Most of what you say makes sense to me. After my own two campaigns, it does seem to me that most folks are too busy living their lives to take much time to focus on local issues, and what candidates have to say about them. On the whole, my sense is that they want someone to “handle” all this stuff so that they don’t have to think about it. This situation is what lets candidates (e.g., Carsten Hohnke) get away with campaigning on vague statements of intent that contain little or no substance – and certainly no tangible details.

What does not make sense to me is the idea that vision is a single-issue item. It strikes me that “Vision” covers everything from what street surfaces are like, to better coordination of services and facilities with other government units, to zoning, to water rates and park maintenance.

“The real issue in Ann Arbor right now is what our (collective and individual) vision of what the city should be in its whole and in relation to each of us is.

That’s *one* issue, and it’s a distraction from government (that is, policy making) in part because people tend to be reactive and elect reactive “representatives”. That might sound contradictory to what I say below, but it’s both/and, not either/or—council members have the opportunity to both represent and lead. Also, for those residents who have other concerns, to say that this is *the* issue leaves them out of the discussion. Not very democratic, whether you agree or disagree with them about those concerns.

I commented on the related coverage at aa.com on Julie Grand’s odd statement that she could direct residents to the person who could address their concerns. Wouldn’t that be their council representative, at least in some cases? Why the assumption that all concerns are those that city staff can address? But it seemed to be lost on other readers. Maybe it’s what they’ve come to expect.

John, you wrote, “my point is that in Ann Arbor, most ‘representatives’ do not in fact represent, and they do have agendas.”

And my point is that we can choose to stop accepting that, but it will mean that we have to tell them clearly what we want. I understand your your intention to be realistic, though. But that’s a choice.

When I was a candidate, the first question from most residents I spoke with while gathering petition signatures was, “What do you want to do as mayor?” or “Why do you want to be mayor?” My response was that I wanted to represent and serve them. It’s as though we’ve been so unrepresented that we don’t understand the concept anymore. We’ve been taught that the choice is “Coke or Pepsi?”, and we’ve accepted that.

The other aspect of this acceptance (at a certain level) is that we then feel and act more adversarial when we disagree. We don’t say, “I understand your perspective and your intention, and in this case I would like you to consider such and such.” Instead we don’t even talk to them because we “know” that they have an agenda. It’s self defeating. And it begins at this stage, before the election.

It’s not that I believe that representatives should not represent; my point is that in Ann Arbor, most “representatives” do not in fact represent, and they do have agendas. Apparent members of certain alliances among councilpersonsl have been skillful in pretending that they do not have an agenda. Given that many people around here seem to run in order to advance an agenda, my desire is for candidates’ agendas be explicit, not secret, so that people may choose among them. Under the circumstances, this strikes me as the most democratic outcome we could reasonably expect.

As noted above, this to me means two things: what vision the potential council member wishes to advance, and at least some specifics of what that vision entails.

The real issue in Ann Arbor right now is what our (collective and individual) vision of what the city should be in its whole and in relation to each of us is. I’ll avoid characterizing the two opposing views at this moment, but I think most reading this know.

Your idea is a lovely theoretical construct but among other objections seems to be driving toward government by referendum. (Otherwise, what does “shaping” your representative mean?) And it is unworkable in practical terms.

As we are finding now, just electing representatives from one “viewpoint” does not determine their votes on any one subject. But it does predict their mindset, and that is useful.

As for visions, they can be useful, but having one doesn’t (or won’t necessarily) make it so. The main thing I’ve learned in recent years is that the broader context tends to dictate possibilities to a much larger extent than most people realize or acknowledge (or assign credit for, for that matter). So in addition to alternate visions, I’d like to hear about their understanding of that broader context and the challenges it presents.

I would like to see a combination of vision (Ann Arbor should be, e.g. … a college town, or a major metropolis, or an edge city for Detroit, or the new population and employment center of Michigan.; and then I would like to see specifics about how they intend to get it there: subsidizing commuters, removing as much historic housing as possible, raising the height of the skyline further, placing green space in the center of town, etc. I think this would make it easier to decide who among the candidates best fits the electorate’s preferences.