Minneapolis Park Board Race
Oct. 19th, 2009 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerI'm in District 5, plus there are three at-large seats.
The District 5 candidates:
Steve Barland
Dan W. Peterson
McClain Looney
Jason Stone
Carol Kummer (incumbent) (and I just typed that as "indumbent," which is one of the funniest typos I think I've ever made by accident)
At-Large:
Nancy Bernard
Tom Nordyke
John Erwin
Annie Young
Mary Merrill Anderson
John Butler
David Wahlstedt
Bob Fine
We'll find out if any of these fine people is a Laurist
1. Steve Barland is the only Park Board candidate so far to send us mail. We got a very bland flier from him yesterday. His website is similarly bland. He has a lot of experience coaching, is pro-rec-center, and is concerned about the emerald ash borer. (Everyone is concerned about the emerald ash borer. This is a very uncontroversial stance, since there isn't anything they can DO about the emerald ash borer.) The main thing I'd say about Steve is that he's pro-recreation but doesn't seem to be well-versed in the other issues the Park Board deals with. He has a list of supporters on his website but they aren't people I know.
2. Dan W. Peterson does not appear to have a website.
3. McClain Looney does not appear to have a website, though he may have a Facebook group with no posts in it.
4. Jason Stone has the most signs around the neighborhood. He also has a real platform and endorsements from people I know. He seems to know more about how the parks work than Barland does, but it's still a pretty bland site; he loves the parks, he loves the rec centers, we should have a balanced approach to serving the diverse populations of our city, he's concerned about the emerald ash borer, etc.
5. Carol Kummer is the incumbent. She doesn't seem to have a candidate page, though she filled out a detailed questionnaire from Minneapolis Park Watch Watch (that's not a typo; first there was Minneapolis Park Watch, and then some people who didn't like them started the Minneapolis Park Watch Watch). Since she doesn't have a campaign site, I can't compare her endorsements to Stone's, which is frustrating. I have this feeling that I don't like Carol Kummer, but I can't remember what she did to piss me off.
I am feeling somewhat stymied in my desire to know where the differences lie between Kummer and Stone. In her interview with Park Watch Watch, Kummer says that Stone opposed Sea Salt (a really awesome restaurant that opened up at Minnehaha Falls a few years ago); that would be a strike against Stone if it's true, as Sea Salt rocks my world. On the other hand, she then goes on to whine about Park Watch and talk about how much she appreciates the fact that Park Watch Watch asked her about civility and the ability to get along with people, which among politicians is frequently code for, "I really don't like it when people ask me questions I don't want to answer, and then call me on dodging those questions."
Anyway, I may send them both mail and see if they can clear things up for me. Failing other input, I will probably vote for Stone on the grounds that he has endorsements from people whose opinion I respect, but I would feel better about this if I could remember why I didn't like Kummer. If anyone knows why I don't like Kummer, please feel free to share.
Moving on to the At-Large people... I'll cover the easy-to-eliminate first.
Nancy Bernard has a brief article in Southwest Journal which says, "she’s wondering why the neighborhood parks near her Northeast home don’t seem to be as busy as they once were. It seemed like when she was growing up, going to the park was the thing to do. Today’s children in her neighborhood, she says, appear to have less interest in playing outside." If you're too disconnected to know why kids are playing outside less, you shouldn't be running for ANYthing.
David Wahlstedt apparently wants to charge people to use the parks.
John Butler is an old dude who doesn't know why he's running. Also, he's a member of the party that's so concerned about the self-image of white people.
Now for the real candidates:
Bob Fine has a Facebook page instead of a website. He's been a commissioner from a specific district for about ten years, but is now running for an at-large seat either because someone's running against him who he thinks will beat him, or because he wanted to let a friend run, depending on which article you believe. (I don't care enough to try to dig up the facts on this.) He's endorsed by the Police Officers Federation, which I usually view as a minus. In his responses to Park Watch Watch, he says that "reform" is a word used by people who want to unfairly criticize the system. Which is the sort of statement that pisses me off in a knee-jerk way.
Annie Young is also an incumbent and I like her OK. She's a Green, and -- not surprisingly, I suppose, given her affiliation -- emphasizes more of the environmentalism and less of the recreation. I tend to prefer candidates who swing more toward the recreational opportunities. In part this is because of my experiences growing up in Madison, where an attempt to build a municipal swimming pool got shot down because they were going to have to cut down six pine trees. I don't miss living in Madison and I have an innate suspicion of politicians who seem like they'd fit in really well there, unless they remind me of Ken Golden, in which case they'll get my vote. Anyway, I have reasonably warm feelings toward her generally but I'm not sure she'd be in my top three.
Tom Nordyke is also an incumbent. Also, he's endorsed by the DFL. His website is annoying: it doesn't display any of the content if you've got NoScript turning off Javascript by default. If you're willing to trust a politician not to run malicious scripting, you will find out that his website is full of fonts that are too small and fancy to be easily read, and which can't be adjusted because of the way the site was put together. He says that as a resident of the Cedar Isles Dean neighborhood he has a clear sense of the needs of that area of the city; since he's running for an at-large seat, and Cedar Isles Dean is one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city, I'm not sure I see that as a selling point. He's pro-arts, which is good. He puts WATER QUALITY in all capitals, so I guess he thinks it's important.
Mary Merrill Anderson is an incumbent. Her website makes it clear she's recreation-oriented, and she associates herself with a bunch of projects I approve of (like the dog park, the trail along Minnehaha Creek, the Powderhorn Art Fair, Mill Ruins Park, playground improvements, etc.) She also comes from a traditionally underrepresented community (which is to say, she's from the north side of town).
John Erwin isn't an incumbent, but he was on the Park Board a few years ago. He's endorsed by the DFL. In one of the WTF-ier moments of my googling tonight, googling for "john erwin for parks" got me a hit for a Hebrew Facebook page. Except when I clicked through, it was all in English, despite being at he-il.facebook.com. He actually takes some substantive and occasionally controversial stances in his sidebar. I'm going to have to go through them one at a time, because some of these are good ideas, and some are seriously questionable.
1. He wants to improve walking and biking trails, soccer fields, volleyball courts, tennis courts, and skiing/off-road biking trails. I'm for this. Well, I'm not sure we need to improve the tennis courts which hardly anyone uses. Although I suppose more people might use them if they were in better shape, I don't know.
2. To pay for needed improvements, he says, we'll do it "By saving money through collaborating with the City, U of M, School Board, and businesses to hold the line on property tax increases! Also, by dramatically increasing grant writing and promoting the Parks Foundation to increase private giving!" What does he mean by "hold the line on property tax increases"? Usually when people use that turn of phrase, they mean they're going to resist whatever they're holding the line on, but property tax increases are where the revenue comes from to fund most of the city services, the schools, and the parks. (But not the U of M! That's funded through the state income tax, so I don't know WTF it's doing in that list.) Also, I don't know how collaborating with the school board is going to save or raise money for the parks since the schools are bleeding money and cutting anything and everything they can.
3. He wants to encourage all kids to play sports by eliminating fees kids pay to play sports in their neighborhood parks. As much as I like the idea of increasing participation, I think this is a lousy idea. First, people tend to undervalue what they get for free, so you're more likely to see people signing up and then never coming. Second, the fees are already quite low for park sports. Third, they have the ability to waive fees for families that still can't afford the fees -- now, I do think that could be publicized better, and I think it would be a great idea to increase the fee-free programming in the parks in the poor neighborhoods, but the Linden Hills parents can damn well afford to pay $50 per season.
4. He wants to eliminate parking fees in regional parks. There are definitely lots where parking fees ought to be eliminated, but I look at Minnehaha Falls and the crowds it attracts and I have no problem with charging for the lot. There's no shortage of free parking if you don't mind walking a bit; they should have fee-free handicapped parking (and might, I'm not sure) but beyond that, this is a situation where setting aside the parking lot for the people who are willing to pay for it means that you can always find a spot in the lot. I mean, by contrast, the parking at Como Zoo is free, so on a sunny Saturday afternoon, there's no way in hell you'll be able to find a space. They have a satellite lot, and it would be reasonable to keep that lot free, but damn, put in a machine and make people pay for the lot right by the zoo; I would have happily shelled out as much as $10 for a good parking space when we were arriving for Kiera's party and I had two extra kids in tow, but I didn't have that option.
5. He wants a culture of transparency, openness, and public engagement, which I'm for. And he wants more dog parks; I suppose I don't object to more dog parks. I'm not actually sure how many dog parks we have now, since (a) we don't have a dog, and (b) there's a really large, really excellent one that's near us. (It has a doggie beach so you and your dog can play water-fetch.)
He's also endorsed by a huge number of people, including some whose opinions I really respect. I am really baffled by his statement about property taxes, though. Maybe I'll send him an e-mail.
I'll be back some other day with Ward 12 City Council.
