Evanston’s Premier Politico Bill Smith Endorses Dinges for Mayor

Submitted by Barnaby Dinges on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 06:52

 

March 27, 2009 on 9:27 pm | In Dinges for Evanston Mayor | No Comments
There are endorsements, and then there are ENDORSEMENTS.  For those who follow Evanston city government, there is no one who knows more and does a better job of covering (and criticizing) Evanston politics than Bill Smith.  Smith is the publisher/editor/reporter/commentator for EvanstonNow, an influential and content-filled web site that covers thw city like a glove.  Bill is smart, skeptical and probing.  He knows more about life and government here than 99% of the people he interviews and writes about.  Running a grass-roots campaign, I haven’t been able to afford to advertize on Bill’s site … but if I had money for ads I’d definitely place them on his pages, because EvanstonNow is by far the best journalism in town.  All this said, I am proud to have Bill Smith’s endorsemnt for Mayor of Evanston because it is the local equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.  You can’t fool Bill, because he digs deep and tells us all how it is.  On behalf of Dinges for Mayor I proudly acept this endorsement … it gives the campaign the momentum fuel we need to keep the Change Train chugging into Evanston Station on April 7th.  Now get out and vote good citizens of Evanston.  Early voting extends through April 2nd at the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue.  Let’s make history happen right here, right now.
You can read the endorsement here >>
http://evanstonnow.com/blog/views/bill-smith/2009-03-27/who-deserves-your-vote

Comments

JunadRizki

Mon, 03/30/2009 - 21:39

Bill Smith is correct - Barnaby is the best chose for Mayor.
 
We do not need the same people and their friends running our city government. 
 
Interestingly the Evanston Review endorsed Liz Tisdahl - Years ago I asked the editor when did he endorse a non incumbent running for office. They always endorse the establishment. Also the Evanston Review seems to thinking taking PAC funds and connections to others not involved in the election is OK. Liz is proud she took the fire fighters money, she clearly does not understand the ethnics issues.
 
Barnaby will bring a fresh prespective to the City.  He has no friends in the local party - thus he will owe No one anything!
 
I am sick of the local pay for play politics in this town - while it is not a bundle of cash handed to some one - there are many other ways to return the favors and cash in on them.
 
We have all seen that on how the council votes on zoning matters.
 
I have seen it going on here for years - so if you do not want  the same - I would suggest you vote for Barnaby Dinges!

Richard Wright

Thu, 04/02/2009 - 21:33

I view Bill Smith's endorsement as a negative.  While Smith runs an often useful website with sometimes useful detailed analyses, he is also viewed by many as running a biased website by not engaging in critical analysis of positions he supports (almost always pro-development), refusing to post comments critical of his positions that note his biases, and allowing anonymous posts that contain scathing personal attacks on those critical of his positions -- including, some evidence indicates, anonymous posts by Smith himself.  A website with integrity and transparency would not allow such anonymous posts.  So Smith's endorsement of Dinges concerns me, especially in light of Dinges's statment, quoted in the March 18 Roundtable (for which Smith once wrote but no longer did once his lack of objectivity became apparent), that he, Dinges, thinks "the tower controversy has taken on a life of its own and believes that 'people have tried to use this issue for political gain.'"  The "tower controversy" is at the core of genuine concerns that many citizens have about the character, economy and politics of Evanston.  Even those, like me, who are not too concerned about the height are concerned about the lack of any significant public benefits (other than those already required by the city code), the lack of adequate required parking (based on parking studies known by the council to be flawed), the lack of office space and workers, the postponement for years of any required construction (and related revenues while the space is now stagnant and emptying), and the apparent willingness of the majority of the current council to vote for whatever a developer wants, in terms written by the developer.