Task: Toxic Language Detection
Input (English): Comment: This endorsement maximizes the marginal accomplishments of the Council and side steps its preoccupation w/social issues it's ill suited to legislate, like recent "panhandling laws" which risk an expensive 6 figure legal challenge if unconstitutional.  The RG assumes the ultra-strained "progress" downtown is from "a planning process for Springfield Downtown revitalization" rather than the influx of Eugene money (Planktown) which ironically brings most of its customers from its dreaded sister rival. There's still no real City-led plan that includes a livable, working, & commerce sustaining or attractive downtown.  There's little acknowlegdement of community as critical.  "Not going backwards" after 30 years of timber decline isn't the same as "progress." And Sean Dunn is right, the City agenda is primarily led by (old) city managers.  Polite/supportive calls for "new energy" from many candidates as well as myself isn't a coincidence, its required.    www.springfields-young-future.com
Output (English): Non-toxic