Tom Barrett stands up for women and children against a pipe-wielding lunatic.
Lena Taylor berates a bank teller over cashing a check.
Showing posts with label Mayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor. Show all posts
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Tony, Do You Have Any Ideas And A Way To Pay For Them? Or Just Criticisms?
Mayor Barrett recently gave a speech addressing guns, affordable housing, lead laterals and other developments in the City of Milwaukee. And, of course, Alderman Tony "Backdrop Boy" Zielinksi had to give his usual negative comment. This has kind of become his thing. Any event, any policy, any news - there's Tony with a comment, pointing the finger and blame at anyone but himself, and never offering up anything other than platitudes.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett renews call for more background checks for gun purchases, slams arming teachers
But, just for a second, let's assume the "Backdrop Boy" has a point. First, what is Tony's solution? Second, where is Tony getting the money to fund his earth-shattering policy prescriptions? This is where Tony's pomp and circumstance falls apart. He has no plan. He has no answer to any of this. Primarily because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's easy to just poke the boss and criticize his decisions. But criticism can only be helpful when it's constructive. When a situation has been analyzed and one can offer an explanation for what went wrong and how those problems can be fixed, positive steps forward can be taken. But just trying to knock down someone else's ideas, without any substance or alternative action, is purely grandstanding. This is just Tony trying to draw attention to Tony so some in the City, outside of Bay View, might recognize his name in time for the mayoral election.
Tony has been standing on the street corner, pointing the finger at the Mayor, shouting, "You stink! That's no good! That was wrong!" But he hasn't offered a concrete solution to anything or any explanation of how he would pay for any idea he might have.
Typical "Backdrop Boy" move - exploiting the idea of neighborhood improvement for his own political advancement. Stay classy, Tony.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett renews call for more background checks for gun purchases, slams arming teachers
Barrett also called for building or improving 10,000 housing units over the next 10 years, a plan the Journal Sentinel first reported Sunday.
The mayor also highlighted plans to expand Milwaukee's RiverWalk, touted a partnership with Associated Bank to increase funding for the city's STRONG Homes Loan program, and said he plans to use $2.5 million from the city's new water deal with the City of Waukesha to replace lead laterals in Milwaukee.
"While other communities are not addressing this problem, Milwaukee has been recognized as one of only 21 cities nationwide that has taken steps to address lead service lines," he said...
Barrett's affordable housing plan includes building new developments, including locations in and around downtown.
"I'm especially interested in seeing more affordable housing in the heart of the city," the mayor said. "Growing affordable units in these areas will make it easier for workers to get to nearby jobs."
The downtown development boom has allowed his administration to do more work in the neighborhoods, he said.
Ald. Tony Zielinski, a 2020 mayoral candidate, criticized those comments, accusing Barrett of making Milwaukee' crime problems worse by neglecting the city's neighborhoods.
"I cannot believe the mayor expects us to believe the neighborhoods should take a backseat for 14 years," Zielinski said. "No wonder Milwaukee is one of the worst places to live in the country if you are African-American."So, the Mayor wants to build or rebuild housing units, focusing on affordable housing, expand the RiverWalk and fix lead laterals. From this, the "Backdrop Boy" claims the Mayor is neglecting the City's neighborhoods. Huh? Also, what has the "Backdrop Boy" done for Milwaukee African-Americans?
But, just for a second, let's assume the "Backdrop Boy" has a point. First, what is Tony's solution? Second, where is Tony getting the money to fund his earth-shattering policy prescriptions? This is where Tony's pomp and circumstance falls apart. He has no plan. He has no answer to any of this. Primarily because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's easy to just poke the boss and criticize his decisions. But criticism can only be helpful when it's constructive. When a situation has been analyzed and one can offer an explanation for what went wrong and how those problems can be fixed, positive steps forward can be taken. But just trying to knock down someone else's ideas, without any substance or alternative action, is purely grandstanding. This is just Tony trying to draw attention to Tony so some in the City, outside of Bay View, might recognize his name in time for the mayoral election.
