The change in the 1960's was moving away from segregation and towards integration just as old ward style isolationist (kingdoms)elections progressed to the at large elections that we have today. The change took the City in the same direction as most Cities in NC are today-overwhelmingly so. It appears as though this referendum is moving the City back to the 1960 era. Not a good thing. It took a progressive Council and Mayor to make the change in the 1960's. Ok fire away Hound!
To the first anonymous. I am not attacking the messenger. I am "Attacking" (addressing) the message. I'd love to talk with this guy. The only thing I did was mention his name. He called what we are doing radical, thus inferring that we are radicals.
To the second anonymous. I appreciate your reasoning and it does fall in line with the argument made at the time of one man one vote, but the process and logic are very much flawed in my opinion.
We are the only city, our size, in North Carolina that has this Modified At-Large system, which is what the information that the city went and got from the School of Government shows. There are two cities our size that have the pure ward system. The other cities have Pure At-Large systems with no wards in the cities, so Hickory is doing their own thing.
You talk about kingdoms. Is the State of North Carolina a Kingdom? Last time I looked there is no one from South Carolina clamoring that they deserve to vote here and in Virginia and in Wyoming. The pure Ward system is best, in my opinion, because it allows people to deal with the issues in their community/neighborhood. Kingdoms are defined by Monarchy and Kings. We are talking about empowering regular ole people and having their representatives be accountable towards their communities/neighborhood's interests. That doesn't seem all that bad to me. It is grassroots participation at its finest. It keeps it to where a representative looks out for what is best for his community/neighborhood first, while fitting that (and plugging into) the needs of the overall City. That is the way this State and Country works.
DoGood made an excellent point. Elected City Officials claim that they Look at (have looked out for) the welfare of the entire city. This was the argument made back in the 1960s. What are they defining as the entire city? Seems like it is only the very center of Old Hickory.
Where are the big Economic Development and Revitalization projects in Southwest Hickory, Highland, St Stephens, and even Viewmont? Heck, they have allowed the people with degraded and abandoned properties in these areas to have free rein, thus depreciating the value of those properties that are taken care of. What if you bought one of these properties years ago and all of this degradation has subsequently occurred? What have you, as a property owner, done to deserve this fate?
It was stated back in 1967 that the going to an At-Large system would lead to machine politics and I believe it most certainly has. The Mayor talks about Horse trading under a ward system and that is what we have seen under the current At-Large system with the less wealthy wards being held hostage by the wards with more wealth and any monies towards economic development going towards the wealthy interests, while the middle class and poor are ignored. Give and take is going to happen under any system, but when ones neighborhoods are taken into consideration first that is a lot more noble than money interests coming first.
You can read about all of this. We haven't tried to hide anything, but we do provide opinion.
http://thehickoryhound.blogspot.com/2011/11/1967-how-we-got-where-we-are-today.html
http://thehickoryhound.blogspot.com/2011/11/1961-lesson-in-hickorys-history.html
The logic and reasoning of the City Leadership in 1967 of one man/one vote was as wrong then as it is today with the 2012 City Leadership. If I can vote for my ward representative who lives in my community/neighborhood and then 5 people who never step foot in my ward come along and decide they know what is best for me, then we are diluting the voting rights of that ward. We are right back to the system that surrounded segregation all those years ago.
I believe that if you allow the wards to have representation that meets the dynamics (Culture & Socio Economic) of that particular neighborhood/community, then the people of that ward feel better about their representation and governance and they will participate in their governance. And if they don't like their representative and feel that they aren't represented by the individual, then it will be much easier to boot them out.
When all of the Wards are empowered and come forward and work together, plugged in - charged, on the City Council bench, then it will mean the empowerment of every crack, corner, creak, and crevice of this city and you will see revitalization and human energy come back to Hickory.
This City is not doing well folks. Most of us see that. Many of the most don't know what to do. This is what we need to do folks. What happened back in 1967 was a mistake. No name calling or insults are intended or needed. They were misguided. I understand the fears and motivations they had that caused them to go in this direction, but I believe those fears were unfounded... that what happened didn't benefit anyone and that what we can be, can be so much more.
That is the reason why I believe in the Pure Ward Voting System.
You know sometimes having the courage to admit mistakes in logic and reasoning and going back to your foundation, roots and reestablishing your mission is a good thing. Dead end roads don't lead to progress. In this case going back is going forward!
21 comments:
#1 anonymous here. Your referendum is TAKING AWAY my right as a citizen of Hickory (not of a ward but a citizen of Hickory) to vote on ALL of my elected officials. Would you concede this is true? In my opinion, that is NOT democracy.
Using that logic, why don't we elect all 100 Senators? After all, we ARE citizens of the United States. And the ENTIRE US House of Representatives. And both Chambers of the State Legislature. We are Citizens of North Carolina too. No districts, No divisiveness, everybody gets to vote for everybody else. What? Yes there is a Constitutional problem with that, but who cares, this is HICKORY!
