But what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Matthew 16:26

At the council meeting on Tuesday, August 21st, during the ‘Officials Reports’, City Attorney Michael Bivens spoke about the Woodcliff situation. He opined about his coming into an already drawn out situation after he took office from his predecessor Michael Shannon, who brought him up to speed. He also took time to praise the Mayor and Council and read from Judge Hawkin’s order. Here then are his comments on Woodcliffe in their entirety.

In his speech, I noted how he spoke of the judge’s assessment that Woodcliffe was not an eminent domain action but a nuisance abatement case.

During Council President Jim Graham’s reading of the various draft legislation I took notice of this piece regarding Woodcliffe:

In the piece of ordinance referring to the $9,000,000 of taxpayer money going to buy the property, it mentions ‘support of economic development and job creation’. This caught my eye, in particular after the City Attorney’s speech mentioning nuisance abatement. As such then, I spoke a second time that evening, that which was never my original intent.

Without aid of my usual notes, I spoke off the cuff. Nuisance Abatement, nuisance abatement, nuisance abatement, and yet…

At Council’s end three councilperson’s chose to praise, variously, Mr. Bivens/the administration, etc. as well as two of them wanted to remind listeners that there are ‘rumors’ out there, as opposed to ‘facts’, which I assumed was in reference to Woodcliff. (It has been edited by me to show only that which I’ve mentioned in this paragraph). Here is that piece of video:

Following this, Council President Jim Graham decided to take a crack at opining about the Woodcliff situation, ostensibly for my benefit, after my second ‘poll public’. Here is the verbatim transcript of what he said: “I do wanna say one thing regarding Woodcliffe. You know, when we started out it was about nuisance abatement, there was nothing in what we did originally that had anything to do with economic development but, over a period of time one thing can lead to another…and, that’s not saying it will be economically developed but, you know, that certainly was not an intention and, you know, sometimes there’re by-products of things that you do. And so, having said that I just wanted to comment cause I know you would like some little explanation, and being one of the people who was here originally, that is, what I just said, it started off trying to take care of some problems that were, people living over there were having, that we were having, that the police were having, the health department was having and that was, we couldn’t do it on our own so we had to take…ask for the help of the courts.”

There is important stuff in what he stammered out, so, here is the video of his comments where I have zeroed in on the City Attorney’s reactions as he spoke. I included a minute or so of Mr. Graham’s comments before his Woodcliff commentary so you could see the difference in the city attorney wrapping things up and his alertness and interest in Mr. Graham’s comments once he starts talking about Woodcliff. Listen to what Mr. Graham says while watching Mr. Bivens:

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

While anyone with a modicum of sense would applaud and feel righteous about one’s city taking on, not just blight but, ‘slum’ conditions where owners/landlords are failing to keep their properties up to livable standards where their tenants live and pay rent, I also believe there is more to the story than what Whitehall city leaders present (that which I’ve outlined previously here on this blog).

When there is question in regard to other motives behind actions (development) and some players ethical reputations have been called into question, it taints the entire process and rightly makes suspicious their actions and motives. Such is the case here and why, as I have touted all these years, elected officials with strong ethical principles and keeping sacrosanct the public trust are vital to the dealings one undertakes in executing the citizen’s business. Without respecting and adhering to the principles of the public trust, they themselves engender this rightful suspicion. Got it? THEY THEMSELVES.

I believe some do it because they believe they can due to a notion some have that either, a) citizens aren’t paying attention (which they generally aren’t) and therefore unacquainted with the complexity of their actions or b) citizens aren’t bright enough to know what the truth is. Citizens in the dark is good for those at City Hall. Citizens being apprised of goings on at City Hall, ala this blog, is good for citizens. When a group is infuriated by information being shared, you know something is wrong. (See photo below)

Council President Jim Graham standing over me, a citizen, berating me for calling him out for not respecting the public trust in adhering to conflicts of interest.

So it is then that I have issues with what our government is doing to abuse the processes we have entrusted them with. It’s my belief, given all that I’ve seen and witnessed first hand, that what they say, what they present to you as the ‘City of Whitehall’, is not the whole story. This counter-argument is being presented then as a look at that other viewpoint which doesn’t behoove the nicely wrapped package they’re all trying to smooth into your hands and hearts. That ultimately disrespectful package which, I’ve long-maintained, contain razor-wire and shards of glass. So then…

Counter-argument #1: The trustworthiness of elected officials as messengers.

City Attorney Bivens, Mayor Maggard, Whitehall Council, among so many, have touted this Woodcliff deal for sometime now. They are its cheerleaders, always touting what I feel is really the subterfuge; fighting blight in this land-locked town. I feel certain that Mr. Bivens and others at City Hall and across Whitehall truly feel that awful living conditions are deplorable and that it is a city’s duty, when certain conditions are not being met, to step in and take action, absolutely. However, I maintain, given the time, energy, massive cost to taxpayer dollars, alternate plans for the sight commissioned by Whitehall itself and certain leaders intensive focus on redevelopment and arms-length relationship with ethical principles, that what they’re saying and what is being done otherwise can be two different things. That the things they sometimes tout can be influenced by other considerations. Take, for instance, the cheerleading.

In Mr. Biven’s speech the Mayor and Council are heralded for their ‘courage and foresight” in continuing the litigation for as long as they did. They are angels of justice for the poor and downtrodden ‘residents’ in Whitehall in how they were “forced to live”. Their actions, and they themselves, are exalted in a public realm, giving them a golden burnishing for what will ultimately be, public admiration.

While I believe Mr. Bivens to be as decent and honest and trustworthy a man as there is, given this piece of campaign literature to the left, one then has to question Mr. Biven’s motives for this public heralding of elected leaders. Being that Mr. Bivens is, per this piece of campaign literature, a part of ‘Team Maggard’, it engenders distrust over whether we can we honestly believe in the truth of Mr. Biven’s statements when he praises the ‘team leader’ or other ‘team members’ and/or their initiatives? As well, given that there are several at City Hall that could really use a third term boost through this November’s ballot initiative, who’s to say that this public burnishing isn’t politically designed to carry that ball over the line for the team, or any of them in City Hall who mutually-congratulate themselves at every opportunity? Mr. Bivens may be playing politics participating in this sort of literature but in doing so he’s also hollowing out the public trust in himself. So, given this, I simply can’t know if his statements are earnest or have underlying political motives and as such, even were he to emphatically deny my points, I simply can’t, whole cloth, believe him.

Side note: Keeping my admiration for and with all due respect to Mr. Bivens though, I must say, this is why this piece was so odious in the first place. All of these people gave up the independence of their voices in government for the citizens and their credibility in public service when they wed their allegiance, not to citizens or Whitehall itself but, instead, to this political ‘team’. ‘Team’ first? As such they can never be fully trusted. The corrosive effect these kind of acts engender is mistrust, that which then leaves it up to the citizens, like me and you, to play devil’s advocate in gathering information, witnessing behavior, etc., in order to do what’s truly right for the citizens and therefore, our community. Like the Woodcliff situation.

Counter-argument #2: What are we to believe when one thing is said but another appears to contradict the narrative sold.

Whereas on one hand, everyone is on board with their sympathies and concerns for living conditions for what amount to poor or lower middle class citizens, the plans, as presented in various forms, ironically seem to exclude those very strata of social statuses who are the victims of these ‘nuisance abatements’ and this ‘blight’.

http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/whitehall/news/2016/12/05/norton-crossing-a-breath-of-fresh-air.html

So, while this ‘fighting blight’ and ‘abating nuisances’ are made to appear to be in concern for, and the benefit of, the poor and lower middle class, it actually seems to, post sale (or in anticipation of either eminent domain or nuisance abatement success), benefit upscale development. So, is it against blight for the benefit of the poor or is it the city taking advantage of this ‘blight-opportunity’: fighting blight for upscale development? Until they replace what is bought out with something of equal value to the citizens of our society, you’ll never convince me that its anything other than manipulation of situations for their ‘land-locked’, ‘economic-development’ gain and a disrespect to Whitehall’s historical, regular working-class base. They aren’t helping others, they’re helping themselves!

Counter-argument #3: The magnitude of the city’s fight when measured against the threat of ‘blight’.

What exactly is the price to ‘fight blight’? What measures, what expenses can/will/should be leveled at blight to ‘tackle it’? Is it for a moral standard, as City Attorney Bivens spoke of it?

