|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
Current rating: 0 |
by Esther Patt
(No verified email address) |
20 Jul 2004
|
|
The latest assault on progressives in Urbana is a proposal to change the form of city government by adding to the City Council two members who would be elected at-large, city-wide, rather than from individual districts. A proposal by Council Member Milton Otto to place a question on the November ballot asking the voters to create the new at-large seats will be discussed at the July 26 Council committee meeting. |
The arguments that have been made in support of the proposal to add at-large seats are:
- Since students do not vote in large numbers they should not have the same representation as everyone else.
- Since more people in southeast Urbana cast votes in the city elections, people in southeast Urbana should have greater representation in government than people in other areas of the city.
- The new Urbana ward map was drawn to give west Urbana a disproportionate amount of influence in cty government.
The U.S. Constitution requires that districts (or wards) be drawn according to population, based on the most recent census. Representation based on population, not voter turn-out, is a constitutional right. At-large election is a legal way to circumvent this constitutional princple.
The assertion that west Urbana is over-represented is completely false. Forty-three percent of the population of Urbana lives south of University Avenue and west of Race Street. Three of seven council members -- forty-three percent -- live south of University and west of Race.
The little thread that this weak argument hangs on is that a fourth council member, Laura Huth, lives on Race Street rather than farther east in her ward. Her predecessor, Michael Pollock, lives one block east of her, but the at-large advocates never complained during his eight years of service that his place of residence threw democracy askew.
Could it be because Laura Huth is a progressive woman?
The new ward map increases the likelihood that only two council members will live in the west Urbana neighborhood after the spring 2005 election. Based on census population, the new map draws Council Member Danielle Chynoweth into Ward 2 and extends her current Ward 4 east all the way to Anderson Street. The way the map is drawn, four of the seven council members could be living east of Vine Street after the next election.
So what is this really all about? During the re-map earlier this year, Mayor Tod Satterthwaite said he wanted to create more Republican seats on the city council which currently has a poltiical balance of 6 Democrats and 1 Republican. At-large elections increase the likelihood of electing another Republican.
At-large voting would also create a seat for Milton Otto (D-Ward 7) to run from his new address without having to run against Laura Huth. Earlier this year, Otto bought a house two blocks from Huth and asked the city council to change the ward map by splitting Huth's precinct and ward so that Otto would not have to run against her. He had the choice of buying a house in one of two wards -- 7 or 4 where he would face no incumbent. But, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. When the City
Council refused to change the ward map to accommodate one person, the Mayor suggested changing the entire form of government, just to accommodate one person.
In any city, in any context, at-large elections are not progressive. In this particular case, the idea is especially objectionable. Consider these arguments:
- At-large voting dilutes minority representation.
- At-large voting makes money a key issue in every campaign. This proposal would create two seats that can be bought and creates the need for expensive media campaigns rather than the grassroots, candidate-to-voter campaigns that we have in ward races. Is the cause of good government served when average citizens cannot run for local government because they will have to spend $15,000 and campaign city-wide?
- It is wrong to change a form of government just because of dissatisfaction with who won the last election.
- It is wrong to change a form of government to accommodate the political aspirations of one individual who wants to move out of his ward but doesn't want to run against an incumbent.
Advocates of at-large voting could put the question on the November ballot without support from the City Council if they file petitions for the ballot question no later than August 16. They need to obtain only 432 valid signatures to place this question on the ballot. This would be easy to obtain.
Changing the form of government in response to a political moment is risky business. If the measure is placed on the ballot and passes, the at-large voting system will be with us long after the current office holders have retired. Come to the July 26 City Council meeting to voice your concern.
