An annonymous commenter asked if we could do an endorsement of all candidates running for all city positions. We don’t do this sort of thing, but decided we’d do a post on who would make our ‘dream team’. This isn’t meant to sway your vote, just who we think would get our city running in the right direction and do so in a professional manner. There are no guarantees espressed, or implied by us that these candidates will follow through on their campaign promises.
We don’t have a favorite for Mayor, but lean toward Phil Yerrington only because we know of him. He has experience and we believe can end the circus atmosphere of recent meetings.
For Alderperson-At-Large, Jenn Olsen is definitly our one choice, still working on the rest. We believe she will help achieve the goal of an open government, won’t bow to special interest, and has a definite plan to lower our crime rate. We’re not a big fan of Ian Frink since the ‘gang of four’ closed meetings that involved small like-thinking groups working behind everyone’s back. If we had to choose a second right now, we’d go with Tina Clawson.
In the 1st. Ward race we like Pat Gibbs hands down. After hearing him on Jim Fishers talk show we feel he’s the one to help straighten up the police manpower problem from within. He has a handle on what we feel the problem really is; getting more cops out of the Station and on the street.
The 2nd. Ward is a no-brainer. We feel that Shawn Hamerlink has been doing a good job, has gained experience in his first term, and would do a great job if re-elected.
The 3rd. Ward shouldn’t surprise anyone, we feel Keith Meyer is still the best fit for the ward. Even though the CA and current Mayor have tried to muzzle him, he still gets the questions asked. If Alderman Meyer got even half his questions answered we would be a better informed city. We see nothing wrong with the voting public knowing what is going on downtown.
The 4th. Ward still belongs to Ray Ambrose. He’s another Council member we feel has been getting a bad rap.
In the 5th. we’re still leaning toward Bill Lynn. We feel a smear campaign has been waged against him also.
In the 6th. Ward we feel Dale Gilmour is a good fit. While both candidates make good points we feel his campaign is closer to what we believe the problems are. Being a car guy doesn’t hurt either.
In the 7th. Ward we wish Doc would have made it through the primary. Barney Barnhill must like to hear himself talk the way he runs on. We would lean toward Marcia Patch just because of all the negative rumors that seem to be floating around.
In the 8th. Ward we would go with Mike Matson. We like his campaign promises.
That would be our team out of the roster. This in no way means the other candidates aren’t as qualified, just our opinion. Since we live in the 5th. Ward we feel that’s the only one that should really matter. Regardless of who gets elected we feel the next council will be a leaner, more professional team. While that’s bad for bloggers and talk show hosts, it’s a whole lot better for our city. Share your thoughts, and remember to vote Tuesday.
Just Cruisin 2 
Keith Meyer is the best thing to happen for the taxpayers of Davenport. He is the first sunshine that City Hall has seen in many years. Thanks Keith for all your endless hours of work keeping the game on top of the table.
I like all your picks Cruiser, but I sure wish someone else would be running in the 2nd ward. Hamerlinck talks a big game, but is aweful about returning phone calls and emails.
But he is the best of two evils, as we`ve seen the guy running against him speaking at council meetings, and he doesn`t come across as being very good for the job either. And he`s also buds with Bill Boom. The second ward really struggles getting a good representative. At one time they had George Nicholas, who was only there because he was a good BSer, and then after him the little old lady who filed bankruptsy was elected.
“……who we think would get our city running in the right direction and do so in a professional manner.”
What a jokester you are. You make a statement like that and then you pick every no good candidate for EVERY position.
I don’t agree with ANY of you choices!!!
cruiser – I am surprised about your thoughts on 5th Ward. Can you tell us what your deciding factor is, or is it just the whole “incumbant” thing? Just curious, there are many people still in limbo.
Wow! You’ve been sucking in too much exhaust fumes! Half the folks you picked are the problem with this city. Hamerlinck and especially Lynn. Have you not been listening to what these clowns have done to our neighborhoods. The NEO disbandment, rent-to-own, siding with special interest groups like Lubell and his auto dialer. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. These folks are bad news for Davenport.
I think I’ll go throw up now…. God help us!
