Misguided defenses
I like James Garland, and I respect that he likes Rep. Bob Smith. And, truth be told, I've got nothing personal against Smith. I'm sure that he's a nice guy man who means well, it's just that I think I think his style of governance and his political ideology are out-of-tune with the majority of this community's (which I've noted several times, most recently here).
Which is why James's defense of Smith is kinda silly in my opinion. Not silly in the sense that he's sticking up for a man he respects on a personal and political level, but silly in its rationale.
And it features two primary points which are worth drawing attention to. The first being that James openly endorses Smith adhering to blind partisanship rather than accept local control ...
The real problem with Smith is that he has the temerity to say “NO” to our local politicians and their never-ending quests for more government and higher taxes. ...
Smith’s supposed interference with local control irks the folks down at City Hall and their activist/progressive backers to no end. To them, though, "local control" seems to be nothing more than a euphemism for the continuing expansion of ordinances, restrictions, and fees concerning the homes, businesses, families, and now even the pets, of the county’s residents.
But, again, whose business is it of Smith's to tell us how to live? Listen, there are a good number of ordinances which I think are a result of us overregulating, but shouldn't that be something for this community to work out? If we in Athens-Clarke County really want 'more government and higher taxes' - which is a fairly laughable assertion in its own right - then why should the state government, let alone a Watkinsville legislator, tell us 'no?'
Again, isn't that the essence of local control? Isn't this what so many conservatives like to beat the drum about (and, to a large extent, quite rightly I might add)? A sort of 'this is my community, and we'll figure out what's best for us? ... and then you guys can figure out what's best for you?'
That's the crux of my challenge for supporters of The Glenn Tax ... let each individual county determine whether or not to replace property taxes with sales taxes rather than a blanket motion made from the state level.
My other point of contention would be this ...
Though he mostly represents Oconee County, Smith’s District 113 includes all or portions of Athens-Clarke County precincts 1A, 1C, 1D, 6A, and 6C.
Fair enough, but can we really expect that to offer justification for Smith's continual habit of putting personal ideology over local wishes?
Furthermore, that's not even terribly accurate. Out of those five districts, Smith won one in 2006 ... by two votes. He 'lost' Athens-Clarke County 2,501 to 1,838. If Smith lived in this community, there's no way he'd hold an elected office (and that's not intended to be an insult to him, but rather a statement of the political realities).
Which is why James's defense of Smith is kinda silly in my opinion. Not silly in the sense that he's sticking up for a man he respects on a personal and political level, but silly in its rationale.
And it features two primary points which are worth drawing attention to. The first being that James openly endorses Smith adhering to blind partisanship rather than accept local control ...
The real problem with Smith is that he has the temerity to say “NO” to our local politicians and their never-ending quests for more government and higher taxes. ...
Smith’s supposed interference with local control irks the folks down at City Hall and their activist/progressive backers to no end. To them, though, "local control" seems to be nothing more than a euphemism for the continuing expansion of ordinances, restrictions, and fees concerning the homes, businesses, families, and now even the pets, of the county’s residents.
But, again, whose business is it of Smith's to tell us how to live? Listen, there are a good number of ordinances which I think are a result of us overregulating, but shouldn't that be something for this community to work out? If we in Athens-Clarke County really want 'more government and higher taxes' - which is a fairly laughable assertion in its own right - then why should the state government, let alone a Watkinsville legislator, tell us 'no?'
Again, isn't that the essence of local control? Isn't this what so many conservatives like to beat the drum about (and, to a large extent, quite rightly I might add)? A sort of 'this is my community, and we'll figure out what's best for us? ... and then you guys can figure out what's best for you?'
That's the crux of my challenge for supporters of The Glenn Tax ... let each individual county determine whether or not to replace property taxes with sales taxes rather than a blanket motion made from the state level.
My other point of contention would be this ...
Though he mostly represents Oconee County, Smith’s District 113 includes all or portions of Athens-Clarke County precincts 1A, 1C, 1D, 6A, and 6C.
Fair enough, but can we really expect that to offer justification for Smith's continual habit of putting personal ideology over local wishes?
Furthermore, that's not even terribly accurate. Out of those five districts, Smith won one in 2006 ... by two votes. He 'lost' Athens-Clarke County 2,501 to 1,838. If Smith lived in this community, there's no way he'd hold an elected office (and that's not intended to be an insult to him, but rather a statement of the political realities).
posted by Jmac at 3:18 PM
16 Comments:
Shouldn’t a legislator who has constituents in Clarke County be allowed to comment on those things which affect said constituents?
He can comment all he want ... and I can take exception to him inserting his partisan views into what is a local issue.
Also, again, my contention primarily isn't with Smith's views, but with the fact that he deliberately ignores the wishes of his consituents - who didn't vote for him in droves - by putting his views above their wishes.
Switch it around and if you had Keith Heard doing the same thing in Oconee County (if the districts worked that way), I would think it was equally as offensive.
Again, isn't that the essence of local control? Isn't this what so many conservatives like to beat the drum about (and, to a large extent, quite rightly I might add)? A sort of 'this is my community, and we'll figure out what's best for us? ... and then you guys can figure out what's best for you?'
I'm incredibly excited to see people on the 'left' (even if it's only moderates like Jmac) favor local control, but I can't help but notice/wonder several things.
1. What brought the change about among liberals? Why are liberals all of a sudden localists? Is it only because they have lost much of their control over the more centralized political apparati in Atlanta? That's a cynical view, I suppose, but that doesn't automatically make it wrong.
1b. Liberals stood firmly in favor of, and chided, ridiculed and accused of racism those conservatives who opposed, centralized interventions in local politics...pretty much every time it happened through the entire 20th century (and before?). So, again, forgive my cynicism that all of a sudden liberals have 'come around' to the 'conservative' position about local government being better.
2. While all politics is local, local ain't what it used to be. In the day and age of the automobile, I'm not sure that Watkinsville can really be all that neatly separated from Athens as though these are "different" local communities. It doesn't take all day to travel to the county seats any more, and so it seems justifiable to think that our ideas of where the boundaries on a 'local community' even is.
3. Even though conservatives/libertarians usually favor local control (or at least they do so historically), and even though that is a 'liberty maximizing' approach to government, it doesn't follow that they have to support every cockimamy local ordinance that comes up. James Garland, for instance, is himself an Athens resident with a libertarian bent and who wants to see a different governing philosophy take hold in the Classic City. He appreciates any voice of support for such change that he can find, even if they don't necessarily come from inside Athens. If Smith is right (about whatever), then he's right. And we shouldn't tell Garland that he's silly to appeal to an 'outsider' in supporting a position that Garland advocates.
"...He 'lost' Athens-Clarke County 2,501 to 1,838. If Smith lived in this community, there's no way he'd hold an elected office"
This is such a poor argument. So Smith is at fault by not voting to raise the hotel tax (something you've criticized him on before) but should not have a say on water because he shouldn’t have won but did?
Sorry I want to add a few more:
3b. Local government is better than distant government. Absolutely. But, as a libertarian-of-some-sort (and many conservatives would agree), Garland believes that all government is inherently inefficient and problematic. This includes local governments. Libertarians and small government conservatives don't favor local government b/c they think that local governors are somehow able to plan and manage the affairs of supposedly free people in a rational and efficient manner. They can't do this any more than 'distant' government can.
Local governments are often the biggest enemies of liberty 'on the ground.' 'Creative' zoning; eminent domain; quick votes; noncompetitive and untouchable control over basic resources like water; restrictions and regulations concerning yards, garbage collection, holiday lights, etc.; legalized extortion of sports franchises (or the local population who is devoted to the franchise); 'speed traps' and other quota-guided methods of law and traffic enforcement; etc.
When we say we favor local government, that might just be because that makes it easier to know who to throw the brick at. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
4. Telling our local government what it should do is not the same as telling Athens what it should do. The government and the people are not the same thing, even in a representative system. Societal life does not reduce to the political.
And this is what I think Garland points to in his blog post when he says that
"The problem with Smith is not that he tries to mandate how everyone else lives. Quite the contrary; the local left denigrates him precisely because Smith routinely admonishes the Unified Government not to engage in that very practice."
