Elephants on Bicycles

The Columbus Neighborhoods website is live and ready for you, the citizens of Central Ohio to tell your stories about your favorite Columbus neighborhoods and suburbs. You can upload text, audio, video and pictures to help tell the history of our slice of the country.

For my part I’ve been uploading information about Upper Arlington. Check it out here.

The Columbus Neighborhoods online project is directly related to the upcoming premieres of Columbus Neighborhoods the television documentary series being broadcast on WOSU TV starting March 8th. As a part of the premiere a viewing party is being organized by WOSU, Betty’s Family of Resturaunts and the Columbus Underground at Surly Girl Saloon and you can get info about that here.

I hope you find your little tidbit to add to the website and become a part of Columbus’ ever evolving story!

Reposted from Visual Economics – Click thru for full size

What an amazing public art project. Combining typography, literature, iconography and nature (oh and bicycling!) to create a unique experience.

I was thrilled to receive my new cats cradle base for my brown upholstered Eames Arm Shell chair. I think it will make a great addition to the collection. I was a little surprised that it didn’t have more of a rear-ward tilt to it but it is good looking and comfortable none-the-less. The chair itself came from the flea market and I managed to find a re-manufacturer of the cats cradle base on Ebay. Take a look:

Next project is to build a sideboard. I think I’ve got the inital design down, now it is a matter of drawing out the actual scale plans and sourcing the materials. I think I want to do a metal stand for it using 1.5″ square stock but it has been a while since I’ve done any welding – may be time to hit up a friend for a favor. Anyhow, like with the cabinets I’ve built in the past I’ll document the process and share it with you out here. Don’t expect anything until about April though as I’ve got several other things to clear off my plate first.

UPDATE– I had a chance to talk to Wade Steen today and he pointed out a line item on his expenses related to payoff of a loan of $8k which wasn’t actually used for campaigning. Thus he stated that his actual spend was $16,849.83 which changes some of the dynamics of this article. The greater question remains however which is, do we want to try and reign in spending on these campaigns or do we feel that it is ok and appropriate to allow campaign costs to continue to rise?

ORIGINAL—

Last year I wrote an article for This Week UA about some of my concerns in regards to campaign finance here in Upper Arlington. Click Here For Full Article

Since that time we’ve seen the Supreme Court strike a blow to campaign finance law at the federal level at the same time that we are seeing political campaigns continue to up the ante in terms of dollars-per-vote. The problem with this is that it makes our political system even more of a pay to play environment than it already is.

I’d like to break things down as scientifically as possible but I’m going to admit right off the bat that a big part of this is subjective. So this is more of a speculation - but an honest one that I think has value. Particularly considering that elections are all about how we perceive a candidate. It is that perception that makes us vote for them (or not).

To set things up let’s take a quick look at the candidates that ran last fall.

• Frank Ciotola – incumbent who is known throughout the community because he has already spent 4 years on city council (and in associated roles based on that).
• David DeCapua – other than having run for city council (and removed from the ballot) 2 years ago he is a UA lifer but not particularly involved in the community.
• Debbie Johnson – heavily involved in the schools, having run and participated in several school issue campaigns as well as being a member of several civic organizations.
• Frank Milillo – virtually unknown in the community prior to this run for city council.
• Vern Morrison – virtually unknown in the community prior to this run for city council.
• Mike Shadek – heavily involved in the UA Trash debate giving him a good deal of name recognition recently within the community (both positive and negative).
• Wade Steen – incumbent, has served on city council as well as in other elected positions previously.

Obviously what I have bulletted above is subjective. But let’s add the substantive components to it, the votes received and dollars spent. (click thru for larger version)

What becomes interesting then is the dollars spent per vote per candidate and how that might interact with both their community participation and the overall voter opinion of that involvement. Again, this is as much speculation as anything else but I think it is interesting to consider.

First let’s look at those people who had the greatest community involvement:

• Frank Ciotola spent $2.88/vote and ended up the highest vote earner (18.08%) which relates to the fact that he has expanded his community involvement as he has been a member of the UA City Council since 2005. His strong standing on council is highlighted by the fact that he was chosen as Council President for 2010-2012.
• Wade Steen spent $3.95/vote and only eaked out second in vote totals (10 more votes than 3rd place) which is interesting because Wade has served on UA City Council for the past 4 years as well and he has held other elected positions in the county. He did choose to enter the race fairly late however because he was (in my opinion) holding out for a possible higher office run within the republican party. This perceived lack of committment to Upper Arlington may have cost him dearly. It appears that waivering required that he spend such a high dollar amount (second highest spent overall) to retain his seat on council.
• Debbie Johnson spent $2.45/vote which, in terms of true contenders for a council seat, is the lowest amount. Only 2 other candidates spent less than Debbie. Debbie’s position in the community though is one of constant community volunteer; working closely on (and leading many) school efforts and participation in many civic organizations. In return for her community work she ended up in 3rd place overall – a mere 10 votes behind Wade Steen.

Next, let’s look at two candidates who have made a name for themselves recently but don’t have long term community involvement.

• David DeCapua spent $5.06/vote – well over any other candidate – to secure the final UA City Council position. His vote total (6274) was 26 votes below 3rd place finisher Debbie Johnson (6300 votes) yet he spent over twice as much as her per vote. David’s only claim to fame was his prior run 2 years ago where it was discovered that he didn’t live at the address he recorded in his BOE filings and was thus disqualified in that election. During this election cycle he skipped one debate and yet still managed to get elected. He has lived in UA his whole life but has not engaged in civic leadership activities.
• Mike Shadek spent $2.91/vote (3rd highest) and finished 5th overall with 946 votes short of earning a spot on the UA City Council. Mike had a name that had the potential to divide the city during this election the way it had during the trash debates. This means he had a good chunk of positive political capitol along but also a fair amount of negative to overcome – depending on where you stood on this issue. It is impressive how well he did based on his spend and basis of community involvement. It is unclear if Mike will run again.

Finally here’s the breakdown for the two candidates who had no history of community involvement or name recognition.

• Frank Milillo spent $1.15/vote which, based on some emails that went out, suggested that he had a very difficult time raising funds beyond what he had to spend. He finished the campaign at the bottom of the race, garnering only 2,280 votes. On those final days his campaign sent emails that derided the other candidates based on religious values and his beliefs surrounding abortion. Frank was quoted after the election saying that he hoped to run again in the next election cycle. His spend was 4 and a half times less than David DeCapua.
• Vern Morrison spent $1.65/vote and ended up 6th, second from last, in the campaign. While he doesn’t have a history of community engagement he did manage to try to secretly court both the Democratic Party and the Teabagger community at the same time. This clearly hurt any chance he had of getting elected and raising funds. It is unclear if Vern plans to run again.

Following the election those candidates who were not elected all began lobbying for positions on various boards in civic organizations. If they are able to attain positions on some boards and truly engage the community through volunteer efforts it will certainly increase the possibility of election next cycle. This makes me believe they realize the community involvement capital necessary to win an election here (lacking outrageous funds that is).

What I keep thinking – and I’m not saying that this evaluation proves it – is that the sweet spot right now appears to be that you need to be truly engaged with the community, building your outreach through good work and then you can get away with spending around $15k on your campaign. I’m looking at how well Debbie did and what she spent; the fact that Frank could’ve spent less and may not have landed on top but would’ve still been elected; and that if Mike Shadek had a more diverse community engagement (instead of the polarizing issue based one he had) his dollar spend was in a good place for a possible victory. Unfortunately, what tips the scales is that you’ve got David DeCapua who it seems clearly bought his way onto council by spending $31,755.00 and Wade Steen who should’ve been able to be re-elected on a figure closer to that $15k spend but because he was so indecisive he also essentially had to purchase his seat back by spending the excessive amount of $24,894.83.

Again, UA City Council members are only paid $2,500/year or $10k over the life of their term. So what if we restricted spending to that? I have been told that the ability to raise funds is a sort of test as to a person’s support from the community prior to being elected. I think that if you look at the numbers above you see there is a sweet spot for that and then there is a tipping point beyond that. It appears that currently the sweet spot is near $15k. But why should we expect a candidate to spend 50% more to become elected than they will earn in office, particularly since that stipend of $10k hardly covers their efforts?

Clearly the lowest two candidates had too small of support to raise the kinds of funds that even a $10k cap would provide. However, a $10k cap would also limit a person who happens to have the financial resources from buying their way onto council. Is now the time to consider implementing such a strategy?

We do have a majority of council members who claim to be dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Of course three of them who rung the fiscal responsibility bell the most also spent the most money to become elected ($19,373/$31,755/$24,894 ~ $75k).

What do you think?

[CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO]

Unhappy with your government? Look in the mirror.

We hear a lot about government waste these days. I mean, it isn’t exactly a new sentiment but with the current levels of corporate welfare, the populous anger and the 24 hour news cycle (who’s always ready and willing to add fuel to the fire); well, I feel like there’s just no hope for our government.

Just like Howard Beale in the movie Network: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Thing is, I can’t bring myself to blame my representatives any more than I blame myself. As a citizen I play an important role in our democracy. That means that I’m equally responsible for this mess – and I’m happy to share the responsibility with all of my fellow Americans.

You see, we’ve all created this situation. Not just through our votes but through our daily actions. Over time we’ve developed a national identity that boasts how we’re better off when markets compete; when we compete. We believe so wholly in this market identity that we no longer consider ourselves citizens, we are consumers. As consumers we compete with each other and whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Our pursuit of happiness is so consuming that we turn a blind eye when that pursuit tramples over our neighbor’s happiness. As they say in reality TV, “I didn’t come here to make friends, I’m here to win.” Outsmart, outwit and outlast is often more like out-lie or out-cheat – oh, and get out without getting caught. Like the drug abuse in athletics; the infidelity and graft of the powerful or the banks’ abuse of bailout money – our zealous competitive spirit is setting the nation’s course.

Competition is also the basis of our love affair with free enterprise. This love is such that often you hear the plea to run government like a business. Businesses don’t have to worry about being harassed on the Sunday morning talk shows or dragged into court for every decision they make. Entrepreneurs are hailed as superheroes because of their ability to take on risk like taking a breath of air. We forgive their failures with our bankruptcy laws because we believe they’ll get it right next time. So surely that would solve the problems of waste and corruption.

Only; in our role as citizens we aren’t comfortable with risk and we don’t trust swift decisions. We punish failure instead of forgiving it. We demand transparency and accountability. All of this is very un-business-like. We actually demand the very bureaucracy we decry; mockingly we say, “I’m with the government, and I’m here to help.”

But we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So let’s accept the responsibility assigned to us and instead roll up our sleeves, pitch in to help each other and honestly proclaim, “I’m the government too and together we are the help our nation needs.”

Growing up I watched a lot of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood (watch here) and I’ve always had a love for the show and the man behind that show, Fred Rogers. The thing about this show and the man himself is that he wasn’t interested in teaching people what actions specifically are “wrong” and what actions specifically are “right” – he instead nurtured an understanding of how our actions affect others and how our feelings have an effect on our own self.

I’ve been thinking a lot about anger lately, about how quick we as a culture are to get angry and point fingers and choose sides; I’ve been witness to where that leads – we all are. Crisis after crisis because we aren’t satisfied to let cooler heads prevail.

Well, today in my RSS feed I found this nugget courtesy of Coudal Partners: it is Fred Rogers testifying before Congress about PBS funding. Listen not just to the words he has chosen but to the calmness of his delivery. He doesn’t need to get his ire up because his words reflect the deeper honesty of his being.

I’m grateful for the chance to continue to learn from Mr. Rogers, no matter what age I am. If you haven’t seen the video take the 6 minutes to watch it and really let the ideas settle into your mind.

We’ve been having some lovely weather over the past few days here in Columbus – at least in my opinion it is lovely. If we are going to endure months of darkness and cold then I want there to be snow, and lots of it! I love being outside in the snow, shoveling it, playing in it, driving through it and just generally taking it all in. Unfortunately, being this far south means that many people don’t really understand good winter weather etiquette.

Most people don’t enjoy the snow because it can make your daily tasks a little more treacherous; however, if everyone did their little part this wouldn’t be nearly the issue that it is. First up on the list is to clean off your car.

This photo that I found on Flickr’s Creative Commons is a perfect example of how NOT to drive in the winter. If you have to park outside (like my family does) then you must plan ahead for cleaning off your car before driving it. There are actual laws about this but those only exist because people often can’t be bothered to do what they should do. The thing is that it only takes an extra couple of minutes (time that you are probably letting your car warm up during anyhow) to clean your car all the way off. Ice and snow flying off the hood/roof/trunk of your car can cause a white out for people behind you while flying ice might injure someone. Having windows covered further lowers your visibility meaning you are less likely to see that pedestrian/bicyclist/motorcyclist/car/truck/building that is in your blind spot. Five extra minutes cleaning off your car is surely worth preventing an injury.

Speaking of pedestrians let’s talk briefly about keeping them safe. Take the time to clean your sidewalks or cut a path through deep snow in your front yard for people walking (and to make your postal carrier’s life easier). Do you live next door to an elderly or disabled person? Help them clear these paths too, they’re more likely to be trapped indoors without this help. Shoveling is good exercise. For a really really really great article on the importance of shoveling let me point you to my friend Jeff Johnson’s website Urban In-Fill where he discusses in great detail some failings on this front and an opportunity to make a difference.

Finally, take advantage of the fact that snow forces you to be more intentional about what you are doing. This weather makes us slow down and in our current fast-paced lives this is something that should be forced upon us much more often. Get out there and enjoy the winter snowstorm; build a snowman, go sledding – these things have no age limit but they are certain to bring out childlike joy in you.