Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Never too early for intrigue - it's City Council race 2006!

13. December 2005 • Murph
Email this article

Investigative reader David Cahill has promised the following information will scoop the Ann Arbor News – early whisperings for next year’s Democratic City Council primary suggest that:

First Ward: Bill Hanson, a former Planning Commissioner, is running against John Roberts, the newly-appointed replacement for Kim Groome.

Third Ward: Dave DeVarti, a local progressive activist, is running against Stephen Kunselman, a current Planning Commissioner, to replace Jean Carlberg, who is not running for re-election. [source] said Kunselman has the support of current council members.

Fifth Ward: Lou Glorie is running against incumbent Chris Easthope. Or, to be more precise, Glorie told [source] that she will run if no one else will. I told [him] that meant she already had her lit printed. 8-)

Mayor: [source] said that Doug Cowherd had met recently with Ed Shaffran, a local developer, to try to come up with a candidate to oppose John Hieftje. I have no idea what kind of candidate this “odd couple” might come up with!

(Attribution thinly veiled to protect the…guilty?)

  1. Shaffran. and Cowherd. I’m still trying to work this one out.
       —Dale    Dec. 13 '05 - 02:36AM    #
  2. Hey Murph, are both the Third Ward candidates going to run in the Democratic Primary or is one of them going independent/third party?
       —Mike    Dec. 13 '05 - 06:47AM    #
  3. Thanks for the article, Murph!

    [source] is Tom Gantert, the AA News Reporter, who called me yesterday evening to talk about Council primaries.

    DeVarti and Kunselman are both running in the Democratic primary.
       —David Cahill    Dec. 13 '05 - 01:35PM    #
  4. Hmm. Tom Gantert, trying to stir something up? Get out!
       —Dale    Dec. 13 '05 - 02:35PM    #
  5. Oh, come on, David – let me have a little fun! :)

    Mike: All those above would be running as Dems. No word yet on Republicans or other parties’ candidates, though I know the Greens are looking.

    Dale: Cowherd needs somebody with the spine to start construction on 200 downtown sites, right? Who better to help him look?
       —Murph    Dec. 13 '05 - 03:17PM    #
  6. The Dem primaries are the only game in town, actually.
       —David Cahill    Dec. 13 '05 - 11:03PM    #
  7. This reminds me of that time Nader and Buchanan got together to challenge the presidential debate-opoly.

    In related news, I heard that the New West Side Association and the Friends of the “Greenway” have been meeting to field a candidate. Sources report that it was the only way to preserve the dense, mixed-use Madison House from succumbing to demolition for the totally un-asinine “full-scale greenway.”
       —Brandon    Dec. 14 '05 - 07:22AM    #
  8. I am glad to see so much interest in the 2006 Democratic Primary. Several candidates in each ward would be ideal. The democratic party has been lacking vigor the past few years and it shows. Re: primary candidates, I say the more the merrier. Lou
       —Lou Glorie    Dec. 14 '05 - 03:17PM    #
  9. There’s a full-scale greenway that calls for the demolition of the buildings at the corner of Madison & Main? Wow.
       —Young Urban Amateur    Dec. 14 '05 - 03:49PM    #
  10. They’ve gone too far!!
       —Dale    Dec. 14 '05 - 04:01PM    #
  11. I’d like to see a candidate who represents the positions Todd Leopold so forcefully advocates on this site (and other regulars on this blog seem to support). That way we could have a real debate about density and development and environmental values.

    And I’d like to see people running as independents, if only to shake up our one-party state.
       —Michael Betzold    Dec. 14 '05 - 04:03PM    #
  12. I’d just plain like to see Todd Leopold run for council.
       —Dale    Dec. 14 '05 - 08:39PM    #
  13. So, Lou, what’s your platform?
       —David Cahill    Dec. 15 '05 - 12:00AM    #
  14. “I’d like to see a candidate who represents the positions Todd Leopold so forcefully advocates on this site (and other regulars on this blog seem to support).”

    Forcefully advocates? Is that a euphemism for “man, I wish that that guy would shut his piehole”?

    All that I advocate is what any trained Urban Planner does….

    It’s not rocket science, and what I gathered from the meeting with the Mayor and Greden and Easthope is that they thing along very similar lines. I don’t have to face the political reality that they do, however…namely, that the majority of those who are coming before them either have no interest in long term planning, or do not understand that not building up/building densely is going to make Ann Arbor the opposite of what they think it will….

