A2 Dems - The New Boss Tweed?
Urban Oasis calls for a revolt against the entrenched Democratic A2 establishment, comparing it to 19th-century machine politics. “The Democrats of Ann Arbor are not serving the interests of a large portion of the city — perhaps even the majority of Ann Arbor’s citizens. It’s time for a change.” Or at least our very own Thomas Nast who can draw hilarious caricatures of them.
The corollary would be that the Democrats of Ann Arbor are not serving against the interests of the majority of Ann Arbor’s citizens, and therefore, were not thrown out of office. It’s like being a passenger on a cruise ship. Nobody really cares who the captain is as long as they get to their destination. By the time something happens where one would care, it’s generally too late make another choice and you have to live with what you got.
posted by JCP2 on November 11th, 2005 at 10:03 amMy choice was to vote for Bob Johnson (1st Ward) or write in someting ironic like ‘ennui,’ which would have been momentarily funny, but ultimately pointless (though only slightly less pointless than voting FOR an uncontested candidate).
The legitimacy of the system must be questioned when there is no choice available. If two of the city’s five wards can’t field legitimate alternatives, isn’t something in the system broken? If the national political division doesn’t represent the divide in local politics, there ought to be another way (besides the Democratic/Republican divide) to allow for some alternatives to enter into the system.
I think the city would be better served by having non-partisan council elections. Of course, there’s a lot of entrenched power that prefers the status quo, so don’t expect anything like this to happen anytime soon.
posted by anon on November 11th, 2005 at 10:54 amI also like the idea of non-partisan elections, and the talk of IRV on that other Ann Arbor site was very interesting. But, you’re right in not expecting a change soon…
Don’t blame me, I voted for Malaise.
posted by FAA on November 11th, 2005 at 12:11 pmI guess we’ll get to see what the new council thinks about the resurrected porch couch ban. This would be funny if it weren’t such a bald intrusion into matters that have nothing to do with public safety.
posted by Dale on November 12th, 2005 at 10:26 pmI think we just need a revolt in this town, period. It’s getting boring. My dad had to get surgery after being punched in the nose during a protest in the 60s where someone mistook him for being pro-UM Administration - where’s that excitment anymore? I want to fear for my well-being.
Take to the streets, people. Make that couch ban worth it.
posted by Jen on November 14th, 2005 at 1:55 pmWell, I suppose taking to the streets is one possibility.
However, more lasting results might be achieved by running for City Council in the August, 2006 primaries. It takes a really small number of signatures (100 or so) on a nominating petition, and you’re on the ballot. You have to pick a party, but you can pick any party.
I expect lots of primaries for Mayor and Council next August.
posted by Dave Cahill on November 14th, 2005 at 4:00 pmis there evidence to back up the suggestion that porch couches are dangerous?
alternatively, that porch couches are unrelated to public safety?
i must say that even when i was a student i was amazed at the petty bullshit students deign to give a shit about; today’s students seem even denser blockheads. if i were a diabolical town or gown administration, i would resurrect something like a couch ban or a student code of conduct every couple years to distract students attention and keep them from noticing what is really going on (which i never got anyway, but that admission would wreck my little story so please move along).
posted by peter honeyman on November 15th, 2005 at 12:12 amPeter:
First question: no. At least, not in this town. Do you remember the last time a couch burned maliciously? I know some council member had the idiocy to suggest that couches might’ve been the cause of a student house burning down, even though everyone was asleep at the time and - yeah, no. Idiot.
Second question: probably yes. One could claim that couches outside lead to larger parties that fall out onto the street, but that’s reeeeally stretching it.
posted by Anonymous on November 15th, 2005 at 12:44 pmYeah, the Republicans don’t pander behind silly issues that have nothing to do with legitmate areas of legislative interest! They certainly didn’t do so in 2004, right? That porch-couch ban is way worse than any laws banning equal citizenship! Power to the students-residing-in-houses-with-porches-who-want couches-on-said-porches!
posted by Father Figure on November 15th, 2005 at 3:46 pmWow, two illiterate posts in a row! Nice going folks!
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on November 15th, 2005 at 4:12 pmOk, so porches are out but can I put a nice divan or chaise lounge on my porch?
posted by Dave on November 15th, 2005 at 7:15 pmhow many fires does the city encounter annually?
how many start in porch couches?
how many start in indoor couches?
how many start on porches without couches?
posted by peter honeyman on November 15th, 2005 at 8:58 pmWhy’d you have to bring up the divan? Now they’ll ban that too… It was my backup plan in case the papasan was counted as couch-like and illegal.
posted by FAA on November 15th, 2005 at 9:08 pmI think the facts would probably indicate that porch couches actually act as fire repellent, as well as tiger repellent.
posted by Real Big on November 16th, 2005 at 10:05 amBoth sides of the porch-couch ban look stupid. While there seems to be very little evidence that couches on porches cause problems, there is very little evidence that a prohibition thereof would cause problems. This is a pointless issue that illustrates why students shouldn’t be on city council. All they’ll do is whine about tangential issues like this.
posted by Father Figure on November 16th, 2005 at 2:23 pmA prohibition would cause problems for people who like to sit on couches on their porches. In theory anyway, we’re supposed to have a free society and be able to do things that don’t threaten the lives or property of others without the police intervening. If people want to put couches on their porches, it’s nobody’s business but the landlords and the people they rent to (or the owners, for any couch-sitting homeowners — you go, guys/girls).
Maybe to make the situation more palatable to the “we don’t like something == ban it” crowd, couchers can sign waivers if their furniture was imported from an impoverished Third World villages. No real Ann Arborite could ban couches from impoverished Third World villages.
posted by Dave on November 16th, 2005 at 2:48 pmHow about promoting porch couches as “recycling”? The alternative would be to put them in a landfill or incinerator, neither of which are very environmentally correct.
posted by JCP2 on November 16th, 2005 at 4:01 pmIf we’re so dominated by a Democratic political machine, how come the Ann Arbor News endorsed W.????? Can we talk about that?
posted by Buzz on November 17th, 2005 at 10:54 amSure. AA is overwhelmingly Democratic. However, the AA News is a Republican paper. Its editor doesn’t even live in Washtenaw County.
posted by Dave Cahill on November 17th, 2005 at 11:10 amthe publisher lives in Jackson and is a noted republican.
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 17th, 2005 at 11:11 am