A More Mature University Heights

I am going to start off again by saying thanks to everyone who takes the time to read whatever it is I decide to write on a daily basis. I am a writer because I write, but being a writer that no one reads wouldnt be the same as being a writer who gets told repeatedly how much my readers enjoy my blog. I find it amazing that the same people read my blog whether I am going off about my children, my nerd passions, sports, or even local government, so thank you again to everyone who reads my blog

But as most of you can guess. today is going to cover my reaction to last nights University Heights city council meeting. I will first comment on how impressed I was with new counselors Virginia Miller, and Silvia Quesada on what I found to be highly detailed, and well drafted reports and presentations about their specific committee assignments. It could be easy for  them to just go through the motions, and put in an adequate effort, but far beyond that low threshold you can see the care, the passion and the dedication not only in the prepared reports but in their demeanor, and involvement in the meeting itself.

We were given a new “concept” for the Saint Andrew’s property. And the description that we were given, stressed this point; that it is just a concept, not a plan, because it would be unproductive to continue with plans that are just going to meet roadblocks. I need not break down the concept at this point, but I will make observations on how well it was received. In a issue which we know there is no shared vision, or unified support the comments were not as contentious as one might have suspected. The hostile fight that one might have been prepared for were absent last nights meeting. My new favorite snide curmudgeon only made minor comments about the proposal, shouting out you mean TIF, and snorting and a few chuckles later on. But for the most part the comments at least feigned support.

The most amazing change between January’s meeting, and last nights was the behavior of the audience. I railed against the sophomoric behavior displayed, the snide comments, the jokes, and singing at the expense of the council. Last night much of that was absent. I sat in the same spot, and surprisingly was surrounded by the same individuals, although they were much better behaved. Whether in a matter of a month they found maturity, or whether they were put onto my blog and read what I had to say about them is immaterial, the net effect was a win for  conscientious local governance. As the meeting drug on, there was mild snickering, and quiet whispers between 2 of the audience, but in comparison to the outright derision of before this can be tolerated.

I have nothing but a positive outlook on the future of this council, and the direction in which they are approaching the issues that face our small community. I have given my support in my writing, and will continue to do so with my time, and my opinions. The future is looking bright for University Heights, and I am glad to play whatever little part that I may. It is nice to come away with a positive feeling as opposed to frustration. And this could be a great sign of things to come. But either way, I will be there, watching, taking notes, and of course writing about everything that comes to mind.

Snake oil politics comes to town

I was trying to come up with what to write today, and it appears the mailman knew of my pondering and dropped my next blog directly into my lap. I was jumping for joy when I saw the latest mailing from the We R 4 UH faction. Why? Well because it means I have something to talk about.

Lets start first with the major contention from the first page; the controversy  has affected the neighborliness of our community. People have differing opinions and that is all well in good. But a good neighbor is willing to tell you when your tree is dropping limbs in his yard, that mowing your yard at 7:30 in the morning is depriving them of sleep, or that your kids keep running through his yard. A good neighbor doesn’t launch a smear campaign full of disinformation, accusations, and mudslinging. With these individuals as neighbors, I wake up each morning expecting my house to be egged, my tires slashed, an image of myself being burned in effigy. I refuse to be fed a line of garbage about being good neighbor from a group who campaigns with cowardly attacks as opposed to upfront discourse and information. Look at that differing strategies for the campaigns, and any 5  year old can tell you, which candidates are the good neighbors, and which ones aren’t.

The second part of this letter, wants us to consider the current issue with an eye to historical context. Reminding us of surveys, opinions and information from the past; while placing those individuals who live closest to the proposed development at the forefront of their thinking. So lets consider historical fact.  The candidates that make up We R 4 UH, are against the development in any way form or fashion, they have spoken out repeatedly about wanting it to remain a church, of opposing the rezoning of the property, (so much so that there is a fear of these councilors attempting to rezone it back if they get the chance). This is the historical facts that pertain to them.  Let us also understand the high turnover rate in University Heights. With being an ideal location for professionals associated with the University of Iowa Hospitals, and the University of Iowa, it is to be expected that we see residential turnover. In the last 2 years alone there have been 5 new families in my little corner of University Heights, and that’s just what I can see from my front doorstep. You drive down our streets, and you can constantly see for sale signs, new listings, and moving trucks. The point is this, those individuals that may have been here 2 or 3 years ago, that were wholely opposed to development, may no longer still reside here. We were given facts at the candidate forum that the median age of resident in University Heights is trending downward. Meaning more young families with children, and less retirees.

