Posted 8:28 pm Sunday, November 11, 2007
Smith Voters Send Clear Messages On Jail Proposal
Voters on Tuesday spoke loudly in rejecting the $125 million jail bond proposal, and we believe their message had three parts.
We believe they rejected the price and the location. And we believe for many, the election was about the pay raises several members of the court voted for themselves, despite the attempts of the judge and the jail committee to dismiss the issue as irrelevant to the jail bond campaign. Several letters to the editor after the recent election have supported these same themes
These three issues represented the most fundamental parts of the problem commissioners should review. Community bond elections are frequently a referendum on leadership. The historical evidence includes TISD's failed $293 million bond election, and the subsequent passage of their $95 million bond election. These lessons should serve us well as we look to the future, to connect positive dialogue between voters and elected officials.
A shift in such connections would be a welcome new perspective from the court.
The $125 million price tag was high - much higher than the bond packages voters rejected in May 2006.
We believe they rejected the price and the location. And we believe for many, the election was about the pay raises several members of the court voted for themselves, despite the attempts of the judge and the jail committee to dismiss the issue as irrelevant to the jail bond campaign. Several letters to the editor after the recent election have supported these same themes
These three issues represented the most fundamental parts of the problem commissioners should review. Community bond elections are frequently a referendum on leadership. The historical evidence includes TISD's failed $293 million bond election, and the subsequent passage of their $95 million bond election. These lessons should serve us well as we look to the future, to connect positive dialogue between voters and elected officials.
A shift in such connections would be a welcome new perspective from the court.
The $125 million price tag was high - much higher than the bond packages voters rejected in May 2006.
|
It may be tempting to just write off Smith County voters as penny-pinchers who don't like to spend money. But that's not true. Smith County approved billions of dollars in new spending on Nov. 6: $500 million for student loans, $5 billion for highway improvements. But they are painstaking in rejecting $1 billion for infrastructure improvements, and $3 billion for cancer research. This is compelling evidence that Smith County voters are diligent and and willing to spend big bucks on projects where they see right.
The problem wasn't Smith County voters. It was a lack of understanding by the court of what the voters wanted.
A significant factor in the package's defeat was the proposed site of the 10-story jail tower.
The imposing structure would have been located at the corner of Broadway Avenue and Elm Street. Voters clearly said they don't want the jail to be a gateway to downtown.
And finally, many voters saw the Nov. 6 election as their chance to send a message to county commissioners. Residents resented those pay raises, and they let commissioners know that.
We also believe that voters resented the choice made by Smith County commissioners to limit public dialogue.
The message voters received from commissioners, in the format of the town meetings, was "We don't trust you." The court's reasoning behind the format - that naysayers would take up too much time - was flimsy and unconvincing.
With those messages in mind, it's time to begin the process anew. And we should see this as an opportunity. A defeat at the voting booth can often lead to a better solution.
We have faith that Smith County voters will give us what they can afford.
Past efforts have been argued based on the so-called needs and wants of the court, sheriff and judges.
Perhaps some of those in the private sector, who generously funded the campaigns of both sides, would be willing to fund a scientific survey.
Let's find out what the tipping point is.
If voters indicate they would support a $50 million or a $60 million plan, then we have somewhere to start.
It is right to recognize all of the hard work that went into both sides, constructively shaping the debate and advancing the dialogue on the issues.
These elections should not become holy wars or be seen as opportunities to advance personal agendas.
It's essential to our community that afterward, everyone is willing to come to the table to discuss th future.
Each side is rightly entitled to their opinion, regardless of outcome.
In the meantime, the work that has been done should not be viewed as a waste, but as important steps toward the right solution for our long-term jail needs. The Commissioners Court should develop a new plan to take to their bosses, the voters, and ask for their support, hat-in-hand.
Understanding what the voters want is the challenge for this court in developing a successful jail plan.
The problem wasn't Smith County voters. It was a lack of understanding by the court of what the voters wanted.
A significant factor in the package's defeat was the proposed site of the 10-story jail tower.
The imposing structure would have been located at the corner of Broadway Avenue and Elm Street. Voters clearly said they don't want the jail to be a gateway to downtown.
And finally, many voters saw the Nov. 6 election as their chance to send a message to county commissioners. Residents resented those pay raises, and they let commissioners know that.
We also believe that voters resented the choice made by Smith County commissioners to limit public dialogue.
The message voters received from commissioners, in the format of the town meetings, was "We don't trust you." The court's reasoning behind the format - that naysayers would take up too much time - was flimsy and unconvincing.
With those messages in mind, it's time to begin the process anew. And we should see this as an opportunity. A defeat at the voting booth can often lead to a better solution.
We have faith that Smith County voters will give us what they can afford.
Past efforts have been argued based on the so-called needs and wants of the court, sheriff and judges.
Perhaps some of those in the private sector, who generously funded the campaigns of both sides, would be willing to fund a scientific survey.
Let's find out what the tipping point is.
If voters indicate they would support a $50 million or a $60 million plan, then we have somewhere to start.
It is right to recognize all of the hard work that went into both sides, constructively shaping the debate and advancing the dialogue on the issues.
These elections should not become holy wars or be seen as opportunities to advance personal agendas.
It's essential to our community that afterward, everyone is willing to come to the table to discuss th future.
Each side is rightly entitled to their opinion, regardless of outcome.
In the meantime, the work that has been done should not be viewed as a waste, but as important steps toward the right solution for our long-term jail needs. The Commissioners Court should develop a new plan to take to their bosses, the voters, and ask for their support, hat-in-hand.
Understanding what the voters want is the challenge for this court in developing a successful jail plan.
