Check out this opening to the article, and see if you can guess who the Star endorsed:
Indianapolis has many strengths. Its Downtown is energetic and growing, cultural amenities are maturing, emerging sectors of the economy such as the life sciences are thriving, the cost of living is low, and the overall quality of life remains attractive.
But challenges to the city's vibrancy are mounting. Crime has shot up in many neighborhoods. Thousands of abandoned houses drag down property values and spoil once-attractive residential areas. Rising taxes make it cheaper for some homeowners to live in suburban communities than the urban core. The city, despite higher tax rates, can't afford to fix crumbling streets and sidewalks.
Funny enough, I moved my family OUT of Indianapolis three years ago, for Fishers. This was before the spike in crime, before the rising taxes. My assessment was that the crime and taxes were too high then. I did not feel that downtown Indy was even as interesting as Cleveland, where I spent my first 34 years. Indy had too little to offer, and posed risks I deemed too great to safe and smart living.
But the Star endorsed the Mayor for re-election. Is this a condemnation of Republican challenger Greg Ballard? Or, is it a demonstration of how worthless the Star endorsements have become to readers- transparent in the desire to pick the winner, so as to have the best possibility of full access to the office holder later?
Certainly, the Star condemned the candidacy of Libertarian Fred Peterson. they couldn't even use the good man's name!
Voters will have three choices for mayor when they go to the polls Nov. 6. One is an experienced incumbent who has struggled at times in his second term but who has a proven ability to complete major tasks that have pushed the city forward. The second is an inexperienced and ill-prepared political newcomer. The third is a Libertarian candidate who has not shown he is a contender for the office. (empahsis supplied)
I already voted on Bart Peterson, in May of 2004. With my feet. Bart Peterson has his priorities completely out of whack. I don't know how anyone couldn't have run successfully against him. Here's the platform: Lower crime (stopping the killings, in particular), lower taxes, better infrastructure, and all else is fluff. Who can really say that things are better in Indy these days, and Bart should be rewarded? With a straight face?
The Star and Bart Peterson can have their filthy crime and poverty magnet called Indianapolis. I never second-guess my judgment that screamed "Flee!"