City Council Election Tuesday: Knight, Thompson, Rakestraw, Hartzman

Tuesday is Election Day.

My recommendations for this election are as follows:

Mayor: Bill Knight

At Large: Danny Thompson

District 4: Mary Rakestraw

District 3: George Hartzman

Natural Science Center Bonds: Vote No

It is imperative that conservatives residing in the city of Greensboro get out and vote.  What happens during this election cycle can mean a huge difference for the future of our home town.  

Greensboro was once a very good city.  However, more than a decade of bad government has taken its toll. Taxes and fees have gone way up; and rampant crime has spread to previously safe neighborhoods.  Our police department is now revealed to be substandard, and has become the refuge of an assortment of bad actors.  Jobs have been driven away from the city.

This is therefore an important moment in the history of the city of Greensboro.  Voters will decide whether the city will continue to decline, or whether present trends can be reversed.  But if the city continues to decline, it will be much more difficult to recover in the long run.

We cannot continue doing things as we have in the past.  In the future, jobs will be much more difficult to attract because of international competition.  Employers are going to be much less likely to countenance the type of nonsense we have seen in Greensboro-- unless we make a decision to change.

In the city of Greensboro, the best candidates are almost always disadvantaged.  They often face formidable institutional forces that favor the election of candidates who cater to special interests.

While it is important that conservatives vote on Tuesday, it is also important that they let their family, friends and neighbors know they should vote also.  We each have an opportunity to spread the word to those around us.  And we have a cluster of candidates around whom we can rally. 

I would also suggest that conservatives consider sending a link to this post around to their friends by e-mail, if they feel led to do so.

For Mayor, Bill Knight has demonstrated he is the right man for the job.  He has appropriately focused on crime, the police department, jobs and fiscal conservatism during the campaign.

His opponent, Yvonne Johnson, is a machine politician who has been entangled with various special interests through her entire career as an elected official.  She has made decisions on the basis of identity group politics.  She has undermined the police department and allowed crime conditions to deteriorate.  She has repeatedly voted to raise taxes and fees.  She is a quintessential liberal who has repeatedly made the wrong choices for the wrong reasons.  And she has allowed conditions to fester that continue to cause distrust of our local government.

Knight, on the other hand, promises to restore trust and ethics in the city of Greensboro.  He wants to transform the police department into a premier crime-fighting institution.  And he wants to create an environment in which employers will want to create jobs in Greensboro.

The At-Large race is a tricky proposition.  I have recommended that conservatives only vote for one candidate in this race-- Danny Thompson. 

Even though we are entitled to select up to three choices, we must take note of the likelihood that Mr. Thompson will be competing for the third spot in this race.  If conservatives vote for more than one candidate, they risk undermining Thompson's electability.

Thompson is the only true conservative in the race-- and he is a moderate conservative.  But he brings a passion for limiting governmental spending and restoring a proper civic tone on the city council.  He also wants to see our area transformed to become a place where businesses would eagerly want to locate and expand and hire more people.

I wish to make one negative recommendation in the At-Large race.  I urge conservatives to refrain from supporting Robbie Perkins.  He has turned out to be, by far, the biggest disappointment on our city council-- barring none.

In the district 4 race, Mary Rakestraw is the obvious choice.  She has been very good on police department issues, and is a genuine fiscal conservative.  Ms. Rakestraw has also been very responsive to her constituents.

Her opponent, Joel Landau, is a nice man.  But he is ideologically way over on the left side of the political spectrum; and has been endorsed by the Simkins PAC.

In the district 3 race, as noted above, I have recommended George Hartzman.  Mr. Hartzman brings almost a libertarian sensibility to the city council race, with impassioned discourse about the poor choices we make when we allow government to spend too much. 

Hartzman is not the kind of guy who suffers fools gladly; and that is precisely the type of person we need to help straighten out our police department.

The record of his opponent, Zack Matheny, has been a mixed bag during his first term.  He appears to be a responsive council member in many ways; but he has made some bad choices.  Matheny has also been endorsed by the Simkins PAC.

I also recommend voting against the Natural Science Center bond issue.

In any case, we have some good candidates to support this election season.  Local conservatives need to spend the next two days spreading the word in any way they see fit.

I intend to make this my last post until Election Day, unless a surprise or two materializes in the meantime.  Let's hope for the best.

Comments

[Roch101]

"Hartzman is not the kind of guy who suffers fools gladly"

Good one.

[Charlie]

"Hartzman is not the kind of guy who suffers fools gladly; and that is precisely the type of person we need to help straighten out our police department."

Joe - what does this even mean? What has Hartzman said in regards to the Police Dept.? I haven't heard you or Hartzman mention anything that would say he could fix the Police Department.

[Joe Guarino]

Charlie, you are right that Hartzman has not said much with respect to the Police Department. I think he might have mentioned it briefly in his small ad this week in the Rhino. He did say unequivocally in response to my questionnaire that the Police Department problems need to be fixed quickly.

I was speaking here more on what I understand about his personality and character as reflected in the manner he expresses himself. I have met him and spoken with him at one of the forums, and have read a number of his blog posts. He does not strike me as the type of guy who would bend over backward to protect a fiction and fraud in order to remain politically correct. He seems to be the type of guy who would oppose something he believes to be wrong, and to speak what appears to be true.

Sometimes that can be viewed as being impolitic (and certainly politicians do not often behave that way), but that is my assessment. If he is elected, I hope I am right.

[Charlie]

So you are baseing your opinion on a brief mention in an ad that doesn't really cover anything about cleaning up the department but running it efficiently? I am really finding a hard time following you on this one. Hartzman has offered really nothing in the line of thoughts and action, vision or plans for Greensboro except that he deems the process broken as it relates to campaign finance and accepting money from PACs or over $100.00, until of course, he was able to meet with PACs including the Simpkins and TREBIC Cartel and he was able to receive contributions over $100.00 Joe, I live in district 3 and have done some research and watched the last few years. I have also attended forums. I do not think Hartzman has the ability to make decisions and solve probelms, he seems only to ask odd questions. I have not found any true answers he offers to any of Greensboro's problems. Matheny has a track record and his track record seems good. He meets openly with his constituents, in particular relating to crime, and has showed numerous times he does not cater to the Simpkins Pac, dispite their endorsement. He has been consistent when is comes to the Truth and Reconciliation and that was proven in the article in the Rhino.

I have made my decision to vote for Matheny for these reasons and many more. I just don't get Hartzman. He talks about other cities instead of Greensboro and has not said anything that he would do better than Matheny, he even admitted to seeking the Simpkins PAC endorsement, he just didn't get it. BTW, does the Simpkins PAC even play into District 3? Have you discussed with Matheny as to how many meetings or conversations he has had with them?

I apologize for running on with this, it is just I have spent alot of time studying this election and fundamently, Matheny has done a solid job and, dispite your assesment, I disagree with you, and will be voting for Matheny.

[Joe Guarino]

I certainly respect your choice and your opinions, Charlie.

However, we need to remember several things:

1. I had indicated my assessment was based on additional considerations beside the campaign ad.

2. Hartzman is precisely correct about the process being broken. He erred when he offered to limit contributions he accepted to $100; and he corrected that error. That initial decision amounted to unilateral disarmament, and was unrealistic.

3. The problem of City Council members kowtowing before the Simkins PAC is a serious one. One does not have to speak directly with all the members of the PAC-- or with the PAC as a whole-- to have a sense of what would be expected on certain key votes. One merely needs to read the signals offered by other council members affiliated with the PAC. Matheny has given a certain proportion of his votes to what the PAC would want over the last couple of years.

4. Hartzman commented on this blog, I believe, that he advised the PAC he did not want their endorsement. The fact that he did not get it can be interpreted as a very good sign. I worry a lot about what it means when the PAC endorses a given candidate. The PAC has a small, but discrete, level of influence in district 3.

[Charlie]

Joe,

1. Ok

2. So Hartzman is correct it is broken, and then breaks his own corrections as well. I would rather vote for someone that is open and straight forward with campaign contributions than Hartzman who can change at a moments notice, taking back a promise he has made before he is even elected.

3. I would like examples as to the votes Matheny has given to the Simpkins PAC. In regards to your recent post, about paying attorneys fees, Mahteny recently said at a forum that one of the reasons he did not like that motion is that the way it was stated meant that the city would have to pay all attorneys fees for city employees, which if you think about it includes all the officers, including Blake that recently was found innocent in the court system.

4. Hartzman did not say he went to the Simpkins PAC and clearly said to them that he did not want their endorsement. He stated that if he got it he would not accept it, per your blog. Let's face it, Hartzman went their trying to seek some sort of support, he lied to you and said he would not go to the Simpkins PAC and he did. How long can you support someone that has clearly mislead you on the two important issues you bring up every year?

Joe, I am with you on Danny, and I am concerned at large and for the Mayor.

You simply did not get this one right and when you try to explain it you even find yourself not having much substance with Hartzman.

Read todays letter to the editor he wrote. His focus is responding to H1N1 vs. all the other things in this city, and at the end of the letter it is like he uses big words to sound smart but it backfires.

Vote Matheny, he is better than Hartzman and at least we can understand him.

[Joe Guarino]

Charlie:

2. As I said earlier, I certainly respect your opinions.

3. Matheny did not support removing Mitchell Johnson until Sandra Anderson Groat changed her mind. He has opposed reopening the White Street Landfill. It is my understanding that it is already a matter of policy for the city to pay the legal expenses of city employees when they face litigation as a result of their work duties. Whatever AJ Blake did was not in the course of his work duties, so it would not be something the city should be at risk of paying. What you say Matheny said does not make sense to me.

