Notes from Ward 9 candidate forum

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Reflecting on the forum, there wasn't as much substance as I would have
liked, but I'll try to figure out what this election is about. I'll refer
to candidates here by their first names.Alondra and Gary have basically the
same vision for what direction we would go in. The difference is results
and accomplishments, which since they've both been council members we can
compare them fairly directly. The only policy difference that stood out was
Alondra's support for rent control, which Gary opposed (state law doesn't
allow for rent control, so the whole debate is very hypothetical).Mohamed
is less experienced in city politics, so his answers were often less
concrete. But he did seem motivated and serious. He leaned on the idea of
partnerships for too many things, I'd like to hear more about proposed
initiatives. The emphasis of his candidacy seems to be on safety and
economic development, particularly on Lake Street. He linked these several
times: that safety issues on Lake Street also suppress its economic
potential. I think on issues of equity he might similarly see economic
improvement as an important starting point.Ron was not prepared, and
there's not a lot to say about him. If you oppose a $15 minimum wage,
oppose city spending on development, and want to let the police do their
thing, then I guess he's your guy. I'm going to leave him out of the rest
of the discussion.HousingMany of the questions in the forum were about
housing. Gary made a point several times that we've seen no new housing
development in the past 4 years in the ward (I think things like the
Hi-Lake development started before then), and we've seen opportunities for
development die on the vine for a lack of support from the city /
Alondra.Everyone talked about inspections and housing quality, but I wasn't
able to come up with any specific difference among candidates philosophy.
Everyone was troubled by how Steve Frenz and Zorbalas ran their properties.
Everyone also realizes that coming down hard on them will be hardest on
their tenants. These problem landlords have outlived the tenure of more
than one councilperson, and multiple wards, so I don't see much
conclusion.It struck me that no one seemed to believe the market could do
anything positive with respect to housing. All the answers involved
subsidies, partnerships, and heightened inspections. There was an
underlying assumption that everything would be a negotiation. Not that we
have reasonable zoning and regulations where newcomers could safely
implement something within those regulations. Must it be impossible to
build naturally affordable housing? Or apparently impossible to build
housing at all?Gary seemed to imply that he could at least get the
negotiated deals done, but it was still deal making.Alondra seemed to be
more aggressive about renter's rights generally.SafetyIt was hard to
distinguish the candidates in their response to questions about safety.
They all wished more police were from the city, and specifically wished
that police who patrolled this neighborhood were from this neighborhood.
Maybe this will change, but right now since only a few percent of police
live in the city – a number that appears to have declined in the last few
years! – this feels more aspirational than practical.Gary seemed to have a
particular interest in the effect of drug abuse on safety (especially the
recent increase in heroin abuse), and was interested in programs related to
that. He also mentioned programs aimed specifically at reducing
recidivism.Mohamed had an applause line with "we cannot arrest our way out
of these issues". I think the sentiment was generally shared among the
candidates. Making it happen is, of course, the hard part. Mohamed's
notably different response was to call on people in the community to take
more charge of safety issues, that we shouldn't just rely on police.I'll
add my own note that while social services are an appealing alternative to
policing, those social services don't have a mission to specifically
increase the safety of the streets and the communities in which they are
located. Social services generally are focused on the well-being of the
people they serve. Policing is the opposite – a mission to ensure community
safety, but not the well-being of the people they engage with. It's unclear
to me that there exists services with a real mission to improve the
on-the-street safety, while also working constructively (as opposed to
punitively) with people who may be causing or exacerbating those safety
problems.DedicationThere were two related questions, about response times
for constituents, and if the councilperson would have other obligations.All
candidates committed to (and/or claimed to already meet) a 24 hour response
time, and using a system to track requests. I'd be interested to hear
experiences people have had.Candidates generally said they would be
committed to only their job as council member. Gary noted he also had
several commitments to nonprofits (board and committee membership). Alondra
said she was fully committed, to attend all crime meetings, community
events, and Mayday.Gary noted: “I won't block you on social media or
Twitter if I disagree with you. My door will always be open, even if you
disagree with me” – I assume this is a pointed statement, though generally
during the forum candidates were asked not to debate each other*
---
 
Phew, that ended up longer than I expected! Hopefully this is helpful.
There's not much coverage of these races, so we have to make our own. I
hope people can talk more about their own experiences with these candidates
too – anecdotes mean more than candidate statements.
 
 
--
Ian Bicking | http://ianbicking.org <https://togetherjs.com>