Bobby Jindal Proposes Largest Tax Increase in Louisiana History, Highest Combined Sales Tax Rate in the US ¹

Less than a year ago, Governor Bobby Jindal vetoed a bill to permanently extend a existing 4-cent tax on a pack of cigarettes. At the time, Jindal explained (emphasis mine), “I have made a commitment to the taxpayers of Louisiana to oppose all attempts to raise taxes.” It was a blatantly disingenuous argument: The bill wasn’t about “raising” taxes any more than they already were; it was a mere formality: Renewing a tax on cigarettes that had already been on the books, and Jindal’s opposition had nothing to do with the merits of the policy itself and everything to do with ensuring his unblemished resume tax on increases. And the timing couldn’t been worse. Jindal, after all, was still angling for a spot on Romney’s Presidential ticket.

At the time, James Gill of The Times-Picayune noted (bold mine):

But smoking is not the issue here. Jindal must figure that taking a few licks now will be worth it if there is a reward down the road, perhaps when he is running for another office. Indeed, when urging his fellow Republicans to uphold his veto of the cigarette tax, he said the issue is “personal” because he made a promise not to raise taxes.

The idea that it is against Jindal’s principles to break a promise no doubt raised a smile on some of the faces present. But this promise is different, because Jindal is mad about ideological purity.

Jindal was so dead-set on not raising ANY taxes, even a perfunctory renewal tax on cigarettes, that he wouldn’t even consider renewing a paltry 4 cent tax on cigarettes, a tax that had already been on the books. He was, after all, a man of principle.

A year later, Bobby Jindal apparently believes that he had hypnotized the entire State of Louisiana into some type of quasi-amnesiac ignorance (And if his college essay about participating in an unsanctioned demonic exorcism maintained even an ounce of credibility, it may seem at least remotely possible, particularly among his most devout believers).

But if you carried any illusion about Governor Jindal’s consistent ideological position, you’re now having to confront an inconvenient truth:

Two days ago, Jindal announced plans to impose the single-largest combined sales tax rate in the country: Under Jindal’s plan, for every ten dollars you spend in anything and everything, you’ll need to spend an additional dollar with the government, Again, a year go, Jindal even refused to renew a tax on cigarettes; now he wants to collect $1.41 more for every pack sold.

Any why? Because Jindal wants some way– any way– to shuffle in big, out-of-state corporations and pillagers- no state income taxes, no corporation taxes, no taxes on risky speculation. Come first; we’ll sort out the details later. The break almost exclusively benefits the wealthy.

But don’t just take my word. From The New York Times: (I don’t do this often, but read the whole thing:)

These regional disparities go back to Reconstruction, when Southern Republicans increased property taxes on defeated white landowners and former slaveholders to pay for the first public services — education, hospitals, roads — ever provided to black citizens. After Reconstruction ended in 1877, conservative Democrats — popularly labeled “the Redeemers” — rolled taxes back to their prewar levels and inserted supermajority clauses into state constitutions to ensure it could never happen again. Property taxes were frozen; income taxes were held down; corporate taxes were almost nonexistent.

Practically the only tax that could rise was the one that hurt the poor the most: the sales tax. And rise it did, throughout the Deep South in the late 19th century, then spreading into the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and the rest of the region in the 1960s and 1970s. Even liberal politicians weren’t able to buck the tide — just ask Bill Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas urgently sought new revenue to improve his state’s ailing schools and found the sales tax was the only politically viable option.

If this were just a history lesson, we could set it aside. It isn’t. In the last 30 years, these trends have only gotten worse. Southern states have steadily increased the tax burden on their poorest citizens by shifting the support of the public sector to sales taxes and fees for public services. After California voters passed Proposition 13, which capped property-tax increases, in 1978, Western states began to move in a similar direction. Sales taxes on clothing and school supplies and fees for bus fare and car registration take up, of course, a far bigger slice of a poor household’s budget than they do from the rich.

Over the same 30-year period, some Northeastern and Midwestern states moved in the opposite direction. They mimicked the federal government by passing their own earned-income tax credits (and making them refundable, as the federal government has done, so that very low-income earners get a check after filing their returns), preserved progressive state income-tax rates, and either exempted food and other basics from sales taxes or gave sales-tax rebates to low-income households. No Southern state provides refunds to its poor citizens through the tax code, no matter how little they earn.

There are many reasons to worry about the growing regional divide. But even leaving aside basic fairness — why should a poor child in the Northeast have greater life chances than one in the South? — the divergence exacerbates poverty itself, driving households deeper into distress and lowering social mobility.

For a book published in 2011, my colleague Rourke L. O’Brien and I analyzed the combined burden of sales tax, state and local income taxes on poor households in 49 states, based on consumer expenditures, from 1982 to 2008. (We omitted Alaska because it offers oil-revenue-related rebates to every household). We looked at the relationship between the total tax burden on a poor family of three and state-level figures for mortality, morbidity, teenage childbearing, dropping out of high school, property crime and violent crime.

The fact is, the more the poor are taxed, the worse off they are, whether they are working or not.

And they continue:

It turns out that after factoring out all other explanations — like racial composition, poverty rates, the amount spent on education or health care, the size of the state’s economy, existing inequality levels, and differences in the cost of living — the relationship between taxing the poor and negative outcomes like premature death persisted. For every $100 increase on taxes at the poverty line, we saw an additional 7 deaths and 78 property crimes per 100,000 people, and a quarter of a percentage point decrease in high school completion.

Southern states have far higher rates of strokes, heart disease and infant mortality than the rest of the country. Students drop out of high school in larger numbers. These outcomes are not just a consequence of a love of fried food or higher poverty levels. Holding all those conditions constant, the poor of the South — and increasingly the West — do worse because their states tax them more heavily. They have less money to buy medication, so their health problems get worse. High sales taxes make meals more expensive, so they shift to cheaper, unhealthy food. If people can’t make ends meet, they may turn to the underground economy or to crime.

This self-defeating pattern has plagued the citizens of the “meaner states,” the ones that tax poor people at a higher rate, for a long time. But it is about to get worse. Governors in fiscally strapped states are hoping to roll back state earned-income tax credits. Some — like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Dave Heineman of Nebraska and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma — are aiming to cut or even eliminate state income and corporate taxes and raise sales taxes. North Carolina lawmakers are considering the same thing.

Proponents say these moves will make their states more economically competitive, bring back jobs, and attract high-income residents. But economists who have studied the impact of raising taxes on residential choices have found that tax rates don’t make much of a difference. Employers represent a different story: they are attracted to low-tax states, particularly if they don’t need high-skilled labor. Accordingly, low-wage job opportunities have grown in the Cotton Belt and the Sun Belt, and shrunk in the Rust Belt. There is something to be said for this, if the goal is to replace the nonworking poor with the working poor. But this is hardly a strategy for eradicating poverty itself.

The fact is, the more the poor are taxed, the worse off they are, whether they are working or not. We all pay a huge price for this shortsightedness. Medicaid payments, food stamps, disability benefits — all of these federal programs swoop in to try to patch up a frayed safety net. Consequently, the Southern states reap more dollars in federal benefits than they pay in taxes (like Mississippi, which saw a net gain of $240 billion between 1990 and 2009), while the wealthier states — which do more to take care of their own — lose out for every dollar they pay (like New Jersey, which handed over a net of $706 billion over that same period). As noble as the federal effort to rescue the poor in the “mean states” may be, it is not enough to reverse the impact of regressive taxation.

There is a better way: increasing taxes on luxury goods; exempting necessities like food, medicine and children’s clothing from sales taxes; and perhaps most important, issuing tax rebates and preserving refundable earned-income tax credits, which put more money in the hands of low-income households. Since poor families tend to spend all of what they take in, these protections would stimulate the economy and preserve, or even expand, the job base.

The states headed in the opposite direction are not only damaging the most vulnerable of their citizens, but exacting a significant toll on Americans in states with more progressive tax policies. We all pay for the damage done when states try to solve their fiscal problems, or score ideological points, on the backs of the poor.

Sound familiar? It should.

On a final note, I highly recommend Tyler Bridge’s commentary on The Lens. Louisiana is so lucky to have him back.

Bill Moyers Highlights Louisiana’s Innovative Progressives: Zack Kopplin and the Lafayette Pro-Fiber Movement ¹

On Friday, legendary PBS host Bill Moyers will sit down with my friend and a young man who is increasingly becoming one of the leading education and science advocates in the nation, Zack Kopplin. In only two short years, Zack has catapulted his activism into international acclaim. Last week, Zack addressed more than 10,000 people at the Save Texas School rally in Austin:

And again, on Friday, he will be interviewed by the Great Bill Moyers on PBS (so set your TIVOs). Here’s a preview:

A couple of weeks ago, Moyers’s show also focused on the innovative and incredible work being done in Lafayette, Louisiana, featuring another one of my dear friends, Stephen Handwerk. It’s a great story, and you should watch it in its entirety.

Bobby Jindal’s Catastrophic Negligence: Coastal Restoration Funds Squandered ²

A few years ago, the good people who conduct the U.S. Geological survey realized that the most powerful and effective way to describe the destruction of the Louisiana coastline was to put it in a language that we all understand: Football. Right now, in Louisiana, we lose an entire football field every hour due to coastal erosion.

The destruction of the Louisiana coast and marshlands is, without question, the single largest existential threat to the state’s economy, culture, habitat, and environment. And it’s made all the more insidious because this destruction is gradual (to mix environmental metaphors, you could also say, it’s glacier). We don’t experience it in real-time; it cannot be documented as dramatically as melting icebergs plunging into to the frigid Arctic Ocean. In Louisiana, coastal erosion is tracked through the never-ending, seemingly peaceful, and somnambulant sounds of waves lapping up and then receding on small, uninhabitable marshlands, most of which are at least a hundred miles from any sign of human civilization.

Quoting from The Times-Picayune (back in 2011):

“If that loss were to occur at a constant rate, it would be equal to losing more land than the island of Manhattan every year,” Couvillion said.

Preliminary measurements for the years 2009 and 2010 indicate what could be the beginning of a positive trend: a loss of only 3 square miles of wetlands.

To be fair, we’ve been able to curb some of this destruction through targeted infrastructure investments, rebuilding and repairing far-flung marshes, and no doubt, the coast is continually imperiled by large-scale hurricanes and storms. Quoting again:

That rapid loss rate was likely from several causes, Turnipseed and Couvillion said. Subsidence in wetlands in the Barataria Basin quickly followed the rapid drawdown of oil and gas beneath them. But part of the loss was likely the result of what Couvillion refers to as “sediment deprivation.”

“We built levees and sediment is no longer allowed to get out there and sustain these marshes and help them keep up with sea level rise and the subsidence that may have been in part related to oil and gas extraction,” he said. The loss of sediment also is liked to the rapid development of dams for hydropower and other purposes on the Missouri and upper Mississippi rivers, which captured sand and dirt that would otherwise have traveled to Louisiana.

But the inconvenient truth, to borrow a term from Vice President Al Gore, is that coastal erosion in Louisiana is largely the result of man-made interventions: Levee systems that rerouted the depositing of critical sediment, the building blocks of our marshes, into other areas; the industrialization of our gulf waterways and channels in order to accommodate the oil and gas extraction industry; the construction of large electric dams further upstream.

Yesterday, we learned that during the last two years, Governor Jindal has raided nearly $45 million from the Rigs-to-Reefs fund, which, as its name implies, requires rig operators to contribute a certain portion of their income to create and develop infrastructure projects along the Louisiana coast that could offset some of this destruction. But instead of spending that $45 million on needed coastal restoration projects, Jindal pilfered from the fund in order to offset losses in the State’s General Fund. Thankfully, the Board of the Artificial Reef Fund is now speaking out and making it abundantly clear that, for them, Jindal’s use of their monies is unconstitutional. Quoting (bold mine):

One such program is the Artificial Reef Development Fund, also known as the Rigs to Reefs Program. Since 2010, Jindal has taken $45 million fromthe fund to cover budget overruns, and after sitting on their hands for a few years, the commission that oversees the program is considering fighting against the governor who appointed them in order to recover the money.

The Wildlife and Fisheries Commission held a closed-door session today in Baton Rouge to consider filing suit. The board, which is entirely comprised of Jindal appointees, did not take any action on the matter Thursday, but its leaders say they are convinced that the governor’s use of the money violates the state Constitution.

