A2Politico: Politics Have Gotten Nasty? No. They’ve Been Nasty.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Board members Joan Lowenstein and Keith Orr took to the blog-o-sphere to endorse their candidates for Ann Arbor City Council. The irony of DDA Board members endorsing in local elections is as rich as Devon cream. In November 2012, a member of the Ann Arbor District Library Board told AnnArbor.com that the AADL’s multi-million dollar bond proposal failed because voters believed (incorrectly) the DDA Board had been involved in the plan to raze and rebuild a new main library. Just the thought of DDA involvement was enough to sink the library’s bond proposal, or so posited the AADL Board member.
Despite the fact that the DDA Board has turned into a political leper colony, Ward 2 challenger Kirk Westphal, Ward 1 incumbent Sabra Briere and Ward 5 write-in candidate Chip Smith all accepted the endorsements and/or donations of some combination of DDA Board members.
As “old, stingy and Republican” Ann Arbor “sulkers” (as DDA Board member Joan Lowenstein has described the city’s residents and voters in print and in public comments) repeatedly reject Council candidates supported by DDA Board members, DDA Board members have turned to insubordination. They are openly attacking elected officials—and the public.
Dyspeptic and disgruntled DDA and Planning Commission members use their blogs and Twitter accounts to pass infantile electronic notes to their political friends, and air political grudges and grievances against individual Council members. On her blog, Lowenstein writes that she hopes to “inspire the good leaders, deter the bad, and make the change that is inevitable a little less scary.” The change to which she refers is the theory that Ann Arbor is an urban center in need of rail transit, dense, mixed- use urbanism and economic development that is subsidized at the expense of taxpayers, libraries and local schools. Lowenstein writes, “During this millennium, Ann Arbor has been making the move towards urban, and it frightens some people.”
Not many people stay up nights fretting about urban development. Most people fret about paying bills, keeping their jobs, and looking after loved ones. The current political divide on City Council revolves around political ideology, or so say local media. They’re wrong. The current political divide on City Council revolves around entrenched political cronyism and the push to end it.
Keith Orr writes on his blog that “politics have gotten nasty.” Orr goes on to dub the current City Council “dysfunctional,” then writes that Ward 2 Council member Jane Lumm is “part of the attack on the DDA….” Ward 5 Council member Mike Anglin is “a big disappointment….”
It’s easy to dismiss Orr and Lowenstein as cranks upset over their own ebbing political tides. However, Lowenstein doesn’t want to discuss local politics on her blog; she wants to lash out online at City Council members whom she dislikes. She writes, “There will be no comments on this site….”
Orr writes: “I do believe that most people who serve as elected officials (and are paid for their efforts) or on civic boards (who serve without any compensation) do so because they love this city. We must respect that.”
As private citizens, Joan Lowenstein and Keith Orr have the right to lambast people whom they dislike. They should feel free to start with me. In fact, I would venture a guess that the success of the online politics site I launched four years ago, A2Politico.com, inspired Ms. Lowenstein. A2P certainly inspired more than a few local copycats.
However, as appointed officials who represent the people of the city and downtown merchants, Orr and Lowenstein are held to a higher standard of professionalism and honesty.
Judging from Joan Lowenstein’s blog, she’s not able to tell the truth about Council member Lumm’s stance on public art, or why Council member Kailasapathy wanted to return that $800,000 to the water and street repair funds from which the money had been diverted for public art.
Keith Orr writes: “We must be able to disagree on ideological grounds, and still find a civil way to good policy.” Alas, those who have dominated local politics for the last dozen years have little experience on how to disagree and still find a civil way to good policy. They were not expected to do so until recently, and based on Lowenstein’s writing and public comments, bitterly resent having to do so now.
Politics haven’t gotten nasty in Ann Arbor. Politics have been very nasty for quite some time. As Jane Lumm told The Ann Arbor Independent, being “nasty” and distorting the truth are the main campaign tactics of the Hieftje crowd and “it wears ya down.” The only way to change this dynamic is for the local media to shed light on those in public office who engage in such behavior. Readers, then, can shape their own informed opinions. However, Council members have to set high standards and hold appointees to them.
Joan Lowenstein should have been removed from the DDA Board after she published a piece in The Ann magazine in which she called voters “Republican, old, stingy and selfish.” She can think it, but as an appointed official who serves at the pleasure of City Council members, she can’t be allowed to say it with impunity. No appointed official must ever be permitted to openly insult the people of Ann Arbor.
DDA Board member rants about those whom the city’s “old, selfish, sulkers” have elected to local office have become de rigueur. It’s time for Council members to censure appointed officials. If censure doesn’t send a strong enough message, then those appointed officials who persist in insulting residents or behaving insubordinately toward City Council and its members should be dismissed. They will have chosen their right to insult the city’s residents and elected officials, over the privilege of service.