Translate

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Fairhope Council Certifies Election Results

Fairhope, Alabama



Hanks at far left




ELECTION 'CANVASSED'


This morning, the city council authorized city clerk Lisa Hanks to open and count all provisional/absentee ballots from the August 23rd election and then voted to certify the final tally.

Out of a total of 68 provisional ballots submitted, 55 were accepted by the board of registrars and counted.

No major problems were reported at polls on election day.


Final totals:

Tim Kant  3089
Karin Wilson  3559

Jack Burrell  5126
Meredith smith  1299

Rich Mueller  1990
Jay Robinson  4325

Diana Brewer  2941
Jimmy Conyers  2797
Murray Lawrence  653

Robert Brown 4323
Phil Nix  2131

Kevin Boone  3528
Gary Gover 2763

A runoff election for place three will be held on Oct 4th.





12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does not make sense. Kant should ask for a recount.

April said...

What doesn't make sense? Numbers? Counting? He lost. Let's move on.

Anonymous said...

The poll done by the TV station just before had him winning...?

Anonymous said...

If the poll was conducted by telephone, it would have been falsely skewed toward Kant possibly because most younger voters don't use land lines and would have not been polled. I live in the Fruit & Nut and only know one person who actually voted for Kant. After his and the past council's support for the Fly Creek Apartments, my only goal was to vote against everyone in current office. Jennifer Fidlar's comment that Fairhope 'needed to approve the apartments because Publix needed more rooftops to support it' was a prime example of Fairhope's population being thrown under the bus by its representatives. When our schools are already over-crowded, we do not need more apartments. There are plenty down the road in Daphne and I bet a lot of them shop at Publix already.

Liam said...

I don't trust anything coming from our local TV news. They are two-faced drama manufacturers. Not sure how they have a "scoop" when the actual numbers paint a different picture. Sounds like they got some bad intel.. or just made it up to keep you stuck to the TV, watching the commercials.

Anonymous said...

This city is known for election monkey business, dead people voting, etc.

Roger said...

A recount for mayoral couldn't hurt though considering some of the shady characters involved on the winning side.

Anonymous said...

American's are so clueless and mis-informed about there government the best liars are oftn are the ones who get elected!

And those who promise them the most personal favors!

No wonder things are in such a mess.

Publisher said...

In response to comment #4: It is a common mis-conception, but The Fly Creek Apartment amendment you mentioned did nothing to increase the population density in the area: in fact it reduced it a bit from the number (condos, townhomes) already approved for the site in 2007.

Some citizens complained about the vacant store fronts in the Publix shopping center: more residents are needed within walking distance to make that "village" successful.

In surveys and during town hall meetings over the years, citizens indicated overwhelming approval for the city's 'village model' comprehensive growth plan -- with higher density residential within walking distances of commercial "nodes" like the Publix

But, since it is so misunderstood by the public and difficult to implement in the real world, mayor-elect Wilson and councilman-elect Burrell are proposing to scrap it altogether in favor of a more conventional/realistic one.

Anonymous said...

Remember the Golden Rule though. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because Kant fired everybody when he got in is no reason for Wilson to do it now too.

Anonymous said...

To the Publisher: Thank you for your response to my comment regarding the apartments. I was not aware of the original concept, probably because it did not work out for the Publix Center.

However, even though the apartments may have reduced the density, I doubt that the condos/townhouses originally approved would ever have come to fruition b/c I don't believe that there is a market for them. The younger people who are moving here want nothing less than to live in a complex behind a grocery store. They are purchasing starter homes that have a resale value so that they can 'move up' later. Most people who are attracted to a place like Fairhope would rather live in any other city than to have Fairhope turned into a ticky-tacky apartment complex area.. This is probably why the developers switched the plan to apartments. The only winner here would be the developers who are not from Fairhope and don't care what happens here. I believe that no one could ever prove pay-offs to Mayor Kant, etc, but I do believe that after they went against Fairhope to approve these that some very nice things came their way. I don't know Karin personally but I think that all of this change is for the very best for Fairhope and its future. Too many deals have been made behind closed doors and presented to the residents as a foregone conclusion. It's time for the backdoor deals to come out into the light. You do a wonderful job of making us aware of what has happened but we need to know why these things happen. I believe that the new Mayor and Council Members will make us proud.

Publisher said...

According to my notes, the apartments' developer, the Leaf River Group, said they did extensive market research and found the project was financially viable enough to attract investors: over $20 million is the figure needed to borrow, as I recall it: Banks would not lend that kind of money if they thought they may lose it, he said, obviously.

The "housing" market, -- single family, condominiums, townhomes, etc. as was originally planned for the site -- collapsed nationwide in 2009 during the Great Recession (home values declined significantly here too) and alternatives like rentals became more popular/affordable nationwide.

The financing would not be there if the project was not deemed financially feasible by the banks, he said.

One good question to ask now though is "have home values/markets recovered from their lows of 2011-12 ... to make the apartments less attractive for the investors today?"

"Is it still worth the risk?"

Presumably the answer is "yes" since the amended development is still planned ... as far as we know (apartments).