Mike Moore ...The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

  First of all I would like to point out I am not, repeat not Mike Moore's boy, like several have labeled me. I am a Democrat and voted for Teresa Perkins in the Dem. primary and had she won I would have voted for her in the fall election won by M. Moore over Galligan. With Ms. Perkins background and experience  I thought she would be excellent as mayor.

 I'd had enough of Galligan who in my opinion bullied his way through basically 12 years of dormancy and bad decisions. I didn't like that Moore had switched parties even though it was probably a good political decision, but my vote for Moore was basically an anti - Galligan vote more than anything. I followed Moore when he was Co. Commissioner and thought he made some sound decisions and was a conservative voice on fiscal matters who had public's interest at heart. I really had high hopes for his mayoral term and thought he was what the city needed a breath of fresh air.....Now I'm not so sure....

The Good

Moore's first good decision and what his campaign was based on was NO canal. I thought this was a good
decision it was an over priced campaign ploy by Galligan who knew he was in trouble politically. The Canal never had the support of the majority of voters and it was wise to stop it...Moore's second good decision was sinking (no pun intended) of the boondoggle "Blue Goose" the monstrous Riverstage that Galligan got suckered into buying. It end up I believe being sold for scrap...good move. Thirdly early in his days he fired NHBSM,  the Benedict Arnold supporter of his during his campaign who was I believe appointed to the Re-Devolpment Board ...

Moore also has had some good ideas, the replacement of the docks and planned fishing wharf is an excellent idea of a blighted eyesore at the riverfront. The park at the corner of Allison Ln. and Middle Rd. is a great improvement and he has had some other equally good ideas....

The Bad

Moore's first bad idea was appointing Rob Waiz as Redevelopment Director. Waiz in my opinion is not qualified for a job of this much importance, he has a background in selling real estate and insurance. Redevelopment Directors need to have experience and expertise in redevelopment and even if an outsider had to be hired, it should have been done. More than likely Waiz's appointment was a political favor returned, Waiz should have never been selected.

 Next is Moore's on going feud with the City Council. It was no secret that several of the holdover Council members had deep allegiances and ties to former Mayor Galligan. It wasn't going to be easy to overcome these allegiances  and Moore should have realized this early on and slowly worked on the cooperation necessary for a good relationship needed between the mayor and a city council. Early in his term the City Council made some decisions that were obviously political in nature but instead of cutting his losses and moving on Moore took a more aggressive and public tone and probably at some point alienated even the newly elected council members and those with more of a neutral stance.

  Another bad choice of the Moore administration is the development of the property at the foot of the Big Four pedestrian bridge. Turning this whole area (2 square blocks) into a park was a bad choice, while a small amount of green space is necessary it would have been nice to incorporate some pubs, bars, restaurants, shops close to the landing area. As it stands there is a residential area between the downtown (Spring St. establishments) and the bridge landing this should have been transitioned for a better flow for the pedestrians crossing the bridge.

 Finally the snails pace that the Big Four Project has moved leaves a black eye on our area. This isn't totally the mayor's fault as this was a state project, but the mayor's decision to open the bridge before completion of the landing area is a poor one. First impressions are important, and construction area and work, no grass, four old houses (that should have been destroyed) sitting on blocks will not leave a good first impression and surely won't invite people to return....

THE UGLY

  The ugliness began during Moore's campaign with the infamous mailing by his political enemies. It continued when he was elected with the snide remarks by loser Galligan the day after the election to the local media. Ugliness has been a continuing  theme throughout Moore's term.  Early in his term The Oracle (political enemies) appeared on the internet, whose main ploy was sexual innuendos and double entendres focusing upon the mayor's personal life. Then came the battle with the City Council and leaked personal e-mails and text messages to the press and among Moore's political enemies.

    Mayor Moore though has been  an equally ugly participant in these political games. Instead of using class and restraint in some of his battles with the council. He has taken the aggressive approach of firing off text messages and alleged e-mails to those he's had differences. Sometimes it's best to just cut your political losses and move on and work on mending those political fences intelligently and with finesse not aggression. Personally I have seen a difference in the mayor as well, before the election he would bend over backwards in greeting and acknowledging you, now you are lucky to get a nod.

 Has the bad and ugly so much he won't be reelected ?? I don't know... people vote for strange reasons at times and Moore has always been a popular , strong vote getter over the years in Clark Co. Would I vote  MM again ??  I don't know ....I guess it would depend on the opposition. Julius doesn't impress me, he has close ties to Galligan for one and I didn't like the fact he used the Haven House Sewer bill drive as a photo op. I will say Moore has disappointed me, while he doesn't deserve the name calling, juvenile rants by idiots like Keith Fetz and Hutt he has I'm afraid become nothing more than a ego driven politician and those are a dime a dozen around here...