A-C government and the students
Because these were worthwhile and well-structured comments by Al Davison and Adrian, I felt it was worthy to devote a whole post to their thoughts.
Al submitted text of his response to The Red & Black regarding this article about whether or not the A-C government is 'anti-student'. For what it's worth, I mostly agree with Al's comments (even though I'm not crazy about the rental ordinances).
Plus I don't think the Mayor and Commission are 'anti-student' ... that's a fairly ridiculous claim. To be fair, some of the ordinances aren't the most friendly to how some students live, but that's a fair cry from instituting an 'anti-student' agenda which the article implies.
Here are Al's comments:
Your article entitled "ACC officials, students don't see eye to eye' of September 29th (http://www.redandblack.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/09/29/451c8638900b8) contains a few false and misleading statements about the actions of the Mayor and Commission.
1) The "definition of family" is part of the zoning code and has been in place since before the city and county governments unified in 1990. Even before unification, the separate governments each had the restriction as part of their zoning codes and this was maintained in the zoning codes of the new unified government. Additionally, this "definition of family" zoning restriction applies ONLY to RS zones and is found in a great number of cities across the country. Your statement that “A rental ordinance passed in 2003 allowed no more than two unrelated people to live together" is factually incorrect.
2) The "Anti-Cruising" ordinance does NOT restrict persons who are legitimately seeking a destination or a parking spot downtown. This ordinance was designed specifically to protect pedestrians from drivers who are only driving in the downtown area with no intention of stopping or arriving at any destination. The ordinance addressed a problem that was being caused, almost exclusively, by NON-STUDENTS who were simply circling around downtown in their cars for entertainment and adding to congestion as well as endangering pedestrians (most of whom were students). Your assertions and interpretations are, in fact, inaccurate and misleading.
3) Possession of alcohol by anyone under the legal age is a violation of a STATE law. The fact that the UGA Campus police are enforcing that law more stridently is not a matter that involves the ACC government and the inclusion of this in your article is superfluous, at best.
4) The "moratorium on the construction of fraternity houses last spring" was necessary to allow all the stakeholders to meet and discuss an inadvertent loop-hole in the zoning ordinances. The intention was to make all such institutional group home use a special use permit to protect single family neighborhoods. In fact, the zoning code had always contained a provision that made all such “group homes” as well as schools, churches, day-care centers, etc. a special use designation but, when the zoning code was re-written (more than 4 years ago and prior to the election of the current Mayor and Commission), this designation was omitted due to a clerical error that went unnoticed until the recent challenge. The Mayor and Commission rightly responded to this challenge such that a simple clerical error would not create an unwarranted and unplanned disruption to an entire neighborhood. Again, this is quite common in cities around the country and applies to many others uses than simply fraternities and sororities.
Finally, a reading of the ordinances of Athens-Clarke County would reveal that there is no mention, anywhere, of UGA students. All ordinances are applied in the same manner to every person. It seems rather odd to me that each time the Mayor and Commission adopts an ordinance to control undesirable and/or dangerous behaviors, the Red and Black writes about it as being "anti-student" - that amounts to a declaration that the students are the cause of the undesirable behaviors by your newspaper. No one in Athens or the Athens-Clarke County government believes that students are the cause of all the problems in Athens – why do you? It begs the question: "Why is the Red and Black so anti-student?"
Adrian followed up with this clarification and comment:
Actually, the cruising ordinance DOES still apply to people seeking a destination or a parking spot downtown, if they are not a resident of the no-cruising zone. Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, Code of Ordinances § 3-3-64(d)(4) (Municode 2006). If you thought it was less onerous, well, that's the trouble with the M&C's ordinance of the month club style of operation. Each new ordinance has unintended consequences. For example, the sidewalk sign ordinance was supposed to protect blind people using the sidewalks, yet supposedly Angelo's received a $1000 ticket under this ordinance for having a sign on a duly licensed sidewalk cafe table.
Al submitted text of his response to The Red & Black regarding this article about whether or not the A-C government is 'anti-student'. For what it's worth, I mostly agree with Al's comments (even though I'm not crazy about the rental ordinances).
Plus I don't think the Mayor and Commission are 'anti-student' ... that's a fairly ridiculous claim. To be fair, some of the ordinances aren't the most friendly to how some students live, but that's a fair cry from instituting an 'anti-student' agenda which the article implies.
Here are Al's comments:
Your article entitled "ACC officials, students don't see eye to eye' of September 29th (http://www.redandblack.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/09/29/451c8638900b8) contains a few false and misleading statements about the actions of the Mayor and Commission.
1) The "definition of family" is part of the zoning code and has been in place since before the city and county governments unified in 1990. Even before unification, the separate governments each had the restriction as part of their zoning codes and this was maintained in the zoning codes of the new unified government. Additionally, this "definition of family" zoning restriction applies ONLY to RS zones and is found in a great number of cities across the country. Your statement that “A rental ordinance passed in 2003 allowed no more than two unrelated people to live together" is factually incorrect.
2) The "Anti-Cruising" ordinance does NOT restrict persons who are legitimately seeking a destination or a parking spot downtown. This ordinance was designed specifically to protect pedestrians from drivers who are only driving in the downtown area with no intention of stopping or arriving at any destination. The ordinance addressed a problem that was being caused, almost exclusively, by NON-STUDENTS who were simply circling around downtown in their cars for entertainment and adding to congestion as well as endangering pedestrians (most of whom were students). Your assertions and interpretations are, in fact, inaccurate and misleading.
3) Possession of alcohol by anyone under the legal age is a violation of a STATE law. The fact that the UGA Campus police are enforcing that law more stridently is not a matter that involves the ACC government and the inclusion of this in your article is superfluous, at best.
4) The "moratorium on the construction of fraternity houses last spring" was necessary to allow all the stakeholders to meet and discuss an inadvertent loop-hole in the zoning ordinances. The intention was to make all such institutional group home use a special use permit to protect single family neighborhoods. In fact, the zoning code had always contained a provision that made all such “group homes” as well as schools, churches, day-care centers, etc. a special use designation but, when the zoning code was re-written (more than 4 years ago and prior to the election of the current Mayor and Commission), this designation was omitted due to a clerical error that went unnoticed until the recent challenge. The Mayor and Commission rightly responded to this challenge such that a simple clerical error would not create an unwarranted and unplanned disruption to an entire neighborhood. Again, this is quite common in cities around the country and applies to many others uses than simply fraternities and sororities.
Finally, a reading of the ordinances of Athens-Clarke County would reveal that there is no mention, anywhere, of UGA students. All ordinances are applied in the same manner to every person. It seems rather odd to me that each time the Mayor and Commission adopts an ordinance to control undesirable and/or dangerous behaviors, the Red and Black writes about it as being "anti-student" - that amounts to a declaration that the students are the cause of the undesirable behaviors by your newspaper. No one in Athens or the Athens-Clarke County government believes that students are the cause of all the problems in Athens – why do you? It begs the question: "Why is the Red and Black so anti-student?"
Adrian followed up with this clarification and comment:
Actually, the cruising ordinance DOES still apply to people seeking a destination or a parking spot downtown, if they are not a resident of the no-cruising zone. Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, Code of Ordinances § 3-3-64(d)(4) (Municode 2006). If you thought it was less onerous, well, that's the trouble with the M&C's ordinance of the month club style of operation. Each new ordinance has unintended consequences. For example, the sidewalk sign ordinance was supposed to protect blind people using the sidewalks, yet supposedly Angelo's received a $1000 ticket under this ordinance for having a sign on a duly licensed sidewalk cafe table.
posted by Jmac at 6:50 PM
12 Comments:
Doesn't Al have anything better to than to bloviate and fact-check every blog post, article, and drunken pillow-talk conversation that remotely concerns the ACC Commission?
And by the way, who appointed him principal spin-meister for the Commission? There are ten other people in the Commission besides Heidi. Sticking up for her is fine, but she bears a pretty small portion of the blame for most of what the M&C does and the other ten ought to fight their own battles. You can't have it both ways - either the Mayor is a weak position, or Heidi is responsible for everything (good and bad) that the commission has done since 2003.
Maybe Al Davison should concentrate on his campaign's opponents instead of the people who are just hacked off at the Commission in general - maybe try to put up a few yard signs to counter Charlie's grassroots support.
Thanks, JMac and Adrian!
Also, thanks to this anonymous poster for the swell campaign advice since I had almost forgotten that yard signs are the most important thing in any election. We simply must spend more time finding out how to get our signs posted on vacant lots or we will surely lose!
Charlie's grssroots support?! Oh, please! Since when did the Chamber and the developers become grassroots? Clearly, I must have slept through that part.
Still, back to the main subject, I don't want my response to the Red and Black to be construed as anything other than an attempt to do these 2 simple things: 1) correct errors of fact; 2) point out their continued hypocrysy. OK, maybe the other point was just to show how really immature they are because I'm tired of their inaccurate reporting.
Like what Elton said on AthPo, I've overheard Heidi give R&B "reporters" hours of time in serious discussion of issues and then read them misquote her with a single line in the story the next day. If you believe what you read in the R&B then you'll believe pretty much anything.
BTW - It didn't take a lot of fact-checking to refute the R&B, I assure you. If you pay any attention at all to what's going on, you can see their errors at a quick glance. In my current position of managing this campaign, there are things that I just can't let go unchallenged or uncorrected.
In fact, I've beem meaning to challenge Adrian on some of the things he posted. For one, if you know the history Angelo's, you have to take a couple of boxes of salt with the comment that he was fined $1,000 for that minor offense. I don't have the facts on that particular instance but, neither did Adrian actually present any so, maybe he's right but I have lots of doubt about that. I like Adrian and he clearly stated that he was just repeating what he had heard so...
Adrian's a smart guy and Heidi is very open to idea from smart guys so, if he sees a problem with the Cruising Ban, he really should email her or call her about it.
I confess to being disappointed that he chose to repeat that "ordinance of the month" thing. In fact, there have only been about a half dozen truly new ordinances during her first term. There have been modifications to many of them. This Mayor and Commission have been far more active than even they probably would have preferred in the last 4 years because the previous bunch got voted out of office for failing to address the issues that the citizens had been demanding for years. So, they had a helluva backlog of citizen issues to deal with as soon as they sat down. Four years of the previous administration's doing absolutely nothing is going to take a while to catch up on.
That's neither an apology nor an excuse nor spin - it's just a statement of fact to which people who've lived in this town for a while will readily attest. Just look at all those long-time Commissioers who were defeated.
Whether or not Heidi wins, we've still got a much better Commission than we had just 4 years ago. I predict it will get even better with this next election and, of course, I think Heidi will win.
Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a kudzu patch or two that I've got to get some yardsigns in so that we can win that pro-kudzu, pro-vacant lot vote.
Al
Can Anonymous Al or anyone else enlighten me: We both know that there is tension between students and "permanent residents" in this community. I think that is beyond dispute. Now, if the Mayor and Commission are NOT anti-student as is the claim, then there must be some occasions on which the Commission has sided WITH the students and AGAINST the "permanent residents".
Can Al or anyone else point to any instances in recent memory where Heidi Davison has sided with students on a topic where students conflicted with permanent residents? Or any instances where the Commission has done so?
If the Commission is NOT anti student, then there of course must be some instances where they have sided with students. I would like to see them. If there are no instances in which the Mayor and Commission has sided with students, then it can be fairly inferred that the Mayor and Commission are in fact against students.
So let me see the facts.
ACC is not a school and therefore has no students. There are citizens of all ages here - some go to schools and some do not.
I wonder if you are somehow insinuating that students of UGA are guilty of more undesirable behaviors than the general population. If that is the case, I find your generalizations to be repugnant and implore to you stop stigmatizing and stereotyping. There is no room for that kind of attitude in our community. Such is the attitude exhibited by the Red and Black and I find it disgusting and unworthy of any person who purports to support the University of Georgia.
That's a pretty ridiculous response, anon.
Sure Al. Students are not bad. They're just an "unwarranted and unplanned disruption".
Go back to the valley, holle.
While you were sleeping you forgot about poor black people. But don't worry. The mayor and freinds have been doing it for years.
1. Isn't it Al's job to keep up with this stuff?
2. Surprise that the Red & Black is immature is itself surprising. There's a lot of turnover and they are, indeed, young.
Chuck, it simply doesn't follow that 'not being against' means "there must have been occasions when they sided with students". There is always the category of indifference or neutrality, and I think it is from here most often where the feelings of disrespect or suppression. Afterall, if you are actively against someone, you still pay them the respect of an existence no matter how disturbing. But if you are totally indifferent or neutral to them, you are not as caught up or involved with them to warrant paying them any attention. And that, being ignored, is taken by those who are ignored as a sign of one's animosity.
I think the one anonymous comment reflects this: ignoring poor black people is taken as an institutional wrong, when most often ignoring poor black people (or rich Amerindian people, or Korean musical artists, or disabled Slovakian tourists, &tc) is just a reflection of a certain arrangement of priorities for (especially local!) the bureacratic system.
In one sense, we want our bureacracies to be indifferent to group or difference: we would prefer our laws to be arbitrary in the sense that they are universal and hold for everyone. If we start to demand our laws be discriminatory, applying to groups in different ways at different times, then we will have to start doing a lot more justification and legislation and coding to create the semblance of doing justice.
And, I think this is kinda Adrian's point: it is precisely because the cruising ordinance is written to be universal that it strikes out those who are acting in legitimate ways. By attempting to actually be neutral in its governance, the M&C inadvertently did some mindful citizens the wrong of making them lawbreakers.
Perhaps when it comes to governance afflicting students, thinking of the M&C as acting in an all-too-neutral way is a better way to formulate a political strategy for making it more reflective or more accommodating to the special group of college students in Athens. If you look at Elton's response in the AthPo discussion, he frames the non-smoking ban in these terms. Or, I take him to be doing it through these terms. The smoking ban was meant to be a solution to increasing the quality of health for all individuals (the claim to being neutral), but it cannot be helped if the population itself reflects that, more often than not, it is the population of college students who are the ones smoking (although, I don't think Elton adds this part). Likewise, governance for managing the affairs of who and what people live together is meant to be neutral with regard to any specific population, but it cannot be helped if the population most affected is the college student one.
This will, no doubt, seem a naive way of framing things. I do think, though, that the benefits to doing so are more important. Namely, we don't make a character judgment in the process of detailing how the acts of governing go wrong, because we are not directly calling the M&C people immoral or unjust or repressive or dictatorial (or so on). We regard them as just as any other human beings: we humans have a constant habit of not seeing the unintended consequences of our noble, universalizing intentions.
To me, that sounds a healthy way to start a polemical but charitable deliberative process of politics. But, I suppose some people find total warfare to be a great model for all things, from sex to politics to bingo.
And, yeah, I agree with Hillary: I don't think it is bad that Al responds to things in the public space. I mean, this is precisely what we need more of: participation and visibility as public actors, public persons. Supposing he didn't respond, we might start believing in stories and rumors about closed door meetings, secret agendas, and despotic domination. The antidote to irrational populism has always been being a part of the populace itself.
Thanks, Hilary!
Actually, it is part of my job (with some help from volunteers) to scan all the media regularly for errors in fact and other untrue, misconstrued, or otherwise false characterizations of my candidate. I've always done that for all my candidates - it's a normal thing. This ain't my first rodeo.
What I won't do is get sucked into long back-and-forth discussions of opinion because I just don't have the time. And, just in case you are tempted to try to bait me, I won't respond to anything that has no legs as the posts from some of the more regular posters on the various blogs. You gotta just use your judgement on what is/isn't worth a response. Besides, some of them just refute their ownselves without any effort on my part. I like that.
There! Wasn't that some boring inside baseball junk? Back to my real job.
Al
The "ordinance of the month club" moniker is a pithy way to describe the common frustration of Athens residents with hasty and frequent resort to legislative solutions. For example, the rental registration ordinance was passed in defiance of serious controversy and opposition -- that was the only time I've seen a protest in front of City Hall! -- and despite the warning of lay people that it was unconstitutional. Guess what? The Superior Court said it was unconstitutional shortly after and struck it. If there was ever a time to back off, that was it, but the commission of that time was stubborn.
Other ordinances are passed despite controversy and opposition, often resulting in unintended consequences. (As far as the rumor about Angelo's, I don't know -- maybe I should confirm that. If there was a ticket, it would have been $1000 because that is what the ordinance specifies.) There is widespread sentiment that the commission needs to slow down and think through proposals a little better.
I will admit I have recently proposed an ordinance myself, but it should not be controversial.
"Ordinance of the month club" is a fair and apt name for a popular perception. I don't intend it in an inflammatory way.
Adrian is right. Al is right.
Adrian is right about the perception. Al is right about the facts.
In an election, perception wins because the voters are too lazy to find out the truth so they will go with perception every time.
Post a Comment
<< Home