I have already voted absentee, for Sibilski.
If either of them makes it to the final two going into November that is how I would vote, it's a no-brainer choice unless both advance. If that happens, I again would wait a bit and likely make the same decision.
To inform yourselves, Anoka County Union, online here, gives candidate prepared information. I would have trouble supporting anyone I think might add to the prevailing bloc on council, my thought being that diverse voices give better service. Any candidate appearing to have had and enjoyed the Ramsey Town Center koolaid, and gone back for seconds or thirds, is disfavored by me, as flawed. In particular, Backous, states:
What is the greatest municipal concern in Ramsey?
Backous: The greatest concern is obviously the development formerly known as “Town Center.” We must remain positive and optimistic as we continue to re-brand, market and develop that area. The current council has done an excellent job at building the framework for a success in that area and I believe it is just around the corner.
He sells insurance and appears to know how to suck up.
Compare, Greb:
I have a long track record of helping others and taking their needs into consideration before making my decisions. I do not believe in backroom politics or barnyard engineering practices which have been all too common in the city of Ramsey. I want to be the voice of all residents. I would rather see a reduction in wasteful city spending, preferring to see property taxes reduced in an already recessed economy and to have all public works meetings recorded to allow for proper documentation of information presented at council meetings, instead of just the councilmembers’ personal interpretations, which are self-indulgent.
Compare, Sibilski:
I hope that we can again find a diverse group of persons that can volunteer their time to help the city by participating on boards and be able to give opinions that may or may not be what the council wants to here. [...] I believe that one of the greatest concerns for Ramsey is to determine how to develop the Highway 10 corridor along with the town center area. The city needs to again get input from the residents and businesses to determine priorities such as ways to attract new businesses, what type of businesses, improvements in transportation and ensuring that the infrastructure is in place for this development. The city needs to work with the county and state to develop these plans and to work together to find the funding going forward. In addition, we need to be looking at the rest of the city as far as development to determine how fast we want to grow to ensure that we develop in an intelligent way that the residents would like to see and that preserves the suburban/rural feel of the city that makes this a unique place to live.
I don't see Sibilski or Greb sucking up. Hardly. Each would be an independent voice on council.
I just don't like suck-ups. Ones who push to close public roads to encourage children in the habit of playing in the streets are worse. As part of the public I use public roads. That is what they are for. The city plows and maintains them. That consumes taxpayer money. They are not maintained by those having homes on them, as would be the case with a private road.
Public roads are not private playgrounds for children. They are roads for automobiles. The children in the Backous neighborhood have walkable parks within reach. Their parents have yards.
What's next? Tell the kids at Ramsey Town Center to go play on the rail tracks? That's what they are for? A playground?
Beyond that, we already have had a Town Center pom-pom squad, the Elvig Town Center Task Force where Alena Hunter in one set of minutes is quoted as saying we need to "market" things to the citizens of Ramsey. There has been so very, very much tiring propaganda about that failure before and currently, (read some of the Landform stuff), that refreshing and outspoken pragmatists who will call a spade a spade are needed.
Kiss the Blarney Stone if you choose. Somebody might vote for that.
Reeder is an interesting new choice. He is aware of the importance of broadband in setting a future that looks at alternatives to moving people to and from distant job sites, all at the same rush hour time. He sees twenty-first century technological capabilities as proper, for the twenty-first century.
Sibilski is an engineer. He doubtlessly would agree with Reeder.
Cleveland has become more explicit than in past elections, and I view that as a positive step.
Again, read what the paper has published. It is candidate prepared, in advance. That is important because with that format none of the bunch can say they were misquoted or lacked the opportunity to go beyond empty platitudes or overworked cliche.
___________UPDATE__________
Cleveland expresses displeasure over junketing to Las Vegas. With limited word count, I expect she would question it happening in hard times, financially, for everybody, and when the market is so depressed the likelihood of any return on that investment is minuscule.
Similarly, I would hope that next time I visit her website, if she is one going on to the general election, that she would address in particular how all the HRA operations are handled, untelevised meetings, incomplete agendas [attachments omitted in online items], meetings where part of the council was kept in the dark on a consultancy that was not an advanced-notice agenda item and over time has become a drain of well over $50,000 but never done with any RFP or bidding, and the Jungbauer pond scheme situation.
Plus, council work sessions and finance committee meetings are still untelevised, the finance committee being where spending gets a hashing. All but formal council sessions, planning, and parks, are also blacked out for no discernible good reason. I bet televising all that would cost less than a junket to Vegas, or a fee for "COR rebranding" nonsense and waste.
But that is a decision for Cleveland, how explicit she wishes to be and how much "trust me" she feels comfortable putting into the balance; if she is in the top two primary vote-getters.
Specificity has always seemed best to me.