Hartke beats Wallace in race for Chandler City Council

5 comments:

• chick posted at 1:10 am on Wed, Nov 3, 2010.

  Posts: 126

  good. Donna had her chance.

  • Link

   

• GetAGripEVTrib posted at 7:40 am on Wed, Nov 3, 2010.

  Posts: 41

  I agree; in fact, Kevin had his chance, too. The difference that put Mr. Hartke back in office? Kevin carried himself with humility, thoughtfulness, and class. He didn't grandstand, he didn't try to steamroll anybody who dared to disagree with his expressed opinion, and he treated people with respect and dignity. Thank you, Chandler voters, for paying attention.

  • Link

   

• factsplease posted at 12:43 pm on Thu, Nov 4, 2010.

  Posts: 1

  Was so glad I voted for Kevin Hartke when I saw HIM taking down his campaign signs at Dobson and Germann this morning. That is evidence of a true public servant; not an entitled egotistical politician!

  Chandler has an awesome city government!

  • Link

   

• Logic101 posted at 6:02 pm on Thu, Nov 4, 2010.

  Posts: 1

  I've witnessed the same observations as GetaGrip. Wallace may have snowed some voters with her claim about pursuing a salary reduction for Council members. But other voters thankfully remember her for what she truly is-- a manipulative, power hungry, egocentric individual who cares more about hearing herself talk than discussing relevant issues. She would have destroyed all hope for collective, rational problem solving by targeting all those who disagreed with her or offended her in some way. NOT a rational person, and she has no business in a position of authority. Never again, Wallace!

  • Link

   

• Dale Whiting posted at 7:04 pm on Thu, Nov 4, 2010.

  Posts: 3705

  Wallace voted without expressing any heart or compassion for those petitioning government. On one occasion when an occupancy permit was being sought, even though the City Staff fully supported and recommended it be issued, and even though all objections were soundly refuted, Wallace lead the council in turning the permit down.

  This issue was permitting a couple dedicated to providing "in home care" to elderly housed in their brand new and extra spacious, custom built home, the couple needing a few more than the ordinary limit of six unrelated pesons to occupy to make a go of it financially. Her reasoning? "My mother lives in a large nursing home far away in the East Valley. If such a facility is good enough for her, we do not need to have smaller facilities run by a close knit and loving family here in Chandler."

  Truth is, such homes dot our neighborhoods. The only thing different here was that the couple was planning to live in the same home and not next door as most other facilities manage things.

  The limited occupancy permit issued, The house filled. The couple had to sacrifice to make ends meet with fewer customers. BIg Government won. The people lost. Good riddence Donna.

  • Link