Monday, November 15, 2010

Parking Deal Passes


Well, it was an entertaining debate, but the parking asset transfer to ACS passed the City-County Council, 15-14.

Republican Christine Scales voted with the Democrats as did Libertarian Ed Coleman. As expected, Democrat Paul Bateman voted for the proposal.

Councillor Vernon Brown, a Democrat, got in the best zinger of the night. In his explanation of the proposal, Councillor Bob Lutz, a Republican, said that one of the reasons to do this proposal was because government doesn't make good business decisions and regulating parking involves business decisions. So, when given an opportunity, Brown said that he agreed with Councillor Lutz that Mayor Ballard's Administration does a poor job making business decisions.

Councillor Coleman also revealed that he had received 33 e-mails today and that all 33 were for him to vote against the proposal and that not one wanted him to vote for the proposal.

In the course of the debate, Council President Ryan Vaughn acknowledged the appearance of a conflict of interest since the law firm he works for, Barnes and Thornburg, had a hand in the negotiation of the proposal. Despite this appearance, he voted for the proposal anyway.

Again, the inability for Democrats to stay on the bus together sunk the ability to overturn a bad deal for the city and its residents.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Could you provide a listing of exactly how each person voted?

Jon E. Easter said...

Voted for proposal
Democrat-
Bateman

Republicans-
Lutz
Pfisterer
Vaughn
Cockrum
Cain
McHenry
Malone
Rivera
McQuillen
Day
Hunter
Cardwell
The Guy that Replaced Mike Speedy
Freeman

Against
Republicans
Scales

Libertarians
Coleman

Democrats
Sanders
Evans
Mansfield
Lewis
Gray
Nytes
Oliver
Minton-McNeil
Mahern
Moriarty Adams
Brown
Mahern

Sean Shepard said...

This is sad. Kudos to Christine Scales, Ed Coleman and the Democrats for being willing to vote the right way on this and oppose this 50-year monopoly purchase by some insider connected corporation.

I know the Dems oppose privatization under almost all circumstances, but at least in this case it prevents the usual WRONG WAY TO DO IT.

This is just more evidence that our whole political system is broken. More of these folks should be smart enough to realize this deal is ridiculous.

Andrew "Boxy" Troemner said...

I am so very angry over this deal. As I learned tonight, the Ballard administration is explicitly selling assets and thereby shifting revenue-raising from tax-payers to rate-payers. To a large degree, taxes are a known quantity, but new rates are not. I deeply fear that this will end up strangling the middle class and small businesses, and end up making us all poorer for it.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Boxy, this is only the beginning. The November election dispelled any hope the Ballard people had of winning re-election. The people around Ballard are going to do everything they can to cash in over the next year. Expect more of these 50 year deals.

With the exception of Bateman (and I have doubts about what motivated him to vote for the deal), the Democrats have a lot to be proud of tonight. They read the contract and tore it apart at the meeting. They were displaying responsible government while the Republicans were out to make a politically-connected company wealthy. The GOP couldn't care less that there were terrible flaws with this deal and that the public overwhelmingly did not want it. Council Republicans, sans Christine Scales, have proved themselves utterly unworthy of governing.

Anonymous said...

It was an empty victory for Ryan Vaughn.

You could see it on his face. He actually loses by winning. He is allowing his law firm to take advantage of his young associate status with empty promises that will disappear as soon as the real trouble starts.

He broke Googles rule of "do no evil" and a former governors simple rule to employees of "Do the right thing...ALWAYS".

Anonymous said...

Cui prodest scelus, is fecit.
Karma is in Vaughns future; what comes around goes around.

Anonymous said...

and Vaughn was 100% wrong on his statement that Roberts Rules of Order do not require him to pass the gavel. They do require that any time he wishes to expresses an opinion, he must pass the gave. Otherwise, he is the presiding officer and must remain neutral. Poor Ryan ..is being used by so many people and doesn't realize it. I hope he doesn't end up in trouble with the Bar Association over his appearances of a conflict of interest.