Hazlehurst’s Blog
Insight and commentary from John Hazlehurst

Freedom’s just another word…

0

 For nothin’ left to lose.

Yesterday afternoon, at 3:29 PM, the Wall Street Journal reported that Freedom Communications, the parent company of the Colorado Springs Gazette, would file for bankruptcy this week.

How did I know the precise time that the WSJ reported the story?  Because the Google alert, sent within microseconds of the WSJ web post, hit my mailbox at 3:29.

Shortly afterwards, the news was up on Facebook, in a post that twitted the Gazette for not reporting the story.  A few minutes later, a Gazette employee responded indignantly, and still later the Gazette’s Web site ran the AP wire story about the impending bankruptcy, along with a “localizing” quote from editor Jeff Thomas.

The story isn’t the story-as Marshall McLuhan so presciently remarked decades ago, the message is the media-or was it vice versa?

We no longer organize our lives around the daily newspaper-in fact, most of us are scarcely aware of daily print media. We go where the news is-and newspapers no longer have the news.

Freedom’s long-rumored demise surprised nobody.  Take an irrelevant business model, add a recession, thrown in predatory competitors (Craigslist, anyone?), load up the company with $770 million in debt, and what happens?  Ask General Motors, ask the Tribune Company, ask Pan American World Airlines, ask the New York Central Railroad.

Yet Freedom’s bankruptcy seems particularly sad and ironic, in view of the company’s staunchly libertarian philosophy.

As a corporation, Freedom didn’t exactly hew to libertarian principles, as articulated by founder Raymond Hoiles.  In fact, it was run by feckless, delusional managers who, like so many of their peers, thought the good times in the media industry would never end-and bet the farm on it.

But Hoiles would have been proud that the company’s libertarian heritage was, and is, still prominent on the editorial page.  Led by argumentative, articulate, and extraordinarily bright guys like the two Dans (Griswold and Njegomir), Sean Paige, and Wayne Laugesen, the G’s editorial page has always been interesting-not to mention occasionally infuriating.

And I, of course, owe a great deal to the Gazette.  The paper gave me my first job (newspaper boy back when there were actual newspaper boys), the news of my hometown for all those years, coverage of my so-called political career, free trips to Spain & Monaco, a couple of Bronco games, and, best of all, my wife-whom former publisher Scott Mckibben hired from Cincinnati a couple of years ago, and whom I met five days after she arrived in town…through today’s equivalent of newspaper personals, Match.com.

 

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 31st, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , , , ,

Goodbye, Senator

0

June 18, 1960.  I was a 19 year-old college kid who, through an unlikely series of events, found himself at the Colorado state democratic convention, held that year at Fort Lewis College in Durango.

The keynote speaker: Sen. John F. Kennedy. 

Kennedy was accompanied by half-a-dozen aides, including his brother Ted, then 27.  He struck me as arrogant, over privileged, and rather stupid - and I was, of course, insanely jealous of him.

Seen beside his brother who, like Eisenhower and Obama, had “command presence,” Teddy seemed smaller than life - just a punk kid, the campaign gofer, a good-for-nothing who had been tossed out of Harvard for cheating.

Forty-nine years after that summer afternoon, Ted Kennedy has joined his brothers in death. 

John and Bobby haunt our collective national memories, mythic heroes struck down by cowardly assassins, men who, had they lived, might have helped create a very different nation.

But Ted, saddled with an impossible legacy, overcame it.  Failing in a desultory attempt to gain his party’s nomination during 1980, he chose to continue in the Senate.  In a time of conservative ascendancy, he was a powerful and effective player, able to work effectively with Republican legislators and Republican presidents. 

We tend to forget the worker bees of our democracy, the men and women who serve in Congress for decades, whose legislative achievements shape our lives.  Few remember the great Sam Rayburn, the plainspoken Texan who, as Speaker, led the House of Representatives for many years. Fewer still remember Wayne Aspinall, the long - serving congressman from the Western Slope who, as chairman of the powerful  House Interior Committee, pushed through a score of western water projects. 

Kennedy’s achievements rank with those of the greatest legislators of our history-but he won’t be remembered for them. He was the little brother-a bit player in Kennedy myth yet  the fortunate son-that member of our American House of Atreus  unseen by the fates, who lived to comb gray hair.

