This is only too reminiscent of McCarthy-era politics - and after a good chuckle, such absurdity begins to sink in. Until SSFC denied it funding this year, CFACT was a group with a good degree of influence on campus. Certainly their parent organization, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, seems to make a good effort at having a sincere scientific groundwork to its claims on the environment. And although it would probably take a fat piece of sky shattering on the pavement before the "Committee" CFACT changed its mind, at least they are not engaging in red-baiting.

So why is its collegiate arm resorting to a tactic discarded some time before the fall of the Berlin Wall?

The answer lies in the increasing marginalization of the right on campus. While the campus left has always had some ideological influence here - even if it has waned to the point of irrelevance - the right, including the College Republicans and CFACT, has hardly had any since the Herald moved to a moderate position in its politics. Thus the right has been allowed to develop in its own conservative cacoon, widely derided but nonetheless left to its own devices. So when the chair of the College Republicans states in a debate that she "will worry about the economy when [she] loses her job", it becomes easily apparent that the right needs to be brought into the dialogue, lest they grow even more confused.

That isn't to say the nutbar commie paranoia should be taken seriously. It shouldn't. And on the whole, conservatives have rarely proved themselves to be any better than your money or your freedom than liberals (or leftists). But today's Sara Mikolajczak (or however the fuck you spell it) is tomorrow's Sarah Palin. In contrast to this, today's David Lapidus is tomorrow's Arlen Specter. And certainly, the campus right may prove itself unworthy (yet again) of being taken seriously.

But we should try engaging the moderates in the right - lest a statue of Marx suddenly get erected in Humanities, courtesy of our own home-grown Communist majority. You know, the one CFACT warned us about.

Fortunately, Madison's inner-biker came through last month, as several Common Council members sponsored a bill that reversed the "dooring" law, and actually made it the car-door-opener's responsibility to look before opening. State legislators have picked up on Madison's lead, and have proposed a state-wide law making car drivers responsible for preventing biker-door collisions. Promoting bicycle use in Wisconsin is a noble endeavor from an environmental, health, and transportation perspective, and thus passing of a state-wide anti-"dooring" law is something that needs to be done.

The most famous local assault on a biker by a malicious car door occurred last August when a local biker crashed into an opening car door while biking down Henry Street in downtown Madison. She was then issued a $10 citation for riding too close to a parked car while laying on a hospital bed recovering from her injuries. This drama brings a couple thoughts to mind. First, shouldn't that police officer have been at a State Street bar issuing drinking tickets to underage drinkers? And second, is this ultimate example of adding insult to injury not ridiculously stupid?

The laws of physics have generally made it possible for combustion-engine powered automobiles to travel much faster than people-driven bicycles, and thus the City of Madison has granted bikers their own lanes on the side of the road to keep them from slowing up traffic. The problem is that in many parts of campus and the greater city, these bike lanes are immediately adjacent to the areas reserved for parked cars. Thus, bikers who wanted to avoid being crushed by angry motorists were forced by the City to violate the draconian "dooring" law. I don't know if the bike lane setup and "dooring" law were a diabolical scheme concocted by a bike-hating bureaucrat to elicit revenge upon hapless bikers or what, but it was definitely a really stupid combination.

Most bikers want to avoid holding up traffic and do their best to be as small a nuisance as possible. It is only fair that these good-natured folks are protected against the wrath of car doors by the power of law. Actually, with the new law in place, perhaps that cop who gave the doored woman a ticket should abandon his assignment to issue tickets to inebriated football fans at Camp Randall and ride on down to City Hall to issue Mayor Dave a ticket for constructing bike lanes within three feet of parked cars.

Now some detractors may make the claim that most bikers are a bunch of out-of-control douchebags of the road who weave in and out of traffic and disobey traffic signs. While some of these jerks do exist, extensive statistical analysis, conducted mainly on my commute into work today, reveals that most bike riders in Madison are either kind old folks looking to save the environment or some cash on gas, or students riding really crappy bikes trying to make it to their next class before the bell rings.

While I'm sure the raving pricks will ultimately get their comeuppance, the real reason for the anti-bike backlash by unfeeling meanies is due to the douchebag "bikes are entitled to use the road too" crowd. These are the folks who rarely face the threat of getting doored because they are usually holding up traffic by riding down the middle of the street. I would be remiss in my journalmalism if I failed to acknowledge that the hatred inculcated in delayed drivers by these miscreants is pretty justified.

However, the proposed anti-"dooring" law does provide a solution to this problem. The new law will force motorists to check their rearview mirrors for approaching bikers before opening their doors into busy roads. This act of looking before opening will also allow peeved motorists to scope out the scene for any douches and ask themselves how they want to spend that $20 in their wallet. I don't know what the esteemed reader was thinking, but the answer to that question is obviously "donate the $20 to the charitable cause of their choice."

Ultimately, the small task of looking in the rearview mirror is a small price to pay for motorists who do not want bikes on the side of the road where they are not holding up traffic. Passing a law making "dooring" the legal responsibility of door-owners and not bikers is an absolute must for the Wisconsin state legislature. Madison has paved the way for this bike-friendly act to be introduced to other urban areas in the state, and now bike riders everywhere deserve this minimal protection against the tyranny of opening car doors.

Nate Silver is a University of Chicago economics student turned statistics renaissance man. Baseball fans know him for inventing the PECOTA forecasting system, and political junkies know him from his deadly accurate election predictions at FiveThirtyEight.com. With the election in the past and the PECOTA invention helping pay the bills, Silver has had plenty of time to tell the story of the political world through the wonderful world of math. A recent issues he tackled was the divisive gay marriage maelstorm.

One of the big stories of the recent weeks are the decisions in Iowa and Vermont supporting gay marriage. The rulings by the Iowa supreme court and the Vermont legislature came as a shock to many, with opponents of gay marriage enjoying heady times in recent years. President Bush was aided in his 2004 re-election bid by gay marriage ban referendums in eleven states; California recently passed Proposition 8, which made gay marriage unconstitutional; and our own state passed a gay marriage ban in 2006.

Despite gay marriage bans on the books in 29 states, recent polling has shown a trend more support for an expansion of the institution. (link: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-by-numbers.html) Based on the polling data, support for gay marriage has gained about eight percentage points since 2003, and currently, the pro-ban position has been losing an average of two percentage points per year nationwide.

Motivated by the news from Iowa and Vermont, Silver decided to see if there is a way of using the liberalizing social trends to predict the future fate of gay marriage ban referendums in the United States. (link: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html)

He explains the method as follows:

I looked at the 30 instances in which a state has attempted to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage by voter initiative. The list includes Arizona twice, which voted on different versions of such an amendment in 2006 and 2008, and excludes Hawaii, which voted to permit the legislature to ban gay marriage but did not actually alter the state's constitution. I then built a regression model that looked at a series of political and demographic variables in each of these states and attempted to predict the percentage of the vote that the marriage ban would receive. It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables: 1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon; 2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives; 3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state. 

Silver's analysis clearly shows that of the three identifiable factors, two are based on religion. It is not my intent for this post to devolve into an anti-religious screed, so the primacy of religion in influencing discrimination against gays is noted solely as an interesting, but not shocking, result of the study.

Looking at the results from a results-based standpoint is much more instructive for the current state of gay marriage in our state. Not surprisingly, his model predicts that states such as Vermont, Massachusetts and New York would vote against a gay marriage ban today, and that it is going to take until almost 2025 for support for gay marriage bans to drop below 50% in Alabama and Mississippi. Closer to home, the model predicts that the citizens of Wisconsin would vote against a gay marriage ban three years from now in 2012.

The issue of gay marriage in Wisconsin was not put to rest when the gay marriage ban passed in 2006 with the support of 59% of voters. The Badger Herald reported on Friday that the state's Supreme Court will be assessing the constitutional validity of how the gay marriage ban amendment was presented to voters in 2006. If the gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional under the current suit, Silver's regression model suggests that the window available for anti-gay activists to get the gay marriage ban on the ballot and passed a second time is quite narrow. It also means that if they want the ban to stay on the books in Wisconsin, they must do everything they can to make sure the Supreme Court upholds the ban.

For gay rights activists, the data presented on FiveThiryEight.com suggests that the tide of discrimination against gay marriage is turning in their favor. Even if the marriage ban is upheld by the state Supreme Court, the polling shows that the citizens of Wisconsin are becoming more accepting of gay marriage, and soon a majority of them should be opposed to a gay marriage ban. If the current trends hold and the gay rights groups organize effectively, favorable conditions for overturning the 2006 referendum should be present in the state in the near future.

Ten dollars, two hours, and one hastily drawn neighborhood map. The money was for admission and the two hours was the time to sit, wait, and watch and listen. The poorly executed piece of cartography was my guide home should Noam Chomsky (Noam fuckin’ Chomsky!) so thoroughly discombobulate my psyche I loose any fundamental sense of direction and become unable to find my way home after the lecture. I guess I had high hopes but this was supposed to be like going to see the Michael Jordan of intellectuals.

Someone different showed up. It wasn’t quiet Birmingham Barons Michael, but Noam Chomsky (Noam fuckin’ Chomsky!) just pretty much shot free throws for an hour and a half.

I guess it’s not really his fault. Perhaps I expected too much from the aging giant of American intellectualism. Regardless, I still expected more than what equated to some dude reiterating the litany of complaints against Israel and subsequently declaring each one a different variation of the word irrefutable. The argument had the intellectual appeal of listening to some freshman talk about how Ian’s is the best pizza ever “cuz it just is man.”

Maybe the problem was that everyone in the room already agreed that Ian’s kicks ass and just wanted a cheerleader to remind them all how great it truly was. I doubt many people went there to hear Noam Chomsky (Noam fuckin’ Chomsky!) critique the policy or tactics of their movement and I am fairly sure there were few in the audience who needed to be (or would have been) convinced by his lecture. Still, I was excited to glimpse the man who was supposed to be a pillar of enlightened discourse. But in the end, I wasn’t inspired, swayed, incensed, or even offended. I was hungry.

It seems that Noam has found himself in the endzone of intellectualism and is (at least for that Tuesday night in Madison) content to celebrate by dancing around with some pom-poms. That certainly isn’t how Michael Jordan did things, and if we’ve learned anything from a certain wide receiver, it’s that if you’re not careful, that type of behavior could land you in Buffalo.

But let's be realistic. Nothing has happened since the endorsement. Eagon is the better candidate. Woulf, however, is not as stupid as O'Hagan. He is by no means worthy of the position, but then again, he's not worthy of arbitrary columns that repeat ad absurdum points made over a month ago either.

Additionally, two endorsements of Eagon (one is forthcoming - sorry Woulf) from the editorial board and a column from Labuz strike me as effective coverage, given the fact that the election hasn't taken place yet. It is Opinion's responsibility to cover an issue, but if that is CB's argument, then wouldn't it be more effectively made by waiting to assess coverage AFTER the election? Yes, coming up with something 100 hours before is, I dunno, sudden. It's also the time when people will read, care, and all those other things they're supposed to do when they read opinion pages on issues they are used to, for the most part, ignoring.

And making the whimsical accusation that all we really give a damn about is "making you mad," is, well, dumb. Especially if that accusation is made before the election has ended. Yes, the page should address substantial issues. It should also address them in times when people will give a shit, and only as much as they will give a shit, about. In short, we give a damn about making you read, and persuading you with what you read. Suggesting that District 8 could have been worthy of 10-20 editorials displays a surprising lack of understanding regarding what we do here.

I'm the last person to argue we're perfect - there will inevitably be columns on the page that none of us are happy with printing. And there were a few that I would have been happy to see articles on District 8 replace - IF anything regarding that race had happened or was about to happen. Understanding the moment when our coverage will - and more importantly, will not - have the most influence is certainly not "sleeping on the job."

]]> dzawacki@wisc.edu http://badgerherald.com/blogs/opinion/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheBadgerHeraldMuckrakers/~3/7ZFqtsScpe4/ 31547@http://badgerherald.com/blogs/opinion/ 2009-03-30T00:00:01-06:00 Passing through the Union the other day, I ran into two friends who asked me about Chancellor Biddy Martin’s Undergraduate Initiative, unveiled Tuesday to student leaders and the subject of immense speculation since. They were not enamored of the plan, and their objections, coming from people I consider perfectly rational, seemed rather bizarre. “It seems like a penalty against the rich,” said one. “It’s immoral.” Lulwut? If a student wants to attend a university and is qualified, financial issues should never stand in the way, period. The case is far more than moral. Simply allowing those with the ability but not the financial security to stand begging at the figurative gates ensures that the university is increasingly populated by the rich, regardless of their qualifications. And that is obscene. When even a libertarian is ready to qualify a policy as economically discriminatory, something is wrong. And in reality, the validity of Martin’s plan is difficult to take issue with. Raising tuition so that students of a high quality, regardless of their family income, can attend this university is not only an imperative from a quality standpoint, it is the only manner through which Madison’s reputation will continue to carry weight in the academic world. Simply put, financially rich does not - nor has it ever - implied intellectually superior. But how does one articulate to concerned students that differential tuition does not signal a Marxist war on wealth? Certainly, the opposition will always have its class acts, such as State Senator Glenn Grothman, who argued in a press release that the tuition hike was largely “an assault on two-parent families with traditional values.” Against such lamentable cases of deliberate absurdity, little effort can or should be invested. But when students at the university themselves begin to feel they are the victims of a vague left-wing agenda, it becomes clear that more should be done for the sake of the Initiative in terms of communication. Martin is, in this writer’s opinion, doing a respectable job so far. Without travelling into the realm of pro-administration hackery, I’ve found myself impressed, especially given the habitual willingness of administrative figures to avoid publicizing their own controversy. Not only did she hold forums and invite student leaders, Martin emailed students at random and invited them to meet with her personally and discuss the Initiative. She can hardly be accused of being a hermit on the issue. On the other hand, this paper has already received and printed a rant from a purported former donor to the university who argued that the tuition increase he will pay has replaced his will to donate money. While literarily wacking off to Barry Goldwater in no way qualifies as reasonable, it is clear that more needs to be done. More meetings with students need to occur, perhaps one or two a week. The initiative is going to go through, and holding forums of willing participants is not going to be enough. Those who are relatively ignorant of campus affairs will participate whether they like it or not - but they are for the most part reasonable and deserve more active outreach. On a broader scale, the initiative should also be associated with a more responsible approach to spending generally. Donors, especially those who provide for new construction, should be advised - tactfully - as to whether there might not be a better cause for their money, particularly professor salaries and financial aid. As I’ve argued before, increases in segregated fees for buildings are absurd. Martin and her administration should make it clear that the intellect of a campus is much more important than the buildings it is housed in. And as for the money, the more enthusiastic those being “penalized” are, the easier the economic bullet will be to bite. Thoughts? Sam Clegg

First thing to notice before I get into this: The vote is next week - Feb 23 and 24. Now, the opening statements went by before I could actually get this up and running, so I'll summarize brief points there: Jeff Wright emphasizes the point that ASM doesn't really have any effectiveness right now (either in elections or governance) and that this would. 

