Provo City Council Meeting 12/6

Here are my thoughts on last nights Provo City Council meeting:

(1) A private non-profit group called the Utah Valley Earth Forum was allowed nearly 10 minutes to promote their environmental extremism agenda under the guise of given a Stewardship Award to Mayor Curtis.  The speaker touted the opt-out recycling program and the Switch-It program.  The group likes Curtis so much they even promote him on their front page.  Pretty disgusting stuff especially when considering citizens are only allowed 3 minutes.

(2) Pork-barrel parks scored big last night at the expense of citizen's pocketbooks.  Council approved 7-0 expansion of 3850N Timpview Park taking an understandable $170K from Park Impact Fees and an unacceptable expense of $170K from the general fund.  Also approved about half of a $90K appropriation for a pocket park 300W Center St.  Finally they took $0.5M from the savings in the Lakeview Park and instead of returning it to the citizens in from of Iprovo tax relief threw the money at the a Slate Canyon Trailhead project.

(3) Mayor got his rebranding pork approved 7-0 to the tune of a quarter million.  Mayor and some council have stated they had to spend the money in part because they felt a multicolored bar on the flag promoted the LGBT agenda.  Funny, to me a rainbow has always meant God's promise to Noah.  The logo update was sold as a "good investment" and the mayor commented on how all steamed he was just having visited all these major cities promoting Provo but couldn't announce his new $250K pet logo.  What a waste!  Take the citizen's money and flush it down the johns at city hall.  Additional note:  notice (left) the lack of communication in an attempt to abscond the dollar amount on the mayor's blog:  I posted a comment on 10/6 asking for this information and never got it.  I can post private subsequent private emails between me and the mayor in which I repeatedly asked for these dollar amounts and never got it either.

(4) Council Hall-Everett got one of the issues she has been advocating since back when the property tax hike was being discussed last summer:  $250K for wayfinding signage.  The amount is exorbitant and with a parking map available online a totally unnecessary expense for a city which just had to raise taxes in order to avoid bankruptcy from the Iprovo debt which fell back in its lap.  (Funny how those 20yr bonds come back to haunt you.  Good thing the city practices the teachings of the LDS church to "get out of debt and stay out of debt" NOT!!!)

(5) Mayor Curtis tried to pull a fast one by touting the fiscal responsibility of the city because of the poor condition of the carpet in council chambers.  In my comments I mentioned that this was not fair because the council has already appropriated the money for a huge upgrade to the council chambers.  Other members of council got fed up with public comment and either directly or indirectly insulted the citizenry for not having facts to back up their comments or for not attending all the budget meetings that they had (of course they're paid to do so, we're not).  One council member did apologize privately afterwards.  No one including new council Garrett showed any spine for taking a fiscally conservative approach to government; every single appropriation passed unanimously.

It's a sad day when the city government in Provo is as liberal as New York City.  Maybe it will help when we elect a new mayor who doesn't promote the agenda of his former Party:  big government, big spending, and massive tax increases.

The Upcoming New Face of the Provo City Council

Top Row L to R:  Kay Van Buren (Dist 4), Yancee Hardy (Citywide), Jim Pettersson (Dist 4)
Middle:  Gary Winterton (Dist 1), Howard Stone (Dist 4)
Bottom:  Bonnie Morrow (Dist 1), Gary Garrett (Citywide), Lindsay Wiblin (Dist 4)
Note:  Six Candidates for District 3 not pictured; Collage arranged in artistic manner not to favor any candidate

Friday marked the end day of filing season for four Provo City Council seat vacancies from a total of seven council seats including Districts 1, 3, 4, and a citywide seat.  We had a remarkable number of filings despite the recent stiffening of filing requirements by the current council.  Perhaps the remarkable number was due to all four council incumbents up for reelection chose not to run again.  Whatever the case may be, because the outcome of the Nov 8th elections will determine a majority of council seats, there is perhaps not better time than to get involved with city elections.  (See official Candidate List)

• District 1 voters will choose between Bonnie Morrow and Gary Winterton on November 8.

• District 3 voters will have a primary on Sept 13 to chose from the list of six candidates:

Tom Jarman

James E. Kallbacka

Jeff Marvell

Hal Miller

Glen K. Thurston
Richard E. Wood

• District 4 voters will have a primary on Sept 13 to chose from the list of four candidates:

Jim Pettersson

Howard Stone

Kay Van Buren

Lindsay Wiblin

• All voters will vote on Nov 8 between the two citywide candidates, Yancee Hardy and Gary Garrett.  (Note:  Find which district you're in on the Provo District Map)

In looking at the group as a whole, it is going to be an exciting election.  Some of the candidates have run before, while others are first-time-ever candidates for office.  I really appreciate the willingness of all the candidates to step forward and to provide us with differing options for change as we try and promote liberty among our citizenry.  I also salute the lame duck members of the council for their service with one final plea:  do not raise our property taxes up to 16% as you are now considering (Daily Herald, Jun 16) in contradiction to Mayor Curtis' proposed budget.
 
Many Provoans are finding themselves frustrated with their city government on a plethora of issues ranging from attempts to impose a daytime curfew, incessant tax hikes and fee increases, backyard pavement regulations, and building unnecessary roads and bridges on the west side. Yesterday, I sent out the following questionnaire to my District 4 candidates to find out where they stood on these many issues.  I expect to have a similar one developed shortly for city-wide candidates.  The questions cover a number of different hot-button topics.  There is also a movement within our district to get a forum scheduled for the candidates before the primary to increase voter awareness of the candidates.  Here is the questionnaire:
 
Did you support Prop 1 (Rec. Center bond)?

Do you support Opt-In or Opt-Out for curbside recycling?


Do you support the implementation of a RAP tax?


Should city property tax be eliminated, lowered, held, or raised?


Do you support the building of the Northwest Connector?


Do you support the council’s recent changes to campaign filing requirements?


Do you believe that a council member should resign if called to active military duty?


Do you support the current ticket policy whereby a fine doubles in 6 days and triples in 11?


What ideas will you bring to balancing the budget?


What has been your political party affiliation(s) for the past 10 years?


What future projects should the city fund?


Do you support tax increases and bond issuances being subject to a 2/3rds supermajority of voters?


What are your ideas for increasing revenue through growing the sales tax base?


What percentage of a backyard should a landowner be allowed to pave?


Do you support a daytime curfew for minors?


Do you support the redistricting of the city as to eliminate city-wide council positions?

Do you support the creation of a third interstate interchange for Provo?

Provo City Council Raises Garbage Fees 57%, Forces Opt-Out Tax

Congratulations, Provo, your taxes went up again.  And it's worse than you think.

Last month the city council voted 4-2 (5/3 Minutes, Item #7) to raise the fees on garbage collection from $11.00 a month to $14.50 for a single black can.  Councils Turley and Healey were the two who voted against the proposal.

Wayne Parker, Provo's CAO, claimed that the fee needed to be raised to $12.50 to cover costs.  But the liberals and environmentalists on the council then took the opportunity to pursue their own progressive agenda and voted to further hike the cost of black can collection by $2 more to penalize those residents who would not sign up for curbside recycling.  In other words, more than half the increase in cost of black can recycling will go to subsidize the curbside recycling.  Congratulations, Provo, you are now subsiding curbside recycling with tax dollars!

But it gets worse.  After raising the fee by 33% the council also decided to force its citizenry into "purchasing" a product:  no longer will trash collection be opt-in, it's now going to be opt out.  That means you have to submit the form available online at BY AUGUST 7, 2011 or call 801-852-6000 to not have to pay for the curbside can.  Otherwise you're stuck paying for an ugly blue recycling can in addition to your black one.  As Chair Healey pointed out, if you don't opt out, you will end up paying $17.50 for the two cans--an increase of 57% over the $11.00 you were paying!  Sounds to me like a redo of the Obamacare health insurance mandate.

While many longer term residents who are aware of the change and will read through the form mailed to them in with their monthly bill, many students preoccupied with studies will not.  When those not fortunate enough to catch the opt-out tax will be stuck (literally) in the cold with a huge surprise November bill.