What we also know is that the majority of the individuals who took the time to share their opinions on the proposed scenarios, are in favor of mixed use, and no matter how they wish to try to distort the numbers, and use fuzzy math, their proposal has the least support. Well the original 4/2 proposal that is. No one can gauge the support for their plan, since it was made up in the dark of night is some basement somewhere, and put together with wishes, hopes, and pipe dreams. They have given you no actual information that this is actually a viable alternative with the changes they wish to include. Whether the developer would be willing to give us the space that they require, whether it will cost what that say it will cost, and definitely not how they will be able to meet parking and other requirements. It is a poorly fleshed out idea, being sold to voters in a last ditch effort to gain votes. Its snake oil at best, and an out right lie at worst. If they were so amenable to this proposed compromise they wish to sell us, how come it was not until this month that we see this plan, 3 of them have been on the council the last 2 years and could have offered such an option at any point.

They wish to condemn the 5 independent candidates for not presenting specific and detailed positions on the choices facing our community. Umm did I miss the fact that all 5 of the candidates have expressed an desire to represent the wants of the people, and to come to a well thought out, well planned, and appropriate solution to the issue. This cant be done in the isolation of a house, but through meetings with the developer, forums with the public, and planning for the future. We are clearly faced with 2 choices, 1 offers us a quick fix that fits with their wants and desires, and leaves a quezzy feeling in my gut. While the other side offers us no scripted easy outcome, but the promise of quality deliberation, and responsible government. They contend to be good neighbors, but have clearly shown a negative approach to campaigning, a dissmissive nature to those that dissent, and clear predilection to distort the facts. They ask us to be informed voters, but only give access to their side of the facts. Don’t be deceived We R 4 UH, UH-Place and the information presented by Pat Bauer is all coming from the same source, with the same agenda, and the same bias. And here again is the place that I will question  them, why should anyone meet their challenge to provide information when I have clearly documented their joint refusal to meet the same demands from those they claim to represent. I find their hypocrisy almost laughable.

I am asking you, no imploring you to do just what they are asking. Become informed, don’t simply take their word as fact. Its time to place the future of University Heights in the hands of responsible and responsive government. It is time to move past the backstabbing divisive and confrontational politics of the past and make steps forward to the building of a community of the basis of a shared vision and common ground. Vote on Tuesday for Haverkamp, Lane, Miller, Nampala, and Quezada and restore our community to a good neighborhood. 

Not Quite Willie Horton

I have since I was young been fascinated by the election process and more so on political campaigning, this led me to college to study communications, and political science, and had it not been for not liking the idea of living in a refrigerator box under a bridge I may have pursued it further by getting a masters in political campaigning from George Washington University. Instead I followed a traditional path to grad school, and got to have discussions with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and other influential political scientists. But what has never changed, is my love of the campaign process, the intracies of the tactics, and  most important to me, the language and images used in the campaign.

Negative campaigning has been scrutinized since its inception, the idea of attacking your opponent instead of simply coming out with your own position has been around since we have had campaigns, and it is the reason I became interested in politics. In the 1988 presidential campaign we were given the Willie Horton ad campaign, and version of negative advertising that reached new heights with its misleading statements, and stunning imagery; but what it also did, was scare the holy bejesus out of prospective voters. And fear is a very powerful motivator.

Unfortunately for me the University Heights city council campaign has no television ads, I know most of you are probably loving that fact. But I had some great ideas, and had really thought of making a few on my phone just to air them on Youtube; but real life got in the way, and I chose instead to write and inform, instead of campaign. But can you imagine a spoof ad in the style of Willie Horton, the peaceful streets of University Heights, the neighbors walking their dogs, the sun shining, all replaced, with congested traffic, smog, and overcrowded slum like buildings, Followed by the words: This is what We Are for UH wants us to believe will happen, and then in the closing frame pictures of the farmers market, and neighbors still conversing; And this is the reality of what we are building towards. Oh it could have been so fun.

