At Tuesday’s Council Committee meeting, the issue of the behavior of the juveniles selling water on street corners was brought up by the Chairperson of the ‘Community Standards and Enforcement’ Committee: Ward 1 Councilperson Chris Rodriguez. Responding to his constituents, he addressed the problems to Administration, those which exist. This was Director of Development and Service Zach Woodruff’s response to the ongoing problem of Target carts too often being taken by these juveniles to cart their water to the corner, which are often then filled with trash.
(This is an edited version, only dealing with Mr. Woodruff’s comments on carts and cart legislation, that which is relevant to this post’s point only)

Let me unpack some of Mr. Woodruff’s statements on this matter:

He said: “…that legislation was enacted to require/enforce Kroger, for example, to make sure they were picking up their carts. …So, those carts that are taken off their property, we can call Target and tell them that there are carts at the corner of Robinwood and Doney and to come get them. …we either pick it up or notify the property owner, that’s pretty standard.”

I was going to the meetings when the shopping cart legislation* was discussed and adopted. At the time, people were taking carts off the store’s property and their presence littered the neighborhoods, making them look junky. Because of public outcry, this legislation was introduced and enacted. It compelled stores, like Kroger and Target, to do something about their carts, lest they suffer fines and loss of carts. Kroger responded by installing a system which locked their carts, preventing them from leaving their property. Target, on the other hand, has seemingly not followed suit. That is why you see their carts scattered through the west side of Whitehall, including clogging Mason Run. It continues to be a problem, whether by shoppers taking them home or kids who take them to cart their inventory to the corner. The success of the legislation and the sanctity of our neighborhoods from this carelessness rests on Mr. Woodruff’s Service Department, through its Code Enforcement division. When he, as the Service Director says things like, “I don’t think that’s something we’re gonna enforce” or speaks about carts being “adjacent to or on the property of Target” as something that’s not of immediacy and importance to him, then it says to me that the citizens surrounding Target will just have to suffer the City’s and Target’s lacks attitude about their responsibilities towards our community. That makes Target a bad neighbor and the City a bad government.
The fact is that the city has the right per ordinance 766.01, when grabbing stray carts off the streets, to levy a cost to the store to get that cart back, this is done to compel the store to fix the problem regarding our neighborhood’s quality of life with carts littering the area. Due to the stray cart issue continuing to be a problem for the neighborhoods, it appears Target is not acting in good faith towards the legislation nor the neighborhood it sits or the community it relies on, therefore… if the city isn’t willing to do what’s necessary to enforce this legislation, using the teeth it possesses to compel Target to adhere to this legislation, then the City is, in essence, guilty of nonfeasance; failing to act on legislation they’re tasked to enforce, thereby exerting a careless and disrespectful attitude towards our community. HIs boss is Mayor Kim Maggard.
(Of course, they’ll jump all over private citizens tall grass or permit-less yard sales but a huge corporation like Target, the 8th largest** in America, gets a pass in our community?)

He said: “…that legislation doesn’t speak to people taking the carts off the property***, if anything that would be a theft issue, and again, that would be enforced by the division of police. I don’t think that’s something we’re looking to enforce. …Again, this particular issue, the carts being taken off of the property, that is not something that we can assert someone else’s rights, so either Target or the property owner would have to call.”

The ordinance says: ‘(f)   No person shall, without written permission from the owner, remove from the premises of the owner any shopping cart.’
”Possession of a shopping cart away from the premises of the owner of the shopping cart shall be considered prima-facie evidence of petit larceny and/or possession of stolen goods.’  That says that if an authority (Code enforcement? Police?) comes upon someone in possession of a cart away from the premises of the owner of the shopping cart, that they shall consider it…’evidence of petit larceny and/or possession of stolen goods’. That alone gives someone the authority to do something tangible about the shopping cart in the juveniles possession. Of course, the authority coming upon this scene has a measure of restraint they may choose to exercise: to actually follow the law or let them off the hook. I understand that one doesn’t want to immediately start sending kids off to jail but,
a) they continue taking the carts despite being told many times not to, therefore no one seems to be learning any lessons and,
b) I was handcuffed, put in the back of a cruiser and taken to Whitehall jail at 15 years of age for stealing a .15 cent Hostess fruit pie from the Robinwood Kroger store****. So, the law in Whitehall doesn’t apply anymore? Where were my 25 warnings as they took back the fruit pie and sent me on my way?

So then, the issue appears to be two-fold: stolen carts and the Service Department enforcing the ordinance regarding them.

