Last night’s mayoral-candidate debate at the Monona Terrace demonstrated the depth of the candidates’ knowledge of Madison issues, as well as the overriding concerns of the other candidates.
The candidates discussed issues including affordable housing, the environment, neighboring Madison towns, the value of historic buildings versus profitable developments, and the Russian mafia.
Dave Cieslewicz supporter Michael Bridgeman noted there was not much serious disagreement among the candidates but that their styles and personalities came through during the debate.
The question of how to stop the gentrification of State Street divided some candidates and baffled others.
Candidates Cieslewicz, Bert Zipperer and Davy Mayer agreed there will always be tension between independent stores and chains and said the “small funky” stores should be nurtured and encouraged to maintain their presence on State Street. Paul Soglin said the storefronts must be small to discourage chains from finding the venues appealing and said property values must be kept under control.
In response, incumbent mayor Sue Bauman said property assessments are rising because property is purchased for more than it is worth and suggested side streets be better utilized for more retail space.
When candidate Will Sandstrom’s turn came, he asked the moderator to repeat the word “gentrification” several times until Mayer provided him with a definition.
Sandstrom expressed his dissatisfaction with the questions several times throughout the debate and said Madison has bigger problems to deal with, such as the Russian mafia’s dealings within the city.
“If Madison dies, Wisconsin dies,” he said, in response to more than one question.
The ongoing question of how to regulate affordable housing resurfaced in last night’s forum. An audience member asked whether mandating landlords to provide affordable housing in all new developments — a measure called inclusionary zoning — would drive developers elsewhere.
Sandstrom said yes, but all of the other candidates disagreed. Mayer suggested working with developers personally, and Soglin said mandatory inclusionary zoning could only work on a countywide basis. Bauman challenged his assertion, however, reminding the audience that the county as a whole does not have that authority.
The candidates also discussed how to clean up Madison’s lakes, an issue they all appeared to agree upon. Each answer built on the answer before it, beginning with Sandstrom’s stance against degrading the lakes and Mayer’s assertion that the lakes are dirty. The answers then gained momentum as Soglin refuted Mayer with an explanation that lakes are actually too healthy because of excess nutrients in the lakes, a problem that creates the need to control urban and fertilizer runoff.
Bauman expressed her desire to change the attitudes of residents with “lawns that look like golf courses” and informed the audience that lakes are actually a county responsibility. Cieslewicz said rain guards, street sweeping and parking lots that absorbed water could help the drainage, and Zipperer added that concentration on sweeping the streets along the curb would help as well.
Audience reaction to the debates was mixed, but the debate reinforced the predetermined opinions of several Madison residents.
Madison resident Margaret McEntire said she still supports Mayor Bauman and thought four of the candidates were strong but wondered what Mayer and Sandstrom were doing in the race when they had little substance to offer.
Although Madison resident Jan Loiselle also maintained her support of Dave Cieslewicz, she said she appreciated the depth of knowledge demonstrated by the panel, commenting that the answers were very thoughtful and no “knee-jerk” answers were made in response to audience questions.
State-Langdon Neighborhood Association member Sara Keenan, who took responsibility for the troubling “gentrification” question, said she appreciated Zipperer’s passion and energy during the “spicy” debate.
