Jackson Free Press

All, the debate is over, so tell us what you thought. Did you learn something new? Did you hear something you liked? Didn't like? Did it affect your vote? What were the best moments? The worst?

Previous Commentsshow

OK, coming back from the break it feels like Johnson put the gloves on, going after Crisler for not having executive experience. Does that work? Does it suggest he's got ground to make up?

Todd Stauffer

May 14 2009

Well harvey disapointed me tonight. He reminded me why Frank won last time. I really thought Harvey had learn from his lost but the old Harvey showed up tonight. Now i'm afraid that if I vote for Harvey the old slow goverment official will return

Psyharden

May 14 2009

I gave the edge to Johnson, though I could see if anyone says it was a draw. Both candidates did get a little snappy towards each other. As a Johnson supporter, I think he was somewhat condescending towards Crisler regarding experience. Crisler came out better in this debate than in the last one.

golden eagle

May 14 2009

i'm not crazy about either candidate. they both have lot's of flaws. i'm not leaning towards crisler, simply because he's younger (actually much younger) and because HJ is beginning to come across either mean or mad lately. While is still a close call, i would say give somebody new a chance.

FriendsofJackson

May 14 2009

"Billy Bad Ass?" LOL, Baquan. You're on this a.m. And thanks for the compliment. ;-) I learned later at Pi(e) that they had a drinking game for everytime I took my glasses on or off! Scoundrels!

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

The "Master" comment floored me. "Master?" Was the former Mayor trying to be alienate everyone under the age of 60 or what? Also, does he not believe that there needs to be a coordinated effort between the sheriff's department and police department to control public safety in this City? I know that he wouldn't want McMillan to be the Police Chief. I get that. But he didn't want to concede that there needed to be more cooperation. He came off as being incredibly territorial. There is some validity to the generational question raised by Stringfellow last night. It was dismissed entirely. But when you make a presentation that comes off as territorial or mean or alienating or condescending it gives more validity to the initial question. I like HJ, but I was disappointed. The next Mayor has got to be open-minded and willing to represent the ENTIRE City.

Here to Stay

May 15 2009

Re the "master" thing, someone texted me last night and said it was a "Bilbo" comment. Comparing Johnson to Bilbo was really off the charts, and I told him that. That didn't bother me much in context; it sounded to me like Johnson was expressing his belief that Crisler would not be "independent" of influences from his supporters. I think that is a legitimate concern: The way he answered the Two Lake question indicates that he might be following what supporters want -- he didn't really answer it, by the way, because it was about how to be sure it's the right plan. He wants to jump in on Day one and support that plan without any further study or comparison to other plans. That is terrifying to me, especially with all the information out there about the Corps concerns, environmentalist concerns, engineering concerns (not those hired by McGowan currently, but others), cost concerns, will-it-work concerns. Is there really not a single thing to be looked at before jumping in with both feet? This really, really concerns me all. Truthfully, and I'm not sure he knows this, but the plan may not proceed and have little to do with what the mayor wants -- but the next mayor really should up on the pros and cons of such a huge undertaking. You simply cannot hide "Two Lakes" behind the mantle of "flood control." Stringfellow said it well in the analysis afterward when it said it's a development project being masqueraded as a flood-control project. Sadly, Desiree Frazier didn't seem up on the issues around it, either -- indicating that the next mayor just needs to take action on flood control. This is an attitude we have to watch -- just jumping in and taking action is not always a good thing. We desperately need leaders who look at this issue in a more balanced, less tethered-to-McGowan and Speed way, and consider the alternatives. That has never been done in a serious way -- thus, the delays! -- because people who would directly benefit are pushing Two Lake so hard. Many of them are supporting Crisler. He needs to show that he is independent of those influences on a project of this scale. It is most certainly not representing the "entire city" to not be interested in hearing legitimate concerns on a project of this scale. Can you imagine Obama saying, "yeah, let's do it! No need to delay to look at the other side! Full speed ahead!" Instead, Crisler is there whole-hog without asking further questions. Ouch.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

In my opinion, Harvey Johnson clearly won the debate. The sad part is that most of Jackson seems disinterested and probably didn't see it, so I can't say how it will affect the election. Harvey was definitely tougher than I've ever seen him, but I was actually happy to see it. I've been waiting to see him fight for it with passion. During the Melton election, he seemed so soft and passive. I appreciate a gentleman, but when the cowboy is taking your territory with no real substance, you have to show that you have more substance and that you have passion. Last night Crisler showed his inexperience and the fact that he was not all that informed about certain things in the city. I've said this many times, but it's worth saying again- I am not impressed by his campaign. It seems like it has been his to lose all the time, but they have not been preparing him well. His notes (that he constantly referred to) seemed inaccurate last night. Also, the generational question that was obviously a piece of low lying fruit for Crisler- well I guess that wasn't in his notes. He totally missed the opportunity to give a great answer. I was thinking...Didn't he watch the Obama campaign season?...surely he should have learned how to answer that question. As for the Master question, I think Crisler took it to race and slavery. I didn't even think that when Harvey said it. I was thinking more biblically- you can't serve two masters. Overall, I think a lot of people have been concerned about McMillan as Crisler's boss for all these years. Most people I talk to really want crime down, but they don't think McMillan is the answer for Jackson. Many Crisler supporters believed (and still do believe) that McMillan could the be solution to crime in Jackson. I believe that Crisler KNOWS that Jackson needs its own Chief, but the fact that he didn't want to come out and say it shows me that he's either afraid to step on his boss' toes or afraid that his support base won't like it. Both scenarios are bad in my opinion. I still won't make any predictions as to who will be the mayor of Jackson because it all depends on voter turnout, but I believe that Harvey won the debate. Harvey may have seemed a little frustrated, but I think he has a right to be frustrated at this point. I liked the passion.

News Junkie

May 15 2009

Did Crisler say he is for a metro form of government?

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Many Crisler supporters believed (and still do believe) that McMillan could the be solution to crime in Jackson. The problem, of course, is that one person cannot be the "solution to crime in Jackson." It's sad that, after the Melton lesson, anybody would still think that one person is the answer. That is just as dumb and naive now as it was when Melton promised to solve crime in 90 days.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Donna, your Two Lakes vendetta is really getting old. You continually make reference to alleged "reports" that show it is development masquerading as flood control, and yet all you point me to in reference is an Article written by the Free Press which makes conclusory allegations. The Corps has to sign off on this project. If they don't think it will work, its dead. It has nothing to do with whether Marshand Crisler thinks it will work.

QB

May 15 2009

Ladd- I agree with you, but unfortunately the majority believed it then...

News Junkie

May 15 2009

Donna, your Two Lakes vendetta is really getting old. Yeah, that's what a few used to say about my "Melton vendetta," until we were proved right. It's not a "vendetta"; it is yet another call from the JFP to the citizens of Jackson to not just believe the hype coming from people with direct benefit in the project. Once again, we are the only media outlet sounding a very serious alarm. This paper is for *smart* development, but not *any* development. I want to see discussions about "flood control" options that has no one at the table with a financial stake in one of the plans. We cannot have a real conversation about it if a few powerful people are controlling the dialogue and making it sound like not going along with their self-interested plan is just "delaying" flood control. That's treating us like we're all stupid; we don't need to go along with it. We will do everything in our power to force a real conversation about this before it goes forward even if Jackson elects a mayor Tuesday that does not want that conversation to happen. So get ready for it. This is too expensive not to take much more seriously than this project's supporters want us to take it. The point about Crisler is that he should take the time to know the pros and cons of this issue, and make it clear that he is not just following the desires of his big supporters. I agree that he won't have the power to make it happen, but the fact that he is running on it without question is the part that really concerns us.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Baquan, it seemed like Crisler backed off from support of metro government last night (or punted on it; can't remember exact quotes), but his supporters have made it clear here and elsewhere that they want him to start the process of combining agencies and services. Is he on the record already supporting it? That's my question. Clearly, it's a discussion that needs to be had. But, boy, do you have to tread carefully on this one. I share concerns that we don't want "metro" governments to just take over Jackson--which many would have happen if we're not vigilant. I mean, look at the sales-tax "commission" thing where the Legislature is allowing the "chamber" (which one to be determined) to decide who can decide how we would spend our sales taxes. I was going to ask Crisler to talk more about which agencies he thinks should be combined (based on a post here from one of his supporters), but we ran out of time.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Can someone please explain to me why the Sales Tax Commission was such a bad idea? (I'm not being combative here, I really want to see both sides.) If the mayoral office would have remained the same, I would be HAPPY that the executive office couldn't oversee the money. Of course, that's not the case now, but overall it doesn't make or break it for me. I understand the people wanting to have the power through the Democratic process, but if "the people" would have maintained the same leadership...I think I understand the legislature's concerns.

News Junkie

May 15 2009

I have never heard Crisler intimate or expressly state that he was in favor of "Metro" government. In fact, I do believe he stated last night that he was not in favor of combining agencies or departments. To throw that charge out there is nothing more than a scurilous allegation that has no legitimacy. I understand that some people may want to scare a certain segment of this city with the whole "Crisler wants Metro government" charge. But it's a real disservice to the readership to imply or expressly state that he is in favor of such a system. NO Mayor would be in favor of that system because it would dilute their ability to control their administration. That's just silly. As for his "supporters", I know many who would not support nor advise him to adopt that line of thinking. This whole "Da Man's in control" argument is antiquated and unhealthy for a City that is attempting to become progressive. (and I do mean attempting) Our President should have taught us that this past year. Unfortunately, this race is reminding me of Barack's first race against former Black Panther Congressman Bobby Rush and Newark Mayor Corey Booker's race against Sharpe James. When you're running out of cards to play, throw out the "you're being controlled by white folk" card. It's okay to intelligently discuss Two Lakes proposals, economic development, unemployment, crime, infrastructure or quality of life in an intelligent, inciteful way. But this whole "boogeyman" routine is tired.... and unhealthy for this city at this juncture. We could use a breath of fresh air from this act.

Here to Stay

May 15 2009

I attended the debate last night and it was the best I've ever seen in the state. It was even better, in my opinion, than the debates between Johns Author and Haley. I agree Baquan2000, Donna was a knock out in her black and white poka-dot blouse worn with a very tastefully tailored black suit. She even put on red lipstick which made for a more friendly face. Don't let the lipstick fool you. Donna was on top of the questions and did not give JOhnson any slack for any reason. I think that this was a concern since the JFP endorsed Johnson. Crisler's inexperience and lack of knowledge on certain issues really surfaced. He was very dependent on his script and read from it for his opening and closing remarks. Johnson is not mean: He is a fighter and it is with this spirit that, if elected, he will continue the work he started and will be able to get Jackson "BACK ON TRACK."

justjess

May 15 2009

Hey, you know me: I'm just a pitbull in lipstick! ;-) Thanks, y'all. Group hug. As far as cutting anyone any "slack," no one gets it from us. Whoever is elected mayor is going to have to contend with our watchdogging in a very serious and prominent way. And I hope they hire communications (and administrative and legal andd ...) people who are tough professionals and can handle the heat without taking every little thing so damn personally (ahem, Crisler campaign manager). I'm concerned with both their hiring choices going forward. Johnson didn't always make great ones in the past, hiring people who crawled up into a bunker with him as the unfair and inaccurate media coverage and myths piled up. But he has vowed to do a better job, and if he is elected, he'd better. The fact that he came out swinging last night gave me hope that he realizes that he's going to have to get in people's faces more, even as he builds those relationship. And he is going to have to look eye-to-eye with his detractors and welcome their criticism, and then go make his own decisions based on the best information and what is best for the city. (Of course, the second he doesn't support Two Lakes 100 percent, white developers will say it's about race. Guys, maybe, just maybe it's about needing a better plan.) As for Crisler, he doesn't really have a hiring record we can look at—except during this campaign. And I would give him a D-minus for bringing in a campaign team who has alienated much of the city. I figure they'll say it's because we're all a bunch of hicks who don't know how campaigns work, but they would be wrong, if so. His campaign manager has lodged numerous complaints to my staff members, for instance—including last week—but when *I* wrote her back, she never responded. I sure wish she would have considered coming by and sitting down with us months ago just to get to know us a bit and what we do. She seemed wholly unaware of what our paper is and who reads us. I bring this problem up now not to bash Crisler or his choices personally—I'm sure his hires are all lovely individuals—but to say that they do not bode well for his hiring decisions. I (and many others including some close to the campaign) are very concerned about it, as it reminds me of Melton, Carolyn Redd, et al., and what happened when he got elected after promising that he would hire all these great people. And it's the only thing we have to go on on that front. Personally, I'd like to see Crisler spend the next four years studying up on communications and management issues and come back with an amazing challenge to Johnson then (which would, in turn, keep Johnson on his toes!). (Crisler could also study up on non-self-interested flood-control options during that time, too.) I like Crisler as a person immensely, but I will say it again: He's not ready. And this is too vital of a juncture after the last four years to take this risk.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Here, calm down. It is not a "scurrilous allegation" to ask the question, as people are doing here, of whether Crisler has told supporters that he supports combining agencies. Some of his supporters believe he supports that. One of them posted a long list of services/agencies here on the JFP they want to see combined. I'm curious as to what people have heard him say on the subject beyond last night. We need to make sure candidate messages to different groups are consistent. As for the "boogeyman" argument, well, one man's boogeyman is another (wo)man's reality. And you mention Obama: Obama was elected in part because many people feared that McCain wouldn't be able to get past his own party's influence, and because others feared that Hillary was too much of a "New Democrat." The "independent thinker?" question is right on. And in my humble opinion, Crisler is failing it on the Two Lakes question -- which for me because a bit of a litmus test ever since he brought it up himself in our editorial board interviews and showed absolutely no concern about the project's potential problems. This development project is much bigger than many, with dire consequences if it fails: Will he line up in support of any big development project despite its pitfalls? How can we know?

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Oh, and all, I want to again thank all the sponsors who came together to make this debate such a success. The dream team is: 100 Black Men, 16 WAPT News, Delta Sigma Theta Jackson Alumni, Jackson 2000, Jackson Progressives, TV 23, Jackson State University, Leadership Jackson Alumni and WJSU. Thanks to all—what an excellent combination of efforts to do something important for the community. And thanks to Scott and Eric: They were delightful to work with. And, yes, I beat them both arm-wrestling; told you the lipstick was deceiving. ;-)

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Here is right. Harvey won on a racially polarizing platform in 1998; its his winning strategy. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=poliscifacpub

QB

May 15 2009

Harry, you act like it is a new thing for candidates in Mississippi, and beyond, to try to appeal to a certain race more than others. Are you equally as vocal every time you see the southern strategy employed? And it is obvious to you that both sides are employing race strategies -- it is plain as day that the Crisler campaign is going for the "white" vote because they are mostly likely to turn out for a run-off. Ask any political strategist around, including those supporting Crisler. That doesn't mean he'll do the bidding of white Republicans when he gets into office; Melton sure didn't, and he went all out on the strategy to tell white voters what they wanted to hear (and others groups, too, and it often conflicted). But, it doesn't mean Crisler won't, either. On Two Lakes, for instance, with all the strong statements he's made without raising one concern, how does he get there on day one and suddenly say he's changed his mind and wants to study the alternatives a bit more? Hopefully, he would do that, but who knows? This campaign is race-soaked from every direction precisely due to our history and the fact that everyone plays race games and points fingers at others for doing it. We won't get past it until people really decide to have a different conversation and not get behind the candidate who is best for the "black" community or the "white" community. But that is happening right now. Between the two, though, I strongly believe that Johnson is the best for the whole community -- even if many white people refuse to hear it and refuse to believe that they were told lies for many years about crime and beyond. It is also true that we will not get past these strategies until people of both races are willing to admit they are a long-held tradition in this state. It killed me, just killed me, to hear John Reeves last night talk about race issues being a thing of the past and acting like he's never played the race card. His entire defense of Mr. Melton was playing the race card.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

I'm still undecided about the race, though i'm getting uneasy feelings about some of the tenor of this campaign, particular the racial undertones. Ladd, Two lakes will ultimately be decided by many, many factors being considered by many, many groups, BUT IT WILL NOT BE DECIDED BY THE MAYOR OF JACKSON ALONE. Ladd,i have a serious concern that your bias against two-lakes is so strong that it makes you almost come across as a single-issue writer and puts the issue unfairly out of perspective with other current and equally pressing issues in this race, in my opinion. You have very, very strongly held convictions about what you think about two lakes, and that conviction is constantly expressed. It is evident to me that your views are so strongly held that you cannot be open to the possibility that you might be wrong; or that others that have views different from yours might have NOTHING to do with lining some special interest groups' pockets with money, as you continue to suggest. That may be unfair; i'm sure you don't like me saying that and i guess you will respond with a very erudite, well reasoned counter-response; but my friend it is a PERCEPTION that many open-minded and loyal JFP readers have. Yes, I'm interested in two lakes. I DON'T want N.O. style levees. And, I don't want a flood control system that only works 79% of the time, with Jackson getting the brunt of the full 21% where it doesn't work. (that's the alternative non-two lakes plan that has been considered, for readers who are not familiar with it.) I'm open to anything that achieves flood control and think it is crazy not to look at economic and public use development while we're at it. Of course it should be well thought out and carefully balanced with environmental concerns. That is a given. But, we should look at all options, period; even ones that you and i may not personally like, but might be the best at the end of the day for Jackson, and the state. I say all of this, because, in my opinion, two lakes IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE THE LITMUS TEST IN THIS RACE. It is only one issue and you have put it first. I want more from you than that. No, i need more from you than that. Whoever the mayor is will have a minor impact on two lakes. The non-two-lakes issues are the ones that I want more focus on and the ones i want deeper discussion on. This race should focus on issues that give us an opportunity to move Jackson forward, to move away from the meanness and the chaos of the last 4 years and to move away from the racial divisiveness that holds our beloved city back.

msnative1943

May 15 2009

I had the opportunity to watch the Mayoral Debate which was held Thursday, May 14, 2009 at Jackson State University. One thing for sure that was missing, was that darned bullet. Not one time did we hear about it! Not one time was it mentioned! WHERE'S THE BULLET? The bullet has taken a new aim. It is now clearly trying to shoot down responsible leadership; seasoned leaderhip; proven leadership. The bullet is attempting to shoot down tried and tested leadership. However, the bullet might just run upon a bullet-proof vest and prove not to be so piercing. Somebody done gave Marshand some bad advice and he took it! He ain't no young Barack. Somebody told him that being younger worked for Barack and it might work for him. One major difference is that Harvey is clearly the Barack in this equation. I witnessed a debate that at times was quite testy. Marshand has taken a new stance now and is shooting with a new pistol. He is trying to paint Harvey Johnson as being old and out of step. He even compared him to his parents (sorry Mr. & Mrs. Crisler). That offended me. I am of that generation also and loving every minute of it! He's painting himself no longer as the "I took a bullet man," but as the "young buck" in this race. He says he has the youth and the vitality to lead this city. He also said that Harvey's talked a lot about "I" and what "I" would do. I watched the debate on-line at WAPT.COM, just to review what I thought. My thoughts were right. At the time that Marshand made that comment, he had already said "I", "Me" or "My" at least 36 times! I say that "his" youth and vitality is exactly what we don't need now. The city is in turmoil. We have a group of Republicans who pulled a candidate out of the City Council Ward 1 race so that the Republicans could all vote for Marshand Crisler in our Democratic primary! As was pointed out in the debate, the numbers don't lie. Follow the money trail and it leads right to those Republican constituents in Northeast Jackson who voted for Marshand. Somebody has told Marshand to start calling Harvey old and paint him as outdated. We know that new ain't always good, which was proven during the past administration. Truth and good judgement are better than mishandled youth and vitality. There is too much at stake for the City of Jackson to turn its reins over to what I would liken as an inexperienced driver at the wheel. Give me experience every time. We don't need another somebody in the office practicing. We need tried and true. The "I took a bullet" didn't work so now it's a new theme! This City must have an experienced LEADER and not one with bullet holes all in his ever-changing campaign. Marshand Crisler's campaign has not been a campaign of truth, but of very bitter and deep devisiveness, especially in terms of the issue of accountability. Look at the precinct returns for yourself and see what the outcome was. The only way that we can win this campaign and put Harvey Johnson back in the place where he belongs is to go out and vote. I will say it: Some are counting on you staying at home so that the Republican Party can elect Jackson's next mayor. This is a Democratic Primary and Democrats should be concerned as to who is elected Mayor. Whatever you do, regardless to who you support, just don't stay at home. You must go and vote! Let me sincerely urge you not only to vote, but to go out and vote overwhelmingly for a real man, Harvey Johnson. IT'S IN YOUR HANDS. Harvey has a new vision and wants to lead this city in a new direction. Stability, level-headedness, strong leadership: These are the factions we need to GET JACKSON BACK ON TRACK!!

GratefulJTE

May 15 2009

Not sure that I understand how a mayor who runs a racialized campaign can be seen as the best choice for the entire city. It sounds more like "since whites did it for years, its OK for Harvey to do it too." Which I suppose is a legitimate argument, but it completely undermines your statement that he would be best for the entire city. As for Two Lakes, they have been reviewing alternatives for 13 years. How much more do want? Baquan2000, what are these serious flood issues that concern you?

QB

May 15 2009

The campaign became racialized by the fact of the numbers in the voting precincts. As Harvey shared during the debate, he has served on numerous boards and committies with some of the same people who are insisting that he doesn't have a relationship with the white community. I think this type rhetoric helps to continue the insinuation that Harvey won't be a mayor for ALL of the people. He will. I just hope that the citizens of Jackson show up in a great way and circumvent any block voting.

GratefulJTE

May 15 2009

msnative: Two things. First, just a friendly reminder to please not characterize and repackage what other people *think* on these threads. Donna can defend herself, but you're overblowing how captive she is to one issue in this instance. Second, I'm really the person who most consistently expresses concern over Two Lakes here at the paper, and I remain concerned, particularly considering the rumblings coming our of the Levee Board of late. I think it's very valid to point out that Mr. Crisler has made it clear that he's *already made up his mind* about the project. That flood-mitigation/economic development project is arguably the largest one that Jackson would undertake over the next decade. It should be done extremely carefully and the final plan should fully consider all of the possibilities, some of which clearly still aren't on the table. No, the mayor of Jackson will not do it alone, but if the mayor of Jackson is already fully committed to that particular plan simply because something "must be done," then I think that's an utterly valid consideration when weighing his candidacy. We're hiring one of these men for their decision-making ability, after all. On this issue in particular, it seems that Crisler's mind is already made up, and that's worth noting exactly because it does speak to the bigger picture. Do we want "Action, Jackson" or do we want someone who is willing to hear more details before making up his mind?

Todd Stauffer

May 15 2009

Why when a black man Finally start to defend his record something that he didn't do in the last election, and fight against the rumors against him hes an ANGRY BLACK MAN. At first yall said HJ was to passive and not aggressive but as soon as he show some PASSION, OH NO!!!!! I was at the debate and i say GO Harvey GO defend yourself against these liers and Haters. Dont try to make HJ as the Racist candidate he didn't start chain letters telling All blacks to vote for him like Wyatt did for Anybody that he thought can beat HJ. FAT HARRY your sneaky for trying to play the race card.

