NG stories:
Lanesskog won a seat on the Champaign school board by just three votes over the fourth-place candidate, Lynn Stuckey. But because the county clerk's office had 15 provisional ballots to consider and late-arriving absentee ballots to count, the final canvass of votes won't happen for another two weeks.
As he was being congratulated Tuesday night, Lanesskog told a well-wisher, "Hold off on that for a couple of weeks."
Incumbent David Tomlinson, the current school board president, and Tommy Lockman were the top two vote-getters, with 4,935 and 3,730 votes, respectively. Lanesskog received 2,675 and Stuckey received 2,672.
The tax will take effect July 1. Districts will begin receiving revenue from it in October.
The tax could generate $18 million for capital improvements, according to the Champaign-Ford Regional Office of Education. Districts can use the money for construction, renovation, maintenance and repairs, energy-efficiency work, or paying off building-bond debt.
"I think the mayor and the city council did a good job and the public recognized it," Prussing said. "That's what you're seeing."
Prussing estimated she spent about $15,000 on her campaign, about half of what Bradfield said he would be spending. Prussing said she wasn't worried about the disparity.
"I'm a good budgeter," she said. "You're seeing fiscal conservatism at work."
Kyles said Tuesday that he changed strategy after the primary.
"I went to the Republican Party," he said. "I know it's nonpartisan, but I said, 'I need help.' I formed an unofficial team. We never met all together in one room, but we met by e-mail. I divvied up the tasks and I tried to make every task easy. For a week I'd say, 'Go knock on 60 doors.' And I did that with every precinct" with a group of five volunteers.
City of Champaign Township Supervisor:
Borowski, a real estate agent, credited her win to her stand against a property-tax increase to help fund expanded general assistance to the poor in Champaign. She said she would search out grants and other sources of revenue before supporting a tax increase for "as long as I possibly can."
There were 2,868 yes votes to 1,995 no votes – a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent.
The measure will increase the park district tax rate from 69.5 cents per $100 of assessed value to about 84.5 cents per $100 of assessed value, depending on the district's total assessed value. For owners of a $100,000 home assessed properly at one-third market value, the increase will raise property taxes by about $50 per year.
Williams defeated Lewis 807 to 690, with Evans garnering 553 votes and Sumner getting 94 votes.
Williams said he plans on emphasizing economic development during his third term.
"There's no doubt that improving the local economy will be our priority over the four years," Williams said. "We want to support our existing businesses to retain jobs. We want to help our businesses to grow, and we want to attract new businesses to provide more jobs for our outstanding citizens."
Also Urbana Council and Cornbelt Fire Protection District. The DI has their roundup here. The local TV stations also did stories last night, as did WILL.
It was great to see all of my media friends at Brookens last night, and they did a great job - especially WDWS - working through the problems in the vote tallying and reporting last night.
Taxes never "generate" money. They siphon it out of the taxpayer's wallet and displace things that would have otherwise been bought or invested in.
Heaven help us all...Urbana Parks taxing even more........this property tax bill is gonna be a real killer!!!
State income tax up,sales tax up, parks up.........seems folks have plenty of money.
In rough economic times people need their government services more than ever. Remember that conservatives typically argue that flush times are the best time to cut taxes, and hard times are an even better time to cut taxes.
Most people don't agree. For the rest of us, hard times are a good time to create strong government programs that take care of people, whether it is through better parks and education or through increased social services. There is no private marketplace for parks because there is no profit to be made. And, truth be told, private schools are not big profit makers either.
We need good schools and good parks. And we need good government. The people have spoken - they get it, thank goodness.
Great point Warrior, but too late. Sadly, I think people saw an opportunity to get money from students and visitors to pay for their schools, and they took it. (2,000 students could have killed this sales tax, now they will pay)
School boards now become very, very important. If you actually want that property tax reduction promised, make sure your school board members agree know it. And keep an eye out - building projects no longer require a district vote.
There is no private marketplace for parks because there is no profit to be made.
not for parks, but there is for dance classes, cooking classes, movies, and concerts...
I'd like to point something out.
