Letter I wrote to Flint Journal columnist Andrew Heller, with regards to mayor Don Williamson.
EVENT
Mr. Heller wrote the following column: Redemption still eludes The Don.
Hello,
I enjoyed your column today on the Don and his antics.
On the one hand, I think you're a little bit too easy on the guy. Whether or not Don Williamson is able to make sound policy decisions is of central importance, but it's not the entirety of the issue. It's important for a municipal government (as much as a national government) to function as a democracy; there are checks-and-balances like rungs and gears to keep the whole thing from spinning out of control. But the more they strain against each other, the less the whole machinery turns. The fact is that the Don, Stanley, and many council members have been too coercive and exploitative (think of Williamson's casino plans, his city seal advertising for Patsy Lou, and his purcharse of the recent city council).
While I still hope to move home to Flint someday, this is something I think I have learned from living in other cities; Chicago and New York both have their share of corruption, but nothing as pervasive, blatant, and paralyzing as what I've seen in Flint over the years (at least not recently). I think, perhaps, that the mindset of Flint is so accustomed to being beaten down, economically, fiscally, even culturally in our relationship to both Detroit and the suburbs, that citizens take for granted that their leadership must be equally shoddy. In fact, most of our most capable potential leaders are probably alienated more by the infighting Flint government is notorious for than because of the substandard pay. And yet one round of motivated candidates and one decisive election could sweep all that away.
And (to be candid, but just with you) I have mixed feelings about a lot of the Journal's strategies; toward what is important to report, toward how to report it, and I'm skeptical of many editorial positions. But one thing I've always respected in the Journal (pretty much across-the-board) is your unceasing efforts to engage our leaders in dialogue. Even after mayor's boycot and the recent suit, you are persistant (and persistantly courteous) in your efforts to have a dialogue with the man. Of course, in a democracy nothing works without compromise, and any compromise requires a conversation.
In this way, I often think that the Journal, and especially its columnists and editorial staff, are the only ones bringing something worthwhile and openminded to the table.
So that's that! :)
Best,
Connor Coyne
Of course, I posted the whole thing here, meaning I'm also being candid with anyone reading this, but the readership is sufficiently modest (does anyone even read my Flint posts?) that I don't think it'll hurt anyone's feelings. Ah, the glories of being a small-time blogger.
END OF POST.
I enjoyed your column today on the Don and his antics.
On the one hand, I think you're a little bit too easy on the guy. Whether or not Don Williamson is able to make sound policy decisions is of central importance, but it's not the entirety of the issue. It's important for a municipal government (as much as a national government) to function as a democracy; there are checks-and-balances like rungs and gears to keep the whole thing from spinning out of control. But the more they strain against each other, the less the whole machinery turns. The fact is that the Don, Stanley, and many council members have been too coercive and exploitative (think of Williamson's casino plans, his city seal advertising for Patsy Lou, and his purcharse of the recent city council).
While I still hope to move home to Flint someday, this is something I think I have learned from living in other cities; Chicago and New York both have their share of corruption, but nothing as pervasive, blatant, and paralyzing as what I've seen in Flint over the years (at least not recently). I think, perhaps, that the mindset of Flint is so accustomed to being beaten down, economically, fiscally, even culturally in our relationship to both Detroit and the suburbs, that citizens take for granted that their leadership must be equally shoddy. In fact, most of our most capable potential leaders are probably alienated more by the infighting Flint government is notorious for than because of the substandard pay. And yet one round of motivated candidates and one decisive election could sweep all that away.
And (to be candid, but just with you) I have mixed feelings about a lot of the Journal's strategies; toward what is important to report, toward how to report it, and I'm skeptical of many editorial positions. But one thing I've always respected in the Journal (pretty much across-the-board) is your unceasing efforts to engage our leaders in dialogue. Even after mayor's boycot and the recent suit, you are persistant (and persistantly courteous) in your efforts to have a dialogue with the man. Of course, in a democracy nothing works without compromise, and any compromise requires a conversation.
In this way, I often think that the Journal, and especially its columnists and editorial staff, are the only ones bringing something worthwhile and openminded to the table.
So that's that! :)
Best,
Connor Coyne
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home