ypsi~dixit

Damn you're good, and fast. I just stepped in the door from the event and you've already posted. Ypsi dixit gets the promptness award of the year!

Aren't you a Townshipper? Do you vote in Ypsi?

Well, the theme of the evening was regional cooperation and evaporating the artificial barriers of distrust.

Old Goat: thanks. Biked home and started typin' from my notes.

Anonymous: Yep. Nope.

And I never, ever, set foot in Ypsi. I haven't spent a dime in local Ypsi businesses in 6 years. I never patronize its festivals or use its bus facilities or parks. I never buy big-ticket items like my hated lawnmower from Congdon's. Never buy special gifts at Quinn's or the toy store. Nosir. I would never do something like treat myself to a reuben at Cafe Luwak or an Alsatian salad at the Double Eagle, dripping in ranch dressing from the squeezy-bottle, before the mayoral debates. And I am careful to skirt the city limits when traveling to work, consulting my map when necessary.

Get real.

Ingrid: Yes. And reaching out to build bridges instead of plodding along with the status quo.

OK, the complete list of questions and answers is now posted in the "Continue Reading" section, above.

Correction: Paul is against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (ban to affirmative action in MI)

He is for affirmative action and against the MCRI - he corrected that in his speech.

I think Steve sounded too rehearsed, Paul was too vague, and it was hard to listen to Lois, although she was the best sounding of the group, knowing what her past has been with the Council. Also, it was almost offensive that the white candidates assumed the 1 out of 4 below the poverty line are black, and that all three candidates believe that the South side is the place where those 1-in-4 live...definitely NOT the case.

Awesome job overall and thanks for giving a synopsis of the debate for us, Y. I was at the debate, but wasn't really impressed in general.

I was kinda bummed though that there was no mention of how EMU students that live in Ypsilanti (which are many) can get involved and whether or not the mayor candidates care what we think. The closest thing was allowing high school students (bah!) to be psudo-council members....but no EMU students on board? Odd considering the debate was on campus.

PS. The last question was regarding what project/issue they felt able to solve the best...it was pretty unanimous that they all could find ways of solving all problems, and needed community ideas to do so.

wow that was a really long post...my bad

Big Mike: That's right, oops, typo, thank you for the correction. Paul did make it clear that he supports affirmative action.

You are right, EMU students formed no part of the discussion. That is regrettable, when there are so many concerned, inquisitive, energetic, progressive students with good ideas for Ypsilanti.

I respectfully disagree that Steve sounded too rehearsed. I think he sounded on-point. He answered questions cogently and knowledgeably. He presented much more solid information than the other candidates and seemed most down-to-earth and realistic.

Thanks for the last-question info and the kind words.

My work has brought me to Petoskey this evening, so I missed the debate, but I am grateful for your thoughtful and really, really quick analyis!

Thanks, Laura :)

Trusty: thank you for your nice words. I'm glad.

If you've felt particularly effected by the recent Mercury retrograde (as many Cancer, Leo, Virgo and Gemini people have), you can now breathe a sigh of relief! Mercury goes direct, and soon the communication lines are static free. Though many won't feel like talking now, as silence seems to order and empower your thoughts.

ARIES (March 21-April 19). It seems everyone else was given a map, while you struggle through the maze without a clue. Trust your inner compass, and know that the journey is more important than arriving at any destination.

TAURUS (April 20-May 20). What a joy your nearest and dearest are today. This is refreshing, since lately you have felt generally used up by their neediness. With relationships in a solid place, it's about time you added another friend to the mix.

GEMINI (May 21-June 21). Your attitude makes you the belle of the ball, the sizzle on the steak, the (SET ITAL) POW (END ITAL) in the spiked punch. No wonder your phone is ringing off the hook with offers. A Sagittarius will be particularly fun.

CANCER (June 22-July 22). Life is not without its little calamities, but luckily, the excitement does much to jump-start your system. You shake, rattle and roll yourself into a sweet situation by the end of the day -- perhaps a new job!

LEO (July 23-Aug. 22). On your quest for truth, you're easily swept up into scenarios that are mostly true -- 90 percent or more true, or just "sorta" true. You're so wise, though, that you can still learn from an imperfect lesson.

VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22). The visionary comic Steven Wright once said, "If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you." This is no day to extend yourself unnecessarily or take daring risks.

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 23). You're a threat to your colleagues. Take this as a compliment, and armor yourself with the self-assurance that has always been your greatest strength.

SCORPIO (Oct. 24-Nov. 21). Allowing your ego to rule supreme can lead to your own undoing. Still, a little bravado wins over the skeptics. So there's a balance to strike, which you'll do with great charm.

SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21). Caught off guard, you'll spring to action in a new manner -- odd, but effective. Also, the stars show you listening closely to what people tell you and choosing your battles very carefully.

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19). You love a riddle, but chasing the same one all the time gets old. When you no longer want to know something, the information is revealed. (So if you really don't want to know, stay curious.)

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18). Not wanting to feel the heat is one reason to stay out of the proverbial kitchen. Of course, proverbial kitchens are impossible to stay out of forever -- one has to eat eventually. At least wait until after 4:00, when things cool down.

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20). Everyone has a story. Luckily, you're not a captive audience to most of them ... just the one or two today. That's more than enough to get you primed to go out and live your own story, glad to be you.

WEEKEND LOVE FORECAST: Try not to blame anything on your partner because, chances are, the very thing you could accuse him or her of was inadvertently caused by you. ARIES: Your dreams hold answers to romantic questions. TAURUS: Spending on things you don't need may have an adverse affect on your relationships -- unless you also buy the other person something. GEMINI: An argument is resolved once and for all, never to be brought up again. CANCER: It's so lucky to reach out to someone you normally wouldn't think you'd have much in common with. LEO: You feel on top of the world, and it shows in your love life. VIRGO: Be on the same level with loved ones, and you can't go wrong. LIBRA: Take time away from loved ones -- you need it and, by the way, deserve it. SCORPIO: The weekend shows you embracing what you can't change. SAGITTARIUS: If you've had a panoply of unsatisfying dates, that's about to turn around. CAPRICORN: If you can highlight the exquisite talents of the object of your affection, you win a heart. AQUARIUS: Love is not a limited resource. Everyone can find it. PISCES: Time with someone you admire will be your most creative hours of all.

I recorded and videotaped the debate last night for anyone who missed it. The audio recording is right off the sound board and sounds good. I have posted the audio of the debate on my blog in 3 different versions. There are 1 piece versions in high and low quality mp3 depending on your band width. I also made a version that is split into 2 parts in case you want to burn it to an audio cd.

The video is encoding as I write this and should be online tonight. I am planning on posting it to Ourmedia.org, Google Video and doing a bit-torrent feed. If you decide to go the bit-torrent route please leave your torrent open after it is downloading so everyone else can get a better download speed too.

I belong to the 5 o'clock secret spot by the river Blue Ribbon Committee, and Steve's never been there.

I liked EMU prez Dr. John Fallon's introductory remarks very much, especially his appreciation of the three candidates (all Dems, how very refreshing) for being willing to step up in the first place, with the prospect of modest compensation and a whole lot of work, to run for mayor of Ypsilanti.

He seems to have a Lee Bollinger-ness about him (former UM prez and man whose name is on the U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action decision, now at Columbia--stunningly kind and intelligent man).

Elizabeth: I personally found his remarks to be so much empty blather. He spoke about partnerships with the city, &c...I'm of the "I'll believe it when I see it" school.

Hic: Would that be Pabst Blue Ribbon? In a certain northside park?

Sam: How cool. I know Mark wanted a podcast of the debate; kind of you to do so.

Just goes to show what Plato said all those years ago: it takes all kinds to make a world. Even to make a little university town! We heard Dr. Fallon's words so differently. (And I l-o-v-e the broadening views empowered by blogs.)

Elizabeth: don't forget the sourpuss factor on my end. :)

I love a sourpuss! And I never forget what the bully man said who sent a note to my home following my letter to the editor in the newspaper before the war: "Put up or shut up, Pollyanna"!!!

(I love his line, I do!)

In the final analysis, people will vote their pocket books. Does not bode well for those who supported or are luke-warm to the city income tax!

(whispers) and some will vote their empty egg cartons.

Khalid's story, which makes much hay of the chicken issue.

After hearing about Mr. Schreiber's Ypsilanti 2020 Task Force, I've decided to form my own task force.


I'm calling it the Ypsilanti 2010 Task Force because I have better vision.

Are there any Republican running for Mayor. I find it fascinating; that everybody is a Democrat in this mayor race?
Any Comments please?

If you define a republican as someone who is anti-tax, pro-business and follows the corporate downsizing model of government (cutting public jobs and services), then, yes, there is.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

If you define a republican simply as someone who hates gays, then no, there isn't.

Well the Republicans of today are running up deficts out of control, putting goverenment in everybodies home, taking away rights, etc to name a few. It's all in black and white everyday.
Than, no I don't want that.

Or do we just have a canadate or 2; that say they are Democrats just to get in office. Because they know this is a big Democratic stronghold?
Interesting, I think?

any comments?

No, because your remarks are not very coherent. What is your point?

you, don't understand the prior posts?

Michigan is the home of the origional Republican party. I was just curious as to why no Republicans have come out to try to become Ypsilanit's Mayor. That is all.

I thought it was Khalil.

I'm just outside the usual posters and asking questions; that is all.
No biggy.

The bittorrent for the video of the debate is now ready. You can grab the torrent file here. It will also be up on google video and ourmedia later. If you do go for the torrent please remember to leave the torrent open after it is finished downloading. This will help others download it faster. The more people sharing a file on bit-torrent the faster it runs.

I have been reading this blog but nor written anything. But one thing: I am surprised that everyone has just ignored the fact that Steve Pierce seems to be running as a Democrat because it's convenient to do so. How many here would vote for Pierce if he were just running as a Republican? Laura says he sounds "on-point"---well, he sounded on talking point. If you're willing to say whatever someone wants to hear, it sounds great. But solving problems takes more than nice sounding words. Smooth-talking politicians are a turn off to me and a lot my friends. Just my thoughts.

People who think clearly talk clearly. It's a shame to me that the bar of public discourse is apparently so low that anyone who is articulate is seen as a "smooth talker."

Did you attend the debate, Jeff? Did you find Lois to have much to say of substance? I did not. Just a lot of Biblical-tinged empty rhetoric. "I believe..." this and "I believe..." that. Won't solve Ypsi's problems.

Steve, on the other hand, marshalled plenty of facts and examples to support his points. He knew what he was talking about. If the strong anti-intellectual tendency in this country renders a thoughtful, knowledgeable candidate as "smooth-talking," then I just have to weep.

John: oopsie, typo. You are right. It is Khalil.

I've grown weary of the "he's a Republican" whine. It's tired.

Having listened to the debate via download, Steve was the only candidate who, when asked what being a Democrat was all about, expressed familiarity with our actual platform. It's downright bizarre, folks, to keep the misinformation campaign marching forward at this point in time. I know there's this faction that thinks if they say it enough times, people will begin to believe it. Let me give you a heads up: it's just not sticking. Give it a rest.

I'm also weary of the "polished" or "rehearsed" complaints. As Laura said, people with clear minds and clear vision speak clearly.

Steve Pierce is running as a Democrat because he is a Democrat. Once Upon a Time one could be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and be in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. (And, frankly, fiscal conservatism is called for in Ypsilanti's predicament.)

It's too bad that some Democrats follow right-wing Republicans in redefining political labels, because they then instigate debates about who is most Democratic and who is most pure.

If you want to suggest who is more Republican, you should consider the endorsement tactics of Beth and Lisa of the former YCFE. Now that was pure Rovianism.

P.S. Thanks, Laura, for the summary. Nicely done. :-)

I wish there had been more detailed analysis of the City's budget at the debate. Schreiber's right in pointing out we should be reading the City Manager's budget plan, but we need officials who can go beyond that, dissect that plan and put it back together in a way that doesn't depend upon forces beyond our control (increased state funding, co-operation with the other governmental entities) and doesn't disadvantage low income residents. That's not easy.

Of course, we need to engage the state, township, EMU and other cities, but in the end, all we can count on is ourselves. Lois was right about the talent and creativity that we have in Ypsilanti. Unfortunately, its all too easy for city poliicians to rely on the bureacracy instead of their constituents.

Steve's got the right idea in reaching out to the unions. The people who do city jobs every day have a lot of good ideas about saving money. The City also wastes money in fighting the unions. We need to look at the legal costs involved.

I'm also very interested, and heard little discussion about how much Water Street will actually be cleaned up. I couldn't go the meeting sin Are we just putting concrete over a toxic dump? Is that what we want? Are rich people really going to live adjacent to dirty property?

Oops, my child pressed the button and sent this before I was ready. Second sentence last paragraph should read: I couldn't go the meeting on Water Street since it was scheduled to begin during working hours.

how much Water Street will actually be cleaned up
FYI-The regulations for cleanup vary depending on the use of the site. The standards for residential cleanup are higher than those for commercial cleanup. It probably wasn't much of a discussion topic because these regulations aren't at the city/mayor level, although some cities such as Ann Arbor have specified higher cleanup standards than the state.

Does anyone know... weren't the higher standards required for residential cleanup one of the factors that threw a wrench into the works of the previous developer's plans?

Anyway, I think that for potential buyers, there are many other factors that will hold more weight than the cleanup. Price, perceived value, perceived "safety", parking (I hate to have to say this but it's true), downtown amenities, etc...

Suzie, yes, the differing requirements of cleanup meant that it was most reasonable to just take the dirtiest section (along Michigan Ave) and make it commercial.

The real problem was that Biltmore then claimed it couldn't build anything but residences. (I remember a similar situation involving a paper mill, where a different firm said they couldn't build apartments over three stories. Builders these days don't seem very flexible, if you ask me).

The OTHER 'real problem', though, is that in the initial plans for water street, and what i think most residents actually supported, the strip along michigan ave. was supposed to be commercial in the first place, but someone in the city government seems to have misplaced that idea before biltmore was hired.

Yeah, hopefully that idea is back to stay this time. Commercial, at least at ground level, is only appropriate for the center-city - whether cleanup is a factor or not.

In my opinion, none of the candidates were "smooth talkers", especially when you consider that they've had nine debates thus far to practice.

Trudy Swanson was the only speaker that really knew how to work a crowd, especially when you consider that half the audience was noisily fleeing the room when she took the podium.

Thanks for the kind words, Eric 3.0. :)

With regard to Water Street, Ann Arbor has insisted that developers who get TIF money meeting the old more stringent state standards, not the more lax new state standards. We could do that here. Has there been a discussion of this?

Ann Arbor would never let anything be built in a flood plain.

A park maybe.

Well, I'm not sure if Ann Arbor never would . . . though Ann Arbor does manage to keep its head on straight about many things. (Maybe that area out near I-94 and S. Main isn't strictly Ann Arbor, but isn't that former wetlands with strip malls upon them? Not sure--thought I'd heard that. Anyway, it's not so obviously a flood plain as Water Street is.)

With really phenomenal cleanup and then slender canals and sturdy boats, buildings on stilts . . . Water Street might begin to seem like a reasonable project. We could have our own little Venice along Michigan Ave.

Way off the put-off of the "Mayorz", but Elizabeth may be onto something.

AA all but ignores their stretch of river, but Ypsi could ignore thier mistake and emulate San Antonio, TX.

SATX is now Texas' #1 tourist destination, partially due to the Riverwalk: a super-popular promenade along a series of what used to be ugly drainage ditches.

Give me 1/10 of what the River St. plan cost and I'll...

With really phenomenal cleanup and then slender canals and sturdy boats, buildings on stilts . . . Water Street might begin to seem like a reasonable project. We could have our own little Venice along Michigan Ave.

I second Leighton in saying E. is on to something. Regrettably, an idea this visionary is I think our of reach. "Venice on the Huron"? It is a beautiful idea.

trustygetto is growing weary of a lot of things. And of course both he and Laura, in their usual scramble to deflect any criticism from Steve, ignored the actual point I was making. Pierce's smooth talk is not about being articulate----the problem is his willingness to say whatever anyone wants to hear. So of course it sounds good. No one disputes Steve's a clear talker and thinker. Problem is, what he thinks and says depends on who he's talking to.

As for being a Democrat: look, the guy only just declared as such this year---no doubt because that's what people want to hear in Ypsi. Even his yard signs don't ID him as a Dem! (Maybe he ordered them before he decided to become a Democrat.)

But party affiliation isn't the big deal: some tough decisions need to be made around here and it's going to take more than talk to carry them out.

But party affiliation isn't the big deal: some tough decisions need to be made around here and it's going to take more than talk to carry them out.

Yep. That's why I prefer whom you called a clear talker and thinker. to take the reins.

WHAT IS THE CHICKEN ISSUE?

What I object to most is the playing politics aspect of the Pierce campaign. Steve will say whatever people want to hear, which they then uncritically accept as "clear thinking" because it conforms to their own opinion. Members of Pierce's campaign are now telling voters that Schreiber does NOT support gay civil rights in order to win the yard sign war. It turns my stomach. It's not about WINNING, folks, it's really about uniting to preserve what we love about our city.

Pierce has allowed misinformation to be spread about his opponent, was asked to leave the DDA, has shady financial lawsuits, has a sudden new infatuation with the Democratic party in a Democratic town, has inflated his support of the inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance (YCFE paid for webhosting that Pierce claims he donated, AND Steve cut off the website just 2 weeks before the election, allegedly because he couldn't get ahold of his volunteer contact ...yeah, and obviously he could not find ANYONE else associated with YCFE), cannot get along with anyone in city government, and the list goes on.

The most flagrant fault that people can find to accuse Paul Schreiber of is supporting an income tax (if voters concur) and getting an endorsement that some think should not have been on YCFE stationery! Because Paul Schreiber truly gave his time and money on the inclusive nondiscrimination campaign, because he worked with the actual people and became part of the struggle, he knows the importance and complexity of the issue and how critical unity is in our already too-divided town. His work with the Housing Commission and poor people has taught him that, too. He goes out and does the job, and stays on mission, without getting caught up in political maneuvering. OK, so he's an engineer without a lot of social graces (sorry, Paul) and wasn't on the debate team. He's not able to swivel with hands clasped and make beaming eye contact. BUT if you're looking for integrity in city government, look at Paul Schreiber.

Q. How do you tell an extrovert from an introvert engineer?

A. The extrovert looks at YOUR shoes when he's talking to you.

Q: What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?

A: I don't know, and I don't care.

How many true bikers does it take to change a light bulb?

Schreiber seems like a nice guy but working with the Housing Commission doesn't seem to huge assest to being mayor.

Did you hear about the dumb guy who won a gold medal in the Olympics?

.

.

He had it bronzed.

"Yep. That's why I prefer whom you called a clear talker and thinker. to take the reins."

Come on Laura, can't you do better than that? You might as well admit that you've been charmed by BS and be done with it. As I said (and you keep ignoring) Pierce will say whatever you want to hear. Not what we need in a leader. But you've been snowed. So I waste my digitial breath. Go ahead and vote for the only Republican running and sleep well!

How many mayors does it take to screw Ypsilanti?

I'd just like to go on the record... I've known Steve Pierce for a few years now. He hasn't said anything new that he wasn't saying a few years ago (excuse my double negative). Those of us that have been paying attention can see that. It isn't his fault if the current administration only wants to hear from people who agree with them. Now they don't have anything on Steve so they have to make crap up to make him look like a bad guy(some of the posts I'm reading here make me shake my head in wonder at the lies people are willing to put into writing!).

Anyway, the real shame of it all is the position they have put Paul into. Paul is a really nice guy and I hate to see his heart broken. However, we can't vote with our hearts. We have to vote for the best leader. That means good ideas, integrity AND good speaking skills... and that means Steve Pierce.

Now if Paul wants to run for Council in a couple years... I bet he'd have some support!

Jeff: Don't insult my intelligence, thank you kindly. I have enough brain cells firing to tell if someone is insincere. I support Steve because I saw, through working with him on the KYR campaign, that he was a good guy. Helpful, quick to respond to emails, and a square dealer. He's by far the best candidate for mayor. Tank the tired old "Republican" routine. I'd support him even if he declared his candidacy as a Republican--this from the left-est person imaginable. Who gives a fig what party he is? He's by far the best man for the job.

Rachel: Amen, sister.

How did you "work with him" on the KYR campaign? What did he actually do, exactly, since this seems to be your primary evidence for endorsement? It would seem like if there was some substance to it, you would have detailed his performance by now, instead of just assuring your readers that he's a 'good guy,' 'square dealer,' or whatever other euphemism you may choose.

Rachel, my wife still hasn't called 911 about that darn fire yet. Can you believe it?

A troubling element in the campaign has been the tendency to accuse anyone who impugns candidate Pierce as acting illegally, maliciously, fraudulently or worse. In some respect, they constitute assaults using a disproportionate level of scorn directly personally at individuals. Once you enter the public arena as a candidate or elected official you risk exposure to insulting and acerbic criticism. But for all the complaints about how dirty the Schreiber campaign has been, it has not been marked by the animosity at individual citizens I am seeing by Steve’s supporters. Name me one person associated with the Pierce campaign (other than the candidate) who has received castigation similar to Lisa Wozniak, Lori Thom, Lisa Zuber, and Beth Bashert.

Gee Rachel, you must not be aware of Steve's recommendations on the Blue Ribbon panel to cut the bus subsidy!

To relate a folksy, yet relevant (and Republican) story: Abe Lincoln, when he was an attorney, posed the question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" He then answered his own question, "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." Steve's campaign can roll out all the "smears" he wants and all the blameworthy scapegoats and all the looming disasters, but that doesn't add up to truth.

John, because I've written about your wife, Beth and Lisa and Lori, I'll pick up your gauntlet.

The answer to your question is none. No one. Then again, no Pierce supporter (to my knowledge) has said anything negative about Paul Schrieber. It's not as though these women are being burned in effigy, either, John. They have dissed Steve Pierce without disclosing the fact that they're working for Paul. I think it's fair to call them on it. Letter-writers, like candidates (as you pointed out), inject themselves into the public forum.

What bothers me is that Paul's supporters seem to be fueled more by animosity toward Steve Pierce than by the merits of their own candidate. They toss around "Republican" like the epithet that it is, and insinuate all sorts of crap about Steve. To Jeff, above, to believe in Steve Pierce is to be brainwashed. Hey Jeff, save it for the midterm elections.

Do they think they can burn so many bridges with their fellow Democrats?

Lastly, John, isn't the YCFE thing a vendetta? If so, can you suggest a statute of limitations on that four-year-old resentment?

John, because I've written about your wife, Beth and Lisa and Lori, I'll pick up your gauntlet.



The answer to your question is none. No one. Then again, no Pierce supporter (to my knowledge) has said anything negative about Paul Schrieber. It's not as though these women are being burned in effigy, either. They dissed Steve Pierce without disclosing the fact that they're working for Paul. I think it's fair to call them on it. Letter-writers, like candidates (as you pointed out), inject themselves into the public forum.



What bothers me is that Paul's supporters seem to be fueled more by animosity toward Steve Pierce than by the merits of their own candidate. They toss around "Republican" like the epithet that it is, and insinuate all sorts of crap about Steve. To Jeff, above, to believe in Steve Pierce is to be brainwashed. Hey Jeff, save it for the midterm elections.



Do they think they can burn so many bridges with their fellow Democrats? Maybe they think they're the only true Democrats in town. I don't know.



Lastly, John, isn't the YCFE thing a vendetta? Maybe you can suggest a statute of limitations on that four-year-old resentment.

"A troubling element in the campaign has been the tendency to accuse anyone who impugns candidate Pierce as acting illegally, maliciously, fraudulently or worse."

No, that's dead wrong. The troubling element in the campaign is the tendency for Schreiber supporters to fraudulently, illegally and maliciously impugn Pierce. That's what the pushback is and has been all about. Schreiber supporters can keep expressing opinions as if they are facts, but neglecting the truth only serves to impair their credibility.

MCLA 169.202(3) states:

(3) “Ballot question committee” means a committee acting in support of, or in opposition to, the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot question but that does not receive contributions or make expenditures or contributions for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the action of the voters for or against the nomination or election of a candidate.

Appendix G, of the manual issued by the Michigan Department of State concerning Ballot Question Committees states, clearly and unequivocally, that:

"A Ballot Question Committee is prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence the nomination or election of a candidate."

Clearly, the law does not allow a Ballot Question Committee to influence voters when it comes to supporting candidates, which is what the YCFE did. I'm not making this up. This is the law. Don't take my word for it -- check it out for yourself, and next time, follow it. Abiding by the law is not optional.

With regard to Wozniak's comments, I appreciate that if she hates Pierce, she is likely to construe his words in the worst possible manner. But let's turn to the actual audio tape to hear what he really said and context in which he said it:

"I also want to go into the school systems and say you need to get involved at an earlier age. And one of the things we ought to be doing is getting the schools into our neighborhood associations. And in fact in Normal Park we did that here just a couple of months ago. Remember, I was here and you were here. And we had the folks come from the schools and talk about the school programs. We need to expand that to all of the neighborhood associations. We need to start identifying the young families that are here with young kids. And reach out to them with early reading programs. Because if you get your kids into into a first grade or second grade here in Ypsilanti, you will stay. We have got to attract them early. It is about marketing and reaching out and I want to be a part of that."

Is Pierce guilty of optimism? Yes. Is he guilty of conveying an attitude that we are all in this together? Yes. Is he taking credit for something he doesn't deserve credit for? Absolutely not.

Wozniak's letter gilds the lily. And if that's what she wants to do in a letter to the editor, then it is fair game to point out what the actual facts are, and what Pierce's actual words were.

Lisa said:

"...and the list goes on."

Indeed it does. Character assassination requires constantly reloading ammunition, and you're playing like a tail gunner.

Try campaining for Paul instead of against Steve. Rise above the mud.

Brett: How did you "work with him" on the KYR campaign?

I worked with him on the KYR campaign. What, pray, is ambiguous about that? Steve attended numerous KYR meetings. He gave me much valuable advice. He was a sounding-board and a loyal helper. He gave hours and hours of his time to help move things forward.

Name me one person associated with the Pierce campaign (other than the candidate) who has received castigation similar to Lisa Wozniak, Lori Thom, Lisa Zuber, and Beth Bashert.

None. Perhaps because the Pierce supporters have not stooped to dirty tactics?

A little vague, but fair enough. I was mostly curious as to when he got involved with KYR, as it went through several different versions.

Lisa, I AM "aware of Steve's recommendations on the Blue Ribbon panel to cut the bus subsidy" In fact, as friends we had converstations about it long before he said anything publicly about it. And, again, he is saying the same thing now that he told me back then. The City can't afford the subsidy but there are other ways to save bus service. That's the important part. That would make it "win-win." Check out his posting addressing this issue at Loose Tea... http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15685566&postID=115281960925257502 I don't know why every problem around here only has two options... Subsidy or no bus, income tax or complete devistation, black or white (literally and metaphorically). How about if we spend a little more time brainstorming with the residents, instead? And how about if we plan on taking them seriously for once?

Anyway, that being said, I second Eric's response. I couldn't have said it better.

One last thing... I know there are some people here that are not going to change their minds and that's fine. But for any of you who might be getting the impression that Steve parts his hair to the right to cover the horns, you really should call him yourself and ask him the questions you think are important. 864-4050

I wonder if there's anyone here that hasn't made up his/her mind! That would be something!

Calling facts "character assassination" doesn't stand up either. A tail is still a tail.

It's astoundingly Orwellian to point the finger at the Schreiber supporters. As Wikipedia defines it, Orwellian refers to the "manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings;" also "the denial or rewriting of past events." Truth is lie, at least according to the Pierce campaign: if I point out the candidate's flaws and deceptions, I'm engaged in "character assassination" or a "smear;" if I produce written proof, in his own words, I'm "misinterpreting," etc.

Well, I'm readying my altar for the new St. Pierce icon, clipping out the wings & halo to adhere to his photo. What a relief that I don't have to waste further thought on the meaning of his past actions! Experts agree, everything is FINE.

One point of clarification: I don't work for the Pierce campaign, but I plan to vote for Steve. He is the best candidate for the job, vendettas notwithstanding.

By the way, you have a wonderful way with hyperbole.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But sometimes it's a big fat weinie.

I don't buy your explanation, Lisa. And it is majorly Orwellian to put words in the mouths of others, particularly when they haven't spoken such words. This is your fundamental error and the reason why you ain't gonna win this argument.

The fundamental problem with the smears is that they are baseless, biased personal opinions being presented as if they were facts, which interestingly is Rovian tactic.

You say he "refused" to endorse the campaign as if it is a fact. We later learn this is merely your opinion based on your interpretation of incomplete facts. We look at the actual facts as written down by the participants at the time and adopted by the participants in an actual vote, and they say otherwise.

Wozniak says he takes credit for things others did. We check out what he actually said, and we learn that he didn't do what Wozniak accuses him of.

Two people print up a letter on letterhead which is obviously intended to create an appearance that they speak for that organization and represent the views of the organization, only we later learn that the organization was dissolved, its supporters weren't asked if they agree or even if they had opinions on the matter, and that a Ballot Question Committee isn't even legally entitled to endorse a candidate.

