Voter forum looks at both sides of moving to ward system in city









Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend
By Adam Curtis
Herald/Review

SIERRA VISTA — A small group of local residents and a few elected officials gathered to learn more about the possible effects of moving to a ward system in Sierra Vista during a meeting of the League of Women Voters of Cochise County on Thursday.




Related Terms:



Iconoclast on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 16:18
Title: Why?

Carolyn Edwards is looking for a problem where none exists. Military people
come here to serve at the Fort but keep their home district voting
registration. What’s the rub? They can vote IF THEY WANT; many don’t want to
because they are only passing through. So be it. I was surpised (when I was
getting signatures for the petition), how many people who live in Sierra
Vista but are not registered here to vote. But, that’s their choice; what’s
the problem? If they want to vote, they may! I think of them as “transients”
and and I won’t miss their vote because their heads aren’t here.

Iconoclast on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 14:23

A small group? I understand from attendees that about 55 people showed for
this forum which is far better than the turnout for candidates in 2008 when
only a few people attended including Republican candidates. When the
Republican candidates were asked why they were (universally, by the way)
absent from the LWV forums, they all (all!) responded “well, this is a
Democratic group”. Ah, poor babies, they can’t attend anything where
questions might be awkward? Hog wash. The LWV is a NON-PARTISAN group which
may have been high-jacked here, but they are the primary forum elsewhere
where all candidates appear. The only way this group will be made to change
is to demand attendance from all candidates and a positive, fair environment
for all candidates regardless of their party. Jeesh. Too fragile to appear
with Democrats? Then get out of politics.

petersjm on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 11:49
Title: Ward system

I think it’s a great idea. It would get rid of the city council we have in
place now. I believe a staggered election would work after the first
elections took place so we don’t have none of the old city council members
tainting the new system/program to make it fail. Their staggered system only
allows 2 seats to be replaced at any given election so they still carry the
necessary amount of old cronies to pass or block on future decisions. This
way they can say it failed and get the system changed back to the old way.
Super Wal Mart took 3 extra years to come here because the city council voted
it down, so they built in Douglas then Benson before approving it here. They
also made a big deal out of Red Lobster’s size of their sign, so they didn’t
come to Sierra Vista no instead we get Applebee’s. Great job city council!
These are just to name a few events if you do a little research you’ll find.

Iconoclast on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 09:14

Former mayor Hessler’s so-called reasoning is typical of his generation and
background. He provides no explanation or reason, he just gives his
conclusion for continuing the at-large system for electing council members.
And his comment that he’s never seen a council vote based on where the
council lives is very revealing because he doesn’t seem to understand that
only one point of view, from someone who lives one life-style (homeowner,
relatively well-off financially and retired from the military) is represented
on this council. I’m hopeful that the Fort is downsized and the economy
becomes more diversified but until then, we’ll have wards where the “others”
in town can have a representative on this council. The future is not the
past. Get used to it old-timers. In the meantime, Mr. Hessler’s assumption
that the city has been well governed needs to be challenged.