“It’s in the Conservation Fund and the Conservation Fund is protected by the Constitution,” said Ronny Graham, the board’s newly installed chairman. “The money that comes into the Rigs to Reefs Program or the donation to the Conservation Fund into that, it specifically says it should be used for that program.”

The fund was set up to collect donations from oil companies when their offshore rigs come to the end of their useful lives.

The companies agreed to give the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries the old rigs and half the money they would have spent to disassemble and remove them so the state can pay to move the structures and turn them into fisheries habitats.

Every act of donation explicitly says the money is “to be placed in the Artificial Reef Fund for the benefit of the Louisiana Artificial Reef Development Program.”

Jindal offered this pathetic response (again, bold mine):

“We’re confident that the law has allowed for unused, excess dollars to be used to protect higher education and health care,” said Kristy Nichols, Jindal’s commissioner of administration. “Any time we use statutory funds in this way, we ensure that the core mission of the fund is protected.”

And maybe, to some, that sounds legitimate: “Unused, excess dollars” paying for education and heath care,” says Team Jindal. But unfortunately, for Jindal, that is not even remotely true. From WWLTV (bold mine):

But, as conservative budget hawk Rep. Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, points out, the core mission of the fund is not education or health care in any way. In fact, the oil companies are promised that the donations will go only to building the reefs.

“The oil companies are paying into this for a specific purpose and our constituents believe we’re taking this money and using it the best to save the coast,” Henry said. “I mean, that’s what Louisiana needs to do, and we’re not going that route.”

And Henry also notes that the administration did not use the money exclusively for education and health care. In fact, news reports in 2010 said that more than $12 million of the $18 million taken from the fund that year financed legislative pork.

“They’ve used it for slush funds, for projects for members (of the Legislature),” Henry said.

Henry and another conservative legislator, Rep. Kirk Talbot, R-River Ridge, have already sued the state attorney general and treasurer for what they say are Constitutional violations in the use of hundreds of millions of dollars from one-time revenue funds, including the Artificial Reef Fund.

“The Handgun Permit Fund, the Litter Abatement Fund — all these permits we have that people pay into when you get your driver’s license or your conceal and carry permit, used for a specific purpose — and the administration goes in at the end of the year and sweeps those funds and uses it for their discretion,” Henry said.

According to Representative Henry and Representative Talbot, Governor Jindal is not reallocating surplus monies from the Artificial Reef Fund in order to pay for education and health care; he’s unconstitutionally pilfering from the Rigs to Reef program to provide slush funds for unrelated projects to members of the legislature.

Then again, why would Jindal care about reef restoration and construction when he, alone, possesses the most brilliant coastal restoration plan in Louisiana history: Forcing BP, in the immediate aftermath of the Deep Water Horizon fiasco to fork over $220M to construct sand berms, berms that would not only trap the oil washing on our shores, but berms that could also serve as a steady, long-term investment in rebuilding precious infrastructure in our most environmentally vulnerable places.

Except that: Jindal’s sand berm project was a failure of epic failure, a failure so open and obvious that it seemed like a foregone conclusion before the first shovel hit the ground. Quoting USA Today:

The presidential commission investigating the BP Gulf of Mexico spill has concluded that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wasted $220 million building controversial sand berms that captured a “minuscule amount” of oil and proved to be “underwhelmingly effective” and “overwhelmingly expensive.”

The 36 miles of berms, constructed over the objections of many scientists and federal agencies, trapped only about 1,000 barrels of oil out of the nearly 5 million barrels that spilled between April and July, the National Oil Spill Commission said in a draft report released today.

Jindal later responded:

This report is partisan revisionist history at taxpayer expense.

The Commission would do a true service to Americans by recommending federal bureaucracies that can be eliminated or expedited in times of major disasters – like Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill, instead of attacking the politics of Louisiana and Huey Long.

The report’s assertion that the berms did not pass the commission’s “cost benefit analysis” is insulting to the thousands of people whose way of life depends on the health of our working coast. What exactly is the cost of thousands of jobs and generations of fishermen and oyster harvesters who have made their living off of our coast for over 100 years? I would like the Administration to provide us with an estimate of the ‘cost’ that they did not deem worthy of every action possible to protect coastal families.

We are thrilled that this has become the state’s largest barrier island restoration project in history.

Here is Jindal’s photographic evidence that his initiative saved thousands of jobs and generations of fishermen and oyster harvesters:

LSUS Professor Jeff Sadow’s Stunningly Dishonest Defense of Governor Jindal’s Tax Giveaway ⁷

Throughout the last several years, as anyone who follows Louisiana politics can tell you, whenever Governor Bobby Jindal’s policies are challenged, you can count on blogger and LSUS Associate Professor Jeff Sadow to rise to Jindal’s defense. Sadow has published hundreds of thinly-sourced and poorly-researched screeds on his website Between the Lines, screeds that are often reposted on other conservative-leaning websites and blogs, screeds that attempt to intellectually justify Jindal’s policies by referencing the work of none other than LSUS Professor Jeff Sadow. Suffice it to say, I’ve never been impressed with Sadow’s blog or the integrity of his self-referential “scholarship” (if that is even the right word).

He’s a radical conservative who frequently rants against the basic function and role of the government, lambasting the poor and those who rely on public services and programs and denouncing the legacy of populism in Louisiana. Yet, ironically, this is a man who has spent the bulk of his professional career living off of the public dole, a man who owes much of his own success as a political commentator to the platform provided to him by taxpayers (his blog would carry little import without his title). I’ve read his work for years, and I’ve always been amazed by this basic lack of self-understanding. One could also say “hypocrisy,” but for Sadow, the word doesn’t seem to fit neatly: He’s not a hypocrite. He is, if anything, remarkably consistent. And even though I doubt I have agreed with a single thing Sadow has posted in years, I’ve never really considered him to be a “hack;” to me, he comes across as a true believer.

I’ll give you an example:

Yesterday, predictably, Sadow published a post on his website, which has subsequently been reposted on various other websites titled alternately; The Hayride led with the headline, “Sadow: Jindal’s Tax Plan Might Actually Grow the Economy If He (presumably Jindal) Does It Right.” On Sadow’s own website, he titled the piece, “Jindal tax swap succeeds in fairness, wealth creation.” These seemingly small distinctions are noteworthy only because the former implies even the slightest recognition of contingencies: “might…grow if he does it right;” whereas the latter headline, the one Sadow used for his own site suggests that Jindal’s success is a foregone conclusion.

For those of you who may not be caught up to speed, last week, Governor Bobby Jindal announced his plans to eliminate state personal income taxes and corporate taxes (and as we’ve subsequently learned severance taxes as well), replacing those sources of income (all while maintaining the state’s budget balance) by increasing state sales taxes by 3% all across the State. As I mentioned in a previous post, a 3% increase in Louisiana state sales taxes would make Louisiana’s sales tax rate the highest in the country, with an average rate of 11.86%.

Critics of Jindal’s plan, myself included, immediately pointed out that a massive (essentially a 75%) increase in state sales taxes is definitively regressive; if taxes for corporations and for the wealthiest in Louisiana are effectively eliminated, the State would then attempt to reclaim that lost income though massively expanding the taxes that we pay for every day necessities. The standard Republican response is: Higher sales tax rates discourage people from consumption and that, by extension, encourages investments. It’s silliness, of course.

As Mike Hasten reported in The Town Talk (bold mine):

In another look, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the proposal is bad news for middle and lower income taxpayers but good news for the top 20 percent of Louisiana’s taxpayers.

ITEP said it doesn’t figure into its calculations any tax relief for low income residents, even though Jindal says relief will be part of the plan to ease some of the impact of the swap on lower income workers. ITEP said that since there are no details on how that could be accomplished, it couldn’t work it into its calculation model.

The Microsimulation Tax Model shows the lowest 20 percent of Louisiana wage earners, with salaries of $18,000 or less, would pay $395 a year more in taxes under Jindal’s plan.

The second 20 percent, making between $18,000 and $34,000, would pay $566 more and the middle 20 percent, with salaries from $34,000 to $53,000, would pay $534 more in sales taxes.

The fourth 20 percent, earning $53,000 to $93,000, would pay $255 more.

You get this? If you make less than $18,000 a year, under Jindal’s plan, you’ll have to pay more around $395 more a year in taxes. Even if you may as much as $93,000, you’d still be paying around $255 more. Here’s where it gets interesting (bold mine):

But the formula predicts gains for taxpayers in the top 20 percent.

For those earning $93,000 to $182,000, the next 15 percent, there’s a $930 a year reduction in taxes and, for the next 4 percent, earning between $182,000 and $452,000, there’s a savings of $4,052.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes of more than $452,000 (average $1.12 million), is projected to save $25,423 a year in taxes.

Let’s recap: Among the very poor in Louisiana, Jindal’s plan would increase their taxes by as much as 3%, but if you make between $93,000 to $452,000, you’re set to receive a tax break of between 1% and 2%. And if you’re in the top 1% of income producers in Louisiana, you would save an astonishing 5.6% in taxes.

Make no mistake: Under Jindal’s plan, the poor will pay more so that the rich can pay less, significantly less.

Republican apologists like to argue that by shifting the tax burden from “productivity” to “consumption,” they will somehow, magically, transform Louisiana into a state that can become more competitive in landing big manufacturing plants and larger-scale economic development initiatives. It’s utter hogwash. Some call it “trickle-down economics;” others, like former President George H. W. Bush once called it “voodoo economics.” But after experimenting with similar plans during the Presidency of George W. Bush, we should know what it really is: A disastrous economic philosophy that could only be cooked up by those who believe the government exists to make it easier for the wealthy to become wealthier, especially if it means imposing draconian, bank-breaking taxes on the poor. It’ll teach them to save more, to consume less.

Some, like Jindal and Sadow, argue disingenuously that this is about fairness: Poor people usually don’t even qualify to make enough money to pay state income taxes: Why should they enjoy the largesse of tax dollars accumulated by the wealthy? Of course, many of the working poor and lower middle class– those who don’t earn enough to pay state personal income taxes– are our teachers, firefighters, and policemen. They’re the people who run our non-profit charities, social services organizations, and our service industries. They’re actually the backbone of our small businesses and the driving forces behind our local economies.`

And of course, Jindal’s plan would never work if suddenly the poor and the lower middle class actually stopped spending less; for his plan to work, they must consume the same, except with higher taxes.

Which brings me back to Jeff Sadow’s most recent column. Sadow writes:

However, a tremendous amount of exceptions occur to collection of sales taxes. In fact, the 191 of these cost almost as much as the income tax exemptions. And, in one of the few specifics offered, Jindal’s otherwise general plan would keep the biggest exemptions of all intact, including exempting purchase of unprepared food, drugs, and utilities, which are more than half of all of them and lower total state sales tax take by $718 million or more than a quarter in the most recent year with available data.

Sadow implies that those who pay sales taxes are the beneficiaries of a huge number of exemptions and that exemptions for food, drugs, and utilities would likely still remain. In practical terms, this means absolutely nothing. It’s a red herring: The State does narrowly carve out sales tax exemptions for food, drugs, and utilities, and those exemptions do result in significantly less income. But the bulk of those sales tax exemptions don’t benefit individual consumers: They benefit businesses, farmers, manufacturers, and local governments. Jindal, Sadow seems to be implying, will keep the largest and most-needed exemptions for individuals, but it’s incredibly doubtful that he will offset those exemptions by repealing other exemptions that benefit small businesses. Sadow continues:

As constituted currently, if you are a single individual who makes minimum wage, who spends the bulk of that on unprepared (nonalcoholic drinks included only) food, utilities, and (prescription) drugs, and own a home worth $75,000, in net terms you will pay no state income taxes and in fact many in this situation will get a cash grant because of the EITC. For these people, the Jindal plan means they continue to pay net nothing.

This is a patronizing lie: Sadow’s defense hinges on the notion that people who make the minimum wage should only spend money on unprepared food, utilities, and prescription drugs. So, if you don’t need to buy furniture or a computer or a television or a cell phone, your taxes will increase. But according to Sadow, that’s your fault, not Jindal’s:

Government largesse in this instance, and is almost entirely maintained in Jindal’s planned changes, should extend only to basic needs: if you want luxuries like televisions or bigger, newer ones; or cellphones or more minutes for them; or to eat out or eat out more often and more of it, and the like, there’s no reason the state shouldn’t increase your penalty for engaging in this kind of consumptive behavior instead of you using those resources to put yourself in a position for a higher-earning job – or in even getting a job in the first place – while you are being encouraged to do so further by eliminating the penalty you suffer by having income or more of it.

You got that? This is not about raising your taxes; it’s about penalizing (not taxing, mind you) poor people for spending money on “luxuries” like “televisions” and “cellphones” and going out to eat at restaurants, because the poor should be taught a lesson on “getting a job in the first place.”

Sadow almost seems giddy when describing why he thinks the rich should control the political discourse and why the poor should be marginalized. Yes, there is also a social utility in this Machiavellian scheme (bold mine):

In the larger scheme of things, these kinds of exceptions Jindal seems intent on proposing work against his larger theory that simplification brings growth. The most efficient system spreads the tax burden as much and as flatly as possible, which these exceptions subvert. Further, because they reinforce the perverse nature of transfer payments – those who contribute the least to the system gain the most from it – they do the opposite of strengthening the connection that these users feel to the larger, organic society: when people contribute more of their own resources for use in public policy making, they likely are to invest more time and energy into critically appraising the use of those and everybody else’s resources, discouraging through their lobbying of policy-makers the use of those resources to fulfill low priorities, to privilege special interests, and to subsidize inefficient, if not wasteful, individual behavior.

I suspect I’m not the only one offended by Sadow’s borderline bigotry, his classist, arrogant, and paternalistic diatribe against the values of the working poor and the lower and working middle class. But here’s what you need to know, from the Louisiana Department of Revenue’s most recent annual report:

Louisiana already gives away 88.1% of its potential corporate income revenue in exemptions, $1.45B last year. We gave $1.13B away in exemptions for personal income, and $432M in severance tax exemptions. And yes, we gave away $1.3B in sales tax exemptions. That number is likely to not change. We’ll still be giving away the same amount in sales tax exemptions, but Jindal’s plan calls for eliminating nearly $200M a year in corporate income, $2.6B a year in individual income, and $764M in severance tax income. And guess where that money will be made up? By increasing taxes (Sadow may now want to call them penalties) on everyone else.

Here’s the projected losses over the next two years, and hopefully, someone with more skills at Excel than I possess will plug in numbers Jindal is proposing and show the rest of the State what it really looks like.

Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy’s Innovative Crime Prevention Initiative: “A 21st Century Lighthouse” ^Reply

Earlier this week, Greg Saville, an internationally-renowned expert in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (also known as CPTED) and SafeGrowth, published a guest column on his website by Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy, “SafeAlex: A 21st Century Lighthouse.” SafeAlex is Mayor Roy’s new and innovative crime prevention initiative, and, according to Saville, it is the very first program in the nation that “explicitly incorporates” SafeGrowth as a strategy to combat crime and enhance community development.

Although the program is still in its infancy, the results are staggering. As recently reported in The Town Talk, crime in Alexandria has noticeably decreased since the program was launched.

“Virtually every index crime is down for 2012 as compared to 2011 and 2010,” Alexandria Police Chief Loren M. Lampert said in a recent interview.

SafeAlex, at its core, is about empowering neighborhoods with the resources necessary to develop their own individualized plans of action. It flips the traditional, top-down policing approach on its head. Neighborhood leaders become block captains, collaborating with law enforcement to ensure that “community policing” is truly responsive and is built on a foundation of mutual trust and cooperation.

SafeAlex is also about ensuring that neighborhoods grow “safely,” which means improving the built environment. For example, SafeAlex is already sponsoring the development of a community garden in District One. It may not seem immediately obvious, but neighborhood projects like community gardens can also become crime prevention tools. In addition to the public health benefits, transforming and reclaiming a vacant or blighted lot into a garden enhances value for the entire neighborhood. In other words, crime prevention isn’t just about law enforcement; it’s also about building neighborhoods that look and feel safe. The seemingly small details matter: Well-lit streets, graffiti abatement, well-kept gardens and well-maintained community centers, neighborhoods that don’t exclusively rely on the government to pick up litter, the eradication and demolition of blighted and vacant homes. This, to me, is an equally astonishing statistic about the effectiveness of SafeAlex (bold mine):

This year, according to a recent SafeAlex report, the program helped to get 30 structures closed or demolished, assisted with getting 26 properties cleaned up and helped to resolve complaints about drug activity or public nuisances in 35 buildings.

“Several times I called about different little problems in my neighborhood,” Haller said. “Each time it worked perfectly. They seemed to get the job done. They do a fantastic job and it works. Anything you see in your neighborhood that doesn’t look right, if you call, they know who to call to get something done. I think it’s been most helpful and I have passed the word on to others to at least try them, and it has worked out each time.”

*****

As many of you know, I spent over five years working as an assistant to Mayor Roy, and throughout those five years, I was incredibly fortunate to be able to help him and his staff (my colleagues) develop a series of large-scale initiatives. And though I am undoubtedly biased and even at the risk of sounding like I’m bragging, I earnestly believe that the initiatives we developed as a team– and the projects that Mayor Roy continues to implement– are models that should be followed by cities all across the country.

Less than a week before Lehman Brothers collapsed and lending froze up, Mayor Roy and our team were able to finance the single-largest infrastructure redevelopment project in Alexandria history, a project, known as SPARC, that has already changed the built environment in Alexandria and one that is guaranteed to enhance, beautify, and modernize Alexandria’s streets and public spaces in ways that even the local newspaper has never fully understood.

I’ve been living in Dallas for the last year and a half and have only been back to Alexandria a handful of times. When I was there during the holiday break, I asked my friend Jonathan Bolen, who now works in the same position I had with Mayor Roy, to take me on a tour of SPARC projects. If you live in Alexandria, it may be difficult to notice the changes, but for someone who hadn’t been there in months, the changes were immediately noticeable: Masonic Drive finally looks like the recreation corridor it has always really been, with sidewalks, beautiful signage, and gateway monuments that flank both sides. Bolton Avenue has been completely repaved, and construction is underway on a series of beautification enhancements around the community center. Lincoln Park finally has a walking trail; Martin Park’s park looks the best it ever has; Frank O. Hunter Park is a massive construction zone. And, if you take the time to really tour the City, the list goes on.

Because I worked for Mayor Roy for five years, I know what is still on the books, and I know that this is only the beginning.

*****

Back to SafeAlex: In his column, Mayor Roy writes about how The Town Talk responded when he first pitched the initiative. Quoting:

A few years ago, a bold editorial in a local paper declared that our SafeAlex program would not take root unless it was police led and police dominated….

The newspaper editorial said: “The idea is laudable, but it will not take root under current conditions. When a house is on fire, you call firefighters and pump water until it’s out. The police should lead the crime prevention effort, not the community.”

I vividly remember this editorial, which was written by Town Talk editor Paul Carty. In all of the time I worked for Mayor Roy, I never met Paul Carty even once. He never met with City staff; I’m not even sure if he ever even visited City Hall. Now, don’t get me wrong: I do not believe the local newspaper should ever be a mouthpiece for any political administration. But Carty’s lack of intellectual curiosity results in journalistic laziness, and that, I’m afraid, further imperils the institutional integrity of a once-proud newspaper and makes it much more difficult for a city like Alexandria to muster the political will necessary to adapt, change, and innovate. I had noticed Carty’s willful ignorance before, but his editorial prejudging SafeAlex made me understand that it wasn’t merely that he didn’t understand, it was that he didn’t actually care to understand.

As Mayor Roy graciously points out in his column, SafeAlex was actually something that, at his urging, my friend and colleague Daniel Smith and I brought to the table. We’d been working with Mayor Roy on developing the program for over two years before its launch. It wasn’t some hair-brained, fly-by-night idea; by the time SafeAlex was rolled out, it was a thoroughly-vetted and comprehensive strategy that relied on personal input from some of the world’s leading experts. Mayor Roy had sent Daniel and I to a conference on SafeGrowth strategies in New Orleans in 2009, and when we returned with our notes and observations, he immediately and intuitively understood what it could mean for Alexandria. But Mayor Roy wanted to be bold and deliberative. This, we all recognized, was on the cutting-edge of crime prevention, and Alexandria had the opportunity to develop a cutting-edge program.

I don’t expect Paul Carty to ever eat his own words; I can only hope that, in the future, he will recognize something that I’ve known for years: Even if you disagree with his politics, Jacques Roy does his homework. Believe me, it’s something that I often had to learn the hard way.

*****

I’ve said it before privately: I have no doubt that I spent five years, in little ol’ Alexandria, Louisiana, working for our future Governor. Jacques Roy isn’t in politics to be a politician; I know this first-hand. He’s in politics because he believes in innovative policymaking. Unlike any leader in the Louisiana Republican Party and many in the Louisiana Democratic Party, Jacques Roy believes in competent, effective government. Government in Louisiana isn’t broken because it’s inherently flawed; government is broken because we’re led by people who, as a matter of principle, simply don’t want to fix it, people who’d rather turn over the public fisc to enrich the very few, people who openly admit that they’re incapable of innovation.

While Governor Jindal continues to bankrupt the State, Mayor Roy has spent the last six years building back Alexandria without increasing taxes. While Republicans in Louisiana clamor for the need to eliminate taxes for “job creators,” while shifting the tax burden to the poor and the middle class, under Mayor Roy’s leadership, Alexandria has become one of the best places in the country to find a job and one of the top twenty places in the country to retire, maintaining an unemployment rate that has always been under the national average, even during the height of the recession, and property values that have remained relatively steady, despite the collapse in the housing market. Alexandria has also been repeatedly recognized by National Geographic as one of the country’s top “wilderness towns,” because of its immediate access to exceptional wildlife destinations. During the last six years, there hasn’t been a single elected executive official in Louisiana who can even remotely compete with his track record.

Jacques Roy may not be a household name in Louisiana yet, but trust me on this, soon, he will be.

June 5, 2012

Alexandria Launches THINKAlex, Game-Changing Initiative That Could “Rewrite The Books” On Resiliency Planning ¹

by Lamar White, Jr • Downtown Alexandria, Local Political News, Self-referential drivel, Smart Growth

This afternoon, after years of behind-the-scenes planning, the City of Alexandria announced THINKAlex, a comprehensive initiative that will modernize the City’s development ordinances and guide its long-term plans and strategies for housing, transportation, disaster recovery, and land use, among other things.

You can read the press release below, but first, I want to give my own perspective:

When I first went to work for Mayor Roy nearly five and a half years ago, we both recognized the real and pressing need to rethink and retool Alexandria’s development strategies and priorities. It’s a subject about which I’ve written frequently on my blog: The ways in which the construction of Interstate 49 in the mid-1990s affected the inner city and downtown, the fact that Alexandria had tripled in geographic size since the 1960s while retaining essentially the same population, the fact that we had prioritized the construction and development of publicly-owned assets and facilities in far-flung, suburban neighborhoods while our historic infrastructure continued to deteriorate, and the ways in which our vision, at least at the time, for solving these problems focused more on pie-in-the-sky “catalytic” developments instead of the nuts and bolts of healthy and dynamic neighborhoods.

What impressed me first about Mayor Roy– well before he was elected– was that he also intuitively understood these issues, and he ran on and was overwhelmingly elected on a platform of “smart growth.” Almost immediately, Mayor Roy changed the City’s policy on annexation: No longer was expansion prioritized for the sake of expansion; there were other things that needed to be considered: access to resources, drainage, connectivity, and police and fire coverage.

A couple of years later, he announced the SPARC (Special Planned Activity Redevelopment Corridors) Initiative, a tax-neutral bond initiative that focuses, almost exclusively, on improving and enhancing basic infrastructure along Alexandria’s most important and historic inner-core thoroughfares and assets. SPARC is about fundamentally improving and altering the quality of the built environment, and for anyone who has traveled down Masonic Drive during the last six months, its results should already be noticeable and profound. In the near future, Alexandrians can expect similar progress on Bolton Avenue, MacArthur Drive, Lower Third Street, and the Riverfront. These things take time, of course, and they demand deliberative, well-considered planning. But the magic of SPARC is really quite simple: Instead of spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on a single, “catalytic” asset (and I’ve heard everything pitched from a mega-million dollar marina to a waterpark hotel), public dollars should, first and foremost, go toward the improvement of basic infrastructure: roads and sidewalks, lighting, signage, and landscaping, things that make a neighborhood attractive not only for residents but also for businesses. And although the idea is simple, for Alexandria, it has been difficult to resist the allure of a quick fix, the notion that a single project could somehow change everything.

What good is it, however, if the public spends millions of dollars on a new multi-purpose arena or a marina or even a waterpark hotel (an absurd idea, to be sure), when the infrastructure around it is crumbling and in disrepair, when it’s surrounded by block after block of vacant and dilapidated properties?

To be sure, some critics may suggest that the City, under SPARC, recommended spending money on the Downtown Hotels Initiative (DHI). But those critics misunderstand the project: the DHI was never concerned with propping up a private-sector hotel; it was always about protecting a City-owned asset and investing, purely, in improving publicly-owned physical infrastructure. (For what it’s worth, after a series of false starts, I remain more confident than ever that the Hotel Bentley will reopen with private dollars and the City will finally exit the hotel business, selling the Alexander Fulton at a fair market price).

We didn’t merely need to rethink our development policies and priorities; we needed to reconsider our overall objective.

Yet, understandably, after years of planning one way, Alexandrians weren’t exactly keen on spending millions more to plan another way, particularly considering that many of the plans we had already commissioned were never realized or even seriously considered.

So, the challenge that faced Mayor Roy and his staff (myself included) was how to actualize the meritorious existing plans, while, at the same time, rethinking our long-term priorities without spending hundreds of thousands of City money and simultaneously ensuring for maximum community participation and input.

When the Louisiana Recovery Authority announced that it was accepting grant applications for “resiliency” projects, we immediately realized the opportunity, and thanks in large part to the hard work of my friend Daniel T. Smith, Alexandria received an enormous award, $567,000, the second highest grant in the State (only eclipsed by New Orleans), to execute a comprehensive, long-term initiative, now known as THINKAlex.

And believe me, for Alexandria, this is a game-changer. It cannot be overstated. Although SPARC is a nearly $100 million program, THINKAlex is just as bold, just as important, and will prove to be just as enduring. Trust me on this.

*********

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF MAYOR JACQUES M. ROY

The City of Alexandria Launches THINKAlex

Comprehensive Initiative Could “Write the Book” on Long-Term Resiliency

Alexandria Mayor Jacques M. Roy and his administration are proud to announce the launch of THINKAlex, a bold and innovative community-driven initiative focusing on the development of effective long-term strategies and solutions for transportation, land use, housing, zoning, and a revision of the municipal development code. “This ‘umbrella’ will be the framework for all the principal initiatives we have been working on for the last five years,” said Mayor Jacques Roy.

THINKAlex is funded through a $567,000 grant from the Office of Community Development and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the second-largest award of its kind in the State of Louisiana. In addition to the City, THINKAlex will be spearheaded by Concordia, LLC, an internationally renowned and award-winning innovator in urban development and architecture.

“Following the England Air Force Base closure, the Alexandria community pulled together, demonstrating a fierce resiliency. Among other smart moves, the community created a plan, Alexandria 2010, to bring Alexandria into the 21st century,” said Mayor Roy. “Now is the time to map out a course of action with proven 21st century solutions. But THINKAlex is not simply a plan. It is dynamic and multifaceted, and will be built entirely by the community. Too often, plans collect dust on shelves. THINKAlex will be organic, and because we can now utilize technologies, like social media, THINKAlex will be able to constantly evolve and rapidly respond to new and unforeseen demands.”

THINKAlex was first conceived by Mayor Roy and his staff in 2008, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav. At the time, the State of Louisiana, under the auspices of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, encouraged affected municipalities and parishes to compete for funding “resiliency” projects.

“When the funding became available, we pitched something we thought not quite done before,” said Mayor Roy. “My development staff wanted to consider ‘resiliency’ in its entirety. That meant much more than just preparing for natural disasters, though that was absolutely critical. It means addressing transportation, land use, drainage, housing, and annexation policies, and it means revising our development ordinances. We were pushing SPARC and preparing to launch what would become SafeAlex and other initiatives to tie together a complete “planning overhaul”—and do it in a way that did not involve mere plans but a series of implementation models. We were on the edge of a real, deep community planning framework to enhance the built environment and prepare for future infrastructure needs. Our relationship with GAEDA and other stakeholders began paying off in tangible results. It was exciting, but it wasn’t finished.”

City officials have been informed THINKAlex is the first and only truly comprehensive resiliency initiative in the State of Louisiana, and it will be informed by “nexus community planning,” a cutting-edge approach created by Concordia that specifically and individually focuses on the physical, cultural, social, organizational, educational, and economic components of a community. Nexus planning also emphasizes and encourages the full and effective utilization of publicly-owned neighborhood facilities and assets, such as schools, libraries, community centers, and parks. “Using the Nexus model as an organizing framework ensures the creation of a systemic and holistic plan for Alexandria’s future,” said Steven Bingler, founder and CEO of Concordia. “All assets and needs of the community are important when determining next steps for a truly resilient community. This way ensures that each aspect of the Alexandria community garners equal consideration during the planning and community engagement process.”

During the next three weeks, the City of Alexandria will announce a schedule of citywide community meetings and principal fellows, who will administer the implementation of the planning, design, and development processes.

“THINKAlex is a game-changer,” said Mayor Roy. “I have been told by several experts in this area Alexandria has the opportunity to write the book on resiliency planning. I hope we can seize this opportunity and live up to such a lofty goal. THINKAlex will not only inform the future of Alexandria, but, I believe, could serve as a national best practice and model. This plan is the coalescence and culmination of the five years of work and research being implemented by a nationally-renowned expert. I am excited for our City and look forward to our Council and community participating heavily in this process.”

******
Follow THINKAlex on Twitter (www.twitter.com/thinkalex318) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/THINKAlex). Applications for leadership positions can be downloaded from www.cityofalexandriala.com.

April 11, 2012

It Pays To Be Buddy With Caldwell ¹

by Lamar White, Jr • Downtown Alexandria, Local Political News, Smart Growth, Social Activism

Buddy Caldwell did the Louisiana Democratic Party a huge favor when he defected to the GOP.

We may elect our Attorneys General, but more than any other statewide office, the Attorney General, once elected, should attempt, as much as humanly possible, to steer clear of politicking. At the very least, our Attorney General should be focused on the job he was elected to do: Serving, zealously, on behalf of the best interests of the people of Louisiana. Caldwell may be a career prosecutor with a stellar track record of sending people to jail. I, for one, don’t believe this is necessarily an “accomplishment” in and of itself, and there’s something slightly disconcerting about a lawyer who touts his near-perfect conviction rate as a sign of his own personal success. As most of us know, the American judicial system is not perfect, so whenever a prosecutor claims to be perfect, or near-perfect, the question, inevitably, should be, “Is this merely a reflection of selective prosecution?” And for any prosecutor, that is assuredly a legitimate question. For a man who seeks to be the Attorney General for an entire State, that question is critical, because selective prosecution, invariably, requires a willingness to overlook the equal application of the law. Any prosecutor can use his or her discretion to ensure, as much as possible, that their resume remains unblemished. But let’s all be honest: Sometimes, it means bargaining with the wealthy and well-connected and playing hardball with everyone else, particularly with people who cannot afford a battle-tested attorney.

Notably, when Caldwell was a District Attorney, the State Legislative Auditor found:

During the period January 2000 through October 2004, Ms. Carolyn Caldwell, Madison Parish Clerk of Court (Clerk), used $30,155 of public funds for expenditures that do not appear to have a valid business purpose. Also, Ms. Caldwell awarded her sister contracts, rental agreements, and other business totaling $10,388; improperly used $862 of public funds; and spent $24,249 for which the business purpose, necessity, and reasonableness are not documented and/or unclear.

Mr. Caldwell never prosecuted his family members for these violations. And then there’s this bizarre story (which, admittedly, is directly from Mr. Caldwell’s Wikipedia entry; no use in rewriting it):

Former Legislative Auditor Dan Kyle of Baton Rouge, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for insurance commissioner in 2003, was a leading critic of Caldwell’s attorney general candidacy. Kyle reported that in 1997 Caldwell “spent $1,529 in D.A. office funds to pay for personal items, including clothing and golfing expenses.” The expenses included air fare to Montana and golf fees in Alabama.

According to The Advocate, Kyle claimed that Caldwell tried “to quash release of parts of the audit… and used foul language and threats in an unsuccessful attempt to block the audit.” Then, Kyle accused Caldwell of having blamed his own secretary for the questionable spending: “Caldwell also said the spending problem in the 1997 audit was a mistake by his secretary, adding that he personally brought it to the auditor’s attention.” In Committee Room 3,during a Legislation probe, Mr. Caldwell was testified against by the auditor who stated that Mr. Caldwell said, “Some very racist remarks, because the police jury we were issuing the audit on were all minorities, he told me I just needed a white man to issue an audit on. I said’no’ the findings are the same. You’ve done the same thing these people have done and justice is justice. And, I have to issue both reports. And, if you’ll look at them, they both have the same data on them.” The auditor stated that he was later told Mr. Caldwell “is a loose cannon… out to get you. He is dangerous. You need protection.”

Three years later, Caldwell accused Kyle’s investigators of “an array of questionable activities ranging from improperly bugging conversations to having sex with witnesses in audit investigations” in testimony before the Legislative Audit Advisory Council. Caldwell “told the council… that state auditors working in north Louisiana had suppressed evidence, secretly tape-recorded interviews with witnesses, and compromised the credibility of witnesses in possible criminal investigations. Caldwell later told reporters he also knew of instances of an auditor in Kyle’s office having sexual relations with people being audited.” Caldwell gave no details, according to Kyle.

Caldwell subpoenaed two of Kyle’s investigators before a grand jury in Tallulah. Kyle later claimed that Caldwell was trying to indict Kyle or the investigators. According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Caldwell said after the Legislative Audit Advisory Council meeting that he “might reopen a grand jury investigation of Kyle’s office.”

Caldwell also came under fire for his role as a self-appointed special prosecutor in a case against St. Tammany Parish Judge Patricia Hedges. He filed charges of extortion, public bribery, and malfeasance against the judge, only to drop all claims without explanation on the premise that he could not have won a conviction without a jury trial.

Welcome to the Grand Old Party, Mr. Caldwell.

But there’s one more thing:

When Buddy Caldwell was first elected, he hired former Rapides Parish Police Juror Joe Fuller as his intergovernmental liaison. The same Joe Fuller who ran for Mayor of Alexandria in 2006 and was pummeled at the polls. The same Joe Fuller who founded and spearheaded the political action committee Revitalizing Our Community, which has already (allegedly, because these things are kept off-the-record) been fined by the Ethics Administration and which, most recently, paid elected officials hundreds of dollars a piece to serve as “campaign workers” during the 2011 Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Race. Attorney General Buddy Caldwell is paying Joe Fuller, with taxpayer dollars, to serve in some sort of vaguely-defined political job.

Again, remember: Buddy Caldwell is not the Governor; he’s not the head of Louisiana Economic Development; he’s not a legislator. Buddy Caldwell is the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, and Joe Fuller is not and has never been an attorney. More than anything, Joe Fuller fashions himself as some sort of old-school political godfather, a representative of a constituency that hasn’t elected him to anything in years, a man who is adept at raising tens of thousands of dollars from other old-school politicians to support his own PAC and even more skilled at milking these funds for maximum advantage, doling them out to dozens of people, while simultaneously living off of Buddy Caldwell’s taxpayer-funded largesse.

And what exactly is Joe Fuller doing for Buddy Caldwell? Well, thanks to The Town Talk‘s Billy Gunn, now we at least have some idea:

Longtime Alexandria political allies Herbert Dixon and Joe Fuller have teamed up to write a legislative tax district bill that could financially benefit one local family.

The bill was filed by Dixon, a state representative whose district covers parts of Alexandria and Pineville, and is being promoted by Fuller, a former Rapides Parish police juror who now works for the Louisiana attorney general.

“Part of my job working with the AG’s office is to work with representatives,” said Fuller, who added he helped write House Bill 919. “When they put bills in and they need assistance, I work with them all over the state.”

Fuller’s job title at the AG’s office is “intergovernmental relations,” according to AG spokeswoman Amanda Larkins.

