Bernero knows best

Posted by ben on 17th September

Sit down and shut up


“Act 99 is the way to go. Otherwise, we’ll just have to tighten our belts and do it on the existent budget.” — Lansing mayor Bernero

“Residents have overwhelmingly said they’d prefer more police officers to new technology.” — Susan Vela, Lansing State Journal

Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

That’s just to install the cameras that nobody wants. Yearly costs are more than fifty thousand dollars. Neither figure includes funding for personnel to monitor the cameras, so either some other project goes unfunded for those, or else the cameras are purely a reactive tool. But it turns out that act 99 has nothing to do with whether or not surveillance cameras are installed in Lansing, only whether or not commercial loans will be solicited to cover the installation. Whether the city goes into debt for them, or we cannibalize other programs for them. No need to outline plans for paying back the loans - the state and city are doing just fine. I mean, everyone knows that GM is practically pissing money at Lansing, right? The cameras that nobody seems to want are going in regardless, because Virg knows what’s best for you.

It’s the same sort of arrogance heard from Senator Graham on the immigration reform bill. He wanted it, and he’s a Senator, so you can all piss off. “…because some people don’t want to say to the loud folks – ‘No, you can’t have your way all the time.’ ” Sit down on the therapist’s couch Mr. Graham, and think about the loud folks. Try to remember what they looked like. Did they seem to resemble the same constituents who voted you into office in the first place? The people you work for? Maybe they just seem loud because they drowned out the only 23% of Americans who supported the legislation. You’re not their ruler, you’re their servant. Your job is to do what they ask of you and if you have a problem with that, you’re welcome to find other employment.

Likewise mayor Bernero. He’s certainly under no obligation to respect the will of his constituents, but we’re under no obligation to renew his employment. After the contempt with which he’s treated the constituency, voting him out of his job is just logical. Any tasty schadenfreude I get from it, well, that’s gravy.

7 Comments

  1. Phildo, September 17, 2007:

    Some small town in AK did this not too long. Nobody wanted it. NOBODY!

  2. ben, September 17, 2007:

    It doesn’t matter if you want it; you’re not smart enough to know what’s best for you.

    Man, this stuff is infuriating.

  3. Daniel J. Luke, September 18, 2007:

    He didn’t get the votes on the council for act 99 funding.

    There has been some talk about him getting funding by cutting other things in the budget being a violation of the city charter, and/or people starting a recall election if he tries to go ahead with the cameras.

  4. ben, September 18, 2007:

    That would be his second recall attempt in as many years.

  5. Daniel J. Luke, September 18, 2007:

    True, but the first recall attempt was just for him being an ass (and not for promoting a plan that most people don’t want).

  6. ben, September 18, 2007:

    Where are you hearing talk of a new recall election?

  7. Daniel J. Luke, September 20, 2007:

    I saw it in comments on the lsj site.

    Today brings us this as well:

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/09/londons_securit.html

Leave a comment