Ireton is portrayed as a "man on a mission". According to the DT, Ireton can "tout a number of those accomplishments" but "he (Ireton) believes there’s still much left to do."
Ireton takes credit for a 40% reduction in crime along with several other accomplishments which have occurred during the last four years:
Some of the things that have taken place since Ireton’s entry into the Mayor’s Office include the creation of a tenant’s bill of rights, the demolitions of the Thrift Travel Inn and Linens of the Week buildings, a 40 percent reduction of violent crime rates over four years and a $16 million surplus in city funds.Of course, if the DT cared about accurate reporting rather than using its front page to pimp its own political agenda they would have INFORMED its readers of the following:
- The idea to participate in the state's "Safe Streets" program (credited with having a major impact on the city's crime rate) came from council president Terry Cohen ... NOT Jim Ireton.
- Ireton refused to take up improved police pay until AFTER the council took up the issue and Ireton risked political embarrassment.
- Ireton wanted taxpayers to pick up the tab for the Thrift Travel Inn demolition. It was the council, led by Debbie Campbell, which insisted that the bank which owned the property pay for the demolition.
- The "Tenant's Bill of Rights" was, again, a council initiative ... NOT Ireton's.
What the Daily Times chose to OMIT is even more damning.
During his announcement Ireton made the outrageous statement that he had fulfilled all of his promised from his 2009 run for mayor:
When was the last time a politician could look you in the eye and tell you he did exactly what he promised when he ran for office? Well, I can and I’m proud of it.If you simply look at Ireton's 2009 announcement (from November, 2008), it's a laundry list of promises made but not kept. My personal favorite is his promise to engage in "civil debate". I guess standing on street corner and calling council members "racists" is Jimmy's version of civility.
However, Ireton's current claim that he has not raised property taxes is possibly the most disturbing statement he has made recently. The only reason property taxes are not higher is because the COUNCIL refused to raise property taxes. Despite the fact that council gave Ireton almost every spending item he requested, he threatened to VETO the FY 2013 because he didn't get his tax hike.
A nice guy who supports Ireton's left-wing politics and simply wants to rubber stamp Ireton's every whim and folly, Jacob Day can count on full throttled support from Jeremy Cox and his employers in his quest to unseat Debbie Campbell:
One of the problems is the council majority, which includes Campbell, and its lack of vision for the city, Day said.
“I think we have a great example with the mayor, but he doesn’t have a partner on the City Council,” he said.
Either Day, who Cox attempts to portray as a cross between Superman and Cincinnatus, is grossly misinformed about city issues (at least I hope it is mere ignorance). Time and again, the council has attempted to provide every one of Ireton's proposals a fair hearing. How many times has Ireton CHOSE to hold a press conference and ATTACK members of council rather than simply sitting down with them and providing honest answers to honest questions.
As for "vision", Day should look at Campbell's work on the crime issue and her recent accomplishment regarding the former River's Edge condo project. I have to assume that Day views Ireton's plan to turn valuable riverfront property into a subsidized housing project as "VISIONARY".
If you are Joe Albero, legitimate criticism of an opponent's public statements and public record is an "ATTACK". If you are Joe Albero, a promise to sit down and work with the city council - NO MATTER WHO SITS IN THOSE FIVE CHAIRS - to move the city forward is being a "close ally". If you are Joe Albero, being a successful serial entrepreneur who wants to make the city more business-friendly is being a "former owner of a light bulb manufacturing firm". If you are Joe Albero, recognizing that a life-long government employee is ill-prepared to persuade businesses to invest in Salisbury's future is blaming a "part-time elementary school teacher".
If you are really interested what Joe Albero is running on, I would suggest that you read his announcement address. I don't think that you'll find a balanced, accurate portrayal from Cox or his paper.
I am sure that Cox would claim that he is accurate in his reporting. Well, if you ever saw the movie "Absence of Malice" you would know that there is a big difference between accuracy and truth. There is also a little thing called "context". If you compare the Albero piece to the articles on Ireton and Day you see a huge difference in tone. If you are relatively well informed about Salisbury politics and policy, you would know that there are inaccuracies in all three articles. When it comes to Ireton and Day, the Daily Times reverts to the "he said, she said" journalism it is best known for - wrap a statement, true or not in quotes and claim that you have no responsibility to research or or ask follow questions. In the case of Albero, take even the most positive statements and shade them as negatively as possible.
I think the voters of Salisbury deserve better. I wish our local paper should step up to the plate. Call me Pollyanna.
G. A. Harrison is a guest contributor to SBYNews.
.jpg){kind=spacer}
