The “Vision” Thing
“Where there is no vision, the people perish”
- Proverbs 29:18.
“Pay attention to what you’re doing dumb a**!”
- My Grandfather.
I cite those two quotes, one obviously more famous than the other, to address the criticism about Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and his “vision” or lack thereof, his critics say, for the city.
Critics argue the Mayor lacks a vision for the city and isn’t telling the public where he wants to go. Ballard has always said his goal for Indianapolis is a “safe, livable city that is internationally recognized”, but apparently that isn’t enough.
I think part of the problem here is that we can’t agree on what “vision” actually means. I think for some, “vision” means some new building somewhere that will eventually cost the taxpayers some ungodly amount of money to operate and there is no funding mechanism to cover its operating expenses which are about to skyrocket (*cough* Lucas Oil Stadium *cough*).
I am perfectly content with “safe and livable ” as a vision for now. And apparently so are a lot of other people. A recent Democratic survey showed the Mayor with an approval rating well above 65 percent. And even when another poll was taken in the individual townships, it showed Ballard’s negatives were normal for any elected official and there wasn’t going to be a massive uprising of torches and pitchforks anytime soon. That tells me, at least for now, the people want a city that doesn’t tax you death, keeps crime under control and has good schools and good jobs. Oh, and they have no reason to toss out the current leadership.
Ballard has already taken steps in the financial area by balancing the budget (garnering nearly $50 million in taxpayer savings in 2008) and actually cutting the COIT. While crime is a concern for all of us, the fact it stayed relatively stable during one of the worst economic climates since the depression means somebody is doing something right. The Mayor has no control over schools, but he is working on a citywide mentoring/tutoring initiative. And Indianapolis’ unemployment rate is about 6 %, while Indiana’s as a whole is more than 7%. Not bad for this climate.
Now this not to say the Administration hasn’t had a misstep or two or three, but like anyone in their freshman year, there’s a learning curve involved and they can expect a lot more scrutiny and higher expectations in their sophomore, junior and senior years, as well they should. And they should be prepared to step up their game accordingly.
Should the Mayor have long-term goals? Yes. Should city planners be looking 5, 10, 15, 20, 50 years down the road? Yes. That’s what you’re supposed to do when you run a city. But you cannot dismiss “safe and livable” as a vision. Because if you don’t have a city that is safe and livable, the only thing vision you’ll have is of the the mass exodus of people leaving your community to go live somewhere that is.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Perfect. Thank you.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Maybe the mayor should change the wording of his vision from simply vision to “Vision STATEMENT” and maybe more people will understand it. Or Not.
.
Regarding Lucas Oil Stadium. I hope Ballard doesn’t get blamed for this one. L.O.S. is the most heavily taxed stadium in the US but long before it went up the CIB knew there was problem funding the operating expenses. I believe by their figures we have until next year to find a way to fund it. Word is Indy will go to the state for a bailout.
.
This is the equivalent of me going to the State Fair last year and nearly buying a boat on the spot without a well thought-out means to pay for the maintenance, storage, etc (true story) At least unlike the CIB, I walked away from the deal once I thought about those expenses.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I am grateful for a vision which looks at the quality of each day in the life of the people knowing the futurist visions can evolve naturally once the quality of life is good.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Excellent observations
January 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
What flavor of Kool-Aid(tm) do you prefer, Shabazz? Its obvious that lacking Scotch, it appears to be your favorite beverage, regarding Ballard.
Ballard’s “vision” is whatever B & T in the form of Grand and Loftus tell him it is. Again, so much for the populist Mayoral candidate who soon upon being elected was found to have a hole in his back for his puppet-masters. You can TRY and justify that, or denigrate me or any other Ballard detractors like you seem to enjoy doing, but..if he keeps on this course of ‘politics/business as usual’, you can mention the $1 million Ballard allegedly has in his war chest as much as you want, and in 2011 it will not matter. As I recall, Bart Peterson had almost 3X as much and look where it got him? I’m confident the people of Marion County will eventually get it right, without getting burned, as they did with this one.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Bemused,
You are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else who posts here. Thanks for playing.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Ironincally enough, all the above posts are correct. Daw-g and Jane have particularly cogent thoughts.
I didn’t vote for GB, and won’t again, unless my party nominates some rascal, which, given current affairs, is possible.
But I have to hand it to Ballard. The one thing he did is undo something Peterson should never have allowed: IMPD. Now, when there’s a law enforcement problem, the buck stops on Floor 25.
I’m less impressed with the Council, but to be fair, we didn’t do a good job of running it, either. Cochran is am amiable fool, and I’ll hand it to them for one thing: discipline.
According to today’s Star “Behind Closed Doors” the council members who wandered off the reservation were booted from plum committees. Acolytes were rewarded.
Even when the reasons are not those with which I agree, party discipline is a beautiful thing. It makes the message stronger.
Still, there are only a handful of council members who can walk and chew gum. On either side of the aisle.
But I can hope, can’t I?
Message-vision are good. But the trains need to run on time. Ballard gets a C-plus for that. On message alone, the GOP gets an A-plus. Dems could take a page from their book.
The rest of the grade is incomplete: good crime stats, budget answers in a tough economy.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
TA, it is always nice to see that you admit that no matter what the qualifications or quality of candidate, you are always willing to vote for the party line. You and Bemused are what is wrong with this city.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Bemused comment point to exactly why the Mayor needs to get his act together. The voters did not vote for Bob Grand or Joe Loftus. They voted for Mayor Ballard, a fresh face in politics. The best thing Ballard can do to ensure his re-election, is the next time, Grand and Loftus leave the 25th Floor, have the locks changed.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Well, TA, that “beautiful” party discipline thing doesn’t work too well you have a 40% baseline vote in the county. Expecting 100% support on every issue is a foolish proposition. It’s funny that you complain about councilors not being smart as to issues, then in the next breath you don’t want them exercising independent judgment.
If Republicans can’t win issues on the merits, but have to rely on threats and intimidation, then perhaps we might want to rethink our positions.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Hey Statler, I’m a Republican who can look at his own party and office holders objectively, and I see Ballard as so far being nothing but a typical politician when he ran as an Everyman. I dont take kindly to liars.
Perhaps you should take the same objective tact instead of this ‘My Party/Mayor right or wrong’. Then again your puppet handle puts you in the same class as Ballard, so I shouldnt be suprised at your ability to throw out assertations that are meaningless.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Statler, when the Republicans put up a mayoral candidate worthyof my vote, I’ll consider it. Party line? Perhaps…you can judge that all you want.
But they haven’t put up a decent candidate since Hudnut in his first term.
Not that my party has done a lot better, always…but Bart Peterson was a good mayor. The bloggers here don’t agree with me, and that’s OK, but he was a good mayor.
I’m hardly “what’s wrong” with the city. And stern party discipline is good for the city–from both sides of the aisle. Without it, you get Monroe Grays, Jim Bradfords and similar silliness.
What we need is a council and mayor who understand that this city is at a crossroads on multiple fronts. So far, Ballard is not the guy. But he is remarkably open to change and party discipline at the same time.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:57 am
I get the feeling that a bunch of lawyers in this city have regrets for not supporting Mayor Ballard but supported Peterson for reelection and the attorneys at B & T took a chance and won. I don’t recall this much questioning of Peterson’s association with the law firms of Ice Miller, remember Lacy Johnson, and Baker Daniels, former republican county chair John Keeler. No attacks against Peterson’s reelection in 2003 because B & D had contracts with the city. Remember, the Republican Party gave nominal support to their mayoral candidate Greg Jordan.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:29 am
It’s my opinion that the “Vision” thingy is more a matter of perception over just about anything else. Either a politician is perceived to have a “Vision”, or a politician isn’t perceived as having one. Currently, the Mayor is on the short end on being perceived as having a “Vision” for the City. Not even a “Dream”. Just some random, idle thoughts.
It’s the same for the perception that a politician has handed the reins over to someone else. Facts don’t matter, especially since most of us never are let in on enough of them. But, if a politician appears to have given someone (or someones) an unfair entry into the inner sanctum of policy, then whether it is true or not really matters very little.
Frankly, it appears that the Mayor has allowed B-T partners/associates way too much entry into the non-elected workings of Indianapolis government. That perception will likely prove costly to the Republicans, as a party. It won’t prove costly to those persons involved, so I imagine that they could care two figs, one way or the other. They still have their “day” jobs, after all.