David Rodeback's BlogLocal Politics and Culture, National Politics,
|
||
Ten Most Recent Comments |
||
June 25, 2008The Utah Election and an American Fork VoteThe Republican Primary I haven't seen a voter turnout percentage in the media yet, but it looks like less than 10 percent of those eligible to vote in yesterday's Republican primary actually did so. In the only statewide race, less than 90,000 voters cast a ballot for State Treasurer. About 59 percent of those who voted chose Richard Ellis, making this a rare election in which everyone I voted for (Ellis) actually won. (See my pre-election comments on the race for Treasurer.) Meanwhile, Jason Chaffetz defied the pre-election polls that had incumbent Chris Cannon winning by a few percentage points. Chaffetz won the Third Congressional District's Republican nomination by a landslide, by almost exactly the same margin he enjoyed at the state convention, about 60-40. In view of the very low turnout, the fact that the two margins are nearly identical -- a rarity in Utah Republican politics -- suggests that most ordinary Republican voters stayed home, leaving the victory to be determined by the energized, somewhat radicalized, mostly anti-incumbent Republicans of the sort that tends to show up at the state convention as delegates. (See my pre-election comments on this race and on Chaffetz, the Nextel Candidate.) During the campaign Cannon could have sliced and diced Chaffetz simply on the basis of the challenger's own claims and promises, but he didn't. The Democratic opponent may try to do it, but Chaffetz is not likely to lose in November. I expect he will fit right in on Capitol Hill -- don't mistake my saying so for high praise -- but any rookie in the House is ineffective, and a shallow rookie who has made all the outlandish promises Chaffetz has will be lucky if in two years he can advocate his own re-election with a straight face. The 900 West Vote I noted yesterday that I expected a vote last evening by the American Fork City Council on the latest effort by the Carson family to turn their property on 900 West into a gold mine -- that is, a mostly-commercial development. (It's zoned residential now.) I wasn't at the meeting last night, but reportedly the neighborhood showed up in force to oppose the necessary changes to zoning and the general plan, as before. This time, however, the Carsons themselves had few supporters present. This proposal was a considerable improvement and a pretty good compromise, as I said yesterday, and it came without the bullying and theatrics which accompanied the last one. For all that, the Council vote was the same: three-to-one against. (Councilman Rick Storrs was absent, or it presumably would have been three-to-two.) The Council sent the proposal back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration as an all-professional, single-story development with a long, narrow park for a buffer instead of a row of homes and a trail. If that idea is ever heard from again, I will let you know. Sherry Kramer comments (6/25/08): Just read your blog and noticed that you said we sent back the proposal for reconsideration as an all-commercial, single-story development. It was actually sent back to Planning to consider an all-professional office, single story (with basements) development, with the potential to turn the southwestern corner into a restaurant pad, if they have a signed letter of intent from a quality restaurant. Doing away with the residential component and adding more of a landscape buffer would actually increase the available land to develop for professional office. The idea behind this was to enable the developer to build more offices in exchange for the lower-impact professional office zone. The professional office zone was the preferred choice for the reasons stated below:
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify these points. David Rodeback comments (6/25/08): Councilmember Kramer, thanks for correcting my careless wording and for the additional explanation. I changed "commercial" to "professional" above. Karen Schaack comments (6/26/08): I appreciate the council's vote to send it back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for a Professional Office zone.It is a message that should have been given more clearly a long time ago. With a commercial zone approval, even with high hopes and verbal agreements of a mostly professional look, there is no guarantee of what we would actually see in that complex, because it leaves the door wide open for any commercial use. Money does the talking in filling vacant spaces. I also guarantee you that neighboring property owners and potential property owners are watching this closely, and if the property had been approved for commercial use -- no matter how enticing the design -- the battle for additional commercial zoning on 900 West would be just beginning. Just look at the signs already across the street on 700 North. The city needs to have a vision and plan of where their commercial district will be, draw the line, and then have the courage to stick to it without giving in to pressure from commercial developers, and without encroaching into residential neighborhoods. We can not control what Lehi has placed upon us, but we can control and minimize the effects of its impact on our American Fork residential boundaries. I also have heard from potential residential property owners looking at properties to the north and east of 900 West who are feeling alittle skittish about investing in a home in an area where there is no commitment as to how far the commercial properties will go. Good families are taking their investments to our neighboring cities, where they feel quality residential living is more protected and valued. By allowing further commercial zoning on 900 West, we are jeopardizing the success of some very nice residential deveopments that the city has already approved, and we are losing some wonderful families who could be great contributors to the community. I appreciate the traffic study that was done. Major road improvement is greatly needed on 900 West, and professional offices will have significantly less impact on surrounding residential properties as well as on an already congested road, as stated by Councilwoman Sherry Kramer. I believe that road improvements must be part of any development approval . I hope the city council and planners will be consistent and committed to a plan of protecting our quality of living while approving commercial growth and development. I hope they will not panic and give up vision and values because of fear of losing a developer. I have said this before and I will say it again: American Fork has to be more than a good place to shop. It also has to be a good place to live! It is the residents who are truly the heart and soul of what makes American Fork great. |