First off, we said up front that this is what we think would work. We don’t expect everyone to agree with us. Some we feel are no-brainers and others took some thought. If we didn’t try to include a little diversity it wouldn’t work.
The reason we picked Lynn in the 5th. is because rumors aside we haven’t seen any solid proof. Yes he was in on the NEO disbandment. At the time it happened we were in the minority saying it was a bad idea. He was and is only one vote out of ten. If you think he has enough sway to get the whole council to vote his way, maybe he should have run for mayor.
Walnut, we haven’t heard his autodialer or that might change our mind. As to his being in Lubell’s pocket, we’ve seen no proof of it. The ward hasn’t imploded since he’s been in office and we feel he’s done more good than harm. If you have a candidate who never makes mistakes and always votes in agreement with you please list them.
Cruise – as always thank you for your candid response, I was honestly curious about your reasoning and although I may not agree, I applaud your willingness to speculate overall and your freedom for your opinions. I would truely just like to see the number of people voting in the 5th increase exponentially no matter who wins.
Anon,
That’s one reason we didn’t want to do the post. We thought that people who disagreed would post their list and reasons so people could compare. Instead it is more rumors and snide remarks. We were asked what we thought and replied honestly. Nobody has to agree with us. All we ask is don’t vote for a candidate without researching a little bit. Between the newspapers, talk radio, TV and the various meetings the candidates held everyone should have an idea of who they feel is best for the job. We would also like to see record numbers at the polls, regardless of who gets voted in. All the candidates have a lot of time, money and commitment in their campaigns by now. Let’s break some records, vote who think will best represent us, and get back to making our city a better place to live.
Thanks for your honesty, Cruiser. Naturally, I wish you’d offered me the nod, but I respect your right to believe otherwise. (Sorry in advance for the long post and thanks for the forum.)
For the record, I haven’t personally given Tony Ambrose a bad rap at all. I’ve never met the man and I’m sure he’s never had anything but good intentions. I think his willingness to serve over the years deserves our respect. That said, I would not be running against a five-term incumbent if I didn’t believe I could do a better job (I’m an optimist, but not a masochist) and so many folks wouldn’t have urged me to run if they thought he should continue serving or that I wasn’t up to the task.
To a few of the issues:
I differ strongly with Mr. Ambrose’s approach and believe that his idea of good government is over-simplified in the extreme. Effective government is not now and never was as simple as cleaning the streets, patching the potholes and opening bigger jails – it’s an insult to taxpayers to suggest that it is. Further, Mr. Ambrose has had ten years to implement and refine this philosophy, and it just isn’t working. If 4th ward residents believed they are better off now than they were ten years ago – well, no offense, but I don’t think I’d be experiencing such a high level of support.
Conditions in west Davenport have not measurably improved (and have in some cases eroded significantly) in the last ten years. Long-time and newer residents alike attest to this. Retirees regularly express concern that the neighborhoods they’ve worked so hard to build and preserve are going downhill thanks to bad rentals and sagging infrastructure. Far too many young people say they plan to leave the west side – and possibly Davenport altogether – in pursuit of better basic amenities (shopping, dining, newer school facilities) and lower property taxes. Something needs to be done – actively – to address these very real concerns.
Of course, Mr. Ambrose says he favors low taxes (don’t we all?), but he doesn’t offer any solutions for lowering or even stabilizing them. He has a history of opposing initiatives that will attract living-wage job/population growth and economic development, which is the only way we can expect to pare down our individual shares in the tax burden anytime soon. It’s not enough to say you believe in lower taxes – you need to take steps to help lower them.
Simply put, more people need to live and do business in Davenport, or our tax rate will never be competitive – locally, regionally or nationally. And with fewer people footing the growing bill and more folks moving toward the exits every day, the simple approach offered by Ambrose can never succeed. In time, we will not be able to afford to keep the streets clean or the potholes patched, let alone have the cash to warehouse repeat offenders in the new jail on a long-term basis.
Finally on that crime issue – it bothers me tremendously when ward candidates routinely put “public safety” at the top of their lists during election season and do so little about it afterward. I’m not talking about funding the new police station and jail — cops and the pokey come into the picture AFTER a crime is committed. What too many ward reps seem to ignore is the simple and cost-effective opportunities we have to deter and prevent crime before it even happens.