Rest in peace, old warrior - you were so much more than I believed 49 years ago, during a warm June afternoon in Durango.  I guess that I was the punk kid…

 

 

 

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 26th, 2009 :: Filed under Uncategorized

My very own reservoir site - and it’s free!

0

Colorado Springs Utilities CEO Jerry Forte may have been born on a Wednesday - but it wasn’t yesterday.

In a polite but devastating takedown of Mark Morley’s offer to sell Utilities a reservoir site near Pueblo for $36 million, and pass along $12 million of the sales price to the USOC, Forte said thanks-but no thanks.

The USOC offer wasn’t even mentioned. As CSU spokeswomanJanet Rummel said, “That was totally not part of our evaluation.”

The site in question, known as the Stonewall Springs Quarry property, had been considered as a reservoir site by Utilities during 2004. CSU passed, having determined that the function that such a reservoir might perform by recovering and storing water that might otherwise be lost to the city could be dealt with for far less cost.

How much less? In the restrained “engineerspeak” favored by the professionals at CSU, here’s how much less.

“Current operations under the Pueblo Flow Management Program have caused curtailment for Colorado Springs return flow exchange of an average annual amount of 1,950 acre-feet. Of these curtailments, we have recovered or sold an average of 82 percent. We have experienced an increase transit loss to our current Recovery of Yield Storage (Holbrook Reservoir or Lake Meredith), and these losses amount to approximately 1.35 percent of our total annual exchange yield. We have not left any water stranded in downstream storage nor has this program had a negative impact on our ability to serve our customers.

From the years 2004 through 2008, we have invested about $260,000 in the entire Recovery of Yield program, which includes water, operations, staff time, studies and a lease option for storage in Holbrook Reservoir.

In summary, we have been able to recover or sell a majority of the water (82%) and the total cost for this program over a five year period was about $260,000 which translates to an average of $52,000/year and $37/acre-feet.”

Let’s see: $36 million plus the cost of actually, like, building a reservoir vs. $260,000 to achieve 82 percent of the possible benefits from the proposed impoundment…don’t think that we need a cost-benefit analysis here, Mabel!

It’s possible that, in the long term, it will make sense to build such a reservoir. It’s also possible that, in the long term, it will make sense for me to tear down my 1898 house on the west side and build a 30-story condo complex.

But, inspired by the ingenious Mr. Morley, I’ve put forth my own proposal. I have a rocky, gravelly, weedy side yard. I’d like to landscape it, but that takes work. So I’m offering it to CSU for nothing - if they’ll dig a shallow reservoir, keep it filled with clean, healthful water, and line it with concrete and tile. They can lease it back to me for a dollar a year for the next century. I’ll maintain it-and install a diving board at my expense.

Oh, and I’ll also need an adjacent heated water facility, commonly known as a hot tub. I’ll invite my pals over and we’ll soak, swill champagne, and make plans to compete in the 2016 Olympics. Talk about community benefit!

The champagne’s on CSU, of course…

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 20th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , , ,

Bruce rings bell, media salivates

0

(Editor’s note: This posting has been revised and corrected. See below)

At 10 a.m. on Monday, we, in common with other local media, got a phone call from the ol’ taxcutter himself, Doug Bruce. 

He invited us to attend a press conference in an hour’s time, to be held on the steps of city hall.

Since city hall is less than two blocks from our offices, and since Monday promised to be a slow news day, I thought wotthehell (as Archie said to Mehitabel), and ambled on over to the press conference.

The Dougster, brimming over with fake indignation, breathlessly recounted how the city’s finest, acting upon orders from those tax-lovin’ city council members, had prevented him from circulating petitions in front of Costco, thereby violating not only his rights, but the rights of all citizens.  What about freedom of assembly?  What about the right to collect signatures for a citizen initiative? 

After a few minutes, I left. It seemed clear that this was a manufactured event. Long experience with the Dougster, a superbly accomplished spinmeister, had taught me to be wary. I figured that there was more to this story than met the eye, and that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be used by him, or by anyone for that matter, to advance a personal agenda.

So we ignored the story.

But as the Dougster anticipated, the rest of the media jumped on it like dogs on a dropped slice of pepperoni pizza. 

The Gazette’s coverage was particularly egregious, featuring a largely unquestioning front page story and a lengthy editorial which upheld the poor, persecuted Dougster’s right to petition.

