Doesn’t it sometimes seem that we keep changing the players but having the same discussions. It’s true about smoking, even something I favor – Section 8 discrimination and now loitering. That’s right, appearently, according to the State Journal this morning, we’ve brought back another ground hogs day issue . . . kind of. Sort of. We just don’t know what it is yet.
I’m kind of curious, how can 11 people on the council make up their mind that this is the right thing to do without seeing the details? What kind of information did they base their support on? What problem did they identify? Do they think the problem they identified would really be solved by this proposal? Did they just do it because a lobbyist asked them to support it? Is it because it is symbolic and political as the Mayor and Verveer suggest? Is it because they lack imagination to come up with anything new? Aren’t they concerned that 80% of the tickets were given to black people the last time this ordinance was in place? What about the proposals that the police chief and police department have proposed for the Downtown and King Street? What’s wrong with them and why is this other proposal needed? Well . . . I’m shouting into the wind, I doubt any of the proponents of this proposal will answer any of those questions . . .
Oh, and one more thing. This is yet another issue with lobbying. Here we have a majority of the council and a lobbyist group making decisions for the city before there is even a hint of public discussion. So I should be able to look at the lobbying reports and figure out what happened right? Hmmm . . . when did Quigley do all this lobbying on behalf of the “grass-roots” Common Sense Coalition? It certainly didn’t show up on their recent lobbying report. And I don’t see lobbying listed as one of the legislative issues they are going to work on . . .
Hmmmm . . . . smells funny . . . . I guess I’ll have to wait until next February to find out any information . . .