When you cry for 'local control', you seem to think that this simply means that the local government gets to decide whatever it wants and then we have 'local control.' But to a libertarian like Garland, or to anyone who does not equate society with political happenings, there is more to 'local control' than just letting local governments say no to Wal-Mart if they want to (or whatever). Arguably (to use my favorite JMacism, which is not making fun b/c Lord knows (another!) that I have my own isms), the ACC government represents a far more extensive effort to 'tell other people what to do' than does Rep. Smith. That's the oddity (and danger) of a localist position; the local government feels at liberty to boss its citizens around and then claim that they actually have liberty since the mandates are coming from the most local level available.
But that last point is a puzzler for everyone, not just you JMac. I admit I'm not entirely clear on how to 'wolve' this problem for myself, either.
This is such a poor argument. So Smith is at fault by not voting to raise the hotel tax (something you've criticized him on before) but should not have a say on water because he shouldn’t have won but did?
It's actually a very effective argument based in response to James's specific counterargument.
And, to avoid any further oversimplification on your part, I've criticized him for not voting to let this community hold a referendum to permit us to decide whether or not we should raise our hotel-motel tax (as current state law says the Georgia General Assembly must approve such matters).
As I've noted repeatedly, I would probably oppose an increase in our hotel-motel tax ... but shouldn't I get the chance to say whether or not we increase what is a local tax?
Ok, so Bob Smith represents Athens when it come to something you want but since he did not get a majority of vote in Athens, he should stay silent on issues affecting it's industry.
got it!
For the record, Xon, I supported local control with regard to Watkinsville's liquor laws. I generally do unless I believe there's a compelling reason not to (generally violations of civil rights law or efficiences which don't exist at the local level).
P.S. Bob Smith can say whatever he likes. I merely dislike his doing so in this case because he's ill-informed. Evidently he thinks we have resources that we do not have. And in fact one of the reasons we do not have it is because we allowed concerns such as his to delay our drought response.
For ...
Ok, so Bob Smith represents Athens when it come to something you want but since he did not get a majority of vote in Athens, he should stay silent on issues affecting it's industry.
See ...
And, to avoid any further oversimplification on your part ...
Seriously. I haven't once said he can't voice his opinions. He's free to do that, and I'm free to say I think he's misguided with regard to his application of those opinions.
Nicki, however, hit the nail on the head. He came late into the debate again (see MCG/Navy School discussion) with an off-base criticism of something that is under the jurisdiction of a local government. He did it because it doesn't jibe with his personal political preferences.
Again, my point in highlighting his level of support in Athens-Clarke County is to underline the fact that he is representing a distinct minority of citizens (and, again, this isn't meant to be a criticism at all).
Is it worthy to speak on their behalf? Of course.
But I don't think that's the ultimate case here. He jumped into the watering ban discussion really late and lectured local officials on local policy (failing to do so in his hometown of Oconee County which features a similar policy it must be noted).
You're seeing one thing, but it doesn't suit your line of argument, so just creating something I said in order to make yours work.
It seems that I am late arriving at this party. Here are a few points in my own defense (and thanks to those who have offered their own):
I would argue that my support of Bob Smith is a function of ideological affinity rather than “blind partisanship.” He and I share similar, though not identical, views on a range of political matters; as such, it is entirely appropriate for us to support one another. That is not to say that there is not an ideological component to partisanship –and perhaps vice versa– but there is more to it than that.
I would argue that there is, indeed, a significant portion of the local polity that is aggressively pushing for “more government and higher taxes.” In light of the numerous regulations, restrictions, and increased taxes and fees that have emanated from City Hall in recent years, not to mention those included on the Unified Government’s list of legislative priorities for the upcoming session of the General Assembly, this proposition strikes me as self-evident.
I would argue that ascribing a majority of popular support to the policies of the Unified Government is a mistake. It is true that Smith “lost” Athens-Clarke County; it is also irrelevant. No one in local government got there with the support of a majority of the registered voters. In the recent mayoral contest, Davison received the votes of about 22% of the registered voters in the general election; this plummeted to less than 15% of the registered voters in the runoff (the number of registered voters is in itself a far smaller number than those eligible to vote). This is not to pick on her – its just that the mayoral race involved the entire county and thereby serves as a good example for the county at large. Winning an election and having the support of most of the populace is not the same.
I would argue that one would be hard pressed to find a more ideologically driven group than the one currently ensconced at City Hall. I find it hard to accept the idea that we citizens should meekly submit to the ideological decisions and policies of the Unified Government because it is “local,” while simultaneously chastising Smith’s opposition because he is not, even though he represents many of the county’s residents just as much as do the Mayor and Commissioners.
On a more philosophical level, Jmac makes a reasonable appeal for local control, a concept with which I agree. But “local control” does not trump all else. Just as at the federal level, political power within Georgia is distributed among the various branches of the state government and the various local governments. Such a division is purposeful, preventing any one portion of the state government, or any local government, from assuming dictatorial powers.
I hold no animus toward Jmac and trust that he holds none toward me. Any conversation that we have about the proper role of government, at whatever level, is a useful endeavor – even if we have to agree to disagree.
Xon: Duh! Local control is better when it's more in line with your political beliefs. I know that I'm generally Federalist, if I look at it abstractly, but no matter where in the spectrum our beliefs fall, we would like to have those who align with them in control.
Please don’t try to overcomplicate things. You have suggested that the number of votes should weight an elected person’s credibility. If this was not your point or unimportant, why did you bring it up?
And “He's free to do that, and I'm free to say I think he's misguided with regard to his application of those opinions.”
I’m free to say I think you’re attacking him out of ideology as well. For example, The SPLOST vote for the parking garage does not mention the newer legacy of condos and retail. It was presented to the voters in a manner that is different than it is proceeding now. Should it go back to the voters? I mean, in the interest of local say so, shouldn’t voters get a second say now that what they were sold is different than what is being proposed?
local control. Right.
Overcomplicate? How?
Let's be clear on this.
I took a look at how Smith fared electorally in a direct response to what was a primary point made by James ... that Smith represented these precincts and he was offering them representation on a local issue. My point was to show that, by any logical measure, he really wasn't that representative of their views considering he lost four of the five precincts, won one by just two votes and was elected thanks to strong hometown support in Oconee County. My humble request was for a little deference to that political reality and an acceptance that he represented a distinct minority of those Athens-Clarke County residents.
Is this to say he can't voice a concern or comment? No. He can. More power to him. I just think that it lacks the same type of backing when it's obvious that his views aren't terribly reflective of those populations.
Agree. Disagree. That's fine. It's a free country.
I’m free to say I think you’re attacking him out of ideology as well.
I would say my a couple of my disagreements with him, historically, have some roots in ideology since we are ideologically different. However, I have been consistent in my primary criticism since I started ... and that's the fact that I believe Smith, like many Republicans in Atlanta (and Democrats before them), put their ideology above the wishes of local communities (i.e. The Glenn Tax).
Again, I look over at Oconee County, and I respect that it's as Republican as they come. I think that's fine and dandy. More power to them. They have the ability to run their local government as they see fit based on the wishes of their populace.
I don't think that Smith, on some issues, shares that respect.
For example, The SPLOST vote for the parking garage does not mention the newer legacy of condos and retail. It was presented to the voters in a manner that is different than it is proceeding now. Should it go back to the voters? I mean, in the interest of local say so, shouldn’t voters get a second say now that what they were sold is different than what is being proposed?
Not necessarily. Lots of things have amendments tacked on to them, and we don't cycle through additional committee meetings or re-votes on them. We trust our elected officials to, the best of their ability, to accomplish what we ask of them.
We asked for a parking deck. They said 'sure' ... and let's see if we can do something else with it to meet your other wishes for additional mixed-use development downtown. Considering this is something which is in the preliminary discussions and may very well some public-private partnerships, it's early to start throwing stones, is it not?
"...put their ideology above the wishes of local communities"
Exactly.
FWIW
the SPLOST project description for the parking deck said it was to be mixed-use from the very beginning.
if a private developer becomes interested in the residential on top, that's a good thing. if not, it won't happen and that's also a good thing.
the design can always be done in such a way that would allow for future expansion in an upward manner and that would also be a good thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home