I haven't really made myself an informed voter yet, but now that it's election month things may change.
I think one of the major causes for disinterest is the lack of any bold visions for the city from any of the candidates. Also we're still feeling the effects from Fontana's downfall and one of the most divided / least productive councils in the city's history.
-----
A quick summary of the 4 main candidates.
Matt Brown:
-A little more progressive, wants modest tax increases to help the city recover from the tax freeze years.
-One of the most legit councilors at least in my mind, has kept his composure over his first and only term. Could translate into someone we want to represent the city.
Paul Cheng:
-Conservative, wants to run the city 'like a business'. This has some pros and cons.
-A complete outsider, which people who are fed up with council will love. This inexperience may translate to someone who may have a hard time fitting into the mayor's shoes.
Roger Carnanci:
-Pretty conservative, wants to focus on transportation issues and cut red tape for developers like the urban growth strategies.
-Has past experience with council, but a shakier reputation than others. He would also be London's third mayor in a row with Italian roots. Not saying this is a bad thing, but people get ideas of the Fontana and Dicico-Best years.
Joe Swan:
-Status quo moreorless. Not Joe Fontana's tax freezes but wants to cap them at 1%.
-As London's current deputy mayor, he's looking to move up the food chain. He's got the experience and the right positioning to be mayor.
-----
For me I'm still a little conflicted. Overall I think Brown would be the best person to represent the city but I also like Carnanci's plan on transportation, Chang's 'breath of fresh air' influence, and Swan's experience. Need to do my research.
Then again there's always Aron Kaplansky. A vote for him = crappy houses everywhere!