|
Happy Friday! I hope you've had a good week and are preparing for a cold weekend (is anyone else already looking forward to spring?!). Whether your team is playing in a conference championship game this weekend, you're catching one of the many holiday festivities in our city, or you're just staying indoors, I hope you have a relaxing weekend.
In Metro Council news, we had a very busy night last night with three key pieces of legislation I want to touch on. First, we passed the mid-year budget adjustment which reallocated approximately $17 Mm to various agencies across the city to address issues related to public safety, parks, violence prevention, ABC enforcement, and more. In the public safety realm, it means new fire equipment, new equipment for EMA, a new side-by-side for LMPD's 8th Division (so they can better respond to incidents in the Parklands, Tom Sawyer Park, etc.), and more resources related to snow removal. Other funded projects include housing support (rental assistance, down payment assistance, and supportive housing) and new lighting at A.B. Sawyer Park.
One of the projects I'm particularly excited about is a 24-hour crisis center. This drop-in center will help those experiencing homelessness, a mental health crisis, substance abuse issues, or other challenges. Right now, if someone (like LMPD) encounters an individual in crisis, particularly after hours, they essentially have two options for where to take them - the ER or jail, neither of which might be the correct or most desirable option. Adding a respite center closes another gap in our continuum of care for these individuals and is an important part of addressing homelessness.
The second big piece of legislation we considered was an Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) for Churchill Downs’ planned expansion of the racetrack. For those who might not know, an IRB is a mechanism whereby the city can ‘give’ its preferential borrowing status to a private entity. They get to issue bonds at lower rates as well as a forbearance on the property tax. Metro does not have any obligation under the bonds (they are not on our books) but does lose the potential property taxes.
There was much debate about this issue, primarily because people are concerned with giving a large entity a tax break. While I think these concerns are fair, I reminded my colleagues that all public dollars begin in the private sector. We are dependent on companies being in Louisville to employ our residents. We have too often been a city of 'no' - and that has, at least in part, led to the departure of several large companies. For us to compete for jobs, I think it is very important that we are a city of 'yes' - one that is open for business and easy to work with. For me, the vote to support the IRB was less about the direct benefit the track expansion provides to Louisville and more about the message we send to the broader business community about how we are to work with.
The last piece of legislation I want to talk about is the proposed mask ban for law enforcement agents (namely ICE) operating in Louisville. I don’t often dive into national political issues - they tend to be extremely divisive and typically aren't anything we have authority over anyway. Quite frankly, we have plenty to work on that we do impact. That said, I have gotten several emails on this topic and think it important to explain my position and my vote.
As with any large issue, this one is extremely complicated. Yes, we have had immigration issues in our country. Also, I don’t know anyone who wants violent criminals who are here illegally to stay. However, I also think the manner in which we deal with the most vulnerable in our community says something about us.
We can argue it is one president's fault for letting too many people in or another president's fault for his heavy-handed approach (or the view I favor which is Congress is at fault for failing to do its job and actually make laws that comprehensively deal with the issue). Regardless, I believe government can work effectively only when there is transparency as that transparency is the check on government. To that end, law enforcement officials who conceal their identity erode public trust and reduce transparency. On the other hand, doxxing officers who are doing their job is also problematic. They are just as deserving of safety as anyone else. I bring this up to say as we think about this issue, we must remember that often both things can be true - it is wrong for law enforcement to conceal their identities and wrong to threaten the safety of officers.
The ordinance that was before us last night had two fundamental issues. First, it is not clear that local governments have any authority to regulate the actions of the federal government in this way. There are several cases making their way through the courts now, but ultimately I believe the supremacy clause dictates that lower governments cannot regulate higher governments. Even if I am proven wrong, our current mask ordinance is not being enforced because it does not provide any exceptions for those with health issues. We tried (and failed) to add that exception again last night, meaning we would be banning law enforcement from wearing masks based on an ordinance we are not enforcing. Passing laws that we know are not being enforced is, to me, the definition of political theater and not something I tend to support.
That said, I do think what is happening is wrong. As I stated above, transparency is a critical check on government and so even though the ordinance was flawed, I could not vote no. However, I also chose not to vote yes which a couple of people this morning have called an 'act of cowardice.' I think you deserve to know my reasoning.
You may not know this, but I am an immigrant to this country. My parents and sister still hold green cards. Given the current climate on immigration, my parents opted earlier this year to cancel a trip to Germany for fear they would not be allowed to return. They have this fear not because they are here illegally or have done anything wrong, but because there is a palpable fear across our immigrant communities, both legal and undocumented, that they will be caught up in an enforcement action and their recourse to correct an unjust removal will be challenging. We don’t have to agree whether this fear is justified or not, but we do need to acknowledge it exists.
Given this context, I believe passing legislation that intentionally pokes the federal government could result in increased enforcement as punishment. You may not agree, but I think there is evidence to indicate this concern is not irrational. I don't believe Chicago-style raids across the city would be good for us or the immigrant populations the supporters of the ordinance were trying to protect. As one of my colleagues highlighted, if we are wrong and there is retaliation, that retaliation will come down hard not on the lawmakers at Metro Council, but on those in our immigrant community. To me, that is unacceptable. As a leader, if I make a bad decision, I should bear the consequences. To have others bear those consequences is unconscionable. As such, I opted to vote present - not because I was afraid to pick a side, but because I think both sides are wrong.
I am sure some of you will disagree. Some will say this is an important moment to stand with our most vulnerable while others will say this is an important moment to stand with law enforcement. I don't believe those are mutually exclusive.
As always, I hope you have a great weekend. If I can be of service, please don't hesitate to call my office.
|
