THE LOCAL AREA WATCH

CRYPTO-CARPETBAGGERS

Something interesting has occurred in this year's Grand Rapids City Commission races.  (What?  There's a city election this year?)  Two overtly partisan groups have publicly announced their backing of candidates in the First and Second Wards.  Because city elections are non-partisan under the city charter, not only has there been no formal identification of candidates with any political party, there usually hasn't even been an informal one since the McKay era to give voters a good idea of a candidate's general political outlook.

Over the past few election cycles, informal partisanship in City Commission races has perked up mostly in the form of making a candidate's party registration publicly known.  Also there have been the endorsements of the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce and the Friends of Labor.  Now a group of crypto-Republicans, the Mavericks, are stumping for Dave Shaffer, a candidate in the First Ward race to oust incumbent James Jendrasiak and a group of crypto-Democrats, the Progressive Women's Alliance of West Michigan, are doing the same for Rosalyn Bliss in the Second Ward race to replace retiring Lynn Rabaut.  So, voters now know how to pigeonhole at least a couple of this year's candidate.

I don't think this is a development to be lamented.  First all, partisanship is inevitable.  Even the Founding Fathers, with all their genius, were unable to stop the formation of "factions" -- i.e., political parties -- upon the ratification of the Constitution.  Second, there's nothing wrong with the oft-scorn "label" of liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.  It is the most succinct way for a candidate to communicate to fellow travelers that he or she shares their political values.  Finally, non-partisanship has always been a fiction in the City Commission.  What official non-partisanship boils down to is public censorship of a candidate's political affiliation, which works to the benefit of those who are connected while leaving the voters in the dark.

This is not to say that the groups now filling the non-partisan vacuum don't bear scrutiny.  There is always the carpetbagger factor.  Few of the one hundred or so Mavericks actually live in the City of Grand Rapids.  However, most of the outsiders claim to have business interests within the City, thus making them City taxpayers.  Therefore, their participation in local elections is not necessarily suspect, though the wise voter will want to make sure that a Maverick candidate for the City Commission won't be a tool for greasing the skids for outside business interests to slide into City contracts or government subsidies.

After all, the leader of the Mavericks knows something about government subsidies for big redevelopment projects.  He is Chris Beckering who worked with his father Thomas Beckering (of Toxic Towers fame) on the Berkey & Gay building's conversion into offices and apartments and an American Seating factory's renovation into apartments.  He is now the spokesman for both projects, which have received millions in public subsidies including historic preservation tax credits, brownfield tax credits, and a suspicious low-ball tax assessment of one of the properties.

Exactly what the mostly-carpetbagger Mavericks want of candidate Shaffer in exchange for their $3,000 contribution to his campaign is a legitimate question for voters.  The same goes for Third Ward candidate Dan Tietema, if Beckering follows through on a Maverick plan to endorse him in an attempt to defeat incumbent Commissioner Jim White.  (And don't sneeze at that three thousand bucks, folks.  That's BIG money in city races.)

As for the Progressive Women's Alliance, one-third of their six hundred members live outside the City.  From their public statements to date, it's not clear what interest the non-resident members of the PWA have in backing candidate Bliss.  Strangely the rallying cry behind Bliss appears to be -- heaven help us! -- ABORTION.  Perhaps the pro-abortion PWA is trying to supplant the influence of the Friends of Labor, mentioned above, who are on the left end of the political spectrum but are pro-life.  Also being played up is that PWA candidate Bliss is pro-choice while her main opponent, Shaula Johnston, is pro-life.

No matter what anyone's position is, so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, there is NOTHING a City Commissioner can do to outlaw, regulate, or protect "abortion-on-demand" in River City; the issue is a dead letter in local politics.  Therefore, only zealotry would seem to account for its injection into the Second Ward race.  Then again, maybe the abortion issue is a down-and-dirty way of communicating to voters Bliss's liberal credentials.  Whatever the case, it got Bliss a $5,000 check from the PWA.

The bottom line is that there's nothing wrong with crypto-Republicans and crypto-Democrats uncloaking themselves in City Commission races.  But let's just make sure that the carpetbaggers backing them are importing nothing more than good ol' fashioned partisanship into town.

BIO-TECH BATTLE

Complaints have been lodged against your executive director that I am anti-development.  Exhibit Number One for the prosecution is my opposition to River City becoming one of the hubs of the bio-tech revolution.  I am pleased to report to you, dear readers, that this is all nonsense.

As you know, what I have actually criticized are the proposals to let the government take your tax dollars to make investments in bio-tech companies, research, and infrastructure.  (I'm indifferent to how private investors may want to blow their money.)  I have objected to this use of your money on two levels.  First, the government's power to tax isn't a license to take your money for any reason the politicians and bureaucrats can come up with.  Taxes are to be used for those things that genuinely benefit the general public.  Pumping cash into the pockets of businessmen with the latest hot idea fails that standard miserably.  When the government engages in such projects, it is picking winners and losers in the distribution of your tax dollars -- the antithesis of a general public benefit.

Second, it's a bad idea.  Even if it were OK in principle for Guv Jen or the Republicans in the statehouse snare our hard-earned dollars to rain upon the entrepreneurs of the bio-tech revolution, it's not OK in practice.  The hard reality is that the big bucks in bio-tech will not be made in Michigan, let alone Grand Rapids.  Two bio-tech centers are already coalescing in Boston and San Francisco, with other big cities like Seattle and San Diego trying to get into the game.

Our state's biggest asset in the bid for bio-tech dominance is the University of Michigan; yet the sad fact is that the U-M is losing its bio-tech talent to the coasts.  Stanford University, part of the San Francisco bio-tech hub, just announced a few weeks ago that it recruited a top scientist away from U-M.  Furthermore, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman has complained that Michigan cannot hang onto its bio-tech and high-tech start-ups once they need a big injection of capital for their growth.  These companies pull up stakes and head to the East and West Coasts where the venture capitalists are.

River City's noisiest bio-tech booster, the Van Andel Institute, isn't going to change this equation.  After all, if it isn't clear that the Van Andel family is willing to invest any significant portion of their fortune into the VAI, then the VAI is just another organization out there competing for talent and capital against the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen (who is leading the charge to redevelop of chunk of downtown Seattle -- bigger than all of downtown G.R. -- into a bio-tech research and business center), and California's taxpayer-funded $3 billion embryonic stem-cell research program.  Indeed, the VAI's $150 million expansion is to be paid for entirely with other people's money.  So the Van Andel in the Van Andel Institute is no advantage at all in the rush for bio-tech gold.

Moreover, fellas like Peter Secchia will tell you that River City's bio-tech bid will go nowhere without a university medical research facility in town.  I don't doubt him, but does that justify spending tens of millions of dollars from donors and taxpayers to bring Michigan State University's lackluster College of Human Medicine to Grand Rapids?  East Lansing's attempt to steal some thunder from Ann Arbor's premier medical research center never panned out, so it's understandable that MSU now wants to unload its boondoggle.  But do we here in G.R. have to  play the role of the suckered hicks?

And even if I'm nothing but a naysayer, and the players can bring the big bio-tech bucks to River City, what does that get you and me in the end?  It's a fair question if the politicians are going to give the players our tax dollars to do this.  To answer that, let me share a snippet from a recent USA Today article on the brewing bio-tech battle:

"The [bio-tech] prize goes well beyond bragging rights.  Billions in government-research dollars are up for grabs.  Schools could earn millions in royalties paid by biotech start-ups licensing campus discoveries.  Those start-ups -- often launched in a university's backyard -- could create thousands of high-paying jobs for executives, attorneys, and other professionals churning out cancer drugs, pest-free crops, and other biotech goods."  [My emphasis.]

