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 .....