Looking all around me, at politics of all levels, I’m struck with how personal everything has gotten. Now, I’m not talking about how President Obama’s health care reform will hit you personally, because that makes sense. What I’m talking about is how people take things like disagreement personally. I’m guilty of it too, and I’m going to apologize for it.
I labeled Mayor Willie Adams as “Slick Willie”. While I still have problems with Mayor Adams policies and the direction Albany is going, and I still have a problem with his idea we should just “move on” from Buie-gate, I don’t even know the man personally. It doesn’t matter. Mayor Adams, I’m sorry. Truly.
I’ve also written a lot about Commissioner Bob Langstaff. I’ve referred to his actions regarding Gucci Mane as a step toward tyranny and an attack on Free Speech. Unfortunately, that may have helped people make the jump toward calling him a tyrant and an enemy of free speech. For my part in that, I apologize to Commissioner Langstaff as well. I scoured my posts, looking for direct insults and didn’t see any. If I missed one, I apologize for that too.
My comments regarding tyranny were really an “if the concert is canceled” kind of thing. That’s off the table. And while I still believe the attempt to cancel the concert based on the rapper’s lyrics is an attack on free speech, Bob Langstaff isn’t an enemy of free speech. And he’s damn sure not the “nut job” some have apparently labeled him. People with good intent can inadvertently attack a right, and not even realize they’re near that line. I honestly believe that Bob Langstaff was motivated by the right things…and not some of what he’s been accused of.
You see, I’m not cutting anyone slack for policies I disagree with. But I’m only responsible for my actions and what my actions cause, and I’m sick of the divisive nature of politics. People are calling President Obama all kinds of things, because they dislike his policies. They call city commissioners names, because they dislike what they’re doing. Why? What good does it do?
Someone has to stop it. I don’t know that little old me will be able to, but it’s a worthy goal and worth the effort.
What’s funny is how people say they hate negative campaigns. Mudslinging is almost universally said to be disgusted by the voting populace. And yet, we keep doing it. We want positive campaigns, and positive politics, and yet we can’t even be respectful in our disagreement. And yes, I’m as guilty as anyone.
Now, does this mean I’m changing my position on anything? No. It’s just not going to happen. But insults don’t accomplish a thing. Just the ones we’ve edited out about Bob Langstaff alone are more than enough, and apparently there have been others I have missed, and they’re not going to change Langstaff’s mind. And why should it?
If we want vigorous, productive debate, we have to realize that as soon as the insults start flying, all meaningful discussion is over. Bob Langstaff and I have had some of those meaningful discussions while disagreeing with one another. Did anyone’s mind get changed? Who knows. But at least he knew where I stood on the issue.
People lament their elected officials not listening to them, but insulting them doesn’t help. Should they listen? Oh yeah. Is being insulted an excuse not to? Not really. But again, what does it accomplish?
Come on folks. Attack policy, not people. That should be more than enough to keep us busy as it is.
Some people confuse telling unflattering truths with mudslinging. To me mudslinging is telling 1/2 truths or just out and out lies about a candidate or politician. In my opinion, telling an unflattering truth is a whole different ball of wax.
If telling unflattering truths turn campaigns negative, so be it! I know this is a little off topic, but lets not take this negative campaign business to far.
As a voter I want to know the TRUTH about a candidate.
Don’t get me wrong Debra. I’m not saying anything akin to “don’t say anything not nice”. But we, as people, sling mud far to easy. I’m guilty of just that.
No one gets a pass though. They never will from me. I’ll call them like I see them. But insults that have been slung (edited out of comments here…but not other places) have no place in political discussion. After all, it shuts down the whole process from the get go.
Tom, I would agree with you in principle, but you know where I stand on the local issues.
What’s happening at the local level is such a contagion of corruption and incompetence that I don’t honestly think there are any polite words that accurately describe it.
Let’s face it, Don Buie is a dirtbag and the people that enable him (Adams, Lott, Marietta and Langstaff) are either in it with him or are incompetent boobs that let it happen. I don’t know how else to express it.
Sounds like posturing for later running for office.
Jack: I have no problem with saying the screwed up. I have no problem with saying they’ve screwed up big time. Even to say they have a history of screwing up is fine. But calling them “incompetent boobs” is about as productive as insisting that people only sing Tina Turner songs in the shower. It may make you feel better, but it won’t accomplish a thing.
FTCIV: Feel free to think what you want. However, I seriously doubt anyone will remember this post later on down the road, so what good would it do? Hell, people have a hard time remembering what I wrote last week so a few years down the road this post will mostly be irrelevant. I’m dealing with the now.
Hear, Hear! That’s for your post, Tom.
(BTW–The correct term is, “hear, hear!” It is an abbreviation for “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!” guffaw (from straightdope.com)
I agree that our discussions should be about the issues, not the person, unless the person is the issue. In that case, it better be a public figure like a politician or a fast traveling firemen. And the comments should be fair and not libelous or mean spirited. The trashing gets just plain boring.
Anyway, I continue to believe that economic development is the MAJOR earthly foundational issue facing this community that we can address and so much discord has been created by the lack of direction, the reaction to outrageous personal gain, the fears and risks of financial exposure, the misunderstandings….
So I again propose getting the relevant parties into the same room for an ECONOMIC SUMMIT to get input for the creation of a downtown development plan that can be offered up for public comment and official vetting.
I propose inviting representatives of the downtown businesses, the Hilton and the hospitality community, downtown property owners, downtown attractions, city commission, county commission, ADICA, CVB, EDC, Chamber, financial community, development community, real estate marketing, the Dougherty Taxpayers Association… let’s get it all out on the table.
The summit would be open to a public audience for constructive comment and input as to the elements of a plan.
The sole purpose would be to create a plan, not voice oppostion to development. The opportunity for oppostion to development would be invited once the plan has been created.
We will discuss downtown economic development projects, steps and direction, not people. Zero bashing. Very crisp, brisk and professional.
It might take more than one session and/or the creation of an online working draft for a “wiki” or comment board to allow for greater public and professional comment and input.
With that process and collaboration, one heck of a plan just might emerge… the collective genius of this community.
I will be happy to chair this summit and move the process along.
So its still going to cost us more money Peter?
Cartman, I’m not sure exactly what you mean. The planning summit should not cost much, if anything. We have plenty of conference space. Putting the online features together are minimal … less than $100 if anything. Heck, eveyone could chip in for sodas and chips.
I say use the brainpower in town to put a plan together and put a fair and smart input process in play. Notwithstanding pride of authorship, I like the process structure I describe above, particularly the abilty for online public input about the specifics of the plan.
And I can’t imagine doing downtown redevelopment without such a plan. Actually, I have my thought on why we don’t have one, but that’s for a later day.
We could get this all done within 60 days comfortably or sooner if it is a rush. And then we have a direction and a realistic return on public investment analysis and some REAL deals and players at the table – not theoreticals.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean.
You knew I didn’t mean the cost of the sales presentation.
Truly, I did not know what you meant. Historically, these kinds of plans have run $75,000 to $500,000 depending… Albany has shelled out that kind of money. Lotsa bucks.
Will downtown redevelopment cost “us,” the taxpayer, more money AND the taxpayer will not receive an economic benefit that exceeds the “cost?”
I think that might be the $64K question on a purely financial platform, if you did not mean it to be rhetorical.
So maybe, just maybe, here is the beauty of this bond structure. There is no taxpayer money coming out in the first place. The bond is funded by an institutional buyer…presumably Security Bank.
Now can the bond principal and interest be paid back without drawing on the city “guarantee?” That is a function of the process I have been outlining…what does it take to put up a successful project portfolio? “Portfolio” is an impoprtant word, because one biz or use might fail and need replacement, but the concept needs to work as a whole.
Plan, market analysis, financial structuring….. all out in the open so that you and I and others can comment on the quality of the deal. That’s what we need.
If it works right, (yes yes, IF) no taxpayer dollars get used.