    Some of this stuff is counterintuitive, I suppose, but what I’ve seen in City Planning meetings after the Calthorpe draft was released is very encouraging. In other words, the Planning Commission gets it.

    Speaking of which…..Santi Hall would be a great Councilmember if you’re looking for someone who represents many UrbanPlannerFriendly™ ideas.
       —todd    Dec. 15 '05 - 04:48PM    #
  15. Heh…I was talking to my dad today about this thread, and he quoted me this passage that explains quite well why the “I don’t like tall buildings” as a reason for not having density doesn’t cut it.

    “Conservation, therefore, is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence or caution.”

    -Aldo Leopold
       —todd    Dec. 15 '05 - 06:18PM    #
  16. Todd,
    I like what you advocate.
    I think your position isn’t being adequately represented on council. I certainly haven’t heard Greden or Easthope, and not even Hieftje, subscribe wholeheartedly to the density-is-beneficial agreement.
    And have the guts to explain to people who “don’t get it” why it’s environmentally the right thing to do.
    I’d like to see a real debate about this in the council and mayoral races.
    Hard to imagine that happening with the Democratic hegemony and politicians afraid to upset any constituents.
       —Michael Betzold    Dec. 15 '05 - 07:00PM    #
  17. Mike is doing the right thing: if you want a candidate who thinks like you do, you go out and recruit one. I think Todd would be ideal. Of course, I hold no illusions about Todd having time to take from his business in order to sit on the council. But one would hope that the days of blindly supporting Democrats simply because the title they wear is less offensive than the title of the other major party should be long past. Campaign for and elect someone based on what they (and you) believe, even if they’ll be the lone member of council who thinks in that fashion, or don’t bother.
       —Marc R.    Dec. 15 '05 - 09:32PM    #
  18. I agree that Mike B. is doing the right thing by recruiting a candidate. It would be great if Todd would run.

    My guess is that the “density is beautiful” candidates will be crushed in the August primaries. The most recent example I can think of offhand is the Kim Groome – Karl Pohrt First Ward primary in 2002. Pohrt was strongly pro-development, and was supported by a variety of developersymps. Groome wasn’t having any of it. She beat Pohrt like a drum.

    However, I could easily be wrong. Politics is a Darwinian struggle. If people care about which way Ann Arbor is going, and are willing to actually serve if elected, then they should run.

    As politicians have said for decades, “that’s what primaries are for.”
       —David Cahill    Dec. 16 '05 - 12:22AM    #
  19. If I read David’s analysis of the Groome-Pohrt primary correctly, am I really supposed to believe that people voted AGAINST Karl (and therefore FOR Kim) simply because he was pro-density?? I can’t really buy into that kind of analysis. I think it isn’t very fair to the qualities and issues that Kim brought forward as a candidate … I would have thought that people voted FOR her because they thought she would do a better job or because she cared more about social issues, etc.

    Maybe Karl was more “pro-development” than Kim, but as a local, independent business owner, maybe he better understands what kind of changes will have to take place downtown for businesses like his to survive.

    By the way, I didn’t live here at the time, so I don’t have first-hand knowledge of that primary. Just giving my after-the-fact opinion.
       —Jennifer Hall    Dec. 16 '05 - 12:50AM    #
  20. Jennifer, my wife was Kim’s campaign manager; I was just my wife’s elbow ornament. However, I did participate in the campaign. People vote for Kim because they preferred her views to Karl’s – especially including their contrasting views on development.

    Also, as Vivienne Armentrout pointed out in her December article in the Observer, AA voters have never voted in favor of development, density, or affordable housing.

    A little more on the primary process. I heard recently that some people wanted to run a candidate against Wendy Woods in the Fifth Ward primary this past year, but didn’t know how! Strange, but true.

    It is really simple to run in a primary for Council. Get a petition from the City Clerk’s office. One hundred valid signatures are all you need. These can be collected in a few afternoons of walking around your chosen ward. It is good to collect a “cushion” of extra signatures – say 150 total.

    Lack of knowledge should not be a barrier to running. If anyone is having a problem with the process (even a candidate I don’t support), just let me know and I will be glad to answer questions.
       —David Cahill    Dec. 16 '05 - 01:44AM    #
  21. Dave, filing for the primary is not rocket science. I would be skeptical of the abilities of anyone who was unable to navigate such simple procedures.

    And Armentrout wrote no such thing.
       —Dale    Dec. 16 '05 - 02:09AM    #
  22. David is also describing how to enter the primary process if one wants to run as a candidate of the major parties. I would suggest traveling another route if one wants to actually be a voice distinct from the entrenched power bases in this (or any other) city.
       —Marc R.    Dec. 16 '05 - 02:41AM    #
  23. I’m a long time advocate of more open ballot access rules, and I’m happy to encourage anyone who chooses to run as an independent, a Green, a Libertarian, or whatever. Michigan was one of the last states in the union to allow independent candidates in partisan races (only because it was forced to by court decisions), and I’m a little surprised that so few have taken this route.

    All that being said, in a partisan election, the dominant local party has a colossal advantage. To win as an independent, you have to get the voters’ attention AND coax them to abandon their usual party loyalties to vote specifically for you.

    Cheryl Farmer did it in getting elected (and re-elected) mayor in Ypsilanti. But it would be a lot harder to focus enough voters’ attention on a council seat than on the mayor’s race. It would require motivating a whole lot of dedicated people to work on your behalf.

    Certainly it’s good rhetoric to say you’d be an independent or distinct voice on city council, but I think your army of volunteers would need something a lot more specific to motivate them—like an issue that affects them personally.

    But say you’re a candidate who is able to put together a campaign powerful enough to narrowly win a council seat as an independent. Why would you bother going to that intense effort for a chancy outcome, when all that strength would much more easily win you the Democratic primary?

    On the other hand, if allying with the Democratic Party isn’t acceptable to you as a candidate, then your critique is another barrier to overcome in winning over Ann Arbor voters who normally vote for the party’s nominees.

    Pragmatically, if you actually want to be on city council in the near term future, your best bet is to run as a Democrat.
       —Larry Kestenbaum    Dec. 16 '05 - 04:07PM    #
  24. I agree with Larry on political pragmatism.

    Oh – I should have said that my offer of help is only open to people running as Democrats. I’m not interested in helping Greens, Independents, Flat Earthers, Republicans, or other cranks.
       —David Cahill    Dec. 16 '05 - 04:26PM    #
  25. I think it’s more of a process to getting an independent elected and allowing candidates and voters to differentiate themselves from the main line, Democratic establishment.

    There are very few people who have a shot at winning the Democratic primary who would consider running as independents. However, I see a LOT of people who haven’t a chance in hell of winning that primary running as an independent or alternative party candidate as a means of getting their message out when MOST people are paying attention—in the general election.

    This preliminary process is, of course, absolutely necessary to develop an awareness of and constituency for an independent party. As we’ve talked about elections being referenda on candidates’ ideas, I would hope anyone who has unrepresented ideas they are forcefully committed to would run in such a way as to give them the greatest hearing and that could most affect the general public’s thoughts on the city, which would probably be as an independent in the general election.

    As Dave Cahill has been saying, the Democratic establishment is going to face a serious challenge in August. In my mind, this is attributable to the party leadership and the whole establishment effect. If we are going to decide city council races in the August primary when a thousand people or less vote per ward, we are also going to create a situation wherein a vocal and organized group of “accidental activists” can storm the primary and overturn the establishment candidate. It will only take, what, about 600 votes? (Maybe a few more in an even year; they’re lucky the no-growthers weren’t organized in 2005.) In vanquishing the Republican Party, the Democrats have left themselves vulnerable at their base.
       —Dale    Dec. 16 '05 - 04:29PM    #
  26. “I certainly haven’t heard Greden or Easthope, and not even Hieftje, subscribe wholeheartedly to the density-is-beneficial agreement.
    And have the guts to explain to people who “don’t get it” why it’s environmentally the right thing to do.” -Michael Betzold


    I have to disagree with you here. Council and the planning commision made the first two steps towards my line of thinking.

    First off, they visited Boulder to see what happens when you put artificial caps on growth inside the city together with massive greenbelt purchases. My father actually set up the meeting between the with the Boulder City Planner, Peter Pollack, and the Ann Arbor delegation. This delegation is now aware of the consequences of severely curtailed downtown development…the results aren’t pretty.

    Secondly, they hired the Calthorpe Co. to get an understanding of what happens when you choose a specific growth path. The most important part of the Calthorpe exercises, IMHO, was the appearance of independant experts on retail, zoning, and mass transit. They explained how things work in their fields, and what the various consequences were for different choices, and then told the audience that it’s up to them as to what path to take.

    These two initiatives are precisely what I would have done if I were on the Council, so I have to disagree with you, Michael.

    Now what Council and the Planning Commission does next will tell you whether or they are in my (Urban Planning) camp. The jury is still out, and I’m feeling very optimistic after witnessing the last Planning Commission meeting where they discussed the Calthorpe Draft.
       —todd    Dec. 16 '05 - 05:58PM    #
  27. I’m not at all surprised that people wouldn’t know how to run in a primary. In my experience, the Democratic party in this town is not very welcoming to newcomers. When I lived in Minneapolis, I worked on a number of campaigns in various capacities. Through this campaign work, I was recruited to be a precinct delegate and went to several party caucuses. I was also recruited to work on other campaigns (including the last campaign of Senator Paul Wellstone – a great, but sad experience). I was welcomed, respected, and encouraged to be involved. There was excitement and energy in the campaigns. Democrats who supported different candidates were not hostile to each other, but rather respectful of the differences. When their candidate wasn’t successful at a caucus or in a primary, their opponent became their new candidate.

    My experience in Ann Arbor has been very different. I have had to work hard to figure out how to even be involved … and after living here for 3 years, working on several city campaigns, attending numerous events, being appointed by the mayor and council to several different commissions, and throwing my name in for the 1st ward vacancy … I still don’t feel welcomed at any events or attached to the city party in any way.

    I feel that the city party as factioned … everyone has their little fiefdom and if you agree with the ideas of those in the fiefdom, they might ask you to play with them. Otherwise, you don’t even get talked to. I think it is disgusting. There is no excitement or comraderie. No grooming or training. Everyone appears too afraid that someone might stir their pot. (and by everyone, I mean the longtime party activists in town and the elected officials).

    If anyone is interested in changing this … I’m on board.
       —Jennifer Hall    Dec. 16 '05 - 07:16PM    #
  28. No, no, Jennifer, what happened was that, just as you arrived, the city Democratic Party pretty much imploded (I discussed the reasons for this on my blog), and involvement in the somewhat more distant county party is still a fairly new thing for many of the longtime Ann Arbor activists.

    The city party used to have big monthly membership meetings, and so everybody saw and interacted with each other regardless of faction. That doesn’t happen any more, not because some boss or faction decreed it, but because of structural changes in the election (and hence campaign) process.

    Traditionally, Ann Arbor used to fill very few of its precinct delegate positions, because Ann Arbor Democrats didn’t recognize the county party as relevant to them. Some of this attitude was probably snobbishness aimed at Ypsilanti.

    The Howard Dean campaign brought in a whole new generation of activists who saw the county party as the obvious pipeline to influence on the state and nation. In their numbers and enthusiasm, they have come to represent Ann Arbor in the county party, and hold many of the party offices. Many of them are still new to the political game and don’t have experience doing the grooming or training you’d like to see.

    Rather than lamenting the absence of a well-oiled machine, you might see this as a temporary period of chaos and an opportunity to form new political structures and alliances.
       —Larry Kestenbaum    Dec. 16 '05 - 08:42PM    #
  29. Jennifer, listen to Larry. What happened is that when the city elections were moved to November, the “automatic” majority of Democrats coming out in even-numbered years guaranteed a Democratic lock on City Council. Then, with the election of George Bush and the resultant further decline of the fortunes of local Republicans, we have wound up with an all-Dem City Council and no perceived need for an active City Democratic Party. The party imploded because lots of people felt there was no need to go to boring party meetings, or organize their neighborhoods, if we were going to win anyway.

    I hope this changes soon. The City Party is planning to start meeting regularly in January.

    You are already a well-known Democrat with a lot of support in the party—even though you didn’t win the Council seat.

    If you’re interested in meeting some more Dems socially, please come to Sabra’s and my 23rd annual Winter Solstice Party. It’s Saturday, December 17, starting at 7:30 p.m. at 1418 Broadway. Rub elbows with the great, the near-great, and the ridiculous. 8-)
       —David Cahill    Dec. 16 '05 - 11:54PM    #
  30. Larry and David – Thanks for the history. It helps puts things into perspective, but it’s still unfortunate for me and other people my age who aren’t familiar with the past and just want to get involved.