Unless Target and/or the City’s authorities are willing to ticket and/or prosecute apprehended cart thieves, or the authorities enforce laws which exist, then the behavior goes unpunished to do it again, again and again in an atmosphere where, as Mr. Woodruff characterized it,  “I don’t believe this is a big issue, I really don’t”.
So too, if Mr. Woodruff’s Service Department doesn’t levy any fees for stray carts, then the initial problem regarding citizen’s quality of life here goes unenforced, meaning Mr. Woodruff is not doing the job he is being paid handsomely to do. It makes for an atmosphere where private citizens are held responsible for every picayune thing through the heavy-handed power of government but big corporations and city government itself act irresponsibly, leaving the citizens alone then to deal with the waste of the inaction they leave in their wake. It is entirely unacceptable, I rebuke Mr. Woodruff’s response and I respectfully ask, again, that his boss, Mayor Maggard, take the correct and appropriate action.

*766.01  SHOPPING CART REGULATIONS; IMPOUNDING; REMOVAL PROHIBITED.

   (a)   For the purpose of this Chapter the following definitions shall apply:

(1)   “Shopping cart” means that type of basket, of wire or other construction on wheels, propelled by human power, commonly but not exclusively used for transporting articles of merchandise within or from a place of business and popularly known as a shopping cart.

(2)   “Place of business” means a grocery store, supermarket, drugstore, dry goods store, department store, discount store, variety store or other establishment which supplies shopping carts for the use of its customers to transport articles of merchandise within or from such establishment.

(3)   “Customer” means any person who enters a place of business for the purpose of purchasing, or inspecting with a view toward purchasing, articles of merchandise.

(4)   “Shopping cart owner” or “owner” means any person, operator, firm or corporation, or an agent of any person, operator, firm or corporation who is authorized to act on the Owner’s behalf, and being one or more of the following:

1. Having a legal or equitable interest in the property;
2. Recorded in the official records of the state, county, or municipality as holding title to the property; or
3. Otherwise having control of the property, including the guardian of the estate of any such person, and the executor or administrator of the estate of such person if ordered to take possession of real property by a court.

(5)   “Parking lot” means any parcel of land used for parking vehicles or otherwise adjoining or used in connection with a place of business, and owned or leased by the person, firm or corporation which is the owner, lessee or operator of such place of business or which is provided for the use of the customers of such place of business under any form of lease or other contractual arrangement.

(6)   “Premises” includes any real property or portion thereof upon which the owner of the shopping cart engages in business.  It also includes any real property designated for or devoted to use in conjunction with the business engaged in by such owner.  “Premises” also means the property owned, leased or controlled and so connected with the business in which the owner is engaged as to form a component or integral part of it.

(b)   No person, firm or corporation, being the owner, lessee or in charge of a place of business shall leave, or permit to be left, any shopping cart or carts unattended within the boundaries of any parking lot.  However, this section shall not be deemed to be violated if such person, firm or corporation, at reasonable frequent intervals, of not more than one hour each, during the hours such place of business is open to the public for business and within one hour after the closing of such place of business each day, removes his or its unattended shopping cart or carts from such parking lot.

(c)   Not less than one hour following the close of business each day, any person, firm or corporation being the owner, lessee or operator of a place of business shall remove all or any unattended shopping carts from any parking lot.  Such shopping carts shall, until such place of business is again open to the public for business, be placed within a locked enclosure or otherwise secured in place so as to prevent their unauthorized removal from such place of business.

(d)   Any shopping car found abandoned on any street, alley, sidewalk, tree lawn or other public place or in any parking lot within the City may be impounded by the City.  Prior to impoundment the City may as a courtesy give notice to the cart owner’s contact person of the location of carts belonging to them.  If after twenty-four (24) hours from this notice carts have not been collected, these carts are subject to impoundment.  Any shopping cart which has been impounded may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of twenty dollars ($20.00) per shopping cart, which shall be paid into the General Fund of the City.  Thirty days after mailing of notice by certified mail to the owner, and as to any shopping cart that is unidentifiable as to ownership, thirty days after having been impounded, any unclaimed shopping cart may be disposed of by the City in the manner provided by law for the disposition of abandoned property.

(e)   Owners of shopping carts are hereby required to mark and identify shopping carts in a permanent manner so that they can be identified as to ownership.  Any individual cart for which permission has been granted to a person to remove from the premises shall be marked with  a numbering system so it can be identified.  This number system shall be registered with the Service Department and shall include digits for identification of each cart.  Only those carts which the owner gives permission to be removed from the premises is required to be numbered but all carts need to be identified by the owner’s name.

(f)   No person shall, without written permission from the owner, remove from the premises of the owner any shopping cart.

(g)   Possession of a shopping cart away from the premises of the owner of the shopping cart shall be considered prima-facie evidence of petit larceny and/or possession of stolen goods.  The storage of or location of a shopping cart on or in a house, barn, garage, shed or business building or upon the lot or land upon which the same is situated shall be deemed to be in the possession of the person controlling or occupying the same.