Let's stop this ill-advised, politically motivated mistake now. Come to council meeting, Monday, July 26th at 7:30 PM at 400 S. Vine Street to voice your opposition. |
Related stories on this site:
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: People For the American Way Foundation and NAACP Release Report on Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America
Students Organize to Resist Suppression of Their Voting Rights
| 
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by wayward
mrscake (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2004
|
|
It's a shame that the goofy ethics proposal that he introduced at a recent meeting didn't keep him busier. |
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by mark dixon
mark (nospam) atkinsgroup.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2004
|
Do not misconstrue what is being proposed...this is not about current council members or progressives. The idea has merit and is worth consideration, especially for those of us who live on the expanding perimeter. One council representative for the region of Urbana that is growing the most is not equitable. Our issues are different than those impacting the citizens in the interior, older neighborhoods of Urbana.
Of all forums, I thought IMC would be open minded about this suggestion. |
|
"Of all forums, I thought [the] IMC..."?? |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2004
Modified: 05:00:17 PM |
Okay, let's review:
City Council representative Esther Patt authored and published the article above.
That article gives HER view regarding some VERY BIG proposed changes in our city government. Patt wrote from her own perspective, that of a well-informed veteran local politician who sides with what she calls "Progressives,"...whatever those are.
After stating his own (opposing) view on the matter for all to read, Mark Dixon implies that the presence of Patt's article makes the IMC a less-than open-minded forum.
Dixon's implication makes no sense.
His OWN view on the matter stands published, right next to Patt's. The "forum" Dixon criticizes has successfully presented both sides of the issue, thanks to Patt's participation AND to Dixon's own.
THAT's how an IMC works.
I would like to point out to Dixon that his rhetorical grandstanding against the IMC as a "forum" leads me to distrust his stance on the redistricting issue.
I am open-minded, I'm WITH the IMC, and (until I hear some convincing evidence to the contrary from a source I trust), I'm WITH Esther and AGAINST the Mayor's redistricting proposal.
See ya Monday at Council. |
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2004
|
my understanding is that current districts are drawn so that roughly equal number of current voters are in each district. it would seem to me quite anti-democratic to either overweight specific districts to account for potential future growth, or to adopt a system that overweights for those constituencies that vote in higher percentages -- especially since the system is supposed to represent neighborhoods.
mainly, i think it comes down to a difference of opinion over what sort of representation city government is supposed to provide. personally, i believe that the basic unit of representation should be neighborhoods and that the people of specific neighborhoods should elect representative who work for the best interest of that neighborhood. at-large seats, on the other hand, make less sense for city council elections and help to create less connection between individual city council members and the people they serve.
however, this still doesn't answer mark dixon's concern about urbana's expanding perimeter and the continuing population shift towards the periphery. one solution would to to reallow for rebalancing of ward maps more often than once every 10 years. given the changes in population density, this would be a better way to ensure both representation and continued connection between neighborhoods and their elected representatives. |
|
The Law and the Census |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2004
|
I have to agree with what Paul and Sascha have said. In addition, it should be pointed out that the mayor had a chance to have an updated census done and decided he didn't want to do that before the redistricting occurred -- that was his choice. However, unless there is revised census data, there is no lawful basis for creating a different map than the process that already occurred. The mayor lost -- that's it.
There is nothing to misconstrue about Tod's motives in proposing at-large council seats be added. It is purely political revenge by an increasingly unstable mayor (who has become rather infamous for his temper and raging fits against those he disagrees with.)
Any at-large seats will serve to dilute the individual voting power of those in the current districts, granting greater weight to the votes of those districts with high turnouts. This is simply unfair. Ms. Patt's assessment of the results (increasing the costs of running for office, making those who run for such seats more beholden to wealth) is both prescient and accurate. However, perhaps that result is something someone with an Atkins Group email address would want.
Such a proposal changes our present system from one where it is one person, one vote to one where it is more akin to one dollar, one vote. Given that the Atkins Group has already enjoyed a million dollar plus subsidy from the taxpayers of Urbana, this would be an outrageous imposition, in addition to being fundamentally unfair.
In addition, while Mr. Dixon may be concerned about forecasts of more people moving into the districts where the Atkins Group has a substantial investment, I think he is getting ahead of himself. There were predictions in the beginning that the lots in Stone Creek would sell out quickly, but this has not panned out. On the other hand, the mayor has certainly far more quickly sold out many of those who previously supported him, but home sales in Stone Creek have been much more lethargic. So population growth in the east side of Urbana is running far behind predictions, making me question the accuracy of the overall voter growth predictions for this area.