Here, flip it around. Without some intervention in the economic and tax base slippery slope, how does this city’s economy improve materially – together with the stuff that is somewhat dependant on that health, like crime? Every day is a taxpayer loss.
So specifically, how? I always ask that question, so please help me out of my misery. How?
We need jobs that produce new disposable income. We’re losing population, we’re unemployed, we’re over taxed and subsidizing virtually every endeavor begun by government in memory and we really think the answer is a “plan”. The plan should be to find an industry to come here and employee the non-contributors so the rest of us would have a little something left over to spend in a new privately funded establishment downtown. No more government guarantees for me. If the market will support it someone will build it.
Doug? I like the way you think
Doug, You’re preaching to the choir in end goal.
You touch on it, but a problem is that the local market is, in some respects, kaput and pulled elsewhere and what you suggest we need and what you hope for ain’t happening.
Please give the name and number of the CEO of the company that will open up in Albany and employ the non-contributors to the level you imply, and I will call for an appointment lickity split.
And Tom, you stun me. This is not about government guarantees, per se.
Some development just might have occurred if there wasn’t such bickering and if the government and vocal private citizens didn’t seek to oppose, poo-poo and ignore development concepts and then provide NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. (not referring to anyone of late BTW, presently company included).
Man, I gotta tell ya, this is exhausting….
What’s that refrain, “goin’ ’round in circles?”
See ya at the Moon…. you buyin? :-}
Ditto Doug.
Doug — You nailed it dead-on.
I think we are basically in agreement. I just believe that we must first find a way to engage more of the local population in the local commerce. Without new cash in more pockets we can plan and build any venue you please and it will either fail or cause some existing entity to fail. All but 2 of the adjacent counties are losing population. 25% plus or minus of the local population is in poverty and yet we continue to attempt to provide services as though we’re prosperous and growing. Example the city just began a new 311 service. Who asked for that? Is it a money saver? If so it will be the first government program that is. I’m not against downtown development but I do wish we could put our collective effort into bringing some jobs in first and then build the development to service the new $$$. This is way off thread so I’ll leave with this; nail salons and hot dog stands do not provide a stable financial base.
Our analysis of issues is very similar. I think almost everyone who takes the time to observe and think it thru comes to the same observations.
Bring higher paying jobs to the community is very important. I see the downtown development as a vehicle to not only do that directly, but also indirectly by creating a more attractive environment that might tip in a plant move or some other larger more skill oriented operation.
Salons and hot dog stands or anything that feeds of the local dollars is not where organized economic development should focus.
Look, I own many of the downtown buildings and I am suggesting to the city that it should not put money into locally dependant businesses as a priority — even mine. As you suggest, focus on getting new revenues into the market.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars — probably in the millions by now have been spent quietly trying to entice plants and larger operations into Albany. It has not worked to the scale desired and we have had obvious recent losses.
Actually the proposed downtown investments are a much safer bet…just more obvious, but less money and risk.
I think we might be glossing over the distinction between “reasonable disagreement” and “criminal acts”. What went on (and for all we know may still be going on) with ADICA is clearly corrupt and criminal. The people who did it (Buie and possibly Woods and Washington) and the people who enabled it and want us to “move on” (Adams, Langstaff, Marietta and Lott) need to be driven out of office and/or into prison.
My chief problem with Langstaff is the total intellectual bankruptcy of his positions and his apparent unwillingness to make hard decisions on behalf of the people he claims to be “looking out for.”
If Langstaff spent 10% of the time watching ADICA and Buie that he’s spent on his public relations crusade against a rapper nobody has heard of, the citizens of Albany would be better off by tens of thousands of dollars.
I don’t regard Langstaff’s warped sense of priorities as a “difference of opinion.” It is a shameful and cynical attempt to divert voters’ attention from a blatant and flagrant robbery of tax dollars by a convicted felon who sixty days ago Langstaff was willing to give a blank check to.
One other point about how cynical this non-issue is: Has anyone considered all of the other acts that have appeared at the civic center during Bob Langstaff’s time on the commission and wondered why it was important to make an issue of it NOW, just when the ADICA scandal has come to light?