More from Columbia voters about Tuesday's election

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 | 12:26 p.m. CDT; updated 2:21 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Columbia Mayor Darwin Hindman casts his ballot Tuesday afternoon at St. Andrews Lutheran Church. "I was excited to vote for the school bond and propositions, as it is truly important for the city," Hindman said. "But when it comes to the vote for mayor, I missed seeing my name there. It was really a final act before becoming fully aware that my tenure as mayor is truly over."

Don Sewell, 69, retired teacher:

"Don't you think we need (the school bond issue)? Columbia is growing, and we're crowded as it is. Kids are controlling the classrooms."

"I think we need downtown cameras, despite what everyone else says."


Julie Middleton, 60, director at MU Extension:

"I'm most interested in the school bond issue. I believe it is time. We really need all those trailers removed and schools to be repaired. … As for mayor, it's important that we have a good successor to follow Hindman."


Cheryl Heesch, 61, MU professor of biomedical sciences:

"We need good representation, so I'm most interested in the Fourth Ward race. … I think Columbia's schools need, need, need the bond right now."


Rick Crow, retiree:

"For Proposition 1, look at all the nationwide things solved due to cameras. They're not looking to watch you unless you're up to something."


Joyce Schlemper, 69, retiree:

"(Downtown cameras are) important to protect people. I was on the jury to help convict someone seen on camera."

"I'm for the school bond. It's important to have what we need for our kids. My children and grandchildren have gone or do go to school here; and some are teachers."


Greg Mitchell, 48, attorney:

"The mayoral race was the most important issue for me. I based my decision on the need for change in priorities."

"I voted in favor of the downtown cameras. It's going to aid law enforcement on controlling crime in Columbia."


Jason Vaneaton, 38, government consultant:

"The most important issue is the vote on school funding. We are in desperate need of new school facilities. I have children, both in elementary school, and by the time the new school is built, they will be that age."

"It's the first time we've picked a new mayor in a long time. I looked at who's going to be the best to take Columbia forward. It's time for new ideas in Columbia."

"Safety cameras are very important. The more we can do to protect our children downtown the better."


Gary Eaton, 57, retired firefighter:

"The school board vote was the most important to me. I still have one child in school here. I reviewed all the candidates’ positions online and chose accordingly. I did the same thing for the mayoral race."

"For proposition 1, I voted against it for two reasons: One, the cost, and it's kind of a Big Brother factor. Two, disproportion allocation: It delivers a service to a small part of the city and not the rest. I don't think the government should be monitoring us with video."


Bill McKelvey, 37, MU Extension associate:

"The balance on City Council is an issue. There were two to three candidates that were heavily backed by developers, but I felt like it was important to support candidates that support smart planned growth."


Nicole Monnier, 41, assistant professor at MU in German and Russian studies:

"I hope the school bonds issue passes this time. We need the money and its obviously not going to come from the state."


Matt Cavanaugh, 44, landlord:


"I voted no on Proposition 1. It's about priorities. They haven't fixed my sidewalk in at least 20 years, but they're spending money on red-light cameras and surveillance cameras. It's big brother. We don't need cameras downtown. Most businesses need them anyway for their insurance to be valid. The last thing we need is to spend our money on cameras."


Charity Clark, 33, server at Murry's restaurant:

"I wanted to vote against the cameras and for Mr. Sullivan. I don't think the cameras are necessary. We should focus on the preventive, but cameras catch criminals after the fact. I don't think they're a deterrent, either."


Donna Hamilton, 37, small business finance:

"I had mixed feelings about the cameras, but I had no strong objections. I've been debating with some friends, and there's good arguments for both sides. I voted for it because they'll be in a public place where there's no expectation of privacy anyway, but they can be used to identify criminals. But it's a slippery slope."


Gene Kingery, 73, retired:

"I voted against the school bond. I don't want it. They're spending too much money that they don't have. When you spend money you don't have, taxes are going to go up. I was brought up that if you don't have it, you don't spend it."


Scott Ellis, 27, appliance salesman:

"I voted no on the camera thing. It's a waste of money. If you're going to put cameras up somewhere, put them where people won't expect to see them."


Kelly Dreier, 38, preschool teacher:

"I'm a fan of our current mayor and didn't want things to change too much. Some candidates didn't seem to think parks or bikes are important, and I didn't want to support them."


P.B. MacPherson, 57, registered nurse:

"I came out to vote against the camera ordinance. It's an invasion of civil liberties and the development of ‘1984’ in our society. You should be able to walk around wherever you want without being photographed by the police."


Liz Deken, 30, state health alliance director for the American Heart Association:

"There were too many people running (for mayor). I'm wondering why Hindman didn't endorse any candidate. The campaign was heavily unbalanced. I saw stuff for McDavid everywhere. For instance, I don't think I saw a single thing for Paul Love at all. I voted for Sid Sullivan because the other candidates have been about changing things, but I disagree. Sid Sullivan supports the priorities the way we have them: good schools, safe recreational areas and a strong sense of community."


Rebecca Jacobs-Pollez, 54, MU doctoral student in medieval European history:

"I'm not really fond of the idea of cameras. I just don't think they're needed."


Jane Ebben, 54, senior equine technician:

“I feel strongly about who I want for mayor, and I want downtown cameras. I know if my kid was hurt, I’d want them to be there.”


Christina Mattson, 31, day habilitation supervisor:

“I wanted to vote for my councilman, mayor and propositions 1 and 2.”


Larry Schuster, 53, sales and former councilman:

“Let’s get rid of the chicken people.”


Dan Murphy, 53, teacher:

“I like Skala’s positions. I like his position on cameras downtown, that they aren’t necessary.”


David Tipton, 44, personal assistant at Woodhaven:

“For mayor, I’d like to see a balanced approach. Someone making sure it’s not too business friendly and we stay green friendly, too.”


Michael Ugarte, 61, professor:

“I voted for Sid Sullivan because I’m concerned Bob McDavid will be a mayor who will listen and support developers, but we need to keep the quality of life in Columbia with trails and park systems.”

Larry Bauer, 69, model and MU wood shop worker:

“There was so much campaigning going on in my neighborhood that it got my attention and caused me to vote in a local election.”


Jean Basley, 51, Third Ward resident:

“I’m interested in the mayor’s race. Finally glad to have a change. Someone who’s interested in something besides parks and bicycles.”


Anthony Pavlicek, 25, MU doctoral student in philosophy:

“I’m interested in voting for Sal Nuccio. I thought he had some good points.”


Russ Still, 63, lawyer and treasurer for Gary Kespohl’s council campaign:

“I wanted to vote for the school bond issue and the City Council race. I always vote, and I never miss.”


Tyler Woodcock, 30, teaching assistant:

“I live downtown, so Proposition 1 is pertinent to me. There are some cameras downtown already, so I don’t know if that’s the best option. I also heard Skala supported the chicken ordinance, and I like that.”


David Babel, 72, Realtor and developer:

“I think it’s an important election this year with the new mayor and City Council. I supported Proposition 1 and the school bond issue.”


Christopher Foote, 39, biologist:

“I wanted to vote for Karl Skala. I kind of like his smart growth philosophy.”


David Pickering, 62, territory manager (chemical manufacturing):

“I think there was a lot of negativity in one of the campaigns. Some of the ads were comical, and I think an election should be more serious.”


Dortha Eubanks, 81, secretary:

“I voted based on solving the crime problem and what they’re going to do about it.”


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Frank Shore April 6, 2010 | 5:18 p.m.

I'd be interested in knowing just what all of these people concerned about privacy are doing that they don't want caught on the cameras... They may act as a deterrent, which would be great. However, what everyone who objects to them seems to be dismissing is that five of those seven thugs would never have been caught if there hadn't been any cameras. They keep saying there is no crime in the downtown area, but obviously that isn't true.

(Report Comment)
Carl Kabler April 6, 2010 | 11:27 p.m.

Frank, the first place we need to have a 24/7 camera is right out front of your house to monitor what happens on your street, there could be some crime happening there that we don't know about, I mean how can we be sure. In fact perhaps we need to actually monitor what is happening inside your house, you could be planning some nefarious deed,perhaps cheating on your taxes, stuffing some explosives in your underware maybe or thinking that some how you can escape the mandated health care tax. I mean, how can we know for sure???

Shouldn't we know exactly where you are at any given time, who you've beeen seeing, what you've beeen spending your money on, what political thoughts you have if any, I mean c'mon you could be a 'terrorist' for all we know. I mean, really how can we be sure, and how can we ever feel truly safe if we don't know for sure??? C'mon Frank it's for your own good and the good of the collective, you want to be a team player now don't you. We'll have the installers over tommorrow to hook up your bedroom cameras, and by the way we have this new Verichip that's works so well in farm animals to keep them 'safe' we'd like you and your family to volunteer and help us with the safety testing. Whatdaya say citizen, can you help us here, it's for the good of the Collective after all. Be a sport, we'd really appreciate that.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 6, 2010 | 11:51 p.m.

Frank, if the cameras are so great, why haven't the other two attackers been arrested? I don't buy into the privacy aspects against Prop 1, but I don't think they increase safety from the studies I have seen and the fiscal cost should be born by the businesses in the downtown. Also bear in mind that over 90% of the assaults in Columbia didn't occur there, so why is downtown being given a sweet government handout?

(Report Comment)
Carl Kabler April 7, 2010 | 7:45 a.m.

Don't worry John, there's plenty of tax money still setting around unused in tens of thousands of Columbia citizens *private* (ooops, a politically *incorrect* word these days I know) bank accounts to help pay for the 1000's of new cameras we'll need to cover the other 90% of unsurveilled parts of the area. What are we waiting for??? Let's roll!

I mean why stop now with downtown, the skies the limit here right, shouldn't we just put these things up everywhere, like perhaps Chicago (works great there to stop crime right?), or maybe we could try and top the U.K., they have 1 for every 4 people, we shouldn't let them get ahead like that should we?

Funny thing I noticed though about the new U.K. TOTAL surveillance Society,it's really not Total at all, seems like citizens are being watched 24/7 but for some strange reason it doesn't seem to apply to cops,in fact the U.K. is making it a 'crime' to take pictures of police, no kidding, who would have thought???

Shouldn't police be surveilled 24/7 too, I mean how can we know for sure if they have 'Rodney King intentions' or not, or perhaps they want to use their night stick as a rectal probe as in the case of Mr. Diallo in his New York cell.

With brutal crimes like this we NEED to have much better surveillance all around, if one Columbia parking garage crime leads to cameras here, I would think these crimes by police also need the same 'solution', wouldn't that be only fair and prudent???

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.