Clayton J | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Clayton J 
Member since Nov 5, 2010

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “LR City Hall: Mayoral candidates face off, more file

City governance, for the record:

Mr Kurrus would have everyone believe there is no problem with our present at-large governance, because:

first: that each of the at large are the longest termed directors, having been reelected every term for decades.....thus everyone loves them (not true for director Fortson).

second: there was an election recently where residents had the chance to change our governance. And in that election they chose to make the mayor full-time and keep the at-large.

So to the first point: Having run a recent at-large campaign I found out why they keep getting reelected. They have banks full of cash to run massive mailing campaigns and when their polls show one will be seriously challenged they buy in third candidates to split the vote.....thus insuring they will be reelected. Yet this is hardly a full representation of the LR registered voters. A simple analysis of the people that go to vote but do not vote for any city candidate, will clearly show the at-large have less support, from registered voters, than the ward directors or mayor (and in all cases less that 50% of LR registered or voting public). In effect no one knows they exist and have no interest in them at all.

Then the second point: I was one of the people canvassing for signatures on that last campaign and he failed to mention some facts about that campaign. Just as we were about to accumulate all the signatures we needed for an election to make the mayor full time and to remove the at-large (as was required by the ONLY state statute for such elections at that ime)....a funny thing happened. The city went to metro and had them get Tracy Steele and David Johnson introduce a new state statute that was specific for LR's form of city manager - at-large governance. It would now allow the mayor be made full-time but the at-large could continue as board members and then one other small issue was added to the end of the statute...the mayor had to be paid as much as the highest paid LR government administrator (that would be the city manager). Finally, as was the case for most statutes, it would take effect July 1st, so they solved that by putting in an emergency clause and thus it took effect on the governor's signature. Thus it took effect in time for the board to pass an ordinance for a special election and placing it on the ballot along with our ballot issue, if we got the rest of our signatures. So to insure that did not happen, the mayor (Mark Stodola) asked to meet the committee at my house for a discussion. He, in effect asked us to drop our campaign because their new ordinance would solve the full-time mayor issue. When I objected and said that was true but it eliminated the LR residents chance to vote on the at-large he assured the members that he could control the at-large, thus causing at least half the group to abandon our campaign (which was still legal to put on the ballot). So the point is that you can judge if, in fact, he controlled the at-large and that their under the table NEW statute and the mayor's back-room dealing, intentionally, eliminated the chance to settle the at large issue.

So, Mr Kurrus, you are not presenting an accurate picture when you say we recently had an election for the LR voters to settle this issue. YOU and your chamber and fifty for the future backers performed, as usual, and eliminated any chance for that issue to come before the voters. So it has STILL never been addressed as part of a recent issue to be voted on and if they think they are so valuable, then why are the at-large afraid of placing the issue before the LR electorate to settle the issue DEMOCRATICALLY.

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Clayton J on 08/02/2018 at 12:28 PM

Re: “Little Rock, Fort Smith land on list of 50 worst cities

Missing the point, residents already live here. It is the perception of safety that counts and that is viewed from the eye of people outside LR. Thus these crime #s inhibit others, such as new residents and businesses, from relocating to LR.

Thus the minimal to no growth #s over the last decade or so (NW AR, with very low crime #s, is having no problem growing....with either residents or businesses).

Also, dozens of other cities throughout US, almost identical in size and demographics, do not show the same crime #s....why (that is something I have never been able to get an adequate answer to from LR city hall)?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Clayton J on 07/10/2018 at 7:46 AM

Re: “On the agenda: More democracy for Little Rock city government

She is proposing an aldemeric form of government, as state stautes state, and under those statutes the mayor still only votes to break ties, so there must be an even number of director or council people...not seven. But the jist of it is a good idea and still need to see what members of the board will vote they belive in democracy, let the people decide, or autocracy or the power brokers know best what is good for the little people.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Clayton J on 06/12/2018 at 6:52 PM

Re: “Sabin makes it official

I say again, as has been displayed by the influence of the at-large directors in recent events, under our present form of LR governance, the only thing that will change with the election of a new mayor, is the person sitting in the mayor's office on the second floor of City Hall.

Otherwise, the chamber, the developers, the financial institutions will call the shots in city policy and they do not have to negotiate with ANYONE....much less a new mayor (whomever that is).

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Clayton J on 06/06/2018 at 11:23 AM

Re: “LR City Board refuses to de-emphasize marijuana enforcement

The chief can't support this because it will appear the police have a policy of lack of enforcement for "under the radar (non-violent or aggravating crimes) crime"... you mean like his publicly stated policy of " his officers will not enforce the published state, county and city ordinances covering illegal loud exhaust systems and anti-noise ordinances (loud music, etc. vehicles).

Likely because a significant number of the offenders of the above laws are public safety officers or city employees (or their kids). That also means the city has a policy that you can blatantly violate your own city ordinances and still be employed by the city that passes the laws, how ironic?

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Clayton J on 06/06/2018 at 8:19 AM

Re: “16 sheriffs endorse Asa Hutchinson

Kate, thanks, at that time it would make you an independent but definetly NOT a Democrat.

So my definition of an independent, sorry, is someone who is Democrat on Monday and Republican on Wednesday....definitely does not describe someone with party MEMBERSHIP affiliation (thus a closet Dem or Repub).

And still perplexed why I kept seeing all these people in the room for the monthly Pulaski county Dem party meeting and cheering etc. and the leadership knows the same things are going on with their menbership that I did and NEVER says anything about it. They just keep preaching the empty story about bringing the party back while more than 50% of the people in the room actively regularly support the Republican issues and party.

Thus, in the end, I see little hope for the Dems in AR with the leadership they presently have throughout the state.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Clayton J on 05/23/2018 at 6:20 PM

Re: “16 sheriffs endorse Asa Hutchinson

Not surprising, at least half to three quarters of the people sitting in the room at every Pulaski County Dem party meetings have and will support (donate money) and endorse (campaign for) many blood red Republicans.

Why, because it helps secure their position or enriches their pocket book (pretty much the way Republicans think).

Can anyone say closet Republicans.

Guess I am just one of those old dinosaurs, was always told a TRUE Dem NEVER supports a Republican. Does not mean they have to vote for a bad Dem opponent but they NEVER endorse their Rebublican opponent. Otherwise, they may as well just vote in the Republican primary and please, stop attending the monthly meetings and pretending to be a liberal Democrat.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Clayton J on 05/23/2018 at 4:24 PM

All Comments »

  • Re: An open line

    • 1958 we had a group of student from Turkey and they were hostile to Any…

    • on August 18, 2018
  • Re: An open line

    • My roommate and fellow history student told me about the Turks he fought with in…

    • on August 18, 2018
  • Re: An open line

    • There weren't a whole of lot of Turkish fighters in the Korean War, but there…

    • on August 18, 2018


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation