Campaign Cheap Shots Have Begun

The cheap shots have started in the aldermanic campaign.  Joe Moore has a supporter who is determined to stand by his man, but who is evidently unable to provide objective evidence for perusal, let alone able to make a cogent argument against the competition. One can only hope that time and experience will fix that deficiency.  I am sure Moore doesn't need, or want, a bevy of supporters who are equally unable to offer up objective evidence or make logical sense of candidate websites.


Before going further, if any reader has access to public documents or a website that backs up any of the claims made by my caller, please point me in that direction.


I got a phone call this evening that alleged the following -


Blane Roberts - has a car in the city impound lot, owes $3,900 in unpaid tickets, and his license is suspended due to the unpaid tickets.  Was I given a link to pursue, or access to any documentation that confirms any of the foregoing?  Why no!  Should I be surprised?  Why no!


The city's website indicates that license suspension occurs if the violator has accrued 10 or more parking tickets or 5 or more red light violations that are unpaid.  In my earlier conversation with Blane he made it clear he did due diligence to ensure he could survive any election challenge.  He was very upset about the challenge and wanted the details when he learned about it.  I should point out that my caller claimed the information is online, but I couldn't find the specifics of what he alleged.  Surely Blane would have if he consulted online databases, and assuming the data was entered correctly.


I would like to read the Exhibit A referenced in the challenge affidavit since it has the details, but was not posted at the Board's site.  I would also like to read the recommendation document from the Hearing Officer, which is not yet posted.


And it gets better!


Brian White - I was asked if I had read Brian's website.  I did once before and I have now.  The caller asserted that Brian intended to extend the lake-front bike trail through action to acquire the private beaches.  Not exactly.  Brian does address the issue of reengineering Sheridan Road.  

As Alderman, I’ll commit to re-engineer Sheridan Road as a pedestrian-centered and bicycle-friendly neighborhood street. I will:

• Work to develop better access to the Lakefront across Sheridan Road by improving timing of lights at key intersections and improving signage.

• Work with residents along the Lakefront to come up with a continuous and safe route for people traveling by bike along the Lakefront. This will include adding buffered bike lanes on Sheridan, where the street can accommodate them.

In response to a direct query about park expansion and Lake Shore Drive he has this to say:


I’d like to preserve and improve the Lakefront beaches as neighborhood beaches, not as continuous parkland and certainly not as an extension of Lake Shore Drive. I think there is a need to create access to the Lakefront across Sheridan and to connect the bike path north and south, but we can do that without resorting to excessive landfill that changes the fundamental character of what is there.


That does not sound like someone racing to take over the private beaches.  I pointed out to my caller that the issue of the lake-front, and the extension of Lake Shore Drive, is a hot item in this ward, and anything Brian proposes will be heavily scrutinized.


My caller mentioned Howard Street, an issue on which Brian and Joe have a shared vision, whether they realize it or not.  It can be argued as to whether our incumbent has done enough to get the ball rolling and share his efforts with his constituents, aside from the street-scape initiative.  Regardless, both candidates are on the same page about its future.  Howard St. and North of Howard are hot buttons for many in the ward.  At the last 2422 CAPS meeting a representative from the RPCC (or was it RPBA?) was in attendance and commented on the fact that potential retail and service lessees were expressing interest in Howard, but not committing to renting the available space.  The business people are concerned about the neighborhood and whether their businesses can thrive there.  Howard St. needs help, thus it makes sense to me that every candidate would offer a plan for revitalizing that area.  I don't know what the caller's point was in bringing this up.


My caller also stated Brian intended to raise taxes.  Having perused the website, I can't find anything that says he intends to do that, or that infers he intends to do that.  The issue of the TIF/RIF is still pending, and that is not a revenue generator.  Once again, my caller offered no objective evidence to support the allegation.


The bottom line is that I received a phone call from someone who thinks Moore is wonderful and clearly wanted to point out the deficiencies of the opposition.  Might have worked if he had bothered to produce evidence to back up his allegations.  So here's what I have to say to my caller, and by extension to anyone else supporting a specific candidate :


If you are going to make allegations you better produce evidence to back it up.  Don't have any? Then keep the hearsay and gossip to yourself until you can produce something.  I'll accept a thorough analysis that explains how you reached your conclusions, but it better be based on facts and logic, not mere inference because your gut has something to say.  To borrow from Scrooge, it might be nothing more than an underdone potato or a bit of bad beef that has your panties in a twist.

Got that?


So why bother posting this, to be kind, balderdash?  Because silly season is officially underway now that the Board has made its decisions.  Voters should know what is being alleged by the various camps about their opponents.  Given facts and evidence they can make up their own minds about who is the better candidate.  That includes assessing the behavior and actions of the supporters..