But what I do want to highlight first is the negative tenor and attacking nature of the We R 4 UH PAC. I dissected their politics of campaigning piece yesterday, deconstructing the language, and the intent behind the misinformation, half truths and attacks. I wont waste your time to go back over such details today. But what I want to spotlight is first the attacking nature of the piece. And secondly the missing bolding on the online posting. By removing the bolding it slightly lessens the harsh nature of the piece, and makes it seem more soft and moderate, but come on people, are we really that gullible.

But from the candidate forum, through the campaign season, we have seen one side blatantly distort the facts, and attack their opponent, while the Building Common Ground Coalition has stayed true to their ideals, their stances, and the facts. I have recieved no mailings calling out the We R 4 UH group for their quick flip stances, for their delusional application of numbers, or any other issue. We all know that one of the candidates was charged with a crime during the height of the election process and nothing was made of it during the campaign. (Well ok, I called her out on it, but I am not affiliated, nor running). So there were clearly opportunities to sling mud back, but they chose not too. While it is against everything I know in how to win an election, it is something to be commended, and lauded. We are a small community, we are all neighbors, and while we may differ in how we see the future of University Heights, it is not constructive to turn this matter into an all out turf war. But lets just talk about inclusion and openness.

I am currently angry at myself, and questioning something that was brought to my attention yesterday.  The 4, We R 4 UH candidates have presented us with a plan called a better way forward, that they have developed together since the September 18th focus group meeting. But with 3 of the candidates being currently sitting council members, and this is clearly an issue currently in front of the council, wouldn’t this violate Iowa’s open meeting laws? Now I am not going to take credit for this find, it was brought to my attention by another University Heights resident, Stan Laverman. He attempted to contact the We R 4 UH  current council members, and requested a written response to his question about this violation. Having done so through their University heights emails, he feels that makes the emails, public record. I wont repost the entire thread, nor will I go into great specific detail, but I will say that if you are truly interested you can contact me and I will be happy to discuss them with you. But much like I have been shut out by these candidates, by there personal little community page on facebook, and such; it was clear by the reaction Mr. Laverman received that his question was not appreciated. the response was both dismissive, insulting, and rather belligerent. Here is Stan’s initial email.

” Brennan, Jan, & Rosanne-

Can you explain to me how you were able to put together your “A Better-Way-Forward” campaign statement without violating Iowa’s government in the sunshine or open meeting laws?

Click to access A-Better-Way-Forward-Oct.-14-2013.pdf

Iowa’s Open Meetings Law says a governmental body “meets” when there is:

any gathering in person or by telephone conference call or other electronic means, whether formally noticed or informally occurring,
of a majority of the members,
at which there is any deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. (Iowa Code, Chapter 21.2)

A governmental body “meeting” does not include a purely ministerial or social gathering at which there is no discussion of policy or intent to avoid the Open Meetings Law, even if a quorum is present. For example:

A quorum of a school board gathering for breakfast at the local café, would be a meeting IF members discuss or take action on school business.

A quorum of a school board gathering for breakfast at the local café would not be a meeting IF members only chat about the Hawks, Cyclones or Panthers, or other matters that are not within the scope of the board’s business.

http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/sunshine_advisories/2002/february.html

I appreciate your timely response.

Stan”

I need go no further to prove my point than to simply post the first response he received.

” Stan,
I would be happy to talk to you about this in person.
Do you still do that? Or is it just emails, tweets and Facebook posts?
Should we meet at your glass house or mine?
I will be out of town tomorrow. Name a place and time, I will work around my schedule.
Thank you for your concern,
Brennan ”

While I am not familiar with all of the history between Mr. Laverman and the members of We R 4 UH, it is clear that he is definitely not on their Christmas card list, something he and I share I am sure. But this is where my problem comes in, he didnt immediately write a letter to the editor, or call the press citizen to go investigate, he contacted them, asking a question about procedure, which I am pretty sure any citizen has the right to do. And for a campaign that claims the following; “As this campaign enters its final stretch, we will continue to run our campaign with an emphasis on the full and transparent exchange of views and established facts.” I am clearly missing this ideal of transparency and I have never bought in to their established facts. If I was writing for We R 4 UH I am sure I would follow their model of distortion, but since I am not, let me just say, that I have talked to at least a dozen voters, (and I am excluding myself, my wife, my 18 year old son, or any of the other candidates) who have felt isolated, disenfranchised and shunned by the We R 4 UH group because we differ in our views. I can only extrapolate out, that this number may be far greater.  From the incident I was related that individuals at the speed networking event last week were openly castigated, it further seems that their inclusionary rule is rather narrow.

