Residents can voice their opinions on how the city council is heavily basing legislative decisions on the desires of a single wealthy businessman by contacting their city council members.
City council members openly stated they are basing their legislative decisions on how to alter the city’s liquor laws on the wishes of a local real estate developer.
The brazen admission appears to omit the function of a representative government in favor of what some might call small-town oligarchical control.
An oligarchy is the control of a government by a small group of select elite people; usually wealthy business owners. The government of Russia, for example, is an oligarchy whose government is controlled by 68 billionaires. While a representative government serves the people, an oligarchy, by definition, serves the few.
In response to a presentation given by deputy city manager Pam Hodge at the October 11 city council meeting, several council members made comments that revealed more than what they likely intended to.
Hodge’s presentation briefed the city’s plan to establish an alcohol-centric, open container-based “entertainment district” in the downtown area. In discussing how to best enact the city’s plan, council members stated they plan to base legislative decisions on meeting the wishes and desires of local real estate mogul Chris Woodruff.
Councilwoman Charmaine Crabb (District 5) was the first to let the oligarchical commentary slip:
“Chris Woodruff has invested quite a bit of money in Highside Market, which is 13th (Street) between First and Second (Avenues). It’s just — it seems like that should be included in the entertainment district.”
Hodge then responded to Crabb’s comment, further revealing how the city’s plan is largely dependent upon Woodruff’s private business desires:
“So the way we envision in our understanding of what Chris Woodruff wants for Highside Market is for that to be its own entertainment district, for them to be able to stay within the boundaries of Highside Market and not carry (open alcoholic beverages) from Highside Market into uptown.”
Crabb’s comment and Hodge’s reply appeared to leave no doubt that city officials are basing legislative decisions on Woodruff’s personal wishes and business whims. The two officials appear to have conceded to the public in an open meeting that the city’s laws are not only being influenced by a wealthy businessman, but are being entirely framed to meet his specific wishes instead.
Councilwoman Evelyn “Mimi” Woodson (District 7) also provided comments in response to Hodge and Crabb, openly admitting that she had talked heavily with Woodruff to gain his personal opinions on how he believes the legislation should be enacted:
“Yes, I just wanted to let councilor Crabb know — and (John) House and anyone else — that I’ve been talking to Chris Woodruff. He’s been (inaudible) with this, what we are doing here — matter of fact, he called me from Africa yesterday (October 10) to talk about it because he doesn’t want people to go from Highside to Uptown holding a drink through all the streets.”
The comment appears to describe — rather brazenly — a sitting elected official providing undue influence to a local business mogul, so that legislation can be crafted to suit that businessman’s personal desires. That commentary was openly discussed, naming Woodruff by name, in a blatant effort to influence other council members to conform with the businessman’s desires as well.
It doesn’t require a degree in political science to understand why this seemingly-brazen act of nepotism could easily be described as political corruption.
Woodson then appeared to state that the legislative changes should not be designed to accommodate all businesses equally, but rather only to those who meet Woodruff’s personal approval:
“He doesn’t want that. He wants the entertainment district, so (that) later he can come back and request an entertainment district (for himself). As Pam (Hodge) stated, we just don’t want any-and-everybody.”
While mentioning Woodruff by name again, Woodson's comment appeared to state that the city should not provide entertainment districts equally for “any-and-everybody,” but that providing one for Woodruff himself would selectively be fine.
Woodson then requested that the vote on the entertainment district’s establishing legislation be delayed so that a public meeting can be held. While Woodson’s request would technically allow citizens to voice their opinions on the matter, the grander commentary of Hodge, Crabb, Woodson, and others does seem to suggest that the council has already decided to conform with Woodruff’s desires.
Chris Woodruff is not an elected official; he is a private citizen and is no different than any other Columbus resident. His favoritism and undue influence is not afforded to the other 205,000 citizens of Columbus. Openly crafting legislation to meet the needs of a single citizen — who council chose to mention by name no less than three times — is unethical; it presents a conflict of interest which, by its nature, is purely based on favoring his wealth and developments in exchange for undue political influence.
That — by definition — is an oligarch; Merriam-Webster agrees.
You can watch the full exchange of commentary in the video below. The commentary begins at the 2:20:09-mark of the video and continues for several minutes:
Residents can voice their opinions on how the city council is heavily basing legislative decisions on the desires of a single wealthy businessman by contacting their city council members.
Facts are stubborn things — and we’ll keep publishing them, whether city officials like them or not.
-30-
© 2022 Muscogee Muckraker. All rights reserved.
