Dana Williams is the quintessentially amiable guy who smiles all the time and appears to emphatically listen to you. I've worked with him for a short while and was able to seize most of his personality. He's not a bad guy but he is not awesome either; don't count on him to move mountains; he just seems to like the job.
Brad Olch is the antithesis of Dana; he isn't Mr. Congeniality. He might come across as someone taking himself a bit too seriously and always appearing preoccupied; he seems to be pondering a large number of issues in his head that many of us don't even think about...
Now, after examining both candidates websites, I am struck at the lack of idea's or vision on Dana's part. He seems willing to go with the flow and submit to whatever issues come his way without giving much of a fight; his business views aren't as deep as they should through his interpretation of the present economic situation.Brad, on the other hand, opens more questions, brings new views to the table and offer some good ideas (one of them was my suggestion, and that's alright.) He doesn't appear to be as fatalistic as his opponent; further he also has an eight-year term under his belt that balances with Dana's.
Against that, there's the economic reality our town is facing. It's serious, and as Bill Clinton used to remind himself: "It's the economy, stupid!" The unflappable truth is that Park City is at the cross-roads and must chose between being a survivor or a victor. It's time to re-invent, re-energize and re-focus this entire community. A sound transportation plan, the interconnect advantage, more "out-of-the-box" ideas are needed to take our City to the next level and make it the best ski town in the entire Rocky Mountain West!
My personal conclusion? As a voter, I'm faced with a congenial son of gun, band leader and populist who is not going to change anything, and on the opposite side, a not so charismatic individual that appears very serious, overly preoccupied and has a few good ideas. I'll go with the later...
Posts
3 comments:
Dana truly cares about the people of Park City and shares our vision while Brad caters to the wealthy. You must fall into the later category - more power to ya!.
I've examined both candidates websites. Brad hasn't posted any information in the issues section of his website; Dana has posted an extensive list of issues. This leads me to wonder if Brad even has a grasp of the issues. Also, where has Brad been for the past 8 years - pretty absent if you ask most. He certainly has an uphill battle in this one.
Brad's love for the outdoors is what brought him to Park City, over 30 years ago and what has kept him here (just like the rest of us). I often see him out skiing and riding his bike. Brad has a deep understanding of the community, recognizing a void after he left office he started the Park City Foundation in 2003. Now in its 6th year, the Park City Foundation has given out hundreds of thousands of dollars to various non-profits in the Park City area. Brad has also volunteered as a board member for several other non profit boards in the community (Kimball Art Center, Winter Sports School, Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee, and Sheriff's Citizen Advisory Board). Brad has always had Park City’s best interest at heart. After looking at his website, I applaud Brad for coming to the table with lots of new ideas that will help Park City maintain the true mountain feel that has brought all of us to town. I consider Brad to be a true Parkite.
Park City Foundation Link
http://parkcityfoundation.org/
You are trying to hide who you are under the guise of a blog. What a coward for not printing your name.
Post a Comment