Midkiff’s preconceived notions muddle his view of the City Council
In a recent editorial, local environmental pundit Ken Midkiff, conservation chairman of the Ozark chapter of the Sierra Club, posed the following question: “Does the city council represent the public, or does it represent a few rich folks? That is a rhetorical question, and the answer should cause a bit of self-examination by Darwin Hindman, Jim Loveless, Chris Janku, Bob Hutton, Laura Nauser and Almeta Crayton.”
This query was presented in an opinion piece regarding the council’s decision to extend LeMone Industrial Boulevard to Stadium Boulevard by a bridge across Grindstone Creek, a move Midkiff says will pollute creeks and destroy wildlife habitats. In opining regarding the public hearing held by the council, Midkiff states, “Another, more succinct, way of phrasing it was that council members ignored all comments that were contrary to their preconceived notions.” He indirectly praises Barbara Hoppe, the lone dissenter, in his dissertation.
While I do not agree with our council members all the time, I choose to take their defense and take exception to Midkiff’s moronic point of view. I think it’s fair to state that the City Council does represent the public and, contrary to Midkiff’s holier-than-thou opinion, has preconceived notions against those who wish to develop, those who wish to build roads, and those who wish for liberal growth policies.
How asinine to construe Darwin Hindman as kowtowing to the rich and famous and being anti-green. Our mayor has advocated positions contrary to many and, more importantly, has taken the time to educate, truly educate, folks about his views. He would be proud to be referred to as “Mr. Trail,” “Mr. Parks,” “Mr. Bicycle,” “Mr. Aesthetics” and even “Mr. Grass on Roofs.”
Does Darwin Hindman need the blessing of the environmental community for the rest of us to believe that he is taking an advocacy position to enhance our local environment? The mayor has been a steady force toward balance in our community. He clearly represents the public.
Irony surrounds this question to Almeta Crayton. On the very day it appeared in the paper, the councilwoman was helping to feed the less fortunate the largest Thanksgiving meal in Columbia. She ably represents many who are less fortunate—many without cars, many on fixed income—all while searching for ways to move them forward. Does she represent the public? She sure does.
Jim Loveless, in his day job, is responsible for the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area. It’s a small piece of green space, with lots of duckies and other wildlife, a habitat for poor and indigent migrating waterfowl. As a state employee, Loveless cannot be accused of being in the top 10 of Columbia’s wealthiest. He’s environmentally responsible. He supports parks, supports trails, supports pedestrian ways and supports open space while at the same time trying to advance the well-being of the majority of Columbians. He has used his knowledge well to balance his decisions and will be missed on the council.
Bob Hutton also will be missed. Responsible for facilities at Columbia College in his day job, he traverses downtown every day. He weighs his decisions in the light in which he is placed, which is supporting college students and their parents on a small college campus that has become the north anchor of our downtown community. Like Loveless, Hutton is a two-time councilman for a volunteer job which, based on Midkiff’s presumption, deserves no credit. Hutton also does not have to answer to Midkiff’s accusation.
Chris Janku can hardly be called conservative. Quiet and thoughtful, he has methodically weighed decisions for years on the council. He has voted for virtually every pro-environmental project in the city. He has supported trails, parks, open space, etc. He has carefully picked which projects to support. He, too, requires no introspection demanded by Midkiff.
I do not know Laura Nauser well, and I have not been able to follow her voting record to the extent of the others’. But she certainly does not appear to be out of touch with her ward, some members of which may be the rich and famous that Midkiff finds so disdainful. I guess they don’t deserve to be represented in our community. Yet I think Nauser listens, even though she occasionally kowtows to the poor.
That leaves us with Barb Hoppe. The sole councilperson Ken Midkiff does not believe requires reflection. The only one who got it right, according to Midkiff. The only one who always gets it right, according to Midkiff. And to her credit, she may represent the views of her ward. However, if the other council folk require a “self-examination,” does not Ms. Hoppe? Ms. Hoppe has voted against virtually every major development presented to the council. Ms. Hoppe has voted a consistent slate, never deviating from the mantra. Some would indicate that this is indicative of closed- mindedness and ignoring all comments contrary to her preconceived notions. Midkiff accuses the other council members of rejecting possible alternatives “in favor of making the rich richer.” So I guess that puts Hoppe in the position of making the communists more commun, the greenies greener and the envious more envious.
Life is about preconceived notions, the very thing that Midkiff accuses the bulk of the council of relying on. On the contrary, all of them rely on preconceived notions. The question is: “Do you like the notions that have been preconceived?” We are fortunate in this community to have seven council members who volunteer their time, give to their community and share their preconceived notions and values about their wards. All of them deserve our gratitude and, while we may disagree with their decisions on a single road project, they do not deserve aspersions for kowtowing to the rich, for kowtowing to the poor, for kowtowing to the green or for kowtowing for those who wish to develop.