Gary hears from a Democratic Critic
Last week I got an email from an old friend who is active in Raleigh politics. He took issue with my recent analysis of city politics – and my warning that Mayor Meeker’s spending policies could present a problem for Raleigh Democrats.
I’m not going to use my friend’s name, because he didn’t say whether I could. But I do want to pass on his comments.
He began:
“Gary – You are right that spending does always make an easy target, but you and Carter failed to note that the most likely Republican candidate for
Mayor has voted for most of that spending you cited, except the light
rail, which polls in the 70’s in the city, and with Gas Prices, is
likely to garner more support. I’m not sure being against that is a
winner inside the City. Really not good to sell your city down the
river when you are trying to compete with other communities for federal transportation dollars.”
I assume he is referring to Philip Isley as the most likely Republican candidate for mayor. And he’s right: Isley has a record to defend.
My critic addresses city spending on downtown projects:
“You are also wrong about ignoring areas away from downtown. Last year,
over 85% of the City’s capital budget was spent outside the beltline.
Folks in Wakefield have been quite supportive of the Mayor. That said,
there is more happening downtown from private investment than anytime
since WWII. That is a higher tax base that has been spurred by the City’s investments.”
Next he turns to why John Odom lost his race for City Council:
“As to why Odom lost, you analysis is short here as well. If impact fees
did not have significant impact on Russ Stephenson’s win, then how do
you explain how close Paul Anderson came against Tommy Craven in a
heavily Republican district turning out a third less of the African American vote in that district than had turned out the previous cycle.”
One quibble: I don’t and didn’t deny that impact fees had a political impact. They did. I just said Odom made a mistake by running a turnout campaign when Republicans are 35 percent of turnout.
My friend concludes:
“I do know what is a real loser. Failing to support a real increase in
impact fees, and then voting for a four cent tax hike. It’s not all
about impact fees, but that is our best counter to Republican
demagoguery on taxes.
“I appreciate the advice, but instead of consistently doing Carter’s work
for him, and carrying the development community’s water, you might
actually try and help our side by pointing out the short sightedness of our opposition.”
Actually, I’ve spent 30 years in politics pointing out the short-sightedness of our Republican opposition. And I’ve often found it helpful to point out the short-sightedness of our Democratic friends first.
Gary hears from a Democratic Critic
Last week I got an email from an old friend who is active in Raleigh politics. He took issue with my recent analysis of city politics – and my warning that Mayor Meeker’s spending policies could present a problem for Raleigh Democrats.
I’m not going to use my friend’s name, because he didn’t say whether I could. But I do want to pass on his comments.
He began:
“Gary – You are right that spending does always make an easy target, but you and Carter failed to note that the most likely Republican candidate for
Mayor has voted for most of that spending you cited, except the light
rail, which polls in the 70’s in the city, and with Gas Prices, is
likely to garner more support. I’m not sure being against that is a
winner inside the City. Really not good to sell your city down the
river when you are trying to compete with other communities for federal transportation dollars.”
I assume he is referring to Philip Isley as the most likely Republican candidate for mayor. And he’s right: Isley has a record to defend.
My critic addresses city spending on downtown projects:
“You are also wrong about ignoring areas away from downtown. Last year,
over 85% of the City’s capital budget was spent outside the beltline.
Folks in Wakefield have been quite supportive of the Mayor. That said,
there is more happening downtown from private investment than anytime
since WWII. That is a higher tax base that has been spurred by the City’s investments.”
Next he turns to why John Odom lost his race for City Council:
“As to why Odom lost, you analysis is short here as well. If impact fees
did not have significant impact on Russ Stephenson’s win, then how do
you explain how close Paul Anderson came against Tommy Craven in a
heavily Republican district turning out a third less of the African American vote in that district than had turned out the previous cycle.”
One quibble: I don’t and didn’t deny that impact fees had a political impact. They did. I just said Odom made a mistake by running a turnout campaign when Republicans are 35 percent of turnout.
My friend concludes:
“I do know what is a real loser. Failing to support a real increase in
impact fees, and then voting for a four cent tax hike. It’s not all
about impact fees, but that is our best counter to Republican
demagoguery on taxes.
“I appreciate the advice, but instead of consistently doing Carter’s work
for him, and carrying the development community’s water, you might
actually try and help our side by pointing out the short sightedness of our opposition.”
Actually, I’ve spent 30 years in politics pointing out the short-sightedness of our Republican opposition. And I’ve often found it helpful to point out the short-sightedness of our Democratic friends first.