It’s no secret that current Yakima Mayor Dave Edler is not the ‘Other Six’ council members favorite person. Remember the snide emails about Mayor Dave? Remember their concern that the mayor was getting too much of the spotlight during the weekly Monday media updates? Remember their concern that Edler joined with mayors across the country for sensible gun laws?
In January they will be dumping Edler and picking one of their own. Who will it be? Hmm, let’s see now. Coffey? Very possible. Cawley? Equally very possible. Ettl? Nah. Too new. Adkison? Nah same reason, too new. Lover? Nah, he’s a C.A.V.E.man (Councilmember Against Virtually Everything). Ensey? Nah, way too much baggage.
So, from this vantage point we feel it’s between Cawley and Coffey. Neither one sounds appealing. Both have egos to feed. Not a good thing for a leadership role. Since the council has tried to minimize the mayor’s role recently it will be interesting to watch them follow through when they get the reins.
We here at theotherside have a suggestion. Rotate the job every month or so like the County commissioners do for chairing their meetings. This would give each councilmember an opportunity to display their leadership skills. And since they appear to be concerned that the mayor may be getting too much power, they can show the way it should be done with their example when their turn is up. Any organizational concerns and mailings can simply be addressed as Mayor of Yakima. The mayor does get a little more extra money so whoever is serving that month would get that extra salary. This would help councilmembers ‘grow’ in their jobs and give the public a glimpse of each one’s ability. It also would mean outside influences (guess who we’re talking about) could very well have their influence diminished. The more we think about it the more sense it makes. The alternatives do not look good. The time is ripe for a change like this.
It could be a real food fight between Cawley and Coffey, but my bet will be on Coffey. Cawley’s got the vote of his personal promoter, Lover, and co-worker Ettl. Ensey is in the BS cabal with Coffey and she would likely get the Adkison vote leaving Edler as the swing vote. He will have to hold his nose and pick one…………
Even if the vote goes to Coffey, we are still in the woods. She’s a good manager with lots of Convention Center wisdom–but is the rumor true that her husband, Ken Messer–manager of KYVE and former manager of KIMA, is one of the players at Bruce Smith’s poker party? That means that Smith still has a proxy vote at the council horseshoe.
If Cawley, we are saddled with someone who wants to be mayor anyway, and who has shown a good sense of communication to the masses, but who sits beside Ensey and depends on his second to get his way.
Lover, well maybe, but how will he ever get past his analytical mind that wants to say, “No, No, No.” Will he say no even when he has that tingle telling him this is a really good move? Boeing and umpiring went well…but…
Ettl, no way. He’s got a wonderfully cool voice, the way it rises and falls like a boy just half-disabled by puberty, but he is too–Dave Baby i Love Me. His penetrating Bush-Hannity-Limbaugh amor brings on an upset stomach.
We need another Hispanic on the council, but that is light years away now. Sonia Rodriguez made a good last move when she promoted additional anti-gang effort, but even Luz said it might have bad long-term effects. Yeah? Why did the Hispanics let Sonia fall through the cracks. Is there a little paranoia in the Latino blood thinking that one of theirs might dance with a gringo? Or is it that there are a lot of Hispanics in the gangs, and nixing gangs might be dangerous to the culture? I can assure you that sacrificing Sonia R will prove to be a big mistake for Latinos. Why? Dave Ettl.
I suppose if we used Ron’s revolving door approach to selecting a mayor, even HE could have had a shot at the job once upon a time.
For 30 years it’s been fairly standard for the mayor to step aside after 2 terms and allow someone else the opportunity to sit in the middle. The job is largely ceremonial anyway.
As for Sonia? Coming forward with a proposal for gang control on her way out the door doesn’t surprise me. Would have been a lot better had she tried to implement those ideas while she was still a viable member. Instead, she chose the easy way and threw money at it. Even Luz wants accountability on what that money accomplished. Would make a good story.
“Instead, she chose the easy way and threw money at it.”
Council OKs funds to battle gang violence
by CHRIS BRISTOL
Yakima Herald-Republic
Aug 07, 2009
YAKIMA — Responding to a rash of gang shootings, the Yakima City Council beefed up the city’s thin blue line Friday — temporarily.
“The City Council approved an emergency infusion of $80,000 to pay for 30 days of overtime for 10 police officers. The suppression effort is designed to quell a wave of open gang warfare that has wounded at least 18 people since May, including several innocent victims who have been struck by stray gunfire.”
The City Council Neal, threw the money at it by majority vote. Maybe you should check out your statements first.
I live in Yakima, Streeter…I know how the vote went…and we all know what suicide it would have been to have voted against it. And we all know the money was there because of Lover’s vigilance with regard to the mall.
And Luz’s idea is one to ponder. It would be nice to know what “bang” we got for the buck. In the long run (and probably the short run too) I doubt it was worth it.
As you have pointed out before, streeter…the violence continues unabated.
Violent crimes did go down during the 30 days of extra patrols, so, as a temporary measure until better solutions could be explored, it was a great idea. The violence NOW continues unabated, and you know that’s what mainstreeter was referring to.
Don’t get too upset…with cons back in control, you’re money won’t be wasted in neighborhoods you dare not tread.
drew…is MY town safer now than it was before the 80 grand went out the door?
Are any perps permanently off the streets?
These are good questions. You have a good answer?
Lives were likely saved, and it cost taxpayers $80k. What’s not to like about that? Are some lives worth more to protect than others? Your problem with this isn’t the $80,000 spent to curb violent crime- it’s that a liberal proposed it, and the council said yes. And then, by golly, it worked!
Even if no lives were actually calculated to have been saved, a community was made safer, at least temporarily, and you should be pleased with that- why aren’t you?
You should be careful- you’re proving my theory that cons are never happy unless, somewhere in their world, there’s some killin’ ‘n’ sufferin’ going on.
It worked??? Tell me how, Drew.
And I’m just as pissed at the rest of the council for approving the issue. It was a dumb “feel-good” thing to do that you can’t possibly tell me in any intelligent way made Yakima safer.
As Luz asked…what did we get for the money? If we got a good return, mea culpa. If we didn’t, please be smart enough not to do it again.
You prove my theory too, drew…libs are never happy unless someone else is paying for it.
Neal, there was just a roundup of suspected gang members throughout the region recently, was the federal cash unjustified? Did it work? What is your criteria?
Some cons don’t believe that when every neighborhood is made safer (not just their own), the whole community benefits, and the quality of life improves.
Neal, you no more than impress me than you take another dive off the highest board. Do you remember the enormous cache of guns found. Do you remember the 80,000+ in cash, which will probably end up in LE coffers?…there is your 80K right there. Do you remember the meek-looking janitor who was apparently running a BIG gun-and-drug deal while cleaning up our kid’s class rooms?
One more thing. Our good chief Granato stood before the council and said that the period of “preventive” crime-watch saved an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 dollars that would have been spent on jail time and effort. My only response to that was, “Why aren’t we spending this money every two weeks, if the result is saving 1.7 times that in jail time and effort?” The council did not seem impressed, so maybe it was just a puff of hot air–or maybe they missed it completely.
Whoopee, nobody would argue that if you had a cop on every corner there would be less crime.
My argument is that level of spending is unsustainable. You know that too. A long term solution to gang problems is what we needed from Sonia, and we didn’t get it. Except on her way out the door, when she wouldn’t be there to implement it. Real courage.
The fact that the gangs just laid low for 30 days till the money ran out just proves my point. Even with that month long cease fire, we still will probably break records for shootings and murders this year. Some accomplishment.
Ok Neal, nothing is going to break you of lashing Sonia. You know, there are six other members on that council–it would be truthful to say that none of them came up with a plan to curb violence until she uttered the words, “Reserves.” And, let me point out that she could have just laid low and never said anything. Do you suppose any of the other comfy council would have had the temerity to mention a cure? In the extreme, it is all over. She is no longer in office. Will it make it any better for any of us to call her a nitwit at this juncture. Is this a re-run of the Bill Clinton “dead-horse-whipping” that a number of our brethren have felt is appropriate years after his influence had faded away? What is your problem? Somebody tried something that worked, but was not sustainable. I’m afraid to ask what your cure might be. Do you have any suggestions? Are they plausible and are they “sustainable?” Please, in place of bitching about Sonia, tell us that YOU would do? It might be worth a try.