The Insanity of Camden

I'm taking a scene out of the old movie Network - I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!! The city of Camden topped itself tonight. Just when you think it couldn't be done, the city takes an even more ridiculous action than laying off half of the police force and a third of the fire department.

Yes, the City of Camden has asked for a 23% increase in property taxes, effective May 1. This request requires state approval because Governor Christie this year managed to get a statewide 2% annual cap installed. So Camden needs a 21% exception to the new rule. The increase would cover the $26million budget gap this year. But what about next year? This is an unsustainable solution.

• The average housing value in Camden is $26,000. Yes, that is $26,000.

• The average property tax currently paid on that house is $1700. Yes, that is correct, $1700.

• The city turned the library system over to the county this year to save money - and now residents will be taxed by the county library system.

• The county has re-valued property this year. And apparently in Camden this does not take into account the terrible market - with terrible schools, half of a police force, and high crime rates.

• This tax increase will not be applied to currently abated properties that may pay a PILOT. That includes the defense contractor L3 which has a large campus in downtown Camden, the Port Authority, the Aquarium, and the Susquehanna Music Center. Add to that all tax exempt property such as Rutgers, federal buildings, county jail, waterfront baseball park, Camden Community College and you have a huge revenue problem.
  

The city council members that voted for this 23% tax increase actually stated, there is nothing else we can do. We have to get off of state aid and so we have to raise revenues.

First of all, there are other options besides property taxes to raise revenue for city government.

• payroll tax would be one option - taxing all the employees that use Camden every day and work for entities that pay no taxes
• increase fees and sales tax - though this may only shift the burden to Camden residents through other means.
• cut salaries and services - starting with the Mayor and City Council. Issue snow shovels and end plowing. Go to once a week trash pick up year round and privatize it.
  

These options are about as popular as a draconian tax increase, but will not kill homeownership and affordable housing in Camden.

I'm a renter and expect to see the tax increase and property re-evaluation in increased rent. I have a very astute landlord who will weigh the market costs and demand before passing this on. Other landlords are not as concerned and will pass it along in full. Renters who can't afford this will look elsewhere for affordable housing or won't pay and evictions will rise. Landlords will begin walking away from properties in larger numbers, leaving the city with even more abandoned housing. Homeowners will fall into arrears and face tax liens and foreclosure.

Perhaps this is the goal - put as much property in Camden into bankruptcy and delinquency as possible and shed the city of most of its current residents. Then the city could start over again and build a property tax base.

Of course, the most realistic and positive way to get out from under the fiscal collapse of this city is to generate economic development. It would not be easy, but could be done. Imagine...the city stops all other activity except for building the economy. Put the mayor and her MBA to work. It would probably raise more money and be more sustainable in the long run than a 23% property tax increase.

Camden - Falling Again

"I see a city invincible" Walt Whitman's words that are etched on the facade of city hall in Camden. Yet no one in Camden believes this anymore. The national media is having a feeding frenzy on the story about Camden laying off half of its police force yesterday and a third of its fire fighters. The doom and gloom rose to a fever pitch when someone compared Camden to Fallujah!

The mayor is warring with the unions on concessions. The police and fire personnel won't give and the mayor won't cry Uncle! So the layoffs occurred and the residents are quoted in the news as being frightened for their safety and lives. The drug dealers see this as a potential stay-out-of- jail-free card and drug sets are appearing with greater frequency, openness, and bravado. It's only a matter of time before gang wars erupt in the finest tradition of capitalism, sparring for customers using gunfire.

Many pundits have suggested that the citizens of Camden arm themselves since the city does not see fit to provide an adequate police force. I imagine the citizens of Camden in that scenario like the citizens of Mexico or the Alamo - neither has a good ending.

Many people criticize the unions for being greedy, but no one has railed against the elected officials for not making ANY sacrifices. Do the Camden Mayor and City Council members take furlough days or pay cuts or make concessions to their pensions? Does Governor Christie do likewise? Is their security detail curtailed in proportion to the layoffs? Doubtful on all counts. The unions have a fat contract and should give. But so should the Mayor and Council. Why do we need parking meter-maids but we don't need police? Lay off the planning staff before the police. If it comes down to a one-to-one decision on personnel, then make it. Trying to make an example of the unions is childish and does not provide leadership. Meanwhile the city will burn...

Camden is a victim of circumstance - industry left, people left, and the suburbs continue to dump all the social responsibilities of the region on Camden - drug treatment, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, drug sales - yes, the average drug buyer in Camden is white and from the suburbs...If it weren't for Camden, social ills would creep into the bedroom communities! But the people of Camden do not behave as victims, but more like a captive. They can't get out, they have Helsinki syndrome and are blinded to an exit, and they think they can win over their captors - poverty, unemployment, poor education. It is a crushing blow when people discover reality.

Camden is an entrepreneurial place - people make money as best they can. There is a reason the drug dealers don't go to the suburbs, even though they would be closer to their customers - the cost of doing business is too high. They'd be out of business pronto. In Camden, they have a strong likelihood of staying in business. Meanwhile, the rest of the citizens have to share the streets with these entrepreneurs and hope they are not caught up in their negative externalities a.k.a. bullets. Someone suggested in a comment to a news story that citizens take up crime watch. Do I look like the little Dutch boy? Putting my finger in the dike will not save the town.

So I would like to ask - where are the constitutional officers of this state and why are they not fulfilling their constitutional duty - which is to uphold the laws? If Camden lays off its police force, then why isn't the state or county providing protection? If Camden leaders make bad financial decisions, then why are they allowed to stay in office? They are not fulfilling their oath of office? I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek because I know the answer. But at the end of the day, who is responsible?

Here we are at the crisis that was foretold by all the experts, including me. I don't have a simple answer. I'm not sure I have a complex answer. I can point fingers with the best of them, including the Mayor and the unions. At the end of the day, though, this is not about political rhetoric and positioning. It is about people's lives and children's futures. It is life and death. I guess that doesn't mean much anymore. Kind of like Walt Whitman's immortal words..."I see a city invincible..."

reflecting on MLK

I've been busy traveling and working on a variety of projects. But my thoughts are never far from this blog. I hope 2011 is off to a wonderful start for everyone. I know it is for me!

It's MLK weekend and I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on his legacy and consider how I am living into the dream he had for our country. In the wake of the Tucson shootings, the Tunisian revolution, the political hissy-fit in Washington, and the daily lives we lead - I need to pause, take stock, and rededicate myself to living life responsibly and effectively.

The Tucson shootings created a collective gasp in our country. For those of us who are old enough to have lived through the 3 assassinations in the 1960s, we had that sinking feeling of no, not again. For younger people, who may have lived through the Reagan shooting, Oklahoma City, Columbine, or even 9/11 - I wonder how you view a political act of violence? My view is completely filtered by the Kennedy's and King. But when the news came out from Tucson I knew it would release a firestorm of fingerpointing, blame and fault. Unfortunately, there has been scant attention given to the need to take responsibility for what happened by all of us. The first reactions were that this lone gunman was solely responsible and that to hold anyone else accountable was unfair and unjust. Talk about turning logic on its head!

Then President Obama gave his magnificent speech and reminded us that we are each responsible for the climate in which we live, govern, work, and relate. At least that is how I heard it. He said:

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.

I reread the MLK "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and was inspired by his call for responsibility to the white clergy of Birmingham - holding them accountable and responsible for their culpability in the continuing segregation of the black population. He could have laid blame, he could have chastised them for being accomplices, but instead he said he was disappointed they did not take responsibility. He wrote,

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

As oppressors, we have a responsibility to right the wrongs and bring justice to light. With regards to Tucson we must speak up against the hate-filled rhetoric of the "cross-hairs" and demand civility. With regards to our urban blight and violence that has created a separate and unequal experience of life in the USA we must say, justice delayed is justice denied and not accept those conditions as given.

MLK wrote, "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"

I believe we must be extremists of responsibility. That does not mean to be vigilantes or to demonize those with whom we disagree. I am often quick to lay blame at the feet of Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck. But instead, I need to take responsibility for what I am doing - how am I sounding the message of extremism for justice? How am I living into the dream of MLK that ours would be a society of character and not color? What am I doing to prevent the next Tucson, the next bobble-head exchange of vitriol, the day-to-day despair of dreams denied by people like me that have more power and position than ever earned?

I hope you will reflect on this, post a response, converse about this with others, and take responsibility for elevating our discourse and our responses to effect change and ensure justice.

MLK despaired in that Birmingham jail,

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

End of the Camden Library...just shut down the city

The City of Camden, NJ has had a public library system for 105 years. Pink slips were given out to all library staff today, effective Feb. 11, 2011. Three branches of the library will close. One will reopen in mid-February as a branch of the county system. The main branch downtown will not reopen. Instead the building built by the county fairly recently will be the only open library. Unfortunately it is not easily accessible by public transit. Apparently, talks are underway to put a county branch inside the Rutgers-Camden library. Why that would be better than keeping the downtown branch (6 blocks away) open, I don't know. County staff would run the RU branch and the county would have to pay for the space. How is this better? It's not.

The library is used by job seekers, kids, and homeless people as well as library patrons. Urban libraries are multi-purpose facilities and important havens in the chaotic urban world. Does the county library system expect to fulfill that need? Will the one remaining branch be able to hold all the users? Will the normal load of users be able to get to the remaining branch? The downtown library is within walking distance of the city's main transportation center. The remaining branch is not. There isn't much of a rationale here for the actions taken, except that the city has a $29million budget shortfall. But that said, why close the convenient downtown branch and leave open the less accessible one? Why would the county want to open a branch at RU? RU already allows anyone to use the library and has a section of computers dedicated to the public.

The kids of Camden are the most vulnerable consumer in this debacle. They play chess, do homework, use computers, and just hang out in a safe place when they are at the downtown library (and probably at the other 2 branches as well). The city and county have given zero indication on how the library patrons will be commensurately served under the county plan. The public deserves to know.

Finally, the library is an important economic development resource. Instead of shrinking it, the city should be partnering with every eco-devo outfit in the tri-county area to expand the library as a part of the economic pipeline. Instead, one of the poorest cities in the country shrinks its library at a time of profound economic vulnerability. Does this make sense?

If this decision calculus is evidence of the acumen for regenerating this city, we might just as well shut it down now and save the pain.

Political Endorsements - Worth the Price of Admission?

In Kansas City it is political endorsement season. The 3rd district is highly contentious, even for endorsement groups in the district.

Endorsements often go to incumbents - a safe move by the endorsing group. The unpopular incumbent Mayor Funkhouser in KC is the #1 exception, not getting any endorsements so far.

The diversity of candidates in this election season is impressive - both in the Mayor's race and in the council races. There are black candidates in many districts, women in every race, and a white candidate in the predominantly minority district.

The Northland has spoken with Forward KC endorsements:
3rd district (no in-district endorsements outside of the Northland)
3rd district at-large - Durwin Rice
Mayor - Deb Herman

The Civic Association (primarily reflecting the 4th district) endorsed:
3rd district - no endorsement
3rd district at-large - Melba Curls (incumbent)
Mayor - Mike Burke

Combined Union Endorsement (Firefighters, AFL-CIO, building trades)
3rd district - Sharon Saunders Brooks (incumbent)
3rd district at-large - Melba Curls (incumbent)
Mayor - Mark Funkhouser (incumbent) <--update

Last night Freedom, Inc. endorsed and it was a shocker:
3rd district - no endorsement
3rd district at-large - Melba Curls (incumbent)
Mayor - Jim Rowland

The Chamber of Commerce and The Heavies (cap infrastructure industry) and Hispanic group endorsements are yet to come.

Chamber of Commerce
Mayor - Deb Herman <--update

There is a great deal of speculation, innuendo, and assumptions about whether endorsements reflect pay-to-play or are in fact honest endorsements of candidate quality. But as political clubs or political action committees, these groups have an agenda, have interests to be satisfied, and have political alliances with a lot of insiders that affect their selections - everything from political consultants, contractors, leaders from other organizations, and so on. Politics is about as inside a sport as you can get, even though it has a very public face.

Given the fractured nature of KC politics in this election, endorsements may not mean much because they don't mobilize a lot of votes. But in a crowded field with a ridiculous primary system that yields only the top 2 vote getters to the finals, just a few votes may have disproportionate influence.

The lack of endorsement by Freedom for 3rd district (in-district) is baffling. I'm sure there is an explanation that is fueled by political alliances (BUF for Brooks and the negative response to that and concern by some for Fletcher). But if Freedom, Inc. won't endorse in the 3rd, then what's the point of making endorsements? And why would Freedom endorse a non-candidate (not yet filed) Rowland who hasn't stepped foot in the 3rd yet? Speculation abounds, but the legitimacy of this organization is once again called into question by those who live outside the 3rd, further hampering the group's effectiveness. Whatever Eric Wesson writes in The Call this week should be a very interesting read. There are contrary reports on whether Durwin Rice sought endorsement from Freedom and if he appeared or not before the board to make a pitch.

Kudos to TKC who's timely info posts and lively political debate keeps everyone informed.

Racism, Social Justice and Fear

The holidays seem to bring out the worst in a lot of people. As we enter another year of economic recession/depression, we are going to see a lot more panic, fear, racism, and mean behavior by the haves as well as the have-nots. In other words, forecast is continued ugly.

A white guy angrily confronted an all white/male school board in Panama City, FL over his wife's firing by the district. Or maybe she was laid off - it was unclear. But the husband was upset enough to die for the incident having proclaimed that he would die that day (he did). The school board president was confrontational - claiming not to know anything about why he signed the order to dismiss - sounds like robo-layoffs to me - and then the gunman started shooting at close range and missed everyone. I suspect he may have been shooting while under the influence. Paddy Chayefsky's words ring in my ear - I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

In the UK, a white robber wore an elaborate latex mask (a movie mask) to make himself look black. The subtlety is like a brick. In Kansas City, gunfire erupted outside a church as a funeral service for a shooting victim was going on, no doubt sending a warning to someone about some gang conflict. A news story commenter quipped, "it's not even safe to be dead in the 'hood." In Camden, NJ people are starting to get worried in the face of looming police and fire layoffs that will leave this poor city even more vulnerable than it already is. Local stores are selling T-shirts with the date of the layoffs on it saying, "this is the day we take our corners back." Apparently drug dealers are buying them up...and are ready to feast on Camden. Kansas City has had 99 homicides in 2010 - mostly on the eastside. There is an election for mayor and council coming up and not much is being said about it, except a lot of platitudes.

People are angry and desperate as layoffs and a jobless non-recovery continue. People look for scapegoats in time of financial crisis. People who are are the cause are not taking responsibility and instead are deflecting. Finger pointing is all the rage these days. Rage is all the rage too - from students protesting violently in Europe, to Wikileaks drama, to China dissident drama, to our own Congress and President filibustering on both sides of the tax issues and using us as pawns in their political games. It's ugly out there folks. Keep your head down.

But I would like to suggest that social justice be given a spotlight as a consideration for moving forward. TKC has a very nice post about this today - Secret Santa Charity v. Social Justice. Comments are coming in and typical of his readership, there are lots of very animated opinions on this. Social Justice is about taking responsibility for complicit and explicit contributions to injustices. In Kansas City as in most other places including Panama City, Camden, etc., there are injustices. If the school district lays off people - do they not have a responsibility to provide some job assistance to those thrown into the job pool? Corporations do this all the time. If there are 99 murders in KC, doesn't the entire city need to work together to support the families of their fellow citizens who have died violently? If Camden is going to lay off police and fire as well as other city workers, doesn't the city need to ensure protection for its citizens and support those laid off who live in the city (police and fire are exempt from residency requirements after a couple of years of service)?

When you cast people adrift due to budget shortfalls, bad economy, or whatever - you don't end your responsibility. In the public sector - they are still your residents, still your citizens, and now they are in a precarious position. When you let your city languish with crime - you cast your citizens adrift to fend for themselves - yet they are still your residents, your citizens, and they are in a precarious position.

I often point fingers on this blog - but let me be clear - it is not out of blame or fault. It is out of taking responsibility. What have you done lately to take responsibility? Help a neighbor? Volunteer at a shelter? Demand action from your city? Get engaged with your community? There is a lot of pain out there. Let's not cower in fear, let's recognize it, take responsibility (not blame or fault), and ease the pain - after all - it is the season of holidays.

3rd District Leadership

Well, it's out there now. Durwin Rice is seriously considering running for the 3rd District At-Large city council seat currently held by Melba Curls. Melba is running for re-election. Also in the race is Brandon Ellington, who ran in the last election for the in-district seat against eventual winner, Sharon Saunders Brooks.

Durwin is an all-around nice person, committed to improving the urban core, active in local civic affairs, and the kind of ally you want to have supporting your cause. He has served the city on PIAC as the 4th district rep, founded Tulips on Troost and works tirelessly for that effort, and was one of the first businesses to glam up Troost before it had been done by anyone other than the long-time locals. He is a good steward of Kansas City. I consider him a friend.

As his friend, I have to say that he should not run for this seat.

He recently moved from the 4th district to the 3rd in order to be eligible to run. Other pols have done this. Sharon Brooks did it so she could run in the 3rd in the last election. Michael Fletcher did it so he can run in the 3rd this time. Moving is not the biggest issue, though, one is open to criticism of carpet-bagging by moving to a district just so you can run for office.

Durwin, unlike Sharon and Michael, is white. The question that will dominate the election is whether he should run as a leader in a predominantly black and hispanic district? Already the blog trolls are posting about who "ought" to represent the 3rd, whose district it is, and the quality of previous representation. The undercurrent is that the 3rd district is not capable of producing good leaders. This debate is fraught with errors, inconsistencies, double-standards, and just plain racism. Durwin, how will you mediate this?

I'm white and I have lived in the heart of the 3rd district. Doesn't mean I should run for city council and I wouldn't. I'm qualified. I think I could do a good job. I could represent the entire city in an at-large seat. But there is a reason the city has residency requirements for at-large seats. So that someone from that area may step up and represent the entire city through the lens of that district. Difficult to represent if you haven't lived there and if you are not "of" the community. I am not afraid to say that I am a good ally of the 3rd district. But I am not a leader of the 3rd. Neither is Durwin.

Before everyone starts quoting MLK and the character vs. color refrain, you have to bear witness to what it means to be a person of color. I am not, so I can only interpret. That is not good enough for a leader. I have white privilege. I can drive as I please, go where I please, and never think twice about anyone stopping me, questioning me, or hassling me for no good reason. I can go just about anywhere in the city and be in the majority. I can watch the news and see people just like me leading the city, making decisions, telling us what to do. I will never be seriously threatened in print or in public because of my skin color. I will not be judged by anyone who looks like me for being white. I never have to operate knowing there is a double standard because of my race (gender is another matter). I do not have to fear the police simply for being on the street, in a car, in a store, or just being.

I have seen my privilege in action as a resident of the 3rd. I have seen the discrimination that has been put upon my 3rd district neighbors by other whites. I am an ally, which means, I got your back. But I cannot be a 3rd district leader because I do not have the life experiences to represent the people of that district through the lens of their life experiences. I cannot adequately bring their point of reference to the decision table. I would only be a proxy.

Durwin Rice will only be a proxy leader if he is elected and there is a very good chance he will be. Melba Curls is being criticized as an ineffective leader for the 3rd. She is a wonderful person and very well intentioned. She comes from a long family history of public service to the community, the city, and the state. These qualities, however, do not necessarily make her the best leader for the district or the city. I believe, however, that at the end of the day, she is a better representative than Durwin could ever be for the 3rd district. But an at-large seat is voted on by everyone in the city, including north of the river and south side. Given a choice between Durwin and Melba, I fear that my people will vote through their own lens and Durwin will win.

As for Brandon Ellington...he is the type of 3rd district leader that is up and coming. I have supported him in the past and support him again this go round. He is dedicated, honest, and sincere. Doesn't mean he has the best qualities to lead the district. But at the end of the day, he is a better representative than Durwin could ever be for the 3rd district.

Some readers will surmise that you must be a person of color to run as a leader in the 3rd district and that as long as you have color, you can run. That's the leap of logic that will dominate this conversation and is in error. It is not color that is the issue, but rather, being "of the community" in order to accurately represent through the lens of that district. The 3rd district deserves excellent representation and exceptional leaders as does every district in the city. It also deserves someone who can effectively represent the people of the 3rd district and bring their point of reference to the larger table of city decision making.

Kansas City is a place of nice people and pleasantries. It also is a place of fierce politics. I think that is why I like the city so much. I will catch flack for speaking so plainly, I'm sure. But I am in a position to say these things because I have lived in the 3rd and I am white. I am urging Durwin Rice not to run.

Citizens Association Q/A of Mayoral Candidates

Update: Mike Burke gets the CA endorsement for Mayor

Four mayoral candidates were quizzed by the influential citizens group - Citizens Association - and TKC - Tony's Kansas City blogged it with live tweets - thank you TKC for giving people at least a glimpse of what was going on in an important forum. See his tweets here: http://twitter.com/#!/TKCLiveTweets.

There was one question about the 3rd district and another about poverty that merit attention here. See one of my previous blog posts on the 5 questions I would ask any candidate about their vision for the 3rd district. Here are the tweets as Tony posted them - first on poverty, then on 3rd district.

Rowland on poverty: It will take a massive level of cooperation to address the complex issue of poverty.

1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

»

TKCLiveTweets Tony Bee

Deb Hermann and Sly talk education as an answer to poverty.

1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

»

TKCLiveTweets Tony Bee

KMBC'S Mahoney moderates and asks about poverty. Mike Burke: The best solution to poverty is to create jobs.

=================

TKCLiveTweets Tony Bee

Sly James touts grants and biz cooperation to foster 3rd district development.

1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

»

TKCLiveTweets Tony Bee

Deb Hermann on 3rd District Development: We need to focus on infrastructure.

1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

»

TKCLiveTweets Tony Bee

Another Looooooong question from Bonaye (sp?) about developing the 3rd.

________________________________________________________________

It's difficult to judge the quality of answers since I wasn't there and I must rely on the quality of tweets. Hopefully, news reports will speak to this in greater detail. Here is Yael A.'s KC Star thought piece: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/kc-mayors-campaign-what-we-know-so-far/

I will say, however, that Deb's focus on infrastructure for the 3rd is not a very enlightened answer - though there certainly are infrastructure needs in the 3rd. If you build it, no one will come. And Mike's response that jobs are the answer to poverty is about as lame as they come. Of course jobs are an antidote to poverty - but are you saying that KC does not have enough jobs or that 3rd district residents haven't gotten them - either way - there is a large underlying issue that the generic "jobs" won't fix. It is a matter of getting 3rd district residents into said jobs and that is an answer fraught with peril that most of these candidates won't touch. Sly's response about grants and biz cooperation sounds nice, but we have been there and done that - 18th and Vine.

None of these candidates have said - invest in residents. None of the candidates said - cooperate with people who live there to build their assets so the 3rd district can be competitive. None of these candidates will address white privilege - not as a mea culpa - but as an honest understanding of one of the reasons why the 3rd district languishes. What responsibility are each of these candidates willing to take in the making of our current situation? I would bet - none.

Here's another interesting contribution to understanding the Mayoral Election: A Great Mayor for a Great City at http://www.kcmayor.com/ Billed as a citizen's site of 40 and 50 somethings who want to make a difference in improving KCMO via the mayoral election. You can read "In Their Own Words" from candidates and you can vote in a popularity poll for the candidate of your choice.

Moving Forward

I've just been letting the Tuesday election returns sit for a bit. I can't change them. I can only move forward. The election post-mortem is always filled with conciliatory statements which will be followed a few days later by finger pointing and sniping. Never our best moment as a collective society.

Mitch McConnell said today that his number one goal is to get Obama out of office in 2012 so that he can advance the Republican agenda. I get that politics is a contest and I get that we disagree. But winning has become everything and moving forward has left the equation. I get that the R's don't like the Health Care bill, but to suggest that they must repeal it is just folly. A great many people in this country want Health Care reform. Why can't we accept at least part of it and move forward. When George Bush said we had to go to war, many people protested, but when we went to war people acknowledged it and said lets find a way forward. The fact that politics in this country is becoming intractable is a scary thought. We rely on our political process and our constitutional system to work. I don't know that we would get through Watergate in 2010.

Now that the national elections are over we can turn our full attention to local KC elections in February. We should know who's running in another week or so and rumors are flying about who will be in and who will not run. While the elections are great sport, we have to look at how the city will be governed after the election. If we have district and city-wide bloodbath battles, what will be the way forward? The mayor said in his latest news release or newsletter that Jeff Roe was the best political consultant in the world. Was the mayor pandering to republican voters? Is he willing to write off democratic party loyalists? Do I care? NO. I want to know what the Mayor has to say about what he has done and how he is going to move the city forward. On that he seems to be less sure.

I hope that candidates will be pressed for their position on governance as much as their position on issues. Platitudes of cooperation ain't gonna cut it. I want to know where the rubber meets the road and what that looks like to them. Otherwise, it won't matter who is elected.

The Viable Third - Bernard Powell

The level of crime and violence in the 3rd District has escalated in the eyes of the media of late and has gotten the attention of the religious faithful. I haven't looked at the actual crime statistics to know if the homicide rate is up or down (I think it stands at 87 for the year) or if violent crime is up or down for this year. But does it matter? Because regardless of the facts, the assumption is that violence is up and that it is much more dangerous in the 3rd district than ever.

Recent murders in Westport, on Broadway, and Downtown have all included discussion that suggests it is the Eastside violence that is encroaching on the rest of the city. Of course there is no evidence of this, but it is always the first assumption. The recent events with teens gathering on the Plaza suggest the same. My people always like to jump to the most obvious conclusion - that black=crime and danger.

A local minister has glommed onto the bandwagon too. I include the video here ONLY because he mentions the subject of this post - Bernard Powell.

Bernard Powell was a civil rights leader who lived at 28th and Brooklyn in the 3rd district. He had a national presence as well as a local impact. He is attributed for having said the phrase, "Goldmine or Ghetto - The Choice is Yours." He believed in the 3rd district and I do too.

Powell was shot to death at 27th and Indiana in April 1979. He was only 32 years old. He made his mark in this world while in his 20's. The old heads who cling to power in this city need to remember that - young people are viable leaders too.

There is a very nice memorial erected to Powell (in 1991) at Spring Valley Park on the Brooklyn Avenue side. His boyhood home overlooks the park. I've driven by there a million times and decided to stop one day. Then I investigated the life of this young man. Here is his bio as written on the Black Missouri site. Here is the City's description of the memorial and fountain (fitting for a Kansas Citian). Bernard's sister, Teola, ran for city council in the 3rd district in 2007. A look at the KC Star archives online only goes back to 1991. Any research on Powell's death will have to be done in the library with microfilm. From all accounts I have found, in books and other historical accounts, Powell was active in bringing civil rights and social justice to Kansas City's Eastside. Desegregation of the city swimming pools, opening up real estate opportunities, and voting rights were all on his agenda - but in the 1960's anything seemed possible.

Here is a photo slideshow I put together to commemorate this great place - the memorial at Spring Valley Park and this great citizen, Bernard Powell. He knew the 3rd District was viable. I do too.