.
Maybe I was a weird kid, but I never liked or trusted Disney. Hated Disneyland and the gigantic, grinning, overbearing anthropomorphic animals, and didn’t like Disney’s films or cartoons. They just gave me the feeling, even as a kid, that they were lying to me, covering up important things about life. Much preferred Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and The Wizard of Oz, and the books of Lewis Carroll.
Years later, as a thirty-year old father, I came to appreciate… well, at least Mary Poppins and Dumbo. And as a tolerant American I realize Disney brings joy to millions, employment to thousands, and contributes to Anaheim’s economy although not nearly as much as it could and should.
So maybe I was especially qualified, when Disney released its celebrated August 8 statement last year in support of district elections in Anaheim, to look at it a little skeptically. The headlines in all the papers read “Disney Comes Out in Support of District Elections!” But I read the statement closely, and several times. Here it is, and I’ve taken the liberty of bolding the third paragraph:
Dear Honorable Mayor Tait and Members of the Anaheim City Council:
Anaheim has been the home of the Disneyland Resort for nearly six decades. As the city’s largest employer and an active community partner, one of our primary areas of focus has always been what is best for the city and its residents. As communities evolve, so should their policies and structures. Such is the case in Anaheim, where it is time to consider a change in the way future city leaders are elected.
We believe that city leadership should reflect the diversity of its entire population. We support a city council elected from districts and encourage the City of Anaheim to move from at-large elections to district voting. This shift will allow each valued neighborhood to be represented by a local council member of their choosing. Though there are many ways to accomplish this change, we believe the most responsive way would be to place a charter amendment switching to district elections on an upcoming ballot for the voters of Anaheim to consider.
At the same time, the city could begin an open and transparent, citywide dialogue with an independent, unbiased and equitably distributed group of Anaheim residents to determine the number of seats, district boundaries, and a new governance structure for the city – one that fairly represents residents in every Anaheim neighborhood.
Anaheim is a culturally rich and vibrantly diverse city. We believe this change would be a step toward an even stronger and more prosperous Anaheim.
Sincerely,
George M. Kalogridis
President
Disneyland Resort.
So. That hit the world on the morning of August 8, the day that we all knew Mayor Tait was planning to propose putting the matter on November’s ballot (just as Disney had suggested.) All the media reported this uncritically as a straightforward endorsement for the reform, but I couldn’t help reading that third paragraph as a blueprint for procrastination and having it both ways: Disney and its allies could appear to come out on the right, progressive side of history – in favor of democracy and diversity – while still putting off any change for as long as possible (since the status quo is serving them SO damn well) by the mechanism of endless endless study.
***
Disney’s loyal council team – Sidhu replaced by Brandman; and Eastman and Murray.
And events since then suggest that interpretation was correct. At that evening’s epic Council meeting at Anaheim High School (which I immortalized in this story) then-council candidate Jordan Brandman (who was to be a record recipient of Disney contributions) read, haltingly, a speech that basically said the same thing as the statement above but in slightly different words. And then, when the Mayor moved to put districting on the ballot, the three-member Disney-supported majority all voted NO, and instead proceeded to form the new Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) as suggested by Disney above, but with a job description vastly expanded from what Kalogridis wrote.
This committee would be formed of ten members, two each appointed by the five councilmembers – that would be four appointees from districting advocates Mayor Tait and Lorri Galloway, vs. six appointees from the three-member Disney-backed majority who spoke ambiguously but had just rejected Tait’s districting motion. After several months of study (which is still ongoing) they would present their recommendations to the Council, recommendations that could be FOR or AGAINST districting – and then the Council could follow their recommendations or NOT. After which the question MIGHT get put onto the low-turnout June 2014 ballot, leaving very little time – assuming it passed – for voters to learn their districts and candidates to emerge.
Meanwhile, the Disney-supported majority continued and still continues to FIGHT AGAINST the districting lawsuit, at a cost so far to Anaheim taxpayers of $287,000. (If you’ve been under a rock all this time, and I hope you haven’t been, you can get a quick refresher course on the issue and the lawsuit from the LA Times here, written by editors who see things somewhat like I do and are similarly leery of the council majority’s intentions.)
So … is the Committee really just a “Stalling Tactic?”
A stalling tactic to put off districting until it’s actually forced on the city would certainly be a far cry from the mission Kalogridis first proposed: “a dialogue … to determine the number of seats, district boundaries, and a new governance structure.” But that’s more and more what it’s looking like.
