Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
An open letter to all gubernatorial candidates
Dear Candidate,
I am utterly delighted that you have thrown your hat into the ring. I look forward to learning more about you, your stances, and why you will be the best at the job of governor of this great state.
I am also excited to see that you are all beginning to embrace online media. Many of us have spend years using the internet as a place to share information and organize on line. We are happy that you have decided to join us and engage us here on our home turf.
However, I feel there is something you may not have grasped yet. Paying workers or asking your volunteers to pepper our online homes with comments supporting you and attacking other candidates is not going to win our help our our votes.
Here's a little secret...you may all be brilliant politicians, and you may have fantastically experienced campaign managers. But your online supporters? Not very bright, and not very good at it. If you have a commenter start commenting out of no where, with out establishing him or herself as a presence on a site or in a community, that commenter sticks out. We start to look closely at all of that commenter's comments. We start to google that commenter's name. We review who they attack, and who they support. And in the end, we really start to look down on the candidate that that commenter says he or she is supporting.
You have to understand, if I can't trust you not to sockpuppet a website, or ask your supporters to be constructive, I can't ever hold you in that high of esteem as a candidate. If you can't keep a few overzealous campaign staff or volunteers from scorching the earth online, how can I believe that you have the ability to successfully run something as complicated as the state of Minnesota.
So, long story short, if you are planning an online presence, please treat us like you respect us, and that you don't think we are stupid. Have your campaign staff use real names. Ask your supporters to identify themselves. At the very least, tell them to try and be a part of the community. We don't run our sites so you have a venue to self-promote, and to run down the other candidates in anonymity.
Thank you,
Respectfully
Robin Marty
I am utterly delighted that you have thrown your hat into the ring. I look forward to learning more about you, your stances, and why you will be the best at the job of governor of this great state.
I am also excited to see that you are all beginning to embrace online media. Many of us have spend years using the internet as a place to share information and organize on line. We are happy that you have decided to join us and engage us here on our home turf.
However, I feel there is something you may not have grasped yet. Paying workers or asking your volunteers to pepper our online homes with comments supporting you and attacking other candidates is not going to win our help our our votes.
Here's a little secret...you may all be brilliant politicians, and you may have fantastically experienced campaign managers. But your online supporters? Not very bright, and not very good at it. If you have a commenter start commenting out of no where, with out establishing him or herself as a presence on a site or in a community, that commenter sticks out. We start to look closely at all of that commenter's comments. We start to google that commenter's name. We review who they attack, and who they support. And in the end, we really start to look down on the candidate that that commenter says he or she is supporting.
You have to understand, if I can't trust you not to sockpuppet a website, or ask your supporters to be constructive, I can't ever hold you in that high of esteem as a candidate. If you can't keep a few overzealous campaign staff or volunteers from scorching the earth online, how can I believe that you have the ability to successfully run something as complicated as the state of Minnesota.
So, long story short, if you are planning an online presence, please treat us like you respect us, and that you don't think we are stupid. Have your campaign staff use real names. Ask your supporters to identify themselves. At the very least, tell them to try and be a part of the community. We don't run our sites so you have a venue to self-promote, and to run down the other candidates in anonymity.
Thank you,
Respectfully
Robin Marty
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
The announcement you may or may not have heard this weekend
For those of you who didn't get to make it to my panel, or that I didn't talk to over the weekend, I wanted to let you all know that after almost three and a half years, I am now in the process of leaving the Center for Independent Media. For background, when they arrived here in 2006 I was hired to set up and launch the Minnesota Monitor (now the renowned Minnesota Independent), which I did until mid 2007. But as I began to spend more time helping the CIM set up other state based networks, I moved internally to the CIM and Paul Schmelzer took over MinMon, probably the best thing to ever happen to that site.
Over my years with the CIM my job became more and more operational based, and now that they are larger, they have hired enough people to move all operations into the DC office itself, and now having an operations person outside of DC just doesn't make a lot of sense functionally. I'll be wrapping up some advertising projects for them in the next two weeks, and then I'll be moving on altogether.
Luckily, this gives me an opportunity I haven't had in a while. The reason I came on with the CIM was my love for editing and writing about politics, as well as networking with writers, bloggers, advocacy groups and candidates, helping each of them find ways to talk to each other. It's something that I was doing less of once I left MinMon, and much less of as I worked more on the operations side.
Long story short, I'm grateful to the time I had with the CIM, but I'm also realizing I'm very grateful to move on. For now, I am going to be working on freelance and consulting projects, my first being a contract to work part time with one of my favorite advocacy groups, RH Reality Check. RH Reality Check is a news and advocacy group that covers reproductive health for both men and women in a national and global setting. Reproductive health issues are what got me into activism in college, and was one of the reasons I started blogging in 2004, so to have a chance to write, edit, and in other ways assist the group is sort of a dream fulfilled for me.
And of course, I'll be looking for other projects to work on as well. If you have any leads on freelance, I'm all ears.
My office email will shut down December 10th, but you can always find me through my personal email accounts, on twitter, or by commenting here.
Over my years with the CIM my job became more and more operational based, and now that they are larger, they have hired enough people to move all operations into the DC office itself, and now having an operations person outside of DC just doesn't make a lot of sense functionally. I'll be wrapping up some advertising projects for them in the next two weeks, and then I'll be moving on altogether.
Luckily, this gives me an opportunity I haven't had in a while. The reason I came on with the CIM was my love for editing and writing about politics, as well as networking with writers, bloggers, advocacy groups and candidates, helping each of them find ways to talk to each other. It's something that I was doing less of once I left MinMon, and much less of as I worked more on the operations side.
Long story short, I'm grateful to the time I had with the CIM, but I'm also realizing I'm very grateful to move on. For now, I am going to be working on freelance and consulting projects, my first being a contract to work part time with one of my favorite advocacy groups, RH Reality Check. RH Reality Check is a news and advocacy group that covers reproductive health for both men and women in a national and global setting. Reproductive health issues are what got me into activism in college, and was one of the reasons I started blogging in 2004, so to have a chance to write, edit, and in other ways assist the group is sort of a dream fulfilled for me.
And of course, I'll be looking for other projects to work on as well. If you have any leads on freelance, I'm all ears.
My office email will shut down December 10th, but you can always find me through my personal email accounts, on twitter, or by commenting here.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Updated Minnesota Progressive Blog roll - last update Monday 7:30 am
if you aren't on here and should be, please email me or tweet me here.
I assume you can copy/paste the code from here. If not, contact me so I can email it to you.
Minnesota Progressive Blogs
I assume you can copy/paste the code from here. If not, contact me so I can email it to you.
- Aaron Landry
- Across the Great Divide
- Aliance for a Better Minnesota
- At the Hillocks of Hysteria
- Barataria
- Blog of the Moderate Left
- Blue Man in a Red District
- A Bluestem Prairie
- Both of Us
- Centrisity
- Cinna.MN
- The Colu.MN
- The Cucking Stool
- The Deets
- Dump Bachmann
- Hindsight - From Minnesota 2020
- Dump John Kline
- Eyeteeth
- Hegemommy
- I Don't Hate America
- Mercury Rising
- Metroblogging Minneapolis
- Minnesota Brown
- Minnesota Central
- Minnesota Independent
- Minnesota Progressive Project
- Minnesota Rising
- Mississippifarian
- mnpACT!
- MN Moderate to Liberal Political Roundtable
- MN Publius
- MNStories
- News Day
- Perfect Duluth Day
- The PF Hyper Blog
- Pharyngula
- Power Liberal
- Progressive Veteran
- Rook's Rant
- Roott333's Blog
- Small of America
- Smithers Minneapolis
- Tild~
- Truth Surfer
- Twin Cities Sidewalks
- Twin Cities Daily Planet
- The Uptake
- The Usual Suspects
- Vox Verax
- WoMN Focus
Friday, August 14, 2009
Watch Rachel Says
I don't know how anyone can watch this and think that anything resembling a real debate is happening.
(Via MNPP)
(Via MNPP)
Monday, July 13, 2009
Once upon a time in 2007....
Once upon a time, back in March of 2007, I was working on opening the Iowa Independent for the Center for Independent Media. It was very early spring...I had quite literally just turned 30 4 days earlier, and I was in a hotel in Des Moines interviewing people to be the Managing Editor of the new site.
Sitting in Iowa in 2007, looking for people to work for a politics-focused blog, one of the first things you're going to discuss is what is happening with the caucuses. It was still 10 months until caucus day (maybe more -- I can't remember the real timing of the original, pre-leapfrog caucus date). However, we were already 4 months into heavy campaigning thanks to Iowa's governor jump starting the process less than 4 weeks after the 2006 election.
If I remember right, Vilsack had just dropped out of the running. The general consensus with most Iowans I met was that he was urged to enter the race, and enter it very early, in order to help the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign was believed by many to think the nomination would be won by whoever had the most money to spend. It was assumed that the combined fundraising power of a New York Senator/former First Lady and the former President of the United States would be totally dominant, and the longer the race lasted, the more expensive it would be. Since announcing first, especially that early, would be too obvious, Vilsack was allegedly talked into being the stalking horse that would force the rest of the candidates to declare.
In March of 2007, it seemed like an excellent plan. Clinton had the very early positioning of the front-runner status. She had a very loyal base. She quickly became the one to beat. And with her name recognition, her endless pool of money, and her early mobilization of supporters, she pretty quickly ended up with the mantle of inevitability. Sure there were some problems. The people who liked her really liked her, but the people who didn't? Let's say there were some pretty high negatives involved. Some were rational, others, not so much.
As the primaries continued, it only got worse. Probably the true death knell of her candidacy was the Michigan primary, where she left her name on the ballot. Sure, she played exactly by the rules, but for a lot of people it just didn't seem exactly fair or right somehow. For her supporters, they didn't understand why other people were upset since they were simply campaigning and running. But for those who didn't support her, the wedge was deeper, and the negatives grew.
Clinton's campaign was right about one thing -- it was a long campaign, and the person with the most money won. But no one expected that a relative political newcomer could ever raise the kind of funds he did. They also underestimated the desire many people had to see a new name in the running for office. After so many years of Clinton and Bush White Houses and the same names and faces running over and over again for different positions, "change" became mostly a desire to see someone new do (hopefully) something different.
I'd been working on this post ever since Fecke put up his Entenza piece, because I see a lot of parallels between Matt Entenza and the early Clinton campaign. Both candidates were seen as early on favorites due to finances, name recognition, and, in some ways, by this weird political idea of "it's my turn." Both candidates had extremely high positives, but for those who didn't like them, they REALLY didn't like them. Both have done things in campaigns that weren't necessarily officially unethical, but could be seen by their dissenters and coming dangerously near the line if not crossing it. Both were running early, long campaigns at a time when, let's be honest, a democrat really should have an excellent chance to win.
There are a few large differences, though. The most significant is that in a national election, a third party candidate is usually not that much of a factor (yes, 2000 aside). But we lost the governor's house in 2006 in part because the Independence Party ran a candidate who was often more progressive than the DFL's own nominee. Minnesotans do not just hold their nose and party vote. If they did, we probably wouldn't have just sworn in a senator last week.
Is Matt Entenza the most winnable candidate running right now? Perhaps. He certainly has more name recognition, money and staff than the others involved. For those who gauge a political race on weighing those factors then yes, he probably would be the inevitable candidate.
But we are still 16 months before the election. We are still almost a year until we even have a nominating convention. There are more candidates to declare, and, much of the "he's ahead, don't talk about negatives" talk seems to be a push to keep the "inevitable" meme in place so these candidates don't run.
From the point in which I started drafting this post to now, Fecke once again nailed it with this piece about inevitability. Inevitability is a game you play when you are trying to keep the race exactly as it is at this moment. Inevitability is a fear of change in circumstances.
16 months is a long time in real life, and an even longer time in politics. The trend of ridiculously long campaigns that start less than two months after the last election may be a boon for those of us who are peripherally involved in politics, but have the disadvantage of making people want to declare races over before they even begin. The only thing inevitable at this point is that there are many, many months before we will have a candidate, and hopefully that candidate will be decided on by the strength of her or his stances on bettering our state, and not on who has the most money or their communications team organized the earliest.
(Note: I think I have made it no secret that I am hoping to support a female, pro-choice gubernatorial candidate. But in case you have somehow missed that about me, go here.)
Sitting in Iowa in 2007, looking for people to work for a politics-focused blog, one of the first things you're going to discuss is what is happening with the caucuses. It was still 10 months until caucus day (maybe more -- I can't remember the real timing of the original, pre-leapfrog caucus date). However, we were already 4 months into heavy campaigning thanks to Iowa's governor jump starting the process less than 4 weeks after the 2006 election.
