And here I was, worried I was being too cynical.
Two weeks ago, this space dedicated itself to the ºüÀêÊÓƵ Board of Aldermen’s ongoing sound-and-fury survey about how to spend more than $200 million in Rams settlement money.
There was a moment (a brief one, admittedly) when I was concerned that I somehow was failing to grasp the seemingly unnecessary — but apparently grad-school cool and progressive — process the aldermanic board has set up to determine what the public wants from that pile of cash.
My contention was that because the aldermen had all won elections in the wards they represent, they must have talked to a decent amount of people in those wards.
People are also reading…
And after all that communicating, if the aldermen still didn’t know what their constituents wanted, they should do the city a giant favor and quit immediately.
Too harsh?
Well, whatever cynicism my words contained, it paled in comparison to the buckets of doubt poured out by readers, who spared no expense in savaging both the process and elected officials.
Keep in mind: This negative view of the aldermanic board showed itself a week before that same body unveiled a housing bill that also focuses on processes — specifically of the kidneys and bowels — and would make it perfectly legal for the homeless to urinate and defecate in public.
Given that development, it’s not hard to believe the public’s approval rating of city leadership is any place other than in the toilet.
But enough about pee-and-poo justice, let’s take a look at what people sent to this bureau after the “Rams process†was revealed.
Some were surprised that aldermen were fishing about for ideas to improve the city:
• “With the glaring needs that the city has, you would think this would be an easy process.â€
• “It seems pretty obvious that a lot of the money should go to improving city services, like the police, 911 response, trash pickup, street repair and education. To me, those are the foundation for creating a better city environment where people would want to live.â€
• “The city is sitting on gobs of money while basic services like law enforcement, emergency dispatch, trash pickup, and street maintenance are crippled to the point of dysfunction — and the elected leadership’s answer is an elementary school Junior Achievement project?â€
Some readers took a prudent fiscal approach to the issue, with some colorful descriptions of aldermen, and suggested financial restraint:
• “Please tell them dummies that investing $250 million could generate $12.5 million annually from now on. Please don’t blow this one-time opportunity to enjoy this windfall forever. To spend this on a few projects would be stupid when this could be enjoyed every year, forever.â€
Some wrote to say they agreed with the original column’s main premise, that aldermen already know what people want — but it may not be what the aldermen want:
• “Of all the questions involving the challenges (residents) are experiencing, not one of the choices is ‘high crime in my neighborhood’ or ‘speeding cars’ or ‘drivers ignoring traffic signals’ or ‘shoplifting at my stores’ ... or ‘trash collection.’ It’s like these problems don’t exist, and (aldermen) certainly don’t want to hear about them.â€
• “You are an idea champion. Just the wrong ideas. They can’t stand that people want safety. They want people to say ‘reparations.’â€
Another reader cast a slanted eye on the “process†and other allegedly forward-thinking affectations:
• “Any time someone talks about ‘visualizing a new paradigm’ or some-such phraseology, I figure that they’re getting paid by the word and will never have a plan.â€
But while we’re mining the depths of cynicism about local politics, one reader cut straight to the chase and wondered, well ...
• “Perhaps the reason this money has not, as yet, been invested in ºüÀêÊÓƵ is that it is too much in the public eye. Too many city officials have not figured out how to quietly siphon some of this juicy plum into their pockets or into enterprises of their families and associates, without the public noticing.â€
Personally, I find this last opinion reassuring, for it means that I may be some sort of an optimist when it comes to politics.
My suspicion was that city leaders just wanted to wait until the 2025 municipal elections drew nearer before doling out big bucks and making major improvements.
Because honestly, what good is buying votes if voters forget who bought them?