Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Salt Lake issues heating up in preparation of November mayoral race

With an important mayoral race in November, Salt Lake City issues are heating up. Our analysis of key items receiving attention:

Panhandling is a big problem downtown, and most residents think it should be illegal. Can panhandling be eliminated or at least reduced, and would it help to move the Road Home homeless shelter?

Pignanelli: “Why lie? Its for beer!” — message on cardboard sign held by honest panhandler

Most panhandlers are substance abusers or financial scammers whose lies to by-passers about lack of food or shelter are protected by the First Amendment. These fraudsters take advantage of big-hearted Utahns, and their blight on downtown will end only when their victims stop obliging. (Decades of hardcore Irish Catholic guilt trips hardened me against their sloppy pleas).

Shelters do not breed beggars. Panhandling and homelessness are separate issues with different causations — the latter deserve society’s serious attention. Our local Road Home charity continually receives national recognition for cost-effectively transitioning so many Utahns into permanent housing. Moving the shelter may disrupt this significant progress. Further, discussions are a pointless endeavor until a satisfactory alternative is identified.

Unfortunately, rational deliberations on this issue are clouded by the character assassination attempts targeted at the saintly Road Home director Matthew Minkevitch through spokespersons of the Pioneer Park Coalition. (Perhaps Mother Theresa is next on the hit list.) This entity (created by a developer with property interests close to the shelter) claims a membership of hundreds, but most are organizations invited to meetings who never affirmatively agreed to participate in the group (as several told me). Shrewd insiders realize the Coalition PR attack dogs are part of a real estate play in the area.

So the original Coalition organizer is making demands through misrepresenting who it is and unfairly blaming others (aka panhandling).

Webb: I recently watched an aggressive panhandler work the lunch crowd outside a restaurant on South Temple close to Main Street. He’s a young guy and I see him most days. He doesn’t sit passively asking for money as people walk by. He walks right up, pleads for help and keeps asking, following his prospects for several steps if he doesn’t get money immediately. It’s hard for nice people to say no. In the half hour I watched him, he probably made $10-$15. About every sixth person he hit gave money. On a busy day downtown, he can get in front of hundreds of people.

Panhandling can’t be outlawed, but it is a growing problem downtown. I walk two blocks to work and two blocks home and I get hit up by five or six panhandlers each way — usually the same people day after day. It gets awfully tiresome and visitors are repulsed, wondering why SLC has more panhandlers than other large cities.

The only real solution: don’t give. The downtown street people all know where to get free services, including meals and a place to sleep.

It would help to move the homeless shelter. The greater downtown area has many dozens of social services facilities, including homeless shelters, homeless permanent housing, addiction recovery and detoxification centers, all manner of low-income housing, food pantries, facilities for people with serious mental illnesses, halfway houses, women’s shelters and so forth.

Downtowners are certainly willing to take our fair share of these facilities, but right now we’re simply overwhelmed. If the homeless shelter is moved, we’ll still have far more than our share of these facilities.

Salt Lake City’s population nearly doubles during the workday, increasing city service costs, but survey research by UtahPolicy.com shows city residents aren’t keen on finding a way to tax commuters to help pay for services, and residents definitely don’t want to be taxed more themselves. Is it silly for the city to pursue some sort of commuter tax?

Pignanelli: Some "urban visionary" types love a commuter tax, which occasionally rears its head in Salt Lake City. But the fee is a disincentive to economic development and has not succeeded in other areas (i.e. Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc.) Furthermore, state lawmakers hate the idea so much they may mandate summary executions for those who suggest it. Common-sense residents overwhelmingly reject the idea (thank goodness).

Webb: I don’t see a practical way for the city to charge a commuter fee. SLC does shoulder extra burdens because of the big influx of workers. The city also has a large amount of tax-exempt property. But the city also has big shopping malls, high-rise office buildings and a very large commercial district. So things balance out.

How will these and other downtown issues impact the mayoral race?

Pignanelli: Downtown economic vibrancy has not influenced the mayor's election for decades. The current race is all about the incumbent Ralph Becker and whether his campaign will have the field operations to encourage supporters to the polls. Becker's campaign manager, Matt Lyon, is among the best in the business and is a factor in this contest.

