Arash Kamiar: Let's Not Vote for Lenny Curry
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-kBGHHQR/0/O/LennyCurry_MetroJacksonville.jpg)
In this op-ed Arash Kamiar writes why he's not voting for this particular Republican candidate.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-may-arash-kamiar-lets-not-vote-for-lenny-curry
This is an opinion piece and Mr. Kamiar is certainly entitled to his opinion. What I find interesting is that many people on this forum have talked about how one of the big problems with Jacksonville is that we are behind the times and that we seem stuck in the same place. So it seems to me that change is exactly what we need. As to instability, what is worse, a status quot that leads nowhere or a certain amount of instability that could lead somewhere? Even if only one small thing changes for the good, is that not better than a continuation of what we have now?
This is a tough decision for many as this is certainty seen as the determining the lessor of two bad options. And once again, we see the self fulling prophecy presented here. Let's vote for Brown, the incumbent, because incumbents can't be beat. By giving Brown 8 years we prove that if Curry were to be elected, we end up with eight years of his administration.
The other side is simply this. By voting for change, voting for Curry in this case, you are also proving you can break the cycle and show that if a administration is unsatisfactory, you can indeed change it and try someone new for the next four years.
Regardless of who you vote for, make your own choice and do vote.
Perhaps we should consider doing what Chicago has done. Eliminate parties in the mayoral race altogether. Let anyone who files the paperwork run.
Then truly let the people decide instead of some political caste system.
The world always needs more toilet paper, thanks Arash Kamiar for the new supply.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 15, 2015, 08:22:19 AM
The world always needs more toilet paper, thanks Arash Kamiar for the new supply.
You wipe your ass on computer screens?
That's disgusting, man.
Quote from: strider on May 15, 2015, 08:02:32 AM
This is an opinion piece and Mr. Kamiar is certainly entitled to his opinion. What I find interesting is that many people on this forum have talked about how one of the big problems with Jacksonville is that we are behind the times and that we seem stuck in the same place. So it seems to me that change is exactly what we need. As to instability, what is worse, a status quot that leads nowhere or a certain amount of instability that could lead somewhere? Even if only one small thing changes for the good, is that not better than a continuation of what we have now?
This is a tough decision for many as this is certainty seen as the determining the lessor of two bad options. And once again, we see the self fulling prophecy presented here. Let's vote for Brown, the incumbent, because incumbents can't be beat. By giving Brown 8 years we prove that if Curry were to be elected, we end up with eight years of his administration.
The other side is simply this. By voting for change, voting for Curry in this case, you are also proving you can break the cycle and show that if a administration is unsatisfactory, you can indeed change it and try someone new for the next four years.
Regardless of who you vote for, make your own choice and do vote.
I appreciate your perspective.
I don't see MAB as the status quo. He's kind of a blip in the status quo. The one that somehow got through. I think voting for Brown sends a message that the kingmakers have to re-evaluate which candidates are chosen.
Quote from: spuwho on May 15, 2015, 08:05:27 AM
Perhaps we should consider doing what Chicago has done. Eliminate parties in the mayoral race altogether. Let anyone who files the paperwork run.
Then truly let the people decide instead of some political caste system.
I think I'm all for that.
I'm also wondering if we need to switch to one longer term. What do you think of that? Instead of two four year terms, we elect for one six year term.
Quote from: mtraininjax on May 15, 2015, 08:22:19 AM
The world always needs more toilet paper, thanks Arash Kamiar for the new supply.
Are you an expert on the economy of toilet paper?
What exactly bothers you mtrain?
QuoteYou wipe your ass on computer screens?
That's disgusting, man.
I'm sure mtrain printed the op-ed, then used it as toilet paper...which would explain a lot.
I don't care about sending messages or one-upping supposed "king makers". I care about getting the best public servants into leadership positions. We have two choices right now, who have pluses and minus of their own, beyond their appeal to political factions.
