The GOP

Just read a fascinating article in the New York Times about Huckabee and his efforts to realign the GOP coalition of social and fiscal conservatives into social conservativism and economic populists. Pat Buchanan tried this in 1992 but couldn't quite make it over the hump.

The article quotes Ed Rollins, Huckabee's main advisor, saying that the old coalition is dead. Many establishment GOP folks are scared of this and have gone after Huckabee's attempt to rebrand the party.

Huckabee got the most support in the local GOP fundraiser straw poll recentl, but this was before the media and others had fully vetted his positions. Anybody having second thoughts about him or do you think his "new coalition" will work?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/weekinreview/30kirkpatrick.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us

2009 election

Anybody out there thinking about running for City Commission in 2009 based on the big box vote?

My guess is, although that is far far away in political terms, it will be the big issue — economic development.

Iowa caucuses

To me, this time of year is like the playoffs.
Politics is, afterall, a competition like no other.

I'm fascinated by two things (well, all of it, really)

1. The Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton duel.

Polls are all over the place on this one. One poll showed Clinton opening a 15 point lead, which seemed crazy because Obama's was surging and had actually slipped ahead over the last several weeks. I saw on CNN last night how the Democratic caucuses work. It's a crazy system with no secret ballot, the ability to switch sides if your guy (gal) doesn't have 15 percent of the room. And then, after it's all said and done, they don't tally the votes but assigne delegates to the person with the most votes, and the delegates are counted in the final tallies. (I'm still unclear exactly how that works)
Pretty amazing that 120,000 Democrats in Iowa will have such influence over that party's nominee. Seem's out of whack.

2. Mike Huckabee
This guy could charm the warts off a frog. He's getting attacked now because he's made this miraculous jump in the polls. And indeed some of his positions deserve scrutinty, like junking the income tax for a national sales tax. Some "true" conservatives feel he is too liberal on spending issues like education, health care, etc. But his rise is a populist movement, and his support realigns, to some degree, the social and fiscal conservative majority the Republicans have held and creates a new coalition of social conservative who don't hate government but think it could be used for good. This, it seems to me, could be a lasting alignment.
Republican rules at the Iowa caucuses are more simple and sensible. Secret ballot, every vote counts. This sort of reflects the reputations of the parties - democrats fractured and all over the place, republicans organized and on message

Lowe's on South Summit?

It occurs to me that the city of Ark City SHOULD pursue TIF incentives to redevelop our blighted areas. If nothing else, this controversy has opened our eyes to a redevelopment tool that we should consider.

Redeveloping blighted or brownfield areas is in fact what TIF originally started for — to defray costs of building where it would otherwise be prohibitive.

South Summit seems a perfect example.

Imagine a Lowe's or some new shopping plaza on South Summit where empty lots and decaying buildings sit now. Imagine the transformation that could take place on a long neglected part of town that is only five to 10 minutes from the site Lowe's wanted to go.

No new roads would have to be built or widened. Of course the costs of buying and demolishing certain property would be high. But this is where the city comes in: through an aggressive TIF and/or development package that could help with infrastructure costs.

I'm certainly no expert on development, and I know that everybody wants to build on vacant land because it's easier and cheaper. But REAL redevelopment takes an active local government — like the downtown streetscape – and means, yes, spending taxpayer money.

But the benefits would be great if something like this could
1) Bring in more shopping options
2) Spruce up an eyesore corridor

There would still be the fairness debate, but I think it would be less powerful because such a project would rebuild a deteriorated part of the city. Heck, it doesn't have to be retail. Industry would be even better.

This is what Wichita has done in Old Town and downtown Kansas City is doing now. This is what these type of tools were really meant for ....

Citizens for progress

In response to a recent post ...

As far as I know, this Citizen for Progress group is just an informal group of residents (friends) who supported the deal. There is a list of names — maybe about 10 people — on the big ad in the Traveler that ran Monday. Whether they have grown since then or are actually plugging into other corners of support, I don't know. We do know that on this blog and especially on James Jordan's blog the calls for a recall are many.

Moderated comments

Things are getting too personal and mean on this big box issue.

Comments will be moderated for the time being. I will post comments that are constructive and stay in the bounds of civil dialogue. Emotion is fine, but unfounded accusations, name calling and the like are not.

Sorry
David Allen

Tranquilo

I would urge those commenting on the blog and other Traveler blogs to please be respectful and fair. I know this big box debate has emotions running deep, but I try to always start with the assumption that people's motives and intentions are good, even if I have strong disagreements.

Thanks

Recall?

I wrote a Traveler editorial in the paper today stating our (my) belief that neither side on the commission divide should be ridiculed for their vote. I also believe that a recall is not warranted — not the kind of conflict the town needs. Emotions will soften as time advances, I hope.

I get the sense that more people favored this deal than opposed it, but it's impossible to really tell without a scientific survey. I am sure that it divided the town.

One thought struck me late last night after the vote — had this come up 10 month ago, the result would be totally different. In fact the previous commission might have voted 5-0 in favor.

This vote helps define what kind of shift we experienced in elected leadership. It makes clear that voters elected Margolius, Smith and Kuhn in a kind of populist uprising that seem to reject the "progressive" politics of the sitting commission. It was s sort of "listen to the people, back to basics" movement with mistrust of those in office.

Now we have anger at the reverse — anger at not advancing economic development and for allegedly putting their heads into sand at progress. The anger appears to run deep. But how wide is this feeling? I guess we'll find out in the coming days if a recall is launched and followed through.

Big box bust

The commission just voted down further study and consideration of the tax incentive to bring a Lowe's to Ark City. 3-2 against, with Scott Margolius and Dottie Smith siding with Mel Kuhn in opposition.

Margolius, as I suspected, was the swing vote. He claims he hadn't made up his mind fully until the public hearing. After a long explanation of his thinkig and the arguments on both sides, he basically said that tax incentives for big national retailer are unfair and not the proper way to grow.

There's merit in this and that was my initial reaction when I first heard about this proposal. I began to tilt the other way after I considered Ark City's stagnant economy, the fact that so many people already bolt town to shop at Lowe's and Home Depot, and the psychology of rejecting a deal and sending an anti-growth message.

But, hey, I could be wrong and perhaps we could see resurgence in industrial employment that would trigger the shopping people here desire.

Anyway, Margolious ended a portion of his comments by saying it was a tough decision, the only no brainer was going against the Traveler because the Traveler supported it, and the Traveler doesn't get much right.

Some people groaned in disapproval. Others then applauded.

Cheap shot, but we can take it.

The big night

From comments made by city commissioners in today's Traveler, it looks like the Big Box tax increment financing project will have a tough time moving forward tonight.

The key, it seems to me, is Scott Margolius. Mayor Smith has said that she basically is there to do the will of the people. My guess is that she'll hear more "no's" than 'yeas' and oppose it (Not the best way to be an elected representative in my opinion, but so be it)

So this leaves Margolius. One would think, considering his political background of working for Tiahrt, that he would be pro-business in this case and tilt in favor. He also helps manage a company, first intermark, that received a property tax abatement to improve the old Newman building. http://www.arkcity.net/stories/082501/stories/082501/com_0002.shtml.

But he remains undecided, and he seems to have made a partner in Mel Kuhn, who is adamently opposed. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if Margolius gives a yes vote tonight, at least so a feasibility study could be done and move the proposal to a final decision in a few weeks.

Civil and fair

I like to see lots of commenting activity on this blog, but can we please keep it constructive, civil and free of unproven accusation? If not, I'll have to screen the comments before they are posted.

It still amazes me when I hear the bitterness toward elected leaders in this town and the us versus them mentality that pervades in some corners. I'm not saying elected officials don't act in their own self-interest, but even on projects like the levy and efforts to build a new hospital, some people see a nefarious cause at work when money is spent.

Could it be that they made a decision you disagree with, or one that turned out to be a mistake, but that people's intentions are still good?

Big Box divide

This big box proposal is creating a division and lines in the sand as I've never seen before in Ark City (I've only lived her four years).

I hear people saying grave things like "It will kill downtown" or "the city will be dead without it"

As is normally the case, the truth lies somewhere well between those two statements. I'm sure there will be plenty of superlatives and weighty declarations made on the 18th at the public hearing. I just hope this doesn't leave deep resentments that linger and prevent progress and pulling together in the future, whichever way the Commission goes.

