There were two candidate forums in SKC last week and I attended both. I found it extremely interesting that at both John Sharp complimented the mayoral candidates, saying they’re running a campaign the way a campaign should be run - civilly. Then he turned right around and implied that his opponent wasn’t running a real campaign because he was opposed to the current monster of a bridge and it’s the ‘supposed’ Friends of Red Bridge that are his top advisors.
No matter where you stand on the bridge project, it’s remarkable that Mr. Sharp feels the need to continue marginalizing 500-600 of his constituents. The bridge is being built. The project is moving right along. It should not be brought up as if it’s still a point of contention, and the people who were opposing it shouldn’t be denigrated, even by implication.
Mr. Sharp likes to brag about his years of service and talk about his knowledge and ability to support SKC; but if that were really the case, why can’t he find a more effective and appropriate argument to build his case? Perhaps it’s a guilty conscience. After all, he went to city hall prior to his election and testified that the huge bridge should not be built. He led the Friends of Red Bridge to believe he supported their stance. Then after his election he changed his tune.
Again, it isn’t important which side of the issue a person was on. The issue is that Mr. Sharp apparently can’t be trusted. Maybe that’s why he can’t seem to put it behind him when others have moved on. It would be laughable if it weren’t so scary. If Mr. Sharp couldn’t be trusted over the last four years, what’s he going to be like as a lame duck?