(h)   All shopping cart owners shall provide to the Director of Public Service the name of a contract person, residential address, work phone number and/or cell phone number and email address whom shall be responsible for the collection of off-premise shopping carts.  Such person shall be accountable when cart violations occur.

(i)   All shopping cart owners shall post a sign in English and Spanish not less than eight and half (8.5) inches in height and fourteen (14) inches in width with block lettering in a conspicuous place on the building within four (4) feet of all customer entrances and exits stating, at a minimum, the following:

REMOVAL OF SHOPPING CARTS FROM THE PREMISES IS PROHIBITED BY LAW

(j)   Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

(Ord. 011-2013.  Passed 4-2-13.)

**Source: Wikipedia

***Ordinance 766.01 ends with:

‘(i)   All shopping cart owners shall post a sign in English and Spanish not less than eight and half (8.5) inches in height and fourteen (14) inches in width with block lettering in a conspicuous place on the building within four (4) feet of all customer entrances and exits stating, at a minimum, the following:

REMOVAL OF SHOPPING CARTS FROM THE PREMISES IS PROHIBITED BY LAW’

Tonight (7/15/2020; 6:00 p.m.) I went into Target to check on their compliance with this edict and saw zero signs posted per the ordinance’s language. Again, why are citizens being dragged into Mayor’s Court and some thrown into jail for non-compliance but large corporations aren’t being held to the same standard as private citizens? Have they never put up a sign since 2013 when the ordinance was enacted? Are the code officers too busy measuring citizen’s grass height or monitoring yard sale activity to notice? Is there a separate standard for businesses than citizens? Are businesses favored over people? This inaction by Target and/or the Whitehall Service Department begs several questions.

****Shopping cart theft can be a costly problem with stores that use them. The carts, which typically cost between $75 and $150 each, with some models costing $300–400, are removed by people for various purposes. To prevent theft, estimated at $800 million worldwide per annum, stores use various security systems…- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_cart

At the Council meeting of Feb. 18, 2020, in her ‘poll council’ statement, Councilor Elmore said this:

While it may seem innocuous and with only a spirit of communicating with your elected representatives about issues, knowing fuller understandings of things at City Hall, I feel it’s not that simple and so wanted to express how I feel that is.

In her message, she says to stay off social media. That if you have issues you want to discuss with Council, that talking with them after the meeting is the forum to do that.

Here is what I feel are the flaws in her statement and what I find concerning about it:

a) If she wants us to stay off Social Media, does that include the City of Whitehall, W.C.C.A., the Police Department and Whitehall City Schools Facebook pages too, or just ones where the public discusses and debates what City Hall and Council are doing with our government? Sites like ‘Whitehall Personal Point of View’ and ‘Whitehall 411’ and ‘Whitehall Counterpoint’, et al?

b) She, as a Council representative, does indeed represent citizens but is waist deep in her associations with a government and officials whose untrustworthy actions and reputations help to soil hers. As such, when she entreats you to come on down and have conversations after the meeting it must be taken and viewed with a rightful measure of distrust and cynicism. Her cheerleading for ‘Team Maggard’ is consistent and when put against the help Mayor Maggard gave her in backdoor promotion for her campaign in 2017 by holding a city press conference in then-candidate Elmore’s front yard, those ignored conflicts of interest in that situation, by all, give rise to rightly earned distrust. Is she being honest and forthright or is she merely shilling for someone who helped her reach her position? Because Councilor Elmore either didn’t consider the public trust when running for office or exerted a principled response to the Mayor’s offers, we then can’t trust that her words, behavior or actions are truly acting in independent ways. This is no one’s fault but her own.

The Mayor could’ve heeded the public trust by also having a press conference in candidate Leslie LaCorte’s front yard, but, as it turned out, she only utilized candidate Elmore’s yard for city publicity in 2017. 

c) The Council meetings are lame in terms of communication, in public, with our representatives in government. It is nothing more than a constrained chute they force you through where communication is controlled to little to nothing. You may speak at two 3-minute periods and only on one particular topic once a meeting. As well, you can’t speak at all in the back. That’s not ‘communication’, that’s merely rapid bleating. The only time you can actually have a conversation with your representatives is in private, away from the eyes and ears of public scrutiny. Council meetings otherwise are, basically, them talking out loud as they wish to, as much as they wish to, four times a month and then you, Joe Citizen, given mini-speeches, essentially relegated to say what you need to away and in private. Who does this serve? City Hall.
I have recommended ways to have communication forums but, its apparently lit zero fires under government’s posteriors. Curious, wouldn’t you say? This is from over 2 years ago.

