Update: A little fact-checking never hurts.
A few updates to my crib sheet for voters (yesterday) with respect to this Sylvania City Council election are in order.

I wrote yesterday in support of voting for challenger candidates Borell, Flynn, and Haynam; I would tentatively extend that to support for voting for challenger candidate Mark Luetke as well.

It turns out that Patrick Kriner is not standing for re-election to Council this year, so four positions need to be filled. Mr Kriner will be missed, and this means that only two friendly voices amenable to limited government will be returning next year: Sears and Backus. Also returning is Milner, a proponent of the eminent domain proceedings.

So there are four other seats to fill on council, and seven names on the ballot. Those seven names include three incumbents: Billis, Haddad, Scheibel, all members of the Gang of Four who rammed this whole eminent domain thing through an often divided council. The only way to boot all three of them from office, which would be the best outcome, is to elect all four of the challengersin their places.

I discussed the first three challenger candidates yesterday, and the reason why supporting changes to Council itself are so important.

Mr Luetke seems to have adopted an approach to this eminent domain question from the Kofi Annan school of thought. His position, as summarized by the Toledo Blade, is that "both sides of the dispute should have been able to work out a solution to the Lathrop House problem. He said anytime a new personality is involved, the dynamic changes, and he would advocate for areas of compromise. He said he would look for that solution as a member of council." So, whatever the solution eventually is seems less important than that it be a negotiated solution. If he's willing to work constructively toward compromise--and as I've written, a compromise seems quite naturally available--he'd be an improvement over any of the three incumbents on the ballot.

Mr Luetke's main angle is a promise to improve Council's responsiveness to citizen concerns. In fact, on his campaign literature he provides his home phone number and email address, and promises to respond to all calls within eight hours. I'll email him for a clarification of his position on Lathrop House, and post here either a summary (or, with his permission, the full text) of whatever reply I get.

Now for one fact correction. In my original article on this subject, I cited a newsletter paid for by public funds to advocate support for Council's actions. I incorrectly stated that the cost for that newsletter had been $15,000; that amount refers to a second newsletter, prepared by the City and being mailed this week; the original newsletter I linked to cost $6,300. My apologies for the misstatement.

I understand that in a recent lawsuit a citizen argued that the use of public funds for such advocacy was illegal, and the court agreed. As a consequence the second newsletter from the City will supposedly be equally balanced and educational, not advocational. I'll post a few thoughts on it when I receive it, once I have the chance to see whether they have operated within the confines of simple educational motives. I'm not especially optimistic on this point.

JKS.