Comments on: Deconstructing No Boss Mayor, Part 5

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:49:11 +0000

“I had to agree with Maygarden that our current form gives citizens more power.”

That’s pretty rich. How do you reckon?

Proposed charter includes: elected mayor with many powers of current unelected city manager; stronger district representation in council by eliminating at-large mayor’s vote; new recall and initiative powers to voters; lower petition threshold for voter referendum on council action. Compare to current charter’s “it’s-not-a-bug-it’s-a-feature!”: shorter election cycles for council, which means they have to campaign every two years — admittedly not a problem for the entrenched members who can coast on name recognition without worrying about term limits.

By: Gen X

Gen X — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:57:38 +0000

Mike,
I really don’t think the current system does. The ten-member council dilutes the voice of the people. Cities that that do have 10 member or larger councils have strong mayors…and its more than to two or three Florida cities that have strong mayors.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:06:29 +0000

I saw the debate between CC Elebash and Maygarden. I had to agree with Maygarden that our current form gives citizens more power.

Only 2 or 3 cities in Florida have the strong mayor form of government while the rest have our current form.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:16:55 +0000

What I gather from the No Boss Mayor side is:

1) The new charter is racist.
2) It’s shiny and glossy.
3) It’s the businesses fault, not Baptist Hospital, them other businesses who have had their taxes increase 50 percent this decade.
4) Its dark
5) Government is too complicated for Pensacola citizens.

Sort of sounds like the Old Testament.

By: Ynona

Ynona — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:12:22 +0000

I agree with Anony, James and Question. Pensacola is great, especially if you’re white, have a fat pension check and live in the same house for the past 30 years. Pensacola is fantastic. They can keep their newfangled ideas and shiny mailers to themselves.

By: Anony

Anony — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:33:31 +0000

Question, I tend to agree. It seems they would prefer that the chamber be in total control of local government.

By: Question

Question — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:06:51 +0000

No Joe no conspiracy, I’ll leave that to you,

but it just seems those supporting strong mayor did very well for themselves dealing with the city under the council form.

Maybe just not as well as if they only had to make a deal with one person.

By: Round-up, 11.10.09

Round-up, 11.10.09 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:40:44 +0000

[...] the arguments of the anti-Charter group No Boss Mayor. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the [...]

By: Rick Outzen

Rick Outzen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:29:55 +0000

For me, it has been discouraging to see two former city attorneys, a former mayor, the current mayor and two council members run such a negative campaign. Every time I think we can move beyond the personal attacks and scare tactics, it comes back.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:57:35 +0000

Question,

It sounds like you’re fishing for a conspiracy, but this is really very simple. A major downside of council-manager government (and especially OUR council-manager government) is that it’s sluggish or downright unresponsive on issues of economic development. It should be no surprise, then, that there are many businesspeople in the community who want a mayor-council government. The “No Boss Mayor” folks are trying to make it a class warfare thing (“the rich people want this, so you better vote no!”) but a more responsive economic development arm of the city would help everyone.