Curry Hazouri Boyer and The HRO.

[Metro Jacksonville]

Curry Hazouri Boyer and The HRO.



The failure to pass the HRO in 2012 was a major issue in the recent mayoral elections, with many people crediting Alvin Brown's razor thin loss directly to his failure to support the legislation. In the first month of 2016, the issue continued to snowball and gain velocity without showing any signs whatsoever or resolving. During January, the question of whether or not Jacksonville would remain the sole large city in Florida not to pass a Human Rights Ordinance heated up substantially.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-feb-curry-hazouri-boyer-and-the-hro

[Tacachale]

Interesting piece, thanks for writing it. There's a lot I agree with and a lot I don't. When I supported Lenny Curry, it certainly wasn't over his stance on the HRO - though he's not as bad on the issue as Brown was.

Mainly, I disagree with you on the idea that the HRO was a key factor in the mayoral or city council elections. At least, it wasn't the issue that put one person over or the other one under. I think you overstate the level of public support for the HRO. The problem with that is it makes the same "will of the people" argument that the homophobes are making from their side. Their whole spiel now is that we should "let the people decide" with a referendum, and they wouldn't be pushing it this hard if they didn't think their side would prevail. The reality is that the basic rights of a vulnerable minority shouldn't be decided by the public whim. As Tommy's fond of saying, the Civil Rights Act and women's suffrage never would have passed in a referendum. While support for the HRO and LGBT rights in general is strong and growing, this type of "showdown" argument isn't productive for those who'd like to see the bill pass.

A referendum would divide the city and the fighting would cast us in the worst possible light in the national media, regardless of who won (and it would be even worse if the HRO failed to pass). Clearly the homophobes and their out-of-town ringers don't care about the effects their actions have on Jacksonville.

[Tacachale]

Brown was worse than Curry on the HRO, in that he worked behind the scenes to torpedo the original 2012 bill, while pleading ignorance in public. As far as the elections go, I just don't think it was a deciding factor for the mayor or any of the others. In the mayoral race, Curry and Brown made exactly the same public statements - nothing but lame-brained fumforing. The one candidate who did support the HRO, Bill Bishop, came in third.

Alvin alienated many people by thwarting the HRO, but he alienated a lot of people in a lot of different ways. The Democrat base was also turned off by his governing like a Tea Party Republican, refusing to support (or even appear with) Obama in 2012, etc. He also turned off many others, including some of his biggest backers, with the way he ran the city. Perhaps if he'd been stronger on LGBT issues he'd have gotten over the hump, but the race was so close that you could say that about any of the other dumb things he did. If he'd had enough self-awareness to figure out the LGBT issue, he'd have figured out at least some of the rest of it, too.

In the Brosche-Daniels race, the word on the street is that Brosche's support of the HRO actually hurt her in her polling. So she backed off it later in the race. But Daniels was a loon and Brosche was the best of all the candidates, and voters figured it out. It would have turned out similar regardless of the HRO.

Robin Lumb was definitely not sunk by his stance on the HRO, and he wasn't a district council member. He was in At-Large Group 5. He left to run for Supervisor of Elections. He dropped out of the SoE race to give it to Mike Hogan, in order to keep Hogan out of the mayor's race. If he'd stayed in either race, he'd probably have won.

Notably, in the Group 5 race to replace Lumb, pro-HRO Republican Michelle Tappouni and pro-HRO Democrat Ju'Coby Pittman lost to the most conservative candidate, Sam Newby, a Republican newcomer leaning against the HRO.

Tommy did win in a landslide, and he's the most prominent HRO supporter on council. But he's a also well-liked veteran with strong name recognition, and his opposition was a no-name nutcake. Tommy would have cleaned up regardless of the HRO issue.

I'm not saying any of this to diminish the HRO. Far from it. Even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter matter if the issue was important to political races or if has absolute majority support from the voting public. It's a necessary bill because protecting basic rights is necessary. The logic of the HRO crowds is that this should be up to the majority to decide. They're fighting hard in places like Jax and Houston because they know they just might pull it off - and it won't be too many more years that it'll be the case.

[tufsu1]

Brown was worse than Curry on the HRO, in that he worked behind the scenes to torpedo the original 2012 bill, while pleading ignorance in public.

I'm not sure the same thing isn't happening here.  Is it just coincidence that the two people leading the charge last week to withdraw the bills are the current Council President and the current Council Vice President (President-Elect)?

[Tacachale]

^This is my point. Putting stuff like this up for majority vote just enables the public whim to dictate whether vulnerable minorities receive rights. As I said before, women's suffrage and the Civil Rights Act would not have passed a majority vote. On the LGBT issue, public votes enabled different states to outlaw same-sex marriage, civil unions, and even unions performed in other states. It was unconstitutional, but it's what the majority voted for. The system is meant to function as "majority rule, minority rights": the majority rules, but with safeguards ensuring that the minority are protected.

If this went to referendum, there's a very good chance the anti-HRO side would win. The polling shows that a majority of people in Duval County want an HRO that protects sexual orientation, but it's less clear that the majority support protecting "gender identity and expression", that is, transgender people. But either way, referendums get decided by the people who actually show up to the polls, and that usually means the people that care the most. Especially in an off-cycle election, it would be easier for the anti-HRO crowd to manipulate the vote by sending out the church buses, riling up single-issue voters, and calling in their patented out-of-town ringers to help.

That aside, handling issues of local law and policy is exactly what we elect these people for. Why even have - and pay - a city council if they're just going to pass the buck back to us whenever some ostensibly controversial issue crops up? The referendum bill is just cowardice.

The system is set up for so that the City Council votes on and decides legislation. If passed, the mayor signs off on or vetoes it (in some cases it can pass without his signature). The mayor doesn't get to "decide" laws, but he can introduce them to be voted on, and on matters like this should show some backbone and lead the conversation.

The only reason we're hearing about the referendum at all is that the homophobes have learned from their cronies in Houston that it's a secret weapon, so now they're gunning for it whether or not there's even an HRO bill. A referendum like this would divide the city, generate tons of negative press on the national stage, and cast the city in the worst possible light as nasty backwater. Unfortunately, the anti-HRO supporters don't care in the slightest about the negative consequences.

[Dog Walker]

#1:  I would be very surprised if Robin Lumb had anything to do with bringing a fringe group into town to oppose the HRO.

#2: Putting the HRO to a referendum is a cop-out.  We elect LEADERS who are supposed to be able to look more deeply into an issue than we have time to do; who are supposed to discuss among their informed fellows and LEAD us to a better decision than we can make individually.

Why else do we have elected GOVERNING bodies anyway?

#3: Severely disappointed in Lori Boyer for waffling on this issue.  Did not expect this of her at all!  Ex-supporter and contributor! 

[edjax]

Looks like both Hazouri and Gulliford are withdrawing their bills.

[thelakelander]

It appears so. Seems like a dead issue for local politicians.

[Jimmy]

Hastily-prepared statement of the Jacksonville Coalition for Equality:

Like many in the community, the Jacksonville Coalition for Equality is reacting to news today that Councilman Tommy Hazouri will move to withdraw his own human rights ordinance bill, 2016-002. This is a setback to be sure, but by no means a defeat. Councilman Hazouri has been a steadfast champion for equality and we know that he remains committed to passing a fully-inclusive amendment to our human rights ordinance. He, along with Aaron Bowman and Jim Love, have been great leaders on this issue and show no signs of abandoning this work.

While we are frustrated, we must remember that we have come very far on the path to equality in Jacksonville. Last year, Jacksonville voters made our city's lack of a fully-inclusive human rights ordinance one of the top issues in the Council and Mayoral election. Following a series of Community Conversations, lead by Mayor Curry, bills relating to the human rights ordinance were filed by Councilman Hazouri and Councilman Gullford.

Today's news should serve as a clarion call to the LGBT and allied community in Jacksonville that our work continues. We must continue to hold our leaders accountable to the commitments they've made. We must educate our friends, family, and coworkers about what a fully-inclusive HRO is, and challenge the hateful transphobic and homophobic rhetoric of our opponents.

We know that Council Members Hazouri, Bowman, and Love are committed to passing this legislation, and we look forward to the reintroduction of a fully-inclusive HRO bill in the near future.

[tufsu1]

Jimmy...can you provide some insight here - is it true that, if the bill had failed, it could not be brought back for at least a year?

[Tacachale]

Unfortunately, this is probably for the best right now, a referendum would be the worst possible thing that could happen.

[edjax]

Let's face it this at this moment would have been very divisive.  I think the city now sees potentially a way to deal with our pension crisis by taking it to a vote if things continue as is in the legislation.  They know that vote it going to be a hard sell and unfortunately the HRO issue would divide the city and I personally think they want as much calm as possible leading up to the sales tax vote on the pension issue.

[Jimmy]

Jimmy...can you provide some insight here - is it true that, if the bill had failed, it could not be brought back for at least a year?

If the bill itself is voted down, it must wait a year before coming back. A withdrawal means it can return sooner, Council willing.

[tufsu1]

Let's face it this at this moment would have been very divisive.  I think the city now sees potentially a way to deal with our pension crisis by taking it to a vote if things continue as is in the legislation.  They know that vote it going to be a hard sell and unfortunately the HRO issue would divide the city and I personally think they want as much calm as possible leading up to the sales tax vote on the pension issue.

That is a tall ask.  I am generally in favor of sales tax increases, but not this one.  The idea of a sales tax "increase" in this case allows the Mayor (and Council) to claim they didn't raise taxes.  It is not leadership.  The better answer would be to increase the millage rate or add a fee to our property taxes (like stormwater) to deal with the pension.  Using the BJP sales tax for this purpose will all but negate the potential for using additional sales tax revenues for capital projects through the year 2050.

[Steve]

And I like the idea of out of towners (who also break the laws, btw) helping to pay the costs of the police.

I agree with this. BTW, what is going on here...I've found myself agreeing a lot with you lately; you must be channeling you inner Reagan:)

In terms of capital projects, especially for downtown, I'd love to see us develop some funding mechanisms that do tax out of towners more. For example - let's say we do a convention center (which I'm in favor of - and yes I realize that the building isn't free and has to be paid for somehow). Throw a small tax on that, and potentially slightly increase the bed tax. I see us longer term as more of a business tourism market and let's face it - business travelers won't even blink at a 1% increase in a bed tax. I travel 3-4 times a month for work. At this point, taxes on hotel rooms are almost a rounding error.

That money should then be able to be used for more than just Convention Center and Sports Complex improvements. The idea would be to then reinvest the money raised through this, which would then build tourism, which would then generate more money in taxes, and on and on.

The other side benefit for this would be to benefit small business owners downtown (restaurants and bars). Most can do okay Friday and Saturday - it's during the week (Mon-Wed in particular that kills them). With a good business tourism business, they have to eat and drink somewhere during the week while they're here, and business travelers tend to drink more during the week when they're at a convention then when at home.