By Mr. Peabody
Yesterday Norberto Santana of the Voice of OC (EA) did a post on a report by a group called OCCORD that accused the cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim of “rubber stamp” planning. Among other things the planning commissions in these towns were identified as living preponderantly in small enclaves and it notes the undue influence of out-of-town developers.
I’m having a little trouble separating the message from the messenger. See, the troubles are real all right. We’ve seen the same operation in Fullerton, as with the creeps who are trying to ram Amerige Court and the hideous Jefferson Commons down our throats. Our electeds got their drinkies, and their boat rides and their thirty pieces of silver from slimers like Steve Sheldon; and we got the shaft. Yet while I can’t disagree with thing the obvious OCCORD conclusion that development in Anaheim and Santa Ana is all tied up by goons with financial ties to people like Kurt Pringle and Miguel Pulido, I have to wonder what it is OCCORD is really promoting.
Dear Mr. Peabody…
I think that, as long as we’re not on the verge of electing OCCORD to take the place of our current politicians and run things for us, it doesn’t make much sense to dismiss their findings (or even their prescriptions necessarily) just because of “who they are.”
(And by the way, only 15% of their funding comes from labor.)
From my experiences in the two cities I’m most familiar with, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, their findings ring true as a bell:
– Bulk of campaign contributions coming from outside development interests.
– Development projects going full speed ahead despite public opposition.
– Wealthier neighborhoods over-represented on planning commissions.
– Process mainly hidden from public until the last minute (when it’s a fait accompli.)
– Nearly every bright Development idea a “rubber-stamped” done deal
You would dismiss out of hand such a recognizable portrait of most of our cities?