“No person should live the way that a lot of the people that live in the Woodcliff condominiums have been forced to live.”

If so, how far is a city willing to go and how much would it spend against a purported immorality against the citizens/human beings in their community? Is it the stain such an area leaves on a community that makes it so worthy of such an arduous, lengthy and tremendous fight? Our reputation, our image in our own community or the surrounding communities? Are these, or other reasons given or considered, worthy of an 11 year battle and a nearly $12,000,000 investment* of the citizen’s money, mostly put on credit to pay on for years to come?** Is $12,000,000 a lot to ask of a poorer than average city? Is ‘fighting blight’ worth that big of a chunk of change or is our working class community being peddled and sold down the river to designing firms with tons of money for their benefit ? It ultimately seems like a greater effort for the cause than it is ‘worth’ and that to put so much time, energy and money into that cause seems imbalanced, unless there was something which would make it worth all of that. Right? Otherwise it seems crazy to spend all that because of ‘blight’ and ‘nuisance abatement’.

Alternately, what if it were for ultimate development plans that brought in more tax dollars which then benefitted the city? Would adoption of that scenario’s benefit outweigh our own immorality and hypocrisy: screwing over people while purportedly fighting against people being screwed over? When is forfeiting our individual and collective morality acceptable in the pursuit of monetary gain? In today’s society it seems, more often than not. Screwing over good and decent people because others wouldn’t or didn’t take care of their property? How is fighting blight justification for what they’re doing? Since when is a purportedly moral stance used in bringing about an immoral action, particularly given the citizen’s financing of this venture, in our names? Why must all the properties go because of the lacks ownership of some? Why are conditions which exist at Woodcliff due to its age and which are no doubt the same in other older parcels in the city a problem there, but not elsewhere (or is this just the beginning for city leader’s ‘visions’ for private property in Whitehall?)? If you’re fighting blight, why bulldoze the entirety of the parcel because of some that were problems? It would be like pulling all your teeth out because some were irretrievably rotten.

In essence, while they will more than capitalize on Judge Hawkins order to justify and point to for legitimacy in their actions and as a further selling point to the public, there are nevertheless discrepancies in what has been sold to the public and what lies underneath. These discrepancies and the inherent questions they beg which are not part of that package the city is busy selling.

Counter-argument #4: What are we to believe when the city says one thing but does another?  

In these blogposts:

WOODCLIFF v WHITEHALL (PART TWO) THE PIRATES OF WHITEHALL

WOODCLIFF V WHITEHALL: THE CITY OF WHITEHALL’S EXTREMELY PREMATURE PLANS FOR LAND THEY DIDN’T OWN.

I showed plans that were drawn up were the Woodcliff area ever to come up for re-development, commissioned by the city (in hindsight, rather premature), only a year or so after their battle to ‘abate nuisances’ began with Woodcliff. So, when City Attorney Bivens affirms Judge Hawkins assessment of Woodcliff being about nuisance abatement and yet, Whitehall already seemed to be stoked about re-development designs enough to shop them for the area, it makes it reeaaally hard to believe this nuisance abatement narrative as the true reason for their actions and our money being spent, wouldn’t you say? Add to that the current (2018) ordinance to pay out the $9,000,000 for the acquisition of the property (072-2018) states, as its reason for existing, that it is ‘in support of economic development and job creation’ instead of bending it to the narrative it was sold to us as: ‘fighting blight’ or ‘fighting for the health and welfare of residents’ or something which fits that 11-year struggle’s purported motivations.

You see? One and one don’t make two here. Suspicions exist for a reason. When facts surface that produce counter-narratives which are then coupled with other considerations like character assessments, historical lack of trustworthiness, etc., they then create a more vivid (and telling) picture than the soft-focus one being polished for  citizens simple consumption by some who may have hidden motives and/or vested, self-interests, political or otherwise.