For one thing, that’s practically how the City describes it themselves in their pleas to the Court to “let the political process play out.” In fact that’s essentially their only argument so far: “Look, we’re DOING something about this, we have a COMMITTEE, give us more TIME!” (Whether they do get more time will be determined at a hearing next Tuesday which I’ll report on.)
For another thing, the Disney-supported Majority gave the Committee a much more VAST and VAGUE mission than the simple, specific one Kalogridis sketched out, namely:
…to promote the full participation of all residents, neighborhoods, community groups and ethnic groups in studying the City’s electoral system. The Committee will provide advice to the City Council on promoting the full participation of all voters in city elections, including recommendations on:
- Potential changes in the City’s election systems, including election by district;
- How to encourage voter registration;
- How to identify and engage community groups in elections and in local government decision making;
- Language assistance programs; and
- Other techniques to promote full participation in the electoral process.
And the longer this charade drags on, the less effort is put into keeping up the pretense that this is ANYTHING BUT a stalling tactic: Exhibit 1 and 2 being the two appointees Kris Murray just appointed when her original two unexpectedly dropped out: the wild-eyed Keith Oleson who’s already called “90% of the committee,” along with its chairwoman Vivian Pham, “incompetent;” and Sandy Day who’s been an OUTSPOKEN OPPONENT of districting. In this video former OJ blogger Steve Perez quotes their words back to them and they proudly own them:
For her part, the allegedly incompetent chairwoman Vivian Pham, a Tait appointee and district enthusiast, tells the Voice of OC that city staff have refused to provide relevant information, ignoring her requests for specific speakers. Pham, who also agrees that the Committee she chairs has become nothing more than a delaying tactic, complains to Adam that “the presentations we have had are mere fluff. I feel like they’re distracting us from the real issue of districting… We can’t make an informed decision because they won’t give us the information.”
For your sake I hope you’ve missed it, but the OC blogosphere has grown a malignant tumor in recent months – a corporatist, explicitly anti-districting blog run by wordsmith-for-hire Matt Cunningham which claims that the mission of the CAC never was how to make districting happen, but to look at countless other alternatives including doing nothing – and, you know what, he has a point there, if you look at the bullet list above.
Well … but is this really Disney’s fault?
My title dings Disney for its “two faces,” for pretending to be for districting while meanwhile secretly plotting to delay it as many years as humanly possible. But is that fair? What if Disney really meant what they wrote, and the Council majority took it upon themselves to sabotage things?
What if Kris Murray’s clique, with its history of mammoth support from Disney and its corporate allies, with its long dependable record of giving Disney everything its voracious heart desires, simply went rogue?
Wow, in that case, my whole Disney-with-two-faces thesis falls right apart! But, really, how credible is that scenario?
Last August I detailed, in my celebrated post “Disney’s Incest Problem,” the strong personal connections between Disney brass, uber-lobbyist Pringle, and the Council corporatists who give them everything they want. Particularly touching is the intensely intimate relationship between Disney’s “government relations executive” Carrie Nocella and the Council’s Alpha Dog Kris Murray. (Cue soft music…)
As reported in “Disney’s Incest Problem,” Nocella loves to boast of “the power of three votes” that Disney regularly ensures itself on the Anaheim Council, and she has threatened, on the occasions that Murray has been threatened with recall, that “Disney will fight with everything we have.” Meanwhile the dapper (and now departed) Kalogridis, writer of the above districting-friendly words, when warned about Carrie’s rogue actions, expressed unconditional support for her and emphasized that his only job is “protecting Disney’s interests.”
And it only makes good business sense that Disney and its corporate allies would prefer not to take a chance on a new system which could conceivably spell an end to the gravy train they’ve been enjoying so long – in fact from a business point of view it would be reckless to risk such a dramatic change. Look what they’ve been getting from their current crop of puppets – everything from a taxpayer-funded $319 million streetcar geared specifically toward Disney expansion, to a permanent kibbosh on any talk of a $1 gate tax to help fund community services!
So why would they want to take a chance changing to districting? If that does happen, they’ll certainly try to work it to their advantage, but what business minds would risk losing the current batch of sweethearts? Any thought of Disney’s “pro-districting” statement not being disingenuous and duplicitous seems hopelessly naive.
So … anyway … let’s see what happens next Tuesday in court. Will the Judge continue to give the City endless time for dithering, or will his-or-her Honor move things along? I’ll be there to report, and let’s hope for the best!
Hakuna Matata!
Disney could have a sweet deal in Anaheim just by trying to be a good corporate citizen — even at some cost to its bottom line — rather than a Scrooge McDuck. Better a sweet deal than a treacly one.
They don’t want to be partners, they want to be bosses.
Disney should have kept their mouth shut about districting. It is unseemly for such a corporate entity to insert themselves into a political hot potato – it was stupid of them to do so.
Yeah, corporations have a nasty habit of doing that, don’t they?
But only Disney can pull off doing it with a forked tongue!
No, I take that back. It’s similar to the “greenwashing” many corporations do – bragging on some good environmental work they do somewhere so they can go on polluting everywhere else.
The Walt Disney company believes being a good corporate citizen is the right thing to do. Former mayors Pringle and Daly, and the council member mentored by them, Brandman, are no longer credible and reputable interlocutors for the City.
Has Disney’s Board of Directors been contacted? One of their member is Monica C. Lozano, 55, Chief Executive Officer of impreMedia, LLC, and Publisher and Chief Executive Officer of La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language newspaper in the United States.
Disney needs to be invited to reevaluate how one of its core principle is applied in our city: ” Act and create in an ethical manner and consider the consequences of our decisions on people and the planet “
While I would never suggest that a 15 second clip could (or should) ever encompass who a person is or what they represent, it shocks me that a member of the Anaheim city council would want to be represented by the comments made in reply to Mr. Perez by Keith Olsen and Sandra Day.
Shocking.
“While I would never suggest that a 15 second clip could (or should) ever encompass who a person is or what they represent…”
Ryan, that would have been good advice to follow. It is an real commentary on the state of the Left that a person is vilified for opposing race-based policies; for opposing trying to engineer the structure of the city council in order achieve a desired outcome in terms of the racial/ethnic heritage of the councilmembers.
Amazingly, Steve Perez comes in for no criticism for his advocacy of race-base election outcomes.
Matt, once you’ve taken a solemn oath to tell the truth here, please testify as to whether you have ever been aware of, or directly party to, a conversation in Orange County politics during which “achieving a desired outcome in terms of the racial/ethnic heritage of officeholders” was ever discussed. I trust that you will be as candid here as you possibly can. (Yes, that was artfully phrased on my part.)
Greg, tell you what. Speak directlly and forthrightly, like a normal person. Then I can answer your question. Because your above comment looks more like a lame attempt to set some sort of penny-ante trap than an honest question.
“Have you ever been aware of, or directly party to, a conversation in Orange County politics during which ‘achieving a desired outcome in terms of the racial/ethnic heritage of officeholders’ was ever discussed?”
You are (constructively) under oath.
Well, how about OCCORD and UNITE-HERE and ACLU lawsuit plaintiffs saying they want single-member council districts because they think it will result in more Latinos elected to the Anaheim City Council. Does that count?
What the lawsuits actually say is that the current voting procedure illegally denies Latinos a fair opportunity for municipal representation due to their race/ethnicity. They think that the change will lead to a non-discriminatory process. A non-discriminatory process may then lead to the election of more Latinos — as well as to more money in your pocket personally to create websites promoting non-Latino Anaheim City Council candidates, for all I know — but neither is technically the “purpose” of the lawsuit.
You didn’t answer my question, by the way — I add, needlessly.
Greg, you might try being specific and — again — talking like a regular person. Are you asking if I have had a conversation with someone who said he/she wanted single-member districts in order to increase the number of Latinos on the council? Or if I overheard such a conversation? Or witnessed one? Or read someone expressing that opinion in writing?
Are you trying to obtain information? Or just score points?
Is anyone else out there having trouble reading what I wrote, or is it just Matt C.?
Well … um… *gulp* … What are you asking him exactly?
OK — anyone who isn’t busting my chops?
OK, you were saying that both political parties including Matt’s often look for candidates of certain races, as witness the GOP’s recent recruitment of helluv Asians.
Matthew’s job is to find arguments for why districting is unnecessary and bad. One of his new favorites, over at his place, is that some of the reform’s most enthusiastic supporters are “leftists.” Over here, where he assumes we’re mostly leftist ourselves, he uses his other argument, that it’s all about race, race, race.
And although that’s not true, it’s difficult to argue with since the lawsuit was necessarily framed that way, and districting backers like Steve Perez continue to advocate it that way. But to me (a hopeful future Anaheim resident and white dude) it’s all about opening up the possibility of running for office to folks of ANY race who aren’t independently wealthy and don’t want to have to dance to the tune of Disney, SOAR, Pringle, and/or the unions.
That’s harder to argue with though, so expect Matthew to stick with “race race race” and “leftists leftists leftists.”
Vern, I try to believe you are actually an intelligent person, notwithstanding that you regularly offer evidence to the contrary.
It is not my “job” to find arguments. That is one of those straw man arguments you lean on so heavily. I have written extensively on why I oppose imposing single-member council districts on Anaheim.
And I have reported on the political philosophy of the groups and individuals organizing the campaign for single-member districts because they are engaged in political activity on behalf this idea; they have self-described political goals they are trying to achieve, and so their political views are very, very relevant to the discussion — no matter how uncomfortable you find it to have them aired.
You try to minimize those facts, Vern, by summarily dismissing them.
This is a pretty succinct overview Vern. The truth is that while there might have been a chance for a positive result before Kris Murrey’s shakeup, her two new committee members have doomed the result to some probable result of new ‘outreach’ methods. Despite hundreds of residents speaking in favor of districts, people that were never a part of the process before, mind you, it is clear that the appointees will in the end mirror the opinions of the council members that appointed them. I would go so far as to suggest that the city manager’s office has colluded with the council majority in the selection of speakers, and the opinions presented, we shall see what my public records request turns up.
Although the process is becoming increasingly corrupt and arduous, I’m confident that a tide has turned, and these councilmember will find themselves unable to continue the politics of disenfranchisement that has worked so well in the past for them and their King, Polling place intimidator extraordinaire Curt Pringle.
God Help us.
City Manager – Wingeroth? He has generally seemed to be a decent guy, aligned with Mayor Tait. At least as far as opposing corporate giveaways. But there may be Murrayites in his office of course.
First of all, Anaheim City Hall is packed with people who owe their jobs to Pringle and his machine, one way or another. He might be gone, but he has kindly left three clones in his place. Recently, one city official who didn’t tow the line is gone, and it’s clear to everyone who’s in charge right now. If that’s not enough for you, simply take a look at the political persuasions of the Advisory Commt.s speakers, and it’s clear there is an anti-districting bias (City Manager’s office is in charge of the selection), and that’s not even getting into the issue of the information that’s being withheld from the commt.
Vern:
You are wrong about City Manager Wingeroth.
Wingeroth is another Kalogridis.
Review the video of the January 24, 2012 council meeting. In it Wingeroth stated he was not for the $185 million giveaway, but he was instrumental in its passing by insisting an immediate vote on it. (“The bank needs to know by Friday”.)
Funny how it doesn’t bother Steve Perez,, or any other coommenter , that the chairperson of the Citizens Advisory Committee is an advocate for council districts, nor that as part of her job with Wells Fargo, tens of thousands of dollars have donated to fund the activism of one of the grouups — OCCORD — that has been organizing a campaign demanding the CAC recommend single-member districts.
Nor does it bother anyone here that another CAC member, Martin Lopez, is an officer of UNITE-HERE Local 11, which has been working with OCCORD to lobby the CAC to recommend single-member districts. No commenter here seems to think that presents a problem in terms of being “open-minded.”
You came over here prepared with your usual quiver of arguments; but this piece attempted to make the case that this Committee quickly turned into a perversion of what Disney first suggested in public. Kalogridis had proposed a “dialogue” about exactly HOW districting should happen – how many seats, district lines, etc. – and that quickly morphed into a committee studying WHETHER to do ANYTHING.
Since I sincerely doubt Murray, Eastman, Sidhu, and Brandman do anything that’s not blessed by Disney, that leads to my accusation of Disney’s two faces. But the presence of pro-districting members like Lopez, Pham, Larsen and Dalati on the committee is certainly understandable, coming so soon after Disney’s rousing pro-districitng proclamation. Maybe Tait and Galloway should have known better than to take that crowd at their word.
Not really. Nobody intelligent believed them. It was and is a struggle.
Well, Vern, you haven’t objected to any other commenters steering the discussion in other directions. I’m the only one you on whom you are trying to impose that standard. Surprise!
Didn’t really object, you’re reasonably on topic. Just saying that you don’t really seem to be addressing my main arguments. I wonder if you read the last section, starting with the cute Pinocchio picture.
