IS IT TRUE? PART 2 March 31, 2011 The Voices of Consolidation!

16
Did Consolidation Cause This?

IS IT TRUE? PART 2 March 31, 2011 The Voices of Consolidation!

IS IT TRUE that last night marked a nearly four hour meeting to allow the jointly assembled Evansville City Council and the Vanderburgh County Commissioners to listen to public input regarding the plan for consolidated government submitted by the MAYOR’S DOZEN?…that this hearing not only packed the house but spilled over into the hallways where it is reported that about 35 – 40 people many of whom were firefighters and law enforcement officers gathered?…that the speaker system in the hall was non functional and that the people outside the room could not hear what was being said?…that all of the other public meetings were in venues that would hold many more people than the legislative chamber of the Civic Center?…that many recognized people were among the over 40 people who chose to speak?…that Vanderburgh County Sheriff Eric Williams and Evansville Police Chief Brad Hill both delivered very good speeches regarding law enforcement?…that candidate for the Democratic nomination for Mayor Rick Davis sat attentively for the entire meeting, that Republican candidate Lloyd Winnecke ran the meeting, but that Davis’s opponent Troy Tornatta was not in attendance in the room?…that last night was a good night from the perspective of participative local government?…that Commissioner Winnecke’s suspension of the typical three minute time limit added much to the content of the evening?

IS IT TRUE that Vanderburgh County Surveyor Bill Jeffers came well prepared to discuss some amendments that he thinks need to be made?…that Mr. Jeffers acknowledged that the concept of consolidation is solid but that the details of the proposed plan have been neglected or top down from a City of Evansville perspective?…that among the amendments he supports are term limits for every elected official including the Mayor, eliminating the partisan nature of local elections, redrawing the districts using 2010 census data, putting some definition on what is meant by extending the urban services district, and adopting provisions that make consolidation hold the City of Evansville accountable with respect to proving that it can actually provide the services that it will charge people for?…that Mr. Jeffers called consolidation nothing more than FAST TRACK ANNEXATION and ended with the memorable remark that “PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER BE PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE BY GOVERNMENT”, which is exactly what the proposed plan does?…that Lawyer extraordinaire Les Shively followed Mr. Jeffers and echoed his statements and ratcheted them up a bit by pronouncing that ANNEXATION IS NOT DUE PROCESS, IS A FORM OF HOSTILE TAKEOVER, IS NOT FAIR, and that the city has three years to provide services but raises the taxes immediately?…that Mr. Shively also opined that more districts were needed, that no at large representation is necessary, that arbitrarily raising taxes is not acceptable, and opined that the fiscal solution offered by the plan has no sophistication at all but is rather just a combination of the two merged budgets?

IS IT TRUE that a series of citizens rose to express opposition to the plan and that there were multiple referrals to the Louisville study titled “Beyond the Rhetoric” that the CCO published last week?…that the term “if you lipstick a pig it is still a pig” was used regularly?…that there is general opposition to the number of appointments granted to the Mayor (181) and the lack of accountability or the ability to impeach a wayward elected official?…that a local businessman is concerned that he may lose his trash hauling business if the consolidated government removed competition in the county with a broad contract?…that businessman Bruce Ungethiem called the plan VandyGov IV and stated that “Monarchies are always simple but democracy is complicated” and closed with the statement that “LIKE MINDS DO NOT PROMOTE CREATIVITY”?…that he compared Evansville to Chicago and promised the candidates in attendance that “THIS WILL BE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE” while reminding Matt Meadors, the President of the Chamber of Commerce that they need to spend their time and money on something that is really important like promoting job growth?…that Mr. Meadors spoke and expressed support for taking the plan to vote as it is, that Chamber employee Steve Schaffer echoed his bosses opinion, that was also supported by Roberta Heiman who lead the signature effort to have the study done?…that the supporters of the plan have stated that for every study against consolidation that the is one for it?

IS IT TRUE that the City County Observer stands by the offer that it made to a Chamber of Commerce staffer last week?…that when they produce a study that is based on economic raw data that shows conclusive evidence that consolidation was a catalyst for economic prosperity anywhere?

IS IT TRUE that entrepreneur and marketing guru Emmons Patzer cited a study of 75 studies done by the University of Tennessee regarding the pros and cons of consolidation?…that this study refutes the economic development argument for consolidation?…that he stated that in business “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WISH AND A WIN IS CLARITY OF PATH”?…that citizens of non-consolidate entities express higher levels of satisfaction with government services than consolidated ones?…that Mr. Patzer closed by admonishing the powers that be to put some detail in the plan so that when it comes to a vote, if it comes to a vote, there will be apparent tangible benefit to both the dwellers of the City and the County?

IS IT TRUE that this will be continued in IIT Part 3 later today?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

16 COMMENTS

  1. Were there any other canidates that didn’t come to this meeting. How about the other republican canidate for mayor. Were all the city council canidates at this very important meeting. Just wonder why you only pointed out one canidate that wasn’t there.

    • The other are only three viable candidates for Mayor. As for the council races we do not even recognize them all. We agree that all of them should have made an effort to get there. Please post any others that you are certain who were not in attendance. We appreciate it.

      • Candidates for city office whom I saw there last night included Lloyd Winnecke, Connie Robinson, Missy Mosby, B.J. Watts, Dr. H. Dan Adams, John Friend and Don Walker, all of whom sat at the podium. Also in attendance were candidates for city office including Rick Davis and Patrick McBride. I saw Jim Braker in the audience, but I’m not sure if he’s running for office this year. I’m sure there were others that I may not have recognized or just missed in the mob. Curt John and Dan McGwinn were not in attendance.

        Unfortunately, and uncharacteristically, there was not an attendance sheet passed around for signatures as is customary at all county commissioner meetings. There was, however, an ample supply of bottled water provided by the commissioners. Someone could’ve thought to place extra chairs in the hallway and turn on the hallway speaker system, and boot the video up on the flat screen TV out in the hallway. But alas …

      • I want to make sure everyone knows that I attended the first meeting on the 15th. I did not attend the meeting last night, however I did watch most of it from home on TV while doing some tax returns at the same time.

        While everyone seems to agree that consolidation is great in concept it seems when we get down the details many groups are against it. Although I haven’t made up my mind yet about consolidation in general I just cannot recommend this current plan. 1) I don’t see any cost savings 2) the needs and wants of the county/city seem to be too divergent on too many issues
        3) The studies cited that consolidation does neither increase or decrease economic development, that one was a big one for me.

        Additionally it seems that a very high percentage of county residents are adamntly against this. If so that would be huge roadblock to a successful merged government. Who wants a business partner who feels that the merger was forced upon them and that they got a raw deal?

  2. Is DeGroot still running for Mayor as a teaparty canidate? If he is I bet he is glad to know that he’s not a viable canidate. I guess one canidate you should know if he was there would be Al Lindsey. He does run his ad on your site. How about McBride? Like I said I don’t know who was or who wasn’t there.

  3. The annexation issue touched on by this article and by both Jeffers and Shively at last night’s meeting is critical, in my opinion.

    There is a statutory requirement for a municipality to prove it is financially capable of providing services to the area to be annexed. Some of those services must be provided within one year. Others must be provided within three years. But all the services normally provided within the city limits must be extended to residents within the newly annexed territory within the time specified by statute, not exceeding three years.

    The reorganization plan does not provide the same assurances as does state statute. Therefore, if Shively considers the current process a form of “hostile takeover,” I wonder what his definition is of expansion of the urban services district per this half-baked plan.

  4. I would like to hear from a county resident who could tell us under what conditions they would feel comfortable with consolidation.

    I would also like to hear from a city resident as to why this would be a benefit to most Vanderburgh County residents.

    • Call the Chamber or the League. You might even get from them the opinion of a Warrick County resident who feels consolidation of Vanderburgh County will be of benefit to him or to her.

  5. THE REJECTION THRESHOLD

    The City of Evansville was granted a charter in 1847. That charter gave the city the right of self-determination. No longer could those residents who lived outside the City of Evansville corporate boundaries vote in a city election.

    That created separate and distinct classes of residents: one who lived outside the corporate limits of Evansville and was not allowed to vote in city elections, and one which lived within the corporate limits of Evansville and was allowed to vote in city elections.

    Now the editors of this newspaper want us to believe that there was never any difference in the two groups, that we were always just on big happy family under county-wide government.

    The fallacious nature of this argument is there for all to see, and for those who have always lived outside the corporate limits, and never had the opportunity to vote in a city election, it is especially laughable to contend that we are all the same.

    No, I believe there is something else going on here.

    In the past, consolidation has always gone down to defeat because county residents, those outside the corporate limits of Evansville, did not want it. They had witnessed the way the city was managed and made a conscience and informed decision that they did not want to live under that system.

    In my personal opinion, this time, forces in the background within city government were successful in “persuading” two democrat and one republican county commissioner to vote to do away with the rejection threshold under that fallacious argument that we are all just one big happy family, never mind the fact that city dwellers can vote in county elections, but county dwellers are not allowed to vote in city elections.

    This contest really boils down to this: Has the strong mayor system that is currently employed in Evansville produced the type of representative, fiscally responsible, government that would cause county dwellers to want to adopt that system of government?

    The rejection threshold was created so if your answer to the question above is no, then that type of government can to be forced down your throat.

    __

Comments are closed.