Chynna Haas makes the point that the new Constitution would dissolve the grassroots effectiveness,threaten student funding streams and put too much representative power in the hands of an executive. 

On a side note:Don't expect a rigid structure, as WUD doesn't seem to have a real grasp of how to structure a debate. Had to ask from the audience. 

Yeah! 5:17 - First question: How are student groups affected by the new Constitution? \ Chynna: This puts funding streams in general because it puts Viewpoint Neutrality in jeopardy. If the president vetos a budget, it goes to conference committee - 3 from executive, 3 from appropriations, 3 from Student Senate. But the problem is that the Executive can appoint to appropriations, which would give the president far more power in conference committee. 

If the fee is misallocated and the president vetos and conference committee can't work it out, it goes to the Chancellor and the "flawed" budget goes through. Checks and balances aren't there. 

5:19 - Jeff -  I'm going to pull a Palin here and not directly answer the question right away. Addressing Chynna - had all sorts of feedback sessions, different targeted meetings, collected over 400 comments and used a software program to systematically sort this data. These concerns weren't brought up until the very end.

5:24 - Jeff - There are some things that could falter, but there are protections against a bad president. President can't take disciplinary action against individual members, can't affect GSSF groups in their budgets, can't interfere with the duties of other elected officials. Senate can institute a funding freeze on the executive - can't pay your staff, won't function effectively. Lowered the threshold on impeachment from 3/4 to 2/3. Executive picks are confirmed by the senate. And can repeal all executive orders.

5:26 - Chynna - The executive cannot represent all people here, background isn't the same as the issues were working on. Individual has a lot of power, appoint a cabinet. I think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to have those offices such as Student elections politicized. Takes 2/3 majority, difficult majority to impeach the president. Significant amount of influence over budget. Can't take disciplinary action, but can get executive orders to retaliate.

Rebuttals - missed it do this horrible blogging software. It was about turnout and other things. BLAH.

Question - How will this affect funding streams?

5:30 - Chynna - Viewpoint neutrality helps with fair and unbiased manner, this undermines this process, no place to really give their objections because they can't talk to them and see their personal reactions...(uhhh...so we can read facial tics here?) Why are we going through this entire process if we're not fixing it and making it the best document we can make it. Asked for 6 month notification of changes and they didn't listen, only put it in the bylaws. Need to revamp it for effective for student orgs.

5:32 - Jeff - we created this financial code as a midway point between the Constitution and bylaws. They'll have the same timelines, criteria, etc. However, the difference here is that the president has to approve the budget too. And it gets sent to conference committee if it's vetoed. And it gets sent back. Protections against abuse. Can't amend budgets. Only resides in appropriations.

Chynna - if it ain't broke, why fix it? (BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS!) But it's concerning that it wasn't in the constitution with timelines.

Jeff - Why put it in the constitution when timelines and circumstances change? It's in the financial code!

Question: What should be the roll of ASM?

Jeff - it's to represent students, be advocates and manage the budgets. Allocations of seg fees, the processes have not changed, shared gov just appoints people itself now, this would have some oversight. Grassroots committees will still exist, just in the exec. Branch which makes it more responsible. The projects grassroots committee work on now aren't salient and don't really work. Because they're not vetted. I would rather have ideas that take a little longer to develop and have a longer lifespan then have the ideas decided upon at one or two meetings and don't survive.

Chynna - Well, the old structure worked fine, it's just that they weren't grassroots organizers. Now that's fine, but the executive committee isn't the right way to do it.

Jeff - We're just changing the leadership of this and putting some more bureaucracy to make sure it works smoothly..

Chynna - bureaucracy slows things down.

Question: How will this effect the grassroots committee

Chynna - explains the flow chart. Looking at the new structure, they don't know how the free-form style actually works and are making it a mock government rather than an activist component. Less democratic style, top down as opposed to bottom up. Diversity of voices on Vote No side, not on the Vote Yes side. The New Constitution won't protect these voices in committees. It might get things done, but it doesn't get at the heart of campus climate.

Jeff - dangerous to suggest the Vote Yes side doesn't empathize with diverse groups on campus. The problem is that these gets away from the real point and that's why you have runaway projects. The President is emphasizing, not shouting people down. They can't take positiions contrary to legislation from the Senate. The Senate ACTUALLY has the power.

Chynna - Basically, the structure right now is accountable to student council, the new constitution doesn't make it work any better.

Jeff - the structure now makes sure that Student reps aren't disenfranchised on shared gov.

Question and Answer time!

Johnny Tackett - how does this effect the voice of students like special and grad students.

Jeff - this gives them more power.

Chynna - maybe it gives more power, but it's really up to the students themselves.

Bureacracy and inefficiency?

Chynna - You know, it does take away line item veto from the current system, and that's great, but now it has to go through all these different pillars. US gov was set up to slow things down so no rash action can happen, so why are WE slowing things down?

Jeff - while we are creating a separate body, it's going to be more efficient. Agendas modeled after Common Council agenda, can register their own complaints.

Bylaws and Financial Code - what guarantee is there to the students that this is actually going to work?

Jeff - I find it hard to believe that people are going to go in and change the bylaws. We copy and pasted huge portions and there aren't a great deal of changes. Chynna - there's no way to actually no that these bylaws are going to go into effect next year. I value his idealism, but It depends on the individuals.You don't have to change the entire document

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?

To what extent are these things promoted? Had anybody seen this advertised outside of TITU?

7:01 - Alright, Rob is explaining the rules - seemed to say something about not expecting rebuttals in any great quantity...Well, I hope not...otherwise, what sort of this debate will this be? 

7:03 - two TV stations here...along with a few random older residents (and by older, I mean 45-55)...oh, and the Herald's former columnist John Sprangers. Hey!

7:04 - Eli Judge: "I'm going to be sitting back as far as I can...like, probably in a bath robe or something." He has also suggested jousting.

7:05 - Alright, we're getting started. Stuff about Roosevelt Institution. Yada Yada.

7:06: Each can. has 2 minutes for opening statements, series of questions with 1 minute response, 30 second rebuttals on a very limited basis. Some follow ups. OK.

7:07 -Katrina goes first. Giggles preceding that announcement. 

So, why you running?

Katrina: Regardless of where you fall in the political spectrum, Obama said it best: Rely on folks on the ground to make differences. (Taking the Obama card from Eagon?) Local elections are important, students need to see themselves as people of the city, not just the district.

Why are you qualified? Community Activist, worked on issues statewide, nationwide (?), working with SSFC, ASM, MSCS - other projects in the community  - mentions few that I can't really get a grasp on. 

Mentions NOTHING about why she's running. 

7:10 - Schmidt - interned for a state rep (doesn't say which one), says change needs to start from the ground up. Focus switched from the federal government and looked at the state level. Saw the open seat, saw the city level as important and thought that was important. Was also part of a non-partisan voter information program, economics major (so I have a strong background in economics). Student involvement is key, we've shown our power, it was a phenomenal thing - seeing everyone march up to the capitol (did he vote for Obama?) Need to continue that.

7:12 - Woulf - most pertinent exp. - being a student. trying to reflect student issues into city council - specific issues? First and foremost concerned with safety - Eyes were opened on standing  committee about alcohol - police obviously have a goal of safety, but their approach is off-course - make sure our students are safe by redistributing forces in the correct places - too many muggings, we can all agree it's not safe to walk home at night. No. 2 issue is the environment - I'd like to see all coal plants "change over" (But you don't have anything to do with that in city gov, right?) Also mentions tenant rights.

7:14 - Eagon - really excited, have a strong passion  -served on ASM student council , taught in slums of Kenya, learned that public service is a tool to be bigger than yourself, organized through Obama campaign here and in the state. Want to improve downtown community - organization...not a whole lot of specifics. Seemed sparse. OK.

First Question - Safety - what can you do?

7:16 - Schmidt - "We have to practice safety at the home." Need to make sure the homes are safe, you have a right to have a safe home. (Is this about the Zimmermann thing?) says he wants to expand DRLI.

7:17 - Woulf - yes,lighting and self-enforcement is important, but that doesn't replace enforcement on the street. It's a police issue - want to allow establishment and bars to open up bars to the 18-21 crowd. Bring officers on to the street instead of bars.

Wouldn't they just pack more cops in bars then?

7:18 - Eagon - need to look at immediate action and long term stuff - immediate - look at Downtown Safety Initiative - wants to remove funding for ID scanners, retain state street and langdon street offices, look at cab stand funding - focus on habitual offenders. 

7:19 - Flores - Expanding blue light phones - lots in lakeshore, presence inhibits some crime from happening - none on langdon - entertainment license should be expanded - look at the causes of safety issues and crime - 1.8 police to every 1000 residents (Fact check, someone?) - is meeting with Noble Wray next week to start this dialog.

Level of bar raids - appropriate?

7:22 - missed most of this because of Jeff. Sorry. Obviously says it's not appropriate.

7:22 - Eagon says you obviously can't do anything directly to redirect their use of resources, but you can remove funding from the Downtown Safety Iniative for mobile ID scanners, which is what he'll do.

7:23 - Flores - Bar raids don't happen an exorbitant amount of time. We need to have police doing work where crimes happen, it happens outside of bars...it does! We've seen that happen in the papers.

If you really think the bar murders were representative of bar crime, you've lost it.

7:25 - Schmidt - "We can be that difference" - we can stand up and tell the police force and tell them we need more police on the streets. (Well,then you're just an advocate? How will you bring that to City Council?)

7:26 - Woulf - Rebuttal - doesn't have the power to redirect police resources and lobby. (So could citizens,CNI, State-Langdon...), Mobile ID scanner money would be one thing, but that's not the problem, it's that they perform all these raids!

Question: Outside of bar raids, what would you do to target alcohol issues?

7:26 Eagon - Use sunset clause in 2010 to stop ALDP. There are some merits in it that need to be kept, but put it onto ALRC. Case by case basis - look at what tavern owners are good, bad, instead of overarching blanket policy.

7:28 Flores - need to get some grassroots org. behind these parts - if you do your work on the ground, I can say "these are my constitutents." and get working on this. 

That was not an answer as to what YOU would do.

7:28 - Schmidt agrees with Eagon's ALDP statements. Case by case. Also echoes Katrina's statements - more student input. But of course, he's only been to one meeting here. "Very few people show up at City Council meetings"...not all the time...for instance...ALDP? Maybe few students, but a fair amount of people.

7:30 - Woulf is going on his entertainment license thing, says ALDP hurts businesses. So you oppose...but?

7:30 - Eagon - Entertainment passes - good start, low cost, but it's the strings attached that come with it (elaborate!) - uses the house parties argument with why ALDP doesn't work again. Not sure how that was a rebuttal. Just sort of a reiteration.

Question: How would you rate Tenant-Landlord relations?

7:32 - Flores - need to have more resources, should support Tenant Resource Center. Couldn't fund it with ASM, but let's look at that here. Let's also get the Tenant Bill of Rights up again...

7:33 - Schmidt - "Landlord tenant relationships are something that suffers in this district." Said they need to know their rights - need to know you have the right to call a landlord to fix your broken stuff. Most peopel he met with didn't know this. 

From everything I've heard from you, you'd work better as an informational advocate, not an alder.

7:34 - Woulf - would immediately push for funding for increased tenant education. These tenant issues can be resolved through city mediation to protect the average student. (Please. We're going to moderate every claim? How much would that cost?)

7:36 - Eagon - Photo ordinance was good, include that in their contracts so they know about it. Increase percentage rate return on security deposit returns, have building inspectors collaborate to create a sort of consumer reports for units. Also supports "Rate My Landlord" system.

7:37 - Flores (rebuttal) - People need to know that they have to tell us what were entitled to and we need to post that tenant bill of rights! 

Availability to students? (Pretty simple.)

Schmidt - Blog, online, yada yada.

Woulf- Continue Judge's alder hours, we're the generation of the internet, use e-mail, facebook, etc.

Eagon - mentions his "contract with students" and wants to gauge student opinions on certain issues (Nice. If you can get them together. But input is good. Students aren't necessarily monolithic on the issues that don't directly affect them.)

I gotta say, not a whole lot to say here. Either you reach out to your constituents or you don't. Ask Wyndham about that one (if you can get ahold of him.)

Flores - Blogs are good, monthly state of district 8, listening sessions, go through each ward, four a month, different one a week.

Question on transportation - priorities?

7:42 - Woulf - opposed to fare increase - we are going to run into renegotiation soon and could lose our bus passes (I don't think so. They'll bump up the costs, but we won't lose them. Those are a huge source of agreed upon revenue.)

7:43 - Eagon - look at commuter rail,grants for hybrid busses - opposed fare increase - might impact students, look to make this city a platinum rated bike system, make sure that before we spend too much money,have some express busses to test out their lines.

7:44 - Flores - Bus Pass isn't free, keep that in mind - need to support bikes year long, plow bike paths in winter (Soglin would be spinning with frustration right now), commuter rail has been something we're talking about for a long time. 

And now...more grassroots organization to get federal funding.

7:45 - Schmidt - Busses aren't the most vital form of transportation - walking is. maintain bike paths and sidewalks. Rise in pocket books for bus pass, have to pay for it no matter what.

Question: what would you do to improve Madison economy?

7:47 - Eagon - get committment from Tim Cooley (city economic director) to  coordinate jobs for students in the city after graduation - work with UW and city important. Look at TIF policy where tax incentives are given to build here in madison, but be accountable - work closely on stimulus plans. God that was a lot to say. How do you do this in one minute?

7:48 Flores - Stimulus - make sure it's actually going to also build residences for people who are less fortunate, economically. Need to focus on people who are...less fortunate (are you trying to avoid a certain term here, Katrina?) Pause..."He took a lot of my stuff!" (Referencing Eagon.)

7:49 - Schmidt - TIF would help,but we need to work on attracting a more diverse business community in the downtown area. If you have jobs for waitresses and bartenders, all you'll get are bartenders and waitresses.

7:50 - Woulf - green jobs, different businesses, open up more space.

Question: What do you like about Judge, perhaps disagree with?

Flores - great idea for the "Rate your landlord initiative" - knows what people will be engaged by. Lighting isn't comprehensive to solving safety. I would differ there. (and your plan is: see above)

7:52 - Schmidt - love the Rating site idea. Photo ordinance was a great thing. Would like to change the culture of student involvement - difficult to organize - not only should we care about the issues of our district, but issues outside district.

7:53 - Woulf - strong leadership in city council that he saw was most important - DRLI was one, needs to have continued support - doesn't quite address safety directly, neither does blue light phones (oh snap!), everyone has cell phones. It's about allocation of resources.

7:54 - Eagon - has raised the profile of this position - (after all, why are we all here and blogging, right?) - known as student alder to people not only in Dist. 8 - Eli has done great things with accountability to constituents and outreach and had a student focus on things - had direct impact on student issues - revise policies - Downtown Safety Initiative - and including photo ord in contracts.

Question: Overture debacle. threats to foreclose. What does the city do?

Schmidt - have to focus on vital infrastructure (but then mentions police, fire...what?) Doesn't really seem to have an answer - says "I don't know." Touchy subject I can't get into. (Hey, you and everybody else. Nobody wants hands on that. But you can suggest more use out of that building, different focus, right?)

7:57 - Woulf - I'm all for the city trying to help out Overture, need to prioritize and figure out if we have money after that.

Eagon - 1 dollar sale, sound great, but look at the debt - can't afford to take on that debt - what can the city do? Aggressively pursue private fundraising efforts - city can't take on 20 mil in debt.

Flores - community wasn't behind it, pricing folks out of it now isn't the right idea - they didn't try and open it up. I support more community arts programs that are by and for the arts community like murals. (Uh...want to combine that?)

Question: Should the city play a larger role in upkeep of lakes? 

Woulf - City should take as big a role as possible in the lakes - increased funding for street sweeping and cleaning to keep the lakes as clean as possible (What? Isn't Phosphorus the issue? And aren't we tackling that at a county level?)

Eagon - 8:01 - yes, sewer grates, sweeping, but let's look at the root cause of blue-green algae - biggest cause is manure runoff (Yes! Phosphorus!) - look at bio digestors (already doing this at the county. Am I the only one who thinks this REALLY is a COUNTY issue?)

Flores - 8:02 - Make this a green decade, this is the time. Students shouldn't go in worrying they'll come out with an itch. If we don't, what are we saying about ourselves as a city.

Schmidt - 8:03 - Manure run-off is a big problem - partner together - countywide issue.

Question: Homelessness is a huge problem, and doesn't seem to get better. Chronic issue or isolated question? Should city try something new?

8:05 - Eagon - look at this issue with compassion, don't blame them for crimes, data doesn't back it up - Look at Chronic Pains issue (good article, btw) you'll see it's a few people who cause most the problems. Work to keep them out of homelessness, literacy programs, etc.

8:06 - Flores - raid on homeless on game days (does this really happen? I still see panhandlers.), certainly not OK. Need more men shelters, they really do need to have these resources. 

8:07 - Schmidt - It's a tough problem because you have to go to the root of it, I've only ever seen a bandaid put on the issue. Help get these people off of the streets and into a better place.

8:08 - Woulf - if the city is able to identify repeat offenders - need to be constructive "We can't expect to sit down and have a conversation about the economy and have them understand it" - about 20 in the downtown area that cause problems - if we can reach out to them, that's the best way to do it. (So, the rest of the homeless are just..meh?)

Question: What do you feel about taking stances on national issues?

8:09 - flores- it's fine, it sends a clear message that we think it's important. they're just symbols, but symbols can be powerful. (You know my opinion already...*rolls eyes*)

8:10 - Schmidt - City Council should be the first representatives - saw it at the state level, calls came in with little relevance - but we redirected them.

8:11 - Woulf - important to directly reflect the sentiments of the constitutency - it's a huge national statement (Sure, if you're New York, not if you're same old liberal madison.)

8:12 - Eagon. No. Don't think it's the right approach, we need to prioritize things on the municipal level - symbols are great, but that's not our first priority. Those issues are saved for a different body - focus on our municipal issues.

8:13 - Schmidt - Oh, well, I support Eagon's position moreso, I just think...yeah.

8:13 - Flores - yeah, I'm just not going to be afraid to stand by our constituents. I'm not going to ignore that.

8:14 - Eagon - just because there's a vocal part of your constituency doesn't mean you should go along with it. I'm not going to ignore certain calls for issues, but I'll redirect them.

8:14 - Woulf - National, International issues that are more important than local ones (like a war) then that's absolutely the priority of the City Council. We shouldn't waste a lot of time...

(Good job Eagon. That's the way.)

Question: Abstaining from Oath because of Gay Marriage Ban. Position.

Schmidt - You have to respect the fact that there are laws above you  - you want fair treatment, but there are some things you can't make your immediate issue. Eli not taking this oath showed his primary concern were the people of Distr. 8.

8:17 - Woulf - Also would have abstained from taking the oath. You have to realize in this city how people voted, I was by and large against it. I would very much take in eli's path.

8:17 - Eagon - He didn't take the oath, doesn't mean he wasn't against it. But I also would have taken the oath. It's a slippery slope. I applaud alder judge - deal with city issues - take it as oath that you will serve, when you throw in other things, it becomes problematic.

Flores - It was a pragmatic choice. I support the decision, it was also a really powerful statement because he worked so hard on the ban - knew he just had to take the oath. I don't know exactly what I would have done...but I support what he did. (I suppose that's fair, it's a tricky decision to make. and a personal one.)

Question: What combination of spending cuts, tax increases would you use to balance the budget?

Woulf - need to seriously take a look at what projects were spending too much money on. (missed some of this, sorry!)

Eagon - Tight budget - need to look at priorities - but be pragmatic on this. In all the convos I've had, the issues are "how are we going to fund it?" Look for some private sources of funding and other sources. Look for partnerships. I've also called for funding cuts - DSI and cuts to funding for bar raids (OK, worked before, but this is a 100,000 dollar program, right? Not a big chunk of change...)

Katrina - look into federal grants, partner with people outside of city council.

Schmidt - start looking at interests for the District, getting a bit selfish (his words, not mine). Look into cutting spending in areas that do not really affect people in this district - broaden the tax base.

If you could accomplish one thing as alder, what would it be.?

8:25 - Eagon - increase student profile on city council. Specific policy? implement portions of my safety plan, can't go into it here in a minute (Look it up, I guess.) Only 1 out of 20 CC members.

8:26 - Flores - same lines, different approach - think of themselves as part of the Madison community at large. We're privileged to be here, since we have more free time than the average person, let's utilize our voices - so many things this city needs and play an insturmental part in getting the changes we need. community org. approach and I know that because of the orgs I've worked in.

8:27 - Schmidt -  Would love to see crime, bar raids, drop on my watch. Would love to show that we can act and behave responsibly as students. We are here at UW, one of the greatest educational institutions in the nation.

8:28 - Woulf - Those are all great things, but let's look specific - you have two years. I'd try to make the streets of madison safer, broaden the definition of entertainment and bring law enforcement onto the streets!

Question: What would you absolutely not cut funding for?

Flores - Comprehensive approach to safety, can't cut safety funding

Schmidt - basic emergency services. vital to well being.

Woulf - Police need to be funded, but I think police levels are fine, don't need to increase. Also wouldn't cut funding for environment.

Eagon - wouldn't cut funding for office of community services. Deals with homelessness, job creation, etc. Hires people to work within a community, can navigate multifaceted issues. Never cut funding it.

Alright. closing statements.

Won't focus on this. Schmidt mentions the big student turnout. Turning around, hey! there is a lot of people here!.

--- 

So, what have we learned here?

Schmidt: No chance in hell. No specifics, leaves a lot to students...never a serious candidate.

Woulf: He has his one issue and he's going to push it. On tenant issues and environmentalism, he's out to sea, but the bar raids and entertainment stuff

Katrina: First off, she just said we "all need to be more multi-cultural when speaking to each other. Patrick got a very condescending stare down from her. Really bizarre and stand-offish. She also believes she's a visionary, according to her statements. 

Aside from that, I'm not sure what to think about that right now. She scoffs at pragmatism...This needs some further evaluation.e

Eagon - a few very specific proposals, but they're leaving now. Gotta go.

Obviously, this is not live. But I assure you, it was at the time.

Check Kristen's blog for more info.

7:02 The moderator wants to let you know you can use the "bubbler" and bathrooms. How sweet.

7:05 - Opening Statements

Maniaci - Econ and poli sci major - very passionate about municipal level gov., worked in mayor's office. Says she's running for this because she can reach across the diverse neighborhoods in the district in terms of communication and because of her passion for municipal government. Brings a lot for the Legislative process.

7:06 - Just realized - Maniaci is the only one who is not a law grad. Well, other than Denure. But he's not here.

7:07 - Brenda Konkel - Repping the 2 since 2001, fifth term. Wants to see through a lot of the projects in BUILD and the downtown transportation plan. Need to get people to and from the neighborhood and still respect the people who live here, which is why the bus situation is so important. Has been very excited about being a strong voice for the neighborhood - Open and transparent local government. Obviously, her blog has done most of her work

7:09: and she puts the plug out there - support of over 20 elected officials and 75 residents.

7:10 - Adam Walsh - "Third Candidate" for alder- Did that in the LWV taping too...what a regimented mind. Wife is watching and he gives a shout out. She gave a strange look when I looked at her. Don't blame her, I'm a bit creepy.

7:11 - Walsh - this is the best neighborhood in the city of Madison and I think we can make it a lot better. Emphasizing a lot communication - return all e-mails and calls within 48 hours - Strange, he told us today 24 hours. A minor difference, but strange.

Emphasizes a "doctor's checkup" going door-to-door twice a year to see how the residents are doing.

7:12 - the kids have come into the room and are very distracting. Just because it's an elementary school....

7:13 - Sherman: small business owner, have my own law firm - want to bring a consensus with a problem solving solution - some of those people along the Langdon area - take all their viewpoints into consideration - I want something to happen for our neighborhood and feel comfortable talking to me...

Lots of problems - proper allocations of police resources - Noble Wray is working on it (probably what he heard at his CIVITAS lecture)

Really need to retain and attract new jobs. Not just for those at the UW - working class people too. Janesville, where I'm from, lost the GM plant and those people are looking for jobs too. Need to eliminate this anti-business climate in Madison. Additionally, we need to make certain we have quality housing options and work to make sure homeowners and renters have the proper access.

Now, six prepared questions:

1. What are the major challenges to our city or district, right now.

7:16 - Walsh - I'll focus on the district. Communication, development and safety. Need to begin transforming the neighborhood completely - need to take those homes on a case by case basis - make them salvageable - allow our area residents have confidence in those existing homes that remain - need to focus on "family oriented development" - most important attribute of the TL neighborhood.

As the students move out, there are safety concerns - pay attention to traffic. Intend to aggressively use

7:18 - Konkel - Major Madison challenges are hooked on the nation's economic future - need to continue to balance our priorities and make sure our taxpayers aren't overwhelmed by our taxes - budget processes are completely transparent - none of us have the answer to it. Need experience - half of the council is only 2 years on - running out of time...ACACIA, Edgewater, James Madison park, E. Washington, transportation, done, out!

She was really racing against the clock there.

7:20 - Maniaci - I'll start with neighborhood and move to the city - Lots of issues with safety, drug dealing, tenants that are not very good with the neighborhood - street lighting is causing sideswipes - I'd like to see better Street Lighting - DRLI - covers 1/3 of our district - want to see that expanded (very student centric so far) - seeing friends and students move out of town - businesses are having a lot of issues - need to see them survive - next two years - lots of issues with tax base, transportation

7:23 - Hackbarth: He just called it Tenney-LAY-pam. Whoops. Need to grow the tax base with more residents, retaining and attracting new jobs along E. Washington coordidor - things are going to happen - we need to balance the concerns of our neighborhoods with the inherent growth of our community - lots of historic buildings -need to preserve those - need to respect and pay attention to new opportunities.

Question from the audience

- How would you adapt the TLNA plan to the current economic challenges in our community - Hirsch...err...Hackbarth..

7:25 - I'm the mysterious fourth candidate...(well, a website would help.) Work closely with the neighborhood association - form committees on all projects - draw on historical knowledge - would welcome the input. Want to expand to a citywide prospective - want to see what people in other districts have to say. I may be district centric, I'll keep Madison priorities into concern (Well, when you're talking to TLNA, that probably isn't the best approach to take, eh?)

7:27 - Maniaci cites the industrial corridor along E. Washington - might have to wait given the current economic conditions, but I want a grocery store there, but the economy has hit the bottom so that might have to wait - One thing I notice that will change is the transportation plan - I don't want to see development happen just because there is one person willing to fork out the money...

7:28 - she said she was at the neighborhood meeting last night...I thought you said you were thinking about not going because we kept you too long last night?

7:29 - many of the plans might be slowed, calls for more density in certain parts of our neighborhood - transportation might be slowed -the ability of our neighborhood to correctly negotiate is important and possible - I fully support it, it might be slowed, but it's not going to make a difference in the long term - certainly coalesce with my vision.

Walsh really likes tempest metaphors.

7:31 - Konkel - I don't think anything has to change due to the economy. The core is good, but the biggest challenge is keeping density over by E. Washington - if there are projects that come forward for E. Washington, they're built to the scale that we have anticipated - underground parking is a huge challenge, because it's incredibly expensive - howe are we going to crack that parking issue - I know there are a lot of plans, hopefully we can find agreement.

7:33 - Renaissance Property group has a development deal - oppose or support or why?

Hackbarth : I'm not that familiar with the project - but I want to learn about it! (there was laughter in the background.) Right now he's spinning his wheels and the other candidates are sort of biting their tongues. Hackbarth mentions the zoning code and how important that is...scale is appropriate, yada yada yada. Again, as for the project, I don't know. But I do a lot of real estate transactions. So I see a lot of things that go into it.

It needs to be examined. Yep. Why didn't you do that beforehand?

Wash - I'm leaning toward no. The project has irrevocably changed. It is now going to be section 42 housing - workforce housing. The thing he liked was bringing homeowners to the area - but we can't bring people there for 15 years - apartment buildings have to be very well managed. Problem I've had - how much family oriented development are we looking at?

Konkel: One of the things I learned was to not come out in support or opposition but to listen to the residents - right now I would not support it. The reason Sherman doesn't know about it is because it changes daily. Section 42 is a plus for the project, put in a gym, community room - if the vote were today, we'd vote against it.

Demolition of the homes breaks my heart, and they probably shouldn't be torn down. We're either going to have to modify our neighborhood plan or make an exception.

7:40: Maniaci - I live across the street from this place. I'm a little disappointed that you, Hackbarth, haven't been following it. A lot of folks have been working on this. We're on version 2.0 of this project - the one bedroom lofts would be at #1,000 a month - density is very high, out of place with what the neighborhood plan has - what sort of precedents would this set - the new proposal is better - 640-740 a month, much better - section 42 housing - would give them extra income, but it excludes full-time students and it might take better shape - I'm very upset to see everything outside by front window go down.

So it sounds like everyone is pretty opposed.

7:42 - Retail presence on 800 block of Johnson - how would you promote the success of these businesses.

Maniaci - Bernie's is a great anchor for the neighborhood - other stores have had a lot of trouble staying afloat - Cook and Drunken Butterfly seemed very positive...then they went out of business. A few things can be done to help the businesses. Newsletters to promote businesses stuff, MoCA galleries bring people downtown - a lot of the businesses would love monthly gallery nights, sidewalk sales, DMI would be a model - medium term - fix the traffic situation and get us some parking! - E. Johnson to a two way street, Willy street has it too and look at the businesses.

7:45 - Hackbarth - Really like that area. Great place. Lot of turnover of business - is it because of new regulations, or is it traffic - I don't think there is one simple solution - there's a lack of understanding - that whole area could benefit from the façade improvement grants. Proper economic development.

Really need to promote that area and make it an alluring place for people to shop and dine and increase the walkability of that area.

7:47 - Konkel - a few of the things I've tried to do is to make people buy local first - gave extra points - I pushed for the economic development plan - took a long time to do and it cost more than we thought, but it got done, damn it.

E. Washington Ave. Corridor - need to continue to fight hard - complication with TIF policy prevented businesses - When traffic isn't on Johnson street...look out. Parking - can't seem to agree with businesses on how to figure this out.

7:49 - Walsh - that district will always struggle if it's a one-way street. Almost impossible to stop there -

(Hackbarth keeps turning to Konkel and asking her questions. Strange.)

7:50 - Business association is relatively defunct - defray the costs of advertising costs for them - the way it works is that they go down for one business and start shopping in other places - want to use some mixed use development up and down the cooridor - tie in our yearly neighborhood festival so they know those businesses are down there and available for them.

7:51 - Walsh - Describe your problem solving skills . "First, off, I'm an attorney" (yeah, so are half the other people here.) There are some attorney's I can't stand. But I still have to work with them, even though we may not always get along. Listening is 95 percent of communication and I excel at it. As a husband, I have to negotiate every single day - (the wife beamed at that one.)

7:53: Konkel - to navigate the discussions that go on in city hall takes some skill, I've been doing that in the last eight years and I've taken some initiative on development on Gorham (even though it didn't work out.) I told them to come to the neightborhood and see what they want to see. You have to get to win-win - the art of compromise is that "everybody's angry, so we must have done a good job." If the community is saying we need to have another coffee shop we can say "we can get a coffee shop in there." In the Gorman situation, we brought those concerns up very early - had discussion about traffic, the units that are there. The neighborhood came to yes. That plan failed at city hall.

Edit - That's Gorman, not Gorham. Sorry about that.

So how does that help your argument if you were the alder representing the district?

7:56 - Maniaci - Well, we're putting the Statue of Liberty back on the ice on Lake Mendota. Great example of taking the leadership role. Very excited to get everybody on board, get the kinks worked out - ASM - empowering Madison, want's to get involved - solar powered lights! It's a good example of why I have the skills to work with really challenging logistical decisions.

7:57 - Hackbarth - I went to Law School, became an attorney, simply because I wanted to help people. Doesn't matter if I'm helping a multi-million dollar development group work out their financials or helping criminals.

(I should mention they only have 1 mic.)

Audience question - what are your key accomplishments (to the incumbent) and to the challengers, what would you have done differently.

8:00 - Walsh - I wouldn't have done inclusionary zoning - history has proved that didn't work - it was all stick and no carrot - the system as it evolved had so many compromises and pragmatic and realistic problems that it would never work in any circumstances - created a VERY SMALL number and it continues to be. Have some good negotiations - it is a situation that will plague our society no matter what we do.

Konkel - I'd say my biggest accomplishment has been the work I do on the budget - I've been a strong voice that goes beyond getting snow off of our streets. I think we need to look at our plans holistically - /homelessness programs are important - we finally have an outreach worker. Affordable housing - you may agree or not agree, but those problems weren't talked about before I came along. We have continued to work on programs that are of the higest medium in our community

8:04 - Maniaci: I appreciate that the conversation went forward, but it failed pretty spectacularly and now we have to start the affordable housing convo again - without IZ - When she says it failed at the city hall level, well, it's your job to help it succeed at the city level. That's an example of where the lines of communication cost a good project. looks directly at her - your heart is in the right place and no one disputes that.

8:06 - Hackbarth has really raised his voice when discussing this: "You know, Brenda's a spitfire..." Brenda says her budgetary work is really good, but I think she had 42 amendments and I don't believe a single one of those were adopted by the common council. I don't think that's a solution. When you spring upon way too many that aren't zeroed in on the key issues that are going to make things happen. This is NOT a personal issue.

8:08 - What is your vision for the district in 10 years time?

Brenda: vision would be allowing people get around a lot more efficiently on Johnson and Gorham, I think we've set the ground work together - we must partner together to make it a strong district. Several of my amendments passed this year, by the way. IZ worked very hard with the development community - we made sure to see it was affordable - it did create 40 units. You can call it an incredible failure, but I think it made a difference and will be there for years to come.

Sherman: my vision for the city - he's espousing now, almost heaving - I see it as a hub between Chicago and the Twin Cities in the upper Midwest - diverse community - I see some things along the second district - E. Washington corridor - that's going to be a red carpet, a heart, etc. .. there's my vision.

OK. That was more like a flashback than anything.

8:12 - Walsh - "THIS is the heart of the district" - wants to protect Lapham elementary, keep it running, young families will have the confidence to stay here. When this economic tempest lifts, it will have it. Mansion Hill that is to a Georgetown for Washington D.C. - a respite in the midst of thrashing city - redevelop the old student buildings.

8:14 - Maniaci - it's going to be very strong for a number of reasons - you're looking at all those issues of new urbanism - we're very lucky to be close to all of those city services, etc. I'd love to see Chicago get the Olympics - get that RTA, see that light rail, see those parking places - if we solve those bigger transportation issues - we're going to see the E. Washington BUILD - Walsh is going to be a hell of a member on the PTA - we have all the things in our neighborhood that people will want - it's about how we develop and make the most of the neighborhood - if the neighborhood goes in the direct that I'd like to see it go....I'll be very happy.

Break!

8:23 - Walsh - What should they do about the Overture Center. We can't let it go. What are we going to do with the construction debt - How are we going to do with the operating budget - the Overture Center is a quality of life decision that we've made - we'll wonder how we ever got along without it - I don't think it's accountable.

One of the things they stressed was the love the Overture Center because it puts free shows on for children - it will get worked out.

8:25 Konkel - glad we didn't buy it for a dollar. I'm sorry the endowment fund didn't work out. I think we need to look on how we use that building in different ways - need to figure out how we use the building in different ways - this is a private sector problem that needs to be figured out by the private sector. My accountant at work is on the Overture board

Hackbarth: Should have thought about this before and not put the endowment in the market, which is very risky. And 8 1/2 return sounds good but is it realistic. I think we need to promote it and we have an amazing building that we need to care for. The city is promoting operations of this. To really promote that center, it should have people in it seven days a week, it's a wonderful center and I think that we should have more people using it. No easy solution

Maniaci - I agree, the city should not too much involvement in it. I would really like to see more local use - if the city does get involved, they should look at more local programming - friends had Forward Music Fest - they're in the process of trying to book their shows - it's a battle royale with the pricing at the Overture - they're not having a very good time talking with the folks at the Overture - folks have brought up that there is a fair amount of nights when programming isn't out there.

