It's time to vote again. This coming Tuesday, Nov. 2. There are only two issues on the ballot: The referendum to allow the City to issue $23 million in bonds to fix our sewer system and solve our water pollution problem; and the runoff election between Michael Ingram and Tom Oosterhoudt for the District 1 seat on the City Commission.
Only those registered in District 1 can vote in the City Commission election; but every registered voter can— and should— participate in the sewer referendum.
We strongly recommend that you vote "Yes" on the bond referendum. The need for a new sewer system and advanced wastewater treatment is no longer debatable. Our beaches are closed because the water is being polluted by sewage leaking out of our broken sewer pipes.
With passage of the bond referendum, these problems can be fixed in two years. It's got to be done. Get up and get out to support this issue.
With four candidates originally competing for the District 1 seat on the City Commission, it was not surprising that there now has to be a runoff between the top two vote-getters. Before the election, the "experts" were predicting that former Tourist Development Council (TDC) Chairman Michael Ingram and "neighborhood values" candidate Art Kara would be facing off on Nov. 2.
But that's not the way it turned out. Ingram came in first with 270 votes (36.7 percent), with activist Tom Oosterhoudt close behind with 248 votes (33.7 percent).
Kara came in third with 175 votes (23.8 percent) and Morning Star editor Michael Ritchie came in last with only 43 votes. (5.8 percent).
After the Oct. 5 election, we (and most of the other editorial writers around town) positioned Oosterhoudt as the front runner, even though he had come in a few votes behind Ingram. That's because Oosterhoudt is perceived as a quality-of-life candidate and, rightly or wrongly, Ingram isn't.
And since both Kara and Ritchie ran on quality-of-life platforms, a reasonable assumption is that Ingram has gotten just about all the votes he is going to get; and that most of the Kara and Ritchie voters, looking for a quality-of-life candidate, are more likely to turn to Oosterhoudt rather than Ingram.
Kara has now thrown his support to Oosterhoudt, as has former Mayor Sheila Mullins. Ray Peterson, the popular former police chief here, is also helping Oosterhoudt campaign. You will recall that it was Oosterhoudt that spearheaded the campaign to try to save Peterson's job two years ago.
Michael Ritchie has thrown his support to Ingram— but he may be hurting Ingram's candidacy more than helping by attempting to defame Oosterhoudt in a series of ranting editorials in Morning Star.
The fact that Morning Star has endorsed Ingram is interesting in itself. Before the Oct. 5 election, Morning Star owner Charlie Ramos said that newspaper endorsements insulted the intelligence of the voters and he vowed his paper would no longer make political endorsements.
"You will encounter all kinds of editorial endorsements," Ramos wrote in his weekly column on Sept. 23. "Stop and think, how in the holy hell are you going to subject your thinking to an individual or group of individuals who have a particular personal agenda they want met.
"They peddle their cheap influence by way of editorial endorsements. Not the Morning Star."
Makes you wonder who's running that paper. Apparently, it's not Ramos.
Rightly or wrongly, a candidate is defined, in part, by those who support him or her. That truth was defined in an especially incisive letter-to-the-editor from Bill Rosser that appeared in the Key West Citizen on Oct. 17.
"I'm just a regular citizen," Rosser told us on the telephone. But he was apparently interested enough in finding out who is backing what candidate that he went down to the Supervisor of Elections Office to look at the candidates' financial contributions reports.
"After finishing the run through for each candidate," Rosser wrote, "one couldn't help but have the impression that the power brokers of Key West had put their heads together and decided to place their money on a `slate' of three candidates: Jimmy Weekley, Michael Ingram and Jose Menendez.
"Just a few examples of the power brokers I found there were the city's best-known developers, large businesses involved in construction in all its aspects, the real estate industry, lodging establishments and other businesses that are tourist-dependent, and, of course, lawyers," Rosser wrote.
"The maximum $500 contribution from a power broker is listed often and, in some cases, an equal amount from a spouse, grown children and siblings . . .
"Michael Ingram's total contributions came to $21,312, three times those of Tom Oosterhoudt and four times those of Art Kara . . . (placing) Mr. Oosterhoudt and Mr. Kara at considerable disadvantage here . . .
