At last week’s Council Committee meeting, Whitehall’s City Attorney, Michael Bivens, stood before Council to discuss his views, as city attorney, on the issue of kids on city streets selling things. As you may know, this has been an ongoing situation this year, fueled by complaints of bad behavior, littering and safety issues. Seeing accountability and successful results with these issues has mostly been thwarted by Service Director Zack Woodruff saying he believed that complaints are “somewhat racially motivated” and Ward 4 Councilor Elmore leaving no doubt when she said that “some of it is racial complaints”. Their inclusion of these comments then set a stage which would cloud the core issues of the bad behavior.
Now, seeming to sidle up to these unsubstantiated charges which obfuscate all the rest, comes our City Attorney. Whereas we started purely with the citizen’s allegations of littering, running into traffic (which included toddlers), backing traffic up, fist fighting, throwing water bottles at cars, taking Target carts and then filling them with trash, blocking the right-of-way, setting off fireworks, playing ball inches from traffic, cursing and yelling epithets (at least one racial in itself: ‘white ass bitch’) etc., now it has veered from those valid and legitimate community concerns to nothing other than the base issue of their skin color, and with that, devastating every legitimate concern in their claim’s wake. We now also have, apparently, the Columbus Urban League and the NAACP perched, as it were, awaiting possible racist actions by our City Council’s efforts in trying to right the wrongs of some of these juvenile’s actions. Due to this, and Attorney Biven’s comments, I felt compelled to write a blogpost on this topic, primarily focused on his fear-based/dire-predictions sell job. I will go through Mr. Biven’s arguments as to why Council shouldn’t proceed with anything to remedy this situation, offering up rebuttals and counterpoints to show the weakness in his arguments. Those arguments, along with his exaggeration, which I say illustrate an attempt, not to find justice for wrong being done but, merely to keep juveniles from being held accountable simply due to their skin color.
Let’s begin here with what Mr. Bivens concluded from his talk with Chief of Police Crispen and the Police department:
Counter-argument: According to Attorney Bivens, Chief Crispen and officers have told him that this is not a safety issue, that assertion which flies in the face of eyewitness accountings, which also include a couple of Council members!
One day, when the police drove by the corner of Robinwood and Doney, one or another of the boys who were there said, in an atypical fashion, “Have a nice day Officer”. Not since Eddie Haskell on ‘Leave it to Beaver’ have I witnessed such a display of overt fawning. I see them all the time, I hear them all the time, I witness them all the time. The Police, who drive by or may talk with them or sit and watch them, I claim, are NOT as privy to the actuality of their personalities, makeup and behavior as I am and certainly not due to the dynamic of their authority. Therefore, I claim their declaration that this is NOT a safety issue should not be given the credence as argument that it doesn’t actually possess. The truth is seen in the MANY eyewitness statements of actions, words and behaviors. When they do watch or stop by, those on the corner are clearly on their best behavior. Therefore, for Mr. Bivens, who also doesn’t live over here or may not have been witness to the actuality of bad behaviors here, cannot give proper credibility in argument to the Police’s assessment. I can, several on Council can and so too the others who have expressed their experiences personally. Therefore, Mr. Bivens inclusion of this assessment as argument against regulation is empty and worthless (there may be more to the story. More on that later). So, now we have the police saying, safety/schmafety. There’s no problem over there. Its a “non-issue”.
Here then is at-Large Councilor Bob Bailey speaking about the ‘rear-endings’ (which contradict the Police Departments assertions of it not being a safety issue:
So, Mr. Bivens now gives us his first movement in his argument that Council shouldn’t find regulations to address the issues of concern: an example where, nearly 40 years ago, council repealed some ordinance regarding ‘issuance of licenses to minors’. Argument:
Counter-argument: The dismantling of an ordinance regarding issuance of license to minors on Whitehall’s books nearly 40 years ago, which he throws in to the argument, is based only on an assumption. He doesn’t know why they did it but because they did, it can surely be related to the issue now. As such, its being used as a valid example to bolster his argument is weak.