Remember Pavlov’s dogs?  The great Russian physician and Nobel laureate Ivan Pavlov discovered that by first ringing a bell and then giving food to the animals, he established what he called a “conditioned reflex.”  After a certain number of repetitions, the animals would salivate whenever the bell was rung, regardless of reward.

Local media have been conditioned by the Dougster to believe that whatever he does/says/alleges is ipso facto newsworthy.  He rings, we salivate.  It’s called random reinforcement-and he produces just enough newsworthy stuff to keep us slobbering.

I’m proud that, for once, we controlled ourselves.  But I know that the next time he calls, we’ll be there.

You never know - maybe he’ll bring pizza.

 

Correction (8/31/2009)

Some information in this blog posting by John Hazlehurst was incorrect and has been deleted.

The blog originally stated that, “It turned out that Mr. Bruce had been tossed off Costco’s property a year before, for the same reason.” Mr. Bruce was not removed from the property during that prior incident.

The blog also stated that, “It turned out that private property owners have a right to expel trespassers …” At the time, the city’s General Order 701 – First Amendment Rights stated that “Individuals may engage in First Amendment related activities on privately owned property which offers routine public access, whether or not it is property posted and whether or not the owner/manager has granted permission, so long as the individuals do not violate a law such as blocking ingress or egress, harassing or assaulting other persons etc.” General order 701 was revised on Feb. 16 of this year and that language was removed.

The blog also stated that “Mr. Bruce was charged with that offense.” Mr. Bruce was not charged or cited by law enforcement during that prior incident.

 

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 19th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , ,

Streeter a no-show

1

“Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away …”

I thought of that little poem, originally written by Hughes Means during 1899, as I sat through yesterday’s City Council meeting.

For those in attendance, the theory of relativity was amply demonstrated.  In council chambers, time slows.  Ten minutes of bloviation from a councilmember appears to last longer than two hours of convivial tippling with friends at the Ritz, Sonterra or the Famous.  Windy staff presentations about complex issues last as long as a week in law school, and centuries seem to pass before the meetings finally end.

But upon the broad double stairs that lead to our once-grand council chambers, there was definitely a woman who wasn’t there — Stephanie Streeter.

Ms. Streeter, the CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee, didn’t deign to show up and thank city council for a gaily wrapped gift bag worth around $50 million, courtesy of Springs taxpayers.  She sent her COO, the tall and courtly Norm Bellingham, who thanked the city on her behalf. 

It seemed a little de haut en bas, a statement of social class that would have been familiar to Harvard grad Hughes Means at the close of the 19th century.  Just as Mrs. John Jacob Astor might have sent her maidservant to pick up a little bauble at Tiffany & Co, Ms. Streeter sent her personal assistant to receive the city’s obeisance.

Dunno about you, but if ever I hand over $50 million to anyone, I expect to be thanked personally … unless, of course, I’m handing it over to the IRS.

Meanwhile, as time slowed to a crawl in City Hall, one thing struck me about the recently renovated council chambers: there are no windows. 

Or, more precisely, all of the windows are permanently blacked out, presumably for the convenience of TV cameras and audio/visual presentations.  What was once a sunny, light-filled room, with views of the city and Pikes Peak has become a dismal cave, a reductive and self-referential environment, the capitol of nowhere.

If councilmembers sometimes seem to operate in a world apart, the room reinforces their isolation and alienation. 

A modest suggestion to council: raise the shades, open the windows, let in the fresh air and sunshine, and be reminded, as you sit on the dais, that your decisions affect real people in a real city.

And who knows — maybe, looking out the windows, you’ll see Stephanie Streeter wandering down Nevada Avenue on some sunny afternoon …

 

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 12th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , , ,

Commission votes, mayor gloats

0

As predicted by many, the two-member Independent Ethics Commission cleared Mayor Lionel Rivera of any violation of the city Code of Ethics, as alleged in the complaint filed by Ron Johnson.

The report is carefully crafted, fair, judicious and as complete and accurate as it could be, given the limited scope of the inquiry.

As the report states: “the commission’s investigation was limited to a review of the Mayor’s actions concerning the project as they relate to the allegations contained in the complaint and its supplement.”