"Now what to make of all this?" Rosser asked. "Have the power brokers done anything wrong? No, they are simply exercising their first amendment right of free speech. Were the candidates wrong to accept these special interest contributions? No, not at all . . . (but) I do strongly believe that big money contributions by special interest groups result in greater access to elected officials . . . and that these contributions have worked against the best interest of the citizenry . . .
"I don't think power brokers are bad people," Rosser said. "I like and admire many of them. They just want their way at City Hall and some seem determined to have it by whatever means."
The general perception that Ingram is aligned with the "power brokers" is why most longtime election-watchers— even some Ingram supporters— feel that most of the former supporters of Kara will now switch to Oosterhoudt. And we think that most of the 43 souls who voted for Ritchie will also swing over to Oosterhoudt, even though Ritchie is now supporting Ingram. After all, when these people voted for Ritchie, they thought he was a quality-of-life candidate. That was his campaign theme.
You might be interested in what Ritchie really thinks of Ingram? Here's some inside information:
Before the Oct. 5 election, because it would have been awkward for Ritchie to criticize his opponents in the newspaper he edits, he called us here at KWTN and asked for a meeting. At that meeting, he didn't have anything bad to say about Oosterhoudt at all, but he said he was very concerned about Ingram.
"Ingram will have to recuse himself from voting much of the time because his architectural firm is associated with a number of major projects the Commission will be voting on in the near future," Ritchie said, "such as the conversion of City Electric's old steam plant to a shopping-entertainment complex and the City's planned affordable housing complex on the old fairgrounds property"
Then Ritchie slipped us a report on Ingram's voting record when he was a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives back in 1974. The report showed that Ingram voted only 39 percent of the time.
"District 1 needs a Commissioner who will be there to vote!" Ritchie said.
NOTE: Ritchie has publicly whined that one or more private investigators looked into his background while he was a candidate. But he apparently had no qualms in checking out Ingram.
But now that Ritchie has become one of Ingram's loudest cheerleaders, all his venom is directed at Oosterhoudt. He has apparently forgotten his original concerns about Ingram. Go figure. Maybe the stomping he took at the polls affected his memory.
In our endorsements before the Oct. 5 election, KWTN was the only newspaper to endorse Tom Oosterhoudt. We are sticking to that endorsement.
But in making this endorsement, we recognize that Ingram has some strengths that cannot be overlooked. His experience on the TDC and various other local boards would make him harder to hoodwink. And in a recent interview, he told us that he would push for enforcement of existing ordinances before considering the passage of new laws. That's a concept that many City Commissioners just haven't been able to grasp in recent years.
But many quality-of-life advocates don't consider Ingram's link to the TDC a plus. They consider it negative baggage. And there is a lot of concern about his apparent ties to the so-called "power brokers." And his newly-announced position on noise in District 1 is controversial to say the least. See related story on page 1.
And he has the additional burden of Michael Ritchie riding on his shoulders. Question: If you were running for office, who would you rather have on your side— Ritchie or Chief Peterson?
One reason we are supporting Oosterhoudt is that he had the courage to organize that campaign to try to save Peterson's job. The political firing of Peterson was one of the dirtiest chapters in the history of City government here and every citizen should be outraged. We all now know that all those charges against him were bogus. And City officials were forced to admit that as part of the final settlement with Peterson.
If you were a supporter of Chief Peterson, you will probably want to support Tom Oosterhoudt.
We also like Oosterhoudt because we know that he's independent and honest and he's in nobody's pocket. On the other hand, although we are impressed with Ingram's credentials, we continue to be nervous about his considerable baggage and his apparent connections to the would-be king-makers.
We are also troubled by the seemingly-organized effort to destroy and deface Oosterhoudt's campaign signs, while Ingram's signs are left untouched. Don't the dummies who are doing this realize that such a seemingly desperation effort is probably hurting Ingram more than Oosterhoudt?
We probably won't be happy with every vote Oosterhoudt might make as a City Commissioner. But we will know that, before he commits himself, he will do his homework, talk and listen to people representing the various sides of the question and, then, vote his conscience. We will have confidence that his vote won’t be influenced by one or more special interests. He will have no debts to pay. After all, the special interests aren’t supporting him— they’re supporting Ingram.
But regardless of your choice in this election, we urge you to get out and vote. A low turnout could endanger the passage of the sewer referendum. And a low turnout could mean that just a couple of hundred voters could determine who the next District 1 City Commissioner will be.