Norton’s Big Lies

Mike Norton just can’t help himself.

Setting aside the Scottsdale Unified School District budget override for a later discussion, Norton could have just silently savored the Scottsdale city bond election ‘victory,’ and parlayed his big success into the relevance he desperately craves.

Instead, he continues to lie, to inflate his own role, and to celebrate a massive increase in Scottsdale’s municipal debt (already among the highest per-capita in the state) which will, in effect, continue to fund corruption in Scottsdale city government.

Three points to Norton’s claims today in the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce Newsletter (aka, “the Independent”):

1. Record turnout?

Norton claims to be a “data guy” before launching into his–shall we say–“analysis?”

The city bonds and the SUSD override had the highest voter turnout in the Valley. Approaching or exceeding 30% on all four ballot questions. That is probably a record for an off-off-year [sic] election.

This election likely did set a record for numbers of ballots cast. But as the first all-mail election in the city, such a claim has little relevance.

‘Turnout,’ is traditionally voters physically going to the polls, which requires some effort and some time. By comparison, marking a mail ballot (especially a simple ballot with only four items on it…three bond questions and the SUSD override), sealing it in an envelope, and dropping it in the outbox requires virtually no effort. Heck the envelope was post-paid; voters didn’t even have to buy or lick stamps!

To claim such a record is like the arguments surrounding Roger Maris’ 1961 record of 61 home runs; in comparison to Babe Ruth’s 60 home run 1927 season, when the latter played fewer games (154 vs Maris’ 162) in a shorter season.

I don’t know how you account for the difference in turnout between a traditional election and an all-mail ballot… or even, for that matter, what we’ve had for many elections prior to this one: Early voting by mail, followed by traditional election-day voting at the traditional polling places.

But common sense (which Norton lacks in spades) should tell you that claiming such an election ‘record’ is relatively meaningless.

I can tell you this: The powers-that-be wouldn’t have gone to an all-mail ballot if they didn’t think it would provide advantage to their desired result; much like a few years ago when the Republicronies in the Arizona State Legislature mandated that municipal candidate elections be held in the fall in conjunction with state elections rather than (as in Scottsdale) the traditional springtime local elections. In those, voters were focused on local issues in supposedly non-partisan races. [Disclosure: I have always been a registered Republican, though I don’t think many of my fellow registrants understand what that means these days]

This calendar change was touted as a cost-saving measure, but ultimately resulted in Scottsdale’s historically partisan-balanced (4-3 or 3-4) council membership turning 100% Republican for many years. The recent election of Solange Whitehead (who acts a whole lot more like her fellow cronies on the council than her Democratic affiliation might indicate) was an anomaly due to the Desert Discovery Center debacle. More on that:

2. Record Margins?

Comparison of the city bond election results to the Proposition 420 DDC election (which largely propelled Solange to her successful council campaign) are similarly flawed.

First, Scottsdale’s McDowell Sonoran Preserve is a very tangible municipal asset, established on very clear concepts. How many voters understand that issuing bonds means borrowing money against the good faith and credit of the taxpayers? How many know that Scottsdale already has well over a billion dollars in municipal debt?

Second, there was real debate about the legality of whether the council was usurping the organic (citizen-ratified) law that established and funded the Preserve. Yet, borrowing money through bonding is unquestionably legal… though the way it’s mostly doled out through no-bid contracts is much more questionable. But how many voters follow THAT issue?

Third, there was well-organized and passionate opposition to (if not outrage about) the actions of the mayor and council.

Contrast that against a well-funded, well-organized city bond cheerleading effort; and dozens of ballot arguments published in the election information pamphlet that was mailed to all voters (vs only two arguments against, for which the authors–one of whom was me–paid $100 each out of our own pockets). The funders for the pro-bond campaign are well-heeled contractors (or their representatives) seeking lucrative city contracts, and who view such expenditures as minor investments with major returns.

Fourth: Genuine media coverage was much more balanced and much more in-depth during the run-up to the Proposition 420 vote. This time, the letters-to-the-editor-campaign from the pro-bond folks completely overwhelmed the mainstream media’s trivial news coverage accorded the bonds and the underlying fiscal issues.

Fifth: As I said after the voters passed Proposition 420 with 70% of the vote, a similar margin in the bond election is in reality an embarrassment for the proponents. Just comparing the sheer numbers of arguments published in the ballot pamphlet, if the bonds were really a good idea, the tally should have been well over 90%.

If anything, I’d say that Norton, and his fellow jackass Paula Sturgeon, are responsible for failure to reach more universal support; much more so than the credit they are claiming for the ‘victory.’

3. Naysayers?

And that’s the real story here. Our community refused to be run over by naysayers. By … 2:1 margins or higher at the city, those who want our city to move forward retook control.

Norton persists in parroting Jason Rose, who led the PR effort for the pro-bond group; and who also does work for many of the aforementioned contractors, as well as being Mayor Lane’s PR manager and having received hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for his stupid polo parties.

For Rose and his clients, the modus operandi is to deride as “naysayers” anyone who advocates for the rule of law; the financial policies proscribed in the Scottsdale City Charter and the General Plan; and general best practices for municipal finance. Such things are obstacles to the graft and corruption that put money in Jason’s pocket.