Editorial rants over correcting City Council's missteps.

In an editorial yesterday (copied below) that was featured by the Journal Gazette Michael J. Kirkhoff laments the idea of "revoking the smoking ban" While the editorial only had the usual feel good statements and statistics of justification it still doesn't address the core issues at hand and it has nothing to do with smoking, second hand smoke, or workplace conditions as Mister Kirkhoff fondles as prime reasons to leave the current planks intact.

When the original ordinance was passed back in the mid nineties it was met with skepticism and angst toward what eventually developed in the current ordinance. Secret reporting and everyone becoming an informant on businesses and individuals who decided to commit civil disobedience and a general unequal enforcement where people don't even know what the penalties are or the fine could be randomly based on the decision of many departments that can enforce the ordinance happened rampantly. But that is not the issue at hand with the current ordinance.

The issue is the unfunded mandate that was created in the original ordinance and then doubled over the barrel and shoved deep within the recess of certain orifices of small businesses in the second ordinance and the general safety of employees now forced to stand out in the cold for a ten minute break often with no place to sit and actually rest.

If this ordinance was a funded mandate in either of its incarnations we so wouldn't be dealing with the forty five million dollar debt of Harrison Square which wont be paid off now until February 2034. Do we really expect people to live financially sound when the City government can't do the same and then turn around and tell small business that all of the modifications that they made approximately ten years ago are now not good enough and they still have to make yet even more because of a TREND in society.

Just because it is trendy or a popular idea doesn't make it legal or morally right! BTW, smoking is still legal.

Pulling smoking ban would be a mistake

I am appalled that some City Council members are suggesting the smoking ban be “revisited.” What I can’t believe is why they would cater to that loud and small group that is opposed to the ban, particularly the bar owners. So the dangers of secondhand smoke and the fact that thousands die annually from smoking are irrelevant? What about the fact that 80 percent of us do not smoke and don’t like smoke?

Bar owners claim the ban has hurt their business, but they are not the first to experience negative impact from government regulation that seeks to protect people. Virtually every manufacturer is affected by OSHA and EPA laws and have adapted to the changing business environment. These bar owners, on the other hand, seem to want the environment to change for them. They need to wake up and accept the fact that smoking is no longer tolerated.

If this city wants to grow and attract new business, we are going to have to follow proactive trends. And one trend is that smoking is just not cool. It stinks and it kills. Revoking the smoking ban is taking a step backward, and no one wants to come to a city that is going backward.

MICHAEL J. KIRKHOFF

Appreciation to Rachel Blakeman of BPOTS for the links to stories and original commentary.

Scratching the surface of Fort Wayne politics

I know that at least some people glance at what I have to say at a distance based on some of my stats for off site views which typically means that they have me referenced on an RSS feed of some type. So therefore for what it is worth if anything here are my endorsements for the municipal elections in Fort Wayne. My Choices are in order of preference.

Mayor
WRITE IN= William Larsen (L)*

City Council

At Large
1. Douglas Horner (L),
2. William Larsen (L)*,
3a. Elizabeth Brown (R),*
3b. A. D. Porter-Ross (D),*
4. Martin Bender (R),
5. Thomas Essex, Jr. (D)
This is an equal split issue I am not exactly sure of either candidate between Elizabeth Brown and A. D. Porter-Ross but I feel we need a woman on the City Council and Debra McBride annoyed me and there is no way in hell I am voting for Gloria Diaz! On a side note if Karen Goldner was running At Large and not in the Second District she would have topped the list .

1st District
Byron Peters (L)

2nd District
1. Jonathan Bartels (L)
2. Karen Goldner (D)

3rd District
Tom Didier (R)

4th District
1. Mitchell Harper (R)
2. Christopher Stewart (D)
I am equally still split between them but Mitch has a slight edge because of previous political history. Chris has the business sense and is a hunk of flesh.

5th District
Robert Fuller (L)

6th District
1. Joe Smith Sr. (R)
2. Robert Enders (L)?
While Glynn Hines is pretty much an issue of old Democratic politics and I can discard him hand over fist it was hardly an even toss up between Joe Smith and Robert Enders.

Robert is a very intelligent and intellectual person and in my opinion has a rough time handling criticism and conveying facts when agitated. Robert on an intellectual tirade is the last thing any citizen needs to be exposed to when dealing with personal sensitive situations. His emotional response conflict is the last thing we need on City Council; but, I was willing to let that all slide as a personality issue. He can be retrained, eventually, lol.

What finally drew the straw for me to pick some one other than Robert was the report I read in my other line of work and involves inner party drama which has been made public over the last couple of days. That being said it shows a pattern of failure to comply with basic set rules or laws and since all three incidents are directly attached to one particular person in multiple positions, it makes it worse. As a judgment of character, let alone the ability of that person to live inside the context of the law; alas much like Matt Kelty, I can not endorse without reservation, Robert Enders at this time.

City Clerk
ABSTAIN Sandra Kennedy (D)
(is in an unopposed race, she needs to be voted out)
or WRITE IN=
1. Debra McBride (D)*
(She did well with those invitations imagine how detailed minutes will be.),
2. John Crawford (R)*
(Let's make him City Council's bitch boy for four years.)

(*optional)

photo source unknown

Journal Gazette Announces Endorsements and Establishes Bias

Before I start rambling on about why I think the Journal Gazette Editors made the biggest faux pas in endorsement history let me thank them for giving a minor mention to the Libertarian candidates for City Council. Even as dismal as their theories and anticipation of failure are, at least they bothered to mention the third party option, where as before it was a fleeting chance of a swine in flight or the nether regions precipitating at a reduced enough temperature to induce a sealing effect, as to our candidates even being brought up. So the limited mention and commentary as to the chances of them succeeding, being described in the same manor as to our previously described chance of being mentioned at all, is found to be refreshing or at a minimum validating to a certain degree, that we are definitely creating fear in the Old Boys Club and they don't want the wave of change in how business is done in the Summit City.

Also on the ballot are three Libertarians: Doug Horner, in his first race for public office; William Larsen, who has unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for U.S. representative; and Michael Brightbill, who has been absent from campaign events.

And from another article:

The possibilities are even more complex because of the presence of three Libertarians on the ballot. Though none of the Libertarians is likely to gain significant numbers of votes, their totals could be larger than the difference between the No. 3 vote-getter (who takes office) and No. 4 (who doesn’t).

And even though Fort Wayne/Allen County elections have an historic track record of stacking the vote or manipulating outcomes by getting people to vote certain ways it is pretty sad when the Newspaper Editors are telling voters how to sway the vote the way the Editors want it to go:

Voters can choose up to three candidates in the race.

Voters who favor one candidate above all the others may consider “bullet voting,” casting a ballot for only one candidate and reducing the chance that casting ballots for two others could actually help defeat the first choice.

Article sources are both from the Journal Gazette:
Crawford tops at-large field http://www.jg.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/EDIT08/710210442/-1/EDIT
Importance of City Council At Large races http://www.jg.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/EDIT07/710210443

Democratic Chair calls for Tom Henry to resign?

Kevin Knuth is the current Democratic Party of Allen County Chair which makes it even more ironic that he can support someone for Mayor that he knows will fuck over the City three fold as evidenced by an editorial written back in 1994 during Tom Henry's five terms on City Council.

My Vote is for Matt Kelty because he is a man of principles and values and he is not part of the old boys network that keeps this City government stuck in the 70's. And as far as Matt's stance on GLBT issues he is on record as saying that no one especially Gays and Lesbians will be discriminated against in his Administration.

Remember also to vote Libertarians for City Council. We have eight candidates running (that is three at large and one per district except in the fourth). Experience a new way of doing business in the Summit City for more information visit allencountylp.org and allencountylp.blogspot.com

Respectfully,

Fr. Fozy Bear
MRev. Kenneth White, Jnr.

From the December 12th 1994 Journal Gazette Letters to the Editor

LAW DOESN’T REQUIRE COUNCIL RAISES

I am motivated to write after reading Councilman’s Tom Henry’s letter to the editor in the Journal Gazette on Dec. 5.

I understand that state law mandates that legislative bodies set their own salaries since they are the fiscal bodies of the municipalities they represent. However, the law does not state that they must increase amount paid to public “servants” every year.

Every member of the city council was quite aware of the rate of pay they would receive for the positions they campaigned for.

If Henry feels the position does pay well enough, perhaps he should resign. If his constituents feel his services are going to be so greatly missed, I am sure they will take up a collection to make it worth his while to “serve”.

It’s time to wake up, Mr. Henry. I, and many like me are tired of paying more taxes. I strongly suspect that as council members come up for re-election, the voters will send the same message that was sent to Washington last month. The the ex-council members will earn their raises like everyone else in the private sector.

Kevin R. Knuth
Fort Wayne

source of gratitude Dan Turkette