I’d like to know what specific measures or directions each candidate wants the City Council to pursue (it’s not on candidates’ web sites), and how each candidate’s stated plans and goals differ from the others (which I had incorrectly expected to learn from news coverage).

This particular profile suggests that Ms. Lamnin woud like to emphasize communication, engagement, listening, and building collaboration. Perhaps it’s important that she’s emphasizing those aspects of city governance, but I don’t perceive any reason to believe that she is more likely to build consensus nor to resolve issues than other candidates.

Likewise, I expect that all candidates are concerned about the economic downturn, including job losses and vacant businesses downtown, and I don’t perceive any reason I might expect one candidate (versus another) to help lead the city to resolve these issues.

These “profiles” all seem to regurgitate platitudes. What would Ms. Lamnin do that other candidates would not? What would another candidate do that Ms. Lamnin would not? Surely they all would assert that they want to listen and engage the community.

In fairness, I think there are some specific items in some of the profiles that probably do represent critical differences (for example, one candidate’s ludicrous proposal to install toll booths on Foothill Blvd.) which would likely not be supported by other candidates.

Thus far, based on the limited information I’ve had about the candidates, I’m certainly inclined against the first two candidates profiled, and hold some weak optimism that the third and fourth candidates might be worthy of my vote, but I absolutely don’t feel that my local newspaper has helped me much to learn about anything meaningful or substantive about these candidates.