Alexandria City Council candidates

[Anonymous]

I was recommended consulting with the City Manager because he understands the budget limitations of various pay scales.

Beyond that, I saw DC offers full time Council members $120k-ish. The number seems high be enough to draw out more serious candidates without being astronomical.

All seven current of Alexandria City’s Council members are responsible for squandering an unbelievable amount of money on ridiculous programs.

Extreme to the degree I suspect the higher cost of a full time council would be covered from the resulting savings of voting the current spendthrifts out.

Yet, merging with Fairfax or Arlington to cut overhead is still the best financial and environmental option. We’re currently duplicating efforts and not doing a better job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a lightweight...that's this Jesse O'Connell guy. I got a flyer for him today...he's an "education expert". Um no, he's worked on education policy issues. No experience teaching, no experience working in schools apparently. He's a "community leader" that I've never heard of before this election. Does he think he is because he has an occasionally funny blog about the city? His jokey flyer just comes off as...dumb jock, frat guy running for study body president.

His yard is a freaking disaster and embarasses all of us neighbors. No way he can run the city if he can't manage a tiny little yard.

Just like his pal, Wilson. It's amusing to me to see yard signs for this frat boy in the yards of neighbors who now loathe Wilson.

Alexandria voters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Well they don't vote for who's qualified that's for sure.

Interesting comment. I agree that they don't voite for people who are qualified but that's because there is no one who is qualified.

What is you definition of qualified for Alexandria Mayor and CC? Who do you see as qualified?

DP. Good points. I suspect the Council’s half-time requirement attracts low performing strivers. Who else but a person with a noncompetitive job would run for such a half committed role? Their employers are basically admitting the employee/Council member isn’t needed/missed much when they’re out of office.

A full time Council requirement with higher pay would bring forth a more professional and dynamic set of candidates. Perhaps resulting in a city that thrives instead of just getting by.

please define "professional and dynamic".

And what do you mean by "higher pay"? How much do you think taxpayers should pay them?

“More professional and dynamic” meaning people whose professional rank and experience shows voters they were trusted with essential business by their employer. No more back office lackeys. Preferably people with a working knowledge of money so they can balance their idealism with reality.

If a person owns/owned a business, I’d like to see solid online reviews (if applicable) and that it produced an impressive income. Sorry kids, no lemonade stands. We have too much at stake.

The current CC has brought us to point where the grass in public spaces barely gets mowed anymore.

As far as naming a salary, that’s a question for the city manager. OR we could do the smart thing and merge with one of the local counties. Taxes might not be so high if we cut the exorbitant overhead related to managing this itty bitty city.

The CC hires the city manager so that's a conflict of interest.

I think about my worst case scenario CC member and Mayor. I would not want to be paying their salary. Think about your idea of the absolute worst CC member and Mayor. Do you still support paying these people and inflated full time salary as part of the exorbitant overhead you cite?

I recommended consulting with the City Manager because he understands the budget limitations of various pay scales.

Beyond that, I saw DC offers full time Council members $120k-ish. The number seems high enough to draw out more serious candidates without being astronomical.

All seven current Council members are responsible for squandering an unbelievable amount on ridiculous programs.

Extreme to the degree I suspect the higher cost of a full time council would be covered from the resulting savings of voting the current spendthrifts out.

Yet, merging with Fairfax or Arlington to cut overhead is still the best financial and environmental option. We’re currently duplicating efforts and not doing a better job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a lightweight...that's this Jesse O'Connell guy. I got a flyer for him today...he's an "education expert". Um no, he's worked on education policy issues. No experience teaching, no experience working in schools apparently. He's a "community leader" that I've never heard of before this election. Does he think he is because he has an occasionally funny blog about the city? His jokey flyer just comes off as...dumb jock, frat guy running for study body president.

His yard is a freaking disaster and embarasses all of us neighbors. No way he can run the city if he can't manage a tiny little yard.

Just like his pal, Wilson. It's amusing to me to see yard signs for this frat boy in the yards of neighbors who now loathe Wilson.

Alexandria voters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Well they don't vote for who's qualified that's for sure.

Interesting comment. I agree that they don't voite for people who are qualified but that's because there is no one who is qualified.

What is you definition of qualified for Alexandria Mayor and CC? Who do you see as qualified?

DP. Good points. I suspect the Council’s half-time requirement attracts low performing strivers. Who else but a person with a noncompetitive job would run for such a half committed role? Their employers are basically admitting the employee/Council member isn’t needed/missed much when they’re out of office.

A full time Council requirement with higher pay would bring forth a more professional and dynamic set of candidates. Perhaps resulting in a city that thrives instead of just getting by.

please define "professional and dynamic".

And what do you mean by "higher pay"? How much do you think taxpayers should pay them?

“More professional and dynamic” meaning people whose professional rank and experience shows voters they were trusted with essential business by their employer. No more back office lackeys. Preferably people with a working knowledge of money so they can balance their idealism with reality.

If a person owns/owned a business, I’d like to see solid online reviews (if applicable) and that it produced an impressive income. Sorry kids, no lemonade stands. We have too much at stake.

The current CC has brought us to point where the grass in public spaces barely gets mowed anymore.

As far as naming a salary, that’s a question for the city manager. OR we could do the smart thing and merge with one of the local counties. Taxes might not be so high if we cut the exorbitant overhead related to managing this itty bitty city.

The CC hires the city manager so that's a conflict of interest.

I think about my worst case scenario CC member and Mayor. I would not want to be paying their salary. Think about your idea of the absolute worst CC member and Mayor. Do you still support paying these people and inflated full time salary as part of the exorbitant overhead you cite?

I recommended consulting with the City Manager because he understands the budget limitations of various pay scales.

Beyond that, I saw DC offers full time Council members $120k-ish. The number seems high enough to draw out more serious candidates without being astronomical.

All seven current Council members are responsible for squandering an unbelievable amount on ridiculous programs.

Extreme to the degree I suspect the higher cost of a full time council would be covered from the resulting savings of voting the current spendthrifts out.

Yet, merging with Fairfax or Arlington to cut overhead is still the best financial and environmental option. We’re currently duplicating efforts and not doing a better job.

$120K is not enough for a full time job in Alexandria. I do believe they need a raise, but 120K isn't going to cover cost of living, and is probably too low for the amount of work they have to do. Now, 120K for a part time council member is more reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a lightweight...that's this Jesse O'Connell guy. I got a flyer for him today...he's an "education expert". Um no, he's worked on education policy issues. No experience teaching, no experience working in schools apparently. He's a "community leader" that I've never heard of before this election. Does he think he is because he has an occasionally funny blog about the city? His jokey flyer just comes off as...dumb jock, frat guy running for study body president.

His yard is a freaking disaster and embarasses all of us neighbors. No way he can run the city if he can't manage a tiny little yard.

Just like his pal, Wilson. It's amusing to me to see yard signs for this frat boy in the yards of neighbors who now loathe Wilson.

Alexandria voters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Well they don't vote for who's qualified that's for sure.

Interesting comment. I agree that they don't voite for people who are qualified but that's because there is no one who is qualified.

What is you definition of qualified for Alexandria Mayor and CC? Who do you see as qualified?

DP. Good points. I suspect the Council’s half-time requirement attracts low performing strivers. Who else but a person with a noncompetitive job would run for such a half committed role? Their employers are basically admitting the employee/Council member isn’t needed/missed much when they’re out of office.

A full time Council requirement with higher pay would bring forth a more professional and dynamic set of candidates. Perhaps resulting in a city that thrives instead of just getting by.

please define "professional and dynamic".

And what do you mean by "higher pay"? How much do you think taxpayers should pay them?

“More professional and dynamic” meaning people whose professional rank and experience shows voters they were trusted with essential business by their employer. No more back office lackeys. Preferably people with a working knowledge of money so they can balance their idealism with reality.

If a person owns/owned a business, I’d like to see solid online reviews (if applicable) and that it produced an impressive income. Sorry kids, no lemonade stands. We have too much at stake.

The current CC has brought us to point where the grass in public spaces barely gets mowed anymore.

As far as naming a salary, that’s a question for the city manager. OR we could do the smart thing and merge with one of the local counties. Taxes might not be so high if we cut the exorbitant overhead related to managing this itty bitty city.

The CC hires the city manager so that's a conflict of interest.

I think about my worst case scenario CC member and Mayor. I would not want to be paying their salary. Think about your idea of the absolute worst CC member and Mayor. Do you still support paying these people and inflated full time salary as part of the exorbitant overhead you cite?

I recommended consulting with the City Manager because he understands the budget limitations of various pay scales.

Beyond that, I saw DC offers full time Council members $120k-ish. The number seems high enough to draw out more serious candidates without being astronomical.

All seven current Council members are responsible for squandering an unbelievable amount on ridiculous programs.