The fact is, they generally don’t like to communicate with citizens in public where they may be shown to be wrong, be seen as foolish or ignorant, expose their lack of education on matters or say something which they’ll have to answer to.

d) Why stay off social media? Is it because City Hall can’t control the narrative? That information (like what I give) may paint a different picture than the one they’ve painted for you? BINGO!
When there are alternate voices that aren’t theirs which aren’t part of the bullshit controlled narrative they spoon-feed the citizens (all is well, nothing to see here, comply and consume) it puts their schemes and plans in jeopardy. And just like the medieval Monarchy’s of old who hated the printing press for giving people information that wasn’t simply the King’s propaganda, so too do underhanded, authoritarian, manipulative governments hate that citizen’s have access to criticize, analyze and point out what’s ‘fishy in Denmark’. After all, Social Media is where I am, its where you see these blogposts distributed. Its where information is proffered and dissected and discussed and debated amongst the citizenry, away and out of their hands which they use to control all that. Without propaganda and spoon-fed bullshit, their game is exposed and now maybe, just MAYBE, they might have to actually BE trustworthy and give a damn what the citizens want over what the corporations and wealthy interests want, that which help steer their policies.

So…until City Hall has actual meetings with free-flows of discussion, where people can actually have (civil and informed) Q & A’s and discussion with elected officials (those we can actually trust) then Social media appears to be ‘the people’s’ outlet and forum for these kind of discussions for now.

In the Council Committee meeting from Tuesday, Feb. 11th, they discussed the backyard parking on grass issue: Ord. # 002-2020. The meeting was contentious and so I just wanted to give my analysis.

Clearly, a few at the table feel that we already have legislation on the books which cover the junk cars in the backyard and that they’re simply not being utilized and so, to add even more legislation on the books seems foolish, particularly when they won’t use what they’ve got in the first place to do the job.

Clearly the Administration feels differently. I don’t know if Councilor Bailey submitted his findings to the Mayor and Service Director first because they seemed flummoxed with his findings. Their claim seems to be that the legislation we have on the books isn’t enough to allow them to do something about these junk cars they lament. Councilor Bailey, who gave an excellent presentation on his findings and stood strong in defense of them, disagreed and kept coming back, time and again, with how Mr. Woodruff’s assertions were incorrect. This led to vigorous debate. Good!

The legislation, as it’s currently written, would make people who have vehicles parked on grass in their backyard, either move them onto ‘impervious surfaces’ ala blacktop/concrete or, put down these impervious surfaces in order to keep those vehicles on their property. Here then is the legislation’s chief problem:

There are plenty of people in this town who, while they may store vehicle(s) on grass in their backyard, are law-abiding, caring citizens who register and license and maintain those vehicles and who take excellent care of their home and property. They are not the same as the scofflaws who pile up junk vehicles, don’t register and license them, etc. HOWEVER…BOTH of these citizens would have to be treated in the same manner under the law, specifically the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. You cannot use the law to go after one group which you have issue with but not enforce it on another whom you don’t, even though they both fall under the same law’s directives. Therefore, if passed, aaallll those people who comply with the current law and who are decent and responsible citizens would be forced to pony up the money to pour a concrete pad, whether they have those funds or not. If not, they would have to store those vehicles elsewhere or simply get rid of them. Passing this law, as it is, would penalize responsible owners along with the irresponsible. That’s not right. That is what Councilor Kantor and Bailey, in part, argued. Unless you can come up with something which doesn’t do that, then the legislation is wrong to begin with, and they know it. As such, it should be dumped. Otherwise you’re setting the City up for a lawsuit where a citizen claims violation of their Civil Rights if they’re treated differntly, under the law, as other citizens.

In the atmosphere of ‘Team Maggard’ where everyone is in agreeable lockstep with her, it was like a drink of water in the desert to hear OUR representatives on Council making her defend her positions and legislation. Good!! If she’s right, fine. But if she’s wrong, we need to discover that and make her defend her positions, as is the right thing to do. Why all the carte blanche? Maybe some of the things she does is meritless. As such they should be rightly voted down if she doesn’t make a compelling case in its favor. Make her WORK for that position. Just handing her everything like she’s Queen Elizabeth II is ridiculous. As a citizen I’m tired of her being handed everything on a silver platter. Where is the dissent? And not dissent simply to dissent but because it merits dissent?

In the 11 years I’ve been going to meetings at City Hall and watching elected officials, there has never been an opportunity given the citizens to have the kind of meeting, with the Mayor and/or elected officials in attendance where we’re able to have vigorous debate. Yes, they have had ‘Town Hall’ meetings but these are not that. They’re usually  heavily filled with the status quo, scripted and scheduled with speakers from the city, with no conversation or debate but only short Q and A’s at the end. Why shouldn’t the Mayor be made to justify her positions and legislation? Talk about, in a non-scripted, off the cuff manner? Its her 3rd and last term, as some on Council, why can’t they have these kind of conversations with us?

In this process of holding elected officials accountable, getting information out there and running for office, I’ve come across fabrications, uncertainties, exaggerations, misconceptions and false allegations regarding who I am and what I’m about.

