“We have elected five council members with a big-picture vision of the future of Ann Arbor. They have the ability to work together to see it through”.

I seek to find out what “it” is. Any of the “elected five representatives” could answer it, as well – they apparently all have the same big-picture vision. Chris Taylor, It need not only be the mayor who answers.

This is a follow-up question to a speech by an elected official, given in front of a reporter, at an election night party. The question asks about the central theme or idea of the speech. I asked the question because I did not remember, or find any record of, these candidates describing this Big Picture Vision during the campaign. I don’t get why this is such a hard question to answer, and I don’t understand all the emotion about my asking this question. Mostly, though, I just want to know what “it” is: the Big -Picture Vision of the future of Ann Arbor espoused by the Mayor, and at least five members of city council. May we have an answer, please?

So, if there is a one party goverment in Ann Arbor, and some of us ‘far left’, ‘middle of the road’ or ‘conservative’ voters are not happy about certain issues, speaking out about (pick one) roads, bridges, housing, neighborhood issues, the way the ‘arts’ program is run like a yuppie cocktrail party or moronic email exchanges, then we ALL are foolish and naive and playing into the hands of the REPUBLICANS? And should just keep quiet?

“What I find amazing is that life long democrats such as you fall for the spin of a republican whose political purpose is to bring down the democrats on council.”

I am guessing I’ve voted for a few more Dems in my life than Marcia Higgins or the other DIMOs. If if the fallout from bad governing causes any of the DIMOs to get tossed out of office, they will only have themselves to blame.

And I won’t waste time going through the Mayor’s Hallmark card bullet points either. But:

“A proposal that is opposed by a clear majority of the citizens in a neighborhood should not be forced upon those residents unless it provides overriding benefits for the community as a whole. (Of course this becomes complicated when there are concrete legal concerns that council needs to take into account.)”

Yeah, I suppose it does become ‘complicated’.

Tom W., try DINO (Democrats in Name Only).

I can report that I gave up some years ago on split infinitives and have gotten downright careless about hyphenation, but copy editors never sleep.

I said above that: ( I am basing my opinion of you based on many of your comments on AU and other postings on the Chronicle, not necessarily on this string)

Was I name calling? Where exactly? Unless you consider calling someone a republican “name calling”. LOL

Anyway, I stand by what I said. It makes no sense to me for two different groups with polar opposite agendas to use the same means to justify or attempt to create two different ends. One side of this mixed group is not being genuine. Side A will be in effect helping Side B achieve its goals even though those goals are the exact opposite of what Side A wants.

I am in no way implying which side is genuine or not genuine. I am only using logic to analyze the situation.

Personally, as someone who has not been overtly political most of his life, I have found very little relevance to party affiliation at the local Ann Arbor government level. Especially since Democrats took over the “center” during the Clinton years, and it became OK for them to talk about supporting business, cutting taxes, and reducing government spending.

It seems to me that a non-partisan City Council might actually allow councilmembers to be true to themselves and not hide behind a label just to get elected. Punctuation would cease to be an issue, too! ; )