“The truth is that while there might have been a chance for a positive result before Kris Murrey’s shakeup…”
The truth, Steve, is there was no “shake-up.” That is a true misrepresentation. The two indviduals Kris Murray had appointed to the CAC resigned because job responsibilities made it impossible for them to regularly participate in CAC meetings. She didn’t fire them and appoint replacements, as your comment misleads people into thinking.
“I would go so far as to suggest that the city manager’s office has colluded with the council majority in the selection of speakers, and the opinions presented, we shall see what my public records request turns up.”
Of course you would, Steve, because it takes no intellectual athleticism to jump to a conclusion. I’m confident your PRA will turn up bupkis, because none if this imagined collusion is going on.
For example, do you think any member of the council majority is in favor of Ranked-Choice Voting? And yet, the staff allowed an advocate of that system, Steve Chessin, to make a presentation to the CAC. Why? Because Chessin contacted the staff and asked if he could.
Yep, there’s just so much collusion and controlling of information going on.
Why shouldn’t they allow the ranked-voting guy – anything to slow down and confuse the issue away from districting is good for them.
Thank you, Vern, for proving the old adage about conspiracy theories: the lack of evidence of proof they are true!
No, YOU brought up the ranked-voting guy as proof that the Council is not biased. And I was just saying the presence of ranked-voting guy does not prove the Council’s not biased against districting. Please try not to get confused.
Sorry, Vern. You’re the one claiming the City Manager’s office is “colluding” with the council majority to control the selection of CAC speakers.
I merely pointed out an example that directly contradicts your claim — a claim, it bears mentioning, you have absolutely no evidence with which to back it up.
Hmmm…. let’s see… no, actually Steve Perez said that. I don’t know if it’s true or not. And I did say that the example you came up with didn’t disprove it. Not at all. If the goal is to distract from districting, and to postpone it, then of course they would be glad to have speakers on all manner of ALTERNATIVES TO DISTRICTING.
So, has anyone made a public records request for the information the Committee has been asking for but denied by staff?
Did you just break some news there, Cynthia? They’re being WHAT by WHO? What’s the information in question?
Oh, the Citizens Advisory Commission (Committee?) has asked for information regarding demographics of the City, records of how voting may have been broken down by income and ethnicity, etc in various neighborhoods, and staff has stonewalled them. I am going to do a PRA for the info they requested but didn’t want to step on someone else’s story if anyone was already on it.
Doing the PRA sounds good. This is news to me, so no story planned here.
I think that you may want to consider, though, the possible national security reasons for withholding such information from you (and from the CAC.) What if such sensitive information about Anaheim’s breakdown of income and ethnicity by neighborhood were to fall into the hands of the RUSSIANS??
It was mentioned in Vivian Pham’s complaint which was excerpted from the Voice of OC story. But it IS outrageous that a Public Records Act would have to be filed by activist types, when it’s a committee put together by the city, doing exactly the mission the city gave it, that is requesting the (quite relevant and uncontroversial) information.
They really are begging for a citizens’ initiative, aren’t they?
Maybe George Soros would fund that effort Greg.
Right. Or maybe Disney would!
Cynthia,
They’re refusing to release the polarization data because they’re claiming it’s pertinent (and thus protected) by the lawsuit. Does that normally impede pra’s?
It might interest you all to know that the CAC recieved a presentation on the demographics of Anaheim at its January 10 meeting, from, of all people, a demographer!
http://www.anaheim.net/images/articles/4957/Morrison_Presentation_Final.pdf
At the February 21 meeting, City Clerk Linda Andal presented the CAC with information on voter turnout and registration inh various parts of the city: http://www.anaheim.net/images/articles/4957/CAC_VoterEngagement_and_Participation.1.pdf
City staff has certainly not deprived the CAC with information necessary to do its job. Quite the opposite: http://www.anaheim.net/articlenew2222.asp?id=4957
And has it occured to anyone that the City of Anaheim may not, as a routine matter, tabulate how Anaheim citizens vote based on their income and/or ethnicity? And if the city is doing so as part of its defense against the ACLU lawsuit, is anyone here suggesting the city possibly compromise its legal defense by releasing racial-polarizing data to Vivian Pham (if, indeed, that is what she is requesting)?
I presume that in the quote below you mean something like tabulate “in aggregate by precinct,” given that the secret ballot means that it can’t tabulate how individual citizens vote at all, right?.
“The City of Anaheim may not, as a routine matter, tabulate how Anaheim citizens vote based on their income and/or ethnicity.”
Could you get that assertion in writing from the city, Matt? I’ll tell you why later.
(Please let me know if you need any part of this comment simplified.)
Assertion? Get a dictionary, Greg. I said the city “may not” tabluate that data, as in “might not.” Capiche?
I ventured into this fever swamp to correct some misinformation, balance out the paranoia a little and highlight the double standards at play among some of the commenters. I didn’t come here to get sucked into one of Greg Diamond’s pointless trivium vortexes.
“Get a dictionary,” how charming! “May” in such a context could refer to “permission” or to probability. I presumed that you were referring to “permission” (by law), because otherwise if one were speaking of probability one would normally say “might.” Please let me know how your dictionary clears up the ambiguity in your writing. That should be fascinating.
Just a sec, I’ll be back to continue this conversation once I’m done registering the URL “PointlessTriviumVortex.” I’d register “PointlessTriviumVortexes” also, but I’d be afraid that someone would ask me pointedly whether my dictionary favors the plural “vortexes” or “vortices.” That would be embarrassing.
Or with the plural vortices, should it be taken on faith that there are more than one trivium and hence that word should be put into its plural, which unfortunately is a common word used by the hoi polloi? Let’s consult some attorneys general on the question.
What is the plural of “trivium,” anyway? OK, maybe that’s not particularly significant.
Fess up, Vern — did you edit Wikipedia to change Mussogorsky’s first name to “Modest”? Not cool, if so.
OK: pointless trivium vortices. And thank you for proving, again, your own triviality, Greg. It amazes me how you can produce such a volume of words and say so little.
Yes, but you’re also amazed when someone moves a red dot from a laser pointer across the carpet in front of you.
No, sorry — that’s unfair. You have hardwood floors, right?
Greg-
What’s up with the hood?
A volleyball coach impregnating a student, Servite kids destroying the BOHS gym followed by the only 3 Black chicks in the school in a gang fight (with the gay kid trying to break it up!)
Who said Brea was boring!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx24nHRO0mU&feature=youtu.be
Oh my. Oh my.
“Video has been removed by the user.”
I don’t know about Servite, but if you’re talking about three African-American girls from Brea-Olinda High School, I know of three in the show choir alone — and the two oldest especially are among the most talented performers I’ve seen in any high school, period. One excels at dancing, the other more at singing and acting — very bright and creative. This suggests to me that, if you did see a video, it may have been a fake video posted as a prank. I think that either you’re punking or you’ve been punked.
Nevermind. You’d be well advised to look at your kids school.
I was hoping to appeal to the maniac liberal side of you (I mean in a good way), when you found out what REALLY happened, and who stopped it.
MOVE ON. ONLY REALITY HERE.
I didn’t find any reports on such a fight on the Internet, nor even of Servite visiting BOHS’s gym at all. Exactly how did you think I should have proceeded? Give me a better lead and maybe I’ll check it out.
Just noticed this. You mean to say, kids from Matthew’s school are messing with the school Greg’s daughters attend? Gentlemen, this has gone too far. Let’s nip this in the bud before something happens that we all regret.
Maybe you can help, Ryan, you leftist.
Hadn’t heard much. Only that Servite agreed to pay for it.
One graduated a few years ago; the other’s about to enter.
It is not fair that Cunningham came to discuss race and politics in Anaheim, at the time when Chivas USA was playing, and AHS Jorge Villafaña was in the squad that defeated the Chicago Fire 4-1!
He does not get it, does he? The lawsuit requesting district elections is based on the violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) alleging that Anaheim has a history of racially/ethnically polarized voting. Conservatives like him oppose the VRA for political convenience, as it has kept them from maintaining their pre VRA disfranchisement of minorities.
Their attack on district election it is not because of“race” based politics. It is because district elections could substantially alter the power dynamics in the city. I, a white(race) latino (ethnicity) did not vote for Chavez Lodge (latino). I would not vote for him in any electoral format. I believe that in the current circumstances, district elections could better address the current disparities and problems of our city.
Note Cunningham’s style of attacking civic minded residents, now is Steve and Vivian’s turn. He points that Vivian works for Wells Fargo, saying “ nor that as part of her job with Wells Fargo, tens of thousands of dollars have donated to fund the activism of one of the groups — OCCORD”.
I wonder how the Chamber of Commerce, SOAR, Pringle&Associates allow this man to represent them in our civic discussion.