I dont want to live in a community in which my personal views make me less of a citizen, I will not be marginalized, and I sure as hell wont be quiet University Heights does need a better way forward, but that way isnt with We R 4 UH, it needs to be based on equal respect, openness, and inclusion. If we can vote, we are old enough and important enough to have our vision for the future included in the discussion, and not simply to be told how it has to be Join me in Building Common Ground on November 5th and supporting Haverkamp, Lane, Miller, Nampala, and Quezada. Oh and to make one thing blatantly and abundantly clear, unlike some of the current letters to the editor, supporting the We R 4 UH faction, no one put me up to anything I have written, my views are not endorsed or paid for by any candidate,, and are solely my views on the matter.

I am Jase Humphrey and I approve this message.

The Scariest thing in University Heights.

Well I have always been one to make waves, and rock the boat, but it seems I have done so rather well, and what makes it even more fun is that I have done so, with those annoyed with me not really even knowing who I am. I guess I take some sort of satisfaction in being an annoying pest to what I find is a campaign of lies and fear mongering. But just so we are clear, I have not tried to hide, or be anonymous, I am very upfront with my indignation. And a future with the We R 4 UH group has me terrified.

But before I break down the wonderfully inaccurate and misleading letter University Heights residents received from the We Are For UH campaign, let me first mention something about their puppeted voicebox UH Place. So I came across UH Place and their Facebook, page and then followed the link to the webpage just to see what it was all about. And here is their mission, taken directly from their website:

Mission
UH Place is about life in University Heights.  It offers insights and information for the purpose of enhancing and strengthening residents’ own ”sense of place” and inspiring their community involvement.  All University Heights residents are invited to contribute to UH Place by sending their suggestions and content submissions to uhplace@rocketmail.com.
UH Place advocates for strong neighborhoods, responsible and transparent city government, and good stewardship practices on behalf of the citizens of University Heights.  We are the people’s voice; we are not the voice of local government.
UH Place is committed to the preservation of University Heights as a unique and sustainable community in which to live, play, and work.
Find us on facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/UHPlace

Ok as I read that, I would suspect that the site, and the mission to be simply a centralized place to post, discuss, and share information that is important to University Heights residents. Ok, that works for me I have been a University Heights resident for over 9 years and we all know I have my own opinions, so I thought I would keep and eye on it. So on the 21st of this month when an endorsement for the We R 4 UH group showed up on the Facebook site I called foul.

UH Place endorses candidates Hopson, Leff, McGrath, and Stewart in the upcoming University Heights election.
http://uhplace.org/uh-place-endorses-hopson-leff-mcgrath-and-stewart/

And here was my response.

Jase Humphrey While I realize that it is clear that the pull of this specific Facebook page is rather limited, I personally take offense that something that is supposed to be as you claim, a community place to pass on information and ideas, is clearly and biasedly one sided. So what I gleen from this is much like the We R 4 UH candidates, you are a place only for those that share your specific vision for the future of University Heights. Your endorsement above accuses the other candidates of tricking people with half truths which of course is a page from the backhanded scare tactics that the We R 4 UH group has employed since their creation. While I am clearly not so naive to believe that this comment will remain up for long, I would wish that if you are simply going to be a megaphone for the We R 4 UH group that at least you come out and say so clearly as opposed to the not so clever mascarading that is currently going on.

And as if speaking from a psychic, I was clearly right, but not only did they take down my comment, but I have been blocked from liking, or commenting on anything else that is posted on the UH Place page, ,so much for neighborhood of inclusion, or maybe my voice was too loud, or simply out of tune with the orchestrated fear and one-sided political system that they support.

I know so far it has been a list of they said this, I said this, and they said this type of thing. But hopefully the point was clearly made. For an idea that personally purports to foster The people’s voice, they were quick and decisive in attempting to silence mine. Oops, my parents and wife and both tried to shut me up for years, and it just cant be done. Now on to the next act in our political circus.

Now unfortunately I cant give you a link to the letter, which means I have to type out everything I want to take issue with, my what a pain to be ACCURATE, but for the sake of authenticity just hang with me here. So for the next while and in order to make it as easy to follow as possible, the bolded type is there letter and the non bold type is my response.

The Politics of Campaigning

For a clue as to how a candidate will govern if elected, look no further than how he/she campaigns for your vote.

While I in my limited knowledge of campaigning, and such(insert hysterical laughter here), I may not agree entirely, lets just say that I buy their premise. And if this is truly the case then we can expect the We R 4 UH group to govern by fear, misinformation, and as consistent a policy stance as Flipper the dolphin. Machiavelli would be proud of the tactics and strategies employed and the wealth of misinformation and distorted sense of reality that they portray. Jim Morrison on an acid trip saw the world more clearly and accurately than these 4 candidates.

In our initial ‘We Are 4 UH’ mailing we stated that we would be accessible, but not intrusive. We promised to respect your time and privacy by providing all University Heights residents with detailed , written explanations of our positions on the issues.

Well la ti fricken da, what we are supposed to read here is that we have not come and beat down your door and annoyed you at dinner time, and distrubed your life. Ok Granted not a single one of your candidates has shown up on my doorstep…. this election. But just 2 years ago I was bombarded and berated, in my own front yard. But when the opposition decides to hit the streets you claim they are intrusive? Really, you want to go that far. Did you think that we as residents of University Heights had the memories of goldfish, and that we had all forgotten the last election cycle. Shame on you for treating us all like we are idiots.

However, as autumn arrived and yard signs proliferated, we realized that informal, face-to-face discussions would be helpful and appropriate , if done with genuine respect for each resident’s time and concerns. So we initiated a modest amount of door-to-door contacts.

I would first like to point out that the wonderful blooming of yard signs, was initiated by the We R 4 UH group, and that the 5 independent candidates simple followed suit. You know the whole when in Rome thing. But I haven’t even gotten through the first third of the letter and I am already feeling like a young child being told by its parent, “Do as I say, and not as I do.” Don’t annoy the residents, unless I want to. Oh and just so we are clear, modest amount of door-to-door means, people who don’t already support any of the other candidates, and we think we can scare into voting for us. Because let me just be very clear, at no point, whether at the candidate forum, or at my house have I been contacted by any We R 4 UH candidate, I was approached by 3 of the independant candidates that I didnt personally know at the candidate forum, and have had people stop by my house, although having missed me.

What did we learn from our conversations with residents? Many gave troubling reports of intrusive contacts by other candidates seemigly more intent on talking at them than talking with them. Even more concerning, we learned that “Building Common Ground” (BCG) the PAC (political action committee) supporting the other five candidates, war pursuing a strategy of ‘selective distributon’ of their campaing materials– if you had one of our campaign signs in your yard, chances are you didnt recieve their campaign information. We can only conclude that people who support us are of little interest to them.

This is clearly some sensationalized propaganda if I have ever seen it. The big bad PAC BCG is selectively distributing their campaign information, the secrets are being kept, none of our supporters know where they stand. Ummmm it is a small community, their are few questions as to where anyone stands, and guess what, YOU DO THE SAME THING, with the mild exception that this time, unlike last election you seem to be sending your leaflets to everyone. But here you want to convince me, I want numbers of the individuals who told you these stories, because remember you only did a modest amount of door-to-door campainging, so just how many doors did you knock on, and how many people said that they be intruded upon and talked to.

Now at this point I know I have thrown a lot at you. I have asked you to read a half a page of campaing jargon, and my decoding and response to it, and I know most of you have busy lives, and dont necessarily want to spend all day reading my novel on the evils of the We R 4 UH campaign, so I will take some shortcuts to finish this up.

In the next paragraph they tell us they mail to everyone and that being inclusive is what a campaign should be about. Ok, this point is quick and easy. We already know that inclusion is not what they are about. Sure if you want to follow their pied piper speil of fear and destruction they would love to include you, but if you are a free thinker and willing to call them out, nope, you are cast out into the cold wilderness, and not allowed into the warmth of the University Heights community. Its a good thing I brought my parka. Ok maybe I took a little literary license and used some hyperbole for effect. So here, agree included, disagree ignored or blocked.

I can illustrate this post even better. In my last Blog about this election I attacked the We R 4 UH campaign and raised concerns about Virginia Miller’s comments about renters. I have heard nothing from a single We R 4 UH candidate, but I almost immediately was contacted by Virginia Miller so she could clarify her position. I am not hard to find, and she took the time and effort to INCLUDE me and make sure that her position was clear. I appreciate the time, and the response. The other candidates I know have been informed of my thoughts and feelings about their stances and their campaign, I have heard it second hand from reliable sources, but yet still not one candidate has defended their positions or said anything.