||
June 24, 2008Assorted Thoughts: Voter Turnout, A Vote on 900 West, and the Nextel Ad Jason Chaffetz Seems To Be ChannelingVoting and Turnout Today I voted later than usual, about 9:10 a.m. Once again, the electronic voting experience was quick and painless. I was the third voter to appear from my precinct in the 130 minutes the polls had been open. I saw the other two names in the ledger; they are Republican precinct officers. At this rate, at least turnout will be more than a dozen from among the hundreds of registered voters in my precinct. Admittedly, it's a state Republican primary, so not everyone can vote. And there's only one race on the ballot, for the relatively uninteresting post of State Treasurer. And I myself might not have voted, had my research last evening not left me with a clear preference for that office, Richard Ellis. On the other hand, we're not talking about merely low turnout; this is embarrassingly low turnout. That said, I'm not convinced that high turnout deserves to be the holy grail of American politics. Part of me thinks that the higher the turnout, the more people vote who really haven't bothered to learn what they're doing. Apparently, a large part of Burt Prelutsky agrees. Do you find him undemocratic? Sorry, Folks, This Plan for 900 West Makes Sense A few weeks ago I blogged about a new proposal for the Carson properties on 900 West and recalled the drama we witnessed in connection with a 2006 proposal for the same properties. At that point, I had not studied the new plan, and I was mostly curious whether the personal and ecclesiastical bullying which characterized the Carson approach to the earlier controversy had recurred. So far, I have heard nothing to suggest that it has. There are only a few scattered reports that a certain local church leader's relationship with some of his flock is still strained by the earlier abuses. The two Carson items -- a zoning change and a related amendment of American Fork's general plan -- are on tonight's City Council agenda again, and this time a vote is likely. By now I have studied the site plan itself -- I have a copy on my desk at this moment -- and can report some impressions. The hot-button issue two years ago was the effect on the adjacent residential neighborhood of making the entire property commercial. Two specific issues that were repeated again and again were fears that 500 North and/or 600 North might be extended to 900 West, causing traffic problems in the neighborhood; and that the existing residences shouldn't be devalued by putting commercial development next to them. The new plan resolves both of these concerns. The new plan would connect 500 North and 600 North with each other, making a bit of a loop called 780 West, but would not connect either street with 900 West. The effect on traffic in the residential neighborhood would be minimal. A row of single-family homes is planned west of the existing residences; these new homes would face west. They themselves would be buffered from the commercial development -- working from east to west -- by a row of trees, the street, a tree-lined pedestrian trail, and a wall. West of this buffer, the commercial development would consist of three buildings which are intended to be attractive to professional offices and small retailers. Another concern is traffic on 900 West, which already far exceeds the road's present design. Rejecting this proposal will do nothing to resolve this, and there is already so much traffic that it seems impractical to build more residences facing 900 West. The plan includes measures to mitigate some of the traffic issues, so it may actually improve the traffic situation slightly. Some members of the City Council have promised to protect the existing residential neighborhood. I don't get a vote -- I also don't control a vote -- and it's not my neighborhood, but the current plan seems to me to protect the current neighborhood as much as reasonably possible. It answers the neighbors' major objections to the earlier plan, and it is the sort of compromise some Council members suggested two years ago, to which the Carson team then was vehemently, even rudely opposed. Looking ahead, I see no guarantee that the next City Council will be so determined to protect neighborhoods. A future Council might be quite happy to approve a less acceptable plan if the current Council rejects this one. Given that the bullying doesn't seem to have recurred, that the neighbors' major objections have been accommodated, and that the American Fork Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval, I think it's time for the neighborhood and its defenders to decide that approval of the 2008 plan seals their 2006 victory. Then they can turn their attention to ensuring that the development is actually built according to the essentials of the plan. Is Jason Chaffetz the Nextel Candidate? The first time I saw a certain ad for Nextel Direct Connect, I thought it was cute. Sometime in the next dozen viewings, I decided to dislike it. Subsequent viewings have reinforced this. Its title is "What If Firefighters Ran the World?" (watch it on YouTube). It is an effective illustration of a common attitude about politics and government that is so shallow and naive that I would call it stupid if that word were accepted for general use in my family. (Disclaimer: I know some firefighters. I respect them. They are not stupid. The ones in this ad must be actors.) There's a bunch of firefighters gathered in some sort of legislative chamber, with one firefighter in front, standing at a podium and wielding a gavel. They all communicate by cell phone, using Nextel Direct Connect, which is the point of the ad but not of my comments. It is not entirely clear to me why they would communicate by cell phone when they're all in the same room, but I'm willing to overlook that. Here are some representative excerpts:
I've seen good legislators at work enough at the local, state, and national levels to appreciate that:
I've already been tempted to respond to Jason Chaffetz's radio ad by asking, "Does that come with tights and a cape?" (A good West Wing line.) So it's not hard for me to imagine Jason Chaffetz and his bullet points morphing into a Nextel-style ad:
I don't get to vote in that race, because it's not my district. (It's not Chaffetz's district, either.) But when I vote in my own district in November, I'll be looking for a competent representative. I don't need a superhero. |
||
June 23, 2008I Can Vote on Only One Race TomorrowThere's a Republican primary tomorrow, and I'm a Republican, so my instinct is to go to the polls. I only get to vote on one race, a choice between Richard Ellis and Mark Walker for State Treasurer. Ellis is currently the Deputy Treasurer and has the outgoing Treasurer's endorsement. Walker has served briefly in the Utah Legislature and has the endorsement of several prominent legislators. There has been some bad blood in the campaign, which you can read about in this Salt Lake Tribune article if you like. Ellis has accused Walker of offering to let him keep his Deputy Treasurer job and take a large salary increase if he will drop out of the race. Apparently, such a favor would be illegal to offer and illegal to solicit. I spent some time this evening reading both candidates' web sites and a number of online newspaper articles. I came to the question with an open mind, having heard in passing of the accusations but not remembering which candidate was which, and having no preference whatsoever between the two. In fact, I was wondering if I should even bother voting. For what it's worth, Ellis is 48, and Walker is 32. Ellis has more than a decade of experience in the Treasurer's office, and Walker has "extensive" experience in the private sector. I confess I wonder how many years "extensive" could mean in a 32 year old's professional biography. As I read, I found myself leaning toward Ellis. It wasn't because of the candidates' respective (alleged) roles in the job offer scandal. It wasn't because of their respective ages or endorsements. It wasn't because Ellis's web site looks more professional than Walker's (though it does). After half an hour of reading, I favor Ellis principally because I have learned over the years to see clear writing as evidence of clear thinking. Walker's web site seems to be more heat than light. He promises things that only a legislator could deliver, I think, and indulges in long lists of specialized terms, without bothering to explain them or their relevance. See his "Experience" page, for example. By contrast, Elllis's web site offers more light than heat. He seems prone to clarity and possessed of a sensible awareness that the Treasurer is not a legislator. He did a nice job in this blog post of sounding like a man who knows what he is talking about, while he explained very clearly that his opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd be in a better position to judge between the two if I had worked with both of them in their professional capacities for years, but I haven't done so for a single minute. So I'll vote for clarity, in the person of Richard Ellis. Jared M. Hansen comments (6/24/08): You have a mistake in one paragraph. You say Walker has more than a decade of experience in the Treasurer's Office. That is incorrect, Ellis has more than a decade of experience in the Treasurer's Office. Just have the wrong candidate's name listed with the wrong experience. David Rodeback comments (6/24/08): Thanks for the correction. Apologies for the error. I have corrected it above. |
||
June 19, 2008Jason Chaffetz and I Share a Common GeographyI live in Utah's Second Congressional District, where three-term incumbent Democrat Jim Matheson will pulverize Republican challenger Bill Dew in November. At least Dew did us the service of eliminating loose cannon (with a small "c") Merrill Cook in the state Republican convention, sparing us the likely indignities of that primary. Dew seemed like a nice guy when I met him over breakfast the other day, and he has some fairly sensible ideas about energy and a few other things. But neither he nor his campaign, so far, strikes me as the sort of seasoned, relentless, intelligent opposition that might stand a chance of victory against Matheson in November. Meanwhile, there's a relatively interesting Republican primary contest in the Third District between six-term incumbent Chris Cannon (with a large "C") and challenger Jason Chaffetz. Chaffetz fell just a few votes short of the 60 percent majority needed to eliminate Cannon at convention and avoid a primary altogether. As it is, having more votes at convention doesn't necessarily translate into a primary victory. The state Republican delegates are a somewhat narrow and radicalized constituency, not a good cross-section of the voters at large. Two years ago, John Jacob had more votes than Cannon at convention, but lost by about 11 percent in the primary. Word on the street is that Chaffetz is a seasoned, relentless, intelligent, possibly even ruthless campaigner, which is how he nearly eliminated Cannon at convention. For his part, Cannon reportedly didn't do a lot of campaigning among the delegates. No doubt Chaffetz has Cannon's attention now. An issue-by-issue comparison of the two is pointless in this race; the differences are small, if you can find them at all. On one hand, Cannon has a very conservative voting record. On the other hand, Chaffetz is pushing all the right Utah Republican buttons. Even if their positions weren't very much alike, it's difficult to make a meaningful comparison between an actual voting record (Cannon's) and a challenger's (Chaffetz's) carefully scripted words. That said, pushing all the right buttons seems a little too pat, as if it is an exercise in careful marketing, not conviction. Doesn't Chaffetz disagree with the Utah Republican stereotype on any issue? I'm still looking. In any case, the Chaffetz campaign seems professional and high-profile. Why can't the Second District produce such an opponent for Matheson? The answer is, it might have. You see, I have something in common with Jason Chaffetz that you might not suspect. I can't vote for him, and neither can he, because we both live in the Second District. No, this is not a scandal or a cover-up. Utah law requires that a candidate for Congress be a Utah resident, but there is no legal requirement that a candidate for a particular district's seat actually live in that district. At least some other states' laws allow this, too, and some Members of Congress have been elected from districts not their own. I understand why Chaffetz is running in the Third District, not his own Second District. He wants to be in Congress, and he calculated that a smart, hard-working campaign might defeat Cannon in convention, before Cannon even realized there was a campaign going on. It almost worked, but it didn't. Now Chaffetz is banking on more hard work, combined with anti-incumbent fervor, to see him through the primary, but I don't think there's that much anti-incumbent fervor outside the convention. In this case the incumbent is in the minority in Congress, and thus is somewhat immunized against charges that it has been a "do-nothing" Congress. If Jason Chaffetz were really more interested in changing things for the (conservative) better in Washington than in advancing his own political career, he would have employed his campaign skills and experience in his own district against Jim Matheson. The odds would have been slimmer, yes, but a victory there would have meant one less vote for Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, and one more seat toward a Republican majority. In the race he chose, a victory means simply trading one Republican vote for another Republican vote, and replacing a veteran with a rookie. How does that help? Here's a tricky scenario that won't happen: Suppose Chaffetz wins next week's primary, then wins Third District in November. In two years he could return to his home district (the Second) for a run against Matheson, bringing with him some of the advantages of incumbency. That would be a battle to watch, but I'm not holding my breath. Not only is that level of selflessness well beyond the average sitting Member of Congress; that level of cunning is probably beyond the Utah Republican Party. The Second District seat likely will be Jim Matheson's for as long as he wants it. |
||
June 13, 2008A Short List of Recent ReadingsHere is an assortment of recent writings, mostly brief, on topics that came up in my Tuesday treatment of the November Election. Charles Krauhammer says John McCain should "make the election about Iraq" and lists recent successes there, mostly in terms of important benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Paul Greenberg finds Barack Obama woefully ignorant of history. Does that get Obama more or fewer votes, I wonder, from a voting populace which is itself woefully ignorant of history? Michael Barone offers an economic reality check, and Tim Pollak and Marc Babej give a different economic view of Wal-Mart. Charles Krauthammer (briefly) and Orson Scott Card (at greater length) write of environmentalism as a religion. Rich Lowry reports diminished freedom of speech -- or perhaps freedom of religion -- in Canada. Thomas Sowell has a nice "do the math" sort of story about Barack Obama getting cocky with the Pentagon. Finally, George Will gives the Electoral College math a whirl, with a nice jab in his concluding sentence. |
||
June 10, 2008Mr. Spock, My Childhood HeroIf a mostly-serious, mostly-political blog can be weird enough to bring you an annual Groundhog Day limerick contest, you shouldn't be too surprised when it suggests it turns its attention to this blogger's childhood hero, Mr. Spock, first officer and science officer of the starship Enterprise, who recently received some attention on NPR. There's a political connection, but it is only tangential. I'm more interested in the Spock lore itself. Read the NPR text or listen to the NPR audio, as you please. The audio's better. What was that? Oh, yes. Thanks for asking. It took a lot of practice in my youth, but I can raise a single eyebrow, Spock-like. My daughter laughs when I do it. MFCC does not; she probably thinks I should have been practicing the piano instead of the eyebrow. My mother didn't care for Mr. Spock at all. She thought he looked like Satan. Fortunately, church work took her out of the house on Wednesday afternoons for a couple of years, leaving me free to watch Star Trek reruns. By the way, Leonard Nimoy, who played Spock, may support Barack Obama, but Mr. Spock would see right through him, and through modern liberalism generally. His logical mind, his fondness for facts, and his disdain for basing action on emotion would make him a conservative. How about a new bumper sticker or button or something? "What Would Spock Do?" Did you know you can watch all three seasons of the original Star Trek online at CBS.com? Heidi Rodeback comments (6/13/08): I'm hard-put to decide which Spock is the most distasteful, the Dr. or the Mr. Mr. Data, anyone? |
||