Webb: Overall, Salt Lake City is doing well and residents are generally happy with city government. That bodes well for Mayor Ralph Becker, but political barnacles pile up when a politician seeks a third term, so the race will be competitive.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: How do Baltimore riots, Supreme Court rulings impact Utah?

Utahns and Americans witnessed last week two minority groups in the midst of major societal change. One is arguing for the ultimate recognition before the U.S. Supreme Court, while others are lashing out at perceived law enforcement injustices. These events impact Utah politically, culturally and socially.

How do the Baltimore riots, and ongoing media coverage of tensions between African-Americans and police officers, affect Utahns?

Pignanelli: “Legislation won't necessarily start a riot. But the right song can make someone pick up a chair.” — Saul Williams

Utahns understand that for every filmed incident of police misconduct, there are thousands of actions (most unrecorded) of courage, compassion, protection and devotion to community made by law enforcement every day. Most of the actions by protesters are reprehensible, but there is substance behind the peaceful objections because persons of color have a higher rate of arrest.

The constant media focus on friction between law enforcement and minorities is impacting deliberations in the Beehive State — as reflected in developing policies for body cameras, detainment and "use of force." High-quality cameras on phones are changing the dynamic. While there are rare instances of problems, all our local cops are under greater scrutiny. Better yet, the public is gaining greater understanding of the pressures police face, and the often awful conduct of citizens is now subject to recording. This is a positive development for society. (Obnoxious teenagers like me who harassed the mall cop will now think twice.)

Webb: Everyone on all sides of this issue seem to agree that the protests and riots aren’t just about police brutality. In reality, less bigotry and injustice exist within police agencies nationwide than ever before. Officers are by no means perfect, but they are more integrated, better trained, and less racially prejudiced.

But real or perceived police brutality seems to be the spark that unleashes long-simmering anger within some inner-city neighborhoods — described by President Obama as, “impoverished … stripped away of opportunity, children born into abject poverty … parents, often because of substance-abuse problems or incarceration … can't do right by their kids … (who are) more likely to end up in jail or dead than go to college.” He decried absent fathers and drug-flooded neighborhoods.

Obama nailed the underlying problems, and he’s right that angry young men are victims of society. But not a racist or uncaring society. Instead, they are victims of 50 years of a liberal, big-government society whose policies have helped create inter-generational poverty, failed schools, welfare dependency, family dysfunction, absent fathers and teenage unwed mothers.

Here’s the question of the century for liberals and conservatives: How do we re-instill in failed neighborhoods the fundamental values of a successful society: honesty, integrity, sexual responsibility, family, marriage, fatherhood, self-discipline, hard work, education and personal responsibility?

Is there more violence and anti-social behavior in the country and in our state? Who is to blame?

Pignanelli: Overexposure to CNN, FoxNews and YouTube compels any viewer to the conclusion that our country is sliding into hostile anarchy. But the facts document the USA is actually less violent than at any other time. We have greater concern for the health and well-being for each other. So there is little blame but loads of credit to hard-working Americans who continue to make this country the economic giant that promotes democracy.

Webb: Every citizen with a cellphone and social media account is now a reporter. That means every act of violence anywhere, anytime, becomes big news. There’s not more violence; it’s just reported more.

When I was a kid in the ’50s and ’60s, it was sort of expected that cops could be rough and tough, that they would crack heads if disobeyed. The fact that every instance of cop misbehavior is now publicized and condemned actually shows we’ve made progress.

The Supreme Court won’t announce its decision on same-sex marriage constitutionality until June. Regardless of the decision, has the nationwide focus on this issue forever altered attitudes?

Pignanelli: Not since prohibition has the nation experienced such a successful national lobbying effort as that conducted by the LGBT community. In less than 10 years, a majority of Americans have altered their opposition to same-sex marriage. Furthermore, an overwhelming number of those under 30 more than just tolerate this change in traditional marriage, they embrace it. Therefore, the worst case for activists is the court does not recognize a constitutional right of marriage, but allows the states to decide. This keeps the issue alive until demography forces the final resolution. Further, the arguments surrounding this issue provide support to nondiscrimination actions such as Utah passed in the last session.

Webb: The legalization of gay marriage is probably inevitable, and it won’t signal the end of the world. But it will be another trickle eroding the foundation of society — husband and wife raising children in a loving home. A lesson of Baltimore is that we must strengthen families and marriages, not send the message that marriage, as practiced for thousands of years, can be altered at what amounts to a moment’s notice in the sweep of history.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: We can't help but revel in the politico buzz

Last week, Utahns witnessed intra-party dynamics on both edges of the Utah political spectrum — from the Salt Lake City mayoral race to the Republican Party leadership. Politicos reveled in all the gossip, conjectures and buzz. We just can’t help ourselves:

If the Republican Party loses its lawsuit against SB54/Count My Vote, GOP Chairman James Evansand other party activists want to develop a “screening” test for prospective candidates who use the signature petition process to get on the primary election ballot. The screening could include an interview by a Republican committee to determine loyalty and adherence to party principles. What is going on here?

Pignanelli: “Everyone loves a witch hunt as long as it’s someone else’s witch being hunted.” — Walter Kirn

Politicos are having loads of fun with this controversy — especially as to potential McCarthy-like questions asked of candidates in this Star Chamber: Do you revere Ronald Reagan as the greatest president ever? Do you concur Barack Obama is the personification of evil? Do you commit to never meet alone with a Democrat? Do you agree that FOXNews is the only source of wisdom and truth in the media? Further, the proposal is garnering hilarious comments about the “Utah Politburo” with Evans as “Dear Leader.”

CMV decimates delegates’ influence — in both parties. Thus, the neighborhood powerbrokers will do ANYTHING to maintain control and demand fealty with Inquisition-style tactics. Thank goodness “True Americans” are outraged (and possibly amused) by this shredding of cherished constitutional principles that protect freedom of thought. Many would be mad … if they were not laughing so hard.

Webb: It takes a special talent to come up with a scheme that is at once bizarre, offensive, illogical, unworkable, anti-democratic and a PR nightmare for the Republican Party. But Evans et al. dreamed big and did it.

Republican idol Ronald Reagan had this to say in 1967: “We must keep the door open … we cannot offer (voters) a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments. … Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be. … The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party. There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths.”

Can you imagine an idealistic young Republican wanting to run for the Legislature discovering he or she first must be grilled by The Committee to Ensure Republican Purity? What if he or she is fiscally conservative, but a little more moderate on same-sex marriage and environmental issues? Is this young person “pure” enough to be a Republican?

Silly me. I always thought, like Ronald Reagan, that the role of party leaders was to encourage more people to participate in the party — not shrink it to the purified few who pass litmus tests.

How about we do something really riotous: Let prospective candidates make their case to voters instead of to The Committee to Ensure Republican Purity.

This saga just goes from silly and ridiculous to pathetic and sad.

Less than two weeks after he announced his candidacy, State Sen. James Dabakis dropped out of the Salt Lake City mayoral race and endorsed fellow activist Jackie Biskupski against Mayor Ralph Becker. What is going on here?

Pignanelli: Polls indicated Dabakis enjoyed strong name identification and popularity. But there is a “but.” Mayoral candidates in a medium-size city face a daunting task. They must spend the comparable amount of time raising money as required by statewide and congressional races, yet also devote massive efforts to retail politics as demanded in local legislative races. Further, because Becker’s challengers share equal ideological auras, punching through a primary is a monstrous chore that weakens prospects against the incumbent in the general election. Dabakis suddenly comprehended he has a great gig and ready-made soapbox as state senator. So why mess that up?

Webb: The mind and deeds of James Dabakis are simply unfathomable for an average human brain like mine. I can’t even dare to guess why he was in and out like a whirling dervish.

Obviously, these developments indicate fissures within the Republican and Democratic parties. How deep and permanent are they?

Pignanelli: This is just a blip for Democrats, but could foster major divisions within the Utah GOP. Major donors and elected officials (many subject to subpoena for supporting CMV) will not tolerate this behavior and pursue a strategy of deprivation of resources. Furthermore, candidates who follow the law, but are stripped of Republican affiliation for impure thoughts, will mount successful lawsuits. Nonetheless, delegates will control the party apparatus. Resolution is inevitable, but so are long-lasting hard feelings.

Webb: Utah voters are smart. I fully trust them. They will continue to elect mainstream conservatives to most offices in the state, no matter what havoc party leaders wreak. Republican candidates will win up and down the ballot. For many GOP candidates, the party is irrelevant. In Salt Lake City, Mayor Becker will probably win re-election. Outside the city, however, Democratic infighting can lose elections because Democrats can’t afford to lose a single vote.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Long-term effects of Count My Vote on Utah politics

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer denied the request for injunction filed by the Utah Republican Party to block implementation of SB54, the Count My Vote (CMV) compromise legislation. The party has said it will continue to fight in court, which fosters important questions:

Should this federal court ruling signal the end of legal and political opposition to SB54, which allows candidates to gather signatures or use the existing caucus/convention system to get on the primary ballot, beginning in 2016?

Pignanelli: "Being stubborn can be a good thing. Being stubborn can be a bad thing. It just depends on how you use it.” — Willie Aames

The maneuverings surrounding changes to Utah's delegate/convention system are nurturing strange results. Bizarre best describes the Utah Republican Party ploy to aggressively litigate against legislation passed by Republican officials. (Of course, party chairman James Evans’ stratagem is reflecting those who elected him — GOP delegates.)

Predictions: Over time, candidates will favor petition signatures in the nomination process, reducing participation at the precinct caucuses. Thus, delegates in all parties will represent a shrinking, but more extreme, pool of party faithful (the horror!). Stubborn activists will demand from the party officials they elected futile agitation against CMV. Sane Utahns will suffer headaches as they frequently roll their eyes in response to such antics.

The CMV bill survived judicial scrutiny because of the brilliant compromise architecture crafted by sponsor Sen. Curt Bramble. He anticipated a challenge and thoughtfully developed a defense against it.

Webb: As a participant in the Count My Vote effort, I’ve watched the Republican Party leadership lose each legislative, legal and public opinion battle as the process goes forward. At this point, it is foolish for Evans to continue his irrational crusade. He is alienating mainstream Republican voters, losing donors and will soon be endangering Republican candidates up and down the ballot.

Republican candidates planning their 2016 campaigns need to know what the nominating process will be. They need to know their Republican affiliation will be noted on the ballot. They need certainty so they can meet deadlines and plan their campaigns.

Evans has had a year and a half to provide certainty by complying with the provisions of SB54. They’re not difficult. The Republican lieutenant governor’s office has clearly spelled out what needs to be done.

But instead of complying, Evans has obstinately fought losing legislative battles and filed losing lawsuits, and still shows no inclination to prepare for the 2016 elections.

I’m surprised Utah’s governor, congressional delegation and legislative leaders aren’t hauling party leaders out to the woodshed to end this potential Republican Party attempt at suicide.

Although we are a year away from the 2016 party conventions, is the CMV compromise legislation already affecting Utah politics?

Pignanelli: Some may deny, but CMV liberated many lawmakers in the past legislative session. Politicos doubt that controversial legislation — especially tax increases and antidiscrimination amendments — would have passed in the same session without the existence of CMV for the upcoming elections. The shouts of delegates are no longer the loudest sounds in the ears of Utah politicians.

Webb: During the session, one legislator told me he is looking forward to the implementation of SB54 because he will no longer have to elevate the wishes of his delegates, even though they are good and well-meaning people, above the opinions and positions of the rest of his constituents.

What are the long-range implications of SB54 on Utah politicians, their campaigns and policy decisions?

Pignanelli: Beyond just allowing for direct primaries, CMV/SB54 provides significant changes of how Utahns select their politicians. For decades the filing period for candidates was always after the legislative session concluded. This schedule provided some (I am trying to be statesmanlike here) dampening of over-politicization of deliberations in the legislative process. Filing — and the gathering of nomination petition signatures — now begins prior to, and continues through, the legislative session. Further, CMV mandates that parties, who conduct primary elections at state expense, must open them to unaffiliated voters. Both changes will have subtle but profound impacts.

Webb: Under SB54, Utah will remain a conservative, Republican state. But political leaders will be less beholden to small groups of delegates — the most outspoken of which are often outside the mainstream — and more responsive to the broader interests of constituents. The new political environment will enhance Utah’s strengths — more collaboration and more problem-solving, reinforcing Utah’s reputation as the state where things get done.

Pignanelli & Webb: We are saddened at the loss of Gov. Norman H. Bangerter. Both of us interacted with him extensively in two different arenas. As a reporter for this newspaper, LaVarr covered the governor's policy and political activities. Frank was a member of the loyal opposition in the Legislature during most of the governor’s two terms in office. We echo the sentiments carried in the media this last week. Gov. Bangerter was a decent, courageous, thoughtful man who represented what is best about our state. All Utahns benefited from his public service.