I wanted to take this moment, before election, to reach out to everyone and set the record straight by responding directly to some of those falsehoods and hyperbole. The concerns below represent actual thoughts/concerns expressed.
I appreciate your taking the time to read my responses.

#1: ‘Dixon will get in there and destroy everything Maggard has done!’

Answer: False. a) Anything of value is to be sustained and properly appreciated, as I do. b) If she wishes to do more that is good, why would I nix good things? It makes no sense to do that to the city of my birth. c) I would become 1 of 7 votes. I would have zero power to enact or stop anything. Any power that I would have would be in my God-given right to persuade, through argument, my position and why it is the best course, as the process is intended to be. (That which doesn’t get done now because there is no dissent, no critical thinking and a lacks level of understanding and curiosity on complex issues and their ramifications to our community. Instead they blindly rely on the ‘experts’ without the critical thinking necessary to get all the answers for the best outcome for our community and its citizens.)
If what is being brought forth is right and good and fine, then the answer will be ‘yes’. If it is judged wrong, through thorough critical analysis, it should, rightly, be rejected.

#2: ‘He’s always arguing with people on Facebook’

Answer: This is nothing more than to kick up a fuss, done so to imply in the public perception of me, that I’m simply some raving maniac with no sense or scruples. In it’s complaint lies bias and public manipulation.
To be clear, argument is not ‘fighting’, it is debate. Argument is a skill which anybody has the ability to exercise and make stronger, like a muscle. I enjoy spirited and informed debate, it is at the base of critical thinking skills. However, what I see too often on Facebook are people who come to argue with me bearing little more than biases and grudges against me due to my positions regarding people in City Hall whom they support. Those who enter do so, not with a spirit of fair play in argument but rather, with only the express purpose of degrading and minimizing my standing in the community for the benefit of their own self-interests, and those whom they support. They don’t adhere to the principles and standards of argument: making salient points using informed research, sticking to the argument at hand, using logic, reason and sense and adhering to a stable of tenets in civilized society and argument: good manners, decency, respect and fairmindedness. Instead, they disrespect the process of argument and the work I’ve respectfully, dutifully and fairly offered up, full of bravado and offering only illogical ‘arguments’ brimming with bias, mocking derision towards information, derogatory ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. They’re no more than attacks falsely paraded as ‘argument’. Those I, or anyone with a modicum of self-respect and decency, would never simply lay down and tolerate.
A perfect example is my writing scores of things, like this example below, on this blogpost. It is clear and concise and its point is more than well made:

Yet it is examples, like this, of responses and attacks I get (posed as ‘argument’) which underscores the point I’ve made addressing the assertion that I argue with people on Facebook:

#3: ‘He’s always attacking the Mayor’

Answer: I don’t ‘attack’ the Mayor, I criticize her, with specificity of actions and proof as well. The list of her immorality and wrong in the public’s name is well documented in this very blog. I have documented it through observation, paperwork and critical analysis. I have spent years proffering it to my fellow Whitehallians in the attempt to get them to actually do something tangible about the wrong she perpetrates. In response she does things which win the citizen’s approval, thus making it more difficult for them to rise up to see justice served. Due to that, because few to none have actually done anything in response to the charges I’ve made, it then stays in the spotlight where it belongs, waiting on the stronger and more just response that it deserves. Plain and simply.
The more important consideration here, really, is not so much why I criticize her but rather, why everyone else is fine with it.

#4: ‘He hates Whitehall’

Answer: Completely false. I was born and raised here. If I hated Whitehall so much, ask yourself: why would I have left NYC to come back here, investing my life and time and energy and money in my childhood home and my hometown community if I hated it so?
Sadly, people conflate my fight for ethical principles and moral responsibility with elected officials and their obligation to the public trust as somehow ‘proof’ that I hate Whitehall. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whitehall nurtured me, I lived and participated in all of it growing up here. My service to righting the wrong of it is my way of paying it back. I know it like the back of my hand. I don’t hate Whitehall, what I ‘hate’ is elected officials doing wrong in the citizen’s names. Period.

#5: ‘He wants Code Enforcement gone!’

Answer: Absolutely, 100%, positively…wrong. What I DO want ‘gone’ is the overreach and abuse of code enforcement. I have shown time and again how this has been so and it is wrong, not only in a free society but morally and ethically by our government. I have asked, once,  for a moratorium on it (which our government ignored) after I charged that they had violated a citizens 4th Amendment rights. If it is to be used it must be done so ethically, respectfully and with common sense and humane reasonability. That is the core of my demand of code enforcement in our community. Plain and simply.

THE PETTY TYRANNY OF WHITEHALL CODE ENFORCEMENT (PART FIVE) ***CITY COUNCIL EDITION***

#6: ‘Dixon uses big words to confuse people and issues’.