Should I go on?

We can use whatever euphemism we want (Orwellian, white lie, half-truth, fudging it, short-cutting, making it easier to understand, creative editing, gilding the lily) but basic principles of integrity require people to pay attention to the truth and to honor it.

If Schreiber supporters can't take the heat, then they shouldn't stand next to the fire. Nobody made anyone write letters to the editor, go on local blogs, etc. They did this of their own volition, and some of things they said were less than forthright. If they intend to continue providing opinions and half-truths to the public as if they are facts, then many in this community will continue to push back, regardless of who they are supporting.

The simple solution is to be honest.

methinks steve is using the royal "we"

Trusty? Still a tail. Just because you can write many longs screens manipulating language for political ends and rewriting the past doesn't make it so. Pierce's actions "res ipsa loquitur."

As do yours, Lisa, as do yours.

Manipulating language? Ha! Facts is facts, Lisa, opinion is opinion, and innuendo is innuendo. There's really no way around it . . . though you can certainly keep trying.

Trusty - do you mean that we should start to have an honest piss match?

Probably not.

Did anybody who received that strange YCFE - Schreiber letter actually take it as fact? Did anybody who knows the players not get what was going on?

The smudge type of action rarely works, and hasn't this time either.

Those attacks on our Human Rights as listed in our Charter were defended by Steve and many many more people. People who supported the leadership of YCFE, and those who didn't, all did what it took to keep our Charter intact. Twice. No two people did it, and no two people can take the credit.

I was on the front lines of both campaigns. I will happily assure anybody that Steve actively and passionately supports civil rights - for whatever group of folks you want to list. Did then, does now.

I'm so glad to hear that the Pierce supporters have been so aboveboard. Then I wonder who could have gone behind Schreiber campaigners the other day, collecting his campaign literature out of voters' mailboxes, wrapping the 6" stack of brochures in a rumpled copy of the YCFE endorsment letter and leaving said package on an East Cross Street porch? Hmmmmm. Wait...it must have been Schreiber supporters...um, I'm getting it...who took their own candidate's brochures...in order to complain about their opponents' behavior...? That must have been it!

Interesting rhetorical tactic, but transparent nonetheless.

So you're suggesting two wrongs make a right? I'm finding myself convinced neither by your story nor by the sarcasm that accompanies it.

Does that constitute mail fraud? Mail fraud is a felony.

No, mail fraud is something different, but (if it actually happened in the manner alleged) it would constitute tampering with the mail, which is a federal crime. I don't know if it's a felony or not -- it probably varies with the degree of tampering and damage that ensues.

Have the feds been alerted to this crime spree? I'll bet they can fingerprint the brochures and catch the wrongdoer, at the same time revealing if it is indeed a below-board Pierce supporter . . .

Or on second thought, maybe I watch too much CSI.

Them brochures are swarming with fingerprints. Even if the malefactors wore latex gloves, they likely left shards of DNA on the brochures, maybe a little spit, a few tears, and so forth. Round 'em up and send 'em in a Ziploc bag to the federales, Lisa! We gotta catch these brochure-snatchers pronto!

Since anything unflattering to Pierce is dismissed by you, Trusty, I can hardly feel surprised that you don't believe me. So, I think I'm done with the discussion, but thanks for listening, all.

Suppose the crime was committed by someone supporting some other candidate?

or someone who really is tired of all the flyers that get stuff in their doors - political and pizza both?

or someone who took offense at both the pieces of information (letter and flyers) and thought they were helping?

I for one am sick to death of rolled-up pizza fliers bring rubber-banded onto one of my fence gateposts.

Every day it's the same. Bike home, tired. Roll up to the gate. There it is. Today's fabulous deals in pizza for me to walk towards, remove, shove in a pocket, promptly forget about, and rediscover that evening, manifested as a million tiny pieces of paper-lint covering every square inch of my laundry which I THEN have to do AGAIN!

Agh! Every time I find a flier, I swear off that pizza joint for life.

As a result, I NEVER eat pizza in Ypsilanti. Never. Never again!

Plus I hate having people tromping all over my lawn. Leave me alone, you pizza flier people! I'm this close to electrifying my blasted fence!