Arkansas Blog: McDaniel responds

An earlier blog entry today noted conservative blogging questioning whether Attorney General ~~Bobby~~ Dustin (whoa! not yet recovered from holiday!) McDaniel could adequately represent the state in the lawsuit challenging the let-no-gays-be-parents Act 1 legislation.

McDaniel says of course he can. "I don’t see any reason why we would not be able to vigorously and diligently defend the constitutionality of this act despite the fact that I opposed it on policy grounds." McDaniel said it's not unusual for the attorney general and staff to take legal positions that they don't agree with politically. He said he hoped no one would challenge the integrity of the state's legal team.

"As long as you have the attorney general being an elected official," McDaniel said, "political issues are going to be out there [on which] people want to know where you stand. People have a right to know where you stand on the issues. I don’t in any way regret the statements that I made before the election."

ON THE ARGENTA TIF: McDaniel wants it on the record that he was the legislator who in 2005 removed language that allowed for non-contiguous tax incremental financing districts. He sponsored the amendment, he said, "partially because Max yelled at me in a committee room."

UPDATE: There seems to be confusion about the meaning of that last sentence. The general was saying that Max wanted the law amended to remove the language allowing non-contiguous TIFs. So did McDaniel. Original language dating from the 1999 legislation (that allowed the scheme Hays is now pursuing) was removed in 2005, McDaniel said.

UPDATE II: Max here. I provide a bit fuller account on 2005 in the response thread.

Comments

So, McDaniel sponsored the gawdforsaken rule on TIF-mandering because Max wasn't 'nice' to him. What a piece of crap. You'll never get another of my votes Bobby-bu.

Posted by: 70%er | January 2, 2009 03:20 PM

As the unnamed conservative blogger who has still not received a response, let me just add - Unbelievable!!

Posted by: JasonTcpa | January 2, 2009 03:45 PM

To believe McDaniel you would have to believe in the tooth fairy. Sure he will defend it without any bias!!!!!!

Posted by: strangelove | January 2, 2009 03:54 PM

70%, I believe McDaniel was saying he removed the language allowing noncontiguous parcels because Max yelled at him.

We all know McDaniel sponsored the amendment because Developer Burrows gave him about $20,000 through Birrows' wife and shell companies if memory serves me.

But the post does make it appear as if McDaniel sponsored the legislation because Max yelled at him not to.

Posted by: Citizen1 | January 2, 2009 03:55 PM

Citizen1,
I think you're confusing the enabling legislation with the amendment to prevent or remove

Non-contiguous tax districts. That is what Max B has bitched about all week during Mayor Hays'
TIF free-for-all.

Posted by: eLwood | January 2, 2009 05:33 PM

If you really think our AG is Bobby McDaniel then should you be voting?

Besides TIF has been a failure. The TIF bonds on Burrows mail in NEA had to be bought back by burrow because their was no interest in them.

Besides burrows LLC's that he gave $40k plus through wasn't really shells, they all had assests of some sort and offices.

Posted by: wordonthestreet | January 2, 2009 07:14 PM

"To believe McDaniel you would have to believe in the tooth fairy. Sure he will defend it without any bias!!!!!!"
Posted by: strangelove

Surely you're not saying that this is how you would expect it to be handled if the shoe were on the other foot?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "Hamlet", Act 3 scene 2

Posted by: Zatharus | January 2, 2009 08:17 PM

Late to the fray, but:

Yes, I objected to McDaniel's bill, which originally preserved non-contiguous TIF districts, on a number of grounds. He fixed that one issue, kind of. But he also tried to change the law -- irrespective of the Constitution -- to allow improvements OUTSIDE the districts, which made contiguity less valuable. He also wrote the law in such a way that you could claim undeveloped property was "blighted" and thus qualify for benefits, even if it sat in one of the hottest growth corridors in Ark. (i.e., Rogers, Jonesboro, etc..) There are many other shortcomings with this legislation, all readily apparent now that NLR and others have tried to use it in the abusive way I forecast.

Posted by: maxb | January 3, 2009 12:18 AM

eLwood,

I believe the TIF legislation is a horrible vehicle which allows local gov'ts to give relief on state taxes. That is just a set up asking for abuse.

If a town wants to aid developement then give up their sales tax take instead of state's take. Maybe Fayetteville would not give away tax money if it came out of their own budget. I certainly believe Pat Henry Hays in NLR would not give up his own taxes used for his navy. But dream up all kinds of schemes to give away state, county or federal money.

Like any teenager knows, Daddy's money spends easier than personal money slaved for at McDonalds.

My post above only concerned what McDaniel meant by his response.

I will donate and work against Dustin McDaniel in anything he runs for in the future unless he runs against an idiot like Jim Holt. Then I will jsut not vote in that race. Just as I did in McDaniel's last election.

Posted by: Citizen1 | January 3, 2009 06:48 AM

The CCRRR's have bought into the "Tooth Fairy' stories for eight years. Why stop now?

Posted by: docholliday | January 3, 2009 09:48 PM

Arkansas Blog

McDaniel responds

Comments

Post a comment