STATE OF THE CITY: BIG SISTER BEATS A DEAD HORSE

On Saturday Mayor Heartwell a.k.a. Big Sister gave his state of the city address.  His theme was "diversity", by which he means skin color.  He trumpeted his passion for "civil rights" (as though no one else desires justice in Grand Rapids) and the need for "affirmative action" (as though bigotry is a way of life here in town).  He refused to be cowed in his campaign for diversity (i.e., making sure taxpayer dollars and government benefits get distributed on the basis of skin color) by the voters' recent passage of a new law prohibiting Heartwell and all other state and local government officials from doing just that.

As Heartwell beat the dead horse of diversity, it eluded him that he has a city to run -- a city facing some big problems.  An ongoing budget crisis.  Growing unfunded pension obligations.  Increasing violence in the public schools and inner city neighborhoods.  A curtailment of park services.  Understaffing of fire stations.  An out-of-control Historic Preservation Commission.  Promotion of non- and low-taxpaying development at the expense of wealth generating enterprises.  You know, real problems.

So Big Sister's big promise to waste time and resources to recognize "champions of diversity" looks not only irresponsible, but insane.  Furthermore, his obsession with so-called diversity is obnoxious.  The government-enforced barriers of segregation were pulled down a generation ago.  The cultural ones have eroded to insignificance since then.  Individual bigots still exist, but the lawful remedies against them are overwhelming.  Over the past forty years an important victory has been won in this country against racism, bigotry, and prejudice.  The crisis has passed, yet Heartwell wants to keep fighting the last battle.  Why?  What reason can there be other than he believes the residents, taxpayers, and employers of G.R. remain bigots and so he must continue to combat their evil intentions.

We can gather one thing from Big Sister's state of the city address:  He and reality have parted ways.

Comments

[B. Post]

I've followed your criticisms of George Heartwell with great interest, especially regarding his misguided opposition to proposal 2. In reading the GR Press a couple of days ago I was puzzled by the fact that his new initiative on "Disadvantaged Businesses" and whom would benefit seems to match up awfully closely with the language of what you're NOT supposed to favor (i.e. preference based on sex, race, etc. etc.), which actually appeared in that same issue of the Grand Rapids Press. I'm confused on why he thinks that this will actually stand up against a legal challenge in court. Any comments?

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Brian.

It is possible that Heartwell is referring to HUBZone businesses.

Last October I attended a planning session with city officials and interested private parties regarding the future of Monroe North. I was there because our manufacturing firm is located in Monroe North. One reason we have kept it there is that this section of the city is part of a federally-designated HUBZone, or "historically under-utilized business zone".

If a company is located in a HUBZone and one-third of its employees live in a HUBZone, then it is qualified for set-aside contracts as are minority- and woman-owned companies. The idea behind it is to encourage businesses to locate in economically underperforming areas, regardless of the race or sex of the owners or employees.

I informed everyone at the meeting that recklessly re-zoning Monroe North to restrict industrial expansion there would gut the city's HUBZone, which it should regard as a resource for attracting new businesses. Why? Because the city is the only place with a HUBZone in the region. The city officials were completely unaware of the existence of the city's HUBZone (or even the program for that matter), so they took interest in it. I supplied them with the information they requested, and it is possible that Heartwell has become aware of the HUBZone program now.

As a HUBZone-certified business may very well disproportionately help minorities (although not required to), it is possible that was all that Heartwell meant. Nevertheless, I can't say I trust him on the issue. I'll have to hear more from him. Until then I'll have the same suspicions you do.

Regards, Bill