The District 5 candidates:
Steve Barland
Dan W. Peterson
McClain Looney
Jason Stone
Carol Kummer (incumbent) (and I just typed that as "indumbent," which is one of the funniest typos I think I've ever made by accident)
At-Large:
Nancy Bernard
Tom Nordyke
John Erwin
Annie Young
Mary Merrill Anderson
John Butler
David Wahlstedt
Bob Fine
We'll find out if any of these fine people is a Laurist
1. Steve Barland is the only Park Board candidate so far to send us mail. We got a very bland flier from him yesterday. His website is similarly bland. He has a lot of experience coaching, is pro-rec-center, and is concerned about the emerald ash borer. (Everyone is concerned about the emerald ash borer. This is a very uncontroversial stance, since there isn't anything they can DO about the emerald ash borer.) The main thing I'd say about Steve is that he's pro-recreation but doesn't seem to be well-versed in the other issues the Park Board deals with. He has a list of supporters on his website but they aren't people I know.
2. Dan W. Peterson does not appear to have a website.
3. McClain Looney does not appear to have a website, though he may have a Facebook group with no posts in it.
4. Jason Stone has the most signs around the neighborhood. He also has a real platform and endorsements from people I know. He seems to know more about how the parks work than Barland does, but it's still a pretty bland site; he loves the parks, he loves the rec centers, we should have a balanced approach to serving the diverse populations of our city, he's concerned about the emerald ash borer, etc.
5. Carol Kummer is the incumbent. She doesn't seem to have a candidate page, though she filled out a detailed questionnaire from Minneapolis Park Watch Watch (that's not a typo; first there was Minneapolis Park Watch, and then some people who didn't like them started the Minneapolis Park Watch Watch). Since she doesn't have a campaign site, I can't compare her endorsements to Stone's, which is frustrating. I have this feeling that I don't like Carol Kummer, but I can't remember what she did to piss me off.
I am feeling somewhat stymied in my desire to know where the differences lie between Kummer and Stone. In her interview with Park Watch Watch, Kummer says that Stone opposed Sea Salt (a really awesome restaurant that opened up at Minnehaha Falls a few years ago); that would be a strike against Stone if it's true, as Sea Salt rocks my world. On the other hand, she then goes on to whine about Park Watch and talk about how much she appreciates the fact that Park Watch Watch asked her about civility and the ability to get along with people, which among politicians is frequently code for, "I really don't like it when people ask me questions I don't want to answer, and then call me on dodging those questions."
Anyway, I may send them both mail and see if they can clear things up for me. Failing other input, I will probably vote for Stone on the grounds that he has endorsements from people whose opinion I respect, but I would feel better about this if I could remember why I didn't like Kummer. If anyone knows why I don't like Kummer, please feel free to share.
Moving on to the At-Large people... I'll cover the easy-to-eliminate first.
Nancy Bernard has a brief article in Southwest Journal which says, "she’s wondering why the neighborhood parks near her Northeast home don’t seem to be as busy as they once were. It seemed like when she was growing up, going to the park was the thing to do. Today’s children in her neighborhood, she says, appear to have less interest in playing outside." If you're too disconnected to know why kids are playing outside less, you shouldn't be running for ANYthing.
David Wahlstedt apparently wants to charge people to use the parks.
John Butler is an old dude who doesn't know why he's running. Also, he's a member of the party that's so concerned about the self-image of white people.
Now for the real candidates:
Bob Fine has a Facebook page instead of a website. He's been a commissioner from a specific district for about ten years, but is now running for an at-large seat either because someone's running against him who he thinks will beat him, or because he wanted to let a friend run, depending on which article you believe. (I don't care enough to try to dig up the facts on this.) He's endorsed by the Police Officers Federation, which I usually view as a minus. In his responses to Park Watch Watch, he says that "reform" is a word used by people who want to unfairly criticize the system. Which is the sort of statement that pisses me off in a knee-jerk way.
Annie Young is also an incumbent and I like her OK. She's a Green, and -- not surprisingly, I suppose, given her affiliation -- emphasizes more of the environmentalism and less of the recreation. I tend to prefer candidates who swing more toward the recreational opportunities. In part this is because of my experiences growing up in Madison, where an attempt to build a municipal swimming pool got shot down because they were going to have to cut down six pine trees. I don't miss living in Madison and I have an innate suspicion of politicians who seem like they'd fit in really well there, unless they remind me of Ken Golden, in which case they'll get my vote. Anyway, I have reasonably warm feelings toward her generally but I'm not sure she'd be in my top three.
Tom Nordyke is also an incumbent. Also, he's endorsed by the DFL. His website is annoying: it doesn't display any of the content if you've got NoScript turning off Javascript by default. If you're willing to trust a politician not to run malicious scripting, you will find out that his website is full of fonts that are too small and fancy to be easily read, and which can't be adjusted because of the way the site was put together. He says that as a resident of the Cedar Isles Dean neighborhood he has a clear sense of the needs of that area of the city; since he's running for an at-large seat, and Cedar Isles Dean is one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city, I'm not sure I see that as a selling point. He's pro-arts, which is good. He puts WATER QUALITY in all capitals, so I guess he thinks it's important.
Mary Merrill Anderson is an incumbent. Her website makes it clear she's recreation-oriented, and she associates herself with a bunch of projects I approve of (like the dog park, the trail along Minnehaha Creek, the Powderhorn Art Fair, Mill Ruins Park, playground improvements, etc.) She also comes from a traditionally underrepresented community (which is to say, she's from the north side of town).
John Erwin isn't an incumbent, but he was on the Park Board a few years ago. He's endorsed by the DFL. In one of the WTF-ier moments of my googling tonight, googling for "john erwin for parks" got me a hit for a Hebrew Facebook page. Except when I clicked through, it was all in English, despite being at he-il.facebook.com. He actually takes some substantive and occasionally controversial stances in his sidebar. I'm going to have to go through them one at a time, because some of these are good ideas, and some are seriously questionable.
1. He wants to improve walking and biking trails, soccer fields, volleyball courts, tennis courts, and skiing/off-road biking trails. I'm for this. Well, I'm not sure we need to improve the tennis courts which hardly anyone uses. Although I suppose more people might use them if they were in better shape, I don't know.
2. To pay for needed improvements, he says, we'll do it "By saving money through collaborating with the City, U of M, School Board, and businesses to hold the line on property tax increases! Also, by dramatically increasing grant writing and promoting the Parks Foundation to increase private giving!" What does he mean by "hold the line on property tax increases"? Usually when people use that turn of phrase, they mean they're going to resist whatever they're holding the line on, but property tax increases are where the revenue comes from to fund most of the city services, the schools, and the parks. (But not the U of M! That's funded through the state income tax, so I don't know WTF it's doing in that list.) Also, I don't know how collaborating with the school board is going to save or raise money for the parks since the schools are bleeding money and cutting anything and everything they can.
3. He wants to encourage all kids to play sports by eliminating fees kids pay to play sports in their neighborhood parks. As much as I like the idea of increasing participation, I think this is a lousy idea. First, people tend to undervalue what they get for free, so you're more likely to see people signing up and then never coming. Second, the fees are already quite low for park sports. Third, they have the ability to waive fees for families that still can't afford the fees -- now, I do think that could be publicized better, and I think it would be a great idea to increase the fee-free programming in the parks in the poor neighborhoods, but the Linden Hills parents can damn well afford to pay $50 per season.
4. He wants to eliminate parking fees in regional parks. There are definitely lots where parking fees ought to be eliminated, but I look at Minnehaha Falls and the crowds it attracts and I have no problem with charging for the lot. There's no shortage of free parking if you don't mind walking a bit; they should have fee-free handicapped parking (and might, I'm not sure) but beyond that, this is a situation where setting aside the parking lot for the people who are willing to pay for it means that you can always find a spot in the lot. I mean, by contrast, the parking at Como Zoo is free, so on a sunny Saturday afternoon, there's no way in hell you'll be able to find a space. They have a satellite lot, and it would be reasonable to keep that lot free, but damn, put in a machine and make people pay for the lot right by the zoo; I would have happily shelled out as much as $10 for a good parking space when we were arriving for Kiera's party and I had two extra kids in tow, but I didn't have that option.
5. He wants a culture of transparency, openness, and public engagement, which I'm for. And he wants more dog parks; I suppose I don't object to more dog parks. I'm not actually sure how many dog parks we have now, since (a) we don't have a dog, and (b) there's a really large, really excellent one that's near us. (It has a doggie beach so you and your dog can play water-fetch.)
He's also endorsed by a huge number of people, including some whose opinions I really respect. I am really baffled by his statement about property taxes, though. Maybe I'll send him an e-mail.
I'll be back some other day with Ward 12 City Council.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-20 09:11 pm (UTC)Civic virtue!
Date: 2009-10-21 04:14 pm (UTC)Speaking for Myself.....
Date: 2009-10-27 01:29 pm (UTC)If by "real candidates" you mean "entrenched incumbent candidates" then by all means dismiss me along with the other two newcomers. However, If you look into who I am and what I stand for (in my own words) I think you'll see that I am a "real" candidate. :)
Dave Wahlstedt
"Real" Candidate for Minneapolis Park Board At-Large