Ms. Larkins, you should have said, “Mr. Fuller was not acting in his capacity as an employee of the Louisiana Attorney General when he assisted Representative Dixon. The Attorney General’s Office does not participate in crafting real estate development legislation. Our role is clearly defined.” Instead, you gave credibility to Mr. Fuller’s and Representative Dixon’s patently absurd suggestion that they were merely engaging in constituent relations work. Since when, exactly, did the Louisiana Attorney General decide it was wise to spend taxpayer money crafting legislation to provide a tax break for one person to develop a single piece of property? How, on earth, is this a function of Buddy Caldwell’s office? Crafting legislation that is opposed by the Mayors of Pineville and Alexandria and practically everyone else in Central Louisiana with a sense of smell?

I don’t necessarily blame the property owner, Jerry Slocum, though I do think that this deal reeks to high heaven and that he should have, at the very least, been willing, ready, and able to show an actionable plan for a catalytic development on his property that could only occur with a Tax Increment Finance district; otherwise, Mr. Slocum, along with Mr. Dixon and Mr. Fuller, is just asking for the State of Louisiana to grant him a tax break. Here’s what all three men must answer: What makes Mr. Slocum’s land so special? What deal is on the table? Why should we give you our money when we’re not giving the same advantage to any other person in all of Central Louisiana? And why, on earth, are Joe Fuller and the Louisiana Attorney General involved?

Buddy Caldwell may always have naysayers and critics, but if he wants to prove that he’s not someone who pads his resume with selective prosecution, if he wants to prove that he’s above the political fray and not prone to erraticism or favoritism, then he can begin by immediately and publicly firing Joe Fuller. I don’t know how anyone could pretend that Mr. Fuller’s actions were appropriate, because even if this development was the most meritorious project in Louisiana history, the Louisiana Attorney General’s office should not be involved in crafting legislation for a single developer. What happens if this developer defaults? How could the State of Louisiana possibly enforce a clawback provision if the developer can claim that he was acting under the advice of the Attorney General’s office? How can the people of Louisiana be reasonably certain this legislation will protect them when it’s written, by the Attorney General’s office, on behalf of a property owner seeking a tax incentive? This should be blatantly obvious.

Again, Caldwell can do the right thing and fire Joe Fuller. Immediately.

Otherwise, it sure looks like it pays to be buddy with Caldwell.

January 15, 2012

A Short Preview of An Interview With Daniel and I In The Upcoming Documentary Film “The American Way” ^Reply

by Lamar White, Jr • Daniel T. Smith, Downtown Alexandria, Local Political News, Media Studies, National News, Self-referential drivel, Smart Growth, Social Activism

A few weeks before we both moved from Alexandria, my friend Daniel T. Smith and I were interviewed for the upcoming documentary film, “The American Way.” Quoting from the movie’s official website:

The American Way, a documentary chronicling the journey of one man across the country in search of the genuine American voice, has begun shooting. Joshua Cook, who created the project, will serve as director and will be conducting the interviews. Dane Kroll will serve as cinematographer and Adam Macy will be producing the project through Temporary Productions, his production company based out of Los Angeles. In each city that they visit, the crew will interview average Americans on the state of the union, the state of political discourse and what they see and want for the future. Between destinations, the crew will both film the natural beauty of the American landscape and interview fellow travelers. The final produced film will juxtapose the words of Americans from a variety of backgrounds and iconic images of the nation with the narrative of Joshua’s quest to find the common ground and shared experience that defines America in the 21st Century.

Daniel and I spent a couple of hours with Joshua, giving him a tour of Alexandria, and then, we sat down with him for an interview at the Alexandria Riverfront Amphitheater. This is, literally, the last minute and a half of a forty-five minute interview, an interview that focused, primarily, on the ways in which the corporate consolidation of small to mid-sized media markets has affected the democratic process, the fair and accurate reporting of news, and the nature of civic engagement.

So, if we appear to be somewhat tongue-tied, blame it on the fact that we had been talking on camera nearly non-stop for 45 minutes.

Regardless, it was an honor to be able to participate, and I wish Joshua and the rest of his team the best of luck as they prepare for the festival circuit. Here’s the short preview:

And here’s a short clip of me ranting about the relationship between money and small, local elections:

December 2, 2011

The Fulton Investigation ¹

by Lamar White, Jr • Downtown Alexandria, Smart Growth, Social Activism • Tags: Ed Larvadain, Ed Larvadain III, Jonathan Goins, Mitzi Gibson, Roosevelt Johnson

Update: Jonathan Goins resigned from the Alexandria City Council today.

As it turns out, in America, you can’t compel someone to testify under oath, with penalty of misdemeanor contempt, without first letting them know what, specifically, they’re supposed to answer. Basic due process.

I watched today’s Alexandria City Council meeting, and although it ended on a collegial and cooperative note, I can’t help but feel incredibly embarrassed for the entire legal profession.

For those of you who don’t know: The Alexandria City Council, acting on a split 4-3 vote, decided to issue improper subpoenas in an attempt to compel the Mayor and members of his staff to answer questions, under oath and under penalty of contempt, about the operations and expenses of the Alexander Fulton Hotel. The City Council wanted to use a very limited provision of the City Charter.

This has become so convoluted and infected by political posturing that it’s almost impossible to accurately unpack. In and of itself, it’s not necessarily a captivating or interesting story, but what is interesting, however, is the ways in which Ed Larvadain III and Roosevelt Johnson, in particular, have exploited the confusion around the nuances of the City’s role with the Fulton in order to sow the seeds of distrust and apprehension– when, all the while, they should know better.**

** For a more in-depth analysis, see the postscript.

Here are the basic facts: (1) The City of Alexandria has owned a hotel property in Downtown Alexandria since the early 1980s. Its construction was actually funded by a government grant, administered by the City. It may sound crazy now, but thirty years ago, cities all over the country were engaging in “creative” partnerships with hotel and convention center operators; (2) For over two decades, the City– that’s you and me and everyone else who resided and paid taxes in Alexandria– didn’t have to worry about the hotel. And then, in the mid 2000s, its manager and operator, Raj Patel, filed for bankruptcy. Raj had been cozy with certain members of the City Council and their political benefactors. Sorry, but, as uncomfortable as it may seem to some, that is just a fact; (3) The problem was: The City owned the hotel. Its manager went into bankruptcy. We– the taxpayers– had all spent millions of dollars to build a connecting convention center. The bank that held his leasehold mortgage didn’t respond in an adequate or timely fashion, and the entire hotel subsequently became under the control of the City; (4) We had two options: (a) We could close the hotel, lose a ton of money, lose a bunch of conventions, and permanently and irrevocably screw up the resale value and the entire convention business, or (b) We could find a competent hotel manager, retain the business, retain the 50+ jobs at the hotel, and retain the hotel’s value.

Here’s what makes me particularly mad: The City Council wanted to keep the hotel open. They passed emergency ordinances and resolutions. Alexandria was in real jeopardy of losing two of its biggest conventions. I understood their concerns. But I know that neither I nor the Mayor nor anyone else in his administration ever desired to operate or manage a hotel. In the months after Raj filed bankruptcy, the City was basically forced into that position; it was necessary to both save the big conventions (which have an enormous economic impact) and save the value of the hotel, a property owned by all of us. The goal, always, was to get out of the hotel business completely.

So, subsequently, the Mayor created the Downtown Hotels Initiative (DHI). And here’s what is lost: the DHI isn’t merely focused on the global deal (the Fulton, the Bentley, and the Riverfront Center); it also aims to ensure the City no longer has to bear the operational burdens at the Fulton. You get that? The DHI aspires to solve a global issue– that is, the entire hotels and convention center complex–but perhaps more importantly, it focuses on getting Alexandria out of the hotel business.

Yes, we may still own a hotel in Downtown. Yes, we shouldn’t own that hotel. But at the very least, let’s make sure that taxpayers no longer have to bear the burden of paying for operating a hotel. And people of Alexandria, hark, that is EXACTLY what we all did. The deal hasn’t been finalized, sure, but it’s closer now than ever. Either way, though, in the meantime, today, we’re not paying to operate a hotel. Yes, we still own the building, and we should sell it, for sure. But we can’t sell it and it can’t operate if there are broken elevators or a malfunctioning air conditioning system, for example.

That’s why Ed Larvadain III is, in my opinion, an idiot. (With the exception of T.W. Thompson, I rarely trust men with moustaches). Seriously, though, during today’s meeting, Larvadain attempted to use two and a half year old invoices to “prove” the City was “deep, deep (sic) in the hotel business.” I’m not sure why anyone voted for this man, but today, he proved himself to be both ignorant and duplicitous. No, no, Ed Larvadain, the City of Alexandria (holy hell, you’re the Finance Chair) is now the landlord; how do you not understand this?

The City is trying to sell the hotel at the highest and best price to the most skilled and most qualified buyer, and Ed Larvadain III and Roosevelt Johnson are so ridiculously uninformed and comically prosecutorial against the Mayor and his administration that they’d rather implicitly accuse people of crimes than actually tell the damn truth. They, together, are doing more damage to the value of our public asset, the Fulton, than any bankruptcy court could ever do.

A few other points:

(1) Roosevelt Johnson proved today that he has problems with the English language and with anger management. A few years ago, he allegedly lunged at an older woman during a neighborhood watch meeting. Today, he nearly broke a blood vessel while gaveling down the City Attorney. I know Roosevelt. I used to think he was a nice guy, but I don’t believe that anymore. He’s getting bad advice. He’s in way, way over his head (sorry), and more often than not, he makes absolutely no sense. His temper is reckless. He’s ridiculously arrogant, constantly referring to himself in the third-person; Roosevelt, it’s weird.

(2) Mitzi Gibson is smart, but she still doesn’t know what to do. My advice to her: Be your own person; people will respect you a heckuva lot more.

(3) Jonathan Goins apparently left early today. Resign already. You don’t even live in the district. You’ve cost “your” district millions of dollars. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Everyone else is on a mission.

(4) Ed Larvadain III, if I had more money than I knew what to do with, I’d probably buy a bunch of billboards with your face and the caption, “Worst Lawyer in Louisiana.” Stop being so embittered and confrontational. You’re embarrassing everyone around you.

Postscript: The Council was acting under the authority provided by Section 2-08 of the Alexandria City Charter. It states:

The city council may make investigations into the affairs of the city and the conduct of any city department, office or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony and require the production of evidence. Any person who fails or refuses to obey any lawful order of the council shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in such manner as the council shall fix by ordinance.

These are seemingly broad powers, right? The problem is, however, that this power is constrained not only by state and federal law but by the Council’s own procedural law, namely Section 2-23(x). I’d paste the entire Section, but it’s really cumbersome. Suffice it to say, the Council has been repeatedly and constantly violating its own procedural laws.

Here’s what you do:

(1) Go to http://www.municode.com

(2) Click on Online Library

(3) Click on Louisiana

(4) Click on Alexandria

(5) Click on Code of Ordinances

It’s really easy.

To step deep into it: Some folks, including Greg Aymond and Roosevelt Johnson, continue to misunderstand the executive branch’s authority under the City Charter. Go back to sixth grade civics. Three branches of government, guys.

I honestly can’t be sure if Greg and Roosevelt don’t understand the fundamental differences between the City Charter and the City Code of Ordinances or if they actually believe in their spin.

Gentlemen, gentlemen: The Charter is, like, the Constitution; it is the supreme municipal law; it is the City’s source document, and it outlines the parameters of executive and legislative authority. So, guess what, the Council can’t pass a bunch of ordinances that step all over the Mayor’s authority as provided by the Charter. The Charter says only the Mayor can specifically direct employees. The Council then passed a procedural ordinance attempting to require certain employees to participate in their meetings. The City Charter trumps ordinances; if there is a conflict, then you defer to the Charter. If the Mayor is responsible for the actions of employees under the Charter, then the City Council can’t just pass an ordinance stating otherwise.

Roosevelt Johnson accused the Mayor of violating the City Charter. He claimed the violation was a result of the Mayor not submitting an appointee for Finance Director. Roosevelt Johnson lied. You may think it’s minor, but I think it’s important: There’s absolutely no prohibition in the City Charter against a replacement or acting director from serving more than six months; that’s just a Council rule that they passed on their own, in the Code of Ordinances.

But I get it, I guess: Roosevelt Johnson and Ed Larvadain think they can violate their own procedural rules and protocol and, at the same time, enforce intrusive and violative “rules” against the Mayor and his administration, that they can investigate them, subpoena them, get loons like Greg Aymond defending them as if he’s an expert in the law, and then, at the very least, ensure that the local media equivocates. Their ignorant divisiveness will never have to be called out. After all, Alexandria media is more concerned with arguing both sides of an issue than in reporting the truth. Facts be damned. (And yeah, I’m angry, but I’m also amused. It’s all so ridiculous).

November 11, 2011

Jindal’s Ridiculous Response: It’s OK Louisiana Lost An $80 Million Broadband Grant, Because It Would’ve Been Bad for Private Business ^Reply

by Lamar White, Jr • Local Political News, Smart Growth, Social Activism

While Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell were testifying to the Louisiana Public Service Commission that the State simply needed more time to complete its grant application for an $80 million broadband infrastructure initiative (among other things, blaming an engineering consultant for failing to submit documents in a timely fashion), Governor Jindal, through his spokesman Kyle Plotkin, offered a different excuse for the administration’s complete dereliction: The grant was really just a socialist ploy to hurt Louisiana businesses. I imagine it went down somewhat like this:

Plotkin: Governor, the media is asking for a comment about that grant we just lost.

Jindal: Kyle, why are you wasting my time with this? A federal grant? That’s money from Obama. You know the line.

Plotkin: Rainwater and Purcell are going to tell the PSC that we just needed a little more time and that the application was delayed because of a consultant. I think they acknowledge the merits of the grant. Isn’t that kind of a problem?

Jindal: They’re under oath, Kyle. Again, we’re talking about Obama money.

Plotkin: Socialist money? Is that what you mean?

Jindal: Make it work. That’s why I hired you.

Back to reality, here’s part of the statement Jindal’s office released:

Jindal’s press secretary, Kyle Plotkin, said the governor would not phone the president. Plotkin released a statement in Jindal’s name late Wednesday, which said, in part: “This grant called for a heavy-handed approach from the federal government that would have undermined and taken over private businesses.”

If I were Plotkin, here’s how I would have framed it, right before turning in my letter of resignation: “Clearly, we dropped the ball. Broadband access is critical to the global economy, and Louisiana needs to do all that it can to ensure that all citizens enjoy access. As Commissioners Rainwater and Purcell said today, the state was subjected to delays as it retooled the application, including a critical delay by a third-party engineering consultant. Governor Jindal is dedicated to ensuring Louisiana receives its fair share and is committed to working with the President toward a solution.” Say it like that, Kyle. Demonstrate at least a modicum of integrity. I know it may be far easier to suggest the federal government simply wanted to take “over private businesses,” a tired, well-worn line that still somehow finds traction in one of the poorest states in the union. But it’s not true; it’s “undermined,” to borrow one of your words, by the testimony of your fellow colleagues.

Of course, I’d never expect for complete honesty: That the Jindal Administration’s failure was a result of its inability to effectively privatize an infrastructure grant, that they saw an $80 million grant as free money for corporations, and that everyone around them saw through this.

But, even from Jindal and company, I still expected some honesty: After all, they just lost $80 million.

August 24, 2011

Jonathan Goins Fails His District, Fails Alexandria, and Kills His Own Political Future ⁵

by Lamar White, Jr • Downtown Alexandria, Local Political News, Media Studies, Smart Growth, Social Activism • Tags: Councilman Goins, Councilman Jonathan D. Goins, Jonathan D. Goins, Jonathan D. Goins Alexandria Louisiana, Jonathan Goins, Jonathan Goins Alexandria, Jonathan Goins attorney, Jonathan Goins Southern University

Upperdate (to borrow a term from Jeffrey): The responses I have received from this post have run the entire gamut. People have e-mailed me personally to say, “Thanks for saying what needed to be said,” and others have publicly suggested that I was unnecessarily and unfairly targeting Mr. Goins.

I am not surprised in the least that Mr. Goins has his defenders; the man has nearly 5,000 friends on Facebook.

I remember the first time I met Mr. Goins. It was at a community meeting at the Broadway Resource Center. I was immediately impressed by him. He was young, confident, and obviously very intelligent. At that meeting, he recited a poem (I believe it was by Langston Hughes) from memory, not an easy task. In person, Mr. Goins has always been a consummate gentleman to me, and I had always respected him.

But I stand by what I wrote. I cannot respect him any more. Maybe that will make me the scourge of some people. So be it.

Jonathan Goins seeks to have it both ways, appeasing a very small but very vocal group of cynical opponents to anything and everything that has the Mayor’s imprimatur on it, while, at the same time, suggesting that he supported the initiative all along and that his opposition represented a “missed opportunity.“

Lead or get out of the way.

On so-called “controversial issues,” he should be guided by his conscience. Apparently, though, when his conscience is in opposition with a small group of malcontents and cynics, he prefers to allow them to sway his decision-making process. As smart as he is, Mr. Goins, for some reason, cannot break free; even after considerable research and analysis on this particular issue, Mr. Goins, for some strange reason, could not vote his conscience. Yet, voters elected him to lead. They elected him because he was, seemingly, a smart and capable candidate. They elected him to research and analyze the issues. They did not elect him with the expectation that he would suddenly relinquish his own determinations, after his own careful deliberation, simply because less than a half a dozen residents showed up to a televised City Council meeting to express their opposition. That, to me, demonstrates a fundamental weakness, an inability to adequately serve all of those who entrusted him with their votes.

And yes, voters overlooked the fact that Jonathan Goins, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t actually live in the district. He claimed his grandmother’s house as his residence, while he spent the night in a gated apartment complex on the other end of town. I’m not breaking any news here. His residency was the subject of protracted litigation, and in my personal opinion, the judge ruled incorrectly. (I have to wonder what Congressman Cedric Richmond would think).

His living situation is relevant, because Jonathan Goins lives in exactly the same kind of apartment community that he opposed in his own district.

I am personally aware of other decisions that Councilman Goins has made that do not make for good government, and at least one of those decisions is even more pernicious and egregious than his vote on the stockyard.

A commenter on The Town Talk suggested I was being racist in my criticism. Obviously, the commenter and I belong to two vastly different generations. In 2008, President Obama said that America has “reached a racial stalemate.” Quoting from his historic speech:

Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

After several years in the front lines of Alexandria, I hope that we will all heed these wise words, though I worry that, far too often, we, whether white or black, “succumb to despair or cynicism.” Far too often, we fail to recognize our common humanity, our shared goals, and our interdependence.

Someone wrote to me and said, “You’re just mad because your Mayor lost on his project.” No, I’m upset because the City– the entire community– lost, and I’m upset because some people, including the person who wrote me, believe this is just a zero-sum political game. I’m upset because Alexandria continues to be infected by the disease of racial bias, a disease that cuts both ways and hurts everyone.

Again, lead or get out of the way. We don’t need or deserve this type of “leadership” in Alexandria. We need and deserve men and women of conscience, men and women who have the courage and the integrity to vote their conscience. Anything less is an abdication and a dereliction of duty.

Update: I need to make a few things clear. I understand I was implicitly mentioned on the local talk radio show this morning in Alexandria, and that the host, Fred Rosenfeld, assumed I had been principally tasked with locating commercial developers at the stockyard. In fact, I had been doing exactly what Fred Rosenfeld criticized the City for not doing– seeking out the opinions and expertise of real estate professionals, particularly people with experience and knowledge of this type of development. But it wasn’t just me, of course. There are many others who worked on this project. I only wrote about my experience, and I think it is worth sharing. It’s also worth mentioning to Mr. Rosenfeld that, although I may be young, I am a graduate of Louisiana Real Estate School, and I worked in residential and commercial property management for a year before joining the Mayor’s Office. Moreover, as he should be aware, both of my parents operated the most successful real estate brokerage firm in Central Louisiana for many years. After my father’s death, the firm was sold and then sold again, and currently, no one in my family is affiliated anymore. But throughout my life, as a result of my education, my work experience, and the network of professionals that were cultivated by both of my parents and my grandparents, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and befriend many real estate development experts. I was, in no way, attempting to give credit to myself and myself alone for bringing some of these professionals to assess the stockyard’s commercial feasibility; I was simply reporting what these people told me and others. By the way, Mr. Rosenfeld, the City has always had on staff a licensed real estate agent who managed mega-million dollar commercial leases before he joined the administration. Additionally, there are at least two attorneys who work for the City who have extensive experience contracting with mega-million dollar retail and service industry tenants.

I agree with Rod Noles, who said this morning that the City should consider placing another sign on the front of the property that says, “Closed for Business.” And I am dismayed and disappointed by one of the callers to Bob Madison’s and Fred Rosenfeld’s show who seemed to attack Mr. Noles’s involvement on the basis of hearsay (which was ridiculous, by the way) and on the basis of his skin color.

Unfortunately, race seems to be percolating right beneath the surface. Amazingly, I received a comment (which I deleted for a violation of my editorial standards) that suggested I was simply angry because the Mayor had been defeated. This is what is wrong with the thinking in Alexandria. I haven’t asked the Mayor whether or not he wanted this project, though considering he is a reasonable human being who cares for the City and wishes to see increased economic activity in struggling, inner-city neighborhoods, I cannot imagine why he would not want it. But the Mayor wasn’t defeated by the City Council; the developer was defeated; the neighborhood was defeated.

Still, I think the comment is illustrative of the major problem plaguing Alexandria. Why did Jonathan Goins vote against a project he supported? Was it really because eight people, three of whom didn’t even live in that neighborhood, showed up to get on a television show? Really? Or was it because it represented a net-benefit for the community? When you hear people who own rental properties complain about plans for a new apartment complex, it shouldn’t be difficult to connect the dots, which Mr. Noles also mentioned on his radio show. I can only conclude that those who complained and protested lacked any legitimate counter-argument. I watched the whole meeting on video, and half of the complaints were actually pictures of construction projects being undertaken to correct those very issues. Indeed, the site is still somewhat of a construction zone, so it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that there are still oddly-placed dumpsters or dirt-overturned on the sides of the road (to prepare for ditch closures, no doubt).

Finally, I want to to make this abundantly clear as well: I have always been impressed by Jonathan Goins. When he wants to, he can deliver a great speech. He’s confident. He’s a young and educated attorney who returned to Alexandria after law school and hung up his own shingle. But I think this decision that he made– a decision for which he will ultimately be responsible not just to his district but to the entire City (it affects ALL of our tax base)– will follow him. My respect for him evaporated, and I am severely disappointed. You don’t arbitrarily or capriciously deny a $12M project that you “supported” based on the whims of the same small and recycled group of malcontents and “neighborhood leaders” who had the ability, presumably, to take off work on a Tuesday afternoon so that they could stand behind a lecturn in a televised meeting and ramble through, often incoherently, a series of half-truths, exaggerations, and attacks against the very people who are actually investing their own hard-earned money in Alexandria. Something tells me that the 45-50 people currently on the waiting list for Phase One of the apartments had other obligations that afternoon.

I will always think that Councilman Goins made a colossal mistake, something that will not soon be forgotten. As that property continues to sit vacant for the next several years (as it almost certainly will do), every single time one of his constituents drives by, she should consider what might have been and what almost was.

It takes far less energy to cooperate than to continually obsfucate. When you’re basing your decisions by attempting to best answer “How can I hurt the Mayor’s agenda?”, what happens when your goals align with his? As the vote on the stockyard site demonstrates, it means destroying the very thing your constituents need the most, simply because the Mayor also recognizes its need. Such a strategy may have worked for some of these people in junior high school, when the stakes were much lower, but in City Government, it’s completely inexcusable; it’s a dereliction of duty.

Alexandria can never move forward when some of its leaders tend to relish in the festering underbelly of retrograde, personalized, tit-for-tat politics.

Either way, like Mr. Noles, I hope I will be proven wrong, but it sure seems to me that the Alexandria City Council royally screwed up and effectively drove away any development leads for the next five to ten years. But considering the opponents of this project are all hard-working businessmen with extensive contacts and experience in commercial real estate…. oh, sorry, I was describing the team of people who were set to actually manage the new development. The City Council has more experience in video production and the local television business.

************

To Alexandria City Councilman Jonathan D. Goins:

You are forever responsible for depriving your district– one of the most impoverished and blighted areas in Alexandria– from receiving the benefit of a mega-million dollar mixed-use development. You also proved that your word is meaningless and that your allegiances are illusory. You are not trustworthy. You are dishonest. You even lied to the local media.

For the last several months, I have heard from multiple people that you do not plan to run for re-election. Sir, if this is true, please do the entire City of Alexandria a giant favor and immediately resign from office.

Alexandria and, in particular, the people of Lower Third do not deserve and should not tolerate the kind of representation that you offer. Because of your actions, Alexandrians are now deprived a $10M- $12M mixed-use development. Because of you– and you alone– the residents of Lower Third are denied increased police protection, more quality housing, and a million dollar retail facility. You should be ashamed. There are significantly more people on the waiting list for the apartment complex in contention than those who showed up at yesterday’s televised spectacle of a City Council meeting.

Here’s the kicker, Mr. Goins: You don’t really live in your district. You live in a gated apartment complex in the Lakes District, one of the newest and most affluent areas in Alexandria. The apartment complex you live in is currently being expanded, and no one ever opposed this expansion. Your attorney once said that you don’t feel comfortable taking your clients to the very neighborhood that you purport to represent.

Home of City Councilman Jonathan D. Goins

People in the area in which you actually reside recognized that more rooftops lead to more retail.

My heart aches for the good people of Lower Third. It aches for Alexandria. You, Mr. Goins, had the opportunity to lead, and instead, you naively followed a small contingency of narrowly-minded racists (Let’s not be afraid to call a spade a spade).

You’ve also forfeited the right to ever claim that your district is being “held back.” As you clearly demonstrated yesterday, it’s not being held back; it’s being held hostage.

Resign now. You’re hurting more than helping. You’re hurting good people– families– who are trapped on a waiting list for an apartment in their neighborhood. To think: I once respected and defended you. Never again.

Enjoy your luxury apartment in the Lakes District. I hear there’s a waiting list.

- Lamar

PS: If you want to know why young professionals are not flocking back to Alexandria, then all you need to do is look yourself in the mirror.

August 19, 2011

Hodges-Podges ²

by Lamar White, Jr • Leftovers, Local Political News, Self-referential drivel, Smart Growth, Social Activism

I understand I was a close runner-up for this year’s Ashley Morris Award at the annual Rising Tide conference. As I said today on the Twitter, holy moly, it’s just an honor to be mentioned in the same sentence as Ashley. I stuck the Greg Peters-designed and Dirty Coast-produced FYYFF sticker on the front of my desktop. Every single time I write a post on this website, I am confronted with Ashley’s simple and sagacious words of defiance. Months before he passed, I exchanged a couple of e-mails with Ashley; he added my website to his blogroll. I will always be grateful. He opened the door for me in the Louisiana blogosphere. And I am totally floored by the nominations I received for the award named in his honor. Thank you, thank you. I didn’t even realize I was on y’all’s radar.

For the bargain basement price of $10,000, you can become a platinum sponsor of this year’s Louisiana Family Forum Awards Banquet. Unfortunately, it’s not clear whether or not this donation would be tax-deductible, as it has been in years past. This year, the LFF is saying that the “Louisiana Family Forum Action,” their 501c4 (not tax-deductible), “is writing the next chapter of Louisiana history.”

What did Jesus say about potentially skirting tax laws to support your own religious agenda?

“Well, then,” Jesus said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” His reply completely amazed them. (Mark 12:17)

I could be way off-base, but I think that when Jesus was talking about Caesar, he was referring to the government.

Either way, I hope the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Internal Revenue Service will keep a close eye on any and all “donations” given to the LFF’s … I mean the LFFA’s upcoming awards banquet for state legislators.

Not surprisingly, back in Alexandria, revisionist history seems to be en vogue. I won’t pretend to understand what, on earth, motivates people like Sandra Bright to call people like Greg Aymond, but obviously, she doesn’t have the best judgment. (By the way, Sandra, Greg Aymond considers you to be a good friend, and a few paragraphs later, he refers to African-Americans as “darkies.” With friends like him, who needs enemies, right?).

In all seriousness, the debate about the Hodges Stockbarn in the Lower Third neighborhood may be the best example I have ever encountered of myopic and heavily-politicized stupidity.

Here’s the story: Lower Third is an historically African-American neighborhood in the heart of Alexandria. For decades, it has suffered from crime, blight, disinvestment, and neglect, and in 2007, it looked like conditions could have been exacerbated. A 14-acre tract of property (the former Hodges Stockbarn) in the middle of Lower Third and in a key location on Louisiana Highway 1 almost became a junkyard. Residents complained and begged the City to intervene, which it did. The City bought the property, with the intention of redeveloping the site as a mixed-use PUD (Planned Unit Development).

I know this story because I was there; I helped write the Request for Proposals. The City also had in its possession a comprehensive study of the neighborhood, a study conducted by J-Quad (which, not that it really matters, is a minority-owned business). And the J-Quad study, which was based on extensive research and interviews (with, among others, Sandra Bright), clearly said: Lower Third needs more housing options. The neighborhood needs a better mix of housing types; it needs apartments, condos, and patio homes.

Then, amazingly, someone stepped up to the plate: New Horizons, one of the top 100 multi-family developers in the country. They secured money from the Bush Administration, and they proposed building 56 moderate-income apartment units on the back six acres of the property. Wow, right? It was the biggest development ever proposed in thirty years in Lower Third.

But guess what happened? A couple of rich slumlords (my word)– people who had long dominated the rental market in that particular neighborhood– stood up in opposition. No, no, they said, not so fast. We want a commercial-only development. They were loud and vocal, and they convinced other people to rally behind them. It was all insidious. It was wrong. It was stupid. And it was an impediment. They very nearly convinced the Alexandria City Council to reject millions of dollars in grant money, and for some reason, no one ever disclosed the ulterior motive.

Thankfully, though, despite the opposition of their own district Councilperson, the project went forward. Today, there’s an $8 million apartment complex on the property, and before it even opened its doors, there was a waiting list.

So, fast forward: The new apartment complex is open, and the developer wants to expand. He has a waiting list, after all. Obviously, there is market demand. But it gets better: The developer also wants to build a commercial component– two restaurants, an insurance office, a pharmacy, a nail salon, and room for a police substation. This will be huge for that neighborhood. It’s awesome. It should be a cause for celebration. Yet, somehow, for some strange reason, it’s yet another opportunity for people to attack and criticize the Mayor and his administration.

Give me a break. Really.

I personally courted one of the country’s most experienced grocery store developers. Not going to happen, he said. You’d have to pay us to develop retail there. (Sorry, folks, it’s the truth). I also courted one of the country’s leading commercial appraisers. He looked at the property multiple times. Charming at day, he said, scary at night. (Again, sorry).

Regardless of what Fred Rosenfeld says on the radio about government involving itself in the real estate business (to be sure, I respect his opinion on this, considering he’s built his business on federal property), no one bit off more than they could chew. I know this, because I was there. And no one– and I mean NO ONE– promised a pharmacist that he’d be given a building on the property. That’d be illegal, a violation of Article Seven of the Louisiana State Constitution. You know what actually happened? The City said, “Give us a development proposal. Maybe we can assist with publicly-owned infrastructure.” And that proposal never arrived.

At the end of the day, if the Alexandria City Council decides to act righteously and in the best interests of the people of that neighborhood, they will be “saddled” with a multi-million dollar mixed-use development, a brand-new retail facility, and increased police protection. And the district Councilman, who acts as if he is merely attempting to make a “bad situation better,” will have at least 120 additional constituents.

But it’d be best not to acknowledge this, because, wow, that could make the Mayor look good.

August 3, 2011

Summer Interview Series (Part Seven): Christopher J. Tyson ^Reply

by Lamar White, Jr • Interviews, Local Political News, National News, Smart Growth, Social Activism • Tags: Bobby Jindal, Chris Tyson, Christopher J. Tyson, Louisiana progressives, State Representative Michael Jackson

Christopher J. Tyson, a Baton Rouge native, is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University. He earned his bachelors degree at Howard University, his masters degree in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and his law degree at the Georgetown University Law Center. During the last few years, Chris has emerged as an outspoken progressive advocate for a number of important issues. He’s been particularly passionate about mass transit in Louisiana, previously serving as the President of the Board for Baton Rouge’s Capital Area Transit System. In that role, he led a management and financial overhaul of the organization, and while he no longer serves on the Board, he remains an ardent supporter of mass transit in Baton Rouge. He is also a mentoring advocate and, in addition to mentoring several young men, he sits on the Board of Baton Rouge Big Buddy and is Board President of the Baton Rouge Youth Coalition. The day after Hurricane Katrina, Chris began working in Senator Mary Landrieu’s Washington, DC office, helping coordinate Congressional legislation related to disaster recovery efforts.

He is a Senior Fellow with Louisiana Progress, a member of the 2009 Leadership Louisiana class, and is a 2010 Fellow of the New Leaders Council. He has been recognized as a member of the Baton Rouge Business Report’s 2010 Top 40 Under 40, the New Leaders Council’s 2011 Top 40 Under 40, and the National Bar Association’s 2011 Top 40 Lawyers Under 40. He was also awarded the Excellence in Activism Award by the National Bar Association and Impact. Before taking a job with Senator Landrieu, Chris had worked for two years as a volunteer teacher at a Boston-area prison.

Lamar: When I was a kid, my grandmother Joanne told me, “There’s no such thing as an overachiever.” She didn’t like the word “overachiever;” she thought it was a pejorative. You can achieve, but if you’re doing good work, you can never overachieve. What do you think about the word “overachiever”?

Chris: I’m not sure that I have strong feelings towards the word. In my experience when someone is branded an “overachiever” there’s usually an undertone of cynicism. That shouldn’t necessarily be the case. Those who are able to “achieve” in the eyes of society are often providing an example for others whether they are aware or not. While we should always strive to be humble and keep our achievements in context, we should also be ready and willing to mentor others to share how we actually achieved. Many of my mentees have never had direct acess to someone who has been to graduate school or traveled abroad, so it’s important that we tell our stories and help others make choices and access resources to achieve their goals. That being said, all of the young men and women I’ve been blessed to mentor are overachievers. Everyday, they overcome incredible odds to advance their education and personal goals. So there are overachievers all around us, and if we invoke that term, we should recognize that it applies to a range of people and experiences.

Lamar: So that was a softball. I know you’re particularly interested in the ways in which race influences and intersects with politics. Louisiana has the second-highest per-capita population of African-Americans in the country, the vast majority of whom are, historically, Democratic voters. Yet there is a persistent perception that it would be very difficult for an African-American Democrat to win a statewide election, at least in our current political climate. Considering registered Democratic voters outnumber registered Republican voters in Louisiana and that around 30% of Louisianans are African-American, do you think this “persistent perception” is fundamentally flawed?

Chris: No, I don’t think the perception is flawed, but understanding it requires understanding the way race and class have historically worked and how their impact on our politics continue to evolve. For over a generation now, registered Southern Democrats– particularly in the South– have been voting Republican – mostly in national elections. There are a number of explanations for this including substantive policy differences with national politics. But we can’t ignore the role our shared legacy of race and class struggles have played. This is a key political dynamic of the post-civil rights era. Given the hyper-partisanship in national politics, African-American Democratic statewide candidates will likely continue to face challenges in the short-term. I’m encouraged by younger voters, however, and I’m confident that in the near future African-American Democratic candidates will arise who can develop viable statewide campaigns.

Lamar: Is the Louisiana Democratic Party guilty itself of supporting institutional barriers for qualified African-American candidates? For what it’s worth, it’s an accusation I’ve heard more than once. Why do you think Representative Michael Jackson defected from the Democratic Party in order to challenge Don Cazayoux’s re-election to Congress? Jackson’s campaign was supported by at least one well-known Republican donor, and to many, his campaign seemed to be based on a cynical, almost insidious attempt to exploit race, that his real intent was to help Republicans reclaim that seat. After all, the day after the election, Jackson was photographed meeting with Bill Cassidy. Was Representative Jackson being exploited, exploitative, or do you think his campaign was earnest and honest? To me, at the very least, Jackson’s campaign is a fascinating case study, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Chris: I’ve had the opportunity to work with Rep. Jackson and appreciate his leadership on a number of key issues, especially transit and redistricting. I have not spoken with him about his 2008 campaign and wouldn’t speculate on his motives. There has long been a discussion about whether the Democratic Party writ large takes the African-American vote for granted, however, and I suspect we’ll continue to have this conversation, especially in Louisiana where we have not elected an African-American statewide. If we want African-American Democratic candidates who can run successful statewide campaigns, we have to make sure that we are cultivating a diverse class of progressive leaders. Creating meaningful opportunities for true intergenerational, cross-racial political mentoring is not only wise succession planning, but it allows for organic and authentic messaging around issues of race, class and identity. Without a commitment to this type of mentoring and engagement then all we have to talk about are get-out-the-vote strategies. If this is the only time race, class and identity are discussed or acknowledged then sub-groups within the coalition will rightly feel as if they’re being taken for granted.

Lamar: You’re a champion of mass transit. After Hurricane Katrina, there was a small but vocal effort to create a commuter rail line between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, and based on the reports I’ve read, it would have been relatively inexpensive to create and maintain this line. But before the project could even get off of the ground, Governor Bobby Jindal made it abundantly clear that he wouldn’t support commuter rail. If Governor Jindal decided to give you the chance to make the case for commuter rail and mass transit, what would you tell him?

Chris: Thanks for asking this question! I think this is such an under-appreciated issue for Louisiana’s economic development future. Just to be clear, it is far from an inexpensive proposition. But transit is an investment in infrastructure - a necessary pre-condition for economic development. Federal funds have been made available for states willing to make serious investments in mass transit, which, as I understand the issue, Jindal has refused to apply for. I teach local government law and focus on these urban development issues. For the state to be globally competitive going forward, we have to adopt metropolitan strategies to connect entire regions to attract investment and grow our local economies. The state’s two largest metropolitan regions - Baton Rouge and New Orleans – together contain less than half the populations of the Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio or Austin metropolitan regions. If we’re serious about economic development statewide then we have to be serious about regional planning, which requires being serious about developing real regional infrastructure. Transit is infrastructure. Great cities are usually transportation hubs and are connected to sophisticated transit networks. We can make real progress on poverty, higher education and reversing the brain drain by investing in infrastructure for a Baton Rouge-New Orleans metropolitan region. This is why the rail is so important and why there’s bi-partisan support throughout south Louisiana for high-speed rail between Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

Lamar: If you were elected Governor tomorrow, what are the first three things you would do immediately after taking the Oath of Office?

Chris: First I would lead the development of a participatory, collaborative and transparent strategy for creating a 21st century higher education delivery model. Second, I would establish an entity devoted to implementing innovative and effective poverty reduction best practices here in Louisiana. My third focus would involve establishing statewide land use planning that would incorporate transit, disaster mitigation and inter-regional cooperation. All goals would be directed to transform Louisiana into an innovation laboratory for higher education, poverty reduction, and regional land use planning.

Lamar: Do you have hope for the future of Louisiana? If so, what gives you hope? What makes you optimistic?

Chris: I have tremendous hope and excitement for the future of our great state! This is an amazing time to be in Louisiana – we’re really building something great. I’m encouraged simply by the people who are here. Its a choice to stay here – for young people its very easy to escape to one of the major regional hubs where there are more and higher paying jobs, diverse populations and tons of lifestyle options. While I think Louisiana has a lot to offer in these regards, we have to do more to attract new talent. But those who are here are bright, visionary, dedicated and persistent. We’re building a great state. The future is incredibly bright!

Lamar: You’re a college professor. If you had to write a syllabus of required reading for every single Louisiana citizen, what would you include?

Chris: This is a hard question because there’s so much to include. A short list would include A People’s History of the United States, Inside the Carnival: Unmasking Louisiana Politics, Edwin Edward: An Authorized Biography, and The Great Reset. There’s so much to recommend that its hard to answer this question without feeling woefully inadequate. But this is a start….

July 18, 2011

New Yorker Kevin Kane Lectures Louisianans About Our Cultural Economy ¹

by Lamar White, Jr • Local Political News, Media Studies, Smart Growth, Social Activism, Today's News • Tags: Kevin Kane, Pelican Institute

Bienvenue, Kevin Kane, the New York transplant who heads up the Pelican Institute, Louisiana’s first astroturf “think tank.” A few days ago, The Lens allowed (regrettably) Kevin the opportunity to publish a guest editorial about the merits of cutting funding for arts and culture in Louisiana. And perhaps unwittingly, Kevin decided to clearly and definitively demonstrate his complete and total ignorance of Louisiana culture and the tools necessary to sustain and support its vibrancy. Quoting:

There are many reasons why Louisiana has “generations-old traditions like jazz, second lines, Mardi Gras Indians, zydeco and parade floats.” Our state’s unique history, geography and demographic diversity have all had a hand. If there is evidence that government support has been integral to any of these great traditions, Martin does not offer it.

If government funding were so vital to the existence of a rich local culture, wouldn’t other states have figured this out by now? According to this logic, Minnesota and Kansas need only spend a few more millions of dollars on the arts and they would become destinations for the educated young newcomers now heading to New Orleans.

Of course this is absurd. Just as New Orleans has its own culture, Minneapolis and Wichita have theirs. Each of these cultures has developed over many years and each appeals to some people but not others. State spending on the arts has never been a key factor in this process.

So, first of all, Kevin, you know what is most absurd? Comparing New Orleans and Louisiana to Minneapolis and Wichita. Secondly, you’re not from Louisiana. Not your state. I understand you went to Tulane for a time, but that does not make you an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, in our state’s culture and the exponential return on investment we make from our cultural economy.

Mardi Gras? I hate to break it to you, but it’s publicly-subsidized. And believe it or not, Kevin, it usually generates an enormous return for taxpayers. Somehow, I don’t believe the same model would work in Minneapolis or Wichita.

Mr. Kane then suggests that Louisianans need only to look at Preservation Hall and the resurgence of Frenchmen Street as examples of how the private-sector completely and entirely supports the arts (within a mile of each other in a single city), without ever acknowledging or taking into account the millions of public, taxpayer dollars (whether through tax credits or other support) that have been utilized. It’s not just disingenuous; it’s transparently dishonest.

Kevin, have you ever been to Minneapolis? Seriously. It’s a great place, actually. I spent several summers in the Twin Cities as a kid. They don’t support the arts and culture? I’d bet that be news to them, considering they have some of the best museums in the country. If they only spent a few more million dollars, they could do their own Mardi Gras! So could Wichita! Fools!

Look, I know you’re not from here, so let me clue you in: Louisianans believe in investing in our cultural economy because we know it pays back dividends; we recognize the opportunity to monetize our cultural capital. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But you know what sucks? When a New Yorker brands himself as a native “pelican” and then, in so doing, pretends to be a curator of Louisiana culture, as if you honestly know anything about the history of jazz in Louisiana or the real reasons for the renaissance of Frenchmen Street.

Geaux home, Kevin Kane, or better yet, convince Wichita to give you a few million bucks and try- I dare you- to even compete against Louisiana. And while you’re at it, please take your former collaborator James O’Keefe along with you.

July 9, 2011

Why Foster Campbell and the Louisiana PSC Are Right to Question the Proposed AT&T T-Mobile Merger ⁴

by Lamar White, Jr • Education, Local Political News, Media Studies, National News, Smart Growth, Social Activism, Today's News • Tags: AT&T, AT&T Louisiana, AT&T T-Mobile merger, Bobby Jindal, broadband in Louisiana, Foster Campbell, John Breaux, Scott McKay, Supriya Jindal Foundation, Trent Lott

Yesterday, Scott McKay of The Hayride criticized Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell for having the nerve to “scrutinize” the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. Of course, Commissioner Campbell is completely within his rights to ask the telecommunications behemoth how this $39 billion merger would affect Louisiana.

“It’s too big a deal to let it go through without getting everybody’s questions answered, and making sure this is a good deal for the consumer,” Campbell told Bloomberg News.

Despite Mr. McKay’s protestations (which seem to be rooted in politics and not policy), the proposed merger is a very, very big deal, and as a result, it raises a series of important and complicated questions, particularly for those of us in Louisiana, where rural broadband roll-out remains a real challenge and the “digital divide” still exists in communities across the State.

Last August, I wrote about how broadband roll-out should be considered the single most important infrastructure initiative since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. Just like our roads and highways, broadband allows people mobility, access to resources, and the ability to compete in the workforce. And this is precisely why our elected officials and policymakers should recognize their responsibility to facilitate the expansion of broadband access. Having said that, I realize this is exactly what AT&T claims this merger will accomplish, but we’ve heard the same exact thing from the same exact company before. More importantly, there are legitimate concerns that a merger of this size and scale would actually do much more harm than good for the average consumer and that it could stifle (if not eliminate) the ability for small, locally-owned businesses to compete in one of the most lucrative markets of the 21st century.

Mr. McKay states:

Since AT&T and T-Mobile have similarly-engineered networks, combining their forces will allow for a massive expansion of the resulting company’s ability to deliver broadband access where it doesn’t currently exist. That expansion means lots of economic activity and resulting job growth. And as has been the case with virtually every one of the mobile telecom mergers in the past, rates to the consumer are projected to go down.

Not so fast. Steven Berry, the President and CEO of the Rural Cellular Association, explains in letter to The Shreveport Times. Quoting (bold mine):

As the representative for nearly 100 competitive carriers throughout the United States, including Louisiana, I can assure you that rural consumers will be subjected to higher prices and fewer choices if the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is approved.

Currently, AT&T and Verizon own the majority of the backhaul infrastructure network in the United States. This infrastructure is used by all wireless carriers to connect their towers and provide service to customers. AT&T and Verizon each operate nationwide networks and are significant providers of roaming access for rural wireless consumers when they travel to and from urban areas.

The takeover would ultimately enhance AT&T’s power over the wholesale roaming marketplace, enabling it to dictate prices, terms and conditions to carriers seeking roaming arrangements. In the absence of competition, Louisiana’s rural wireless service providers could be subject to higher costs for using the infrastructure and providing roaming access, resulting in higher bills for consumers.

And contrary to what Mr. McKay claims, there is no consensus that “combining their forces will allow for a massive expansion of the resulting company’s ability to deliver broadband access where it doesn’t exist.” Quoting again from Mr. Berry (bold mine):

More insidious, however, are the promises AT&T is making with regard to the purported “benefits” of its takeover. AT&T claims its acquisition of T-Mobile would extend its geographic reach; but this is simply not true, the networks almost entirely overlap already.

Put simply, the “before and after” map Mr. McKay includes in his post may be, at best, overly ambitious and, at worst, dubious.

Mr. Berry is not the only one sounding the alarm bells. According to Andrew Couts of Digital Trends, the merger will likely result in seven things, including higher prices for all consumers, fewer phone choices, and the elimination of “unlimited” plans.

There’s another thing those of us in Louisiana should know. During the first three months of 2011, AT&T spent $6.8 million to lobby lawmakers for approval, and they’re projected to spend much more than the $15 million they spent on lobbying in 2010. As both AT&T and Scott McKay point out, the proposed merger has already received the blessing and endorsement of Governor Bobby Jindal. But it’s worth noting: AT&T is a “key sponsor of the Supriya Jindal Foundation;” the company has already pledged at least $250,000.

Another interesting tidbit: AT&T’s top lobbyists are none other than former Senator Trent Lott and former Senator John Breaux. From the Sunlight Foundation (bold mine):

The AT&T lobbying team also includes six former members of Congress. Two of those former members, Trent Lott and John Breaux, hold one of the most expensive lobbying contracts with AT&T at $120,000 from January through March.

The AT&T/T-Mobile merger has been controversial as it would consolidate 80 percent of the mobile market in just two companies–AT&T and Verizon.

Much of the opposition to the merger has come from Sprint Nextel, currently the third largest mobile provider. An official statement from Sprint Nextel stated, “If approved, the proposed acquisition would create a combined company that would be almost three times the size of Sprint in terms of wireless revenue and would entrench AT&T’s and Verizon’s duopoly control over the wireless market.”

Sprint Nextel’s lobbying spending barely registers when compared to AT&T’s. Sprint spent $583,000 lobbying from January through March or less than one-tenth of AT&T’s lobbying expenses. There are currently nine lobbying firms registered to lobby for Sprint. (As mentioned above, there 31 lobbying firms registered with AT&T.)

If this merger is rejected, I imagine Mr. McKay would have us believe it’s because people like Foster Campbell dared to ask questions and that the government was simply overstepping its regulatory authority. But if it’s approved, I wonder whether he’d admit that maybe, just maybe stories like this had something to do with it:

CenLamar

Category Archives: Smart Growth

Alexandria Launches THINKAlex, Game-Changing Initiative That Could “Rewrite The Books” On Resiliency Planning ¹

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this: