Opinion: On Westville Dads & The Race For Mayor

>> Justin Elicker deserves kudos for the gracious way he has absorbed these critiques.

Interesting...did he just throw mud at his opponent Shafiq and former campaign manager? If anything, Elicker comes across as thin-skinned and very New Canaan like.

The Westville Dads should keep politics off of their website, it will ruin what the platform was originally for and turn off some members.

That being said, the Westville Moms and Dads, and the East Rock Moms and Dads, are worlds apart with their personal experiences on the issues that West Rock/West Hills, Beaver Hills, Newhallville/Dixwell, The Hill, Dwight/West River, Fair Haven/Fair Haven Heights, Quinnipiac Meadows, Annex, East Shore Moms and Dads face every day.

You might have to leave that listserv now...

New Haven deserves competent leaders at the levers of government --->Agreed
Maybe that means the existing people in these jobs need to be replaced ---> Agreed
But very little about this current field inspires a lot of confidence ---> Disagree

Love the languishing Garrison Keillor pace of this dis. Like a long, peaceful walk in the park at sunset but when you get home, you discover dog $#!+ on your shoes.

New Haven is two cities. If you are economically comfortable, it is a great place to live. If you are struggling, not so much. The new developments in town will accentuate this divide. If you can afford $2,500 in rent per month, you have a lot of new housing opportunities, something which is not true for folks who can’t afford $1,000 per month.

I have two questions for the mayoral candidates. The first is how do we address this divide. I’ve asked Messrs. Brennan and Goldenberg this question and received cogent answers. The second is how do we pay for these initiatives (taxing Yale is not a plausible option).

The leader that can satisfy all the needs of the citizens of an economically and socially diverse community anywhere has not been born and is unlikely to ever cry into the world. With human problems becoming even more intractable, and with human beings becoming more selfish, and unwilling to work for the common welfare, we find ourselves at a crossroads as a fractured society where we no longer try to be loyal to idealistic notions of freedom and Justice for all. We have lost the critical mass of good citizens that ended slavery, bestowed more rights on women, gave handicapped humans greater access to education and public spaces, and in some cases given trans humans some measure of respect, though not nearly enough. We have cowardly politicians and holy men and women who have abandoned the push for the beloved community in a world where the majority of nations reject the idea of democracy. The most we can hope for is an honest, hardworking leader who can build coalitions of diverse problem solvers to tackle fiscal, safety, education, health, and employment challenges that are the foundation of stable societies. There are no messiahs waiting to save us. As Heschel said: “Few are guilty, all are responsible.” I do not know the answers but I believe we have a chance if we summon our rational instincts and work harder at trying to understand causes and propose solutions that offer the greatest good for the greatest number.

As someone who is on the listserv in question, and who is a middle aged Korean guy, it was weird to read this op Ed. The listserv is 99% about tool borrowing, internet outages, and ultimate frisbee. It is really a throwback to Angie’s list / Craigslist. I didn’t read anything of substance in this article. To me, it reads like, “Hey, I’m on this hyper local email list, and it means I think all my neighbors are all white yuppies. They like their neighbor Liam Brennan because he had always been decent and kind. Aren’t they so weirdly insular?” The rest of this op-ed is incrementalism (in the context of “shameful inequality”) vs. leadership change (the critique of which being that new leaders would “learn on the job.”). Is that it? I don’t get it. Let’s have an honest discussion of the candidates and their strengths and not just some faux-folksy piece that is intellectually lazy and simply unfair to a group of people simply trying to borrow ladders and throw around a frisbee.

I can't find a single reason why this was published here. For anyone that is afraid that New Haven voters might elect a person by accident because they find the name familiar somehow, and therefore a swath of the electorate needs mild culture shaming and shooing to a fenced-in area for distraction - that is not necessary. Don't worry.

Stumping for one candidate is normal - to single one out for dunking doesn't seem worthy unless there's some criminal past we need to know about. I am not questioning the writer's preferences, but I didn't learn that much about them. I'm hoping the next one will tell me something about a candidate that I wouldn't know otherwise by reading the articles on NHI.

What I can grasp is that he 1) finds dogpiling on incumbents to be distateful. I agree. 2) He thinks candidates should come fully-formed, and those that aren't should not engage. I disagree.

I think that Justin Elicker learned a lot by running for mayor the first time. Engaging, listening, and taking lumps. I wouldn't take that away from anyone who wanted to be tested in that way. He suffered the same kind of dismissal the writer has provided here, and I imagine this writer would have submitted the same copy at the time. That is why I can't understand the utility of this page. It disproves itself.

The commentariat here can always agree on one thing. We are a one-party town. With that point of comity out of the way, as someone who generally likes that one party, I say without contested primaries we are dead in the water. I'd like to see them half as often, but we need them. They get divisive on their own, but sometimes we learn from that. Coalitions form that we might not expect, arguments get a voice because that party tends to let anyone who qualifies with signatures be heard. When divisions are carved out for us and given a map to the nearest playground - that's not the best we can do.

Yikes. You can’t be serious, Max? You received an email from a neighbor supporting a candidate you don’t support and you decided to throw an entire group of people under the bus. A number of them I would guess, not the white yuppies you describe as pointed out by the other commenter. This reeks of the type of vindictiveness we’ve become familiar with from the man you believe to be so gracious.

Editors - I’d hope you’d never consider publishing an oped that disqualified someone as a worthy candidate because of their underrepresented race, religion or gender. Or because they had rallied support of those underrepresented communities.

This kind of ad hominem commentary, whether made towards those who have historically held power, or those who deserve have more of it, is beneath what I’d hope to find in these pages.

Mike, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect candidates to come fully formed. I have worked in the public policy sphere for nearly 40 years but don't have well-developed views on most issues. All of the candidates have valuable experience. But I don't expect Tom, Liam, or Shafiq to be particularly knowledgeable about public safety, economic development, or housing, respectively as their strengths lie elsewhere. (Justin faces a higher bar given his experience as mayor.)

But I do expect candidates who propose new programs to be able to describe, in general terms, how they will pay for them. Similarly, if they propose policies that would require a change in state law, I would hope they can describe, again in general terms, their strategy for effecting the change.

Kevin - those are two key measures for sure. I get flummoxed when candidates make statements about changes they would make without naming the levers that need to be moved. Sometimes the finances and/or realm of authority goes unidentified and affects how seriously I can take a given statement. The same goes for questions and comments - you usually define scope on yours and that improves the dialogue each time. I appreciate it! (I am not as careful, I admit.) The same goes for commenters I don't always agree with, the ones I make sure to read are better at this and so I can learn from them. This is part of what makes NHI a valuable thing. I am grateful for Paul and those who maintain and contribute.

To the Internet: your comment sounds like rhetoric envy. Your feelings are irrelevant. Evidence rules. You protest too much. Could your comment be projection?

Good to hear from Mike S. His voice is needed. We are a one party town but there is a range of opinions and ideas within that one party. Unfortunately the other party is more interested in suppressing the past, lying about the present, and creating a future that rolls back human rights. The sad way the other party cannibalizes members who dissent is also a cause for concern. Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and the Lincoln Republicans were patriotic even though I disagreed with them on some issues. I never feared that they would overthrow the government. I cannot say the same about many current leaders of the other party. The evidence is crystal clear when we examine how they responded to January 6.