Election Day in Park City is not even a month away.
But has anyone noticed that it is campaign season?
Political signs have popped up here and there. And by now people who follow City Hall, even from afar, realize there are three Park City Council spots on the ballot.
So far, though, Election 2011 has been perhaps the mildest mannered in more than a generation.
There are just four candidates seeking the three spots, an unusually low number of people on the ballot and not enough to force them into a primary that would have demanded the politicking begin earlier. A fifth candidate filed campaign paperwork but withdrew their name shortly afterward. The deadline for a write-in candidate who might have shaken up the campaign passed without anyone showing up at City Hall to file paperwork.
Meanwhile, there has not been an overriding issue that has captured the attention of voters. It seems unlikely that, with such a short time before Election Day, one will catapult the campaign into a humdinger that plays out over the next few weeks.
It is difficult to gauge what happened to the political season this year. Park City campaigns have grown quieter since the rough-and-tumble years in the decade-plus leading up to the 2002 Winter Olympics. From the 1989 mayoral campaign through the 2001 election, when the mayor’s office and two City Council seats were decided, candidates faced a daunting political season
Since then, the campaign in 2009 between Mayor Dana Williams and his predecessor in office, Brad Olch, has been the most spirited as the two sharply focused on issues like the economy and the Sweeney family’s idea to build the Treasure development on the slopes of Park City Mountain Resort.
The 2011 campaign, however, has seemed even less of an affair than the other City Council elections in the post-Olympic era. The lack of a primary allowed the electorate to put off its interest in the campaign. And then, as the traditional start of the campaign season approached, it became clear that City Hall would not put to voters a ballot measure, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, to finance a conservation deal for the Treasure land.
A Treasure ballot measure — essentially a question to voters asking whether property taxes should be raised — would have dramatically changed the complexion of the campaign. It would have been the attention-grabbing item on the ballot and could have eventually overshadowed the three City Council seats that will be decided.
It is difficult to decipher the staid tenor of the campaign season. Some, particularly those with ties to City Hall, could see the campaign as a de facto affirmation of the leadership of the municipal government. Others, though, might contend that the electorate hunkered down as the summer and fall’s economic jitters weighed on the nation. The economy could also have been a factor in the small field of candidates. Some would-be contenders might have dropped their political ambitions for the time being to keep their attention on their professional duties.
In the coming weeks, barring an unforeseen circumstance, it seems the campaign will not intensify by more than a degree or two, if even that. The candidates Liza Simpson, Dick Peek, Anne Bransford and Andy Beerman — have been cordial to each other thus far, and there have not been signals that any of them will change their strategy.
The first time the candidates appeared together, recently in front of a group representing Main Street businesses, there were not any political fireworks. They spoke about their backgrounds and answered a few questions. The idea of installing heated sidewalks on Main Street was one of the event’s key topics, a subject that has a limited audience beyond the businesspeople on the street.
The candidates later attended an event hosted by a group of young professionals. Media coverage was prohibited. There will probably be just a few more events involving all the candidates before Election Day.