Larry Langford at Home (and On the Air)
…or “Home is Where the Football Satellite Package Is.”
Where does the mayor of the state’s largest city live? The matter is being considered in court because of candidate Patrick Cooper’s challenge that Langford was not qualified to appear on the ballot for the October election.
A few excerpts from the Birmingham News summation of the arguments of Birmingham v. Fairfield:
BIRMINGHAM:
-Bought $14,000 worth of furniture and had it delivered to new loft.
-Listed loft address when he got new driver license Oct. 24.
-Spends three or four nights a week at loft.
-July water use at Fairfield house dropped 70 percent.
FAIRFIELD:
-Most Langford bills sent to Fairfield house.
-Has satellite football package on all seven television sets at the house.
-Spends several nights a week at the house.
-Electrical use at house similar before and after he leased loft.
I am skeptical about Langford’s claim that “the NFL package must be reserved a year in advance.”
A friends commends to me an interview of Langford conducted this week on Alabama public radio but I have not had an opportunity to listen to it.
Related Articles:
Can you say Sore Looserman?
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 15, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
bhmhomeboy - funny how you’re using the Gore-Lieberman joke.
BTW, I really respect Sen. Lieberman, too bad the Dems don’t…
Comment by Reactionary — November 15, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
I’m conflicted about Langford - I don’t know if he’s a scammer, but I hope that he turns Birmingham around. People care about crime and schools and roads - he seems willing to address those issues…
Plus he’s a man with a ‘Vision’.
What I find interesting is that Visionland seems to have worked out pretty well, even with the initial financing troubles and corruption…
Comment by Reactionary — November 15, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Reactionary, Democrats don’t respect Liberman because he betrayed the party. He lost the Democratic primary fair and square, then turned to Republican support and ran as an Independant. I’m surprised you would respect someone that did that, but then again….
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 15, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
The Dem primary was Lamont 52 - Lieberman 48. Lieberman didn’t need much support to win the election (Joe 50%, Ned 40%, GOP 10%). I respect that Holy Joe believes that his country’s security matters more to him than his party. Obviously, the voters of Connecticut agree with me.
“I’m surprised you would respect someone that did that”
That’s an honorable way to do it, as opposed to those who change parties during their term. He ran and was elected - it’s a free country.
“but then again”
Homey, go ahead and finish your sentence - I’d like to see it.
Comment by Reactionary — November 15, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
You left at least one out for Fairfield, and it’s a very important one…
He’s claiming homestead exemption on his home in Fairfield. That is a tax exemption which you can only claim on your PRIMARY RESIDENCE, regardless as to whether or not you can claim it elsewhere. If his primary residence is his apartment in Birmingham, he still cannot claim homestead exemption on his home in Fairfield because that is not his primary residence. You can only have one primary residence at a time.
Now, Langford also signed an affidavit (a LEGAL DOCUMENT) back in (I wanna say August) that his primary residence was in Birmingham while he was claiming homestead exemption on his home in Fairfield.
So as some have pointed out, there are two possibilities:
1. Either he lied in his affidavit and committed perjury and is unqualified for office, or…
2. He has committed tax fraud, and we’ll let the IRS sort it all out. The IRS and SEC already are investigating him anyway, so I’m sure they’d love another excuse to get their hands on his records.
By the way, “holding parties” does not count as living in a building. I hold parties at my favorite restaurant quite frequently, and I even eat there more often. It doesn’t mean that I live there. Buying furniture doesn’t show that I live there. Even having my car there a few times a week doesn’t show that I live there. I want to know were he lays his head at night.
The water usage thing is hilarious to me because my own water usage went down since last year. We had a drought and some restrictions that we had this year weren’t mandatory last year. The month to month comparison would have likely been more accurate.
And yes, you can order the NFL package in advance, but you can also have the address of your service changed, and you will receive the package just as you would to the old address. You can also CANCEL the package, and you can order it later in the year. The cool thing about being a satellite user… They’ll even move your dish and service for you. All you have to do is pick up the phone.
Comment by ALmod — November 16, 2007 @ 7:46 am
Larry Langford ran, he was elected, it’s a free country.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 16, 2007 @ 9:58 am
ALmod, good points about the homestead exemption. In my haste, I did not list it because I knew he could not claim it on his rented home in Birmingham. But your point is good about how it can only be claimed on a primary residence.
Bhmhomeboy, yes, it’s a free country. With laws.
Comment by Danny — November 16, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Larry Langford’s name was placed on the ballot. The issues being raised now are after the fact. Langford ran, he won, it’s a free country with laws.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 16, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Yes, it’s a free country with laws– election laws included. And he either broke the election laws (and a criminal law against perjury) or he broke the tax laws. Which laws did Larry Langford break? And according to those election laws, any discrepancy can only be addressed after the fact, so it looks like someone else WAS following the law, but it wasn’t Larry Langford.
So really all you need to ask is this: Which kind of criminal is Larry Langford?
If the people of Birmingham could elect any old Joe off the street from anywhere, why does Birmingham have election laws to begin with? Could it be that those laws are in place to protect the people of Birmingham from outside interests? If Larry Langford doesn’t live in Birmingham, what motivation does Langford have to make Birmingham a better place to live? He lives in Fairfield and was mayor of Fairfield, and he made it worse.
Yes, it is a free country, and the people of Birmingham should have to deal with their insane electoral decision. Meaning that the employees of Birmingham (who don’t live there and don’t get to vote) shouldn’t have to pay for it. Meaning that the people of Jefferson County owe you exactly Jack Squat. Meaning that the people of the State of Alabama owe you even less. So when he drives the city even further into debt and possibly bankruptcy over pretty police uniforms, over $150k in his personal office renovations (which have already started), and a domed stadium while never even addressing the actual crime issue or school problems– don’t come crying to the county and state to bail you out (though you likely will because you somehow believe we OWE you something). So yeah, it’s a free country, and you are free as a bird to live elbow deep in the mess you’ve made. And you are free as a bird to elect a criminal and make Birmingham appear to be populated by idiots in front of the world. Just leave me and my money and the food I put in my daughter’s mouth out of it.
By the way… Enjoy paying even more for your groceries, as he’s already planning to raise your sales taxes. He wasn’t able to get laptops for Fairfield and Jefferson County, and his program is currently under investigation by the IRS and SEC. Good luck with that. But hey! At least your criminals will shudder at the sight of your police officers and their snappy fashion sense.
Comment by ALmod — November 16, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Note to self - don’t make ALmod angry :)
Comment by Reactionary — November 17, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
It was the city of Birmingham’s responsiblity to verify Lankfords’ residency at the time he registered as a candidate.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 17, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
lol @ Reactionary! I’m a bad, bad girl.
bhmhomeboy…
Because government (municipal, state, federal, or otherwise) is known for “responsibility”? Langford put his signature on a piece of paper saying that his primary residence is in Birmingham, while also having his signature on a piece of paper telling the IRS that his primary residence is in Fairfield. Try cheating on your taxes and then telling the IRS that it was their responsibility to verify it. I’m sure that will go over well with them.
Meanwhile, the clerk that the affidavit was handed to probably just stamped it and put it in a pile. How many city clerks do you know that moonlight as private investigators?
But are you seriously trying to argue that a grown man has no responsibility to tell the truth and that the government should have done it for him? Therefore, he shouldn’t suffer any consequences? It’s like saying that a bank robber shouldn’t go to jail because the police should have stopped him before the robbery took place.
Comment by ALmod — November 18, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
This election challenge reminds me of the 2000 Presidential election and the Florida recount. Repubicans accused Al Gore and Joe Lieberman of trying to change the results after the votes were counted. Can you say Butterfly ballots and pregnant chads?
What is being lost in all of this is THE WILL of the VOTERS in the city of Birmingham. When the voters went to polls to vote for mayor they were of the belief the ballot was LEAGAL . According to the official vote tally the MAJORITY of the people ELECTED Langford. Should the will of the majority be disregarded because their government failed to verify qualifications of candidates BEFORE their name was placed on the ballot? I could care less about Langford it’s the VOTERS I care about. Langfords name was on the ballot, he was elected.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 18, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
There is a big difference between this and 2000. For one thing, it’s arguable that Al Gore won the popular vote while losing the electoral vote. If that is the case, the majority did no elect the winner. (We may never know, because the Supreme Court put an end to it.)
Nobody is disputing that Langford won the majority vote. The thing in question is whether or not it was under false pretenses. Nobody’s questioning whether or not he was on the ballot. They’re questioning whether or not he should have been on the ballot to begin with. And nobody’s saying it isn’t stupid to only be able to question that candidacy after the election.
George W. Bush wasn’t an Afghan citizen who claimed U.S. residency so that he could run for president.
By the way, it’s spelled LEGAL. I can believe things are legal all day, but that doesn’t make them legal. If you cared about the voters as much as you claim you do, you’d care about the fact that the voters were scammed and that someone is trying to fix a problem created when the government failed them. Again, it’s like saying that a bank robber shouldn’t go to jail because the police failed to stop the robbery in the first place.
Government isn’t dependable or efficient at anything, which is why I question the whole domed stadium mess. How can a government run a domed stadium and its finances when it can’t even be bothered to check tax records?
Now, if you have such an issue with Langford’s candidacy being in question, why not address the election laws themselves? Why not change Birmingham election laws so that Langford qualifies? It would be a non-issue at that point, and it would save Birmingham citizens a lot of time and money. But nobody has even mentioned it to my knowledge, so apparently Birmingham voters aren’t as sure about that decision as you believe them to be. Let me know when that law is changed. I have a few friends in Hoover who would love to run Birmingham.
Comment by ALmod — November 19, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Did you know that Bush Sr.’s address in Texas was a vacent lot when he ran for President? Is it the voters fault that Langfords name was on the ballot? Can’t voters assume the government exercises due diligence and that candidates names are on the ballots because they are LEGALLY there? It’s not the voters responsiblity to make sure candidates aren’t committing fraud. The Brimingham voters spoke on election day, and yes I care about their rights. The time to make sure Langford wasn’t committing “fraud” was BEFORE his name was placed on the ballot, and BEFORE voters cast their votes. The question of his residency wouldn’t have been a question of he “lost” the election. Voters don’t have the ability to “change” election law, that is why lawmakers are “elected”. People in Hoover should let the people of Birmingham decide who they want to be their Mayor. They have decided.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 19, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Bush Sr. wasn’t a U.S. citizen when he ran for president? Or is it just that he didn’t live in Texas that bothers you?
“Can’t voters assume the government exercises due diligence and that candidates names are on the ballots because they are LEGALLY there?” No, no they can’t. Just as you can’t trust your government that they are doing anything right. “The government” is not some divine and flawless institution, free from the sins and flaws of mankind. It is made up of some very selfish and very stupid and very greedy and very dishonest people. The founding fathers didn’t even trust the government. That’s why they created free press.
I have a big problem with anyone who says that (insert whatever here) is the government’s responsibility. In some way, things may be the government’s responsibility, but it is the responsibility of THE PEOPLE to keep the government accountable and to make sure that it follows through in its “responsibilities.” Go and read the Declaration of Independence if you don’t believe me. It is not up to the government to keep the people honest. It is quite the opposite.
And no… His residency wouldn’t have been questioned if he’d lost the election because it would be a non-issue. And yes, it should have been questioned before he was put on the ballot and elected, but the law doesn’t allow that. Again, you seem to have an issue with the law itself. You’re grasping at straws.
And yes… You can very easily protest or petition your lawmakers to change the law. It works quite well when you’re trying to rob a man of his business license without him so much as having a fair trial. Why wouldn’t it work for changing an itty bitty election law?
Be real and be honest. You don’t care one bit for the voters of Birmingham. If you did, you’d be concerned about the fact that they made a decision based on false pretenses. You’d be concerned about the fact that they were scammed, and you’d want them to have the opportunity to make it right. You’d want them to have the opportunity to change the law if they still want Langford so that they could have him legally as mayor. All you can seem to say is that the voters made a decision. What you seem to leave out every time is that they were scammed into making that decision. You don’t allow someone to continue to be victimized (yes, VICTIMIZED) just because they didn’t catch it before the fact. That’s just stupid and CRUEL. You let them know that they’re being victimized and give them the option of correcting that. If they choose to let it continue after knowing the truth, then so be it.
But you don’t care about any of those things. You want the voters to continue to be scammed. You don’t care about the voters. You care about Larry Langford. The least you can do is be honest about that.
Comment by ALmod — November 20, 2007 @ 9:13 am
The law does allow for residence to be verified BEFORE a candidates name is placed on the ballot. Residency can be challenged BEFORE the election. Voters are correct to believethe names placed on the BALLOT are there LEGALLY. This is not about Larry Langford it’s about the will of the VOTERS in the city of Birmingham. The “scam” will occur if their votes don’t count and the person the voters ELECTED to serve them as Mayor is removed. I will end this disscusion with two words, SORE LOOSERMAN.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 20, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I pray I never need an attorney and end up with someone who possesses the debating skills of Bhmhomeboy. Never before, have I seen such an articulately constructed argument ignored and responded to with the phrase, “sore looserman.” Wow.
Comment by Deon Gordon — November 21, 2007 @ 3:42 am
Deon… I think I just peed my pants! I can’t friggin’ breathe, I’m laughing so hard!
Bhhomeboy… You really should stop, and this will be my last response to you, since you’re arguing in circles and since I really have better stuff to do with my time than to own you in a debate.
Yeah, the law does allow for residency to be verified or changed before the election– IF the candidate is honest about it. Voters are no more correct to believe that names on a ballot are there legally than they would be to believe that politicians don’t take kickbacks and bribes and actually represent them. If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Arazona to sell you.
And no, Langford doesn’t have to be removed. As I stated above, all that needs to be done is to change Birmingham election law. And it’s even more likely that Cooper will never be elected. So much for the “sore looserman” argument.
Anyone who cares a wit about Birmingham voters and the “will of the people” wouldn’t want them to be scammed and would want them given a chance at a fair election. I’ve even stated that they could keep Langford if they so desired, but you don’t seem to care about that. You seem awfully concerned that anyone would question his residency, even if it became a non-issue. And the best you can come up with in defense of that position is “sore looserman.”
Game. Set. Match.
Comment by ALmod — November 21, 2007 @ 8:26 am
[…] LaLa has a plan to save Birmingham millions of dollars. He wants to cut 450 city jobs. Supposedly, this will save the city over $60 million per year. If you’re getting out your calculator, that’s over $133k/person. Trust me when I say that city employees do not typically make that much– even with benefits included. Langford’s numbers seem to come from thin air once again, as they do in his tax increase proposal. He also doesn’t seem to take into account whether or not the positions filled are crucial for day-to-day operation. (There are some consulting positions that could easily be lost, but I doubt that there are 450 of them.) […]
Pingback by Let’s Save Some Money « The Alabama Moderate — November 21, 2007 @ 9:46 am