Note, folks, not high-paying jobs for factory rats like you and me.  Jobs for attorneys!  Do we really need more of them in town?  Yet, the Republicans in the state legislature and Guv Jen justify both of their ten-figure spending proposals on the promise that investing tax dollars into bio-tech and high-tech will replace the manufacturing jobs Michigan is losing because of its rotten tax and regulatory policies.  Just how a machinist will get one of those bio-tech executive slots, none of the politicians make clear.  If the VAI is anything to go by, any new jobs government spending on bio-tech creates will go to outsiders.  Out-of-state ready-to-migrate credentialed professionals will be the winners, not the guy next-door whose lost his job to a plant closing.

And this brings us back to my first objection to spending our tax dollars on the vain hope that bio-tech will be the salvation of our local economy.  The winners in this government gambit will not be the general public, but the very few ready to pounce on the bio-tech boom before it goes bust.  The losers will be the taxpayers, the very ones who are supposed to benefit.  When the bubble bursts, and from tulips to dotcoms the bubble always bursts, they will be left with nothing but big bond payments to make.

TUESDAY'S TOPICAL TAKES

Some quick thoughts on this fine Tuesday -- well, OK -- this hot and muggy Tuesday ...

[1] The state legislature, toadying to the state's tourism interests, is going to consider passing a law that forces all public school districts to start the new school year after Labor Day.  State Representative Ed Gaffney, a Republican representing Grosse Pointe, complains that the summer break for kids is already too short and needs to be lengthened.  Well, then, let him argue that with his local school board.  What makes him think his preference is the one everyone in the state should have?  The statehouse has already meddled in this issue by requiring the Labor Day break to be a four-day weekend for public schools.  Let each district set its schedule to reflect local preferences.  Enough of Lansing dictating the minutia of school administration, especially ...

[2] ... when the state pols can't get the big stuff straight.  If the Education Trust, a Washington D.C.-based public interest group, is correct, then Michigan can't even figure out how many kids are graduating from high school in the state.  Michigan has been reporting to the federal government that fewer than one of six kids are dropping out.  According to the Education Trust study of graduation rates in each state, more than one out of four Michigan students are drop-outs.  Of course, letting the low-performance students drop out is surely one way of boosting those achievement scores and keeping the federal dough rolling into public school district payrolls.  Don't expect any improvement in the graduation rate soon.

[3] Mary T. Scott is the big whistleblower on Metropolitan Hospital's alleged Medicare fraud who was awarded $1.1 million out of $6.25 million settlement the hospital struck with the U.S. Justice Department two years ago.  Scott then followed up that victory with a wrongful discharge suit against the hospital claiming that she was fired because of her whistleblowing.  Well, Judge Enslen of the U.S. District Court in Kalamazoo chucked out Scott's case.  It seems that she falsified evidence, including minutes of a hospital board meeting, to support her allegations.

Although Enslen's dismissal of Scott's wrongful discharge lawsuit has no effect on the Medicare fraud case and the award she won from it, Metro's spokesman crowed that the hospital stands vindicated across the board.  If so, why did Metro cough up more than six million dollars to settle the Medicare fraud charges in the first place?  Metro says it did so to avoid bad publicity while trying to sell a $165 million bond for its new campus in Wyoming.  Yeah, that makes sense.  Copping a plea looks a whole lot better to the public than defending yourself against false accusations.

[4] Speaking of bonds, Goodwill Industries sold a $1.5 million one to raise capital to spruce up its retail operation here in town.  Goodwill's new retail outlet at 3270 29th Street S.E. is more like a department store now rather than a second-hand fleamarket.  This pricey upgrade in image is supposed to attract new customers.  Goodwill sells used goods donated by the public to raise money to educate, train, and employ the mentally, emotionally, and physically handicapped along with others who are down on their luck.  We hope the new venture works for Goodwill and doesn't turn out to be another glitzy non-profit bricks-and-mortar boondoggle.  (If Metropolitan's new nine-figure campus comes to mind, you thought of that all by yourself.)