Counter-argument #5: Rumor versus facts”

Two different councilpersons in this meeting referenced ‘rumors and facts’: Larry Morrison and Lori Elmore. Thinking then of what ‘rumors’ are out there regarding Woodcliff and considering what venues and forums Woodcliff and its dealings would be/or have been discussed, my own blog is what I couldn’t help but return to as the probable source of their characterization of ‘rumors’ (after all, I’ve written 12 posts on Woodcliff alone. Side note: Ask yourself, could I really write that much on one topic if there weren’t plenty of grist for the mill?). So too, Mr. Morrison once said to me outside the Council committee room that my blog was nothing but ‘opinion’ (regardless of the many facts cited). As such, I couldn’t help but think it was this blog that they might’ve considered as a source of rumor regarding Woodcliff. That led me then to question whether what I have written has been ‘rumor’ ( I knew it had not) and so, I couldn’t then help but wonder about ‘facts and rumors’.

Here is what I concluded: A rumor would be to spread information out of innuendo, gossip or ill-will with no basis in truth, in other words; out of thin air. What I have presented in these posts is not rumor but rather, conclusions. Conclusions arrived at based on evidence presented using my own senses as witness. My claims are not baseless, they are based on a host of occurrences, incidences, witnessing, patterns, interviews, testimonials, discussions and facts which are then gathered and, with informed intelligence, presented using sense, reason and logic. So it is then, using fully the brain God put in my skull, that I find both the peddling of a notion of rumors by elected leaders and any possible self-interested motivations behind them, equally suspect.

Counter-argument #6: Council President Jim Graham’s oopsy-daisy about Woodcliff

I have written many times on City Hall’s unwillingness to talk about matters important to citizens in a public realm. Their silence to the citizens is often frustrating. I have sometimes believed it to be because of so much business that is discussed in private in ‘Executive Sessions’ or because, with a slip of the tongue, they’ll say something which may cause litigation against the city. And yet, they’re your representatives in government, they’re supposed to be there for you. I believe the specter of causing litigation for the city and all this insider knowledge of legal-doings puts a chilling effect on our representatives (I have heard little to nothing from Woodcliff’s Ward 1 councilman, Chris Rodriguez, regarding the citizens he represents nor the owners of property over there. Seems like he’s not there for them at all). That’s why, when Mr. Graham decided to say a little something about Woodcliff, we could only hold our breath and see what came out. I don’t believe we were disappointed. Let’s break it down.

Of course, the city attorney has a firm handle on what can or shouldn’t be said in public, he’s the professional in matters like these. The others who don’t retain the same level of acumen or restraint with litigious language like he, are no doubt less scrupulous. While I’m certain it is the job of the city attorney to advise members of council and elected officials, I’m not certain what the protocol is for the city attorney when the elected official is in mid-sentence. It was clear, even to a high school graduate like myself, that Mr. Graham was entering territory (which I believe he did) that was not ‘safe’ for Whitehall itself. That is why I centered the video on Mr. Bivens as I did. His reactions are clear as Mr. Graham wanders into language that might prove at a disadvantage to Whitehall’s coffers. When he does wander into that language, I heard Mr. Biven’s voice speak while Mr. Graham was speaking (I was present and heard it). You can see his mouth move almost imperceptibly in the fuzzy-focused close-up video while he makes a movement with his hands and moves his head, as if to say, ‘Jim, we goin’ there? Should you really keep heading in this direction? Is this the best way to proceed?’ ‘Really Jim?’ The moment he does this, Jim Graham’s train is led onto another track. Below is the beginning of the transcript, again…right where I put the ellipsis between ‘another’ and ‘and’ is where Mr. Bivens made the hand gesture and moved his head. You notice then that whereas Mr. Graham seemed to have a clear direction he was headed, when Mr. Bivens made the actions, his train then stammered and posed ‘corrective’ wording or, to put it another way, truth went to bullshit. He was caught and reeled in so as not to cause irreparable harm, if it hadn’t already been done.

“I do wanna say one thing regarding Woodcliff. You know, when we started out it was about nuisance abatement, there was nothing in what we did originally that had anything to do with economic development but, over a period of time one thing can lead to another…and, that’s not saying it will be economically developed but, you know, that certainly was not an intention and, you know, sometimes there’re by-products of things that you do.

