The Avenues need to be represented by a new person that shares the values and principles of this great neighborhood. Janneke’s educational background would help tremendously the City Council workload.

Yes, indeed, equality for all!
You have our family vote!

How refreshing to have a true New Urbanist running for City Council in District 3. For those who are not aware of what New Urbanism is - it promotes the creation and restoration of compact, walkable, mixed-use cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

Not only is Janneke willing to look at new ways of planning for this community, she is also willing to take a stand and support issues like - health benefits for gay and straight couples in long term domestic relationships.

Let’s not forget being a City council person is to represent the entire community,
Janneke will!

Now the hard part – Get out and VOTE!!!!!!
Jan

Tonight Janneke spoke at the Fairpark community council meeting. This community council is interesting because following the last redistricting it now falls under three different city council districts. Most of it is in district 1. However, about a block and a half near the 6th North freeway overpass and a small area near North Temple are in district 3. Therefore Janneke and Eric were invited to speak at the meeting alongside Carlton Christensen and Leslie Benns.

Janneke did extremely well in my opinion. The issues that Fairpark community council are concerned with are predominantly district 1 issues. Obviously not issues that have been the focus of Janneke's campaign. Yet Janneke's urban planning expertise provided her with the ability to address the community's concerns over the Fair park and revitalization of North Temple. In fact, she was able to refer to specific redevelopment plans for these areas that she has worked on in the past.

On the subject of the non-partisan nature of the race. There is a funny story that occured at the meeting. There were two ladies sitting behind me chatting the entire meeting. Near the end of the meeting when Eric was answering a question concerning distribution of capital Improvement money one of the ladies leaned over and asked me "who is this guy, Carlton's spokesman or something?" I find it ironic that if the position of city council person is really so non-partisan then why would someone who is unfamiliar with the candidate's identity or political affiliation assume that he is affiliated with the other Republican candidate in the room?

Ultimately this entire community council district probably has less than 100 registered voters in district 3 and they are a vote by mail precinct. Yet Janneke took the time to attend the meeting and speak to the concerns that this community had. I think it was a good use of her time and after the meeting several people expressed their regret that she is not running in district 1 where they can vote for her. I think this bodes well for her ability to lead and engage people city wide.

I have noticed that when Janneke is in a debate or addressing an issue she is usually short and to the point. She demonstrates a knowledge of the issue but doesn't feel a need to go into elaborate detail. Honestly I like this approach. There is no way that a person can really fully answer an issue based question in 90 seconds. I like that she shows that she is aware of the issue and has some thoughts on it that she is willing to elaborate upon in a less structured and moderated forum. Basically, she succinctly shows that she knows the issue and says her position on it.

Eric, however, does include a great number of details. But, all his details are about the current state of affairs on the issues or the process it has gone through.

My opinion is that he better know this stuff. He IS the current city councilman. It is his job to be dealing with these issues on a daily basis. Showing that he knows the issues should only be the FIRST step. He should be telling the voters how he plans on solving the problems. He can talk all he wants about the endless meetings and the repetitive studies that have taken place. What his message is missing is any references to a vision for the future. I don't think the constituents need to know the minute details of the process that went into getting the stop light on 3rd North, finally. They need to know about getting one on 5th North and if process is going to take 8 years as well. I don't think that his ability to report on the meetings he has attended adequately demonstrates his position on the issues.

Janneke clearly states that she is an urban planner who is qualified and has the experience necessary to manage future growth. Eric says, "let me tell you how hard it was to get A, B, C or D done." I prefer a candidate who is looking ahead and has a vision for the future.

I am a new urbanist, which means I advocate for smart growth and livable communities.

Below is a quick list of what new urbanism is all about:

• Walkable-
  Optimal size of the neighborhood from center to edge is a quarter mile – for most, a quarter mile is a 5 min. walk. Most daily needs should be in this quarter mile, not just homes but recreational areas, schools, places of worship, stores, and jobs.

• The streets should feel like shared places.
• Windows and doors should face the sidewalk - this creates interesting places for people to meet. It also creates a sense of safety.
• There should be many housing choices-
  - Single family detached with a yard
  - Apartments above stores
  - Condos
  These choices are for all different income levels.

• Density
  Reducing the need for expensive infrastructure and maintenance as well as greater protection of green space and farmland.

*Monster Homes:

The current City Council member representing District 3 has failed to take effective measures to protect our neighborhoods against Monster Homes and giant, out-of-scale garages. As a result, some of our neighborhoods have been negatively altered in ways that may never be remedied. I will work collaboratively with the administration to put in place, as quickly as possible, ordinance changes that will stop the construction of these out-of-scale structures. The changes should include height restrictions, set-back requirements, and proportionality requirements. Compatibility reviews should be required as soon as they can be put in place.

*Downtown Redevelopment:

The city should work closely with the LDS Church to make certain the projects are well integrated into the rest of the community. The projects should be designed in a manner that will promote more pedestrian traffic throughout the entire downtown area. Also, the city should advocate for the projects to be LEED certified, in order that they will be energy-efficient and highly sustainable, both economically and environmentally. The Council should urge far greater public disclosure about plans for the projects than has been the case at this point.

*Skybridge above Main Street to link ZCMI Center and Crossroads Plaza:

I oppose a skybridge above Main Street linking the ZCMI and Crossroads Plaza malls. Several downtown plans adopted over the years, as well as zoning restrictions, which were developed with input from many experts and the public, have prohibited sky bridges on Main Street. Sky bridges are not working elsewhere, with several of them being torn down. Urban planners almost universally discourage sky bridges because they tend to segregate pedestrians and discourage people from walking along the streets. People on our sidewalks create a vibrant, healthy feel to downtown, giving pedestrians a relationship with the street, the sidewalk, surrounding structures, and each other. There are far better solutions, providing connectivity between the malls, than a sky bridge.

*How to encourage the development of affordable housing in the city?

I would support the administration’s recommendation that the city implement an inclusive zoning provision, which would require a certain percentage of affordable housing in every project involving a certain number of units. I would also aggressively pursue the RDA’s policy regarding the construction of SROs, which the current RDA has essentially ignored. Finally, I would make certain that the city leverage its Housing Trust Fund to maximize affordable housing in every possible area of the city. I disagree with the suggestion by some Council members that certain parts of the city be excluded from city investment in affordable housing.

*Problems between the Mayor and current city council:

Many people forget that there is almost always a tension between whoever is mayor and the Council. Mayor Depaulis had to deal with the “gang of four” on his Council. Other mayors have had similar challenges.

Opposition and differing opinions lead to more options. And while I don't agree with the Mayor on every issue, I have a very good working relationship with him and would be able to act as a bridge between the council and mayor. I would also be able to get far more done for District 3 working in collaboration with Mayor Anderson, rather than opposing him on just about everything.

*Domestic Partner Benefits:

A great thing!

*Why we should elect someone with urban planning experience:

My extensive education encompasses long term planning and growth issues, public policy issues for community and consumers, and issues focusing on how humans relate to their environment. My professional experience in urban planning as given me a practical application in solving societal and citizen needs. I have worked in the planning offices of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. I have written several small area master plans for Salt Lake City and West Valley City. I have worked with residents in Salt L! ake City’s west side neighborhoods in revitalizing that area. In order to effectively deal with these issues, I have studied mediation and environmental dispute resolution, which will help immensely to enable us to move forward and accomplish great things for Salt Lake City and its citizens.

Did I hear Eric say "yes" to the question...

will your new "broadened" plan for city employee benefits include benefits for same-sex couples?

I swear he said "yes" and Carlton said "yes, in a broadened package"

This whole "broadened package" thing is nothing more than an anti-Rocky posture for the sake of doing the "tough on Rocky" thing.

There is no group provider that is going to offer anything competitive that is out of the mainstream of benefits packages.

It all about "insurable interest." Whatever Love and Jergensen and Christiansen are doing is taking their time getting a lesson on insurance while some right wing legislator (also called Christiansen?) does his little self-righteous defender of marriage and morality media-hound act.

Catalyst writer, Zach Abend wrote a great article on Janneke.

Zach can be very tough. He bows to no one. And he knows city politics better than any reporter I know.

Thank you Zach!

After saying a councilperson will never have to take a stand on Iraq, Eric reminds us that in fact the council did attempt to pass a resolution condeming the war in Iraq.

Watch Video
Fast connection

Slow connection

I was extremely disappointed to walk out of my house in the Avenues this morning and see Eric Jergensen had littered the corner of my block with white balloons. Driving around the neighborhood, it appears he has scattered hundreds. While Mr. Jergensen's website claims his top priority is "Protecting the Environment," sometimes actions speak louder than words.

The EPA and other groups have estimated that thousands of birds and other wildlife are killed each year by balloons negligently released into the environment. Animals eat the latex or get tangled in the balloons strings dying slowly. In fact, one study found that every hundred balloons introduced into the environment would directly result in one dead bird. With two beautiful Redtail Hawks circling over the Avenues all day today, it was hard for me to not be disgusted by such an irresponsible action.

I'm sending this to Eric and the Tribune. I hope Eric will take responsibility and, after immediately ensuring all the balloons his campaign put up are safely removed, fire whoever on his campaign staff made this poor decision. Regardless, it has made my vote easy. I support the candidate whose words AND actions protect our environment: Janneke House.

I'm so tired of glad handing disingenuous politico's. Let us remember Eric gives himself much credit, but, that more "Monster Houses," increases in "crime" and "traffic" all have occured on Eric Jergensens watch. I am so impressed with Ms. House and what she has to offer our district.

That little weasel who came to my doorstep on Friday didn't need to be so rude. If you don't like that I'm voting for Eric, don't ask. And if you don't like my Eric sign, don't kick it down on your way out. And if you don't like losing, maybe you shouldn't have worked for JanneKKKe House -- a woman who appears to be part of the White Hood brigade of liberal thought police.

Janneke votes received: 1,977
Eric votes received: 2,200

That's 48% of the total votes!

Sam E,

Janneke's campaign staff never went door-to-door on Fridays or Sundays. People aren't usually home Fridays and don't like to be bothered Sundays, which make them bad days for unsolicited visiting.

Perhaps they were impersonators trying to make her campaign staff look bad, or perhaps you are trying the same by posting this comment.

Lastly, one friendly tip about persuasive arguing: stay on topic. Unrelated comparisons to racist organizations do not help you to sound like a credible authority.