Wednesday, September 06, 2006

2 Changes for the sake of Change

Partisan Elections:

City Hall has been a circus for the last few years, and some people think that bringing back openly partisan elections will solve that problem. I don't buy it. For one, as I said over at SoLo, which party is going to run the Keith Meyer and Shawn Hamerlincks of Davenport? What's the point of exchanging D1 vs Againsters vs QCRPA for Democrats vs Republicans vs "other?" Just look to our state or federal elected officials if you start thinking that partisan politics create a civil and professional elected body. Or are people just that lazy that they need a party to tell them who to vote for, instead of actually learning about the candidates? An educated electorate doesn't mean an electorate of party-obeying sheep.

2 Way Brady/Harrison:

This was covered over on Bridge to Somewhere, but I just really think its another change for the sake of change. I don't know that I've ever heard a "Joe Citizen" type resident complain about Brady or Harrison being one way streets. That suggests that we're only talking about this issue because of the complaints of a few businesses along that corridor. The fact is, when businesses started leaving the 61 corridor for newer and greener pastures along Kimberly and 53rd, they pretty much doomed the folks left behind. Now they're sitting amidst buildings for sale or rent, and blaming the direction that cars are driving past. Blame Northpark, or Elmore, not efficient traffic planning.

13 comments:

hoganj300 said...

I said this before to put an high- speed bus rapid transit system from Eldridge to Downtown Davenport for around, what, 20 Mil?
This would still costs less than some road projects in the area. For making the one-ways two ways, do you want help businesses along the corridor or have an fast route to and out of downtown.

Anonymous said...

Conservative Demo here:

Our blog janitor continues to protest the idea of Dav returning to a political party system of campaigning and electing.

A week or so ago I offered my idea of why that would be good, perhaps our young urbane loft-dweller might detail his reasons for such strong disapproval.

Anonymous said...

A partisan system would weed out Meyer and Hammerlinck before they ever got a chance to serve. The party picks who it wants. Generally speaking, know it alls and gadflys get the hook.

Anonymous said...

If this system would weed out Hammerlink and Meyer, is sounds like a good idea!

Anonymous said...

Conservative Demo here:

Hmm, 8:55AM does have a ring of probability to what he sez. Despite what I have been saying about the parties being accountable for their selectees, in truth that's not much of an incentive to select people who'd be accountable to WtP.

I'll say again that Meyer does appear to be just that, accountable to those who-brung-him.

QuadCityImages said...

Well, here's one reason I'm against parties on an overall basis:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
-George Washington


Locally, I think that the "againsters" would be the ones to get screwed the most by a return to partisan elections. I just don't see either party running their heroes.

I can't picture Democrats being against things like the Figge or new parks, yet our current Republicans (Brooke, Howard, Dumas, Winborn, etc) don't seem to be against that stuff either. Both parties are pretty much run by big money at this point, and big contributions, so I think we'd end up with a council that does what big money wants.

Anonymous said...

Conservative Demo here:

Damn! I just made a flip-flop; hope to hell I never run for an office cuz that'll be held against me.

After a full day to consider 8:55's post of this morning, he has convinced me with what he said. Neither party would run Ald Meyer or generically "a Keith Meyer". So if this comes up for us to vote on, I will vote to retain the present system. Screw my party of preference and that other one too.

Unknown said...

I haven't heard people complain about one-ways per se, but I have heard people state (like Winding Hills did) that we need better accessibility to downtown.

QuadCityImages said...

I wasn't at all trying to associate the sheep line with the Washington quote; I was just presenting multiple arguments. As far as the sheep thing, people have posted on QCTimes.comments and possibly even on this blog that they wish that aldermen ran by parties so they'd "know who to vote for." That makes no sense to me. You could have a Democrat that's a complete moron and a Republican that is the perfect representative and just because you belong to his party you're supposed to vote for the less qualified candidate? What's wrong with doing your own research into candidates' positions and past votes, and making an educated decision based on the individual person?

On a local level, I think that our national parties have less relevance anyway. As people have said, what is the Republican way to pave a street? Should we just create our own local parties, the Againsters and the Money-wasters? At least that would spell out the 2 extremes that our council is generally divided by.

Which party would have backed River Renaissance? The Republicans or the Democrats? If I had to guess, I'd say both, which is ok with me, but the againsters would have no voice.

Anonymous said...

Actually both parties backed RR. The Scott County Democrats, their elected county officials and at the time their no-party elected city officials supported it. That year, "Democrats" controlled the council and they were the ones who came up with the idea to begin with. Caldwell, Engelmann, Moritz, Sherwood, Seng, Brown, and don't forget mayor Yerington - who at the time considered himself a Democrat.

On the council now, there are a handful of councilors who have close party ties - Brooke, Howard, Dumas, VanFossen, and Meyer spring to mind. Meyer is a Democrat and VanFossen is a Republican - yet they tend to vote a like.

Parties wouldn't be determinative in the ideology someone brings to the council, but they would be helpful is shaping and controling the debate in their individual wards. The notion that electeds are accountable to the party is silly. Anyone who has been involved in partisan politics knows that candidates often give two flips about what the party says. Remember, even if their party chooses them in a primary they still have to win in a general election with no party, Republican and Democrats voting.

QuadCityImages said...

I know I've asked this before, but do you think that the local Democratic party would back Alderman Meyer? Or would they find their own candidate who votes the way they want?

Anonymous said...

I think Meyer and Hamerlinck are two of the best out there. So, if special interest, like QCRPA or D1 backs them, I don' really care. Plus, I don't see D1 backing either of them, so that leaves the landlords. To tell you the truth, I am not sure a two party system would really defeat those guys anyway, because the landlord's group gets people elected by defining what is wrong with candidates they oppose, not supporting candidates they like. A two party system could not undo that dynamic.

Anonymous said...

If there were true partisan elections and Keith won the primary then I would have to say the party would support him because the Democrats in his district voted for him.

Though Keith is unorthodox sometimes, he has a long history in local Democratic politics and was (many years ago) the party's choice for mayor.