Trying a little marrying of old and new technology here. Here is a link to my first draft of the editorial that will be in Friday's paper about the city's attempts to take over Aqua Indiana and keep its legal fees secret. Depending on the comments left at this post, I might update the editorial before publication to reflect some of what you say.
Comments
In a city that wants to be known as inviting to entrepreneurship this doesn't give the right impression to prospective companies.
Taking off my Chairman's hat to share my PERSONAL viewpoint:
While I think that open goverment is VITAL to a healthy democracy, I think there is another issue at play here.
I find it very interesting that Sam Talarico AGREED with Tim Pape that there are reasons to NOT release the information (that it could hurt the negotiation process) but then voted to release the information.
What really troubles me is the timing- Council did NOT express concern about the possible cost until late in 2005. Why did they not ask in 2003? 2004? What was special about 2005?
Oh yes, that is right, Paul Helmke took a poll to see about his chances to be Mayor again. And who is the attorney for Aqua Indiana? Oh, that is right, Paul Helmke!
While I agree the records should be public, I do not doubt for a minute that the reason the Republicans voted to release the information was simply to damage the Democratic Mayor. If there was a Republican Mayor, they would have voted to keep it under wraps.
So.....I agree with the result, but I remain VERY skeptical of the reasons the information was released. Let's not be too quick to pat the Republican city council members on the back!
I am with The Republican City Council members on this one and I am VERY UPSET with all four Democrats. They were wrong.
Period.
We need an open and transparent government.
Period.
I have filed an informational request with The City of Fort Wayne. I want to know how each City Council member voted on the resolution to steal Aqua Indiana North with Eminent Domain in the first place. I imagine that several of the same Republicans who voted to reveal the legal fees also voted to start the process in the first place...
Won't that be interesting.
I am still waiting on a response from The City Clerk...
Mike Sylvester
Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Allen County
Just FYI
In Long's quote you misspelled utility...
I agree that the taxpayers (read clients) should be made aware of the attorney fees...fair IS fair. After all, are these (city) people NOT civil SERVANTS? And what is the "job" of a "servant"?
(Hint...it's not the job of OWNING and RUNNING an estate, while keeping secrets solely to themselves).
The bad side of all of this is that typical partisan politics ruled the day. It ALWAYS seems to be Dem vs REP, and to Hades with who is right, wrong, and who gets trounced in the process (usually the taxpayer).
As for Paul Helmke becoming mayor (yet) again? REALLY bad idea! It was under HIS administration that the southside was ignored into retail oblivion. It was under HIS administration that crack cocaine hit the streets in earnest (and is STILL here). It was under HIS adminstration that all this "annexation" was set in motion (to the chagrin of SO many people) to shore up the eroding tax base.
'Nuff said there.
Aqua Source appears to be a viable entitiy (and as stated DOES pay taxes), and (imho) doesn't NEED to be "bought out", especially playing the "eminent domain" card (which could be done in most ANY neighborhood should the city "wish" to do so. If it ain't broke...don't fix it!
What would be even more "amusing" than finding out the city dumped a over a million dollars into the pursuit of Aqua Indiana, would be how the city plans to recoup tax ABATEMENT monies from companies that not only don't hold up THEIR end of the "bargain" (planned for 200 jobs - created 75), but also have either just folded and left town, or ducked under the bankruptcy "radar",leaving the city holding an empty bag of promises (while being out millions of dollars the taxpayers will have to cough up).
But hey...it's not like we pay attention...and read the papers...lol!
B.G.
I have trouble imagining how the city can manage this utility either more efficiently or cheaper for taxpayers.
The most persuasive portion of the editorial for me are the following two paragraphs, which might be moved nearer the top, where the skimmers and scanners will be more likely to see it. (I would be interested to know, by the way, WHY everyone else is privatizing. That might be a telling point also.)
>
"Even if the city can provide