Lewisville City Council - Special Election Results - December 10th, 2011

I'm happy too.
Just leave your venum out of your congratulations.
Much better received.

Congratulations to Neil Ferguson!

We should be grateful that compassion and thoughtfullness won out over bigotry and narrow mindedness. I hope a candidate as strong as Mr. Ferguson can be found to unseat John Gorena at the earliest opportunity.

Just curious, no dog in this fight, but what specific things did Mr. Hill do or say to demonstrate bigotry and narrow mindedness?

On this blog he got called a "whiny titty baby" so what did he do to arouse such venom?

Specifics please, not generalities passed down from this blog.

A fair question to be sure. Here are a few examples:

For both of the elections he lost this year, Mr. Hill focused on his supposed Republican bona fides. At the Lewisville Task Force forum during the last campaign, he spent much of his time demeaning the importance of the city committees his then-opponent, TJ Gilmore, had served on.
Quote:
(From opening remarks, a little after 41:20 in the audio.)
Of course, when he lost that race, the first thing he did was apply to be on a committee.

You could see this strategy clearly in the most recent election, when he awkwardly tried to equate debt with deficit (and even then he got it wrong) in an effort to string together the various collections of turgid conservative buzzwords that comprised most of his campaign materials. This constant stream of partisan banter indicates that he has a very narrow view of what constitutes a campaign for a city position.

Mr. Hill also has a very limited (and incorrect) view of how tax abatements work in Lewisville:
Quote:
(From answer to first question, around 51:44 in the audio.)
Both of his opponents have discussed these abatements in detail, but he simply refused to consider any other view except the one above.

Regarding bigotry, I can’t say for certain what the poster is referring to. But I can say that during his first run for office, Hill and another candidate tried desperately to label Lewisville as a “Sanctuary City”, despite the fact that it isn’t one. This was a very obvious attempt at dog-whistle politics, and most people saw through it. Both candidates discontinued using the phrase after I published the piece on the issue.

I probably wouldn’t have used some of the words that have been thrown around here, but there’s a clear indication that Hill and his supporter Councilman John Gorena purposefully limit their perspectives to include only partisan blather that will hinder any forward movement our community tries to make.

I'll let the original commenter respond too, but here's my take, since you reference my "titty baby" comment.

First, I don't consider that venom. Hill embarrassed himself by going about his political aspirations in a backwards way, shooting for elected office first, and only after he lost and had been criticized for not even trying to serve in other capacities first, did he even apply for a board position. After waiting for just 4 months, and having publicly criticized the direction CDBG was taking, implying that the money could instead be spent in ways that are not allowed under federal law, the City Council was not going to put him on the board. Instead of realizing that a political appointment is by elected officials who are trying to get people to rationally examine the choices and make recommendations that represent the views of the community, Hill chose to get up and cry "no fair!" - as if he was owed a position on that board.

Truth is that if Hill had simply played it cool and not been in such a rush to get up and state partisan opinions to back up John Gorena, and if he had instead just stated an opinion, he'd have been better off. If he'd just said "I think the money would go further if we spent it only on additional public infrastructure like curbs, gutters, streets", without trying to spin it as being irresponsible to go the other way, then he probably would have made it on. But when you see people come out of the woodwork and demand a seat at the big table, when they've got no history of showing a true commitment, then to me it shows that their agenda is more about power and personal recognition than it is about serving. Hill didn't win the election, and he won't be seated on CDBG anytime soon, but nothing is stopping him from serving his community, if he chooses to do so.

I've never called Steve Hill a bigot, because he's so far done little publicly to warrant that, other than dog-whistling about "national sovereignty" as a campaign issue. That's Tea Party speak that means "round up all the brown people without papers and catapult them back across the border". Hill is a protege of John Gorena, who has a sort of derangement on that issue, and obsesses over it non-stop, which causes him to say dumb things (That's venom, BTW). Guilt by association perhaps? I don't know if I should give Steve Hill props for not being as outspoken and crude about it as John Gorena, or if I should criticize him for not repudiating it.

Mr Hill and his consultants at political gravity chose to attack elected officials who backed Neil Ferguson. This was done through facebook and other social media as well direct emails to those who endorsed Neil. I am sure Steve Hill loves his family and loves his country, but he jumped in with an extremely partisan group whose tactics he should have known about before hand.