Sides will soon become apparent in the much-discussed bond election in Shreveport. Columnist John Settle discusses what's at stake.

Now that the Shreveport city council has voted to place bond propositions on the Nov. ballot, the question will be: Who will support the bond package? And who will oppose it?

Council members Levette Fuller, John Nickelson, and Grayson Boucher logged in substantial media time objecting to the bond proposals. As newcomers to the council, they have certainly have embraced their roles as it relates to being media-friendly.

Other council members have spent more time talking to each other on issues. It nothing else they recognize that a majority of the seven-member body is four.                                                             

The bond package will provide substantial capital projects in all council districts.

It includes new fire stations, park improvements, and streets/drainage repairs/improvements.  Council members will have discretion over street pavement projects in their districts.

It also includes much needed and long overdue repairs to the convention center, the Municipal Auditorium, and a new police headquarters. Additionally, 4 police substations.

Whether or not the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce will endorse the package or parts of it, is yet to be known. The same is valid with the Committee of 100. The more fundamental question is whether or not the "blessings" of these 2 groups is really needed–or even beneficial.

Council members will play a significant role in the success or failure of the propositions.

They can actively endorse the propositions and encourage support from their constituency. Likewise, they can oppose the package, and advocate a failure at the poll. A "neutral" posture will be clearly interpreted as anti-bond.

Much more will be publicized about the propositions in the coming months. A short break–like until after Labor Day–on the bond/anti-bond rhetoric is much needed by all.