There’s an interesting article in the Times today about the high-rise buildings France has built to house its poor. While the idea that high-rise housing projects lead to desperation among the urban poor is not a new one in Europe or in America, this article gives some interesting insights about what Europe is doing to move away from this concept.
Seriously, people. The era of being cool simply because you have a web log or a web site is totally over, now that Pete Best has a web site. (You might remember that Pete Best was part of the Beatles before Ringo Starr came along.) “Unfortunately, in circumstances still clouded in mystery Pete Best was dismissed from the group he had played with for over 2 years. The real reason was never given to Pete. The rest is legend…” And the sad part is, Pete’s web site is probably better than mine.
Speaking of minor deities, I suggest reading Matt’s airport atrocities post. Spine-tingling.
Some of the nice people in my family have decided that they’ll spend this weekend in Vegas and go see Paul McCartney in Phoenix, while I get to stay here and take Grandma to her doctor appointment where they’ll probably tell her she needs a hip replacement. Oh, and I’m supposed to be studying for final exams.
These people actually aren’t returning from the west until Thanksgiving Day around 4pm, and they have actually asked me if I wouldn’t mind, oh, cooking the Thanksgiving turkey. So. It’s a great honor, but seems like I’m getting the raw end of the deal (P.S., tuition and books is fifteen thousand a year: where’s my free trip). And of course, this is a real winner for me because if I do fine, then everybody gets turkey as usual, but if I screw it up, I’m the bad son Who Ruined Thanksgiving.
Without further grumbling, here are the directions for cooking a turkey, courtesy my mom.
A number of people have complained that their subscriptions to Before were disrupted when I switched to WordPress. (It’s so nice to be loved.) I promise to get this back up and running some day, so you’ll get e-mails from me when I post again. I’m rather busy with my other projects.
The recent clash over red-light cameras in Ohio has me a little overheated. A healthy debate is good for all of us, but the attempt to step on Columbus is despicable.
To the alarm of certain House Republicans, Columbus City Council recently decided to put up a handful of traffic cameras to catch illegal drivers and to promote safety. The city police have recommended the locations, which are among the most dangerous in the city. Anyone running one of these lights will be videotaped and ticketed by mail. Drivers will have plenty of notice that the cameras are going up: first of all, there’s the spirited public debate; there’ll be signs at the intersections; and only warnings, not tickets, will be issued for 30 days. Violators will be able to watch their infractions on the Internet. City officials say the cameras should act as a deterrent.
The problem is real: red-light running led to more than 200,000 injuries and 928 American deaths in a recent year. And the camera solution, far from being some new-fangled European craze like gay marriage, is a concept that’s been successful in many other cities and states right here in America. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety approves of the idea, citing it as the top cause of urban crashes. The national AAA supports the concept too. And so should anybody who’s worried about the ever-declining standard of civility on our streets.
But it’s not really the merits of the camera proposal that move me to write: it’s the baffling reaction of some Statehouse Republicans, who want to amend state law so that Columbus’s new cameras become impossible. Proponents say cameras have the potential to greatly reduce T-bone crashes, saving our money and our lives. But if state Rep. Jim Raussen has his way, we’ll never get to find out. Proving you can fight City Hall, his House Bill 56 would strip cities of their ability to enforce their laws by way of red-light cameras – unless they have an officer present. Since we can’t afford that, the law essentially makes cameras illegal.
Apparently these extremists can talk out of both sides of their mouths (and I thought they only had a right side). Republicans are the same folks who told us that local control by towns and school districts was far superior to overreaching by distant overseers in Columbus and Washington. Honest local people on city councils, they said, know how to take care of their problems far better than any pompous know-it-all in the capital.
Intelligent design in the schoolhouse? It’s a choice that’s best left up to those parents and civic leaders on the school board. Giant, ugly ads on downtown buildings? The Federal Highway Administration better not bother us with its musty old laws. A conservation plan for the Darby, that would depend solely on willing sellers of land? Granny, get your gun! Local control is the only American way. So why are they against our local decision to try cameras to save lives?
Their opposition is mysterious. This is a classic case of a decision made by citizen-representatives at the local level, affecting only local people. Columbus isn’t putting cameras on the interstates or at our city’s borders; they’re mostly in the center of town. The cameras won’t affect people from out of town unless they choose to drive deep into Columbus — and then break our laws. I’m no defender of one-party rule anywhere, particularly at City Hall, but we, the people of Columbus, put those people on City Council, and extremists in the Statehouse should respect our decisions.
They told us crime is such a serious problem in Ohio, we needed the Ohio Patriot Act, a law putting unprecedented power in the hands of cops. A police officer can now stop you and demand that you give your name, address, and birthday, even if you’re innocent and that officer has no cause to suspect you’ve done anything wrong. But an impartial, proven technology that would catch real criminals, in the act, on videotape? That’s out of line.
Apparently, local control only goes so far. H.B. 56 should be stopped in its tracks.
Every year, it falls to me to grouse and complain about the abuse of the public trust practiced by certain local candidates who seem to think they own the whole damn road. I’m not talking about the driving, I’m talking about their signs in the public right-of-way.
This year on May 23rd, I wrote to City Attorney Richard Pfeiffer to complain about violations of the Columbus City Code. The relevant section of code is 902.02 (a).
902.02 Obstructing sidewalks or streets.
(a) No person, regardless of intent, shall place, deposit, maintain, or use, or cause or permit to be placed, deposited, maintained, or used upon any street, alley, sidewalk, highway, or right-of-way any materials, containers, vending equipment, structures, appliances, furniture, merchandise, bench, stand, sign, or advertising of any kind, or any other similar device or obstruction except as authorized by the transportation administrator, as required by Chapter 903 of the Columbus City Code.
I did get a very nice and considerate voice mail, along with a suggestion to forward my letter to Public Safety Directory Henry Guzman, but neither of these guys has completely solved the problem.
I don’t drive very often, but I did happen to drive down Olentangy to dinner tonight and in a half-mile stretch, I saw signs from five different candidates! The offenders cluttering the public landscape were:
These signs collect all month, blowing all over the street, and then no one takes them down after the election. Public land belongs to everyone, and is not to be used to one candidate’s personal benefit. And may I remind my readers of the irony here, three of the above candidates openly violating city law and the public trust are running for judge?
Party and qualifications be damned. If you put up a sign on public property, you lose my vote. Let’s have a little dignity and respect for the process.
Reading the editorial page of the Columbus Dispatch is like being in an abusive relationship. Just when you think you’re safe, you wake up, and out of nowhere you get brained. Unfortunately, unlike a battered wife, I really have to admit that it’s all my fault and I don’t know why I keep going back to him.
This Sunday the Dispatch opposed Reform Ohio Now’s issues 2 through 5. With all the thoughtful writing they’ve done on local city issues and on abuses of power, plus with the series of articles we’ve seen on Ohio’s lopsidedly gerrymandered legislative districts, I was sure they would back at least some of the issues. Unfortunately, I’ll have to be lying to my friends that “I fell down the stairs,” because this hurt and I sure didn’t see it coming.
I was not whole-heartedly behind each issue. In very brief, the issues are:
I have been leaning toward opposing 2 and 3 and supporting 4 and 5.
Issue 2 allows people to vote up to 35 days before the date of the actual election. I think this is a terrible idea. While the idea of absentee voting seems nice, a lot can happen in the five weeks before an election. As we allow voting farther and farther ahead, people are more likely to miss defining events on the campaign trail, and once your vote is cast, it can’t be changed. Consider what happened last year in the 26th District where I lived: the Democratic primary was won by Mike Mitchell, who defeated his opponent by only 173 votes. But (according to the paper on March 9, 2004) Mitchell had gotten a DUI citation just two days before the election. He was also charged with going 70 in a 55 and driving on a suspended license. (Unfortunately, this didn’t hit the news until it was too late.) If people had known about this before they voted, I think he would have lost the election. Early voting costs you the chance to make important last-minute decisions.
Issue 3 is campaign contribution limits; I honestly don’t have a strong position here and I don’t want to talk about it. I think they are a mistake.
Issue 4, however, is the real jewel of this year’s reform package. Under issue 4, anyone could submit a plan for the state’s legislative districts, and that plan would be scored for its political competitiveness. The formula — which is insanely complicated (go read it) — gives higher points if a district is more evenly balanced between the two parties. The highest overall point-getting plan generally wins and is chosen by an impartial board. It’s more complicated than that, but it would end the system where last year Democrats won their Ohio House seats by an average of some 60 percent and Republicans by some 40 percent. Gerrymandering used to be more of an art, but in the last go-round, computer mapping technology had advanced so much that these crazy unwinnable districts have been much easier to draw. (I know, because I write mapping software.)
The gerrymandering in our state is really costing us, because the people who get elected just have to win their party primary, not appeal to a broad electorate. In the case of the 26th District, by the way, Mike Mitchell went on to run unopposed in the general election, and he won. (The Dispatch said that the “solution would be worse than the problem” and that “Democrats’ weak challenges to GOP officeholders have played a role in this problem.” But it cuts both ways when Republicans don’t field any candidate at all.)
Issue 5 would take election oversight duties away from the Secretary of State and give them to a board of election officials. Although a board might be less responsive, I think it would be a worthwhile step. In Ohio in 2004, as in Florida in 2000, the Secretary of State was at the center of a heated, disputatious election, and the Secretary of State was also the chairman of the Bush campaign. It presented a ridiculous conflict of interest. I understand Florida has already stripped their SOS of election duties, by the way.
I think the Dispatch does have a good point to make about the complexity and specificity of the laws, saying that “they seek to write highly detailed, prescriptive language and untested policy into the Ohio Constitution. Once there, fixing any deficiencies would require another statewide vote.” While this is true, I am not exactly holding my breath for either party to voluntarily level the playing field. Also, while issues 2 and 3 generally deal with regulation of elections and are probably better suited to being acts of the legislature, issues 4 and 5 are structural in nature and therefore do belong in our state’s constitution. As an alternative, the broad outlines of issue 4’s formula might have been put into the constitution, along with the requirement of a more detailed enabling act to be passed by the legislature, so that the variables could be tinkered with, but I’m not comfortable with anything coming out of the Statehouse these days.
Our electoral system is fundamental to our functioning democracy. Vote yes on issues 4 and 5!