Home

2011 Election

Comments

Wed, 12/22/2010 - 9:04am — Laurian

Brian Tolmlison

new Olyblog contributor, has announced via the web he is planning to run for Olympia City Council. His blog. I won't swear to it but I believe this is a record early announcement in this race.

Up for re-election, assuming they all run and I've received no intel to the contrary, are Mah, Ottavelli and Strub. All are formidable incumbents so it makes sense a challenger would begin so early.

On a different note I'd like to see candidates in the City council race agree to voluntary campaign spending limits. When one race (Buxbaum vs Kingsbury $65k) eats up about as much money as the City's contribution to the Human Resources Review Council something is seriously out of whack.

Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:04am — chad360

reform plank?

What is Brian's shtick? For the next council, I want a council with "no real world experience", who all earn less than $50K per year, who represent students, tourists, families, and commuters.

The central, constantly bickering "progressive lobby" in Olympia is lost in a mired interpretation of what sustainably is, what accountability in local government should look like, and exactly what to do in Oly to grow smart: this stuff is not rocket science, but folks constantly miss the mark when they serve~

***after what happened to Joe Hyer, I'm concerned about social backlash to civic service that is effective and promotes positive change. Thurston County needed a progressive with a level head to ride herd on the sheriff's budget, but we lost that when Joe got framed***

~ I think that we (as a community) get what we get when we endorse folks without skin in the game, when we bandwagon behind a popular figures who have no track record of bringing in value to the city, and when we ask non-scientist to solve scientific problems or when we ignore the answers that science gives us.

All these elements contribute to poor governance & decrease our quality of life...

...and in my mind, they all flow from either incompetence or access to wealth. Successful poor people have to be smart and responsible if they want to make it, and that is all I can ask from council, so I'm thinking that is where the center is here in the foggy capital.

 

Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:56pm — Matthew Green

...and Langer

Steve Langer was appointed to the vacant seat left by Joe Hyer, so that seat is up for election too, for the last two years of its term.

Fri, 12/24/2010 - 11:15am — Laurian

Oh yeah

and Steve Langer.

Wed, 12/22/2010 - 9:35am — tezzer1

$$$$$$$ (As a response to Laurian)

    Where does that money come from?  Where does it go? I don't think any of it comes from city government income, does it?    It does seem to be a waste when there are so many worthwhile non-profits and other entities who could surely put that amount of money to a better use than trying to woo the voters.  Hey, maybe the way through this is for candidates to raise money for non-profits as the proof of how powerful they are?  Candidate A:  "I brought in 250 new donors to the blood bank." Candidate B: "I brought in $6,000 for the Crisis Clinic." Candidate C: "Oh yeah? Well I got sponsors from all over the U.S. to send their unwanted cats to the local animal shelter."  Etcetera, etcetera.

PS - I would not vote for C.

Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:55pm — Matthew Green

The most straightforward answers are...

The money comes from people who want a certain candidate elected, for good or ill. None of it is taxpayer money.

It goes to brochures, advertisements, yardsigns, and campaign staff (such as me).

Under your proposal, after candidates raise money for non-profits, they would still go out and raise money for their campaigns in order to publicize how much they raised for non-profits.

Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:37pm — tezzer1

Hey, I have a couple of ideas

   Just like in the federal elections, we tell the candidates that we won't vote for anyone who runs a negative campaign or allows any in their name by outside groups.

   We limit the money they raise to only come from inside the city limits. Why does a candidate need money from across the country? Or even Seattle?

  In effect we start to say how we want to be governed and then elect those who are interested in doing that, not grandstanding on ideological positions.

  I suggest we need to be talking to one another a whole lot more than we do now. We have become so bound up in hardened positions that it becomes almost impossible to talk with one another. We have a terrible time trying to figure out things. Where is the leadership that will moderate discussions and not let every issue become polarized by the extremes? How do we end up with a community we want to be a part of and not apart from?  Is that a task for city government?  I'm not so sure.  Anyone have suggestions?