Ramsey Mayor, no surprise of the two remaining, Bob Ramsey and Terri Cleveland, with Terri getting 65% as many votes as Bob. Of all votes cast, Bob had 48.9% of the votes, a clear plurality, almost a majority. How voter turnout handles the choice in the general election is uncertain. Primary turnout is always a low percentage of the numbers of voters showing up in a presidential year in the general election. However, polling only 65% of the support Bob Ramsey showed means Terri Cleveland is the clear under dog. Had the present mayor not declined to seek reelection, I expect that Bob Ramsey would have outpolled him substantially. People do get tired of some patterns.
As an appointee of those who have been calling the shots in Ramsey, Cleveland will have to either separate herself from that pack, or affirm their actions and run based on a continuation of the status quo. She will lose if she keeps her pablum website non-position fluff as all she'll run on. That has, so far, earned her a distant second place.
My feeling, however, is that while Terri Cleveland will have to get off her fence-straddle and take real stances on real issues that we in Ramsey care about, or lose big time in November, we also should intend to do all we can to pin Bob Ramsey down to articulating actual clear positions publicly on issues that are important to us.
For example, to me the main issue continues to be one Ramsey has faced for years, how to handle sewer-water expansion funding (with the kind of arrangement John Peterson reached with the City as, in my view, the best paradigm for ALL further expansion) and non-assessment of existing single family homes if/when forced to hook up, and deferring any assessment until the property owner petitions to subdivide, regardless of change of title. Certainly, if the Peterson arrangement where the developer fronts the expansion expense and the taxpayers do not, was a legal thing to do for Peterson, then clearly there's no illegality or problem in making it the only way for expansion, in Ramsey. There is now a precedent, John Peterson set that precedent, and it is a good one - so that other developers, for example, wanting to connect to the trunk line Peterson paid the by-far substantial part of the cost to lay will have to front their own cash for trunk line extensions to reach their own property, etc. It's a matter of precedent having been set so that from now on it is only a staff accounting matter to adhere to that precedent. Reserves held by Ramsey totaling millions of dollars for sewer-water expenses can be held primarily to provide interim funding for existing single family assessment deferral on forced hookups, if Met Council insists on having a hookup fee flow-through to them up front instead of deferred.
Which major capital spending possibilities are put to referendum and which are not is a very big question also, with an expensive water-works that would benefit developers and growth, but cost present taxpayers a bundle being presently on the planning boards - so candidates should go public - put that to a referendum, or sneak it through council as close to below the radar as possible, as the present bosses in town did, for the City Hall thing. We need commitment publicly on the record from each mayoral candidate that way - with any smoke and mirrors unacceptable no matter who it is that would be blowing the smoke. Growth paid for by those wanting to profit from it is better than growth that is saddled on all the rest of us by taxing, so that the profit-seekers can make a bigger bundle. Any candidate who will not embrace and promise a sound commitment that way is a status quo candidate, not a fiscally responsible one, in my view.
Most importantly, there is your house, if forced into a sewer-water hookup. It should not be immediately assessed, nor assessed if you keep it single family and sell it single family. That should be an abiding homeowner protection and not an easily reversed day-to-day thing.
If you are forced onto sewer-water, and then want to subdivide and sell off a lot, assessment then (but no earlier) is proper. You pay to play the Crabgrass grab for profits game.
If Terri Cleveland would commit to that line of belief publicly, and Bob Ramsey would not, I would shift my support. The issue is that important to me, since the large lot homes we now have in much of Ramsey dating back to growth in the 1970's and 80's is a unique feature Ramsey now has and should not imperil. I feel the same way on open space - we have it now and if we do not move now to preserve it we cannot have it later. It is not like a community center where it can be built now, or it can be built years later. It is a use it or lose it thing with open space preservation and everyone considering it should understand that. And if you want it, you buy it - at a fair price. That's due process, and a constitutional thing. Open space preservation requires funding. And if you want it and value it - wildlife and game habitat preservation for example - you have to lessen spending on other things. It is a key priority issue, nothing less. You cannot as taxpayers be expected to fund everything everyone of the town's politicians, landholders, and developers want - that burden would be too heavy. Voters in their minds should make a choice and then demand that each city office seeker commit, one way or the other, publicly, so we know what we'd get if we vote for one or the other in November.
I understand that by ordinance my ideal deferred sewer-water assessment system is somewhat in place at present; but it needs to be a charter protection - it is that important - and not something as easily altered as an ordinance. How quickly the due-on-sale deferral of assessment status quo was dumped by the present councilmembers when the most recent charter effort was fielded is a clear indication of how easily such mischief (or worse) could be reenacted. Simply put, we need solid protection, and the most solid form is to have a favorable charter provision.
There are other issues on which I would like to see candidates for the general election take positions. We each could probably think of such a range. I think it is up to citizens to force the issues on the candidates that way, where some might rather duck issues and run on personality and a smile, or a luke-warm and empty, "Trust me."
Collectively, we voters should work on that. Now the screed is over. Back to election results.
Ramsey council at large seat, Jeff Wise and Mary Ann Kiefer appear to have survived, with ten votes separating Kiefer and Shryock. Given that, Jeff looks like a shoe-in. Kiefer got 51% as many votes as Wise. Jeff took 43.9% of the votes, again a clear plurality. Kiefer outpolling Shryock was a major surprise to me. I think the party is over on this one. I look for Wise to win the general election by a substantial margin. But again, we should force him to publicly commit, such as on the sewer-water assessment deferral issue, and on the preservation issue. And if Kiefer is indeed the opponent, no recounts come up to reverse that, and she commits and Wise at all waffles, then we should be ready to react properly to that.
