Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Dear H. Wilkinson: Did you report the facts? (2007)•Two Republican Views of War (2007)
•Commenting Rules for The Cincinnati Beacon (2007)
•Evidence of Injustice (2007)
•Open Letter to Henry Heimlich about SALF (2006)
•The Mayor’s Recommendations to the Proposed Budget (2006)
•Know Theatre of Cincinnati Offers Alternative Holiday Entertainment with Christmas Yet To Come (2006)
•Stop the Proclamations! (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Thursday, June 07, 2007
The Un-democratic Democratic Party
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
The Hamilton County Democratic Party has been contacting its members and telling them not to sign the petition to demand a vote on the jail tax. This pressure may explain the behavior of the two Democratic candidates for council I have asked so far to sign the petition. Both were aware of the issues and privately expressed sympathy for the fact that the new jail plan would not remedy the root problems. But both said that they had to consider the issue more thoroughly before they signed the petition.
Of course, the petition merely demands a vote by the citizens on the subject, nothing more. Basically the position of the Democratic Party is that the voters cannot be trusted with the vote. After all, they voted against the plan in November that was supported by Commissioners Heimlich, DeWine,
In fact, it is noteworthy that much of this e-mail is concerned with how the Democrats are much better jailors than Republicans, even though it is a matter of record that Commissioner Todd Portune voted for and supported the “Republican” plan of last November. Other points have been refuted already in The Cincinnati Beacon, which will continue to write on the subject.
Commissioner Pat DeWine, who also voted for and supported the previous plan, has said that the voters spoke, the contest wasn’t that close (57% to 43%), and the will of the voters should be respected.
I have also asked two Republican candidates so far to sign the petition. One was Steven Pavelish, who signed. The other was John Eby, who did not sign, saying that he thought the jail plan was worth supporting. Even though I disagree with Mr. Eby, I respect the fact that his public position is the same as his private position.
Here is the text of the e-mail that The Cincinnati Beacon has obtained:
From: “Hamilton County Democratic Party”
Subject: Hamilton County Comprehensive Safety Plan
Dear
There has been much discussion over recent days about the decision of County Commissioners Todd Portune and David Pepper to enact the new Comprehensive Safety Plan. This decision, while controversial among some, is a courageous choice to tackle a difficult problem with a well thought out and thorough solution.
There are some who believe this issue should have been presented to the voters as a ballot measure and are now soliciting petition signatures to do exactly that. We urge voters to think carefully about the consequences of doing that and also to understand the value of what our Commissioners have done. Democrats should stand behind our Commissioners and not support a costly and counter productive effort to place this issue on the November ballot.
Why? Here are just a few of the reasons.
1. An Intelligent Approach to Justice —The Safety Plan enacted goes well beyond merely the provision of new jail space. Much of it is directed at programs designed to reduce crime and to reduce the number (70%) of offenders who wind up returning to jail at some later date. This is a huge improvement over past policies and should be supported as consistent with the values of the Democratic Party. There should be more to a justice system than simply locking people up.
2. Replacement of Inefficient and Inadequate Existing Jail Space—Nearly 2/3rds of the jail space to be constructed under the plan replaces very inadequate and possibly dangerous space now in use. It also replaces space now being rented in Butler County at great cost and funded by a rainy day fund which is about to run out. Its time to do the job right instead of using a patchwork of band aide solutions as the Republicans have done in the past.
3. Honest Cost Efficiency - Unlike previous proposals (and other proposals now in circulation), the Commissioners’ plan is honest in that it includes both construction funds and operating funds. Last year’s Heimlich/Dewine Plan provided no funds for operation, it financed construction through long term debt (leading to huge interest payments) and failed to consolidate multiple facilities leading to much higher long term operating costs. In the long run, the newly enacted plan will save the taxpayers Hamilton County nearly $450 million that would eventually be spent otherwise.
4. Meeting The County’s Obligation - The County Commissioners do not decide who and how many people shall be housed in the County’s jails. Those decisions are made by elected Judges and the City and County prosecutor’s offices. Legally, the County is required by statute to provide adequate jail space. If the County fails to provide the space needed to house offenders, the County Commissioners can and probably would be sued and in the end, a Court would order the County to construct new jail space. The nature and configuration of that jail space would then be decided not by our Democratic Commissioners but by a Judge (probably Republican) and the County Sherriff who would bring the suit. Refusing to fund the needed construction (as have Republicans for many years) will not prevent its construction. It will simply shift the decision making to other parties.
5. $2 million per month, the cost of delay—Delaying the implementation of the Safety Plan by placing it on the ballot will cost Hamilton County taxpayers as much as $2 million per month, money which can be spent in much more productive ways.
Our County Commissioners’ have stepped up to the plate and made an intelligent and thoughtful decision as they were elected to do, a decision that can easily be misrepresented. Such decisions deserve our support as a demonstration that good public policy will be supported by the voters. To do otherwise supports the sort of bad decision making based on short term appearances that we have seen in the past. It is time for a change in Hamilton County.
Much greater detail regarding the Safety Plan can be found here. [Note: no link was provided in the copy obtained by The Beacon.]
Tim Burke, Chair, Hamilton County Democratic Party
Caleb Faux, Executive Director, Hamilton County Democratic Party
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
07 Jun 2007 at 10:43 pm | #
So, it’s democratic to voice your opposition to the plan by signing the petition, but un-democratic to to voice your support by NOT signing.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Petitioners only need 10% of voters just to get on the referendum and let the real games begin, then.
Anyone can see that supporting the safety plan means, not signing the referendum—and that’s democracracy.
08 Jun 2007 at 08:35 am | #
John Eby did not sign the petition, as I mentioned in the article. I said that I respected his decision not to sign because his public and private positions were the same.
The two Democratic candidates, on the other hand, had strong opinions about how bad the jail situation was and thought the proposed plan fails to address the root problems. I talked at length with both of them. But they did not want the public to vote on it. The wanted the decision of Portune and Pepper to stand, even though privately they thought it was very wrong.
In their opinion, it was more important to follow like sheep than “to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (wording taken from the first amendment to the Constitution).
08 Jun 2007 at 09:56 am | #
I think it’s interesting that the word “tax” appears only in the two instances of “taxpayers.” There’s no mention at all of the macro- and microeconomic consequences of a higher sales tax rate.
08 Jun 2007 at 10:52 am | #
anon2000, it’s democratic to give voters a choice about a regressive tax that they voted against just a few months ago. It’s undemocratic to actively oppose the people being able to decide this decision. Why do you hate democracy?
Petitioners only need 10%?
That’s 30,000 valid signatures which means we need 60,000 signatures in 30 days you stupid bitch! We have better things to do but we’re going to do it and then send Portune packing.
Anyone can see you have contempt for the will of the people and are nothing more than a mindless sheep.
08 Jun 2007 at 01:37 pm | #
Turns out we’re both wrong about this being a democracy if the letter to the editor in the Enquirer is correct - he says we’re a Republic not a democracy and essentially, that Ohio’s fascination with referendums compared to Kentucky’s might be the cause of why they are booming and we are dying. Literally.
09 Jun 2007 at 02:28 am | #
Why are The White Democrats afraid of allowing the voters to participate in their own county’s government? This is an extremely elitist attitude, as if the party was being run by Paris Hilton. Two White Democrats know everything, and the 281,000 of us who voted in 2006 know nothing. Sign up to be a White Democrat today!
10 Jun 2007 at 05:56 am | #
Dean, MEP, Justin: is anyone aware if this letter was generated by a meeting, with cast vote, by the entire HC Democratic Party, or just a smaller group within the party? NAACP took a vote after Portune had presented to get their members input. That’s democratic. Did the HCDP provide the same democratic voice? Our awareness is that there are white and black suppporters of the P&P jail plan who are active HCDP members; there are also white and black HCDP members adamantly against this plan as set out without democratic ballot and/or with its rehabilitation plan.
Did we hear correctly, as Portune presented, that there was going to be a ballot issue on mental health? And P&P did not want the voters to have to make up their minds on two major issues, so they were prepared to step forward and do it without citizen sanction anyway? Please correct me if I’m incorrect here.
When the names are counted for this, will the various factions get to challenge names that might not have been permitted? Remember, Burke has many hats to wear, and favors to repay after the last elections.
10 Jun 2007 at 11:26 am | #
"NAACP took a vote after Portune had presented to get their members input. That’s democratic.”
Dominique, Portune wasn’t getting input from the NAACP. He was trying to sell his failed plan that he knew he’d impose, that isn’t democratic.
“Did the HCDP provide the same democratic voice?”
No, the HCDP is an undemocratic organizations. All Democrats are expected to get in line and start towing.
“Did we hear correctly, as Portune presented, that there was going to be a ballot issue on mental health? And P&P did not want the voters to have to make up their minds on two major issues, so they were prepared to step forward and do it without citizen sanction anyway?”
Pepper & Portune don’t think voters are smart enough to vote on two issues at a time. They know we can’t be trusted to pass their regressive jail tax, so these lawyers must act in a “resposible” way and deter democracy by creating necassary illusions to manufacture consent.
11 Jun 2007 at 05:28 pm | #
The NAACP doesn’t even say they are AGAINST the plan (per president)He says they haven’t evaluated the plan itself - only the aspect of whether or not we should do the plan withut a vote. The NAACP WILL support the CSP because it is good government, good business and good for their community.
Which means, all this petition signing is for naught - if the NAACP won’t even evaluate the CSP, why would they push to have it, essentially, recalled by referendum.
(Not good governance, not good business not good for the community)