CTroyMathis
19 January 2003, 09:51 PM
Urban Realism could take over in Arlington
By O.K. CARTER
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Staff Writer
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/ok_carter/4934970.htm
It's been awhile since voters have mangled a basic capital improvements package in Arlington, nevertheless, there's this: There's a strong possibility that at least two or three of the six propositions -- total tab more than $103 million -- up for voter decision Feb. 1 will be turned down.
Of those, the most vulnerable is $81 million that would be earmarked for street improvements. Normally anything to do with improving street conditions in Arlington is approved but not this time.
What gives?
First, we are living in an era that might be classified as the dawn of Urban Realism: Large numbers of suburban residents such as those in Arlington are worried more about their personal safety and the quality of their personal spaces -- their cul-de-sacs, homes and back yards -- than they are about public space or general welfare.
They'll vote for police but not parks. Vote for firefighters but not downtown renovation. And normally they'd vote for streets but not if the proposal contains even a small component that they don't care about.
This motivational premise more than anything else is the underlying cause for defeat of propositions such as mass transit, the Johnson Creek project and the Smithsonian Museum-affiliate project.
The forces of Urban Realism are growing, not diminishing.
Just as important a factor in Arlington politics is the growing expertise that dissident elements have gained in recent years. Buoyed by success in recent elections, they've gained experience. Mostly, however, they know about computers and how to use them.
They have access to active voter lists, automated calling systems and massive e-mail lists. They often can focus negatively on relatively minor components of the big picture, taking the whole thing down in the process. They can walks streets or send mailers house to house, selecting only those with demonstrated tendencies to go to the polls.
It works. See results of recent elections as proof.
And all of this takes place within a continuing collapse of high-quality civic leadership in the community. There appears to be no one with sufficient prestige and name recognition to consistently carry the day when it comes to persuading voters to endorse pocketbook issues.
Some have described this as a crisis of leadership. From this vantage, this depiction is ominously accurate. It's also become fashionable to beat up Big Brother or anything that smacks of Big Brother.
Opponents of the bond package, for instance, seem intent on smearing modest downtown renovations as associated with some kind of sweetheart package for downtown interests. This is patently stupid overkill, but it seems to be working.
Likewise, they're correlating a video traffic monitoring package with municipal spying and even future police ticketing. Also stupid. But that's the way it works. Find one politically volatile element, then amplify it as an issue.
It also helps if at least one council member will actively oppose an election item. Lately, that one or two has been easy to find.
Not that the powers that be haven't done some stupid things on their own. It's been clear for some time, for example, that continuing to build so-called "soft" costs -- basically salaries or other operating expenses that should come from the general fund -- into bond packages was likely to become a pivotal issue. Spreading the cost of such expenses over years is simply not good economics, but the temptation to make pay-me-later decisions over pay-me-now ones is strong. This package contains a number of such soft costs.
Early voting starts Wednesday. Let the games -- and the lessons -- begin
By O.K. CARTER
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Staff Writer
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/ok_carter/4934970.htm
It's been awhile since voters have mangled a basic capital improvements package in Arlington, nevertheless, there's this: There's a strong possibility that at least two or three of the six propositions -- total tab more than $103 million -- up for voter decision Feb. 1 will be turned down.
Of those, the most vulnerable is $81 million that would be earmarked for street improvements. Normally anything to do with improving street conditions in Arlington is approved but not this time.
What gives?
First, we are living in an era that might be classified as the dawn of Urban Realism: Large numbers of suburban residents such as those in Arlington are worried more about their personal safety and the quality of their personal spaces -- their cul-de-sacs, homes and back yards -- than they are about public space or general welfare.
They'll vote for police but not parks. Vote for firefighters but not downtown renovation. And normally they'd vote for streets but not if the proposal contains even a small component that they don't care about.
This motivational premise more than anything else is the underlying cause for defeat of propositions such as mass transit, the Johnson Creek project and the Smithsonian Museum-affiliate project.
The forces of Urban Realism are growing, not diminishing.
Just as important a factor in Arlington politics is the growing expertise that dissident elements have gained in recent years. Buoyed by success in recent elections, they've gained experience. Mostly, however, they know about computers and how to use them.
They have access to active voter lists, automated calling systems and massive e-mail lists. They often can focus negatively on relatively minor components of the big picture, taking the whole thing down in the process. They can walks streets or send mailers house to house, selecting only those with demonstrated tendencies to go to the polls.
It works. See results of recent elections as proof.
And all of this takes place within a continuing collapse of high-quality civic leadership in the community. There appears to be no one with sufficient prestige and name recognition to consistently carry the day when it comes to persuading voters to endorse pocketbook issues.
Some have described this as a crisis of leadership. From this vantage, this depiction is ominously accurate. It's also become fashionable to beat up Big Brother or anything that smacks of Big Brother.
Opponents of the bond package, for instance, seem intent on smearing modest downtown renovations as associated with some kind of sweetheart package for downtown interests. This is patently stupid overkill, but it seems to be working.
Likewise, they're correlating a video traffic monitoring package with municipal spying and even future police ticketing. Also stupid. But that's the way it works. Find one politically volatile element, then amplify it as an issue.
It also helps if at least one council member will actively oppose an election item. Lately, that one or two has been easy to find.
Not that the powers that be haven't done some stupid things on their own. It's been clear for some time, for example, that continuing to build so-called "soft" costs -- basically salaries or other operating expenses that should come from the general fund -- into bond packages was likely to become a pivotal issue. Spreading the cost of such expenses over years is simply not good economics, but the temptation to make pay-me-later decisions over pay-me-now ones is strong. This package contains a number of such soft costs.
Early voting starts Wednesday. Let the games -- and the lessons -- begin