How is it that those seeking public office in Redmond over the last couple of election cycles all seem to have been scooped from the same bucket of vanilla ice cream?

A safe, livable city; a vibrant downtown; efficient transportation; fiscal responsibility; sensible—as if there were such a thing—growth; preserve Redmond’s character and so on.

I mean, who doesn’t want those things?

Young, old, male, female, the candidates seem to offer only clichéd, ditto politics. A little imagination is probably too much to expect from politicians and would-be politicians these days, but it would be refreshing to hear from some candidate who gives a small indication that he or she has thought beyond the ordinary and banal.

And those who think that a mayor and council marching in lockstep is good for a community should do a short review of history. Unitary governments, more often than not, lead to a can-do-no-wrong arrogance and authoritarianism.

Good government comes out of a clash of ideas.

The creative tension of opposing philosophies results in a policy that, while not always perfect, tends to serve the common good rather than a few special interests.

When Jim Robinson was on the council he was, at least, willing to put forth positions and policies that others were afraid to broach.

Without council members such as Mr. Robinson who are willing to ask questions that probe and test the conventional and commonplace wisdom of the day, sameness and mediocrity will prevail. It seems as if that may be what we are in for in Redmond.

This time around I think I will write-in none of the above.

Richard L. Grubb, Redmond