Debating the Issues

One of the main concerns that I see facing the city is the issue of good paying jobs. There just is not enough good paying jobs in Three Rivers. We give some very good tax breaks to anybody that is creating jobs. We need more jobs that can sustain a family. Any ideas?

I am curious as to how both of you feel about the Faith Based Initiatives that President Push as supported in the past. A few questions off the top of my head:

Do you oppose/support the idea of faith based organizations distributing welfare?
Can it ever be a positive move especially since they are closer to the people it will benefit?
Is it possible that religious institutions may do better then the government has?

T.R. Blue Collar,

A great (and big) question to start off with. Here is a small excerpt from my website in my “Future Vision for Three Rivers”, somewhat on target.

“In addition to the blossoming retail sector we need to actively encourage growth of the manufacturing sector, retaining the current businesses and providing an attractive environment for new prospects. Our quality of life is tied not only to the quantity of jobs available locally, but also their quality in terms of wages and benefits.”

I know, I know, sounds like political rhetoric… well taken by itself your right. Behind it though are some nuts and bolts specifics.

First, I have and will continue to support tax breaks for industrial business expansions providing jobs (commonly referred to as an IFT’s). There is a misconception expressed by some that we are losing money each time an IFT is accepted. Quite the contrary we are saying to our industrial businesses, “if you invest in this community we will tax the expanded portion of your facility and equipment at a reduced rate for a short period of time”. A nice incentive for a manufacturer to grow that provides both jobs and increased revenue for the city. This is the primary tool available to the commission to entice and assist industrial businesses. A few major employers in Three Rivers, most notably Dock Foundry and Eaton are in the process of establishing IFT’s that will result in several dozen good jobs.

Second, we have an industrial park at the southern edge of town being actively marketed by the Industrial Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce. The commission needs to support this park and front load relatively inexpensive infrastructure. Competition for new facilities among our neighboring communities is very fierce and we need to maintain our city as the most attractive option.

Third, we as a community provided a huge boost with the new high school and its cutting edge technology. Among the numerous benefits, we supplement the already diverse, highly experienced workforce with technical savvy young adults capable of easily transitioning into semi-skilled manufacturing jobs.

A far less tangible item I feel important to include is the quality of life for everyone. The more we actively strive to make Three Rivers a better place to live, the more services and benefits we can maintain or improve upon. These in turn attract people who attract more business who provide more revenue that enhances the services we can provide that attracts people…you get the idea. It is difficult to maintain the status quo for very long in today’s business world. We are poised to begin either an upward spiral or a downward one.

Ok, to the squeamish, close your eyes here comes that political rhetoric again <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>, “I would consider it a privilege to serve as your representative in guiding Three Rivers through the coming period of growth. Thanks for your support”.

Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith

Ok, now for Buck’s question about President Bush’s “faith based initiatives”.

These really sound great on the surface for the reasons you list and for others as well. My wife being a teacher at our Catholic School and I being active with the Knights of Columbus fund raising for a variety of causes, it may seem strange that I am not out front beating the drum loudly for these Bush initiatives. If you dig a little deeper though, some serious questions arise that lead to some ugly answers. These questions apply to everything from welfare to school voucher initiatives.

What constitutes a faith-based organization? Who is going be empowered to decide where the line is between a legitimate religion and a fly-by-night cult? What do we do when the church of the great gold pineapple or the KKK shows up on Uncle Sam’s doorstep saying we are opening a school for “faith-based education”, where is our funding? <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> It is simply not possible in our legal system to utilize public resources to support only those organizations you find agreeable or acceptable. If public funds are available to one, they must be available to all. I for one am not ready to see that.

While my wife’s school has excellent teachers, a few who happen to not be Catholic, many of these organizations are permitted and do discriminate based on one’s religion. Once governmental funds are involved we are looking at years of litigation and millions going to the lawyers of both sides.

As for your question, “could they do a better job”? Probably, if everyone used the system as it was intended? We all know, however, there will be people who abuse the system or commit outright fraud. Any decentralized system where communities or multiple entities within a community are to dole out goods, services, or funds to the needy would be a gold mine for criminals and unethical persons.

Faith based initiatives would work well in a perfect society, but then a perfect society probably would not need them. For our society full of individuals and imperfect human nature, I just don’t see them curing more problems than they create.

Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith

Daryl,

Thanks for the reply about jobs in Three Rivers. I guess one of my main concerns is that a lot of these jobs don't really pay enough for a family to live on. Take Eaton for instance, I believe there top wage for a production worker is about 8 dollars an hour. If you times that out, for a year it is $16,640. You get my point. There is a need here for those jobs but I am talking about the kind of jobs some one would move here for. The industrial park is a real plus for the city, and competition is fierce for any jobs.

In the early stages of the character programs introduction to the city,I understand that you were for it. Is that true?

T.R. Blue Collar,

At the first commission meeting where it was presented with quite a large contingent of supporters including a few people from neighboring communities the character program did sound like a positive motivational program. But at that time, it was presented such that a group of private citizens from a broad cross section from the community would be the committee running the program. The local government's only involvement was to serve as fiduciary providing basic oversight in doling out the grant funds to this third party organization as needed.

To this day I will fully defend any private citizen or group of citizens who want to present their ideas or ideas they feel have merit regardless of whether I agree with them or not. My opposition to Character First / City of Character is not the program itself but government endorsement of ANY program of this nature regardless of who created it or the religious attachments it may or may not have. A commissioner (or a City Manager) has no special qualifications to determine what is good character for another citizen nor has this authority ever been granted to them. At the time of my campaign last year for the First District Commissioner seat it was not yet clear that the city government would be as involved in administering this program as they have become. I indicated then, I was not against the program but I was apprehensive due to the lack of nuts and bolts details and if there would be protections for those not wishing to participate. As it became more apparent that of all things the city government was going to be heading the program I became more and more opposed.

Out of fairness to the pro-character program people, I wish to say this (also mentioned on my website). I truly believe that everyone I’ve encountered supporting this particular program genuinely wants to improve the city and I commend them deeply for caring enough to do something about their convictions. I sincerely regret though I cannot support them in this endeavor as I feel it is simply not a function of our government.

So, now that you have the brief version <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> please see my website for a little more detail on this issue.

Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith


Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith

Ronda, where are you? It is not like you to remain silent when you have been challenged to a debate. <img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle>

My apologies to all, I have been very busy. I am back now and will be responding to this thread in the near future.

Ronda L. Hicks

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

Ronda,

Talking with you after the meeting last night it appears we “finally” have some things to disagree on.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> Primarily the rights and duties of property owners? I think we agree that sidewalks MUST get completed in this city and it appears that is finally going to happen.

Once sidewalks are completed I believe snow removal needs to be enforced (giving reasonable time of course) as well as prohibiting use of the roadway for pedestrian traffic.

I can trudge though deep snow if I need to but many of our neighbors can not for a variety of reasons (small children, elderly, wheel chairs, etc...). Common decency and respect for others ought to urge everyone to make sure the path in front of their house is clear and safe to travel whether they achieve this themselves or depend on friends, neighbors or even professional services. If “the right thing to do” fails then ordinances must step in and make sure everyone is able to get out and about safely.

Prohibiting walking in the roadway needs to continue to be enforced (where sidewalk is available). I know Buck disagrees with me on this one but his right to walk wherever he wants is tempered by a duty to make a reasonable effort to not endanger others. Walking in the street is not only a hazardous to ones self but to every vehicle encountered. No one plans to stumble or slip just as no one plans to loose control of a vehicle but both happen from time to time and with tragic results if at the wrong moment.

Living in a city has certain benefits and privileges. It also carries with it certain duties and responsibilities that may involve effort, time, or money. Many of these should be just plain common sense and respect for others. I certainly don’t claim to be a perfect but I do the best I can. It is the occasional failure of the honor system that makes laws and ordinances necessary. I’m pretty sure I can guess where Buck stands on this from his postings but I am (and I hope all voters are) curious what you think.

Thanks,
Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith


Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith

Daryl,

I agree we finally have something to disagree on. I also agree we need to finish and repair the sidewalks. I do disagree on passing another bit of legislation mandating citizens to do something because “we” think you should. Here are a few of my concerns:

1. What about the elderly who are on a fixed income and haven’t the physical ability nor the finances to get the job done. And yes I have heard the argument of volunteers and you know as well as I do that is not a long -term solution. Even if you had a volunteer out of a few thousand people if only a small percentage say 100 needed assistance imagine the time and effort it would take to complete that task every time it snowed.

2. What about the single mother with a little one who either has the option of taking the little out in the cold or leaving them alone in the house. Yes one could argue about bad choices but we are a nation full of them so that point is a non-issue.


3. Now think of the time and cost of using staff to become the snow police. Imagine the influx of calls every time it snows. One neighbor doesn’t like the other, the neighbor down the street is sure that the neighbor up the street called on them last week so the minute it snows they will return the favor.


I am for limited government and limited intrusion into our citizen’s lives. How far do we go with this? Should we send the code enforcer out with a ruler to make sure they are shoveled enough? I strongly feel that with the repair and installation of the sidewalks it will create a sense of pride and people, if they are able, will shovel their sidewalks. I think our time and energy should be put forth in more important directions.

Daryl, your statement about “if the right thing to do fails” another law has to be passed is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Every person has their opinion about what the “right” thing to do is. One of the great things about this country is the freedom to chose your “right”.

Respectfully yours,

Ronda L. Hicks
Candidate for Commissioner-at-Large


"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

Ronda,

It is very possible for local governments to over step their need or the authority granted them (i.e. the City of Character program). I for one, however, am very thankful that we have our current ordinances. At our previous home we had a neighbor who apparently did not like the ordinances either. There was a large brush pile perpetually sitting in the back yard. Several defunct appliances sat between the house and garage along with stacks of rubbish (concealed from street view). Though the lawn did not reach a height that moved the city to action it was usually well over ankle deep. It really was no surprise when a woodchuck took up residence and eventually tried to establish a home on my property. After it was taken care of they acquired a few extremely aggressive dogs (and I am a dog lover) that barked and growled non-stop when we were outside. Luckily our children were too young to play outside by themselves for we could not have allowed it. Sitting out on our deck and looking at a trash heap next door was not exactly pleasant either. If this house were next to yours would you say they were exercising their freedom or degrading the neighborhood?

Owning a home carries with it certain responsibilities especially in a city or subdivision. As I indicated in my previous post, there will be a cost involved with these whether it be time, effort or money. One must maintain their home and property. Rubbish, refuse, trash and garbage must be stored appropriately and disposed of. One must respect the rights of ones neighbors. I believe these issues should be a matter of common sense, common decency, and respect for others. I also don't think either one of us is naive enough to believe the contrary is at times the case. That is where the city must be able to step in with ordinances that were developed both fairly and constitutionally (and in accordance with the city charter).

It is the responsibility of a commissioner to protect the rights and freedoms of a citizen when passing laws (ordinances). One, however, also has a duty to protect the rights of that citizen's neighbors. A duty to protect their right to have a safe neighborhood for their family. A duty to address an owner who neglects property to the point it becomes an eyesore dragging down surrounding property values and sinking an area into blight. A duty to protect everyone's right to be able to travel safely on the roads and the sidewalks.

Freedom does not come free. It carries with it a multitude of responsibilities. Owning any home also carries responsibilities and a home in a city yet even more. Many of these can be a burden and occasionally an inconvenience. This does not relieve one from the duty of fulfilling them.

I support (when sidewalks are substantially completed) revamping the snow removal ordinance to ensure it is fair and provides adequate time and then subsequently enforcing it. I support the noxious weed, noise and building ordinances. I support the trash/rubbish ordinance and would like it strengthened to remove a few abused loopholes. If anyone has any questions on these or other city laws please feel free to post. I have one further question for you Ronda, which of these ordinances do you think was "passing another bit of legislation mandating citizens to do something because "we" think you should". Just as the city oversteps it's authority attempting to teach moral characteristics I believe your view swings the pendulum to the other extreme of a government so limited it becomes ineffective at both providing for the needs and protecting the rights of citizens.

Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith

PS: As promised equal chances to go first[:)]. When/if you choose a rebuttal you get to choose the next topic.


Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large
www.beam.to/griffith

Daryl,

I never said I do not agree with certain ordinances especially those that are logical and prevent certain problems such as rodents, insects, and a danger to children.

I do however; have a problem with any local government continually passing laws for everyone instead of addressing "the problems." Just like all the effort put into making sure were wearing our seatbelts when sex offences, robbery, assaults, burglary, motor vehicle theft, forgery, fraud, are double what they were last year. Our officers should be out there addressing these problems and not be forced to "save us from ourselves." I imagine that our officers would rather use their training for something other than being the seatbelt police. Next the government will start dictating our diets, laugh if you want but it has already started all in the guise of we want to "encourage" good eating habits.

As to your question of which ordinances I think is "passing another bit of legislation," I would have to say passing a snow removal ordinance. I believe it would create problems rather than solve them.

As to your neighbor, yes that can be a nuisance and most likely the people will (and did) find another way to annoy you and continually passing legislation will not alleviate that. No amount of legislation will change human nature.

Respectfully,

Ronda L. Hicks
Candidate for Commissioner-at-Large

The next topic ….hmm…….I’ll ponder that [:p] .



"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

While Ronda ponders the next topic, may I suggest one?

I recently addressed the City Commision on this subject but I would be interested to know your thoughts as well.

This regards the civil defense siren utilized by the city as a warning device for approaching storms. A single location with one group of sirens is proving to be ineffective in the fact that wind direction, structures and trees have too much influence on the propagation of the siren sound throughout the city.

You could relocate the siren to a higher point to remove structures and trees as an obstacle, but this will only address the problem of barriers to the sound travel and does nothing to alleviate the affect of wind direction. The city should seriously consider the placement of multiple, omni-directional sirens throughout the city. There are plenty of examples of this type of warning system in neighboring cities.

What are your thoughts on this?


"What's in the Heart Defines the Measure of a Man" - 4Him 1996

I am a little surprised to find that there is no redundancy built into the system now. I was late to the meeting that you brought this up so I didn't hear the response to your concerns until it was brought back up later in the meeting.

May I ask what the initial response to your concern was from the commission?

The discussion you heard was the response. There was no immediate discussion after my address.

There is progress to report. Chief Cross is looking at implementing a procedure within Three Rivers that would involve fire and/or police confirmation of activation. He is also working with central dispatch and county emergency management in an effort to implement a county wide initiative for redundancy.

"What's in the Heart Defines the Measure of a Man" - 4Him 1996