Answer: False. Firstly, words are not big or little, they merely lend different flavors, regardless of their length. Does one not use ‘cardamom’ in a recipe because its more difficult to pronounce than ‘salt’? What of a painting that only uses primary colors with 3-5 letters instead of cerulean or burnt sienna? When we keep things too elementary then we lose out on a wider palette of sensory gifts. The world isn’t black and white, its multi-hued, as such, and because I’m a reader, I write what I know and respect people’s level of comprehension enough not to ‘dumb it down’ for easier consumption. After all, we’re supposed to be reaching up as a people, not falling down…right?

#7:  ‘He has no ideas’

Answer: False.  My blog, https://whitehallwatchblog.com/ is filled with numerous posts about my intentions, my beliefs, etc. All one has to do to find out what they are is to read it.

MY THOUGHTS AND PLANS FOR MY TIME ON COUNCIL: 2019 UPDATE

#8: ‘He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!’

Answer: While I may not have a formal college education, I have spent innumerable hours doing the exact same thing they do, which is reading, discussing and writing on the courses of study. In my case it happens to be subjects that have always interested me, avocations as it were: Sociology, City Planning, Psychology and Philosophy. Just because one hasn’t formally entered college doesn’t mean that you can’t rise with a self-education, as this article makes an excellent case for:
https://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/02/10-impressive-people-who-educated-themselves-with-only-a-library-card/

As for myself, this has been my ‘college’ education on these matters:

So, while I may not know as much as a Cornell West or Ada Louise Huxtable, I’m probably more learned on these topics than most currently at City Hall. Why wouldn’t you want someone with that knowledge representing you in a Council seat?

#9 ‘He hasn’t done anything for Whitehall’

Answer:
a) The hundreds of hours I’ve personally spent keeping an eye on City Hall, through observation in Council meetings, Charter Review meetings, documenting their behavior and lacks governance, Freedom of Information requests, etc. has kept them on their toes, averting trouble and abuses for citizens that otherwise may have gone forward if I hadn’t shouted out.
b) I am a proactive citizen, keeping watch on my little section of Whitehall, either by keeping teens behavior in check, picking up litter, notifying police about trouble and keeping my eyes on the streets.
c) I have given away and helped plant trees throughout Whitehall because I believe trees add so much to our community.
d) I have risked my own skin when no one else would, by taking on the cause of citizens who’s voices were weak, small or fearful in speaking out to power.
e) I have lent my voice in countless ways to stop abuse of our processes by government officials who otherwise would’ve acted with impunity.
f) There are many things which I do that, unlike some, I have no interest in revealing. Good deeds revealed lessen their goodness. As well, when asked to recall what I’ve ‘done for Whitehall’, its usually others who remember or point out more than me because I don’t do them for myself, I do them for others, as such, I simply put them out of my mind. They’re really not my concern. Although, because this amusing photo exists, I’ll share.

Photo courtesy of The City of Whitehall public record

#10: ‘Gerald Dixon hates the Mayor!’

Answer: I don’t ‘hate’ anyone. Am I angry for what she does that’s wrong? Absolutely. Do I have a right to feel that way and express myself accordingly? Yes and yes. Do I question her character and feel her wrongful behavior disrespects the citizens and my hometown? Yes, I do. That person is Kim Maggard, the elected official, charged with people’s lives. However, as a human being and child of God, I wish her love and peace and grace. When I or she is not in ‘defense’ mode, I have exhibited my care for her humanity several times, like when she hurt her foot and was in a ‘boot’ and when she has been ill. That was Kim Maggard the human being. I wish her no ill will and all the success in the world, particularly when it comes to our community’s success but, demanding strict adherence to standards of behavior while in office and exercising my civic obligation to demand it of her has zero relationship with ‘hate’. It is a vast difference.
The bottom line is she and all who have vested interests surrounding her, hate my calling her out and shining a light. The only problem I actually present, is to wrongdoing.

#11: ‘Dixon has done nothing worthy to be on Council!’

Answer: Besides the volunteer work I’ve done (which is nobody’s business, if you volunteer and then talk about it, its not selfless, its selfish).
I saw wrong in my government and did everything in my power, within legal parameters, to bring it into the light in order to eradicate/change it, as is my right and civic duty under our US Constitution. I have done so through protest on street corners, alone and vulnerable where people scream and jeer and give me the foulest looks for daring to call out elected officials for wrongdoing. I have taken it to Council chambers themselves where I took advantage of my opportunities to speak. I took it to print in letters to the editor and guest columns in the newspaper. I have run for office three times now at a cost of nearly $5000, hundreds of man-hours designing signs, literature and campaign strategies, walking the streets, knocking on doors, talking with citizens, putting signs out and taking them up after election day. Hundreds of man hours requesting freedom of information documents, sifting through boxes of records, interviewing people, talking with the Press, compiling information, facts, records and THEN spending hundreds of hours recording them into a blog with over 100 lengthy, precise and well-documented, thorough posts, all in service to my fight and my respect for the citizen’s right to know. I, in my vocality, have kept my elected leaders on their toes, again and again while everyone else slept, watched tv, enjoyed outdoor time, etc. What has MY gain been?
Growing up in this town, I was viewed as amiable, funny, likeable Jerry Dixon, I don’t think anyone had an ill-word to say about me. Now, because of the heresy of my attempts to hold my elected Whitehall leaders behavior accountable, I’ve been called a ‘Nazi’, ‘ill-tempered’, a ‘bully’, that I hate Whitehall and that I’m merely ‘miserable’, those things which have dropped me considerably from that ‘likeable’ reputation in my own hometown. I have made ZERO money for my efforts over 10 years and have had the entirety of my CITY HALL government hate me, those who cherish their jobs and power and patronage more than the tenets of the U.S. Constitution . I am treated like a pariah because I gave enough of a damn to do something about wrong in government instead of sitting on the sidelines giving silent consent to that wrong. I have gained nothing and if I do get onto council, I’ll still be only 1 vote of 7 in a house fully lined with those hand-picked by the Mayor herself. I will have ZERO power to do anything about whatever anyone else in Maggard’s house wants to do. That will have been my gain. Doesn’t much seem worth it now, does it?

The bottom line is this:

I came back to Whitehall with the express purpose of getting involved in local doings. It just so happened that it was City Hall which presented itself to me through arrogant, authoritarian advances.

I WISH…

It became apparent that Whitehall’s governance was being operated by a close-knit clique who was bent on keeping their power and abusing the processes of government to hurt those who opposed them or spoke out.

That was wrong.

My sense of fairness became outraged at what I saw and so I fought them. I have always been a champion of the little guy and rail against abuse of authority (ask any of my friends). I am a single man with no children and so had the time to spend fighting them that others perhaps didn’t (to the outrage of those who hate me for calling out the status quo they’re a part of). The things they did and said were outrageous to me and out of a duty to justice and this country’s very sacred tenets, I fought back… hard, after all, I was one person against an entire City Hall but, if you can’t do what needs to be done to do the right thing in your own hometown, where do you fight? And so I did.
From John Wolfe’s wrong’s to Mayor Maggard and those on Council who’re supposed to be representing YOU, the citizen, but instead sidle up to the Mayor and keep that clique going for their own self-interests. As an American and as a Whitehallian, I find it unacceptable and appalling in a representative government that elected officials would circle the wagons, not against enemies who would encroach against our amazing Republic but against citizens who would exercise their civic duty to fight for that Republic. All for the continuation of their own self-interests (vanity, ego, power, friends pensions, their pensions, vested interests, etc.). This blog is not filled with over 100 posts because I like to hear myself think but rather because a) their self-interest and wrong is evident and because b) people need to hear what City Hall officials don’t want them to hear.

The fact is that Whitehall can’t afford to be its once sleepy little insular self anymore*. Mayor Maggard has seen to that, repositioning our government, sidling up to heavyweight investors and bringing in MORPC and OHM to transform our little town into something bigger for the future, that which may not include you in its plans. As such, our insular, small-town attitudes must change to compete and/or fight back. That includes the way we view our participation in local governance. If we’re truly gonna play with the big boys then we must elevate the citizenry to a place where they ensure their leaders are thinking of them, fully, in all those heavyweight decisions they’re making for you. If this is gonna be a city of the people by the people for the people then we must rise up and put effort into making that happen. We don’t do that with complacency over what’s happening at City Hall or silently give our consent to their wall of self-serving silence.

Do you want to be governed even further by self-serving businesses and the wealthy or do you want to be the director’s of your own lives and community: individual, self-governing and independent? That is what I am trying to help you be as she steers our little town towards something bigger that will be increasingly difficult to turn around once it gains its momentum.

One man, one vote towards you, the citizens, and not them who would mindlessly sacrifice your community to the highest bidder. One man in there who is watching out, fully, for your interests and not those of wealthy self-interests who don’t care about your community but instead, their own bottom lines.
Those whose self-interests oppose my efforts and whose voices are so much louder than mine, rail against me with furious opposition to drown out my understandable and damning accusations. They don’t want you to listen to me because it doesn’t serve the clique and all their self-interests. They want you to think that it is I who is the problem and not them who I charge with such wrong goings-on. I have fought valiantly and tirelessly for you and my hometown now for 10 years, trying to upset the applecart of this ‘little guy’/freedom-damaging clique.

