Jump to content



Photo

Jeffersonville City Government Races 2015

Spending Priorities Essential Serices Jobs and Prosperity Separation of Powers

  • Please log in to reply
421 replies to this topic

#1 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:04 AM

Council District 1

No R yet.

D candidates.

How do you rate the four Dem candidates in their primary race in District 1?
1.BC
2.KM
3.JP
4.DW
Traditionally, the real campaign effort begins with the "Spring Thaw" as the weather heats up.

 

Experience, knowledge, ability.
Campaign quality, effort, organization.
Issues and priorities.
"Likability vs damaged image" and "marketability" factors.
Arrogance or good attitude.
Funding.
Desire to win.

 

 

Who is your "Pick to Click"?


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 09:00 AM.


#2 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:06 AM

Jeffersonville City Clerk Race
No R candidate yet.
D Primary

Conlin vs Frantz


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 08:07 AM.


#3 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:18 AM

Some Issues to start
 
Spending priorities.
Scarce tax funds/Cost control.
Careful stewardship of office.
Limited government.
Prosperity and jobs.
City Court loss.
Delivery of essential services.
Arrogance factor.
Cluelessness vs Knowledgeability.
Future preparation/needs.
 
Others:



#4 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:27 AM

Politicos:

"It's not us, it's you.....!"
 

clue·less
adjective
"having no knowledge, understanding, or ability"
"you're clueless about how to deal with the world"
Synonyms: oblivious, unaware, unmindful, insensible, ignorant, unobservant.



knowl·edge·able
adjective
"having information, understanding, or skill that comes from experience or education; having knowledge"
Synonyms: abreast, acquainted, conversant, informed, familiar, up, up-to-date, versed, well-informed.


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 08:59 AM.


#5 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:45 AM

ConcernedHoosier previously posted this list for us:

List of Jeffersonville Candidates:

Mayor

Mike Moore ®
William J. "Bill" Meiners ®
Louis Hancock (D)
Dennis Julius (D)

Clerk

Vicki Conlin (D)
Denny Frantz (D)

Council at Large

Matt Owen ®
Charles (Tony) Wadsworth ®
Stan Martin ®
Steve Cooley ®
Steve Webb ®
Ronald "Ron" Ellis (D)
Josh Rodriguez (D)
Nathan Samuel (D)
Brian Smith (D)
Larry Jordan Jr. (D)

1st district
Becka Christensen (D)
Kate Miller (D)
John Perkins (D)
Dustin White (D)

2nd district
Ed Z Zastawny ®

3rd district
Callie Jahn ®
Kevin Vissing (D)

4th district
Scottie Maples ®
Albert J. Frazier Jr. (D)
Ray Wilkey (D)

5th district
Lisa Gill ®
Keith Fetz (D)

6th district
Scott A Hawkins ®
Dawn R Elston (D)
Teresa Hicks (D)


 



#6 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:47 AM

Council District 6:
Scott A Hawkins R

 

Dawn R Elston D

 

Teresa Hicks  D



#7 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:48 AM

Council District 4:
Scottie Maples R

 

Albert J. Frazier Jr. D

 

Ray Wilkey D



#8 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 08:55 AM

Council at Large
 
' PICK 3 '
in your primary:
 
The D's:
 
Brian Smith
Josh Rodriguez
Ronald "Ron" Ellis
Nathan Samuel 
Larry Jordan Jr.
 
The R's:
 
Steve Webb
Charles  Wadsworth
Stan Martin
Matt Owen
Steve Cooley

 
 
I know that it is early, but as of now
what is the order of finish in each primary?
Ten candidates whittled down to six.
Lots-o-choices for the voters!


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 08:57 AM.


#9 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 09:14 AM

I've been attending very few meetings in the last several weeks. Have the new R appointees to the city council distinguished themselves much? Anyone went against the grain, asked new or interesting questions, taken up a particular issue?

