Robbie Perkins Watch, Part I: A Lindsay-Equivalent?

There has been much talk about the prospects of Councilman Robbie Perkins running for mayor.  It has been discussed in the Rhino, and has also likely been the topic of numerous conversations.  The scuttlebutt is that Yvonne Johnson may only serve one term as mayor, thereby clearing the way for Perkins to make a run for the top spot.

It has been reported previously that Perkins is, at least nominally, a Republican.  It should then follow that fellow Republicans-- and conservatives-- should be excited over the prospects that he might assume the mayoralty.  Right?

Wrong.

In fact, Perkins' ascension to that post would be a problem for Greensboro.  It makes me think of another self-described Republican,  John V. Lindsay, who became mayor of New York when I was a child in 1965.  Of some interest is the fact that William F. Buckley, Jr. opposed him when he first ran for the office that year.

Lindsay was an unmitigated disaster as mayor of New York.

Steven Malanga wrote in City Journal about the former mayor shortly after he died:

Candor compels us to note that the patrician Lindsay’s two terms as mayor of New York were a catastrophe from which the city, and even the nation, have still not entirely recovered. The pure embodiment of the elite orthodoxy of his day, Lindsay helped transform the debate on race in America with an agenda that provoked white flight from cities, welcomed militant black separatists into the mainstream, and introduced a vision of social welfare that encouraged dependency among the poor and nearly destroyed New York’s economy.

There is little reason to believe, at least at this time, that Perkins would pursue a massive expansion of entitlement programs as mayor of Greensboro in a manner akin to Lindsay.  But many of the other ingredients are there.

Perkins is not averse to voting in favor of tax increases; and in fact our City Council does this nearly every year.  He  pursues and obtains the endorsement of the Simkins PAC without appearing to give it a second thought.  And, of course, his politics qualifies him for that endorsement.

I had written a couple of months ago about city documents that revealed how Perkins had repeatedly been Michael King's point man on the matter of Project Homestead.

When Mary Rakestraw was planning to ask for a vote to remove the City Manager over matters related to the non-disclosure of public documents regarding the GPD fiasco, Perkins was Mitchell Johnson's most vociferous defender.

This is a matter of some interest.  Why?  Because back last summer, I circulated a questionnaire to City Council candidates asking them what they would do to clean up the GPD.  Perkins' response?

i) Fully disclose the nature of the problems to regain public trust.

ii) Assign responsibility of clean-up to the City Manager along with a timetable and reporting schedule, and hold him responsible for the job.

Does anyone detect a hint of irony?  His questionnaire response, which I posted back in August, is found here.

And of course, only last week Perkins voted and spoke against exploring the matter of the White Street Landfill.  He also tried to oppose the appointment of Bill Knight to a City Council budget committee.

A trend emerges when one views Perkins' actions on Mitchell Johnson, the GPD fiasco, the White Street Landfill, Project Homestead and the Simkins endorsement.  Some of us would argue that this approach, which entails appealing to identity group politics, is harmful to the city.

But wait a minute.  Hasn't Perkins' trademark been development-related issues?  And is not his position on development emblematic of Republicanism?

Well, yes and no.  Certainly, Republicans are supposed to favor free markets and property rights.  Those positions would naturally tend to align with development interests.  But "Perkinsism", and Greensboro's approach to development issues, present a twist that is a bit different.  What we have here is a hierarchy of requirements that is fairly stringent in order to maintain a certain vision of quality (and in the past, also to accommodate the development of suburbs-within-the-city). 

And developers here pay to play.  They give to the right candidates, hire the right attorneys, and thereby gain access and clout to find the necessary compromises to get their projects approved.  In the past, they have almost always been successful.

An interesting discussion took place at the last council meeting with respect to annexations.  Ordinarily, conservatives would tend to be very circumspect about annexations.  Not Robbie Perkins.  He stated last week unabashedly that any neighborhood receiving city water and sewer should be annexed.  Period.

Of course, this suits development needs.  The city runs water and sewer to enable development; then annexes the neighborhood later; then asks for bonds to provide more local infrastructure for the annexed community; then raises taxes to pay for the bonds; and then is able to run more water and sewer to foster more development.  It keeps the wheels turning, tax revenues rising, and developers happy.

It has been the opinion of some observers that elected officials representing development interests tend to find common cause with the Simkins PAC.  Wendell Sawyer coined the "Melderec" term to describe this phenomenon.  The most obvious Melderec-con-Simkins members of the City Council at this time are Robbie Perkins, Yvonne Johnson, Sandra Anderson Groat and Zack Matheny.

I hope to make Perkins Watch an occasional feature at this blog in anticipation of the day Robbie Perkins might run for mayor.  He cuts the right profile, and does many of the things that are needed to win in Greensboro.   It is a shame that, all too often, these also happen to be precisely the wrong things to do.

Just like Mayor Lindsay in 1965.

Comments

[keith brown]

I could not say that better but you need to add the TREBIC CARTEL as the development aspect of politics. That was a great read and I hope you start a Pave it Perkins Watch.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Keith. And FYI, TREBIC is considered to be a subset of Melderec.

[keith brown]

What you just wrote needs to be in Yes Weekly or Rhino.

[Roger Greene]

"Certainly, Republicans are supposed to favor free markets and property rights. "
What did he have to say about the rights of property owners along the scenic corridor, errr, um I mean the Urban Loop? Didn't he initiate city mandated control of that corridor to prevent billboards from popping up on private property even in unincorporated parts of the loop? How was that legal I wonder? Someone remembers I'm sure.

I agree completely with your article Joe.

[Fred Gregory]

Super post, Joe. I am affraid Perkins is invincible to non-partisan common sense governance.
What you said ! Keep the spotlight on that guy

[Joe Guarino]

Roger, thanks for commenting. You are right about the billboards issue. That is an illustration of the fastidiousness that seems to be the approach with regard to zoning and land use requirements locally-- and that is, as you point out, in conflict with free market/property rights approaches.

You may have noticed the article in this morning's paper about the $200 million road bonds that Perkins is now pushing. Note in my post how that fits into the bigger picture.

And thanks as always, Fred.

[Brenda Bowers]

Perkins is the ultimate sleazy politician. BB

[Bubba]

"Perkins is the ultimate sleazy politician."

...with friends in high and low places, some of whom have LOTS of money.