Buildings, Trees, Sidewalks, Glue . . . . A Chicago, IL Blog Dispatched from the 43rd Ward on the Near North Side . . . Lincoln Park. 60614 . . . Blog in Urbs in Horto. Established 2004.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Feb. 8 Aldermanic Forum Follow-up
I have been battling strep throat for the past week and am likely headed to my second round of antibiotics. If you attended last night's aldermanic forum, please share your thoughts and comments. Thanks!
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I am pleased that we're having these forums, and I've been to both of them. The organizers deserve credit; however, both forums had the same problem. The organizers screened and selected the questions. The questions they approved were typically softballs that Vi Daley had advance knowledge of and could deal with. These would be far more interesting and informative if the audience could ask unscreened questions. The censorship is uncalled for and inappropriate.
It was interesting that all of the candidates had already had the questions. The forum questioned the candidates on the answers they had already submitted. So I guess the intent was to really get into the issues which really didn't happen. Problem was that we in the audience didn't see the questions or answers. The organizers said they would email them out, but I'm still waiting. Vi certainly isn't articulate, but her experience comes through. You could tell she knows her job and the neighborhood. (I admit I'm a Vi Daley supporter. Her office has been responsive to me). Smith was seems a little overbearing and almost phony and the other 3 kept clowning around.
Thanks for chiming in. I'm reallllly surprised to hear about the canned/pre-approved questions and answer format. What a shame that has trickled down from presidential politics to the aldermanic level.
Can you both (or lurkers out there) share more specific details about what you thought were the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates?
Tim Egan slammed the explosion in litigation over neighborhood issues. He said community communications should be taken out of the courts, and he intends to facilitate the reaching of rational common ground.
Rachel Goodstein demonstrated a clever wit and stressed that she is fiscally conservative.
Peter Zelchenko probably spent too much time dwelling on his displeasure with the SSA property surtax on commercial corridors.
Michelle Smith mocked Vi Daley’s rhetoric about holding the line on property taxes, and talked about zoning in a way that suggests she opposes homeowner property rights.
Vi Daley mumbled through her canned answers, and mentioned a couple ways that the $5,200,000 in “aldermanic menu” funds were spent. It didn’t occur to her to explain why the community was not involved in the expenditure decisions, and that some of us might like to see a detailed accounting of where our money went.
I have been battling strep throat for the past week and am likely headed to my second round of antibiotics. If you attended last night's aldermanic forum, please share your thoughts and comments. Thanks!
4 comments:
I am pleased that we're having these forums, and I've been to both of them. The organizers deserve credit; however, both forums had the same problem. The organizers screened and selected the questions. The questions they approved were typically softballs that Vi Daley had advance knowledge of and could deal with. These would be far more interesting and informative if the audience could ask unscreened questions. The censorship is uncalled for and inappropriate.
It was interesting that all of the candidates had already had the questions. The forum questioned the candidates on the answers they had already submitted. So I guess the intent was to really get into the issues which really didn't happen. Problem was that we in the audience didn't see the questions or answers. The organizers said they would email them out, but I'm still waiting. Vi certainly isn't articulate, but her experience comes through. You could tell she knows her job and the neighborhood. (I admit I'm a Vi Daley supporter. Her office has been responsive to me). Smith was seems a little overbearing and almost phony and the other 3 kept clowning around.
Thanks for chiming in. I'm reallllly surprised to hear about the canned/pre-approved questions and answer format. What a shame that has trickled down from presidential politics to the aldermanic level.
Can you both (or lurkers out there) share more specific details about what you thought were the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates?
thks!
Here’s a few highlights:
Tim Egan slammed the explosion in litigation over neighborhood issues. He said community communications should be taken out of the courts, and he intends to facilitate the reaching of rational common ground.
Rachel Goodstein demonstrated a clever wit and stressed that she is fiscally conservative.
Peter Zelchenko probably spent too much time dwelling on his displeasure with the SSA property surtax on commercial corridors.
Michelle Smith mocked Vi Daley’s rhetoric about holding the line on property taxes, and talked about zoning in a way that suggests she opposes homeowner property rights.
Vi Daley mumbled through her canned answers, and mentioned a couple ways that the $5,200,000 in “aldermanic menu” funds were spent. It didn’t occur to her to explain why the community was not involved in the expenditure decisions, and that some of us might like to see a detailed accounting of where our money went.
Post a Comment