Monday, August 18, 2008

Quid pro quo: Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean its there.

It's a new week, and there are waters in need of muddying. Fortunately, I'm just the right man for the job.

To begin, and speaking personally, I’ve not once differed with the science that prefaces the city council’s “out of nowhere” workplace smoking ordinance. Me? I accept it.

At the same time, I accept that numerous hazards exist in daily life, both at home and in the workplace. It is perfectly legitimate for us to discuss how these risks are to be prioritized for the greater good of the community, to discuss these matters aloud, and to expect our elected officials to periodically emerge from the bunkers of their own making to join the conversation. It seems like a minimum standard of accountability, doesn't it?

As such, I‘ve argued that in terms of prioritizing personal risks and the city’s needs, the pro-ban council bloc’s choice of workplace smoking as the opening salvo in a campaign (real or imagined) of quasi-progressive reform for the city of New Albany is misguided and borders on the tragic, especially since far more pressing issues await the council’s attention -- and the current council has shown no more coherence than the previous one when it comes to consistency in pursuit of goals.

Furthermore, I have made the case that when the observations of science (why second hand smoke is injurious) meet the customarily greasier imperatives of politicians (the iron necessity of re-election), standards of admissible evidence quickly morph into something far broader than those cherished by the stricter legal minds among us.

To wit, while anti-smoking advocates cite science, and pro-smoking defenders cite freedoms, I’ve chosen to cite politics and the observable political precedent ... and as such, contrary to the opinions of our visiting lawyers, when the discussion turns to politics and politicians, the previous history and inclinations displayed by these politicians are absolutely germane to the topic at hand.

Absolutely.

----

Even after morning coffee and a brief perusal of the world headlines, for one to take an honest look at the political implications prefacing the city council’s Thursday smoking ordinance vote is very much like being compelled to watch one of the “faces of death” videos. You see it and are disgusted, and then you want to turn away in abject revulsion … but somehow cannot, and soon you're wondering when the liquor stores open for business.

With the first reading vote in favor of a smoking ordinance clocking in at 5-4, the unlikely swing voter becomes none other than Dan “Wizard of Westside” Coffey. That's only marginally less frightening than George W. Bush with his paw on the button.

Much has been made of the Wizard's seeming conversion to the anti-smoking ranks. I’ll only buy into it if the council chamber is thoroughly screened for raw onions and paring knives prior to any of Cappuccino’s future filibustering oratory.

Straight up: If you believe that Coffey isn’t playing his swing role for all it’s worth, and if you believe he is sincere in this sudden and unprecedented conversion to tenderhearted concern for the downtrodden low wage workers that reside in the district he congenitally neglects, all I can say is that you have not observed his council demeanor over the past few years.

Something about defecating like a duck -- and we're not talking AFLAC here.

Whatever the nature of Coffey’s current set of theatrically self-aggrandizing precepts, they’re vitally important in light of the fact that if we accept as gospel the at-large councilman John Gonder’s version of events – the smoking ordinance as a mere prelude to sweeping progressive legislation in the far more significant area of rental property regulation and code enforcement – then we must consider the circumstances and ask a perfectly plausible question.

If “progressive” reform is the strategic goal, and a smoking ordinance a chosen tactic toward that destination, in what way does the council’s smoking fixation further the ultimate aim (among others) of bringing slumlords to heel?

I’m afraid that as of yet, we have no coherent answer beyond Gonder’s own admission that he would not have chosen smoking as the “first” step along the path of progressive enlightenment. Who actually did choose it, and why? Gonder has this to say:

I never asked who brought this issue forward. My sense of it is that since the previous council had let this bill languish, Jeff Gahan wanted to resurrect it.

For the perpetually self-interested Coffey to be the swing vote in any piece of legislation styled as progressive in the barest of coherent terms surely foreshadows imminent doom, probably at the expense of something on the horizon that is far more progressive (and hence, meaningful to greater numbers of citizens) than a ban on workplace smoking.

That’s because in terms of political capital, Coffey’s cooperation on smoking undoubtedly comes at a steep price. What future consideration is being swapped in return for his crucial vote on smoking?

How does this further the cause of rental property reform, an isue of public health and safety that dwarfs tobacco?

To rely on Coffey, bar none the least principled of all local politicians, for anything at all short of crisply barbecuing the bologna is to echo the words of the Peter O’Toole character in the movie “My Favorite Year.”

You can depend on Dan Coffey – he’ll always let you down.

And yet, what amounts to the progressive bloc in city council (itself a debatable proposition, but offered here for the sake of the argument) now depends on Dan Coffey to pass the smoking ordinance – and to judge from long years of experience, Coffey will either renege on the payback or mutate it beyond recognition when the times comes to pass the basket.