Edited by kelley, 14 March 2015 - 09:14 AM.


#10 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 09:47 AM

The vote was 9 to 0 for the indoor soccer facility --- they set aside $3 million without one single question.   Very disappointed in ALL of them --- D and R.   In my opinion they are very poor stewards of taxpayer dollars.



#11 Councilman 2

Councilman 2

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:24 AM

The vote was 9 to 0 for the indoor soccer facility --- they set aside $3 million without one single question.   Very disappointed in ALL of them --- D and R.   In my opinion they are very poor stewards of taxpayer dollars.

A number of people for some unknown reason have purposely misrepresented many aspects of the process and ideas related to parks expansion in the newly annexed area and the possible solutions being considered for parking issues at the Woehrle Athletic Complex.  

 

Here is a question for you... When did the Park Authority ever vote 9-0 for an indoor soccer facility?

 

Just to clear a few things.... There is NO indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Department. There was NEVER been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past.   AND there has never been a vote for or against such a facility.



#12 ConcernedHoosier

ConcernedHoosier

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:30 AM

Council at Large

' PICK 3 '
in your primary:

The D's:

Brian Smith
Josh Rodriguez
Ronald "Ron" Ellis
Nathan Samuel
Larry Jordan Jr.

The R's:

Steve Webb
Charles Wadsworth
Stan Martin
Matt Owen
Steve Cooley



I know that it is early, but as of now
what is the order of finish in each primary?
Ten candidates whittled down to six.
Lots-o-choices for the voters!



#13 ConcernedHoosier

ConcernedHoosier

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:33 AM

Finish Order in At-Large Race

Democrats:
1) Nathan Samuel
2) Josh Rodriguez
3) Ron Ellis

Republicans:
1) Matt Owen
2) Steve Cooley
3) Steve Webb


Edited by ConcernedHoosier, 14 March 2015 - 11:39 AM.


#14 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:59 AM

So --- Councilman 2, are you saying that the Woehrle Non-reverting fund was established for nothing?   No indoor facility is planned?   The 9 to 0 vote to establish this fund and then to put $3 million into it was an 'error'???    So if there is no indoor facility planned, just exactly what is the non-reverting fund for and what is the $3 million for?

 

If what you say is true, I am very glad to learn that the council and the parks department has absolutely no intention of building an indoor facility for soccer or any other sport.   Please explain what happened at the last council meeting?   You were one of the 9 who voted "yes" for the non-reverting fund and the $3 million.   If people are misrepresenting the facts for some "unknown reason", please set the record straight and tell us exactly what the plan is for this fund and this money.


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 14 March 2015 - 11:59 AM.

  • Tina likes this

#15 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:20 PM

A number of people for some unknown reason have purposely misrepresented many aspects of the process and ideas related to parks expansion in the newly annexed area and the possible solutions being considered for parking issues at the Woehrle Athletic Complex.

Here is a question for you... When did the Park Authority ever vote 9-0 for an indoor soccer facility?

Just to clear a few things.... There is NO indoor soccer facility being considered by the Jeffersonville Parks Department. There was NEVER been an indoor soccer facility proposed in the past. AND there has never been a vote for or against such a facility.


Huh?

There was a vote to appropriate $3 million for something.

Lisa made clear it wasn't for a $3 million parking lot. You indirectly say it doesn't include a down payment for an indoor sports complex because you expliticly say there is no such complex in the works.

So what is the $3 million for?

#16 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:59 PM

Council revisionist History?

Huh... for.... sure...
1.) A presentation was made at a council meeting on February 2 explaining

    the placement of $3,000,000 into a fund for the intended appropriation for a parking lot

    and the clean up, drainage, plants, etc., at the soccer fields site.

2.) The newsandtribune reported the parking lot news.;

3.) A council person clearly stated  that the $3,000,000 was for a parking lot

    at the soccer fields at the February 2 meeting.,

4.) The presentation and assertions are on video tape.,

5.) A council person stated  rather emphatically  to the questioning rubes ..."I want".....several times

    in reference to the usage of the planned  INDOOR facility. Those assertions were made  on   

    the CCC.,

6.) The spending plan and transfer were passed on the first reading.,

7.) A council person clearly stated that in a subsequent morph that some of the $3,000,000

    was to be applied to the INDOOR facility. The original story slickly changed

    as the public began to be made aware of the secret plan.

     of the clever actions.,

8.) So, is it now $3,000,000 for parking or does that include

     the new indoor facility that is or is  not  to built.,

9.) A meeting is planned at a second, very expensive 200 acre site for Monday.,

    Has the MSM media  been  made aware of that meeting?,

10.) The council has still not released to the public the details of the original plan.,

11.) The second site. if purchased, will not be able to be developed for industry

        and the attendant jobs and taxes.,

12.) The second site will be very costly to purchase, development, and maintain.

13.) Glitzy is a word used by some.


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 01:59 PM.


#17 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 01:17 PM

Ooops....


Published on Feb 13, 2013


 ..."The new facility would need to house..... the soccer league

but also have the ability to facilitate other sports and recreation endeavors.
....and small conventions".... Gulp..

 

:bye:

 

 

 

Parking for nearly 1,000 cars at once....

 

:shrug:


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 01:18 PM.

  • IntegrityMatters likes this

#18 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 01:19 PM

If the whole 3,000,000 is indeed for a parking lot, why is a parking lot needed? The article I read on this stated clearly that the current parking is adequate for existing usage, but was needed to prepare for the indoor facility...it seems logical that if no indoor facility is planned or proposed, and the current parking is adequate, there is absolutely no need for a new parking lot or for the money to be set aside for said parking lot...


  • IntegrityMatters likes this

#19 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 01:46 PM

Revisionist History?
Who said that...?

Watch 'em they may be getting trickier....
Ooops...
 
 
Parks Authority President Ed Zastawny added  that despite the cuts made,

plans have been retained to construct the indoor facility at the site at a future date.

 

Subgrade work for the building will still be completed and the utilities will be run to where

the indoor facility would be constructed, Zastawny explained.

 

 

"The indoor facility structure is expected to cost more than $2 million to build.
The lowest base bid for the project with the building included came in at $6.9 million,
nearly $2 million more than the anticipated $5 million price tag,

which still did not encompass several alternate bids

with required items like a security system

and road improvements

to Charlestown Pike.


That thar dern pesky newsandtribune keeps a reportin' this here stuff:
http://www.newsandtr...e78de12bdb.html


Edited by Savile Row, 14 March 2015 - 01:54 PM.

  • GrumpyGranny and Tina like this

#20 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 02:59 PM

Revisionist History?
Who said that...?
Watch 'em they may be getting trickier....
Ooops...


Parks Authority President Ed Zastawny added that despite the cuts made,
plans have been retained to construct the indoor facility at the site at a future date.

Subgrade work for the building will still be completed and the utilities will be run to where
the indoor facility would be constructed, Zastawny explained.


"The indoor facility structure is expected to cost more than $2 million to build.
The lowest base bid for the project with the building included came in at $6.9 million,nearly $2 million more than the anticipated $5 million price tag,
which still did not encompass several alternate bids
with required items like a security system
and road improvements
to Charlestown Pike.That thar dern pesky newsandtribune keeps a reportin' this here stuff:http://www.newsandtr...e78de12bdb.html



Someone have Ed Z's number handy? He had to have been hacked and above post made by the hacker. He and we surely haven't been discussing, and the news and tribune surely hasn't been reporting on, an imaginary indoor sports facility.

BTW, a Parks source has also discussed with me their excitement about the new facility and their hopes to be involved.

This is a head scratcher.

Edited by kelley, 14 March 2015 - 03:03 PM.

  • IntegrityMatters likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users