Illinois' largest public utility will now be overseen by a mayor who pledged to keep renewable energy as part of its energy mix.
Springfield's Democratic Mayor-elect Jim Langfelder deserves credit for talking about clean energy. Some candidates avoided the topic because it's controversial after a wind power contract became more costly than expected. With most local news outlets focused on utility finances and rate increases, Langfelder could have avoided taking a clear position on where our power comes from.
But voters were given a real choice between a modern energy mix with renewable energy or "we've always done it that way." Scare tactics about clean energy causing rate increases didn't work this time. Springfield is already a better clean energy leader than Chicago and now the progress can continue.
Coal was being mined in Springfield when Abraham Lincoln represented the city in the state legislature. But this year, a new clean energy future was a winning issue in a coal-country election.
Showing posts with label City Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Elections. Show all posts
April 8, 2015
February 10, 2015
Hunter Lake is still the dumbest idea in Springfield
I can't believe I still have to write about this. Hunter Lake is the dumbest idea going Springfield. Here's why:
1) There are good reasons why the permits were never approved last time and they still won't be approved after more money is wasted trying again. New dams like this one aren't getting built anymore. Anywhere.
2) Water usage is growing nowhere near the growth estimates CWLP used to demonstrate a supposed need. Water efficiency programs are working. And no, those programs have nothing to do with watering your lawn or washing your car.
3) The biggest water hogs in Springfield are the older coal power plants. They have a limited lifespan. When the two oldest coal boilers shut down then water usage will drop. A LOT. Which means there's zero need for a new Hunter mud flat.
4) Sunk cost fallacy. The fact that a lot of money has already been wasted on a bad idea is not a good reason to waste even more. I learned this in my freshman microeconomics course.
There's no good reason to waste millions more on a project nobody needs. Hunter Lake is nothing but a pork barrel project to make money for those who will finance and build it at taxpayer expense. It serves no other purpose.
Turn the land into a top notch nature area instead so Springfield will finally benefit from getting out of this foolish moneypit. We might even recover some of our losses down the road by selling the land to the Department of Natural Resources.
1) There are good reasons why the permits were never approved last time and they still won't be approved after more money is wasted trying again. New dams like this one aren't getting built anymore. Anywhere.
2) Water usage is growing nowhere near the growth estimates CWLP used to demonstrate a supposed need. Water efficiency programs are working. And no, those programs have nothing to do with watering your lawn or washing your car.
3) The biggest water hogs in Springfield are the older coal power plants. They have a limited lifespan. When the two oldest coal boilers shut down then water usage will drop. A LOT. Which means there's zero need for a new Hunter mud flat.
4) Sunk cost fallacy. The fact that a lot of money has already been wasted on a bad idea is not a good reason to waste even more. I learned this in my freshman microeconomics course.
There's no good reason to waste millions more on a project nobody needs. Hunter Lake is nothing but a pork barrel project to make money for those who will finance and build it at taxpayer expense. It serves no other purpose.
Turn the land into a top notch nature area instead so Springfield will finally benefit from getting out of this foolish moneypit. We might even recover some of our losses down the road by selling the land to the Department of Natural Resources.
April 5, 2011
Will Springfield become Pleasantville?
It's finally election day in Springfield and I keep thinking of the movie Pleasantville. Remember that one? It's revolves around a 50's TV town that's afraid to embrace change and the future. The Chamber of Commerce serves as the stern, backward-thinking local government.
The fact that our daily newspaper endorsed a former mayor elected in the 70's who more recently chaired the Chamber of Commerce strikes me as the ultimate expression of the desire many residents have to turn back the clock to Pleasantville.
Do a majority of Springfield residents want to embrace the past or a new future? I'm a little worried about finding out.
The fact that our daily newspaper endorsed a former mayor elected in the 70's who more recently chaired the Chamber of Commerce strikes me as the ultimate expression of the desire many residents have to turn back the clock to Pleasantville.
Do a majority of Springfield residents want to embrace the past or a new future? I'm a little worried about finding out.
February 28, 2011
Talking the mayor's race with Ray Lytle
After years of listening to Ray Lytle it was pretty cool to be on his new show. This one is a political show and he had me on to discuss the Springfield mayoral election. I wasn't representing any campaign or organization other than my own blog this time so that's fun.
I'm not used to radio and he asked a few questions I hadn't thought about. I would have been happy if he had cut out a few parts. I can understand actors who say they never see their own movies because I was a little nervous about listening to myself. But it ended up being a fun talk about why we ended up with the final four candidates who won and what happens next. You can get the podcast at Ray's blog.
I'm not used to radio and he asked a few questions I hadn't thought about. I would have been happy if he had cut out a few parts. I can understand actors who say they never see their own movies because I was a little nervous about listening to myself. But it ended up being a fun talk about why we ended up with the final four candidates who won and what happens next. You can get the podcast at Ray's blog.
February 23, 2011
Da utter mayers race
Rahm? What? Who? Whatever.
My attention yesterday was on the race for mayor in Illinois' largest city south of the Chicago area. The primary runoff narrowed the field of candidates from seven down to four: Mike Houston, Sheila Stocks-Smith, Mike Coffey, and Frank Kunz.
I expected Stocks-Smith to finish second, but I was very surprised that Republican-endorsed candidate Mike Coffey finished third instead of first. Republicans have a long list of precinct workers with patronage jobs at the county, convention center and other units of local government they control. I thought their organization would win the day.
Here's my guess about why Houston did better than expected: retired people who never left Springfield. This was a low turnout election, which means a large portion of the voters were retirees who can be counted on to always vote.
The thing about Springfield is that it's full of people who prefer comfortable predictability over excitement and change. If they liked to experience new things then they would have left town years ago like most of their children did. So who would someone like that support for mayor? The familiar name who used to be mayor 30 years ago, of course.
Sheila Stocks-Smith's strong showing was a victory for those who think Democrats should be Democrats. She has the support of Dick Durbin, Sierra Club, and most of Springfield's progressive Democratic leaders.
Conservative Democrats backed Republican Mike Farmer. Farmer is an intelligent and likable candidate so his loss can be attributed to the lack of organization among the old guard conservative Democrats.
Nominal Democrat Frank Kunz won his own ward (with less than a third of the vote), but also showed that he has little support elsewhere in the city. The biggest impact he can have on the race is to drop out and endorse the only Democrat with a shot at winning.
So what happens in the April 5 general election? First, those who backed the three losing candidates will have to pick someone new. More importantly, additional voters will show up since they'll also be voting for city council candidates.
It will be a different electorate in the general election so there's no guarantee that a familiar name will beat out organization again.
My attention yesterday was on the race for mayor in Illinois' largest city south of the Chicago area. The primary runoff narrowed the field of candidates from seven down to four: Mike Houston, Sheila Stocks-Smith, Mike Coffey, and Frank Kunz.
I expected Stocks-Smith to finish second, but I was very surprised that Republican-endorsed candidate Mike Coffey finished third instead of first. Republicans have a long list of precinct workers with patronage jobs at the county, convention center and other units of local government they control. I thought their organization would win the day.
Here's my guess about why Houston did better than expected: retired people who never left Springfield. This was a low turnout election, which means a large portion of the voters were retirees who can be counted on to always vote.
The thing about Springfield is that it's full of people who prefer comfortable predictability over excitement and change. If they liked to experience new things then they would have left town years ago like most of their children did. So who would someone like that support for mayor? The familiar name who used to be mayor 30 years ago, of course.
Sheila Stocks-Smith's strong showing was a victory for those who think Democrats should be Democrats. She has the support of Dick Durbin, Sierra Club, and most of Springfield's progressive Democratic leaders.
Conservative Democrats backed Republican Mike Farmer. Farmer is an intelligent and likable candidate so his loss can be attributed to the lack of organization among the old guard conservative Democrats.
Nominal Democrat Frank Kunz won his own ward (with less than a third of the vote), but also showed that he has little support elsewhere in the city. The biggest impact he can have on the race is to drop out and endorse the only Democrat with a shot at winning.
So what happens in the April 5 general election? First, those who backed the three losing candidates will have to pick someone new. More importantly, additional voters will show up since they'll also be voting for city council candidates.
It will be a different electorate in the general election so there's no guarantee that a familiar name will beat out organization again.
February 20, 2011
Sheila Stocks-Smith to explore Hunter conservation area
Hunter Lake dam is dead. The Corps of Engineers decision that the environmental impact statement is out of date could add years and millions of dollars to the project. Even some of its strongest backers are saying it's time to abandon this decades-old idea.
Opponents have conclusively shown that Springfield's water needs can be met by less expensive alternatives, including conservation programs. The only remaining rationale for the project's existence is that a relatively small number of people will make a mint building it.
Next, the city must decide what to do with the property it purchased for the dam project. Sheila Stocks-Smith became the first mayoral candidate to raise the possibility of selling the land to the state for the creation of a park or preserve. The state has dedicated land acquisition funding for the creation of parks and conservation areas. Selling it for that purpose would create the kind of recreation area that Hunter Mud Puddle wouldn't be.
Most cities and tourist attractions of Springfield's size have a major site for hiking and other outdoor recreation. Turning the land into a state natural area is the kind of quality-of-life improvement that will attract more residents, businesses, and visitors to the area.
Selling the property piecemeal to private buyers would be a wasted opportunity. It's encouraging to see Stocks-Smith show support for a big idea that would have a significant impact on Springfield's future.
Opponents have conclusively shown that Springfield's water needs can be met by less expensive alternatives, including conservation programs. The only remaining rationale for the project's existence is that a relatively small number of people will make a mint building it.
Next, the city must decide what to do with the property it purchased for the dam project. Sheila Stocks-Smith became the first mayoral candidate to raise the possibility of selling the land to the state for the creation of a park or preserve. The state has dedicated land acquisition funding for the creation of parks and conservation areas. Selling it for that purpose would create the kind of recreation area that Hunter Mud Puddle wouldn't be.
Most cities and tourist attractions of Springfield's size have a major site for hiking and other outdoor recreation. Turning the land into a state natural area is the kind of quality-of-life improvement that will attract more residents, businesses, and visitors to the area.
Selling the property piecemeal to private buyers would be a wasted opportunity. It's encouraging to see Stocks-Smith show support for a big idea that would have a significant impact on Springfield's future.
Does anyone know there's an election in Springfield Tuesday?
I'm surprised at how many informed people I've talked to who don't realize there's a runoff election for Springfield mayor coming up this Tuesday (2/22).
Turn out will be low, which usually favors candidates with a better get-out-the-vote operation. Republican Mike Coffey will probably finish first since he's the only candidate with the backing of a major party organization. That result won't necessarily hold true in the general election when more people vote and more political groups pick a candidate.
Turn out will be low, which usually favors candidates with a better get-out-the-vote operation. Republican Mike Coffey will probably finish first since he's the only candidate with the backing of a major party organization. That result won't necessarily hold true in the general election when more people vote and more political groups pick a candidate.
February 10, 2011
The pitfalls of political yard signs
You'd think that something as simple as yard signs wouldn't be a big problem for political campaigns. But, a bad sign strategy is one of the most common mistakes made by rookie candidates and even some seasoned veterans. Here's my free, unsolicited advice to campaigns based on dealing with more political signs than I care to remember.
A common mistake candidates make is buying more signs than their organization can handle. They see that it doesn't cost too much more to get an extra 500 or so signs. Why not order a large number to get more visibility?
But then the signs show up. At some point the candidate or campaign manager has an "oh shit" moment and realizes that they need to place another 700 signs that are sitting in the back room collecting dust.
So they recruit a volunteer to be the sign manager. Then they get a crew of volunteers to place signs all over creation. Maybe you run a phone bank to ask people if they'll put one in their yard. The sign crew goes out every weekend or several times a week putting up new ones and replacing those that disappeared.
Pretty soon you realize that half your volunteer efforts are going toward placing those damn signs. Those are volunteers who could be knocking on doors, making phone calls to undecided voters, or doing something useful. Not good!
Don't buy more signs than you can handle!
Other campaigns have the volunteers and staff to place all the signs they want and go overboard. I see this every year in Springfield, most often from any candidate endorsed by the local Republican organization. Party foot soldiers spam the town with endless signs in front of rental housing, abandoned lots, and public medians.
Springfield mayoral candidate Mike Coffey is the latest example but he's by no means the only offender. One wonders how seriously he'll take city beautification after letting his supporters clutter the town with signs.
Signs do not equal votes! Spamming all creation with illegally placed signs is for crackpots like Scott Lee Cohen and machine-backed candidates. You might gain a few votes but you'll probably lose more.
When I worked for the '04 Kerry campaign in Illinois we had the opposite problem. Every day I heard from angry supporters demanding a sign. We had nothing since Illinois wasn't a swing state. I finally started telling people that their sign was sent to Wisconsin or Missouri where the race was closer. They could buy one online if they wanted it that badly. People understood that in a Presidential race but local candidates can't get away with that excuse.
People expect signs. You'll piss people off if you don't have them. More importantly, political leaders will take a lack of yard signs as a sign (eyes rolling) that a campaign isn't serious.
The trick is finding the porridge that's just right. Buy enough to supply those who want one in their front yard, have a little visibility, and show that you have supporters. That's all you need your signs to accomplish. Putting up an extra 1,000 yard signs never won an election.
And finally, take your signs down after election day! After I ran for county board I had dozens of people commenting and thanking me for going to each house and taking signs away within two days after the election. People will remember it if you ever run again.
No, I'm not going to end my post by linking that damn Tesla song, but here's Bob Dylan littering with signs. Don't do that either.
A common mistake candidates make is buying more signs than their organization can handle. They see that it doesn't cost too much more to get an extra 500 or so signs. Why not order a large number to get more visibility?
But then the signs show up. At some point the candidate or campaign manager has an "oh shit" moment and realizes that they need to place another 700 signs that are sitting in the back room collecting dust.
So they recruit a volunteer to be the sign manager. Then they get a crew of volunteers to place signs all over creation. Maybe you run a phone bank to ask people if they'll put one in their yard. The sign crew goes out every weekend or several times a week putting up new ones and replacing those that disappeared.
Pretty soon you realize that half your volunteer efforts are going toward placing those damn signs. Those are volunteers who could be knocking on doors, making phone calls to undecided voters, or doing something useful. Not good!
Don't buy more signs than you can handle!
Other campaigns have the volunteers and staff to place all the signs they want and go overboard. I see this every year in Springfield, most often from any candidate endorsed by the local Republican organization. Party foot soldiers spam the town with endless signs in front of rental housing, abandoned lots, and public medians.
Springfield mayoral candidate Mike Coffey is the latest example but he's by no means the only offender. One wonders how seriously he'll take city beautification after letting his supporters clutter the town with signs.
Signs do not equal votes! Spamming all creation with illegally placed signs is for crackpots like Scott Lee Cohen and machine-backed candidates. You might gain a few votes but you'll probably lose more.
When I worked for the '04 Kerry campaign in Illinois we had the opposite problem. Every day I heard from angry supporters demanding a sign. We had nothing since Illinois wasn't a swing state. I finally started telling people that their sign was sent to Wisconsin or Missouri where the race was closer. They could buy one online if they wanted it that badly. People understood that in a Presidential race but local candidates can't get away with that excuse.
People expect signs. You'll piss people off if you don't have them. More importantly, political leaders will take a lack of yard signs as a sign (eyes rolling) that a campaign isn't serious.
The trick is finding the porridge that's just right. Buy enough to supply those who want one in their front yard, have a little visibility, and show that you have supporters. That's all you need your signs to accomplish. Putting up an extra 1,000 yard signs never won an election.
And finally, take your signs down after election day! After I ran for county board I had dozens of people commenting and thanking me for going to each house and taking signs away within two days after the election. People will remember it if you ever run again.
No, I'm not going to end my post by linking that damn Tesla song, but here's Bob Dylan littering with signs. Don't do that either.
Bob Dylan - Subterranean Homesick Blues (Official Music Video). Watch more top selected videos about: Bob Dylan
January 31, 2011
Sierra Club endorses Sheila Stocks-Smith for Springfield Mayor
The Sierra Club is working to elect Sheila Stocks-Smith as mayor of Springfield. Here's part of an email sent to members.
Much is at stake for Springfield in the upcoming city election. The candidates we choose will decide whether our city will continue its path as a clean energy leader, promote smart growth policies, conserve our resources, and protect open spaces. It's important that Sierra Club members and environmental allies work to elect a candidate who will support issues we care about. That's why Sangamon Valley Group members engaged in an extensive endorsement process which included a questionnaire and interviews with candidates for mayor.
We're confident that Sheila Stocks-Smith is the best choice for mayor of Springfield. Her endorsement was supported unanimously by the Executive Committees of both the Sierra Club Sangamon Valley Group and the Illinois Chapter.
Sheila's background working on environmental issues sets her apart from other candidates. She promoted environmental education programs in District 186 schools and taught a course on public engagement in environmental issues at the University of Illinois Springfield. She has been involved in the Local Foods Task Force and was an early supporter of making Springfield part of the Cool Cities initiative to reduce global warming pollution. Her efforts have helped to expand recycling programs in both the private and public sector.
As mayor, Sheila Stocks-Smith will be a partner in continuing to protect our environment and promote smart growth policies that are important to Sierra Club members.
You can learn more about Sheila by visiting her campaign website.
Much is at stake for Springfield in the upcoming city election. The candidates we choose will decide whether our city will continue its path as a clean energy leader, promote smart growth policies, conserve our resources, and protect open spaces. It's important that Sierra Club members and environmental allies work to elect a candidate who will support issues we care about. That's why Sangamon Valley Group members engaged in an extensive endorsement process which included a questionnaire and interviews with candidates for mayor.
We're confident that Sheila Stocks-Smith is the best choice for mayor of Springfield. Her endorsement was supported unanimously by the Executive Committees of both the Sierra Club Sangamon Valley Group and the Illinois Chapter.
Sheila's background working on environmental issues sets her apart from other candidates. She promoted environmental education programs in District 186 schools and taught a course on public engagement in environmental issues at the University of Illinois Springfield. She has been involved in the Local Foods Task Force and was an early supporter of making Springfield part of the Cool Cities initiative to reduce global warming pollution. Her efforts have helped to expand recycling programs in both the private and public sector.
As mayor, Sheila Stocks-Smith will be a partner in continuing to protect our environment and promote smart growth policies that are important to Sierra Club members.
You can learn more about Sheila by visiting her campaign website.
March 23, 2010
Is sprawl an economic development policy?
I didn't realize Gail Simpson has an editorial in the current Illinois Times (Springfield's top offline source for environmental news and issues) when I wrote my last post about her speaking at tonight's Sierra Club meeting. It's good so check it out.
Simpson refers to some of the local policies that direct resources away from the city center.
She finishes by writing, "We must, without condemnation, deal with these issues to ensure that this city reflects both its history and its future as a stellar place to live, work and visit."
I would guess she means that we need to move forward without demonizing people who have driven sprawl in the past. That's fine, but it's also important for people to understand that things don't happen at random. One reason sprawl continues against the wishes of most residents is that the planning process is a mystery. When the average person learns the details of a major project it's already described as a "done deal."
It's important to understand that many citizen planning committees are stacked with people who have a financial interest in promoting sprawl. It's important to understand the implications when a Chamber of Commerce representative says they support a new Walmart, despite the damage it does to local businesses, because they support any project at any location it's zoned for.
It's especially important to recognize the implications of handing our economic development policy to a private partnership, which, once again, includes people who have an interest in promoting sprawl. It's disappointing to visit the Q5 website (Springfield's project to attract jobs) and see them focus on selling empty fields on the edge of town to developers. Depending on sprawl to drive economic development is short-sighted at any time, but especially in the current economic slump. Since this isn't an official governmental body, where's their accountability to the public?
I don't know if Simpson will address these specific issues in her presentation to the Sierra Club. But, the first step in changing the way Springfield grows is to bring the discussion out into the open. I applaud Gail Simpson for making that effort.
Simpson refers to some of the local policies that direct resources away from the city center.
The effort to move the city further west has resulted in increased traffic congestion, public transportation access, the deterioration of core central neighborhoods, longer commutes and divisions among those desiring to live within the city and those who prefer the outskirts. Entities whose primary mission revolves around the city’s core residents are opting to move as far away as possible, with the blessing of the mayor and city council. District 186 desires to build a new multimillion-dollar high school that is so far from the center of the city that it comes precariously close to Pleasant Plains boundaries. While economic development is absolutely essential for the continued growth and prosperity of a city, that growth should be balanced, well-planned, beneficial to the great majority of its residents, not contribute to urban decay and should not result in urban sprawl.
She finishes by writing, "We must, without condemnation, deal with these issues to ensure that this city reflects both its history and its future as a stellar place to live, work and visit."
I would guess she means that we need to move forward without demonizing people who have driven sprawl in the past. That's fine, but it's also important for people to understand that things don't happen at random. One reason sprawl continues against the wishes of most residents is that the planning process is a mystery. When the average person learns the details of a major project it's already described as a "done deal."
It's important to understand that many citizen planning committees are stacked with people who have a financial interest in promoting sprawl. It's important to understand the implications when a Chamber of Commerce representative says they support a new Walmart, despite the damage it does to local businesses, because they support any project at any location it's zoned for.
It's especially important to recognize the implications of handing our economic development policy to a private partnership, which, once again, includes people who have an interest in promoting sprawl. It's disappointing to visit the Q5 website (Springfield's project to attract jobs) and see them focus on selling empty fields on the edge of town to developers. Depending on sprawl to drive economic development is short-sighted at any time, but especially in the current economic slump. Since this isn't an official governmental body, where's their accountability to the public?
I don't know if Simpson will address these specific issues in her presentation to the Sierra Club. But, the first step in changing the way Springfield grows is to bring the discussion out into the open. I applaud Gail Simpson for making that effort.
April 7, 2009
Election judging
Low turn-out in my precinct today. Below 10%. What a boring day but at least the other judges were nice. I'll write more tomorrow. If I wanted to get up at 4:30am I would have been a farmer.
March 31, 2009
I voted early
Yesterday I voted early at the county election office. Three boards are up for election in my area, one of which is an uncontested race for Lincoln Land Community College Board.
Four people are running for three positions on the Springfield park board. Apparently, they decided not to ask voters if the board should be elected by districts rather than city-wide.
The SJR editorialized that breaking up the park board into districts would make it difficult for the two parties to recruit enough qualified candidates from each district (I can't provide a link because the SJR online search function is useless). First, it's disappointing that they believe only people recruited by either party should run, but the current system guarantees that will always be the case.
When the board had a position open for appointment last year, well over a dozen people applied and many of them were qualified. Obviously, there's interest in serving, but not much interest in running. One reason is that running effectively in a city-wide election is very expensive and labor intensive. It's hard to get media attention for such a small race and there's not much time to talk with voters after the holidays. It discourages good candidates from running and guarantees that the park board will always be controlled by whichever party is better organized that year.
Smaller district races would encourage more candidates, especially ones who don't depend on either party for support. The current system works very well for party organizations that view units of local government primarily as a source of patronage jobs and contracts. The Republicans who currently run the park board know that they have a better chance of maintaining control if they run city-wide rather than by districts, some of which would have to be majority Democratic.
Speaking of using local government as a source of patronage, both parties had a full slate of candidates for Capital Township. Township government is a bigger payoff both for those who serve on the board and in the amount of money they get to hand out to voters.
Four people are running for three positions on the Springfield park board. Apparently, they decided not to ask voters if the board should be elected by districts rather than city-wide.
The SJR editorialized that breaking up the park board into districts would make it difficult for the two parties to recruit enough qualified candidates from each district (I can't provide a link because the SJR online search function is useless). First, it's disappointing that they believe only people recruited by either party should run, but the current system guarantees that will always be the case.
When the board had a position open for appointment last year, well over a dozen people applied and many of them were qualified. Obviously, there's interest in serving, but not much interest in running. One reason is that running effectively in a city-wide election is very expensive and labor intensive. It's hard to get media attention for such a small race and there's not much time to talk with voters after the holidays. It discourages good candidates from running and guarantees that the park board will always be controlled by whichever party is better organized that year.
Smaller district races would encourage more candidates, especially ones who don't depend on either party for support. The current system works very well for party organizations that view units of local government primarily as a source of patronage jobs and contracts. The Republicans who currently run the park board know that they have a better chance of maintaining control if they run city-wide rather than by districts, some of which would have to be majority Democratic.
Speaking of using local government as a source of patronage, both parties had a full slate of candidates for Capital Township. Township government is a bigger payoff both for those who serve on the board and in the amount of money they get to hand out to voters.
February 7, 2007
I voted today
Early voting in the primary election for Springfield started Monday and lasts until February 22. Grace period voting, which lets you register to vote and vote at the same time, lasts until February 13. The regular primary election day is February 27. For those with no run-off election in their ward (where only two candidates are running), voting day for the general election is April 17.
Today I went the the Clerk's office in the Sangamon County Complex at 200 S. 9th to vote. The Clerk's staff were friendly and helpful, as they always are. It was a good experience except for the parking ticket I got while voting. doh! That's almost as bad as the parking ticket I got for having to wait in line longer than I expected while paying for another parking ticket in the Municipal Building. I always try to plug enough time into my meter but my car seems to be some kind of magnet for parking tickets.
There's still only one location where you can vote early in Springfield. That probably makes sense because this will be a low turn-out primary, but I hope the County Clerk will soon decide to make other locations available for early voting in future elections. Maybe someplace without metered parking.
Today I went the the Clerk's office in the Sangamon County Complex at 200 S. 9th to vote. The Clerk's staff were friendly and helpful, as they always are. It was a good experience except for the parking ticket I got while voting. doh! That's almost as bad as the parking ticket I got for having to wait in line longer than I expected while paying for another parking ticket in the Municipal Building. I always try to plug enough time into my meter but my car seems to be some kind of magnet for parking tickets.
There's still only one location where you can vote early in Springfield. That probably makes sense because this will be a low turn-out primary, but I hope the County Clerk will soon decide to make other locations available for early voting in future elections. Maybe someplace without metered parking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)