What possible harm could one man with one vote do to anyone or anything if elected? Don’t you want, at the least, one voice in there who will stand as a watchdog, a guardian for you and your rights in your government? In light of their wrongs: morally, ethically, why is that something anyone would oppose?

I ask then for your consideration Tuesday November 5th.

Thank you

*

THE OHM REPORT ON WHITEHALL’S FUTURE: MY OBSERVATIONS

Note the Mayor still had over $1300 in her coffers to spend. One can’t help but wonder what that is headed for.

Recently I posted this meme after the campaign financial reports came due to the Franklin County Board of Elections. The stats reveal something about this year’s campaign for the at-Large council seats up for grabs: that, apparently, the only one fighting and campaigning for those seats is me and (oddly), the  Mayor. The three other contenders for those seats (already in them) don’t seem to be putting much effort at all into ‘winning’ those seats. Its almost as if they feel entitled to them or something.

Every time I’ve run for office, I was under the impression you were supposed to make an effort to win the position you were running for, call me crazy. That meant campaigning: an effort to convince the voters why you were the best candidate for the position and why your opponents weren’t. In that effort, over 3 elections, I’ve spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours delivering literature door to door, putting out signs, writing blogposts on various topics and meeting people. That was always the standard and expectation for candidates running for office. Sadly, here in Whitehall, that doesn’t seem to matter.

When I first ran in 2015 against the same three I’m running against now, outside of a few signs placed around town, this was the only real literature I saw, something Whitehall City Auditor Dan Miller produced for them*: a small Xeroxed flier touting the three of them together, thereby foreshadowing the Mayor’s campaign three years later. (Apparently, for some reason… Auditor Miller and Mayor Maggard seem desperate to keep me out of City Hall. I wonder why?)

Now, this year, whereas Karen Conison and myself answered all the questions put to us by the Whitehall News and Columbus Dispatch, Wes Kantor only answered the Whitehall News and Bob Bailey answered questions for neither. Outside of that, a few recycled signs were placed around town, and literature paid for by ‘Citizens for Kim Maggard’ was placed door to door, for the benefit of everyone running, not just my three opponents but, all 7 candidates (besides me). Apparently, the only person putting in any real effort to win the seat they’re running for, is myself. Even the Mayor is not doing anything other than putting herself on a flier with everyone else. They’re now like a 7-headed conglomerate named ‘The Team’ (No one else allowed in ‘their’ government!!)

The bottom line is this: In America, a seat in government is not something that is guaranteed anyone but rather, something you work to obtain, its called a campaign. Why don’t they feel the need to campaign? Is it because they’re the incumbents and their monolith of power alone will re-seat them? Is it getting too comfortable and so one becomes lazy (or disrespectful) to the voters who decide? Is it relying on the status quo itself to ease them back into the seats of power they’ve held for so long (After all, there must be some reward for their silent, nodding allegiance to their ‘Team leader’)? Why don’t they feel compelled to fight for that seat, at least those who have a challenger?
I feel that, once in, something happens to them: perhaps they have nothing else to do, perhaps the power is too intoxicating, perhaps they prize politics over personal principles. Whatever it may be, I do know this: these seats were meant for all the citizens to participate in and not simply guarded by the power of the status quo for a select few, and most certainly not for the dominant power of any one person. I have fought hard to do my share of our civic duty, always for the citizens, always for ethical principles. I have proven myself, year after year, to be passionate and dedicated to that which drives me and have more than made my case to my fellow Whitehallians . In other words: I have campaigned to earn their vote.

Tom Potter, unchallenged candidate for President of Council: ZERO effort. Silence.

Kim Maggard, unchallenged incumbent candidate for Mayor: No individual effort but, ALL for her ‘Team’***

Michael Bivens, unchallenged incumbent candidate for City Attorney: ZERO effort. Silence.

Steve Quincel, unchallenged incumbent candidate for City Treasurer: ZERO effort. Silence.

Karen Conison, challenged incumbent candidate for at-Large Council: minimal effort. Silence.

Bob Bailey, challenged incumbent candidate for at-Large Council: near-zero effort. Silence.

Wesley Kantor, challenged incumbent candidate for at-Large Council: very minimal effort. Silence.

Gerald Dixon, challenged candidate for at-Large Council: Full effort. Vocal.

(Apparently when you’re elected to serve in City Hall, after your swearing-in ceremony, you’re asked to check your opinions and tongue at the door)

*

Do you think the flier cost a combined total of $750 or was it $250 divided by three that should’ve been calculated? Making it $83.33 In-Kind contribution that Auditor Miller made to each campaign?

**
Kim Maggard: 16 years
Bob Bailey: 12 years
Wes Kantor: 12 years

*** I fully expect the Mayor’s picks, through signage, like last years ‘Yes on Issue 37 signs, to suddenly flourish in front of businesses and apartments like daffodils in Spring the last weekend before the election.