quote:

---

Originally posted by: Seeker
"While in college for my undergrad I worked with one of the economic development agencies in H'burg, not the ADP. We did a commerce survey of people shopping Hattiesburg every year. My former colleagues have informed me that between 2000 and 2004 that Hattiesburg has lost about 45,000 shoppers from its consumer base. I blame this on there now being a Wal-Mart in every small town from Collins to Wiggins to Columbia, ect. But, in reality H'burg's economy is not growing at the rate it was in the past. I believe that part of this is because of the change in leadership in city hall. Morgan, for all his faults reinvested in economic development in western part of the city with tremendous results. Fairly on the other hand since becoming mayor, has invested heavily in eastern and downtown Hattiesburg, and with some success. Downtown H'burg is much better commerce wise than it was 5 years ago, but it has not produced much financially for the city. "

---

Seeker:

Except Fairly isn't mayor . . .  Johnny Dupree is.

The truth is that the mayor (Dupree) has consistently looked for ways to invest in and strengthen the east side of town and (like his predessor in this sense) to revitalize the center of town. That isn't the most popular thing to do among some sectors of the community . . . (especially the east part. Remember that one of thefirst things that Dupree and the now departed Philip Halstead did together was to tour Mobile Street and the East side neighborhoods).

I voted for the bond (but not with a good deal of ease.) Fairly knows that the idea that an investment in USM athetics and USM would trickle down to the folks over in East Hattiesburg is simply not true. The money is going to flow to current centers of wealth in the community -- it will not make new wealth -- nor will it end up being used for programs over on the East side.  

I think it is pretty clear his opposition was not to USM -- but to the lie that a rising tide would float all boats. Farily's idea was that city needs to commit in concrete programs to development over on the East side. Dupree's proposal of a larger bond that would pay off the city's debt and fund specific programs as well as pay for the USM bond was probably doomed to fail but it served to state in concrete terms. You can't blame Fairly and his people for grabbing the biggest thing to come along in years to draw attention to the fact that for all of the talk of economic development in the city there isn't a lot of specific planning going into improving the community as a whole.

That Lee Jarrell Davis announced his candidacy on the steps at USM and that he complained about the "leadership" of the city and declared his loyalty to the universiity, couple with the university's refusal to work with the city to revive the failed bond issue but under a new set of terms says it all about power and wealth in the city of Hattiesburg. USM has effectively declared war on the mayor and it is clear that at some level will work for his defeat.

Now, put that in perspective with Dvoack's ascension to the ADP Presidency and you can pretty easily watch the pieces come together.

UNfortunately, this university is not only inserting itself into city politics in a pretty crass way, but it is putting itself on the wrong side of a potentially racially divisive issue. The university could go a long way to healing some long held anger in the black community if it was willing to come to the table. The university, as the second largest emplyer in the city, cannot simply act as though its own growth will inevitably benefit all. To act as though it has no responsibility to suggest or use its influence to help direct the pattern of economic development it claims to be fostering is irresponsible. The university has the power to influence how some of that growth might benefit some of the sectors of the city that supply many of its (less well paid) employees.

Instead, in classic fashion, it wipes the pieces off the board after losing and declares that it will no longer play the game, but will instead invent its own.

It isn't easy for me right now to wear my black and gold downtown . . . 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
"Seeker:
UNfortunately, this university is not only inserting itself into city politics in a pretty crass way, but it is putting itself on the wrong side of a potentially racially divisive issue. The university could go a long way to healing some long held anger in the black community if it was willing to come to the table. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Seeker
"Dr Judd Obviously you didn't get the underlying meaing of in my post.... I know the poeple of Hattiesburg elected Johnny Dupree, but what we (I say we still being registered to vote in H'burg) really got was a puppet of Kenny Fairly's. Sorry I should have been simpler in my statement."

---

meaing = meaning

of in = of

poeple = people

There, now it's fixed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Seeker
"Dr Judd Obviously you didn't get the underlying meaing of in my post.... I know the poeple of Hattiesburg elected Johnny Dupree, but what we (I say we still being registered to vote in H'burg) really got was a puppet of Kenny Fairly's. Sorry I should have been simpler in my statement."

---

No Seeker -- I got it. I just chose to ignore it. Dupree is no more a "puppet" of Fairly than Lee Jarrel Davis is a puppet of Shelby Thames. They are both politicians with the ability to appeal to a primary constituencies. That is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics -- in fact it is pretty much the definition is how our political system works. We know this is how politicans act -- we hope to find politicians who can transcend and unify divided constituencies even though we know that in the end, when forced, every politican will have to protect his "house."

Does Dupree look out for the interests of East Hattiesburg? I sure hope so -- someone sure needs to. I'd suggest that he tends to more acitively look for ways to continue to move the city forward without leaving the poorest parts of the city behind than other mayors might have done in the past . . . but I'll own up to only having a limited perspective on this since I've only been in Hattiesburg since 1998.

However, I have had the good fortune to live in a lot of places. And some things are universal whether you live in Hattiesburg or New York City. There are always rich and poor. The rich always have deep and ongoing connections to the levers of power that allow them to influence it relatively unobtrusively. That is the "normal" state of power in virtually every community, town and city. The poor almost always have to make an annoying amount of noise or resort to tactics that often appear crude or even divisive -- or extortive. By nature, their struggle to be heard almost always appears to be threatening to stability and the status quo.

It is always easier to attack the outsiders who want in than it is to critique those who are already in place. By their very nature, those who control power appear to us as the most civic minded, the most virtuous, and the most ardent "protectors" of the system. Why wouldn't they? They own it.

It is interesting to watch how the benevolence of the powerful can turn publically brutal when their interests are threatened. That's the state of the little drama we are watching now. It is unfortunate that my university, which has good reasons to try to strengthen community support along a whole number of fronts, now seems intent on using muscle to get its way rather than conceding that the people who voted against the bond might have some legitimate points worth discussing and, perhaps, worth negotiating. Even if the USM administration feels that Fairly is a self promoting community agitator using his community to gain himself some publicity or cement his own power, that doesn't negate the possible validity of the argument. Nor does that recognition mean the university cannot seek ways to work directly with the community to resolve these differences. The university has never confronted the argument -- in fact it has done everything in its power to say that the interests of East Hattiesburg have nothing to do with the bond vote. In failing to acknowlege the deeper relationships of power and wealth which underlie the bond vote, the university administration is showing itself either insensitive to its own role in maintaining those relationships or it has deliberately (and unwisely) chosen to ignore them. It risks being perceived as acting on a limited definition of "community" -- and its risks putting itself in direct confrontation with a segment of the community in which it should have a deep intellectual and spiritual relationship.

But why should we expect this administration to negotiate with the city? It has never, of its own volition, negotiated with any agency, institution or individual that it viewed as inferior in power or status. It is great at crawling on its hind legs to the governor, or the legislature, or the IHL. But then, it knows that in those contests of power, it is the petititoner and not the patron.