|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jennifer Hill
Email: lchill1 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified!)
Phone: 344-1905
Address: 407 West Pennsylvania Avenue |
12 Nov 2004
|
|
I wrote what I had to say about the sides of the at-large issue before election day. |
By now, the subject of whether or not to add 2 at-large seats in the city council has already been settled. But was it necessary to vote on it?
This is an issue that turns people of the same political party against each other. Some people feel strongly about different sides of this subject, and they have their own reasons to support them. One example is my parents. They are both democrats, but my dad is in favor of the addition of 2 at-large seats, and my mom is against it. All around my neighborhood (mostly democrats) the signs about this issue were not all alike.
After hearing my parents’ opinions, I figured out that the “+2 group” believed that adding 2 at-large seats could help our mayor’s position in the city council get stronger. The “no at large group” felt that the mayor didn't give good enough reasons to add these seats because he brought up the subject too quickly.
My own conclusion is that the issue of the 2 at-large seats did not deserve a place on the 2004 ballot because there are much more urgent issues that our country has to face right now.
JENNY HILL, age 11, Urbana |
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Julia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Nov 2004
|
Dear Jenny,
I'm very glad to see that eleven year olds are interested in local issues. You asked if it was really necessary to vote on the issue of adding two at-large seats to the Urbana City Council and you concluded that the question didn't deserve a spot on the ballot because there are more important issues facing Champaign County. I'd like to address several important points that you make.
First of all, let me say that I agreed with your Dad; I supported the Plus 2 referendum.
As you noted in your article, this was an issue that some Democrats supported and some Democrats opposed. Same way with Republicans and members of other political parties: some of them supported it and some of them opposed it.
And that's what is so wonderful about the system in this country. We are free to express our opinions and disagree with members of our political party, with our neighbors, our friends, and our husbands, wives, parents, and children. That is what keeps our democracy strong; it is what continuously renews this country. It's kind of like hitting the "refresh" button on the computer....each time we debate an issue like this, we're changed just a little. So, just because Democrats, and your parents, and your neighbors disagreed with each other on this issue, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been discussed. To me, it signifies exactly the opposite: it was about time we discussed this issue.
Secondly, lots of attention focused on the mayor and members of the city council. But, really, this issue was about the people who live in Urbana and how they are represented by the ward system of government that we have here. Some of us believe that the wards, as drawn, don't represent people fairly.
The reason the issue was placed on the November ballot had to do with the way the election laws are written. If people had waited until the April city election to put the question on the ballot and the referendum had passed, it would not have taken effect until the NEXT city election, which would have been in 4 years, or 2009. In contrast, if the Nov. 2 referendum had passed, it would have taken effect next April. So, to address the unequal representation of the ward map, supporters felt it was important to try to change things sooner rather than later.
It's great that you listened to your parents' opinions and took the time to write about this issue. You're right: there are many important issues in the county and some of them may be more important than this one. However, lots of citizens believed that equal representation based upon population is an important issue in Urbana. And that's why they worked to place this question on the ballot. I believe it DID deserve a place on the ballot, as much as any of the other questions that we considered that day. These local referenda give citizens the most direct voice in the way their local governments are run.
As you know, the referendum was defeated; the majority of the voters said they didn't want to add 2 seats elected at-large to the Urbana City Council. So, that won't happen.
But, Jenny, I believe the referendum deserved a spot on the ballot because 1100 of your fellow Urbana residents signed petitions to place it on the ballot. The campaigns for and against Plus 2 encouraged people to think and talk about how the ward map was drawn and whether all citizens of Urbana are being equally represented. That was very valuable and I know this topic will continue to be discussed by candidates who run for the city council and mayor next spring.
Stay involved, Jenny! Maybe one of these years your name will be on the ballot! |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Nov 2004
|
> However, lots of citizens believed that equal representation based upon population is an important issue in Urbana. And that's why they worked to place this question on the ballot.
Hold it right there.
The opponents of at-large believe just as much as its supporters in equal representation. We just disagree that at-large seats would result in equal representation. According to our analysis, it would create unequal representation. So we did not work to put the question on the ballot, and once it was on the ballot we opposed it. |
|
Maybe Jenny Should Run for Mayor |
by cpov
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Nov 2004
|
I think Jenny saw right through the Plus 2 smokescreen.
This measure was thrown onto the ballot by the Mayor and Milton Otto in response to the council's refusal to accept Otto's request to gerrymander his house into Ward 4. Knowing that people would never sign a petition to add at-large seats in order to fuel the Mayor's retaliation against 5/7th's of the Council, they trotted out the ward 6 population argument.
The fact is that the Mayor's own ward map squeezed more population into ward 6 than the one the council passed! He's been Mayor for 12 years and never had any problem with ward 6's representation before. But once the council wouldn't fix Otto's stupid and careless mistake, he concocted this whole story.
Yes, 1100 people signed petitions to put Plus 2 on the ballot, and so by law it went on the ballot. By that measure it deserved to be decided by the voters.
