We know that the mayor, council party, and business interests are working especially hard to prevent a Vivienne win.

Word just in that in the recent days Chuck has accepted a significant contribution from a group of developers. He has amended his donation form.

You can be certain that Vivienne would not accept this kind of donation. (nor would it be offered to her…)

Give it a rest Ms Lowenstein and Mayor. This kind of silly claim really belongs in the comments section of the local news and ad blog.

But this isn’t an ideological struggle–it’s an disagreement about exactly how to set some specific parameters within a broadly accepted status quo. And if it were an ideological struggle, for the Mayor and his allies to try to claim the role of “lefties” is ludicrous.

But, I also know and respect Vivienne and the idea that she–or *any* of our current crop of city council candidates, for that matter–is a “tea partier” is completely laughable to me. The whole point of a representative democracy is that people can disagree.

Just as an example: Candidate A might support a development because A believes that it will strengthen downtown. Candidate B might oppose the same development because B believes it will weaken downtown. That does not make either candidate a tea partier, and it doesn’t mean that either candidate will support, or oppose, all development going into the future.

One thing both Chuck and Vivienne agree on is that public processes need to engage the public more. I’m looking forward to that.

Meetings of the Council
Section 4.4.
….

(f) Except as otherwise provided in this charter, each member of the Council
present shall cast a “yes” or “no” vote on each question before the Council,
unless excused therefrom by a vote of at least six members.
….

(i) A member of the Council shall not vote on a question in which the member
has a financial interest, other than the general public interest, or on any
question involving the member’s own conduct. If a question is raised under
this section at any Council meeting concerning the eligibility of a member of
the council to vote on any matter, such question shall be finally determined
by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council, not including
such member.

I support all 4 “challengers.” My vote will go to Vivienne for many reasons: she was a leader in the effort to halt a conference ctr./hotel next to the library, she publicly speaks about the enormous debt the current mayor and council party have burdened residents with – and that redirecting spending would enable public services to be reinstated, she is a strong supporter of government transparency, she is the Ward 5 candidate who received the sought-after Sierra Club endorsement, and the list goes on. Her blog reveals a brilliant, progressive thinker of enormous integrity who values communication and the opinions of others.

My concerns about Chuck are many, but I’ll only mention here that his wife’s salary coming from AATA, DDA is a huge conflict of interest, and although he’s stated he’d recuse himself when related votes come up, how helpful will a council person be if he’s fairly often not going to be able to vote?

1. Shrink government, but increase police presence
2. Oppose government spending for the arts
3. Oppose expansion of public transportation
4. Oppose business development that strengthens the downtown
5. Advocate frequent referenda that weaken the representative system

All the opposition candidates (Kaliasapathy, Eaton, Armentrout, & Petersen) support this political philosophy. Maybe there’s a better shorthand term for it, but “tea party” is one most of us are all too familiar with.

[link]

[link]