To my mind, Curry has two qualities that Alvin doesn't: his capability in managing budgets, and his capability in managing people. Brown has proven he can't manage the city's budget, and worse, that he doesn't know how to surround himself with people who can. Brown does have positives - he has a great attitude and spirit, and he's a great cheerleader for our city - but they just don't overcome the seriousness of the negatives. Curry is by no stretch an ideal candidate, but he's got the skills and experience to get us on the right track in that regard.
I haven't found that Curry has lied. If you're talking about the number of police officers cut under Brown, he was using the figures given by the Sheriff. It was at most a misconception, and apparently Brown shared it, or he would have called Curry out on it. Certainly no worse than some of what Brown has said, like the "never raised taxes" canard.
I also haven't found Curry to be a petty or mean person, and I've met him. I will agree with you that Curry went too negative too quick and it has damaged his public face. It's something he'll have to work on if he's elected.
In the final analysis, I think we're really looking at a guy who can do the job despite his faults, and a guy who's unfortunately shown that he can't.
We have a unitary model. Anyone who fills out the paperwork and gets petitions or pays filing fee can run. The only reason people who are party affiliated end up in the runoff is because people vote R & D.
If we removed party from the ballot it would cut back on some of that, though. It would also remove a lot of the incentive for state and national parties to throw money into the race, as they're only interested in getting their person elected. The results are what we've seen in the last several elections.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 15, 2015, 11:16:46 AM
I don't care about sending messages or one-upping supposed "king makers". I care about getting the best public servants into leadership positions. We have two choices right now, who have pluses and minus of their own, beyond their appeal to political factions.
To my mind, Curry has two qualities that Alvin doesn't: his capability in managing budgets, and his capability in managing people. Brown has proven he can't manage the city's budget, and worse, that he doesn't know how to surround himself with people who can. Brown does have positives - he has a great attitude and spirit, and he's a great cheerleader for our city - but they just don't overcome the seriousness of the negatives. Curry is by no stretch an ideal candidate, but he's got the skills and experience to get us on the right track in that regard.
The more I think about"king-makers" the more I wonder if that is in fact how we should be voting. Is the candidate almost irrelevant?
Am I voting for Khan or Rummell in this election?
QuoteIf we removed party from the ballot it would cut back on some of that, though. It would also remove a lot of the incentive for state and national parties to throw money into the race, as they're only interested in getting their person elected. The results are what we've seen in the last several elections.
Are you saying the reason that we don't have candidates that we're excited about is because of a lack of party support? Campaign money?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 15, 2015, 11:16:46 AM
To my mind, Curry has two qualities that Alvin doesn't: his capability in managing budgets, and his capability in managing people.
I've been more vocal about this issue and feel the need to continue to do so.
Please explain to me how accounting is supposed to fix the budget issues?
I mean, it's Budget 101, right? Your spending can't exceed your sources of revenue.
How does an accountant change that when he's adamant about spending more (in the name of safety), but he's just as adamant about not increasing the main stream of revenue.
Sounds more to me like Sales 101 to me.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on May 15, 2015, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: strider on May 15, 2015, 08:02:32 AM
This is an opinion piece and Mr. Kamiar is certainly entitled to his opinion. What I find interesting is that many people on this forum have talked about how one of the big problems with Jacksonville is that we are behind the times and that we seem stuck in the same place. So it seems to me that change is exactly what we need. As to instability, what is worse, a status quot that leads nowhere or a certain amount of instability that could lead somewhere? Even if only one small thing changes for the good, is that not better than a continuation of what we have now?
This is a tough decision for many as this is certainty seen as the determining the lessor of two bad options. And once again, we see the self fulling prophecy presented here. Let's vote for Brown, the incumbent, because incumbents can't be beat. By giving Brown 8 years we prove that if Curry were to be elected, we end up with eight years of his administration.