Now we get to the core of his concerns with Council making ‘regulations’ to control the behavior of juvenile water sellers on our streets; Constitutionality. Argument:
From Wikipedia: “In 2005, Gilbert, Arizon adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed “political” or “ideological” messages. When the town’s Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town’s sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.”
The reason for Mr. Bivens associating this case in regard to kids selling water is because some have reportedly been spotted with signs while selling water that “promulgate” BLM or Defund the Police (my own BLM sign, which had been marked by me after someone stole my Obama sign in ’08, had been stolen and was one used in one of those instances referenced ). Because they have been reported to have these signs and Council is considering regulations to address safety, littering and behavior problems, Mr. Bivens is suggesting that their doing so will, in essence, regulate their free speech. It is a wicked measure, in my opinion, not done out of care and concern for our 1st Amendment, but as a wily concoction to keep Council from doing anything tangible about a real problem. Why? I’ll answer that in a moment.
It simply seems to me that they’re being scared off from doing so by Attorney Bivens wrapping it up in an unrelated matter of 1st amendment rights, that which will be further convoluted with his upcoming comments raising the specter of looming racism charges.
Now, in his argument, Mr. Bivens calls the possible unconstitutionality of regulating this situation a 1st Amendment civil rights concern due to the signs. However, he did not mention the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, that organization which specifically deals in these kind of 1st amendment cases but, rather, two entities historically known for standing for and/or serving People of Color. Curious. He’s making a case to sway Council about 1st amendment issues in regulating kids water sales but its groups historically associated with black lives whom he invokes as watching them. This makes no sense…unless…
The only reason they would be here in a 1st Amendment concern, of course, is because Councilor Elmore baselessly claimed racism when she publicly invoked skin color when describing the juveniles as “little black kids”. That and Mr. Woodruff’s ‘belief’ is the only instance, to my knowledge, when the juvenile’s race was brought into this issue. So, I suspect that was the impetus for these “civil rights groups” to show up, however they may have gotten wind of it. What other conclusion can one draw, because their skin color has ZERO to do with throwing bottles at cars, cursing, littering, fist fighting, running into traffic, taking Target carts, etc. So, if something is done by responsible adults to regulate water sales due to safety issues, that which shows the youth the ways in which to be responsible with consequences for their actions, then you may be considered racist for doing so because the juveniles are black and you are white? Give me a break. I’m sorry but, you can’t replace the ugliness of racism with more racism. Its bullshit. I believe there is a way to do this that has nothing to do with Councilor Elmore’s charges of racism but it will require leader’s moral courage to do the right thing, despite the implied threats hanging over their heads related to baseless allegations*.
It is a strong measure of exaggeration, an over the top analogy, to suggest the Whitehall Police Department engages in such tactics, particularly with juveniles. It appears as though he uses these arguments to maximally sway Council into doing what he fairly seems to want them to do. After all, he does say they can regulate water sales but then offers up every terrifying, fear-based litigious analogy and negative-publicity scenario, heavy-handedly influencing then their decision to proceed or not, from his understood position as the law expert. (If I was on Council, you could bet I’d keep my own Counsel on retainer because some of the things said to Council beg to be questioned).
Then, to think that any responsible newspaper would print a headline featuring the color of the perpetrators skin is beyond comprehension. Only in Mississippi in the 50’s might you see a headline so egregiously racist and horrifying.
As for worry over the public’s perception of what they think happened as compared to what actually happened, its irrelevant to the truth of the matter. Have we now replaced the truth and righteousness of matters involving the law and community sense for the cowering fear of what people might think? It is irresponsible to society and government, on both sides, to become outraged based solely on perception instead of knowledge. As such, I find Mr. Bivens argument outrageous, ridiculous and chilling. You don’t find racial equality for oneself by using chilling efforts to hold back truth and justice for others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
He then aligns the community’s public safety concerns with the Chief and officers claiming it isn’t a safety concern (which I find wrong), but otherwise, I have no idea what that jumbling of points was meant to convey. So…point nonsensical.
