.
.
.
old (2015) VOC pic, newer ones to come!
Yes, I thought I was dreaming too. Actually I WAS dreaming, when I was woken up by this text from Mark “Dark Maniels” Daniels, letting me know that the People’s Map was not only re-instated, UNANIMOUSLY, by the Anaheim Council, but even with the voting sequencing that the vast majority of the people preferred – 1, 3, 4, and 5 districts going up first next year (including the latino-majority 3rd) ; 2 and 6 in 2018. Well THAT took a lot of yelling and shouting! Congratulations Anaheim! We’ll have a LOT more details in the morning, because I know Greg was there. (I had given up.) But people power won! And you heard it HERE FIRST on the Orange Juice Blog, the venomous grandiose self-important gaggle of ankle-biters.
Two victorious fighters for democracy last night: Dr. Jose Moreno (D) and Mayor Tom Tait (R.) Picture by Cynthia Ward, used with her permission unlike Jerbal’s usage on the miserable Cunningblog.
I am sooooooo tired. I can barely write. But …
It was a great day; even the Council Majority received great rounds of applause after their conciliatory speeches.
It’s not clear how it happened, except that Tait showed restraint once public comments were over, calling only for approval of the People’s map and then choosing the sequence later. Then, Kring said (to paraphrase), “oh heck, let’s just give them the sequence that they want too.” Once she did that, giving the map & sequence combination a majority, Murray came around, and then finally Brandman made it unanimous. And people were feeling good.
Some suspect that some outside source made the decision to cut bait and conveyed it to the Council majority. That’s a question for another day (or maybe for another month, if not year.) I’ll tell you, though — for much of the public hearing it DID NOT look like things were going to turn out. The Council majority seemed to have settled on a particularly rancid remix of the Reyes Map. Then they got pounded and pounded — and then got some answers that they wanted from Dr. Moreno and from the MALDEF attorney … and then suddenly we were done.
It still could be changed in the course of the next few meetings, but having had this huge fight over it the first time, its happening a second time would be a shocking betrayal and probably make national news. (On networks other than ABC, I mean.) Hopefully we can move on to regular old city elections at this point! Now I’m afraid that I’m going to fall asleep on my keybjkkiojljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
Lucille eh? See Gustavo & Gabriel, I knew what I was doing supporting her in 2012. KIDDING. When does Matt’s gang start calling her a “weak sister” like they called Vic Real?
Funny, she doesn’t usually seem to get secret text instructions on the dais like Kris and Jordan. She just asks good or vague questions and then goes with whatever they do. But now she vacillated. Let’s make her vacillate more!
Cunningham has recently taken to the “people in District One and Two get screwed” a last-ditch, desperate tactic since he has spent the last two years arguing that by district elections are baaaaad! Now he tacitly admits they confer a real benefit that residents can lose out on.
What a maroon.
Let ’em abandon Kring and good riddance. I know you’re kidding, but if she had followed her own campaign promises NONE of this would have happened. Due to her own cupidity she is responsible for this whole ongoing mess – and a lot of the $2,000,000 wasted, too.
Actually, the “real benefit” lost is not from Districts, but “time disenfranchisement” itself, which is somehow an intolerable injustice for those in District 3, but “just part of the way things work” for districts NOT numbered 3,4, or 5. Drawing lots out of a jar would at least have been unarguably impartial. Well, district 2 voters can always turn to the electoral method proven over time – Vote With Their Feet !
I don’t know whether you watched the video from last night, but you’re actually getting at one of the more effective arguments made by Murray, when she invited Dr. Moreno up to the podium for, in essence, a deft cross-examination.
Her point, related to sequencing was this: in the settlement discussion for the Moreno lawsuit that led to the vote on Districts, they discussed a lot about an election being held and who would draw the lines if one were held — but the topic of districting was never raised. She asked when, given this, the sequence of district elections became such an important issue. This was, in effect, a deft way of making the point that this couldn’t be such a big issue if it wasn’t even raised in those settlement talks — so what’s wrong with keeping the “1, 2, 4, 5” sequence?
Dr. Moreno, who I think does not get enough credit from his opponents for his diplomatic skills, hedged a bit in his answer. He emphasized that the main interest at the time was ensuring that the final approved map would be one created by disinterested parties focusing only on the legal criteria for proper map-making. This was true, and important context, but also a bit of a non-answer. Murray took him through the question at least once more, and (without reviewing the video) I think that it may have been twice or thrice more, and each time he answered without quite stating out loud the answer to Murray’s question.
I think that the reason for that is that he did not want to piss off the Council Majority by giving the full truth, which — my bet would be, although someone would have to ask him — was along the lines of my paraphrase of the sentence texted to me during this exchange by a palpably agitated Cynthia Ward:
We don’t know what might have happened had Moreno been that candid, but it probably wouldn’t have been as good as the actual result. And we don’t know whether Murray and Brandman would have driven that point home, because Kring wisely took the opportunity of beginning her campaign for the District 4 seat a few minutes later by decided not to provoke her largely — but not plurality! — Latino district from really really hating her.
Before you feel too bad about District 2 voters, please recall that James Vanderbilt has moved there, is well-synched with the demographics and partisan ideology of the district, and will ably represent them for the next three years. If District 5 had been the one deferred, they’d have had a much more legitimate gripe.
Yes, though visiting, I did watch last night’s meeting online (till 3 AM here, over Dad’s spotty DSL) While reserving comment about the community merits of Mr. Vanderbilt’s new residence, I certainly am perplexed that an individual Councilman’s PERSONAL CHOICE would be anything but IRRELLEVANT to the REAL question, the enfranchisement opportunities of HIS NEIGHBORS IN THAT DISTRICT. They (and now he as well) are DISENFRANCHISED for 2 years. (“Too bad, so sad, and THANKS for PLAYING !”) What seems to be becoming collateral damage in the ” rush” for settlement terms compliance is the PROCESS. Ironic that time or finances could not be afforded for VOTER input on a “historic” question about VOTING !?
While deciding dias votes based on (self-interested) Council audience response or participation was deemed abhorrently corrupt for the Convention Center Expansion, it now seems de rigeur here. The “Peoples’ Map” is christened NOT by voter (people ?) approval, but audience (0.1% CVAP?) acclaimation ! Would those chastising District 2 voters for “non-participation” over sequencing be there THEMSELVES absent the suit and settlement decree? Perhaps District 2 might show, if informed that “polling the audience” was now a LEGITIMATE Council decision basis ?? Charter citation please.
Reminders (for over a year) to the Council of the VOID in arrangements for Candidate Forums and Candidate Education are IGNORED. WHAT remedy (from zero) is now even POSSIBLE, when 3 WEEKS delay for the defeated “do-over” proposal was predicted to have FATAL campaign timing impacts ?
Without that, while much is made of incumbent jockeying and familiar names carpet bagging, WHAT choices will result for our (now SINGLE) vote, from those whose benefit this is all purported to BE FOR ? Dr. Moreno, while frequently mentioned, can only fill ONE SEAT. With chest- pounding as CA’s 10th largest city, $1.6 Billion budget, etc. is being “from my neighborhood” supposed to be sufficient vs MY expectations of their being able, not only to “Vote the Consent Calendar” and smile for Award photos, but to analyze a budget, critique a proposal, and ask the RIGHT probing questions OF Staff, NOT just defer to the “Smart People in Suits” ??? I certainly applaud the Mayor in that respect, but feel it is NOT as prevalent on the rest of the dias. WHAT is the path to THAT solution for MY NEXT VOTE ??
Getting a somewhat morbid fascination with the situation of current-day Detroit, (3 years in court over Districts, BTW), I found some historical video (where else?) on YouTube about their cycle from 1950’s (single-industry prosperity with corrupt government) through 1960’s (mandated reforms for ethnic minority injustice) through 1970’s-80’s ( “meet the new boss, same as the old boss, won’t get fooled…”) to today’s tragic outcome. While “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”, what parallels and LESSONS can Anaheim draw, or will insistence be on learning from ONLY ITS OWN mistakes?
Opportunity is supposed to be EXPANDED for future growth. So far I personally see it merely RE-DISTRIBUTED, and with gaping VOIDS in procedure, preparation, and qualification, so far not net-beneficially. My personal involuntary “investment” is the clear reduction in MY personal enfranchisement. What plans to fill those voids, am I unaware of, existing to give any better feel that patience for voting by finger will have better results than immediate gratification in voting by FOOT ?
PringleCorp is annoyed that Vanderbilt has moved, but of course his residence IS irrelevant. His new neighbors can decide if they want to vote for him, or not – and that’s what the Kleptos really hate: it may not take 2 or 3 hundred grand of Disney/SOAR/cop union bucks to get elected as it used to with city-wide elections..
WHY does it seem to be universally overlooked that NEITHER will Disney HAVE to spend the amount of a City-Wide election, and also that NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING SO, concentrating (Expanding if necessary?) their EXISTING resources on (strategically) FEWER, smaller races?
With Anaheim’s historic lax registration,( have I missed news of any changes ?) let alone participation rate, I don’t see the smaller playing field alone as a panacea, AGGRIVATED by the voids I described above, ESPECIALLY the Candidate Forums, which seem NOT to be vocally missed since (deliberately?) scrubbed in 2012.
But like I wrote a dozen times back during the original districting debate, an unmoneyed candidate now has a fighting chance just getting to know all his neighbors. Impossible citywide.
It isn’t often that I disagree with Big Box, and he generally kicks my teeth in with logic when i do, but this subject is one of those areas we will likely never see eye to eye about.
So you think the people of District 2 deserve to jump to the front of the line because they haven’t been represented? I agree on some level and posed a compromise of 1,2,3,4 which makes West Anaheim happy (which for some reason makes Council majority happy) plus 3 keeps us out of court and is the MOST FAIR to the population most harmed by the At Large system (white, brown or pink polka dots i don’t care, when your areas shows votes for a candidate from the area and the votes of the rest of the City overwhelm your votes and essentially impose leadership upon you that you did not select, that is disenfranchisement. And that leads to Mr. Irons, why did the mostly white conservative area of Floral park put up with having their choice undone and a liberal Latina imposed upon them by the at large by district votes of the remaining City? I would have loved to see the GOP go after that one in court, with a reverse racism argument. It was that outcome that made Anaheim Hills jump the rails when Murray proposed the same system for Anaheim, they saw visions of a Moreno-like character forced on them by carpetbagging in for 30 days and having the rest of the city slam the Hills in retaliation. The Floral Park results made my blood boil, why did SA put up with that? Like there isn’t enough cash in FP for legal fees…someone can drop more than that cost just “spiffing” for the tour in April.
Back to Anaheim. I proposed 1,2,3 and of course 4. Because we can’t not give a sitting incumbent a chance. No I am not angling to give Lucille the benefit of incumbency. No, I want that woman to FACE her constituents while her misdeeds are fresh in the minds of all. When Lucille runs when she is sitting in office, she loses, every time. When she sits it out for a cycle or two, we forget (I sure did) and slammo we let that plague back in the door and wonder why we all got sick again. I didn’t want 4 left to 2018, forcing her to wait 2 years. I want her to answer to her own neighbors NOW. So how are we going to find someone to defeat her? Well I don’t know about the other Districts, but 4 is easy, because I could run my cat and win that seat, and she would do a better job than the person there now. Of course Littles would have to live in south Anaheim for a while, could she stay with someone? I have a friend in Ponderosa who loves her maybe Littles could stay with Maria.
Who are you supposed to vote for? I don’t know, who would you like to have run? Do you have any neighbors who know the score and are involved and passionate that you could offer to support for a run? How about YOU Big Box? God knows you are smart enough, you can tear through an Agenda on Friday afternoon faster than any staffer I ever saw, and get right to the meat of the issues, then take another hour to find research (youtube of otherwise) giving background, consequences faced by other cities that have done XX from the agenda item. etc. You nail it. If I was ever stupid enough to do it I would totally hire you as a Policy Aid at the least, because your input is dead on so often and you see stuff the rest of us miss until a year later when we go, “Uh, he was RIGHT.” Why don’t you run? I would back you, which may not be a benefit, but I would. In a hot second.
You are right, “The City” is not hosting candidates forums nor are they out identifying candidates or training them like in the old days of Leadership Academy before it was swallowed whole by the establishment (my apologies if Andrea is still running it and I was misinformed) it is on US, or service groups we are involved with, to host candidate forums. God knows i have hosted some or helped. And if you find someone honest and decent who is smart enough that you think they would do the job and charismatic enough to get elected, but they don’t know much about how City Hall works, YOU train them, Big Box YOU should be doing a Leadership Academy type program, and I know you are swamped with running back and forth for Dad (doing the same here with Mom at least mine doesn’t involve taking my shoes off for TSA) but you could do something. We could work together to build videos (I know you did some once upon a time) “everything I ever needed to know about running a city I learned from Orange Juice Blog” on second thought, no. But you get the picture. “The City” is not going to hold our hands. it is on us, and it is on us because we DEMANDED to take it back from those who were abusing their power. We got it, now we better learn how to manage it. And to that end, while I am sorry for WA as i know they they need help soon, at the same time they have not had anyone speaking out for them. they also haven’t RUN anyone, and to think they would find TWO grassroots candidates they could arm and support and get onto the field to do battle with the Kleptocracy’s knights in Disney cast costuming supplied foam armor, was a stretch. So much like the Mom who doesn’t get 100% custody of the child from a (non-abusive perfectly decent ex spouse) sometimes not getting what you want can be a blessing if it gives you every other weekend to breathe and scores a child support check to help you figure out how to do the single mom thing for a while. Hope that makes sense.
Who can you find to represent you Big Box? Look around. Anaheim is full of awesome people, a lot of them were there last night. If you don’t know them yet go meet some, I have had the pleasure of doing so in the last few weeks, and have developed a grudging respect and admiration for some people I thought I hated. ON the flip side I have lost respect for some I still love but now have trouble looking in the eye.
Go forth, make friends, change a city, God knows we need it.
Not a lot of winning here for the “people” of the city, I agree. The spirit of the effort seems to have been totally hijacked and undermined by politics. Which is unfortunate but, was predictable and probably required to get this done. I don’t think it will have much affect in the end. It certainly will NEVER deliver the promise of equal representation to the poor, the undocumented, the lowest on the totem pole of life in Anaheim. But a bunch of people will be able to claim: “look what we did”. This will be gamed faster than a bullet train or cigarette tax.
Cynthia, your teeth are safe! (And we will ALWAYS agree on your last line!) I have no wish for #2 to be pushed ahead, or pushed anywhere, as I have commented before,(and a lady last night, her name lost by a DSL hiccup, also suggested, albeit with dice) my procedural choice would be choice by lot, but that ship has sailed.
While folks may marvel at the pearl, their appreciation is lost on the clam, who is just reacting to a constant irritation. Your appreciation isn’t lost on me, just more than I think my response to irritation merits. Thank you for the kind words nonetheless.
Should I be (when) freed from my current family circumstance, or at least be better able than now to define its limits, I certainly would find more useful avenues for constructive criticism, possibly even correction, of things that can now only be irritants. For now, online meeting views and posting are certainly worth the time I “steal” for them. (And hope they offer more explanation than irritation.)