But Jenny's point is not about the law, but is instead concerned with the merits of the issue. Was *this* issue worth all the time, effort, and money that was spent on both the pro and con sides of the equation when there are so many other issues facing Urbana and the rest of the world that need our attention? What if that many people put their heads together and worked on economic development for Philo Road? What if they all met every Saturday and helped children with their school work? What if they had all campaigned for a candidate that shared their values? What if... Pick anything.
Even if one accepts and agrees with Julia's position--that the people of ward 6 are being unfairly represented--then why at-large? Why two? Why now? Why not research the issue for even 30 minutes before gathering the 1100 signatures?
The reasons are obvious. The Mayor chose at-large because its easy. He didn't research it because he's too lazy. He chose two because thats what it would take to override the current council majority . He chose now because he can't wait six months to find out who will be on the new council. He wanted extra and immediate opportunities to spike the balance of power in his favor.
The problem with the ease of placing referenda on the ballot is that they require very little thought. I personally know many people who signed the Plus 2 petition that eventually voted against the referendum. Why? Because they found out that the 'great idea' of at-large turned out to be a system with real problems, and they couldn't support that.
Plus 2 came from the Mayor and Otto. Its that simple. But most who voted for it probably had very little, or no knowledge whatsoever about those origins of the measure. Instead, I think most of those who voted for it were looking for a change in Urbana. Plus 2 offered a change. But as Jim Hayes said during the at-large debate at City Council, "change for the sake of change is not always good."
We know that we'll see at least some changes with the Council, since several members have resigned or will not run for reelection. And I agree that those who run for Mayor and Council should share their thoughts on this referendum.
But I also agree wholeheartedly with Jenny's feelings on this. The at-large ballot question was a huge diversion from the important issues facing our town, and the efforts spent towards passing and defeating the referendum could have been better spent.
But as it happened, at-large was the issue, and even now, continues to be. I agree with Julia's point that it got people talking about the city, and that is a good thing. But I also feel that the discussions might have been more productive had there been real thought and care put into the initial proposal. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
I am extremely encouraged to see Jenny's commentary on our recent referendum. The at-large vote has been an ongoing discussion on the Urbana-Champaign IMC website -- which points to the incredible concern (on both sides of the issue) over representation in local government. In some ways, I think this referendum parallels the same problems that have been cropping up throughout the country with voter disenfranchisement and inequitable access to polling locations. One issue that's been documented in countless locations is that low-income areas of the country (especially urban communities) had inferior voting equipment compared with higher income lacations. In addition, waiting times appear to have been significantly higher in low-income areas compared with more affluent areas. In turn, the creates inequitable voting conditions -- a new type of poll tax -- that inequitably affects the poor, the minority, and the democrats.
Which brings us back to the at-large elections. I completely agree with Jenny -- if people were seriously concerned about equity of representation at the polls, why aren't they talking more about the the important issues and acting more to affect change? Why aren't we working to set (federal) standards that level the playing field so that all people are equitably represented? While I understand the rationale behind the +2 group's organizing, I think it's a fairly blatant self-interest that was driving this referendum -- one that ignores systematic failures in our voting system while focusing our attention on the supposed disenfranchisement of a fairly affluent constituency (one need only compare census income data by voting percentages to see which areas supported this measure). |
|
Jeepers Freepers |
by HappyLib
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
As Liberals, shouldn't we be able to win gracefully and move on? Jenny's expressed her opinions in a very mature and thoughtful way. And Julia has given a very thoughtful response that sticks to the issues. This is followed by posts using terms like "stupid", "lazy", "careless", "concocted", "blatant self-interest". This kind of name calling makes Liberals sound just like Limbaugh and the rightwingers on FreeRepublic.com. I don't think Barack Obama act this way and we shouldn't either. Liberals are better than that. And we ought to be able to discuss things civilly without resorting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.
That's my two cents. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
HappyLib, aside from Sascha's "blatant self-interest" comment, you're really only talking about one post.
The reason I responded was that I felt that at one point Julia strayed from the issues by implying that opponents of at-large were unconcerned with equitable representation. That is just an attack on that group, and not a discussion of the issues.
As for name-calling, quit calling me a liberal. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by J
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
cpov states:
"Was *this* issue worth all the time, effort, and money that was spent on both the pro and con sides of the equation when there are so many other issues facing Urbana and the rest of the world that need our attention? What if that many people put their heads together and worked on economic development for Philo Road? "
While the issue of Philo Road economic development is quite important (especially to me since I live walking distance from the abandoned K-Mart), I haven't see the current city council doing much of anything to remedy this problem (nearly two years after K-Mart left). Banners on Philo Road lightpoles are nice, but they don't fill buildings.
However, your Urbana City Council has accomplished such things in the last four years such as keeping a school resource officer out of Urbana Schools (A majority of council felt that this officer would cause the school to be a 'police state"). Now, almost weekly, we have stories of violence in Urbana schools - and the problem is getting worse.
The Urbana City Council can't find business to fill east Urbana properties, but they do have the time to pass an anti-war resolution.
The Urbana City Council sits idle while the University of Illinois continues to draw off the resources of the city, while not paying property taxes to the city. But, we are a nuclear free zone.
And, don't forget, in Urbana landlords aren't allowed to ask if you are a convicted sex offencer when renting property. We wouldn't want to discriminate (hope you are comfortable with your neighbors!). We can thank the council majority for this wisdom.
YES - there are a lot of important issues facing Urbana. Yes- there probably was more important debates to be heard instead of the +2 referendum. But in Urbana, the status quo seems to be the way to do things.
Jenny - I hope you continue to take an interest in common sense issues - Urbana needs more people like you. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
J, I agree with the council on each of the decisions you criticize. And here in Ward 4, we elected our alderwoman, Danielle Chynoweth, by a wide margin.
It seems to me that you have a disagreement not with the council, but with their constituents. To advance your cause you will need to convince us not that the council is wrong, but that we are. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by wayward
badadvice (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
|
Hi, Jenny.
Thanks for your post. Here's my perspective.
Springfield, our state capitol, is my hometown. It's about a hundred miles southwest of Champaign-Urbana and it's also considered "Central Illinois." However, it feels much different than Urbana. When I was in high school, one of my teachers made an offensive joke about Martin Luther King Day. Everyone laughed, and the teacher didn't get in trouble. The east side of the city was predominantly poor and black, and once when we were driving through this part of town in driver's ed, one of the girls in the car called it "Nigger Town." The teacher didn't do anything about it. (Luckily for me, my parents didn't talk this way, and they didn't allow us to either.) Until the late 1980s, Springfield had an at-large city council. Guess how many black people were on the city council? If you guessed "none," you're right. Then a court decided that Springfield was wrong, and the council changed to a ward system. Finally, the city council stopped being all-white.
One big consideration with elections is that campaigns take a lot of resources. Did you see the article where the candidates for state rep (Jakobsson and Feinen) were thinking about agreeing to limit their campaign spending? In the end, they didn't, but if they had, they each could have still spent up to $200,000 each. Candidates for city council wouldn't spend this much, but campaigns still cost a lot of money. This can be unfair to people (of any color) who don't have access to much money. So one problem with at-large city council seats is that the race would favor people with a lot of resources (who are likely to be well-connected, white, and at least middle class). |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Shenobra
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
|
I don't see why people are so offended that this issue was put to a vote. Isn't that what Democracy is all about? Everyone acts as though somehow the issue shouldn't even have been debated. What's up with that? I mean we can all disagree, but to say that you don't even get a chance to have a vote? That isn't right. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
|
FWIW, I was just stating why I opposed the at-large seats. However, IIRC, the at-large City Council in Springfield ended up being struck down by a court decision, rather than being defeated in a referendum. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Nov 2004
|
> I don't see why people are so offended that this issue was put to a vote.
I'm not.
I'm troubled that anyone would vote for it. I think the case against it is about as clear-cut as it can be.
This has nothing to do with liberal power grabs. It has everything to do with one person, one vote.
When the school board proposed dropping at-large seats I voted for the proposal, even though I knew it could cost the most liberal member of the school board her seat. |
|
Re: At-Large Seats Don't Deserve a Spot on Our Ballot |
by Esther Patt
estherpatt (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Nov 2004
|
J states two incorrect facts about Urbana City Council. First, the current council did not keep a second police officer out of the schools. In 2001, the council voted unanimously in favor of adding another school resource officer and the federal government did not fund the request. Another request was submitted this year.
Second, the provision of the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on conviction record was passed in 1975, long before any of the current council members were elected. Champaign passed an identical provision in 1977. To this day, it is illegal in both cities to deny employment, credit, access to public accommodations or sale of real estate on the basis of prior arrest or conviction record.
In 1994, Champaign amended its Human Rights Ordinance to allow landlords to refuse to rent to anyone with a forcible felony or felony drug conviction unless that person has lived outside of prison for 5 consecutive years without being convictd of an offense involving force, violence or drug activity.
"Forcible felony" is a broad term that includes many offenses that involve no violence. For example, a large number of people, mostly low-income and disproportionately African American, have forcible felony convictions for shoplifting. State's Attorney John Piland routinely charged shoplifting as burglary (which is a forcible felony) if the accused had any prior convictions, even if only for shoplifting.
It's against the law in Champaign to discriminate against the forcible felon or convicted drug offender who can afford to buy a house. But, those who can only afford to rent may be discriminated against. The rapist who gets a plea bargain to misdemeanor sexual abuse is protected from discrimination. But the man busted for selling drugs who has since been through rehab and is now clean can be discriminated against.
I think that's lousy policy and am glad that the city council elected in 1997 rejected a proposal for Urbana to adopt Champaign's policy on conviction record.
By the way, nothing protects anyone who rents from their landlord hiring a child molester or rapist as a property manager and giving that person a master key to all apartments. That's the real risk to tenants -- not their neighbors but their landlord and landlord's agents who have keys to their homes. |
|
