This year, in state and national level elections, we see that many fundamental rights – and democratic institutions – are on the line. The stakes are very high. As a swing state, we know that every vote counts and it is critically important that everyone participate in this crucial election.
Our local community is now being inundated with fear mongering rhetoric, leaning hard into the political divisions that make many of us anxious about elections at the national level. This rhetoric is, ironically, used to bolster opposition to genuinely progressive values at the local level. Elected leaders have every incentive to preserve the current system that put them in positions of power: low turnout elections flooded with enough money to deter any opposition. Their talking points are both disingenuous and hypocritical, based on their own associations and policy choices
“BUT… REPUBLICANS!”
In the almost six years I have been blogging about our local political issues, including the four years I served on City Council as a representative for Ward 4, I have told people repeatedly: the policy decided at this local level is not fundamentally partisan. Like just about everyone I know in Ann Arbor, I am a proud Democrat. As an elected representative, I recognized my obligation to hear the concerns of everyone in Ward 4.
The current elected City Council agrees that non-Democrats should have a voice in our local government. How do we know? One of their largest campaign donors – and frequent petitioner for ordinance and zoning changes – ran for City Council as a Republican. This campaign donor’s business, Oxford Companies, owns and manages the largest portfolio of commercial properties in the City. In 2020, the Mayor appointed an executive employee of Oxford Companies to the City Planning Commission (he now serves as chair). To understand more, see the video below:
There is room for much collaboration and cooperation among local residents who might otherwise disagree on national, partisan policy. Our democracy is stronger when more voters participate in assessing the qualifications and positions of candidates. Those qualifications and positions matter much more than party affiliation.
“FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY”
In this year’s City elections, four of the five wards had no choice in local representatives. The two previous election cycles exploded with money— successful candidates leveraged big money from special interests and other networks of wealth (both in and out of the City). This money quadrupled the cost of a competitive campaign for City Council and served as a warning to any potential challenger: the new price of admission for a City Council seat is $40,000. In 2024, four out of five incumbents were uncontested.
Current elected City leaders recognize that money is a key advantage in elections. They do not oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to promote political candidates. How do we know? This spring, when petitions began circulating for campaign finance reform, City Council approved a last minute budget amendment allocating taxpayer dollars to promote themselves. Moving forward, City taxpayers will fund $100,000 in mailers every year to advertise City Council incumbents.
See Budget Amendment 5: Amendment to Appropriate $100,000 to the FY 2025 General Fund Budget for Equitable Communications to the Community
https://a2gov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12989820&GUID=E852D356-0EA3-40DB-8771-34AB888794E6
Over a four year term, incumbent Council Members will have leveraged $400,000 in taxpayer funds to promote themselves to the community ahead of re-election campaigns.
MORE VOTERS, LESS MONEY
Local policy difference in Ann Arbor does not fit into partisan divisions. However, residents despair over City policy that seems to meet the needs of profit interests over community interests. For years now, residents have noted that decisive elections in low turnout August primaries make no sense.
This year, our community has the opportunity to consider what democracy means:
- Do we believe that a representative democracy should engage and include more people?
- Do we believe that elections should be bought and owned by people with access to wealth?
For the last five months, I have been collaborating with a group of leftist Democratic activists who believe that in choosing City leaders, we must address the problem of low turnout elections that are overwhelmed with money. Supporters of Proposal C and Proposal D believe in a democracy that includes more voters and is accessible to regular people, not just those connected to wealth and special interests. Props C and D on the November ballot are supported by thousands of local residents who hold progressive values about how an inclusive democracy should work. Diversity is more than just what people look like— there is no diversity when a common network of wealth and special interests own every single seat.
If you share these progressive values – including more voters in our elections and making them less vulnerable to big money – you should vote YES on Prop C & Prop D.