Landrieu's one-page letter, by contrast, did not cite any specific provisions of the food-trucks ordinance he considered objectionable. Rather, it noted that the measure's chief sponsor, Councilwoman Stacy Head, and a coalition of food-truck supporters had both suggested during debate on the measure that some of its provisions might be found unconstitutional if challenged in court.
Head, who said she accepted the provisions as the price of getting the measure passed, is a frequent political antagonist of the mayor's and -- some of his critics hope -- a possible candidate against him when he runs for re-election next year, though it seems more likely she will run again for the council, very possibly against a Landrieu-backed opponent.
Head and Mitch aren't very far apart on the policy aim in this case. But by having a "fight" over the reform Mitch just vetoed, they're likely to get an even more favorable ordinance for both of them in the long run. Just not this year.
Not that Eggler is wrong to point to the growing rivalry between these two. It's just that they're really not that substantively different. A mayoral election with both Head and Mitch on the ballot would split the currently ascendant but still precarious conservative white governing coalition. It's possible that both Head and Mitch are egotistical enough to carry on a tug-of-war over who gets to lead it. But they might not be so stupid as to indelicately rip it apart in the process.
I could be wrong about the food truck strategy but these are still things to think about as the 2014 stage gets set.
No comments:
Post a Comment