It’s nice the see the “Between the Lines Echo Effect” resonating again, as a number of pollsters and pundits are coming to realize that during the Apr. 22 mayoral election in New Orleans a majority of voters in the parish’s booths likely will be black and overall turnout probably will be around 55 percent black. With the help of a recently-released, if slightly dated, poll, it now appears the general election runoff will feature black Democrat incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin and white Democrat Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu.
Adjusting numbers from the polls to fit the 55 percent black ratio, and not apportioning the undecided voters, Landrieu would have a slim lead of 26.7 percent, Nagin right behind at 26.6 percent, nonprofit executive Democrat Ron Forman trailing at 14.9 percent, and the only other candidate showing non-negligible numbers being lawyer Republican Ron Couhig at 6.5 percent. Only two other names were floated, former city councilwoman Republican Peggy Wilson and community activist Democrat Tom Watson.
Two things of note can be drawn from this. First, with 78 percent of the vote apportioned, only Forman has a chance to make a runoff spot other than Nagin and Landrieu but, second, he is a long shot to do it. Even if every single white voter yet undecided went with Forman, he still would fall short, and the reality of the situation is, of the estimated 28 percent of black voters (adjusted to the 55/45 ratio) undecided, the majority are going either with Nagin or Landrieu.
And if these two make the runoff, Landrieu holds the winning hand at the current ratios. If he could then hold Nagin to 15 percent of the white vote (Nagin has only 10 percent now) and 70 percent of the black vote (he has 28 percent of that already), he will eke out a six-point win at historical participation levels. These numbers are what continue to drive some black Democrats in the Legislature to insist on watering down ballot security measures, to make it easier to get absentee ballots to displaced black voters in the hopes that enough get returned allegedly marked by registered voters in Orleans.
If Landrieu does lead Nagin after the primary, look for these efforts to intensify, as well as legal appeals along the same lines, until shortly before the May 20 general election date.
6.4.06
Redistricting demands consistency, not opportunism
The slow demographic changes wrought by population shifts have been given a push by the fallout of the 2005 hurricane disasters, and simultaneously has invited in political opportunism.
Through legislation and legal maneuverings, certain interests in Baton Rouge are trying to get the city’s judicial system redistricted. They argue since 1993, when it was last done to create three majority-white and two majority-black districts, Baton Rouge now has a majority black population.
But there are two problems with that argumentation. First, Baton Rouge does not have a majority black population according to the 2000 census (on which state jurisdictions typically base their districting decisions), only a plurality black majority – non-blacks outnumber blacks by about a thousand. Secondly, voting rights cases typically, but not always, use voting age population as the guideline by which to make these decisions, not total population, and the 2000 census gives whites a majority of around 10,000.
However, another argument is being run that changes brought about by the hurricanes ought to be included into the decision calculus, justifying a 3-2 districting in favor of majority-black. This confuses the issue more because nobody knows what the new census of Baton Rouge would be. The best estimate gives Baton Rouge about 28,000 more people, but where are what people of what racial background living, and how many plan to stay?
Even if these necessary details could be ascertained (how and at whose expense?), it would create an unusual precedent, redistricting between censuses. Even in the recent case of Texas doing it between censuses, it has been justified because boundaries had been drawn by courts outside of the normal process. And there are many larger jurisdictions across the country adding both higher raw numbers and percents of population than Baton Rouge and they do not change districts in mid-decade.
Yet, if despite all of this the supporters and plaintiffs argue that this must be done, then it must be done consistently and fairly. That is, the rest of the state’s judicial and legislative districts should be redrawn because of the population changes from the disasters. Otherwise, there can be no justification for such a move made in isolation in Baton Rouge for political or legal reasons other than blatant political opportunism that disserves the citizenry.
Through legislation and legal maneuverings, certain interests in Baton Rouge are trying to get the city’s judicial system redistricted. They argue since 1993, when it was last done to create three majority-white and two majority-black districts, Baton Rouge now has a majority black population.
But there are two problems with that argumentation. First, Baton Rouge does not have a majority black population according to the 2000 census (on which state jurisdictions typically base their districting decisions), only a plurality black majority – non-blacks outnumber blacks by about a thousand. Secondly, voting rights cases typically, but not always, use voting age population as the guideline by which to make these decisions, not total population, and the 2000 census gives whites a majority of around 10,000.
However, another argument is being run that changes brought about by the hurricanes ought to be included into the decision calculus, justifying a 3-2 districting in favor of majority-black. This confuses the issue more because nobody knows what the new census of Baton Rouge would be. The best estimate gives Baton Rouge about 28,000 more people, but where are what people of what racial background living, and how many plan to stay?
Even if these necessary details could be ascertained (how and at whose expense?), it would create an unusual precedent, redistricting between censuses. Even in the recent case of Texas doing it between censuses, it has been justified because boundaries had been drawn by courts outside of the normal process. And there are many larger jurisdictions across the country adding both higher raw numbers and percents of population than Baton Rouge and they do not change districts in mid-decade.
Yet, if despite all of this the supporters and plaintiffs argue that this must be done, then it must be done consistently and fairly. That is, the rest of the state’s judicial and legislative districts should be redrawn because of the population changes from the disasters. Otherwise, there can be no justification for such a move made in isolation in Baton Rouge for political or legal reasons other than blatant political opportunism that disserves the citizenry.
5.4.06
Landrieu publicity stunt demonstrates powerlessness
Sen. Mary Landrieu is mad again. This time she’s threatened Wednesday to block President George W. Bush's appointments requiring Senate confirmation until "significant progress" is made toward restoring the flood protection damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Is this just a political stunt, or can it actually work?
The answer is “yes,” a bit of both. As her 2008 election date nears, Landrieu needs to rely on bombast such as this to deflect attention from her long record of ineffectiveness in Washington, particularly on the flood control issue itself, especially when her narrow margins of victory now live in Texas. Simultaneously, she is engaging in a long-time Senate practice, of putting a “hold” on a Senate action.
But not all holds are equal. It is up to the Senate leadership whether to respect that senator’s wishes – and the leadership now of course is in the hands of Landrieu’s opponents. Traditionally, when the action is a nomination for a position essentially within a senator’s home state and comes from a senator of the president’s party, it universally is respected. Otherwise, there are no guarantees.
Being that Landrieu’s is blanket in nature, it’s unlikely that the leadership will defer. Then Landrieu’s only other option is to go for a filibuster, but that would succeed only if at least a handful of Democrats will go to the wall with her each time and almost all of the party consistently would have to vote to allow it to be maintained. Given election year politics, that seems highly unlikely. Further, if for some reason everything does align to make this a workable strategy, Bush simply can make a recess appointment if he feels the situation warrants.
In short, there’s little to this threat. Democrats would have to make her complaints a centerpiece of an obstructionist strategy in an election year – admittedly, the only strategy a party bereft of ideas popular to the American public has, but probably not the issue around which to build it. That Landrieu has said she will engage in such tactics only reaffirms her utter powerlessness and growing sense of panic.
The answer is “yes,” a bit of both. As her 2008 election date nears, Landrieu needs to rely on bombast such as this to deflect attention from her long record of ineffectiveness in Washington, particularly on the flood control issue itself, especially when her narrow margins of victory now live in Texas. Simultaneously, she is engaging in a long-time Senate practice, of putting a “hold” on a Senate action.
But not all holds are equal. It is up to the Senate leadership whether to respect that senator’s wishes – and the leadership now of course is in the hands of Landrieu’s opponents. Traditionally, when the action is a nomination for a position essentially within a senator’s home state and comes from a senator of the president’s party, it universally is respected. Otherwise, there are no guarantees.
Being that Landrieu’s is blanket in nature, it’s unlikely that the leadership will defer. Then Landrieu’s only other option is to go for a filibuster, but that would succeed only if at least a handful of Democrats will go to the wall with her each time and almost all of the party consistently would have to vote to allow it to be maintained. Given election year politics, that seems highly unlikely. Further, if for some reason everything does align to make this a workable strategy, Bush simply can make a recess appointment if he feels the situation warrants.
In short, there’s little to this threat. Democrats would have to make her complaints a centerpiece of an obstructionist strategy in an election year – admittedly, the only strategy a party bereft of ideas popular to the American public has, but probably not the issue around which to build it. That Landrieu has said she will engage in such tactics only reaffirms her utter powerlessness and growing sense of panic.
4.4.06
Black Shreveport council Democrats play for keeps
In revisiting the battle over unionization of Shreveport city employees, the rookie city council member got caught up in the fallout.
Last year, the council approved of an ordinance to allow unionization of city employees by a 4-3 vote. Joining the three black Democrats on the council in favor of the ordinance was white Republican Mike Gibson, who, being the executive director of the local contractors’ association, had sympathy towards unions. However, Democrat Mayor Keith Hightower wisely vetoed the measure which, because it required five votes to do so successfully, was not overridden and the ordinance did not go into effect.
But Gibson departed for greener pastures and his replacement, picked by the Democrat majority on the council, Cynthia Robertson, found herself thrust into a rehash of the decision. Again, the black Democrats pushed the issue – indeed, they timed the vote so that all of the favorable votes would be present. However, none of the prior year’s opponents indicated they would change their minds, and Robertson herself signaled that she would vote against the measure.
This meant that it would not pass, much less survive a mayoral veto. Yet the black majority timed the vote so that Robertson was absent on a natural break and thus the vote was 3-3, not giving Robertson a chance vote against it. In be able to do so, she may have gained credit with her constituents when she faces election in the fall. Most of her Democrat colleagues (one, Monty Walford, consistently has voted against unionization) by this move seemed set on preventing her from getting political credit.
This tells us equally about the attitudes of the black members of the council concerning their views of Robertson and her chances of winning election. It confirms that these members wanted somebody they thought would be good as a placeholder, not somebody who could become a rival, and somebody they believe has so little chance of election that they won’t even help her out on a cause lost anyway. Or, they don’t want to see a white woman, even if she is a Democrat, as an ally.
If Calvin Lester, Theron Jackson, and James Green really were concerned about party building, they would have done what they could to get a Democrat, regardless of skin color, in a position to “steal” a district that normally could be expected to elect a Republican. Instead, they probably are pinning their hopes of capturing Walford’s swing district, by the fall having a slight black Democrat majority, and throwing him overboard, too, in order to get a black majority Democrat council. Welcome to the evolving Shreveport.
Last year, the council approved of an ordinance to allow unionization of city employees by a 4-3 vote. Joining the three black Democrats on the council in favor of the ordinance was white Republican Mike Gibson, who, being the executive director of the local contractors’ association, had sympathy towards unions. However, Democrat Mayor Keith Hightower wisely vetoed the measure which, because it required five votes to do so successfully, was not overridden and the ordinance did not go into effect.
But Gibson departed for greener pastures and his replacement, picked by the Democrat majority on the council, Cynthia Robertson, found herself thrust into a rehash of the decision. Again, the black Democrats pushed the issue – indeed, they timed the vote so that all of the favorable votes would be present. However, none of the prior year’s opponents indicated they would change their minds, and Robertson herself signaled that she would vote against the measure.
This meant that it would not pass, much less survive a mayoral veto. Yet the black majority timed the vote so that Robertson was absent on a natural break and thus the vote was 3-3, not giving Robertson a chance vote against it. In be able to do so, she may have gained credit with her constituents when she faces election in the fall. Most of her Democrat colleagues (one, Monty Walford, consistently has voted against unionization) by this move seemed set on preventing her from getting political credit.
This tells us equally about the attitudes of the black members of the council concerning their views of Robertson and her chances of winning election. It confirms that these members wanted somebody they thought would be good as a placeholder, not somebody who could become a rival, and somebody they believe has so little chance of election that they won’t even help her out on a cause lost anyway. Or, they don’t want to see a white woman, even if she is a Democrat, as an ally.
If Calvin Lester, Theron Jackson, and James Green really were concerned about party building, they would have done what they could to get a Democrat, regardless of skin color, in a position to “steal” a district that normally could be expected to elect a Republican. Instead, they probably are pinning their hopes of capturing Walford’s swing district, by the fall having a slight black Democrat majority, and throwing him overboard, too, in order to get a black majority Democrat council. Welcome to the evolving Shreveport.
3.4.06
Lower, but significant, Orleans turnout projected
It’s a good question, what will turnout be in the New Orleans’ municipal elections on Apr. 22? As my political science colleagues rightly point out, good luck on a good guess. But at least let’s try. As a starting point, consider that overall turnout for the primary election in 2002 was about 46 percent, with whites at about 50 percent, blacks at about 45 percent, and other races around 29 percent.
First, it’s unlikely to be where it was in 2002 (which is what might be implied by some pie-in-the-sky estimates). Using data I have much more confidence in – from my recently-presented paper to the Louisiana Political Science Association at its annual meeting – assuming only historical absentee ballot voting rates (using the 2002 proportion of just 1.625 percent of total ballot being absentee) and the most recent weekly statistics for Orleans, produces a rough figure of 58,023 voting (of which 57,095 will enter Orleans voting booths) of 298,091 registered, or a dismal 19.46 percent.
However, consider the rate of requests (from 500-1,000 per day) for absentee ballots, keeping in mind just 2,171 were cast in 2002. It would not be surprising to have 10 times that number eventually come in, given the rate of requests and, ordinarily, almost all would get cast. But this may not be the case in 2006 because of the presence of satellite voting centers; a number of requesters may end up trooping to one of these locations anyway. So let’s assume that ten times the previous figure, or 16.25 percent or 9,278 get cast absentee (in addition to the projected 57,095 on the ground in Orleans).
The real wild card is the presence at the satellite centers. The most sense Democrat Secretary of State Al Ater has made sense during his time in office, where he has appeared to act more partisan than impartial, has come when he argued the amount of money the state has spent on defending the itself over lawsuits incredibly arguing the state hasn’t done enough to create ballot access, “For the money they've spent on legal bills, and made me spend on legal bills, we could have sent a cab after all of them.” No doubt a number of organizations will spend considerable resources to provide transportation to these. With around 150,000 displaced Orleanians out there registered to vote (out of about 275,000 total), let’s be generous and double our assumption here, to say 32.5 percent of on-the-ground turnout will be by satellite locations, or 18,556.
(Note that with these estimates, assuming all absentee ballot come from displaced people, that over 6 percent and over 12 percent of all displaced people would be voting absentee and through satellite centers, respectively. By historical absentee standards, these are rather optimistic.)
That gives a total of 84,929, or a turnout of 28.49 percent. Using historical figures, votes on the ground in Orleans will have blacks just below an absolute majority, but taking the secretary of state’s office’s 70 percent figure of absentee ballot requests coming from blacks and also applying it to satellite voters, blacks will represent about 55 percent of the total voters in this election, as opposed to 61.6 percent of the electorate in 2002. As for the general election four weeks later, totals should be around these, perhaps a little higher.
Were this how the scenarios play out, it hard to argue anything would be unfair about these elections. But if a black candidate doesn’t win by May 20, look for some interest groups to make exactly this claim even if these numbers are realized.
First, it’s unlikely to be where it was in 2002 (which is what might be implied by some pie-in-the-sky estimates). Using data I have much more confidence in – from my recently-presented paper to the Louisiana Political Science Association at its annual meeting – assuming only historical absentee ballot voting rates (using the 2002 proportion of just 1.625 percent of total ballot being absentee) and the most recent weekly statistics for Orleans, produces a rough figure of 58,023 voting (of which 57,095 will enter Orleans voting booths) of 298,091 registered, or a dismal 19.46 percent.
However, consider the rate of requests (from 500-1,000 per day) for absentee ballots, keeping in mind just 2,171 were cast in 2002. It would not be surprising to have 10 times that number eventually come in, given the rate of requests and, ordinarily, almost all would get cast. But this may not be the case in 2006 because of the presence of satellite voting centers; a number of requesters may end up trooping to one of these locations anyway. So let’s assume that ten times the previous figure, or 16.25 percent or 9,278 get cast absentee (in addition to the projected 57,095 on the ground in Orleans).
The real wild card is the presence at the satellite centers. The most sense Democrat Secretary of State Al Ater has made sense during his time in office, where he has appeared to act more partisan than impartial, has come when he argued the amount of money the state has spent on defending the itself over lawsuits incredibly arguing the state hasn’t done enough to create ballot access, “For the money they've spent on legal bills, and made me spend on legal bills, we could have sent a cab after all of them.” No doubt a number of organizations will spend considerable resources to provide transportation to these. With around 150,000 displaced Orleanians out there registered to vote (out of about 275,000 total), let’s be generous and double our assumption here, to say 32.5 percent of on-the-ground turnout will be by satellite locations, or 18,556.
(Note that with these estimates, assuming all absentee ballot come from displaced people, that over 6 percent and over 12 percent of all displaced people would be voting absentee and through satellite centers, respectively. By historical absentee standards, these are rather optimistic.)
That gives a total of 84,929, or a turnout of 28.49 percent. Using historical figures, votes on the ground in Orleans will have blacks just below an absolute majority, but taking the secretary of state’s office’s 70 percent figure of absentee ballot requests coming from blacks and also applying it to satellite voters, blacks will represent about 55 percent of the total voters in this election, as opposed to 61.6 percent of the electorate in 2002. As for the general election four weeks later, totals should be around these, perhaps a little higher.
Were this how the scenarios play out, it hard to argue anything would be unfair about these elections. But if a black candidate doesn’t win by May 20, look for some interest groups to make exactly this claim even if these numbers are realized.
31.3.06
Stuck on stupid XV: LA politicians need to get over it
I had hoped the whining had stopped. Instead, it reached a new crescendo when the federal government announced its latest cost estimates showed rebuilding levees in southeast Louisiana to protect against hurricanes in the top percentile of strength would cost almost triple the original estimate.
Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who at this time last year didn’t indicate she cared one iota about flood protection, fumed the federal government “cannot ensure even the minimum safety of southeastern Louisiana. This is totally unacceptable.” A “visibly angry” Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, who in the past steered flood protection money to less vital projects, stormed out of the meeting where the news was being delivered. Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon said the federal government “really didn’t want to help” and Republican Sen. David Vitter accused Washington of “stonewalling.”
Their rhetoric obscured the bigger picture. Recovery liaison Donald Powell stressed that the additional improvements would be mainly for insurance, not safety reasons – in other words, without them, some areas that otherwise would not have received flooding would one time out of a hundred (and the effects of that flooding could be largely mitigated through other preventive measures). Further, the increased cost reflected the oft-stated desire of Louisiana politicians to build better protection than before, and Powell said recent science had shown older research had underestimated the potential threat – in other words, Louisiana was bring told in order to fulfill its desire, this was the additional money that would have to be taken from the American taxpayer.
Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who at this time last year didn’t indicate she cared one iota about flood protection, fumed the federal government “cannot ensure even the minimum safety of southeastern Louisiana. This is totally unacceptable.” A “visibly angry” Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, who in the past steered flood protection money to less vital projects, stormed out of the meeting where the news was being delivered. Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon said the federal government “really didn’t want to help” and Republican Sen. David Vitter accused Washington of “stonewalling.”
Their rhetoric obscured the bigger picture. Recovery liaison Donald Powell stressed that the additional improvements would be mainly for insurance, not safety reasons – in other words, without them, some areas that otherwise would not have received flooding would one time out of a hundred (and the effects of that flooding could be largely mitigated through other preventive measures). Further, the increased cost reflected the oft-stated desire of Louisiana politicians to build better protection than before, and Powell said recent science had shown older research had underestimated the potential threat – in other words, Louisiana was bring told in order to fulfill its desire, this was the additional money that would have to be taken from the American taxpayer.
29.3.06
Voter access demagoguery displays LA's backwardness
Most Louisianans missed the dramatic transformation that occurred yesterday in a tiny segment of Baton Rouge, a time vortex that flung the state back about 50 years forming in the John Hainkel Committee Room at the Louisiana Capitol, where the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met to deal with a monstrous problem threatening our democracy.
Leading state luminaries such as Senate President Pro Tem Diana Bajoie, state Sen. Cleo Fields and state Rep. Cedric Richmond delivered powerful oratory, arguing how the Legislature could strike a blow against a massive disenfranchisement of voters and how it could protect liberty and democracy. Alongside them, the beatific Rev. Jesse Jackson added his hosannas, reminding everybody on numerous occasions that “The ‘whereas’ and ‘therefore’ do not correspond.”
What did they aim their righteous indignation against, leading them to recount stories of decades ago of the civil rights movement which they said were directly applicable today? What horrible things are going on in Louisiana democracy equivalent to poll taxes, literacy tests, and the symbolic letting police dogs loose to terrorize? Well, the facts that the state requires people voting absentee to first have to request a ballot before getting such ballot, and that the state has not set up out-of-state satellite voting.
Leading state luminaries such as Senate President Pro Tem Diana Bajoie, state Sen. Cleo Fields and state Rep. Cedric Richmond delivered powerful oratory, arguing how the Legislature could strike a blow against a massive disenfranchisement of voters and how it could protect liberty and democracy. Alongside them, the beatific Rev. Jesse Jackson added his hosannas, reminding everybody on numerous occasions that “The ‘whereas’ and ‘therefore’ do not correspond.”
What did they aim their righteous indignation against, leading them to recount stories of decades ago of the civil rights movement which they said were directly applicable today? What horrible things are going on in Louisiana democracy equivalent to poll taxes, literacy tests, and the symbolic letting police dogs loose to terrorize? Well, the facts that the state requires people voting absentee to first have to request a ballot before getting such ballot, and that the state has not set up out-of-state satellite voting.
GOP riches in SOS race makes party prospects good
An embarrassment of riches pervades the special election for secretary of state for Republicans, signaling bad news for Democrats and perhaps indicating a big GOP year in Louisiana in 2007.
With state Sen. Jay Dardenne announcing for the office, this gives Republicans two quality candidates for it as he joins former party head Mike Francis. Both are well-funded with good reform credentials that no doubt will resonate through the state after the current unelected occupant Al Ater has politicized his position.
At this point, the only high-profile Democrat that has expressed serious interest in (although not entrance into) the contest is state Rep. Carla Dartez. But she is underfunded relative to the Republicans and, as a more liberal Democrat, could not do a good job to try to shake off the perception that through Ater and the Democrat-controlled Legislature that Democrats are out to use electoral trickery, if not outright fraud, to maintain their tenuous grasp on power in the state.
If this is the contest that shapes up, given that perception and her underfunding, Dartez may not even make the general election. An early poll didn’t even register her (having Dardenne at 17 percent, Francis at 7, although with over 50 percent undecided, there’s not a lot to read into this other than Dardenne is known from politics and Francis has to work harder to become more known). Further, being a special election, a low-stimulus election of this nature disproportionately would disfavor a Democrat, especially one whose scattered base probably will mean she would have 50,000 fewer voters statewide to draw upon.
Perhaps the surest sign of GOP confidence is that the race has drawn two quality candidates. Except for races for the governor’s mansion (and not always even then), in the past Republicans seldom have fielded more than one (if even that) strong candidate for executive offices. If one of these wins later this year, and especially if both made the general election runoff, this would presage a big 2007 for the GOP.
With state Sen. Jay Dardenne announcing for the office, this gives Republicans two quality candidates for it as he joins former party head Mike Francis. Both are well-funded with good reform credentials that no doubt will resonate through the state after the current unelected occupant Al Ater has politicized his position.
At this point, the only high-profile Democrat that has expressed serious interest in (although not entrance into) the contest is state Rep. Carla Dartez. But she is underfunded relative to the Republicans and, as a more liberal Democrat, could not do a good job to try to shake off the perception that through Ater and the Democrat-controlled Legislature that Democrats are out to use electoral trickery, if not outright fraud, to maintain their tenuous grasp on power in the state.
If this is the contest that shapes up, given that perception and her underfunding, Dartez may not even make the general election. An early poll didn’t even register her (having Dardenne at 17 percent, Francis at 7, although with over 50 percent undecided, there’s not a lot to read into this other than Dardenne is known from politics and Francis has to work harder to become more known). Further, being a special election, a low-stimulus election of this nature disproportionately would disfavor a Democrat, especially one whose scattered base probably will mean she would have 50,000 fewer voters statewide to draw upon.
Perhaps the surest sign of GOP confidence is that the race has drawn two quality candidates. Except for races for the governor’s mansion (and not always even then), in the past Republicans seldom have fielded more than one (if even that) strong candidate for executive offices. If one of these wins later this year, and especially if both made the general election runoff, this would presage a big 2007 for the GOP.
28.3.06
Bossier City, Parish need to lead to solve road problem
Pay for an extension of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway, or give a gift to a private developer? Essentially the same people who ran Bossier City then as now opted for the latter, but a wiser decision then may have spared Bossier City traffic headaches for years to come.
Several years ago, Congress created the Red River National Wildlife Reserve, and the plan to get it up and running within a decade. This included the building of a headquarters a couple of miles south of the Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier Parish. Keep in mind this was public knowledge the past few years, and certainly something local elected officials should have known – that the federal government would be acquiring land that was part of the parish to comprise a portion of Refuge, it would be putting a headquarters complex there, and it would need access to that.
Suddenly, and belatedly, now that the development of the refuge is to the point where the access road needs to be decided, parish and city officials have come to realize that the only real choice is Sunflower Road, which runs east from Barksdale Boulevard and as far as access serves only as the entrance to five subdivisions, four of which have no other access. It has two lanes, no sidewalks, and a ridiculously-slow 25 miles per hour speed limit.
This situation triggered a notice authored by local elected officials and distributed by the South Bossier Citizens Assembly to area residents, urging them to contact the office of Rep. Jim McCrery (who also introduced the bill in 2000 to create the RRNWR) to convince the Fish and Wildlife Service not to make Sunflower Road the access point. All of this is well and good and should be pursued, but the fact of the matter is, Sunflower Road is the only potential access to the Refuge for the next five years and, unless the federal government decides it wants to wait that long to open the headquarters complex, that is going to be the access road to it. And it doesn’t seem likely that Fish and Wildlife will want to wait that long – the federal government has envisioned opening the center by 2008.
The Mar. 27 informational session sponsored by the SBCA revealed the parish could have something in place by Sep. 2007. Well, what is everybody waiting for?
Unfortunately, the latest capital plans by the city and parish don’t intend for southern expansion of the Parkway until 2010. Here, things get a bit tricky because virtually all of the land on which the extension would be built is under parish jurisdiction, yet it’s Bossier City that would benefit much more by it. So, the project essentially must be completed by the parish, and one reason why it has not been done more expeditiously is because the parish has had much more high-priority items like courthouses to build with the limited funds it has available. It would have to have a bond issue passed to complete the $15 million project.
But to Bossier City, this has become a crisis because it will suffer from heightened use of Sunflower Road and because the building of infrastructure for the Refuge probably will increase eventual costs and time needed for the Parkway extension. Thus, the impetus to solve this problem must come from Bossier City, even if it has to get others to do it on its behalf.
The problem is the federal government needs to know that work will begin on some kind of extension in time for the Refuge’s complex to have access when it opens, otherwise it will use Sunflower Road. The solution is to have Bossier City to get Bossier Parish to start on that right away; specifically, if the parish needs the money to get cracking, for the city to give it the money, in the form of a loan.
The city could easily pull a few million dollars out of its Riverboat Trust Fund to lend to the Parish for this purpose. Or, it could delay some other capital projects to do the same. The point is, immediately a two-lane road a mile or two long could be started upon and finished in time to placate the federal government.
Of course, the full extension could be well under way had the city lent the parish the entire $15 million years ago, and we’d have the completed project much sooner (with Bossier City’s citizens also reaping the benefit of a good rate of return on that investment). Instead, by way of example, the typically short-sighted, bauble-loving Bossier City Council and its then-mayor decided a couple of years ago to hand $21 million to private developers to pay for a parking garage the developers would have paid for on their own whose rate of return to the city probably is negative.
With all due respect, complaining to the federal government is not going to solve the problem, and if that’s all local elected officials support they are derelict. What will is Bossier Parish politicians using some foresight and willpower cooperating with Bossier City politicians expanding their thinking from its usual parochial quality to give the federal government a better choice. Bossier governments need to cooperate to start on the extension, right now.
Several years ago, Congress created the Red River National Wildlife Reserve, and the plan to get it up and running within a decade. This included the building of a headquarters a couple of miles south of the Jimmie Davis Bridge in Bossier Parish. Keep in mind this was public knowledge the past few years, and certainly something local elected officials should have known – that the federal government would be acquiring land that was part of the parish to comprise a portion of Refuge, it would be putting a headquarters complex there, and it would need access to that.
Suddenly, and belatedly, now that the development of the refuge is to the point where the access road needs to be decided, parish and city officials have come to realize that the only real choice is Sunflower Road, which runs east from Barksdale Boulevard and as far as access serves only as the entrance to five subdivisions, four of which have no other access. It has two lanes, no sidewalks, and a ridiculously-slow 25 miles per hour speed limit.
This situation triggered a notice authored by local elected officials and distributed by the South Bossier Citizens Assembly to area residents, urging them to contact the office of Rep. Jim McCrery (who also introduced the bill in 2000 to create the RRNWR) to convince the Fish and Wildlife Service not to make Sunflower Road the access point. All of this is well and good and should be pursued, but the fact of the matter is, Sunflower Road is the only potential access to the Refuge for the next five years and, unless the federal government decides it wants to wait that long to open the headquarters complex, that is going to be the access road to it. And it doesn’t seem likely that Fish and Wildlife will want to wait that long – the federal government has envisioned opening the center by 2008.
The Mar. 27 informational session sponsored by the SBCA revealed the parish could have something in place by Sep. 2007. Well, what is everybody waiting for?
Unfortunately, the latest capital plans by the city and parish don’t intend for southern expansion of the Parkway until 2010. Here, things get a bit tricky because virtually all of the land on which the extension would be built is under parish jurisdiction, yet it’s Bossier City that would benefit much more by it. So, the project essentially must be completed by the parish, and one reason why it has not been done more expeditiously is because the parish has had much more high-priority items like courthouses to build with the limited funds it has available. It would have to have a bond issue passed to complete the $15 million project.
But to Bossier City, this has become a crisis because it will suffer from heightened use of Sunflower Road and because the building of infrastructure for the Refuge probably will increase eventual costs and time needed for the Parkway extension. Thus, the impetus to solve this problem must come from Bossier City, even if it has to get others to do it on its behalf.
The problem is the federal government needs to know that work will begin on some kind of extension in time for the Refuge’s complex to have access when it opens, otherwise it will use Sunflower Road. The solution is to have Bossier City to get Bossier Parish to start on that right away; specifically, if the parish needs the money to get cracking, for the city to give it the money, in the form of a loan.
The city could easily pull a few million dollars out of its Riverboat Trust Fund to lend to the Parish for this purpose. Or, it could delay some other capital projects to do the same. The point is, immediately a two-lane road a mile or two long could be started upon and finished in time to placate the federal government.
Of course, the full extension could be well under way had the city lent the parish the entire $15 million years ago, and we’d have the completed project much sooner (with Bossier City’s citizens also reaping the benefit of a good rate of return on that investment). Instead, by way of example, the typically short-sighted, bauble-loving Bossier City Council and its then-mayor decided a couple of years ago to hand $21 million to private developers to pay for a parking garage the developers would have paid for on their own whose rate of return to the city probably is negative.
