Poll: Hill leads Council District 6 race

According to an Inweekly/Political Matrix poll of 216 likely voters in Pensacola City Council District 6, we found that Ann Hill leads with 12% of the vote followed by Wilhelm Butch Hansen with 6.9%. That being said, what we also found was 66.2% saying they were undecided with only 14.8% saying they were unaware of these candidates.

With the city council races being relatively small in size ( both in population & geography), it looks like this is set up for a true retail politics door-to-door approach to the campaign. With absentee votes going out is less than one month, this race is truly wide open

 Total Overall %
Ann Hill 26 12.0%
Wilhelm Butch Hansen 15 6.9%
Undecided 143 66.2%
I do not know these candidates 32 14.8%
Share:

3 thoughts on “Poll: Hill leads Council District 6 race

  1. Ann Hill was selected by the city council well after the stadium was built. Ann felt she could add a down to earth citizen voice to the project that would help the Pensacola community as a whole.

    Ann was not involved with the CMPA at all before the stadium was completed.

    Ann has followed the city council closely since 2011. She knows how broken the system is due to the Strong Mayor mandate and the person elected as the 1st strong Mayor, Hayward.

    With a new Mayor coming in Ann can help guide the council along with the other council members to stop all the money draining out of the city in lawsuits, personal accounts for the Mayor, like his Red Bull budget item and transparency.

    Vote for Ann Hill Pensacola City Council District 6.

  2. go, Ann Hill! You’re public service to the community is truly appreciated. We welcome anyone who would like to get to know her better to join us for the Bruce Beach cleanup on July 18. For more info, check out her facebook page @HillforD6

  3. There is no doubt in my mind that Butch Hansen is the singularly most qualified person to appear on the political scene in the ten years that I have been around. HIs resume – both the military and civilian components – is breathtaking. In his short tenure working for the city council he has done more than all of the other staff members together and working with Councilwoman Myers has brought to the forefront some really shocking things that “Tricky” Dick Barker might otherwise have kept covered up. I was very surprised to read Ann Hill’s comments in today’s News Journal. The last thing anyone should want to do is admit to being involved in the Community Maritime Park economic development project fiasco that is costing city “and” county taxpayers more than $4 million a year to repay two municipal bonds (principal + interest) that when repaid will cost us just under $90 million for the little we now see. The CMPA took actions it had no authority to take when HIll was on the board such as appointing a person to the board without the approval of the city council and its members holding out-of-the-sunshine meetings. I never met a single CMPA member after the initial group who were familiar with the history of the project, its purpose or any of its key planning documents to include its Design Criteria Planning Book. (Maybe Brian Spencer might have read that book.) As so-called one-sided “public-private” partnerships go, the CMPA was the least transparent of all with the board refusing to allow the public to speak during public meetings at which the board decided how to spend public money on public money for a public purpose. The CMPA refused to let the public speak even when the City Council ordered it to let us speak. Her allegation that “guidelines” were changed is a total falsehood. The final decision about which projects to allow to be built rested solely with the City Council. The projects proposed were simply not in the best interest of the city. Time after time, the CMPA Board brought forward dumb projects that its members had been pressured to vote for and sometimes never having seen the actual proposed plan. I would ask CMPA members what they were thinking if they were thinking at all when they voted for something and they would admit that they had not actually seen the proposal because the lawyers had not yet worked out the details. How can you vote for something they have not seen? Such people are dangerous to the public good. Any person who served on the CMPA Board is wholly unqualified for anything requiring good judgment. In 2009, the City was required to conduct an “economic viability” study of the project. It had to be done by an independent contractor hired by the City. It had to show that the project was going to be a financial success. I asked City Project Officer (conflicted because he was also the CMPA Executive Director) Ed Spears for a copy. He said it was being done. When he sent me a document, I objected saying that what he sent had nothing at all to do with what had to be done. He told me that the city council would not know the difference. I objected to the City Council, CMPA and media. No one cared. The City Council voted 10-0 to proclaim that the study was complete. Based on that vote, the City executed the master lease with the CMPA. I submitted a public records request to City Manager Al Coby asking to review the study. He advised Mayor Mike Wiggins and I that he could not because he did not have a copy of the study. It never existed and still does not exist. I complained to the City Council, CMPA and media. Again, no one cared. If Hill wants to run on her record serving on the CMPA Board, and that is what is mentioned in the newspaper, then she better be ready to own up to the dirty details and her part in digging city “and” county taxpayers into a massive hole.

Comments are closed.