.
.
.
I guess there’s no reason this shouldn’t be public; it is based after all on a comment section from earlier this week. This is some of the stuff a lot of us reformers at the Orange Juice Blog would like to see happen in Anaheim this year now that we have what we like to call a “People’s Council.”
Last night at the Mayor’s place José was actually a little sheepish over the small margin he’d beaten Jordan by – 50-something by now, he cracked self-deprecatingly that “I won by two votes.” I think José should feel that he won by a LOT given all the obstacles the kleptos threw at him. 1. Could one of you guys – Greg, Cynth, Ryan – do the math, how much Disney spent per vote on Jordan (just for example) versus how much José’s side spent per vote? José overcame towering money, poisonous bloggers, sign-twirlers, fire trucks, union thugs, and FAKE CANDIDATES like Jennifer Rivera and Linda Lobatos (the latter of whom has degenerated into a rabid Baezista; fortunately the Fake Joe Moreno was in a different district draining votes from Arturo Ferreras.) I’m saying, given all that, José should feel that he TRIUMPHED. Maybe not LANDSLIDE triumph, but MANDATE triumph. I.E. a mandate something like this:
Immediately – Stop or slow down Lincoln widening.
REPLACE Jordan on OCWD! With NOT a politician but an expert. Great candidate – David Zenger.
Council meetings at 6 so more people can attend. (Old Duane Roberts idea.) Also agenda ready earlier.
Mayor can agendize as before Brandman screwed him.
Can last meeting’s item 17 be reversed?
New City Manager.
New Budget Director. (Were we better off with a Treasurer balancing off BD? Then that too.)
Revoke Hotel Subsidies Program.
(José idea) No company receiving subsidies of a million or more (lower threshold?) can contribute to Anaheim elections.
Terminate all STUDY of streetcar
Anaheim is only OC city that prosecutes its own misdemeanors, with its own army of lawyers in North Court. Save approximately $10 million a year by letting DA do that instead. (Fitzy idea)
More community gardens (Donna thing); resources spread more fairly across city.
Open up Angels negotiations to pubic more; pursue mutually beneficial deal.
Police oversight etc: (probably after new City Manager)
Need new police oversight committee (fire dept doesn’t need oversight) with subpoena power & ability to hire investigator, meet at least once a month.
Instruct Chief to implement some new policies, starting with Gennaco recommendations on pursuits etc; also needs to be penalty for body cameras not on; public gets to see body camera footage; much more…
Homeless:
Mobile shower/restroom like many cities have.
“Safe space” of temporary modular buildings on Karcher site. (hat tip Zia and Zenger)
NUCLEAR OPTION (probably after new City Attorney whenever that can happen) :
Pursue Charter Gaffe theory to invalidate all 3-2 votes since Feb 2015 (includes JULY giveaways, Gate Tax Moratorium, and last meeting’s Item 17 smash-and-grab!)
ZENGER SAYS:
Audit and analyze the economic engines.
Audit the Convention Center, clean up material findings and critical control weaknesses and examine the ACC’s ability to pay for its own bonds.
Commission independent analysis of the contributions of the Angels and The Resort and Disney to The City’s General Fund.
Commission an audit of the entire City/Disney deal from 1997
AND MAYOR TAIT TELLS GABRIEL, a couple of actually real-conservative things:
More Regulatory Relief
And lower pensions for newly-hired firefighters. (Let’s have that discussion anyway. I can see now why the firemen were all gungho to keep the old Kleptos.)
Coincidentally, I ran into Eric Altman at Trader Joe’s yesterday and we chatted briefly about the unwinding process. There will have to be some tough love applied at City Hall and it won’t be easy untangling the mess that was deliberately tangled. Alexander took his sword to the Gordian Knot.
Some things have to be done deliberately; others can proceed apace.
High on my list is getting copies of Charles Black’s billing records. And I’m still very curious about the negotiation trajectory of the ACC Change Order #2.
Mr. Zenger, welcome to Litigation 101. The City insists that Black’s billing records are “attorney-client privileged info” and thus not disclosable under CPRA….or at least not disclosable as long as the City Council refuses to waive their attorney-client privilege with Black. Not sure the new Council has the legal right to even do that. Anyone? I don’t think Diamond can comment on that publicly with my CPRA case still in the mosh pit.
In fact, there is a VERY ugly case winding its way through the State Supreme court that claims ALL communication with any lawyer is privileged. That means every city email will cc the CA’s office and render the email “confidential” and we can kiss the intent of CPRA goodbye. CATER signed on along with an activist in Apple Valley as “friends of the court” to submit a brief on that case sharing the wider impacts that had not been part of the specific case before the court. You are welcome.
ACC Change Order #2 is tip of the iceberg. The wider issue is also the City’s failure to review old policies that allow a department head to make multi-million dollar change orders of this type without ANY Council review. Who runs a “world class city” this way? And why do we keep seeing those who jerk around with these decisions getting promoted instead of fired?
I can see that a Council is, to the extent fraud or malfeasance was not involved, bound by the decisions of its predecessors – its an institution, a corporate body regardless of who is making the decisions.
The decision to waive a completely bogus attorney-client privilege screen can be mad by the council any time it wants to. The City Attorney has no discretion to hide public records from the public when the Council majority wants to do otherwise.
The County has already been pulling this BS attorney-client privilege load. They did it with the 2013 Dana Point Harbor audit performed by the old Internal Auditor; and now County Counsel won’t let the real Auditor-Controller see it. It’s a real problem.
Yes, the ACC C/O #2 revealed that the Public Works Director was relying on a 28 year-old policy to authorize payment of $6,000,000 without informing the Council, let alone the public. I finally wormed it out of them. I was going to go to a meeting and raise Hell about that, but what would have been the point?
Then, off course there was the rather awkward problem of Caster Williams and his problematic sworn statement to the Court.
So many puddles, so few mops.
Uh, the stuff in that pit isn’t “mosh,” Cynthia. But we’re shoveling it out!
These lists are nice but they are essentially piece-mealing what needs to be a massive overhaul. We need (simultaneously) a FULL AUDIT of all departments AND new policies that systemically address the loopholes used to abuse authority for too long. We need to identify those cases of negligence, incompetence, or outright fraud that may allow the City to unwind bad deals made under false pretense. And we need to document a new vision to work toward, with an eye to the common good. No pressure….
We can certainly identify those departments with the most visible issues, based on known cases of public fleecing, but ultimately ALL departments need a solid review, with an AUDIT Commission to work like a Grand Jury and go from department to department pulling long-term contracts to make sure they are in compliance and being enforced, etc. We have Contractors still operating on agreements DECADES OLD with the occasional update for increased fees over time, but those functions have not been put out to RFP/RFQ in a long time, we just keep reusing the same rubber stamp “experts” willing to give staff the cover story needed to give the Council majority their predetermined outcome. We have policies that made sense many years ago but now amount to a blank check for department heads to write without Council oversight, and mind-boggling power offered to staffers not elected, and not accountable, whose arrogance with the public confirm they KNOW they are not going to be held accountable.
We need contracts, policies, etc reviewed and updated throughout City Hall, and that is not going to happen overnight but it needs to happen.
We need accountability going forward, for instance, all staff reports involving the expenditure of funds or policies that impact funds must be filed under penalty of perjury, and if staff is found fudging the numbers to create the pre-determined outcome wanted by Council, then they need to be busted to the full extent of the law.
Staff reports/recommendations should not be submitted without basic audit, like a local form of Legislative Analysts office to show the TRUE impacts. Also, department heads should not be permitted to submit unsubstantiated recommendations likely to improve their own personal interests. When a department head is allowed to tell Council some hair-brained scheme is a great idea, without actual documentation or proper due diligence, and it is OBVIOUS that the project recommended by the department head will lead to expanded responsibilities and therefore expanded COMPENSATION, there is no motive for that department head to not lie their butts off to sell Council on a plan to line their own pockets at review time. (See Tom Morton pushing expanded Convention Center, new Stadium/development of surrounding real estate, among many examples.)
We need to stop operating WITHOUT A PLAN. No business or non-profit worth their salt tries to run an org by the seat of their pants, making up policies and procedures as they go along. When there is no plan, then any cock-a-mamie policy for “economic development” can fit the non-plan. While Mayor Tait has been trying to change the culture of the City with a new vision of Kindness and Freedom, now that he can get work accomplished it is time to define WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE in the real world. What does a City of Kindness look like in 10-20-30 years? And how do we get there? And we don’t do ANYTHING unless it FITS that plan going forward.
Does KINDNESS mean the citizens in the 95% of the City are heard at City Hall with the same respect as the lobbyists for the tourism industry’s 5% of the City? Then we need POLICIES that allow citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar for discussion and not rely on Council members to remember to pull the item after 2 hours of public comments on something else. We need policies that require staff to ANSWER QUESTIONS and not simply rely on CPRA the lets staff off the hook for answering when they KNOW the answers simply because they didn’t put any of the discussion in writing and thus failed to create a “record.”
If KINDNESS means we value the strong families that are KNOWN to provide positive influence for kids and keep them out of gangs, and act as the best protections against poverty, then what policies and programs will we offer to help our citizens strengthen those families? Will we encourage those jobs that provide livable wages and benefits or do we keep building on the economy of poverty that pulls parents out of the home for long hours working two jobs?
WHAT DOES A CITY OF KINDNESS LOOK LIKE? That is what the new Council needs to figure out, to create a plan to move our City forward, while weeding out the outdated and/or abusive policies that hold us back from being the amazing community the hearts of our citizens know Anaheim to be. Yes, this is an insanely tall order for mere mortals, but if anyone can do it, this team can. Those who just won 2 races on a shoe-string, passion, and volunteer labor against a million bucks in Disney-dollars are more than qualified to get to the bottom of things and build a new vision for Anaheim that more closely resembles that of the citizens they are called to serve.
AKA amateurs built the ark, experts built the Titanic.
“These lists are nice but they are essentially piece-mealing what needs to be a massive overhaul.”
Absolutely. But each item on a list will invariably draw one into a larger reform. The thing of it is, is that the structure should be basically sound. But it’s like having a bunch of squatters break into your house, start building illegal room additions, and inviting more of their relatives over.
So Job 1 is to empty the rooms and demolish them. For that you need a demolition contractor.
I suggest the first hire is a new City Attorney – maybe Christina Talley would be willing to take a two-year contract to help out.
Nah, I’d say Talley, if hired, should get a 30-month contract. Something that expires in, say, June 2019.
I mean, come on — what sort of jerky Council would want to start and finish hiring a new permanent City Attorney just before the next election!
THANK YOU…I totally agree!
Please add looking into a vote, on the property on Euclid near Cerritos, formerly known as Tom’s Farms, coming this Monday in a special meeting at city hall, one day BEFORE the new council is sworn in. They want to put ithree story condos into an already heavily impacted infrastructure. These condos will lead those living along side the develpment to suffer losses of property valuation and quality of life. Further it is out of character to the area.
The neighbors were notified of a 5 PM meeting Dec.12 on Dec 1. Just another decision the outgoing council is trying to get passed. Add this to the list of things to be undone and get ready to look under the carpet for the rest of the terrible shady deals.
To be precise, this is a Planning Commission meeting. Here’s the membership posted on line:
http://www.anaheim.net/188/Planning-Commission
I don’t know how current this is, maybe not very.
This zoning action amounts to approval of a PUD, wherein a developer will tale a comparatively small piece of property and get it zoned for a specific site plan. This formula means big, 2-3 story buildings on dinky little lots. The rear single-family setbacks are waived for minimal setbacks – 10 feet or so all along the perimeter of the project. There are virtually no front yards.
These things are proliferating all over central OC, particularly in central/west Anaheim. I don’t know how this policy was established, but it could be time for a review.
I was mistaken.
The proposal is for three blocks of six each attached units – not detached houses. The new zoning would be RM-3. Apparently there are numerous setback variances requested.
It’s unconstitutional to ban political expression for private entities that receive government subsidies. At the most the city can ban the use of government funds for political expression such as with NPR or for legal aid which was done by Republicans under Reagan and tried in California to prevent employer anti union activity. However the union ban was found to be preempted by federal law.
It would have been helpful if the Governstor had not vetoed a state bill that required. The top five contributors to be identified in political mailers in independent expenditures.
That is logically distinct from the pertinent question here, which is whether the government can refuse to subsidize entities who do not agree not to engage in funding electoral activities. I say that in part because, when it comes to natural persons, the government already does that all of the time. That’s why campaign donation forms ask whether you’re a federal contractor.
I agree that Schwarzenegger should not have vetoed that bill, but let’s be honest: those top five contributors would largely or entirely end up being cutouts such as “The Committee for Good Things” and “Californians Against Bad.”
While this is a fun exercise to get out the frustration of the last few years (ok decade and a half) of watching the Smash and Grab team at work, ultimately none of US have been elected to anything (an obvious outcome of those who have not run for anything) and we have about zero authority. I also assume anyone running for office has their own ideas for reform. They may listen respectfully to suggestions, and perhaps give them more than the nano second granted by the Kleptocracy before dismissing us as politically motivated and misinformed ankle biters, but in the end we need to be supportive of whatever form the reform movement takes. There have been times when James Vanderbilt came to a conclusion not in line with others, and he has been ripped to bits for “betraying” the Mayor, but I told y’all when he announced his campaign not to make assumptions, he was NOT a solid vote for the Mayor, what he provides is a reasoned and well educated and informed vote not influenced by anything other than his perception of the best outcome for Anaheim. I support that even when I don’t agree with the conclusion he arrived at, because I KNOW to the bone marrow that James Vanderbilt is not influenced by outside interests. That is all I ask of an elected leader. I believe we see the same character in Denise Barnes, she will come up to speed on government and we can give her time to do that, because she already possesses the same heart for service and a moral compass pointing true north at all times. (She will stand up to me, respectfully and honestly, telling me to my face when I am wrong and doing it in love, and very, very few people will do that despite my welcoming correction.)
I also trust Dr. Moreno to be an honest vote doing what he believes is best for his constituents. And while I am bracing for what I suspect will be differences in how that best interest of the people may translate to policy, I will give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his motives and simply dispute the outcomes where they may differ. THAT is the essential difference between the “leadership” currently seated as a majority voting block and the new Council coming in. We trust the MOTIVES of the 4 we consider reformers.
So before we get all excited wanting a giant broom and a bottle of disinfectant to hit City Hall the day after swearing in takes place, let’s give them space to get their bearings and figure out how things work, and let’s pledge to support them when we don’t agree. We may be surprised and find them more aggressive with Draining the municipal swamp than the average public servant, and we can cheer them on and offer information we may have that they may find useful. But let’s use this space as a “if I hit the lottery I would…” ..and we can let them come up with their own reform methods. They might very well read this, (or not-i assume they maybe busy) so I encourage folks to share ideas that might be useful. But let’s not get too emotionally vested in our own ideas and thus pissed off when others may not dance to our tunes. I have not spoken with them about this, and I trust y’all know enough to understand they are subject to Brown Act as of NOW and not only after swearing in, so do not communicate directly with all 4. We don’t need the majority conflicted out of voting on something important because activists already went to all of them with ideas and created “collective concurrence” before a public meeting on the subject. That does nobody any good. So let’s be cautious in communicating our desires to those not beholden to do what we fantasize about.
Let’s give them time to get their bearings and things will work out. And if we don’t like what happens then it is on each of us to step up and propose charter changes that are almost certainly the only way to ensure permanent reform, and even then the other side will figure out how to game the new system. There is too much money flowing through Anaheim for us to not be a target, so we are in this for the long haul. Our efforts will be limited to legal constraints and the political fears of those facing reelection again (it factors, like it or not) and no matter how much we accomplish we will be back at it in a few years when this now minority crowd or a new breed of miscreants shoves their hands into the public till.
Y’all are smart enough to know this, I guess I just want to communicate that we recognize we are not in charge of didly squat over here in ankle-biter town, and don’t want to terrify the new Council with our own demands when we will lack the info they may get in Closed Session that we will never know about. And to that end, we need a City Attorney with the will and legal chops to take on the reform that needs to happen. Oddly enough that doesn’t appear to be the guy who admitted to the Mayor he lacks the legal background to give counsel at his first meeting. On the other hand I admire that he copped to it instead of making up bad advice from lack of experience as we seem to have seen in the past. Like telling Murray the definition of political speech at a Council meeting is determined by length or brevity of a statement and not the CONTENT of a campaign speech on the public dime. Not that that is going to come up again, of course.
Now back to fantasizing about “You’re fired!” Coming from a face other than a reality show host turned President. The acuity Manager cannot be fired for 90 days from an election, per our Charter, to ensure a new Council makes a decision based on actual service and not perception of someone seeing his work from outside City Hall. We are 20 days in. Not that I am counting. This gives the CMO 70 days to clean house themselves and save their own skin. Or take the golden parachute just layered with an additional layer of gilt edging in Clsoed Session with a 3% raise last meeting.
Please continue your fantasy City Hall cleaning already in progress. Anyone up,for lobbyist registrations? Pro or con positions invited.
Thanks for the very useful check on our exuberance here, Cynthia. What I do expect is that Mayor Tait (and James Vanderbilt) have been thinking about the dysfunctionality of Anaheim’s government for a long time, and they will take the lead in fashioning their own proposed reforms. (I’m sure that Moreno and Barnes and maybe even Faessel will do so as well.)
We know very well that we’re in no position to bark out orders. But we do amount to a pretty damned well-informed and well-intentioned informal “think tank” — and offering lists like this is part of what think tanks do as a new Administration takes over. I’m sure that it will be misinterpreted (by people with absolutely no self-awareness or sense of irony)– and I look forward to being entertained by their (mostly anonymous) “arguments.”
This is some very good advice — but that’s ALL it is.
It’s not like I haven’t been lobbying for most of these ideas.
And it’s not like I haven’t encountered great receptiveness.
“Anyone up,for lobbyist registrations? Pro or con positions invited.”
I think there would only be one name on that list.
P.S. only one job needs to start immediately: City Attorney.
A friend writes in with a couple of more suggestions:
1) End all subsidies to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
2) Exit the Pringle-controlled “ACCOC”
Amen on #1.
I don’t think they’re getting any more gravy, of course you never know what the City Manager does with his spending authority.
Someone is paying to keep the nightlight on at the KleptoBlog.®
“public gets to see body camera footage”
Apparently the State Supreme Court has just upheld lower courts that ruled such footage is not part of any personnel matter and thus can’t be hidden from the public.
When did this decision happen? It would have been good to know last night when we went to see the PR spinning of APD’s latest kill, Adelid Flores. There’s footage of that, and they said we won’t see it.
Valenzuela family, you hear this? Do you have a link, David?
Vern, just because a court rules that way does not mean someone is going to automatically do it. It will take a City Council approved policy to make that work. Which means a City Manager and City Attorney willing to produce one for approval.
… or a court order based upon that decision, preceded by a demand letter.
“…just because a court rules that way does not mean someone is going to automatically do it.”
Absolutely correct. It will probably always take judicial relief.
OK Since I seem to be the wet blanket here, let me play the other side. Is there an occasion in which you DON’T want to let the public see that footage? IE: I contact a cop reputed to be honest and discrete, and tip them to something that needs attention, with the agreement they NEVER TALKED TO ME, for fear of retaliation. Some yokel then goes in and CPRAs the footage of me talking to cop. Not cool. Or cop fails to turn on camera during our confidential discussion, and HE/SHE gets busted for a public contact without the camera on.
How are we going to deal with this?
Fair question. I haven’t read the decision, but I presume that it deals with situations that lead to deprivation of civil rights — searches, seizures, arrests, beatings, shootings, maimings, fatalities — that in effect carves out an exception to the existing “police activities” (or whatever it’s called) CPRA exception.
That leaves the rest of the exception intact — and videos of your scenarios would therefore remain protected from disclosure.
Again, I haven’t read the case, but I do know a thing or two about regulatory and statutory carve-outs.
The Court found that recordings were created prior to any personnel matters arising and were therefore not exempt from disclosure as personnel-related docs. I would assume disclosure of any records involving an ongoing criminal matter would fall under the DAs discretion – as in the Kelly Thomas killing video.
Thanks for the link, David.
http://norcalrecord.com/stories/511043601-supreme-court-rules-eureka-police-arrest-video-should-be-available-to-public?t=KKGPg8ddWSliu1MI_LNa
Linda Lobatos didn’t turn into a “rabid Baezista” nor was she a fake candidate, just a working class one not privileged with enough free time to campaign hard. If she’s fake, so is Angel Van Stark, Robert Williams and Freddy Fitzgerald. Besides, Lobatos actually marched with the victims of police violence in the city, unlike this blog’s anointed Juan.
She was a cipher, we were surprised and impressed that she marched that one time, then like a week later she was at that “night out” with the police at Twila Reed, proud of her Lou Correa endorsement, and disappeared from the campaign trail for months. When she came back it was with the support of charter-extremists Baeza and Jeanette Saldivar, and all their exaggerated anti-Moreno propaganda. And at the end of the election she was making these ridiculous memes about how Anaheim was going to hell because of “left wing” “socialist” Jose. And I’d originally thought that she was running against Jose FROM THE LEFT.
You should have seen how fond Jordan was of her at Democrat meetings, making sure that she could get her two cents in. Maybe “fake” isn’t exactly right for her (as opposed to Rivera and Jojo) since she worked harder toward the end, but by then it was really hard to figure out what she stood for, except for wanting Jose to lose.
I think she was real in her campaign, and just lacked money and frankly the political savvy to run even a targeted campaign. She was out trick or treating on Halloween night, handing out her business cards to the homeowners. Not a great use of time and energy, since she had no way of knowing who were voters, who had already voted by mail etc. But to get those lists takes money. Also, her cards gave me no reason to vote for her. But being naive does not make her fake. And running because she hates Jose is not a fake reason to run. How many of us wanted Jose and/or Robert because of our distaste for Brandman? How many Presidential ballots were cast due to a distaste for the opposition?
No, a fake candidate is Jennifer Rivera. Anyone check the ROV and see if she actually VOTED this year? i think Lobatos was real, just misguided and not very well informed about how to run a viable campaign. There is a difference between the two.
We did track down Rivera and I talked to her on the phone. She promised me an interview if I would e-mail her and she never got back to me. I should bug her again. She does this every time.
Her signs started popping up in parkways just north of my neighborhood, signs with no identification on them.
It seemed like a cynical way to make it look like she had support, but really it just in the yards of people who didn’t know they own the parkway.
Also I threw in Linda with Jennifer and Jojo because she went to almost no forums. I think just the Chamber one for District 3?
Lobatos boycotted the forums, seeing them for the one sided commercials they were intended to be. She did participate in the forum at Downtown Community Center that was held by NOBODY, just a bunch of neighbors tired of the one sided commercials disguised as forums, and came together, asked the League of Women Voters to help out, and packed the DTCC with a couple hundred people, to see candidates answering questions about actual issues in Anaheim and not swatting at softballs tossed oh so gently by pals. She saw it was going to be fair and attended that one.
Sounds like you’re describing the Chamber forums, which most candidates boycotted. Is this why she also boycotted the ARA one, the Islamic Institute one, and the Arab American one? Whatever…
Cynthia, you were not at the Anaheim Democratic Club to see their speeches (and how Jordan rallied for Linda to be able to give a speech, after she was late in deciding to do one and had agreed not to do one.) She and Jordan were like John and Teresa Heinz Kerry at the 2004 Democratic convention, looking at each other beaming and moon-eyed. She had absolutely no chance to win; she was in the race for one thing and one thing only — to take Latino votes away from Jose Moreno. Now he can be her only friend in the party.
GSR, we know that you love you some Dr. Baeza, but you are sullying yourself with your take on this story.
Angel and Freddy were honorable longshots — you know, like Duane Roberts — who were trying to connect with people and win rather that to suck away votes from a disliked candidate. (Freddy ultimately may have contributed to Denise’s win, if we presume that he took some Democratic votes away from Lahtinen, but that wasn’t his plan.) Robert Williams may or may not have been part of the drive to siphon votes from people of color away from Anturo Ferreras to help Kring; I’d heard a year ago that he was a Republican. But Lobatos is like Joe Moreno, who successfully sucked enough votes — presumably Latino votes, as that was his campaign theme — from Ferreras to give Kring a plurality victory. And she almost got the job done, too.
Also, Gustavo and GSR correctly excoriated Matt and Dan for both jumping on that Jose’s-violent-brother-in-law story. Well, Linda also made the most of that that she could.
She did? When, where, to whom, and how? (I don’t need to ask why.)
On her Facebook page.
Diamond you are correct, I was NOT at the Anaheim Democratic anything, ever. Thanks for the recap of info. I will take that under advisement.
BTW Gentlemen, I just noticed something interesting. I had missed the original “crisis” of Moreno’s bro in law. But going back to look it up…look at who was shopping the story to the media, making available for interviews the former sister in law (who had not heard from the husband or her relatives in a long time and was no longer being hassled)
David Cordero. You can’t mean the same David Cordero working for Communications Lab? The same David Cordero hired by the City to promote the Angels deal in September 2013? That David Cordero? Nah, has to be another PR professional named David Cordero with nothing better to do with his unpaid spare time than shop an old story about domestic abuse to media hacks not interested in a non-story. I am sorry when any woman is made to feel unsafe, this is NEVER OK. But this was not “news” until some pushed it trying to make it news. Gee, do you think an expenditure of campaign funds to David Cordero will show up on Jordie’s filings?
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA CONTACT: David Cordero 949-215-5539
http://www.anaheimblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Ramirez_Release_11072016_FINAL.pdf
PRESS RELEASE
NOTES TO EDITORS:
Ms. Ramirez is available for media interviews this afternoon (Monday, November 7, 2016) from 2:00 pm to 5 :00 pm. Should you wish to request an interview, please use the media contact above to make a request.
^^^ absolutely disgusting.
But that sure explains how and why Matt and Dan picked it up at the same time.
This operation took over from Faubel and works for Poseidon. Hmm. They needed Brandman.
And … I assume you all know, but it should be pointed out in this thread … run by Arianna Barrios, Kris Murray’s trusty assistant.
I sure hope People’s Council gives things a good shaking up – and thank you for the shout out about the homeless. At this point – I think the credit deserves to go to Lou Noble. He’s been the strongest person I know pushing for safe zones. I always told Donna that the gardening spaces could house the homeless as well – they could find solace and employ working on everything from growing food to take to the farmer’s market to bee hives to maintaining tiny libraries.
I would love to see adorable tiny homes housing houseless friends who could do unconventional, creative things to provide sustainable organic spaces – why not take an abandoned ugly parking lot and turn it into a yert-style art installation?
Anyway – we need to remember the very awful “Quality of Life” legislation that has landed many homeless in serious horrible demise with repetitive theft of belongings, destruction of their safe spaces that have even led to rapes and murder in a few instances. All these really complicated, heady issues with legalese that make City Council unapproachable to the average citizen make me nauseated – it seems like a distraction so the real work doesn’t get done. You get bogged down trying to figure out law suits and city attorney tripe – people are smart enough to break this down better.
TLDR is the future – the young people coming up in this city don’t need to be labeled and fighting through their STEP card points trying to avoid incarceration or brutal and fatal pig stalking before they hit 21 The Police need to accept their role as PUBLIC servants – whether they are “serve and protect”-ing or serving corporate interests – doesn’t matter – they are PUBLIC and therefore their footage of their actions should be public.
Oh, here’s an important Day One step: reduce the City Manager’s spending authority to maybe $100 – or remove it completely. No more phony surveys, consultant reports, or other undiluted BS used to make ridiculous decisions.
I think – once we get the OCWD thing straightened out – given the time of year and the weather I want to concentrate on making Karcher Village happen as quickly as possible. Those temporary modular buildings were something YOU’VE been talking about a long time – maybe we should start pricing them.
“maybe we should start pricing them”
l already have started. However I don’t know if there’s any will to do this, especially now that the Jordan Brandman/Todd Spitzer Memorial Shelter project is slogging it’s way along.
200 beds, miles away from 95% of the homeless, not ready for – what – still a year or two? Karcher Village for Christmas!
There isn’t time to do that now. The place would need an approved site plan, grading, power/water/sanitary sewer rough, paving and a contract for portables, too.
Can’t be done that soon. Of course if there were any will it could still be done by February, maybe.
Or, as an interim measure, it would take a decision to ask the police to suspend enforcement of anti-camping ordinances there.
Let’s take an objective look at Muzeo.