Extreme to the degree I suspect the higher cost of a full time council would be covered from the resulting savings of voting the current spendthrifts out.

Yet, merging with Fairfax or Arlington to cut overhead is still the best financial and environmental option. We’re currently duplicating efforts and not doing a better job.

It's still a conflict of interest. While the current City Manager seems less political than the last, he (and former city's attorney) made some pretty embarrassing and costly mistakes.

I can't think of a single person on this council I would want to give FT pay to. And this is what Alexandria elects time and again. It's not because they are the only options. It's because this is exactly what the majority of the city wants. Same with the school board and the schools.

Everyone loved (and loves) Bill Euille. Look at what was going on there and no one cares. Alexandria is a lost cause...and they voted for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a lightweight...that's this Jesse O'Connell guy. I got a flyer for him today...he's an "education expert". Um no, he's worked on education policy issues. No experience teaching, no experience working in schools apparently. He's a "community leader" that I've never heard of before this election. Does he think he is because he has an occasionally funny blog about the city? His jokey flyer just comes off as...dumb jock, frat guy running for study body president.

His yard is a freaking disaster and embarasses all of us neighbors. No way he can run the city if he can't manage a tiny little yard.

Just like his pal, Wilson. It's amusing to me to see yard signs for this frat boy in the yards of neighbors who now loathe Wilson.

Alexandria voters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Well they don't vote for who's qualified that's for sure.

Interesting comment. I agree that they don't voite for people who are qualified but that's because there is no one who is qualified.

What is you definition of qualified for Alexandria Mayor and CC? Who do you see as qualified?

DP. Good points. I suspect the Council’s half-time requirement attracts low performing strivers. Who else but a person with a noncompetitive job would run for such a half committed role? Their employers are basically admitting the employee/Council member isn’t needed/missed much when they’re out of office.

A full time Council requirement with higher pay would bring forth a more professional and dynamic set of candidates. Perhaps resulting in a city that thrives instead of just getting by.

please define "professional and dynamic".

And what do you mean by "higher pay"? How much do you think taxpayers should pay them?

“More professional and dynamic” meaning people whose professional rank and experience shows voters they were trusted with essential business by their employer. No more back office lackeys. Preferably people with a working knowledge of money so they can balance their idealism with reality.

If a person owns/owned a business, I’d like to see solid online reviews (if applicable) and that it produced an impressive income. Sorry kids, no lemonade stands. We have too much at stake.

The current CC has brought us to point where the grass in public spaces barely gets mowed anymore.

As far as naming a salary, that’s a question for the city manager. OR we could do the smart thing and merge with one of the local counties. Taxes might not be so high if we cut the exorbitant overhead related to managing this itty bitty city.

The CC hires the city manager so that's a conflict of interest.

I think about my worst case scenario CC member and Mayor. I would not want to be paying their salary. Think about your idea of the absolute worst CC member and Mayor. Do you still support paying these people and inflated full time salary as part of the exorbitant overhead you cite?

I recommended consulting with the City Manager because he understands the budget limitations of various pay scales.

Beyond that, I saw DC offers full time Council members $120k-ish. The number seems high enough to draw out more serious candidates without being astronomical.

All seven current Council members are responsible for squandering an unbelievable amount on ridiculous programs.

Extreme to the degree I suspect the higher cost of a full time council would be covered from the resulting savings of voting the current spendthrifts out.

Yet, merging with Fairfax or Arlington to cut overhead is still the best financial and environmental option. We’re currently duplicating efforts and not doing a better job.

$120K is not enough for a full time job in Alexandria. I do believe they need a raise, but 120K isn't going to cover cost of living, and is probably too low for the amount of work they have to do. Now, 120K for a part time council member is more reasonable.

Complete BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a lightweight...that's this Jesse O'Connell guy. I got a flyer for him today...he's an "education expert". Um no, he's worked on education policy issues. No experience teaching, no experience working in schools apparently. He's a "community leader" that I've never heard of before this election. Does he think he is because he has an occasionally funny blog about the city? His jokey flyer just comes off as...dumb jock, frat guy running for study body president.

His yard is a freaking disaster and embarasses all of us neighbors. No way he can run the city if he can't manage a tiny little yard.

Just like his pal, Wilson. It's amusing to me to see yard signs for this frat boy in the yards of neighbors who now loathe Wilson.

Alexandria voters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Well they don't vote for who's qualified that's for sure.

Interesting comment. I agree that they don't voite for people who are qualified but that's because there is no one who is qualified.

