Polarized politics has ugly manifestations, and Anaheim is no exception. The most visible expression these days are the city council meetings, both by council members and the public. The loss of respectful civic interaction was already being felt in other citizens’ bodies, such as the election committee. To a certain extent it was expected there due to the committee’s controversial purpose. I had heard that even one of the oldest city institutions, the Neighborhood District Councils, were also experimenting this phenomenon.
Last week I experienced this erosion of neighborhood congeniality in my district meeting. A city report was presented by Kris Murray, and the section of the report regarding investment decisions and the Angels negotiation’s was an obviously biased one. She opened the floor for questions on this section of the report. I asked a short question, and when I was formulating a second one I was cut off by a neighbor, whom I did not recognize. This neighbor went on, and at the end of report Murray graciously offered me to ask my questions, which were about the objections that Mayor Tait had raised on the Angel’s MOU. Her answer was basically that she could not speak on the Mayor’s position so she wouldn’t risk misrepresenting him. Fair enough. Another neighbor politely expressed his concern about the City giving Moreno more than a reasonable agreement.
I have attended these meeting for many years, when they were held in the old senior center downtown, and hardly anybody showed up. Then the districts were reconfigured, and mine ended up meeting in my local Rio Vista school. We met for years there and the neighborhoods represented were mostly Rio Vista, Kodiak and MiraLoma.
These district councils were a requirement for the city to get funds from the federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) to finance projects in underserved communities. It was in those years, ten or more, when we voted as a CDBG priority project the park and community center in Miraloma, whose groundbreaking ceremony is going to be held on October 24th.
All of a sudden the meetings were no longer being held in Rio Vista! Residents of Anaheim Hills took over the council, and since then most of the meetings are held in their area. I’ve attended only one meeting there, as the traffic and an agenda mostly dealing with Anaheim Hills issues discouraged me from attending. The political use of these council meetings, presenting biased reports, is one regrettable feature of these institutions. Another one is their further limitation on input on improvement projects, as the CDBG funds are no longer available, and the exclusion of those unable to be adequately represented.
The East District is an example of how political participation is influenced by one area over others. The Anaheim Hills residents rightly needed to have representation in these councils, the presidents from this area have been very sensitive of the other neighborhoods. The past president and Anaheim Hills resident, spoke in support of Mayor Tait at the infamous special council meeting. Nevertheless, for several years only Anaheim Hills residents have dealt with the city authorities in this capacity of council-district presidents.
In all those years, I remember only one controversial council member attending a district council meeting, a man from Anaheim Hills who was adamantly anti-immigrant. Last week’s meeting was held in Rio Vista, which normally are very small. When I saw Kris Murray as a speaker, and then Gail Eastman in the audience, I was quite surprised. They must be aware that they are polarizing politicians, and it wasn’t wise to foment further acrimony… unless they had a mission to accomplish, that being damage control.
The highly publicized attempt to curtail the Mayor’s authority in dealing with the Angel’s MOU had put them in a very negative light. This latest Liberal OC interview with Murray is yet another example of the council majority trying to save face. Murray and company have already steamrolled most of their “economic development” agenda, delayed the democratization of the city, and stifled civilian oversight of the police. It’s now safe and convenient for Murray to present herself as smart and pleasant, which she may be as an individual, but in her public persona? Not so much.
As long as the demands for genuine representation of our diverse population, for sensible investment of the city resources and for prioritizing the basic needs of neighborhoods with less resources, are not adequately addressed, Anaheim will remain polarized. Many of the causes of the fundamental problems facing the city are rooted in historical demographics, a largely white Anglo population who by sheer numbers controlled, and still controls, the economic, social and political power.
The problem is that the group controlling city government has been unwilling to recognize the magnitude of this change, not only in terms of demographics but also by failing to address the concerns and needs of the emerging demographic majority, Latinos and other minorities. In this regard, the current city council majority and their prominent supporters are largely responsible for the polarization of the city.
The patronizing lectures coming from the so-called liberal editor of the Liberal OC about the economic engine and civil discourse conveniently dismiss, or fail to connect, the disenfranchisement of large sections of the community, the pillage of the city resources in the name of questionable “job creation,” and the actions of those in power to maintain their hold in the city.
Most Anaheim residents understand the economic role of the resort/ tourist industry, the endemic problem of gangs and crime, the need to establish a trusting relationship with the police. I stated as much in my first blog post here. As I learned more about the issues I realized that behind of these legitimate concerns there were different visions of how to address them. The best or naïve intentions came up against the reality of economic interests that cross party affiliations. How can the ARTIC station, or the trolley project, be considered sensible investment of city resources? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to have the ARTIC, if needed, next a major train station? Giveaways to hotel developers who did not need them? The current allocation of city resources has been questioned by a city’s grassroots organization.
Anaheim is not Selma, as my friends at the OC Weekly recently wrote. However, I ‘d like to remind them that the “at large (electoral system) violates the California Voting Rights Act… This clearly violates the voting rights — it dilutes the votes of Latinos in the city. And proof of that is overwhelming. From a social science perspective there is no doubt that the Latino vote is being diluted in Anaheim, according to a professor of Political Science and Chicana/o Studies, Dr Guerra.
There is a vibrant and vital coalition of Anglo, Latinos, Arabs, Asians, Conservatives and Liberals, affluent, middle class and poor residents united fighting the corporate takeover of the city, and demanding the democratization of our city. Let’s stay united. ¡Basta de Chingaderas!
Thank you, Ricardo, you always find a much more intelligent way to put into words what I am already thinking…..and you do it with fewer words! As always, well done.
I have been learning from you, and many courageous friends, that it is possible to build a better and inclusive Anaheim. Thanks for your kind words.
“The patronizing lectures coming from the so-called liberal editor of the Liberal OC ”
The only reason this sad sack is opining on things he knows nothing about is because people he doesn’t like are fighting for transparency, honesty, and ultimately freedom from behind-the-curtain string pullers.
“Many of the causes of the fundamental problems facing the city are rooted in historical demographics, a largely white Anglo population who by sheer numbers controlled, and still controls, the economic, social and political power.”
Ricardo, I have to disagree somewhat with this generalization. Anaheim economic and political power converge in a tiny little handful of people who are able to use their money to elect compliant pawns. Naturally this includes the leaders of the soi-disant “public safety” unions.
I really think the ethnic issue is way over played. Once we get districts the Kleptocracy will ferret out pliable tools despite their ethnicity, or maybe even because of it. They will get in and do the Kleptos’ bidding; maybe even join the Kleptos as full-fledged members.
It will be sort of entertaining to watch – for a while.
Yes, they’re working on it, Dave. I sense that they’re grooming: Ernesto Madrano. Roberto Baeza. Sandra Day. Of course the despicable Steven Albert Chavez Lodge. Their brown farm team.
Well put! “Entertainment” viewing will only be possible from outside the playing field (Anaheim) except for those who, like NASCAR fans, unfortunately, occasionally become ‘accidental’ news items!
I agree that the power is currently concentrated in a rather small group, although the Disney company is a major behind the scene player. They have, and will, influence the outcome of any electoral system. I hope that well informed and organized residents will curtail their negative policies. I also agree that ethnicity alone is not a guarantee of not falling into their sphere of influence. I have expressed these concerns in my Pringle and Gustavo’s posts. Today’s VOC article explains again why the demographic aspect is essential for the legal challenge of the at-large system. You have already read it, but here is the link for other readers : Officials to be Deposed in Anaheim Voting Rights Case .
http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_ec4886b6-3b59-11e3-aa52-001a4bcf887a.html
I think direct district elections are the only hope to get better representation, however slim the hope may be. Anaheim is 15 miles long and only three miles wide. This weird geography itself cries out for districts – and not necessarily for reasons of ethnicity. The economic disparity between west and central Anaheim and the hills is another factor. My neighbors include Arab, Viet, Latino and Anglo Americans. Our common denominator is where we live and our environment (see Big Corporation Setting Chemicals on Fire Every Night and Dropping on Hood).
The current city-wide election system requiring enormous amounts of money exacerbate the geographical and economic disparities.
“…the Kleptocracy will ferret out pliable tools despite their ethnicity, or maybe even because of it. They will get in and do the Kleptos’ bidding; maybe even join the Kleptos as full-fledged members.”
Even without district elections, Santa Ana has seen this actualized.
There once was a man who ran an entire campaign on the fact that his family business was jeopardized by poor planning and the gentrification of the area. Then he became wealthy and learned how to use redevelopment funds and never went back to the family business.
“There once was a man who ran an entire campaign on the fact that his family business was jeopardized by poor planning and the gentrification of the area. Then he became wealthy and learned how to use redevelopment funds and never went back to the family business”.
Sounds like a fairy tale. How does this story end?
It hasn’t yet ended, but there’s a new City Manager who may have something to say about that.
Like this: The Small Dark Lord now sits on the Mayor’s throne for the 24th year, where he schemes to put toll lanes on all the county’s highways for more revenue.
Right out of Grimms.
Rather than attending this week’s city council meeting, I met a young community organizer who asked me what Selma is. The busy young adult had not had the time yet to read about that city. Today I came across an article that chronicles the activities of a 21-year-old civil rights activist, Bernard Lafayette Jr who in the summer of 1962 ended up in Selma, when only 156 of its 15,000 eligible black residents were registered to vote, and paved the way for Civil Rights leaders.
“At the beginning of 1965, Martin Luther King Jr., fresh from being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, arrived in Selma on the 102nd anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation to spearhead “a determined, organized, mobilized campaign to get the right to vote everywhere in Alabama.” There were demonstrations nearly every day, but Clark and the board of registrars didn’t budge. On February 1, King and 770 others were thrown in jail. “This is Selma, Alabama,” he wrote in The New York Times from his cell. “There are more Negroes in jail with me than there are on the voting rolls.” The turning point in the fight for voting rights came on March 7, when King aide Hosea Williams and SNCC chairman John Lewis, Lafayette’s former college roommate in Nashville, led a march from Selma to Montgomery to protest the killing of unarmed civil rights activist Jimmie Lee Jackson by the police in nearby Marion.
The 600 marchers didn’t make it past Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. They were brutally beaten, trampled by mounted officers, and doused in tear gas by Alabama state troopers and Clark’s vigilante posse. That evening, ABC interrupted the prime-time premiere of Judgment at Nuremberg to broadcast fifteen minutes of footage from Selma to 48 million Americans. Some viewers thought they were seeing images of Nazi Germany. There had been ample public outrage over atrocities committed against the civil rights movement—for example, when the police used dogs and fire hoses to attack children in Birmingham, or when three young men were murdered in Mississippi—but nothing had the impact of Bloody Sunday. “The Voting Rights Act would be written—in blood—on the Edmund Pettus Bridge,” May writes. Two days later, following a second aborted march led by King, a Unitarian minister named James Reeb was attacked in Selma by white segregationists when he accidentally entered the “wrong” part of town; he died shortly thereafter.
Bloody Sunday inspired sympathy marches in eighty cities, sit-ins at the Oval Office and a constant stream of demonstrators outside the White House. Eight days after Bloody Sunday, Lyndon Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act (VRA) before a joint session of Congress. In truth, the Johnson administration had already drawn up a voting rights bill before the march, but events in Selma accelerated the president’s timetable and assured swift passage in Congress. Seventy million Americans watched LBJ’s speech. “I speak tonight,” the president said in his opening, “for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy.” Even the most battle-scarred civil rights activists were stunned when the president invoked the movement’s mantra: “We shall overcome.”
The question by the community organizer was interesting, as it sheds light on how historical events are known by the younger generations. I don’t want to open a can of worms, but bringing this to our local level, Gustavo’s historical knowledge and research is a valuable effort to reexamine our past, whether we disagree or don’t like his conclusions. Their (OCW) reference to Selma provided an opportunity for the young community organizer to inquire about the relevance and lessons of historical events.
The article in the link below examines the impact of Selma on the Voting Rights Act.
http://www.thenation.com/article/176781/jim-crow-
This link works better 😉
http://www.thenation.com/article/176781/jim-crow-ii
Interesting article. I’m not sure I agree with all of the conclusions reached in it, but I certainly do defend the right of all those who are legally eligible to vote, to exercise that right.
I think that voter fraud should also be punished aggressively with some pretty hefty consequences and probably more often than it is right now
How we make that work…? I’m not sure…
Thanks for fixing the link! I was wondering how you have being feeling lately with your treatment. I hope you’re doing well.
Well, the thing is voter fraud does have harsh punishments – the reason it isn’t punished “more often” is because it HARDLY EVER HAPPENS. I mean how stupid is it to risk jail time to cast ONE MORE VOTE for your candidate or cause? Hardly anyone’s that crazy.