The other side is simply this. By voting for change, voting for Curry in this case, you are also proving you can break the cycle and show that if a administration is unsatisfactory, you can indeed change it and try someone new for the next four years.
Regardless of who you vote for, make your own choice and do vote.
Someone doesnt become the "status quo" in 4 years. Curry IS the status quo that Brown replaced, so voting for him is a return to the status quo we are trying to leave behind. It isnt that hard.
you are 1000% correct
QuoteCurry IS the status quo that Brown replaced, so voting for him is a return to the status quo we are trying to leave behind. It isnt that hard.
Wow, what an outlandish statement. Just because he is backed by conservatives, does not mean you govern that way. Once mayor, you are there to lead the Republicans AND the Democrats, not just the conservatives or radicals.
It is reprehensible to say that just because the people who support him think one and only one way, that this is how Curry will think or, better yet, govern in his own term. Brown was given 4 years to show his change, and it stinks. Curry should be given 4 years, based on the problems of the last 4 years and lack of leadership by Brown.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 15, 2015, 11:09:12 PM
I've been more vocal about this issue and feel the need to continue to do so.
Please explain to me how accounting is supposed to fix the budget issues?
I mean, it's Budget 101, right? Your spending can't exceed your sources of revenue.
How does an accountant change that when he's adamant about spending more (in the name of safety), but he's just as adamant about not increasing the main stream of revenue.
Sounds more to me like Sales 101 to me.
It's possible. It just means there will probably be cuts for everything else...
Quote from: avonjax on May 15, 2015, 11:10:36 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on May 15, 2015, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: strider on May 15, 2015, 08:02:32 AM
This is an opinion piece and Mr. Kamiar is certainly entitled to his opinion. What I find interesting is that many people on this forum have talked about how one of the big problems with Jacksonville is that we are behind the times and that we seem stuck in the same place. So it seems to me that change is exactly what we need. As to instability, what is worse, a status quot that leads nowhere or a certain amount of instability that could lead somewhere? Even if only one small thing changes for the good, is that not better than a continuation of what we have now?
This is a tough decision for many as this is certainty seen as the determining the lessor of two bad options. And once again, we see the self fulling prophecy presented here. Let's vote for Brown, the incumbent, because incumbents can't be beat. By giving Brown 8 years we prove that if Curry were to be elected, we end up with eight years of his administration.
The other side is simply this. By voting for change, voting for Curry in this case, you are also proving you can break the cycle and show that if a administration is unsatisfactory, you can indeed change it and try someone new for the next four years.
Regardless of who you vote for, make your own choice and do vote.
Someone doesnt become the "status quo" in 4 years. Curry IS the status quo that Brown replaced, so voting for him is a return to the status quo we are trying to leave behind. It isnt that hard.
you are 1000% correct
No, that is not correct. Look at this statement again:
QuoteSomeone doesnt become the "status quo" in 4 years. Curry IS the status quo that Brown replaced, so voting for him is a return to the status quo we are trying to leave behind. It isnt that hard.
.
What the poster is forgetting or just ignoring is that the same power players or "kingmakers" have been at it for decides, with a few new additions like Khan. They make up the "status quo", the group that does business in a way that benefits them far more than us. Corrine Brown, a Democrat, has always gotten her power and influence from the Republican side of the fence as much as anywhere else - just look at the articles about the gerrymandering of the districts. Curry certainly has been part of this status quo of big money, but then again, look at City Council. The best of the best cave to the same power players time and time again. They have little choice really.
When it takes 2 million dollars to run a campaign for a low paying, somewhat low profile CEO position like the Mayor of Jacksonville, Florida, how can you expect anything else? When the majority of City Council members are perfectly willing to genuflect to the power players, the goods ones have no choice but to go along or they will get nothing for the people they represent.
Brown has proven time and time again he is bowing down the the power players. In his case, Corrine Brown has great influence. You see that in the people he surrounds himself with. Curry, well frankly, he won't be much different. Except I believe he will break somewhat from the status quo because Corrine Brown will have less influence. At least I hope so.
