"Be Careful What You Wish For"

Peppy commented on our posting "Maybe Living in a Small Town Ain't So Bad." The comments were so insightful that I wanted everyone to consider them. The comments were posted today, and here they are:

"Mr. Cobb and Neighbors, So you want Huntington to be a "small town"? You can file this one under "be careful what you wish for."

The last U.S. Census year in which Huntington's population was similar to its current size of approximately 51,000, was 1920 (50,177). The largest the city has ever been was in 1950 when the population peaked at 86,353. So, at one time, Huntington was nearly 70% larger than it is today.

The Huntington of 2007 is the smallest Huntington in over 80 years. For many, their recollections of the "small town" character of Huntington back in the "good old days," are in a sense, false memories. What we tend to yearn for are the days when you could do all your shopping downtown and on Saturdays, during the Christmas season, you sometimes had to step off the sidewalk and into the street because there wasn't enough room for all the shoppers. But do you really want to go back in time to those good old small town days of the 1950s and 1960s?

What if you were an African-American living in Huntington at that time--do you want to go back to the those "good old" Jim Crow days?And it wasn't the mall that killed downtown. Give up on that old canard. What killed downtown was that it was (and still is) largely owned by just a handful of individuals or families whose business decisions (and complacency, conservatism, and other lucrative investments such land companies and coal) sealed the fate of downtown Huntington. Why else do you think some prime storefronts could remain vacant for years? The "old money" property owners simply didn't need the rental income so why bother renovating, recruiting, or innovating? In some cases, the income losses from unleased space actually worked in their financial favor.

So why did this happen? Why did a handful of people who literally owned the built environment of downtown seal our fate? Well, one big reason why is that after 1950, we got smaller. Yes, that's right--we got to be a smaller town. Fewer people moved to Huntington. New migrants bring new investment, new energy, diversity, and the willingness to take risk. Newcomers start new businesses, bring innovative ideas to established firms, and often, add young families to the population base. Old line families with their old money, rarely take on risk. In fact, the majority shiver at the thought of change to the status quo. Think "big fish, little pond" syndrome. As manufacturing jobs evaporated and the downtown atrophied beginning in the 1970s, the city, with its chronic paucity of enlightened leadership, wrung its hands and waited from someone from the outside to save us from ourselves (think "Superblock").

Back in the 1970s, former Mayor Harold Frankel once said something to the effect that, "we don't any change in Huntington--we just want it to stay a nice, quiet, place to retire." Again, be careful what you wish for."

Peppy 7:20 AM, September 29, 2007

Is There a Thomas Jefferson Amongst Us?

I had a dream last night. This one woke me up! I was sitting on the steps of Huntington City Hall and suddenly a horse and buggy swiftly pulled to the curb. Out stepped President Thomas Jefferson! Ole Tom sat down beside me, quietly asked me if I could use a little advice, and began to explain why he had been so successful as the leader of our country. He emphasized that a true political leader is someone who comes to the job with a mission and a plan. He said that a true leader is not looking for a lifetime job. He comes to the fore after identifying issues of public concern and contemplating what actions must be taken to resolve crucial public policy issues.

*

The President continued, "True leaders build a consensus for what must transpire in order to get the government working as an effective system of deliver for quality services to the people." I listened intently, as old Tom conveyed to me that he had been "studying the Huntington situation".

*

"If I were President of Huntington," he said, "I would make the hard decisions knowing they would be very unpopular to many. However, I would get the place straightened up, even though it made everyone in the city mad as hell! It would take just about four-years, and then I'd get back in that carriage sitting there, go back to my farm, tend to my animals and plant some corn and tobacco. I don't think anyone should be President of Huntington forever anyway."

*

"What would you do that would make everyone in our city mad, Mr. President?” I asked. Without hesitating he said, "I'd take heat, but here is what I would do." He handed me a worn and tattered piece of parchment paper. "That's what the President of Huntington will have to do."