What is you definition of qualified for Alexandria Mayor and CC? Who do you see as qualified?

DP. Good points. I suspect the Council’s half-time requirement attracts low performing strivers. Who else but a person with a noncompetitive job would run for such a half committed role? Their employers are basically admitting the employee/Council member isn’t needed/missed much when they’re out of office.

A full time Council requirement with higher pay would bring forth a more professional and dynamic set of candidates. Perhaps resulting in a city that thrives instead of just getting by.

please define "professional and dynamic".

And what do you mean by "higher pay"? How much do you think taxpayers should pay them?

“More professional and dynamic” meaning people whose professional rank and experience shows voters they were trusted with essential business by their employer. No more back office lackeys. Preferably people with a working knowledge of money so they can balance their idealism with reality.

If a person owns/owned a business, I’d like to see solid online reviews (if applicable) and that it produced an impressive income. Sorry kids, no lemonade stands. We have too much at stake.

The current CC has brought us to point where the grass in public spaces barely gets mowed anymore.

As far as naming a salary, that’s a question for the city manager. OR we could do the smart thing and merge with one of the local counties. Taxes might not be so high if we cut the exorbitant overhead related to managing this itty bitty city.

The CC hires the city manager so that's a conflict of interest.

I think about my worst case scenario CC member and Mayor. I would not want to be paying their salary. Think about your idea of the absolute worst CC member and Mayor. Do you still support paying these people and inflated full time salary as part of the exorbitant overhead you cite?

I recommended consulting with the City Manager because he understands the budget limitations of various pay scales.

Beyond that, I saw DC offers full time Council members $120k-ish. The number seems high enough to draw out more serious candidates without being astronomical.

All seven current Council members are responsible for squandering an unbelievable amount on ridiculous programs.

Extreme to the degree I suspect the higher cost of a full time council would be covered from the resulting savings of voting the current spendthrifts out.

Yet, merging with Fairfax or Arlington to cut overhead is still the best financial and environmental option. We’re currently duplicating efforts and not doing a better job.

$120K is not enough for a full time job in Alexandria. I do believe they need a raise, but 120K isn't going to cover cost of living, and is probably too low for the amount of work they have to do. Now, 120K for a part time council member is more reasonable.

Complete BS.

+1

[Anonymous]

I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

Same here about voting for Peterson.

Before you vote for the rest, Google the property tax stance of Elnoubi, Jackson and Aguirre. If you’re concerned about mortgage affordability and/or rent hikes, they’re ready to raise taxes and make costs of living go even higher.

“It’s your decision to decide whether you want to raise taxes or not,” Elnoubi told City Council last month. “If you do that, if you decide to raise taxes, I’m 100% with you,” is the direct quote.

https://www.alxnow.com/2024/03/07/alexandria-school-board-goes-all-in-asking-city-council-to-approve-massive-tax-increase/

[Anonymous]

Better yet, Google Gaskins Husband. Greg Gaskins.

He's a criminal with several arrests related to drugs/and or alcohol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

I am inclined to vote for Peterson but does he actually have a chance?

As much as I dislike Jackson, I would far prefer her over Gaskins, so I do not want to vote for Peterson and end up with Gaskins because I did not vote for Jackson.

What do you and any other PPs dislike about Harris, Bagley, and Huskey?

I was thinking of voting for Chapman, Bagley, Huskey, and possibly Harris — not because I like any of them particularly but because I dislike all of the others so immensely. It’s difficult to keep track of each candidate’s positions on every issue.

FWIW, I am pro ward system and anti-: Justin Wilson, arena/stadium, Duke Street in Motion, and Missing Middle/zoning changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

I am inclined to vote for Peterson but does he actually have a chance?

As much as I dislike Jackson, I would far prefer her over Gaskins, so I do not want to vote for Peterson and end up with Gaskins because I did not vote for Jackson.

What do you and any other PPs dislike about Harris, Bagley, and Huskey?

I was thinking of voting for Chapman, Bagley, Huskey, and possibly Harris — not because I like any of them particularly but because I dislike all of the others so immensely. It’s difficult to keep track of each candidate’s positions on every issue.

FWIW, I am pro ward system and anti-: Justin Wilson, arena/stadium, Duke Street in Motion, and Missing Middle/zoning changes.

I think Peterson has a better chance than Jackson. Peterson is the only candidate speaking out against the Council’s move to end single family zoning.

I suspect he’s amassed a large contingent of supporters on this single issue alone. That said, I don’t suspect his voters are the loudest. They’re the quiet ones who desire a shift away from the chaotic direction of the Wilson era and are determined to have an adult back in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

I am inclined to vote for Peterson but does he actually have a chance?

As much as I dislike Jackson, I would far prefer her over Gaskins, so I do not want to vote for Peterson and end up with Gaskins because I did not vote for Jackson.

What do you and any other PPs dislike about Harris, Bagley, and Huskey?

I was thinking of voting for Chapman, Bagley, Huskey, and possibly Harris — not because I like any of them particularly but because I dislike all of the others so immensely. It’s difficult to keep track of each candidate’s positions on every issue.

FWIW, I am pro ward system and anti-: Justin Wilson, arena/stadium, Duke Street in Motion, and Missing Middle/zoning changes.

I think Peterson has a better chance than Jackson. Peterson is the only candidate speaking out against the Council’s move to end single family zoning.

I suspect he’s amassed a large contingent of supporters on this single issue alone. That said, I don’t suspect his voters are the loudest. They’re the quiet ones who desire a shift away from the chaotic direction of the Wilson era and are determined to have an adult back in the room.

I have the same dilemma. I absolutely refuse to vote for gaskins. I’ve known Peterson for years, and he’s a decent guy and would do a great job, but does he have a chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

I am inclined to vote for Peterson but does he actually have a chance?

As much as I dislike Jackson, I would far prefer her over Gaskins, so I do not want to vote for Peterson and end up with Gaskins because I did not vote for Jackson.

What do you and any other PPs dislike about Harris, Bagley, and Huskey?

I was thinking of voting for Chapman, Bagley, Huskey, and possibly Harris — not because I like any of them particularly but because I dislike all of the others so immensely. It’s difficult to keep track of each candidate’s positions on every issue.

FWIW, I am pro ward system and anti-: Justin Wilson, arena/stadium, Duke Street in Motion, and Missing Middle/zoning changes.

I think Peterson has a better chance than Jackson. Peterson is the only candidate speaking out against the Council’s move to end single family zoning.

I suspect he’s amassed a large contingent of supporters on this single issue alone. That said, I don’t suspect his voters are the loudest. They’re the quiet ones who desire a shift away from the chaotic direction of the Wilson era and are determined to have an adult back in the room.

I have the same dilemma. I absolutely refuse to vote for gaskins. I’ve known Peterson for years, and he’s a decent guy and would do a great job, but does he have a chance?

I am the 18:22 PP. OK, I will vote for Peterson.

I am still interested to hear — especially from other Peterson supporters — whether I am misguided to also vote for any of the following candidates: Chapman, Bagley, Huskey, and possibly Harris if anyone cares to weigh in on that. Traffic and infrastructure are actually my number one concern, rather than zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I've got my list, and plan to vote early tomorrow.

Mayor: Peterson (will absolutely not vote for Gaskins or Jackson)

Council (if I have to vote for 6 - I may vote for fewer):
Elnoubi
Aguirre
Chapman
Lewis
Greene
Scherer

Will absolutely NOT vote for: McPike, Harris, O'Connell, Bagley, or Huskey.

I am inclined to vote for Peterson but does he actually have a chance?

As much as I dislike Jackson, I would far prefer her over Gaskins, so I do not want to vote for Peterson and end up with Gaskins because I did not vote for Jackson.

What do you and any other PPs dislike about Harris, Bagley, and Huskey?

I was thinking of voting for Chapman, Bagley, Huskey, and possibly Harris — not because I like any of them particularly but because I dislike all of the others so immensely. It’s difficult to keep track of each candidate’s positions on every issue.

FWIW, I am pro ward system and anti-: Justin Wilson, arena/stadium, Duke Street in Motion, and Missing Middle/zoning changes.

I think Peterson has a good chance. There was a LONG Nextdoor post on this, with a lot of people saying the same about Jackson and Gaskins, and sayigng they plan to vote for the new guy.

I think the people who likely to show up and vote in these local elections are the ones paying attention, so he has a good shot.

My negative votes on Harris, Bagley, McPike, O'Connell and Huskey are two-fold. 1) we need new voices in the council. And 2, on a specific (not necessarily local) issue they voted against, that I think speaks volumes about their character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Gaskins loses. Zero. Zip. Nil.

This it will be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.

I would be ecstatic to eat my words in 9 months.

That’s surprising to me. I see Amy Jackson signs all over on my dog walks.