A choice between old friends
by Jack Neely
When Madeline Rogero seemed to be retiring from politics, I grieved. She was bold, clear-headed, and progressive, which made her a minority on County Commission. Some of those folks sitting behind the counter, if they didn't occasionally get angry and say something stupid, they'd appear to be recently deceased. Madeline was often the only one who appeared to be thoroughly awake. She was a calm voice of well-informed reason, the one who asked the tough questions.
About three years ago, I had coffee with Madeline at the Tomato Head, and strongly encouraged her to run for mayor. She was the only tested politician who seemed to have the energy and ideas to move the city ahead. I told her I'd back her with everything I had against whatever doughy defender of the status quo the Republicans had to put in her way.
I didn't expect that I'd suffer any agony about that promise. I pictured her likely opponent in 2003: a Cas Walker protege, maybe, a tried-and-true Aginner; or one of the slow gray men for whom mayors tend to rename lesser streets, someone with the personality and vision of a stale biscuit.
I didn't expect her opponent to be a vigorous, charismatic progressive. And I didn't expect that he would be an old friend. Who would have thought that in a city of 175,000, the two main candidates for mayor would both turn out to be old pals of mine?
I grew up with Bill Haslam, from Kennedy-administration days at Elgin's Kindergarten on 22nd Street. I'm one of the few Knoxvillians who will walk into the voting booth having voted for him before: for high-school class president. He served ably. I can hardly think of anyone I've known that long that I can say nothing bad about. Never mind skeletons, I'd be surprised to find any fingernail clippings in his closet.
At first, it sounded great. If it's Rogero v. Haslam, we can't lose. We have two smart, honest, energetic people running for office. When was the last time that happened? (It's a rhetorical question: speculating on an answer could make unnecessary enemies.)
Then I realized I might have to pick one over the other, and do it in public. It would be tough enough to choose one in the privacy of a voting booth. A columnist's obligation to make a choice in public is something else. I feel like the Bachelorette.
At one point, my only clear choice to avoid pissing off either of two old friends was to throw my hat in the ring and run for mayor myself. They'd understand my abstention then, especially if I ran on a pro-Madeline, pro-Bill ticket.
But running for mayor is costly and annoying. I have to pick.
Madeline's a few years older than Bill, and clearly has more experience in public office, and in the byzantine esoterica of Knoxville politics. Her graduate study in urban planning would seem to give her an edge in subjects mayoral. Before, during, and after her tenure on County Commission, I've also seen Madeline out and about in town much more often than I've seen Bill. He's made up for lost time in the last year or two, and I hope he continues to do so, regardless of his fortunes this fall.
Bill likely has more business savvy, and he may be a more effective business recruiter. If 12 white guys really do call the shots that control Knoxville's future, Bill definitely has better access to the Dominant Dozen than Madeline does; maybe with some gentle persuasion, he could turn them into De Medicis.
What bugs me most about this race probably bugs Bill, too. That as soon as Haslam announced his candidacy, many people, even some who'd never met Bill, believed it was all over. Because he has money, and knows people who have money, and because, it's assumed, the Haslam family gets everything it wants. Bill Haslam probably gets more of what he wants than he'd like.
For months I've been hearing reports of pro-Haslam bias in the media; some are well-founded. Bill, an honest man who has worked hard in this campaign, doesn't need that sort of help.
The Haslam name is a blessing to a mayoral candidate, but it can also be a curse. Some controversial choices in recent years are laid at the feet of Jim Haslam, a philanthropic autocrat sometimes more powerful than the mayor. He has rarely felt obliged to discuss major decisions with the public; his perceived arrogance is responsible for a measurable number of pro-Rogero yard signs.
Bill Haslam is not Jim Haslam. The two have differed on some issues, including preservation. Bill is more sophisticated and more connected. He is, at least, a better communicator.
Madeline is a good communicator, too. She seems more committed to public process, a misunderstood virtue in city government. She seems more likely to be confrontational. She might jar the old power structures; that's something many folks would dearly like to see. She might also, I suspect, frustrate opponents and make enemies. I'm not saying she'd be a female Victor.
Bill would make few enemies. Bill could sit with fierce opponents in a developer-neighborhood fight, and leave them all feeling that all's well in the world. If he were ambassador to North Korea, America would have less to worry about.
My second pet peeve—and, again, it's probably Bill's, too—is the underlying assumption that someone who grew up somewhere else doesn't quite deserve to be mayor.
A couple of Knoxville's most popular mayors during the city's period of greatest growth were people who were from other states: other states in Europe. Peter Kern and Peter Staub, hugely influential Knoxvillians, learned to speak English as adults. When you're talking about someone who has lived here a quarter century and has been intimately involved in a wide variety of neighborhood groups, political councils, and worthwhile projects, questioning where they were born is just dumb. And yes, her last name is Hispanic. The Rogeros came from Minorca, the same Spanish island the Farraguts came from.
Bill and Madeline have few policy differences, but one is billboards. Urban planners have been trying to eliminate billboards in Knoxville since 1929, and I think strict billboard control is past due. Madeline's for billboard control; Bill sounds like maybe he doesn't mind them too much. Beyond that, though, they're both saying things I like to hear, about preservation, and downtown development, and the necessity to curb sprawl.
The last of these, which is strongly connected to the first two, is the most important issue facing the mayor of a city listed as one of the most sprawly cities in America. Sprawl is insidious: it makes us drive more than we should, it costs us more money in gasoline, it stretches city and county resources and infrastructure, it forces taxes to rise, it causes air pollution. It's no coincidence that one of the most sprawly cities in America is also among the most polluted.
Any effective action that will have meaningful results in combating sprawl in a set-in-its-ways suburb-heavy city like Knoxville is going to make people angry. Bill and Madeline are both saying the right things, and they both sound firm. Though distrusted by many progressives, I believe Bill does have progressive intentions.
I wouldn't judge a candidate by his supporters, but you can't help but notice the status-quo establishment is behind Bill. Some of Bill's maximum contributors like sprawl just fine, and have profited fatly from it. I don't doubt that some of them feel they've bought a part of the guy they perceive to be the surefire winner. Will he be able to tell them No? Or, as necessary, Hell, no?
Bill, I think, has potential to run for higher offices: I can picture him as congressman, senator, governor. For Madeline, I think the mayoralty would be the capstone of a worthy and active career of public service.
I would vote for Bill Haslam for senator, especially if he were running against either of our two incumbents. I hope to have the opportunity to do so someday. But I'm going to vote for Madeline for mayor.
September 18, 2003 * Vol. 13, No. 38
© 2003 Metro Pulse
| 
