My choice in the Phoenix City Council District 7 race, after hearing all four candidates speak individually and in a recent forum, is Ruth Ann Marston, edging out Michael Nowakowski. While as a voter there are many issues I care about, this is a downtown blog and I'll explain why I think she's the best candidate for downtown.
Marston's a political veteran and knows the workings of city hall after years of dealing with Phoenix government, albeit as an outsider. She won't be intimidated by the veterans on the council and consequently won't feel the need to join the council in all the 9-0 votes to which we've become accustomed. Marston's accomplished, serving as the president of the Phoenix Elementary School District governing board and helping to save Kenilworth School from I-10 construction, among other achievements. Finally, she has a favorable view of historic preservation and should be able to lead developers away from wasteful conflicts like the fights over the Sun Mercantile Building and Patriot's Park while still encouraging necessary downtown development and progress. (The Sun Merc and Patriot's Park battles have partly been a failure of the city council and staff, who could have helped avert the fights simply by giving some better advice to the developers early in the process.)
While Marston is the best choice for downtown, Michael Nowakowski wouldn't be a bad alternative. He's willing to listen and also probably won't buckle under to the developers' wishes, if his wife's courageous vote on the CityScape issue while sitting on the Parks Board is any indication.
Laura Pastor has failed to impress me with her grasp of the issues. She seemed to mix up the Sun Mercantile/W Hotel annex issue with the demolition of Madison Square Garden when asked a question at one forum. She all but acknowledged that she'd side with the developers if a battle pitted developers against a public outcry. There's of course the concern that she has her sights set on her dad's job, and while that is not something about which I could speculate I think it's a safe bet that she'll rarely, if ever, break from the status quo at City Hall. And Phoenix needs leadership and courage, not someone who's more concerned with political expediency.
Finally, Art Harding is enthusiastic and fairly well-informed, but the political newcomer didn't seem to give a compelling reason to favor him over an experienced veteran like Marston.
One last note-- in the recent debate at the Irish Cultural Center, the candidates showed they all could use a broader perspective. Moderator Richard de Uriarte asked all of them during the "lightning round" which city is Phoenix's biggest rival. Harding said Scottsdale, Nowakowski said Tempe, Marston answered Glendale, and Pastor said it was Goodyear. (Goodyear?) In any event, District 7 is home to more than 250,000 residents and is as big as if not bigger-- by itself-- than every one of those suburban cities. A mammoth city like Phoenix needs to view its rivals as places like San Diego, Denver, and even LA. The candidates should all be thinking a little bigger, and hopefully the eventual winner will do that while on the council.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It is funny that the candidates would think the Phoenix suburbs as rivals rather than powerhouses like Denver. Call it a Freudian slip or a mere brain fart, but there's something to it. Phoenix's low-end economy has resulted in regional balkanization where homebuilding predominates economically. This is the hazard in a metroplex without a genuine core AND the reason that even the suburbs should want Phoenix to succeed in creating one (preferably downtown). Even parasites must wish for a healthy host.
Marston is probably the best candidate running although she's a bit quirky about development. On the Encanto Village Planning Committee, she voted against Melrose Pointe. She was also against the Summit at Copper Square because she felt it violated the area's warehouse ambiance. NIMBYs can provide valuable counterbalance to pro-development boosterism, but they need to be defending things worth defending, not imaginary edens.
The mayor and council tend to approve almost everything so it's not as if Marston will bollix up anything. The historic neighborhoods have been key to sustaining central Phoenix during the past generation and it's understandable Marston would want to reflect their view of things. At some point, however, they have to let go a little and recognize the need for greater density in the core.
The tension between the past and a denser future is real. But if we opt for nostalgia, Phoenix's dynamic rebirth will be stillborn.
Walt, thanks for your comment, as always. I'm with you to a degree on Marston's stance on development. The Summit issue was one worth taking up-- the tower's height did breach the city's own plan for the warehouse district, and I believe that the developer only added a minimal amount of ground floor retail after he was sued by Downtown Voices. Marston's view of the warehouse district is based more on its future potential than nostalgia for some invented past.
However, my understanding of the opposition to Melrose Pointe was that it centered around the increased traffic it would bring to the neighborhood. That is a wholly suburban concern that ought to have no place in the discussion in an urban core. (Especially an urban core that has relatively little traffic, like Phoenix.)
You are also correct that the residents of the historic districts do tend to see things a little differently than your classic urbanites. I've often been perplexed by some of the historic district residents' concerns about traffic and their obsession with parking (they believe we need more (!) garages downtown). They also seem to harbor mortal fears that someone might park a car in front of their single-family homes, or even drive by their dwellings. On that note, the gates the Willo neighborhood installed to wall themselves off from the rest of the city are a suburba-style abomination.
(Those criticisms notwithstanding, the historic districts revived the urban core of Phoenix, helping make everything else that's happening today possible.)
But back to the District 7 race...Marston just knows the issues better than her competition, and there's no question that she's a supporter of downtown. The others are completely unproven commodities.
Marston being against the Summit at Copper Square is a deal-breaker for me.
And I'm highly skeptical of your criticism of Laura Pastor, especially your claim that she'd side with developers over a "public outcry", which actually makes her a better candidate as I read it. What you call a "public outcry" is what's actually a very loud, vocal minority of people who aren't anywhere near representing the majority of Phoenix residents, and who hate all development no matter what it is. Just because they're loud doesn't mean they are "the public".
Trombetta, thanks for the comment. On Marston and the Summit, I'll defer to Walt's recollection of that issue, as I can't say for sure she personally "opposed" the Summit. I do know that Downtown Voices, in which she's involved, filed a suit against Summit and ended up reaching a settlement in which the ground-floor retail component of the building was added to the project. Bottom line is that the building was built and we got some retail in the process- that's a plus for downtown.
Your reference to certain members of the public that "hate all development" is just patently inaccurate. This blog contains a post tracking 51 downtown projects, of which I count only six that face(d) significant opposition. Looking over the list, you'll note the vast majority of projects cruised through the entitlement and permitting processes with zero opposition-- including big-ticket projects such as 44 Monroe, Portland Place and Stadium Lofts. Taking an even more nuanced view to the broad brush you used, the opposition to the W Hotel and CityScape were focused on components of those projects (the "flex space" annex to the W that wrecks Sun Merc and the two-story PF Changs complex that wipes out Patriots Park, respectively). There was no opposition to the W Hotel itself or the two towers that comprise the bulk of the CityScape project. So much for development hating.
Finally, with regard to my take on Pastor, what makes you so skeptical? Put aside my comment on her developer-friendly orientation. After hearing the candidates speak individually and in a debate setting, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to say that she knows the issues better than her competitors. She seems like a nice person, but Phoenix deserves representation that is knowledgeable as well as approachable.
Regarding the anti-development crowd, I'm referring to those individuals who have (a) single-handedly delayed the ground-breaking on the W through a lawsuit, and (b) done everything in their power to "save Patriot's Park". These are the only people I know who have made a "public outcry" in opposition to the direction Phoenix is going in. Which is their democratic right. But the point is that they are vastly outnumbered by those of us who like what is happening downtown, who like the idea of a W next to US Airways, who like the idea of tearing down the festering poo-hole that is Patriot's Park, and who will overwhelmingly re-elect Mayor Gordon. If Laura Pastor "sides with developers" because she is on our side and not the Poo Park supporters, she certainly has my vote.
I think Pastor's background is as impressive as Marston's. And although she's tried hard to distance herself from being identified as "Ed Pastor's daughter", I also think her political ties and all the resources they bring to the table can serve as a valuable asset to our city and indeed the state.
Trombetta, Pastor's background is not as impressive as Marston's, nor would you expect it to be given their difference in age. But it's not too much to expect that she have a grasp of the issues that is at least equal to that of her rival candidates. She doesn't, and I note that you never argue otherwise in your posts. If you've heard her speak, you couldn't, as is detailed extensively in today's New Times (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-08-23/news/daddy-s-little-girl/) and previously in the Midtown Messenger. Again, I think she seems like a good person with her heart in the right place, but that doesn't mean she's getting my vote. If you want a candidate who likely shares your views on development and is strong on the issues go with Harding.
I read the article. It's quite the hit piece. The theme I took from it is, "Her dad's famous and she didn't return my phone calls, so don't vote for her." Granted it does bother me that she didn't bother returning the calls of a journalist. That probably bugs me more than any of the other claims.
I keep seeing the "grasp of the issues" attack on Pastor. Since no one's posted a transcript of the debate and I haven't seen its video or audio anywhere, journalists apparently expect ordinary citizens like myself to just rely on THEIR word that one candidate showed a better "grasp of the issues" than another. What I don't understand is how someone who thinks that Glendale is Phoenix's biggest rival has a better "grasp of the issues" than someone who thinks it's Goodyear. If anything, the New Times hit piece allows that Pastor may have been joking, which means that Marston's answer may have in fact been the looniest. How does that affect the grasp of the issues game?
Walt,
I am admitly an Art Harding supporter. I think Michael or Ruth Ann would be accpetable alternatives. Trombetta Bros, tries to make excuses for Laura's New Times article. The most important thing that the New Times article said was that Laura's ex boyfriend lobbied her while she was on the Encanto Village Planning Committee. She later hired him to do fundraising for her. She knew that she was running and she knew that Mario was going to be her consultant. Doesn't anyone think that the right thing would have been for her to recuse herself? Or at least had informed her fellow board members about the conflict of interest?
Why is someone who knows nothing about me accusing me of "making excuses" for a candidate? I'm a voter. I'm not associated with one of the campaigns. I just tend to get highly suspicious when people try and dogpile one particular target, which in this case is clearly Laura Pastor. And it's even more suspicious that when someone (me) challenges the others to actually start backing their claims up, they do so by brushing my opinion off as "making excuses".
Very convincing, folks.
Trombetta, my argument that Marston (and Nowakowski and Harding) have a better command of the issues is based on their overall performances at the District 7 debate and their individual meetings with community groups. It's not based on the "Goodyear" comment. That comment (which was definitely not a joke, by the way) was embarassing but not by itself a reason to make a voting decision. If you re-read my original post, you'll note I tagged all the candidates for their narrow-mindedness in their responses to that question.
Pastor's weakness in terms of a grasp of the issues emerges when one considers all of her responses. If you had attended one of the debates I believe you would likely agree.
Post a Comment