. If Lassiter and the council Republicans found those "savings" during the budget process in '06, they should have ponied up and put something on the table, taking care to explain what services were going to be cut in the backwash. They did not. End of discussion.
So here comes John Lassiter last week, suggesting a rollback of the tax hike.
Great idea, John. Tell you what: Go ahead and tell us which cops we should let go, and which streets scheduled for maintenance will just have to stay axle-busters. This is the guy who claims on his television ads that he's "law enforcement's friend, committed to getting repeat criminals off Charlotte's streets." Some friend.
You have to make choices in government, as you do in life; nobody likes higher taxes, but people tend not to like unpaved roads, suspended garbage pickup and rampant crime in the absence of police officers, either. So how do you decide?
Lassiter apparently would have ... both! One of his main goals, he says, is to keep taxes low and services high. We're happy he cleared that up. That's an evergreen, the primary challenge of governments since Ancient Mesopotamia. It says nothing. The trick is, how do you do it? Do you sacrifice public safety and road resurfacing -- which no one sane would consider luxuries -- to satisfy a no-tax-increase fetish?
Anthony doesn't think so. He's obviously not a fan of higher taxes, either, and he's not looking to line his pockets; unlike his opponent, he not only voted against the last council pay increase, he refused to accept it when it passed. But he's not going to ignore the community's needs when they're staring him, and all of us, in the face.
Think national for a minute. Think back to 1988, and George H.W. Bush, and "Read my lips: No new taxes." Poppy Bush, of course, eventually had to ask Congress to raise taxes. Conservatives did, and do, see this as a shameful capitulation to the forces of Creeping Socialism. That's certainly the lesson the elder Bush's son took with him into the White House. Worked out wonderfully for all of us, didn't it?
The thing is, though, that Bush 41's reneging on his promise may have been his finest hour, at least domestically. It saved the country from the kind of economic catastrophe we've been coping with for the last year or so, and it kept the recession of 1991-92 from being far, far worse. The lesson here shouldn't have been, "Never raise taxes." It should have been, "Don't make that promise in the first place, and do what you have to do for the good of the country."
Or, on a smaller scale, the city of Charlotte.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Working with, not for, Charlotte's developers
Let's get this straight: Both Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter have received campaign contributions from real estate developers. Any serious candidate for office inevitably does.
But let's get this straight, too: Lassiter has received way more in this mayoral campaign than Anthony. And -- the key point -- Lassiter's voting record on the City Council shows he's far more inclined to vote in accordance with their wishes than Anthony.
Toward the end of last night's WCNC-TV/The Charlotte Observer debate, the last one before Election Day, Anthony asked Lassiter flat out: Why do you seem convinced that Charlotte's future lies more with developers than with neighborhoods and communities?
Lassiter's answer revealed plenty about himself, and about who'd have his ear in the mayor's office. "So much of what we need to have happen," he said, "lies with the development community."
Well, there you go. If you had any doubts before, he just dispelled them. Later -- just for emphasis? -- he added this gem: "I want to make sure that I'm working for the same people who invest in me and this community."
Anthony takes a more balanced view of the relationship between city officials and developers. "You've never seen my vote guided by the real estate development community," he said. "I will work with, not for, the real estate development community."
Lassiter got huffy. We enjoy it when Lassiter gets huffy. It makes him fall on his face.
First, he pointed out that Anthony has received more than $7,000 from developer Stoney Sellars. Jim Morrill in the Observer (with an assist from database whiz Ted Mellnik) did a nice job of putting that in context, rendering Lassiter's point essentially meaningless:
Anthony supports "truth in zoning," in which council members voting on rezoning cases publicly disclose campaign contributions they've received from the developers involved. Sounds reasonable enough. But the suggestion clearly irked your Republican candidate for mayor. He observed that Anthony leases his Elizabeth campaign headquarters from neighborhood developer Clay Grubb, and that no one has benefited more from the streetcar tracks running down Elizabeth Avenue than Grubb.
Oh, boy. First, to insinuate there's some kind of quid pro quo arrangement going on between Grubb and Anthony is silly, and more than a little offensive. Does that explain why Anthony voted to override a mayoral veto -- one Lassiter supported -- to kick-start the full, 10-mile streetcar line, running from Beatties Ford Road to Eastland Mall? To help his "buddy" in Elizabeth?
Second, turn your attention back to Nov. 12, 2007, when the City Council voted on whether to spend $5.4 million to build the tracks on Elizabeth Avenue. Guess who not only voted to spend the money, but who made the motion? John Lassiter.
But let's get this straight, too: Lassiter has received way more in this mayoral campaign than Anthony. And -- the key point -- Lassiter's voting record on the City Council shows he's far more inclined to vote in accordance with their wishes than Anthony.
Toward the end of last night's WCNC-TV/The Charlotte Observer debate, the last one before Election Day, Anthony asked Lassiter flat out: Why do you seem convinced that Charlotte's future lies more with developers than with neighborhoods and communities?
Lassiter's answer revealed plenty about himself, and about who'd have his ear in the mayor's office. "So much of what we need to have happen," he said, "lies with the development community."
Well, there you go. If you had any doubts before, he just dispelled them. Later -- just for emphasis? -- he added this gem: "I want to make sure that I'm working for the same people who invest in me and this community."
Anthony takes a more balanced view of the relationship between city officials and developers. "You've never seen my vote guided by the real estate development community," he said. "I will work with, not for, the real estate development community."
Lassiter got huffy. We enjoy it when Lassiter gets huffy. It makes him fall on his face.
First, he pointed out that Anthony has received more than $7,000 from developer Stoney Sellars. Jim Morrill in the Observer (with an assist from database whiz Ted Mellnik) did a nice job of putting that in context, rendering Lassiter's point essentially meaningless:
A little later, Lassiter broke out the cheap shot of the night, maybe of the campaign.An Observer analysis showed that Sellers (sic) has given Foxx at least $7,215. He gave Lassiter $1,000.
The analysis also showed Lassiter has raised at least $104,000 from individual donors who listed occupations in the building, development and real estate industries. That's 20 percent of the money he raised through Oct. 19. The Foxx campaign claims the figure is higher.
Foxx got $28,000, or 5 percent of the money he raised, from individual donors in those industries.
Anthony supports "truth in zoning," in which council members voting on rezoning cases publicly disclose campaign contributions they've received from the developers involved. Sounds reasonable enough. But the suggestion clearly irked your Republican candidate for mayor. He observed that Anthony leases his Elizabeth campaign headquarters from neighborhood developer Clay Grubb, and that no one has benefited more from the streetcar tracks running down Elizabeth Avenue than Grubb.
Oh, boy. First, to insinuate there's some kind of quid pro quo arrangement going on between Grubb and Anthony is silly, and more than a little offensive. Does that explain why Anthony voted to override a mayoral veto -- one Lassiter supported -- to kick-start the full, 10-mile streetcar line, running from Beatties Ford Road to Eastland Mall? To help his "buddy" in Elizabeth?
Second, turn your attention back to Nov. 12, 2007, when the City Council voted on whether to spend $5.4 million to build the tracks on Elizabeth Avenue. Guess who not only voted to spend the money, but who made the motion? John Lassiter.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Extending a hand to Raleigh
One offers it in friendship, the other with it clenched. Guess which does which.
It's been one of the biggest issues in the mayoral campaign -- improving the city's often strained relationship with state government. Both Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter say they're committed to it, but only Anthony has the connections, political élan and reservoir of good will in the governor's office and among legislators to actually get something done.
Lassiter is a disciple of the Pat McCrory school of intergovernmental diplomacy, in which you prod state government publicly, invoke Inquisition-like language when promising to "hold their feet to the fire," and organize a Caravan to Raleigh when you think you're not getting your fair share of state dollars. Then run for governor. And lose.
Anthony? This month, Gov. Bev Perdue visited Charlotte for a church visit and a pair of fundraisers with Anthony. She's passionately committed to his success. And why wouldn't she be? He's lauded statewide for building relationships rather than pounding his fist when he doesn't get his way.
Last September, even before he announced he was running for mayor, Anthony convened a series of town hall meetings at the Government Center on growth, criminal justice, the economy and housing. For the criminal justice meeting, he arranged a discussion with Ralph Walker, director of the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts and former state appeals court judge; Police Chief Rodney Monroe; state Sen. Dan Clodfelter, co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and perhaps the most influential member of Mecklenburg County's legislative delegation; attorney Thomas Walker; and former Superior Court Judge Shirley Fulton.
That's how Anthony operates.
Lassiter, though, has always operated strictly within the confines of Mecklenburg County. Unlike Anthony, he's never held an office or a job outside Charlotte since he moved here in 1983. And although he gives lip service to the idea of "find(ing) ways to work with the governor," as he said this week during the Jewish Federation/WBTV debate, he hasn't proposed anything specific, and his record shows no indication that he would. Just the opposite.
For one thing, he takes a combative, belligerent tone when talking about getting Interstate 485 finished. From his campaign Web site: "We must fight to get our share of road funding from Raleigh to finish the last leg of I-485 ..."
Contrast that to Anthony, who correctly observed in the same debate that it's hard to build a productive relationship with Raleigh "if you're poking the person you're asking for resources in the eye. I will unclench the fist of this city and extend an outstretched hand to the governor."
For another, Lassiter could extend his vision beyond the county line, something he's never really done. Anthony, from minute one in this campaign, has stressed that Charlotte's future lies largely in regional partnerships with mayors and public officials in Union, Gaston, Cabarrus, Iredell and other regional counties and with mayors of cities throughout the state. The 2010 Census is expected to show a majority of N.C. residents living in urban rather than rural areas, and it'll be more and more important to forge regional and cross-city partnerships to ensure cities get a proportionate share of state funding, for transportation or anything else. The willingness to work this way goes beyond tactics; it's a state of mind. (And don't just take it from us -- take it from N.C. House Speaker Joe Hackney, who should know.)
At the debate, WBTV's Melissa Hankins asked about how the next mayor would try to change the relationship between the city and legislators. Anthony answered: Build individual relationships with state officials and legislators; develop regional economic development projects; and "galvanize the urban strength of the state" through partnerships with other urban mayors.
Lassiter, incredibly, responded that the city should "take control of our own (tax) incentives for business" because state incentives "don't match the needs of our community" and streamline the city's permitting process to ease the regulatory burden on developers.
Pardon? Never mind the fact that Lassiter didn't answer the question. Think about the mindset that produces an answer like that. People everywhere else in North Carolina have a term for it: the Great State of Mecklenburg. It looks inward. Charlotte stands apart. Charlotte can take care of itself. And this was a response to a question specifically about changing the relationship between Charlotte and state government.
Lassiter doesn't get it. He may not be capable of getting it. Once the state finishes I-485, he might as well get behind a new project, the real outer belt: a moat.
This is one of the many reasons why, as Anthony says, "The city needs to break with past leadership."
It's been one of the biggest issues in the mayoral campaign -- improving the city's often strained relationship with state government. Both Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter say they're committed to it, but only Anthony has the connections, political élan and reservoir of good will in the governor's office and among legislators to actually get something done.
Lassiter is a disciple of the Pat McCrory school of intergovernmental diplomacy, in which you prod state government publicly, invoke Inquisition-like language when promising to "hold their feet to the fire," and organize a Caravan to Raleigh when you think you're not getting your fair share of state dollars. Then run for governor. And lose.
Anthony? This month, Gov. Bev Perdue visited Charlotte for a church visit and a pair of fundraisers with Anthony. She's passionately committed to his success. And why wouldn't she be? He's lauded statewide for building relationships rather than pounding his fist when he doesn't get his way.
Last September, even before he announced he was running for mayor, Anthony convened a series of town hall meetings at the Government Center on growth, criminal justice, the economy and housing. For the criminal justice meeting, he arranged a discussion with Ralph Walker, director of the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts and former state appeals court judge; Police Chief Rodney Monroe; state Sen. Dan Clodfelter, co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and perhaps the most influential member of Mecklenburg County's legislative delegation; attorney Thomas Walker; and former Superior Court Judge Shirley Fulton.
That's how Anthony operates.
Lassiter, though, has always operated strictly within the confines of Mecklenburg County. Unlike Anthony, he's never held an office or a job outside Charlotte since he moved here in 1983. And although he gives lip service to the idea of "find(ing) ways to work with the governor," as he said this week during the Jewish Federation/WBTV debate, he hasn't proposed anything specific, and his record shows no indication that he would. Just the opposite.
For one thing, he takes a combative, belligerent tone when talking about getting Interstate 485 finished. From his campaign Web site: "We must fight to get our share of road funding from Raleigh to finish the last leg of I-485 ..."
Contrast that to Anthony, who correctly observed in the same debate that it's hard to build a productive relationship with Raleigh "if you're poking the person you're asking for resources in the eye. I will unclench the fist of this city and extend an outstretched hand to the governor."
For another, Lassiter could extend his vision beyond the county line, something he's never really done. Anthony, from minute one in this campaign, has stressed that Charlotte's future lies largely in regional partnerships with mayors and public officials in Union, Gaston, Cabarrus, Iredell and other regional counties and with mayors of cities throughout the state. The 2010 Census is expected to show a majority of N.C. residents living in urban rather than rural areas, and it'll be more and more important to forge regional and cross-city partnerships to ensure cities get a proportionate share of state funding, for transportation or anything else. The willingness to work this way goes beyond tactics; it's a state of mind. (And don't just take it from us -- take it from N.C. House Speaker Joe Hackney, who should know.)
At the debate, WBTV's Melissa Hankins asked about how the next mayor would try to change the relationship between the city and legislators. Anthony answered: Build individual relationships with state officials and legislators; develop regional economic development projects; and "galvanize the urban strength of the state" through partnerships with other urban mayors.
Lassiter, incredibly, responded that the city should "take control of our own (tax) incentives for business" because state incentives "don't match the needs of our community" and streamline the city's permitting process to ease the regulatory burden on developers.
Pardon? Never mind the fact that Lassiter didn't answer the question. Think about the mindset that produces an answer like that. People everywhere else in North Carolina have a term for it: the Great State of Mecklenburg. It looks inward. Charlotte stands apart. Charlotte can take care of itself. And this was a response to a question specifically about changing the relationship between Charlotte and state government.
Lassiter doesn't get it. He may not be capable of getting it. Once the state finishes I-485, he might as well get behind a new project, the real outer belt: a moat.
This is one of the many reasons why, as Anthony says, "The city needs to break with past leadership."
This is just getting ridiculous
Because it's just not a Charlotte mayoral debate without John Lassiter throwing a last-second hissy fit.
Before last night's Jewish Federation of Greater Charlotte debate, televised live by WBTV, the organizers flipped a coin to see who'd be Candidate A (first in opening remarks, second in closing) and Candidate B (vice versa). Anthony called heads. The flip came up heads. Anthony was therefore Candidate A.
Lassiter said he was under the impression that the candidate who opens first shouldn't be allowed to close last. Paul Cameron of WBTV clarified that if Anthony is Candidate A, then he opens first and closes last.
That's when the smoke started coming out of Lassiter's ears -- three minutes before the debate began at 7 p.m.
"That's not fair," he stormed. "Those aren't the rules."
Yes, they were. From the guidelines, which WBTV and the Jewish Federation agreed to and submitted on Oct. 5, more than two weeks before the debate:
In, calmly, stepped Anthony. OK, he said. I'll allow John to go first in opening, and I'll go second in closing. And so the debate proceeded. (Video here.)
Point No. 1: Lassiter could have objected during the 15 days before the coin toss but didn't. He waited until the toss determined he didn't get the position he wanted. We wonder if he'd have objected if Anthony had called tails and Lassiter had gotten to open first and close last.
Point No. 2: We'd maybe be inclined to presume Lassiter was just confused if this weren't the latest in a string of pre-debate shenanigans Lassiter's pulled over debate rules and other technicalities. This is, as John Turturro's character put it to a competitor in The Big Lebowski, "bush-league psych-out stuff. Laughable, man."
Point No. 3: Could you have asked for a more vivid illustration of why Anthony Foxx would make a better mayor? A problem arises. John Lassiter loses himself in paltry details, appearances and his own well-developed sense of entitlement and self-pity. Anthony Foxx steps in, mediates, offers a workable solution, and everyone gets down to business.
Character reveals itself in all sorts of ways, big and small. Ask yourself: Who handled it better? Who displayed real leadership? Who would you rather have as mayor?
Before last night's Jewish Federation of Greater Charlotte debate, televised live by WBTV, the organizers flipped a coin to see who'd be Candidate A (first in opening remarks, second in closing) and Candidate B (vice versa). Anthony called heads. The flip came up heads. Anthony was therefore Candidate A.
Lassiter said he was under the impression that the candidate who opens first shouldn't be allowed to close last. Paul Cameron of WBTV clarified that if Anthony is Candidate A, then he opens first and closes last.
That's when the smoke started coming out of Lassiter's ears -- three minutes before the debate began at 7 p.m.
"That's not fair," he stormed. "Those aren't the rules."
Yes, they were. From the guidelines, which WBTV and the Jewish Federation agreed to and submitted on Oct. 5, more than two weeks before the debate:
The moderators will give each candidate 2 minutes for opening remarks (Candidate A will go first.) ...
The moderators will then give each candidate 2 minutes for closing remarks (Candidate B will go first).
In, calmly, stepped Anthony. OK, he said. I'll allow John to go first in opening, and I'll go second in closing. And so the debate proceeded. (Video here.)
Point No. 1: Lassiter could have objected during the 15 days before the coin toss but didn't. He waited until the toss determined he didn't get the position he wanted. We wonder if he'd have objected if Anthony had called tails and Lassiter had gotten to open first and close last.
Point No. 2: We'd maybe be inclined to presume Lassiter was just confused if this weren't the latest in a string of pre-debate shenanigans Lassiter's pulled over debate rules and other technicalities. This is, as John Turturro's character put it to a competitor in The Big Lebowski, "bush-league psych-out stuff. Laughable, man."
Point No. 3: Could you have asked for a more vivid illustration of why Anthony Foxx would make a better mayor? A problem arises. John Lassiter loses himself in paltry details, appearances and his own well-developed sense of entitlement and self-pity. Anthony Foxx steps in, mediates, offers a workable solution, and everyone gets down to business.
Character reveals itself in all sorts of ways, big and small. Ask yourself: Who handled it better? Who displayed real leadership? Who would you rather have as mayor?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
'He would make a good city manager'
Yes, John Lassiter would, probably. It's a thought that hadn't occurred to us before reading the Observer's editorial endorsement of Anthony for mayor. But it makes sense. It also underscores why Anthony would be so much better as mayor.
The paper this morning ran long profiles of both men. The beginning of Steve Harrison's profile of Anthony:
Confronted with a problem, Anthony Foxx engages, leads and unites.
John Lassiter thinks: Wow. I'd better conform. What image am I projecting?
And how illustrative is it that he thinks what voters are looking for is a mayor who won't roll up his sleeves or loosen his tie?
From the moment he was elected to the City Council in 2005, Anthony has shown a willingness to dive into whatever issue he thought was important -- from public safety, organizing meetings among state and local officials to address justice problems, to neighborhood improvements. To roll up his sleeves, in other words.
It's something Lassiter manifestly doesn't want to do, and it goes beyond mere appearance. It's not just that he's image-conscious and inclined to follow rather than lead. It's that he apparently believes his brand of non-leadership is what Charlotte needs.
Could you be more uninspiring, more out of touch?
The paper this morning ran long profiles of both men. The beginning of Steve Harrison's profile of Anthony:
When students elected Anthony Foxx the first African American president of Davidson College's Student Government Association in 1992, the campus was in turmoil.
A gay student had reportedly received death threats, and part of the student body was upset over the recent founding of a group called FLAG - Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Foxx organized forums to ease campus fear and anger. Though he never formally supported or opposed the group, he argued it should receive funding from student fees, as other clubs did. The group ultimately got the funds, and Foxx today says his role was as a "facilitator."
"He never made it about him," said Alden Smith, who was Foxx's SGA vice president and who is now headmaster at a Vermont high school. "He had an unusual mix of humility and confidence."
Friends say Foxx's four years on City Council have been marked by many of the same qualities that first emerged at Davidson: an ability to relate to people with different views, and a willingness to step forward - even into the political heat.
From Jim Morrill's profile of Lassiter:
On a spring break trip to Florida in 1974, a scruffy bunch of long-haired college kids from Michigan walked into a roadside diner near Jesup, Ga., and waited for service. And waited.
After a half-hour, they realized they weren't wanted and left. It made an impression on the tall, spindly kid with shoulder-length hair.
"It was kind of an 'Aha' moment," says John Lassiter. "I was hungry. I realized that people were judging me from my outside appearance ... Ultimately I decided I needed to conform a little more. I needed to look a little more like what I wanted to be."
So he cut his hair. And within a year he moved from Michigan State to Wake Forest University, trading T-shirts and jeans for Izods and Topsiders.
The rebellious teen went on to thrive by working hard and fitting in - whether in Democratic-run state government, a button-down corporate culture or Charlotte's tradition of civic engagement.
And:
One day this month he started campaigning early and ended late. He never loosened his tie or rolled up his sleeves. He slipped on a jacket whenever he stepped out of his BMW. He remembers the lesson of the Jesup diner.
No, John, actually, folks are looking for somebody who'll act like one."I think every day, 'What is the image I'm projecting?'" he says. "Folks are looking for somebody who looks like he could be mayor."
Confronted with a problem, Anthony Foxx engages, leads and unites.
John Lassiter thinks: Wow. I'd better conform. What image am I projecting?
And how illustrative is it that he thinks what voters are looking for is a mayor who won't roll up his sleeves or loosen his tie?
From the moment he was elected to the City Council in 2005, Anthony has shown a willingness to dive into whatever issue he thought was important -- from public safety, organizing meetings among state and local officials to address justice problems, to neighborhood improvements. To roll up his sleeves, in other words.
It's something Lassiter manifestly doesn't want to do, and it goes beyond mere appearance. It's not just that he's image-conscious and inclined to follow rather than lead. It's that he apparently believes his brand of non-leadership is what Charlotte needs.
Could you be more uninspiring, more out of touch?
Monday, October 12, 2009
The passion of the mayor
If you were watching "FlashPoint" with Dave Wagner on WCNC-TV Sunday morning, you heard Pat McCrory say something rather telling about the state of the mayoral campaign -- and the candidacy of his close friend John Lassiter.
It came during a brief discussion of the race before a commercial break. (Video here; the discussion starts at 8:18, McCrory's comment at 9:14.) Wagner, McCrory and Charlotte attorney Mike Daisley were talking about whether the race so far has been too civil and "boring."
McCrory:
Hmmm. Maybe Mayor Pat was speaking genuinely as an impartial observer of the race, someone looking for political theater that's a bit more riveting.
Right. We don't think so, either.
McCrory and Lassiter are buds. Their political and civic philosophies are virtually identical. Both are, of course, Republican. It's hard to believe the mayor is encouraging the Democratic candidate for the seat he's held for 14 years -- and the GOP for 22 -- to shift to a higher gear. Besides, it'd be bad form for him to offer partisan political advice on "FlashPoint."
And Anthony, while unfailingly civil, has shown plenty of energy on the campaign trail -- at his public appearances, at the debates, talking to civic groups. The first sentence of his closing statement at last week's debate at Queens University was, "I'm excited about the potential of being Charlotte's next mayor," and he said it like he meant it.
No, McCrory's talking to Lassiter -- the mumbler, the details guy, the gray-haired man in the gray suit who insists, as if to reassure us, he can do the job of mayor without short-shrifting his family or business. Mayor Pat clearly knows what it takes to win elections in this town, and he's looking at his pal Lassiter and thinking: Dude. Come on. Let's ramp it up.
We'll see if Lassiter takes the advice. Regardless, it's an indication of the obvious: John Lassiter is a profoundly uninspiring candidate -- as uninspiring, we can presume, as he'd be as mayor.
It came during a brief discussion of the race before a commercial break. (Video here; the discussion starts at 8:18, McCrory's comment at 9:14.) Wagner, McCrory and Charlotte attorney Mike Daisley were talking about whether the race so far has been too civil and "boring."
McCrory:
"I think there's going to be a low voter turnout unless major conflict occurs. Probably my recommendation to both of them from a political science viewpoint is, both of them have got to get some passion. They both have reviewed their resumes extremely well, both talked about things they want to do, but you've got to have some passion, and I think that might differentiate the campaign the next four weeks."
Hmmm. Maybe Mayor Pat was speaking genuinely as an impartial observer of the race, someone looking for political theater that's a bit more riveting.
Right. We don't think so, either.
McCrory and Lassiter are buds. Their political and civic philosophies are virtually identical. Both are, of course, Republican. It's hard to believe the mayor is encouraging the Democratic candidate for the seat he's held for 14 years -- and the GOP for 22 -- to shift to a higher gear. Besides, it'd be bad form for him to offer partisan political advice on "FlashPoint."
And Anthony, while unfailingly civil, has shown plenty of energy on the campaign trail -- at his public appearances, at the debates, talking to civic groups. The first sentence of his closing statement at last week's debate at Queens University was, "I'm excited about the potential of being Charlotte's next mayor," and he said it like he meant it.
No, McCrory's talking to Lassiter -- the mumbler, the details guy, the gray-haired man in the gray suit who insists, as if to reassure us, he can do the job of mayor without short-shrifting his family or business. Mayor Pat clearly knows what it takes to win elections in this town, and he's looking at his pal Lassiter and thinking: Dude. Come on. Let's ramp it up.
We'll see if Lassiter takes the advice. Regardless, it's an indication of the obvious: John Lassiter is a profoundly uninspiring candidate -- as uninspiring, we can presume, as he'd be as mayor.
Does John Lassiter even want to be mayor?
For someone running for mayor, Lassiter seems curiously lukewarm about the idea of being mayor.
He's shown his reluctance time and again during debates, saying repeatedly that he's a husband first, a businessman second and a public official third, and that if elected mayor he can "balance my responsibilities during the course of the day to make sure the job gets done," as he said during last week's debate at Queens University.
In case voters didn't get the point, he repeated himself to the Observer's Jim Morrill:
He should rework some of his slogans.
"Lassiter: He'll squeeze us in."
"Lassiter: He won't significantly change his allocation of time."
"Lassiter: He'll get to that after lunch."
Seriously -- what is up with this guy? Can you think of any candidate during any election who's stressed his unwillingness to work too hard at the office he's running for?
Maybe it's his personality; no one's ever accused the man of being the life of the party, or the Party. Or maybe it's a characteristically Republican reluctance to govern even when running for, or holding, public office.
Whatever the case, you simply have to wonder about a mayoral candidate who observes that the common characteristic of mayors Pat McCrory, Richard Vinroot, Sue Myrick and Harvey Gantt is that "they were all private citizens with successful business lives."
Lassiter's been on the City Council for six years. You wonder how closely he's paid attention. Maybe he has a point on Gantt, Myrick and Vinroot. But McCrory?
Say what you will about Pat McCrory, but the guy has put in some serious hours as mayor. (You'd think Lassiter, one of the mayor's closest friends, would know this better than anyone.) Mike Collins, who was moderating the Queens debate, seemed surprised at Lassiter's observation. McCrory has handled the mayor's office as a full-time job, Collins correctly observed. He hasn't spent a lot of time as a special consultant for Duke Energy, his nominal regular gig.
Lassiter: "I don't claim to be Superman, but I'm willing to put in a hard day." Oh, good.
Neither Anthony nor Lassiter thinks the office of mayor should be, officially, a full-time job, with a "strong mayor" acting as the city's chief administrator; Curt Walton, as city manager, has that job under Charlotte's council-manager form of government. Here's the difference, though: Anthony believes the mayor ought to put in full-time hours doing the public's work. Lassiter seems to think "part-time mayor" means "part-time commitment."
It's not really a matter of giving the mayor more power under the city charter, which nobody wants; it's a matter of understanding how the mayor can wield his influence for the good of the nation's 19th-largest city.
Anthony gets it. The city faces some extraordinarily complex issues: transportation, public safety, education, housing. "I'm going to spend time away from my professional life," he told the crowd at Queens. "I don't think we're at a time when we can have a remote-control mayor. Someone's got to step in and engage."
He's shown his reluctance time and again during debates, saying repeatedly that he's a husband first, a businessman second and a public official third, and that if elected mayor he can "balance my responsibilities during the course of the day to make sure the job gets done," as he said during last week's debate at Queens University.
In case voters didn't get the point, he repeated himself to the Observer's Jim Morrill:
"I've found I can do a lot of things in a very focused way without having to be a full-time mayor. I don't think I have to significantly change my allocation of time to still be the kind of mayor Charlotte needs."Isn't that reassuring? We certainly wouldn't want the office of mayor to be too much of an imposition on the man. He's awfully busy, after all.
He should rework some of his slogans.
"Lassiter: He'll squeeze us in."
"Lassiter: He won't significantly change his allocation of time."
"Lassiter: He'll get to that after lunch."
Seriously -- what is up with this guy? Can you think of any candidate during any election who's stressed his unwillingness to work too hard at the office he's running for?
Maybe it's his personality; no one's ever accused the man of being the life of the party, or the Party. Or maybe it's a characteristically Republican reluctance to govern even when running for, or holding, public office.
Whatever the case, you simply have to wonder about a mayoral candidate who observes that the common characteristic of mayors Pat McCrory, Richard Vinroot, Sue Myrick and Harvey Gantt is that "they were all private citizens with successful business lives."
Lassiter's been on the City Council for six years. You wonder how closely he's paid attention. Maybe he has a point on Gantt, Myrick and Vinroot. But McCrory?
Say what you will about Pat McCrory, but the guy has put in some serious hours as mayor. (You'd think Lassiter, one of the mayor's closest friends, would know this better than anyone.) Mike Collins, who was moderating the Queens debate, seemed surprised at Lassiter's observation. McCrory has handled the mayor's office as a full-time job, Collins correctly observed. He hasn't spent a lot of time as a special consultant for Duke Energy, his nominal regular gig.
Lassiter: "I don't claim to be Superman, but I'm willing to put in a hard day." Oh, good.
Neither Anthony nor Lassiter thinks the office of mayor should be, officially, a full-time job, with a "strong mayor" acting as the city's chief administrator; Curt Walton, as city manager, has that job under Charlotte's council-manager form of government. Here's the difference, though: Anthony believes the mayor ought to put in full-time hours doing the public's work. Lassiter seems to think "part-time mayor" means "part-time commitment."
It's not really a matter of giving the mayor more power under the city charter, which nobody wants; it's a matter of understanding how the mayor can wield his influence for the good of the nation's 19th-largest city.
Anthony gets it. The city faces some extraordinarily complex issues: transportation, public safety, education, housing. "I'm going to spend time away from my professional life," he told the crowd at Queens. "I don't think we're at a time when we can have a remote-control mayor. Someone's got to step in and engage."
Friday, October 9, 2009
A mint's worth of difference
At this point, anyone who claims there's not much difference between Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter is either willfully ignorant or just not paying attention.
Anthony's thinking is comprehensive, expansive and forward-looking. Lassiter's is small, narrow and fixated on the past.
Anthony talks about the challenges the community faces and the opportunities the city has. Lassiter mainly talks about himself.
Anthony consistently shows how enthusiastic he is about the prospect of becoming mayor of his hometown. Lassiter at times makes you wonder whether he even wants the job. (We'll be posting in more detail on this point.)
The differences fell into clear focus this week, especially on Wednesday, when the candidates took part in two debates: at Pinehurst Golf & Country Club and at Queens University. (The Queens debate was rebroadcast Thursday morning as an episode of "Charlotte Talks with Mike Collins" on WFAE-FM; you can download the broadcast here.)
But for now, a few observations.
There is no 'i' in 'mayor'
Anyone else notice that Lassiter's default position when answering a debate question is to talk about himself?
"I helped revitalize Wilkinson Boulevard."
"My role on the committee matches my personality."
"I think I clearly made the point."
"That's an example, on a small scale, of the kinds of things I've done."
Now, any candidate will spend at least some time talking about what he's done and what he plans to do. What's curious about Lassiter, though, is how seldom his self-references relate to any coherent vision or plan for his term in office.
Take that last quote. He was referring, again, to his work with the community organization Helping Empower Local People (HELP) to aid students from low-income neighborhoods. All fine and good, but Lassiter never gets around to explaining just how his involvement, however praiseworthy, is germane to his run for mayor. Is he suggesting a citywide volunteering program? Consolidation of agencies, as with the Mayor's Mentoring Alliance? We never know; he doesn't say.
Contrast that to Anthony's approach. He's specific, and his ideas dovetail with a coherent vision of a better Charlotte. His experience growing up in west Charlotte and getting ahead through education relates directly to his pledge to spend time every week tutoring students. His firsthand experience living in a neighborhood with limited opportunities led him directly to champion the business corridor initiative to expand opportunities for low-income neighborhoods.
And when Anthony does talk about himself, it's always in the context of how his actions and plans would improve life for the city's residents and help Charlotte reach its potential.
Consider the differing responses to a question about what political office each might seek after winning the mayor's race.
Anthony, in part: "This endeavor of running for mayor of this city is all about trying to make this community what it really can be."
Lassiter: "I thought after my time on the school board, I'd be done. I thought after serving on City Council, I'd be done. But then Pat McCrory said he wasn't going to run for re-election, and I recognized that my skills and abilities were needed to lead this city." (Emphasis added.)
Can you imagine a more vivid illustration of the differences between the two? Nary an "i," "me," or "my" from Anthony. Pretty much nothing but that from Lassiter.
Earlier in the day, at Pinehurst, Anthony had directed a richly deserved barb at his opponent: He said he wanted to take the 'i' out of the mayor's office.
Lassiter drops ball on streetcar funding
The streetcar project reared its head again, this time in a series of questions about the plan and funding for it.
Anthony, who supports the project, accurately observed that the city had known since last year that the original funding source, the half-cent sales tax for transit, wasn't going to raise enough money in a sagging economy -- which of course made a new funding source necessary.
Lassiter claimed in a rebuttal that the streetcar project was always going to be funded through Tax Increment Financing, a common tool by which governments use property tax revenue from development connected to a project to pay off the debt the government assumed in building the project.
This was not true. Anthony said so. Lassiter, given a chance to respond: "I think I clearly made the point." He did. He was clearly mistaken.
Temper, temper, Mr. Lassiter
Maybe he was just tired. But man, was Lassiter peevish at the Queens debate.
More than once, he snapped at Mike Collins because he was confused about the format. (This is starting to become a pattern.)
He responded snidely to an audience member who interrupted him, correctly objecting that Lassiter was talking about ground-level ozone when he had asked about carbon emissions.
Finally, after the initial portion of the debate, Anthony got out of his chair and walked, hand extended, over to where Lassiter was sitting. Lassiter shook Anthony's hand but otherwise didn't budge. Nice.
Milan? Really?
One of the stranger questions of the night came last: If Charlotte were a person, who would be its (her?) mentor?
Anthony responded to that knuckleball as well as he could: Charlotte needs to set its own standards. We can learn from other cities on specific things, but ultimately we have to chart our own course. We don't want the sprawl of Atlanta. We don't want the urban grime and density of New York.
Lassiter agreed that we shouldn't aspire to be like Atlanta, then blurted out this: Charlotte can learn from "some of the great cities of Europe ... cities that understand scale and longevity," such as -- ready? -- Paris and Milan.
Ahem.
First off, it's hard to imagine any meaningful or useful parallel between the Queen City and the City of Light, or the City of Really Expensive Shoes. Last we checked, Paris had pretty much settled its transit debate, for instance. And if there are any major lessons to be gleaned on such topics as public safety, air quality, transportation and affordable housing, one would think we could learn them just as easily from, say, Pittsburgh.
Second: Milan? Really? The old European city that looks like Hong Kong with nicer architecture?
We don't for a second believe that John Lassiter thinks Charlotte ought to organize a Chamber of Commerce junket to Milan. We do, however, believe that John Lassiter pulled that particular answer out of his keister.
Parting shot
We'll let Anthony have the final word: "I believe we have an urgent moment in our community ... We're going to have to align our community to take on old problems and to find new solutions to those problems."
Anthony's thinking is comprehensive, expansive and forward-looking. Lassiter's is small, narrow and fixated on the past.
Anthony talks about the challenges the community faces and the opportunities the city has. Lassiter mainly talks about himself.
Anthony consistently shows how enthusiastic he is about the prospect of becoming mayor of his hometown. Lassiter at times makes you wonder whether he even wants the job. (We'll be posting in more detail on this point.)
The differences fell into clear focus this week, especially on Wednesday, when the candidates took part in two debates: at Pinehurst Golf & Country Club and at Queens University. (The Queens debate was rebroadcast Thursday morning as an episode of "Charlotte Talks with Mike Collins" on WFAE-FM; you can download the broadcast here.)
But for now, a few observations.
There is no 'i' in 'mayor'
Anyone else notice that Lassiter's default position when answering a debate question is to talk about himself?
"I helped revitalize Wilkinson Boulevard."
"My role on the committee matches my personality."
"I think I clearly made the point."
"That's an example, on a small scale, of the kinds of things I've done."
Now, any candidate will spend at least some time talking about what he's done and what he plans to do. What's curious about Lassiter, though, is how seldom his self-references relate to any coherent vision or plan for his term in office.
Take that last quote. He was referring, again, to his work with the community organization Helping Empower Local People (HELP) to aid students from low-income neighborhoods. All fine and good, but Lassiter never gets around to explaining just how his involvement, however praiseworthy, is germane to his run for mayor. Is he suggesting a citywide volunteering program? Consolidation of agencies, as with the Mayor's Mentoring Alliance? We never know; he doesn't say.
Contrast that to Anthony's approach. He's specific, and his ideas dovetail with a coherent vision of a better Charlotte. His experience growing up in west Charlotte and getting ahead through education relates directly to his pledge to spend time every week tutoring students. His firsthand experience living in a neighborhood with limited opportunities led him directly to champion the business corridor initiative to expand opportunities for low-income neighborhoods.
And when Anthony does talk about himself, it's always in the context of how his actions and plans would improve life for the city's residents and help Charlotte reach its potential.
Consider the differing responses to a question about what political office each might seek after winning the mayor's race.
Anthony, in part: "This endeavor of running for mayor of this city is all about trying to make this community what it really can be."
Lassiter: "I thought after my time on the school board, I'd be done. I thought after serving on City Council, I'd be done. But then Pat McCrory said he wasn't going to run for re-election, and I recognized that my skills and abilities were needed to lead this city." (Emphasis added.)
Can you imagine a more vivid illustration of the differences between the two? Nary an "i," "me," or "my" from Anthony. Pretty much nothing but that from Lassiter.
Earlier in the day, at Pinehurst, Anthony had directed a richly deserved barb at his opponent: He said he wanted to take the 'i' out of the mayor's office.
Lassiter drops ball on streetcar funding
The streetcar project reared its head again, this time in a series of questions about the plan and funding for it.
Anthony, who supports the project, accurately observed that the city had known since last year that the original funding source, the half-cent sales tax for transit, wasn't going to raise enough money in a sagging economy -- which of course made a new funding source necessary.
Lassiter claimed in a rebuttal that the streetcar project was always going to be funded through Tax Increment Financing, a common tool by which governments use property tax revenue from development connected to a project to pay off the debt the government assumed in building the project.
This was not true. Anthony said so. Lassiter, given a chance to respond: "I think I clearly made the point." He did. He was clearly mistaken.
Temper, temper, Mr. Lassiter
Maybe he was just tired. But man, was Lassiter peevish at the Queens debate.
More than once, he snapped at Mike Collins because he was confused about the format. (This is starting to become a pattern.)
He responded snidely to an audience member who interrupted him, correctly objecting that Lassiter was talking about ground-level ozone when he had asked about carbon emissions.
Finally, after the initial portion of the debate, Anthony got out of his chair and walked, hand extended, over to where Lassiter was sitting. Lassiter shook Anthony's hand but otherwise didn't budge. Nice.
Milan? Really?
One of the stranger questions of the night came last: If Charlotte were a person, who would be its (her?) mentor?
Anthony responded to that knuckleball as well as he could: Charlotte needs to set its own standards. We can learn from other cities on specific things, but ultimately we have to chart our own course. We don't want the sprawl of Atlanta. We don't want the urban grime and density of New York.
Lassiter agreed that we shouldn't aspire to be like Atlanta, then blurted out this: Charlotte can learn from "some of the great cities of Europe ... cities that understand scale and longevity," such as -- ready? -- Paris and Milan.
Ahem.
First off, it's hard to imagine any meaningful or useful parallel between the Queen City and the City of Light, or the City of Really Expensive Shoes. Last we checked, Paris had pretty much settled its transit debate, for instance. And if there are any major lessons to be gleaned on such topics as public safety, air quality, transportation and affordable housing, one would think we could learn them just as easily from, say, Pittsburgh.
Second: Milan? Really? The old European city that looks like Hong Kong with nicer architecture?
We don't for a second believe that John Lassiter thinks Charlotte ought to organize a Chamber of Commerce junket to Milan. We do, however, believe that John Lassiter pulled that particular answer out of his keister.
Parting shot
We'll let Anthony have the final word: "I believe we have an urgent moment in our community ... We're going to have to align our community to take on old problems and to find new solutions to those problems."
'Experienced leadership'
If you've followed the mayoral campaign, especially the debates, you know it's John Lassiter's motif, the term he invariably uses when asked why he wants to be mayor and why he thinks we should elect him.
There's a significant quality-versus-quantity gap that undermines his claim. It has to be the right kind of experience and leadership, and there's a difference between length and depth.
Since he graduated from the law school at New York University in 1996, Anthony has:
Since he graduated from the Wake Forest law school in 1980, when Anthony was 8, John Lassiter has:
And although we'd never disparage Lassiter's years of service to his community, it's been fairly narrow, restricted to tried-and-true Charlotte governmental, business and cultural interests. Again, nothing wrong with that. But as Charlotte grows in size and continues to jockey with larger cities for funding, economic development projects and prestige, doesn't it make sense to elect a mayor with experience moving in circles inside and outside the 704 area code?
There's a significant quality-versus-quantity gap that undermines his claim. It has to be the right kind of experience and leadership, and there's a difference between length and depth.
Since he graduated from the law school at New York University in 1996, Anthony has:
- Worked in all three branches of the federal government, as a law clerk for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit; as a trial attorney for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Voting Section; and as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
- Served on a number of boards, including the Mecklenburg County Education Budget Advisory Committee, the North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching Foundation Board and the North Carolina Dance Theatre Board.
- In four years on the City Council, spearheaded the business corridor plan to revitalize underserved Charlotte neighborhoods; helped lead the effort to fully fund the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department's requests for additional police officers; and served as chairman of the Environment and Transportation committees.
- Become a successful lawyer and raised a family.
Since he graduated from the Wake Forest law school in 1980, when Anthony was 8, John Lassiter has:
- Served on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and City Council, including chairmanship of the Economic Development and Planning committee.
- Spearheaded the Arts and Cultural Facilities plan and the rental car tax hike to pay for it.
- Served as president of the Mecklenburg County Bar.
- Served on the boards of several local organizations, such as Crisis Assistance Ministries, Charlotte Center City Partners and the Charlotte Regional Partnership.
- Become a successful lawyer and business owner and raised a family.
And although we'd never disparage Lassiter's years of service to his community, it's been fairly narrow, restricted to tried-and-true Charlotte governmental, business and cultural interests. Again, nothing wrong with that. But as Charlotte grows in size and continues to jockey with larger cities for funding, economic development projects and prestige, doesn't it make sense to elect a mayor with experience moving in circles inside and outside the 704 area code?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
What's Lassiter afraid of (redux)?
"Eighty percent of success," Woody Allen famously said, "is showing up."
We sincerely hope John Lassiter is enjoying that remaining 20 percent.
On a damp predawn yesterday, Anthony arrived at the Fox Charlotte studios to appear on Fox News Rising for the fourth time this campaign.
A rundown of the previous three:
-- A pre-primary show to which all four candidates, Anthony and the three Republicans, were invited. Anthony showed. Martin Davis showed (of course). Jack Stratton showed. John Lassiter did not show.
-- Two post-primary shows to which Anthony and Lassiter were invited. Anthony showed. Lassiter did not.
-- Finally, Tuesday's show. Lassiter, praise be, showed up. On tape. The station had pre-recorded his responses to be aired within moments of a live interview with Anthony. The live interview -- in person, with the actual candidate! -- proceeded apace, as did Lassiter's "responses," which were taped God-knows-when.
This follows up last week's silliness, when Lassiter bowed out of a WTVI/WSOC/League of Women Voters debate because he objected to the number of allowed rebuttals.
Look, even giving Lassiter every benefit of every doubt -- maybe family matters got in the way, who knows? -- he at least ought to explain the absences. But there's another thing: Any political candidate ought to know instinctively that there's simply no substitute for being there. Want to run for office? You should be willing to meet your opponent anytime, anywhere, 24/7, we never close, to talk about the issues and what you'd do about them.
Failure to show, regardless of the reason, leaves voters with the impression that you're scared to go up against your opponent one-on-one, or maybe you believe the election is so deeply in the bag you don't have to bother with such trifles as TV appearances. Fine. See how well that works for you, John.
We sincerely hope John Lassiter is enjoying that remaining 20 percent.
On a damp predawn yesterday, Anthony arrived at the Fox Charlotte studios to appear on Fox News Rising for the fourth time this campaign.
A rundown of the previous three:
-- A pre-primary show to which all four candidates, Anthony and the three Republicans, were invited. Anthony showed. Martin Davis showed (of course). Jack Stratton showed. John Lassiter did not show.
-- Two post-primary shows to which Anthony and Lassiter were invited. Anthony showed. Lassiter did not.
-- Finally, Tuesday's show. Lassiter, praise be, showed up. On tape. The station had pre-recorded his responses to be aired within moments of a live interview with Anthony. The live interview -- in person, with the actual candidate! -- proceeded apace, as did Lassiter's "responses," which were taped God-knows-when.
This follows up last week's silliness, when Lassiter bowed out of a WTVI/WSOC/League of Women Voters debate because he objected to the number of allowed rebuttals.
Look, even giving Lassiter every benefit of every doubt -- maybe family matters got in the way, who knows? -- he at least ought to explain the absences. But there's another thing: Any political candidate ought to know instinctively that there's simply no substitute for being there. Want to run for office? You should be willing to meet your opponent anytime, anywhere, 24/7, we never close, to talk about the issues and what you'd do about them.
Failure to show, regardless of the reason, leaves voters with the impression that you're scared to go up against your opponent one-on-one, or maybe you believe the election is so deeply in the bag you don't have to bother with such trifles as TV appearances. Fine. See how well that works for you, John.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Anthony on Ken Lewis' retirement
Anthony released this statement today:
“Bank of America is a fixture in Charlotte, a good corporate citizen and an employer of thousands of Charlotte-area residents. The news of Ken Lewis’ retirement comes amid great uncertainty in our country and in our city. Now, and as mayor, I will do everything in my power to keep the long-standing bond between Charlotte and Bank of America strong, including any and all measures necessary to keep Charlotte as its headquarters.
"Ken Lewis has been a tremendous leader of Bank of America and a great civic partner to the city of Charlotte. I wish him well in his retirement and will remain hopeful that his successor will be as engaged in our community as Ken Lewis has been."
Monday, September 28, 2009
What's Lassiter afraid of? (with update)
This is just ... weird.
First off, who cancels on a debate co-hosted by the League of Women Voters, the ladies who've been hosting debates since the Late Cretaceous?
Second, who withdraws from a debate a month in advance? When it'd be aired live, in prime time, a week before the election?
John Lassiter, apparently. As of this post, he's offered no explanation other than the tepid, lame one he offered to WSOC-TV -- he disagreed with the number of rebuttal questions.
This was the same sort of nonsense that came close to derailing last week's debate at Johnson C. Smith University. And on top of that, the explanation just doesn't wash. Candidates meet to set ground rules before debates; there's no formula, just an agreement beforehand that the participants will play by the same rules.
So what if rebuttals would be unlimited? More chance for you to get your message out. Worried that rebuttals would go on ad infinitum? Fine, argue to set a limit. Believe me, the station won't let you go on forever. But don't just cancel in a fit of pique a month before the debate.
Then again, maybe something else is afoot. The week before last, WSOC invited Anthony, Lassiter and members of both campaigns to the station to discuss the aforementioned ground rules. Lassiter didn't show. Neither did anyone from his campaign.
Leave aside the bad manners -- is this how John Lassiter would behave as mayor? The Charlotte mayor, in a weak-mayor form of government, has to be a diplomat, exerting influence through persuasion rather than force. It's the way this particular civic cookie crumbles. So if Lassiter doesn't get his way, his response is to take his ball and go home?
Or maybe, come to think of it, it's not so weird.
Maybe Lassiter knows exactly what he's doing.
Maybe he knows that, on equal footing and with plenty of chances to state his case, he'd lose because he doesn't have much of a case to state.
Update: Lassiter offers a little more explanation in Jim Morrill's story in this morning's Observer. It still doesn't wash.
There'd be no restriction on answering questions from audience members, for one thing. For another, Lassiter sounds just a tad too defensive in carping about Anthony's campaign playing "hardball." The six-rebuttal limit was the LWV's idea, not the Foxx campaign's.
So Lassiter plays petulant, turns down the debate invite, then turns around and accuses Anthony of playing "hardball." Right.
First off, who cancels on a debate co-hosted by the League of Women Voters, the ladies who've been hosting debates since the Late Cretaceous?
Second, who withdraws from a debate a month in advance? When it'd be aired live, in prime time, a week before the election?
John Lassiter, apparently. As of this post, he's offered no explanation other than the tepid, lame one he offered to WSOC-TV -- he disagreed with the number of rebuttal questions.
This was the same sort of nonsense that came close to derailing last week's debate at Johnson C. Smith University. And on top of that, the explanation just doesn't wash. Candidates meet to set ground rules before debates; there's no formula, just an agreement beforehand that the participants will play by the same rules.
So what if rebuttals would be unlimited? More chance for you to get your message out. Worried that rebuttals would go on ad infinitum? Fine, argue to set a limit. Believe me, the station won't let you go on forever. But don't just cancel in a fit of pique a month before the debate.
Then again, maybe something else is afoot. The week before last, WSOC invited Anthony, Lassiter and members of both campaigns to the station to discuss the aforementioned ground rules. Lassiter didn't show. Neither did anyone from his campaign.
Leave aside the bad manners -- is this how John Lassiter would behave as mayor? The Charlotte mayor, in a weak-mayor form of government, has to be a diplomat, exerting influence through persuasion rather than force. It's the way this particular civic cookie crumbles. So if Lassiter doesn't get his way, his response is to take his ball and go home?
Or maybe, come to think of it, it's not so weird.
Maybe Lassiter knows exactly what he's doing.
Maybe he knows that, on equal footing and with plenty of chances to state his case, he'd lose because he doesn't have much of a case to state.
Update: Lassiter offers a little more explanation in Jim Morrill's story in this morning's Observer. It still doesn't wash.
There'd be no restriction on answering questions from audience members, for one thing. For another, Lassiter sounds just a tad too defensive in carping about Anthony's campaign playing "hardball." The six-rebuttal limit was the LWV's idea, not the Foxx campaign's.
So Lassiter plays petulant, turns down the debate invite, then turns around and accuses Anthony of playing "hardball." Right.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Foxx campaign: Stop the Games
A release from the campaign:
The Anthony Foxx for Mayor campaign responded today to a series of last-minute format changes and scheduling maneuvers proposed by the John Lassiter campaign to the 15 debates and forums taking place in the last 41 days of the mayoral campaign.
“Community organizations have established ground rules based on their interest in understanding the records and views of both candidates,” said Bruce Clark, Anthony Foxx for Mayor campaign manager. “The Lassiter campaign should not try to strong arm these groups nor stifle important conversation about the future of our community.”
For several months, the Lassiter campaign has failed to participate in pre-debate walk-throughs and format reviews and later insisted on last-minute changes.
More here.
The Anthony Foxx for Mayor campaign responded today to a series of last-minute format changes and scheduling maneuvers proposed by the John Lassiter campaign to the 15 debates and forums taking place in the last 41 days of the mayoral campaign.
“Community organizations have established ground rules based on their interest in understanding the records and views of both candidates,” said Bruce Clark, Anthony Foxx for Mayor campaign manager. “The Lassiter campaign should not try to strong arm these groups nor stifle important conversation about the future of our community.”
For several months, the Lassiter campaign has failed to participate in pre-debate walk-throughs and format reviews and later insisted on last-minute changes.
More here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The vision difference
"There's a vision difference here," Anthony said Tuesday night during a mayoral debate at Johnson C. Smith University.
Yes, there is. If one thing emerged from the debate, it's this: Anthony Foxx thinks big. His opponent, John Lassiter, thinks small.
(Lassiter also thinks he found a way to pay for 70, rather than 35, extra police officers during budget discussions three years ago. He did not. We'll get to that.)
Time and again, asked about public safety, transportation, jobs, education and other critical issues, Anthony spelled out his record and plans in specific terms. Lassiter related anecdotes only tangentially related to the question; talked vaguely about "find(ing) a way" to solve the problems at hand; and, when he did suggest specific ideas, proffered some seriously underwhelming ones.
Example: Co-moderator Erica Bryant of WSOC-TV related a question on how each candidate would influence public education.
Now, the mayor of Charlotte has no direct say over education; Mecklenburg County funds Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, and the school board makes policy decisions. But the mayor can publicly state support for certain policies and rally school support through example.
Anthony, having grown up on the west side, credits his schooling with lifting him out of a difficult situation. "I am passionate about education, because I feel that has made a difference in my life," he said. He has vowed to tutor a CMS student once a week as mayor and encourage others to do the same. "We need a mayor," he said to rising applause, "who is showing us how education makes a difference in this community."
Lassiter, who spent 11 years on the school board, said, "We've got to find a way to work collaboratively with CMS," then offered this grand idea: Since CMS is planning to move its offices into the Government Center, the city, county and school district should find a way to consolidate their Information Technology, payroll and other administrative functions, thereby saving money.
Inspiring, no? This may be a perfectly good idea, although it wouldn't be such good news for the low-paid IT and payroll workers who'd be jettisoned. But more important, seriously, is that the best he can come up with? We're looking for someone to lead the city, and he's talking about merging administrative duties?
It went on like this all night.
Question: What would you do as mayor to enhance the Beatties Ford Road corridor?
Anthony: I've already started that process through the business corridor plan I championed on the City Council, which aims to create jobs and business opportunities not just on Beatties Ford but on Wilkinson Boulevard, Central Avenue, Rozzelles Ferry Road and North Tryon Street. I was the one who told the council that we needed to ditch the complacency surrounding our business corridors outside of uptown.
Lassiter: I was recently at the new West End Market, which the city had nothing to do with. "It's going to take a lot more than that." I was talking recently with (JCSU President) Dr. (Ronald) Carter, and I suggested that if someone opened a bookstore on Beatties Ford, we'd "do what we can" to lure businesses to Beatties Ford.
Who has the vision here? Who's thinking big? Who has the entire city in mind?
Question: Would you help bolster the budget for the underfunded District Attorney's office, and how?
Anthony: Yes, but it's not just a matter of hiring more prosecutors. The DA's office has outdated computers and other technology, which drains valuable time away from prosecutors and staff. That's why I recently proposed an increase in funding, which passed, for the DA's office specifically to address technology needs.
Lassiter: The night I won the primary, a poll worker came up and told me someone had broken into his house. This put a damper on the celebration. (Ed. note: This was the second time in as many debates that Lassiter has related the poll worker story.) "We need to find a way to make sure we do the kinds of things locally to do the things we need to ..."
We lost track. So did Erica Bryant. "Is that a 'yes'?" she said.
Which brings us to public safety, and police officers, and paying for them, and the budget.
Three years ago, the City Council overrode a mayoral veto to pass a budget that included money for 70 new police officers, the number the then-chief requested, and $398 million for street, neighborhood, housing and other improvements. It was a party-line vote. All seven Democrats, including Anthony, voted yes; all four Republicans, including Lassiter, voted no.
The Republicans had proposed their own budget that would have paid for 35 new officers, half of what the chief had asked for, and $82 million in capital improvements.
Anthony accurately said he was on the side that provided the services the city needed, and Lassiter wasn't. Lassiter responded by dissembling. He said the Republicans had found savings in the budget that would have paid for the 70 officers.
If they did, they kept it a secret. Lassiter was flat wrong. Anthony called him on it.
"The truth of the matter is, the police asked for 70 officers, and my Republican colleagues would've hired 35," he said. "We took the step of making sure our community stayed safe."
It's worth noting that every year since then, the council has fully funded the police chief's request for officers. Whose vision prevailed?
Yes, there is. If one thing emerged from the debate, it's this: Anthony Foxx thinks big. His opponent, John Lassiter, thinks small.
(Lassiter also thinks he found a way to pay for 70, rather than 35, extra police officers during budget discussions three years ago. He did not. We'll get to that.)
Time and again, asked about public safety, transportation, jobs, education and other critical issues, Anthony spelled out his record and plans in specific terms. Lassiter related anecdotes only tangentially related to the question; talked vaguely about "find(ing) a way" to solve the problems at hand; and, when he did suggest specific ideas, proffered some seriously underwhelming ones.
Example: Co-moderator Erica Bryant of WSOC-TV related a question on how each candidate would influence public education.
Now, the mayor of Charlotte has no direct say over education; Mecklenburg County funds Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, and the school board makes policy decisions. But the mayor can publicly state support for certain policies and rally school support through example.
Anthony, having grown up on the west side, credits his schooling with lifting him out of a difficult situation. "I am passionate about education, because I feel that has made a difference in my life," he said. He has vowed to tutor a CMS student once a week as mayor and encourage others to do the same. "We need a mayor," he said to rising applause, "who is showing us how education makes a difference in this community."
Lassiter, who spent 11 years on the school board, said, "We've got to find a way to work collaboratively with CMS," then offered this grand idea: Since CMS is planning to move its offices into the Government Center, the city, county and school district should find a way to consolidate their Information Technology, payroll and other administrative functions, thereby saving money.
Inspiring, no? This may be a perfectly good idea, although it wouldn't be such good news for the low-paid IT and payroll workers who'd be jettisoned. But more important, seriously, is that the best he can come up with? We're looking for someone to lead the city, and he's talking about merging administrative duties?
It went on like this all night.
Question: What would you do as mayor to enhance the Beatties Ford Road corridor?
Anthony: I've already started that process through the business corridor plan I championed on the City Council, which aims to create jobs and business opportunities not just on Beatties Ford but on Wilkinson Boulevard, Central Avenue, Rozzelles Ferry Road and North Tryon Street. I was the one who told the council that we needed to ditch the complacency surrounding our business corridors outside of uptown.
Lassiter: I was recently at the new West End Market, which the city had nothing to do with. "It's going to take a lot more than that." I was talking recently with (JCSU President) Dr. (Ronald) Carter, and I suggested that if someone opened a bookstore on Beatties Ford, we'd "do what we can" to lure businesses to Beatties Ford.
Who has the vision here? Who's thinking big? Who has the entire city in mind?
Question: Would you help bolster the budget for the underfunded District Attorney's office, and how?
Anthony: Yes, but it's not just a matter of hiring more prosecutors. The DA's office has outdated computers and other technology, which drains valuable time away from prosecutors and staff. That's why I recently proposed an increase in funding, which passed, for the DA's office specifically to address technology needs.
Lassiter: The night I won the primary, a poll worker came up and told me someone had broken into his house. This put a damper on the celebration. (Ed. note: This was the second time in as many debates that Lassiter has related the poll worker story.) "We need to find a way to make sure we do the kinds of things locally to do the things we need to ..."
We lost track. So did Erica Bryant. "Is that a 'yes'?" she said.
Which brings us to public safety, and police officers, and paying for them, and the budget.
Three years ago, the City Council overrode a mayoral veto to pass a budget that included money for 70 new police officers, the number the then-chief requested, and $398 million for street, neighborhood, housing and other improvements. It was a party-line vote. All seven Democrats, including Anthony, voted yes; all four Republicans, including Lassiter, voted no.
The Republicans had proposed their own budget that would have paid for 35 new officers, half of what the chief had asked for, and $82 million in capital improvements.
Anthony accurately said he was on the side that provided the services the city needed, and Lassiter wasn't. Lassiter responded by dissembling. He said the Republicans had found savings in the budget that would have paid for the 70 officers.
If they did, they kept it a secret. Lassiter was flat wrong. Anthony called him on it.
"The truth of the matter is, the police asked for 70 officers, and my Republican colleagues would've hired 35," he said. "We took the step of making sure our community stayed safe."
It's worth noting that every year since then, the council has fully funded the police chief's request for officers. Whose vision prevailed?
Elon poll: It's anybody's race
The latest Elon University poll, released Monday, shows no clear frontrunner in the mayoral race between Anthony and John Lassiter -- which isn't that surprising, considering the election is more than a month away.
But here's the revealing part: A whopping 68 percent of respondents believe the mayoral election is "very important" for the city, and more than half said things in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have either "gotten off on the wrong track" or "strongly gotten off on the wrong track."
This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the 14-year mayoral reign of Pat McCrory, Lassiter's close friend and political ally. Lassiter has as much power of incumbency as you can have without actually being an incumbent -- but it doesn't seem to be making much difference.
Another "tell": The poll was taken in the five days after the primary election, when Lassiter had been all over the television news, and with his billboards and yard signs everywhere. If there was any time for a pro-Lassiter polling "bump," this was it. But no bump. He is bumpless.
Advantage Anthony, wouldn't you say?
But here's the revealing part: A whopping 68 percent of respondents believe the mayoral election is "very important" for the city, and more than half said things in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have either "gotten off on the wrong track" or "strongly gotten off on the wrong track."
This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the 14-year mayoral reign of Pat McCrory, Lassiter's close friend and political ally. Lassiter has as much power of incumbency as you can have without actually being an incumbent -- but it doesn't seem to be making much difference.
Another "tell": The poll was taken in the five days after the primary election, when Lassiter had been all over the television news, and with his billboards and yard signs everywhere. If there was any time for a pro-Lassiter polling "bump," this was it. But no bump. He is bumpless.
Advantage Anthony, wouldn't you say?
Get clickin'
Here's a Charlotte Business Journal poll that asks which mayoral candidate would be better for business.
As of the time of this post, John Lassiter is leading.
You know what to do. Two clicks, that's all we ask.
As of the time of this post, John Lassiter is leading.
You know what to do. Two clicks, that's all we ask.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Debate time at J.C. Smith
If you missed last week's mayoral forum at the Charlotte School of Law, come on out tonight to Biddle Hall at Johnson C. Smith University for a debate between Anthony and John Lassiter, starting at 7 p.m.
And, by all means, show up early. Starting at 5 p.m., volunteers will be passing out campaign information and signing up new volunteers. Just go to the student union at Biddle Hall and look for the friendly, charming people.
See you tonight!
And, by all means, show up early. Starting at 5 p.m., volunteers will be passing out campaign information and signing up new volunteers. Just go to the student union at Biddle Hall and look for the friendly, charming people.
See you tonight!
Monday, September 21, 2009
On track with the streetcar
As you might have heard by now, Anthony and his fellow Democrats on the City Council recently approved spending $4.5 million to jumpstart Charlotte's plan for a streetcar.
It's an important project for Charlotte's future, for all kinds of reasons:
1) As Charlotte grows, it'll be more and more important to offer transportation alternatives to cars and buses. It's been estimated that one streetcar could take the place of three buses.
2) The line would run through areas on the west and east sides that badly need new businesses. Developers are more likely to invest in areas with streetcar tracks, rather than just bus lines, because they're permanent; they know tracks represent a commitment that bus lines don't. A city-commissioned study concluded in February that the line would generate as much as $1 billion in new investment. The line could also link to other business corridors and expand the city's property tax base.
3) The Charlotte area is already producing too much ground-level ozone, a kind of air pollution. Any effort to cut that pollution is worthwhile.
4) The federal government is increasingly realizing the value of rail-based public transit and making federal dollars available to local governments with the visions to take on these kinds of projects. Moving ahead with the streetcar project now will help ensure we'll be at or near the head of the line when this money comes available. Waiting, or putting the money in reserve, would make it easy to justify never spending it, and chances are that the streetcar project would never get done.
A few weeks ago, the council had voted 7-4 -- all seven Democrats voting yes, all four Republicans voting no -- to spend the money on preliminary design work on the streetcar line, which would stretch nearly 10 miles from Beatties Ford Road on the west side through uptown to Eastland Mall. Mayor Pat McCrory vetoed the vote; he and the council Republicans wanted to put the money in reserve until the city could outline how it could pay for the whole project. The council's 7-4 vote last week overrode the mayor's veto.
Nobody knows how much the line would cost. One estimate is $450 million. That's an educated guess. The preliminary design work doesn't commit the city to building the streetcar line, but it will help us get a better idea of what the whole thing would cost. And the city wouldn't necessarily have to build the whole thing, either; it could do the project in steps, or it could construct the line without overhead wires, which could reduce the cost of the project by 25 percent. Starting the design keeps all those options open.
The mayor's, and council Republicans', concerns about spending in a recession are understandable, and they make some good arguments. But the potential benefits of the streetcar outweigh the risks. The real risk would be in passing up a great opportunity. As Anthony said recently at a news conference at Eastland Mall, where he, state Rep. Tricia Cotham and an aide to U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan voiced their support for the project: "This project is going to be a hard one to get done ... but it's one that is entirely worth it."
It's an important project for Charlotte's future, for all kinds of reasons:
1) As Charlotte grows, it'll be more and more important to offer transportation alternatives to cars and buses. It's been estimated that one streetcar could take the place of three buses.
2) The line would run through areas on the west and east sides that badly need new businesses. Developers are more likely to invest in areas with streetcar tracks, rather than just bus lines, because they're permanent; they know tracks represent a commitment that bus lines don't. A city-commissioned study concluded in February that the line would generate as much as $1 billion in new investment. The line could also link to other business corridors and expand the city's property tax base.
3) The Charlotte area is already producing too much ground-level ozone, a kind of air pollution. Any effort to cut that pollution is worthwhile.
4) The federal government is increasingly realizing the value of rail-based public transit and making federal dollars available to local governments with the visions to take on these kinds of projects. Moving ahead with the streetcar project now will help ensure we'll be at or near the head of the line when this money comes available. Waiting, or putting the money in reserve, would make it easy to justify never spending it, and chances are that the streetcar project would never get done.
A few weeks ago, the council had voted 7-4 -- all seven Democrats voting yes, all four Republicans voting no -- to spend the money on preliminary design work on the streetcar line, which would stretch nearly 10 miles from Beatties Ford Road on the west side through uptown to Eastland Mall. Mayor Pat McCrory vetoed the vote; he and the council Republicans wanted to put the money in reserve until the city could outline how it could pay for the whole project. The council's 7-4 vote last week overrode the mayor's veto.
Nobody knows how much the line would cost. One estimate is $450 million. That's an educated guess. The preliminary design work doesn't commit the city to building the streetcar line, but it will help us get a better idea of what the whole thing would cost. And the city wouldn't necessarily have to build the whole thing, either; it could do the project in steps, or it could construct the line without overhead wires, which could reduce the cost of the project by 25 percent. Starting the design keeps all those options open.
The mayor's, and council Republicans', concerns about spending in a recession are understandable, and they make some good arguments. But the potential benefits of the streetcar outweigh the risks. The real risk would be in passing up a great opportunity. As Anthony said recently at a news conference at Eastland Mall, where he, state Rep. Tricia Cotham and an aide to U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan voiced their support for the project: "This project is going to be a hard one to get done ... but it's one that is entirely worth it."
Law school debate: "Resources on the street"?
Anthony debated his now-official mayoral opponent, John Lassiter, Wednesday evening at the Charlotte School of Law, in the first of numerous debates before Election Day Nov. 3. A few things that stood out to us:
1) In his introductory remarks, Lassiter touched on public safety, relating the story of a poll worker on primary night who told Lassiter someone had broken into his home. It’s an example, Lassiter said, of the importance of deciding “how to get resources on the street.”
Well, the best way is to pay for them. It took us back to 2006, when the Democratic and Republican members of the City Council were going back and forth over the budget. Then-Police Chief Darrel Stephens asked for 70 new police officers. The city manager proposed 55. Lassiter and his fellow Republicans on the council offered a budget proposal that would have paid for 35.
The budget Anthony and the other Democrats on the council came up with – and the one that ended up passing over a mayoral veto – paid for all 70 of the officers Stephens had requested. Every year since then, the council has fully funded the chief’s requests for officers.
Does anybody doubt that was the way to go? And what does it say about Lassiter that he was willing to cut in half what the chief of police said he needed to keep Charlotte’s streets safe? And now he’s crowing about “get(ting) resources on the street”?
2) Three times (by our count), Lassiter referenced his work in heading up the effort to construct the arts and cultural facilities complex uptown: in his introductory remarks; in response to a question about improving relations with state government; and in response to a question about his record compared to Anthony’s.
He deserves credit for taking the lead on that project, which included working with legislators on the rental car tax hike to pay for it. But it’s telling that it was really the only specific example he could cite when he was asked about his accomplishments during his six years on the council. There’s a reason: That’s all he’s got.
Anthony, on the other hand, listed specific after specific: the business corridor plan to take economic growth to neglected parts of the city; leading the effort on new neighborhood and road improvements; working to expand opportunities for small business through the Small Business Enterprise Program …
Those are all things that don’t come with built-in support, as the arts and cultural plan did. But they’re no less important, and they illustrate Anthony’s commitment to the city as a whole, rather than just uptown. There’s another key difference – as worthwhile as the arts project is, it’s essentially geared to tourists, to making Charlotte a nice place to visit. Anthony’s projects aim to make Charlotte a good place to live.
3) In talking about term limits, which Anthony supports, Lassiter said he’s imposed them on himself. Interesting. He spent 11 years on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education before running for the council. Nice restraint, John.
Then he made another very interesting point, an odd one for someone who’s held some kind of public office for 22 consecutive years. You don’t want to stay in office too long, he said, because “at some point, you quit providing value because the energy’s not there.”
We couldn’t agree more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)