There have already been a number of absentee ballots mailed back in, so I guess the PVN is trying to inform potential voters about the candidates and their nearing-the-end-of-campaigning attempts to sway voters who have not yet voted.
PVN asked the same questions to each of the candidates and as repeated throughout too much of the campaign, the vast majority of the answers could have been provided by one person simply replacing a word here or there, without hardly any arguments from or to the candidates.
"The News" started with a bla-bla-bla statement about the founding of the city and then each candidate was asked the following questions:
"Do you think the founding vision of RPV is dying?"
"What development, if any, would you allow in the city?"
"What is the single biggest issue residents have brought to your attention?"
"You're elected to the Council. What's your first priority?"
Most of the answers could have been very easily repeated by me even though I don't really agree with most of the answers given by the candidates.
Where I found some goodness to greatness was from a few candidates who know our city's history better than some of the other candidates.
Of course the vision and General Plan of our city is not dying! I agree with Ken Dyda that when our 'founding fathers' wrote the General Plan and when their nieces and nephews took a second look at the Plan, they all found it to be just about right for our city, for our residents, for our businesses, and for the general welfare of our city.
I applaud those who created the General Plan and then took on the update. They did a good job and another thing they did was to work very hard to make sure future Council members would have a difficult time screwing it up, as proven recently.
Jim Knight knew and still knows that whatever "special interest" Susan Brooks continues to not fully reveal, the General Plan and existing laws and guidelines would have ultimately resulted in disapproval of the lofty plans laid out by The Annenberg Foundation.
And would SOMEBODY please tell Ms. Brooks that the Point Vicente area will never be paved over with a giant parking lot as she seems to try and remind folks that was a 'special interest' she didn't like.
I still like Jerry Duhovic as a good fellow and someone who states he wants the best for our city. I do have to note by some of his answers in the PVN and out on the campaign trail that he sometimes allows for the prospects of more development within our city than most of the other candidates do.
Don't get me wrong about developments, though. I think that mindful, small, and beneficial development within our city that as Ms. Brooks will remind you has been, "Built out 20 years ago" should not be taken as necessarily a bad thing.
I also understand civility and manners as most of the candidates stated they feel there has been a lack of, in recent years, particularly from several now-term-ending members.
I have been called to task several times by these men and I am a big boy who knows that sometimes progress is a messy thing to work very hard for.
When you take a look at the tenure of Steve Wolowicz, Doug Stern and Tom Long, I don't know of any period of time where more progress has been made for the betterment than all, the during the past 8 years and then adding the term of Larry Clark to put the frosting on the cake.
We have the possibility of a very successful Expansion Project at one of the two colleges in our city. We have income continually streaming in from Terranea and after all the issues regarding Long Point over the years, our City Council, along with City Staff and others have provided a fantastic working relationship with a truly wonderful huge business interest in our city.
A few of the candidates stated they really like "The Donald". Other candidates, those having worked more directly with the executives and staff at Trump National, over the past several years, will tell you they may not enjoy "The Donald" but our city governors, staff, and those candidates now view the relationship between our city and Trump National folks, minus "The Donald" to be great and very beneficial to all parties.
No matter how much several candidates wish to trounce all over three Council members leaving their posts, it would be wrong, almost hate-filled, and definitely uncivil to not acknowledge the progress made by hard working caring City Council members.
And the paragraph above was written by someone who has had his runins with Council members and have found some of the issues they supported to not necessarily be in the best interests of all of our residents, in our city. Politics can get messy. If it never does, we would have the Republican side of the U.S. Senate, a do nothing, non-job creating body of 'No's".
Each Council has the obligation to promote and secure our city's General Plan. Those candidates like Ken Dyda, Jerry Duhovic, Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight have all talked about taking another look at our General Plan to add to it, language regarding the Eastview section of our city, which was annexed into the city in the 1980's. This is really the ONLY area where anything more than just a minor tweaking of our General Plan must be considered, I feel.
I feel strongly that Jim Knight and Dave Emenhiser, both members of our Planning Department, can work well with Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich to be the four good votes to help keep our General Plan safe, secure and the success it remains today.
I also feel strongly that these four gentlemen will take a generous and concerned look at our city's upcoming border issues concerning the new plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Since this blog is written for our eastern portion of R.P.V. in mind, I am also very pleased that so many candidates found even more time that candidates in prior elections, coming down and demonstrating interest and resolve to work for the benefit of our side of The Hill.
If you have not voted yet, please consider in the most positive light possible, voting for Jim Knight and Dave Emenhiser to sit on our Council alongside true 'veterans' on our Council, Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich.
We've got many very important issues to deal with in the coming few years. I don't wish to see one who I refer to as an 'office hopper', one who derides 'special interests' without clearly identifying them, one who WILL make a great Council member in four years or so, one who is an honored founder who can best be more beneficial to all of us as one who is not hemmed in by office to get things done in our city and another candidate who, as good as he is, is still far too conservative for me to vote for, on this coming new Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment