If 'anonymous' means 'in plain sight,' we're guilty as charged
We've gotten a few chuckles out of the Letters column in the Eccentric lately. Thanks to Lex Kuhne for mentioning some of them in his guest column below.As always, Dante Lanzetta, Birmingham's own Dick Nixon, played fast and loose with the truth on Sunday as he tried to garner sympathy for himself. His letter needed only a photo of him with his wife and dog. Lanzetta joined the chorus of people calling us "anonymous" even as we sign our editorials and file legal disclosures with the state, as we always have. If we are anonymous, how is Lanzetta able to name us? Hmmm. Four years out of power, and he's lost his linguistic edge.
Lanzetta urged someone -- anyone -- to expose our "various personal and financial motives," when he could easily do it himself, since we've always been up front about our motives. I am a pro-development resident and business owner who values his property rights, wants to shore up the value of his property and see more of the tax burden picked up by businesses; Chris Longe is an architect whose livelihood depends on that development, and whose high-quality residential and commercial projects are on display all over town.
Lanzetta claims not to have had a political organization, nor known George Dilgard, six years ago. Maybe that's because he wasn't running for office six years ago. But he sure had an organization, and knew Dilgard, four years ago when Dilgard helped run Lanzetta's last commission campaign.
Mary Ryan Taras, a former government teacher at Seaholm, continued the silliness about anonymity on Sunday. She had Chris Longe's name and business address and knows how much money the political action committee he leads spent during the campaign. So much for anonymity. Much has changed, apparently, since Taras' retirement. PACs are legal, so-called negative campaigning (wherein unfortunate truth is told about an opponent) is part of the political process, and information about PACs is freely available on the Internet.
Which brings us to that unfortunate truth. Somehow, to some, pointing out that Seth Chafetz and George Dilgard have repeatedly and recklessly disregarded residents' rights and tax bills amounts to making "personal attacks."
Let's start with Chafetz' sponsorship of the tree ordinance. It was his baby, plain and simple. He wanted to restrict your right to trim trees on your own property. When public outcry against those provisions grew deafening, Chafetz dropped his support for those provisions, yet continued to insist, as mayor, that city staff obtain commission approval for any cutting on city-owed property. You wisely voted him out of office.
Personal attack, or unfortunate truth?
Now George Dilgard's lighting ordinance. It has been tabled by the City Commission, in part because it is virtually incomprehensible and in part because it would regulate the emission of light from private property.
Personal attack, or unfortunate truth?
Now your tax bills. Who here thinks his or her tax bill is reasonable?
Nobody? Why? Could it be because Birmingham, at the hands of Lanzetta, Chafetz and Dilgard (with not a little help from Gary Kulak and others), changed downtown zoning laws to make it impossible to build an economically viable building, thus chasing away millions of dollars in investment (during an economic boom, when there was plenty of dough to go around) that would have attracted businesses that would now be bearing a larger share of the tax burden?
Personal attack, or unfortunate truth?
Lex Kuhne says it as well as it can be said. Chafetz and Dilgard had their chance. They blew it, and that's why your tax bills are through the roof. That's not a personal attack on Chafetz and Dilgard, it's the unfortunate truth.
The guys you elected four years ago -- Tom McDaniel and Scott Moore -- are finally cleaning up the mess, and along with Shelli Weisberg and Gordon Rinschler, will continue to make Birmingham a better, more attractive community.
Posted by on 11/05 at 05:18 PM
Previous entry: Number 63-BULLETIN-Nov. 4, 2003