Oftentimes politics is about what you don’t say to citizens over that which you do; the whole truth that, if also presented, might not deliver the results they want (nor the votes they need). It is no less the case here in Whitehall from our Mayor, Kim Maggard, than it is anywhere else. However, being that this is our home, and these are our elected leaders, it is here that my examples are mined.

Case in point: The Commons at Royal Landing ‘CaRL’/Norton Crossing

What was said/presented: The complex was presented as trouble due to, in part, a stove toppling on a child resulting in his death blamed on heating issues and, a shooting which resulted in a young man’s death.

http://www.dispatch.com/article/20140304/NEWS/303049923

http://stagenc.build.dispatch.com/news/20170724/jury-acquits-man-of-murder-in-death-of-friend-in-whitehall-shootout

The ultimate culpability for the child’s death, I couldn’t find on the internet. In the case of the shooting it seems no one was ever convicted of the death itself.

What wasn’t said/presented: Prior to the shooting, in the same year, there had been a triple homicide (three times the rate at CaRL!) at the Shaker Square apartments and yet, you never heard the complex characterized by city officials as a source of problems like they had the CaRL.

Reason: They had no designs on the Shaker Square apartments as a parcel to develop and so, it had no impact on the city like their plans for a development on a key corner of the city’s entryway.

What was said/presented:                                                                                                                         “The area has been a constant source of issues” -Mayor Maggard as quoted in The Whitehall News                                                                                                                                            With 360 calls in the last 6 months “That’s about two times a day. That’s ridiculous.”            – Former Whitehall Community Affairs Coordinator Gail Martineau as quoted in The Whitehall News                                                                                                                                           “Our police department calls it a “super user” and it has been identified and just not a safe environment.” – Former Whitehall Community Affairs Coordinator as quoted on 10tv.com

What wasn’t said/presented:

Reason: Money and plans. As you can see by this chart, according to city officials litmus test of how many police service calls indicate a “super use” that’s “ridiculous”, Walmart certainly bests the CaRL as a bigger user of our police force, as evidenced by the department’s own records, but yet, no city officials have degraded it in the press. I suspect this is because of the city’s tax income received (sales tax, income tax, etc.) from Walmart’s presence in Whitehall and because their parcel of land is not in any city crosshairs for development. (Lesson learned? As long as there are sufficient funds filling the city’s coffers, their stated moral outrage is apparently hypocritically quelled and set aside). If only the CaRL then had provided Whitehall with more tax income for the city (and hadn’t been on a piece of property the city considered a “critical city entry point” to development) then they might’ve gotten a pass from city officials criticism, like Walmart seemingly has.

What was said/presented:                                                                                                                     “It’s an eyesore.” – at-Large Councilman Wes Kantor, as quoted in the Whitehall News        “What is there today is not attractive.” -Whitehall’s Director of Economic Development and Public Service Zach Woodruff as quoted in the Whitehall News                                         Demolition of the “ugly buildings” will be her “biggest step” yet in her continuing effort to combat blight in the city… Mayor Maggard, as quoted in the Whitehall News

What wasn’t said/presented: All these characterizations by Whitehall public officials are merely opinion (for they are not learned critics of architectural aesthetics) but, because they said them, they carry a heavier weight of truism to the public, for maximum benefit to their ultimate goal. The complex was never officially characterized as ‘blighted’ by any competent entity and while there were problems due to varied sources and situations, most of them could’ve been properly dealt with and were by no means as they characterized them. Or, as one resident said it, as quoted on 10tv.com, “If anything, if they really wanted to make it better, maybe get some security out here or something. I don’t think they need to tear it down.” What Malik Carter didn’t realize was that, no, they didn’t need to tear it down, but they definitely wanted to. Greater things for that spot were in Whitehall’s hopper and certainly an old apartment complex or the poorer of Whitehall’s citizens weren’t going to stand in their way.

Reason: They wanted the CaRL to fail because it would be an opportunity for them to get some land and proceed with development plans. See: the very next quote…

What was said/presented:                                                                                                                          “It will provide the city with a great opportunity for other purposes.” -at-Large Councilman Wes Kantor as quoted in the Whitehall News                                                                “I’m excited. It should be a boon for the area and spur more development.” – Barbara Blake, Planning Commission member appointed by Mayor Maggard                                             The city considers the area a “critical city entry point.” – bizjournals.com 11/29/16               (As they have now for several years…)

https://votedixon.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-two-the-pirates-of-whitehall/

What wasn’t said/presented: The degradation of CaRL was Whitehall’s “boon”. They have unsuccessfully been trying to develop this entryway now for years, as you can see/read for yourself in the above blogpost. Unfortunately, most of it’s land space is owned by others, in particular land size large enough to accommodate a glorious development project. It is clear they have been wanting to shape this area now for years but, instead of abusing the city’s power by simply trying to take people’s property through abuse of processes available to them, this time, they simply exploited a sad and unfortunate organic situation for their own gain. As opposed to their behavior with regard to the Woodcliff condominiums, there is ultimately nothing more wrong here (surface-wise) than the manipulation of information to the public for their ultimate gain.

There is more to be said regarding their agendas and her ‘visions’. For now this suffices to extend truth to the citizens past what the city parses out for their benefit.