Paul Polasek's decision lost him woman's vote
April 25, 2013 at 6:01 p.m.
Updated April 24, 2013 at 11:25 p.m.
Editor, the Advocate:
Change can be good if it brings about improvement. Change for the sake of change isn't always wise. An example of where this would clearly be the case is this year's mayoral race. Paul Polasek's recent swing to the liberal left of Mayor Will Armstrong is a case and point. Polasek recently voted in favor of accepting a $222,000 solar energy grant that would require a $55,000 match. This project would supply 40-kilowatts of energy a day - enough to light a parking lot. Mayor Armstrong wisely voted against this grant, stating solar energy panels are a business issue, and that he would not make a decision based upon needing a subsidy. Can someone say "Solyndra?" Paul Polasek stated that the city regularly seeks grants for parks and police officer salaries, which were business issues. Do we want a mayor who cannot differentiate spending money on police officer salaries versus wasting nearly $300,000 of state and local tax dollars on a Barrack Obama-type solar energy waste of money? For the stated reason, I will not be voting for Paul Polasek. (Polasek's and Armstrong's remarks come from Advocate article "Council debates federal spending" published March 6.)
Jackie Jacquenet, Victoria