Midway thru 1st term, how would you grade Providence Mayor Elorza? (buy, bankruptcy)

[ormari]

^It's a real problem.

Another subject people have been talking about with respect to Mayor Elorza's performance has been the continuing saga of the Board of Licenses. The board is in a state of disarray, and some suggest it is by design. I was reading Providence Rules, the blog by (now former) Board of Licenses commissioner Johanna Harris. She has been particularly critical of the way the Mayor has allowed the Board of Licenses to operate, with inconsistent treatment of applicants and apparent favortism (particularly for a group of attorneys who regularly do business before the board), and his foot dragging to implement meaningful reforms such as those recommended in the Pine Report. She also nicely lays out the way legal firms/lawyers have been major donors to his campaign fund. The reader is left to do the math.

One particularly alarming post describes the way a purported license for a club bears the names of commissioners who were not yet appointed to the board when the license was issued. And actually, she says it is not just one license like this, but 50 licenses approved by phantom commissioners. Of course I don't know and I am not making any accusations, but this comes across as worse than simple mismanagement, and begins to sound like something else, perhaps a pernicious throwback to the Providence of old.

All of this makes me wonder if the FBI still has its finger on the pulse of city hall. Remember, former Speaker of the House Gordon Fox was brought down by way of a bribe for Board of Licenses matters. Without meaningful reform, why should we expect the problem to go away?

Elorza ran on clean government. How's he doing on that front? Little to no board reform, but he did dump the commissioner who has been blowing the whistle on what's going on. Huh.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Hollytree

It's easy to blame RIers for re-electing people to office by neatly ignoring how many have run unopposed and by the poor choices we have had to vote for in the first place. And yes, we need better citizens to run.

I voted for Elorza as the least worst of the people running. I would not vote for him again, but that assumes there will someone better running. If there isn't, he could win by default. People are apathetic here from continual disappointment. The only ones we have who deserve respect IMO are our US senators. And now we've got Spicer and Flynn on the Fed level-

I think both other choices for mayor were better options, but I'm not going to go further OT and make comparisons between "what would have been".


If there are two bad choices then why not throw out the incumbent who has failed, and at least give someone else a shot? You also have the option of "Other" or write-ins, as a way to express your dissatisfaction and still be counted. That is the only way change will occur, and how to attract more candidates. I don't buy the whole "it's a wasted vote" theory at all. Perhaps for the current election it is, but not if you care about the future of the democratic process.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by massnative71

If there are two bad choices then why not throw out the incumbent who has failed, and at least give someone else a shot? You also have the option of "Other" or write-ins, as a way to express your dissatisfaction and still be counted. That is the only way change will occur, and how to attract more candidates. I don't buy the whole "it's a wasted vote" theory at all. Perhaps for the current election it is, but not if you care about the future of the democratic process.

I agree. This last election, rather than vote for repeat offenders who have provided unacceptable service to their constituents, I voted for the opposition or wrote in a name of someone else. It's not as good as running for office--few can do that-- but it's a start. Of course, one has to temper this approach to some extent by measuring the character of the opposition candidate.

[sandsonik]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I think both other choices for mayor were better options, but I'm not going to go further OT and make comparisons between "what would have been".


If there are two bad choices then why not throw out the incumbent who has failed, and at least give someone else a shot?

In the above referenced instance that would be Elorza. You guys are jumping on Holly like she voted for Elorza TWICE and forgetting that he was the new guy at the time

[ormari]

Originally Posted by sandsonik

In the above referenced instance that would be Elorza. You guys are jumping on Holly like she voted for Elorza TWICE and forgetting that he was the new guy at the time

I don't know if you are including me in that group of people "jumping on Holly"; my post was an attempt to agree with the principle of voting out failed incumbents, which as you correctly note would not include Elorza in the last election. I find no fault with Hollytree taking a chance on first-timer Elorza instead of Cianci, who in spite of the good he did, failed to demonstrate responsible and ethical leadership.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by sandsonik

In the above referenced instance that would be Elorza. You guys are jumping on Holly like she voted for Elorza TWICE and forgetting that he was the new guy at the time

I was responding to a particular post of hers, and talking on general terms.

[sandsonik]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I was responding to a particular post of hers, and talking on general terms.

Lol, and in specific terms you backed the ex-incumbent, ex-con in that election, not the "new guy". I guess generalities are easier.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by sandsonik

Lol, and in specific terms you backed the ex-incumbent, ex-con in that election, not the "new guy". I guess generalities are easier.

Right, an ex-incumbent who did more for Providence than the last 3 mayors combined.

[ormari]

^That's quite a debatable point. If you mortgage the city's future, you can achieve massive short term results and make generations after pay for it. Is that really serving the city? Would our city's finances be in the shape they are in if Buddy had never been mayor? Impossible to say, but it sure seems like a lot of blame for the city's finances are attributable to Cianci.

For instance, in Chapter 5 of the Crimetown podcast, they note that when Cianci ran for governor way back, this commercial ran against him:

Originally Posted by Crimetown

COMMERCIAL: The Cianci administration. There’s quite a story to tell. His first year, the budget deficit in Providence was only $479,000. And now the deficit has risen to $14 million and it’s still rising. And Buddy Cianci says he wants to do for the state what he’s done for Providence?

Buddy was thinking he could spend his way into the governorship, get elected, and leave Providence in a mess.

Originally Posted by Buddy Cianci in Crimetown

BUDDY: My idea was to get out of Providence — ‘cause **** was gonna hit the fan with the finances ‘cause we were broke. I knew that was coming. So if I get out in time, I’ll be able to say hey I left I don’t know what happened.

Of course that was during Buddy I.

[sandsonik]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Right, an ex-incumbent who did more for Providence than the last 3 mayors combined.

But you just said Rhode Islanders should throw incumbents out and give new candidates a chance. You are terribly inconsistent.