I wrote this as a comment reply to some unfair comments I saw on another post, but I frankly wanted to put my two cents out here.

I’m not affiliated with any of the people running for mayor, but with some of this recent drama I think it might be pertinent to refocus the conversation about what kind of leadership we want at the local level. My comment was in reply to someone who (in my view) was unfairly characterizing commissioner Matlow, and praising Parks instead.

“Frankly while Parks seems like a nice enough man, I’ve heard nothing but platitudes and vaguely coded business-friendly messaging that gives me pause.

What I’ve heard from him indicates to me that he won’t do a damn thing to stop the sprawl or stuff like potential data-centers being built here, and I don’t want someone running the city who seems like he’s not thinking more than two financial quarters ahead. He’s not alone in this, looking at you Mayor Dailey, and city commissioners Williams-Cox, and Richardson.

If we don’t protect our ecosystems and natural resources now we’ll be paying dearly in the coming decades when climate change will be devastating a lot of the world. We’re sitting on top of one of the most bountiful aquifers *on earth*, and to even consider putting it at risk for some short term gain is exactly the kind of decision making that got us in this mess in the first place.

Matlow and Porter have conducted themselves with integrity, and I was tremendously impressed with the two of them at the city commission meeting where the sale of TMH to FSU was discussed. They asked some tough questions, like why the city was selling a 300 million dollar facility to FSU for about 100 million dollars.

They listened to the concerns of their constituency, while Williams-Cox, Richardson, and Mayor Dailey chortled and eye-rolled their way through the entire meeting. I walked away with a lot of respect for both Matlow and Porter, and absolute disdain for the three amigos who apparently don’t give a shit that 200 million bucks that could have helped the community was being left on the table.

Matlow has his issues and frankly does come across as a little robotic sometimes, but I think his heart’s in the right place. Meanwhile Parks was praising the deal while saying nothing of substance about it. I know less about Ausley, but if she’s similarly “business friendly”, I’m not interested in voting for her either. I’m confidently voting for Matlow because I think he’s thinking further ahead and more focused on the constituency of people who are struggling than the other candidates.

This recent drama about the Facebook post seems to be down to a campaign staff member going rogue and frankly acting a bit erratically, I don’t think Matlow would have signed off on it, because it does make his camp look bad.”

I’d love to hear different viewpoints on everyone running, because it feels like 95% of what I’m hearing from all the campaigns is insubstantial, rather than direct and informative. If this is misplaced here I apologize.