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Can Republicans ever win the presidency?

Karl Rove is an almost favorite son of our state (Olympus High School graduate and political intern at the U. of U.’s Hinckley Institute of Politics). The longtime political operative created a stir recently with a Wall Street Journal column punching holes in the conservative theory that a GOP presidential candidate can win simply by turning out the Republican base. The winning strategy, he said, is to perform better among Catholics, political moderates, young people, Hispanics, Asian Americans and women. This raises important questions:

Is Rove right? Can Republicans ever win the presidency?

Pignanelli: "The 2016 election dynamic has two forces, unelectable Republicans — with high unfavorable ratings — versus Hillary Clintonburdened with Obama's high unfavorable ratings ... but somebody has to win." — Matthew Todd ABC News

At last, the Dark Lord of electioneering is using his powers for a righteous cause — the promotion of diversity in the GOP. Perhaps Rove is now channeling the kinder influence of his high school teacher, Rep. Carol Spackman-Moss (D-Holladay).

Democrats do not enjoy a great genius at winning national elections. Rather, Republicans excel at losing them. Rove, in his article, destroyed the myth that Mitt Romney lost because too many Republicans failed to vote. They showed up, but too many other Americans disgruntled with President Barack Obama also believed Romney "did not care about people like them." Rove documents the GOP will never win the White House with its current approach.

Rove, and many other pundits with similar conclusions, emphasize the GOP can garner victory only by reformatting (but not abandoning) core conservative principles for a broader appeal. Further, the messenger has to be a presidential candidate that is likable and in touch (a stretch for the current list of contenders).

Therefore, national Republicans need to practice what they preach. Only the application of free-market business fundamentals to their political strategy will expand the consumer base for a White House win.

Webb: Republicans did exceptionally well across the nation in the 2010 and 2014 non-presidential elections when turnout, admittedly, was lower. Republicans now control Congress, three-fifths of governorships and 70 percent of legislative chambers. Republicans essentially run the country — except for the presidency.

The country remains center-right. Most voters are not far-right or far-left. They are mainstream and lean a bit conservative. So a Republican can win, but not an anti-government conservative who vows to rip out the government safety net. A successful GOP nominee must be able to articulate conservative solutions to the nation’s domestic and international problems without being scary. On a personal level, he or she must be charismatic, articulate, forward-thinking, genuine and empathetic — with a good sense of humor.

Rove is absolutely correct that Republicans must broaden the coalition to win the presidency. The right candidate can do it.

Is it inevitable that Hillary Clinton is the next president?

Pignanelli: Clinton was a “lock” in 2008. Yet she lost the nomination to Obama — who did not have enough influence as a state senator to wrangle a floor pass to the 2000 Democratic National Convention. (Yes, her campaign was that bad.) Because most Americans have an opinion of Clinton that is unlikely to change, her political future is a function of competition in the primaries and general election. If the Republican presidential ticket is two white guys with evangelical leanings, Bill becomes the “First Spouse.”

Webb: Clinton is obviously the favorite at this point because Democrats are united behind her while Republicans aren’t close to having a front-runner. But Clinton is old, represents the past, comes across as grumpy, and doesn’t have nearly as much charm and charisma as her husband.

Still, she has the ability to appeal to a broader constituency than most of the Republican candidates. She won’t be as liberal as Obama but will have the support of every liberal group out there, and she’ll raise enormous amounts of money. It will take an extraordinary Republican candidate to defeat her.

Does the situation described by Rove create long-term problems for the Utah GOP?

Pignanelli: Republicans control the majority of the nation’s state legislatures and governorships. But a determination by the party to only appeal to a shrinking political base in future national elections will create a perception of irrelevancy. This could create a vulnerability — at least among independent voters — for some Utah Republicans seeking higher office.

Webb: Utah is a very reliable conservative/Republican state and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Certainly, given the right circumstances, a conservative Democrat like Jim Matheson or Ben McAdamscould win a major race, but only if Republicans nominate a weak candidate. Utah has a plethora of excellent young GOP prospects waiting for a chance at a major office.

If Utah leaders continue down a reasonable, mainstream path, as showcased by results of the last legislative session, and by Gov. Gary Herbert, Democrats are going to have a very difficult time winning major races. Utah’s congressional delegation could help by supporting common-sense solutions at the national level.