Who is blowing smoke?


I was watching the latest addition of ‘Ask the Mayor’. He was reflecting on the latest election. Besides his normal rant about ‘bad neighbors’ ruining it for ‘good neighbors’ and his other normal rant that ‘the law protects bad neighbors’ (actually Mike, the laws protect property rights). He made an interesting comment, he said that before the election there was a lot of talk about the lack of integrity and transparency in city government, he said that it turned out to be “a bunch of smoke”.

How does that saying go? You can fool some of the people, all of the time?

I am curious what he considers ‘smoke’

  1. Investing in developments which is a question of ethics because of the conflicts of interest
  2. Using misleading ballot language prepared by the city attorney
  3. Using tax dollars to mislead the public with the use of CityLink
  4. Preparing a 17” ballot marketing piece which was not required by law

I could add more to this list, but I will have to admit, it is one thing to ‘trick’ the public into voting for certain measures and candidates using misleading language, it is entirely another thing to brag about the victory that was attained through deceptive marketing (smoking) the public.

This guy has no boundaries.


#1 Dan Daily on 04.30.14 at 12:57 pm

I suspect the election was won due to combining polling places & distributing the wrong ballots. I suspected Huether would be reelected because of suppressed local media. However, there were some new council candidates that would have been elected had voters received the proper ballot.

The good/bad neighbor thing is how the city tries to enforce ordinances. They’ve been curbed because they can’t enforce fines or action. Citizens are denied appeal into court. Hence, they can’t sue either. They’ve opted to alienate and disrupt neighbors. It’s a ‘popular vs. normal girls concept’. I’m here to say the only way to manage government is without violating the civil rights of citizens. We deserve a public hearing that’s not arranged so that the city always wins. A hearing in court where there’s an impartial judge who interprets city code and the law. It’s called democracy. Ever hear of that Mikey?

#2 Dan Daily on 04.30.14 at 1:16 pm

I say again.

The city denies due process (court access) as a safeguard from impending bond investor lawsuits. It may not happen here but it’s the next financial meltdown nationally. Investors ravaged by the stock market flocked to muni bonds not realizing the same crooks resurfaced there.

We’ve had our constitutional rights taken away because a few insiders want to continue raiding public funds.

How will you feel when Huether is dethroned?

#3 l3wis on 04.30.14 at 1:25 pm

While I think several of the measures were going to pass and candidates elected, I question how skewed these numbers are due to the complications with the election, the vote centers confusing voters, the ballot language manipulation and our local media endorsing and kowtowing the mayor’s agenda. Why can’t we just hold a fair and just election with factual information provided to voters?

While I felt the pool vote would be close, I think the mis-information campaign by the city and CS365 confused voters and why the ‘NO’ votes were so high. Many voters have told me and the Save Spellerberg peeps that they were not sure what a YES or NO vote meant. I feel that the misleading information surrounding that particular measure really affected the result. That’s why I take real issue with trying to ramrod the pool project. There must first be a real conversation about location, a mysterious exit poll that Erpenbach pulled from her butt and a ‘NO’ vote doesn’t mean this project has to be pushed through in the next couple of weeks. I have NO DOUBT in my mind, the public supports an Indoor pool and that is great, and since we have that precedence, we should have a REAL conversation about it’s location like we did with the EC.

#4 Joan on 04.30.14 at 6:44 pm

I really think there should be a new election on the pool issue, because of the wording on the ballots, regarding the issue. I realize it would cost money, but the city likes to waste money anyway, so what difference would it make? This time get the wording in plain English.

#5 Titleist on 04.30.14 at 11:05 pm

Initiated Measure 2
Vote for 1
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,231 29.38
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,193 70.62
Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 44
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 491

Public schools!
And now, public INDOOR pools!


#6 moses on 05.01.14 at 12:57 am

With subprime Mike and Thune here , all we need to do is bring in the wind turbine and will that blow.

#7 GOODLORD on 05.01.14 at 4:28 pm

Oh – my – GAWDDD!! Maybe…just maybe…your personal opinion is wrong and the election results are what the majority of voters wanted to happen. Your gnashing of teeth over the results and conspiracies show how looney you all are.

#8 l3wis on 05.01.14 at 4:42 pm

Has nothing to do with personal opinion. My main argument, even before the election, is that the ballot language should have been fair and unbias. The ballot is sacred. A ballot should NOT be a marketing piece, it should state the measure and what a YES means, and what a NO means. That’s it. There should also not be marketing videos towards certain measures prepared by the city using taxpayer money.

As far as I am concerned, the only ‘looney’ ones, are the people who think this is okay. It is far from that, it is detrimental to a Democracy and makes a disgrace of elections.

#9 BH on 05.05.14 at 1:34 pm

To GOODLORD I have one thing to say………………AMEN!!! Just like the
Premier Ctr. vote the majority won.

Leave a Comment