With all due respect, complaining to the federal government is not going to solve the problem, and if that’s all local elected officials support they are derelict. What will is Bossier Parish politicians using some foresight and willpower cooperating with Bossier City politicians expanding their thinking from its usual parochial quality to give the federal government a better choice. Bossier governments need to cooperate to start on the extension, right now.
27.3.06
Queen Bee gets a C
The 2005 hurricane disasters may have changed the face of Louisiana, but the have not altered Gov. Kathleen Blanco, if her address to open the 2006 regular session of the Legislature indicates anything. She still is the hesitant leader with fuzzy vision who would rather tinker at the margins and get along to go along, all the while insisting the opposite.
According to Blanco, Louisiana is powerless to control its own fate, captive to the whims of the federal government, the educational marketplace, and the economic environment. She insists the state had to wait on the federal government on money to fund housing recovery, to approve of a housing plan, and to produce flood maps – when in fact she did nothing about creating a housing recovery plan until recently, relying upon the problematic, failed “Baker bill” as her “plan” and gift of money, and that waiting on flood maps is not at all required to initiate rebuilding efforts.
She claims educational excellence will come as soon as the Legislature supports her plan to give educators pay raises – ignoring the fact that throwing money at teachers does not produce lasting, meaningful improvement in the system, assuming the system even deserves it. And the money to provide those increases comes from one-time federal grants to reduce the state’s health care tab – but Blanco claims the money is permanent in nature because she is negotiating with the federal government for a “long-term commitment” for a “redesigned health care system.” As well, “confidence that our economy will stay strong” does not make her additional spending plans “fiscally sound.”
To Blanco, economic development still remains a game where government spends the state into prosperity with new programs or through bribery by dangling targeted economic incentives or outright gifts in front of business, not a function of creating a more-hospitable economic climate through reduction of costs on economic activity in general through lower taxes, reduced regulation, and in presenting a government that is efficient and ethically unchallenged.
These priorities show Blanco continues to provide poor leadership, while she hypocritically denies she is a follower. She congratulated herself and the Legislature on flood control reform, even as she initially did little for it and only later jumped on the bandwagon. She mentioned consolidation of Orleans government as the next great task even as just weeks ago she barely lifted a finger to make it a reality.
Nor can she prove to us she leads with the proper vision by trying to project force when she clearly has none. Her asserting that she would object to oil lease sales for drilling offshore Louisiana unless Louisiana got a bigger cut from production, that “this is not an idle threat” was pathetic precisely because it is.
The hurricane disasters merely made the state’s myriad long-term problems more evident and pressing than ever, requiring bold leadership with a vision bent on turning around Louisiana’s liberal/populist past. Blanco’s address shows she is not the one to provide it.
According to Blanco, Louisiana is powerless to control its own fate, captive to the whims of the federal government, the educational marketplace, and the economic environment. She insists the state had to wait on the federal government on money to fund housing recovery, to approve of a housing plan, and to produce flood maps – when in fact she did nothing about creating a housing recovery plan until recently, relying upon the problematic, failed “Baker bill” as her “plan” and gift of money, and that waiting on flood maps is not at all required to initiate rebuilding efforts.
She claims educational excellence will come as soon as the Legislature supports her plan to give educators pay raises – ignoring the fact that throwing money at teachers does not produce lasting, meaningful improvement in the system, assuming the system even deserves it. And the money to provide those increases comes from one-time federal grants to reduce the state’s health care tab – but Blanco claims the money is permanent in nature because she is negotiating with the federal government for a “long-term commitment” for a “redesigned health care system.” As well, “confidence that our economy will stay strong” does not make her additional spending plans “fiscally sound.”
To Blanco, economic development still remains a game where government spends the state into prosperity with new programs or through bribery by dangling targeted economic incentives or outright gifts in front of business, not a function of creating a more-hospitable economic climate through reduction of costs on economic activity in general through lower taxes, reduced regulation, and in presenting a government that is efficient and ethically unchallenged.
These priorities show Blanco continues to provide poor leadership, while she hypocritically denies she is a follower. She congratulated herself and the Legislature on flood control reform, even as she initially did little for it and only later jumped on the bandwagon. She mentioned consolidation of Orleans government as the next great task even as just weeks ago she barely lifted a finger to make it a reality.
Nor can she prove to us she leads with the proper vision by trying to project force when she clearly has none. Her asserting that she would object to oil lease sales for drilling offshore Louisiana unless Louisiana got a bigger cut from production, that “this is not an idle threat” was pathetic precisely because it is.
The hurricane disasters merely made the state’s myriad long-term problems more evident and pressing than ever, requiring bold leadership with a vision bent on turning around Louisiana’s liberal/populist past. Blanco’s address shows she is not the one to provide it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)