In the 4th ward, most of the organized Neighborhood Watch groups have gone dormant or fallen apart in the last decade. Only a few remain intact and active, and I think that is largely because Mr. Ambrose has done very little to unite the community during his time in office. There have been very few ward meetings – and those he has held have been scheduled with a scant 48 hours notice and little publicity. There has been little to no effort put into replacing watch group leaders who move away or can no longer serve — and there seems to be no desire on his part to have any kind of regular contact with ward residents unless they call him with an individual complaint.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the best way to discourage crime in the 4th ward is to let potential perps know their odds of being caught here are higher than anywhere else in town. When people know their neighbors, they know what’s out of place. When people come together on a regular basis to share good ideas and discuss common concerns, things move forward and conditions improve. It’s a no-brainer, and if I’m elected we’ll have an open ward meeting once a month and a whole new approach to public safety in the 4th ward. We’ll grab hold of every available city resource and empower residents to take back their neighborhoods. The streets will be clean and pothole-free, too – but we’ll go way beyond that. Because we have to.
In the end, it’s entirely possible and maybe even likely that I won’t prevail against such an entrenched incumbent – and if I don’t, I at least hope Mr. Ambrose will be responsive to the issues I have raised on behalf of so many residents.
Lisa Lewis
Lisa,
We thank you for your honesty and encourage responses like yours. We said up front that this wasn’t an endorsement and we can only vote the 5th Ward. With everything going on we didn’t get a chance to meet you, which we regret. We do like your ideas and ask that people get the information before they go to the polls.
And don’t fotget, Ambrose is the guy that came up with the red light cameras!!
I have mailings from both 8th ward canidates and have looked at the Times Q&A. I have not seen any promises or ideas on either. Can you tell me what his promises are?
Here you go anon-
Mike Matson is running on bringing professionalism back to the city council, getting public safety up to speed, infrastructure and parks. He also claims he would be responsive to the citizens of his ward. He was a military man for 22 years which should give him the experience in and knowledge of leadership. He is also promising to lead by example and improving our quality of life.
Bringing back professionaism should be self-explanitory. He wants to end the circus antics between City Leaders.
On public safety we believe he’s running on getting more police on the street.
Infrastructure -he wants the new westend sewer put through, which should bring development also and lower our tax base.
We have some really nice parks in town we believe he wants to bring the rest up to snuff.
If contacted he’s running on calling or e-mailing back. We hope this helps you.
Cruising, I agree with your slate. Anyone who watches the city council meeting would make the same statements as you. As far as Ambrose, the red lights generated money for the police and saved lives (per Davenport police department). Red lights do not affect people who obey the laws. What better way to help Davenport but from people who break the laws and jeopardize kids. 5 children have even killed in traffic interaction in the 4th ward just in the time I have lived here. 4th ward has generated over a billion dollars in new business over the last ten years. Hy-Vee, Genesis expansion, ect… the 4th isn’t stagnant. I go to Ambrose ward meetings, he gives 2 week notices.
If Lewis has no idea why she has D1, the QC times and the county boys supporting her, she is naive. They are not supporting Lewis; they are supporting the candidate that is running against Ambrose.
I know it’s last minute, but I felt compelled to throw my two cents in regarding your endorsement for the 2nd ward. I can’t help but be a little dissappointed by your reasoning for reelecting the current incumbant, Shawn Hamerlinck. I think it’s easy to vote for a guy that knows what to say and when to say it but doesn’t have the character to back it up. Tom Carnahan may not have the experience that Shawn does, but he has something greater, an overwhelming drive, determination and motivation to make this city better for the citizens that live there. He has the integrity, honesty and humility to make some positive changes that Shawn and the prior council weren’t able to make. A vote for Tom Carnahan is a vote for a better Davenport. Tom has investing himself into his community. I know that if you really had researched these candidates and gotten to know Tom Carnahan you’d see how foolish the 2nd ward will be if they don’t put him on the council. Thank you for your time!