My prediction, based mostly on hearsay, is that this will fail. We know there is at least one NO vote in Mel Kuhn, and two or three other commissioners on the fence. Word is they are hearing more arguments against than for, and I think they will be very influenced by community imput on this one

Whoops

I accidently said "Kline" when I meant Morrison in the last paragraph of the previous post.

Morrison Scandal

This Morrison affair wouldn't be a such a big deal except for two things

1) There's an air of hypocracy because he did it during a campaign in which he ran ads showing he was a family man and during which he was denying (old) accusations of sexual harassment. His wife even got involved by defending him against former AG Kline's smears

2) The partner alleges that Morrison tried to pry info on Kline's office from her, including info about a federal investigation. (She worked for Kline after Morrsion become AG)

Morrison is going to have a tough time living this one down. Kind of like Bill Clinton, everything he says will be questioned for its truth because it feels like he lied to the public (Clinton did lie, no question)

I supported Morrison against Kline and probably still would considering what a disaster Kline was. At some point Morrison needs to come clean about what he did or did not discuss with this women regarding Kline's office. He'll probably hide behind (It's under investigation) but this rises to a level of public trust where the subject of the investigation (him) would be more hurt than helped by secrecy .....

Betts vs. Tiahrt

I interviewed state Senator Donald Betts and wrote a story about his campaign for Congress a couple weeks ago. He's taking on incumbent U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt. Betts, I think, is a long shot for several reasons. His state profile isn't that large and he will likely not raise as much money as Tiahrt has or will have. He's also probably too liberal for this heavily Repubican district.

It's a curious juxtiposition, these two men. Betts represents an inner city section of Wichita, is black and young. Tiahrt is a suburban conservative who blends that odd, but successful, mix of social and fiscal conservativism.

Betts, I think, made an interesting point in my interview ... He thinks the district is changing. People are tired of the divisions fed by social issues -- evolution, abortion, gay rights, and are ready for government to help solve problems -health care, energy.

But can Betts harness that sentiment into votes at the polls? Hmmm. Can he get votes beyond his Senate district and somehow convince suburbanites and/or small towns to vote for him?

Tiahrt is a Republican in a bad political year for Republicans, and he can be closely tied to the unpopular president. But he benefits from incumbency and building up good will by funding projects in the district (he's on the appropriations committee) He also seems to have softened a bit, from the fired-up prolifer and Gingrich/Delay soldier (he wanted to abolish the dept, of energy)

In Ark City, he got heavy kudos for helping bring federal funds for the levy project. It is this kind of retail goverance that Betts, or anybody, would have a hard time overcoming. Tiahrt also hasn't been touched by scandal.

If I were Betts, I would hammer home three things that show a clear contrast to Tiarht that voters might like. Expanded health care for children, ending the war (or not having supported it) and the general desire for change. (This can tie to Tiahrt's contradiction of supporting term limits but running for a seventh term.

I'm sure Tiahrt will run on his experience, his conservative credentials in a conservative district, and probably the Republican advantage on fighting terrorism....

Should be interesting ....

Presidential primaries

The race for the nominations of both parties seem to be tightening. Too bad Kansas isn't involved in this huge decision. It does seem out of balance for 100,000 voters in Iowa to have that much power of who the Democratic nominee will be. I wonder who would fare better if Kansas did have a primary.

Obama's mother is from Kansas, and he's got lots of appeal from independents, which are a growing part of our electorate. But Clinton no doubt would rile up the liberal base and get plenty of voters. I'd like to think that Kansans might buck the trends and boost a lesser known candidate like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson, who really do have more governing experience and seem to talk and think beyond what consultants tell them.

On the Republican side, the local Republican Party held a straw poll (at a fundraiser) and Mike Huckabee got the most support - 52 percent. That tracks with national polls showing Huckabee rising, and especially in Iowa. Looks like the Christian conservatives have finally found their man. Wonder if Sam Brownback is kicking himself for not backing Huckabee, a former Baptist minister.

I'm not much for religious conservatism, but what I like about Huckabee and what might give him some cross over appeal is that he's OK with government action is some areas, like energy independence and the environment. You get the sense that doesn't have the hatred of government that many conservatives do. Plus, he's just likable and doesn't have that jaded, partisan squeal you hear from many others .....