(I will post more on your other points when I finish reducing the two pages it keeps (2nd try) blowing into, down to something manageable, Sorry-)
BB, you seem not to understand the significance of Vanderbit’s residence. (You too, Zenger.) It seems to stem from your not understanding that nobody *wanted* to deny a 2016 election to at least two districts just for the hell of it. It would have been possible to hold all six elections this year and then by lot turn three of them into “short term” districts, as will happen with one district later this year.
Only one thing stands in the way of that: Kris Murray and James Vanderbilt are entitled to serve out their four year terms. It follows directly from that that — unless one wanted to, temporarily for two years, expand the council to nine seats, which in retrospect might have been a smart move — two Council districts would not have elections in 2016.
Again: with Brandman either gone or (at least) not guaranteed of reelection to District 3, a “1235” plan would have meant that District 3 would not have a representative for 2 years. District 2 will (indeed, already does) have such a representative — Vanderbilt, who is much closer to that district’s political ideology based on its voting record than he is to District 3’s.
Again — and Cynthia, this is the problem with your proposal — the district that seems to have gone the LONGEST without someone living there represent it in the Council is District 5. No one lives there now; when Brandman and Murray first presented the bogus “neighbors electing neighbors” argument in November, no one on Council could even remember the last time anyone from there WAS on Council, and their memory went back as far as the late 80s!
So, some district had to lose out. It made sense for District 6 not to go in 2016 because Kris Murray lives there. It now makes sense for District 2 not to go in 2016 because Vanderbilt, who previously only worked there, now also lives there. Both districts have had a good track record on their choices, in at large elections, being the ones voted into the council ANYWAY, so I think that your concerns are misplaced.
I understand the Vanderbilt residency issue. Wherever he lives, he will not be a direct district representative until he runs for that office. He doesn’t have to run until 2018. The way it stands now he can run for District 2, although his physical move was precipitate – if 2 were on the ballot in 2016 I think he could have had a problem.
BBORW, many of us have pointed out that Disney/SOAR will probably spend more or less the same, just directed into more bank accounts.
I have felt all along that the Latino activists are likely going to be disappointed. The representatives with Spanish surnames are probably going to have the “safe for consumption” Disney stamp on their forehead.
Greg, we again return to the (ignored) consequences of choice by “acclamation” instead of by process, plus the confusion of “enfranchisement” with “Council Member presence” Mr. Vanderbilt could move OUT of District 2 next week, is under ABSOLUTELY NO obligation to stay there, much less through 2018, leaving flawed process results no longer conveniently obscured by favorably coincidental events. Being still “at large” there would be FURTHER NO impetus to “replace” him for a “vacancy” that is technically non-existent. But again, that ship has sailed, and not worth belaboring further.
What MIGHT BE worthy, is attention, not where WINNING Council candidates originate, but where ANY (or NONE !) have originated from. With any claimed impediments now removed, have Districting advocates or the City addressed THAT aspect as part of the “settlement” process, if not as part of the “Package”? Evidence of that has so far escaped me, and I am sure the Tourism Block will happily fill any deficits of” locally arisen candidates” (Paging Mr. Chavez-Lodge!) thus defeating the whole expressed goal of this tortured process. Though following the issue, events have not afforded me the opportunity for the depth that your pursuit. Was “amount of candidates produced” a metric either collected or considered in Map construction? If collected, that might highlight areas of concern for corrective educational opportunities.
A consequence of “local voting” lacking “local qualified candidates” hurts rather than helps the claimed “City-Wide Benefits” of the reorganization, and an omission by both sides of the suit parties, (dumping the situation on already strained citizen groups) of supporting resources to produce that supply, is at best disingenuous, and the possible dias consequences could overwhelm the current deficits there.
BB, you don’t seem to be responding to what I’ve said.
Two districts had to have their first “local choice” deferred until 2018 because two incumbents get to serve out their terms. Tell us why you think that District 3 should have been one of them.
I can easily make the same observation. As per my other comment above, my expressed preference was for a non-preferential random selection. To what end should I defend a position I don’t recall ever expressing? “Have I stopped beating my wife yet ? ” lol.
Why should District 3 have a 1/3 chance of having no representation in 2017 while Districts 2 and 6 will have, by the Council’s own reasoning, two representatives?
You really think that random selection always outperforms merit? Well, that would explain the leading Republican Presidential candidates this year — maybe other voters agree with you! Me, I’d rather identify a problem (including a misjustice) and try to optimize a solution.
I’ll return my own out-of-scope hypothetical for yours – If Vanderbuilt suddenly voluntarily (or God forbid, involuntarily) exited the picture, I see no Charter, Court Settlement, or other grounds to prevent a replacement appointment or Special Election candidate from OUTSIDE District 2 (for his AT LARGE seat). (Yes, polling a packed screaming Council audience ALWAYS works, but what importance do elections have THEN? or now?) It is almost humorous that the INITAL lawsuit was ABOUT “being able to ELECT a representative” but NOW, for Districts thought peripheral to the Court settlement, “having someone designated FOR you as a representative” is “good enough”, immaterial of legal support or process. Mr. Vanderbilt himself affirmed his ‘at-large’ designation, without District 2 or other contradiction! The outcome’s christening as EXPANSION of opportunity, is in reality REDISTRIBUTION. The election set “loss of three Council seat voting opportunities” as every resident’s fair price for that. As your reprisal of Murray’s inquiry reminds us, neither the Measure, NOR the Districting settlement, tasked with “leveling the playing field”, ADDRESSED sequencing. Nobody can blame settlement advocates for attempting to maximize their gains with a further “favorable tilt” from a Council marginally capable, for the most part, of setting their own limits (Hey! Ready for more Angels re-negotiations ?) but at least acknowledge it appropriately. There was NO “merit” or “demerit”, just collateral damage from the “path of least resistance” that everyone hopes lands ELSEWHERE. Two years should be plenty of time to shop for Nike’s.
The initial lawsuit was about Anaheim’s Latinos getting screwed by the electoral process. That’s why screwing Anaheim’s Latinos in the choice of election sequencing was so repellant. Yes, “neighbors electing neighbors is a good thing — and that end will be fully accomplished at the earliest opportunity. But there’s a good reason that this initiative didn’t ever emerge from districts 1 or 2, despite their decades of formal lack of representation, don’t you think?
Sure, you’re right about what happens in Vanderbilt were to leave District 2. But he’s not likely to do so. And he affirmed his “at-large” designation before the rest of the Council said that he would be expected to represent his home district. (By the way, I believe that he already owned a condo in District 2, so it’s not like he just rented an bogus apartment Mimi-Walters style.)
Two districts were going to be left out in 2016 — or only one, if you accept that Kris Murray was the top vote-getter in District 6 in 2014 and has asserted her ability to represent it. Deferral of the election in District 2 — which among other things allows them extra time to recruit and groom a candidate — is at most a mild inconvenience to its residents, and Vanderbilt is especially likely (especially when living amongst them and likely seeking reelection there) to listen to and heed their concerns. Now, who on Council would do the same for District 3? Not Jordan — that’s pretty clear from the position he’s taken here.
The lawsuit that triggered this process was not one based on “neighbors electing neighbors”; it was about the then-current system being stacked against Latino representation on the Council by people who thought that Gail Eastman and Jordan Brandman were sufficiently good representatives of them. District 1 and District 2 did not file suit because they (and District 5) were not represented on Council; Latinos did so because they were getting screwed and — unlike the other district, didn’t get their own preferred representatives on Council largely because under the then-current system one who could generate a following generally didn’t even bother to run and they generally didn’t attract big donations when they did. (And when they did, as in 2012, they also attracted huge opposition.)
I don’t get your “shop for Nikes” comment there at the end and maybe we’re all better off leaving it that way.
Unprecedented. Anaheim does the right thing after midnight?
Congrats to all involved, including the city council.
No, no — it was a few minutes before midnight!
hehe after midnight lol. That hour is usually reserved for nefarious deeds for sure eh?
So do you all support the same type of by district elections for Santa Ana – or are you all hypocrites?
I’ve already said several times that I do – get a few whites, Viets, and Republicans on, it’d be healthy.
Are you losing your memory, old man? One of your most obnoxious traits over the years has been your throwing around the H word for no good reason.
Me and Thomas Gordon have discussed this. But who will be the Jose Moreno of Santa Ana whites and Asians?
Actually, yes I do. And with the right client I’d be willing to pursue it in court. And that has been my publicly expressed position for a while now.
I can see me, Thomas & gang at a SA council meeting –
“Shut it down – shut it down – shut it down!”
I’d bail you out — for a 50% fee up front. Possibly 100% just in case you ran.
It could be argued that Santa Ana has several “Jose Moreno’s” on council. It just depends on what your interpetation of Jose is!
Lets wait (and hope) and see if Moreno actually gets elected to something before we annoint him the new great brown hope.
Funny thing is: I think that Dr. Moreno would agree with you. He’s not interested in being elected for personal self-aggrandizement, but for public service. Some people find such a motivation difficult to imagine.
All I meant is what white or Asian will lead the charge for districting in Santa Ana. I don’t wanna get into an argument about Jose’s merits and demerits.
I was too busy filing an FPPC complaint to go last night. Jordan told me all about it when I brought him his latte this morning.
Me and Pinky are of one mind. And what I mean by that is that we are of the same mind. Ours. We are never far apart although Pinky did not partake of our, I mean my, 28 lbs turkey and he still refuses to peer through my extra long lens. We do do boot camp together and together can do two pull ups. Pinky got loud on that wheelchair dude, not me.
And mattresses – broken in by straw men and the intellectually dishonest.
“And mattresses – broken in by straw men and the intellectually dishonest.”
That’s the first scadooshy of the year.
So who is up for re-election in November?
Jordan and Lucille.
Maybe Dan D Stalker can tell us what Jordan plans to do though. He SAYS he’s not moving out of District 3, but if he doesn’t he’s running against his old pal Gail Eastman and his heavily favored nemesis Dr Moreno.
Or not running for re-election to Council. (Greg has a lengthy list of possibilities.)
I think Greg predicting Jordan landing in an obscure water board to cool off is probably a good bet.
Looking at Jordan’s physical appearance, and I do not mean to convey anything other than sympathy here, I don’t know that he’ll be in a position to run for anything this year. Something bad seems to have happened to his health between Dec. 8 and Dec. 15 — check the videos — and whatever happened it’s still there a month later. Many people are discussing it, with even his political enemies showing empathy.
But yes, I could see Jordan being very happy with the backroom dealings of a Water Board.
I agree, although I prefer to not get into it online. I am concerned, many are, and I didn’t hear a single person say that with animosity of any kind. Even those who are incredibly pissed off at his decisions care about Jordan as a person, and hope he is OK. If he is dropping that weight so dramatically on purpose ( as son many of us do with a new relationship, wanting to look our best) it isn’t a good look and I hope his new friend asks him to stop. Or he gets married, in which case we all pack it right back on. Problem solved. Let’s hope it is only something that can be fixed by some wedding cake, and be positive. If someone knows otherwise I prefer it not get posted here, please. Let’s at least TRY to be the better people. We will leave the ghoulish stuff to Suite C.
[Editor’s Note: Kelly has left the building, forcibly. For the record, he/she/it/them presents the opinion that no one should discuss anyone’s apparent health problems, even sympathetically, regardless of their relevance to civic affairs.]
I might give a crap what you think if you had to own what you say, “Kelly.” But — intentionally — you don’t.
Except for their current scarcity, my preference would be a landing in a body of water.
And BTW, should that “Water Board” suggestion be rethought ? (ANOTHER Posiedon vote ?? ) Oh, wait, I remember reading somewhere that the CIA has lots of Water Board positions available…….
I’d heard that Jordan already DID get put onto – not a minor water board but – the OC Water District itself, where he is going to be another Poseidon Toady taking the place of Sidhu. I heard that from Mayor Tait. Did I hear wrong?
I hadn’t heard that. What a horrible development.
Sorry Vern, Jordy has asked that I keep his plans under wraps for now. Look for the exclusive on my award winning news journal once Curt tells him, I mean Jordan decides.
I gotta run, Jordy is working up a sweat at the gym and beckoned me to bring him a towel and a Gatorade.
How’s that chin-up coming along?
Last I saw, the hairline was getting right up there with a little straining up. It is something to behold.
A little testicular fortitude and you can get your chin up over the bar at least once.
I won’t even ask Mr. Stalker about the bench press accident.
On an unrelated subject, this might throw a cinderblock in someone’s bird bath, but the thought struck me last night, aren’t there still only FOUR “Neighborhood Councils” though there are now SIX Council Districts, and shouldn’t the NC’s be expanded and re-aligned for consistency?
Fuck! Someone’ll hafta DO that shit!
Big box that hit me tonight too. Let’s check on that.
Also could be the answer to some of the other issues. Where do you find fledgling leaders?
I’m not sure I see the necessity of expanding this system along political lines. Someone would have to make the case that it were productive. In fact, de-politicizing CBDG distributions is probably a good thing. On the other hand turning the neighborhood councils into political incubators for the new disricts may be seen as a positive, too.
This should probably be the topic of a separate post.
[Editor’s Note: I’m porting over a comment of Cynthia’s (after allowing her to edit what had been posted in haste and anger from a hand-held device and its associated thumb-typing issues) from the Cunningblog, where it is sure to be underappreciated.) I’m adding in some paragraph breaks, too. Here’s Cynthia:]
The beginning of the end (for the Kleptocracy) has begun. Not because we have districts, although that is part of pulling the iron grip of the permanent political aristocracy from around the windpipe of my city and letting the old girl breathe.
That outcome was certainly unexpected, I had already left the meeting, not feeling great, and it was frankly one of the few times I became discouraged enough to think nothing any of us says will change their minds. So why bother? I usually don’t let myself get that cynical. Every time I show up it is with the hope that this is the week they stop hearing through the filter of assigning blame, answering with defensive posturing that shows they didn’t really hear the message, and maybe just this once HEAR what people are trying to tell them about how we see the city we love becoming worse under their leadership. I gave up. Not my finest hour. I was thrilled to then get dressed to race back to City Hall in time for the vote. The celebration was better than New Year’s Eve.
See what you don’t get (Matt,) what the Council majority fails to get, is how tired we are of it. We see what is going on, future revenues being committed to businesses that take the money “home” to other cities where we don’t see it again. The days of the Resort feeding Anaheim residents, because the owners of the little ticky-tacky motels and restaurants (Walt hated I know) were owned by locals who often lived on site, are over. The massive corporate subsidies will go to far-off headquarters of the five or so hotel chains that own every luxury “flag” that might get built in Anaheim. Yes, jobs will be created, low wage labor jobs.
