Opinion: 4 Reasons to Vote Yes on Pension Referendum

[Tacachale]

I define someone with bias as a person with a propensity to interpret, disregard or apply facts in a way that validates his/her predetermined opinions, feelings, thoughts, and sins.

Bias is much more than a differing opinion. Bias is an unwillingness or inability to look at information objectively.

When Metroj is labeled bias (or worst) it's usually because someone is interpreting the site as left-leaning, which it is not.

Well, maybe it is. Just arguing against sprawl is considered a left-leaning position, FYI. The official Republican platform opposes density, public transportation and ped/bike friendly networks.

Yes, we all have biases. Yes, we should all try to push through them.

The word bias has been thrown at me usually when the perspective is one that is determined to be on the left. Not once, have I had the word bias thrown at me when I posted what is typically considered on the right-wing of things.

A perfect example of this are the two opinion pieces we published this year. One in favor or Hillary and the other for Trump.

On social media, you would have thought Metroj called H. Clinton the mother goddess and the real son of God based on the comments and messages I received. On Trump, not so much. No one threatened to "never read metroj again" or "welp, you lost me as reader. Good luck..." Certainly, there were caustic statements regarding Trump BUT these statements were about the piece not about metroj.

During the last mayoral election, I did not support Curry, the Republican. I did; however, back Sheriff Mike Williams, a Republican, over sheriff candidate Ken Jefferson, a Democrat. Metroj had pro-mike Williams content on the site. More than I was comfortable with...not once did anyone call me bias for supporting Mike. I was dismissed as bias for not supporting Curry.

I was and am also dismissed by some as biased for not supporting Referendum 1. A plan that is fiscally challenged and lacks any conservative principals.  I am biased because, in this case, I am too conservative for the Republican party...but the individuals  calling me biased somehow think my rather recent lefty tendencies cause me to believe we should err on the side of fiscal responsibility.

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

I'm on a tangent now...=)

Everyone has biases, and unless they make a particular effort, they're reflected in the work they do. Some level of bias is unavoidable in a publication, and in some cases it's desirable. Metro Jacksonville on the whole has a preference for urban development, strong planning, transit, etc., and that's a good thing. This is what most of us come here for (additionally, I don't think it's really unfair).

On political issues, as I say, the biases of Stephen and Arash, the Metro Jacksonville owners most active on political topics, are apparent. I don't really care about whether something's "left wing" or "right wing", that doesn't really reflect how things play out in local politics. On this issue, you both made your own feelings about the plan clear. If you're arguing that you didn't let your opinions affect the way the pension issue was presented on the site, well, I disagree. On the front page, you ran one pro-referendum piece (this one), one neutral piece (this), and at least 10 that were critical or opposed outright: this, this, this, this, this, this,this, this, this, and this. In the numerous threads on the issue, you frequently framed it negatively (eg, here and here). MJ's social media presence was almost uniformly negative. It's not much of a stretch to think that such representation affects the discussions, and the tone of the site in general.

The tone bothers me more than the slant. In fact, I appreciate the gonzo style, so long as there's no pretense of neutrality. However, discussions here often devolve into needlessly heated and tangential back-and-forths, and the moderators don't do enough to keep it in line. Apparently, this environment is keeping people from participating when they otherwise might. If we really want intelligent discourse where people disagree vehemently, keep that in mind.

[southsider1015]

Just reading this thread, I happen to agree with Tach.

I've been discouraged from posting on threads relates to FDOT, transportation, development, and the like because my opinions didn't fit the motto of MJ.  That's sad, because I can bring a lot of perspective about the inner workings of FDOT and it's decision-making.

I find it rather interesting to believe that development patterns are political.  Sure, any topic can be turned into political discussions, but good Lord, some topics don't deserve it.  Urban sprawl is right wing politics?  Density is liberal?  Official Republican platform against bikes/peds?  Really?  Sheesh. 

And finally, politcal discussions are more productive without throwing around "conservatives", "liberals", "left-wing", "right-wing" and every other political label.  Talk specifics, not generalizations.  Save it for Fox, CNN, HuffPost, and Breitbart. 

[Tacachale]

It's not a matter of perception. It's a fact that you and Arash were against the pension plan, as you just reiterated. It's also a fact that the site ran a lot more articles, threads, etc. that were against the plan than were in favor or neutral. Sorry, but I don't believe those two facts are unrelated.

The thing is, I'm not even suggesting the site be unbiased. It can do a better job being an open environment debate even if it has an editorial slant. However, the slant is rather obvious.

[Tacachale]

Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.

[Tacachale]

Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.

You may stand wherever you like, clearly, but it won't make anything more or less factual.

I take it then that you did see the Lenny Curry video on the Pension plan, but just don't feel like including it today?

Well then, giving me the Lori Boyer video is especially generous then, and I accept the gift feeling beggared by gratitude.

I missed the Melissa Ross Curry vid too, but I was focusing on your own content. So 3 positive articles, and 10 negative ones, plus all the other stuff.

[TheCat]

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

+1000

Most of the people who supported the referendum would have endorsed it under Brown. Even those who were generally critical of Brown supported the viable elements of his pension proposals. I doubt Brown would have been as good at selling it to the voters as Curry. On the other hand, I expect that Metro Jacksonville's coverage would have been a lot different.

