Promise me this
Davenport sure lost out on a great opportunity with the special election for the Promise.
Whether you were for it or against it is irrelevant for this discussion. I won’t even give my thoughts on that aspect since there have been more than enough people telling you what an idiot you would be to vote for or against it. And this is how we lost our golden opportunity.
For as long as I can remember, politics in Davenport has been contentious. There have always been two sides pitted in a battle to the death against each other. Rather than grow out of this adolescent stage of development, our city has stagnated and spent entirely too much energy on arguing amongst ourselves. This energy is needed to energize the renovation and progress our city is so wanting.
I love Davenport. I think it’s a beautiful place. I think most of the problems we have stem from a negative attitude which is firmly rooted in the past. It’s true, many of our neighborhoods saw decline in the past. It’s true, we’ve had crime problems. Instead of giving up on areas, on people and on the city itself we should be looking at all of the solid positive areas we have and expand on them. Just look at the interest in downtown. It’s not the desolate Sin City some would have you believe. It’s doing pretty darn well.
And so I come to my disappointment with the Promise election.
Let’s start with the mayor, who I adore. I think he’s done a terrific job in leading the council toward behaving in a positive way without all the embarrassing public tantrums. He’s kept disputes behind closed doors while allowing for discussion of issues. Good job. Bad job on his role in the spin on the Promise. When the opposition is faced with a coalition of D-One, City Council, QCTimes, Firefighters union and more, basically the entire power structure of the city, is it really necessary to participate in so called news stories which put out the most ridiculous spin on the issue? The only thing that accomplishes is enraging the other side and further driving a wedge down the center of our city.
Next, let’s talk about the opposition. Where exactly were you when this was being discussed prior to making it onto the ballot? Were you a part of the discussion when the decisions were being made on how to fund this proposal, or whether or not it was viable at all? I don’t want to imply every person has to be involved in every issue, but we need some serious ideas on economic development in Davenport. Some very good people spent their time and energy developing this. Where were your critiques during the planning stages? And what are your alternative plans for bringing people to our city? To attracting jobs?
On to Ken Croken. Those opposing his ideas are against progress? Need I say any more? This guy was not the right spokesperson, obviously. Again, he did nothing to bring anyone over to his side by saying this. He would have been much more effective had he acknowledged the opposition’s fears and points and found a way to counteract them.
QCTimes. What can I say. They need to get their reporters back to a Journalism 101 course and learn the difference between opinion and news pieces. They also need to start properly labeling opinion pieces as such. This would account for say, 90% of what is written. They have really lost respect from their readers. The fact their stock is trading at $.29 is of no real surprise. Print journalism is suffering and I suppose making things controversial sells. It also turns of past and potential customers. And again, it does nothing but drive a further wedge.
Liberals/libertarians; spenders/againsters; We can keep labeling until our fingers fall off. What we need to do is put the label on ourselves of Proud Davenporter and start acting as a unit. Sure, we have different ideas on what is needed and how get there. We have different ideas on what improvement means, and what priority we should have in our future. But we all share the common goal of the desire to make the city the best it can be. So why not get off our collective asses and start looking for solutions which can benefit everyone. Until both sides are willing to come to the table and treat the other with respect, Davenport continues to lose.
nice to see you post again
There are 2 things about the Promise that everyone in Davenport agrees on: 1) It is a great idea and 2) It should be privately funded.
The Againster crowd repeated “Great idea! But only if it is privately funded!” many times. However, this didn’t mean they would ever lift a finger to help in a fundraising campaign, or donate even one cent to such a campaign. What they really meant was “Great idea! Now go make that happen while we sit on our butt and complain about potholes.”
This is my biggest gripe with the Againsters. They are very good at arguing their side, and often make great points! But they are all talk and no action. How do you find a middle ground with people who have no plan? It’s not like we have Plan A, and Plan B, then we compromise, take the best ideas from both and move forward with Plan C. When the choice is between Plan A and Nothing, I will pick Plan A every time.
Everything I said applies to downtown redevelopment efforts, too.
Pioneer, I do agree with you mostly. I do know people think it was a great idea if it were privately funded and many of them would not have contributed to finding that funding. I don’t think they necessarily need to, but if they are going to be continuously vocal on what is going on, it is about time they come up with some ideas of their own and start contributing.
However, maybe not labeling people with opposing views would be a good first step in getting everyone on the same page.
“For as long as I can remember, politics in Davenport has been contentious. There have always been two sides pitted in a battle to the death against each other.” – Snarky Chick
- The idea that every political discussion has to end in some sort of compromise is a pipe dream. The fact is that you can only talk about the decision to be made this moment. Attempts to distract by saying “propose something better” are meaningless to the current discussion – is the promise proposed to the voters a good idea. That _is_ a YES/NO issue and it is a waste of time for either side to talk about a compromise once it is on the ballot.
“The Againster crowd repeated ‘Great idea! But only if it is privately funded!’ many times. However, this didn’t mean they would ever lift a finger to help in a fundraising campaign, or donate even one cent to such a campaign. What they really meant was ‘Great idea! Now go make that happen while we sit on our butt and complain about potholes.’” – pioneer98
- Do you honestly purport to know where and how these people contribute their money? How did you obtain this information? There was recently a study published that shows that people that believe in voluntary charity rather than forced charity (transfer payments by governments) also tend to give more of their income away in general. Therefore, I will make the converse arbitrary statement and say that they are “lifting a finger” and “donating many cents”.
anon – Those who were opposed to specific details in the promise knew so prior to it being placed on the ballot. That WAS the time to voice their disapproval. The Upjohn study was released prior to discussion to placing this on the ballot. Where was the criticism then? Where were the alternate ideas then, when they were actually useful in bringing something besides a “NO” to the table?
That’s true, and its a point that wasn’t made that much during the debate. Why weren’t all these folks involved with the many Promise meetings before it was every put on a ballot? Did they just figure, “I’ll wait until they decide what they’re doing, and then oppose it?”