Mike Bruno: The Long Game and 'Never Say Never'

Back on 3/20, I participated in a “candidate forum” co-hosted by Rick Nagel of Patch.com and Geneva TaxFACTS. Unfortunately, it was much like what I expected. I say “unfortunately”, because the format generally tends to give no space for nuance and frames situations in false dichotomies. Even the moderator, in his summary of the event, said “I'm not sure a short-answer forum is best suited to [Mike’s] cerebral and nuanced approach to problem-solving.” If by “cerebral” he means “thinks through the complexity and shades of gray” then yes, there was little room in the forum to flesh out all the issues to be best benefit of the audience. More on that in a bit. The focus was to be on financial issues, but spent a good deal of time on historic preservation. This mix, I presume, due to those being the two areas where my opponent has taken firm stances that differ from my own.

On fiscal issues, both my opponent and I wish to spend money prudently. (File that bit of wisdom under “Duh!”) We differ, primarily, on whether it makes sense to put a line in the sand and take options off the table before you know what issues were coming before you. My opponent has pledged to never-ever-ever vote to raise taxes. But consider this hypothetical: a tornado comes through town and destroys Public Works and our water treatment facilities. On the assumption that we are not made fully right through insurance and conventional safeguards, we are faced with a choice. Do we simply compromise or forego street and electrical maintenance and drinking water? For myself; I am a fan of streets, electricity and drinking water. I am pretty sure our citizens are fans too. Given that independent analysis has shown Geneva to already be very lean, we wouldn’t have the money to reallocate. Such a pledge (far too popular in today’s politics) effectively has made that decision already...and that pledge would have to be broken. To my opponent: Never Say Never.

My opponent is also highly critical of Historic Preservation while at the same time [contradictorily] touting downtown vitality as a key point on economics.

First: It’s ironic that he can be so critical of the Historic Preservation Commission and the rules that they apply when he is so unfamiliar with its functioning, principles and guidelines that bind that [legally required] commission. In my 11-year tenure on the Commission with near perfect attendance, I do not recall seeing my opponent there even once! (In fairness, he was only 11 years old when I joined the Commission.) I’ve yet to hear him cite a specific preservation issue where he has not gotten the facts spectacularly wrong [ref] [ref].

Second: Downtown is an economic powerhouse on par with Randall Road because it is a tourist destination with eclectic shops and dining nestled in historic surroundings. Other communities ACHE to have what we have in our downtown. My opponent would seem to argue that the only tourist appeal of our downtown is the storefronts along the narrow strips of South Third Street and West State Street. Ask any visitor or nearby municipality and that will be proven wrong. He says that we should dilute the rules for homeowners in the historic district. (btw: that may be more than problematic, that may be illegal to apply rules differently between property owners) That’s a bold stance since it is at odds with the results of community survey and after community survey. The city mission statement and vision in public documents fairly drips with “honoring heritage” and “preservation” because that is what the community has said. My opponent seems more than slightly disconnected from that.

Third: The forum and my opponent seem all too fond of false dichotomies. “Are you for property rights? Or are you for Historic Preservation?” [as one question might be paraphrased] as though they are mutually exclusive. I am surprised that this red herring still has legs. What if we phrased the question “Are you for property rights? Or are you for municipal zoning?” A one minute response time doesn’t leave time to deconstruct what is wrong with the question let alone answer it. Are we upset that our neighbor is kept from adding three additional stories on their house? Are we offended that we must install our electrical system such that it won’t kill the occupants or burn down the house? Are our rights trampled because we can’t process livestock in our back yard? I, too, am for property rights but we happily and gratefully live under many restrictions because those restrictions protect our neighbors and those things that we value as a community. Moreover: It is a statistical, numerical fact that historic preservation benefits residents directly through improved property values, faster appreciation and faster sale times. Studies even show that it has positive (lowering) effects on tax rates. Residents also have available restoration tax incentives that can save them tens of thousands and even far more. And, for the record, the Preservation Commission has approved lots and lots of windows replacement, demolitions, additions and there are approved synthetic materials. Just a mere 2% of petitioners are denied by the commission. How onerous can it be?

If elected, I promise to listen to my constituents...but that does not preclude the possibility that I might vote on a matter contrary to a majority will. While I can comfortably say this would be rare; we elect officials to do the heaving lifting of parsing evidence and consuming information and understanding the facts that the citizens may not have available or may not have the time or inclination to consume. We expect our elected officials to have a better understanding of the important issues and vote for our long-term benefit on our behalf. On the occasional, optional spending issues of any significance, I would be inclined to consider a public referendum in lieu of a council decision. The city has used this process to good effect previously.

I hope that, on April 9th, you will choose me as the candidate that would best consider the long term interests of the 1st Ward and our beloved city.

Mike@MikeBrunoGeneva.com

www.MikeBrunoGeneva.com

Editor's note: Geneva Patch welcomes comments to this blog post. For election-election-related articles and blogs, comments will be approved only if the commenter uses his or her full name—either as the username or at the end of the comment.