Such limitations were proper and necessary.  Johnson’s allegations should not, and did not, trigger a witch hunt, in which the commission might have interviewed dozens of witnesses, who might have made further allegations of unrelated misdeeds, which would then have been investigated, and so on ad infinitum.

Instead, the commission interviewed only the Mayor, Ray Marshall (accompanied by his attorney John Cook), councilmember Scott Hente, assistant city manager Mike Anderson, former councilmember Margaret Radford, and USOC consultant Jim Didion.  All witnesses appeared voluntarily, without subpoena.

The commission declined to interview any other individuals suggested by Johnson or his attorney, noting that “the information allegedly possessed by those individuals was either duplicative or not germane to the issue of the Mayor’s involvement in the USOC project.”

It’s pretty clear that none of the individuals interviewed held any animus toward the Mayor.  To the contrary, every one of them had powerful reasons to present the Mayor’s actions, and by extension their own, in the best possible light. 

During the time that the interviews were taking place, LandCo, the city, and the USOC were in the midst of renegotiating their deals with each other, in the wake of the disastrous collapse of the initial EDA.  Didion’s present role with the USOC, if any, is unknown, but Marshall, Anderson, Hente, and the Mayor have all been deeply involved in restructuring the deals.  Radford’s involvement ended with her council term last April, but she has long been an ally/admirer of the Mayor.

The city’s current spin on the collapse of the previous agreement is this: forget all the lawsuits, allegations, and angry words-it was all the economy’s fault!  In a presentation to council, Mike Anderson cited the “world financial meltdown” as the sole reason for the deal’s demise.  In other words, it’s nobody’s fault, so let’s all move on.

Based on the testimony of these individuals, the commission concluded that the mayor had no part in choosing LandCo as the designated USOC developer, did not take positions or actions that favored LandCo, and that any subsequent contacts with LandCo were made for the purpose of advancing the city’s interests, not LandCo’s.

The most significant omission on the list of witnesses may be that of former USOC CEO Jim Scherr, who, the report noted, had been quoted in “news reports” as saying that the LandCo selection had been made by the city, not by the USOC.  The commission chose not to interview him, both because of “overwhelming evidence” that the choice was made by the USOC, and because of Jim Didion’s statement that Scherr had little or no involvement in the process.

The omission is disturbing, because the “overwhelming evidence” that the report cites presumably comes from the testimony of the six interviewees.  One would think that possibly contradictory testimony would be welcome, even if it presented the two commissioners with the tiresome task of figuring out the truth of the matter from differing accounts.

The most interesting paragraph in the seven page report is this one, in which the commission gingerly tackles the question of Rivera’s failure to disclose a financial relationship with LandCo CEO Marshall

“Finally, the commission wishes to address the issue of whether the Mayor should have disclosed his prior business relationship with Mr. Marshall.  The Mayor’s explanation for not making the disclosure has been that it would constitute a breach of the UBS policy of respecting the confidentiality of its clients.  Had the Mayor disclosed the prior relationship it would probably have negated the suspicions that ultimately led to a request for an investigation.  In the Mayor’s view, it would also have been a serious violation of a business and ethical responsibility.  Whether the Commission agrees with the Mayor’s decision is not pertinent(italics added).  As noted previously, at the time the Mayor had the business relationship decisions were being made as to which developers would receive requests for proposals and, possibly, which developer should be selected to participate in the USOC project.  The Commission could find no evidence that the Mayor participated in any manner in these decisions.  Nor was there any evidence that the Mayor attempted to exert any influence, direct or indirect, in these decisions.  For these reasons the Commission does not believe that the Mayor’s failure to disclose constituted a violation of the Code of Ethics.”

Not even a slap on the wrist!  The commission simply decided that an apparent conflict wasn’t a conflict, since Rivera had, to the best of their knowledge, taken no actions that might unduly benefit LandCo, or disadvantage other applicants.

But here’s the crux of the matter: no person can serve two masters.  The Mayor can either serve his employer, or the people of this city.  He can’t just walk a tightrope, and pretend to serve both.  If his employment is of such a nature that he can’t reveal possibly conflictual actions, he should resign either from UBS or from elected office.

That may seem unfair-but too bad.  It may be that you can’t both be Mayor of Colorado Springs and an ambitious go-getter at the same time.

