Courtesy Jason Wright / Appen Newspapers
The smoke has cleared in Milton following an election campaign that seemed as though it could turn into a professional wrestling match at any minute - and there is a new member coming to City Council.
Joe Longoria defeated incumbant Tina D'Aversa by a margin of about 60 to 40 percent Nov. 3, putting an end to the most publicized race of the campaign season. All that press was due to D'Aversa sending Longoria taxpayer funded e-mails urging him to drop out of the race and a subsquent ethics charge against her from former Councilman Neal O'Brien.
Longoria will join in January sitting council members Bill Lusk and Karen Thurman, who were voted in by similar margins.
D'Aversa, Al Trevillyan and Bernard Wolff promoted themselves late in the campaign as a slate, with fellow council members Julie Zahner Bailey and Alan Tart supporting their bids. Lusk and Thurman were supported by Mayor Joe Lockwood, who also backed D'Aversa. Lockwood ran unopposed.
The morning after his win, Longoria said it couldn't be chalked up entirely to D'Aversa's disastrous e-mails and all the bad press that followed.
"Obviously it factored in some," he said. "We won by a pretty good margin, so I don't think you can account for the gap strictly based on ethics issues."
Longoria said instead that "most of Milton is ready to listen to something new."
"I think that hit on a couple a key elements that got people thinking and wondering," he said. "The first is trying to imagine a Milton that isn't making every single decision based on this idea of density of development."
Throughout the campaign, the losing slate promoted their standing as the so-called "protectors" of Milton and accused the others of consorting with developers to bring big business and sewer into the city — a touchy subject that never seems to totally go away, despite it being put to rest last September.
"Real early on, people were thrown into two camps — either you were pro-development through real high density or you weren't," Longoria said. "The real concern has to do with the health of Milton as a city based on our revenue and our ability to grow based on that revenue, our ability to provide services based on that revenue – all while keeping Milton the way that it is today."
Lusk chalked up his win to name recognition and what he deemed "negative" campaigning by Trevillyan. He said the tenor of this year's race was entirely different from when he ran in 2006.
"That all backfired. I think people in this city are sick of negativity, the name calling and slander," he said. "They're just as anxious as we are to move the city forward and cut out this childish, sophomoric behavior."
Thurman said she believes voters wanted someone with experience, a strong point she campaigned on throughout the race in her bid against Wolff. The councilwoman agreed with Lusk, as well, and said she tried to keep things positive in the campaign.
"People understand we need leadership that's reasonable and sees the whole picture," she said. "Leadership that isn't obsessed with just one part [of running a city]."Lusk and Thurman said their next four years will involve implementing the still-in-process comprehensive and transportation master plans and getting Milton a working and expanded parks system — all on a shoestring budget.
"It's not going to be easy," said Thurman. "We've got to be creative."
Longoria agreed, and said he's excited for the "work at hand." That was a sentiment shared by all the winners."We've got to get our teeth into some of the real issues out there," said Lusk.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Tim, can you take the poll down now, it's over please. And the reason Longoria did win was because of the accusations John Fredericks made out of the emails. Amazing how you can't have an editorial printed unless you subscribe, but the week the Beacon ran D'Aversa on the front page, he threw out his newspapers all over Milton for Free. That smells to high heaven!! John Fredericks sure had a H on for D'Aversa. Maybe because of his advances being shut down. The really great thing out of this is that so many people now realize what an idiot John Fredericks is of the Beacon and how his newspaper has no credibility and is that of a tabloid at best. What an epiphany for the public.
Thank you for your points. We are in the process of publishing a story and the new poll will be a part of that.
Please be patient; the new poll should be up before week's end.
Magnolia Media, LLC
770 653 0552
Please get a clue first poster. Tina did not lose because of Fredricks, she lost because she used a city email and the denied it, kept rambling on and on about what "she" had done, split apart from Joe Lockwood and the rest of mainstream citizens, and most importantly jumped in with the slate of canidates with the weak story backed by Julie bailey. Those people drug her down and she made the decision herself, not the Beacon. Julie Bailey tainted her and it showed in the poles as she got the same percentage as Julie's other canidates.
More to the point, and Jason missed the point in his article -she didn't just use her city email to PERSUADE him, she used her city email to BRIBE him as the state statute defines it. And THAT is why she lost, combined with Longoria running a very effective campaign. And I agree - all the Beacon did was publicize what Tina did.
It also appears once again that all that Tina can do is to "shoot the messenger" whether that is O'Brien, Fredericks or someone else. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Tina! Take some responsiblity for your actions!
If you go back and read the paper, they didn't start off ticked off at Tina. It was only after they published that story where she said she didn't know Joe.
Well, to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she didn't "know" him, but when the emails of her bribe came out proving she lied the paper obviously didn't like that too much. The press usually doesn't take well to being lied to.
She should have taken responsibility then. If she had, she'd have been reelected.
Last poster is quite right! The Beacon was slightly anti-Longoria when the election started, tying his running to being a candidate from Crooked Creek.
If Tina had not lied about knowing him, the Beacon would never have found out about the email.
Tina never had the strength of character to find her way out of the mess she created, and then she continued to make mistakes of an equally grave nature - aligning with the ultra-protectionists, opposing the Mayor, threatening respected businessmen, and misrepresenting Longoria's platform.
Her whole campaign painted her as an irrational, desperate candidate of questionable character. And yes, she painted the canvas herself.
If you don't give the newspapers something to report on, they have no story.
Tina provided story after story after story by HER own actions.
Here goes the lynch mob again! There has been no ruling in the ethics case. Give it a rest!
the ethics issue had a negative effect but not enough to do her in all by itself
several posters made very good points like she got the same percentage as the other bailey candidates... that alone sums it up pretty well but here is another
she lost 80-20 in her home district - the people who know her best - where she lives and works - then the overall was 60-40 against
if it was simply ethics the results should have been more similar all around town
the people who know her best obviously didn't want her back and week in an week out of the campaign she kept adding new reasons to reinforce that
she simply ran a very bad campaign but most importantly didn't do anything in three years to warrant a return - according to the voters that is
Why keep blogging about Tina? The voters spoke, she lost, and you still can't stop attacking her. I am amazed at the viciousness that comes forth when her name is mentioned.
Karen's idea of being creative on a shoestring budget is to what exactly, tie half a shoe and fall out of the other one? Can't wait to see her continued plan over the next 4 years in this disaster of an economy and jobless market.
They are attacking Tina for the same reason the far left wing radicals are still attacking Sarah Palin. If they weren't threatened by her, they wouldn't bother to comment or keep attacking. Obvious they are. Tina should write a book, and call it "Going Shootin'in Milton".
Hey, just so you know, I didn't miss the point in any of my articles. Urging someone to drop out of the race is not libel. Calling it a bribe, if not found guilty to that specific charge, is. Just thought I'd clear that up.
Post a Comment