That to me means we may get some better people in the everyday working positions. That is the only change I see hope for occurring. It can't happen with Brown, that will remain the "status quo" under him. It is a small change, but this is Jacksonville after all, where we take award winning legislation and gut it because the power players tell us to, where we have had the same "status quo" for many decades with only a minor changing of the faces of it. Sadly, at this point, we can only hope for small. But we can get it and that in itself can lead to larger change and the city we want.
I'm personally not voting for Brown or Curry. I'm voting for change. In this race, that is Curry and the hoped for changes he will bring.
I don't view change as moving money from the parks department to JSO so that the sheriff can hire a few more officers. What visionary ideas has Curry explained that will truly create positive change in Jacksonville. I mean, has he really explained much of anything? Crime is not our biggest issue but has been made an issue because it "sounds good" to be tough on crime. Besides, shouldn't crime really be under control of the sheriff? If mayors have such an impact on crime in a city then why even bother having a sheriff?
Mayors should be champions of the city, promote increased tourism, boost economic development, and work towards creating a high quality of life for all citizens. Brown's focus on sports tourism, economic development, and public-private partnerships are just a few things he has done to create positive change in the city. I would agree he has failed at selecting the right people for leadership positions underneath him (i.e., Burney, Hand, etc.) and that is something I believe he is starting to realize.
I don't see Curry as being better at any of the above. I've decided in the last few days to vote for Brown.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 16, 2015, 07:39:23 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 15, 2015, 11:09:12 PM
I've been more vocal about this issue and feel the need to continue to do so.
Please explain to me how accounting is supposed to fix the budget issues?
I mean, it's Budget 101, right? Your spending can't exceed your sources of revenue.
How does an accountant change that when he's adamant about spending more (in the name of safety), but he's just as adamant about not increasing the main stream of revenue.
Sounds more to me like Sales 101 to me.
It's possible. It just means there will probably be cuts for everything else...
There will be a lot of streamlining that can be done. Hell, you'd save a bunch of money just by getting rid of Artis Gilmore and trimming down Alvin's crazy security detail and entourage. ;)
Resolving the pension fiasco will also free up a lot of money from the budget. It may also involve service cuts, or another tax increase. The point is, the house needs to get back in order. The question is, who can pull it off. I know what I think.
Quote from: TheCat on May 15, 2015, 07:15:28 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 15, 2015, 11:16:46 AM
I don't care about sending messages or one-upping supposed "king makers". I care about getting the best public servants into leadership positions. We have two choices right now, who have pluses and minus of their own, beyond their appeal to political factions.
To my mind, Curry has two qualities that Alvin doesn't: his capability in managing budgets, and his capability in managing people. Brown has proven he can't manage the city's budget, and worse, that he doesn't know how to surround himself with people who can. Brown does have positives - he has a great attitude and spirit, and he's a great cheerleader for our city - but they just don't overcome the seriousness of the negatives. Curry is by no stretch an ideal candidate, but he's got the skills and experience to get us on the right track in that regard.
The more I think about"king-makers" the more I wonder if that is in fact how we should be voting. Is the candidate almost irrelevant?
Am I voting for Khan or Rummell in this election?
QuoteIf we removed party from the ballot it would cut back on some of that, though. It would also remove a lot of the incentive for state and national parties to throw money into the race, as they're only interested in getting their person elected. The results are what we've seen in the last several elections.
Are you saying the reason that we don't have candidates that we're excited about is because of a lack of party support? Campaign money?
I wouldn't go that far. It's one of several reasons. But we have seen that both parties have invested a LOT of money, and staff, into supporting underwhelming candidates. Has that been good for us?
Quote from: brainstormer on May 16, 2015, 08:48:18 AM
I don't view change as moving money from the parks department to JSO so that the sheriff can hire a few more officers. What visionary ideas has Curry explained that will truly create positive change in Jacksonville. I mean, has he really explained much of anything? Crime is not our biggest issue but has been made an issue because it "sounds good" to be tough on crime. Besides, shouldn't crime really be under control of the sheriff? If mayors have such an impact on crime in a city then why even bother having a sheriff?
Mayors should be champions of the city, promote increased tourism, boost economic development, and work towards creating a high quality of life for all citizens. Brown's focus on sports tourism, economic development, and public-private partnerships are just a few things he has done to create positive change in the city. I would agree he has failed at selecting the right people for leadership positions underneath him (i.e., Burney, Hand, etc.) and that is something I believe he is starting to realize.
I don't see Curry as being better at any of the above. I've decided in the last few days to vote for Brown.
I am not hoping for big change here. Just changes on the appointed positions that often do the daily work that effects the average residents the most. Change two or three people in the MCCD and you could have a widely different department that sees it's roll as helping people rather than a continuous hindering. And Brown is not going to improve the set of people he appoints. The political capital expended to get Kimberly Scott appointed is an indication of that. They most likely are for someone else rather than hand picked by his own advisers and thought process.
As to the big stuff? I can't see one administration being worse than the other. I just know what we get with Brown and I'd rather take a chance on any change than the same old same old. After all, how many times have we seen people post about Jacksonville making the same mistakes year after year, decade after decade? The only way that will change is to keep trying new leadership. If we get lucky, we might get a good one some day. Meanwhile, re-electing the known mediocrity does not seem like a way forward. It is a vote without hope for a better result.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 16, 2015, 09:21:05 AM
There will be a lot of streamlining that can be done. Hell, you'd save a bunch of money just by getting rid of Artis Gilmore and trimming down Alvin's crazy security detail and entourage. ;)
You're only kind of kidding, but seriously... the salaries paid out are pennies comparatively. And while every penny counts, I think that's the last of the budget worries.
Yes, the pension is a big one, but here's an idea (which btw, isn't going to happen because it would work directly against the majority source of his contributions): Why have the Office of General Council, the attorneys, start reviewing all of these bullshit contracts that the city has issued out to the various private entities that only built stuff because their profits were guaranteed through government subsidy.
Don't worry about the $150k paid to Gilmore. Worry about the $10M (not a real $$, just used for effect #lazy) that we're paying yearly to CPS. The parking garages are built. Infrastructure is here. Start acting like a business and dropping bad deals. That's why we pay attorneys, right?
The attorneys are the ones writing the bad contracts, or at a minimum approving them. :(
Quote from: Kay on May 16, 2015, 06:54:17 PM
The attorneys are the ones writing the bad contracts, or at a minimum approving them. :(
Actually not entirely. The attorneys write contracts to fit the deals brokered by the city, good, bad or indifferent sometimes under pressure. The attorneys approve the form and lingo but who get what for how long, how much etc. is not decided by city attorneys. This is why it is important that we have smart and adept folks on the council when some of the deals come down the pike.
Pretty sure I have more direct experience to speak on this. Attorneys should make sure contracts are written to protect the City.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on May 16, 2015, 07:25:11 PM
Quote from: Kay on May 16, 2015, 06:54:17 PM
The attorneys are the ones writing the bad contracts, or at a minimum approving them. :(
Actually not entirely. The attorneys write contracts to fit the deals brokered by the city, good, bad or indifferent sometimes under pressure. The attorneys approve the form and lingo but who get what for how long, how much etc. is not decided by city attorneys. This is why it is important that we have smart and adept folks on the council when some of the deals come down the pike.
+1
Palms Fish Camp- Sign me up!
Quote from: Kay on May 16, 2015, 07:43:35 PM
Pretty sure I have more direct experience to speak on this. Attorneys should make sure contracts are written to protect the City.
+1
2015-268. Vote NO. Please.