Karen Collier writes:
>The disclaimer noted in Sharon's letter is all that is required by law.
>Therefore, I don't see anything sinister in it.
As the guy who posted this, I did not intend to convey anything sinister
(though I've always seen a treasurer's name or a chairperson's name listed,
so I'm not sure what's up with that.) My big point was that a web address,
and no phone number, is a sign of the times (last I checked there was no
phone number on her website, either...)
>However, the promises in her letter seem to be same-old, same-old. Doesn't
>anyone see that it would be four more years of the same as the last eight
>years?
I think that's almost precisely what the mayor intends to convey. And is
there any doubt she's the clear, perhaps overwhelming favorite right now?
Although I have major problems with the mayor on fiscal management,
corporate welfare, accessibility, and leadership, I'd suggest that we
critics should be a bit humble and not assume that most voters in the city
agree. (By the way, I delineate between voters and residents, since until a
new Jesse Ventura comes along they are vastly different populations.
Let's face it, Babs Carlson got 45 percent of the vote because the crime
rate was the worst in most voters' living memory. That's a problem voters
live with, or at least seriously fear. The problems we've been writing about
recently - which I am NOT minimizing -- are much less visible to most
voters, especially ones in high-turnout areas. Recognizing such problems
often requires a long-term vision and lots of information. We may be
junkies, but voters usually aren't.
For example, if we have too much civic debt and reduced flexibility for
tough times, that problem will come crashing down in a few years, not now.
Corporate welfare gets lots of us wonks to the battlements. But to cynically
view my own case, the argument is blunted by the city's general financial
health over the last two decades and the human capacity to assume What Has
Come Before Will Go On.
Affordable housing is a Nice Thing To Have. But let's face it, few voters
are blowing the doors down to get more built in Wards 1 (Northeast), 7 (Lake
Isles/Calhoun), 10 (Wedge/Calhoun/Harriet), 11 (far south-central), or 13
(far southwest)...all big turn-out areas. "More for thee but not for me"
won't unseat a mayor.
Sharon's staggering invisibility? Only disgusts activists - I mean, on
contentious issues like the 42nd street bus hub, where I was a point person,
I NEVER heard from the mayor's office, not a nibble, even though my Met
Council Rep and Hennepin County Commissioner called to learn what was up
(thanks, Frank Hornstein and Gail Dorfman). Worse, as I reflect upon it, I
didn't even think to call her office, since she is so much not a part of my
neighborhood activities, even the big ones. But no one was spitting nails
down here about the mayor's not weighing in - and believe me, I talked to
hundreds of Kingfielders about this issue. As a journalist, I call the
mayor's office all the time for city stories I'm working on, such as a
Minneapolis-St. Paul magazine piece on fighting graffiti -- but I have
received a return call from Her Honor in several years. And most voters
would say: "so what Brauer? We don't like journalists that much either."
The one localized issue that does hit voters where they live is airport
noise. But that isn't a citywide concern, and opponents like RT still have
to make the case that they can change what has been a huge problem that goes
beyond the city's political borders.
Again, I am not trying to minimize any of these concerns, or say people are
wrong to criticize the Mayor and the governing majority of the council. But
in these selfish times, I do think there's a distance between potent issues
and voters' lives. The only candidate that will beat her is one that can
really catch lightning in a bottle and make people "feel" that change will
concretely - or emotionally -- benefit them. That's a damn tough task. And
that's another big factor Sharon is favored: even if you don't like the job
she's done, you have to believe one of her opponents can do better.
Last point - Jennifer Smith referenced a Channel 9 TV poll in which 69
percent of the respondents rated the mayor's performance as "poor." First, I
could not find such a poll on the Kmsp.com website. Second, these shouldn't
be called polls but "entertainment surveys" or something like that. They are
unscientific, most of the time you can call in as often as you want, and
I'll bet a majority of folks don't even live in the city. Most importantly,
such a self-selecting poll invariably draws way more critics than are
represented in the population - because critics are more motivated to call
than folks who believe everything is ok.
Sorta like Minneapolis-issues...<grin>
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