*

Without another word, President Thomas Jefferson walked swiftly to his carriage, stepped quickly into the coach and motioned to the coachman to pull away. As his carriage learched from the curb of Huntington's City Hall heading east down Fifth Avenue, he stuck his head out the coach window and shouted, "If you have to clean up the messes made by former leaders, do it boldly! Future generations of Huntington residents will honor you for your leadership and intestinal fortitude! If the City of Huntington were a business endeavor, it would have already been in receivership. Who amongst you will come to the forefront and accept the challenge?”

As the dust from his horse-drawn buggy drifted toward the Ohio River, I looked at the handwritten list of actions Old Tom had given to me. Here is the President's to-do list:

1. Identify an individual with proven business acumen and leadership skills and handpick a slate of executives who will run as a team for Mayor and City Council and who will commit to spending only one term in office. Lobby the WV State Legislature to establish home rule and eliminate the current Business and Occupation Tax. Replace it with a Local Option Sales Tax and a City Payroll Tax.
2. Consider a financial reorganization, which might well mean filing for protection and receivership (bankruptcy). Yes, that is drastic, but if you do not get your financial house in order now, future generations of Huntingtonians will be even more “crippled” as they attempt to straighten out the mess you are leaving them. You must not leave the unintended consequences of past decisions to burden the young people of tomorrow. Should they have to straighten out the accumulative mess?
3. During financial reorganization, renegotiate all labor union contracts to ensure that the projected revenue streams of the City are able to meet salary and benefit requirements. Also, “freeze” the current pension plan, and start a new-and-affordable contributory pension plan for short-term employees and new hires and with future employees sharing a larger part of the contribution/investment.
4. As a part of the financial reorganization, drop the City’s self-insuring health plan and establish one in which the premium burden is borne by the employees. The present insurance program has broken the bank!
5. After the financial reorganization, and “home rule” legislation is WV State Law, prepare a City of Huntington Operating Budget that will allow the hiring of an adequate number of police, fire and street department personnel, along with the equipment necessary to keep our city well protected and immaculately clean!
6. Sleep in the office of Senator Robert Byrd and Representative Nick Rahall until they find a place to stick an “earmark” to pay for the cost of splitting out our combined sewer system and to properly close down the current city landfill and establish a new one which will focus on recycling solid waste. While these Huntington leaders are at it, ask the "guvment" for funding to update the areas infrastructure - bridges, streets, etc. (Yes, the President did mention that he was aware that our nation is financially in a "red-funk", at present.)
7. Give top priority to the enforcement of all ordinances related to residential and commercial properties; including zoning, fire/safety, building codes and dilapidated/fire-damaged structures.
8. Review all current ordinances and enforce them! Property owners must take responsibility for the condition and appearance of their properties!
9. Enforce all litter laws and fine the perps!
10. KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES!

Upon reading that last one, I woke up in a cold sweat! Who amongst us indeed, I thought. Will someone step to the fore to carry out the President’s plan? I’ve always admired Thomas Jefferson, but I wish he would have appeared in the dream of the right person for the right time. I’m just a messenger. Is anyone out there listening?

(I’ve just got to stop eating junk food before I go to bed!)

Individual Rights and Dignity

I feel honored to sit on a public commission (Huntington Human Relations Commission), consisting of citizen volunteers, which is courageous enough to address an issue that is so meaningful and long overdue. If the Huntington City Council were to write a human relations ordinance with a blanket prohibition against discrimination but lacking specific protected categories, it would not be sufficient to protect all of our citizens. Therefore, our elected officials must make sure that the ordinance is all-inclusive, and that our fundamental, basic rights are for all citizens. There is no greater purpose for an elected official than to protect the safety and well-being of all citizens.

Diversity is important to our community. It is a strength and should not be feared. The City of Huntington has the momentous opportunity to be a leader in protecting the basic safety of all residents through progressive and inclusive ordinances. How sad that we have to write laws to protect living human beings. It is the right thing to do, but it is complicated by those who fear others who are different.

As chairperson of the Huntington Human Relations Commission, I have been authorized by a unanimous vote of the HHRC, during its meeting on Thursday, September 13, 2007, to recommend to the Huntington City Council that the city ordinance related to the HHRC be modified to include an additional protected class of “sexual orientation”. It is the hope of the HHRC that this matter be addressed by the council at the earliest possible date.

