"Get thee glass eyes;
And like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not."
-- William Shakespeare, King Lear
I apologize in advance to any of the candidates who, in fact, literally have glass eyes. But as the election campaign for Richardson City Council heats up, it seems to me that more candidates are seeming to see things that just aren't there.
The Richardson Citizens Alliance (RCA) PAC claims that it is a "fiction" that "Richardson has a balanced budget and even has a AAA rating." In arguing its point, the RCA calls the "increase/decrease in net assets" in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) the "operating budget surplus/deficit position". Are these two different terms the same thing? Or is it more like apples to oranges? Not that oranges aren't worth discussing, but why not use the terminology of the report you cite as evidence? Feel free to dive into a detailed explanation of the difference here.
What's certain is that the RCA's other claim is flat out false, that Richardson's AAA bond rating is a fiction. The RCA just baldly states this falsehood without any supporting evidence. Presumably, the RCA wants the electorate to see the city as sinking under debt, a view not shared by the municipal bond rating agencies.
The RCA claims that it is a "fiction" that "seniors taxes will be frozen." Well, they are right that that is a fiction. What's also a fiction is the RCA's claim that "many of the current incumbents" made this a campaign promise. One council member, Amir Omar, ran in 2009 on a campaign platform of replacing the current senior property tax exemption with a senior property tax freeze. I personally found that to be unwise. The City Council as a whole did, too. Omar still supports the idea, but can't implement it by himself. If the RCA thinks this bad idea is actually good, they should support Omar and his proposal, not trash him. Note that the RCA itself doesn't promise a senior tax freeze.
The Dallas Morning News Voter Guide asks the candidates this question: "Have you ever been arrested or involved in any criminal proceedings or civil suits?" William Gordon's answer: "No." This is not a case of seeing things that aren't there. This is a case of denying something that's as plain as the nose in front of your face. In fact, William Gordon has been involved in a civil suit. A big one. He has been suing the city for the past four years. William Gordon is endorsed by and receives financial support from the RCA.
The RCA has produced a video attack ad that repeats some of the above falsehoods and more. Listen to the attack ad and, if you didn't live here, you'd think that Richardson place must be a sucky place to live. But watch the ad with the sound turned off and Richardson looks beautiful -- new rec centers, trails, golf course, performing arts center, tree-plantings everywhere. To paraphrase an old saying, who are you going to believe, the RCA or your own lying eyes?
Now, there are legitimate differences of opinion on many of these issues. Should Richardson reduce services and investments in our city in order to cut taxes? Should Richardson end the senior tax exemption and replace it with a senior tax freeze? Should the City Council not hold closed sessions when discussing legal matters, real estate negotiations, personnel reviews, etc.?
Why can't the RCA have these discussions without making stuff up? If the RCA candidates (Gordon, DeMattia, Voigtsberger, Stewart and Clawson) want to be taken seriously, they need to start distancing themselves from some of the stuff made up by the RCA and posted (anonymously) on the RCA's own website. Unfortunately, there is no daylight between the candidates and the RCA. John DeMattia is an RCA co-founder. He and the other four candidates each accepted $3,000 from the RCA.
I trust that some of the RCA candidates are not scurvy politicians. Right? Right? But it's the candidates who end up looking bad by not disowning the made-up stuff. Some people around them want voters to see things that simply aren't there.
P.S. I wrote this blog item several days ago. I sat on it, wondering whether or not to post it. Having to point out falsehoods is depressing. Refuting them never puts them to rest. It only legitimizes them and the falsehoods proliferate. The City Manager of Richardson apparently heard all the "misstatements" that he could stand and responded publicly with the facts. Now that the City Manager has gone public, my own discussing the RCA's falsehoods isn't going to trigger anything that isn't already out there. So, here it is. What can I say? Duty Calls.
No comments:
Post a Comment