New Committee Comes In To Hit Brandman

A group called “Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods” filed the required disclosure form with the Anaheim City Clerk yesterday. According to the form 496, this committee spent nearly $12,000 on a hit piece targeting Anaheim council candidate Jordan Brandman (judging by the dollar amount, it’s probably targeting Republican voters).

The negative mailer has yet to land in mail boxes, so we’ll see if it follows the same line of attack as the two sleazy hit pieces sent out this week by the powerful government union, the OCEA, or a more conventional “Brandman is a Democrat” angle.

Judging from the Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhood report, some of the funding is earmarked for mail in different city. Here’s a breakdown of the money behind the Brandman hit:

  • $5,000     Tait Family Trust
  • $9,000     Green & Clean Investments LLC of Cheyenne, Wyoming
  • $9,500     Carol Young, a secretary with The Braille Institute

That would still leave another $11,000 or so in the “Taxpayers for Safer Neighborhoods” kitty for another mailer.

NOTE: An earlier headline erroneously indicated the contribution to this IE committee was from Mayor Tom Tait. That is not the case. The donation is from Ken and Val Tait. Apologies for the error.


  1. We have to deal with this Mayor for 2 more years oh my… methinks we’ll have to get out of dodge because the lunatics have surely taken over the Asylum. I walked precincts for him and worse had a hard time convincing voters because all he ever did in the past was recuse himself because of conflicts when he was on Council. Then for the first two years all we heard was Hi Neighbor and the kindness mantra as he read the transcripts in front of him

  2. Can somebody tell this mayor to remove the “R” next to his name as he is clearly a left-wing radical now! From photo ops at No on 32 Union Events to pushing for Anaheim Districts to starting the Tait/Galloway Riots, to killing business for everybody but HIMSELF to now embracing Union leaders for council.

  3. Might be wise to do your research before posting that Mayor Tait was funding this effort.

  4. Matthew Cunningham

    I made a reasonable assumption, but your point is taken.

  5. I do not believe for a moment that Mayor Tait’s parents directed this spending without his direct involvement. Thank you for the clarification but they are clearly a very close family and have decided to attack a long-time supporter – probably because he is too close to council members Tom has gone to war with. Very unfortunate for all involved.

  6. Lifetime Anaheim Resident

    Mayor Tait and his family have taken dirty politics to a new low in Anaheim. His funded hit mail on Brandman is a top to bottom stack of lies – the worst part is that Tait diretly funded an attack that claims Brandman is under investigation – when that is nothing more than a cheap trick by Brandman’s OCEA funded opponent and Tait’s edorsed candidate Leos. Tait has been caught directly lieing to Anaheim residents! We have to find a strong candidate to run against Tait for Mayor – the City of Anaheim can’t take 4 more years of his brand of freedom and kindness.

  7. Somebody grab some crayons and draw this mayor a cute picture of happy thoughts. Anaheim’s Czar of Kindness needs a refresher course and pronto. In fact, it might do him well to study his first big speech to our city. He promised kindness and pension reform but instead has gone in the opposite direction on both counts by notably creating the most unkind city for all the world to see this year (embarrassing) and now by endorsing Leos, a labor union activist, and Kring, who created and voted with Tom Tait in the past for the most generous public employee benefits package ever seen: The $100,000.00 plus pension club.

    • Kindness is Contagious! Lets ask former-City Manager Tom Wood if he has caught the Mayor’s kindness – after the mayor unceremoniously canned him a year ago this week. Or Steve Lodge, who the mayor endorsed then yanked the endorsement when Steve wouldnt suppport the mayor on 100% of his positions. And now we can ask Jordan Brandman if he thinks the mayor is kind in funding a mail piece of lies. No those are not just lies, but damn lies! But now I must pause, smile and send kindness and kisses to all of you – just like the mayor would.

  8. How does one toss out the core of their “character” for political gain? You can’t – unless you never had it to begin with. This is all about political self-preservation. Kindness? There never was any.

  9. View-from-the-4th-floor

    Jennifer, don’t forget he also fired that front office secretary that had been working on the 7th floor for years. I wish I could remember her name. He did that like the first week he was mayor. The word at work was that he was offended by her because she didn’t greet him correctly. It scared the #$%^ out of me that we could get fired so easily. Ever since that, I go out of my way to say hello – I can’t afford to lose my job.

  10. Jennifer – Mayor Tait clearly hadn’t vetted Lodge before endorsing him. Turns out Steve Lodge was found liable for using excessive against a jaywalker and wrongfully imprisoned a guy on murder charges. That would be enough for me to drop my endorsement.

    Tom Wood was Pringle’s boy and the Mayor must’ve wanted someone who would let him lead versus Pringle.

    None of the mail on Brandman is lies. Brandman supported the giveaway, deferred developer fees, and opposed the TOT ballot initiative.

    • Jeremy. That’s total crapola. That stuff had nothing to do with Tait un-endorsing Lodge. It hadn’t even come out yet.

      Tait demanded that Lodge flip-flop on GardenWalk if he wanted to keep the Tait endorsement. Lodge refused to do it, so Tait pulled his endorsement.

      Asking someone to go against their convictions just to keep your endorsement stinks.

  11. 2ndFloor_Planning

    @View-from-the-4th-floor: Her name was Larinda and your story is true.
    @Jeremy Miller: Actually, Tom Wood was appointed by Tait when he was a councilman a long time ago. When Pringle was mayor, the city manager’s name was Dave Morgan. I miss them both so much.

  12. 2ndFloor_Planning

    By the way, my personal opinion is that the mayor felt threatened by the city manager. Tom Wood was very intelligent and could not be bamboozled. I love our new city manager but I think the mayor and cc Galloway wanted somebody they could take advantage of. Like how they took advantage of Mr. Wingenroth earlier this year when they tricked him into opening chambers for a bunch of protesters they invited. Dave Morgan or Tom Wood would have never opened the council chambers without a proper quorum. That day was like the beginning of the end here at work. Also, the mayor’s assistant is bossy. You would be surprised at how many people wish they could quit.

  13. I want a give a shout out to my mom, Carolyn Young for her $9500 contribution to hit Brandman.

    • You talked your mom into throwing away $9,500 on a failed hit piece? And you’re proud of that? I hope she has more where that came from, because you sure didn’t do her any financial favor.

  14. Matthew Cunningham

    What is wrong with you, Jason? Honestly. I have been in politics for a long time and have encountered a number of crackpots, weirdos and snakes, but you are in a venomous class by yourself.

  15. What’s wrong with thanking my folks for standing up for what they believe in? I’m proud of them.

  16. I also enjoy messing with you. You get so fired up.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Sorry to disappoint you, Jason, but you don’t get me fired up. I happen to be up getting some work done on the computer and i keep getting e-mail notifications of your comments, so I’m responding to them.

      • Obviously I do. You have this need to respond to everything I write here and on other online venues and you’ve written 3-4 stories about me. I’m kinda flattered lol.

        • Matthew Cunningham

          No, Jason. It’s more of a dislike of shameless liars and character assassins, and a desire to ensure some unsuspecting reader somewhere, unaware of the type of person you are, might actually give undeserved credence to something you say.

  17. The mailer didn’t have one untruth on it. Jordan is under investigation by the DA and he did support the $158 million giveaway.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Jason, what you practice is the craft of using facts to tell lies.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      And please explain how the city can give away tax revenue that doesn’t exist, and that will only materialize if the GardenWalk opens its doors (which it needs the TOT assistance to do)? You and your pals have repeated that $158 million giveaway line so many times you’ve stopped thinking.

  18. Funny it made the world H E L L into symbols.

  19. Matt there you go again spinning the truth. There are hotel projects throughout the US and the world being built without TOT support. It is a giveaway of future tax revenue once the hotels are built. I didn’t say the city was writing a check to them today.

  20. Matthew Cunningham

    You’re dime-a-dozen crank with a website.

    And tell me, genius – what is the nature of this DA “investigation” into Jordan? That crank Katherine Smith wrote the DA that Jordan is doing something with his personal computer at the district and she doesn’t know what it is, but she thinks it isn’t good. The DA’s office says, “OK, we’ll check it out.”

    That’s it. But your mailer tries to mislead voters into thinking Jordan has actually done something wrong or broken a law. And that, Jason, is called lying. And it takes a ot of nerve for someone with your background to smear someone else with the “DA investigaton” claim. That you are proud of trying to mislead voters is an even uglier reflection of who you are.

    And the “giveaway” line is just pure, illogical crap.

    • Katherine Smith is a good and decent woman who actually has improved the lives of AUHSD students versus do nothing Brandman.

      The mailer stated the facts. Mailers from your side against Kring and Leos on the other hand were full of lies.

      The giveaway claim is not illogical.

  21. Matthew Cunningham

    But the hotels aren’t built without the TOT support. Savvy? Without the agreement, they aren’t built, and no TOT revenue. And according to what you’ve written, you’re fine with a “giveaway” as long as it includes giveaways of which you approve.

  22. Matt, I will chime in here for a minute. I was one of the first and most vocal to support the TOT deal when it was a genuine feasibility gap to bridge the difference between a 3 star and 4 star hotel. The City would receive what would have been generated by a 3 star hotel, which all agreed could be financed on that site without subsidy, as all other hoteliers in Anaheim have done (other than Bill O’Connell’s Doubletree, the only other Anaheim hotel to receive subsidy) The developer’s subsidy only extended to the gap between what was received on a 3 star room vs a 4 star room. It was fair to all involved, which is why an anti-subsidy guy like Tait was able to negotiate for some of these approvals back in the day.

    Now the deal suddenly shifts so that the City receives NOTHING for that site, it all goes into the pockets of the developer. That deal puts us further behind than if a Motel 6 were to be built on that site.

    The argument that nothing is happening there without subsidy is moot. While the site is not generating income it is also not costing taxpayers anything. Hotels are not a zero sum game. The low wages create an environment in which workers then demand subsidized housing, lunch money for the kids, etc. Those who do not get into government housing programs double and triple up in Anaheim’s already overcrowded housing stock, creating issues with parking and maintenance, etc. There is a cost to taxpayers in Anaheim hosting these hotels, whether it is the direct cost of taxpayer-funded social programs to underwrite the low wages of service sector workers, or the quality of life issues of having 3 families packed into a house designed for one family, with their cars spilling over and blocking our driveways.

    Matt you used this space to complain about the working poor who can no longer conduct weekly garage sales to supplement their income, where do you think most of those workers come from? It is the tourism industry, Anaheim’s economic engine, that leaves people so broke they are forced to sell stuff on their lawns. The industry brings a lot of money into the coffers, but a lot goes back out in terms of supporting the infrastructure of the business, and social programs for those employed in the business. When we underwrite the industry until there is nothing left for the General Fund to recover costs, we are going negative to the advantage of the politically connected leaders who make their profits in the tourism industry. There is a dark side to tourism, one that is never talked about, one that I refused to see for a lot of years.

    Now we can go on forever about whether it is the function of government to support these social programs, but the reality is that we are in fact paying for them as of this writing, and more hotels will breed more of these hidden costs to Anaheim’s existing taxpayers. Nobody talks about that. So if my taxes underwrite the low wages of Bill O’Connell’s service sector crews, I expect O’Connell to offer something back into the pot, like at least SOME of the TOT. Stripping all of it means he keeps the taxes paid by tourists, in addition to allowing the rest of us to subsidize his staff. Now you tell me how this is a conservative, small government philosophy, because I do not see it. A conservative approach would be a “tax break” allowing him to defer or eliminate some tax or fee that comes from his pockets, but this is free money, paid by others, diverted back to the developer/hotelier.

    When Matt can do the mental gymnastics to justify this kind of big government pork-trough program it leads to the question we are all asking but Matt refuses to answer. Have you come to the conclusion that Anaheim taxpayers underwriting the costs of one developer while receiving nothing in return is good for the community out of your own sense of moral fiber, or are you on the team for the developer, or those connected to the developer, and therefore simply doing your job of conducting a PR campaign for those who benefit from this deal?

    And that, Mr. Cunningham, is what we are all waiting to have answered.

    • I thought Cynthia Ward had sworn, at least a couple of different times, that she would never comment here again?

      That’s a promise she should keep! 😉

  23. Anaheim4ever – Cynthia makes some very valid points. How bout engaging her on the issues instead of being so rude.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      “How bout engaging her on the issues instead of being so rude.”

      How about following your own advice, Jason? You give new meaning to the pot calling the kettle black.

      I’ll fall off my chair if Cynthia ever takes exception to your execrable behavior.

  24. I find it confusing that while Matt and his readers take great pains to communicate the message that my presence and participation here at this blog (and in life in general) is unwanted and irrelevant, while simultaneously commenting about whether or not I have responded to something posted, or what my opinions are of those I appear to be in agreement with. Which is it? I stayed away in the belief I am not wanted here, only to have others forward links showing that I am mocked for not responding to a storyline. Or am I taunted with those responses, in order to draw me in, my presence required simply to provide comic relief? Do I merely play the court jester to the Masters of the Universe who need the diversion of Cynthia as the electronic pinata? What if I refuse to play your sick game?

    Jason and I often disagree, we are polar opposites when it comes to liberal vs conservative, and our approach to how a piece should be covered is definitely from across the spectrum. But because Jason offers me the courtesy of responding respectfully to me behind the scenes, our disagreements remain behind the scenes, My public comments are reserved for those who have either gone public themselves with something ugly and/or misleading and prejudiced, or for those who refuse to acknowledge my request for discussion or additional information in any other format. No, you do not get to pit us against each other for your own entertainment. Good try, though.

    Now, to return to the truly relevant issues at hand, which are not whether Cynthia approves of Jason’s views, or taunting Jason into revealing what he knows about the nature of the D.A’s investigation into Jordan-no the most pressing issue related to this particular blog and its authenticity is this;

    Matt Cunningham, are you being paid or receiving non-monetary consideration for your work on this blog and/.or comments written elsewhere on behalf of those who benefit from your words? This is not an idle inquiry, it is standard practice to disclose that information. If a food blogger writes a restaurant review and then later is revealed to have received that meal “comped” it lowers the reliability of the review. But the food blogger who begins a post with the disclosure, “This hot sauce company sent me a free bottle of their product and here is my review of it” is respected for that disclosure.

    This is all we are asking of you Matt, the same standard that has been followed for years in the blogging community. Until you address that issue, we see your diversions as what they are-squirrels designed to get Jason and Cynthia and anyone else critical of your friends chasing up a tree after anything other than whether or not this work is a paid professional endeavor.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Cynthia, I am not and have not asked you not to comment here. Come and go as you please. You have vowed on a couple of occasions never to comment here again, and then you come back. You commented here or elsewhere that you want to pretend as if we don’t know each other, while simultaneously filing PRA requests about past and current contracts I have/had with OCTA and the City of Anaheim.


      I owe no explanations to you or Jason (especially Jason), and could care less if you view anything I write as a “diversion” unless it pertains to what you want.

      “My public comments are reserved for those who have either gone public themselves with something ugly and/or misleading…”

      And yet you continue to give Jason a pass for exactly that kind of behavior. Given that, it’s hard to take your hectoring of me seriously. And if you continue, I will consider it spamming and treat it accordingly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *