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."

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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!

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."

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.