The reports of an assault on Spring Street over the weekend add to the growing sense of urgency for actions to improve campus safety.
Indeed, it is immediately evident to anyone following the District 8 City Council race that campus safety is the No. 1 talking point for both candidates.
Having followed local politics on campus since County Board races in 2000, I've grown accustomed to campaigns that incessantly repeat buzz words and catch phrases but rarely discuss substantive issues with factual depth, incisive analysis and innovative ideas.
That's one of the reasons I was surprised to read last Monday that District 8 City Council candidate Lauren Woods had released a 17-page document appropriately titled ""A Progressive Plan for Campus Safety."" This plan, in combination with the reaction it elicited from the Eli Judge campaign, presents a clear distinction between the two for students voting April 3.
Truth be told, I've never seen a local candidate devote such serious attention to an issue the way Woods has in this report. Her plan goes beyond lip service and delves into actionable steps toward addressing safety issues.
The plan includes Woods' goals to provide well-lit streets, get a new neighborhood officer on Spring Street—similar to Langdon Street—and move officers out of bars and onto sidewalks. It discusses her philosophical and practical opposition to the proposed ban on new bars downtown, the steps she will take to improve the treatment of sexual assault survivors by police, her championing of entertainment options for people under 21, her plans for improving tenant safety, pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements, and so much more.
Sure, it reads a little bit like a dissertation, but one can't help but be impressed with her obvious grasp of crucial campus safety issues.
This stands in stark contrast to the startling approach to these issues taken by Woods' opponent, UW-Madison sophomore Eli Judge. In response to the release of Woods' campus safety plan, Richard Dovere, the ""spokesman"" for Judge's campaign, begins with the ridiculous claim that Woods' support for increased pedestrian-scale lighting is bad because, ""People are victims of crime in low-lighting situations and in high-lighting situations.""
That argument makes as much sense as asserting that headlights on cars don't matter because car accidents happen during the day and night. Of course, we all know good lighting makes people more aware of their surroundings and whatever threats might be in those surroundings and thus increases safety.
Mr. Dovere seems to agree on the lighting issue because he goes on to claim that the point he just finished arguing against is also espoused by Mr. Judge, and was espoused by Judge first.
Excuse me for laughing, but are there any other ""bad ideas"" that Woods advocates that the Judge camp would like to say are bad but also claim are Judge's? Richard Dovere—remember that name, folks. He's going places in the Democratic Party. Six years from now, you'll be able to identify him as the spokesman for a losing Congressional candidate in Long Island.
Still, the most shocking part of this silly response came when I realized Judge actually has a spokesperson. Wow. Um, I hate to break it to you, Eli, but you're running for City Council, which is a few steps below whatever it is you think you're running for. Having a spokesperson just looks like you're afraid to talk to people yourself. Perhaps you weren't able to comment yourself because the questions weren't submitted through your Administrative Aide, or your Driver was stuck in traffic. Dude, it's the City Council.
Woods and Judge seem to be competing for the mantle of the candidate who is best on campus safety, and there's no doubt Woods' new plan puts her squarely in that position, while the Judge campaign flounders through the self-conflicted comments of a ""spokesperson.""
Ultimately, this looks like a choice between one campaign taking issues very seriously, and another campaign of aspiring young politicians taking themselves too seriously. I think voters are keen enough to see the difference, and I look forward to hearing Judge's ""spokesperson"" spin that on election night.
