Hi Everyone, In case you're wanting more info about the mayoral election, here is a great summary from one of my friends.
You can also see forum video here if interested! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNEwylgjEMM&fbclid=IwAR2mK7FAR5-qI2kNEWr9FRtiylFHV__fPbUm7QQCaU_d64pgZK7hMqtbAlA FORUM TAKE AWAYS I'm sharing this with all of you in case you are interested. I wrote this up as a Facebook post reply to someone asking about what I thought of the forum with the mayoral candidates (hence the weird formatting). Here's my takeaway: I'm voting for Halley. Noyes came across like the love child of Trump and Marianne Williamson: dropping words like “blessed,” “love” and “nurture” while also throwing out grandiose claims: only 37% of kids can read, in 30 days you can learn block chain technology that will make you $75 an hour, etc. etc. Michael made it clear that several of Ed’s promises were in domains entirely beyond not only the Mayor but the city itself (e.g. decisions made at state level or by other entities), but Ed kept saying that that “we can do anything” and talking about how we needed to take back our “unalienable rights.” He came across as someone with a huge vision (that sometimes I agreed with, e.g. getting away from Aliant) and literally zero idea of how anything works. Connie started strong, but her answers on an LGBTQ youth question (she basically dodged it) and her response to the CAFO question were significant red flags to me. (NOTE: The CAFO thing is often thought of a complex because there are families benefitting from the model. Connie herself says, “ I am in support of successful farmers.” I’ve thought a lot about this, and I’m no longer swayed by that reasoning. Far more people (not to mention the livestock and downriver ecosystems) are harmed by CAFOs, esp. when you consider the antibiotic resistance issue. There are many families that benefit from organized crime. There are successful criminals. But we recognize that more people are significantly hurt by those actions and that the benefit does not outweigh the cost.) Michael actually straight-up impressed me (and I was not expecting to be impressed last night): he was just 100% the voice of reason. Ed would have no idea about something, Connie would come in with a 3/4-baked idea or something riffing off of whatever got Ed applause, and then Michael would quietly (I think he had a sore throat) explain how things worked and what he proposed. He kept to the facts, and he knew all of them. But as important as his grounded approach was, more important for me was the fact that when it came to governing the city, his values most aligned with mine. For example, he was not shy about his support for LGBTQ youth. On the CAFO issue, he was also not shy about the fact that he would push for the 2 mile extra-territorial zoning (the only thing the city really can do, he explained). Connie had said “I think the city council should have a discussion.” Michael said they’d already had that discussion but had never followed up with it. (He was much more specific on this point, but I don’t recall the details so I’m being vague). Bottom line: things were ready to be pushed forward and he was ready to facilitate that. Connie kept talking about growing our population (as this grows the tax base and really is the only viable way to reduce taxes), but the only idea she clearly laid out as to how was, “Tell your kids to come back home.” Michael went into the nuances of how the city has grown: a non-insignificant percentage of that growth includes people from Illinois who came here to avail themselves of our aid programs. What we really need to do in the name of sustainable growth, he explained, is grow specific demographics (namely, young professionals). He explained that he intends to use the targeted approach that Des Moines successfully used as a model for that. I had some sincere reservations about Michael going in there, but my only practical reservation now is that by voting him to Mayor, I’m effectively voting him off city council where I’m glad he’s been a voice.
