BGR asks you to reelect the shadow government

During the last week of March, the City Council approved three new Sewerage and Water Board directors. These three were picked from among the names submitted by the unelected committee of business club members and university presidents who the empowers to decide such matters for some reason.

The new board members include Janet Howard, the former president and CEO of the watchdog Bureau of Governmental Research; Dr. Maurice Sholas, a New Orleans-based psychiatrist who runs a clinic consulting firm; and Glen Pilié, an attorney with the firm Adams and Reese who worked as a civil engineer with the U.S. Corps of Engineers in the 1970s.

The three new members were among more than a dozen applicants recommended by a group of local university presidents convened as a selection committee, per state law. Their choices went to Mayor LaToya Cantrell, who the law charges with making Sewerage & Water Board director appointments. The City Council approved her appointments Thursday (March 28).

McBride watched the selection committee meeting, god bless him.  It was about as bad as you might imagine.  The committee members didn't seem to have done much prep.  They relied heavily on the fact of current board incumbency as a qualification in and of itself.  And they deferred to SWB Executive Director Ghassan Korban's opinion on who they should select as his bosses.

And then it got just plain uncomfortable. About ten minutes into the meeting, selection committee member Dr. John Nicklow made a rather surprising inquiry. I have transcribed the exchange as best as I could...

[TRANSCRIPT PORTION BEGINS]

University of New Orleans President Dr. John Nicklow: One other question, and if this is not appropriate, then so be it. If, if [S&WB Executive Director] Ghassan [Korban] would be willing to, um, speak to any applicants? Because some of these are current members, and, um, I, I, I think if you're comfortable doing so, it might be helpful to, uh, give us an indication of who's ... let me turn it around ... the best way to do it is who may be preferred, who you worked well with, who you think is an asset of the current group. But if you're not comfortable doing that, I would understand.

SWBNO Executive Director Ghassan Korban: I would be comfortable if it's in a closed session, not in an open session [crosstalk]. I don't want to, I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.

Nicklow: Are we permitted to go into a closed session?

Delgado Community College Vice Chancellor for Workforce Development and Institutional Advancement Arlanda Williams: You would have had to notify the public twenty four hours, well, thirty six hours prior to this meeting that we were going to be going into an executive session.

SWBNO Board Relations staffmember Candace Newell: To discuss this, yes.

Nicklow: Okay.

[TRANSCRIPT PORTION ENDS]

So a selection committee member asked the head of the SWBNO staff who he would like to be overseeing him. And the only objection that executive director had was that he was in open session and someone's feelings might get hurt; he'd be more than willing to spill in closed session.

And to clarify, according to state law, even that would not have been cool. Appointments are explicitly excluded from discussion allowed in closed sessions. Also, Ms. Williams was initially correct: the notification period for closed sessions is 24 hours, and the subject of the closed session also has to be notified and allowed to insist on an open session.

And this is the process by which government "watchdog" Janet Howard got appointed to a government oversight board. That and she's clearly close with the mayor. I can't remember the last time the mayor and the Bureau of Governmental Research, which Howard was the head of until recently, disagreed about anything. At least not since Cantrell became mayor, anyway.

Last month they worked together to defeat an emergency plan to shore up funding for senior services. BGR argued and the mayor agreed, we should not trust the "unaccountable" non-profit Council on Aging with dedicated public money even for only five years.  We still don't know how the mayor wants to address the problem of underfunded services for seniors now.  As "Grace notes" here, it's time for her to get to work on that. LaToya still says she loves the seniors, though. Hope that's enough in the meantime.

Now the mayor and the BGR are working together to promote a scheme to keep public money flowing to the private non-profit Audubon Institute by tying its fate to that of City Park, NORD, and the city Parks and Parkways Department. But if we were to take LaToya/BGR's argument against the seniors millage and apply it to the Audubon plan, we'd have to reject that too. By that standard, Parks and Parkways is really the only entity here sufficiently "accountable" to receive dedicated mils. The others are run by quasi-private boards of fundraisers.... many members of which happen to overlap and intermingle with BGR's crowd. Funny how that works. 

The real problem here is we have a network of business insiders and "charitable" non-profits who form a de-facto government in New Orleans.  Sometimes they get to pick who runs the Sewerage and Water Board. But even when it's not that, the daily order of business is an inherently anti-democratic exercise in protecting generational wealth through nepotism and money laundering.

BGR's and Cantrell's criticism of the Council On Aging gets us part of the way to recognizing that problem but they won't extend that criticism to similar non-profits they happen to favor.  Their actual complaint is that they want to pick and choose which unaccountable elites get to play and which ones don't.
 
This is exacerbated by the fact that nobody reporting on this recognizes that BGR is itself another one of these unaccountable anti-democratic insiders' clubs. Instead they're treated as a benign observer from on high.  Here, Uptown Messenger calls them an "independent New Orleans research group." The Advocate refers to them here as a "nonpartisan policy group." Here is NOLA.com naming them a "watchdog group."  This is pretty much routine. BGR is a player in the game just like everybody else.  And because they seem to have the mayor's ear as well as the uncritical eye of the press so often, they're a player with a distinct advantage.

On May 4, Mayor Cantrell and BGR are asking you to vote in favor of perpetuating our governemnt-by-wine-and-cheese-clubs status quo. But the good news is they just made a fair argument against doing that one month ago. So if you are looking for a reason to vote the other way, it's right there.

We love our seniors, though

"We love our seniors and we can do so much more for them," says LaToya Cantrell in these Facebook ads right before she asks you to vote against a millage funding their services. The tax failed yesterday thanks, in part, to ads like that one paid for by Cantrell's PAC, Action New Orleans. The PAC spent over $20,000 on this one ballot issue garnering the attention of *checks notes* 6.7% of the electorate.  Nonetheless, the result will be counted as a sweeping victory for the mayor and the political machine she is building. The electoral "win" just ahead of the legislative session should be good for the mayor's clout as she continues to pursue her grand bargain with the heads of local tourism agencies. It will also be described as a "win" for the mayor over a defiant City Council who put this proposal on the ballot in spite of her objections.

The mayor invested so much in denying funding to the Council on Aging and other organizations who provide essential services to the seniors she loves because she says... well because BGR tells her to say... those organizations are not sufficiently "accountable" to the public. They may have a point in the abstract. But it rings hollow when, in next month's election, the mayor is supporting dedicated money for the private clubs who operate Audubon, City Park and NORD as insufficiently "accountable" fiefdoms themselves. Also, we could point out (and we have) that the deal she is hammering out with the tourism agencies preserves their unaccountable access to dedicated public funds. What explains Cantrell's selective application of this "accountability" line of criticism?

My best guess is this is basically about patronage. LaToya and BGR support the money that goes to their friends and supporters while opposing money City Council members might distribute to non-profits and church groups with different loyalties and interests.

Looking through the contributors to Action New Orleans, we find several names tied to the agencies and interests Cantrell is moving to protect. There are current and former Audubon board members, people with ties to the Superdome Commission and the Convention Center as well as tourism and real estate connections. Joe Jaeger, whose hotel project is at the center of the supposed "clash" between Cantrell and the Convention Center, contributed $2,500. Prominent Airbnb lobbyist Eric Bay gave $250.  A plan to normalize short term rentals as a permanent revenue source is also said to be part of the pending deal.

We'll wait to see how all that plays out.  News on the deal is expected this week.  Hopefully when our media commentators write their predictably glowing praise of the "compromise" ending, they'll mention somewhere that everyone involved in the deal was on the same side all along.  In the meantime, Orleans Parish seniors who rely on Meals On Wheels and similar programs will have to wait a bit longer for the mayor to decide whether or not anyone is going to feed them.  She does love them, though. 

Who is going to throw them something?

Signs like the one above were posted along Napoleon Avenue during Carnival this year. A few months later, they printed a similar format which claimed SELA had also "ruined my Jazzfest." That was confusing. Maybe the sight of a crack in the wall distracted these homeowners and made them sad as they watched the parades pass from their front porches.  Not sure that would "ruin" things for me but ok.  How it affected their Jazzfest is anybody's guess.

In any case, it's looking more and more like the mayor is going to have to throw them something after all.

The Sewerage & Water Board has lost its latest attempt to blame federal contractors for damage to homes along the Uptown New Orleans routes of several new underground drainage canals.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday (Aug. 28) that the Sewerage & Water Board couldn't hold liable federal contractors hired under the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Program, or SELA.

That leaves the embattled city agency staring down a possible $86 million payout to roughly 275 plaintiffs.

Appellate judges Thomas Reavley, Edward Prado and James Graves agreed with a lower court ruling that the Sewerage & Water Board had failed to prove the contractors hadn't followed federally agreed-upon plans when installing the canals.

We don't want to go too far in the direction of defending the Sewerage and Water Board, but it should be said they're in kind of a tight spot in this situation. SELA is a federal project overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps, though, is immune from litigation as are any contractors employed to do the work so long as the Corps signs off on the specs.  So, if you are an aggrieved property owner looking to get paid, you're going to have to get it out of S&WB.

But, uh... to put it lightly, they've got their own problems these days. And according to the mayor, at least, those problems are going to require a whole new source of revenue.

Deputy Mayor Ryan Berni said a new millage for drainage is a possibility, but there's also been a movement to create a more complex fee structure that would credit property owners for the amount of water-permeable property they have. Owners of properties that absorb rainfall would pay less than someone who generates more runoff. For example, a lot with a large lawn or another retaining features would face a lower fee than a parcel with an impermeable surface.

The Bureau of Governmental Research endorsed stormwater fees in a February report. It pointed out that while New Orleans is "one of the nation's most stormwater-challenged cities," it doesn't have a way to collect money directly from property owners who use its drainage system.

It's not clear what they're actually going to propose yet. One talking point they've run up the flagpole is the possibility that a new drainage fee could circumvent exemptions which keep nonprofits and religious organizations from paying property taxes. That's been a longstanding issue in municipal politics. Fittingly enough, though, it's one of those issues everybody complains about but nobody ever mitigates. You, know, like our regularly apocalyptic weather.

Anyway, it seems to me if broadening the tax base were really what they were after here, they'd attack that directly.  Most likely this is just another push to raise revenue via regressive fees instead of through property taxes. That's pretty much been the bread and butter policy choice throughout the Landrieu years especially. According to the somewhat unreliable BGR, they're going to need $54.5 million in new revenue over the next decade and it has to come from somewhere.

According to the also somewhat unreliable Inspector General, though, S&WB's problems go far beyond figuring out how to raise more money.

The current drainage crisis that has gripped the S&WB gave Quatrevaux another platform to bolster his case. In his letter, he listed a series of investigations his office has done in the past five years that he said exposes the shortcomings of the agency's management. They mainly focused on accounting weaknesses that may have made the agency vulnerable to fraud and abuse.

"The recent drainage failures demonstrate that an organization cannot perform poorly in finance and administration yet perform well in operations," Quatrevaux wrote.

I'm not sure what to make of some of Quatrevaux's arguments. I'm especially wary of the way he tends to point his finger at S&WB line employees and I have absolutely no truck with what I see in some of this as an attack on their pensions and benefits.  Having said that, he raises some troubling issues with regard to management practices; i.e. sloppy accounting, reliance on overtime in place of adequate staffing,etc. This passage makes the most critical point.

It is logical to consider how the many problems of the S&WB might be solved by organizational restructuring. From a theoretical view, there is a continuum from city control on one end to privatization at the other. But what is the S&WB now? It is not a city department but an independent entity that is legally impervious to city controls. The S&WB sits halfway down the continuum from city control to privatization, neither fish nor fowl.

The fundamental problem with the Sewerage & Water Board is that it is an institution impervious to change—it has ossified. Its celebrated independence permitted decades of technological progress to bypass the S&WB. Fees or millages increased when the inefficiencies could not be paid with current funds. The problem is structural, and the passing characters—mayors, directors, members of the S&WB—almost irrelevant.

