Some of Whitewater’s political candidates – running for Common Council – attended a Saturday, 3.16.13 forum at city hall.
It ran from ten to a bit after eleven. (Readers wishing statements from the candidates may visit lwvwhitewater.org.) Below are overall impressions from the event. I’ll write more later about topics raised between now and the election on April 2nd.
Writing about the city these several years, one sees some things old, some things new.
Articulate, educated candidates. Whitewater doesn’t lack for smart, educated, articulate candidates, as she certainly doesn’t lack for those traits among her residents. Although I’d say that the city’s supposed, few hundred people-of-influence are less capable than her residents, her political candidates don’t have this disadvantage – it’s a solid group.
However the election turns out, the next Council will not lack for raw ability, as the present one does not.
The mental tics of the town. It’s neither intellect nor education that holds the city back – it’s a cultural ethos that insists all is well, when it’s manifestly not. There’s also a problem with a small minority of residents who have no interest in, or understanding of, what due diligence requires – they accept every sugary story at face value.
Errors and flimsy claims about the Innovation Center. You know, there just aren’t a lot of people who walk about praising Pickett’s Charge, the design of the Edsel, or Pauly Shore as an Academy Award contender.
Whitewater’s insiders are more certain or stubborn. They’ll praise this multi-million-dollar exercise in crony capitalism and empty symbolism to the end. They’re really only saying it for each other these days — these claims are uncompelling to anyone who can (1) read, (2) write, (3) count, (4) assess competing needs, or (5) just plain spot empty puffery when he or she sees it.
It’s not magic to see through this project (or others even worse): it’s simply applying sound reasoning of the kind ordinary residents of the city do every day.
Let’s be clear: the project cost over eleven million in public money, not three million. The city alone floated millions in bond debt, and the federal government spent still more. Those who believe in this deal should be candid about what it takes to assess it properly — one needs to count at least to eleven (million).
Touting twelve jobs of uncertain duration, by the way, is far short of the promise made to the Economic Development Administration to deliver a thousand jobs.
If I’ve a table to sell for a thousand dollars, a buyer’s actual offer of twelve dollars with a vague promise of ‘more on the way’ would be unpersuasive.
Attendance. About twenty people attended, exclusive of the candidates and a few representatives of the sponsoring organization. That’s little more than one tenth of one-percent of the city’s population.
One could say that’s a sign of how happy people are, of course: they’ve no concerns about local politics at all. Possible, but improbable, as (1) we have significant, chronic challenges, and (2) even an entire population drugged with sedatives wouldn’t be this complacent.
The event was well-organized; attracting attendees is really a matter of restoring confidence in a realistic politics.
What to consider. People who attend a forum like this do so with their own standards by which to evaluate it. Here’s what I think about: (1) what the candidates say substantively, (2) how they sound (confident or tentative), (3) how the audience reacts (gestures, glances, nearby discussions, etc,), and (4) how the candidates look (this is usually not a consideration at a forum, as people typically dress professionally for special events).
What one says, and how confidently one says it, matters a great deal for any discussion over a few minutes. If the discussion is very brief, and if ephemeral rather than repeated, appearance means more. The Saturday forum was long enough so that anyone watching would feel a greater impression from content and delivery than mere appearance.
Part way. We’re part way to something different in Whitewater: the city’s evolving despite a few yearning to encase it in amber, and declare it an everlasting exemplar of unmatched wisdom.
We’ve a mixture, side-by-side: some who have advanced change, some who want change, some who claim all is well, some more ideological, some less so.
We have problems, and it’s a measure of love and respect for our community to call them such when one sees them. (Of all our problems, this one is the worst of all: the nutty insistence that to mention problems is itself a problem. No one in the city owes anyone else complacency, mediocrity, or soothing tales.)
And yet, for it all, I’d say the city has better prospects than she did a decade ago, or even five years ago. It’s the transition from ‘everything’s wonderful’ to ‘we can do better.’
Much yet to do, but there’s no going back.
