.
New friend of the blog, progressive Anaheim councilwoman Lorri Galloway, asked us to post this statement in response to a Voice of OC article that came out yesterday morning, regarding the setbacks suffered by her “Let the People Vote” initiative. This initiative, which polls resoundingly well with voters from across the political spectrum and is spearheaded by progressive Democrat Galloway and Tea-Party Republican Tim Whitacre, would specify that any further subsidies like the huge, controversial, recent “bed tax giveaway” would have to be approved by Anaheim voters. The initiative has recently suffered two major body blows through no fault of its proponents or popularity, but it IS going to happen, and the Orange Juice Blog is going to do what we can to help it happen.
Statement from Lorri Galloway, In response to yesterday’s Voice of OC article by Adam Almahrek:
I want to share statements that I gave to Adam that were not included in his article.
Adam approached me. I did not seek him. He wanted me to comment on statements from trusted inside sources that there was a deal made to get the votes needed for the AMEA contract using our initiative as leverage.
- Although I have always been an outspoken advocate of our wonderful city employees, I did not collude, in any way, with Nick Berardino to obtain a contract for Anaheim employees. I did not direct or author any hit pieces against any council members.
. - My involvement with Berardino was solely because he offered to advance the “Let the People Vote” initiative. I welcomed his support and am grateful for his help.
. - The statement that there was no community support for the initiative is false. Thousands upon thousands of signatures have been obtained. Signature gatherers report that people are anxious to sign and many are angry to know that $158 million of taxpayer money was given to one private developer with no public input. Community leaders, residents, students, citizens of all ages come to city hall week after week to voice support of “Let the People Vote”. To say that there is no community support is saying that their voices don’t count.
. - The “Let the People Vote” initiative is not dead. Multiple polls were conducted that show tremendous support, averaging 85% approval. Just because OCEA pulled out, does not mean we die and go home.
. - Our initiative is truly meant to be the voice of the people. I personally have nothing to gain by spearheading it. That is not true for others. Obviously, it could be a tool used by unions for their own purposes. One hotelier and his consultants have millions to gain and millions of reasons to fight against the people’s initiative. Other hotel developers see the potential to benefit from the same type of deal.
. - A Disney representative and the Anaheim Chamber president meeting with the head of the union for Anaheim municipal employees says more than anyone could ever attempt to deny.
. - An inside AMEA member close to negotiations verified to me that a deal was, in fact, made that involved the guarantee of the votes needed for a contract in exchange for stopping the union actions.
Well, we hope that straightens out some issues – keep your eyes on the Orange Juice Blog for more news on this vital initiative in the OC’s largest functional city!
Galloway is delusional in her thinking. A deal was cut that left her outside. As for community support, the question is readily apparent: how come there is no overt public outrage? where are the signature sheets? If such high levelof support exists, file the petitions. Pragmatically, I doubt she can because she doesnt have the signatures. Period. Game over.
This was a deal to stem the very real situations being confronted by many California municipalities. Just read/Google Vallejo, San Jose, San Diego,and the new poster child for California municipal elected decision-making: Stockton. Tait is absolutely on the money. Interestingly enough, his position was/is echoed by the Democratic mayor of San Jose and his recent electoral victory in June. More municipalities will be confronted by the San Jose decision-making situation. Anaheim will be one of those.
It’s a good thing I know who wrote this, so I was able to call you to figure out what you were talking about.
I guess your second paragraph is about the labor agreement that everyone on the council EXCEPT Tait agreed to – that’s Lorri AND the anti-democracy RINO majority that agreed to it.
If you are saying Mayor Tait is “right on the money,” which he may be, then you’re saying the agreement was a BAD agreement – a promise not to outsource, cut workers’ pensions, etc., which may not be a keepable or affordable promise.
But let’s leave the second paragraph alone, as it’s not really the relevant topic. The relevant topic is Lorri’s (and Take Back Anaheim’s) “Let the People Vote” initiative, which this article was mostly about. And, by the way, Mayor Tait IS in favor of this initiative, and is certainly “right on the money” on that too.
Where are the signature sheets? You will see them real soon, in a big public forum, within the week. Didn’t mean to break the news in the comments section here. We have the 15,000 that we were first led to believe was the goal; before the goal posts were moved at the last minute to 22,000. (ostensibly an honest error on the clerk’s part, but it was still an error by the city, and in the interests of the anti-democracy council majority.)
So, we will be demanding that the Council use its prerogative to put the initiative on the ballot itself, since it was the City’s error that stymied the people’s efforts. THAT, I think, may be a bit “delusional,” to expect Sidhu, Murray and Eastman to do the right thing because it’s right. But it’s still worth ASKING FOR, and getting them on the record refusing.
Lorri is NOT delusional to think that this measure will eventually qualify, and pass, probably in a more-expensive special election next June. Did I mention yet – no, I don’t think it’s been in print yet, here I go breaking news in a comments section again – a poll has shown an amazing 85% of Anaheimers favoring the measure. Which is why Disney, the hotels, and the paid-off Council majority are terrified of it. Oh. I should also mention who paid for that poll. It was Mayor Tait. Right on the money.
You’re right that a deal was cut that left us “outside.” It’s easy to be bitter at Berardino and OCEA, but really it was a case of unions just doing what they have to do – single-mindedly looking out for their workers. This is not a union movement, although it accepts any union support it gets, and it’s highly likely they’ll be back next year, when the ink on the agreement is dry. But like I just told Nick on his Facebook page yesterday (his birthday) – “With you or without you, this Anaheim thing is gonna happen. Happy birthday old warrior!”
In short, Anaheim is trying its own version of redevelopment. Which it is entitled to do. As the 6th largest city in the state with its entertainment district, it is in a more advantageous position than most California cities. The price for this quasi- redevelopment action is the labor agreement. The deal is sealed.
The initiative proposal is dead for the current time. Will it be revived in the future? Will it be proposed in the future and be successful? Only time will tell. The more important question is the fiscal health of the city. Tait is spot on. In reality, this is “redevelopment” under a different name and financing mechanism. Tait knows it. OCEA/AMEA knows it and bargained for concessions that many California cities are not willing to give up (i.e., furloughs, pay reductions, et al) and are heavily reliant on in a static no growth state economy.
Galloway was the odd person out.
Um, again, I think you’re confused. Tait was, and is, ALLIED with Galloway in opposing the giveaway.
And he OPPOSED the labor agreement. HE was the odd person out.
I can certainly believe that the agreement with OCEA was undertaken to (and will) preclude the union’s participation in any initiative effort. It does not follow, though, that OCEA is by that agreement required to oppose any such effort — or that it will do so. Who knows the price paid for Labor peace entitles them to Labor’s support on the issue — or merely its silence and non-participation? If it’s the latter, then the initiative would not necessarily be dead. (I don’t know which it is; do you have inside info?)
Vern,
we can disagreee. The reality is the issues that Tait raised are being raised in a uniform chorus around California’s citites. The evidence is very clear as municipalities implement furlough days and pay reductions at both the state and local levels. That effort is widespread in light of the demise of redevelopment and the widespread concern about balancing municipal buoth dgets and services rendered.
Again, the concessions that AMEA got in “exchange” defy logic since most municipalities are implementing them.
Respectfully, your ideology blinds you. Galloway was playing a “populist card” and got trumped by OCEA. Anaheim wants to fill behind the loss of redevelopment monies to the state (you should do an article on the Anaheim redevelopment projects kicked out by the oversight group and the State Controller and those approved for continued payment and winddown) by using “resort district revenues” to fund their developer agreements absent the now non-existant tax increment financing. Pretty straightforward.
Stockton did the same thing as did many California cities. Stockton’s problem is that they dont have a “central resort area with hotels and Disneyland” that both generate tax revenues and private sector employment. The bill came due and they could not meet it. Same with Vallejo.
Galloway’s comments, and yours, while laudible, are populist in substance. Unfortunately, we live in times where electeds look at revenue and expenditures and the services delivered as the bottom line. The evidence: the reduction and cut back in employment at the state, county, and local government levels over the last 3 years. Hence the AMEA/OCEA position. Kudos to them for negotiating that but it can safely be said that they won the specific battle and lost the larger war. The short term cost to the Anaheim through these immediate payouts and agreements will not last over the long term. Again, Tait is seeing the big picture with respect to other California cities.
Agreed, Tait and Galloway were opposed to the agreement. Their individual positions in opposition are for very different reasons. The next year will tell. Certainly the Governor’s tax proposal for the next 5 years wil seriously impact this agreement over the next year.
This agreement is very similiar to what the County did regarding the Deputy Sheriffs and the 3% @50situation. I have it on very good authority that Anaheim has a trigger mechanism on the agreement. Meanwhile Anaheim can afford to create its own “redevelopment” efforts by funding them with the “resort tax revenues”. With the exception of Tait and Galloway, for different policy reasons, the Anaheim City Council agreed with this effort.
Vern,you are right to ask the City Council to place the initiative on the ballot even though it may be under the needed 22,000 signatures. Nothing wrong with that since we do live in a citizen democracy. Given the ratification of the labor agreement, and the projection of future revenues to the City in a stagnant economy, my guess is that the City Council will not approve the request to bypass the signature requirement and place the question before Anaheim voters.