A turnaround in such an organizational culture would be very difficult to achieve: the S&WB must be replaced with a modern organizational structure, one that makes elected officials responsible for the organization’s performance.

A similar argument was made by Jacques Morial a few weeks ago in this Lens op-ed. Morial agrees with Quatrevaux's recommendation to fold S&WB back into City Hall.  But while Quatrevaux's letter is focused on getting us to a more efficient management structure, Morial adds an appeal to more direct democracy. Morial pulls no punches in his piece.  He is especially critical of a recent structural reform backed by Landrieu and BGR.

The gist of SB 47 was to expel the City Council from the S&WB’s board of directors. For years, three members of the Council had been seated on that board. In their place, the bill established a system whereby directors would be appointed by the mayor from a list of nominees put forward by the presidents of local universities.

While all the men and women who have served in recent years as presidents of local universities are honorable, civic-minded leaders, their responsibility is to their institutions and their boards of trustees. These academic leaders are not accountable to the voters in any way, notwithstanding their noble service to the community and the vital role their institutions play in our city.

Leading the charge to purge the S&WB’s accountability to the voters was the august Bureau of Governmental Research, founded by social elites in 1930 as an anti-populist organization with a secret membership roster, not unlike the exclusive carnival krewes whose members comprised the group. But the BGR is neither representative, nor credible. Many of its board members do not live in New Orleans. Not a single African American serves on the BGR’s staff. Its board members have been awarded no-bid contracts with city agencies, and have been appointed by Landrieu to city boards or commissions. At least one of its officers has been embroiled in his own ugly conflict-of-interest scandal.

We aren't exactly sure what the new fee proposal will look like yet. But anything mayor pushes with heavy BGR backing is worthy of heavy scrutiny.  If Quatreveaux is to be believed, it's worth questioning just how steep such a measure really needs to be. Whatever the amount, I suspect we'll be looking at an attempt to impose a regressive fee based on a notional measure of drainage "usage" rather than a more progressive property millage.  After all, it would be shame if those Napoleon Avenue property owners went through all the trouble of making the mayor and S&WB "throw them something" only to find they were footing a fair portion of the bill themselves.  

Just give us our money

This month's Antigravity features a look at how little of the bounty produced by the city's "economic engine" actually gets allocated to benefit the city’s residents. As others have been pointing out for years, most of the tax revenue generated through the the hotel/motel tax only goes right back into tourism related infrastructure and marketing. And, of course,  the industry itself is more accurately described as an inequality where a small circle of politically powerful owners and speculators squeeze profits out of low wage, non union workers.

Oddly, the AG article skims these issues and focuses too much on lauding  the conservative "reform" non-profit Bureau of Governmental Research and its crusade against any and all dedicated tax allocations. BGR's proposal to just blow everything up and start all over is problematic from a policy standpoint It's a sloppy, almost Trump-like move to flip the table and declare a big do over. Also, from a political standpoint, many of these dedicated millages are the on the books through direct ballot referendum. To simply invalidate all of them at once would be as undemocratic as it is unwise.

There are better ways to identify and address specific ills in the tax structure.  In this case, our objective should be to pry our public money out of the hands of the oligarchs who run the tourism racket. Let's focus on that for now.

Does anybody remember the Ho-Zone?

They've been slowly bringing the same concept back piece by piece. The latest effort is centered in what we've dubbed "Jaegerton" on our Oligarch's Map of Downtown. The way things are going lately, they'll probably get their way this time.  But here, at least, is a negative review from BGR.

One fact of note here I wasn't aware of. The mayor isn't supporting this plan. (At least not openly.)

Although the mayor's office opposes the plan, the BGR report notes the project and the infrastructure work would exceed the convention center's $222 million in reserves. "If that is not enough, they said they would use the HB 1056 taxing authority."

BGR was also critical of using tax increment financing to pay for Trade District work, which the bill would permit. The authority has not said it intends to pursue a TIF deal, which typically relies on a sales tax to subsidize private development.

In the report, BGR said it is not taking a stance on the merits of the Trade District or on whether the convention center board should invest public resources in the project. But in repeating a call made in its November 2015 review of New Orleans' tax structure, "The $1 Billion Question," the bureau suggests an assessment and prioritization of the city's various levies is needed.

Anyway, even though they're in the right this time, BGR's stance is predictable. They're pretty much going to come out against any new taxing plan until we start talking about comprehensive municipal finance reform.. or at least until they get bored with the notion. I'm not opposed to looking at a big reform package, but in the meantime we still have to do stuff. Just not this particular thing. 

Municipal finance reform

This is BGR's pet project so it's worth noting that the mayor is signaling at least a measure of support here.

As Gov. John Bel Edwards and the Legislature try to right the state's finances, Landrieu repeated his call that a larger share of gambling, hotel-motel and sales taxes generated in New Orleans remain within the city limits rather than head to Baton Rouge. He also agreed with BGR that New Orleans' own tax policies and priorities should be reexamined.

The watchdog group in a November report had questioned the spending rationale of a government that dedicates more than four times the tax dollars to tourism and sports as it does to potholes and broken streetlights.

BGR's "analysis of the money coming into the city and the money going out of the system is exactly right," Landrieu said. Over time, tax prioritizing "all gets out of balance and it gets all out of whack and it doesn't make any sense."

But he was there to sell them on yet another dedicated tax millage for police and fire services so who knows how sincere he is.  And that's fine, I'm not convinced BGR's notion that we should just blow up the whole thing and start all over is such a great idea anyway. But it will be fun to talk about when they finally release a report on the matter.

Mitch also couldn't help but tell them this.

At another point he pushed the audience members to be more involved in the city's school system, which he predicted could return to the Orleans Parish School Board from state control within the next three years.

"You've got to make sure that when those schools come back here that the School Board that's in place, that the individuals that are elected to run that School Board, and the structure that they have to run, and the governance model is exactly right, or we will lose ground on probably the most — oh no, clearly the most significant building block that's going to help New Orleans go forward because everything has to go through the schoolhouse door," Landrieu said.

Which raises the question, is that even really going to be true anymore?  In a city we're turning over to tourists and part-time residents where nobody actually lives, does it really matter that much if there are any schools? 

Congratulations to the library on being elected mayor

It's a landslide.



Can't really say it's too surprising given the widespread support from (almost) everyone.  More on that "almost"  in a bit.  Last week, I rounded up all the links I could find to illustrate the widespread support of practically everybody.   You can see that  here.

But it turned out this week that a bunch more people wanted you to vote for the library millage so I started collecting those articles as well.  I meant to publish these before election day but I've been kind of busy with stuff so here it is now. It seems less urgent now, but if you did vote for the library millage, it's a list of the many people who agreed with your decision.

Let's start with the mayor who, even  though he had to throw in some blather about the tricentennial, said a thing.

On May 2, our city has an opportunity to renew its commitment to the New Orleans Public Library. The request is that voters increase the current millage by 2.5 mills for 25 years to support operations and maintenance of the entire library system.

The price for the total millage on the average home in New Orleans will be less than $11 per month.

Cheryl and I are endorsing the proposed millage. Libraries continue to be one of the most accessible avenues to education for any age and are important to personal and professional development – especially to those without access to resources at home.

Here is the Times-Picayune editorial board: 

Public libraries are an essential part of a literate and informed community. They help feed the imagination of young readers, provide a place for research for students of all ages and connect adults to jobs. And they can serve as neighborhood gathering places. To achieve all that, they must be up to date and accessible.

Here is a different person who wrote in to the T-P This is a pretty good one so I will share two quotes. Here's the first.

Most of the system's 13 branches at the time were destroyed. About 80 percent of its staff was laid off, as librarians scrambled to find new homes in places the floodwaters had not invaded. Hundreds of thousands of books and other holdings were wiped out.

