So, Democrats want Republicans to reveal whatever "secret plans" they have for consoldiated government that might work to the disadvantage of Democrats. What are we talking here, tanks rumbling down Calhoun Street? A roundup of all Democrats and dropping them off handcuffed and blindfolded in Terre Haute without any money?
I'd bet there are a dozen plans being formulated for how restructrured government might look. I did one myself. They will all be "secret" until they are unveiled as the process unfolds. That process, spelled out by state legislation this year, has so many requirements for public input (including a referendum at the end) that not the tiniest detail will end up unknown, and it will take long enough that all the competing ideas will be discussed so thoroughly everyone will get sick of them.
One of the many aspects of restructuring that will get long and thorough consideration is how to constitute a new city-county council that might be devised. Do we do, for example, want pie-slice districts radiating from the center of Fort Wayne, trying to make each district have about the same proportion of city, suburban and rural constituents? Or do we want some districts that are primarily urban and some that are primarily rural? Should there be a district or two trying to guarantee minority representation, or one or two trying to guarantee agricultural representation?
All the plans out there and all the possible ones are just starting points. What secret could anybody possibly have now that is going to stay a secret very long? Just because the Freedom of Informationa act exists does not mean that every use of it is a good one.
Comments
Leo,
I agree, there are many steps to the process. But just because a body has public hearings does NOT mean that they will actuall listen to what is being said. Democrats had to fight to get a public hearing on this matter- the Republican's did not want to include public input at the most important part of the process- THE BEGINNING!
Recently I attended a neighborhood meeting in which some flooding issues were discussed with the city. The City came to the neighborhood to get THEIR ideas before they came up with a plan to address all the issues. Isn't that a novel concept?
I worked on the City's Sewer Task Force- EVERY meeting was open to the public. There was no backroom deals, no hidden agendas. Can't this process work the same way?
Also keep in mind Councilman Talarico's comments following this past primary election- as reported in the May 4 Journal Gazette:
"Talarico said (Cal) Miller's victory shows him that the people who have spoken out against Fort Wayne and annexation are a "vocal but small minority"".
So are the people in Eastern Allen County, so are the African American population of Fort Wayne.
With the attitude that minorities do not matter or count, then it is important that ANY discussion by elected officials- who are suppose to represent ALL of us, are public.
I am also troubled that so many "officials" have apparently seen a plan (including an organizational chart) that does not exist.
If there are no documents, then there is no harm in the request. If there are, then full public disclosure is in order.
Personally, I do not know how I feel about consolidation / restructuring. However, I am certain that the entire process should be open and transparent.
At the risk of being taken serious, I would like to contribute an idea for the next republican secret planing meeting. I suggest that the new ruling government include a council of elders. Some of the benefits of being an elder is that the newspaper would quote one of your wise saying every month so that you can keep the family name before the public. It never hurts. Right Ben. You would be entitled to wear a long robe, a silly hat and always be taken serious. You could carry a walking stick and demand that everyone address you as "Ole wise one." We would also have to limit it to about five because being an elder would include health insurance. Any other ideas for eldercare?
Love that idea Steve....the whole "elders" thing. Being almost at *that* age (well, close enough for AARP to take notice of me anyway) should qualify me.
I've got the robe and I can snag a branch to use as a staff, but can I negate having to wear that "silly" hat in lieu of of a lengthy white beard???
...LOL!!
B.G.
Yes you may. It would be more convincing however if you are completely bald on the just the top of your head. We don't want forty somethings posing as the elderly just because they are prematurely grey trying to get on the eldercare bandwagon. I think we already have that on our current counsil. When we, I mean when they hold court they will need a jester. Any ideas? I was just thinking, the meetings would have to start before four because most of the counsil would want to be home before dark. And if it held at a restaurant we I mean they could have lunch/supper and charge it to the taxpayers. Hey this might just work. I better go I'm getting sleepy.
Why don't we have spellcheck? Are you trying identify the intellectuals from the rest of us hacks?
>"Talarico said (Cal) Miller's victory shows
>him that the people who have spoken out
>against Fort Wayne and annexation are a
>"vocal but small minority."
This is a ridiculous thing for Talarico to say. By this propagandist logic, Saddam was correct to annex Kuwait because as a province of Iraq, Kuwatis were "a vocal but small minority." They were, however, 100% of those being invaded.
Talarico conveniently omits the fact that whenever Fort Wayne annexes something, his so-called "minority" is the vast majority of non-Fort-Wayne residents living contentedly in the area to be grabbed by the city. That very vocal majority is routinely ignored rather than courted, both before and AFTER the annexation.
Who says the residents of the city of Fort Wayne -- who have a clear conflict of interest -- should be getting a say-so in the taking over of a chunk of county territory?
All those who think Fort Wayne residents as a whole can "do the right thing" by HONORING THE WISHES of that outlying area's population (given that their own city stands to make a whole lot of new long-term profits to cover pre-existing plans and projects), raise your hands. Apparently we need some polling done to discover how many in Fort Wayne actually have the annexed area's best interests at heart; how many Fort Wayne leaders are really capable of deciding that an attractive annexation is "the wrong thing" when the population of that area says Hell No.
How can anyone in the city claim to be doing the right thing when they routinely use their internal self interest to overrule the interests of those annexed against their will?
Aboite was a low point; I had a home there during Helmke's Hostilities. I'm the guy that wrote to a local opinion page saying, "Next thing you know, Helmke will be lobbing Scuds at us." Even now I don't think I overstated our feelings or his arrogance. The Helmke notion of "the right thing" was single-handedly responsible for hasty state legislation to prevent such abuses, making annexation a little tougher to ram down a population's protesting throats.
The evidence suggests that annexation in Indiana should require an official referendum, a proposition to appear solely on the ballots of those who live in the area being eyed for takeover.
If the city can make an attractive case, the measure will pass. If it cannot demonstrate significant practical benefit to those who live in the coveted area, the measure should fail and those who chose the country life should be left in peace, and Fort Wayne should be grateful those people elect to shop in Fort Wayne.
The city will have a tougher and tougher time selling annexation in future with the same retread excuses and political glad-handing, since actions speak louder than words. Annexing a piece of the county and then condemning perfectly healthy utilities is hardly a confidence builder, for example, for the rest of Allen County looking on. When the city comes knocking on their doors, they have every right to ask:
"What about your own bad management record? What about your empty buildings, your patched up streets, your run-down downtown,your stretched budget, your strained police and fire assets, your unemployed and underemployed? How can your city hall say with a straight face that it will make our lifestyle more attractive than it is now?
"You already get a lot of our consumer dollars; aren't you at all grateful for the money we put into your economy? Even if we work in the city, we spend the money there too.
"Look to the log in your own eye before coming out here with promises of improvements and services. Prove that you can fix your brownfields and maintain your city, before you come out here promising to manage our lives better.
"We think you are going to cost us much more than you will render in benefits, and that you will squander our tax money on more of the same inside your own city. You want us to play a zero sum game, a very expensive one that our families can't afford to play with you politicians."
In short, Fort Wayne annexations have been hostile takeovers in the past, complete with strong-arm legal battles and appeals, enough to prove that the city has too much power and those whose property and lifestyles are directly affected have far, far too little.
Power breeds contempt, and in City Hall they have seldom bothered to hide it. These days the notion of entitlement is so well entrenched that the mayor and city council don't even bother with smooch and a reach-around.