Come one Taca, you don't believe that.

Why is it that the civic council refused their support of Brown's plan?

Why is it that they supported Curry's plan?

Curry didn't sell his plan. He bought it. We'll all pay for it.

The coverage would not have been different from me. I've never been a Brown supporter except for when I had to choose between him and Curry. Further, I didn't oppose the pension tax because Curry pitched it. I opposed it because it is fiscally irresponsible, incredibly unethical and full of ambiguity.

[Tacachale]

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

+1000

Most of the people who supported the referendum would have endorsed it under Brown. Even those who were generally critical of Brown supported the viable elements of his pension proposals. I doubt Brown would have been as good at selling it to the voters as Curry. On the other hand, I expect that Metro Jacksonville's coverage would have been a lot different.

Come one Taca, you don't believe that.

Why is it that the civic council refused their support of Brown's plan?

Why is it that they supported Curry's plan?

Curry didn't sell his plan. He bought it. We'll all pay for it.

The coverage would not have been different from me. I've never been a Brown supporter except for when I had to choose between him and Curry. Further, I didn't oppose the pension tax because Curry pitched it. I opposed it because it is fiscally irresponsible, incredibly unethical and full of ambiguity.

The Civic Council et al did support the good portions of Brown's plans. In fact, they'd been trying to get him to move on the pension for years, which is one of the main things that finally got his administration to act (as much as it did). If he'd proposed an equivalent (or better) funding mechanism to this one, they would have supported it. As for MJ coverage, I might have believed you before the last election.

[TheCat]

Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.

I loled at "Clearly, I've struck a nerve".

In other words, Stephen, "Thou dost protest too much!"   

[Tacachale]

Clearly, I've struck a nerve. I'll give you the Lori Boyer video, I must have missed that one. I stand by the rest of what I said regarding your coverage of this issue.

I loled at "Clearly, I've struck a nerve".

In other words, Stephen, "Thou dost protest too much!"   

Oh, but y'all will keep y'all's word.

[Chris Hand]

This is bias; I cast shade on Republican supporters of this plan. It is MY BIAS that causes me to believe that if this plan was pitched by Alvin Brown if would NEVER have been accepted as a viable solution.

+1000

Most of the people who supported the referendum would have endorsed it under Brown. Even those who were generally critical of Brown supported the viable elements of his pension proposals. I doubt Brown would have been as good at selling it to the voters as Curry. On the other hand, I expect that Metro Jacksonville's coverage would have been a lot different.

Come one Taca, you don't believe that.

Why is it that the civic council refused their support of Brown's plan?

Why is it that they supported Curry's plan?

Curry didn't sell his plan. He bought it. We'll all pay for it.

The coverage would not have been different from me. I've never been a Brown supporter except for when I had to choose between him and Curry. Further, I didn't oppose the pension tax because Curry pitched it. I opposed it because it is fiscally irresponsible, incredibly unethical and full of ambiguity.

The Civic Council et al did support the good portions of Brown's plans. In fact, they'd been trying to get him to move on the pension for years, which is one of the main things that finally got his administration to act (as much as it did). If he'd proposed an equivalent (or better) funding mechanism to this one, they would have supported it. As for MJ coverage, I might have believed you before the last election.

Tacachale:

I have great respect for the Jacksonville Civic Council (JCC) and the contributions it has made to the pension reform debate. I often credited the JCC for its efforts during the many community and Council presentations I made on the subject.

I am particularly grateful for Steve Halverson, who served as the Jacksonville Civic Council Chair when I was Chief of Staff. Steve is an outstanding community leader and great person who took a thoughtful, constructive approach to the issue. I really enjoyed working with him, even on occasions where we disagreed. The other JCC Pension Reform Task Force members also invested a lot of time and effort, as did JCC President Jeanne Miller. Some members, like David Boor, Sherry Magill, Bill Rupp, and Greg Smith, spent nearly a year on the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force chaired by Bill Scheu.

You would be absolutely correct to say that the Jacksonville Civic Council's dedication to pension reform, especially under Steve's leadership, was a crucial factor in forward progress. The JCC work improved the final product and helped ensure enactment of the comprehensive agreement that became law in June 2015. 

But I will correct one statement you made: "[T]hey'd been trying to get him to move on the pension for years, which is one of the main things that finally got his administration to act (as much as it did)."

Pension reform was a priority for the Brown Administration from day one as we recognized its major importance. The City engaged an actuary to review the Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF) in the first part of 2012 and we presented our first benefit modification plans in collective bargaining negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters (JAFF) later in 2012. The first tentative agreement with the PFPF was reached in May 2013. In other words, the first two years of the administration saw a lot of activity on the subject.

As I said above, the JCC played a vital role. But the idea that our administration did not move "for years" or someone else "finally got [the] administration to act" is not accurate.

[Tacachale]

Metro Jacksonville: Fair and Balanced 

[Scarlettjax]

Can someone explain why moving them all to the FRS would be a bad thing for COJ?  Seems to me like doing that - like every other major metropolitan area in the state - would effectively get us out of the pension business.