I have heard this name bandied about, here and on several local sites, with nary a word of disparagement.
It seems people really like her as a local politician and I wanted to hear why. Most of what I have read are compliments, but rarely include details.
Can I google? Surely. News articles, however, rarely offer the same insight as comments by informed individuals with personal experience.
As I understand she is:
A Democrat
Honest
Diligent
Responsible
Well informed
I know some of you can go into more detail than this, so lets hear it. We know you want her, tell us why.
(If Glorious is a he, please fogive me ;) )
Glorious is a she.
She was a Republican but changed party affiliation to Democrat in 2008, I believe.
As I understand it, she has been very supportive of and outspoken on many of the issues that are near and dear to Metro Jacksonville members, such as core and rail transit development and historic preservation. She is part of a group dedicated to the preservation of Brewster Hospital specifically.
She sounds to me like she's willing to listen to and stand up for informed citizens, and used to post on this forum as well.
She is also on Facebook, if you're into that thing. ;) I've friended her. It's nice to see a different side of her other than the news-making political stuff.
If she runs.........Glo-jo has my vote! She has had too many documented responces to citizen issue's from transit to ethics! I would like to see more from her, stance wise,than what has been documented but she has no where to go but up!
I can help you out big fella! Introduced legislation to rescind "Fee's" (all of them) could not get enough votes behind her to pass it. Tried to cut the AIMO positions (which should have been Civil Service to start with) Johnny back door'd here..........once again, no council person stepped up to back her! She has tried to introduce "Ethical Guidelines".........once again GOB network shoot her down in flames! She has tried on those that I know of and there are more!
Dadburn it............done forgot what AIMO stands for (brain fart) 227 of them that serve at the will of the Mayor supposedly.........original number was 27. That cost's us, by the way, $27 Million Dollars as of today! As soon as I can remember what the hell AIMO stands for ..........will post it up for you! I hate it when that happens! Her and Diane Melendez, of Jaxoutloud fame, teamed up on the Brewster Hospital escapade...........developer was going to shut down the Memorial side and turn it into offices, both floors! Needless to say that was squashed! AIMO's serve as Department and Division Heads and where all of them are at..........can't say! I do know that the Inspector Generals Office has several (that is Pam Markem) and they are spread all over from there! I will have that information for you shortly..........I know who to ask!
Its NOT AIMO its AMIO, Administrative/Management Improvement Officer, or something like that. AMIO is a position created where there is no title available, sort of a stop-gap for managers who have people above them, but cannot take that position. There are almost 300 in the City, from what I have seen. Some of my friends are AMIOs, its a long story, but they are in the positions after being placed in other areas, its a crazy admin system at the City. The head of all tickets and passes for the mayor is an AMIO.
Thanks mtraininjax......that would be Assistant Management Improvement Officer and don't forget they cost us $27 Million Dollars a year for the 227 there are! They serve at the will of the Mayor.......whoppee!
City Council member Glorious Johnson’s desire to essentially eliminate the Assistant Management Improvement Officer positions within the City through legislation is closer to being put in the hands of her colleagues.
Started under former Jake Godbold’s administration, the AMIO concept has evolved from a handful of positions held by close associates of high-ranking City officials to hundreds of positions â€" many of which come with above average salaries and no job description.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530193
Good work if you can get it!
Great work.............if you can get it, but I don't know anyone to even think about it! Like I said $ 27 Million Dollars yearly for 227 positions & like 02roadking says..........no job description!
i know she voted against the milage rate increase, which was, in my opinion, an ignorant vote. especially since those she represents would have benefitted the most, and payed the least, from the increase. during the city council debates, she either was completely ignorant of how the city budget works or she feigned ignorance for political points.
She also was one of the few (only?) council members that argued for opting out of Crist's Property Tax rollback. A special provision had been added to the bill to give Jax that option.
Had her view prevailed, the later rate increase would not have been needed, or at a minimum would have been smaller. If you ask me, that was the right idea all along.
konstantconsumer...........she voted against the mileage increase since it was not needed! She is more concerned about City spending versus City intake of revenue and that is only one of the major differences between Ms Johnson and the other potential runners for Mayor. So it is not a matter of ignorance but a matter or representing those who can not afford to pay for a mileage increase. The City really needs to get it's spending under control rather than taxing all to pay for what this Administration considers important!
She was also the council member who got Metro Jacksonville in front of the council's transportation committee to present our case against BRT.
Quote from: CS Foltz on February 24, 2010, 05:02:12 PM
she voted against the mileage increase since it was not needed!
that is your opinion...but I have seen a bunch of data that strongly suggests otherwise.
tufsu............I bow to your insider knowledge regarding transit, roads and the like but when it comes to what the various council members vote for or against............I will put my foot down. Ms Johnson has a proven and validated record of not voting with the majority of the Council members and rightfully so! Rubber stamping the wishes of Johnny just does not hold water with me since the various Council member are SUPPOSED to represent the wishes of their constituents and not what the so-called Mayor wishes! There has to be a tradeoff regarding outgoing and incoming revenues and the Mayor seems to think there is an unlimited source of income and that ain't so Joe! I have to work within a budget and the City needs to do so also......period or we need to change the Council! The Mayor should have been booted out 3 years ago, I did not vote for him then and there is no way in hell I would vote for him now.............yea........run the City like a business right!!!!!!!!
Horror or horrors! Y'all do relize you are talking about A:
AFRICAN AMERICAN
WOMAN
...do you still think you could support her?
OCKLAWAHA
While Ms. Johnson may be a nice person and take positions popular with some of us, I have heard from some "downtowners" that, stylistically, she might not be ready for prime time. Of course, I have heard negatives and positives about all the prospective candidates, so far, so that is no surprise. It's clear, like any of us, none of them will be close to perfect.
Found this Folio feature article on her for those who want to read more. I see Ock is featured in the first paragraph also! http://www.altweeklies.com/alternative/AltWeeklies/Story?oid=oid%3A244552
We will all have a chance, in due course, to better know the candidates when they begin their campaigns, make the rounds, and, hopefully, have vigorous public debates. Part of the campaign process, provided the voters pay close attention, is to flush out the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates who I am sure have doses of both.
Bottom line, for most of us, we should hedge our thinking until it's showtime! ;)
Quote from: CS Foltz on February 24, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
Ms Johnson has a proven and validated record of not voting with the majority of the Council members and rightfully so! Rubber stamping the wishes of Johnny just does not hold water with me since the various Council member are SUPPOSED to represent the wishes of their constituents and not what the so-called Mayor wishes!
CS...I understand and agree that the Mayor sholuld not get a rubber stamp...but you seem to be opposed to everything he says and does, just because it is him.
Regarding the millage rate issue...I challenge you to do some reserach on millage rates and per capita spending for government services (police, fire, parks, etc.) between Jacksonville and every other large city in Florida (Tampas, Orlando, Miami, St. Petersburg, Ft. Lauderdale)...let us know what you find.
strongly disagree. i was at each of the council meetings about the milage increase. johnson, like i said, either had no idea what she was talking about or pretended not to know for some reason. additionally, the taxes would effect mostly the wealthy, which is not really her constituents considering her area, and the addition funds would help education, job training, and other services, which were badly needed. while no one likes to pay more taxes, the council's attempts to cut the budget showed that it simply wasn't possible to lower the budget enough to avoid a milage increase. there are fundamental services that must be paid for and the housing market crash required that people pay a larger percentage of the depreciated value of their homes.
if i had a litmus test for mayoral candidates, it would be that they supported a small milage tax increase over cutting services to those who can't afford to lose them.
^^
1) Johnson holds an at-large seat, so she represents the entire county. As such, everyone in all income levels are her constiuents.
2) The city does not control the budget or funding for schools, which is controlled by the Duval County School Board.
3) Job training is primarily a state or federal function, although the city may have some involvement, sponsorship, or partial funding.
Quote from: konstantconsumer on February 25, 2010, 01:53:31 PMthe taxes would effect mostly the wealthy, which is not really her constituents considering her area
As an At-Large council member, her constituency is the entire county.
Hear, hear, vicup state, Dan B!
Ms Johnsons the perfect candidate for mayor. A sweetheart to boot!
She is quite opposite of Mayer Peyton, but does have a conservative past.
Its my opinon she appeals to all of us concerned for a true metropolitan Jacksonville,
mush stronger than any of the other (current) candidates.
Shes proven her sincerity for MetroJacksonville directy as lakelander pointed out.
None of the other candidates come close.
tufsu........I think you misunderstand my position, so I will use the Federal Government as an example. There is a three year freeze on Federal spending commencing shortly and I understand why! To be honest, I don't care about what other cities do or don't do..........I care about what Jacksonville does! Like any military unit or company, good or bad, whomever is the head of that unit takes either the blame or the glory and in Jacksonville, Mayor Johnny is the head. I don't believe that any CEO of any Company should get paid off when they fail or run their company into the ground and Johnny has not run the City like a business, right? We have a short fall in revenues that is already showing and at last count somewhere between 40 and 60 Million Dollars. I understand all about incentives and tax breaks to attract either commerce or commercialism but where do you draw the line? What about Vescor? Nothing I have seen says they have gotten what they asked for and if they did, then it was in some back room filled with smoke..........so I have to ask point blank......When do we hold accountable people who were voted into a job that don't do the job but continue to spend money we don't have? There has to be some accountability at some point......I could mention Ship Yards, Trail Ridge, Jax Port and lots of others but maybe you understand my animosity towards the current Administration! I wish there were a recall option, then I would be first in line! Make sense?
Glorious Johnson for Mayor YEEESSSS!
Glorious Johnson will without a doubt, have my vote and full support. There's a Draft Glorious Johnson for mayor page on facebook...and it does look like she'll be announcing her intent to run for mayor. She's exactly what this city needs, and has been fighting for the people, and less government since she became a councilwoman.
