Yates Hits Hawkins On The Javanon Scandal

Yesterday, David Yates dropped a new mail piece discussing Doug “Protecting Our White Women” Hawkins’ corruption and involvement in the Javanon scandal.

Here’s what he said in a release:

Today Yates dropped a mail piece telling voters about the $7,000 worth of neighborhood funds that Hawkins has spent on the Private, East End Soccer Club, Javanon. “Doug Hawkins took dollars designated to rejuvenate our neighborhood and have them to his friends in the east end so their families could play soccer for a private club,” Yates declared. “That’s unacceptable. Our Neighborhoods and Community deserve a partner on Metro Council who will reinvest our tax dollars in our community, not the east end.” Javanon is the same 23,000 sq. ft. Soccer Club that was constructed in a residential neighborhood (Tucker Station) without city approval, and required an illegal, secret backroom meeting to get off the ground. Allegations unearthed by the TheVilleVoice.com “exposed a routine way of doing business in the city’s Planning Department, one that all-too-often favors developers at the expense of the actual rules and the rights of neighbors. It exposed the fact that attorneys for developers exert pressure on BOZA members and the too-easy access they have, to the point that if requested, they can persuade officials to hold illegal meetings to make sure things go the way they want in public.”

“We learned two important lesson with this one debacle: First, south end neighborhood funds need to be reinvested into the south end. Period. Second, our system of government must be more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. No more back room deals or secret meetings,” Yates said.

Get a look at the mail piece here:



Hawkins will probably win, but it’s worth pointing out that Yates has run a terrific campaign.

16 thoughts on “Yates Hits Hawkins On The Javanon Scandal

  1. I like the fact that Yates is questioning NDF expenditures by a Council member.

    Does that questioning extend to ALL of the other South End reps on the Council? Not really.

    As is written, Yates’ campaign piece simply makes an assertion with no proof offered. Since Yates is an ambulance* attorney, I guess we simply have to take his “word” for this claim.

    I’m a bit surprised by the publication of this piece without any published proof. Normally, the VV is upfront about such stuff.

    (* see: WAVE 3 TV story about Yates)

  2. Does the questioning extend to all other council critters? You should ask David. You’d be surprised by his response.

    As you can see in the release, Yates backs up his mail piece.

    Read before commenting, people.

    And your anonymous claim that Yates is an ambulance chaser is specious at best. Simply representing injured people does not make one an ambulance chaser.

  3. It is a shame that the south end is now made up of minorities and ignorant whites with little or no formal education. That is why they are stuck with their pin head leaders. The good thing is that the minorities will move up and the whites will go to Bullitt County.

  4. While I think Hawkins is a walking caricature of himself and fear-mongering buffoon, this city is never going to advance with this whole “East End vs. South End” class envy crap.

    I have no doubt that most anyone would be better than Dougie, but can we just drop the class warfare angle in a election cycle?

  5. It’s not “East End vs. South End” here as much as it is saying that Hawkins is using his district’s resources to aid in the improvement (via funding for an illegal building) in a far-away district, which happens to be in the east end, where Hawkins originally comes from.

    I don’t detect any “class envy” in the Yates piece.

  6. Oh and Flipper, maybe you can round up the minorities and purge the uneducated whites and get the Sough end back to the way you want it.

    Doug wins because he’s shameless in his self promotion, not because his constituency is uneducated.

  7. Come on Steve, there’s not a little bit of East End emphasis going on there?

    Factually, you are correct, but the South End vs. the East End demagoguery has been a longtime proven staple of local politics for years.

  8. Pertaining to the South vs. East End thing, the East End would love to see the South End just kinda go elsewhere. And that just might happen one day.

    In the meantime, remember, the South End has been a strong Democrat bastion for more than 40 years. And Louisville’s West End is even a stronger Democrat enclave. Virtually all the elective offices from those areas have been held by Democrats.

    Which means, any and all governmental problems (including educational deficiencies) are nearly 100% the responsibility of those Democrats.

    And the illegal building … it was all approved by those bureaucrats appointed by the Democrats in charge of that government agency.

    No matter how one spins it, at the end of the day, Democrats wield the power in Jefferson County. So the results, be they bad or good, are the responsibility of those same Democrats.

  9. South Ender, so you’re saying that Doug Hawkins aided and abetted a Democratic Party-approved project? Hawkins supported the illegal activities of Democrats? That’s some “thorn” in the side of the establishment.

  10. South Ender do you really live in the South End? Or do you work for someone that is employed by the people of the South End?

  11. This isn’t so much an exercise in “neighborhood warfare”, as it is a statement on Doug Hawkins’ hypocrisy.
    He was recently decrying other council members for their expenses, making a point that the money could’ve “put in another playground” for a local school.
    Instead, he sends it to the other side of town, where virtually no one from his district would benefit from it… all save his own children who participate in the league there. Makes you wonder where his ethical disclosure was prior to giving them money. That’s right, he doesn’t care about ethics. He uses taxpayer time and money to put on a political rally at a government building for Rand Paul… no ethical problem there., right?
    He has a personal interest in it and he didn’t disclose that, yet he’s all about accountability.
    If you can’t see the hypocrisy, then you’re either blind, ignorant, or indifferent.

  12. Wonder how many houses Dougie assessed for higher value than they were truly worth during the housing crisis.

Comments are closed.