Congratulations to Bob Becker

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2009/12/20 - 5:52pm

Who was once again chosen vice-mayor by his peers.

The article doesn't mention this, but I watched the Council meeting: the vote was 7-2, with everyone voting for Becker except Joe Bailey, who voted for himself, and Nick Pavlis, who voted for Bailey.

Topics:

Knoxville City Council

Rachel's blog

vote

I don't know much at all

Submitted by jbr on Sun, 2009/12/20 - 7:29pm.

I don't know much at all about Bailey. When I saw this for some reason I thought of the "The Politics of Lunch" article from the Metro Pulse.

Link

Joe Bailey, who voted for

Submitted by R. Neal on Sun, 2009/12/20 - 8:09pm.

Joe Bailey, who voted for himself, and Nick Pavlis, who voted for Bailey.

Because West Knoxville Republicans are so underrepresented in Knoxville politics, government, and power circles.

Way to go!

Submitted by bill young on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 7:39am.

I agree! Bob has been an outstanding member of council & I'm pleased he will continue as vice-mayor!

Loved his take on the Inskip homeless project

Submitted by James Wilson Doe III on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 9:51am.

Inskip's 5th District City Councilman, Bob Becker, said chronically homeless people are by and large nonviolent and that he doesn't expect the apartments to cause the sorts of problems that some of his constituents fear.

"The truth is, the homeless folks' mental illnesses are very different from the illnesses you'd worry about being around kids," he said. "I'm not adverse to seeing some of these (apartments) go in my district."

Mr. Becker missed the point completely on this as he has multiple times when bleating on about his TYP flipflop. Exact figures are scarce but substance abuse runs pretty deep among our homeless population.

Drugs attract crime and violence, but rather than acknowledge that Becker and the other "homeless rights advocates" on council would rather imply immorality among the neighborhood groups opposing these projects for safety reasons.

I am sure Mr. Becker is a good person but I do not agree with his attitude or politics.

Living in Fear of Homeless Zombies!

Submitted by Stick on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 11:58am.

I've lived within walking distance of the growing "Mission District" for over a decade, and I have had no issues related to manic, drugged-up homeless folks. But hey, we don't want suburbanites to actually see homeless people unless they're volunteering with their church buddies, do we? Best to do good works [with few long-term benefits for the needy] and retreat to the suburbs where social problems remain safely hidden from view. It's the American way.

Walking distance is not next door

Submitted by James Wilson Doe III on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 12:31pm.

I understand some people think the holier than thou approach is a valid one to take in a discussion but please forgive me for not sharing that view. I would not feel comfortable having one of these projects in my neighborhood without having the increased crime risk addressed.

I am not interested in the tired display of statistics that supporters of this thinking use to try to make people concerned about such things look bad. I am interested in what I have seen with my own two eyes in my lifetime. That includes seeing bums panhandling downtown during the morning, staggering out of the Minnesota Avenue crackhouses in the afternoon and heading back toward downtown for the evening. I have seen some of these bums for decades, such as the tall skinny mustached man with the dark bushy perm who roams Cumberland Avenue asking for change and muttering about sunshine reality I assume these are the people these projects are aimed at and have never been informed otherwise when asked but also have never had the question definitively answered.

I understand these programs are being marketed as an attempt to help disabled and chronically homeless people. I also understand that as defined by HUD, substance abuse is considered a disabling position. I also believe that if the plans call for opening these programs to substance abusers that are chronically homeless there should be a lot more talk about safety than there is.

I can see you feel strongly about your beliefs but there has to be more respectful dialogue than this.

actually

Submitted by Stick on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 7:34pm.

Well, actually it is "next-door"... or as close as you can get...

My point [poorly articulated] is that this is just another case of NIMBY. Folks have very reasonable concerns over the character of their neighborhoods. However, at the same time, it is equally true that the reason many such social problems continue to fester year after year is that they are often safely hidden from view. From the lower middle class and on up the ladder, the homeless are little more than abstractions passed by on N. Broadway... Abstractions that are equated with a lack of moral values and humanity just as surely as wealth is equated with high moral values and 'culture.'

My apologies for offering a poorly articulated rant. That said... We need to develop a sense of solidarity with our fellow humans with a quickness, because the ship is sinking fast!

If you have a difficult time

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 2:32pm.

If you have a difficult time with Bob Becker's take on the TYP, then you should REALLY have a hard time with Bailey's. Bob agonized over the Flenniken vote - and yes, I know neighborhood advocates think he voted the wrong way, but they also acknowledge that he was thoughtful and concerned about their concerns.

Bailey just thought the whole thing was hunky dory from the get go.

I do!

Submitted by James Wilson Doe III on Mon, 2009/12/21 - 2:37pm.

He and Roddy both. I freely admit of the three I would trust Becker the most because his is just a lack of full understanding of the issue. With Bailey and Roddy I believe they are willfully failing to listen to concerns and don't trust their judgment at all on the issue.