[5] Dave Morren is quitting as chairman of the Kent County Commission while keeping his options open for higher office down the road.  Without regard to his record in public office, Morren is a contemptible man.  He once testified under oath that my mother, whose kind-heartedness hasn't rub off on her son like it should have, was a "liar".  No doubt Mom, the tolerant person she is, will take me to task for bringing the subject up.  Nevertheless, Morren has put himself out as a public person and so the public should know what sort of person he is.  Thus, I'm warning you, folks.  Now that he has assaulted motherhood, what's next?  He'll probably leave apple pie alone so as to not stir up the apple growers in the county, and everybody is already down on baseball.  So what does that leave in Morren's sights, dear readers?  Yes, that's right:  The American Way!

BUY AND DIE

Well, I suppose no one actually buys the Grand Rapids Press for its financial advice.  However, it would serve the public better if the Press printed no advice than the crummy stuff from syndicated columnists in its nearly non-existent financial section.  For example, on Saturday the Press ran a Motley Fool column touting the investment advice of billionaire Warren Buffett, owner of the Berkshire Hathaway financial empire.

One Buffett "gem" the Fool relayed was:  "At Berkshire, when I purchase a company, I intend it to be for life."  What Buffett is offering here is the dangerous but common "buy and hold" strategy of investment.  As my wise ol' dad often reminds me, what goes unsaid about the "buy and hold" strategy is that you do not make a single dime off such an investment until you SELL it.  If your investment strategy does not include a clear plan for when to sell, then "buy and hold" is "buy and die".  Either you or investment goes belly up, and either way you made zilch.

Of course, Buffett didn't get rich through "buy and hold".  He has sold time and again companies and commodities he says he intended to hold for a lifetime.  It was only by selling what he bought he made his billions.  Remember, folks, there are only two sensible reasons to buy stuff.  You buy something to use it (e.g., a house, groceries, the Press to line the birdcage), or buy to sell (e.g., stocks, bonds, gold, real estate).  If you're not using it and don't know when you'd sell it, then you're in "buy and die" mode.

If I can provide you with all this financial wisdom in the space of a few paragraphs, surely the Grand Rapids Press can do better than the syndicated swill that passes for expertise in its financial section.

THE HAPPY FUN NEWS REPORT

Reviewing this weekend's editions of the Grand Rapids Press, I am relieved to learn what a wonderful world it is.  On Friday the Press devoted half of the front page to Game 7 of the Pistons-Spurs NBA championship bout.  Most of that was a picture of Ben Wallace look pretty grumpy.  Oh sure, the Pistons blowing the championship in the last half of the last game of the season isn't happy news -- but it's still fun news, kids!

Worry not.  On Saturday the Press delivered the full measure of happy fun news.  Smack dab in the middle of the front page was a big color photograph of a little girl having a heckuva good time at one of the City's public pools on a hot summer day.  Now that was both happy AND fun, and the Press -- God bless 'em -- didn't even weigh us down with an actual story we had to read about this wonderful newsbreaking event in River City.

But it wasn't until Sunday that I learned just how much the Grand Rapids Press cares about me.  Taking up most of the front page was a big story warning me that if I don't shop around I might be paying too much for concert tickers on the internet.  You see how the Press wants to make sure I'm happy when I'm out having fun?

Next weekend's front-page headliner:  Hints from Heloise!

LOOTERVILLE

On Thursday last week the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an astonishing decision that eviscerates the Fifth Amendment's protection of homeowners' property rights.  In Kelo v. City of New London, the country's high court ruled, in effect, that a city government could invoke eminent domain to seize property for a private developer.  (The City of New London had condemned homes and businesses along the city's waterfront for a new Pfizer pharmaceutical plant.)  In other words, if a developer has set his sights on your neighborhood for an office tower or a shopping center and he has the right friends at city hall, the city can condemn your property, give you a few bucks for it, and transfer it to the developer.

The standard that used to prevent this sort of assault on property rights was the "public use" requirement for the exercise of eminent domain.  The government had to have a genuinely public purpose for your property such as a highway or a reservoir to legitimately condemn it.  Of course, local governments have abused that standard in the past, especially if the targeted property owners were politically weak.  But now the Supreme Court's Kelo decision has made what constitutes a "public use" so elastic -- essentially it is whatever the local government deems it -- that hardly any pretense needs to be maintained to allow the government to seize one citizen's property for use by another.  All that is needed to make this work is some sort of vaporous promise that the new use will increase jobs or tax revenues.

This ruling is an extraordinary increase in the power of local governments.  Most of our disputes with government are with city hall, and now the denizens of city hall can intimidate a disgruntled citizen with the threat of losing his home if he doesn't shut up.  This threat is even more acute for small businessowners, who are more likely to own storefronts, offices, and plants in areas targeted for redevelopment.

Even if this newfound power were not abused, what justice is there in letting city officials pick and choose who should own which private property?  We all know how small-time politicians and bureaucrats get starry-eyed and turn soft-headed when presented with glitzy plans for redevelopment of this neighborhood or that.  Think of nonsense like Guv Jen's "Cool Cities" or River City's wannabe bio-tech center "Medical Mile". When they come for your home to build that new office tower or shopping center, do you want the city to have the power to force you off with a check in the amount of your tax assessment?  Or do you want the power to say no to no matter how much that private developer is ready to pay?

Fortunately in Michigan, despite the Kelo decision, you still have that power to say no.  None of our local governments will be turning into Lootervilles yet.  In Kelo the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even though the Fifth Amendment may no longer protect property owners, individual states can do so through their own constitutions and statutes.  Therefore, the decision last year by the Michigan Supreme Court that barred Wayne County from seizing a residential neighborhood for redevelopment into a private industrial park continues to protect Michigan property owners from politically-connected developers.

But don't take too much comfort from this, folks.  Keep in mind that the Michigan Supreme Court overturned its notorious Poletown decision of a quarter-century ago that okayed the razing of homes by the City of Detroit to clear the area for a new General Motors plant.  If Michigan courts can change the law from black to white in the span of twenty-five years under the same state constitution, there's nothing to stop them flipping again.

FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK: WHY WE NEED CATHERINE'S CARE CENTER AND THE OTHER COMMUNITY CLINICS

Bridget, our editor, conducted the survey of local community clinics that was the subject of an article earlier this week.  In the comments section of that article she shared some of the emotional impressions she had about the different clinics and the plight of Catherine's Care Center.  I thought her comments deserved more prominence, so I have posted them here as an article.  Please take the time to read the Editor's thoughts on this important matter.

Dear L.A.W. Readers...

I thought it might be helpful to let you all know some additional details about the clinic survey that we did recently to help round out the facts a little better. The quantitative elements of the survey can be identified easily whereas the more personal elements of what I experienced can't be, so I want to elaborate a little further for your benefit.

I was the surveyor.

I did call around town to find out what each clinic had to offer based upon:

1. health issue,
2. age,
3. home location,
4. my work status,
5. income,
6. lack of insurance.

My goal was to find out if they took the uninsured, the costs, what they offered and how quickly an appointment could be made. It was an eye opening project in many ways. I also stuck only with clinics that seemed to work with adults (could do children and the elderly too).

I am happy to report that every clinic treated me with complete respect. I was concerned that soon as they heard of my part time work status and lower income with no insurance that I might be treated poorly (I had some issues like this after college and know first hand how cold and distant the medical community can be in some areas if you don't meet their all important "who are you insured by" criteria).

Each clinic representative took time to ask me important questions and lead me into their network of how things are done and why. They all let me know that they could help and how. If they could not, almost all provided references so, I was not left out there alone. I was impressed at the courtesy they extended to me and expect it is the same to other callers and patients.

A few of the clinics (Catherine's Care Center, Sparta Health Center, Ferguson, The Salvation Army Health Clinic and The Westside Health Center) seemed to offer the most information, assistance and caring for the average patient. Many seemed to take my problem personal and do all they could to help. That was impressive and rewarding. I would have felt in good hands had my issue been real.

The most disappointing clinics were Belknap and Burton. These either had no openings at all or none for many weeks or months down the road (rather inconvient to those who have serious issues needing a real doctor or nurse now and yet can't afford the cost an emergency room would charge).

Wege turned out to be an unlikely choice for anyone needing lower income/uninsured care. The writing was on the wall as their voice mail system upon calling in states that they take all major insurance programs. Nice - except for the uninsured. You know right away things might not go well after this...and it didn't. I eventually spoke to one person who was nice but, once they heard my story and no insurance shipped me off to someone else for help. From there, they quoted high charges just to see the doctor, lab costs and future medicine would have to be paid for as well (no price given) and there was no openings until July sometime. So...Wege might certainly provide good care but, only to those who have time on their hands and some bucks in their pocket.

Catherine's stood alone as the only clinic that addressed if I did not have an income or insurance but, still needed help I would not be turned away. They would find a way to help anyway they could. This was heart warming to know that their mission to service everyone and anyone is not just on paper. St. Mary's may have taken the "MERCY" out of their care but, others clearly have not. Good for them.

The largest negative I felt throughout this half day process was how hard it must be for those who are low income and possibly uninsured to just FIND a clinic. I spent hours researching who to call, making contact and interviewing clinics for my options and choices. I had yet to even make the final appointment, find transportation there and get the care I had been seeking. I worry that may people don't even get as far as I did as it takes time to research clinics (via phone books, internet and references) and then the costs to call, drive there and more.

This process cemented in my mind that many of these clinics are needed throughout the region as they service diverse populations of people with different issues (health, age, income, work status, family issues and more). Each clinic is important also from a location stand point. Many patients can't drive long distances to find care -it needs to be local. Some of the clinics were close, others much farther out. I'm sure that makes a difference to those in need who have to walk, bike, take the bus, etc.

It was clear from the time of my call to setting an appointment that most of these clinics are VERY busy as often I would need to wait a few days to be seen (only two could see me within 48 hours max - the rest longer). Waiting times were reasonable considering my issue but, the number of patients being seen appeared to be sizable and eliminating even one would make a big impact in the local community that it services. Any clinic that is targeted for closer does not make sense to this Editor. Clearly...the need remains great and the services still slim. More assistance to these clinics is needed NOT less.

Those staffing and working these clinics deserve praise for all they do to those in need in the community. They appear to do a fine job from what I uncovered and from what I hear.

The solution....hopefully the funding partners and locals will continue to support these clinics as much as they can so, that good health care is available for everyone and not just the forunate among us.

Editor of The L.A.W.
Bridget Dupont-Tingley

THE MAKERS OF THINGS

In last week's article "Lost Cause" we described how the City of Grand Rapids and the players who had access to the machinery of government sold out Monroe North's industrial future for healthcare gold.  Well, the scheme didn't quite pan out, so Monroe North's something of a mixed bag of haphazard redevelopment these days.  Those who wrecked the promise of big manufacturing dollars being made right smack in the middle of River City can, and have, justified themselves by citing the big trends of the past few decades.

One interesting trend is the shift in jobs since 1970 from manufacturing to healthcare, as noted in today's Wall Street Journal.  Thirty-five years ago, one in four Americans was employed in manufacturing.  Today only one in ten.  Meanwhile, the healthcare sector went from employing one in twenty Americans to one in ten.  Thus, the two trend lines have crossed.

The mistake in interpreting these trend lines is that manufacturing is a losing bet and healthcare is a winner.  Not so.  What is not grasped is that manufacturing has made tremendous leaps in productivity and so is going the same way as agricultural in this country.  Making things is here to stay just like farming.  However, the hard fact is that fewer people are needed to put out more and more goods.  Nevertheless, we still need some people to make all those things -- i.e., create wealth -- if we want to pay for all those people who don't -- e.g., lawyers, nurses, teachers, actors, bloggers ;).  (Click here for more on this point.)

And just like some parts of the country remain large centers of agricultural, other parts of the country will be concentrated centers of manufacturing.  Grand Rapids is ideally suited as such a center.  Just because manufacturing invokes the image of old-fashioned smokestacks in some minds, that's not a reason to run from it to embrace all that vaporous bio-tech blather that is vague enough to include everything from bio-molecular scientists to bedpan attendants.  After all, a dollar made from manufacturing spends the same as one made from bio-tech.  And another hard fact is that the manufacturing dollars are here right now whereas so many of the bio-tech dollars remain nothing but a hope -- or hype.

Of course, the doomsayers of manufacturing can support the bio-tech hype by showing how many local jobs are tied to healthcare.  That's true, but why do we want anymore healthcare jobs than required to take care of local needs?  They don't pay as well as manufacturing jobs and their employers don't contribute to the local taxbase as much as manufacturing does by most measures.  Indeed, many healthcare employers are non-profits adding little or nothing to the taxbase.

So what do we need:  More consumers of the taxbase, or more contributors?  Fortunately, the choice isn't either/or.  Make River City friendly to the makers of things, and we'll have the wealth to pay for all the healthcare jobs our community wants or needs.

SPEAKING OF THE BROOM ...

Refering to the previous story, maybe the City Attorney's office wouldn't need a brooming if we had city manager demanding performance out of the city staff.  For more than twenty years Kurt Kimball has ruled the roost as city manager in Grand Rapids.  (Well, OK, there were those twelve years of servility as toadie-in-chief under the Boss Logie regime.)  Anyway, the city is now in worse shape than it has ever been.  Kimball can't figure out how to carve out the fat in a pork-laden budget during the City's worst fiscal crisis, ensured us a second fiscal crisis when he bought us long-term pension liabilities for short-term peace with the City employee unions, presided over scandal in the assessor's office, and is sitting atop a new one in the city attorney's office.  At what point does the City Commission get around to holding their top dog responsible for these messes?

CITY ATTORNEY PUNTS; TAXPAYERS TO COUGH UP $800K

Once again the City Attorney's office recommended settling a lawsuit instead of taking it to trial.  The City Commission agreed yesterday.  City taxpayers are out $800,000.

The sad story behind all this is that of Joseph Valenciano, a local resident who was driving home from his nursing job at Metropolitan Hospital five years ago when he pulled in front of an oncoming City snowplow driven by Kenneth Kibby.  Mr. Valenciano was severely injured in the accident.  He suffers permanent brain injuries, must live in a group home, and can no longer hold down his nursing job.

It appears that Kibby, a City employee, had a driving record littered with violations, including two at-fault accidents within the five years leading up to the Valenciano accident.  However, the police neither cited Kibby nor found him at fault in this accident.  Yes, it looks like Kibby was a reckless driver, and the incompetent City let have a job driving a City vehicle.  But, he didn't cause the accident.  So why have the City Attorney's office and the City Commission agreed to shell out $800,000 taxpayer dollars to Mr. Valenciano?

We can certainly feel sorry for Mr. Valenciano, but justice is not served if City taxpayers are made responsible for the accident he caused.  For eight hundred K in the middle of budget crisis, I think we can get a little more fight than this out of the slugs in the City Attorney's office.  I also think we can get our elected representatives in the City Commission kicking some ass to get a decent performance out these staffers.  Maybe if the staff of the City Attorney's office spent less time writing briefs for long-shot appeals to the Supreme Court, inventing ways to block FOIA requests, and pursuing pointless vendettas, they could concentrate on defending taxpayers in cases like Mr. Valenciano instead of giving up.

But then the surrender monkeys at the City Attorney's office may be too wedded to their ways to change.  If so, time for the broom.