I’ve heard two contradictory reports about the mailer put out by Tony Bushala’s newly created Political Action Committee: “Citizens for Open Space” — to which he apparently contributed $6,000 to promote the “No on W” efforts that seek to block the construction of over 750 homes by Chevron, despite that Tony himself is “Yes on W”:
(1) That the mailer promotes Barry Levinson, who received some support (nowhere near what Kiger received) in the recall election.
(2) That the mailer promoted both Levinson and Jane Rands, who along with Kitty Jaramillo have been the most outspoken “No on W” candidates for City Council.
These two possibilities suggest very different strategies for Tony in these last few days of the election — where, let’s recall, Tony only really cares about two things: Chris Norby’s race against Sharon Quirk-Silva and promoting Bruce Whitaker (who will win regardless of what Tony does) and Travis Kiger (who won’t unless Tony helps out a lot) for the Fullerton City Council.
If the mailer (or mailers — we’ll see, won’t we?) promote Barry Levinson, then their goal is clear: Tony has (apparently without Levinson’s knowledge or acquiescence, but in what I’m sure is still a welcome gesture) decided that Levinson ought to be people’s third vote in the City Council elections. This would be fine with Tony– except for the possibility that the more independent-minded Levinson could finish third while Kiger finishes fourth — and out of the money. Levinson’s abrasive and conservative — but, unlike Kiger, he’s not Tony’s factotum.
But if the mailers — as I’ve been told by one person who received them — promote both Levinson and Rands — then they’re impressively cynical even for the likes of the wily Bushala.
Why? Because you can’t vote for four candidates with only three open seats!
That’s impressive cynicism! Tony wants everyone to vote for Whitaker and Kiger. That means that can only add one name — if that (and I’ll bet that Tony’s own ballot will have only two names on it.) People differ on their views of this race, but I think that Whitaker and Flory are going to be the top two vote-getters. The race, therefore, is for third place — and for Tony that means that it’s “Kiger vs. Everybody Else.”
The obvious strategy? Split the vote! Get “No on W” people voting for Levinson and Rands — hell, get Ackermanite conservatives to waste their votes on Don Bankhead! — so long as they don’t coalesce around a third candidate with a real chance of beating Kiger.
Who does have a chance of beating Kiger for the third spot (if Flory exceeds his total)? It’s an odd bit of coalition building to consider.
Traditional Republicans (Ackerman types): A lot will vote for Jennifer Fitzgerald. Following FPOA and the Fire Fighters, though, a lot will also (or instead?) vote for Rick Alvarez. Inattentive ones may also vote for Don Bankhead.
Democrats: Mostly they’ll be voting for Flory and Jaramillo — some also following FPOA to support Ackerman Alvarez, some voting for Rands, some for no one but these two.
Libertarian Republicans: Some voting for Levinson as a third choice, some for Rands, some for no one but Whitaker and Kiger.
As I feared when I first said that there should be an anti-FFFF coalition spanning the spectrum up against Tony’s candidates, we haven’t seen voters coalesce around a single opponent to edge out Kiger and join Flory and Whitaker in the winner’s circle. The most likely outcome thus seems to be a Kiger victory — but he’s done a lot to prevent that. I could imagine Fitzgerald, Alvarez, Jaramillo, Levinson, or even Rands having been able to cobble together a coalition, out of the public eye, to edge out.
For my part, I think that Measure W ought not to be what determines whom one supports for City Council. I oppose Measure W, but I respect those people who support it because they legitimately believe that the deal with Chervon, negotiated over many years, is the best deal that could have been achieved. I think that they’re wrong — but being wrong isn’t being evil. (Many other proponents of Measure W don’t give a damn about the environment and just like seeing Chevron win — which is being evil, at least in political terms.)
At the Candidates’ Meet and Greet this past week, Jan Flory gave a cogent enough answer that I think that opponents of Measure W should still feel comfortable voting for her. She supports it — but she’s not likely to do anything underhanded on Council (as Bushala’s current majority did) to promote it unfairly. Rick Alvarez’s answer was much less impressive.
I’d like Jaramillo to take that third seat — and it’s interesting to note that, as an opponent of Measure W, she was NOT on that flyer! Maybe that means that Tony is afraid that she could edge out Kiger — or that he thinks he can get away with using his fortune to tell people to vote for four candidates for three seats (only two of which he actually cares about — but that five candidates would be a bridge too far.)
1) Evidence that Tony supports W?
2) Flory’s answer on W isn’t acceptable. Voters ought not cut her a free pass for doling out corporate welfare to the tune of a billion dollars. Rands is a more than adequate conscience vote.
I signed the petition to put the issue on the ballot.
The Old Guard Libs are outraged! How dare he! We love Chevron!
Sounds like a retraction is in order, Dr. D.
Not hardly, Ryan. See how he answers my question — if he answers my question.
Tony — are you saying that you are “No on W”? Or are you just saying that you saw some political advantage to the measure being on the ballot?
One can vote for both of them, of course….
I am highly critical of FFFF’s near silence re: W but this is another heap of self indulgent nonsense from GD who’s made it his trademark. Most of it is so inane it doesn’t deserve further discussion, but a couple of points do.
People who legitimately believe that this is the best possible deal for Fullerton don’t deserve respect, they deserve contempt for being either obscenely uninformed or delusional. They could, after all, have read Ryan’s stellar piece.
And being wrong isn’t evil, but if making your cause palatable to voters requires launching the single largest disinformation campaign in Fullerton’s history – that’s lying, which is.
Flory isn’t part of the Chevron campaign, nipsey. I’ll grant you Chevron being evil, but that’s different from the environmentalists who negotiated with them for so long being evil.
I’ll be more impressed with your criticism if you can explain what it is that she said, which from your strong conclusion I presume that you can.
Flory isn’t part of the Chevron campaign? What do you mean?
I guess that’s a semantic question. Her name is all over all the Yes on W literature that *I’ve* seen.
I gotta locate one of these mailers YOU’RE talking about – it would be a good hook for the Jane/Barry/Kitty piece I’d like to do.
She’s not funding it, managing it, etc. I don’t know whether or not they’re using her name with permission, but so far as I can tell she’s not made it part of her platform (although she’s willing to answer questions on it, as you know), and knows that it may lose her votes. As she explained at the church meeting, she’s doing it not out of any love for Chevron, but because she (and a bunch of mostly older environmentalists in Fullerton) think that this is the best deal to be had. I disagree with them — although I’ve admittedly studied it less — based in large part on statements of other people whom I trust. But is she part of some pro-Chevron conspiracy? Absolutely not — unlike Tony’s boys on the Council, I might add.
Coyote Hills is useful for Tony as a way to get Kiger elected by splitting the anti-Kiger vote — which, not incidentally, helps Chevron. San and complicated, but true. I’ll be very interested if Tony claims to be “No on W” — and then why, if so, on only this issue, has he not striven to keep his Council boys in line.
[Flory] could just be contemptibly uninformed or delusional, but participating, even passively, in a systematic campaign of deceit sort of undermines any notion of an unwitting mistake.
And I’m sorry, did you just imply that her appearance in Chevron propaganda could plausibly be happening without her knowledge or permission? Ha, I’m not Vern, but you’re fired.
In the only Chevron propaganda I’ve seen, she appears as a name in a long list. The other place I know that that happened is with the current list of Bushala’s endorsers — and I’ve been told directly that that was not authorized. As her support for the development is on public record, I don’t know if they had to ask permission. Clearly she does know about it — at least after the fact.
As I recall, she was critical of the nature of Chevron’s campaign for Yes on W. (This was in response to my question about whether she’d have voted for the change in ballot measure title, which I believe that she said she would probably not have supported. Vern was out of the room at the time, unfortunately.) So her position is a lot more reasonable and nuanced than is Kiger’s — whom the “Open Space” PAC (being Tony) is seeking to elect. The notion that there’s no difference between them on this issue — between, that is, a pragmatist who thinks that the present deal is that best one that was achievable and an ideologue nattering about the supremacy of property rights — is a convenient lie.
My compliments to Tony — he knows his audience.
Greg,
The “Open Space” PAC is not seeking to elect Travis Kiger. You don’t have any evidence of that.
I, on the other hand, have the 410 and 460 statements. Lets let the facts control the conversation.
Speaking of facts, Jan Flory accepted money from Chevron’s Land and Development Project Manager. Sounds like a ringing endorsement of her behavior regarding measure W if I ever saw one.
Ryan:
The “Open Space” PAC is reportedly Tony Bushala. Is Tony Bushala trying to elect Travis Kiger? (Note: not a trick question. Answer is “Yes.”)
Ryan, I would accept money from Chevron’s guy too. Better I have it than they do. And I would give them no quo for their quid. How does her accepting that money and not changing a thing about her position, and in fact expressing displeasure with how Chevron has marketed the proposal, constitute giving a “ringing endorsement of their behavior”?
Flory’s position on this deal was already widely known — it has been for years. She’s explained why she supports it: she thinks it’s the best deal environmentalists (like her) can get — and she thinks that because the environmentalists who negotiated it told her so.. I think that they’re wrong, but I don’t think that they’re wrong in bad faith.
Tony is playing chess here. Don’t try to play checkers with him.
If the “Open Space” PAC is supporting Kiger, or anyone else, it’s required to state as much in its filing. It hasn’t, other than supporting Barry Levinson and Jane Rands, as well as opposing Jan Flory.
Are you making an accusation regarding campaign finance rules? It sure sounds like it.
Regarding Ms. Flory’s acceptance of the check– I think it speaks for itself. No commentary needed from me.
I sure would L-O-V-E to see who exactly negotiated this deal. $20 says their gas tank is filled with Techron.
“The notion that there’s no difference between them on this issue — between, that is, a pragmatist who thinks that the present deal is that best one that was achievable and an ideologue nattering about the supremacy of property rights — is a convenient lie.”
I do believe that qualifies as a straw man argument, since no one – surely not I – has made such a claim. Kiger, Whitaker and Sebourn’s adding the fraudulent “nature preserve” to the measure title was despicable, and shows just how quickly the one time scrappy underdogs and outsiders metamorphosed into cynical establishment hacks, just like Flory and the kooks they replaced on the council. Meet the new boss…
Ryan,
As a legal matter, Tony’s PAC — being a separate entity from Tony (“corporations are people, my friend”) — is supporting Levinson and Rands and opposing Flory.
As a practical matter, Tony’s PAC is being used by Tony to promote Kiger by trying to knock down Flory and split the anti-Kiger vote.
I suspect now that Tony may have polling (or maybe it’s just intuition) suggesting that someone else, maybe Fitzgerald, is joining Whitaker in the top two, meaning that Flory and Kiger are fighting it out for third place. If so, then supporting alternatives to Flory, while bashing Flory, is IN EFFECT AND INTENT “helping Kiger.”
As an opponent of Measure W, are you truly ambivalent between Kiger and Flory on this issue?
nipsey thinks that that’s a straw man argument — but I think that nipset (and you) are smarter than that.) If it’s a fight between Kiger and Flory for third place — which explains the FFFF jihad against for the past months Flory — then we must recognize that the anti-Chevron flyer helps Kiger in every relevant way but (implausibly) endorsing Kiger. It’s using the “No on W” vote to elect the most extreme “Yes on W” candidate.
As I say above — “proudly cynical.” I hope you’re not part of that.
Two words:
“La Floresta”
I am speaking here for myself, and not the No on W organization. I also want to neither I nor the No on W organization had anything to do with this new PAC and mailer.
When No on W supporters ask for a recommendation, they often do not ask for just one candidate. They are looking to fill their ballot with three choices and often there are no other important driving forces for them other than W. The second pattern I have I have seen is when it is someone who votes strongly along the Democratic line. The math would dictate the need to find a third candidate. Of course it gets really interesting when they are a strong No on W supporter and find out one of the only two Dem candidates is not. In that case, if they align themselves with No on W, they will drop that one Dem, and pick up two candidates who support No on W. The mailer in question works perfectly for that use case. Please re-read my disclaimer at the top. I do regret the misuse of No on W here though.
Second comment is regarding Ms. Flory’s “probably [would] not have supported” changing the measure title. I would hope that any elected official would have a stronger reaction (and take action) when an oil company or any entity wants to turn our voter ballots into their advertisement. At least make them pay (the public, not private domain) for it.
And one more thing. Your statement “I think that Measure W ought not to be what determines whom one supports for City Council.”. Why not?
Land use policies are about the most fundamental responsibility of local governments. This is a 40-year old challenge at that. You need to have a good understanding of land use policies, the legal system, financing, how to influencing others, how to bring about collaboration amongst diverse stakeholders, how to be resourceful to find assistance in the private and public sectors, understanding of legal entities and their formation (likely some sort of joint parks/powers authority) to own.manage this in perpetuity. Do you really think that an elected official who can help lead us to a true win-win (not the Chevron spin-spin) outcome on this is going to be short on qualifications as a “real” city councilmember?
I mean no disrespect of course, and appreciate your support of No on W.
What I now suspect, Angela, is that Tony has had data showing for months now that Whitaker and someone else (my guess is Fitzgerald) were in the top two spots and that Flory and Kiger were actually fighting for third. This explains the anti-Flory jihad on FFFF as well as the “NO FLORY” signs out this year.
I trust Tony to understand the Council race on which he’s expended so much effort. If he thinks that it’s a Flory v. Kiger battle for third, it probably is. That, sadly, renders everyone else irrelevant when it comes to deciding what course the Council will take. In that case, the question for “No on W” forces is: who’s better for their cause on Council, a property-rights ideologue on Council who is demonstrably willing to stack the deck by renaming the ballot measure — or an environmentalist pragmatist who you and I think is wrong to believe that this is the best deal to be had from Chevron?
I think that, between Kiger and Flory (and taking everything in your second comment into account, that choice is crystal clear. Flory would be more likely to bring about a win-win — 300 houses, serious toxin abatement, an actually usable “nature preserve” — than is Kiger. If I were voting in Fullerton, I’d vote for two “No on W” candidates — and Flory, because that’s the vote that will determine who sits in that third Council chair.
Polling for local Council races is notoriously inaccurate and generally shows a majority of voters undecided.
So don’t be giving Tony more credit than he deserves.
There’s also a dynamic that happens when the mail gets really negative in a multi-candidate race. The candidates who aren’t attacking or being attacked turn out to be the real winners.
Jane Rands may be the surprise winner on Tuesday, as she has delivered a clear unambiguous message about saving Coyote Hills, cleaning up downtown, and reforming the police department.
She shines brightly in a field of craptastic candidates.
It would be both fine with me and truly a real surprise.
To be safe, I’d treat one line on one’s ballot as a race between Flory and Kiger — who are most likely the ones with a chance at the third spot. The other two spaces are left to one’s conscience. As a major opponent of developing Coyote Hills, are you truly ambivalent on that “face off”, Mayor Q?