Open thread, part three: "When (CM Steve Price) repeats that he's done all that's in his statutory power, it's clearly not true."

Earlier this week, 3rd district councilman Steve Price kicked off his 2007 re-election campaign by combining with unknown collaborators on a blog entitled “My Struggle.”

Not really. It's actually called “My Vision.”

Because words actually have accepted meanings, it's important to point out that in its adjectival context, “revisionist” modifies the noun history in this manner:

Revisionist: Attempting to reevaluate and restate the past based on newly acquired standards.

Leave it to my colleague, Bluegill, to illustrate with devastating precision the fashion by which the councilman blatantly dissembles as he seeks now to rewrite the record of his disastrous term in office.

The following was posted as a comment to the post, Open thread, part two: Councilman Steve Price as reactionary progressive?

See also: Open thread: Councilman Steve Price - "progressive" or regressive?

---

Bluegill wrote:

Let's review what's painfully obvious to everyone but CM Price.

NAC recently put forward eight potential planks of a platform to advance city clean up. They're listed again below for convenience:

A rental inspection/licensing program.

Legal staff whose sole purpose is ordinance enforcement.

A total revamping of the building commissioner's office, including all new employees.

A fine structure that's of high enough scale to actually act as a deterrent.

A city court to expedite the prosecution of offenders and to keep fine revenue in the city.

Local dollars budgeted for redevelopment. That amount is currently zero.

Much more than the measly $7,000 dollars a year total the city currently spends on historic preservation.

A scientific study of land use and value in the city in order to objectively strategize where to implement resources first.

Of the eight planks, seven of them are under the direct authority of the City Council. A revamped Building Commissioner’s office would fall under the authority of the Mayor, but the Council could certainly, through financial incentive or disincentive, attempt to influence such decision making.

There are certainly arguments to be made concerning which should be given higher priority, but has CM Price, who reportedly loves options, introduced any of these concepts as worthy of further exploration and possible action by the Council?

No.

When he repeats that he's done all that's in his statutory power, it's clearly not true.

Unfortunately, this type of misrepresentation seems to be a habit for CM Price.

I've heard him personally state several times what he wrote to Sloburn*: That he voted to appropriate funds for a paralegal. He usually says, "We gave (City Attorney) Shane (Gibson) a paralegal."

The reality of the situation is that the Council appropriated $16,000 for the legal department. Trained paralegals typically make approximately twice that much, more with significant experience. What the Council actually approved was just enough money to hire a part-time administrative assistant. That's what we have.

I know this has been explained to CM Price because I've personally explained it to him. He simply ignores that explanation, however, and continues to repeat something to his constituents that's fundamentally inaccurate.

CM Price may respond to questions in a timely fashion. What he consistently fails to do, whether due to ignorance or malice, is to answer them in a manner that shows he understands the question and is able to help his constituents better understand a given situation.

He does have a point, though. He has, in fact, done all that he can do. It’s just too bad he doesn’t realize that’s such a strong argument for his replacement.

---

* Here is the text of CM Price's response to Sloburn's questions, referenced by Bluegill above, and as originally posted by Sloburn on Thursday.

Kevin,

What is going to change if I am re-elected?

Change with regards to cleanliness is going to have to be a team effort. I alone cannot fix the problem. I do feel I have started the movement towards the resolution by promoting the cleanliness ordinance as well as the Code Enforcement Officer. Unfortunately, I am unable to micro-mange the various departments within the city. (I do think that someone needs to) It is up to the administration to enforce the ordinances and resolutions enacted by the council.

Why hasn’t it already happened?

Options that I have presented in the past have been pushed aside and placed on the back burner. For instance, an actual route system in the street department would be a great first step towards cleaning up trash and debris from the alleys. As for the houses in disrepair the only means for resolution lies in the hands of the administration. The council, with my vote, appropriated funds for an Ordinance Enforcement Officer as well as a paralegal to assist the work load of our City Attorney.

As I stated in my posting, I have done all that is in my statutory power. I will help my neighbors resolve their cleanliness issues one house at a time.