One of the questions the News-Gazette asked County Board candidates: Do you favor building the entire Olympian Drive Project, including the portion between Lincoln Avenue and U.S. 45?
Democratic candidate Eric Thorsland responded: Not at this time. If we even had the federal funding to do that the county would still have an enormous cost burden to connect to the extension with little foreseeable revenue generation. That places the burden on the taxpayer, remember they already were taxed for the current funds approved for the smaller project proposed. Since that planned compromise in the works has most of the funding in place and the rail crossing is needed right now, let's get the trucks and commerce traffic out of the Toys are Us lot on the way to Route 74 from Apollo.
Republican candidate Stephanie Holderfield responded: I will answer the questions like this: Would I like to see jobs created by building the entire Olympian Drive Project and the answer is, yes. However, do I think that at this time, right now it should be built in its entirety? I will answer that question like this: What are our state legislators going to do to reduce the high cost of workman’s compensation? Also what will happen in this state with Tort Reform? What will our legislators do to ensure that they will be able to attract new business, industrial in nature to the area once it is built? What is Springfield going to do about getting permits through in a quicker manner? We can argue till the cows come home over this issue, nonetheless, it is where the rubber meets the road; and that is in Springfield that will determine the outcome of the question. We can continue to debate this question, I will repeat myself, the facts remain clear and that is, what is Springfield willing to do to change status quo? This is really the question for the house and senate as well as the next Governor! Who are the voters going to vote for to change status quo? “If you keep on doing what you’ve always done, then you will keep on getting the same results”! The answer to this question is really in the voter’s hands.
I speculate Ms Holderfield may have had similar thoughts as Mr Thorsland's, but I am not sure and her inability to lucidly express herself is disturbing. Her response contains mostly peripheral, rambling and irrelevant questions!! Such a person, when participating in County Board discussions/debate, will be a an unfocusing, divisive influence. I'm especially wary of having anyone on the County Board who would write for public consumption the illogical, poorly structured sentence: "We can continue to debate this question, I will repeat myself, the facts remain clear and that is, what is Springfield willing to do to change status quo?" Can anyone tell me either what Ms Holderfield means with this sentence or how Ms Holderfield thinks this anwers the News-Gazette's question about Olympian Drive? "Judicicial temperment" is often used to evaluate judicial candidiates. Ms Holderfield's response shows a total lack of legislative temperment. She seems to be a much less desirable candidate than Mr Thorsland