Take it to the People!

So talk of getting an issue around the City Council to the ballots has come up again. Based on the ease of which it is to get 6000 signatures for less polarizing issues last year (Greenlight II and the Borrowing/COP initiative), I'd say that if Bill Ficker wants to pursue it, he'll get it. This ballot initiative process has always been one that intrigues me. The electorate trusts its leaders to make decisions for them, but if they don't like the decision, then the People have two options; vote them out, or go around them and get the voters to decide. Last fall, Greenlight II came up which would bring to the voters every project that tripped a few criteria. Ok, it got beat pretty convincingly (63% to 37%), but that was because it wanted to tie the hands of the City Council for every large project which came up in front of it and realistically, it would have stopped all major development within the City. Some say that would be good, but if you are not moving forward, you are moving backwards, and the way the City has been spending money, it will need all it's future dollars. But taking an issue, one issue, to the voters, which by all estimation truly divides the community a bit more than 2 to 1, might make for an interesting election. The City Council meetings which have addressed this everlasting City Hall/Park debate have gone on and on and have been relatively entertaining. Bill Ficker's poll shows a 60% approval, but with a 5.7% chance of error, which means that this one might actually go down to the wire. Even the City Council was split 4 to 3 on this issue, but Mayor Rosansky doesn't like the initiative idea for obvious reasons. It would take the decision making power out of their hands and give it to the people and he's afraid that if this starts to catch on, then every decision which 6000 voters (10% of the 60,000 total registered) don't like, they'll make it an initiative. And if it is done correctly, 6000 signatures will be a cakewalk. Ironically, all this fuss is over something which will put the City into further debt (over 30 years mind you), so it could house more City employees (who will get paid big dollars and get really nice fat benefits and pensions) and which NOBODY goes to (except for the same 25-30 residents and same 4-5 lobbyists). Like I said before, new City Halls have historically always been that damn albatross around the necks of City Councils and those foolish enough to get involved with them. Why should this one be any different?