If you accept what you read and hear through the local punditry, you would most certainly be convinced that this election is a referendum on Mayor Thane and by proxy Chalmers.That is after all the common wisdom and how dare you question the wisdom of the punditry.

I would expect that if the public truly wanted to send a message or truly felt such outrage at the current state of affairs that voters would turn out in droves to send forth such a message. In other words, you would expect that voter turnout would be higher under such a scenario.

Unfortunately the numbers show quite the opposite for the current election compared to the 2005 election. I chose the 2005 election as it is not a mayoral election similar to the most recent election as you would expect a mayoral election to have an even higher turnout. Also note that as the 2nd ward did not have a contested race in 2005, I went back to 2001.

Here are the numbers:

The drop in turnout for the recent election is simply stunning. I do not have a theory as to why but I can tell you that to view this election as a referendum with a plummet in turnout strikes me as fanciful narrative. What is also quite striking is the low turn out in the 5th ward where if we again accept the conventional wisdom that Chalmers formed the basis of the referendum, you would expect strong turnout. However, you see quite the opposite and in fact, the 5th ward shows the largest drop in turnout of any ward.

I’ll post more detailed numbers tomorrow hopefully.

I’m finally feeling a bit better after a bout of the flu likely H1N1.  I’m behind on many fronts so I’m limited for time but let me highlight a few things of note given the flurry of posts from last week:

1) I deleted an exchange from a post by BrazenLiberal to loyalsouthsider on second and perhaps more lucid read. A first and final warning to Brazen

2) I’m not following why we expect the county to pay for infrastructure in the city either from a policy point or from the political point. Why would other towns approve a direct infusion of money to the city other than to raise their own tax rates given the eroding fund balance.  I’m struck how some believe that the towns will blindly go along with directly aiding the city at their expense.

3) By any measure, the infrastructure issues are longstanding and profound. I posted while back on how the poor state of our infrastructure raises the pitchforks but when push comes to shove on how to pay for it without increasing taxes, the pitchforks disappear and what had been urgent and essential gets quickly pushed aside. Of course the hope is that we will receive a grant or other funding which is speculative at best and delusional at worst. Ironically the most vocal critics of state and federal spending programs then eagerly seek funding from the very programs they so rail against. Let’s be blunt: if voters want to truly fix infrastructure, create a bond issue and put it for referendum. If it passes, then voters will walk the walk, if not, then it’s just talk with no practical basis for reality.

4) I’d be in favor of adaptive reuse of the former museum as a B&B and even some other uses. What I had in mind as ‘commercial’ looked like a huge parking lot with huge halogen parking lights such as a medical office complex. I painted with too broad a brush so I’m not automatically opposed to reuse,  just certain types of reuse that would take a heavy toll on home values in the surrounding neighborhood. And yes, I’d be happy to see it on the tax rolls but again that is not a certainty either.

5) I’ll revisit the numbers from the election but that will have to wait

6) I’ll revisit the narratives surrounding the election as well so that should also prove entertaining.

h/t to Diane Hatzenbuhler, the link to county results (here)

Barbara Johnson does indeed win the 2nd Ward Supervisor race.

10:55 Calling it a night, thanks for stopping by. Cheers

10:50 Again Johnson shows as winning versus Stark, so I’m not going to call it

10:47 I’ll be wrapping up soon so as of now, it does look like Wills has won and Wheeler as well.

10:28  I now show two sources with Stark leading as I posted previously

10:12 COnflicting number here that Stark lost by 35 so Ward 2 unknown now

10:09 I’m calling it for Leggiero and Baia; not all numbers in but big leads

10:07 Unofficial with no numbers but Wills won; Dybas lost or Barbara Wheeler wins

10:00 Stark 261 to Johnson 180 with all districts

9:59 Gina DeRossi wins 248, Martin 194, Wierzbicki  119 all districts reporting

9:57 Julie Pierce winner with 4 out of 4 reporting. Pierce 306, Phelps 143, Raciborski 120.

9:55 473 Isabel to 244 Ahr with all districts reporting

9:53 Leggiero 298-59 with 2 of 4 districts

9:51 1 of 4 dstricts in ward 4 shows Diane H leading Wills 25-21

9:47Julie Price sizable lead with 1 out of 4 districts in 2nd ward

9:32 Gina DeRossi likely winner in 3rd Ward

9:25 Joe Isabel appears to have a sizable lead in 1st ward

9:10 By ‘epic fail’ I mean this live blogging experiment,

9:05 Just remembered that in the 3rd ward at least the machines were old school not the computerized stations. Apparently no training occurred for the poll operators so it just sat there unused as a prop.

9:00 Not off to an auspicious start just learning that I won’t get updates locally as quickly as expected. Hopefully this is not an epic fail. Republicans win VA races just announced.

I’ll be live blogging after 9 as I get election results and minding the console if anyone wants to post.

I see some searches looking for the candidates in Amsterdam. Please refer to the Recorder’s list of Montgomery County Races if you want to know who is running.

If shared services are such an ideal solution to our problems, please explain how shared services through MOSA have worked out for the taxpayer.

Just to state the obvious: if you try to post here attacking a candidate with a preamble of “just to clear up a rumor that is running with some speed now” trying to use this blog as a vehicle for spreading said rumor, I will not post it. Please use the traditional outlets for rumor and misinformation. Thanks

First and final warning to aforementioned poster.

Let’s get right to the the Recorder today.

I’m not surprised at the endorsements from the Recorder especially in the 3rd Ward. But that should not surprise you either.

What I found most interesting was the Chalmers story which had a fairly detailed response from each candidate pro or con on Chalmers. If you then look at the editorial process for endorsements, you see the following statement from the editors:

Much of the discussion between the candidates and our editorial board focused on cooperation and improving working relationships between the council members and the mayor. Other common issues discussed included taxes, economic development, the cleanup or demolition of abandoned properties, the hiring of a supervisor for codes enforcement, and the Chalmers building.

We believe the present council didn’t accomplish much during its term, mainly due to the distraction caused by the Chalmers situation and a lack of communication from the mayor’s office.

So a few days before the election, we get a fairly detailed exchange on Chalmers but none of the other issues ostensibly used in the endorsement process. Let’s hear the specific positions on issues like taxes, economic development, et al. But we do not other than no one wants higher taxes or blight and people want economic development. I think a broad consensus exists that no one wants higher taxes all things equal. But let’s deconstruct how we pay for demolition or how we foster economic development. Is that not just as important to drill down as Chalmers?

Apparently the distraction of Chalmers applies to more than just the Council.

And let me again restate my endorsement for Bob Martin for 3rd Ward Alderman. I’m not endorsing for other races as I’ve just not followed the other races as closely. Maybe next time.

PS The editorial misstates that it is Brumley’s seat in the 2nd Ward midway through the editorial; Ms Brumley is in the 3rd ward and Mr Roth in the 2nd ward as initially stated in the editorial

Boo…

Apparently letting your newborns and toddlers watch the Baby Einstein videos does not make them smarter (from NY Times here):

They may have been a great electronic baby sitter, but the unusual refunds appear to be a tacit admission that they did not increase infant intellect.

Who could have guessed that video entertainment does not increase IQ and that children are not masters of quantum physics by the time they reach middle school from watching Disney marketed material?

New numbers and commentary on local real estate (here). Local realtor Robert Purtell:

“I’m still cautiously optimistic that the market is improving and stabilizing, but I’m not totally confident that we’re out of the woods yet.”

I’ll second that not because of any great insights locally but nationally there is some fear that a second wave of downturn is occurring, That said, local figures and trends do not necessarily follow national trends in real estate.

And a kudos to the Recorder for covering a vital topic for our community– housing.