Until people actually move there AND are then counted by the census, there is no need to change the recently adopted map or propose discriminatory at-large council seats. There will never be a legitimate purpose in giving these persons' votes a greater weight than those in the rest of Urbana. But the mayor certainly has his political reasons, which are illegitimate and should be rejected by the council for the fraud that they are. There is nothing to misconstrue about that.
Finally, as for Tod's grand plan to make Urbana more like Champaign, it is just stupid to do that. Many, if not most people (including myself), choose to live in Urbana when they come to the area precisely because it is DIFFERENT than the rest of Champaign County. Here, we don't see our progressive votes diluted by living amidst the real, but steadily fading, conservative power structure that dominates the rest of the county. If Tod wants Urbana to be like Champaign, he can far more easily solve his disquiet by moving west across Wright Street and leaving the rest of us to enjoy the unique progressive character that Urbana citizens treasure. |
|
Who is Mark Dixon? What is the Atkins Group? |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2004
|
A quick Google search on Mark Dixon and the Atkins Group turned up the following:
http://www2.uiuc.edu/ro/sbma/news.html
The Atkins Group
Mark Dixon Real Estate Director
Mark E. Dixon is real estate director for The Atkins Group. A graduate of the University of Illinois, he hold a bachelor's degree in architectural studies, a master's degree in business administration, and a master's degree in architecture. The Atkins Group is a premier real estate development firm with diverse property holdings in Champaign County. Founded in 1963, the company started with rental property management and has since evolved into five core fields of real estate: commercial/retail development, multi-family and single family residential development, golf course operations, farm operations, and industrial development.
http://www.heartlandrebusiness.com/articles/MAY04/snapshot2.html
In the office market, the most significant development in years has been the University of Illinois’ recent decision to develop a research park on its South Campus. The park, which was developed by Atkins-Fox Development, is anchored by Motorola and SAIC, and includes a state-of-the-art business incubator that contains laboratories and space for start-up companies.
The Atkins Group is developing Stone Creek Commons in Urbana, an upscale alternative for companies wanting an Urbana address. There are two buildings currently completed: an 11,000-square-foot facility fully occupied by the Atkins Group’s corporate headquarters and a 9,800-square-foot speculative stand-alone office building. The park can have up to 16 lots and build out as many as 240,000 square feet of office space. |
|
More on Dixon and the Atkins Group |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2004
|
SOURCE: http://www.fox-companies.com/foxatkins/TheAtkinsGroup.htm
The Atkins Group is a premier real estate development firm with diverse property holdings in Champaign County. Founded in 1963, the company started with rental property management and has since evolved into five core fields of real estate: commercial/retail development, multi-family and single family residential development, golf course operations, farm operations, and industrial development. Feature projects include Stone Creek Golf Course and Subdivision, Baytowne Apartments, Baytown Square, Drury Inn, Wal-Mart, Meijer Realty, Rockwell International's Allen-Bradley distribution facility, NEG Micon, and the new distribution hub for RPS/Federal Express (FDX).
Clinton C. Atkins
Clinton C. Atkins is the founder of The Atkins Group. He serves as chairman of the board for Hobbico, Herr's, CMI Aviation, Agemco, Stone Creek Realty, and Stone Creek Golf. He is a partner in A&B Partnership and a director of Great American Bank Champaign.
Mark E. Dixon
Mark E. Dixon is real estate director for The Atkins Group. A graduate of the University of Illinois, he holds a bachelor's degree in architectural studies, a master's degree in business administration, and a master's degree in architecture. He has extensive experience in all aspects of residential and commercial development, including coordinating the planning and construction of new properties and leasing and managing existing properties. Dixon is president-elect of the Champaign West Rotary and a task force member for the U.S. Route 150 Corridor Study and the Champaign Growth Areas Study. From 1992 to 1997, he served as a board member for the Champaign County YMCA. |
|
John Foreman Drooling at the Prospect of Saddling Urbana with Champaign-Style Good 'Ol Boy Council |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jul 2004
|
The good 'ol boy network that runs Champaign has weighed in on Tod's brazen power grab. John Foreman, editor and publisher of the News-Gazette, devoted his Sunday column to attacking democracy in Urbana, which he calls a "loaded deck." Gosh, it sure hurts his and the mayor's feelings when the citizens of Urbana elect those who they feel best represent their interests.
Oddly, Foreman feels that giving a disproportionate amount of electoral power to a minority of citizens somehow represents an improvement over one person/one vote. All of this is so that the "rapidly growing east side" (which sort of makes you wonder if Foreman has somehow misapprehended Urbana as the east side of Champaign, a trait unfortunately shared by the mayor) should get "more representation." Since the east wards of Urbana already have all the representation they are legally and constitutionally entitled to, it is hard to see through the crap that Foreman slings to the truth.
Foreman claims that "for a long time now" via "political chicanery" a small part of the city has not been "represented equally" but offers absolutely no evidence of this, other than his and the mayor's opinion.
The basis of Foreman's argument is that the city council has ignored "the growth in the years since the census," conveniently ignoring the fact that the latest census data (2000) is the only LEGAL way to determine the apportionment of Urbana's wards. But you see, legality is far less important to Foreman than supporting Tod's naked power grab in order to support those they both care most about -- the wealthy, land developers, and political conservatives.
Foreman accuses opponents of the mayor's hubris of engaging in "strange conspiracy theories" in opposing what "has worked well for decades in Champaign" -- leaving one to wonder in whose interest things have worked out well in Champaign and why this has anything to do with Urbana.
But it's easy to see that there is something illegitimate afoot. Out of the blue, without a single public hearing, the mayor has thrown down his gauntlet (which, I suppose is better than him throwing a chair, as he did last year at one local politically active member of our community), grandstanding before the public and against the majority of the city council. Oddly, though it would seem that such a major change should be the subject of measured reflection and extensive pubic input, the council members are going into Monday's meeting without even the text of the proposal being provided to them. The News-Gazette often positions itself as an advocate of open government, but Foreman is strangely silent about Tod's secret machinations and failure to be forthcoming about what he claims is a vitally important issue. And it is surely not coincidence that Foreman's editorial appears now in a naked attempt to skew public opinion in the absence of facts.
Just like it is rather strange that the News-Gazette suddenly finds something to like about Urbana city government, when their knee-jerk reaction is usually to unilaterally condemn everything on the east side of Wright Street, we also find that a leading figure in the Atkins Group is a reader of Indymedia (see Mr. Dixon's post above). But you see, according to Foreman, this is all just a happy coincidence (but, PLEASE, don't look behind the curtain, boys and girls.) Maybe it isn't a conspiracy, at least in legal terms (as in breaking the law), but the sudden push to "reform" Urbana's political system is just the opposite of what Foreman claims it to be, open government. Foreman's carefully timed, salivating editorial from a paper normally unfriendly to anything that happens in Urbana is proof of that.
The timing stinks to high heaven also. The whole affair has been carefully timed to poison the political waters before those potentially being disenfranchised, the students, have a chance to comment on it. Some may not like the fact that students are considered equal citizens before the law, but it nonetheless remains the law of the land (or is Foreman proposing, in lieu of the changes that Tod proposes, that each student be counted as only 3/5 of every other citizen, not to mention all those in Jim Hayes' ward, who Foreman probably feels should be used to such treatment?)
Even more strangely, for all the grandstanding by Tod and the News-Gazette in their hurry to get this before the council (where it should, by all rights, be soundly defeated), there is no need for taking up the council's time with this disreputable idea. All Tod needs is to collect less than 500 signatures (a fact that Foreman conveniently leaves out of his jeremiad) to place this referendum on the ballot. Instead, it is obvious that Tod and Foreman intend to use the votes of the council members protecting the legal voting rights of their constituents against this phony power grab by somehow claiming the council members refusal to go along with Tod's dog-and-pony show is proof they are "undemocratic," even though they will simply be voting the best interests of their constituents.
One doesn't need a "conspiracy theory" to see that there is a small cabal attempting to manipulate the political system and it sure isn't the majority on the city council. There has been no groundswell of public opinion in support of this bogus proposal. Instead, it has been manufactured as a naked power grab on the part of its tiny, self-interested proponents, those who want only token representation (and power) for anyone other than the local elite. |
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by Danielle Chynoweth
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Jul 2004
|
Mark Dixon (with whom I serve on the Economic Development Commission and gather advice from on downtown issues) said: "Our issues are different than those impacting the citizens in the interior, older neighborhoods of Urbana. "
I want to know what these issues are.
In particular I want one story (or more) of something I or a majority of Urbana councilmembers did in the last three years that made SE Urbana feel like they didn't have adequate representation.
I hear cries of "disenfranchisement!" "lack of representation!" but no one can give me a answer to what would have passed in the last 3 years if we had 2 at-large seats that didn't because we don't.
This question is sincere. |
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
I can't believe that Esther and her cabal are progressive. They are anything but....not one of them represents their ward. They only represent their opinions and those of their cronies. When you get elected you must represent everyone in your ward...not just that small minded perspective they represent. They are really no better than the right wing
and especially Republicans they are always criticizing. We need at least two more at-large council persons to add to the discussion and represent the many Urbana citizens who have given up voting in our local elections. We would have to go back to that nasty phrase of "the silent majority" to really speak about what is going on in Urbana. The majority of Urbana citizens are really fed up with the council. Many of them see the council as a joke and luckily the city is really run by competent professionals, who realize that government is here to provide basic services not waste hour after hour debating the war in Iraq. Danielle C. chastised the citizens who spoke for the at-large council person seats as wasting the council's valuable time. I would suggest that he anti-war motion was a total waste of almost 3 meetings of the the council. Every time she opens her mouth, I am convinced she does so just to hear herself talk. The people of Urbana will decide if we need 2 at-large seats. It will be on the November ballot. |
|
Michael and the Mayor: Kiss and Make-up? |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
Michael Langendorf wrote:
> "I can't believe that Esther and her cabal are progressive. They are anything but....not one of them represents their ward. They only represent their opinions and those of their cronies. When you get elected you must represent everyone in your ward...not just that small minded perspective they represent."
Last time I checked, all members of the city council were elected by a majority of the voters. Your idea of who they represent is certainly a twist -- certainly they will attempt to represent everyone, but that may be a tall order at times when you include the minority who voted for their opponent.
Michael Langendorf wrote:
> "We need at least two more at-large council persons to add to the discussion and represent the many Urbana citizens who have given up voting in our local elections."
It was pointed out that a far more effective solution to this preception would be that each ward elect two councilmembers (as Urbana formerly did), but this did not go over well with those supporting at-large representation, whose main goal seem to really be to pack the council with those in support of the mayor and opposed to progressivism in Urbana.
Michael Langendorf wrote:
> "The majority of Urbana citizens are really fed up with the council. Many of them see the council as a joke and luckily the city is really run by competent professionals, who realize that government is here to provide basic services not waste hour after hour debating the war in Iraq."
Your viewpoint is shared by a few, but again the results of the last election do not bear this out. You will get a chance to prove it next April. Good luck.
As for the war in Iraq, national polls indicate that the entire population of the US is just about evenly split on whether the war was a good idea -- or one of the more stupid decisions of a really stupid presidency. Given that Urbana is generally to the left of national opinion, I think is a fairly certain that Urbana's official opposition to the war represents the majority view in Urbana.
But your previous assertion that " When you get elected you must represent everyone..." certainly raises the question of why Bush had the chutzpah to start a war in Iraq when it was clear that a significant portion of the American public opposed the idea? He sure didn't represent me (or large numbers of people in Urbana.) I await your attack on Bush for his egregious violation of the conveniently ironic way you see the world. Of course you could reply that Bush was never really elected, so he is thus exempt from your political fatwa, but then you're back in bed with those pesky progressives.
It should be pointed out that Danielle raised the question of wasting the council's time, because of the exact point you made: "It will be on the November ballot." So why ask the council to vote on a proposal whose proponents could not even bother to spend the time writing it down in order to provide the text of what they were asking their fellow councilmembers to vote for?
As I recall, YOU of all people should be wary of any action by Urbana's government that is not written down. You had a rather large difference of opinion over something that WAS written down in the past:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=il&vol=/sc/2001/90635&invol=3
http://www.dailyillini.com/archives/1996/October/28/p01_mayor.txt.html
Given that, I really have to wonder why you've jumped in bed all of the sudden with the mayor and his small cabal of real estate developers, which is the only small cabal that I can see who is really trying to manipulate Urbana's government from a smoky back room. There certainly seems to be quite a whiff of hypocrisy in your posturing against progressives given your past positions.
If it turns out you're one of the putative candidates for your hoped-for at-large council seat, you better start working on your rhetoric. Your unfounded tirade is unlikely to get you much of anywhere. Or has Tod told you the fix is in? You'd better watch your back. As progressives have found out (and you apparently knew at one time), he is a back-stabbing piece of work. |
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
Dear Dose of Reality who offers no name: Winning office with the number of votes that was received by Esther and her cabal is no indication of any mandate to promote their so
called "progressive" perspective. When the at-large council person item is on the ballot we will see if the everyday citizens are tired of business as usual in the People's Republic of Urbana. My past issues with the city were based on their practice of giving incentives to new businesses while doing nothing for business already here in Urbana. Further, if Esther had her cabal back then the city would never have given an incentive to Meijer. Meijer practices the same employment techniques as Wal Mart does and does not pay a living wage. The city gave them an incentive to build....none was extended to Wal Mart. My issues with the mayor in the past was due to the re-zoning of property which had been zoned agricultural for over 100 years, meetings being held without notice and the general practice (like Danielle) of being rude to citizens. The plan commission was chaired at that time by someone who also was rude to the public and fellow commission members. The whole Meijer project was Urbana sleeping with a developer
but to date the relationship has shown little gain for the city. The idea put forth to add council persons is a hope to give community members a voice that is not being represented by Esther and the cabal. They are not progressive as that would intimate they want to hear from everyone not just their cronies. They only hear what they want to hear. They have become as evil as those they criticize. Further, my support for the at-large council person is not my attempt to run for offfice. And as for tirades, watch Esther and the cabal at the council meetings...they appear to have the market cornered. |
|
Not Much Substance to Your Argument |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
Michael,
I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. It's clear why you might have a personal beef with the mayor, but still very unclear how you've suddenly made peace with him.
Your bizarre accusations against Esther and Danielle are similarly unexplained. I watched the discussion at last week's council meeting and certainly did not see anything like what you describe in terms of their behavior. Your assertions seem to me to be nothing more than an over-the-top emotional reaction to councilmembers doing their job -- perhaps since you seem to share this reaction with the mayor, you've found common ground in delusion along with him.
The only thing that makes sense is your statement that you will not be running for one of the at-large seats, if that should by some unfortunate circumstance come to pass. Good call on that one. |
|
Re: Mayor Mobilizes for At-Large Urbana Seats to Weaken Progressive Power |
by Michael Langendorf
crdmike (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Aug 2004
|
|
Dose of reality....the real issue is what reality are you in...and how is it that you are afraid to say who you are? The city council of Urbana is a joke.....as our most of the members......I have come to pity Tod having to deal with them every week. |
|
Confusing language on referendum |
by antiapathy
antiapathy (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Sep 2004
|
Have yall seen the language of the resolution? "Shall the City of Urbana restrict the number of aldermen to a total of nine..." Shouldn't that read "expand"? Does anyone else think this is an intentional ploy get get students to vote for the referendum?
BTW, when is the mayoral election? |
|
