As we observed yesterday, 3rd district councilman Steve Price would have us believe that he is "progressive."
I am progressive, in the perspective meaning of “not bound by traditional ways or beliefs”.
Here's the rest of it:
As the election year progresses do not let someone dictate your opinion based on the so called “right information”. Base your opinion on facts that can be proven. Ask yourself are the “progressives” really progressive or are they continuing down the path we have been on for the last 30 years?
Just as we once were beguiled with the term "compassionate conservative," so we're now offered Steve Price, the "reactionary progressive."
How can such terminology make sense?
Considering the incredibly expansive list of possibilities that genuine local progressives have discussed and are working to achieve, customarily against the active opposition of CM Price, is it possible for us to measure his disingenuousness in proclaiming "progressive" instincts?
Does he, himself, really know the difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
What am I missing here? From what I observe, the so-called "progressives" want to move away from the way things have been done for the last 30 years by, for exemple, putting the gang of four in mothballs.
Is my definition of "progressive" wrong?
Not at all, Neal. It's the CM who's playing Orwell with the dictionary, presuming of course that his target demographic won't notice, or will commend him for being "one of them" by flouting the uppity newbies.
Though I do not have much experience with CM Price, I have to admit, I was at leat impressed with his willingness to open a dialog with me, even knowing that I am not in district #3.
I sent him an email with some specific questions regarding his visions and much to my shock and awe, he had responded in less that 12 hours.
Are we being played like a cheap banjo, or could it be that Mr. Price himself has turned a corner and has become frustrated with the way things are going in the hallowed halls of the grand council?
I guess in all honesty that is a question in which the voters in district 3 must decide for themselves, and for the rest of us it will be a game of wait and see.
csd619,
Perhaps I'm jaundiced by CM Price's performance in council meetings over the past several months,(which if you haven't experienced, you need to see in person to form your own opinion), but I'm highly suspect of it being either his hands on the keyboard, or his words being typed verbatim!
I highly suspect that it is not us but rather Steve himself that is being played like a banjo much like the folks at FOS are.
I would honestly like to be proven otherwise, but when posters will not allow open public comments, and support anonominity, I am by nature suspicious of their content!
Highway,
Points well taken. Perhaps in browsing blogs looknig for feedback, CM price will alter his blogsite to allow comments to be posted, and show that he is capable of responding to the comments.
If he truly is to be progressive, he must submit it constructive critisism, even if that comes in the form of a plain flat out written slapping around by some readers.
Alas, CM Price’s grasp of conceptual reality is so muddled that I’m not sure there’s much to hope for in terms of impending improvement. It’s rather similar to Alice of Wonderland fame:
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
CM Price considers himself a “progressive,” and isn’t beholden to the past – except when the topic is “loyalty,” which apparently trumps the previous claim to “not (be) bound by traditional ways or beliefs,” to the extent that the CM must twist his nebulous concepts into logical pretzels in order to claim that a city department hemorrhaging money should be rehabilitated – this being when it was CM Price who violated another of his own dictums, “I believe in options,” by refusing to so much as consider the privatization numbers.
He’ll help you clean up your yard, and do it “one yard at a time,” but he won’t seek to enable a more universal mechanism for cleaning up other yards or encouraging their maintenance.
He’ll throw himself atop a grenade to protect his constituents from having to pay more for services that historically have been politically configured to undercharge, but he’ll refuse to consider strategies designed to increase the size of the economic pie for all the city’s citizens, not just those who’ve benefited from past political patronage.
He’ll never miss an opportunity to pander to your doubts, to commiserate with your insecurities, and to publicly question the ability of this city to think in a future tense, but he’ll offer no proactive, detailed plan for meeting what is, after all, simply inevitable – namely, that all our worlds, both public and private, will remain in flux in spite of our best efforts to preserve past certainties that simply no longer are relevant.
Most confusingly, but perhaps most tellingly, when confronted with these jarringly inconvenient realities, he’ll look in the mirror and somehow convince himself that being reactive is really being proactive, that regressing is really progressing, and that the preservation of the status quo constitutes forward vision. I don’t doubt for a moment that he actually believes these dyslexic renderings of commonly accepted conceptual meaning.
At the same time, the intensity and fervor of a child’s belief in Santa Claus may make an adult nostalgic and even bring a tear rolling down one’s cheek, but this emotion is not to be confused with a reality-based recognition of cause, effect and fact.
SP's -
"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"
The mission statement for what IS the open museum.
Also, he must have read up on some of Uncle Rummie's speeches.
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.
Post a Comment