If I remember right, Vilsack had just dropped out of the running. The general consensus with most Iowans I met was that he was urged to enter the race, and enter it very early, in order to help the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign was believed by many to think the nomination would be won by whoever had the most money to spend. It was assumed that the combined fundraising power of a New York Senator/former First Lady and the former President of the United States would be totally dominant, and the longer the race lasted, the more expensive it would be. Since announcing first, especially that early, would be too obvious, Vilsack was allegedly talked into being the stalking horse that would force the rest of the candidates to declare.
In March of 2007, it seemed like an excellent plan. Clinton had the very early positioning of the front-runner status. She had a very loyal base. She quickly became the one to beat. And with her name recognition, her endless pool of money, and her early mobilization of supporters, she pretty quickly ended up with the mantle of inevitability. Sure there were some problems. The people who liked her really liked her, but the people who didn't? Let's say there were some pretty high negatives involved. Some were rational, others, not so much.
As the primaries continued, it only got worse. Probably the true death knell of her candidacy was the Michigan primary, where she left her name on the ballot. Sure, she played exactly by the rules, but for a lot of people it just didn't seem exactly fair or right somehow. For her supporters, they didn't understand why other people were upset since they were simply campaigning and running. But for those who didn't support her, the wedge was deeper, and the negatives grew.
Clinton's campaign was right about one thing -- it was a long campaign, and the person with the most money won. But no one expected that a relative political newcomer could ever raise the kind of funds he did. They also underestimated the desire many people had to see a new name in the running for office. After so many years of Clinton and Bush White Houses and the same names and faces running over and over again for different positions, "change" became mostly a desire to see someone new do (hopefully) something different.
I'd been working on this post ever since Fecke put up his Entenza piece, because I see a lot of parallels between Matt Entenza and the early Clinton campaign. Both candidates were seen as early on favorites due to finances, name recognition, and, in some ways, by this weird political idea of "it's my turn." Both candidates had extremely high positives, but for those who didn't like them, they REALLY didn't like them. Both have done things in campaigns that weren't necessarily officially unethical, but could be seen by their dissenters and coming dangerously near the line if not crossing it. Both were running early, long campaigns at a time when, let's be honest, a democrat really should have an excellent chance to win.
There are a few large differences, though. The most significant is that in a national election, a third party candidate is usually not that much of a factor (yes, 2000 aside). But we lost the governor's house in 2006 in part because the Independence Party ran a candidate who was often more progressive than the DFL's own nominee. Minnesotans do not just hold their nose and party vote. If they did, we probably wouldn't have just sworn in a senator last week.
Is Matt Entenza the most winnable candidate running right now? Perhaps. He certainly has more name recognition, money and staff than the others involved. For those who gauge a political race on weighing those factors then yes, he probably would be the inevitable candidate.
But we are still 16 months before the election. We are still almost a year until we even have a nominating convention. There are more candidates to declare, and, much of the "he's ahead, don't talk about negatives" talk seems to be a push to keep the "inevitable" meme in place so these candidates don't run.
From the point in which I started drafting this post to now, Fecke once again nailed it with this piece about inevitability. Inevitability is a game you play when you are trying to keep the race exactly as it is at this moment. Inevitability is a fear of change in circumstances.
16 months is a long time in real life, and an even longer time in politics. The trend of ridiculously long campaigns that start less than two months after the last election may be a boon for those of us who are peripherally involved in politics, but have the disadvantage of making people want to declare races over before they even begin. The only thing inevitable at this point is that there are many, many months before we will have a candidate, and hopefully that candidate will be decided on by the strength of her or his stances on bettering our state, and not on who has the most money or their communications team organized the earliest.
(Note: I think I have made it no secret that I am hoping to support a female, pro-choice gubernatorial candidate. But in case you have somehow missed that about me, go here.)
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
A long, long time
On February 27th, 2007, Al Franken dropped by Drinking Liberally. Shortly thereafter, he sent me this note.
858 days later, Franken was certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate election of 2008.
Congratulations, Senator Elect Franken. I hope you've been having as much fun all 867 days as you were the first 31.
858 days later, Franken was certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate election of 2008.
Congratulations, Senator Elect Franken. I hope you've been having as much fun all 867 days as you were the first 31.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Regarding the Ward 1 City Council Coverage
It's been mentioned around the blogs that I haven't been keeping up the Ward 1 city council coverage since the endorsement convention ended. Frankly, I haven't seen the need to do more stories because to me, there has been no news. Doron Clark and Jose Velez ended the convention asking for the delegates to endorse Kevin Reich unanimously, which we all did. Although Susan Howitz Hanna is still in the race, she has yet to even put up a website, much less do any active campaigning that I can see (and I did email her after the convention asking her to keep me in the loop so that I can stay on top of any potential campaign). To me, there is just no news, and I'm not a blogger who will grasp at straws or do rehashes and what might have beens just to fill my pages.
And as for park board, I am fully behind my neighbor Liz.
I understand there is a new ward 1 blog in town, and I welcome all of you to go read it. I won't be covering the race unless until there is actual news to write about.
And as for park board, I am fully behind my neighbor Liz.
I understand there is a new ward 1 blog in town, and I welcome all of you to go read it. I won't be covering the race unless until there is actual news to write about.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Long time no blog
Sorry for the dead blog. I'm working on a new project that I hope to be unveiling soon. In the meantime, I microblog, if you are interested, on twitter.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Video from Velez
Ok, I know I said that I was supporting Clark. But I still appreciate good outreach, and this is, as far as I know, the first Video message to go out in the Ward 1 race. And I like it! I wish more candidates did these, they really get personality through.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Doron Clark for Ward 1
Having finally spoken to all of the candidates, I have made a decision to support Doron Clark for city council, and will be voting for him on the first ballot. Although I was a huge fan of Jose Velez, I believe in the end that Doron has an energy, an enthusiasm and a determination that puts him just ahead of Jose and through that one my support.
It was a very difficult decision to come to. Frankly, after meeting Jose for coffee a few weeks ago I was ready not just to vote for him, but to ask him for a job as well. His vision for the community was compelling and I wanted to be a part of it.
But I feel both men are equally qualified. Endorsements began to matter more to me, and then intangibles became a bigger and bigger factor.
Friday morning, I found a note in my door that Doron had stopped by door knocking the night before. Saturday, I found him at my door again. I was letting in a group of women for a bachelorette party I was hosting and he was on my doorstep. I offered him an anatomically correct cookie, and he pointed out to the women entering that he was, in fact, not the stripper for the party. I introduced him to one woman and said "She's in your district, too."
"I'm Doron Clark and I'm running for City Council," he said, offering his hand to shake.
Not many people can wander into a situation like that and be completely unphased. If he has that kind of calm and humor in the face of the unexpected, I think he will do wonderfully handling big personalities, budget crises and other calamities in the office.
So today, I am happy to announce myself as a supporter, and hope you will consider supporting him as well.
It was a very difficult decision to come to. Frankly, after meeting Jose for coffee a few weeks ago I was ready not just to vote for him, but to ask him for a job as well. His vision for the community was compelling and I wanted to be a part of it.
But I feel both men are equally qualified. Endorsements began to matter more to me, and then intangibles became a bigger and bigger factor.
Friday morning, I found a note in my door that Doron had stopped by door knocking the night before. Saturday, I found him at my door again. I was letting in a group of women for a bachelorette party I was hosting and he was on my doorstep. I offered him an anatomically correct cookie, and he pointed out to the women entering that he was, in fact, not the stripper for the party. I introduced him to one woman and said "She's in your district, too."
"I'm Doron Clark and I'm running for City Council," he said, offering his hand to shake.
Not many people can wander into a situation like that and be completely unphased. If he has that kind of calm and humor in the face of the unexpected, I think he will do wonderfully handling big personalities, budget crises and other calamities in the office.
So today, I am happy to announce myself as a supporter, and hope you will consider supporting him as well.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Ward 1 update
Sorry about the low posting, but it's been surprisingly quiet since caucus. I've had no contact from the Clark campaign. Reich has friended me on facebook and sent me a list of upcoming house parties. In fact, the only one who's done any real outreach to me so far has been the Velez campaign, with Jose calling two days ago and Rosemary calling tonight. I think I will be making a houseparty on the 25th, and I will try to hit a Reich coffee at Audubon this Sunday, assuming my bachelorette party isn't too rambunctious the night before.
More council thoughts after those, I think.
More council thoughts after those, I think.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Reversing the economic downturn -- Solution 1
I've been thinking a lot about the economy lately, like most people no doubt. So periodically over the next few days I'll be putting out alternate 'bailout' ideas. This first one came today via email:
I think it would work, but then again, I just really want to sell my house and get something bigger.
The main problem right now is that we're in a constant downward spiral of decreasing spending -> job losses -> foreclosures -> repeat. Right? If we could break that cycle we could at least bottom out the market and then start working our way back up. So....
The government should pay to the banks the value of 25% of all mortgages originated or refinanced from late 2001 to late 2007 (or whatever the bubble years were). In return for this money, the banks agree to reduce all of these mortgages by 25%. That's it.
The conservatives are happy because the government takes no ownership stake in the banks or the mortgages or anything else. Other than this one action they stay out of the market. The liberals are happy because this gives direct benefit to the middle class. The banks get a bunch of capital to pad their bottom line and extend credit. Most importantly, homeowners get relief in the form of lowered mortgages payments so fewer of them go into foreclosure and those who weren't near foreclosure get a little extra money each month to spend or save as they see fit. Also, this puts the value of houses a little closer to their true value which helps to stabilize the housing market a bit and also allows at least some current homeowners the chance to unload their current properties and buy a new house without taking a major loss.
The only major downsides I can see are that it would cost a ton of money and it would end up rewarding some bad behavior from people who took out loans they couldn't afford, but both of those downsides are inevitable parts of every equation. The reason my solution is different is that it's forward thinking-instead of just giving money to banks to offset toxic asset write offs (due to foreclosure) it stabilizes the banks *and* the homeowners so that foreclosures stop happening and then banks don't need to continue writing off toxic assets.
So, brilliant or simplistic? What do you think?
I think it would work, but then again, I just really want to sell my house and get something bigger.
Suffering for beauty
The theory is being tossed out that VP candidate Sarah Palin was handicapped by her beauty, as there are no smart and beautiful women. Personally, I assume people questioned her intelligence because of media interviews, but that's just me.
So, are all sexy women considered less intelligent? Are there no smart hotties in government?
I think if we look around a little we can find some...
So, are all sexy women considered less intelligent? Are there no smart hotties in government?
I think if we look around a little we can find some...
Standing on the corner, waiting for the bus...
I have a weird car phobia. I'm not sure why, but I utterly hate the idea of driving. Maybe it's because I know I have a habit of distractability, or maybe it's the fact that I really don't like things that go fast (I hated skiing, I use my brakes biking down hills, and I'm a poke on gocarts). So far, I've managed to avoid a drivers license thanks to decent public transportation. And being a one car household is nice, especially when that car is paid for and under warranty for another 5 years.
So needless to say, when I was told that because of the plans to pull down the railyard bridge in Columbia Park the #11 was going to be in trouble, I worried quite a bit.
For those who don't know the neighborhood, we're sandwiched in between University and the railyard. We're about 5 blocks wide and 5 blocks long. We have a lovely park at one end, and the other end is the Minneapolis boarder. Because we are so cut off, we have little through traffic, and mostly quite streets. And, for a transit lover like me, the #11 comes through it fairly regularly, stopping a block from my house, and goes downtown where you can hook up with pretty much any bus you need. It's not a frequent bus, like you can get on the big routes, but if you plan right it's usually mostly convenient, running every 20 minutes during rush hour and half hour off rush, Monday through Friday. It gets harder on the weekend, when it's only every hour. And, as I discovered one Saturday night, it doesn't go all the way home after 11pm, dropping me about two miles from my house at 12am after girl's night.
Still, it does the job, and really, it's all we have unless you count an express bus that runs 6 times a day M-F, three times in the morning and three times at night.
It didn't occur to me when they were making plans for the bridge that the bus would no longer be able to run. Luckily, someone who went to the meeting emailed me, and I was able to contact Jack Yuzna, who today sent me an email assuring me that the route, although it will be moved, will continue running.
This is a huge relief not just to me, but to many in my neighborhood. Many people here have more people than cars, or are trying to keep their costs down in ways that make the bus a good choice for them. And frequently the bus is taken by the elderly in my neighborhood, who would not have the ability to walk the 3/4ths of a mile it would take to get to Central, the next nearest route.
I'm told that there will be a public discussion about the detour, and I will continue to make sure that details of the meeting get out into the public. At this point, the most logical choice would be to reroute onto University, making a stop at 37th, then turn, perhaps on Lowry, although that still leaves out a lot of people on the other side of the bridge.
If you have rerouting suggestions, I would love to compile them to have to present once a public meeting is set. Ensuring buss access to our neighborhood is a huge priority to me.
However, just in case, I suppose I should work on getting over this car phobia and getting my license.
So needless to say, when I was told that because of the plans to pull down the railyard bridge in Columbia Park the #11 was going to be in trouble, I worried quite a bit.
For those who don't know the neighborhood, we're sandwiched in between University and the railyard. We're about 5 blocks wide and 5 blocks long. We have a lovely park at one end, and the other end is the Minneapolis boarder. Because we are so cut off, we have little through traffic, and mostly quite streets. And, for a transit lover like me, the #11 comes through it fairly regularly, stopping a block from my house, and goes downtown where you can hook up with pretty much any bus you need. It's not a frequent bus, like you can get on the big routes, but if you plan right it's usually mostly convenient, running every 20 minutes during rush hour and half hour off rush, Monday through Friday. It gets harder on the weekend, when it's only every hour. And, as I discovered one Saturday night, it doesn't go all the way home after 11pm, dropping me about two miles from my house at 12am after girl's night.
Still, it does the job, and really, it's all we have unless you count an express bus that runs 6 times a day M-F, three times in the morning and three times at night.
It didn't occur to me when they were making plans for the bridge that the bus would no longer be able to run. Luckily, someone who went to the meeting emailed me, and I was able to contact Jack Yuzna, who today sent me an email assuring me that the route, although it will be moved, will continue running.
This is a huge relief not just to me, but to many in my neighborhood. Many people here have more people than cars, or are trying to keep their costs down in ways that make the bus a good choice for them. And frequently the bus is taken by the elderly in my neighborhood, who would not have the ability to walk the 3/4ths of a mile it would take to get to Central, the next nearest route.
I'm told that there will be a public discussion about the detour, and I will continue to make sure that details of the meeting get out into the public. At this point, the most logical choice would be to reroute onto University, making a stop at 37th, then turn, perhaps on Lowry, although that still leaves out a lot of people on the other side of the bridge.
If you have rerouting suggestions, I would love to compile them to have to present once a public meeting is set. Ensuring buss access to our neighborhood is a huge priority to me.
However, just in case, I suppose I should work on getting over this car phobia and getting my license.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Post caucus wrap up
So I was surprised, delighted and a little upset honestly to find out that we had more people/letters than spots to the ward convention in our precinct (upset because as an assistant precinct captain, that makes things harder). We managed to work everything out due to a whole lot of MN nice, and avoided having to subcaucus. I wonder how much of democracy is really about drawing names out of hats...
I'm glad we didn't have to subcaucus because frankly, after seeing all 4 candidates speak, I'm more torn. I liked Kevin Reich as a speaker a great deal. I'm hoping to get to talk to him one on one before the convention. Velez came off as the most uncomfortable speaker, although I think he started in our room so maybe he warmed up as he went. Clark was poised and well versed in his stump.
I was annoyed by Susan Howitz Hanna. Please don't come into a room of neighborhood activists who met to participate in their government and say that you are there to represent the people who don't like to show up or get involved. It's one thing to work to represent everyone in your community. But emphasizing that you want to represent the other folks isn't going to win over the active participants.
I think there were a lot of Reich supporters in my room. I saw a lot of buttons.
So, still decisions to be made, but I feel like there is still enough time to make it well informed.
I'm glad we didn't have to subcaucus because frankly, after seeing all 4 candidates speak, I'm more torn. I liked Kevin Reich as a speaker a great deal. I'm hoping to get to talk to him one on one before the convention. Velez came off as the most uncomfortable speaker, although I think he started in our room so maybe he warmed up as he went. Clark was poised and well versed in his stump.
I was annoyed by Susan Howitz Hanna. Please don't come into a room of neighborhood activists who met to participate in their government and say that you are there to represent the people who don't like to show up or get involved. It's one thing to work to represent everyone in your community. But emphasizing that you want to represent the other folks isn't going to win over the active participants.
I think there were a lot of Reich supporters in my room. I saw a lot of buttons.
So, still decisions to be made, but I feel like there is still enough time to make it well informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