To finish up their mailing they directly the attack the Building Common Ground group and state that the mailings that not everyone got are posted on the We R 4 UH website, and that the BCG group is only listening to the 50% who agree with the 5/3 mixed use development and turning their back on the other 50%,. That’s not leadership. And its certainly not “building common ground.” Wow look at that snazzy turn of a phrase and that wonderfully fuzzy math. If we take the 10% ( which is drastically less than 50%) and combine it with the 23% that want something different than the 3 plans which were provided, at most the proposed 4/2 plus plan is representing the first choice of maybe if they got everyone, 33% of the residents who took part in the survey. So I guess if we use the We R 4 UH groups logic they are turning their back on 67% of the residents of University Heights.

Its easy to make your argument sound correct and viable, when you are working in isolation. Anyone can make a hasty generalization, if they don’t have to support their contentions with facts. I am confident that I have shown you the flaws in their logic, the holes in their rhetoric, and most of all that if we jump on the We R 4 UH ship, we all better bring a life raft. On November 5th I know I will be supporting Haverkamp, Lane, Miller, Nampala, and Quezada; wont you join me in building some common ground in a community  that desperately needs its.

I am Jase Humphrey and I approve this message.

Showdown at St Andrews

Last night University Heights held its candidate forum for the 9 ( or 6 depending on how you count) city council candidates. This was not a debate, there was no interaction, no questions from the audience, and there were few surprises. I am sure no one who has read any of my comments here, on facebook, or comments I have made to the Press Citizen have any questions where I stand personally, but I would like to point out a few things, I found at the candidate forum. I need to make this very very clear, the views below, are solely my own, are not sponsored by, or in affiliation with any of the candidates discussed below.

Before I get into the forum I would first like to address the Open letter to Residents put out by candidate Hopson. There is little question as to my personal feelings about candidate Hopson, since the first time she ran for office, she made the mistake of not knowing her constituents, and speaking down to some of them in a condensing manner. I was personally insulted as she told me, while standing in my own front yard, that I knew nothing about politics, and didn’t understand how things were done. I will admit I am not an expert on University Heights elections, but the fact that I hold both a bachelors degree in communications and political science, and a master in political science and was just short of finishing my PhD in Political Science means I may know a little bit. Oh yeah and my focus has always been political communications. So if you are looking for a completely unbiased, fair and even description, you wont find it here.

So you can find two seperate descriptions of the event http://1630kcjj.com/pages/15288409.php, and http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20131012/news01/310120008/u-heights-councilor-theft-was-a-mistake-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|frontpage, the second one provides her personal spin on the subject.  I wish to highlight the part from the first link, that says loss prevention has suspected her for a while. Which calls directly into question her response and absolute indignation. You can read her response by going to https://www.facebook.com/iowacity.iowa and reading down until you find the shared link. I want only to highlight  a few important points of this letter. She comments as to having done this before, and makes it out to sound like a habit, this is a habit I am sure most of us dont follow or condone, as is up until the point you pay for it, it is considered theft, the loss prevention individuals have no clue as to your intention to pay; therefore, unless you have already paid for it DONT CONSUME IT. The second point I wish to bring out is the tone in which the letter is written, it is not an apology, at no point do we see an acceptance of accountability, what we find instead is a manipulated set of facts, (if we were to go so far as to call them that) that led to her wrongfully being charged. If she truly wished for this to not be an issue, plead it out and move on. But instead we get indignation. This is not a candidate I wish to represent me in anyway. This lack of accountability is a problem that plagues our government officials at the high levels, and leads to the whole pass the buck mentality

So onto the rest of the forum. As I set took notes, and listened to the candidates present their prepared answers to the questions, I walked away feeling 3 candidates clearly stood out to have impressed me, 2 provided some strong points, and 4 left me feeling like I had just set through a World War II propaganda video. Zadok Nampal brought his experiences in Africa and with working with the UN into the realm of local politics , while he looks forward to settling disagreements peacefully and democratically, without the use of spears as he recounted, I am not as completely sure I wouldnt like a few spears to hurl myself. When he spoke he seemed the most genuine of the candidates, he shows the youthful awe of the democratic process much like a current day Jimmy Stewart, from Mr Smith Goes to Washington. I have no doubt that he is more than prepared to put in the time and effort needed to represent our community, or that he would work tirelessly to see that democracy prevails.