The ‘was’, the ‘originally’ and the ‘but’: Here is the crux of Mr. Graham’s revealing comments: When Mr. Graham says, “when we started out it was about nuisance abatement (the inflection on ‘was’ is his), there was nothing in what we did originally that had anything to do with economic development but, over a period of time one thing can lead to another”, the underlying message in ‘was’ is that it connotes past tense; in the past, about nuisance abatement (which contradicts Judge Hawkin’s assessment that it ‘is’ and the City of Whitehall’s assertions themselves) and that what they did ‘originally’ had nothing to do with development, that which suggests then that the current situation, being no longer what it was to begin with (“originally”) has changed to development being a part of it. That we’re not doing just the nuisance abatement anymore, adding a ‘but’ to all this. That ‘but’ says, Sure, we started out with nuisance abatement but…(here is his reasoning for this, this elected city leader) ‘over a period of time one thing can lead to another’ aaannd…see evidence compiled above.

So too, ‘one thing leads to another’ also can perhaps say; while our intentions were right and pure to begin with, when we realized what that land is worth to the city we then decided we would take advantage of a situation, ironically, we ourselves were helping to create and capitalize on it for our own ultimate benefit (doesn’t sound like pure justice to me). It’s simply taking advantage of people’s bad situations for their own gain. In the Dixon home, as kids, we were taught this kind of behavior was morally wrong, really wrong. That its beyond immoral. It’s like coming upon a murder victim and taking his wallet. Can you find a way to morally justify it? I can’t.

Ultimately, what this all really says: the plans and prospectuses drawn up only a year after the fight began, City Hall’s public demonstration about ‘blight’ and ‘nuisance abatement’, framing the narrative about concerns for the welfare of helpless citizens and bringing down crime, the political burnishing of each others images through persistent mutual public praising, the unjust payouts to some of the property owners… is that the earnestness of their ‘fight’ (if it ever was really a true one) became overshadowed by the cupidity of their egos, using the power and processes at their will to legally go after private property for the city’s (and their ego’s) ultimate benefit instead. Property, by the way, that just happens to be a developmentally valuable corner that acts as an important gateway to an otherwise landlocked, fully-built city.                                                                                          If you think I’m wrong, consider this; among all the players in this situation: the helpless poor people, owners (not all of whom were bad owners or landlords. Side note: Are the decent owners simply victims of the bad owners or are they victims of the city’s monolithic, persistent and ultimately self-serving legal processes?), the City of Whitehall, who exactly was helped the greatest? Who stands to be the biggest winner, in all ways, in the outcome? Is there justice and renewal for poor people who were victims of bad landlords or are they just shuffled on down the road to be some other community’s problem? Was every single owner of properties properly and thoroughly appraised and then promised their just amount? If Mayor Maggard sold the land at Commons at Royal Landing to Continental Realty for $1, those who’re slated to spend $50,000,000 on a large-scale development***, it then goes to say that the Woodcliff corner must be worth, if not an equal amount, then a much larger one, right?

I think its clear who the ‘winner’ is in this situation. The entity with all the power of the citizen’s government and their tax dollars behind it who can wield that power to harm citizens and human beings lives. Whitehall is being run by a bunch of amoral fevered-egos who give more of a damn about their legacies as saviors and ‘visionaries’ and their mania for economic development at any cost . Even if, in our name as they do this sort of business, our reputations as a community of decent, fair, caring souls is trampled on and lost in the process. As a Whitehall native, born and bred, I am pissed off and sickened! These people don’t deserve their positions, unless… I have been wrong to believe in the decency, sense of fair play, morality and justice of the Whitehall community. Maybe in the end run, as the citizens allow this kind of action and behavior in their name and with their money, its actually my ethical stance which is out of place and these people fit perfectly within Whitehall. A community where distraction and lack of courage allows this sort of business to go on right under their noses. What else could it be?

*

$173,000 for Strategic Comprehensive Land Use Plan…

**It’s funny, people complain bitterly about an increase in taxes for a school levy but don’t realize that when their city puts such a massive sum into bonds which the citizens will pay on for years that that then takes money away for other things that may be needed, meaning; the city has to tighten its belt more when things come up because we’re promising more and more of our city’s budget to credit in the form of bond payments. The citizens may not feel the strain like they do in higher mortgage/rent payments with levy’s but they can feel it in that budget belt-tightening.

***http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170307/now-barren-complex-on-verge-of-rebirth