A Conservative's Take on Richardson, Texas Politics & Other Local Tomfoolery
Mitchell over any of them. No matter what msteger presents as reasoning for Bob Townsend or Amir Omar, in my opinion, Mitchell has the intelligence, experience, integrity and community-wide support to serve as the Mayor of Richardson.
The City has long had a mantra of "we need young, upwardly mobile people with fresh ideas to come to Richardson". Correct thinking. We have elected three new, young, intelligent people to the Council, who should know how important their vote is to how successful the City will be in attracting businesses.Will their vote ratify what the City has been saying - that young, vigourous people are the key to Richardson's future? Will they recognize that electing from among their colleagues a young, vigourous, forward thinking intelligent individual with charisma is vitally important to seeking out, interacting with, and convincing corporate CEO's to locate their firms and their employees in Richardson? One can be sure that they have been the recipients of a great deal of "advice" on what they should do. They have been given alleged reasons why some of their colleagues should not receive their vote - "not him, he might do or say something to embarrass the City", or "we don't think he's ready yet," or "staff believes he's too prone to micro-manage", or, "Well, Richardson just isn't ready for a Muslim as Mayor." (Who told you three that and how do "they" know what Richardson thinks? And just what does religion have to do with talents and skills?) Nothing wrong with advice, or whom is giving that advice. But do these three individuals - Ms. Maczca, Mr. Dunn, and Mr. Hartley - realize that the citizens of Richardson elected THEM to determine what is the best course for the City to take, that citizens did not elect the back-room advice givers? Will the three newly elected representatives recognize they have an opportunity to make Richardson more dynamic both in perception and action if they make up their own minds as to whom deserves their vote for Mayor? AND do the these three very capable individuals understand if they are allowed to be influenced in this matter, that it is the first step towards the same kind of "advice" that prompts acquiescence in future matters before them?What it boils down to is simply this: Richardson faces some very critical times ahead. We need to bring to bear every asset that we have at our disposal to make sure we succeed. Is it in Richardson's best interest to elect a mayor for the next two years simply as a "reward" for long service? Or is it in Richardson's best interest to have a Mayor with skills like those described above?In short, who would you prefer representing Richardson across a table from a CEO contemplating a move of his company to our city? You three individuals have a choice to make. Please use your own reasoning skills to make that that decision - don't let others, however well meaning they may appear to be, make it for you.
Never Mitchell. He plays both sides and everyone knows that now. He has ruined himself.Solomon is a no go too. He doesn't have the foresight to be mayor. He enjoys being ignorrant of the details and will say anything, as long as it sounds good at the time.Laura is new and would be good with one exception: her eyes glaze over during a conversation.Although that is a detrimental attribute, fresh meat and fresh blooded Laura would be the best choice.
Mr. Mitchell had an opportunity as Mayor. Did not work well. Although the title was his, management paid little atention, and maginalized him. He accepted it, and tried to ingratiate himself. Didn't work. Should not, and will not get another chance.Mr. Solomon seems driven only by basking in the fact (and telling everyone in range) he is a Councilman. Wants to be Mayor. While that would create more revenue for the state, (Mark wold have to change his truck plate from "Place 2" to "Mayor") Can't think of one proposal he initiated. Seems only to be a follower. Drop him a note sometime. Sends every question to "staff", either asking them to draft a response, or asking them what should be his reply. Solely a rubber stamp.Sorry, no vote for either.
Mitch has my vote. He consistently built consensus during his tenure as mayor, even with 3 councilmen who were determined to block his every initiative, including Bob Townsend. Smart, effective, regional. So many initiatives got passed while he was mayor: check cashing ordinance, parking ordinance, neighborhood overlay, enhanced code enforcement, smoking ban, prep for 2010 bond package; the list just goes on and on. We'd be lucky to get Steve Mitchell back as mayor. He is clearly the most popular political person in the city, with Amir Omar a not-too-far second. You can't argue with Mitch running unopposed for the 2nd straight term with 83% of the vote. In fact, I think the last time he had an opponent, he got 75% of the vote. The only reason why Steve WON'T be mayor, assuming he even wants it back, is because of the bad feelings that Chuck Eisemann, Gary Slagel, and Bob Townsend hold against him for becoming mayor when "it wasn't his time,", and these bad feelings have now "polluted" Kendal Hartley and Scott Dunn against him. Fine, but, after 4 years, isn't it time to just "get over it"?The selection tonight will not have anything to do with qualifications, experience, knowledge, or abilities; it will have everything to do with who is willing to carry the water for Chuck Eisemann and Gary Slagel. And, they have said that Bob Townsend is to be mayor, and Mark Solomon as mayor pro tem. While decent men, I promise that we will be very disappointed and poorly represented with a Mayor Townsend or Mayor Pro Tem Solomon.
Mitchell. He's a politician and can be trusted as far as you can throw him ... but that's the same for all of them (and I include those who ran unsuccessfully, as well).Mitchell has deep roots in Richardson. If he wants to be County Commissioner (gawd, WHY would someone want to join that circus?), well, ok. He's served the city well for a long time.