    I failed to mention it in my previous post, but the county democrats have been wonderful. I called a number of people when I arrived in town looking to get involved – and Graham Teall was the only one who returned my call. And talked to me for a very long time. I have also had similar experiences with other county activists and elected officials.

    I don’t think the fact that we have an all Dem council is a reason for the party to stop functioning. I’m glad that the city party will begin to meet again. I’m certain that there are others out there like me who would like to get involved.
       —Jennifer Hall    Dec. 17 '05 - 02:05PM    #
  31. Let me hijack this thread for a minute and extend a welcome to anybody that wants to be involved in Democratic politics in Washtenaw County.. I’m secretary of the county party, and we hold open monthly (well, mostly monthly) meetings as well as send weekly emails letting people know what’s going on across the county. See our website for more on that. My contact information is on there if you have questions for me/us.

    Also the Washtenaw County Young Dems are just starting up (open to ages 14-35), website is a bit out of date though.

    And all are invited to the Ann Arbor City Dem party meeting January 21st, see website for details. Should be an interesting one.
       —Laura    Dec. 18 '05 - 06:22AM    #
  32. And let me add a bit of re-direction as well.

    One-party politics seems a good thing, but David, Jennifer and Larry have already pointed to a downside – lack of grassroots involvement because of a lack of need to maintain the party.

    I disagree that we have an all-Dem Council. Leigh Greden is a closet Republican per his draconian fiscal ideas. Marcia Higgins and Steve Rapundalo both ran as Republicans, and recently, before “seeing the light”. In fact, Higgins faced two challenges to her tenure on Council when a Republican – but not from Democrats, who never ran against her, but from Greens. In 2001 Green Mike Nowak got 32% of the vote, which should have served as a wake-up call to Ms. Higgins. In 2003 Green Scott Trudeau ran an almost non-campaign and got 39% of the vote – Higgins barely scraped a majority of the vote together in a four-person race. So she “saw the light”, realizing that she had to hold her nose and join the Dems to hold her seat. Or at least the Greens were a considerable piece of her choice to switch.

    Until last year I was Chair of the Green Party of Washtenaw County. There is an alternative to one-party rule, and the true progressives would do well to look into the Green Party, which truly represents the progressive efforts nationally, since the Democratic Party has abandoned its progressive wing.

    If you are interested in the Greens, you can visit for national party news, and for the state party. The local party does not have a website per se, but the Huron Valley Greens local does meet regularly – every 2nd and 4th Monday at Planet, upstairs from the Village Apothecary at 1112 1/2 S. University.

    And yes, we are most intersted in City Council races this coming year, particularly in the 3rd Ward.
       —Pete Schermerhorn    Dec. 19 '05 - 04:54PM    #
  33. I don’t think we want to get into a debate about national politics but I haven’t been impressed by the national Green party being very progressive, at least what I consider progressive. In any case, locally, which is what we’re discussing here, I think voters would have a hard time differentiating the local Dems from the local Greens on most issues.
       —John Q    Dec. 19 '05 - 05:57PM    #
  34. Pete, the Greens would do well to consider running a candidate as a Democrat in the Democratic primary.

    A couple of weeks ago a friend asked me how I thought an imaginary candidate named “Susan Greenway” would do in the Third Ward primary. I said that since there are already two pro-development candidates (DeVarti and Kunselman), Ms. Greenway should win. If she ran a campaign supporting a full-scale greenway, and if she got the endorsement of groups like the Sierra Club, then her anti-development candidacy should overwhelm DeVarti and Kunselman, because they will split whatever pro-development vote there is in the Democratic primary.

    Winning the Third Ward Dem primary in August 06 is tantamount to election in November 06. It will be an even-numbered year. The race for Governor and US Senate will dominate. Most voters will vote straight-party tickets, so third-party candidates are no-hopers.

    Since there is no registration by party in Michigan, all anyone needs to do to run in the Democratic primary is file nominating petitions for that primary.

    For Ms. Greenway the choice is clear: Run as a Green in the November election and lose. Run as a Democrat in the August primary and wind up on Council!
       —David Cahill    Dec. 19 '05 - 06:00PM    #
  35. Pete, not quite right: Marcia Higgins did have a Democratic opponent in November 1999: it was me. She won by 79 votes.

    Of course, she wasn’t the incumbent at the time—her husband was.
       —Larry Kestenbaum    Dec. 19 '05 - 07:00PM    #
  36. David,

    I don’t know if I think a Green Party-curious candidate would necessarily be pro-Greenway.

    Most of the Green Party members I’ve met have (a) some actual concern for the environment, rather than just an interest in superficial greenery, and (b) an interest in affordable housing, local business, and a diverse and inclusive community. They also seem to have a more advanced understanding of these issues than your hypothetical “Susan Greenway”, and many would qualify as “pro-development” by your slanted litmus test.

    I find it interesting that, in the next thread over, the Huron River Watershed Council are being accused of being overly concerned with environmental issues , and they have a public position of channeling development into already urbanized areas – such as into the City of Ann Arbor – in order to minimize the total environmental impact. I haven’t seen the HRWC’s position on an Allen Creek Greenway per se, but, from everything they’ve said, I’d expect them to be soundly in your “pro-development” column, because they understand what you and the local Sierra Club chapter refuse to acknowledge: that a desire to channel development into already developed areas is pro-environment for all sorts of reasons previously enumerated at great lengths.

    The Greens, the Watershed Council, the national Sierra Club – all are raving pro-environment loonies by some accounts, but tools of the “pro-development” lobby by your definition. Something’s not quite right here. (Or someone?)
       —Murph.    Dec. 19 '05 - 07:02PM    #
  37. I was actually trained as a Geographer (Wayne State University, 1995) with an urban planning-heavy curriculum.

    That said, I echo Murph’s assertion that Greens are not necessarily pro-Greenway – nor are they anti-Greenway. We’re for some sort of sane land use pattern that preserves (not creates) open spaces and includes enough density to do so, but still finds a way (through taxation, TIFA, ‘empowerment’ zone, rent control, etc.) to have affordable housing. Dense building does not necessarily mean skyrocketing cost, but is often vilified for such.

    I admire a work entitled “Ecocity Berkeley” by Richard Register which details how maximum density and maximum open space with a constant population is achievable and sustainable.

    “Pro-development” has often meant “pro-big business”, which it shouldn’t. Development is not the evil here, but ripoff artists posing as developers are. When a city’s will is tested by issues such as ours, planning must become visionary.

    While I appreciate the efforts of the city in hiring Calthorpe to advise on development issues, i.e., the ‘vision thing’, I have my doubts about what little I have seen from them so far (and I admit I have not had access to the plans). I will wait and see, and possibly recommend that the city work with non-traditional development sources with some degree of expertise to back up prospective plans, if current plans come to naught.
       —Pete Schermerhorn    Dec. 19 '05 - 09:31PM    #
  38. David, I don’t want to clash with you here – I have no beef with you.

    However, Greens are not Democrats, and are not interested in running as Democrats – those days are long ago, when we had to run as Green/Independents or Green/Democrats when we didn’t have ballot access. We do have it, are not likely to lose it, and see ourselves as the main (often friendly, often not) opposition party in Ann Arbor. No kidding.
       —Pete Schermerhorn    Dec. 19 '05 - 09:37PM    #
  39. I admit I have not had access to the plans

    Pete, you can read Calthorpe’s recommendations on the city’s website ; that’s as much access as anybody has, including the decision-makers around town.

    Thanks for providing a succinct and somewhat more official statement of the Green position than I could.
       —Murph    Dec. 19 '05 - 10:24PM    #
  40. Well, Pete, just remember what Vince Lombardi said: “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” 8-)
       —David Cahill    Dec. 20 '05 - 01:59AM    #
  41. It’s time to re-invigorate this article.

    There is now a First Ward Dem primary. Ron Suarez, who was active in the Howard Dean campaign here, has taken out petitions. I signed his petition this evening at a Dem event. Susan Greenberg, the chair of the Party, eagerly signed it shortly after I did.

    Also, Wendy Woods is running against John Hieftje for Mayor.

    Plus, there will be a primary in the Fifth Ward. Chris Easthope will be facing either Sonia Schmerl or Kate Runyon or both. I heard that at the first Greenway meeting last Saturday, Schmerl and Runyon were each trying to talk the other out of running against Easthope. 8-)

       —David Cahill    Apr. 29 '06 - 05:27AM    #