CW note: I just found this study, oddly enough by OCCORD, on the impacts of low wage labor on a community. I haven’t finished reading all of it yet but it has been a good read so far and I invite further discussion of it here because this WILL be the topic that stumbles Anaheim in our quest to become a “world class City” as defined by senior staffers who leave the city at the end of the day for their homes elsewhere.
http://www.occord.org/downloads/More%20Jobs%20Less%20Opportunity%20.pdf
We can incentivize more low wage labor jobs, ignoring efforts that might be attempted to draw better paying jobs in non-tourism areas. Or we can hang onto the TOT being offered to hoteliers, even if there is less of it by the computations of those with an active stake in the game, and use it to improve Anaheim (at prevailing wage for municipal works projects that don’t require us to offer food stamps, etc. to underwrite the low pay of more jobs created by incentives.) Those public improvements increase the quality of life of all Anaheim residents, but they also help property values, and eventually property taxes, which in the end are far more reliable and less subject to the whims of the travel industry than TOT as a revenue base.
It’s not right or left, or right or wrong, it is basic math. And when our leaders don’t do the math it’s hard not to think they are serving another master other than the taxpayers. When we come to City Hall we are demonized for having the audacity to speak up. This is our government and representative democracy is a two-way street. Yes, we elect leaders to act on our behalf. But why does the law give us a microphone and a Constitutionally protected right to petition our gov’t for the redress of grievances if our leaders refuse to hear what is said there? Even when we come respectfully we are ignored, told we are “misinformed,” and leaders go on to do as they please. If we are misinformed and our only access to information is supposed to come from City Hall, then whose fault is that? When we come with information to share with the Council, including emails in which staff is admitting to cooking the books on projects to get them done, then we are dismissed as “politically motivated,” and ignored again. If Council spent a fraction of the time hearing what we are trying to say to them, even if they did what they wanted after all, but let us feel we were heard and got a decent explanation, there wouldn’t be the raw hate and resentment spewing across that microphone as often as it does. When people don’t feel heard, they get LOUDER.
You (Matt Cunningham and/or his overlords) can blow off the importance of Tuesday all you want. The fact is, it happened. And that does not stop the Big Money from buying District votes, but it does give the little guy a chance to get to the table, instead of cowering beneath it waiting for crumbs to be dropped by the masters. What really matters is the WAY Tuesday happened. 5-0 inexplicably, and even more inexplicably the sequencing requested was approved without objection. The attack dogs were called off by a whistle the rest of us couldn’t hear. The people of Anaheim rattled the cages of those who give orders to those at the dais.
But it is Matt Cunningham’s job to cry “sour grapes” on behalf of the leaders who can’t say it without looking foolish. Someone from your side has to spit in the food of what should be a buffet table at a celebration party.
Tuesday night implemented a fair and equitable (mostly) result of what an overwhelming number of voters from every precinct, and every walk of life, and every political view voted for overwhelmingly November 2014. So you go ahead and fuss and fume at the outcome that hasn’t been to your liking since the voters, ALL the voters who chose to participate, weighed in.* But given how hard the corporate overlords must have yanked the leash, (to get the 5-0 vote you KNOW the 3 person majority was not happy about having to back down on) I hope they go one step further and pull the plug over here (AnaheimBlog) so we can get on with the important business of moving Anaheim forward in a way that has been expressed by a majority of it’s residents, and I don’t care that an Orange resident on the payroll of the Anaheim Chamber (self-reported by Matt on 700 forms before he was removed from public service with the bear-burning incident) doesn’t like it and wants to throw a tantrum.
Those with a stake in this community who are trying to make things better don’t need your blessing or assistance to do what needs to be done. You sit by your keyboard, I’m gonna go grab some trash off the street on the way to a volunteer gig, where I quietly put in time every week to backfill a program the city can’t afford to pay for while they write checks to their friends. Happy New Year, Matt. And Todd and Todd.
*Those convinced Districting was some left wing conspiracy to let unions take over the City of Anaheim have to ignore the reality that ALL BUT ONE voting precinct approved Measures L and M, and the one that didn’t was an odd precinct in an industrial area in which the one vote cast was against Districts, thus one vote created the lone dissenting precinct. Otherwise every area of Anaheim, from the most conservative of Anaheim Hills gated enclaves to the deepest liberal heart of Central Anaheim, and the middle-class semi-conservative west end ALL supported the effort to bring our out of control monolithic government down to more manageable bite sized pieces.
[Also note: the Cunningblog unearthed a thoughtful post from James Vanderbilt on the Mother Colony website, which we will reprint here so that it can reach a larger audience. (One extra paragraph break was inserted.) Orange Juice Blog has probably referred to Vanderbilt as having moved to “West Anaheim” when the proper term would have been “West of Euclid” and is now “District 2.” We are more than pleased to correct that error. Here’s Councilmember Vanderbilt:]
Implication of “District Representation” by AT-LARGE members is beyond disingenuous, considering District consequences. Besides Non-elected “entry” ( here self-initiated by moving) my previous hypothetical replacement scenario ALSO applies to removal, if your optimistic 2-year hope fails. Unlike a ‘true’ district, recall OR replacement would require NOT a District, but a CITYWIDE vote (AT-Large seat ! Gee, Same (smaller scale) ‘NO-Accountability’ problem as Redevelopment Agencies ! ). THIS facilitates “Citizen Participation”?? Hardly.
Vanderbilt certainly earns top grades for Diligence, City Residence / Service History, Receptivity, etc. Great. There is NO Glaring FLAW with Vanderbilt, but WITH the ABSURDITY of an implementation effort that PURPORTS to remedy disenfranchisement, but in fact, per the 2 flaws above ( ONE ‘vote’ ( his action) for ‘selection’, CITYWIDE vote for replacement / removal) commits NOT a “minor inconvenience” but a WORSE disenfranchisement, ( 2 years of NO ‘District 2’ VOTEs, to immediately ‘remedy’ past ineffective Latino votes) as a consequence. Labeling delay and disenfranchisement as “further opportunity for candidate development” is simple turd polishing and District 3 activists certainly REJECT this ” minor inconvenience” and “advantage” if not from “past injustice” but because of FUTURE consequences. yet by reassignment elsewhere, these effects are magically alleged to acquire beneficial powers? No sale.
Greg, was it your suggestion or sourced elsewhere (10 failed tries at path retracing) about an alternate 4 seat (not 2) expansion? Charter /settlement terms/calendar limits aside for the moment, (possibly was detailed, but I can’t relocate it) adding 2 short-term seats (to 9) would eliminate, not relocate, time disenfranchisement , equalize voting opportunity, and preserve existing At-large terms, that could be dropped at expiration or continued (if legally allowed) as a future hybrid form. (This could be a possible answer my previous puzzlement why some major US Cities have hybrid forms?)
Though I most favor benefits of this approach, I see slim chance of escape from time constraints on adopting it, am clueless on legality from Charter/settlement, but wonder if avenues exist beyond legal protest from District 2 to surmount those ?
The majority of this issue’s reasoned dialog seems to have been presented through the lens of consequences on incumbents, NOT District voters, and certainly not on “peripheral” district voters, which per the 2 points above, I see as significant. I would like to hold out some hope of prescription change and correction, but failing that, reject labeling a flawed process of relocating problems as one that expands opportunity.
But then perhaps my concern for process refinement, Candidate forums and development opportunities /resources IS misplaced, when the recent majority of major City decisions seem to be reached/influenced, not thoughtfully on the dias, or, through the ballot box, but loudly from the audience, or expensively in the courtroom ?
Oh, and as for Nikes, ‘voting with your FEET’ is, while supremely successful, not done barefoot. Wonder if Mr. Vanderbilt agrees ?
BBox, I have absolutely no clue what you just said. Plain English please? I get that you are bugged about this outcome. How about you share a solution please?
Yes, that “temporary 9” was my thought, but it would be quite hard to make it happen now. And the payoff would be pretty small. It would also give Districts 2 and 6 two de facto Council members apiece. The way that this has worked out isn’t perfect — but neither is any other solution, and it’s better than what the City had before.
Yes, that James would need to be recalled by the whole city is a difference — but how many Council members ever get recalled at all?
The “de-facto” yardstick is a false one, for the same reason that District 3 activists rejected Vanderbilt’s designation as “theirs” by the Council Majority, not on “Latino-ness”, but that a representative that you did not elect and cannot electorally remove, is NOT “yours” by fiat, you are disenfranchised. As further proof, apply this same yardstick to Districts 2 (or 6) under the current proposal. If, any time after the November election, either Vanderbilt or Murray moves out of their ‘resident’ district, but within Anaheim , as their ‘at-large’ status leaves them free to do, would their destination district then have 2 representatives ? District 2 or 6 would then have NO representation until able to vote in 2018, ACTUALLY, not ‘de-facto’.
As for impact significance, look back at significance of the events of the past 2 years, but from the position of a future district 2 or 6 resident. Would you want ability to participate, or view them with a spectators limitation? The lawsuit plaintiffs were disenfranchised by their own perception, District 2 or 6 residents could be disenfranchised for 2 years by LAW. Shifting a bad situation instead of curing it is not R-E-F-O-R-M, but R-E-V-E-N-G-E, not against offenders, but the innocent.
The ‘temporary 9’ solution UNITES all of Anaheim with in IMMEDIATE ability to vote (“Justice delayed is justice denied” “Let the people Vote” – remember the shouts in Chamber?) while preserving the term entitlements of the existing ‘at large’ Members. 2 districts total are about 100,000 residents, I’d hardly call that insignificant. if legally permitted, a corrective special election to achieve a complete solution, while incurring cost, would be more benefit than either what currently exists or possible further legal objection from the 2 districts in question. Granted, dias expansion would produce some vote dilution there, but again, that’s from the dias perspective, not the voters, ALL of whom would, in offset, now IMMEDIATELY gain FULL participation and accountability. The utility of the remaining ‘at-large’ seats can be evaluated for later decision.
Cost and size of a recall (or election!) effort with and without districts would be radically different, making future ability more relevant than past incidence.
Ok, then you can agitate for it and see what people think. You’d need a referendum in June; little time remains for that, but perhaps enough. If the pressure doesn’t come from Districts 2 and 6, though it wouldn’t happen. As it would seem to require a charter revision, I’m not sure that it’s even possible, but you’re well-placed to find out.
*Can anyone imagine what it would be like to watch this stuff go on in Fullerton?
Well, you know the 3 groups of population – Make things happen, watch things happen, wonder what happened——
Oh, don’t forget those who don’t even wonder.