Well, I’ve had some time to think about out the candidate’s responses and if we’re going to give a rundown.

First – to those who attacked the “overwhelming bias” of my post – If you wanted a purely informative, completely unbiased approach, you could have gone to the Capital Times. Kristen’s blog was comprehensive enough and there was no need to completely repeat what she said. I did that far more with the District 2 blog and it seemed quite pointless. I’m the Editorial Board Chair, I’m an opinion writer and you should know what to expect.

Now, with that being said…

Eagon – He’s a good candidate, what can I say. His targeting of funds in the DSI took Mark Woulf’s focus on police priorities and found a solution (albeit somewhat minor on the grand scope of MPD allocation) that was feasible and pragmatic to make the student voice known. Absolutely loved the response on national issues — probably not a popular stance to take in this city, but certainly the right one if you’re actually serious about city issues.

The only issue I had was the lakes response. This is what I was talking about when I blabbered on about county issues. He mentioned bio digesters as a solution to the phosphorus problem, but my understanding is that it’s used mostly around areas with significant concentration of farms with manure runoff. As you won’t get that in Madison (I can’t think of any Madison farms that would justify a million dollar purchase like this), the issue of bio digesters is best left up to the county.

All and all, he seems pretty capable and specific as to what he wants to do. The tenant issue was answered pretty well too – inserting the language of existing ordinances into contracts is a small way to remind tenants of their rights (and simple enough, too.).

I obviously don’t agree with anyone’s position on the bus fares, but seeing as I’m outvoted on that one, I’ll retreat on that issue for the time being.

Flores: Here’s the problem: I heard more actual ideas as to governance of the city and district from Mark Woulf than Katrina Flores. I’m not sure I heard one real initiative from Flores that stood apart from the other candidates. Well, other than expanding the blue light kiosks. And although she can criticize Eli for not being comprehensive in his safety approach, that’s even less so.

Her main focus seemed to be grassroots action. And if you’re a community organizer, yes, I want to hear the bottom-up change plan pushed in a way I can see producing results. But it’s not clear what grassroots activism has to do with an aldermanic position. Sure, you give the grassroots activists a bigger voice at the table, but your job as alder isn’t to push through an agenda of supporters and friends — it’s to listen to and represent your constituents.

What’s more, it’s about trying to pass measures to improve life for your residents. And if you have an attitude that amounts to “Pragmatism? Whatever.” (And I’m not being glib, she actually said that in her closing statements.), you essentially have a less-informed, less-driven and more disagreeable Brenda Konkel. And that just seems like a bad idea.

I might be more lenient if I had heard any real policy proposals. She echoed both Mark and Bryon on most issues and only broke out on her own on the blue lights and the idea of building inspectors in the CC budget to log information about landlords and their upkeep. Now, that’s not a bad idea, if you have the money. But creating new programs like that would be a huge burden on the city budget (most paid positions are going to be) and aren’t right for this time.

Flores is likely going to be Eagon’s challenger, so I hope I see some more specifics out of her as time goes on, but this was a very distressing start.

Schmidt – I’m not sure what he’s doing here. No plans, no answers and no real clue. He openly admitted he had no answer to the Overture situation (which is fine, the correct answer is to be hands off anyway, so I don’t mind that as much), but he just seemed like a distraction. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and doesn’t deserve getting hit with too much criticism because he seems over his head here. So I’ll just stop there.

Woulf – He’s got the drive and the passion, now he’s just missing the information.

Bar raids and police enforcement is a major problem when it comes to proper attention to safety, but Eagon cut the legs out from under him on how to address it. The entertainment license might be a way to get around some of the bar issues, but, as Probst said earlier today, It just seems like more trouble than it’s worth, given all the opposition there would be to it.

On tenant issues, moderating every little debate between landlords and tenants is untenable. Just another idea that would be great if we had unlimited resources to pull it off, but that’s clearly not the case.

Environmental issues? Coal Plants? Not his jurisdiction, not his issue.

He might be on track or more of a role in a State-Langdon association if he really wants to follow the civic engagement thing through, but alder material he is not (right now.).

Now that my horrible biased rant is over, what are your thoughts?