NewJackson

May 15 2009

Jackson Jambalaya is reporting that Crisler filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2000. http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2009/05/crisler-filed-bankruptcy-in-2000.html

Jennifer2

May 15 2009

I have some honesty for you FAT HARRY, Melton was liked by whites and blacks, mainly blacks in the inner city wards 3,4,5. Thats how he beat HJ, but you know this time around those same wards 3,4 and 5 cant stand Crisler not because he has white support, its because he is arrogant. Wards 3,4,5 would choose Frank over HJ but Franks gone and HJ is the alternative. He is known to these same wards as Jackson's first black mayor. People dont know it, but a grass roots campaign is gaining momentum in the black commuinity against Crisler and the folk might look at HJ funny but they have a disdain for crisler and all the people that voted against HJ last time are beating the streets for him as i type. Thats the truth like it or not.

NewJackson

May 15 2009

I'm citing an objective report from the University of Nebraska. It's pretty clear what kind of campaign Harvey runs.

QB

May 15 2009

We just got faxes of two disturbing mailers that went out about Johnson. One is from Crisler for Mayor; the other, which is despicable and false, went out from "Better Jackson PAC." I'm guessing they just went to North Jackson. We'll get them PDF's and up shortly. I would love the actual mailers if anyone can get them over here.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

msnative, you are mischaracterizing what I have said. Two Lakes is not my only deciding point for this race -- but it does offer a good test on whether or not Crisler is willing to think independently from some of his more wealthy supporters. He isn't even interesting in exploring the options! And, no, we have not vetted all the options all these years. What you had was one group of influential pushing a plan that they believe will benefit them, and trying to quash all criticism of it. The media obediently went along with anything they said, just as they did with Melton, even as there were warning signs all over the place. The Jackson Free Press believes it is time that a *real* conversation take place on the subject of flood control and Pearl development where people with a conflict of interest are not the loudest voice at the table. They just won't take no for an answer no matter how many ways they were told that the plan is problematic and will cost far more projected. And, yes, Todd is great on this issue. He has written numerous columns about it.

DonnaLadd

May 15 2009

Donna, I've been getting calls all afternoon about these mailers. I have not seen one, but from what I'm told they are really a complete distortion of the truth. This thread has been an interesting read for me today and I've been following the comments very seriously. It is really sad where we are today with this race (election)...but it is what it is. I completely understand what happens during campaign season. This is another low-blow! What I'm really concerned about is that as you clearly pointed out....these are some of the same tricks from 2005. This is why IMHO, some African Americans are extremely concerned about a Crisler win. It reminds us of Melton...some of the same tricks played then by some of the same people for Melton...seem to be doing the same thing on Crisler's behalf.

Othor Cain

May 15 2009

Ladd and Todd both; you are both SO biased against 2 lakes that you are truly not living up to your standard of excellence that you have worked so hard for. Yes, that is MY OPINION and is shared by many. Why don't you ask somebody outside your usual circle and see what they think. Donna, you said yourself that 2 lakes had become the litmus test for mayoral candidates. Duh. You have painted yourself in the corner with 2 lakes. I have never seen the JFP do that before, which only demonstrates the power of your blind bias on this issue. I am very concerned about the two of you being so close-minded on an issue that is so important; you are diminishing your credibility with the public. By holding steadfast to your biased, shrill, unyielding and uncompromising position on this issue, you will find that JFP will soon have no effective voice in positive affecting change. You are becoming categorized as an EXTREMIST SPECIAL INTEREST voice and not as a catalyst for dynamic dialogue and intelligent resolution of a very complex and very important problem. And, that will be unfortunate, because we, the uniformed by knowledge thirsty public, want and need your skillsets applied to this dialogue. Like most, I am adamantly against a flood control "solution" (the one that has previously been favored by the majority Rankin County controlled Levee Board) that still leaves large portions of jackson vulnerable, particularly when it is the poor of jackson and the downtown area now being redeveloped that are most likely to flood under their proposed plan. That is just plain wrong. And, yes, no matter who the mayor is (even with one candidate now going "wink-wink" I'll "study" it!) if a rankin county favored control plan is adopted, you can count on the city council weighing in with litigation to stop such a foolish plan. I don't have a solution; but i do have an end result that I would like to see happen. At this point, i believe we should look at 2 lakes because it provides BETTER flood control and it provides substantial public parks and property for the city of jackson, as well as substantial private development opportunities. THOSE ELEMENTS SHOULD BE THE STANDARD, THE BENCHMARK AND NOT ELIMINATED BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO EXPENSE OR BECAUSE THEY MIGHT FAVOR JACKSON MORE THAN RANKIN COUNTY. Environmental issues, equity issues and financial issues should be applied to the standard to make sure the final result is the best solution for Jackson and for Mississippi for the next couple of CENTURIES. If it costs more money, then dammit, let's raise the money. If there are environmental problems, then let's fix them. It's just too important an issue to not do it right.

msnative1943

May 16 2009

Ladd and Todd both; you are both SO biased against 2 lakes that you are truly not living up to your standard of excellence that you have worked so hard for. Ah, but that is where you are wrong, msnative. We have no reason to be "biased" against Two Lakes unless there is really problems with the concept. The same was true with our concerns about, you know, the Iraq War, George Bush, Frank Melton, etc.—and people who supported those wars/people said similar things about our "bias" to try to discredit our point of view. (That's a logical fallacy, by the way.) No, msnative, we are taking the position of caution on Two Lake because we have done tons of homework, which no other media outlet has done on it. We have actually listened to *all* sides, and we are not biased for or against the project. We want to see it fully vetted not just by engineers hired by its proponents to come to the conclusion that they want. This is too big of a project, and too costly, for that to happen. It would be extremely irresponsible of us not to speak out against the blind support of the project. It is also completely irresponsible to jump on the Two Lake wagon without fully considering all the options and without undue pressure from Mr. McGowan and other Two Lake supporters with a large financial stake in seeing it happen. This is the kind of principle that this paper has always stood for, and we have never bowed to pressure to change our standards, especially from anonymous supporters of a project who don't care enough about it to attach their name to their silly accusations about our "bias." As for how you're twisting my words into "2 lakes had become the litmus test for mayoral candidates"—you need to stop it right now. It violates our user agreement to twist other people's words to your purposes. If you go back and re-read what I actually said carefully, perhaps you will understand it better. In essence: I am very concerned that Mr. Crisler is willing to jump behind a very large, costly and risky project without fully vetting it because some of his biggest supporters want it. *That* is not good, and it is a big problem for me and for Todd and many other people. My suggestion is stop trying to make it personal against people who don't agree with you--that's petty--and make your arguments. It's not going to get you anywhere to lodge these little personal attacks about the JFP being "extremist" because we take a different view from you on Two Lakes. Please.

DonnaLadd

May 16 2009

It's just too important an issue to not do it right. In that case, you should be a tireless proponent for the Shoccee Dam, not Two Lakes, which still has problems managing a 100 year event. Even before then, in 1984, the Corps had proposed a dry dam that would catch heavy flows from extreme rainfall events in the upper basin, events similar to those that caused the '79 and '83 floods. Called the Shoccoe Dam, to be installed near Carthage, it was planned at a cost of $80.1 million ($24 million shared by the feds and the Pearl River Basin Development District). The Corps of Engineers identified that proposal as the most comprehensive flood control project for the Pearl Basin. But in October 1984, the Mississippi House of Representatives defeated a bill authorizing the District to serve as the local sponsor for Shoccoe. Local opposition killed the funding measure, but to this day many people still consider Shoccoe to be the best plan for flood control in the middle reaches of the Pearl. Others note that the Comprehensive Levee System plan is still on the table. I can't speak to the rest of your missive, since your opinion of our opinions is stated so definitively that I'm unlikely to sway you. I will note for the record that you, yourself, have tossed out the Comprehensive Levee Plan as a solution, tossed out One Lake as a solution and have argued for nothing but Two Lakes...and then accused others of being single-minded. I think this is the most recent thing I've written on the subject: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/publishers_note_lower_lake_a_good_first_step/ I'm for flood mitigation (as far as I can tell the experts no longer say "control") in Jackson, period. Beyond that, it would be wonderful if that flood mitigation includes economic development, public parks, access to the river, and a reasonable chance of being completed as much as possible with Federal dollars. Jackson doesn't have the money to pave its streets and hire another 100 police officers it needs, much less a few hundred million dollars to "go our own way" on flood mitigation. And until it can pass muster with any reasonable flood control authority not hired by McGowan, it will remain extremely difficult for me to endorse Two Lakes. In my opinion, the plan is an overly destructive solution that has too little concern for the ecology of the river or the environmental impact. Which means, for one thing, years of lawsuits even if we do try to go ahead with it. Beyond its actual ability to control floods, I'm very concerned with how urban polution and run-off would affect water quality in the Two Lakes, what the true nature of public access to the lake will be, and what the impact will be on what is right now a sizable, urban riparian forest and eco-system. There also the very real possibility that the persistent insistence on Two Lakes is actually holding up a workable flood mitigation solution for the Pearl. When compromise plans have been presented, the argument against them is often "the water level is too low" or "the levee will block the view." Then, people start playing political games, shuffling the Levee Board and we're back at square one. Obviously I find it tremendously interesting and will continue to try to learn more. I welcome honest discussion and debate, particularly with folks who actually want to look into the substance of the alternatives (or, heaven please, present another one! :-)

Todd Stauffer

May 17 2009

i would have been dumbfounded had Marshand simply been caught off guard by Twin Lakes... i am absolutely dismayed that he brought it up and pushed for it. This is ample evidence that he is not prepared to be mayor. Twin Lakes is the quintessential Jackson issue which would illustrate a politician being in the pocket of a monied interest over the interests of the city as a whole. Our Jackson Pearl and the safety of our citizens and small businesses in the flood plain have been left out to dry by the powerful parties who seek to force the Twin Lakes development. Since 1997, John McGowan has been pushing for the Twin Lakes development. It received thorough review by the then Pearl River Basin Committee and was rejected by down river Mayors because of the negative impacts it would have on their flooding as well as it's impact on our Coastal fisheries. As a result, that committee was disbanded and the Hinds Rankin Levee Board was created. After going through the Army Corps evaluation process twice, each time being denied federal funding either full or partial, McGowan began to assert that it could be financed entirely through private money...much of it hypothetically raised from businesses in the floodplain who would volunteer to pay fees to the Twin Lakes development after their flood insurance premiums go down. The Twin Lakes group became so confident that a few years ago they formed a charrette headed by an internationally recognized architectural firm noted for their unique experience on large scale projects such as these. During this charrette, a number of concerns arose which eventually led the firm to conclude that an inner-city development project was the best avenue to take and that if the Twin Lakes group must have their way, then a drastically scaled back version would be the only viable model. cont.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

Not the least of the concerns detailed were: - a discrepency of over 750 million dollars in what the project was likely to cost. - a concern that despite drastic rises in construction materials since the initial proposal, their budget plans never change. - the determination that the large island proposal would not provide the requisite water front property values needed to make the island economically viable and marketable. The accompanying recognition that forming the appropriately sized smaller islands would yield an incredible amount more of earth removal which would astronomically raise the budget. - that in order to make the lake function as a flood control, the Ross Barnett would have to pre-release 10 to 15 feet of water before storm events making it unfit for the marinas housing recreational watercraft. - that the project would likely start with large-scale destruction of flood reducing wetlands but then stall for decades under lawsuits from downstream municipalities and Gulf Coast fisheries leaving the city even more susceptible to flooding. - that popular support would only diminish from already insufficient levels once the effects of the project were realized and as the project sat unfinished for decades. (The destruction of Mayes Lake and Le Fleurs Bluff State Park were prime examples of casulaties which would further degrade citizen support.) - a concern that it left Jackson vulnerable during flash flooding. i could go on, but these are the primary concerns which touch a majority of interested parties. The fact is that the Twin Lakes proposal is prized among those individuals who wield the political power to implement flood control in Jackson. They hold Jackson hostage by refusing to move on any solution other than Twin Lakes. They continue to test the waters every few years to see if they can move the project forward and if public support does not respond, they go into hibernation and trot out Clarion Ledger editorials every few months until they try again a few years later. The Twin Lakes project has been the most questioned, studied, and explored public development of any i have ever witnessed. The charrette set a new bar in Jackson for what community directed civic development could look like. If a litmus test is an example which can be used to extrapolate a further understanding of how a candidate is situated in local politics and how they would react to local pressures, the Twin Lakes proposal might just be the best litmus test we have.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

Amen, daniel. You said it better than I could have and expressed exactly why Two Lakes is a very good issue with which to gauge how independent (of special interests) a thinker that a mayoral candidate is going to be. It is time to remove this issue from the hands of a few special interests and have a public conversation about it. Special kudos for these sum-ups (supported by immense materials): Twin Lakes is the quintessential Jackson issue which would illustrate a politician being in the pocket of a monied interest over the interests of the city as a whole. and The Twin Lakes project has been the most questioned, studied, and explored public development of any i have ever witnessed. The charrette set a new bar in Jackson for what community directed civic development could look like. If a litmus test is an example which can be used to extrapolate a further understanding of how a candidate is situated in local politics and how they would react to local pressures, the Twin Lakes proposal might just be the best litmus test we have. Crisler's stated unequivocal support of this project without further study is alone enough to draw a lot of the big-gun support he is getting. This should scare citizens. If he will do this with a project this large and potentially disastrous, what will he do on other issues his supporters want to push through? We may well agree with some of those other proposals as it goes, but it is time that Jackson reject all the "plodding" rhetoric against a mayor who is actually willing to take the time to do things right. This rhetoric benefits a handful of people a whole lot more than others. Always has. Always will.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

They continue to test the waters every few years to see if they can move the project forward and if public support does not respond, they go into hibernation and trot out Clarion Ledger editorials every few months until they try again a few years later. And truer words have never been spoken, daniel. The Clarion-Ledger has been as completely irresponsible and beholden to special interests on the Two Lakes project as it was on its endorsement of Melton. I remember them running side-by-side pro-pro columns on it one Sunday, as opposed to pro-con. I will post my notes Monday on what Crisler said about Two Lakes specifically to us. In essence, he said that he or others should take McGowan's place as spokesman because he's the problem when it comes to selling it, and he blamed the suburbs for creating the opposition to it.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

Considering the drop in crime of Harvey's tenure and the number of public projects which came to fruition during Melton's term (not to mentioned the ones slowed and stopped by Melton which Harvey had in motion) - i am very excited top see him step back to the plate. i was pretty indifferent about which of them won the run-off, but the truth is that this Twin Lakes revelation just completely destroys Crisler in my mind. As far as removing the issue of Twin Lakes from the hands of a few special interests and having a public conversation about it...that is what the charrette accomplished. The actual dialog which went on was pretty damning to the project. The fact that the levee board refused to release the final report was pretty much the nail in the coffin. This project needs to finally be removed from the table altogether so we can talk about some ideas which are executable.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

i'm afraid that reading more of his comments will make me vomit.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

I agree with you, daniel: Two Lakes should be off the table by now, but McGowan and friends keep reviving it and pretending that all studies and public hearings and such that have occurred don't matter. They won't take no for an answer. This point really scares me about Crisler: He acts as if he is simply unaware of what has transpired on the issue, and has no issue in finding out. My question in the debate the other night gave him an opening to say that he will first make sure the project is vetted well and, if so, move ahead with support. But he just wants to play the role of the hare and run on out ahead without ever looking around him or listening to different sides of an issue. This is a serious problem, and it's just like what we just went through with the Melton administration. When I tried to talk to Melton once about Two Lakes, he just thrust McGowan's fancy PR binder at me (which I still have, I believe) and said he would let Leland and all those guys tend to the details. Someone remind me where the "change" is here.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

BTW, daniel, does anyone have a list of the landowners who would have lakefront property under the Two Lakes plan?

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

There is still some cohesiveness between the people who were working together through the Pearl River Basin Coalition. i'll see. It would probably be good to send some energy through the coalition right now considering this possibility with Crisler.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

It is remarkable to see Crisler get whole-hog behind a plan that, for all intents and purposes, is considered dead in the water. Again, I agree with those who say he won't be able to revive it. But I still quake at the thought of what his blind support of this can mean for the city otherwise. Meantime, I'm hoping all the talk of Two Lakes will really get some intelligent conversation going on again about what we *actually* should do along the Pearl for both 21st-century-style economic development, as well as flood control. That will be the bright side of this mess, and we will do everything we can to push for an intelligent dialogue not weighed down by people with blatant financial conflicts of interest.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

i can tell you this though (which i'm sure you know but i'd love to enshrine here on the thread.) John McGowan owns plenty of land which would benefit the most from this proposal. He is not ashamed to say so either.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

I know, daniel. He is also not ashamed to hire his own engineers to reach his conclusions. The city just has to learn to be smarter. That's why we keep ending up behind the curve, or the 8-ball, or whatever cliche you want to use. We are too gullible as a city (can we say Melton?), and just believe stuff. People play off that by, as you described, letting attention die down and then pushing the same idea all over again, regardless of everything that has discredited it. This one is just too big and costly to allow that to happen. And as Todd said, as we allow the Two Lakes to control the conversation, we end up not getting serious enough about other flood-control options. It's insanity.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

i'd like to say one thing for the record here. i have always thought a lot of Marshand. He actually served with my father-in-law in the same National Guard unit. i have generally thought him to be an effective Council person. i felt like he was engaged when i have spoken to him. i have thought positively of what he has to say to crowds. My one concern with him going into this Mayoral race was that he was too combative in the dynamic he felt was necessary to achieve political gains. i generally attributed this to youth and still felt that he might make a very good long term Mayor. This one issue, the discovery of how he handled the Two Lakes proposal, completely shifts my thinking. Two Lakes really is a moot issue. It is so obviously a ploy for investors to get rich at the expense of public safety and public lands that again, it makes me want to vomit.

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

i think you're right to believe that this blunder of Crisler's could incite new discussion on real flood control solutions which build on the rare Jackson Pearl we have running through the heart of our state. i always look at the bluff the Old Capital sits on and think about all the outdoor public entertainment and recreational space which once lay between the Capital and the river. The fair grounds, a race track, parks and gathering places, all utilizing the flood plain for the public good and not filling it with buildings that the public will end up paying for when they are damaged by flood. ------------------------- Then i look East at the waters of the Pearl and wonder if the Pearl River Levee Board will actually wait until there is another major disaster and then blame it on those who have stood against the Two Lakes proposal. [bleahhh]

daniel johnson

May 17 2009

I'm with you, daniel. I like Crisler as a person, too, and I like how he stood up against Melton before many others (the JFP notwithstanding) would. It's not personal, but his campaign has convinced me that he's not ready to be mayor. As much as some folks, and the Ledger, want "change" at any cost, this city cannot afford another four years of leadership that goes along with plans like these just because supporters say they're a good idea. I hear you on your last statement. That's why the actual progressive, and "young" thinkers of Jackson (regardless of age) need to get together and demand a different kind of dialogue about the Pearl, even if it's not the one Leland Speed wants us to have. I was so happy to hear Johnson say he had rethought past support of Two Lakes; his answer on this the other night was outstanding and caught me by surprise. The real "change" in this city will come when people reject the old ways of thinking and blasting and spreading crime hysteria, and get behind intelligent planning, and stop thinking that planning is a dirty word. I'll take tortoise over the hare any time. Because when someone takes the time to do their homework, they may get flipped on their back from time to time, and when they do, they spend the time thinking about howing to get right again. Then they resume forward progress. I look forward to a real public Pearl conversation. We'd planned to return to the topic after the city elections anyway, but Crisler made us put it back at the top of our agenda.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

And Crisler isnt running a "racialized" campaign? How can the councilman of Ward 6 be liked more by the white community than his own community. Somethings up with that.

raisingjackson

May 17 2009

Yeah i agree raisingjackson

NewJackson

May 17 2009

Somebody has told Marshand to start calling Harvey old and paint him as outdated. ... The "I took a bullet" didn't work so now it's a new theme! You nailed that one, Grateful. All of a sudden, "bullet" is one, and we have a new meme. Notice that it's coordinated: everyone from Crisler himself to Jeff Weill to Wyatt Emmerich to The Clarion-Ledger editorial board to many people posting here anonymously are pushing the "youth" theme all of a sudden. Even Kamikaze is talking about it, and Eric Stringfellow went off-script at the debate and asked a "new generation" question (which I'm guessing was coincidental because that't the new meme out there). Crisler's young campaign team from out of town seems to be grabbing onto a new sound bite every couple of weeks, instead of putting a man out there ready and willing to dig in and talk substance and specifics. It's not about age in a campaign; it's about maturity, integrity and transparency. Crisler himself comes across highly impetuous, and then he hires a campaign team that seems like they're stomping around having temper tantrums over the least thing (like the picture we use in our house ad for a debate that his young campaign manager demanded that my staff change but wouldn't remind my e-mails or calls) and making every criticism a personal slight. This is not the kind of "change" we need, nor is are there any advantages of youth evident here. This just sounds like a mess waiting to happen. At the very least, a leader has to learn to deal with his own weaknesses by showing that he knows to hire people that make up for his weaknesses, not accentuate them. Look, the managing editor of the Jackson Free Press, who puts the weekly paper out and makes most of the decisions on it, is 22. I believe in youth. But she is also not running around having temper tantrums. She is mature, steady and anti-drama. You don't vote for youth just to be voting for it. You vote for or hire a young person who shows great maturity and an aptitude for hiring and managing good people and then letting them get creative and use their energies while still leading. It's a recipe for disaster to say: Elect this guy because he's 40! Simply absurd.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

Wait a minute Donna, before you go envoking my name as one who is spouting campaign rhetoric. My record and my history of posts will show me staying consistent with the "youth" issue many years ago. So don't go lumping me in "with" anonymous posters. I don't take orders or do folks bidding. My beliefs have been consistent and will stay consistent until I too pass the torch when my time has passed. I'm of the opinion this town needs an enema.And that again...is ME. Address ME if need be but don't lump me with anyone. I'm my own man. Carry on.

Kamikaze

May 17 2009

I actually didn't mean to, Kaze. It should have read that you and Eric Stringfellow are talking about the youth point, perhaps coincidentally, but just said that about Eric. So I stand corrected. I know you've pushed on this point for a long time, and so do I. But there's got to be more to it than voting for someone who is 40 over someone who is 60. Youth is good, but alone not enough.

DonnaLadd

May 17 2009

Being young does not mean progression. Being young does not mean change. Being young does not mean business friendly. Being young does not mean fighting crime. Being young does not mean fresh ideas... However with Marshand Crisler...his being young to me is scary...for me...and only me..it shows immaturity and the inability to run/manage his own campaign!

Othor Cain

May 17 2009

Donna: Speaking of Crisler's campaign manager,to those of us who know "Apa" it is obvious that she is an insecure control freak who is in way over her head. If Crisler loses on Tuesday, 75% of the blame can go to her for her inability to trust and/or respect the local people who were helping Crisler and for the "take a bullet and 4 P's strategy". There never seemed to be an attempt by the campaign to reach out to Jackson's black community.

wellington

May 17 2009