BIG
BIG
BIG
UPDATE!
AB 1453 just passed the Assembly, 76-0!
(Had Young Kim been there, maybe it would have been 75-1. We’ll never know.)
It now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. He will surely sign it.
VICTORY IS OURS!
[To be returned to Aug. 21 after a suitable interval.]
Original Story:
Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva’s office has reported that AB 1453 — the bill she authored and navigated through the legislative process, along with co-sponsorship from fellow OC Assembly Members Allan Mansoor, Tom Daly, and Don Wagner — has just unanimously passed the State Senate as (quite reasonably) amended and is now going back to the Assembly for a final vote before it goes to Governor Jerry Brown for his presumed signature. It’s text as amended appears below.
This means that this is the FINAL CHANCE for Young Kim to announce, before the Legislatures work on Quirk-Silva’s signature accomplishment is complete, that she supports the bill. (If she does.)
WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE PLEASE MAKE A DECISION FOR THIS POOR HELPLESS WOMAN!
Her support for the bill would have seemed a given for a politician, especially an immigrant from one of the nations that some of U.S. Vets likely to be buried there risked their lives to defend from a communist Chinese invasion, except for a few things:
- Wealthy corporate development interests (and big political contributors) in Irvine opposed the bill at every opportunity because it might undercut their chances of selling houses to wealthy investors from the country that invaded Korea in 1950
- Irvine Mayor Steven Choi, a big supporter of Kim’s and a fellow South Korean, did everything within his power to delay and block the critical components of the bill — a grant from the City of Irvine to house the Veteran’s Cemetery in the Great Park — until resistance became pointless
- A major argument against the bill was that it violated the principles of feng shui
- It is, again, Quirk-Silva’s signature accomplishment — and far from being a easy two-foot putt, it’s something that many people right up until the last day thought would not be possible over the objection of the developer Five Point — and Kim may just really, really dislike thanking her
- Those squadrons of elderly Korean women working their fingers to the bone for her election probably just assume SO STRONGLY that she would be supporting this bill that they would assume that anyone who said otherwise was just lying, and keep on dialing and stuffing envelopes. (But, 존경받는 장로, I promise you that I do not lie — she really has not said whether she supports a veterans’ cemetery in Orange County. Maybe you can talk reason to her.)
I searched her website. The number 1453 turns up nothing. I searched on the word “veterans” and came up with only one page, filled with apparently ghostwritten boilerplate:
Veteran’s Day Thoughts
Dear Friend,
On this Veteran’s Day, I am reminded of what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: “We, too, born to freedom, are willing to fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.” We are a proud peace loving nation, but when alternatives fail, we will fight to maintain liberty and freedom.
Today, I am honored to share few thoughts in honor of our veterans because they are worthy of our honor. The men and women who have served and are currently serving our country here and abroad truly deserve our admiration and appreciation for their commitment and sacrifice – in times of conflict, and in times of peace.
In many instances, they have worked together and in many cases died together, so that we may remain free. Let us also pray for the safekeeping and safe return of our thousands of American service men and women who are serving this great nation. And let us also honor the families of service members, as they have faced, and continue to endure hardships and sacrifices from being separated from loved ones who have fought or are fighting for this country.
God Bless You!
Young Kim
“Worthy of our honor.” Yes — SO HOW WOULD YOU VOTE?
This is actually part of a larger issue. As Chair of the Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee, Quirk-Silva has also shown leadership in issues ranging from homeless veterans to veterans benefits. That’s good — that’s what Orange County wants! So — why is she completely AWOL on veterans’ issues?
Given all that, it seems fair to ask Young Kim whether, even at this very very late date, she would throw her support to the bill. In fact, it seems more than fair — it seems downright gallant to offer her a public forum for her to do the right thing.
It’s relevant because, at this point, with even Choi and Irvine Councilwoman Christine Shea waving the flag of surrender over the project, Young Kim’s refusal to support AB 1453 starts to look more than simply politically perverse, but a sign of something seriously wrong with her approach to politics.
As I think that her advisors, if she were willing to listen to her, would tell her:
“IT’S REALLY EASY. SUCK IT UP AND SAY THAT YOU SUPPORT THE BILL.”
But she isn’t, and she won’t. Why?
Is it a lack of understanding of the political process in Sacramento — which Northwest Orange County needs her to have to fight for its interests — which is a far cry from coordinating Rep. Ed Royce’s social calendar?
Is it extremely zealous devotion to feng shui or — far worse — to welathy real estate developers?
Is it an atypically Republican (and truly shocking) diffidence towards veterans?
Is it because I keep asking her to do so — something that I don’t know that Sharon appreciates, but it seems sporting — and her Roycean advisors are telling her that that’s proof that she shouldn’t do it?
Is she just THAT PETTY AND STUBBORN?
(If it’s the latter, that’s a character flaw about which voters really do need to know.)
This continued refusal to take a stand on an issue of this prominence and importance at some point becomes simply WEIRD.
So, as a gesture of kindness and civility, I’m putting forth the bill here — the bill on which Young Kim would be voting if she were in the Assembly. She can read it, talk to her advisors, and say what she thinks.
Or, she can leave everyone guessing — and that might be a bigger statement than actually taking a stand.
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 19, 2014
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 4, 2014
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 19, 2014
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 22, 2014
California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session
ASSEMBLY BILLNo. 1453
Introduced by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Daly, Mansoor, and Wagner)
(Coauthors: Senators Correa and Wyland)
January 9, 2014
An act to add Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 1410) to Division 6 of the Military and Veterans Code, relating to veterans, and making an appropriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1453, as amended, Quirk-Silva. Southern California Veterans Cemetery.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (department) is created in state government and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is the head of the department. Under existing law, the department, in voluntary cooperation with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the boards of supervisors of specified northern California counties, is required to design, develop, and construct a state-owned and state-operated Northern California Veterans Cemetery. Under existing law, the department, in voluntary cooperation with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, the City of Seaside, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, and surrounding counties, cities, and local agencies, is required to design, develop, and construct the state-owned and state-operated veterans cemetery, which shall be located on the site of the former Fort Ord.
Existing federal law authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of the federal Department of Veterans Affairs to make a grant to any state for the purpose of establishing, expanding, or improving a veterans’ cemetery owned by the state and operating and maintaining a veterans’ cemetery.
This bill would require the department, in voluntary cooperation with local government entities in Orange County, to design, develop, construct, and equip a state-owned and state-operated Southern California Veterans Cemeterybegin insert to be located at a specified site in the City of Irvineend insert. Subject to specified requirements described in federal law, the bill would makebegin delete allend delete honorably dischargedbegin delete veterans andend deletebegin insert veterans,end insert their spousesbegin insert,end insert andbegin insert eligible dependentend insert children eligible for interment in the cemetery. The bill would require the department to establish a fee to be charged for interment of veteran spouses and eligiblebegin insert dependentend insert children.
The bill would create the Southern California Veterans Cemetery Master Development Fundbegin delete, a continuously appropriated fund,end delete and would require all moneys received for the design, development, construction, and equipment of the cemetery to be deposited in this fund.begin delete By creating a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.end delete The bill would also create the Southern California Veterans Cemetery Perpetual Maintenance Fund and would direct all moneys received for the maintenance of the cemeterybegin delete, including those moneys received for the interment of a spouse or child,end delete to be deposited in this fund.begin insert The bill would make expenditure of the moneys in those funds subject to appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds in the annual Budget Act to fund annual cemetery operations and maintenance and to enact other related necessary additional legislation.end insert
The bill would make proposals for the construction, placement, or donation of monuments and memorials to the cemetery subject to review by a specified advisory committee and subject to final approval by the secretary.
The bill would authorize the cemetery administrator to accept donations of personal property to be used for the maintenance, beautification, or repair of the cemetery. The bill would require cash donations to be deposited into the Southern California Veterans Cemetery Donations Fund, a continuously appropriated fund created by this bill, and would require the cash donations to be expended for the maintenance, beautification, and repair of the cemetery, as specified. By creating a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.
The bill would require and authorize the department to adopt regulations, as specified.
begin delete
The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds in the annual Budget Act to fund annual cemetery operations and maintenance and to enact any additional legislation that may be necessary to set dollar limits on funding for those operations and that maintenance. The bill would specify that if no appropriation is made for these purposes, the department would not be required to comply with the provisions of this bill.
end deletebegin insert
The bill would appropriate $500,000 from the General Fund to the department to be used for the grant proposal, as described below. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds in the annual Budget Act to support the department in carrying out these provisions. The bill would specify that if no appropriation is made for those purposes, the department would not be required to comply with provisions of this bill.
end insert
The bill would require the department to apply to the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program of the federal Department of Veterans Affairs for a grant of not more than 100% of the estimated cost for designing, developing, constructing, and equipping thebegin deletecemetery.end delete
begin deleteTheend deletebegin insert cemetery. Theend insert bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to prohibit the expenditure ofbegin insert specifiedend insert moneys appropriated to the department until the department has received written approval of the grant requested and a commitment from the federal Veterans Cemetery Grants Program that the funds appropriated under the grant are available for expenditure by thebegin delete state, except as specified.end deletebegin insert state.end insert
Vote: begin deletemajority end deletebegin insert2⁄3end insert. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
P3 1
SECTION 1.
Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 1410) is
2added to Division 6 of the Military and Veterans Code, to read:
P4 1Chapter 9.5. Southern California Veterans Cemetery
2
3
1410.
(a) (1) The department, in voluntary cooperation with
4local government entities in Orange County pursuant to Section
51412, shall design, develop, construct, and equip a state-owned
6and state-operated Southern California Veterans Cemetery, which
7shall be locatedbegin delete in Orange County, California.end deletebegin insert at the site of the
8former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, on 125 acres known as
9the Amended and Restated Development Agreement Site in the
10Great Park in the City of Irvine.end insert
11(2) The department shall oversee and coordinate the design,
12development, and construction of the cemetery.
13(3) For purposes of this chapter, “department” means the
14Department of Veterans Affairs.
15(b) (1) Subject to the eligibility requirements described in
16Section 2402 of Title 38 of the United States Code, as amended
17from time to time,begin delete allend delete honorably dischargedbegin delete veterans andend deletebegin insert veterans,end insert
18their spousesbegin insert,end insert andbegin insert eligible dependentend insert children are eligible for
19interment in the cemetery. The department shall establish a fee to
20be charged for interment of veteran spouses and eligiblebegin insert dependentend insert
21children. The amount of the fee shall not exceed the reasonable
22costs to the department for interment in the cemetery.
23(2) Subject to Section 1418, for the purposes of this subdivision,
24the department shall adopt regulations to specify the eligibility
25requirements for interment in the cemetery.
26(3) All fees received pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deposited
27in the Southern California Veterans Cemetery Perpetual
28Maintenance Fund created pursuant to Section 1412.
29
1412.
(a) For the purposes of Section 1410, all local
30government entities in Orange County may join together for the
31purpose of cooperating with the department in the design,
32development, construction, and equipment of the cemetery.
33(b) All moneys received for the design, development,
34construction, and equipment of the cemetery shall be deposited in
35the Southern California Veterans Cemetery Master Development
36Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury.
37begin deleteNotwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, moneysbegin insert Expenditure of those moneys shall be subject to
38in the fund are continuously appropriated to the department for
39the purpose of designing, developing, constructing, and equipping
40the cemetery.end delete
P5 1appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.end insert Moneys
2appropriated by the Legislature for these purposes shall also be
3deposited in the fund.
4(c) (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 1416, all
5moneys received for the maintenance of the cemetery, including
6moneys received pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1410, shall
7be deposited in the Southern California Veterans Cemetery
8Perpetual Maintenance Fund, which is hereby created in the State
9Treasury.begin delete Any state funding for the annual maintenance of thebegin insert Expenditure of those moneys shall be subject to
10cemetery shall be appropriated by the Legislature in the annual
11Budget Act.end delete
12appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.end insert
13(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds in the
14annual Budget Act to fund annual cemetery operations and
15maintenance and to enact any additional legislation that may be
16necessary to set dollar limits on funding for those operations and
17that maintenance.
18
1414.
(a) Proposals for the construction, placement, or donation
19of monuments and memorials to the cemetery shall be subject to
20review by an advisory committee comprised of the cemetery
21administrator, representatives from local government entities within
22Orange County, local veterans’ service organizations, and others
23as approved by the secretary.
24(b) All proposals for the construction, placement, or donation
25of monuments and memorials to the cemetery shall be subject to
26the final approval of the secretary.
27(c) Subject to Section 1418, the department shall adopt
28regulations for the policies and procedures to be followed with
29respect to the construction, placement, donation, and approval of
30monuments and memorials proposed to be placed on the cemetery
31grounds.
32
1416.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 11005 of the Government
33Code, the cemetery administrator, subject to the approval of the
34secretary, may accept donations of personal property, including
35cash or other gifts, to be used for the maintenance, beautification,
36or repair of the cemetery.
37(b) Cash donations made pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be
38deposited into the Southern California Veterans Cemetery
39Donations Fund, which is hereby created. Notwithstanding Section
4013340 of the Government Code, moneys in the fund are
P6 1continuously appropriated to the department for the maintenance,
2beautification, and repair of the cemetery or, subject to the approval
3of the secretary, for a specified cemetery maintenance or
4beautification project designated by the donor.
5
1418.
For purposes of carrying out the provisions of this
6chapter, the department may adopt regulations. All regulations
7adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be adopted pursuant to the
8Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
9Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
10Code).
11begin insert
begin insertSEC. 2.end insert
end insert
begin insertThe Legislature hereby appropriates five hundred
12thousand dollars ($500,000) from the General Fund to the
13Department of Veterans Affairs for completion of the preliminary
14or conceptual design work required during the preapplication
15phase of the grant proposal described in Section 4 of this act.end insert
16
begin deleteSEC. 2.end delete
17begin insertSEC. 3.end insert
It is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds
18in the annual Budget Act to support the Department of Veterans
19Affairs in carrying out the provisions of Chapter 9.5 (commencing
20with Section 1410) of Division 6 of the Military and Veterans
21Code. If no appropriation is made for these purposes, the
22Department of Veterans Affairs shall not be required to comply
23with the provisions of Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section
241410) of Division 6 of the Military and Veterans Code.
25
begin deleteSEC. 3.end delete
26begin insertSEC. 4.end insert
(a) The Department of Veterans Affairs shall apply
27to the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program of the federal
28Department of Veterans Affairs for a grant of not more than 100
29percent of the estimated cost for designing, developing,
30constructing, and equipping the cemetery.
31(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the moneys to be
32appropriated in the annual Budget Act under Sectionbegin delete 2end deletebegin insert 3end insert of this
33act are not expended until the Department of Veterans Affairs has
34received written approval of the grant requested under subdivision
35(a) and a commitment from the federal Veterans Cemetery Grants
36Program that the funds appropriated under the grant are available
37for expenditure by thebegin delete state, except it is the intent of the Legislaturebegin insert state.
38that the department may expend an amount necessary for
P7 1completion of the grant proposal from the funds intended by the
2Legislature to be appropriated under Section 2.end delete
 
(That’s a pretty good piece of legislation there!)
Candidate Young Kim, the ball is — as it has been for an awfully long time now — in your court!
Would you vote YES on AB 1453, would you vote NO, or would you CONTINUE TO ABSTAIN?
“The Poor Hopeless Woman”….. Let’s bind her feet and sell her children!
I would hope that she would vote for this bill. It’s too bad only members of the state legislator are the only ones allowed to vote.
SHE WANTS TO BE IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE COOK.
That’s why the voters need to know how she’d vote on certain bills before they make their decision. You shouldn’t have to “hope.” She should say.
“Hope” is not a plan.
She’s just taking a page from the Quirk-Silva book of ‘leadership’ where you don’t take positions on (even no brainer) stuff.
If Quirk-Silva was looking not to take a position on an issue planting her squarely against some big-money interests, she failed miserably here, because she showed adept and decisive leadership.
You just can’t offer a word of praise, I understand. My guess is: some evil curse, your teeth would all immediately fall out of your mouth? That’s really rough, man.
So much hyperbole.
I do have an evil curse though, it’s having to endure another dead weight, stand for almost nothing incumbent whose only merit – ahem – is that they occupy the spot so someone even worse doesn’t. You were expecting applause?
Given the alternative, I would be expecting you to provide campaign contributions. “Better than the alternative” means something pretty significant here in OC.
There — I’ve set you up for another nice “I’m above it all” riposte.
Right. SQS always takes firm and value based positions. She’s really not a politician looking desperately for ways to appear relevant, especially in this campaign season.
Nope, she’s ‘one of the good ones’!
I think that with a little work that could probably rise to the level of sarcasm, so I’ll treat it as such.
No, she doesn’t always take firm and value-based positions. We here have criticized her for that. But I think that Vern would agree with me that we judge her not as to whether she’s faster than the bear, but whether she’s faster than the bear that’s chasing both of them. There’s no question that she would be better on more good governance issues than the Bigoted Buttkicker and Royce Spawn would be.
She started in the Veterans Cemetery issue — which you may notice is what this post was about — on the very day that she was appointed Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee. (I know; I was there.) It was not out of “desperation,” it was because she saw a need, saw that she could fill it, and worked hard and well with people from all sides of the political aisle to make it happen when it really looked like it wouldn’t.
You can say what you will about her on other issues, and in some cases I would agree. But in this instance, and the veterans involved would back me up on this, she was smart and dogged and absolutely masterful. And Young Kim, by contrast, either takes no position or both of them or opposing this significant accomplishment out of spite.
OK, any more anonymous commenters want to cast aspersions on her over this? Y’all are smart not to sign your real names.
How about if Sharon puts the veterans cemetery in a portion of Coyote Hills in Fullerton?
The land trust that was going to help facilitate the purchase of Coyote Hills from Chevron has backed out.
The state will be offering money to fund the veterans cemetery, so maybe Quirk-Silva could use the money to preserve Coyote Hills and put this in her own district?
P.S. I’m an Air Force veteran that would consider it an honor to be buried there.
Federal (or state or both) regulations regarding the characteristics required for a veterans cemetery, which include its not being too hilly (let along valley-y) would exclude the East Coyote Hills as a viable candidate. Besides, as the only de facto nature sanctuary within a broad swath of northwestern OC (as well as adjoining portions of LA), it’s already serving a purpose.
The more important thing, though, is that the symbolically appropriate choice of this part the former base at El Toro, the last American that many soldiers on their way to Vietnam ever touched, as well as its convenience to travelers and tourists at the intersection of major freeways, is really far better than Coyote Hills could offer.
Now my question to you is: who do you think would be more willing, and more importantly more ABLE, as a member of the legislature to preserve Coyote Hills — Sharon Quirk-Silva or Young Kim?
Personally, I don’t trust either of them.
One other note , the contours of Coyote Hills could be graded, like they were when they were developed for housing, to satisfy the requirements of the Veterans Administration.
I understand the connection to the cemetery to those who served in Vietnam, however there are multitudes of veterans like myself who did not.
Bye the bye, are you a veteran?
From the tone of your letter, I’m guessing not.
No, I’m the father of a veteran, and have been very involved with OCVMP in the details of the approval process for the El Toro site.
Greg,
I salute you sir for your assistance in creating a burial ground for all those Orange County veterans who were honorably discharged from their military obligation.
I would salute you right back, but that privilege is reserved for veterans and their civilian commanders.
I don’t know why this is such a big deal for politicians to decide. These men and women served our country. How many of those elected representatives can say the same thing? Give them a final resting place AND healthcare while they are alive. For those vets who are homeless, give them a home. That is the very least we can do for those who sacrificed themselves to keep us safe.
I think that the politicians are afraid of spending a bunch of money on public (vets) services and not leaving enough for them at the troff.
I had a long phone conversation with Young Kim last week and ask her to support AB1453. She said “she could not support with out knowing where the money would come from to build the Veterans Cemetery”.
Did you tell her that it comes from the federal government — which sets aside funds because it greatly appreciates states taking on the burden of providing land for this purpose — AS SHE COULD HAVE DISCOVERED BY SPENDING 90 SECONDS RESEARCHING THE MATTER?
That tears it. This woman does not belong in the state legislature. She’d be flailing in a PTA meeting.
Feng Shui is Chinese, not Korean. Does Sharon support your blind racial stereotypes? Or are you stepping out on your own here?
Because you’re surely not the only one here who’s confused, I’ll refer to you as 172.56.16.176. I’m sure that that won’t be an inconvenience; like the email address you listed, you won’t likely to be using it again.
Last question first: I have no relationship with the Quirk-Silva campaign. I consider her and her husband to be “political friends,” and her Campaign Treasurer is my daughter’s boss (my daughter is not involved in her finances), but I get the sense that they cringe and maybe even hyperventilate sometimes when, as here, I “step out on my own” and write my own independent observations on AD-65. As with 2012, you should charge it all to my account, not hers.
Now, to your first point. If you think that Feng Shui’s Chinese origins means that it has no adherents among other Asian cultures, then you are an idiot. Not even one of the respectable “understandable ignorance” idiots, but a “grow a brain moran”-style idiot. My Filipina wife takes aspects of feng shui seriously, as to those from many other Asian cultures — including Korean culture. While he impact of feng shui doesn’t extend solely to Asia, or to all of Asia, or to everyone in the countries where it has any impact — do you know who raised in repeatedly in this particular debate? Irvine’s Mayor Steven Choi, Young Kim supporter and fellow Korean immigrant, that’s who. So: blind racial stereotypes HOW, exactly?
Your statement is a bit like making fun of my identifying Russian and Chinese and Vietnamese and Burmese and Cuban communism because everyone knows that Karl Marx was German. (Note to Republicans: please hire a better class of anonymous dirty tricksters.)
It was fun to respond you your anonymous and uninformed attack. When you try again, and it’s less fun, I’ll simply delete your poor attempt at sabotage. So, study harder next time! By the way, do YOU know Young Kim’s position? Since this was published, I’ve had people tell me that it was both FOR it and AGAINST it. Maybe she’s like Schroedinger’s Cat.
Greg I would like to ask Young Kim as well as Sharon Quirk-Silva if they support a bill to put body cameras on all cops at all times?
Good question. My guess is that Young Kim would say that no it’s a stupid idea because who doesn’t love the police. Sharon would probably not bite at the bait.
*Let’s see now…..if I was Veteran, elected to office, knew someone else that was a WWII Veteran, A Korean War Veteran, A Vietnam Era Veteran, a Desert Storm Veteran and of course don’t forget Panama, Grenada – Heartbreak Ridge……..eh…..well, it should be pretty tough to reach across the aisle and say: “Ya think we should have a Veteran Cemetary in Orange County?” Then of course, you would have to ruminate over the effects of such a vote on your current constituent base. You would have to talk to Anti-War protesters from the Vietnam War era and talk to the Mother’s Against Drunk Driving. You would then have to talk to your peer group of partisans in Sacramento. Taking all those things in consideration, you have to go out ask the local neighbors whether they would oppose dead folks and their spirits being located in their immediate neighborhood. They then would have to do a traffic study, to find out how much automobile pollutants will be excreated into the blue skies above the Irvine Valley. These are tough decisions…..you think these people don’t agonize and stay up sleepless nights ….wondering whether they are really doing right! Of course, if its a Toll Road, a Commercial/Residential Development or Government Infrastructure upgrades……well, then somehow money will flow into their campaign coffers and they pass those things right away…..Hey….that’s a no brainer!
At this point, with Choi and Shea having folded their hands, this may be the easiest decision (on what had been a hotly contested issue) that I’ve seen a California legislative candidate have to make this decade. And yet … she can’t do it.
Based on what Brian Chuchua quotes her as saying above (“she could not support without knowing where the money would come from to build the Veterans Cemetery”) she has absolutely no idea what the proposal is or how it works — despite that (1) it is in writing, (2) it has been widely discussed and written about, and (3) she can call up Ed Royce’s office at any time and have them explain it to her.
This goes beyond simply the lack of interest in legislation that some candidates have. This suggests that something is wrong with how she thinks about politics generally — that she’s such a lightweight that she just wants to float above the clouds and ignore policy, as well as what’s good for her district, altogether. This is not normal behavior.
Republicans, please keep in mind that the full blame for your having nominated this featherweight this year falls upon Ed Royce and Bob Huff — Huff because he wanted to clear AD-55 (where Young Kim lived or lives, whichever it is) and had Royce ship her off to AD-65, and Royce because he cleared the field for her in AD-65.
A Sharon Quirk-Silva vs. Fullerton’s Bruce Whitaker battle would have been a heavyweight brawl down to the finish. SQS versus La Palma’s Henry Chareon would have been intense. But Ed Royce wanted his Social Director to have a title — so this is what you get.
If you want to protest against your brilliant political bosses, you can vote for Peter Anderson against Royce and Gregg Fritchle against Huff’s protege Ling-Ling Chang in AD-55. Maybe if Royce and Chang win by less than 5% apiece they will get the message not to be such idiots. (From a Democratic perspective, of course — if these guys are who you want pulling your strings, it only helps my side!)
SEE THE UPDATE! THE BILL IS HEADING OFF TO THE GOVERNOR’S DESK!
Oh no .. that’s gonna make it even harder for Young Kim to figure out if she would support it or not!
I’ll bet you that she tries to get into the celebratory photos, though!
It would be smart of her not to try. Remember the first version of The Omen?
I dunno, Vern — I just really felt like wishing nameless into the corn again, even if it’s only for about 10 weeks.