Why shouldn't people from Conover or Newton be allowed to vote for Hickory City Council? After all many of them have an interest in Hickory. Is that Democracy?
Or are we talking about Representative Democracy?
All people in Congress are Leadership of the entire country, just as the City Council is the leadership of Hickory. Would you have like the people of Barney Frank's district in Massachusetts being able to vote for our United State's congressional representative in our District. How would his district like us voting in theirs?
We look at the way our congressional representation has been split up here in Hickory. Some are apportioned to Congressman McHenry (10th District), some to Representative Foxx (5th District)and, even some to 11th District. We have 3 House of Representative members that directly represent Hickory and yet as an individual you can only vote for one depending on where you reside. Do you think that you should be able to vote in all three races?
You are the one that chooses to believe that this "right" is being taken away from you. People in wards that aren't being represented by council just as firmly believe that their "right" to be represented as a ward, as a priority, has been taken away from them.
When I look at who is closer to the truth in the arena of representation, I side with the Direct Ward position, because I have seen the areas of this community that haven't been given due process towards representation.
I have spoken to the people who state that it is their right to vote for the entire council and then turn around denigrate some of those areas that they feel like they have a right to vote in and then tell me that they don't (and wouldn't)go to that side of town. Things like, why would anyone go to Ridgeview or the 1st and 2nd Avenue corridors are that way for a reason.
I agree that they are that way for a reason, because their interests aren't represented on the City Council and fixing the issues aren't a priority for the At-Large supporters.
You want to fix Hickory, then we need real representation from every ward. We need to empower the wards.
Every ward IS represented since you have to live in the ward.
My question was not answered: Would you concede that my right as a citizen of Hickory to vote for all elected officials in the City will be taken away if the referendum passes?
Yes, Council members must live in the Ward. However that doesn't, in any way, mean that the ward is accurately represented. As it stands now Danny Seaver could lose the vote every single election in his ward and yet still be elected to Council by willing the other wards. Given this complete lack of necessity to win you "home" ward, would you believe that Mr. Seaver would be representing the ward in which he lives or the interest of the wards that actually elect him to office?
The whole argument of saying my rights are being taken away by not being allowed to vote for everyone is complete idiocy!!!
It's predicated on the idea that you have that "right" to begin with and you simply don't. If you were alive back in the early 1800's the law permitted you the option of actually owning another human being - a slave. Just because you were allowed to do something in no way equates to a RIGHT to do it.
People simply need to come to terms with the idea that there may very well be a power shift in Hickory's near future. The question you need to ask yourself is this - Am I more concerned with my personal interests or do I care about the overall well being of my entire community? Sadly, I believe the answer to that question for far too many people is self-interests above community well being.
To the Anonymous that is quoted in the post(not the comments), how is this integration to not allow a ward to have their own representation, but instead give them the great deal that they get to have a small voice in all the votes that can be overwhelmed by other wards?
The simple fact is that 3 precincts turn out in large enough numbers to overturn any other wards preferred representative. How is that integrating anything? If the at large system is supposed to be concerned with ALL the City, then why does downtown get a lot of support, Hwy 127 N gets attention, LR some, and the rest of the City sees a lot of blight and scant attention. It doesn't look too integrated to me.
And that is what our current system allows-I am more interested in the overall well being of the City-not just my ward. So you have still not answered my original question. Citizens as of 1970 were given the right (evolved)to vote for all elected officials. Your referendum would cancel out or take the right away. Correct?
Who asked for the "Right" given by 4 members of council in whose interest?
It was a 4 to 3 vote in 1967 and they refused to allow a referendum to take place and let the people of Hickory choose how they would vote for City Council. Sure seems like a conflict of interest to let these folks choose how they, themselves, would be voted upon doesn't it. Without any input from the public.
You say it has evolved? How has it evolved?
I don't have to defend logic. You need to defend why your personal interests outweigh the interests of all of the people of Hickory.
I think that most people here denote a tenor of selfishness coming from you and many people I speak with seem to feel that is a major problem here in Hickory. City Leadership represents the values of a vast minority of Hickory's population.
Everyone on the At-Large side says they are interested in the whole of Hickory and yet when it comes to any Economic Development in Hickory Inc's purview it always seems to be directed to Union Square and its immediate vicinity. How many people own the properties at Union Square? I believe a handful. So they are representing a handful of people.
And I am not against economic development on Union Square, but why is the City so focused on that small niche, while huge swaths of this community continue to fall behind.
I honestly don't think Anonymous has educated himself on the issue, because all I hear is a weak, one-dimensional argument.
It is just, that's the way it has always been, at least since 1967, now shut up, go sit back in the corner and let us get back to business as usual and we might throw you a few crumbs of subsistence every once in a while.
The Direct ward side gives a multitude upon multitude of reasons why this would be better and we get a weak, one-dimensional argument in return. That says a lot.
It is time to give everyone in Hickory a voice in their governance. It is time to cultivate participation from every ward. It is time to sow seeds of future leadership in Hickory. Leadership with diverse ideas and opinions from all walks of life. It is time to come into the 21st century folks. It is time.
You have a general right to vote, yes. Eligibility, for whom, and where are determined by other factors. So your argument is without merit.
I was afforded the right by a duely ellected Council and have enjoyed that right for 40+ years. So, I ask again for you to address my original question: Will your referendum, if passed take away my right as a citizen of Hickory to vote for all of our elected officials? It is a simple yes or no.
You complain (and condem) when Council is unanimous yet hold up the 4-3 vote as wrong. You can't choose both. Do you want a Coucil to split or do you want a Council to work together for the betterment of all of Hickory or revert to the ways of old?
I have answered your question. Yes, you would not be able to vote in the wards that you don't reside in. Areas that you most likely never step foot in and likely have no interest in.
I haven't kowtowed to your notion that it is taking away a "right." I don't think you can qualify that as a "Right."
I didn't say the council didn't have the legal authority in 1967 to ram the Modified At-Large system through as they did. Was it fair or ethical? That is the real question. I don't think it was.
Is this all you've got? Is this the only reason you have that you think the Modified At-Large system is best? Very, very weak argument. Very weak.
To the previous anon's most recent post. "your" referendum isn't accurate. The is the people's referendum - not just one particular persons.
Again, simply because you're allowed to do something does not automatically make it a RIGHT. Slavery was once permitted by law, however owning another human being is by no means anyone's RIGHT.
This referendum, if passed, will restore the system in which we elect our Council members to the way it originally was. The way it was intended to be as spelled out in the City's charter. And to speak just a bit more to your point. You claim it is your RIGHT to vote for every elected official because you've been doing it for the past 40+ years.
If you consider that statement/claim valid, then I ask you if the following is not also valid.
Pleased consider the following - lets suppose you live in Ward 5 and I live in Ward 2. My RIGHT NOT to have you influence the election of MY ward represented was taken away from me in 1967. Furthermore that was my right for nearly 100 years before it was taken away.
I submit that my RIGHT is just as valid as your's.
The only difference is that I have many, many, many more reasons why the referendum should be passed. You seemed to be stuck with only one selfish reason why it shouldn't.
Again, all I ask is that everyone educate themselves on the issue. Take an honest look at the facts and maybe just for a brief moment set aside emotions.
Anonymous, if it brings you comfort and closure, 1 is less than 6. Congratulations, you now know a mathematical truth. Let's hope your political education proceeds as fast.
So, if you don't fall in line with the Hound and his followers beliefs then he and his clique dish out sarcasm, attacks and belittle any other opinion. And here you put yourself out to be fair, and inclusive. Guess that just extends to your group. Harry is the worst with his so called "wit"? Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. Just saying.
Anonymous, Look and see that not one person on here has kept anyone from voicing their opinion. I don't think anyone has been attacked or called a name. We don't believe in or accept this taking away my "Rights" logic pertaining to this vote.
This trolling and harping on one little pointed argument hasn't been constructive and people are sending me messages wondering what the agenda is.
Go look up what an internet troll is. Trolls try to frustrate people and goad them just for sheer entertainment value. They really don't even care about the issues at hand. I know I, and I assume most others, have attempted not to engage in low brow dialogue and tactics.
I have an internet log. I see that you are at one of the ISPs that constantly engage in this dialogue of misinformation towards this blog. I see where these attacks come from and when they are continuous I go in and mark the ISP to see if there is a pattern. I don't have time to mark every ISP that visits this site. I see where this comes from and it seems to have nothing to do with Hickory.
And on this particular issue, since we don't fall in line with this logic of this person who says their "Rights" are being taken away, you say we aren't inclusive and you cry about Harry's sarcasm and wit. What about the fact that this person won't engage in a constructive conversation?
Sarcasm isn't about humor. Sarcasm is a usually a reactive statement to address banal, sophomoric statements that aren't productive towards dialogue.
If you do have an interest in this subject, then I would like to ask if you were against the Petition process? Did you sign it? Are you against the Referendum vote being allowed to take place?
I'd like to offer up this question again to the other anon who feels he/she is being attacked.
Please answer me this. If you believe your right is being taken away after 40+ years if this referendum passes, then what say you to my belief that mr right was taken way by the 1967 Council when they voted to change the original system after 97 years?
@ Last ANON: That doesn't fit the story, so the beligerent Anon will not post an answer. If he/she/it does, it will re-direct itself back to the question they have posed.
Insofar as respect is concerned, this person turns up here, demands an answer, then ridicules the host when that answer is not to their liking. Then continuing to beat that drum into tympanic oblivion, acts offended when someone retorts back. They don't care about your rights, my rights, just their rights. Not realizing that their rights stop when they infringe upon someone else's. They either missed that part of civics, slept through it, or that wasn't part of the talking points brief at the secret squirrel meeting at the library.
Actually, Rudy has that quote on his Facebook page under favorite quotes....
"one man's freedoms end where another man's liberty begins."
How Ayn Rand of him. Changed up a bit, but close enough.
Post a Comment