Condemnation by any name
The Boston Globe published an update about the attempts to release a list of Chicago Police Department officers who have received 10 or more complaints.
Four of those officers who topped the list were from the department's scandal-plagued special operations division and each of them had received at least 50 complaints in the past five years. According to the article, six officers from that division had been indicted on various criminal charges. It's not clear whether or not any of the four officers receiving the most complaints received indictments for any onduty behavior.
Still city officials and the department defended the department's record.
(excerpt)
Mayor Richard M. Daley defended the police department and lauded Special Operations officers who work in some of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods.
"We have a very good police department," the mayor said Wednesday. "You cannot say there are a few bad apples and write them off just like the media does.
"You have a few bad apples as well," he told reporters.
Okay. But what's happened to these "bad apples" in his city's police department? Have they been treated as problem officers with appropriate action being taken against them or are they instead lauded for what they do or even promoted? Are they treated as if the complaints are a byproduct of being assigned to a difficult unit?
Former Minneapolis Police Department officer Michael W. Quinn who wrote a book about his experiences titled, Walking with the Devil: What Bad Cops Don't Want You to Know and What Good Cops Won't Tell You explains the mythology that he believes exists behind that belief system which he picked up while working on a robbery/decoy and repeat offender units.
(excerpt)
"Any cop who tells you that they are getting a lot of complaints solely because the people they are dealing with are hardened criminals is a liar, plain and simple. Every cop will draw some complaints about language and excessive force in their career. But only a few cops continue to generate the same complaints and law suits over and over. They are abusing people. You might not ever be able to 'prove' it but that is what they are doing."
That's one way to find out if misconduct involving police officers is really all about "bad apples" or whether there are systemic problems inside an agency. I suppose you can ask the police chief for further elaboration but the city is trying to find a new one to head its police department after its previous one, Philip Cline, retired in the midst of the department's investigation into two beating incidents involving officers that were caught on videotape and of course, broadcast around the planet.
Of course, if a police chief suddenly decides to exit in the midst of problems in the department involving "bad apples", that's never a good sign that it's only a small, isolated problem within the agency.
And what about the "bad apples" who dumped pornography in a female officer's mail box after she became the department's first undercover female officer in the gang unit? That cost the city's taxpayers about $150,000 paid out in jury's verdict.The department's own internal affairs investigation had cleared the officers involved which ranked all the way up to a commander, but in light of the jury's decision, the department said it will revisit the case.
The Chicago Police Department and the Cook County Sheriff's Department both have long histories of problems involving corrupt behavior and other misconduct. Cook County had over at least 100 confessions generated by its officers thrown out several years ago. Both have received a lot of scrutiny ever since.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Daley has rejected three potential police chief candidates for that city's police department. With all the problems it's been having lately, it's not really surprising that the city is looking for a new one. Daley plans to look further and wider for better candidates.
Maybe he'll find one.
Also looking for a new police chief is Palm Springs, California.
Surprising news out of a study into Taser International, Inc. and whether or not it truly doesn't settle law suits involving incidents where its products including stun guns have been used by police officers. Its motto is that it fights each and every one of them.
Bloomberg.com challenged that claim and stated that the company actually settled 19% of the claims that it said it had won or had dismissed in court.
(excerpt)
``The word has gotten out: Taser doesn't settle,'' Taser General Counsel Doug Klint said in an April interview. ``Anyone who sues us is in for a fight.''
Not necessarily. The Scottsdale, Arizona-based company has settled at least 10, or about 19 percent, of the 52 product- liability cases it claims to have won through a court dismissal or judgment in its favor. Bloomberg was able to identify seven settlements through court records and interviews with plaintiffs' attorneys. Klint, under questioning, conceded three more.
When asked July 30 if the number could be higher than 10, Klint said, ``it could be,'' then added ``10 is a good number.'' Klint said he wouldn't comment on individual cases.
So what's behind the contradictions between what Taser International, Inc. has claimed and the facts uncovered by Bloomberg.com?
Dollar signs and market shares.
(excerpt)
Lawyers for alleged Taser victims say the company overstates its legal scorecard to discourage lawsuits and boost its stock price.
``They're trying to deter other litigants while making themselves look good to investors,'' said Las Vegas attorney E. Brent Bryson, who represents plaintiffs in two cases over Taser- related deaths.
Shares of Taser gained 34 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $14.93 at 4 p.m. in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading. The stock has climbed 57 percent in the past two years as the company issued press releases on rulings in its favor. The shares have risen an average of 2 percent, and as much as 11 percent, on the day of the announcements. Lawsuits and other allegations that the weapons were unsafe pummeled the company's shares in 2005, when they fell 78 percent.
Speaking of tasers, in Dallas an officer was shot by his own taser, according to the San Francisco Gate.
The officer after being shot by a woman who came into his house fell into the bathtub.
(excerpt)
"We don't know what happened," said Lt. Vernon Hale, a police spokesman. "We're trying to figure out what occurred out there."
The article did mention that this officer had been in trouble before for onduty antics.
From the Peanut Gallery
It's nice to see my critic is at it again here. I guess something I wrote is giving a member of the Dom Betro campaign a bit of a rash. The critic raises some interesting points in a colorful way and has the added bonus of not making crass comments about my hair style, in any sort of quasi-creepy way or taking pot shots at my mother.
However, here's some further information on the issues raised by this individual that weren't quite on mark.
I have never, ever called the Press Enterprise, "Belo Enterprise" nor would I. My friends don't call it that either as far as I know. I've heard it called the "Bass Times" because it's said to be great for wrapping fish in after a fishing trip and the "Moscow Times" for its alleged socialist leanings in the 1990s.
The title of this latest critique is also a bit strange. Nowhere in my posting did I "attack" Kawa, assuming that meant Kawa Market. Rather than assuming that my critic's dissenting opinion makes him or her illiterate, I will assume that he or she read the article and merely misstated the title used for his or her opus in his or her intensive interest in posting a rebuttal for it. That kind of passion is common in politics and the political arena and is to be applauded and celebrated. Betro is incredibly fortunate to have such an ardent and dedicated supporter in his campaign.
He or she made some salient points but missed several as well.
I actually met the Guan family and have heard from them their feelings about the process they just underwent. What they have said is somewhat different than what is being said for them by the politicians. They loved their store, their customers and most certainly did not want to leave it. But in their case, if they had said no, it's doubtful that the city officials would have said, okay that's fine, we'll move on. After all, in most cases "friendly condemnation" that is rejected usually leads to something else that's not nearly as "friendly". They were unfortunately caught between a rock and a hard place as my critic said, only it was between less and lesser in terms of what they would receive for their property and great and greater in terms of what they would pay in attorney's fees.
Their experience ultimately became a political issue in the Ward One election as more and more people read in the Press Enterprise including in Dan Bernstein's column on the issue.
They have real, first-hand knowledge of "friendly condemnation" from seeing it up close and in their lives and from experiencing it firsthand. That's something that they and I have in common. Only in their case, it was much greater in terms of the experience than it was for me. But it comes down to the same decision in the end for everyone who faces this reality. Are you willing to pay your attorneys(if you can retain one) more to get less? That was a decision I'm fairly sure that the Guans faced at the turning point in their own process.
It's a very unpleasant experience where people like the Guans are feeling the pressure to take an offer on land for less than it's worth or you will face eminent domain, the real kind not the friendly kind. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, yet Betro, the Press Enterprise and this unidentified individual make it sound as though not only is it not a difficult, painful process but that it's actually good for you!
I have a feeling that if any of the city's elected officials experienced it firsthand themselves, they would not wield such a big stick with eminent domain, an issue that they know all too well so rankles the city's residents that the city filed a law suit against a ballot initiative which would have brought this issue to the city's voters. And they did this in the midst of this sudden outcry for the need to take other issues like choo choo train and roosters to the voters to "let the people decide" as they called it. They called those who disagreed with them, obstacles of the democratic process.
What they didn't say is that the city council is doing like in its decision to file a SLAPP suit against a property rights organization that tried to circulate a petition on the eminent domain issue to get it on the city ballot.
Let the voters decide on roosters. Yes.
Let the voters decide on choo choo trains. Yes.
Let the voters decide on the use of eminent domain to benefit private development firms. No.
In this case, using it against a family and their business in this fashion was uncalled for and it became a campaign issue which is why there's this explanation of what politicians now say went down involving the Kawa Market wrapped up around the bungalow that will soon replace it.
The Kawa Market has a rich history in Riverside and has been part of the fabric of that area going back many years, long before the current leadership came to the dais.
