I hereby dub it the unnecessary and publicly rejected ordinance that won't go away. At least it won't leave under the loving care of some among Fayetteville's currently elected leadership.
Only two days after Fayetteville's citizens repealed alderman Matthew Petty's agenda-laden and legally flawed "human rights" ordinance, he told the media he plans to put the city through the expense and ugly divisiveness by again pushing to impose his pet (national) prescript upon them.
Much softer-edged folks than I likely would say (in soothing voices), oh come, let's sit together and reason as adults the best way to make everyone satisfied with an ordinance that makes potential criminals of citizens and businesses that the city's government says aren't behaving correctly.
I, however, have always been far more direct when it comes to the "human rights" law being aggressively pushed in towns across America by the extreme arm of one national political party.
This obviously "progressive" alderman certainly should be commended for his nerve in even suggesting that Fayetteville, long a relatively compassionate and tolerant community, should be forced to relive the turmoil and rancor of a Petty-pushed sequel.
The word progressive just sounds so ironically positive, doesn't it? For me, after all I've witnessed in recent years, it's come to mean ensuring that government imposes its will on Americans who value individual liberties and their freedoms of choice even unto death.
In their losing effort the first time around, Petty and five aldermen, along with Mayor Lioneld Jordan, actively avoided bringing all Fayetteville citizens into the discussion through the council's normal committee process and procedures.
Instead, many of us saw this original pet ordinance clearly was stroked in an especially loving manner from the time Petty proposed it. I visualize a frou-frou little dog nestled, contented eyes half-closed, in the comfy lap of an overly protective master.
You also may wonder why these councilfolk embraced what many saw as such an arrogant and condescending approach to eliminating public participation for the ordinance. Why would they strive to force the multiply flawed law on arguably the least bigoted city in Arkansas?
I'd surmise because Fayetteville looked like the ideal community domino to topple first in hopes other towns would be shamed into signing on.
But since voters rejected and repealed any such plan, Petty says he's willing to listen to the community as he regrooms his pet for round two. I'll bet he is most willing, even eager, to listen now, my friends.
He's been quoted saying he is closely examining his original proposal. He's busy hammering out changes in hopes the council and citizens will accept a proposed second assault 'neath the fluttering banner of equality, compassion, empathy (insert other terms denoting kindness here).
That obvious political spin is another problem here. When you put that kind of insincere and wholly simplistic spin on any law, those who oppose it (by extension) must then be low-functioning bigots toward those different than themselves, right? I mean, what alternative view possibly could remain?
Let's just pass another law, make this one a local ordinance. That's bound to change everyone's thoughts and behavior kinda like our traffic laws do. Now that, valued readers, is simplistic at best.
Petty told the media he already has hammered out several revisions for the council's ordinance review committee. Sounds to me like he and his background supporters had those reforms in their back pocket all along, doesn't it?
And get this, while Petty resisted putting his flawed civil-rights ordinance up to a vote of the people last summer, now he says he'd like to place the repolished version on the ballot in 2016.
Ahh, the profound difference an election defeat can create in any elected public servant's attitudes.
So gird your loins and save those yard signs, beleaguered folks of Fayetteville.
The supposedly new and improved Matthew Petty show appears on track for a return engagement. It should prove interesting to see how lovingly the majority of the council and Mayor Lioneld Jordan embrace and protect this next version of Petty's pet, won't it?
Meanwhile, I salute those who stood to say no to this unnecessary local law and the two wise councilmen who reflected the results of the special election by having voted against the ordinance at August's council session: Martin Schoppmeyer and Justin Tennant.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected].
Editorial on 12/20/2014