The perpetrators of this curbside tax know that they can get unwatchful Provoans to pay the tax.  Currently only 24% of residents have the blue recycling can in addition to their black one.  With the opt-out the city expects to draft 65% of residents into recycling.  They further plan to use the revenues from recycling to propagandize the program (excuse me, "market" they termed it) the program instead of using the funds to subsidize the cost of the curbside recycling.  Just what we need: a government-subsidized "Re-use It Man".

In all, the liberal, environmentalist ambitions of the council were summed by the big-government phrase coined by Council Sterling Beck: "We need to incentivize people to recycle."

Rephrasing Beck's ideology: "Government needs tax its citizens and then use those funds to incentivize people to behave in a manner the government wants them to."  This ideology is nothing but pure socialism and breaks the trust put forth in the Declaration of Independence which gives citizens the right to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness [determination of one's own property]."

Mayor Curtis who as a candidate talked favorably about privatizing garbage pickup, has flip-flopped and now seems more interested in spreading falsehoods and spin about the program on his blog.

Consider the following by Curtis:

• "No one is required to participate." (False.  I am required to take action or else on August 7th I am forced into participation.) 
• "No sorting is required"  (False.  You need to review the Recycling Do's and Don'ts on our city's website.)
• "You'll find you have much more room in your trash can for trash since so much goes into the recycling can." (Pure opinion.  When I had the blue can, it was nearly empty each week.  It probably cost more in labor for the refuse worker to empty the can than in the materials I recycled each week.)

Any entrepreneur who wants to pick up my trash for less than $14.50 a month, please contact me at:  nacilbupera@gmail.com to get my business.  If I can't get a taker, maybe I'll just completely opt-out and take the trash myself to the dump:  at SUVSWD it's $4 per covered truckload.

Provo's Prop 1: The Recreation Tax

On November 2nd, Provo residents will have to decide whether or not to raise property taxes on themselves, their neighbors, and their future neighbors for the next 20 years. The tax hike cause isn't even to balance the budget as "bearded marxist" Delaware Senate Candidate Chris Coons did in his New Castle County Administration times, but to provide increased taxpayer-funded entertainment during the economic blight of a recession.

I am disgusted we are even talking about me having to fork out an estimated $77 per year to fund someone else's entertainment, but the pro-Prop 1 folks--who include city elected officials John Curtis and Laura Cabanilla though lacking their titles in supporting (note full list of sponsors)--think through their support of this recreation tax that they know that that is better for me than using that money to pay down my credit card and get out of debt (or whatever my family's needs may be). How is it we are a city of Repbulicans at the national level jointly decrying socialism, yet when a socialistic notion hits home we think somehow it's OK?

I am further disgusted by the misinformation by some in the pro rec-tax crowd such as Dave Olpin in the "Local Opinion" section of today's Daily Herald. Under Mr. Olpin's section "Financial" he purports:

The average homeowner of a $195,000 home would see a small increase of $2.61 per month in property taxes (less than the cost of a gallon of gas a month)

The problem with this statement isn't that it's untrue, but that it is a half truth--or better stated a 3/20th truth. As the graph available at the city's website shows below for the first three years taxes go up $2.61 a month ($31 annually) for an average $195K home; but for the remaining 17 years it skyrockets to the $77 annually I mentioned above.

Another massive piece of misinformation opined both by Mr. Olpin and Provo City is a user frequency statistic:

A recent survey indicated 78 percent of Provo residents would use a new recreation center at least monthly. (Olpin, 10/6/2010)

78% Will Visit A New Indoor Community Recreation Center Monthly ("A New Community Recreation Center in Provo", Provo City Website PowerPoint Presentation, page 5)

The problem isn't that the 78% is incorrect from the survey, but rather it is miscited. In the actual 29-page survey the wording reads: "Seventy-eight percent of respondent households would visit a new indoor recreation center with the features they most prefer at least once a month." (emphasis mine) Although the survey did try to define what those features were, it is a huge leap to omit this "most preferred feature" wording. Consider what might quickly happen to this 78% rosy statistic when you factor in the following:

• Your most preferred feature isn't offered in the rec center?
• Your feature were offered, but not at a time convenient to your household?
• Your feature were offered, but not all the features needed for other household members?
• Your feature were offered, but the user fees limited your visits?