For clarification, I did research on this matter, on citydata.com. Of the 64 zip codes in Franklin County, 43213 is not even in the top 10 poorest (living below the poverty line). It stands at 16th. That statistic’s full truth, which should be revealed (as most reading this will know and as Council is always reminding us) is: while Whitehall lies within 43213, it is by no means all of what lies within it. As you can see by this map of 43213, Whitehall really only encompasses half of it and about 1/4 of that is DSCC, which is not residential. As well, a lot of poverty is found in 43213 to the west of Whitehall, in Columbus, east of James Rd. Its funny to me to hear City Hall reject all of 43213 when it doesn’t behoove them but now embrace it when its erroneously used to help make their point. The fact is that the poverty of Whitehall is not the same as the poverty of the entirety of 43213. Without clarification, one is merely using misinformation to sway someone and why would someone of competence like Mr. Bivens do that in the halls of Whitehall government? Perhaps to sway them into doing as he wishes them to, passing off stretched truth as factual information? His omittance of the full truth of this is misleading, therefore I find it a weak and shameful example to bolster his argument with.
When Ward 3 Councilor Morrison makes a valid point about selling at corners, watch Attorney Bivens minimize and/or eschew the point:
They may be standing in front of someone’s house but some have served the corner too. Every house sitting at a corner is a corner house. Every person passing that corner can’t help but see the house they’re standing on is at a corner and may have seen them running to the other street at that corner to make a sale, as I have many times. No, they’re not literally standing directly on the corner but they are servicing more than just ‘in front of the house’. His caginess makes one wonder why he’s minimizing information. Councilor Morrison, reasonably invoking concerns of safety with corner traffic, wonders how to move them away from that corner, as does Councilor Kantor. Attorney Biven’s pooh-poohing Councilor Morrison’s characterization shows a reticence on his part to acknowledge the truth of Morrison’s information, so as to minimize safety concerns selling water at corners? Why? His parsing this information on the front of a corner house (among other of his arguments) creates doubt then as to Attorney Biven’s stated motivations as well as his allegiance to truth when so unnecessarily dodging an innocuous but valid point. After all, truth is everything. If one is not singularly dedicated to it in life, it undermines ones credibility and believability.
I have to say, given his argument so far, its appearing, not really designed to counsel City Council about doing what is lawfully within their purview to do but, really, just to put a kibosh on holding juveniles accountable for no other apparent reason than the color of their skin. If it was white people doing it, it would be the height of outrage and scandal but when the shoes on the other foot, it should be ignored? As someone who has been fighting racism in all its forms, both internally and externally, for a long time, I find this disturbing. Right is right is right and wrong is wrong is wrong.
This seems to be a few people in power’s answer to the core issue’s problem. Argument:
Counterargument: No one wanted to do anything when the problem was small, and now since the problem increased, there has been a lot more talk of dealing with it through the ordinances we have on the books already and yet, when you try to deal with it in that fashion, its all minimized, pooh-poohed or thrown to another entity, much as I reported on in this blogpost:
THE ROUND-ROBIN, BUCK-PASSING IRRESPONSIBILITY OF WHITEHALL CITY HALL
They pooh-pooh actual regulations which would remedy a lot of these problems and want it just to be an ‘administrative’ issue but then the departments of the administration (Service/code enforcement…Police) push it aside, saying its Target’s problem, say its a non-issue, the police have better things to respond to, etc., and so they push it away where NOTHING then will ever get accomplished. Our City government abandons the community because some are either protecting people based solely on their color or are afraid color having been made an issue in something that’s NOT about that, are afraid the city/their plans and schemes/their reputation/The City, will get swept up in a brouhaha that none of them want anything to do with. And so, instead, each because of their own self-interests, give a big fucking middle finger to the community. Attorney Bivens is merely the latest to do so.
Finally, Attorney Bivens mentions one more thing. Argument:
Counterargument: Mr. Bivens reminds Council, which Councilor Morrison backs up, that because juveniles will soon be back to school, that these issues will fade away.
a) Will they actually be in school for authorities to know they’re ‘truant’ OR if they’re being schooled at home, will authorities be able to know if they’ve finished their school work? Will they take the time to figure this out or will the authorities merely brush it aside? Will these concerns then have to be called in by citizens? Seems like a possible ball drop to me.
b) Both Mr. Bivens and Mr. Morrison seem to have so easily dismissed the fact that sellers have been out there every year now for four years and they will be back next Spring for ‘Season 5’. This isn’t going away because leaves may start to fall. The issues at hand will go away ONLY by actually doing something tangible. I can’t believe I have to even remind anyone of this. Its really frustrating.
This is a list of those in government that Attorney Bivens spoke to. My inclusion of it here is simply to show you that the mere opinions of city leaders don’t give the full picture of what’s behind their opinions/decisions. Being that they’ll never voluntarily offer you the whole truth, its left to citizens like me who hold their feet to the fire, to do so:
Most of these people have vested interests in keeping the status quo, particularly when doing otherwise might unleash fiery controversy upon our little ‘burb. Here then are the stakes of those who would brush aside or minimize the issue’s impacts:
Mayor Kim Maggard: The mayor has spent several years eradicating “blight’ (which happens to include poor black people getting swept up in her obsession (not very positive…that)). To replace that ‘blight’ (or ‘slum-shifting’ as the great critic of city planning, Jane Jacobs, called it) the Mayor brought in new businesses and ‘upscale apartments’ and everything is on the upswing. All positive, all casting Whitehall in a good light, as Councilor Elmore underscores with her comment:
(Note that justice against perceived racism matters but not justice that gets in the way of po$itive upward movement of City Hall’$ work. Sounds like racism of convenience. Got it.)
Due to all her administration’s hard work in the last 9 or so years, it’s my opinion that she’s afraid all of this, due to Councilor Elmore’s unsubstantiated racism charges, is gonna ignite a big ole BLM bomb and, if not incur riots, at the least, provide Whitehall with unsavory headlines which may put the kibosh on her forward movement (the threat of which was ironically supplied by Councilor Elmore herself who now just wants to stick to positive headlines). As Ms. Elmore herself would say, “I’m just gonna keep this always 100”.
Police Chief Crispen: A few weeks ago, Council passed a resolution regarding ‘Racism is a public health crisis’. Within the resolution there was this wording: “Reviewing community paramedic and police response policies, including use of force, with a racial equality lens and to make changes as needed to promote racial equity, specifically as it relates to and including black, brown and other people of color…”. A short time afterwards, Chief Crispen then addressed council with concerns. He said, in essence, his officer’s morale was low and they were afraid that, in doing their job, one incident could send them away to prison for a long time and so he wanted to make sure that council was on their side. In short order then, Council drew up something which honored and recognized the Police, the presentation of which several on Council lavished them with unabashed praise. My estimate of all of this is that, given the BLM movement, the police departments are skittish and sensitive regarding themselves and perceived behavior, and rightly so. My belief is that the above wording, or something else, irritated or pissed them off, particularly in light of all the recent events and so, after expressing himself at the Council meeting, it was decided, toot sweet, that the city better butter both sides of that bread.
I have no other observation or opinion of Chief Crispen other than as a professional and honorable person who has a Police force to direct. In this particular climate of ‘defund the police’ and being called every ugly epithet imaginable, I suspect they are skittish to do something about a problem, particularly when it involves, as characterized by Councilor Elmore, “little black kids”. It’s too racially charged right now, particularly after her unsubstantiated and irresponsible charges and so, it seems to me that it would behoove the Police Department at this time to minimize an issue which organically reared it head during a most inopportune time, as I believe they did when they told Attorney Bivens that its pretty much a non-issue. Unnecessary violence and rioting in the street might be a powerful motivator to keep things cool, wouldn’t you say? An understandable caution that nevertheless dismisses justice.
Service Director Woodruff: Mr. Woodruff, in meetings, has already expressed his disinterest in this issue and, like Mayor Maggard (who is his boss, as she is Chief Crispen’s) has worked very hard to lasso the change they’ve made. I suspect that what she doesn’t want nor behooves her then, neither does it he.
Councilor Kantor: I have seen no vested interest from Mr. Kantor, not even a hint of silence to keep everybody happy.
Councilor Elmore: I think Ms. Elmore’s interests have been made pretty clear by now. She has leveled unsubstantiated (therefore unwarranted) atomic charges, not only toward this issue but the city as a whole. Its all racism to her. So, apparently, equal justice only applies to her interests but when decent people in our community expect accountability for wrongful behavior, she’s fairly silent on that front. I’ve heard her yell racism and bending over backwards to find other solutions for the issue (except accountability) but, she has given little credence to the wrong of the many charges leveled against some of the youth, some of which are awful, thereby minimizing their wrong in her silence. You can’t help but wonder then how much of her help is based on justice and how much is just about protecting them based on their skin color?
Summary: I believe that this string of exaggerations, obfuscations, minimizations and racial fear-mongering are a concerted effort at confusion using wrongly placed accusations designed both to leave kids alone based solely on their skin color and scare off white people from doing the right thing about legitimate wrongs in a situation because skin color was invoked. Any disinterest in regulation is not based on lack of evidence or ample truth in the community’s outrage as some would have you believe but rather, due only to personal vested interests (protecting people based solely on their skin color, keeping their legacies alive, avoiding ‘trouble’/bad publicity, etc.), those which might get harmed were they to ignore the haunting visions of racial retaliation in their heads and proceed with regulations anyway.
I will say that I have always respected, appreciated and admired Attorney Bivens; professionally and personally. He has been in my home as I have his. I was glad when he won election as Attorney and one of the few at City Hall whom I’ve remained cordial and friendly with throughout these criticisms. However, I’m a little dispirited now by the arguments he’s given to Council but, if I fight wrong and hypocrisy in government, then I can’t be a hypocrite myself and let some off the hook while keeping others on it. So it is in this case too then.
So, despite all the threatening imagery Mr. Bivens has spun for Council’s sweat-drenched legislative nightmares, I believe that there MUST be a way in which to regulate the central issue of how and where and when the sales of wares on our city streets can be done, with lawful respect, without concerns over its unconstitutionality or the ominous threat over our heads that one wrong highly scrutinized word, will bring down the fiery racial judgment that we’re all nothing more than a bunch of awful, hateful white racists.
It is my opinion that alot of it is misplaced agendas obfuscating an issue having nothing to do with anyone’s skin color. Its insertion impedes rightful action of legitimate community alarm, threatening to derail a community’s ability to, using the processes available to us, curtail public issues which create trouble and havoc in our neighborhoods, those which exist and must be properly dealt with regardless of skin color.
It is up to Council, as is their duty to the community they chose to serve (of which you placed your trust in them to do so), to come up with that solution as Mr. Bivens said, they “can”. They mustn’t allow his storm of racial fear to sway them from their job. The job before them is right and true and proper, it is their job to navigate the minefield Mr. Bivens laid down for them to get to that rightful and just outcome. They must use moral courage to exert that effort for you, the community who have strongly shouted out to them their wishes in that effort. Will they courageously plow ahead or will they allow the specter of misdirected racial outrage to handcuff their rightful ability to do something tangible about wrongs perpetrated in the community landscape?
*They are baseless when they have zero evidence offered up to back up the claims. Councilor Elmore (“is”) had ample time to offer this up (never should have brought it up without any in the first place) but didn’t. I’m sorry but now, over a month later, any offering at this point would seem like ‘too little, too late’ and/or simply proffering something up merely to assuage criticism.
Whitehall Watchblog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.