Reader Saugus Splasher delivers a beat down on me for my post yesterday about how the City was becoming less democratic:
What’s the matter, Jeff, did you have a “case of the Mondays?” In the past you’ve written about how well the city is run, how when you look around you don’t see a place that is one big shambles, and how people need to curb their inchoate rage. But now you’r whining that the cross valley connector was finished and opened before the election? Huh? And being upset about a groundbreaking for the library project when they have obviously started site work? Should they have done the ceremonial groundbreaking AFTER they had already “broken ground.” Yes, the council pivot on the immigration five bills was smart politics. It blunted Gauny’s xenophbic riding of the immigration issue while actually accomplishing nothing because those bills won’t get out of congress or be signed into law by Obama. Isn’t it typical though that the good politicians are the ones that succeed in, um, what do they call it, um, oh, right, politics? And finally, in a city of almost 200,000 people, couldn’t the case be made that all candidates need to be able to raise more money to be able to get their messages to the voters? I bet both Gauny and Boydston had people who have them the full $360 and would be able to give them a full $1,000 (sort of a rising tide lifting all ships)?
So let me get this straight – you would now prefer construction projects that take longer, groundbreakings to occur after the ground has been broken, politicians that aren’t good at politics, and more discord between city council and city bureaucrats? And that would make us more “democratic?”
Huh?
Another reader took issue with my claim that democratic government is supposed to be inefficient, asking me if I’d like to see the City become more like the DMV.
Both readers are missing the point: the city can and should be as efficient as possible in its day-to-day business: issuing permits, repairing pot holes in the street, building new facilities, providing transit for bus riders etc. The business of the city should be as lean, efficient and service-oriented as possible. And I think the City of Santa Clarita is efficient and strong in those areas and it deserves to be congratulated for that.
But at the Council and Commission and committee level, at the level where policy is decided and decisions are made, that is where democracy and competing interests and conflict arise. That is where we should have long debates, where things get messy, where we should take time to hear from all parties involved and where compromises are made, as we did during the Mayo expansion.
But that’s not what we’re going to get with appointed commissioners who can stay as long as their hard-to-defeat incumbent patrons stay. And I stand by the other point too: in this town, I’d be much more likely to donate $1,000 to an incumbent Council person rather than a challenger because I’m looking at it as a cost/benefit equation. Show me the list of people who will bet $1,000 on a challenger when the odds have proven so long?
And all that’s before you get to the makeup of the at-large City Council itself, which, in my view not representative of the SCV. We have 27% Latinos in this City. Do you see anyone on the Council of Latino heritage? Do you see anyone from Saugus, or the poorer neighborhoods of Newhall and Canyon Country represented on our City Council? You do not. I’d bet the same is true of the commissions and committees.
As for the specific examples I cited and the reader addressed: you praise the City Council for blunting Gauny’s charge as “good politics.” I call it by what it rightfully should be called: cynical manipulation as well as an embarrassment to me as someone who believes undocumented immigrants should be treated with respect and dignity.
As to the library: I still don’t know what to make of that fiasco. The Signal published renderings in September, I posted them here too; then, the week after groundbreaking, everyone’s raising a fuss saying it looks like a ski chalet and the redesign cost in the six figures. Who screwed up? I don’t know and don’t care, but it felt rushed and designed for a pre-election photo-op. Maybe I’m wrong.
I yield on the CVC. It was an accomplishment long in the making and the Council and City deserve to be congratulated for that. By the way, I hope soon to celebrate the opening of the Cross Valley Bike Lane, the last bike path linking Sierra Highway with Highway 126.
Loading ...
Good post. The only thing I might disagree with you is your comment about an at-large council. While it might not be representative of the ethinicity of the City, I think if you start breaking up the City into districts its going to be alot more political with councilmembers voting for their projects within their own district and alot more fighting between members for projects to be in their district.
I think that the Council and City staff do a relatively good job at trying to include projects within all parts of the City. I believe when the City was formed back in 87, there was also a vote to break the City up by districts which was not passed.
Just my thoughts.
Jeff, thank you for reposting part of my comments. You are correct, I didn’t get the point and I still don’t get the point. On the one hand you compliment the city government for doing things well and for making Santa Clarita great. But on the other hand you don’t like the process, you want turnover in the commissioners, and you wish for “long debates” and you want “things (to) get messy.” What I see, though, is a city council and city manager that seem to be on the same page and pulling in the same direction. They are getting things done and making things better while other cities seem to be going broke and falling apart. Could this be why there is a lack of discord? For some reason it seems you want both acrimony AND progress. So you want the same outcomes, just longer and messier meetings? But when there is acrimony, as with the library design, you don’t like that either because you want them to “just build the library.” So maybe it’s that you want longer, messier, more acrimonious meetings, but you also want progress to remain on schedule. Maybe, just maybe, since the incumbents were all reelected the voters themselves prefer harmonious progress instead of long, messy, acrimonious progress.
It is audaciously presumptuous to assume that the silence of the non-voting 85% of our valley indicates agreement with the status quo and the incumbents. How do you know they have not just given up in disgust after seeing democracy thwarted by big money?
By that standard Meg Whitman is a huge fan of Arnold and even Jerry Brown! …and actually a fan of every other elected official, including the Democrat’s who took over of both houses of Congress, and President Obama.
Do you really think she felt that way? Then why do you presume SCV non-voters support those in power?
It is a false arguement to dismiss the voted will of the people because you feel voter turnout was too low. As you know, elections in America are decided by those voters who choose participate. Now you can say what you want about me, but I’m not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!
SS, please point out where I dismissed the vote of the people? I merely said neither side can claim to have the support of that 85%.
Councilwoman Ender has used this logic at least twice, claiming once that because only 50 or so people who showed up at City Hall to speak against an issue, their complaints were not that important because the majority of our population didn’t come to speak.
Then at The Signal’s’ Newsmaker dinner she said that the few people who complain are easily outnumbered by those who think everything is going great – you can tell, she said, because the majority of our city is a “silent majority” who are happy with the way things are.
So you’ll all be pleased to know that until 90,000 people show up at City Hall, everything is just fine.
$1000 checks are also preferred though you can still go the PAC route if you prefer to go bigger.
SP2:
You know in your heart that people just say “they have given up in disgust” to justify their nonvoting behavior to cover up their laziness and lack of attention. You also know that increased turnout just means more lightly informed voters that will break hard towards the incumbents anyway.
Tim, you make the same baseless assumption about those who do not vote– that they support incumbents implicitely. There is no basis for this presumption.
There is a basis that they would support incumbents about 60-65%. I have numbers!
I’m trying to figure out which strategy you are using, Tim. Is it:
1) You know how non-voters would have voted, even though by defninition their lack of a vote means you can’t possibly know how they vote, or
2) You have data but can’t share; I know, I know, you could tell us but then you’d have to kill us.
Voting patterns from the Newhall School District election in November where the incumbent WHO HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE RACE came first imply there are 3,000 to 5,000 voters that obviously know very little about the local election (they voted for someone who was not even running). Other historical numbers imply strongly that this lightly informed group (just exercising their civic duty) go about 60 to 65% in favor of incumbents, probably mainly due to name recognition.
End of transmission.
Amen to Jeff’s comments.
Tim:
I’d say that the if the folks at the polls in the last election were the “lack of attention” voters, they sure didn’t carry the incumbents. The incumbents won because of the lack of attention ABSENTEE voters who were willing to drink whatever kool-aid Buck McKeon, Scott Wilk, the Signal and other local Republican leaders were peddeling without taking a hard look at how the incumbents really voted on issues and what that meant about their positions. I find it hard to swallow that Frank Ferry is all for responsible development, is willing to spend millions on Cemex but is unwilling to even speak out agains Newhall Ranch which is about as irresponsible as you can get these days.
Absolutely. Could not agree more. There are 3,000 to 5,000 voters in every municipal election who know nearly nothing about local issues, but think they should exercise their civic duty (they are probably in the main permanent vote by mail) who vote about 65% for incumbents, probably mainly influenced by vague name recognition and the fact they got some mailers to remind them their is an election coming up.
One thing about this years City Council is undenyable.
None of the candidates received a majority (over 50%) of the ballots cast. (Number of voters not votes). That says that no candidate even had the overwhelming support of those citizens who chose to vote.
Something to seriously consider.
Excellent distinction between efficiency in implementing policies already put in place, and taking time for deliberation in creating policies. Too many people miss that distinction. Kudos for having better political understanding than the great majority of political commentors.