Columbus on the Record

On Friday, December 11th we talked about the possible “Blue Jackets Bailout”.
The city and county are trying to work out a deal, presumably with at least some public money, to help Columbus’s National Hockey League franchise remain financially viable and remain in Columbus.

This viewer took issue with our discussion and recommends further reading,

- Mike Thompson

Mike:

I can not tell you how angry I am with you guys again for completely missing almost all of a the salient points concerning the financial issues associated with the Blue Jackets and the arena district. Shame on you and your panel.

Please do me and mort importantly your intelligent listeners a favor. Before you discuss this topic again–and you will–make sure that all of your panel members receive and read the newspaper article that is obtainable by pursuing the link provided below. How ironic it is that ti takes a Canadian newspaper to see the real value of the team and the district to our community. I will not go into detail because article speaks for itself but I must point out the most important points captured by this paragraph below:

“Without it, Columbus would get no new NHL franchise, no big-league label. Without it, downtown would remain dead, and various companies would continue to lose good young people to bigger, more glamorous cities. Columbus would forever be Ohio’s third city, behind Cleveland and Cincinnati, and such a non-entity on the American stage that outsiders invariably referred to it as “Columbus, Ohio,” never just Columbus”.

The complete article (must reading for you guys) is a cut and paste away:

http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/blogs/hockey/archive/2009/12/01/could-the-columbus-arena-district-be-a-model-for-edmonton-s-downtown.aspx

Ordinarily I would say that I enjoy your show but since last night ….well let’s say I’m most disappointed.

John J Kennedy

Professor Emeritus

Ohio State

Question:  Who is the happiest man in America?

Answer:  David Letterman.

He and Tiger Woods have been in the news for thier “transgressions”.  But while Letterman’s controversy flamed out in about a week, Tiger’s continues to dominate the talk shows, cable news and front pages of the tabloids.  Why the difference?

Granted Tiger’s fame is considerably greater than Letterman’s and his “transgressions” appear to be more sensational than those of the late night TV host.  But while Tiger remains holed up, Letterman immediately came clean and apologized.  While the story did not end there, it lost considerable steam.

Perhaps Tiger is calling the shots and wants to keep it private,  but his statement had the fingerprints of high priced public relations consultants all over it.   Each day Woods remains hidden, it’s the “co-transgressors” who get all the attention.  Spin is getting in the way.

Since starting work in Central Ohio 11 years ago I have always been amazed at how public officials are overly insulated by their spokespeople.  The Dispatch has written about it and last week The Other Paper effectively questioned the practice.  In other cities where I’ve worked reporters did not interview spokespeople; we interviewed the policy makers.  We’d conduct impromptu interviews after meetings and at unrelated public appearances.  One city manager I covered drank a lot of coffee, and as a result made many trips to the men’s room.  If I could not get an appointment,  I’d put myself between his office door and the men’s room and interview him (as he was returning from the bathroom - I’m not that cruel). In just about every case he and other public officials graciously granted quick interviews.

Earlier this week a WOSU reporter approached an elected official (I’ll keep the names out of this) during a break in a public meeting and asked the official if he could talk about an issue.  At first he agreed, but then his spokesperson interrupted the interview and told our reporter that if she wanted to interview the official she had to speak to the spokesperson first.  After a five minute hallway meeting between the official and the spokesperson, the official answered our reporter’s questions.   But were the answers the official’s or his spokesperson’s?  Our listeners deserve to know.

So in the future if a WOSU reporter’s interview with a policy maker is delayed or interrupted by a spokesperson we’ll report it on the air.   You’d hear something like, ” Official ____ answered only after consulting with his/her spokesperson.”

Don’t get me wrong.  I very much admire public relations professionals.  I married one.  They perform a great service to reporters; they find information, provide background and arrange interviews. But sometimes they can get in the way.

Ask Tiger Woods.

- Mike Thompson

On most issues I understand arguments “for” and “against.”  But I’m having a hard time on an issue that’s come up recently.    Some elected officials and others argue that because Franklin County voted against the casino amendment, developers should not be allowed to build one in Columbus’s Arena District.  We’ve been hearing the argument since the day after the election, but it took a letter to the editor in The Columbus Dispatch to make me fully understand my lack of understanding.

William Fitzgibbon wrote if Franklin County is allowed to get out of the casino amendment because it voted against it, then Ohio counties that voted against the 2006 smoking ban amendment should be able to puff away in bars and restaurants.

Bingo. Like it or not, when Ohio voters change the constitution, they change it for all of Ohio, not just a select few counties.

If counties were able to “opt-out” of constitutional amendments 16 Ohio counties could allow smoking in bars, restaurants and other public spaces.  That’s because 16 Ohio counties rejected the smoking ban in 2006.

Also in 2006 Ohio voters changed the constitution to increase the state’s minimum wage.  If counties were allowed to “opt out”, 21 of them,  nearly a quarter of the state’s counties, would be exempt from mandating companies pay the minimum wage.

Last year Ohio voters in 87 out of 88 counties put pay-day lenders out of business (or tried to).  But Adams County voted against that change in the constitution, so under the above argument businesses in the southern Ohio county should still be allowed to charge 487% annual interest.

And in the ultimate irony, while most of Ohio rejected 2008’s casino amendment, the county where it was slated to be located approved it.  Clinton county voters, by a margin of  57% to 43%, approved a casino in Wilmington but the statewide vote kept them from what they wanted.

This is not an argument for the casino in the Arena District.  There are many valid and well worn cases for  and against it.  But the bottom line is Ohio voters changed the constitution allowing for a casino in Columbus. They approved very specific constitutional language: “The Casino in Columbus, Ohio will be located on approximately 18.312 acres currently known as 560 Nationwide Blvd., located on the north side of Nationwide Blvd., west of the railroad overpass and west of the new Franklin County ballpark facility.”

It’s what Ohio and Franklin County voters and lawmakers get when they let special interest groups write the constitution. So if Franklin County voters don’t want the casino, they have to get the permission of the rest of Ohio.

- Mike Thompson