Clearly, neither the Mayor’s enemies nor the opponents of the USOC deal will be happy with this report.  Too bad for them-game, set, and match to Lionel.

There will still be questions and whispers, as in: How much did the Mayor make from his business relationship with Marshall?  Were there other accounts?  Was all the testimony truthful?  What really happened-surely seven pages of dry legalese can’t close the book on all this juicy gossip?

But from now on, it’s all pointless speculation. We’ll never know.

 In a few hours, the curtain will rise on what may be the final act in the USOC saga, when council is expected to approve the new USOC deal in all of its sleek, gleaming perfection.  It’ll cost the hapless taxpayers $40 or $50 million-but who’s counting?  Not I-I’ll be there, hoping that I can get USOC boss Stephanie Streeter to autograph my copy of the agenda…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 11th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , ,

USOC a done deal?

0

Last night’s “town hall” meeting, wherein the hapless public was invited to come to City Hall at 7 p.m. and comment about the U.S. Olympic Committee deal, had all the elements of Kabuki theater.

Councilmembers (excluding Messrs. Glenn and Heimlicher) drifted slowly to the dais and, stone faced, took their seats. The mayor opened the meeting by announcing that members of the public who wished to comment would be allocated a generous six minutes, instead of the miserly three minutes usually permitted to folks who speak about non-agenda issues.

Assistant City Manager Mike Anderson then made his way to the microphone and proceeded to give a 25-minute overview of the deal, aided by a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which were unavailable to the public.

In his presentation, Anderson said that the USOC’s annual economic impact is more than $350 million, and that it and related sports organizations account directly for 910 jobs and indirectly for 2,600 more.

He emphasized the dire consequences that would, in a worst-case scenario, result from the departure of the organization. These consequences include the loss of all USOC-related jobs, as well as the disappearance of the sales and property tax revenue associated directly and indirectly with the organization.

I’ve never been comfortable with so-called “economic impact analyses.”  At best, they give you a crude, but useful, snapshot of the economic impact of a particular business, class of business or economic activity. At worst, they’re deliberately designed to overstate economic impact and benefit organizations which seek preferential treatment from government entities that can hand over the goods.

The problem with Anderson’s analysis is that it presents a static, deterministic view of the USOC, and an equally rigid view of the possible consequences of its departure.

Anderson stated, for example, that the city might lose all of the 910 “direct” jobs, and that most of the folks now employed by the USOC and other sports-related organizations might leave town.

In the real world, individual behavior is much more dynamic and unpredictable.

People who lose their jobs (particularly those lucky enough to live in the “Best City in America”) are as likely to look for new employment or start their own businesses as to pull up stakes and leave town. And it’s worth pointing out that the USOC deal, if approved by council, guarantees only that the USOC will keep its headquarters in town.

It’s silent concerning the national governing bodies and the Olympic Training Center, which together account for most of the direct jobs.

Moreover, regional economies are far more resilient than such models indicate.

Schumpeter’s classic description of capitalism as a process of “creativedestruction,” wherein new business and business models shoulder aside the old, applies regionally as well as globally. Businesses, be they Intel, Apple or MCI, grow, thrive and fade away, and others arise to take their place.

In his presentation, Anderson also attributed $4.6 million in annual property tax revenue to the USOC and associated entities. That might be true, but remember that property tax collections do not depend upon ownership. Real estate is real estate — and whoever owns it pays the bill — or doesn’t.

In fact, all the land and improvements that comprise the Olympic Training Center at 1750 E. Boulder, which have a 2008 assessed valuation of $44,154, 258, are classified as “exempt charitable,” and are thereby exempted from those pesky property taxes.

As the evening wore on, it seemed clear that city officials see no alternativeother than to approve the deal. Councilmembers, it appears, believe that the USOC holds the whip hand, and that they have little choice but to vote “yea.”

So, after so many months of “sturm und drang,” it’s almost time for the play to come to an end.

Will LandCo, the city and the USOC go off into the sunset, hand in hand in hand, and live happily ever after?

Will Mayor Lionel Rivera, as a senior councilmember predicted last night, just get “a slap on the wrist” from the ethics commission and walk away unscathed?

Will Ray Marshall dodge the district attorney’s bullet and remain unindicted?

And will USOC boss of bosses Stephanie Streeter show up for the final act on Tuesday afternoon, and at least smile gracefully as council hands her organization $40 million or $50 million?

I’ll be there — at least until the ADD kicks in …

<-Back to CSBJ.com

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 7th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mason, Berlin not interviewed by ethics commission

0

As of early this morning, the Independent Ethics Commission had yet to release the results of their investigation into alleged conflicts of interest involving Mayor Lionel Rivera.

We don’t know who the ethics commission interviewed during their investigation, or whether they made use of their notably weak powers of subpoena. As we pointed out when the investigation was first launched, the commission has the power of subpoena, but there’s no prescribed penalty for failure to comply.

We may not know who was interviewed, but we do know a few individuals who were not.

Real estate investors Jack Mason and Ward Berlin, both of who were involved in now-settled lawsuits with LandCo and Ray Marshall, were not asked to appear.

Why not?

Berlin and Mason may know the details of any financial involvement that Mayor Rivera may have had with Marshall and LandCo. Mason’s lips are sealed, however, because the court documents that may conatin any such details were sealed by court order, and remain so, as a consequence of the settlement agreement.

If the commission has subpoenaed the documents, who knows what might have happened? Would have Mason’s lawyers released them-or would have lawyers representing LandCo, Marshall or the mayor contested any such release? We’ll never know-and not because the ethics commission has been careless or negligent.

The scope of any commission inquiry is limited by law to events that took place no more than a year prior to the receipt of a complaint. The Mason/Berlin lawsuits were filed well before that deadline, so the commission has evidently concluded that they fall outside the purview of the investigation.

So whatever the commission decides, the rumors may continue to fly. That’s unfortunate - but it’s the inevitable result of the commission’s inherent toothlessness, not because of any coverup or failure to investigate the obvious.

<-Back to CSBJ.com

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 6th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , ,

The Dougster’s baaaaack!

0

Just when you might have thought that Douglas Bruce had retreated quietly from politics, perhaps happily ensconced in some palatial, Mandarin era residence along the Bund in Shanghai, he’s baaaaack!!!

Here’s the scoop, such as it is, on the latest Bruce/city kerfuffle.

The ol’ tax cutter took out petitions during May of this year, intent upon collecting enough signatures from “qualified electors” of Colorado Springs to force council to either approve his latest initiative as written, or let the voters decide its fate.

By Monday afternoon at 5:00 PM, Bruce had not turned in his petitions, thereby missing the deadline for placing the matter on the November coordinated election.

City clerk Kathryn Young released a statement confirming his “failure to perform”, which we included in a brief story. We didn’t hear from the often-irascible Mr. Bruce until after our deadline.

He was not pleased.

According to Bruce, the charter specifically grants him 180 days to collect signatures (true). Ms. Young was/is entirely in error, he claimed.

“I know the law,” Bruce said, “she just made it up.”

And, he continued, he will continue to collect signatures for the proposed initiative which, if passed, would phase out the city’s “payment in lieu of taxes” that it receives every year from Colorado Springs Utilities. It’s a nice little chunk of change-about $30 million annually. The initiative also requires that utilities pass along the savings to its customers.

For those of us who have known Douglas Bruce for the last twenty years, whether as uneasy ally or bitter foe, it’s pretty clear that he does nothing by accident. Had he so desired, he could have had more than enough signatures at the Clerk’s office well before last Monday. His failure to do so may be because of any number of factors, e.g.

-He wants to force a little confrontation with the city, during which he can portray himself as the hapless victim of a scheming bureaucracy, the noble crusader against taxes, and the grand old man of the anti-tax movement, and make Young and/or the city back down, and put the initiative on the November ballot.

-He may want to force the city to hold a special, post November election, as he believes the charter mandates if Young refuses to put the matter on the ballot during November.

-And why would he do that, given that the city would have to shell out $480,000 (Young’s figure, according to Bruce) or $220,000 (Bruce’s estimate) to fund such election? Just maybe, some of his allies (or even the ol’ taxcutter himself) are thinking about putting another initiative on the ballot-maybe one that calls for overturning the USOC deal…

But I dunno. I’m only certain of one thing-politics in our fair city is far more interesting when the ol’ Dougster is on the prowl.

Welcome back from Shanghai, big guy!!

<-Back to CSBJ.com

Posted by John Hazlehurst on August 5th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , ,