John Crawford

In the midst of celebrating last night's victories I didn't get a chance to post my thoughts on Councilman John Crawford's loss. While the poor showing from mayoral candidate Matt Kelty probably didn't help, I don't see that as the deciding factor. Afterall the city did elect 2 Republicans in the at large race so the question must become - why them and not Crawford? The easiest answer would be the smoking ban but that's probably a little too simplistic. I think it was a general anti-incumbancy feeling that did him in. If you were to ask the average citizen to name one member on city council the first name out of their mouth would likely be John Crawford. Typically this type of name recognition would be a positive but not in this election cycle.

I supported Crawford's re-election and I was genuinely saddened to see him defeated. Crawford should be proud of the fact that he helped move this city forward by championing the smoking ban and hopefully he'll join the rest of us to ensure it doesn't get rolled back. On the other hand voters sent a message last night that no matter how much money you spend, how popular you think your stance on issues might be, you can and will be defeated if the people perceive you are not listening to them.

Councilman Crawford Publicly Denounces AFA and Calls on Kelty to do the Same

Republican councilman John Crawford publicly rejected the American Family Association and their ad against mayoral candidate Tom Henry. He also called on Matt Kelty to condemn the message behind the ad and the AFA for running it. His comments came at the end of tonight's city council meeting and are shown below:

I want to go on record concerning the recent radio ad by the American Family Association. I repudiate this message and I strongly condemn the American Family Association for this campaign ad. The AFA is to be condemned in general for this type of shameful tactic and in particular for this ad. The ad is misleading and appeals to the base instincts of intolerance and bigotry.

The ad references an amendment to the Metro Antidiscrimination Ordinance as promoting the gay rights agenda. The only agenda that ordinance promoted was the human agenda - the desire of all people to not be discriminated against. All that ordinance said was that an employee with a good work record should not be able to be told one day he or she is being fired exclusively for their sexual orientation anymore than for their race, sex, age, or religion. The ordinance no more promoted the gay rights agenda than it promoted the agenda of any other group that wants to not be discriminated against. I am fiercely opposed to any form of discrimination against any group and I was proud to vote for that amendment.

It is not just the right thing to do, it is vitally important for this city to be progressive and welcome all groups here if we are to have the strongest economy and city we can have. I commend Allen County Republican Party Chairman Steve Shine for going on record with his concerns about this ad. Republican candidate Matt Kelty should also condemn the message of this ad and the AFA for running it unless he agrees with the message. This is the most reprehensible campaign ad I have ever encountered in this area, and I think it is important for candidates to repudiate it.

Kudos to Crawford for publicly condemning this ad and the AFA. Meanwhile the AFA is now going after Steve Shine.

New Campaign Finance Question

Will councilman John Crawford have raised more money than Matt Kelty?

How embarrassing would that be...

Tax Cut Proposed by Councilmen Crawford and Pape

Fort Wayne City councilmen John Crawford and Tim Pape are proposing to cut the city's 2008 tax levy by $3.7 Million.

Councilmen John Crawford, R-at large, and Tim Pape, D-5th, proposed cutting the city’s 2008 tax levy – the amount of property taxes collected by the city – by $3.7 million.

As a way to cut spending to finance the tax cut, Crawford proposed eliminating 10 vacant police positions and five vacant firefighter positions next year, which would save more than $900,000. Other proposed cuts equal about $200,000.

This is a welcome sign considering both supported large subsidies for Harrison Square. However, the proposed tax cut is not followed by an equivalent cut in spending and this is a bad idea - they claim that the difference in revenue and spending would be made up from the city's cash reserves. Unfortunately, the city is facing a mountain of debt and the truth is we don't have any reserves once you take into account the unfunded pensions, combined sewage overflow fixes, etc.

Don't get me wrong, Crawford and Pape should be commended for trying to find ways to reduce spending and taxes. But the fiscally prudent decision would be to match the tax cut with appropriate spending cuts. If this is not done then the city will surely find themselves in a more financially precarious situation in the future...