|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation : Government Secrecy : Urban Development |
|
Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
03 Nov 2004
|
Citizens read Constitution, Flunk Mayor in Civics 101
Urbana votes at-large to reject at-large proposal by mayor to add council seats |
In a stunning repudiation of Democratic Mayor Tod Satterthwaite, progressive forces in Urbana have soundly rejected the mayor’s proposal to add two at-large seats to the city council. The measure was designed expressly to undermine the voting majority that progressives had established under the ward system, which will be retained unchanged with this decision.
As of 3:00am, the vote totals stood at NO!, 7704 (63%) to Yes, 4486 (37%). With three precincts left to be counted, victory for those opposing the at-large proposal is mathematically all but certain.
The final result bodes ill for the mayor’s seeking re-election in the upcoming spring city elections, with the primary set for February 2005, and a general election to follow in April 2005. Although the mayor is a Democrat, he gambled on drawing support from Republicans and his tiny personal powerbase among conservative Democrats – and lost badly. It is likely that a strong progressive candidate will emerge to challenge Mayor Satterthwaite in the February primary. Given Urbana’s liberal voter base, winning the Democratic primary for mayor is tantamount to winning the following general election.
The at-large proposal emerged in the last few weeks before the filing date for the November election in late summer. The mayor, despite sharing the same party affiliation as the 6-1 majority of Urbana council members, has continually found reasons to engage in what many see as a destructive, petty personal politics in some council votes where he failed to even make an attempt at gaining consensus with his fellow Democrats.
The alleged need for at-large seats, according to the mayor and the mostly Republican supporters of the measure, was that the council had failed to draw a fair ward map, which is legally required to be drawn based on the latest census data. Unable to sustain a legal case, the mayor tried a public appeal to institute at-large seats to overcome the alleged “unfairness” of the ward map. Apparently, relatively few Urbana citizens shared this assessment. The election results demonstrate that there is, in fact, no substantial difference between ward sizes under the new ward map, both as a matter of opinion and as a matter of fact. Or if there is, the phantom additional citizens in Wards 6 and 7 do not vote.
Given the departure of several members of the current council and the mayor’s obvious weakness in his own party, substantial changes are looming in membership of the council with the upcoming spring elections – but likely not in the way the mayor had sought. There will be no at-large seats to be competed for, something which the largely Republican supporters of at-large had counted on to overcome their growing powerlessness in Urbana. The mayor himself is vulnerable, if he chooses to run again in the face of his most recent electoral defeat. And it is obvious that any candidate hoping to successfully compete to win a ward seat, with one or possibly two exceptions, will have to win the votes of Urbana’s solid progressive majority.
Related articles:
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/21353/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/20564/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/19683 http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/19829/index.php http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/19244/index.php http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/19148/index.php |
Related stories on this site:
Urbana appearing to reject at-large proposal
| 
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license. |
Comments
|
Still Counting, But Still a Ignominious Defeat for At-Large |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
|
Sleeping on this for six hours still hasn't resulted in a final count. The clerk's office apparently hasn't counted Cunningham 14, but the outcome is more certain than ever -- a landslide victory for the Vote No At-Large campaign. Pro-at-large forces managed a victory in only three precincts out of 23 (with one left to count), failing to even persuade many of those on whose behalf they claimed to be acting. The totals stand at NO!, 8798 (63%) and Yes, 5186 (37%). |
|
Possibly, A Final Total |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
The clerk's website was updated in the last few minutes. Although Cunningham 14 results have not yet been posted, I assume this is where the updated total comes from. It looks like Cunningham 14 also voted against at large, meaning the proposal met defeat in 20 out of 23 precincts.
Tentative final total:
NO! 9280 (62.7%)
Yes 5514 (37.3%)
It's a good thing for them this wasn't a ward election -- conservatives would be even more marginalized than they are under the ward system, which will continue unchanged. |
|
What You Find in the Middle of the Road |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
This just goes to show that the only thing you'll find in the middle of the road in Urbana are dead skunks.
