To respond to three questions raised by Lee in connection with a previous post:
1. What good does it do if the council members are puppets of special interests? I’d rather have a crooked mayor — which would be easy to see and do something about — than a corrupt, fragmented system with no clear lines of accountability. You know, when I was on the radio show last night, folks kept making ominous, but nonspecific, assertions about powerful business interests supposedly pushing for strong mayor. Well first, I haven’t seen any real pushing going on from any quarter, except from the adamant defenders of the status quo, such as E.W. Cromartie. And second, our editorial board is probably the most vocal advocate for strong-mayor, and I’ll tell you right up front what our vested interest is: We want to be able to tell clearly who is accountable — when bad things happen, when good things happen, and when (the most common situation) nothing happens, or at least things take too long to happen.
2. Well, there are a number of examples I could cite — for instance the way a series of confused signals from local leadership lost us minor-league baseball. But I’ve written enough about that one lately. Let’s talk instead about Canalside. Yeah, a private entity is now poised to start developing that unbelievably choice piece of real estate — 12 years after CCI closed. During those 12 years, development of the riverfront was supposedly a huge priority for the city, yet practically nothing happened. On CCI, we got false starts and indecision. Then there was all that moaning about how hard it was to negotiate with the Guignard family regarding their stretch of riverfront property — until USC (an institution with a clear leader) steps in and makes working with the Guignards look easy. (Whether it was easy or not, I don’t know, but based on the family members I know, I never believed it could have been as hard as the city let on). The president of the university, by the way, is the one most clearly empowered public-sector executive in Columbia. He certainly has more leeway to set forth a vision and implement it than either the governor or the mayor.
3. That’s easy. The same way they can be stopped now — by city council. The point of having a strong mayor isn’t to have a sovereign with supreme power. The city council would still be voting on major projects (certainly those requiring large expenditures), ordinances and overall policy and direction for the city. The value in the strong-mayor position is that it would attract the kind of individual who could make sure that once a decision is made, it is acted upon in a timely and efficient manner.
Related Posts
One of the weaknesses of your prior post is that most of your argument is based on how well a mayor can do, if they are the special personality that the Charleston mayor obviously is. While I tend to agree that the city manager system makes little sense, the argument shouldn’t be based on individuals doing the job. The argument, much like the state government restructuring argument, must be based clearly on public accountability and a clear authority. Any change in the structure of government should be agreed upon prior to an election, clearly communicated to the public, and put in place after the election. As for your point that it brings in the type of person who will succeed, I’m not sure I’m buying. If you are implying that offering a higher amount of power brings out the best, I must counter that it can bring out the worst also. Those who seek power may want to improve the city, or themselves. It will be difficult for the voters to tell. I think that the true public servant that Columbia, and the Midlands, needs, will want to take on the job no matter how much power is endowed on him by the city structure. True leaders must lead, and sometimes leadership means bringing others to your side, not just running over them because you can.
1. The voters could theoretically remove Bob Coble and all the other puppets on city council, but they don’t, because the machine runs phony candidates to split the opposition vote, and the media doesn’t report the details of scandals, cost overruns, illegal closed meetings, etc.
2. CanalSide is a good example of government mismanagement. Developers met in closed sessions, with developers, who told the city what parks, trails, sewers, water, and site preparation they wanted as subsidies. The city went back and spent $5,000,000 doing it, with more money yet to be spent. That is not “investment”, because the city will never recoup the money in tax revenues. They didn’t even attempt to create a financial payback analysis. The State reporters knew what went on but it was no reported.
3. The only way corrupt and silly projects are stopped now is for private citizens to march into meetings and distribute flyers, doing an end run around the lapdog press. Don’t count on the major media to inform the citizens in advance of meetings or the latest scheme. Expect only cheerleading pieces after the fact, with ego pieces about the X number of “movers and shakers” who cooked up the latest AirSouth back at Castle Coble.
Nathan, the “weakness” that you cite in the prior post is that it did not have as its central argument the point that IS the central argument of the whole body of work that we’ve done on this subject: Accountability. That’s because the purpose of this column was to address specifically one of the most common devices used by defenders of the status quo to distract us from the need to go to strong-mayor. The reason why we publish every day, instead of putting out one big editorial a year, is that every issue has multiple facets, and there is only room in any one editorial or column to address one or two of them. Joe Riley’s visit brought up the “it only works in Charleston because of Joe Riley” people, so that’s what I addressed.
You’re absolutely right that “true leaders must lead,” and if you think that’s not true in the case of Joe Riley or any other strong mayor, you’re missing a very important point. They don’t have the power to “run over” opposition. They do have to persuade. But once the persuading’s done, a strong mayor can implement the decision because the city staff is accountable to him just as he is to the voters. And the kind of person who can do the persuading is much more likely to be attracted to a job in which he or she CAN get things done.
I believe you’re completely mistaken that the stronger candidate “will want to take on the job no matter how much power is endowed on him by the city structure.” As Mayor Riley pointed out, the honor of getting to cut ribbons and hand out keys to the city wears thin pretty quick to the kind of person who wants to accomplish things of substance. Everyone with anything on the ball in the Midlands knows that to be mayor of Columbia as the job currently constituted means to be constantly frustrated by one’s political and administrative impotence.
It’s simply not an attractive post for go-getters.
Brad,
I know that you didn’t write the 20 most important people section the other day, but they seemed to think that Mayor Bob could do more than cut ribbons. They talked about his vision and all that he has done. Is it possible that many of the problems of the past few years have more to do with the poor decisions made much more than a need for restructuring? Would a strong mayor not sell out to AirSouth? Would a strong mayor never decide that they needed a city financed hotel? Perhaps your argument is that a good mayor who won’t hatch plans like this will be attracted by the strong mayor system. Clearly, Coble is not that mayor. That is why there must be an election prior to instituting this plan. I am sure that you would not want a strong governor before we could vote on Sanford. In the same way that you want to keep his hands of education, Columbia needs to keep Coble out of thier wallets.
Nathan is getting uncomfortably close to the question Brad Warthen is dodging:
Does THE STATE want more power for Bob Coble and the current council, or really want a new system with a new mayor and new city council?
That’s why Brad Warthen is unable to explain how a “strong mayor system” would have prevented AirSouth, CanalSide, Riverwalk, the Koger Center, Convention Center, drunken music festivals, minor league ball park, or any other money-losing, over-budget, mismanaged projects that never should have been initiated.
The fact is that THE STATE supports all these wastes of taxpayer money.
“Strong mayor” is nothing more than a diversion from cleaning up local government, opening the books, and restoring accountability and frugal, competent management.
Nathan and Lee: I think you guys need to read the paper more often.
Among the false statements you would not have made if you did:
— That we oppose the governor controlling the state’s education apparatus. We’ve been advocating such control for 14 years. We just did a major series of editorials this year reasserting the importance of that and other restructuring moves — most of which we’re pushing for the same reason we’re pushing strong mayor. We believe someone elected by the voters, and therefore accountable to them, should be firmly in control of the executive functions of government at all levels.
— That we support “drunken music festivals.” I assume that’s a reference to the Three Rivers Festival. For years, we have asserted over and over that the city should ditch it. Why? Because it’s a waste of taxpayer money.
— That a minor league ballpark would ALSO waste tax money. I’ve corrected you on our position on this several times, so I don’t know why you keep saying it. We specifically rejected a ballpark proposal the mayor pushed a while back BECAUSE it called for too much public support. We have repeatedly pushed for something driven by the self-supporting USC athletic department and private partner. This is our position; it’s a matter of record. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
And YES, Nathan: I am saying, as clearly as I can, that it takes a meaningful job to attract a good mayor. I’m saying it over and over. It was the overriding point of my Sunday column.
And what do you mean, Lee, saying I’m dodging a question. Who’s asked it? If you’re asking it, here’s my answer: I don’t have the slightest idea. I believe Bob Coble is a sincere guy who’s made both good moves and bad ones. I believe he has played a role in the “renaissance” he touts, but not nearly as large a one as Joe Riley has played in Charleston’s successes. Mostly, I’ve watched as his ability to get either good OR bad ideas implemented has eroded day by day. So ultimately, I’m not impressed with the job he’s doing at the moment.
But you know what? I don’t know whether he has been ineffective because he lacks leadership qualities, or because Columbia’s system makes even a good leader fail. Either way, it backs up my thesis: It’s hard to get good people to run for mayor if they can’t get anything done once in office.
If you think otherwise — if you think Columbia’s problems are the mayor’s fault personally and not the system’s, and that our system DOES attract competent candidates, then how do you explain the fact that this guy you think is so incompetent that he, personally, is the problem has not been challenged by a better, more electable candidate in 16 years?
Oh, and by the way, I’m not just throwing that out to Lee and Nathan. I’d love to see a few other folks weigh in. This is a pretty important topic. Isn’t anyone interested?
I think the efforts to reform the structure of Columbia’s system of government are in a critical phase with the pending final decision of the Commission. Whether you agree with me that we should have a “stronger mayor” (hybrid system requiring a change in State law) or a change to the “strong mayor” form that is allowed under current law, I think most people would agree that change is needed.
I think some of the arguments I have read in The State editorials, with all due respect to you Brad, are not advancing the ball for reform. I think the agrument of demeaning the current position of Mayor in Columbia: “There are, of course, people for whom the honor of being elected to a nothing job — such as lieutenant governor, or Columbia mayor — is more than enough” (Brad’s column Sunday), runs counter to the clear renaissance that Columbia is experiencing. If you read Brad’s Sunday column and then read the two inserts about Columbia’s renaissance (The State calls it “Building Our City”) in the same Sunday paper, you would have to think that you were talking about two different cities, and I would add two different Mayors.
Additionally, by citing as the answer to Lee’s question: “2. What projects in Columbia failed to get pushed through that would have, and should have been, completed if we had had the perfect strong mayor?”, three delayed or deferred projects in the Vista: the baseball stadium, the delay of CanalSide, and the Guignard property, without mentioning that the Vista, taken as a whole, has been a transformational success for Columbia (if any evidence is needed to prove that fact I would refer you to The State, click on “Building Our City” with both writen and video of everything from the Convention Center, the Publix, and residential development.) The same system that produced the three “failures” in the Vista also produced all the success.
Finally, by arguing that only with a “strong mayor” system will anyone worth a damn run for Mayor is not only personally insulting to someone who for fifteen years has slugged it out in the “Council Manager” form of government and I think justifiable takes pride in our renaissance, but it runs counter to the clear historic evidence that the cities with strong mayors can produce very good or very bad mayors.
I believe the better argument for reform is that in today’s world we should have an accountable system. Over the decades you will have good mayors and poor mayors under both systems, but you should have a person who is either absolutely accountable (under a strong mayor)or is more accountable (under a hybrid system). We currently have a committee but the people think they elect a mayor. That is a disconnect that we should change or at least improve upon.
One more thought Brad on your recent post: “I believe Bob Coble is a sincere guy who’s made both good moves and bad ones. I believe he has played a role in the “renaissance” he touts, but not nearly as large a one as Joe Riley has played in Charleston’s successes.”
First, surely no one could question that Columbia is actually experiencing a renaissance (some of our conservative libertarian friends hate government lead renaissances) rather than I am merely “touting” a renaissance. Secondly, surely no fair minded person would disagree that I have taken the lead or a lead in every project that has created this renaissance. Finally, for a Mayor to lead a renaissance in a Council Manager form of goverment, requiring two county councils to approve most major projects, at a time all would agree the business community did not play a significant role, I think deserves more credit than you give. At a minimum the effort should not get dismissive treatment in order to make a argument for the strong mayor system.
I am glad Mayor Coble brought up the point that the newspaper’s crusade is insulting to all those who disagree with them, and especially to those who are not in office.
That said, Bob Coble picks a few projects that he sees as successes, just as Brad Warthen picks a few that the newspaper opposed (or now opposes).
The problem with AirSouth, the Convention Center, government hotels, CanalSide and Riverwalk is not the form of government, but the attitude of a few people that they know better than all the taxpayers and real private sector developers, so they are justified in misrepresenting and concealing the facts. Since they claim no interest in return on investment, they feel no obligation to manage the projects, or take responsibility for the mistakes.
Lee, nobody likes taxes, including me. But really, the city property taxes haven’t gone up in the last 5 years, and I know you’re going to talk about the hospitality tax and the local option sales tax (both of which I supported because one actually has visitors paying for projects like streetscapings, and the other, actually helps pay my property taxes).
But Lee here’s the truth. Mayor Bob has taken a lot of heat for AirSouth. AirSouth was funded by 20% of city money. The rest came from other funding sources, like the state and the counties (both Republicans and Democrats, and really shouldn’t we let a dead horse dead?). The hotel is something I’ve seen mentioned a few times, and at the very least, if Mayor Bob’s plan had passed we might have a convention center running in the black. Instead, we have no hotel and a convention center having a tough time attracting outside convention-goers because of a lack of lodging options close to the convention center and ask the Vista restraunt owners if they appreciate the Convention Center. I’ll take the the publicly owned hotel as long as my taxes weren’t going to go up (and don’t throw the Myrtle Beach hotel out there as an example because Kansas City has a locally owned public hotel that does just fine. Not only that but as a Yankee who frequented Myrtle Beach often prior to moving here, you go to Myrtle Beach for the beach and the golfing, neither of which are located anywhere near the hotel. Which to me never made any sense.)
CanalSide there is no excuse for. The city probably had sat on that for too long. I often hear Mayor Bob talk about how the environment wasn’t ripe for land development in the early 90’s when the land was purchased. And I think there is some truth in that. But having the city foot the bill for that for that long really bothered me.
The Riverwalk to me is a great investment for not only the city to be involved with, but also the counties and municipalities of West Columbia and Cayce to be involved with. A regional effort to improve our quality life I’m ok with.
I’ll never forget something my daddy used to say, “Taxes and death, the only two things guaranteed in life.” If my tax dollars are going to things like the Riverwalk and things like supporting a grocery store in our downtown which has spurred growth unlike any other project in the city’s history, then I feel good knowing that the city in which I live is investing in the future development of it. And for that I will be a better resident of the city because more people will want to come here thus making our property values increase, thus making me more money. And for that I will support Mayor Bob and his efforts to make Columbia a Capital Place to Be and by the way, It’s Happening Now!
Property tax rates have not been increased, but assessments have. That is why property tax bills have increased 25% to 40% in the last year alone.
AirSouth had enough errors to fire all the promoters at the City, County and State levels. None were even reprimanded. To this day, the individuals insist it was a success. No wonder their current schemes are also headed to ruin.
Property taxes are a relic that are detached from the ability to pay, far too high for most people to pay, and used now as a tool to force the poor, the pensioners, and heirs to sell land to developers. Any serious tax reform has to include the abolition of all property taxes.
It would only take a 14% sales tax to run the bloated federal government, yet our state collects 5 and 6%, and now wants 8%.
CanalSide dragged out because the city was spending millions of dollars to prep the property as a subsidy to private developers.
Riverwalk is grossly over budget, a stealth project that has exceeded its original stated mission, and continues to expand, without accountability or proper reporting of bids and contracts.
While death is inevitable, miserable government and high taxes are not.
Tax the churches.
Churches are exempt from property taxes so they will not support tax reform.
Same reason clergy were exempted from Social Security taxes.
Same reason newspapers are exempt from sales tax.
The Valerie Plame scandal looks to be cooked up by disgruntled CIA and State Department bureaucrats in revenge for, in Joseph Wilson’s words, “..the White House hijacking foreign policy..”
* Joseph Wilson identified his wife in his web site over a month before Robert Novak’s article.
* The Nation magazine identified Valerie Plame as a CIA analyst over a month before Novak’s article.
* Wilson exposed his wife when he gave an illegal campaign contribution to Al Gore, then tried to cure it by splitting it into two contributions, one from his wife.
* His wife worked for front company in Maryland, where she was an analyst, not an undercover agent.
* Wilson sat in a hotel room in Niger and pretended to investigate Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium. He then wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times, and lied about having read intelligence reports which the sign out sheets show he never saw.