Left Center Left

City Council rundown: The city election is tomorrow. For those who missed the televised debates, here are the highlights:

Most of the candidates came across fairly well, seeming knowledgeable in their own issue or issues of interest for city politics. With the exception of Roy Owens (see below), Ken Fowler (joke candidate), or Althea Garrison (well meaning, but completely incoherent politically), they would all potentially make some positive contribution to city council.

Michael Flaherty did a fairly good job of deflecting the charges of racist bias that have been hurled his way in the use of Rule 19. He then followed this up with a patronizing endorsement of Arroyo. Even if one were to support Arroyo simply because he is Latino, couldn’t one at least make up some plausible sounding reasons having to do with the man himself?

I had been worried that Roy Owens was one of those stealth candidates that the Christian right likes to put in the running to quietly stack school boards and city councils with creationists and anti-secularists. I was wrong: there’s nothing stealth about this guy. He blamed all of the city school’s faults on the council’s “gay agenda” and answered all questions about the budget with calls for church involvement.

John Tobin blew it when, in addressing the city’s housing problem, he said the council is solving the problem and proceeded to rattle off a bunch of acronym task forces that are chipping ice cubes off the iceberg of a problem. We deserved more from someone who voted against the mayor’s rent stabilization plan.

I know Patricia White has her father’s legacy to defend, but I liked the nuance of her answer to question of neighborhood schools: make a move toward this, but don’t simply return to pre-1970s system.

I highly recommend the Phoenix’s voterÂ’s guide, which is the only place I’ve seen to collect all of the candidates’ positions, and their endorsements. And for what it’s worth, below are the Marxists for Keynes “endorsements”. I have relied on three issues heavily for these. The first, as I’ve discussed on this blog before, is the Rule 19 test. Some councilors (Arroyo, Yancey, Hennigan, sometimes Murphy) want to expand council activity to weigh in on foreign policy and national political issues, whereas Flaherty and the “moderates” want to use the council’s rules to restrict business to city business. This will likely be a mute point, as the council will likely adopt a compromise to allow overturn of the president on majority vote, but I want to support those who are focused on city governance.

Second, I’m looking for some sense that housing is a problem worth addressing in a serious way. It’s tricky: on one hand, candidates should be aware that the problem is fundamentally one of supply and demand and work on the supply side more than the city has been willing; on the other hand, they should not be cowing to real estate interests in knee-jerk opposition to any price control whatsoever.

Finally, the recognition of gay and lesbian couples seems especially important while the Court and legislature are treating the issue like a hot potato. We need a council that will continue to recognize domestic partner benefits and affirm its support of gay marriage in the state. To that end, four candidates come out ahead:

Michael Flaherty: He has been able in his leadership of the council and fending off critics without obstructionist grandstanding of his own. We need more of this.

Patricia White: White has made housing her top issue and seems to have both the particulars and the grander vision in sight. And she is among the forthright supporters of gay civil rights.

Matt O’Malley: As a novice, it remains to be seen what he’s capable of, but his instincts seem right: against rule 19, for measured liberalism, a focus on education and city governance.

Maura Hennigan: I disagree with her stance on Rule 19, and get the feeling that she’s obstructionist at times, but still, she has a great deal of experience in the city (both as a councilor and a teacher ) and seems to back up her progressivism with substance.

The two seious candidates missing from this list are Murphy and Arroyo. Murphy besides siding with the anti-Rule 19′ers, clearly has his eyes set on higher office. We should let him pursue that and elect someone who will be there for the long run. Arroyo is the favorite among progressives, but to my eye his progressivism is a combination of misguided quasi-socialism and faux environmentalism on one hand and grandstanding on issues like the Iraq War and arrested anti-Bush activists in PA on the other. Other than that, there are the council district, where I definitely have my favorites - Mike Ross, Francesca Fordiani, Ego Ezedi, and Paul Scapicchio - that said, I live in only one district so can’t vote for most of these candidates. I’ve reversed my earlier assessment of Fordiani, in part because the Rule 19 seems less pressing an issue than before, and because Fordiani seems more sincere than Tobin in addressing affordable housing.

The Globe reports that the candidates have raised $1M for this race, so donÂ’t let their fundraising be for nothing: get out and vote tomorrow if you’re registered in Boston!