Did you miss the Mayoral Debate on Channel 17? You can listen to a podcast or watch the streaming video on the Channel 17 website.
http://www.channel17.org/seeitnow.html#mayor
It is the first on the list under “Special Events.”
Just one more reason Channel 17 is the source for local election coverage.
There are a lot of people who are trying to paint Hinda Miller as a conservative. There are supposedly a lot of local Republicans supporting her. She tries to position herself as pro-business, which, one could argue, is what the city sorely needs in order to expand the tax base. One might wonder why one who is conservative, Republican, or just looking for a change should support Kevin Curley and not Hinda Miller
When I was Chair of the Burlington GOP, I found out a lot of information about the problems the City is facing. I learned things that most people do not know. For example, I heard about the underfunding of the retirement fund months before it was “breaking news.” I also know that the City has even more problems than I realize.
We need a mayor who knows what has been going on and what needs to be changed. Kevin Curley has been on the City Council and more importantly, on the Board of Finance. He will not need to be brought up to speed. He already has ideas about what needs to be changed.
Hinda Miller has played no visible roll in city politics and couldn’t even remember if or how she voted last March in the City election, when asked. We do not have time to wait for her on the job training to be completed.
We are going to need a mayor who is not afraid to make tough decisions. Many of those decisions are going to involve cleaning house. Much of the City’s budget problem comes from a bloated bureaucracy. That is one of the drawbacks to having the same administration for so many years. If the mayor repays one or two political buddies every year with a city job, it adds up to a lot of jobs after a decade-and-a-half. There are a lot of jobs that depend on getting the “right” person elected. That is one of the most important things that I am considering in this mayoral race.
Hinda Miller is Peter Clavelle’s hand-picked successor. Hinda Miller has pledged to continue Clavelle’s legacy. That makes me nervous. That makes me doubt that she can clean house.
Kevin Curley will be able to get rid of unnecessary positions and bring new people and new ideas in to City Hall. He does not plan to continue on Peter Clavelle’s path. He does not have favors to repay.
This brings me to another reason why I support Curley. Hinda Miller’s campaign website reads like a who’s who of the Democratic Party establishment. Anyone who knows anything about party politics would suspect that she has people to repay.
Kevin Curley does not operate like that. He is not in the pocket of the GOP or anyone else. When I was GOP Chair, I found that frustrating at times, but as a voter, I am relieved that I can cast a vote for Kevin Curley with the confidence that he will always do what he thinks is best for the City, not a political party or wealthy campaign supporter.
Speaking of wealthy campaign supporters, did you happen to catch the Free Press story that reported that Hinda Miller spent $29,000 to win the Democratic caucus and plans to spend $35,000 to $40,000 on the general election? By comparison, Kevin Curley will spend less than $5,000. I do not know where Miller’s money comes from – it could be her own for all I know – but, it is clear that Kevin Curley is not your typical big money backed Republican.
I know Kevin Curley and I know that he cares about the residents of Burlington. He understands the quality of life issues that make this city so attractive, but he also understands that a “livable” city is no good to people who can no longer afford to live here. I am confident that he will strive to find a balance that will allow Burlington to continue to thrive, while allowing seniors and working families to stay in their homes.
(Free Press article referenced above: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060219/TOWNMEETINGDAY/302190008/1066&theme)
One of the questions Burlingtonians will get to answer on Town Meeting Day this year is whether or not the city should continue to put fluoride into our drinking water.
There has been an active campaign by dental health professionals to keep the fluoride in the water. They claim, and science appears to back, that the fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. They further claim that low-income children will not get the fluoride they need unless it is put into the drinking water.
I am sure that there are low-income families in which the parents do not care about their children’s oral health. My solution to that problem would not include medicating the public water supply – call me crazy. Why can’t they just provide fluoride tablets or rinses at public schools? The vast majority of low-income children are in the public schools – and certainly any child who is not has parents that care enough to take care of the child’s teeth. So doesn’t it make more sense to treat the teeth at school?
The science is on the side of the dental health professionals that fluoride builds strong teeth, but there is also science that backs up the claim that fluoridated drinking water can cause adverse health affects, including increased risk of a rare form of bone cancer. There is more information at http://www.swabvt.org/fluoride_facts.htm.
Another interesting point is that the dental benefits of fluoride have now been shown to be the result of topical use of fluoride (on the teeth), not ingestion. This fact was not known at the time that water fluoridation began in Burlington.
I agree with the slogan used by SWAB: Safe Water Advocates of Burlington – if there’s any doubt, get it out. We should not continue to put medication in our drinking water if there is any possibility that it is unsafe.
I disagree with the fluoride advocates that the poor need the fluoride in the water. I see it as just the opposite. If I want to drink non-fluoridated water, I need to buy bottled water or an expensive filter. The Brita filter I use to filter out chlorine does not filter out fluoride. It is hard enough to afford that, let alone a more expensive filter.
It is very difficult for a low-income family to live naturally and escape the abundance of chemicals we use in our society. Organic foods, natural soaps and cleaners, free-range eggs, and rbST-free milk all cost more money than their mass-produced, chemical-laden counterparts. At least our water should be free of unnecessary chemicals.
Unfortunately, I do not think the voters will see it my way. The dental health professionals all agree with keeping the fluoride in, based on out-dated science and in-the-box thinking. They are campaigning to keep the fluoride in and most people will take the word of their dentist over a group of grass-roots activists.
Even if it passes (the voters say we want the fluoride out), the City Council does not have to listen. Many on the council want to keep it in, but it would be in their best interest to stop fluoridation. The city would save the cost of fluoride and if the schools picked up a program to provide fluoride, it would probably be covered by Medicaid or some other grant. It is win-win on the city side of things.
The fact remains, water – the most basic need of life – should be safe for us to drink. If there is any doubt, get it out.
To the question: Shall the City discontinue the practice of fluoridating the public water supply? Vote yes, March 7.
Ward 5 City Councilor Bill Keogh (D) is running unopposed this year. In the interest of giving the ward 5 voters a choice, independent candidate Owen Mulligan, also on the ballot in Ward 5 as an Inspector of Elections candidate, is running a write-in campaign.
I met Owen when I ran for City Council last year. He is a really nice guy, who would listen to and respect the concerns of all ward 5 residents, while being a careful steward of our lake and our environment. He also understands how difficult the tax burden is on Burlington residents and does not support new taxes.
Please consider writing in Owen Mulligan for City Council.
You can visit Owen's website at: http://www.owenmulligan.org/
You can listen to a podcast of Owen's interview with Channel 17's Rob Reiber at: http://www2.cctv.org/rss/index.php?id=113
Last night, I watched the end of the mayoral debate on channel 17. (I watched the beginning on the night it aired live.) As I watched, I came to the conclusion that I had hoped I would never reach – I have to place my second place vote for Hinda Miller.
I dislike what I have seen of Miller so much that I think it will actually cause me physical pain to fill in the oval next to her name.
First things first, I have never met Hinda Miller and I do not know her personally, or anyone who knows her personally. For all I know she could be the nicest person ever. What I do know about her is that she has a chronic case of foot-in-the-mouth.
I resisted the urge to dislike Miller because of her wealth. I am not the class-warfare type. In fact, entrepreneurial success stories like hers are what make America so great. I do however have a hard time trusting politicians who are not impacted by the property tax situation in Burlington. I hear a lot of the well-off liberals here in the South End of town, who say, “I don’t care how much it costs me in taxes” to ideas that they think will add value to that liberal utopia they picture in their empty heads, paying no mind to the rest of us who struggle to make ends meet by eating boxed macaroni and cheese. (That’s Kraft Dinner for those of you – like Ms. Miller – who hail from our neighbor to the north.)
I knew that I should not hold her success against her – that would make me no better than Bernie Sanders. Besides, there is no shortage of people who have money, but still oppose over-taxation. She could be one, right? So, I decided to listen to her ideas and give her a fair chance.
Strike one: At the wards 2 and 3 NPA (that’s the Old North End), a woman asked Candidate Miller how the voters in the Old North End would know that she understands their struggles, given the fact that she lives in the Hill Section and has lots of money. Her reply? She won’t judge them for where they live, if they don’t judge her for where she lives.
How nice. So does that mean she is judging them for where they live because I can bet you they are judging her. If not for where she lives, then definitely for that remark.
Strike two: Every time the topic of job creation comes up, she touts her experience in creating Jogbra and creating all those jobs. She fails to mention that those jobs (110 of them) left years ago to North Carolina.
Strike three: In an interview on the blog the Vermont Daily Briefing, she made a yoga reference and followed by saying she can’t talk that way usually because people in the New North End would think she is weird.
Get over yourself Ms. Miller; it’s not just hoity-toity rich girls from the Hill Section who understand the concepts of yoga and balance.
There’s more, but you get the point.
I decided that I would not vote for Hinda Miller in any place. I would not be able to bring myself to do it.
Last night it dawned on me that I have to make a second place vote. It comes down to Miller and Kiss. I think both are equally qualified. Miller’s experience with Jogbra and Kiss’ experience at CVOEO bring both similar skill sets.
I think Kiss is more in touch with what struggling people need in this city, in typical Progressive fashion. That was why I was leaning toward him. That true Progressive nature turned out to be his undoing in my book.
This city needs to grow the tax base. That is the one and only thing that is going to solve the financial difficulties this city is facing. I am convinced that Miller knows that far more than Kiss (though neither as much as Curley). I am also afraid that Kiss will continue the Progressive tradition of being against “corporations” and only supporting non-profits. One needs only to look to the City Market debacle to see how that attitude hurts the low-moderate income segment of our city. It does nothing to grow our tax base, either.
So, as hard as it will be to vote for someone who I find snobby and clueless when it comes to dealing with people who are not of her “wealth and social status,” she is the best of the remaining candidates for my second place vote.
As I type this, there is a mayoral debate happening at City Hall. I’m not there, but I am sure I am not missing much. I watched the first debate at Ohavi Zedek Synagogue on channel 17 and I watched the live Channel 17 debate, too, although I missed the end of it. If you ask me, you see one, you’ve seen them all. I think Hinda Miller and Kevin Curley read the exact same opening statements at both debates.
I am quite sure I have enough information at this point to fill out my ballot on March 7.
I think this city is in for some tough times, unless a magician gets elected to the Mayor’s Office. Even Peter Clavelle admits there are no more rabbits in the hat. Yes folks, the smokescreen is starting to fade and the financial reality of a quarter century of “progressive government” is beginning to become visible.
I do not know why people continue to be duped into believing that you can get not only something for nothing, but everything for nothing. It’s just not true, nor is it possible. I think the days of people believing that are over or near over. It will be interesting to see how this election turns out.
I am particularly interested in the city council race in ward 4 where you have a candidate who is unabashedly supporting the idea of keeping our current level of government no matter what the price tag versus a candidate who says enough is enough and we are going to have to do what is necessary to stem the growth of the city budget.
I have a lot of respect for the fact that the tax-happy candidate is so forthcoming, but I wonder how many of the voters agree with that philosophy. I guess we’ll see.
I have a lot to say about the mayoral candidates, but I want to watch the end of the channel 17 debate first. I am going to go do that now (it is being rebroadcast now).
I’ll try to post tomorrow.
Channel 17 will re-air the Town Meeting Day Candidate Debates and other presentations you need to be an informed voter.
Please remember to vote on March 7!
BurlingtonMayoral Debate
2/22 at 8:15pm
2/23 at 1am, 7am & 1pm
2/25 at 11pm
2/26 at 4am, 10am & 4pm
Ballot Items & City Council Candidates
2/25 at 7pm
2/26 at 1am, 7am & 1pm
3/4 at 7pm
3/5 at 1am, 7am & 1pm
Burlington Schools Budget & School Board Candidates
2/24 at 7pm
2/25 at 1am, 7am & 1pm
3/2 at 7pm
3/3 at 1am, 7am & 1pm
Tonight (Monday, February 20, 2006) on Channel 17 the candidates for Mayor of Burlington will debate live at 6:00 PM. This is your chance to call in with your questions.
If you miss it, Channel 17 will rebroadcast it several times before the election. Check out http://www.channel17.org/ for listings.
(Also, the School Budget Presentation airs at 5:25 PM preceding the debate.)
Channel 17 will broadcast the Mayoral Debate that took place at Ohavi Zedek Synagogue on February 13th.
Friday 2/17
10:05 PM
Saturday 2/18
3:05 AM
9:05 AM
3:05 PM
Don't have Adelphia cable? Contact the channel 17 studio for a tape of the event. (See link at right for contact info.)
I might be biased, but channel 17 is the station for local political coverage.
Since She’s Right is preempted tonight by the live candidate forums on channel 17, I figured it would be appropriate to write about the upcoming election.
Let’s start with the big one: the mayoral race. This should be a big year for Burlington politics with Mayor Peter Clavelle stepping aside. Unfortunately, I do not think this election is really creating a lot of buzz. In fact, there was more buzz about the Democratic caucus than there has been about the election.
Maybe that is because the Democrats are so arrogant they think no one else can touch their candidate. Ward 5 City Councilor Bill Keogh, who is running unopposed on the ballot, wrote in the North Avenue News before the caucus that the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, would be the next mayor, since a Republican has not won the Mayor’s Office since Peter Brownell did in 1993.
What he failed to recognize is that no Democrat ever beat Peter Clavelle – not even in the Democrats’ own city caucus, where Clavelle beat out City Council President Andy Montroll and ran for mayor as a Progressive and Democrat. Someone should remind Councilor Keogh that he was holding a “Write-in Andy Montroll for Mayor” sign that year.
The fact that the election is only two weeks from Tuesday and there does not seem to be any real enthusiasm about it is somewhat troubling. The next mayor in Burlington is going to have a lot of tough choices to make. The city does not have enough revenue coming in to sustain the current level of spending. The decisions that the new mayor makes to remedy the city’s financial strains are going to affect every single one of us. We need to care about who that person is.
In the coming days, I will get into detail about the issues and the candidates. In the mean time, I encourage you to find out as much as you can about these candidates.
The Burlington Free Press is running a series on Wednesdays and Sundays on the Editorial page, which allows the candidates to answer a question in his or her own words. Archive can be found here.
There are three remaining debates for the Mayoral candidates: Feb. 20, Feb.22, and March 2. Stay tuned for more information.
Last, but not least, get out on Tuesday, March 7 and VOTE! If you are unable to get there, please call City Hall soon for an absentee ballot and one will be mailed to you.
