I've been following this super short campaign season, and I still don't see any convincing reason to vote for either one of these candidates. To me, you're not bringing anything to the table unless you're going to at least TRY to do something that won't get done unless you are there to do it. 

Both candidates are basically promising to follow the same agenda and do the same things. Promote the downtown. Parks and trails. Things that were being done and would be done without either one of them.

Sullivan asks us to join him in his efforts to continue support of downtown Sugar Hill; activate land for parks, especially the Chattahoochee; and continue support for the Greenway. Those are all things that are already being done, and will be done whether he gets elected or not. He is also touting his previous work, like the City Hall, widening West Broad Street (which still needs a lot more widening), and the E Center. The City is still paying off the debt for the E Center. 

On his website, he claims that he "dropped off" the Council five years ago to make way for "new talent." Taylor Anderson, who replaced him, was hardly new. He was handpicked to run for the seat after being on the DDA. And I guess Sullivan no longer feels as excited about new people. Alvin Hicks is new, and he's not "dropping off" to make room for him.

As for Hicks, he mostly promises the same. Support the downtown, parks, and the Greenway. His signs proclaim something about listening and leadership. 

Initially, I was kind of excited to see a newer face running for the Council. I also thought he would present an opportunity for the Council to become more diverse. I introduced myself to him at the January meeting, and gave him my card. He told me he'd be in touch. 

I heard nothing. If you don't agree with my positions and ideas, that's one thing. He wasn't even interested in listening to them. Maybe he was afraid the current Council would find out he was talking to me, which might ruin his chances of getting in. Is that fear? Is that politics? I don't know. But I know it isn't leadership. Also, the point of diversity is to get different viewpoints from people with different backgrounds and experiences. Promising the same things as everyone else misses that point and deprives people of the true benefits of diversity. 

In my mind, it raises the question: if you're not bringing anything new to the table, why are you running? It's kind of hard to claim you're doing it for the people of Sugar Hill, because we've already got all the things you're promising. None of those things will fail to happen if these guys don't get elected. It gives the appearance that the candidates are seeking the office for personal reasons/goals. Not necessarily nefarious ones, but personal just the same. 

In the end, this race will just be a contest to see who has more friends, both real and fair-weather, who will turn out to vote for them. It's like a high school student council race on steroids. 

Given that both candidates are promising the same thing and voicing their support of the City's agenda, it is interesting that the City has taken an obvious side in the race. 

The City signaled their pick for the seat early on by giving Sullivan a campaign-boosting "Volunteer of the Year" shout-out just before qualifying. Two large signs sit along either side of the entrance to Mayor Brandon Hembree's subdivision, The Glens at Level Creek. Hell would have to freeze over, thaw back out, and freeze over again before my signs would EVER be allowed there. I also noticed no Alvin Hicks signs in that same area. Nick Thompson, a former Sugar Hill City Council member, allowed Sullivan to cover his Keller-Williams commercial real estate signs along Highway 20 with his campaign signs. Thompson isn't going to cross the City by supporting a candidate they don't, because at least some of those properties may require rezoning to sell. 

But, apparently, I'm not alone in my personal apathy about these candidates. During early voting, there were only about 250 votes. There are around 16,000 registered voters in Sugar Hill. 

Weak turnout for weak candidates.