4. I don't think you or I know with certainty what happened when Hartzman met with the PAC. But it is a very good sign that he did not get the endorsement; and it is a very bad sign that Matheny got it. My recollection is that Hartzman shared in a comment in a thread here that he told the PAC he would not accept it when he went with them. Perhaps he understood what the score was when he was interviewed. Candidates are told every year it is absolutely mandatory they must show up for that interview for various reasons.

I think Hartzman offers the potential for an independent voice-- on zoning issues, on the city's identity politics, and certainly on the issue of spending.

[David Bartone]

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Dear Readers,

Bill Knight, Mary Rakestraw and Danny Thompson and the Rhino Times all wholeheartedly support support the Natural Science Center Bond. Mr. Knight has been an outspoken advocate for this project. Please keep that in mind when you vote on Tuesday. Differing opinions are great, but when your leading candidates support a project, there must be a great deal of knowledge and substance behind their decision.

[Bubba]

"Differing opinions are great, but when your leading candidates support a project, there must be a great deal of knowledge and substance behind their decision."

Only if you're the narrow-minded type who believes that "knowledge and substance" are absolute values upon which there can never be any deviation from the preferred conventional wisdom.

If nothing else, your contributions here have reinforced that type of dogmatic and mindless cheerleading we've come to expect from the purveyors of the "business as usual" malaise in Greensboro.

[David Bartone]

How is it "mindless and dogmatic cheerleading" when the conservative candidates that you endorse favor the same thing I do? I would call that building consensus based on their willingness to research the facts. Are you calling them "mindless and dogmatic?" No, of course not, right? You hate all bonds. I get that and that is fair. But, at least acknowledge that good people (the ones you want elected) drew a different conclusion and see positive benefits from a project that will generate capital and help diversify our local economy. If my contributions to this blog have "reinforced" your view of me, they should also reinforce your support for your candidates of choice, because we are all in agreement. You are the one on the periphery.

[Joe Guarino]

"You hate all bonds. I get that and that is fair."

Indeed, it is. It is fair to oppose a measure that, based on past experience, will cause many local elected officials to arrive at the conclusion that taxes need to be raised. Been there, done that. We do not need to feel bound by the position that any political candidate takes.

[Bubba]

"How is it "mindless and dogmatic cheerleading" when the conservative candidates that you endorse favor the same thing I do?'

I was referring to you. They didn't go to the absurd lengths of support you've exhibited here.

"I would call that building consensus based on their willingness to research the facts."

Really? Unlike your mindless cheerleading, I simply call it a difference of opinion from mine.

"You are the one on the periphery."

I'm not the one spouting mindless blather.

Because of the vested interest in this issue by your Business As Usual cabal with their purse strings and marketing machine, it's likely your cherished little project may actually get approved by the 20 percent of the voters that will actually turn out.

That doesn't mean that the bond issue or you are right in your pompous assumption of privilege.

[David Bartone]

What you call "pompous" I call passionate. In all fairness to your legitimate concerns, I know the museum people well enough to have great confidence in their honesty and transparency. I think that is why John Hammer so enthusiastically supports them. Like him, I followed and dug for details with great skepticism. I know you think I am some left wing, bond-lover, but the reality is quite the opposite, though I know you will never believe that and will likely call me some more inaccurate names. Just remember that some really good people who you like and want to see elected have a different opinion from you too. They are not "pompous" of part of the "privileged" class. You can label me, I don't care. You can't label them so easily.

[Stormy]

David,

With your endless promoting of and harping about the Science Center, ad nauseam, on several different discussions on Joe's terriory, you must have some personal interest in these bonds beyond being a casual fan of the Center. Care if I ask what that is?

[Stormy]

Sam at Piedmont Publius makes a good point about the Science Center bond.

"Ironically enough, my little one went on a field trip to the Natural Science Center just yesterday, and I thought how nice it would be to have a top-notch facility as a field-trip destination for little ones region-wide. But when government goes into debt to do what it’s supposed to do anyway—- build schools and roads, dispose of waste efficiently, etc., it makes it difficult for voters to support bonds for amenities like the Natural Science Center. And if that bond passes, then it will only be a matter of time before a bond for the Greensboro Children’s Museum goes on the ballot."

"The Rhino knows as well as anyone that the city won’t reduce spending without some serious change on the City Council. So go vote."

[bubba]

"Amenities" is the key word in Sam's article.

It's too bad certain "citizens" refuse to understand the difference between amenities and necessities.

[Stormy]

That's true. Until this city/county can get the things done that they are responsible for (schools, roads, waste disposal, police, etc., then everything else is an "amenity".

[Joe Guarino]

We will know how the bond proposal fared at the polls in a few hours. But I agree with Sam Hieb-- and also with the both of you, Bubba and Stormy-- that we need to concentrate on the "necessities" first, and get them right, before we start entertaining the myriad requests for "wants" and "amenities".