The same is true of smoking ban proponents in the community. When the time comes to tackle a truly important public health issue – sub-standard housing and the reign of local slumlords – will any of the smoking ban proponents be there on the front line with good intentioned politicians like Gonder?

The Health Department?

The eccentric do-gooders?

The professional health fascism lobbyists?

Don’t hold your breath. They’ll get what they wanted on the one issue that matters to them, then melt away as fast as an April snowfall. At least it will free the council to abandon rental property reform quickly and then turn back to the sewers for another two to three years of impotence.

In short, the smoking ordinance is “one off” in council political terms, and as such, it is a grave tactical error indicative of sadly misplaced strategic priorities. It will not assist the prospects for rental property reform. It is having the effect of rallying against rental property reform precisely the same people who’d have to be brought on board to achieve the curtailment of the slumlord presence.

----

Once again, due praise to John Gonder for coming forth and joining the discussion in the blogosphere.

Too bad the same can’t be said for Coffey, Pat McLaughlin, Bob Caesar and Jeff Gahan.

How’s that list of exceptions coming along, anyway?

17 comments:

G Coyle said...

"It will not assist the prospects for rental property reform. It is having the effect of rallying against rental property reform precisely the same people who’d have to be brought on board to achieve the curtailment of the slumlord presence."

Who exactly is rallying against rental property reforms? The rental property slum lords? I'd expect them to resist under any circumstances. Is there another faction that is rallying...? I'd be curious to know.

Highwayman said...

Gina,

Yes, "slumlords" are leading the rally but bear in mind that many of them operate successfully behind the camoflage of their otherwise legitimate business by the light of day.

In doing so they not only carry a substantial amount of political as well as monetary clout, but they also hold incredible amount of influence over others who make their living from the building & real estate industry.

These include but are not limited to builders, trades people, suppliers, insurance providers, bankers,and politicians to name a few.

Further, as a group they have no remorse or shyness in bragging about how they have skirted code enforcement for decades nor any hesitancy in proclaiming their intentions of continuing to do so at will.

I want to point out that not all practioners of the various diciplines I've just mentioned are of that ilk. In fact I daresay the majority are honest lawabiding business people.

However ther are enough of the unscrupulous driven by raw greed to have up to been able to do what they do without fear of being held accountable.

Our one and only hope here is that we can show proof of their uncaring & caustic practices in sufficient numbers of examples to tip the balance scales in favor of clean safe & affordable housing in our midst.

Further we must hope that this Counsel will exhibit as much passion for healing this blight in New Albany as it has thus far demonstrated for a smoking ban.

Then we must hope this Administration follows thru with equal determination to enforce the resulting legislation all the way thru to prosecution if necessary.

All of this is a tall order and it rests squarely upon our shoulders.

If we drop the ball or bail & run on this issue, we deserve to live in drug infested, slumlord controlled, rundown neighbgorhoods!

And we shall!

Christopher D said...

Gina,
Though the anti-tobacco coalition may be the most well funded lobbyist group, there is no further reaching more connected group other than the rental business group.
Lawyers, politicians, real estate professionals, doctors, etc.
While the Tobacco groups are specific to only the smoking bans, the rental collective has the powers and numbers to rally at many many different points, and have the professional resources, personal finances to fight "progress" at every turn.
I got extremely lucky and took one hell of a gamble by citing state law that would allow me to sue the holy smokes out of the attorney that owns the house next door to me, that with the negative publicity, and the ability to get photos inside the house of gross housing, fire and safety violations, both local and state all came together to get things taken care of.
We took a gamble and won, and it could have easily been the opposite, we could have easily been the target of a huge lawsuit for slander, harrassment, trespassing, etc....

Christopher D said...

** side note, add to the "professions" of the rental collective, but the inability to track down the true owners of the properties and it makes it impossible to do anything about it.
A prime example would again be citing the house next door to me. After we had one the very first round, and citations were issued, but never collected on, before the deadline on the citations came due, the property was switched from the attorneys name to his out of state, uncontactable daughters name.
It is just registered at a PO box here in New Albany, and any letters addressed to Susie Q. Property-owner is responded to in kind by her Attorney in fact, who proclaims that the owner is not reachable, and all letters regarding the property addressed to him, strangely enough the same person who has the rent checks made out to.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Not to mention anyone with even an inkling of anti-government sentiment within them.

Between the smoking ordinance and the proposed forgiveness of years worth of downtown parking tickets (for which taxpayers just purchased software to help collect), our local reps are making this more difficult on themselves than it need be. I just hope they have the hides they are so far promising.

Honey from the hive the first time is hard enough.

Christopher D said...

I will defiantely align myself with the council when it comes to attacking the rental collective. I have to admit, it will be strange to play along with s group doing something I completely disagree with as far as the smoking ban, but I will make note of that at every chance!
Should have stuck to the promise I made myself to stay out of politics!

G Coyle said...

Duh, thanks Lloyd, like I didn't connect 50+ years of crappy construction standards as evidenced personally by what has been done to my lovely historic home - poured concrete over bricks walls, vinyl over popular siding - all decorative wooden elements trashed, cheap carpet over hardwood floors, ... and on. Yes indeed, many tradespeople have been hired over time to come in here and wreck this place. Soulless work, but it's a living? Where will the blight trades and professionals move next? Oh that decaying inner suburban belt just outside the inner city looks ripe for exploitation...

Anonymous said...

NAC,

Your blog is reaching people in INDY.

I received a phone call from the American Heart Association because of my posting last week when I questioned whether it is the role of government to pass this ordinance and how this could open up pandora's box to more and more legislation about individual choices.

The gentleman I spoke with felt that as a physician I should be more supportive of the effort to pass this ordinance.

I will reiterate once again that smoking and 2nd hand smoke is harmful to your health. It is a dirty, nasty habit and very costly in direct costs as well as related costs. I wish everyone would choose not to smoke, but the key word is again:"choose"

But, there are also many other exposures known to cause health problems. Your slumlord issues are very legitimate, but there are others such as Radon, molds, and other sick building syndromes

More government legislation is not the answer to this problem.

Highwayman said...

HB,

Pray tell what other means do we have at our disposal save legislation coupled with strict enforcement?

Radon, molds, and other sick building syndromes are a direct result of slumlord building maintenance pratices or more to the point, the lack thereof.

Politicians unwillingness to enforce the laws they pass are the mirror image of the above.

Perhaps I'm blind, but I've rarely if ever seen the drive for greed slowed down in favor of doing the right thing for the masses!

If you have a better plan that has a proven history of success, please share it.

Enquiring minds want to know!

Highwayman said...

Gina,

I apologize if I offened you but your question was "Is there another faction that is rallying?"

I was merely attempting to supply an answer.

peace!

Jeff Gillenwater said...

"Oh that decaying inner suburban belt just outside the inner city looks ripe for exploitation..."

Exactly. Everywhere.

That tract is even more reason to view sprawl as a bad choice. It's interesting, though, in that it does provide another option for those who see the value of moving back closer in but aren't quite ready to commit to living with certain people - like us.

Highwayman said...

Damned spell check!! "offended"

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Speaking of connections, it'll be interesting to see where the Southern Indiana Realtors Association comes down on rental problems.

The fact that they, along with the other groups already highlighted, haven't gotten into the fray is disappointing and says something about their makeup and moxie.

It's their direct market that's being mucked with. Of course, it was also them who helped lead the charge to classify rental property as non-businesses for property tax purposes.

All4Word said...

HB, NA Confidential reaches FAR beyond Indy.

Christopher D said...

Bluegill:
"Speaking of connections, it'll be interesting to see where the Southern Indiana Realtors Association comes down on rental problems."
I think as long as the possibility of leasing property for a tow in lot is sitting on the back burner, the esteemed leader of this group will not want to make too many big waves until the deal is sealed...

Anonymous said...

highwayman,

I am supportive of the ordinance if it applies to everyone equally and if it is protective and beneficial for everyone. But there needs to be consequences for those who still choose to smoke. I am still not sure this particular issue falls into a category requiring governmental legislation and that is my real concern.

Government cannot regulate every poor choice that individuals can make and cannot make every business, industry, job etc. completely safe.

At some point, individuals have to accept the repercusions of their choices.

I believe smokers and other individuals who choose poorly in many areas of their lives should be held financially responsible with higher health insurance premiums,fines, etc.. Those who choose not to smoke or engage in other high risk behaviors continue to subsidize those who do. Where is the fairness in that?

Their are plenty of laws on the books already that are not being enforced. Continuing to add more beurocrisy won't help.

Christopher D said...

Dear Doctor,
Smokers and tobacco users do pay for many other subsidied programs.
A large portion of the funding for the Family Health Center of Floyd COunty comes from tobacco taxes, The H.I.P. program, funding for the tobacco coalitions, all come from taxes paid for by tobacco users.
In the case of the family health center, more people are treated for obesity related illnesses than they are for smoking related illnesses.
In regards to paying for risky behavior, should a person who speeds regularly, skateboarders, BMX bicyclists, skydivers, kayakers, etc pay a higher premium for health insurance as well? Risk is risk, Further that question into this, should Mike Sodrel have to pay extra somehow, as a well respected local Doctor had said on his blog “Studies have shown that thousands of people in the US die from strokes and heart attacks within 24 hours of a spike in microscopic pollution from the exhaust of diesel trucks” (you may know that doctor), because of Sodrels trucking operation..
Pandoras box of equal treatment under the law has been opened with these ordinances, unless all hazards are treated equally under the law, then it is merely an attack on a social habit, and there is money to be had by the lobbyists to fight it.