Silvia Quezada came out with guns, facts, and opinions blazing. If you had happened to catch my recap of the last city council election I had bemoaned the We R 4 UH candidates as having spent their time running a campaign of disinformation and fear. It was clear from the get go that Silvia had heard the tales and was not about to be bullied. She brought her job experience, and her work on the zoning commission to bare on the issues of the St. Andrews development, and was clear, concise and impassioned. She spoke logically, and presented facts, not scare tactics. She related a story of a resident we lost based on lack of adequate options that werent college living or single family homes, she urged us to think of the future, and not just keep with the current status quo.

Now I do not know whether my feelings on Mike Haverkamp is overly colored by my friendship with him, or whether it is these characteristics that make me call him a friend, or whether it is just that our daughters seem attached at the hip at times. But Mike instead of bringing fuzzy ideas to the table, provided the audience with numbers, facts and scenarios in a direct and understandable format. While the We R 4 UH group talked of the $450,000 reserve we have in place, Mike told us how it came to be a surplus, and what to expect with out the Local Option Sales Tax revenue. He expained the changing demographic of University Heights residents, and why they move here. He explained the survey results from the community about the 3 proposals, and told us how this all made sense. He clearly showed why he has represented this community as well as he has, and why he should continue to do so in the future.

I was not as impressed with Candidates Lane and Miller, this isnt to say that I wont be voting for them, it just means that they didnt leave the same impressions as the other three candidates mentioned above. I feel Jim’s experience in both career and on the council are a valuable asset that shouldnt be squandered. Likewise I feel that Virginia’s fresh outlook, can also bring us in a new direction, she may want to lessen her opinion on the evils of renters just a tad, she hit a sore spot with me there. Now you can see that I gave all 5 of the non We R 4 UH candidates their own treatment, that is because each is an individual candidate and not merely a cog in some small scale political machine. I will deal with the other 4 in one group.

Now before anyone tells me that I am treating the We R 4 UH candidates unfairly and that they are all individual candidates, let me point out this, in a discussion of who was next, when it was McGrath’s turn, and Hopson was called to speak, she said its the same thing really. So if the candidates themselves feel like their positions, and stances are interchangeable then why should we feel any different. Last night we were told the same story, by these 4 candidates, we support OUR enhanced 2/4 plan, TIF is bad, we want to keep university heights just the way it is. There were clearly times I had to look up and see which candidate it was speaking to not get lost in my notes. The problem is when their is only one voice, one opinion, it becomes only ONE way. They talk of a Unified University Heights, but in listening to their propaganda, it is only a unified UH if we elect their slate. Unity can be a bad thing just remember your history, political unification has led to some of the most memorable atrocities ever perpetrated.

Now I wish to make one last point, and it is specifically to call out Hopson again on a hypocritical stance. I have heard the campaing stories, read the information that tells the horror story of what a high density or even mixed use development would bring. Unsafe streets, increased traffic,  loitering, and destruction of the quality of life as we know it. If you were carefully listening to scary scenarios presented, it is reminiscent of the Daisy ad (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy) only on a local level. And as if this isnt bad enough, in discussing the future of the finacial stability of University Heights she tells us to be fact based not fear driven; it is at this point that I almost fell out of my chair. The hypocracy was almost too much to bare. It was my 18 year old sons first foray into the political process, and I think he may have learned something, but if nothing else he found humor in me trying to contain my reactions.

The election in a few weeks provides the residents of University Heights the opportunity to make a profound statement as to where the future of University heights will go. The issues of development, and what that development will be, finds itself dead center at the heart of this discussion. We have five candidates who have slightly differing views on this development and how to fund it, and how it will end up, which should allow us to vet all scenarios, and look at the positives and negatives to reach an optimal solution; or we have 4 candidates who are ready to rubber stamp a plan that hasn’t been fully fleshed out that may carry with it some of the same problems as the 5/3 mixed use plan, they just dont want to focus on those. I cant place your vote for you, I cant tell you how to vote, all I can do is plead that you not fall prey to dirty tricks, the misinformation, or the group think that is being thrust upon you. Vote your preference, vote for your future, but most of all vote.

I am Jase Humphrey and I support this message.