It is a well worn truism that those who are given power have a hard time letting go of it. That goes double for those--like members of the Louisville Revitalization Commission--who gain power outside the democratic processes. Each is appointed to terms that are longer than elected Council members and, unlike Council members, none has term limits. Yet, a majority—four—controls up to $77 million over 25 years.

The urban-renewal ballot initiative that was recently filed with the City of Louisville returns accountability to the urban-renewal process. If approved by the voters, the initiative would transfer all powers of urban renewal—and control over the projected $77 million budget over 25 years that would go with it—from the unelected Louisville Revitalization Commission, or LRC, to the City Council. It would turn the LRC into an advisory board.

It should come as no surprise that every member of the LRC is opposed to relinquishing power, and the up to $77 million over 25 years the LRC will control. They have cobbled together a number of reasons—none of which can withstand the barest scrutiny—to justify their holding on to power.

There are suggestions that the LRC has already effectively ceded all its powers to the Council and is now nothing more than one of the 12 advisory boards and commissions in the city.

The question is whether this is true. The LRC’s July 9 meeting was telling.

On Friday, July 6, the ballot initiative was filed with more than 900 signatures, well over the minimum required. On Monday, July 9, the LRC had on its agenda an item about whether the LRC should publish an “issue pamphlet” to “voters” relating to the ballot initiative.

During the discussion, it was clear that a supermajority of the LRC members—if not all of them—opposed the transfer of power that would result from the ballot initiative. Different LRC members proposed ways of getting a “message” out to voters. It was quite clear that the “message” they wanted to get out to voters was not a message to vote yes on the initiative. One LRC member said citizens needed to know what the LRC “does” or is “doing.” Another suggested sponsoring a “booth” at the Louisville Street Faire to hand out “informational” materials to passers-by. One LRC member said he would be unable to suppress his opinion that the initiative contained falsehoods. (As is all too common when public officials claim “falsehoods,” no specifics were given. This is one of those unique circumstances when a public official can be called to account for the truth (or not) of his own statements. See for yourself. We stand behind our statements of fact and opinion.) There was discussion about whether the LRC should pass a resolution opposing the initiative. Eventually, the LRC—faced with its attorney’s somber advice that their activities could run afoul of the state Fair Campaign Practices Act (which limits when and how public officials may try to influence an election)—abandoned most of their ideas of trying to influence the election using their public positions and public dollars.

Questions:

If the LRC has already effectively ceded its power to the City Council and has effectively become an advisory board, then why would its members oppose a ballot initiative that formalizes this cession?

Why would LRC members oppose formally transferring their extraordinary powers and direct control over the up-to $77 million over 25 years to the elected leaders of Louisville?