mayoral debate tonight

O.K., here's my take on the mayoral debate this evening (good turnout with about every seat filled);
First of all I'll pat myself on the back, because Main Street used four out of my five questions verbatim, plus my question about support of the school levy was in there in another form.

The first of my questions was about their priorities regarding demolitions vs. incentives and support of maintaining and saving existing housing stock (see my previous post for the specific questions). Mr. Anliker gave the most coherent answer and stressed saving homes appropriately. He seemed to be aware of a broader range of possible approaches and incentives. Mr. Culliver seemed to be just standing on his own record of supporting rehab money on Council and his participation in committees. I didn't think he caught the message in the question...that there should be encouragement of investment and homeowners who make an effort rather than handouts to homeowners just for getting in line for the HUD funds. Mr. Versaw talked more emphatically about cracking down on code issues, and surprisingly said he didn't support further building of the "tax credit" homes, indicating they were taking tenants away from existing housing stock. Mr. Culliver rebutted some on that issue, indicating Council was relying on outside expert advice in going in that direction. Overall it was clear that Anliker sensed what the question was looking for, and gave a more comprehensive answer... no way to tell if he had any prior thoughts or plans in this direction.

The second of my questions they used was about the relative priority of downtown retail and service establishments:
I think Culliver gave the most measured response, without automatically saying these were the highest priorities. Anliker used the question as an opportunity to stress moving forward with the Strategic Plan developed by the Alliance and Main Street Mansfield in 2003. And also the "Brookings Study". He consistently referred to these two items repeatedly through the debate. Versaw's response was more generic, I think. At least in my few notes I only noted that he feels the health of downtown is very important to the city overall, and I believe he did bring up the issue of keeping county government from continuing their shifting offices out of downtown. I have to give him credit for bringing that up a couple of times which is a good point.

My third question that was used was whether the candidate saw any other city as a model or whether they had their own unique plan for the city;
I really thought it would be a mistake for a candidate to say he had a unique plan and there wasn't any model he was aware of. Culliver came closest to saying this, in fact indicating he had more of his own unique plan than any city to emulate. He did mention Akron. I thought his answer showed some lack of knowledge or study of other cities, which I think is essential to getting a handle on our own solutions. Anliker mentioned how New York City got a handle on Subway crime etc. He also brought up the Brookings Study. (I guess I need to have a look at this). Versaw brought up a previous trip by city council committee to Lexington Kentucky and also the development of an arts community in Paducha Kentucky. I didn't think his answer showed he had done much delving into other cities problems and solutions on his own.

My question about the VOA brought a unanimous response;
All three candidates would make every effort to get the VOA sexual offender facility out of downtown. Culliver's response was the most candid I thought, in that he indicated council had to rely on the opinion of the law director in not pursuing legal action. Versaw and Anliker were a little more strongly voiced, but I didn't feel they had any better idea how to go about it than anyone else in the room. Anliker seems to have studied up on the ins and outs of the problem...he seems to have been doing his homework on this and other issues.

The question about support of the school levy didn't bring a strong endorsement from any of the candidates. All three seemed to be saying they would probably vote for the levy personally, but wait and see before possibly supporting it publicly. It was without a doubt the hottest potato question and none of the candidates stuck their neck out either way on the issue. I figure at this point, as a public figure, and on such an important issue they would all three have formulated a definite opinion on the subject, but from their responses you would have thought this was a new issue they hadn't had time to think about yet. Hmmmmmm.

Overall I'll give Anliker the most points. He was the most animated and seemed to have the clearest focus on the questions (they received the questions ahead of time, so there shouldn't have been much excuse for being out of focus). I have heard Anliker previously talk about "restoring" his Park Avenue house, but in this debate he referred to it as "remodeling" which sounded like he has subsequently learned more about historic preservation and the distinction between the two words... point being that his exterior alterations on the house would be considered inappropriate to preservation or restoration if that was what he was calling it. The house isn't in an historic district and he has every right to do what he wants with the house, but as mayor of the city it would be a big plus if he understands the difference.

Of the three candidates Culliver seemed the most knowledgeable of the inner workings of the city, but also the most likely to not rock the boat. Versaw seemed least organized...he spoke more off-the-cuff and would have looked better if he had been better prepared. Anliker was definitely the best prepared and came across the most forceful on significant issues. I think he repeatedly made one very good point which is to take a good look at the studies and strategic plans that are on the table, and take action whether to move ahead or discard the various aspects.