*

When the first civil rights bill to follow the US civil war was debated in Congress, it was criticized for granting "special rights" to African-Americans. When the Civil Rights Act was debated in 1964, it was criticized because it would destroy the economic viability of companies and attack individual freedom of choice in hiring. It passed. Title VII guaranteed protection against discrimination in employment based on race, religion, gender, national origin, and disability. This applies to all companies with more than 15 employees. Non-profit religious organizations and the military demanded and received exemption from this law; they insisted that they be allowed to continue to discriminate. However, the Civil Rights Act gave no protection for people based on their sexual orientation.

When it's your life, you want protection. It's really not very exciting stuff, except if it's your life and rights that are being denied. Under current law and policy, persons in Huntington can be discriminated against, solely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Those individuals who are victims have no legal recourse when they face such unfair practices. It is a good decision for the Huntington City Council to have a nondiscrimination policy by acting to modify the current HHRC ordinance to include "sexual orientation" as an additional protected class. Such an ordinance does not promote an alternative lifestyle. It doesn't push hiring quotas or any type of affirmative action. It just says that persons cannot be discriminated against when buying or renting a house, or applying for a job. or doing all the things other citizens are entitled to do.

The argument has been rightly made that civil rights for all people are addressed in laws already on the books, but that legislation is not comprehensive enough for the increasingly pluralistic community in which we live. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. Obviously, at one time Congress felt those "special protections" were necessary to be spelled out as a reminder that all people have equal rights.

If one believes in the premise of liberty, then one must believe in all constitutional liberties, including that of personal identity. Protection from discrimination based upon one's gender, disability or sexual orientation is just as essential as protection from discrimination based on religion, race, national origin or ethnicity. This is a simple issue of justice and human rights that, unfortunately, needs to be addressed legislatively.

With focus on individual rights and individual dignity, anti-discrimination laws are inherently compatible with democracy. Such laws aim to provide individuals with the protections any person may need at one time or another while endeavoring to undertake a life with dignity.

Maybe living in a small town ain't so bad!

The world's population is exploding! Check out the numbers:

http://www.peterrussell.dreamhosters.com/Odds/WorldClock.php

There are definite advantages to living in a small university town. We all need to start taking more interest in our community. We are neighbors, and we make up the city of Huntington. I want it to get better. Maybe we don't want to get bigger. What do you think?

Basic Needs of Life is a Civil Right

I thought the comment made by an anonymous participant on our posting, "We know the way. We need only the will", was important enough to post here:

"Rich, I agree with you. There should not be discrimination in the basic needs of life for anyone including people who are homosexual. But we need to remember that homosexuality is a behavior. The other forms of discrimination, which are and were reprehensible as well, were based on physical characteristics that could not be changed. It is sad when the only thing as person has to identify themselves by, is their sexual behavior." 9:30 AM, September 10, 2007

Here was my response:

C. Richard Cobb, Sr. said...
"Thanks for your participation, anonymous. I want you to consider this: a person's sexual orientation is no ones business but theirs. Homosexuals and Lesbians have many things to identify themselves. The unfairness comes when others identify them only by their sexual orientation, or their perceived sexual orientation.

In our city, we are fortunate to have talented artists, educators, musicians, doctors, researchers, lawyers, merchants, bankers, highly-skilled factory workers, professional administrators who are gifted in their professions. Some of them just happen to have a "sexual orientation" that is different.

As a group, Homosexuals and Lesbians do not "identify" themselves only as "homosexuals". In almost every case, a persons "sexual orientation" is not obvious - or known. These folks live their lives like the rest of us - enjoying the freedoms, and assuming the responsibilities, of living in a democratic country that has civil and human rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution and memorialized in the United States Declaration of Independence, that declared that we all have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

We know the way to protecting those for whom living with bias and discrimination is a factor in their daily lives. We just need the will to change that fact. 10:35 AM, September 10, 2007

"We know the way. We need only the will."

"If we wish to inspire the people of the world whose freedom is in jeopardy, if we wish to restore hope to those who have already lost their civil liberties, if we wish to fulfill the promise that is ours, we must correct the remaining imperfections in our practice of democracy. We know the way. We need only the will."

— President Harry S Truman brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 332, Brown v. Board of Education. of Topeka, 347 U.S. (1954).

• When we allowed black and white children to be segregated, we, as a nation, were wrong and we corrected it.
• When we allowed Japanese Americans to be incarcerated, we, as a nation, were wrong and we corrected it.
• When interracial marriages were illegal, we, as a nation, were wrong and we corrected it.
• When we allowed discriminated against Americans with disabilities, we, as a nation, were wrong and we corrected it.
• When we allow discrimination in housing because someone is gay or lesbian, we, as a nation, are wrong and we need to correct it.

Today, we allow landlords in every West Virginia city, with the exception of Charleston, to deny housing to people simply because they are gay or lesbian. We, as a community, must correct this inequality, too.

This year, the West Virginia Legislature acknowledged a wrong in our state fair-housing law but failed to follow through on correcting it. The time has arrived for the Legislature to remedy this inequity and enact legislation that would prohibit discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation.

( The ideas expressed here were taken from a commentary published on Sunday, June 13, 2004, in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. It was submitted by the following: Eric K. Yamamoto who was a professor of law at the University of Hawaii's William S. Richardson School of Law and board member of the Equal Justice Society. Shirley N. K. Garcia and Carrie Ann Shirota were staff attorneys with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Kim Coco Iwamoto was an attorney and civil-rights activist. They submitted the article as individuals, not in any official capacity.)

"We done good!"

I am so proud of our city, Marshall University and all of our local football fans who displayed great team spirit and warm hospitality during the past weekend of festivities surrounding the Marshall vs WVU football game! We now have a successful football rivalry that will reap wonderful fun, excitement and economic benefit for our entire state for decades to come. Good on WVU! Good on Marshall! "We done good!"

Unintended Consequence of Smoking Ban

Thanks to the smoking ban, city sidewalks are littered with cigarettes. Whose job is it to clean them up?

The indoor smoking ban that took effect months ago, was clearly a vote for public health. But there turned out to be an unintended consequence: cast outside to huddle in alcoves, crouch under awnings, and shiver in the rain, Huntington smokers have to do something with the remnants of their last drag.

Before, there were ashtrays inside. Now, even the most environmentally sensitive of smokers revert to a familiar strategy: Drop butt to sidewalk, grind with foot, and walk away. For affected merchants, it's an extra burden to clean up the mess that falls onto the gray area (literally) of city sidewalks.

Who is responsible to keep the sidewalks, gutters and streets clean? There isn't anything specific in the law pertaining to "cigarette butts" and their disposal. Outdoor enforcement, meanwhile, seems to be "not my problem". Although by city code you can be fined for littering, the police haven't doled out butt-flicking citations. Butt measurement turns out to be no less difficult than enforcement. Butt (pun intended), trust me - there are thousands and thousands all over our city.

Lighting a cigarette ritually re-enacts man's mastery over fire. It can be a social glue, or a simple means of flirting. It's a fundamentally deliberate act and—as any advocate of smokers' rights would argue—a matter of individual choice. But so, of course, is littering.

What is the solution, if we want to end the shame of having a cigarette-littered, and otherwise dirty, city?

Marshall Fans Encouraged to Show Hospitality

West Virginia University fans will be in town next week. The WVU fans have a reputation for being crude, rude and socially unacceptable when opponents visit Morgantown.

I encourage all Marshall University fans to display hospitality and good manners during next weekends game. Let's all pledge to: (1) not boo the WVU team when they come onto the field (2) not involve ourselves in rudeness of any kind while cheering the Herd on (3) not leave the game early, which is a show of disrespect for our team, and (4) display warm hospitality in every neighborhood and area of Huntington.

We are ... Marshall! And we are a cut-above others when it comes to good manners and hospitality. Let's not embarrass ourselves, and our area, by attempting to "get even" for the way many Marshall fans were treated during last year's game in Morgantown.

Remember, it's a game ... and fun and hospitality should be the focus of the weekend.