Sexism: Just another reason David Alvord is Wrong for South Jordan!

Sexism:

1
:  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women2
:  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

My discussion around David Alvord's candidacy for Mayor of South Jordan has been as much about temperament as anything.  Well David can't help himself.  If you are from Utah and know anything about Mormonism you have probably heard of the Ordain Women movement.  It is a feminist movement that asks the Mormon church to treat members of all sexes equally.  They staged a protest during the last LDS General conference.  They are brave women who know asking for equality means they risk excommunication and ostracism.  However David Alvord, the sexist, thinks it is fair to belittle their request.

   So he was supported by a few folks but largely criticized by others for his flippant insensitivity and sexism.  As a result, David did what he usually does... he deleted the post.  He also did what he usually does... put up another post to make his point.

  I support David's right to "BLURT".  I would just think he would use a filter knowing that he was running for political office and someone like me might write about it.  Why would he do such a thing?  Well, because he was defending the church thats why!

I think, most importantly, he thinks sexism is ordained by god:

It is becoming clearer that David Alvord lacks the temperament to be Mayor.  He has a context in which he looks at the world that makes him a poor candidate to represent the rest of the community.  South Jordan needs a leader that is fair to everyone no matter their sex or religion.

Alvord: Wrong on Housing... Still Wrong for South Jordan

Hot off the presses:

David Alvord, and now his buddy Steve Barnes, are pushing misinformation and fear.  AGAIN!

In the above photo (taken from David's campaign site) he claims there is a link between tax rates and high density housing.  He has also claimed that high density housing overburdens the schools and stress the city's infrastructure.  There are Alvords and Barnes' claims... and then there is reality.

This is one of those topics that has been studied exhaustively.  There is no negative relationship between tax rates and high density.  There is no negative relationship between high density and school size or traffic congestion.  And in communities that had low crime rates before high density there is no change by adding high density housing.

This study discusses the numerous studies on this matter:  http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/Dontputithere.pdf

I know, it is a study, it uses objective facts, it is Alvord proof.

What you might notice that they refer to affordable housing in this study.  That is really what Avlrod and his buddy Barnes are talking about.  They don't want affordable housing in South Jordan.  Affordable Housing units bring in those disgusting poor people who have poor habits.

Lets look at his argument:  "A $500,000 dollar home will pay more taxes than a $300,000 home."  This statement is true when said by itself.  This statement is inaccurate when applied to the high density housing argument.  A home worth $500,000 is not built on .19 acres of land.  It is built on at least a .25 parcel and mostly on a .33 acre parcel.  You can feasibly build two $300,000 dollar homes on the same parcel.  That means now we have $600,000 in taxable property.

Now we really aren't talking about $300,000 homes when we talk about high density.  We are talking town homes, condominiums or apartments.  In each case the density of the units equals higher property values for either the management company or each individual owner aggregated in the same area.  So we now have a $2,000,000 building occupying the same foot print as the half million dollar home.  Alvord's math just doesn't add up.

So what is the issue.  Alvord tells you.  It is about keeping the level of housing (or price) high.  By doing this you keep the "other" out.  What they aren't telling you, is that South Jordan is required to provide a certain number of affordable unit to its citizens.  It isn't allowed to discriminate by class.  The city must serve the interest of the poor with equal fervor it dedicates to the rich.

Alvord also claims that he didn't want to debate this issue with Scott Osborne's son.  He would rather debate the issues with Osborne... except that he wouldn't.  He declined to let Scott make a point in an earlier post.  This is what he said:

...But I'm not going to use my campaign page to let Osborne spread the talking points of the left. 

Because Alvord's arguments are... indefensible.

Again, Alvord is demonstrating that ideology trumps reality.  His brand of politics is just plain bad; not only for South Jordan, but for the human race.  

Alvordia the new capitol of Glennbeckistan!

David Alvord is at it again!

From the last post on his Facebook page:

Mayor Osborne is not as conservative as the people of South Jordan... For example, Osborne favors the Marketplace Fairness Act. But worse than that, Osborne used his influence as Mayor to *expand* the tax-collecting ability of the government.

What the act does: is to allow government to collect taxes that it should otherwise be entitled to collect.  Taxes that local business pay but that internet business are not assessed giving them an un fair advantage.  

The real thing going on here is this:  David has cast himself as a liberal hating conservative.  This is evident in this statement: 

Secondly, it's a misnomer. Much like the "affordable care act" makes healthcare more un-affordable for many of us, 

See that.  He he warning us about the bogey man by invoking Obama (or an Obama policy).

Scott Osborne made a case for supporting the Marketplace Fairness act.  Specifically because it leveled the playing field for small local businesses.

Osborne responded on Alvord's page.  It was promptly deleted.  When questioned Alvord's responsed:

 Osborne's argument is on his page. But let me close with this: The Marketplace fairness act is widely discussed on Wikipedia and other sources.
Heritage foundation opposes it on constitutional grounds, while President Obama supports it. You can infer what you want from this information.

Read up on it. Take a position, and decide if you like it. I don't. Osborne does.

The people deserve to know where we stand. 

Read up on it. Take a position, and decide if you like it. I don't. Osborne does. 
The people deserve to know where we stand. 
But I'm not going to use my campaign page to let Osborne spread the talking points of the left. 

Again it is about the Bogey man Obama and Alvord is willing to forgo any type of reason if the words or Obama or Liberal are any where near it.  

So what is the big deal?  The Mayoral election ins a non-partisan election.  It is about supporting the voters in South Jordan.  It is not about the divisive political ideology.  David would have you believe that the Mayor's office has something to do with the passage an enforcement of federal legislation.  It doesn't he knows it but he would have you believe that the Liberals are out to destroy the country.  What he fails to acknowledge is the Conservatives have beat us to it.

The following comments, in my opinion say much:

Of course, not all of South Jordan is conservative... and there are plenty who vary from issue to issue as to what label may best suit them. I hope whomever is elected mayor will approach issues with the perspective of how they best serve South Jordan residents as a whole, and not be overly concerned with party ideologies.~Andrew Hackman

And these two:

"I'm not going to allow my campaign page to represent those in the community who may disagree with me. That's why I'm campaigning for political office, to represent my needs." 

 It seems to me he is running on a "look, I'm Mormon, conservative, and hate taxes" platform, not an informed one. ~Revrnd Skyler Dudley

A vote for David Alvord is a vote for the increasing depths of despair that divisive politics inflicts on a community.  It is a vote to make South Jordan the new Alvordia, the capital of Glenn Beckistan

Why would David Alvord's Religious Beliefs Matter to Me?

In my last post, I told you why I thought David Alvord was bad for South Jordan.  The post found itself on a Facebook page called the South Jordan On-Line News.  This link brought out many of David's supporters.  Through careful research (by quickly looking at the public feed on my Facebook page), They figured out that I don't care for religion in general and Mormonism specifically.  That makes me an ANTI-MORMON who can readily dismissed.

I was only going after David because he is a Mormon and I hate Mormons!

Now really!

Kent Money is a Mormon and I voted for him.  Brian Butters is a Mormon and I supported him.  I am willing to bet Mayor Osborne is a Mormon as well.

David, for some reason, had been banned from the South Jordan On-Line news site because of something he or his campaign or someone supporting him did with or without his knowledge...  He was not allowed to comment but several of his supporters were getting talking points from him.  David's behavior, according to them, was acceptable because he was defending the Book of Mormon

I made it clear that my objections to David Alvord's candidacy for mayor of South Jordan was about 1) His temperament makes him ill suited to be an inclusive leader of the city.  2) He isn't willing to follow ordinances in the City if they don't suit him or his agenda. 3) He knows little about what cutting taxes and increasing spending (ALA George W. Bush Economic Policy) will do to the city.  4) He does not favor and expansive South Jordan that supports all socio-ecomomic contributors.  5) His desire to limit population growth to the "Right Kind of Housing" makes business growth stagnant.

Now personally, I wouldn't vote for David BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.  Not because he has them but because of how he applies them.  His supporters were correct.  David and I were having a public Facebook debate about the Book of Mormon.  He, of course, rolled out 'it is definitely an ancient text we know that because of chiasmus'.  When challenged on this, he provided studies... from apologists and faithful Mormons.  When his sources were questioned and the non-confirming peer review was presented he became agitated and started name calling.  When the DNA evidence was presented, he said science couldn't be trusted...

What became clear was it didn't matter if it was true!  It didn't matter what the evidence showed, he believed it and that was enough.  It was enough to ignore the evidence and to behave mean spiritedly.  It is enough for him to think himself above reproach and certainly above any type of introspection.  He showed that he was a miserable human being who was justified because he was a man of deep spiritual conviction.

I could not support this kind of individual in a leadership role in my community.  He places ideology and theology above evidence.  This is fine when he is writing his tithing check.  It is not fine when he is making decisions for an entire population or representing that population as their ambassador.  You see, you cannot bring canal water to the entire South Jordan population and cut taxes at the same time.  At least, not with out damaging the operation of the city.  You cannot be pro-growth and end high density housing at the same time.    The math just doesn't support it.

Oh wait, that involves looking at the evidence... something that is not required if you're David Alvord.