When this individual experiences "friendly condemnation" first hand or know someone who has, then perhaps he or she can talk about how good it is. I suspect that this person will change their mind on how great "friendly condemnation" if the political were to become personal.
Is eminent domain and its so-called kinder, gentler sibling in the tool box, ever necessary? Yes they are, to benefit the public in its use for public projects. In my case, I didn't disagree at all with the project that the land was needed for and have no bitter feelings about it, just the process of getting there which could have been more in lines with living in a democracy.
Both eminent domain and "friendly condemnation" are tools to use as last resorts in carefully delineated situations and neither should be used to benefit private developers particularly those that contribute funds to political campaigns of individuals who will be wielding eminent domain or its kinder, gentler sibling, "friendly condemnation" on small business owners. The land owners should be entitled to due process and they should be entitled to what their land is really worth and assistance relocating their businesses.
Our elected officials urge city residents to "shop Riverside" but don't appear to be nearly as enthusiastic about locals owning their own small businesses inside city limits.
In reality, even "friendly condemnation" is much different in practice than it sounds either from sound bytes provided by politicians during election cycles or through the words of a newspaper. And that's where this individual gets most of his or her information from, either the Press Enterprise or city officials who are running for reelection. That's fine, if you are stumping for either of those two institutions. In fact, it's ideal.
But if you're in the middle of it, it's anything but ideal.
It seems like those business owners who have been in the middle of it are treated as the villains standing in the way of the Riverside Renaissance train instead of individuals even families who put a lot of effort, money and sacrifices into their businesses and are the victims of this process that is larger than them. All of the business owners in the downtown area who were essentially forced out put a lot of their hard earned money into an annual business tax paid into the same representative organization, the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership, which would later sell them down the river.
What these businesses needed was an organization which truly represented them as business owners who had a stake in the downtown restructuring. What they got instead was taxation without representation from the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership.
Karen Renfro, one of the sharpest property rights watchdogs out there gave me a brief tutorial on the history of the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership including its ties past and present to the Mission Inn. Her writings on that and redevelopment are must reading. Fortunately after a long absence, Renfro is back at work in terms of examining and writing on these issues in her newsletter, Pass it On.
I do agree with my critic that one should look at multiple sources of information before making a decision on any issue, which is very smart advice. Like this individual, I read the daily newspaper, I talk and listen to elected officials. However, I do not stop there and I also talk to different individuals, mostly out in the community including those whose businesses are undergoing what's been called, "friendly condemnation". I think you would be hard pressed to find a single one who felt it was good for them and took the money for any other reason that because it was the most money they would ever see for their properties.
Because I rely on many different sources of information, I don't get myself tied up in knots because one resource I utilize is one I disagree with.
What's interesting is that the city appears so much more interested in buying up local small businesses to enable more large-scale development projects done by firms most of which are not from Riverside who've put money in their political campaign coffers, than it does in ensuring that its infrastructure is in good shape. This means that resources like public safety, public utilities, streets and maintenance and public works will be able to keep up with Riverside's expansion in both surface area and population from migration and proposed annexations.
Yes, you need businesses to generate sales tax to put in the city's fund to finance its budget including its departments. But sales receipts were down because the economy is taking a downturn and much of this money that's generated to go back into the city's fund will probably be spent financing Riverside Renaissance projects. Other funds including the city's sewer fund were depleted to purchase the Market Street properties for future development.
Some city employees are hoping they will get other jobs before the city's coffers run dry which is what some fear will happen within the next two years. After all, the city is playing the role of the grasshopper which is a common practice in times of plenty, but in times of famine or recession, what is the grasshopper to do?
It perplexed me last year to see so little action taken by individuals to push for the creation of 25 more staff positions in the city's police department. That is something that should have just been done and not taken as long as it did. After all, many of those positions had been on the table during the negotiations process involving both police unions, but then were apparently yanked off the table like the poker chips that they were. Later, some of them were restored.
Then Dan Bernstein wrote a column titled Killer Watts about the ongoing public utilities situation.
But what will ultimately decide who wins in Ward One is who draws the most votes from Ward One voters. The first round showed that Betro had the support of less than half of the voters in his ward and could not draw a majority. So, it appears that the majority of voters do not see Betro as the candidate who best represents all the constituents who live in that ward. Whether or not he's working hard to change that perception of his first four years in office, remains to be seen.
After all, when all is said and done, it will be the voters who decide.
Four of those officers who topped the list were from the department's scandal-plagued special operations division and each of them had received at least 50 complaints in the past five years. According to the article, six officers from that division had been indicted on various criminal charges. It's not clear whether or not any of the four officers receiving the most complaints received indictments for any onduty behavior.
Still city officials and the department defended the department's record.
(excerpt)
Mayor Richard M. Daley defended the police department and lauded Special Operations officers who work in some of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods.
"We have a very good police department," the mayor said Wednesday. "You cannot say there are a few bad apples and write them off just like the media does.
"You have a few bad apples as well," he told reporters.
Okay. But what's happened to these "bad apples" in his city's police department? Have they been treated as problem officers with appropriate action being taken against them or are they instead lauded for what they do or even promoted? Are they treated as if the complaints are a byproduct of being assigned to a difficult unit?
Former Minneapolis Police Department officer Michael W. Quinn who wrote a book about his experiences titled, Walking with the Devil: What Bad Cops Don't Want You to Know and What Good Cops Won't Tell You explains the mythology that he believes exists behind that belief system which he picked up while working on a robbery/decoy and repeat offender units.
(excerpt)
"Any cop who tells you that they are getting a lot of complaints solely because the people they are dealing with are hardened criminals is a liar, plain and simple. Every cop will draw some complaints about language and excessive force in their career. But only a few cops continue to generate the same complaints and law suits over and over. They are abusing people. You might not ever be able to 'prove' it but that is what they are doing."
That's one way to find out if misconduct involving police officers is really all about "bad apples" or whether there are systemic problems inside an agency. I suppose you can ask the police chief for further elaboration but the city is trying to find a new one to head its police department after its previous one, Philip Cline, retired in the midst of the department's investigation into two beating incidents involving officers that were caught on videotape and of course, broadcast around the planet.
Of course, if a police chief suddenly decides to exit in the midst of problems in the department involving "bad apples", that's never a good sign that it's only a small, isolated problem within the agency.
And what about the "bad apples" who dumped pornography in a female officer's mail box after she became the department's first undercover female officer in the gang unit? That cost the city's taxpayers about $150,000 paid out in jury's verdict.The department's own internal affairs investigation had cleared the officers involved which ranked all the way up to a commander, but in light of the jury's decision, the department said it will revisit the case.
The Chicago Police Department and the Cook County Sheriff's Department both have long histories of problems involving corrupt behavior and other misconduct. Cook County had over at least 100 confessions generated by its officers thrown out several years ago. Both have received a lot of scrutiny ever since.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Daley has rejected three potential police chief candidates for that city's police department. With all the problems it's been having lately, it's not really surprising that the city is looking for a new one. Daley plans to look further and wider for better candidates.
Maybe he'll find one.
Also looking for a new police chief is Palm Springs, California.
Surprising news out of a study into Taser International, Inc. and whether or not it truly doesn't settle law suits involving incidents where its products including stun guns have been used by police officers. Its motto is that it fights each and every one of them.
Bloomberg.com challenged that claim and stated that the company actually settled 19% of the claims that it said it had won or had dismissed in court.
(excerpt)
``The word has gotten out: Taser doesn't settle,'' Taser General Counsel Doug Klint said in an April interview. ``Anyone who sues us is in for a fight.''
Not necessarily. The Scottsdale, Arizona-based company has settled at least 10, or about 19 percent, of the 52 product- liability cases it claims to have won through a court dismissal or judgment in its favor. Bloomberg was able to identify seven settlements through court records and interviews with plaintiffs' attorneys. Klint, under questioning, conceded three more.
When asked July 30 if the number could be higher than 10, Klint said, ``it could be,'' then added ``10 is a good number.'' Klint said he wouldn't comment on individual cases.
So what's behind the contradictions between what Taser International, Inc. has claimed and the facts uncovered by Bloomberg.com?
Dollar signs and market shares.
(excerpt)
Lawyers for alleged Taser victims say the company overstates its legal scorecard to discourage lawsuits and boost its stock price.
``They're trying to deter other litigants while making themselves look good to investors,'' said Las Vegas attorney E. Brent Bryson, who represents plaintiffs in two cases over Taser- related deaths.
Shares of Taser gained 34 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $14.93 at 4 p.m. in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading. The stock has climbed 57 percent in the past two years as the company issued press releases on rulings in its favor. The shares have risen an average of 2 percent, and as much as 11 percent, on the day of the announcements. Lawsuits and other allegations that the weapons were unsafe pummeled the company's shares in 2005, when they fell 78 percent.
Speaking of tasers, in Dallas an officer was shot by his own taser, according to the San Francisco Gate.
The officer after being shot by a woman who came into his house fell into the bathtub.
(excerpt)
"We don't know what happened," said Lt. Vernon Hale, a police spokesman. "We're trying to figure out what occurred out there."
The article did mention that this officer had been in trouble before for onduty antics.
From the Peanut Gallery
It's nice to see my critic is at it again here. I guess something I wrote is giving a member of the Dom Betro campaign a bit of a rash. The critic raises some interesting points in a colorful way and has the added bonus of not making crass comments about my hair style, in any sort of quasi-creepy way or taking pot shots at my mother.
However, here's some further information on the issues raised by this individual that weren't quite on mark.
I have never, ever called the Press Enterprise, "Belo Enterprise" nor would I. My friends don't call it that either as far as I know. I've heard it called the "Bass Times" because it's said to be great for wrapping fish in after a fishing trip and the "Moscow Times" for its alleged socialist leanings in the 1990s.
The title of this latest critique is also a bit strange. Nowhere in my posting did I "attack" Kawa, assuming that meant Kawa Market. Rather than assuming that my critic's dissenting opinion makes him or her illiterate, I will assume that he or she read the article and merely misstated the title used for his or her opus in his or her intensive interest in posting a rebuttal for it. That kind of passion is common in politics and the political arena and is to be applauded and celebrated. Betro is incredibly fortunate to have such an ardent and dedicated supporter in his campaign.
He or she made some salient points but missed several as well.
I actually met the Guan family and have heard from them their feelings about the process they just underwent. What they have said is somewhat different than what is being said for them by the politicians. They loved their store, their customers and most certainly did not want to leave it. But in their case, if they had said no, it's doubtful that the city officials would have said, okay that's fine, we'll move on. After all, in most cases "friendly condemnation" that is rejected usually leads to something else that's not nearly as "friendly". They were unfortunately caught between a rock and a hard place as my critic said, only it was between less and lesser in terms of what they would receive for their property and great and greater in terms of what they would pay in attorney's fees.
Their experience ultimately became a political issue in the Ward One election as more and more people read in the Press Enterprise including in Dan Bernstein's column on the issue.
They have real, first-hand knowledge of "friendly condemnation" from seeing it up close and in their lives and from experiencing it firsthand. That's something that they and I have in common. Only in their case, it was much greater in terms of the experience than it was for me. But it comes down to the same decision in the end for everyone who faces this reality. Are you willing to pay your attorneys(if you can retain one) more to get less? That was a decision I'm fairly sure that the Guans faced at the turning point in their own process.
It's a very unpleasant experience where people like the Guans are feeling the pressure to take an offer on land for less than it's worth or you will face eminent domain, the real kind not the friendly kind. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, yet Betro, the Press Enterprise and this unidentified individual make it sound as though not only is it not a difficult, painful process but that it's actually good for you!
I have a feeling that if any of the city's elected officials experienced it firsthand themselves, they would not wield such a big stick with eminent domain, an issue that they know all too well so rankles the city's residents that the city filed a law suit against a ballot initiative which would have brought this issue to the city's voters. And they did this in the midst of this sudden outcry for the need to take other issues like choo choo train and roosters to the voters to "let the people decide" as they called it. They called those who disagreed with them, obstacles of the democratic process.
What they didn't say is that the city council is doing like in its decision to file a SLAPP suit against a property rights organization that tried to circulate a petition on the eminent domain issue to get it on the city ballot.
Let the voters decide on roosters. Yes.
Let the voters decide on choo choo trains. Yes.
Let the voters decide on the use of eminent domain to benefit private development firms. No.
In this case, using it against a family and their business in this fashion was uncalled for and it became a campaign issue which is why there's this explanation of what politicians now say went down involving the Kawa Market wrapped up around the bungalow that will soon replace it.
The Kawa Market has a rich history in Riverside and has been part of the fabric of that area going back many years, long before the current leadership came to the dais.
When this individual experiences "friendly condemnation" first hand or know someone who has, then perhaps he or she can talk about how good it is. I suspect that this person will change their mind on how great "friendly condemnation" if the political were to become personal.
Is eminent domain and its so-called kinder, gentler sibling in the tool box, ever necessary? Yes they are, to benefit the public in its use for public projects. In my case, I didn't disagree at all with the project that the land was needed for and have no bitter feelings about it, just the process of getting there which could have been more in lines with living in a democracy.
Both eminent domain and "friendly condemnation" are tools to use as last resorts in carefully delineated situations and neither should be used to benefit private developers particularly those that contribute funds to political campaigns of individuals who will be wielding eminent domain or its kinder, gentler sibling, "friendly condemnation" on small business owners. The land owners should be entitled to due process and they should be entitled to what their land is really worth and assistance relocating their businesses.
Our elected officials urge city residents to "shop Riverside" but don't appear to be nearly as enthusiastic about locals owning their own small businesses inside city limits.
In reality, even "friendly condemnation" is much different in practice than it sounds either from sound bytes provided by politicians during election cycles or through the words of a newspaper. And that's where this individual gets most of his or her information from, either the Press Enterprise or city officials who are running for reelection. That's fine, if you are stumping for either of those two institutions. In fact, it's ideal.
But if you're in the middle of it, it's anything but ideal.
It seems like those business owners who have been in the middle of it are treated as the villains standing in the way of the Riverside Renaissance train instead of individuals even families who put a lot of effort, money and sacrifices into their businesses and are the victims of this process that is larger than them. All of the business owners in the downtown area who were essentially forced out put a lot of their hard earned money into an annual business tax paid into the same representative organization, the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership, which would later sell them down the river.
What these businesses needed was an organization which truly represented them as business owners who had a stake in the downtown restructuring. What they got instead was taxation without representation from the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership.
Karen Renfro, one of the sharpest property rights watchdogs out there gave me a brief tutorial on the history of the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership including its ties past and present to the Mission Inn. Her writings on that and redevelopment are must reading. Fortunately after a long absence, Renfro is back at work in terms of examining and writing on these issues in her newsletter, Pass it On.
I do agree with my critic that one should look at multiple sources of information before making a decision on any issue, which is very smart advice. Like this individual, I read the daily newspaper, I talk and listen to elected officials. However, I do not stop there and I also talk to different individuals, mostly out in the community including those whose businesses are undergoing what's been called, "friendly condemnation". I think you would be hard pressed to find a single one who felt it was good for them and took the money for any other reason that because it was the most money they would ever see for their properties.
Because I rely on many different sources of information, I don't get myself tied up in knots because one resource I utilize is one I disagree with.
What's interesting is that the city appears so much more interested in buying up local small businesses to enable more large-scale development projects done by firms most of which are not from Riverside who've put money in their political campaign coffers, than it does in ensuring that its infrastructure is in good shape. This means that resources like public safety, public utilities, streets and maintenance and public works will be able to keep up with Riverside's expansion in both surface area and population from migration and proposed annexations.
Yes, you need businesses to generate sales tax to put in the city's fund to finance its budget including its departments. But sales receipts were down because the economy is taking a downturn and much of this money that's generated to go back into the city's fund will probably be spent financing Riverside Renaissance projects. Other funds including the city's sewer fund were depleted to purchase the Market Street properties for future development.
Some city employees are hoping they will get other jobs before the city's coffers run dry which is what some fear will happen within the next two years. After all, the city is playing the role of the grasshopper which is a common practice in times of plenty, but in times of famine or recession, what is the grasshopper to do?
It perplexed me last year to see so little action taken by individuals to push for the creation of 25 more staff positions in the city's police department. That is something that should have just been done and not taken as long as it did. After all, many of those positions had been on the table during the negotiations process involving both police unions, but then were apparently yanked off the table like the poker chips that they were. Later, some of them were restored.
Then Dan Bernstein wrote a column titled Killer Watts about the ongoing public utilities situation.
But what will ultimately decide who wins in Ward One is who draws the most votes from Ward One voters. The first round showed that Betro had the support of less than half of the voters in his ward and could not draw a majority. So, it appears that the majority of voters do not see Betro as the candidate who best represents all the constituents who live in that ward. Whether or not he's working hard to change that perception of his first four years in office, remains to be seen.
After all, when all is said and done, it will be the voters who decide.
Labels: City elections, Making the grade
posted by Five Before Midnight | 3:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home