2007 Urbana mayoral primary
Prussing: 2507
Satterthwaite: 2237 + Hursey: 125
Total: 4869
2009 Urbana mayoral general
Prussing: 2637
Bradfield: 1577 + Kruse: 423 + McColley: 302
Total: 4939
Notice something?
Bradfield's and McColley's numbers are about what I expected. I'm shocked Kruse didn't do better, though, and that the high, high turnout didn't even hit 5000.
Urbana Ward 6 and Ward 7 account for 2819 votes for Alderman, and with a 1% (lets call it negligible) undervote, about the same number of votes in the mayoral race, and thus 57% of the Mayor's race, even though Ward 6 and 7 should be about 25 to 30% of the total population. Some one else might have the exact number of registered voters in Ward 6 and 7. It's a bit hard for me to get at it since Ward lines cut across Precinct lines.
I am sure there are other interesting & similar observations.
******
Liberty4Urbana.com
Districts are based by law on population, not on registered voter or likely voter counts.
In the 2001 mayoral election, Satterthwaite got 63% and Dalton got 37%, and Dalton did not spend very much on the campaign.
If you assign all of Kruse's votes to Prussing, and split McColley's among Prussing and Bradfield, you get Prussing 65% and Bradfield 35%. It seems that all of Bradfields's advertising bought him nothing.
Bradfield's campaign was up the fecal canal from the very beginning with his initial mantra "Bradfield Means Jobs." Jobs are just not issue with Urbana voters, nor do they believe (rightfully or wrongly) that the mayor can significantly affect ths. . Bradfield should have harped on other potential issues, for example the lack of shopping opportunities and family entertainment in Urbana as compared to Champaign, and the lack of significant initiatives during Prussing's term to improve this, or the stagnation of downtown development compared to Champaign, or the incomplete and mostly unrented shopping areas in the north side of Univesity and Cunningham.
The problem with Rex's campaign was too much paid media and too little earned media. All that advertising might build name recognition, but it basically says you're spending money to prop up your campaign. Tony Pomonis had a lot of yard signs, but those marked the homes of his supporters. The ballot-order issue was the only newspaper coverage on Rex I can recall, and that had quotes from Prussing saying stupid things like "let them sue the city" and "we're not going to pay for the new ballots" (from memory, not exact quotes). That's the kind of thing that voters will pay attention to if you make them notice it.
There is no private marketplace for parks because there is no profit to be made.
not for parks, but there is for dance classes, cooking classes, movies, and concerts...
Amen. How much of that money goes towards actual parks (i.e., grass and trees) and how much goes towards duplicating activities that have alternatives in the private sector (yoga, dance, movies, concerts)?
What is suprising, is the fact that over 2,000+ people voted against PRUSSING.
How did Lynn Stuckey get so close to being elected to the Champaign school board. She's the same woman who wanted to breast feed her kid until he was 8! See here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/22/national/main530620.shtml
She shows a real lack of judgment.
But Ms Stuckey obviouslly cares about children
There is nothing wrong with extended breastfeeding as long as anyone wants. It most certainly is no business of the State. A natural weaning age of 7 years is not unusual at all. For a judge to step in and dictate some sort of societal norm is absurd, & particularly absurd in a society that enables and condones other behaviours that are clearly pathologic.
The only damage done is that the child may have gotten an early dislike for statism. Hold on. That's a good thing.
******
Liberty4Urbana.com
"A natural weaning age of 7 years is not unusual at all."
Actually in humans I believe that the overwhelming amount of the drop off for enzyme that helps digest lactose occurs within 3-4 years, with weaning naturally occurring before then due to TEETH long before this natural impetus to wean.
Generally you may be right that this isn't a state issue as much as an individual oddity that may have negative effects (or not) on a child beyond the realm of government's authority on our private lives. But it certainly a gray area since it involves minors and may involve harm, and as such should be debated.
As a voter I find proponents of weaning long past the natural times to be a bit disturbing at best, and certainly not someone I'd trust to deal with schools or other child services as an elected official. As a human being, the disgust that such behavior has on others seems to be another natural mechanism to discourage the behavior through social pressure, as it does not seem to be something we're socialized to be disgusted at, but it seems to have the same instant effect on almost everyone who hears/witnesses it. If for no other reason because they instantly think, "TEETH!"
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The people who think "teeth!" probably haven't spent that much time breastfeeding a child. A child doesn't use his or her teeth to nurse. Furthermore, often teeth break through as early as 6 months of age, which is LONG before weaning should take place according to both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization.
"The people who think "teeth!" probably haven't spent that much time breastfeeding a child."
Certainly most people who've breastfed haven't continued to do so long into the development of teeth, let alone well past the stage where they're eating a solid food diet, let alone beyond the toddler stage, etc etc. And while many, including many pediatricians, say there's nothing wrong with this, even activist groups like Le Leche note the various things that occur in a baby's natural development that leads to weaning both on the child and mother's part within the first couple years. Like any good activist group though they offer many suggestions to ensure that such natural impetuses are thwarted to help anyone hellbent on continuing to do so, do so with a clear conscience.
But hey, I guess if only folks who have breastfed their children up through the 3rd grade or beyond are allowed a say on the matter, pretty much nobody is. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
http://www.kathydettwyler.org/detwean.html
From the article refrenced from cbs:
Judge John DeLaMar said she had not abused the boy in any way, but made bad decisions that could cause him long-term emotional harm.
Sounds like the major damage would be by way of social interaction.
The real problem here is people who have no idea what they are talking about. Way too many of them in our society when it comes to the subject of extended breastfeeding, which is what makes it taboo.
"All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." Those are the words of St. Paul, who was NOT writing about breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not a biblical or theological or religious issue. But I am borrowing these words to make a point: Breastfeeding a child at age 6 or 8 may be permissible. But it isn't beneficial to the child.
I have lived (for four years) in the third world with high infant mortality rates. Breastfeeding is a good and natural thing. But even in the third world I never saw any child past 3 or 4 who needed breast milk.
I would not trust my kids to Lynn Stuckey. Going on national television as she did to make her case indicated to me she was more concerned about herself and feeling important than anything else.
So because you never saw it in a 3rd world country, it's not beneficial in any way? I fail to see the logic. And I fail to see why you think you would see it happening when an older child wouldn't nurse very often, probably right before going to sleep.
Furthermore, why would YOU witnessing impoverished mothers extended breastfeeding be the seal of approval needed to deem it beneficial? What special qualitifications do YOU have above the breastfeeding mother to decide what is beneficial for every single child on the planet?
Lynn Stuckey is obviously willing to consider her child as a unique individual and provide for his needs, even when they fall outside the range of the average child. She doesn't follow the crowd and isn't easily swayed by peer pressure. She thinks for herself. We need school board members more concerned for the needs of children than political careers.
She was well within her rights and so was her child, and she was put in a tough spot. I hope that I would be so heroic.
She doesn't follow the crowd and isn't easily swayed by peer pressure. She thinks for herself. We need school board members more concerned for the needs of children than political careers.
I don't know a thing about Ms. Stuckey, but my hope for all school board members is that they are concerned for the needs of children, AND respect the rights and concerns of parents. Maybe her experience would make her more sympathetic to parents who dare to challenge the district.
I'm very surprised that Stuckey did as well as she did. I hardly saw any signs from her at all, and it didn't seem like she campaigned all that much overall. I guess she must have had a good grassroots organization.
"I guess she must have had a good grassroots organization."
That's about all I can figure. Outside of this thread and being on the ballot, I may have never heard about it her. Not sure exactly who her base of support was, but it seems the anti-DCFS, pro-alternative medicine/reality/thinking, and of course the extended-extended-extended-extended-extended-and-omfg-extended breastfeeder, etc crowds seemed to like her. How much of that reflects on her, of course, is unknown with as little information out there about her.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Being a crazy reactionary does unrevokable damage to a kid's capacity for empathy, but that doesn't mean we should shun the non-believers. I mean most of you probably do tons of things that are scientifically wrong for children. Hell, every parent on the planet does. To pick on one specific one because it's a rarer mistake seems beyond foolish.
To extend that to be a single issue voting determination is tragically ignorant.