I am not just being mean.

I am not being mean to Stan Schaeffer. I fashioned a parody on the Collinsville mayoral election wherein Mr. Schaeffer has spent more money on campaigning than what the position pays. Now, I have it on good authority that this is more true than not. I have purchased campaign signs in the past and for what I received and the cost involved I can say with relative accuracy that Stan has spent well over $3000. Couple that amount with direct mailings and newspaper ads and word on the street is that so-far the bill exceeds $21,000. I took license in moving that amount up to $25,000 because I will bet that is what the final fill may be. If I'm wrong then sue me. It is a parody.

People may ask why I am picking on Stan when Joy Springer has spent money on this campaign too? Heck, she may have spent more than $3000 on signs, I don't know. I have seen her signs and I've seen Stan's and I'll say that I know Stan's exceeded that amount easily. Is that the issue here? No. The issue is what Mr. Schaeffer has done during his tenure and what he will do if re-elected. I have spoken with both he and Ms. Springer and have not received, in my opinion, honesty and fairness from Mr. Schaeffer. When I met with him in private regarding the business license ordinance and its inapplicability in general, he agreed with my findings. He was willing to let me proceed with no fear of the City assailing me for not procuring a business license. When I pressed as to why he would not inform the rest of the Citizens thay they too were probably not obligated to procure a license he said he couldn't do that. It was up to them to do the research as I had done and determine the laws applicability to themselves. How is that for dissembling?

In othe words, Mr. Schaeffer was on notice that this law had no teeth and it was a paper tiger, yet, since I realized it was a farce and refused to comply he would graciously not pursue action against me, but was still willing to allow the rest of the Citizens to act under the false perception that the law applied to them. That is fraud.

It is because of this fact, although not the only issue, as to why I am speaking out against Mr. Schaeffer being re-elected. I feel that he cannot be trusted. This is not malevolence or spite on my part. It is being honest enough to confront something that will, in an opportunistic fashion, work in a way that is not in the People's best interest. It is a manner of acting that exploits ignorance and is deceitful. In good conscience, I cannot allow that to happen through my silence.

Now, I don't know what kind of Mayor Joy Springer will be. She seems more genuine and does not have the dulling tarnish of political tenure about her. I defer to the benefit of doubt in supporting her for mayor. I will hold her to the same standard of fairness and accountability as I would anyone. That being said, I believe that the People have an opportunity to forestall possibly looming tax increases and abuse of eminent domain by Mr. Schaeffer. Even if he is not successful in implementing such an agenda, why would we want a public servant who harbors such notions? I am not saying that these are absolutely his ideas. I can only infer and assume given the information publicly available on Mr. Schaeffer and his past actions. However, I can say that these are more likeley than not in the offing.

Is honesty meanness? Is having a concern for the rights and property of other Citizens malicious? Is it wrong to illustrate ideas through the use of parody or other medium of communicating a point? If so, you know where to find me. If not, take it for what it's worth. Educate yourselves as voters and as Citizens and take the appropriate action based on your understanding, knowledge and sense of justice.