Quote from: CS Foltz on February 25, 2010, 05:44:11 PM
tufsu........I think you misunderstand my position, so I will use the Federal Government as an example. There is a three year freeze on Federal spending commencing shortly and I understand why! To be honest, I don't care about what other cities do or don't do
you and I both know the Feds won't be freezing spending...what has been proposed is a freeze on spending increases...but defense, homeland security, and entitlements are exempt.
but since you don't care about what other cities do, let's just stick with Jacksonville....last year's budget was in fact less than the year before....and not including the pension issues (think of it as our version of Federal entitlement programs), spending has been been cut quite a bit.
Unfortunately, revenues also dropped...partially because of the economy and partially because of tax cuts.
So, CS, I ask you this....would you ever favor a tax increase to make up for a revenue shortfall?
It is a fabulous idea, rasie the property taxes as property values are falling, falling, falling. People are losing their jobs, but hey raise the property taxes! I wish the city and other cities as well) would acknowledge their part in the whole foreclosure fiasco too. How does it make sense to raise peoples property taxes, add on stupid misc fees for them to pay as they watch their mortgages turn upside down and lose their jobs?! There comes a point when people will just quit stressing and struggling to make payments on a property that they owe more than it is worth. It makes no sense, what money does the city get then?
well uptown girl....I really hate the "a recession is not the right time to raise taxes" argument....for several reasons
1. Its never a good time....I didn't hear too many folks claomring for a tax increase when times were good...in fact, they said that a tax increase would just slow the economy down
2. when people lose their job, what do they often do....collect unemployment, go on food stamps, etc....much of the assistance comes from government.
In relation to the local property tax issue....the fact is, Jax. was able to lower the millage rate for 18 straight years because property values kept increasing....that's just not the case right now....but think of it this way...if the City raised the millage rate by 10% but property values were down by 20%, we would still pay less.
Who is paying less? My taxes significantly increased, I had extra "fees" added to my bill, my property value dropped by 100K, oh and let's not forget the huge JEA bills... btw- it is a way to make up budget shortfalls IF there are enough houses still paying...
My property taxes went down by over $200 last year...and even with the new stormwater fee (which pay for things we ignored for too long here in Jax), I still paid less.
JEA is the utility provider....if their costs go up, they charge more....just like any other bsuiness...not exactly the same thing as a tax increase.
Uptown, those "extra fees" were merely to replace some of the revenues lost from all those overdone tax cuts, mostly passed in good times.
I agree with Tufsu here. If we had political LEADERSHIP, they would explain to the taxpayers that rather than cut taxes when there are surpluses, government should bank the surpluses for the inevitable rainy day when a recession is sure to come again. Just as we should do in our own businesses and personal lives. If this happened, taxes would generally neither rise nor fall disproportionate to OVERALL community incomes (individual experiences may vary).
What really happens is when there are surpluses, politicians want credit for putting through tax cuts. And, when times are bad, they worry about people like you, and don't want to undo the tax cuts which will be interpreted as "tax increases". This is not sustainable and government will end up resorting to other means to balance their budgets. Hence, your user fees.
Bottom line, government in this country is behaving just like the people they represent, failing to adequately save.
P.S. Do you hear many people say lets cut police, education, parks, transportation projects, etc. during a recession because government revenues are down? I don't.
P.S.S. It was unrealistic for people to over leverage themselves with less than 20 to 30% down on their houses, variable interest rates they didn't understand, and no-questions-asked underwriting. Borrowers have a responsibility to themselves to understand the consequences of their actions and to leave a cushion for possible negative events occurring. If the real possibility of interest rates rising from 2% to 4% occurs, that is a near doubling of house payments. That should have been planned for by borrowers knowing that their incomes would most unlikely double overnight as well. As to being underwater on a home loan, this is only a problem if you are trying to sell it or borrow more against it. I don't think it's government's job to subsidize people who can't reasonably manage their own personal finances when they have not been struck by an "act of God" or subjected to some other highly difficult to anticipate negative lifetime event. After all, we do want to keep those taxes low. ;D
well said stjr!
I actually agree with your point STJR, all i am saying is this is an added impact to these homeowners at an already bad time. When foreclosures go up, preperty tax revenue goes down.
Asking a politician to put aside a surplus fund for harder times is like asking an alcoholic to keep a fully stocked bar in their house.
^^Nice!
Well, it seems to me that Johnny wanted his tax increase and he got it! You can talk and pontificate all you want gentlemen but there is just one plain truth............government has not curbed its spending, both on the Federal level or the City level one iota period! Tax increases should be tied to a reduction, not an increase, in whatever government is spending for whatever. Circumventing the voters with Fee's is a slap in the face to the voters who put them into office period! My property value's are down 27% and yet my mortgage is still based on the artificial figures they were bought at.........note is not less just the value! All government should cut waste when and where necessary, not get bigger or more bloated.............should I point out JTA and their fiasco?
Perhaps, in light of the topic, some could offer insight on what Glorious Johnson might have done differently?
Had city council voted to opt out, the millage rate would've stayed the same, and there would've been no need for those new taxes....aka, fees.