In population terms, implying that 78% of our population will be at the rec center at least once a month breaks down to over 3,000 daily unique visits from Provo residents (not counting any repeat visits during the entire month) every day if the rec center were open 6 days a week. I'm going on record right now that you need to throw out that 78% number because it's not happening; it's simply not realistic, in my opinion.

Some argue that the Rec Center will be a community asset we will all share the benefit of. I counter that it is Provo's low tax rates we share the benefit of in inducing home ownership and to retaining and attracting business--and speaking of business, the tax burden is nearly double that of individual home owners ($141 vs $77 on properties of equal value). Rental rates on small businesses will inevitably increase as landowners pass those costs on to their tenants.

A property tax is quite possibly the worst form of tax. If you can't pay this recreation tax, you will lose your home; and how many neighbors have we been witness to in this housing-bubble devastation all across our city. Is it worth risking your home over some rec center? No!!

Here's how the rec center tax proponents won't frame their tax-increasing ambition: Suppose someone came to your door and said, for $77 a year (plus user fees) we will give you access to a beautiful new rec center in downtown Provo for the next 20 years. However, if you default on your payment, we will come and take your home from you. I think most any wise church leader or financial advisor would council heavily against you accepting such a deal. The risks of losing your home, albeit small, are far too great for you to take for such an unworthy cause.

Over a third of our citizenry surveyed wants not a single penny of taxpayer funding for the rec center (Survey, page 25). Neighbors: do we have the tyranny of a democracy where a majority votes tax increases on the minority to put their property at risk of confiscation of the government? I beseech you, even if your household has that kind of money to afford a Rec Tax to take a stand against such tyranny and to not raise my and your fellow neighbors who oppose such taxes.

Say no to the Recreation Tax: Vote NO!!! on Prop 1.

+++ Revision: 10/06 7pm

Curtis tonight graciously offered a correction that he is not using his title as Mayor to support the tax increase and I have correcting this entry to reflect this truth. This said, while he reiterates his private support of a tax increase, I feel could have and should have as Mayor spoken out against the tax increase; thus I don't hold "Mayor Curtis" blameless. It also smacks as a political caviat to say he didn't vote to raise taxes, he just promoted the project and left the citizenry to fight amongst each other over one neighbor's swimming lessons vs. my pocketbook. So much for "city unity."

Provo Lakeview North Neighborhood Meeting Report

Tonight we had a good-sized turnout (maybe 50 residents plus dozens of scouts from the local Boy Scout troop) at our Meeting. Notables included Don Allphin, our retiring neighborhood chair, our city council Sherrie Hall Everett, and our Mayor John Curtis.

Most notably on the agenda was the election of our neighborhood chair. Two were nominated: former city-wide council candidate Carl Mayo of Cobblestone Village subdivision and Brandon Seamons of the Reese Estates subdivision. Each chose a co-chair to run on their ticket. The vote came out an even tie: 20 votes each which resulted in a call to the city attorney by Louise Jorgensen of Provo City who was there to conduct the election. Three options were given for us to choose a winner: a coin flip, a second vote, or a vote in two weeks. Attendees expressed concern they were being unduly limited to those options, but the discussion was quickly cut off by Hall Everett and Jorgensen who insisted on the neighborhood voting for one of the three options. In the end, the neighborhood settled for a second vote in two weeks; so if you missed the meeting tonight, stay tuned for another opportunity to vote!

Mayor Curtis spoke on the shortfall of the city budget due mainly to the decrease in sales tax revenue: we still need to cut $600K from this year's budget ending FY June 30th. He asked for patience from the neighborhood in getting the $1M Lakeview Park built under these financial conditions. When completed, Lakeview will have tennis courts, a playground, and restrooms.

Dave Graves spoke about the Lakeshore Bridge (you can see the etched lines for the road connecting Lakeshore Drive to 3110 W at Center St on this Google Maps.) The Lakeshore Bridge caught many residents by surprise including chair Allphin (see SL Tribune articles: 01/20/2010 and 03/03/2010). A driving impetus for the bridge at this time seems to be the unexpected low bid cost of $1.8M--a projected $1M savings from a few years ago when the construction industry was booming. The bridge is being funded through impact fee ($1.3M) and gas tax (balance); these are restricted funds and cannot be used to balance the city budget. The bridge will be the same width as Lakeshore Dr. and have a pedestrian sidewalk. Traffic on Lakeshore is expected to increase dramatically from currently 1,000 vehicles per day to 6,000 or similar to the current traffic on 620 N. When the northwest connector is eventually built, traffic should alliviate to 3,000 vehicles.

Dave Gardner who is building Lakeview Fields subdivision at the very north end of the Lakeview North Neighborhood along 2000 North proposed changing the development agreement to allow basements to be included in the homes. Basements are a hot commodity in Utah and should allow the homes to sell quickly as they are built in twos in two different phases for a total of 51 homes. Gardner has put in a storm drain system to alleviate concerns of flooding. The city must still approve his request as water tables fluctuate. Chair Allphin held a raised-hands vote noting that the majority of those in attendance were in approval of Mr. Gardner's request.

Near the conclusion of the meeting, the owner of TKO storage spoke up and voiced his concern that while his business was in the geographic boundaries our neighborhood, he had no voice or vote as he wasn't a resident of the neighborhood. He seemed to have a valid point that was noted by council Hall Everett.

In his concluding remarks, Allphin noted how the government was illegally forcing cap-and-trade on us through EPA regulation and encouraged us to stay involved, particularly locally where we could make the greatest difference.

Shurtleff withdraws from Senate Race

All over the political news across Utah today was Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's withdrawal from the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Shurtleff cited the need for family time particularly during a time when his adopted daughter had acute mental health needs. Having familial mental health experiences, we strongly sympathize and wish the Shurtleff family God bless.

Fellow pundits and media outlets have already begun to speculate as the stock of other candidates in the race. Although they raise interesting points, Nacilbupera will refrain for the moment from public comment on the impact of the Shurtleff announcement on other candidates out of respect for the Shurtleff family.

Notwithstanding Nacilbupera’s endorsement of another candidate, Shurtleff has gained our respect both through this commitment to family and through his willingness to recognize that running a U.S. Senatorial race is not done by jumping in late in the game hoping to get one’s name into the ring. We suggest a way of supporting our great AG through this time of distress might be the reading of Shurtleff’s newly-released historical: "Am I Not a Man, the Dred Scott Story” though we confess we haven’t done so ourselves. We reiterate our stance that Bennett is wrong for Utah and stand by our previous endorsement in this race as a strong alternative to Bailout Bob.

Overtime:

• John Curtis' gracious acceptance video for Provo Mayor
  
  
• David Harmer loses by 10pts. There are two positives in this loss. First, the loss is that this is slightly less than the Cook PVI of D+11 with a Republican neophyte making a great showing against the top ranking Democratic executive in the state. More importantly, Democrats will likely lose a Lieutenant-Governorship with Schwarzenegger having an opportunity to appoint a fiscally-conservative Republican to fill Garamendi's vacated position. With Schwarzenegger being term-limited, this appointee stands to receive a tremendous boost in the upcoming gubernatorial elections. Finally, a Schwarzenegger appointee would add a rare Republican to a near Democratic monopoly in California on executive-branch offices.
  


• Poll: Do you support parental notification of abortion? http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-teen-abortion-law-02-nov02,0,6313456.story

Election Wrapup

John Curtis elected Provo Mayor!
Race tonight was a wild one as PR36 with a 41% best-of-all-voter-precinct-turnouts dumped in early voting 4:1 for Clark giving Clark a huge early 60%/40% over Curtis. This was Clark's stronghold and as Clark had represented these voters as State Rep. in District 63. But Curtis came back winning comfortably in the end with 53% of the vote and winning 35 out of 49 precincts. Our PR20 had a respectable 26% turnout with Curtis losing by a mere 6 votes. Yet for PR20 this is a Curtis victory as residing in our boundaries was former mayoral contestant Don Allpin (and posterity) who came in 3rd in the primaries and endorsed Clark on Oct 24th.

Maine votes down same-sex marriage!
Leading 53% to 47% with 87% reporting, voters in Maine gave a voter veto to a bill passed by their legislature that would have allowed same-sex marriage in the state. No matter how liberal the state, whenever the decision has been put to the voters instead of a few liberal judges, same sex marriage has been defeated and tonight was no exception.

Bob McDonnell elected VA gov in landslide; Republicans sweep trifecta of seats!
With all precincts reporting McDonnell won 59% to 41% bringing with him a Republican Lt. Gov. and A.G. in a state that went for Obama just 12 months ago. Just last week, Obama had "campaigned" for McDonnell's opponent Deeds by saying: "He may not be perfect -- my wife reminds me I'm not. (Applause.) She is, just like our spouses are perfect, but we're not. (Laughter.) You know, Creigh, sometimes his tie gets a little askew, and you know, his hair is a little -- (laughter)..." (Yahoo News) We don't think the patronizing of Deeds by Obama helped Deeds at all.

Chris Christie(R) elected NJ governor!

How a conservative Republican can win a dark blue state like NJ was extremely encouraging for conservatives in 2010. NJ wanted their highest-in-the-union property taxes cut and were fed up with Corzine and the flight of business from the state. Obama had his clout snubbed here as well with multiple plugs for Corzine while Christie racked in 49% of the vote and led Corzine by 5%.

Doug Hoffman loses to Bill Owens

In a gut-wrencher for conservatives, with 92% reporting Hoffman loses to Owens 45% to 49%. Conisdering the disarray of the campaign and Scozzafava who withdrew receiving 5% of the vote, there is much to be proud of in this loss. The district will vote again next year and if Owens dares to vote for a public option and the GOP puts up a Conservative, Owens might just be a pop on the 4th of July.

Dave Harmer loses to John Garamendi

With 50% reporting, Harmer is losing 55% to 40% to Lt. Governor and carpetbagger Garamendi who, like Hoffman, doesn't live in the district. Getting Harmer elected was our biggest challenge going into election day and obviously Californians despite their May referendums just haven't had enough of folks who promise a better life through raising taxes. If it were just District 10's taxes he were raising, we probably wouldn't even bother with the post.

What next...
Tonight was a huge bounceback from the losses suffered twelve months ago. It also shows where we need to shore up support and educate on the evils of Socialistic ideas in getting ready for 2010, which officially starts....well, now! For starters, we can begin by rallying at the Utah State Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 14th, for a combined 9/12 and Utah Tea Party rally. Let us use our victories to motivate us to replace Bennett, throw out Harry Reid, and get some good Conservative Republicans back in both houses of our Congress in 2010.

Re: Mudslinging by an Attack Dog

Preface note: Although this is formed as a response to a reader's comment, its both its length and introduction of new material justify a separate blog entry.

Anonymous: Thanks for stopping by; you are welcome to remain anonymous, but we feel it would have empowered your premises had you (1) revealed the status of your citizenship in Provo (2) if you are tied into the authorship (IE “RMC”) of the anti-Curtis blog you cite TWICE and (3) if you are a member of the Clark campaign or family. Understandably, we have our suspicions though you are welcome to refute these thoughts of ours (emphasize thoughts rather than accusations.)

As a five-year Provo resident, sole author of this blog, and a vocal supporter and endorser of but not part of the Curtis campaign, we shoot straight here which gives us a bit more authority in the debate than someone who hides behind an Anonymous posting. Although we already have “pulled the lever” for Curtis in early voting, we owe it to our readership to respond.

First, your accusation that we have not “really educate[d] [my]self beyond one-worded campaign slogans” goes right along with the mudslinging of the Clark campaign. Even RMC who you quote TWICE hoped the debate would not be about “slinging mud” (bottom of page; first post by RMC). Let us elaborate upon the “literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis” we have done. Coming into this election we hadn’t a clue who either candidate was; we aren't related to anyone in Provo (does the wife count? LOL) and admittedly had never heard of Action Target. At some length even before the primaries, we met both candidates personally and asked them direct questions one-on-one eye-to-eye. We attended our neighborhood’s meet-the-candidates night at Amelia Earhart Elementary, attended a number of open houses and the first mayoral debates at the Provo city center, and been in communication via email until our concerns were satisfied. We reckon (pardon the Missouri-ism here) based on the effort of eligible voters to stay informed, we rank in the top 1%. Your accusation of us not being educated is simply baseless, biased, and demeaning to a private citizen doing their civic duty.

We will however, address your two underlying premises of debate. In reading the posting on the anti-Curtis blog you point to, we believe you are bringing up non-relevant, partisan material into the campaign. Gee whiz (sorry, our age is showing...), Glenn Beck grew up a drunk Democrat; David Horowitz was a commie—and while Curtis was neither but simply trying to bring some “common sense” back to the Democratic Party—do we really care? Is past partisan politics relevant in a non-partisan local election? The point is this isn’t a partisan race but Clark (who if you want to bring partisanship into this race in our opinion is more Democratic than Curtis sponsoring bills like HB290) is trying to make it one with these campaign fliers (see newest below). As Republicans we denounce AG Eric Holder’s forced reversal in Kinston, NC, of the non-partisan status of their local elections; but you tolerate--even advocate--Steve Clark repeatedly bringing up partisanship into this race? Hogwash.

Partisan Clark attacks continue against Curtis in non-partisan race (red underlines ours)

To your second point on the green sweater comment: perhaps Curtis “lost his cool”; don’t know, wasn’t there, but Curtis did apologize. So we concede the point. Yet you know it seems a bit double-standard: like Clark attacking Curtis for not owning dogs? Clark also seemed to be losing his cool when we asked him one-on-one what he was going to do about our city’s “sanctuary city” label. So wow, both candidates have human emotions; passion is better than apathy and both these men are decent in their hearts and neither at all like Democrat Harry Reid.

On funding, Curtis has consistently said that for special projects the voters should have a say, not forced upon us like Iprovo. If we want a new rec center or whatever, are we willing to support that with higher levies? Curtis’ plan for four officers on gangs instead of one is deficit neutral; directing police who are told to “go write tickets” to actually fighting crime. As a businessman, he is keen to eliminating inefficiencies in government so that we can balance our budget as well as making Provo more business friendly to grow our tax base. Clark on the other had wants to add a layer of government by having “mentors” assigned to developers; to us growing the scope of government is not a desirable ideal.

Mudslinging by an Attack Dog

In today's hardprint Daily Herald as well as online at both the Daily Herald and Salt Lake Tribune was the following superb letter-to-the-editor by Troy and Angie Carter entitled "Beware of D party":

Recently, we received a campaign mailer from Steve Clark. If we hadn't known better when we read it, we would have sworn the Provo mayoral race had become partisan. Clark claims he's showcasing Curtis' inconsistencies, but it appears he's really appealing to the Demophobia rampant in our county. (Demophobia: fear of all people and ideas belonging to the D party, a fear that Democrat equals liberal.)

His mailer tries to paint Curtis as a liberal. However, the label fits neither man. Both are Republicans who espouse conservative principles. As Republicans, we are disappointed with Clark's attempt to turn a non-partisan race into a partisan one.

As for consistency, that is exactly why we are voting for John Curtis. He has consistently demonstrated an attribute we find sorely missing in our society: an open-minded, non-partisan nature. He possesses a unique quality: he is neither afraid nor ashamed to change his mind when warranted. He understands that clinging to a weak idea will never make it strong, even if it is his own. Imagine that -- humility in a leader.

•Troy and Angie Carter, Provo">

The Carters really hit the issue on the head. Curtis has worked day and night to try and bring our city together around a pro-business (grow our sales tax base), fiscally responsible, and city safety agenda. He listens and cares deeply about our city and brings a tremendous amount of executive experience. Below is the copy of the mudslinging campaign mailer we received in the mail from Clark and surely representative of the one referred to by the Carters:

In case you are not familiar with the Democratic Party Platform of Utah County, the platform is surprisingly moderate including pro-life and marriage-between-one-man-and-one-woman stances and maybe not pro-gun but at least acknowledging gun ownership rights. In fairness the Democrats are liberal on government social issues, although tend to be quite ethical. The epitome of a Utah County Dem is recently-deceased Bill Orton who represented Utah County several years ago. We think Curtis is a Conservative who happens like many of us to see some faults in the Republican Party and are willing to consider alternative approaches when the party fails us (as it is doing right now in not condemning Tim Bridgewater's FEC violations).

For Clark to openly insinuate that Curtis does not espouse Conservative or Republican ideas--even amidst a non-partisan race--is frankly, a farce and demeans the accuser. We love Republicanism but we hate this putrid and vile mudslinging over non-issues. Do we really care if Curtis was a Democrat for a brief period during his life: NOOOOO! Do we care that Curtis has a plan for ridding ourselves of gang violence while Clark denies we have a problem? YESSSS!

We have had ample opportunities to meet with Curtis even one-on-one and found Curtis to be extremely respectful of his opponent as Curtis tried to sell us on the positive he had to offer us. After literally hours upon hours of listening to Curtis, we cannot remember a single negative thing Curtis has ever said about Clark: that my friends tells you the high caliber of this candidate for mayor and why we have been proud to financially contribute in a modest way to the Curtis campaign.

2009 Election Endorsements

There are a handful of elections being held a week from today, and being looked upon to see the relative strength and impact of the growing conservative, tea party, and 9/12er movements across the country. We are focused on these races.

Here are the candidates we endorse. Our endorsement is our way of recommending to you that you urgently examine these candidates and if you agree with our endorsement after examining them yourself, to vote for them if you live in one of these areas and if not to support one or more of these candidates with a financial contribution and a social media plug (twitter/blog/in person etc). If one were going to give a financial contribution, it should be done NOW as early voting is already underway.

***LOCAL***

Provo Mayor: John Curtis (np) Curtis, a conservative businessman against an attack-dog opponent (Clark) in non-partisan race. Curtis easily won the debate with Clark attacking Curtis for not owning a dog (trust me pet ownership is the #1 issue in Provo—LOL—Curtis owns 2 dogs for the record). Curtis is strong on safety and anti-gang which among our city’s top issues. No known polling but general expectation is a nail biter with edge to Curtis.

Provo City Council citywide: no endorsement; although we have a candidate in mind, we don’t feel strongly enough to endorse.

***NATIONAL (in order of need for help)***

California 10th District: David Harmer (R) Could we summarize where he stands on all the issues with “anti-Pelosi”? He’s a lawyer (smart), a family man (principled), and a Boy Scout merit badge counselor (down to earth). Running in a strong (+13) Democratic district and endorsed by our local Congressman and hero Jason Chaffetz. Victory is possible if Republicans turn out in force in this election. See: An Upset in California? (Wall Street Journal) and The Hill: Republican in CA Special Election Competitive

New York 23rd District: Doug Hoffman (C) Hoffman, a Conservative in this fusion-voting state, pitted against a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. Race is drawing national attention with latest polls showing Hoffman surging to a lead. Nail biter.

New Jersey Governor: Chris Christie (R) Pro-life tax cutter; his election will rescue the NJ economic disaster under Corzine’s reign. Maybe not as strong 2nd amendment as we are but no RINO either. Nail biter in 3-way race.

Virginia Governor: Bob McDonnell (R) Believes in marriage, life, guns, cutting taxes; expected to win again in rematch against opponent.

We believe a win in 3 out of 4 of these races will send a strong message that our movement is snowballing and will have Democratic strategists reeling. Should God bless us to win all four, the blue dogs in Congress will have ample ground to justify any opposition to nationized healthcare.