Don't be surprised if one of those skunks becomes a zombie resembling Tod, who may try to reinvent himself into something less disagreeable than he has been. If this happens, stay back! He still bites.
Let's vote for the living, not the undead, in next February's city primary. |
|
[I know this is unfair to weasels, but...] Watch the Weasel |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
Already, the News-Gazette online article on the at-large defeat consisted mostly of Tod's mea culpas and exactly what I predicted:
"If re-elected in the spring, Satterthwaite said, he intends to continue working with the council to find a solution.
"'There have been a lot of differences between me and the council, and I would prefer to move forward on a positive note,' he said."
http://www.newsgazette.com/story.cfm?Number=17041
For voters, it should be clear enough now that Tod is duplicitious, self-serving, and untrustworthy. He should NOT be re-elected, no matter how nice he makes between now and the spring elections. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Babs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
I love this quote from Tod:
"It's a matter of getting the message out, and obviously we didn't get the message out as well as we would have liked."
Um, no, the message was out. It was just a really, really bad idea. |
|
Lots of Spin from the News-Gazette Between the Lines in That Article |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Nov 2004
|
Yes, a bad idea. But the News-Gazette article portrayed the whole thing as an issue between Democrats, acting like the paper itself , as well as Republicans in general, never had a dog in this fight.
In fact, at-large's support came largely from Republicans disgruntled over their seemingly permanent loser status in Urbana. Tod was pandering to them all along with at-large, because he knows he has cut most of his ties with his own party and will absolutely need the support of them to have even a slim chance at this point of getting re-elected.
It would not surprise me to see a massive Republican switch to taking Democratic ballots in the spring primary in order to get Tod to win it. Then they may hope to spring their own "moderate" Republican candidate on everyone and hope that enough Dems stay home over the lack of choice in the general city election that they have a chance of picking up the mayor's slot and maybe even a council seat or two. But that is a very long shot at this point.
Given the solid organization of progressive forces in Urbana now, what is really needed is to keep our eyes on the prize and avoid division among ourselves. We need good solid candidates and a primary that builds unity coming out of it, rather than leaving a lot of blood on the floor, except maybe, figuratively speaking, the mayor's. We'll need progressive Dems and others, including the newly strenghtened Greens, to cooperate at some level. If so, we can take the mayor's office and bring in a new generation of progressive council members, prehaps even gaining a solid 6-1 progressive majority.
The key factor will be turning out our voters. This will take some extra effort, because we won't have the draw of the presidential election. No doubt, the mayor and the Republicans will both be counting on a low turnout to get back soem of what they lost with the sinking of at-large. Our mission is to maintain solidarity and turnout our voters, including students, for a city election.
The News-Gazette will no doubt continue its editorial policy of endlessly and baselessly deprecating Urbana, even pretending that this was not also a great defeat for them as well as Tod, but it won't matter. Urbana is poised to be a greater than ever before place to live and conduct ethical business. The N-G's editorial board can stuff it. We don't need them to tell us how to run our city. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Nov 2004
|
"In fact, at-large's support came largely from Republicans disgruntled over their seemingly permanent loser status"
In fact, ML, Plus 2's support came from a non-partisan group composed of Democrats, Independents, Republicans,etc. They were brought together by a concern over the inequities in ward representation; they shared a belief that adding a couple of seats elected at-large would provide a measure of fairness to a ward system that has been historically unfair to people who live in fast-growing areas of the city.
Why do you insist on demonizing residents of Urbana who care about this city as much as you do? Your hatred of the mayor seems to extend to everyone who happened to agree with him on this particular issue.
There should be room for all points of view in discussions of the future of this city. If you believe that a certain political point of view should be isolated, suppressed, and excluded because it differs from your own, you're no better than any of the other extremists in this world.
Urbana is our home and we all enjoy here for many different reasons. We should build on that commonality instead of fanning the flames of divisiveness. There's enough of that at the national level. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Finally- the real dose of reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Nov 2004
|
|
THANK YOU, JULIA! |
|
They May Be Uncomfortable Facts |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Nov 2004
|
But that's the way it is.
All one has to do is look at where at-large found its small pool of support. It was in three wards that have traditionally voted Republican. It was the Republican News-Gazette that created the illusion that more than a small minority of citizens supported this idea. It was the mayor who dropped this thing like a road apple from a Clydesdale into the lap of the city council without any study over whether there was any real need for it.
If you want to preach about division, then talk to the mayor. His tactics in recent months have been about nothing except creating the preception that there was massive disunity in this city that needed the drastic relief of at-large to reconcile. We have now all discovered that there was in fact a profound unity in Urbana -- against the mayor's scheming.
I respect your right to have a different opinion from mine, but your attempt to reinvent facts to disguise just how wrong the entire premise behind at-large was is something that is patently ridiculous.
But even when I was quite correctly pointing out that the mayor drew most of his support from Republicans, it does not mean that every Republican supported at-large. The fact that at-large couldn't get a majority of votes except in three wards pretty much proves that even Republicans failed to suppprt at-large in many cases. If it was strictly a Dem vs Rep thing, then at-large would have carried maybe 5 or 6 wards, but it did not. I am sorry if I left the impression that ALL Repubicans supported at-large. Clearly, they did not, but just as clearly, for whatever reasons, it did draw a large part of the little support it had from Republicans. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Nov 2004
|
|
I think we could all name a few "road apples" that have been dropped in city council chambers over the past few years. Nonetheless, there still is a real need for representation based upon population in this city. I look forward to hearing what the newly elected council plans to do to address the inequities created by the ward map. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Hooray for Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Nov 2004
|
|
I look forward to seeing what the new city council will do for the entire city and now just for a specific area of the city ,or a neighborhood, or for a particular group of citizens. |
|
Don't Count Your Chickens Before They're Hatched |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Nov 2004
|
Ummm, there is no "new city council," at least not until next April. It also looks like running on a platform to address the invented issues that drove the at-large boondoggle is unlikely to be something that wins anybody a council seat, except perhaps for Joe Whelan, who is smart enough to know that he should run on his own record, instead of Tod's folly.
And if Tod chooses to run on the fantasy that at-large is something people want to see revisited in the primary, that will be a one-way ticket to Loserville, if he is not already trapped in a trailer headed that way anyway.
You at-large supporters ought to quit drinking the kool-aid and figure out some real issues, like how the hell the sprawl that WalMart will bring is going to affect the city budget. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by get real- mr/ms. dose
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
|
why do you continue to say "invented issues" - have you ever been east of Vine street? do you see the empty stores on philo or the new subsidized housing project on East Colorado that brings the police there on a daily basis? Why are you so blind to the real needs of residents who don't happen to be "progressive" but rather just plain citizens/ (nonpartisan) citizens of Urbana. We have rights, too and for those of you who believe in diversity- how about diversity of thought? How about the right of all people to participate in the governmental process. The "invented" issue is real- open your eyes. There are people living east of Vine Street. Hopefully a new city council will realize the needs of the entire city. |
|
How Those Living East of Vine See It |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
Looking at the results of the at-large vote is instructive, at least for those of us with open minds. Of the 11 precincts that are largely or wholly east of Vine, we can see that at-large won in just 3 of 11 precincts.
Whatever it is you're seeing, most people are not. I live east of Vine and have been very happy with the representation I have received from my councilmember, Laura Huth, until she was forced off the board by the failure of city staff, at the direction of the mayor, to give her a straight answer about a significant legal issue. The mayor was more interested in creating division that he could exploit.
BTW, Laura's ward is primarily east of Vine and none of the precincts in her ward voted for at-large.
At-large was a political fabrication to distract voters from real issues, like the mayor's failure to provide leadership on economic development.. I agree this issue needs to be addressed and in the primary in February they will be able to have their say on his record. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by mrs. dose
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
|
then who are the 5,000 people plus who voted for atlarge? do they not exist? |
|
Very Good Point |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
ML raises a very good point, one that has been much the talk in Urbana, although it's clearly too hot for the News-Gazette to handle. I wrote about it previously here:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/20264
Of course, we'll never get to the bottom of it without a grand jury investigation, but with a new and possibly more honest state's attorney, who knows?
The question, for all those concerned about economc development in Urbana, is why did the mayor steer Wal-Mart to a plot of land on the edge of town that will require vast new investments in infrastructure that just so happened to be owned by the relative of a certain councilmember? The same councilmember introduced the mayor's at-large proposal without even bothering to write it down. Does this not give the appearance of impropriety, even after his recusal on voting on the actual measure to approve this, which was conveniently cast in such a way that the other councilmembers could not vote no so that his vote would not be needed?
I think those who look at the facts will see that it is the mayor, who controls the direction of city staff, who has passed over a great opportunity to remake Philo Road without excessive infrastructure costs and without impacting property values of neighboring landowners at the proposed site of the new Wal-Mart or excessive sprawl.
And the voters in February will have a chance to do something about it.
BTW, I am also a resident of East Urbana. Sure, there are people out here that believe everything they read in the News-Gazette, but there are also a lot of good progressives. Most of them, like me, moved to Urbana because we like living in a progressive city. There are lots of conservative choices in Champaign County of where to live if you can't stand living among us.
Finally, perhaps the city council will look at how the President really handles the bi-partisanship he claims to seek and take their cues from that. |
|
Road Apples |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
"I live east of Vine and have been very happy with the representation I have received from my councilmember, Laura Huth, until she was forced off the board by the failure of city staff, at the direction of the mayor, to give her a straight answer about a significant legal issue. "
Now, this is one of those "road apples", ML.
I agree that Ms. Huth was a dedicated and hard-working council member who served her ward well. I'm not at all surprised that you're happy with that.
However, when you accept a job with an organization that receives funding from a federal agency, it is a clear conflict of interest to be part of a body that VOTES on that funding. Everybody knows that. The Habitat Board and Ms. Huth should have known better. It was their responsibility to have clarified that with HUD before Ms. Huth even accepted the position. You cannot blame the city staff for doing their jobs--ie, protecting the interests of the city and safeguarding future funding from HUD.
Same thing happened when the IMC performance space was cited for serious safety violations. Instead of apologizing for the blocked exit and makeshift wiring and flammable materials, the IMC tried to blame the city inspectors who were doing their jobs....protecting the citizens of Urbana. And this was on the heels of those two deadly nightclub fires.
I, for one, am very glad that the city attorney and safety inspectors are conspiring to do their jobs. |
|
The Facts |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
Your article is appropriately titled, considering its content.
It looks as if at-large supporters have a habit of factual distortion.
Ms. Huth asked about the issue with HUD and received a vague answer from the city attorney that was not at all like "it is a clear conflict of interest." If she had received such forthright advice at the time, the result would have likely been different. Why a guy that can be so certain about denying the free speech rights and freedom of the press of Urbana citizens could be so uncertain about the vague answer that he gave Laura at the time she first asked about it is a question he needs to answer.
As for the IMC, it was never cited for a blocked exit and there were not flammable materials. The materials in question had been treated with flameproofing designed specifically for theater use, but they were not approved for the use they were being put to.
Why the whole issue was blown up into an attack story based on partial information by the News-Gazette is a mystery -- or maybe not. Other minor code issues like this with other buildings have never been handled before or since by the city in the same manner that was directed against the IMC. We have no problem with meeting our obligations, once we are informed about them (in fact, we passed fire inspections before -- with the exact conditions that were cited -- and since this incident), we just have an objection to the selective and harsh enforcement of our problems in comparison to how they have handled similar issues in other cases, something which the city acknowledged after the fact that they had gone about in the wrong way. Of course, that didn't rate a big story in the N-G, so for once your ignorance can perhaps be understood. |
|
A Bad Habit of Being Off Topic |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
|
Why is it whenever the subject of the mayor comes up, Julia always steers it off-topic. Can it be that the mayor is her Romeo? |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
|
For the record: when the IMC was cited for fire safety violations we were given 30 days to fix them. ML is correct that the exact same space had been inspected before without the citations being given. The concerns that the IMC brought up were that after being granted 30 days to fix the problems (in writing), the city then came to the IMC a couple days later and shut down the space with zero warning. Given that by the time the space had been shut down a majority of the safety issues had already been ameliorated and that the city had not contacted the IMC about their concerns, this was fairly unprecedented behavior. In fact, according to other business and club owners, it flies in the face of normal city behavior for building code violations. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
Ah, Dose,
"Blister'd be thy tongue
For such a wish!"
But "then I see that madmen have no ears."
Farewell..... |
|
superficial media criticism |
by reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
|
tod is bad, the news-gazette is bad, bla blah blah .. there are several references in this thread to the "republican news-gazette." no regerences to the n-g endorsing obama, rietz, and other dems. real media criticism requires reading the media |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 Nov 2004
|
But we DO read the News-Gazette and are quite aware of its often slanted version of the truth.
The results of the At-Large referendum clearly reveal that the mayor is out-of-contact with the realities of his own political party in Urbana. And this is just one of many miscalcations that he has made during recent years. I'm afraid that Tod has become more of a liability to his party and the community than an asset, and it is time for him to retire from city politics. If this isn't done voluntarily, he will certainly be removed from office by the voters during the next election cycle.
As for Ms. Huth, she has been victimized by the mayor and the city attorney. It is the responsibility of city officials under the mayor to apply for a waiver from HUD -- this is NOT Ms. Huth's responsibility, contrary to the implications of the some of the articles in the News-Gazette.
Instead of applying for this waiver, the mayor and his city attorney (another person who should retire from city politics) dilly-dallied around for several months on behalf of a personal grudge against Ms. Huth and her allies on the city council. Then, they laid the entire mess at her feet and proceeded to blame her for the mess that they had created themselves. Unfortuantely, the News-Gazette was more than willing to go along with this game of disinformation and mislead the public.
And it STILL isn't clear that the mayor and city attorney are going to get their act together and apply for the waiver, notwithstanding Ms. Huth's resignation. They may STILL dilly-dally around and fail to apply for the waiver just to further humiliate Ms. Huth, even though this will cost Habitat for Humanity tens of thousands of dollars in lost funding. The problem clearly resides with the mayor and the city attorney -- Ms. Huth has done all that she can to resolve this matter. |
|
Re: Urbana Progressives Crush Satterthwaite Proposal to Add At-Large Seats to Council |
by Babs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Nov 2004
|
"then who are the 5,000 people plus who voted for atlarge? do they not exist?"
Sure they do, mrs dose, but this is a winner-take-all system. You have the right to propose a referendum and go through the process of getting it on the ballot. We have the responsibility as a community to then decide whether it's a good idea or not. By putting it out there, you take the risk of it being rejected, as this proposal was.
I happen to think that, if an alderperson is going to put forward a proposal that would change the structure of government before the city council, they should AT LEAST write it down first. Milt Otto didn't do that.
I also live east of Vine, by the way. I fail to see how extra city council seats will address empty storefronts when retailers prefer to build, rather than rent and refurbish old buildings.
If you've got serious problems regarding some of your neighbors, changing the structure of city government isn't going to do diddly to address them. Taking the management of the complex to task, or calling the police, might. If your problem is the fact that the subsidized apartments are there to begin with, changes to city government can't help you with that, either. |
|