Jim Abeler handily defeated Huizenga, see county results, here.
Michele Bachmann, in Anoka County voting, fairly soundly defeated Aubrey Immelman. Per info here, Bachmann took 85.9% of the district-wide GOP primary vote. County-wide Bachmann had 86.6% of the GOP vote, and in Ramsey 82.8%, so Immelman did marginally better in Ramsey. We'd need a statistician to say if these differences are statistically significant. I like to think, however, we in Ramsey are a bit more intelligent than district-wide, which is a bit sharper than the rest of Anoka County. There are personal premises built into that reading, I admit it, as to where intelligence is mirrored in the Bachmann-Immelman choice. Disagree if you want to.
It is now a three-candidate field for Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District; with Bachmann winning her GOP primary, and with Tinklenberg and Anderson each being unopposed in their respective DFL and IP primaries.
There's nothing like that "quality of opposition" factor to make Bob Anderson look much more attractive a choice than otherwise.
It will be Erik Skogquist vs. Phil Rice for City of Anoka mayor. Good luck Erik, for keeping Anoka on a progressive track and from slipping back into its old ways. When you think about it, Morgan Grams did more for progressive government in that city than many others. When the ex-mayor turned his part-time sheriff's job into the "Morgan Grams Taxi Service" while young Grams' codefendant got charged, enough people felt enough outrage, and Bjorn Skogquist had the advantage of timing that way, in becoming mayor. He had merit, and brought new thinking to a place needing it, but still, young Morgan Grams was a help.
There is one last thing I care to report on - comments are open for any individual having more to say about what I have said or left unsaid - and that last thing is the County Commissioner seats. Sivarajah whomped the opposition in District 6. The party's over there, for certain. What she's done has resonated with her district. Becky Fink and Scott Ledoux were about even in District 5, which is a weak showing for Ledoux as a single-term incumbent. In the big one, with more district turnout than the others, 3693 total votes, long-time local mover-shaker and pooh-bah Dan Erhart took 54.4%, and challenger Bjorn Skogquist took 39%. The gap can be closed, goodness and light can prevail, Darth Vader lost in the movies, but it will be pushing a fairly heavy rock up-hill for Bjorn.
This info, campaign contributions can be sent:
Skogquist Campaign Committee
408 Van Buren Street
Anoka, Mn 55303
Becky Fink Campaign Committee
12176 Bluebird Circle
Coon Rapids, MN 55448
[also, see screenshots for further campaign address info]. I don't have specific contribution data for other candidates [i.e., the exact wording for on the check, but putting it as "name-campaign" should suffice for others]. Here's a sampling of screenshots I care to post, and for those to whom it might make a difference, Gene Merriam is Becky Fink's treasurer which explains her having two useful "campaign" addresses. For the screenshots, as always click to enlarge:
_____________
More results info: Minnesota SoS main results page, here. Sixth District [district wide] here. Senate races, here. Nice bar charts.
Please post a comment if I have given any bad links, I did some link-checking, but with this many links it's easy to get some wrong.
NOTE: In giving percentages or other calculated results based on the county's reported raw numbers, if you check my numbers and find them in error, please give us all a correction in a comment. If anyone challenges any numbers I have put in here, I will redo my calculations. I believe I've been error-free, and a few calculations were redone for quality control.
_____________UPDATE_____________
Two things to add. First, from a household discussion, there is some cause to post this link back to Crabgrass about the Skogquist vs. Erhart contest, which discused in context Strib's report that Rhonda Sivarajah encouraged the Skogquist county candidacy. The resounding results Sivarajah showed in her district is proof that once voters try a generally progressive candidate who is also fiscally responsible, they like it. It is cause to suggest a general election repudiation of Erhart in favor of Skogquist, a progressive with fiscal restraint, would yield comparable supportive numbers for Bjorn, once the district voters have a chance to see a performance record on the county commission. It is encouraging that the Sivarajah popularity indicates challenging the Erhart bossmanship way of operating is a generally positive and popular thing, once done.
Second, these are possibly interesting numbers not augering well for the IP, or possibly mirroring only a count of DFL crossover voting in the GOP primary. Jack Shepard, opposing Coleman on the GOP side, had 12,428 votes against Dean Barkley's 6679 votes against his IP rivals. Almost twice as many votes for Shepard. What does that say about Barkley's general election chances? Go figure.
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Thanks to Blueman for pointing this out, convicted wife beater Mark Olson lost his GOP primary race to a woman having no record or spousal abuse. Heidi Olson apparently forgave him, but voters didn't. Way to go, voters.
Now let the DFL win the general for the seat he had and the seat he sought, and all will be good and proper and better than if Kiffmeyer wins that House seat she seeks, the one Olson held (and for which the Kif had no GOP opponent). Keep her retired, House District 16B folks, please, please, please.
And this - apparently Becky Fink has a state DFL endorsement in her race for Anoka County commissioner, see here. That is even though the county commissioner seat is not a partisan race, i.e., Fink and Ladoux were on the same ballot with others, not on a split-by-party ballot.