As usual, I’ve written up my research notes for the coming election so you can all crib from my work. I’ve given my conclusions, and invite everyone to come to their own. Even if we disagree on everything, I’m still happy if this collection of links saved you a headache.

The City Council election comes down to two virtual slates and an outlier. One slate is the guys who did their homework, have plenty of public service experience, and know the details of policy: Larsson, Hendricks, Griffith. The other one has much less experience in public service, but wants to cut the city budget as fast as possible: Frazer, Hoffman, Merrick. The outlier is a community organizer who’s in law school right now: Magaña.

The budget-cutters are all friendly with Pat Meyering, an acrimonious councilmember who was elected two years ago and has been so unpleasant that our city attorney and city manager have both quit so they don’t have to deal with his antics. They have a lot of rhetoric and little evidence about the current council being bought off by special interests, and have a lot more to say about what they wouldn’t do than what they would.

You can watch the League of Women Voters Candidate Forum; it’s about two hours and gives a good sense of the character of the candidates.


From: [identity profile] kalimac.livejournal.com


As my own post suggests, I reject the "company he keeps" argument against Frazer. The problem with Meyering is not what he says but the way he says it. Mind, what he says is open to refutation, but the problem is that he won't engage in discussion. If you have people who say what he says but not the way he says it, they are open to discussion, and more progress can be made. No matter what happens in this election, Meyering is not going away for another 2-3 years, and if his views can be translated into human language by somebody else, and Frazer is the best option, everyone benefits, even Meyering.

I think the continued snags on downtown - even Griffith expressed frustration over this - and the Linked In monstrosity are sufficient testimony for the insurgents' charge about the influences on Council. The recent actions regarding Butcher's Corner suggests that the Council is getting the message, but the way to ensure they continue to get the message is to have some reasonable voices expressing the insurgent POV. And since it isn't Hoffman (whom I share your appalled reaction to) or Merrick, it has to be Frazer.

Mind you, I like Larsson as well, much better than Hendricks whose approach is the same foggy one that will just perpetrate the problems that have bedeviled Council in the past. I just wish those two had switched opponents.

The Registrar's estimates on the ballot as to how much Measure A would save do not match up with the claims of its proponents on that topic in the same source. I smell a pig in a poke here, and am skeptical.
ext_909977: (Default)

From: [identity profile] canyonwalker.livejournal.com


Thanks, as always, for your election research.

The issue with Pat Meyering comes down to the question, "Is there a 'there' there?" He's claiming there are moneyed interests and back-room politics, all of which is plausible, but has he presented any evidence to support these claims? I don't believe he has. And given that he hasn't, has it been that he's failed to show anything when given reasonable opportunities, or has he-- as I believe he also claims-- been genuinely shut down through procedural mechanisms by the same people he's claiming are dishonest? My only information about this so far has been through the Murky News, which has really only covered the drama of the situation rather than the actual underlying issue(s), so I'm curious if you can offer any insights.
.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags