The O.C. blogosphere has erupted in the wake of O.C. Supervisor Janet Nguyen’s successful request for a field office in Little Saigon. Here at the Orange Juice!, we heard about this from Larry Gilbert, who had this to say, “Pandora’s box has now been opened.”
Over at the Liberal OC blog, we heard from Gila Jones and Andrew Davey. Said Gila, “Guess who pays? Too easy again
Sorry to say this, Art, but I think you’re missing the point here. As much as I usually love to agree with you and your maverick take on OC politics, I can’t stand by and remain silent at this obviously political game that Janet Nguyen is playing with our tax dollars. If Janet were to just open a campaign office in Little Saigon using her campaign funds, I’d have no problem. That’s politics played fair and square. But no, she’s having the county open this field office in Westminster, which isn’t THAT far from Santa Ana. If distance is a problem, then shouldn’t we be opening county service offices in REALLY far away places like Fullerton or San Juan Capistrano? Why must they drive all the way up the freeway to reach county services?
And oh yes, if Janet cared about reaching out to the underprivileged in this district, why doesn’t she fight the horrendous cuts to housing aid and mental health care and other services needed by the working poor who have a hard time helping themselves? Wouldn’t that be a better use of our tax dollars than a taxpayer-funded effort to bolster Janet’s image in the Vietnamese-American community?
Now don’t get me wrong. I WANT to see Janet join Pat Bates and Bill Campbell in fighting back against the extremist agenda of Moorlach and Norby that hurts working families in OC. Now why don’t they fight the disastrous cuts and protect the benefits of our hardworking deputy sheriffs? That would be more helpful than wasting our money on this taxpayer-funded PR campaign.
Two reactions Art. First, it sure does not take a heck of a lot to get you all excited, wound up or whatever. Calm down!
Second, one 3-2 vote (apparently) does not make for a new direction on the Board of Supervisors. Let’s see what happens in the next several months and weeks before annointing a new majority!
This is truly political. Van Tran is opening up an office in Little Siagon, so Janet needs to keep up with the “Jones.” Her constituents are seeking county services for housing assistance. I understand there is a 3 year waiting list for this service. What are the other services being requested from the 200 calls her office receives daily?
Is the County going to lease a building from one of her constituents? We deserve full disclosure on this “pilot program.”
Of course Gila and Andrew have their own agenda.
Art, it’s funny how you think everyone but you has a hidden agenda.
Of course this is politics.The politico bloggers are amusing.The Democrats accuse Janet of playing politics with the satellite office.This critisism is itself politics for future campaigning (Dunn) against Janet.The Democrats fear this office in litle Siagon will strengthen her Vietnamese support.The Republican supporters of Janet see this as a great opportunity to secure the Vietnamese vote important in future elections to keep Janet (Republican) in office and avoid a successful democrat (Dunn) challenge.Yes it is good political strategy and she is doing a good job.In some cases political strategies produces some collateral good – in this case assisting a under represented community.
Matt,
My agendas aren’t hidden. You can read them here at the Orange Juice! every day…
What is your agenda by the way, with regard to your continuing failure to report on Sheriff Mike Carona getting tossed from a law enforcement association because of his relationships with mobsters?
Art, we read your mental eruptions, not your agendas.
I have noted every article about Carona’s cut-off from LEIU on Red County in our news roundups. We have been e-mailing about this and other things back and forth the last day or so, so you already have an answer — so don’t put on a show for your readers and pretend you don’t know. In your twisted view, anyone who doesn’t share your obsessions is covering up for whatever your obsessing about.
Perhaps you can disclose to your readers your motivation behind your slavish coverage of Sup. Nguyen, and be honest with your readers about your true opinion of Janet and why you were backing her in the special election.
So climb off your high horse, because you are in position to preach to others.
Art: I’m not going to pretend that I won’t favor Joe Dunn over Janet Nguyen when the time comes. But really, this field office thing is absolutely absurd.
SJC, where I live, is 59% Latino as of 2007 census estimates, and 45% of the population speak primarily Spanish at home. It’s reasonable to assume that a good number of these folks live below the poverty line. I know a majority have limited access to private transportation.
How are they supposed to get to Santa Ana for services? Sure, it can be done by bus but it’s difficult and timeconsuming. Why do the low income, limited English speakers of Westminster get access to something that the low income, limited English speakers of SJC don’t get?
It’s a travesty, and it sure ain’t the “small government” or “fiscal responsibility” hypocritically touted by most cons.
Creativity…a strange word for
most politicians. Maybe Janet is
just trying to do the right thing
for her constituients…has anyone
thought of that?
We support her efforts for two reasons…making politics local
is what Tip O’Neil said and we
agree. The second thing is…that
if it doesn’t work out….Janet
will simply close the office.
She doesn’t want people saying..
oh, it’s just a “re-election
office”. Otherwise, the elder
Vietnames populations…can get
their constituients services
with ease! Hey, Pat Bates needs
that for her Leisure World group
too.
P.S.: It’s obvious to me the reason the low-income LES folks in Westminster “deserve” this office while the the low-income LES folks in SJC don’t is that the minorities in Westminster are mostly Reeps and the minorities in SJC are mostly Dems.
Actually Gila, the real reason is that the minorities in Westminster are here legally while the minorities in SJC are not.
Art. I was speaking to former president Ronald Reagan at lunch today and he shared these pearls of wisdom.
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”
The words are his, the lunch was fabricated. Your Juice colleague
Larry,
LOL! I met with Reagan today too and he said after reading your comment, “There he goes again!” 🙂
the real reason is that the minorities in Westminster are here legally while the minorities in SJC are not.
What a load of crap. Yes, there are illegal aliens in SJC. There are also illegal aliens in Westminster. If you think the legal/illegal status is a factor, then you’re a fool. Plain and simple.
Perhaps the difference is at least partly attributable to the fact that the Fifth District (south county) Supervisor spent, according to media reports, $ 2.5 million of her own money to campaign for and win the office, whereas the First District Supervisor is scrambling for money, apparently lacking her own deep pockets. This difference could be reflected by the attention each supervisor pays to the low income folks in their districts.
Some inconvienient truths:
1) If it was Supervisor Joe Dunn or Supervisor Claudia Alvarez who proposed this office, the vote would have been 4-1 against it.
2) If it was Supervisor Joe Dunn who proposed this office I suspect that some of the good liberal posters who are raising hell would either be very quiet or would talk about the virtues of outreach.
3) I disagree with the premise that a field office is per se objectionable, political or a waste of money. It may be any one or all of the above but it doesn’t have to be.
4) Elected officials spend time helping constituents cut through red tape. Arguably, taking the office closer to the people helps in that process.
5) This is not unique–in L.A. the Supervisors have multiple offices–Republican Don Knabbe has 7 regional offices and Democrat Burke has 6 for example. Is there a hue and cry about those offices being political and a waste of taxpayers money?
6) gjones is right that Pat Bate’s district can make a great case for a district office–maybe a better case then Janet’s. But I’d suggest that Janet is doing a better job of trying to help her constituents (and herself) then Bates is.
7)No question that janet’s desire for re-election is driving this train. But frankly, it’s what drives most elected officials in their decisions(I still can’t figure out the electoral value of the wide screen tv’s in the sup’s offices but maybe it will come to me).
8) The expenditure of the amount of money is questionable—many other County officials with district or satellite offices either set their offices up in a Courthouse(Knabbe for example, has done that), a post office, a library or a legislators office. While I can’t blame Janet for not hooking up with Van Tran I imagine that there would be a local library or city or college office that would have a room that they would probably give her for next to nothing, maybe free. If she does this then they don’t need to spend all that money.
9) The focus of Democratic attacks should not be to oppose an effort to bring government closer to the people(remember, you used to have to go to the County Registrar of Voters Office to register to vote before postcard registrations in 1976), it should be to crticize this as a waste of scarce resources since she has not made an effort to get free or cheap rent space. Also, Democrats should monitor the office carefully to ensure that it doesnt become a quasi-campaign office. While the OCDA may not pay much attention, I understand that Claudio may be able to use his influence with the AG to investigate any political hanky-panky.
10) And when a Democratic Supervisor gets elected, be thankful that Janet blazed a path that will hopefully allow that supervisor to do a better job in ensuring that his or her constituents are able to get County services.
Bladerunner.
A very well articulated response. Let me share with our readers that the city of Mission Viejo provides an office within our city hall for Congressman Gary Miller at no charge.
Larry, regarding the office for the Congressman – does he staff it on occasion, or is it always a staffer of his? What has been accomplished, other than perhaps some “feel good” subjective sensatoins, by having that office there? Really, I am just wondering if such an office is primarily a cosmetic thing or if it is a real functioning place.
Bladerunner:
2) If it was Supervisor Joe Dunn who proposed this office I suspect that some of the good liberal posters who are raising hell would either be very quiet or would talk about the virtues of outreach.
Problem is, Supervisor Joe Dunn would never have done such a thing. If a Supervisor Dunn saw the need for an office of this type he’d find a way to do it in a very low cost way — like in a local city hall, as you suggest in another point.
I’d suggest that Janet is doing a better job of trying to help her constituents (and herself) then Bates is.
Load of crap. In your very next point you note that Janet’s desire for re-election is the main motivator here. Pat Bates has no reason to put satellite offices in her district because the folks in her district for whom travel is difficult are mostly Dems.
you used to have to go to the County Registrar of Voters Office to register to vote before postcard registrations in 1976
I don’t know if you’re misremembering or if you have the date wrong. I was a student living in the UCI dorms in 1971 when the voting age was lowered to 18. I went to the on-campus office of the Head Resident of the dorms (Tom something-or-other) and filled out my registration affidavit.
I agree with you that we should take the supes to task not for improving services but rather for wasting scarce resources. And I think that’s precisely the nature of the criticism we Dems have been leveling since the decision was made yesterday. My further complaint has been that the opening of this office is a hypocritical act in light of the constant hue and cry from cons about limiting the size of government.
IMO cons don’t actually want to keep government small. They just want to enlarge it in ways that benefit them.
Gila et al who think that Janet is “conservative”…she is not. A TRUE conservative would have done it like Cong. Miller (in a City Hall or somewhere donated/free) OR had a “mobile” office 1x a week in various locations….in order to save the taxpayers $$
Loretta Sanchez and Lou Correa used to host comunity office hours at a table set up in front of grocery stores in the community. That allowed them to forego expensive office rent and move around to best suit the community needs.
Is there no place in Little Saigon that Janet Nguyen could do this?
gilajones–
Let me get this straight. The motivation for Supervisor Nguyen is political and the motivation for Supervisor Dunn would be altruistic? Right.
Are you suggesting that if Supervisor Nguyen got an office in a public building such as a library that would be ok? Because it seems if a Supervisor Dunn did that he would get a hall pass from you. Or maybe this is one where you would be quiet. Are all district offices “a waste of resources” or are certain district offices ok as long as they keep the rent down by working out of public facilities? Or is it just Republican district offices that are bad because you feel they are hypocritical? Don’t all politicians at least claim they support efficient and responsive government? Isn’t there a political effect, plus or minus, from all constiuent services of public officials?
Pat Bates constituents, rich or poor, red or blue, need constituent services. She may not pay much attention to the Democrats in South County(like the San Francisco Supervisors generally ignore the Republicans in town)but I doubt her decision has much to do with who would benefit from a district office and more with she simply hadn’t thought of it.
As for the VR cards I may have overstated the siuation. Prior to the 1976 motor voter change the County required someone to be officially signed up to register people to vote. You had to sign a pledge that you would register anyone, regardless of party. So while there were people doing this it was few and far between. Perhaps UCI had someone but there really weren’t very many locations people could go. But the UCI example shows how helpful it was to have that service close to you, saving you a trip to the County. Supervisors can help constituents and if they want to use their district funds for a satellite office they should do so. if they misuse it or overpay they leave themselves open for attack and defeat.
The motivation for Supervisor Nguyen is political and the motivation for Supervisor Dunn would be altruistic?
I didn’t mention motivation. But since we’re on that subject now, I think Dunn would put an office in a free/low cost place because he’s a smarter politician who knows it’s better politics to make conservative use of the taxpayers’ money.
Are you suggesting that if Supervisor Nguyen got an office in a public building such as a library that would be ok?
Absolutely! I object only to the use of taxpayer funds to do this. If the same thing could be done with private donations, or at a very small cost by using a place like a library, I’d support it 110%. To me that would be real constituent services and I’d say “Good for Janet” for actually walking the walk.
I really don’t have anything against Janet Nguyen. In general I’m pleased when a woman is elected to office, and I support better representation by minorities in OC elected office. Furthermore, I like that Janet isn’t supported by the OCGOP “machine.” If I were to make a list of OC Republicans who I tend to approve of, I believe she’d be on it.
I just really don’t like the way this Westminster office thing was done. Sorry for bursting your “all partisans are evil” balloon.
Gila et al who think that Janet is “conservative”…she is not.
That may well be. The point I was making was a bit more general — that cons always talk about keeping government small and being careful with the taxpayers’ dollars, but when it suits them that idea goes out the window. This is just one hypocritical example.
gilajones:
Go back and look, you did mention motivation in your comment.
And I’m still trying to get your bottom line here—are they ok when taxpayer funds are not used or is there a certain public funds financial threshold that moves it from acceptable to unacceptable?
If they are a legitimate public service—like legislators offices for example– I think its much easier to set up a budget for all supervisors and allow them to make the decision of how best to serve their constituents and fiscally force them to set up regional shop in public facilities where there will be some public costs but they will be minimal and subtracted from the overall budget of the supervisor. And if you don’t like the way the supervisor spends money–whther it by for big screen tv’s or reginoal offices–vote them out of office.
But thanks for clarifying as much as you did. I agree that the way it was done leaves Janet and the Board majority open to criticism.
As for partisan baloons, hey, I’m waiting for you and Andrew to be floating over in the Great Park baloon with Moorlach and Norby dropping leaflets expressing outrage about Janet’s Taj Mahal. Bi-partisanship you know.