Post-storm assessment reports were predictably grim. "Fish in parking lot. Overturned bookdrops. Major flooding. Shelves collapsed, books floated in water," said one from a library branch in eastern New Orleans. "Closed indefinitely."

But the city library system didn't stay down long; did not surrender to the disaster or the naysayers. Like many community institutions, including our own National WWII Museum, the libraries struggled back to their feet and regained strength, helped along by private donations, government and volunteers. With a big assist from the American Library Association, our libraries became part of a broad rebuilding and revival story reminiscent of the one that played out in Europe after World War II, propelled by the Marshall Plan. Another major post-World War II investment - in the GI Bill, giving returning service members the additional education they needed - offers another reference point.

I happen to have a photo of the actual fish referred to above.



I know it kind of looks like they're still underwater. Phones had shitty cameras back then. Anyway, the letter goes on.

City libraries are important to our quality of life, to our city's future - to our democracy. Sustaining them reflects, in a tangible way, the American spirit. Now is the time for cultural institutions to rally to their defense, urging a resounding "yes" vote on May 2.

That was the best one but let's see. What else is there?  Here's one from the Louisiana Weekly.  

Our editors are usually highly resistant to enacting any new property tax, especially in Orleans Parish where rising assessments are driving property bills to a level that many working class homeowners are in danger of losing their homes.

But a city cannot survive without its libraries, and if this millage is not enacted on Saturday, at least two libraries will close and the hours will be reduced at most of the remainder to the point that they will be unavailable to most of the working public.

This is from The New Orleans Tribune

We suggest our readers say “YES” to both proposals. We don’t do so lightly and it is not easy. But, we understand the need for safe and well-maintained jail facilities. And we say “YES” to strong public programs that are designed for the benefit of the community, such as those offered by at the library.

The Tribune actually gets some facts wrong about both propositions in that piece. But, whatever.

Doing a much better job is Gambit where we found this article about current literacy programs jeopardized by the library's funding crisis. 

Also from Gambit, a feature article with a more in-depth look at the library's situation. 

The vote seems like an easy sell; who doesn't appreciate libraries? Brown points to the educational and politically neutral environment that branches across the city give to New Orleans youth: providing educational and entertainment materials; serving as points of Internet access in an underwired city; and creating community programming that provides an alternative to crime and a lack of adult supervision.

But the Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR), a private, nonprofit and non-affiliated research organization in New Orleans, issued a report last month asking the NOPL to go back to the drawing board. Janet Howard, president and CEO of BGR, says the library has a plan for how it's going to spend the money, but it doesn't have a strategic long-term plan for its operations.

Yeah, about that.  It's pretty much nonsense on its face.  Brown does an adequate job of responding to it but there's more.  Here's Brown.

Brown says the BGR is wrong. "I have no criticism of the BGR, I simply disagree with their finding," he says. "I think any impression that voters would have no idea how the funds will be spent is not true. We have clearly articulated how the funding will be spent."

In a later email, Brown said, "The library has a detailed spending plan, but not a strategic plan at this point," adding "any new funding will be used for vetted, widely accepted purposes." As to spending specifics, he said, "The question of the strategic plan is a priority for the future; however, there are simply too many front-line operational considerations that must be addressed first."

The immediate plan is to continue and expand these vital services rather than drastically shut them off. There is no mystery to it. BGR, though, sets the goalposts further back than that demanding  a long term "strategic" plan.  This is not because they are concerned with the actual question before the voters (do you want to keep library services or no?) but because they are pushing a more nebulous ambition.  

Howard says BGR isn't against an increase in library funding per se. "The fact that something is a good cause is not enough to say to voters," she says. "You have to have a system that's properly executed and you've got to have the planning. Do those things and come back."

BGR plans to look at this and other future taxes as a whole, "because we have all these individual groups that go out and ask (for money)," Howard says. "The sheriff goes out and asks for money, the city can go out and ask for money, the levees can go out and ask for money — but there's no coordination so that you come up with a concept of 'What are the community's top priorities?'" Howard says BGR will issue another report looking at not only property taxes, but also sales taxes and hotel and motel taxes to see where that money is going across Orleans Parish. That way, voters can decide whether that revenue is being properly allocated.

BGR doesn't actually care about this election. They have an upcoming report they want to tease.  Howard showed up again in this Lens article, talking about "long term" planning, but also pushing an even more obvious lie about the possibility of alternate funding from the city general fund. If you read the article, you'll see just how unrealistic a possibility this was.

Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell, who supports the millage proposal, did not say whether she would support a general fund contribution for 2016.

“First and foremost, the Council has fully supported this millage and is advocating for voter approval,” said an emailed statement, attributed to Cantrell, from spokesman David Winkler-Schmit. “If it did fail, allocating money from the general fund would depend on what the other budgetary considerations are for 2016. Hopefully, this question will become moot with the passage of the millage increase on May 2.”

Library Board Chairman Bernard Charbonnet, interviewed after the board meeting, said he’s not holding out much hope for a large check from City Hall if the vote fails.

“The problem is with the stressed needs of the city’s general fund. I can’t tell you that there is any money for the library,”  he said. “We go to the City Council annually. We go to the mayor annually. And we go with hat in hand begging for money. We just do not get it. I don’t believe they have it, which is why we’ve come to this.”

However, if you were to skim the article and read only the headline, "Even if voters reject proposed library tax, options for increased funding still exist" you might get a different impression.

Yes, even supposedly "engaged" Lens readers are prone to being manipulated this way.  So it's a terribly misleading way for them to have put it. If the millage had been defeated, the library would then have to ask the city to provide for its operating budget out of the general fund during the contentious annual budget process. The only possible result of such a scenario would have been a drastic reduction in library support.

The choice voters had was this. Approve the millage and the library system can continue to expand services or defeat the millage and guarantee that those services will be cut. Is that what The Lens would have liked to see?  Who knows but it is the position they chose to amplify.  Is that what BGR would have liked to see?  Maybe.

You can choose to interpret this charitably and say that BGR is merely being naive or myopic; favoring longer term "good government" reform aspirations over the practical function of a specific election.  Or you can say that BGR is engaging in Tea Party-esque ideological anti-tax intransigence and dressing that up in the guise of progressive reform.

Whichever side of that you favor (it doesn't have to be all one or the other) you'll have your finger pretty squarely on the pulse of white middle class New Orleans. Which is why the overwhelming library millage victory is something an aberration.  Had it been any other social service on the ballot, there would have been much stiffer opposition. 

Imagine this election were an initiative to fund the kinds of things the library actually does without using a word library in the offering.  "We would like 2.5 mils to offer free internet and staff assistance for individuals filing for SNAP benefits or applying for jobs, early literacy training for at-risk families, community meeting spaces, regular arts/entertainment/educational programming free and open to the public, oh and also to buy books, music, and films in multiple formats to lend out to anybody also for free. We'd like to run fifteen branches of this operation covering every neighborhood in the city."

My god what a socialist nightmare of a ballot proposal!  If we asked them to create such an institution out of whole cloth today, certainly our upwardly mobile "new New Orleanians" would insist on farming it out to some for-profit entrepreneurial public-private partnership. Preferably one that offers small plates.

How is it, then, that this package of free stuff for everybody but especially for the poors slips by? Branding! Long established branding.  A publicly funded information and social services project may sound like an anachronistic impossibility but a library is a thing people recognize and respect. A library is something respectable people want to be associated with.  There is something about the idea of having good libraries that flatters the totebagger class of a city even if they do not use them.  Like a wall of untouched bookshelves in a fashionable home, the point of the thing is showing it off to the neighbors.

Anyway, it all works out for the best. The library gets to go on quietly providing the many laudable services it offers any and every person in the city regardless of age, race, or class. The totebaggers get to feel good about themselves for whatever screwed up combination of conspicuous consumption and noblesse-oblige helps them sleep at night. And, of course, BGR still gets to write that big report on city finances they're so keen on.  Comprehensive municipal finance reform happens to be a subject I'm interested in myself. I look forward to reading it.