Tony has been standing on the street corner, pointing the finger at the Mayor, shouting, "You stink! That's no good! That was wrong!" But he hasn't offered a concrete solution to anything or any explanation of how he would pay for any idea he might have.
Typical "Backdrop Boy" move - exploiting the idea of neighborhood improvement for his own political advancement. Stay classy, Tony.
Friday, December 1, 2017
Is This Amateur Hour?
Never one to miss the latest cause celebre, Alderman Zielinski calls for city employees to undergo sexual harassment training.
Speaking informatively and passionately about public safety and harassment are worthy, just and necessary endeavors.
Using these topics to gain yourself attention and to score some political points is not mayoral. Every idea you think of and every policy you develop doesn't need to be covered in the local paper or webzine. As an alderman, you should want to do the best for your constituents everyday, no matter who notices. If your body of work is commendable, it speaks for itself.
It's a great idea, as an Alderman, to say " Hey, let's have each department do a refresher on what is expected in the workplace and what anti-harassment policies and procedures are in place."
But, instead, to introduce this directly after announcing a your mayoral intentions, to seemingly bring attention to yourself more so than to the issue, reeks of self-centered opportunism.
For Further Reading:
Streetcars, Safety and Hucksters
Safety, Guns and Opportunists
Streetcar or Safety
Speaking informatively and passionately about public safety and harassment are worthy, just and necessary endeavors.
Using these topics to gain yourself attention and to score some political points is not mayoral. Every idea you think of and every policy you develop doesn't need to be covered in the local paper or webzine. As an alderman, you should want to do the best for your constituents everyday, no matter who notices. If your body of work is commendable, it speaks for itself.
It's a great idea, as an Alderman, to say " Hey, let's have each department do a refresher on what is expected in the workplace and what anti-harassment policies and procedures are in place."
But, instead, to introduce this directly after announcing a your mayoral intentions, to seemingly bring attention to yourself more so than to the issue, reeks of self-centered opportunism.
For Further Reading:
Streetcars, Safety and Hucksters
Safety, Guns and Opportunists
Streetcar or Safety
Thursday, November 30, 2017
Quit Playin' Games
As I surmised back in June, one of "The Backdrop Boys," Tony Zielinski is planning on challenging Tom Barrett for mayor.
For Further Reading:
Streetcars, Safety and Hucksters
Safety, Guns and Opportunists
Streetcar or Safety
For Further Reading:
Streetcars, Safety and Hucksters
Safety, Guns and Opportunists
Streetcar or Safety
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Streetcar Or Safety
Looks like Milwaukee Alderman Tony Zielinkski might be setting himself up as a challenger in a run to be the Mayor of Milwaukee.
Current Mayor Tom Barrett recently announced he might have to eliminate some safety-worker positions (police officers, firefighters,nurses, code inspectors) due to budgetary constraints.
Zielinkski immediately ridiculed the Mayor, saying even mentioning the possibility of cutting positions as "reckless" and "unreasonable".
Zielinkski framed the discussion as being between keeping the positions and building the streetcar. Because those are the only two budgetary choices that can be made - keep safety positions or build a streetcar?
And, just for some context, Wisconsin has spent over a billion dollars on new stadiums for the Brewers, Bucks and Packers in the last decade. Private sport structures whose benefits go to their private owners. But Milwaukee spending $128 million on a streetcar to be used by residents, tourists and businesses is a waste?
Barrett, himself, even stated that cutting those positions is not what he wants. But sometimes, as Mayor, you have to make choices that won't please everyone.
I get that the streetcar is a bit of a lightning rod and certain persons with access to the media love to pile on about what a waste the streetcar is. Although every other major city has some sort of streetcar, light rail or similar. So, it seems more like, as usual, Milwaukee is behind the curve as far as what businesses and workers want in amenities and infrastructure. Local infrastructure is what creates jobs and draws businesses, residents and tourists.
In our current police-state era, funding for defense/police/safety can never be diminished. More officers and more guns, always. In 2013, 59% of the City of Milwaukee budget went to just the police (41%) and fire (18%) departments.
We've been doing this for decades now, it hasn't worked. To keep funding this imaginary, more-cops-is-the-answer paradigm, is simply throwing away money. Why, when it comes to defense or safety, is there no limit on the amount of people needed or the amount of money that should be spent? At the local, state and federal level, America's defense/safety budgets dwarf those of other nations. Yet, we're no safer. What is all this money being spent on? Seems like there is obviously a lot of efficiency that can be made.
The Police Association's President Michael Crivello stated, "We're going to do everything to keep this community safe, but we won't be as effective as we otherwise would be should we be properly staffed." How is this quantified? What does "properly staffed" mean? What metrics is the Association using to determine safety, effectiveness, staffing, etc.?
Maybe we do need to keep the positions. But using fear and emotion to guide a decision is definitely not how policy should be made.
We should start by making a more scientific basis for these discussions and decisions. Platitudes and bumper-sticker slogans sound great, but they typically don't have the nuance and depth required for good public policy.
We could remove some exemptions, raise the local sales tax, add fees for certain services, collect more taxes, provide less incentives to private developers and businesses, and on and on. There are numerous ways fund the many services we all count on from our local government.
The saddest thing is that this is being pitted as a streetcar versus safety debate. It shouldn't be. These are not the only choices.
Current Mayor Tom Barrett recently announced he might have to eliminate some safety-worker positions (police officers, firefighters,nurses, code inspectors) due to budgetary constraints.
Zielinkski immediately ridiculed the Mayor, saying even mentioning the possibility of cutting positions as "reckless" and "unreasonable".
Zielinkski framed the discussion as being between keeping the positions and building the streetcar. Because those are the only two budgetary choices that can be made - keep safety positions or build a streetcar?
And, just for some context, Wisconsin has spent over a billion dollars on new stadiums for the Brewers, Bucks and Packers in the last decade. Private sport structures whose benefits go to their private owners. But Milwaukee spending $128 million on a streetcar to be used by residents, tourists and businesses is a waste?
Barrett, himself, even stated that cutting those positions is not what he wants. But sometimes, as Mayor, you have to make choices that won't please everyone.
I get that the streetcar is a bit of a lightning rod and certain persons with access to the media love to pile on about what a waste the streetcar is. Although every other major city has some sort of streetcar, light rail or similar. So, it seems more like, as usual, Milwaukee is behind the curve as far as what businesses and workers want in amenities and infrastructure. Local infrastructure is what creates jobs and draws businesses, residents and tourists.
In our current police-state era, funding for defense/police/safety can never be diminished. More officers and more guns, always. In 2013, 59% of the City of Milwaukee budget went to just the police (41%) and fire (18%) departments.
We've been doing this for decades now, it hasn't worked. To keep funding this imaginary, more-cops-is-the-answer paradigm, is simply throwing away money. Why, when it comes to defense or safety, is there no limit on the amount of people needed or the amount of money that should be spent? At the local, state and federal level, America's defense/safety budgets dwarf those of other nations. Yet, we're no safer. What is all this money being spent on? Seems like there is obviously a lot of efficiency that can be made.
The Police Association's President Michael Crivello stated, "We're going to do everything to keep this community safe, but we won't be as effective as we otherwise would be should we be properly staffed." How is this quantified? What does "properly staffed" mean? What metrics is the Association using to determine safety, effectiveness, staffing, etc.?
Maybe we do need to keep the positions. But using fear and emotion to guide a decision is definitely not how policy should be made.
We should start by making a more scientific basis for these discussions and decisions. Platitudes and bumper-sticker slogans sound great, but they typically don't have the nuance and depth required for good public policy.
We could remove some exemptions, raise the local sales tax, add fees for certain services, collect more taxes, provide less incentives to private developers and businesses, and on and on. There are numerous ways fund the many services we all count on from our local government.
The saddest thing is that this is being pitted as a streetcar versus safety debate. It shouldn't be. These are not the only choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)