Final Question - do you favor the bus fair increase?

8:30 - Walsh - No, I don't favor the increase. Mass transportation systems historically recover a small amount with their fares. Same case with Madison Metro - 50 cent increase brings in about 650,000 dollars when their budget is 30 million plus. Need to look into other ways to pay for it. Don't have a big enough pie - bake a bigger pie - look at ways we can foster economic growth. Don't have to adjust the routes or anything like that.

Konkel - Served on Transit and Parking commission - we cut back the routes and service that's available, cut back late night service, weekend service...cut cut cut. Absolutely wrong thing to do with the transit system. Need to get as many people riding the bus, that's why I voted against the whole budget. 650,000 out of 30 million is not the end of the world. We needed to really be looking at this in a completely different way. Increase in money from the fare box but also make it more reliable. Hopefully the RTA can bail us out.

Maniaci - I don't support raising the fare. If it came to consensus that we have to raise, I'd support a stronger system. I've talked with a number of folks and had my own frustrations - not only have we cut it, but there are some inherent flaws in the way it's structured - there's no busses that run concurrent to flights at the airport - I'd like to see a much more efficient and reliable system. It's not a lot of money to make up - I'd like to move forward, move past this point - work regionally to fix these problems.

Hackbarth: I saw huge problems with the increase, but I see huge problems with cutting services. There are other people who don't have those conveniences. At a 1.50 - at 2.00 it's still going to be operating in the red. We cannot cut services at this point - to branch out with the RTA is a very good opportunity to take. Metro is our only public transportation - disproportionate impact on low-income people - expand business bus pools.

8:40 - Closing statements:

Walsh - It's all about the school. Talk to me, not the school board. He's getting really passionate. Once we have that secured, young families will come here.

Hackbarth - I really ran this campaign to get people involved in local politics. I bring a fresh approach, a collaborative approach, I live in a cooperative. I want to start a relationship with this neighborhood.

Bridget - I think that what I can offer to the district is to take the district forward and use that passion and energy that comes with being young and really use that. I can offer a lot in the relationships I've already built into the district. People haven't been working together because they've been coming with their battlelines drawn.

Konkel - I want to thank everyone who came out. Thank you to the candidates for running. Speaking up and speaking out is great. I've been a tenacious. IZ failed because of the compromises we made. We're going to work on * add list of everything we said tonight * Biggest issue is transparency. I've done that through blogs, listservs, etc.

I think the vast majority of the public has no idea who this extra contender for Ald. Konkel's Dist. 2 City Council Seat is.

If you were to do a search for Hackbarth online, you'd probably find out that he's a lawyer (although it probably wouldn't specify that he deals mostly in real estate deals), that he moderated a Young Professionals-hosted debate of the 2007 mayoral candidates and that he briefly represented the Madison Metro Bus Driver who was fired after he dragged a passenger still holding onto the outside of the bus. (which he says was a fluke.)

However, when Hackbarth came in to the editorial board, one of the first things out of his mouth when explaining who he was...was his divorce. And we're not sure why that is. He made a point of saying that he got married at the age of 23 and was officially divorced by 2008 and moved into the hipathia cooperative after that.

Again, we're not sure why this was so explicitly made an issue, but it might have to do with the sort of campaign that Adam Walsh is running (which includes a website that has his wife in almost every picture and a platform that encourages permanent family-based settlement in the district to buttress the neighborhood schools.) If it is, no need. But enough with the personal stories. What are his qualifications? -Well, first off, he makes it clear this is his first run for office.

He joined CIVITAS (which he seemed to characterize as some 10-month civics lesson, when it's really just 10 luncheons, one a month, with civic leaders from the region that results in a certificate and $250 out of your pocket.)

-He's a member of CNI. He touted this at first until we brought up the subject of alcohol and our disagreement with their draconian policy suggestions. His response?

- First off, he's not a member who focuses on the alcohol business. He was on the Edgewater redevelopment committee and most of his dealings focused on that.

- When it came to the alcohol policies, he made it clear that he did not agree with the quota suggestions but agreed with the idea of outreach to drunk students and checking in on house parties to sort of self-regulate the neighborhood. When it came to ALDP: he couldn't give an answer as to whether he agreed or disagreed with the citywide policy that limits the number of liquor licenses in the downtown area. This lack of an opinion is obviously troubling.

As for the other issues, he seemed to be rather invested in downtown development and gave plaudits to those alders currently taking up the take of reworking the zoning codes for the downtown area. However, when I asked him if he had any specific vision for how parts of his district should look in terms of development, he didn't give an answer, instead saying, "well, that's what the zoning code is going to figure out!" When I pressed him and cited those in the Tenney-Lampham neighborhood who were weary of seeing more high-rise developments go up, he dodged the question with more vague statements about the diversity of the district.

Edit: He did, actually mention something that he would like to see...in addition to talking about the E. Washington corridor as a red carpet to the capitol and Madison as a whole, and talked about converting some of the neighborhoods into that "block corner" model like "Lincoln Park in Chicago." If anyone knows exactly what that means, please let me know.

-Safety? He seemed very concerned about safety. However, not necessarily about crimes in the downtown area. He repeatedly mentioned traffic around Johnson St. and the speed of the cars making it dangerous for kids and pedestrians in the area. When I asked about whether he thought the 30 police officers were justified he stated, "well, they're here now" and moved on to comments about making sure they're allocated correctly. I didn't hear any specific proposals on how to make the neighborhood safer other than speed bumps.

For such an unknown candidate, he didn't seem particularly uninformed or aloof -- he seemed to have enough knowledge of the downtown area and the challenges facing it (at least more than his know your candidates appearance seemed to indicate)

But a few key points:

-He still doesn't have a working website. He says that his webmaster said it was still going up, but that he's leaving it up to him. I suggested a blog, to which he responded, "I'm not sure that a blog is really my style. I'm just not sure." He said he preferred knocking on doors to a Website. I didn't realize it was a choice.

-There is the possibility that he could end up representing developers with deals in the district. He acknowledged this, said he's been thinking about this and hasn't really decided how he would reconcile this conflict of interest. The fact that he didn't immediately say he would recuse himself in any deals in the district and seemed unsure as to what he would do is unnerving.

Bridget Maniaci comes in tomorrow. Hopefully I can have an update for that tomorrow.

Even if all missing ballots are found and all the typos are corrected, the recount is still doomed. Just considering precincts where every ballot is accounted for -- where Coleman and Franken observers are not challenging votes -- there are mistakes. How can we know this? Before the recount began, the state ran a post-election review to gauge the accuracy of the voting process. The review involved auditors going into select precincts and, like the recounters, counting by hand, doing the most careful job humanly possible. So in some precincts, we have not just a recount but a re-recount. Both auditors and recounters were hypervigilant to possible sources of error, and yet they disagree on their tallies by about 20 thousandths of a percent. The Coleman-Franken race is so close that this error rate is more than double the margin between the two camps. Luckily, Minnesota's electoral law has a provision for ties. After all the counting and recounting, if the vote is statistically tied, the state should invoke the section of the law that requires the victor to be chosen by lot. It's hard to swallow, but the right way to end the senatorial race between Mr. Coleman and Mr. Franken will be to flip a coin.