At the end of the meeting Councilmembers Nancy Hoffmann and Marikay Abuzuaiter got to present their plan for spending more money, which was to give each district councilmember some money to hand out. It is, of course, more complicated than that.
The idea is out of Chicago city government, one of the most corrupt and partisan governments in the country. It's like getting legal advice from someone in prison. But the basic idea as explained to the council is that each district councilmember holds a town hall meeting in their district and the people who attend that meeting get to decide how to spend a certain amount of money in the district. Who gets credit for this give-away? The district councilmembers would clearly get credit for the projects.
And thus, district council members become the political equivalent of Santa Claus in the eyes of their constituents. They are granted tax monies in order to create an incumbency protection racket. And of course, favored constituents who are considered to be part of the machine get the money.
My kind of town, Chicago is...
I am not sure taking advice from Chicago is a good idea, its like getting advice on victim rights from a sex offender. I think the idea if giving out money to council members to spend is well for lack of better words, STUPID. We need to start saving money, unless the council can see into the future and know the economy is changing for the better. I dont think we need to keep building and spending money.
But this is what the fools voted for, big spenders. I wonder if the people were thinking where would the big spenders get the money, from trees I think
Posted by: Sal Leone | January 26, 2012 at 03:16 PM
A link to what I bet they are talking about...
http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/
The model described here and in a video available on YouTube and the site show people in their districts being involved in the processes that are usually reserved for elected officials only. It's actually direct democracy. Hope reading that helps.
Posted by: James Gibson | January 26, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Sal, I agree.
James, interestingly, we don't see a comparable model being employed by our state legislatures or the US Congress. Even though it sounds nice on the surface, it seems suspect to me. Why should we assume that assigning any particular dollar figure to district 3, for instance, is a good use of taxpayers' money? The citizens who would choose to attend these meetings will be driven by interest groups wanting tax dollars; and there would be a tendency to try to pack the meetings to get what they want. Again, are the desires of those who are most inclined to attend the meetings necessarily a good use of taxpayers' money?
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 26, 2012 at 04:18 PM
"Hope reading that helps."
Yes, it does. It teaches us that it's never to early for an incumbant to start his/her next campaign.
Posted by: bubba | January 26, 2012 at 04:20 PM
I was afraid of this with certain council people being elected that they would try and bring the 60's back, great music but bad politics. You got to be stupid if you think that giving money away at meetings is going to create jobs,lol. I am just learning about conservatism and understand their point about not wasting money and this council is a great example. I am trying to figure out if you build a Performing Arts Center whi is going to come, maybe for a little bit but for teh long haul, NO they will not. We still have the GAC we need to look at before we build more entertainment.
I see taxes going up, I am hoping 2013 gets here fast.
Posted by: Sal Leone | January 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Sorry about the bad typing,lol.
Posted by: Sal Leone | January 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Sal, this is what the voters chose; and this is the way things tend to be in Greensboro. We emulated Chicago long before this particular proposal arose.
It is a hopelessly liberal city. The best solution is to get out for those who can.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM