“Let The People Vote”…Unless The Mayor Opposes It

Watching the Tuesday’s Anaheim council meeting from the comfort of my home, I noticed how Mayor Tom Tait repeatedly invoked the phrase “Let the people vote” like a magical incantation.

That was pretty much the sum and substance of his argument (aside from practically saying the city should do the ACLU’s job for it and capitulate to the litigation it is waging on behalf of the mayor’s buddy Jose Moreno). It’s not only shallow, it’s hooey.

The mayor and his allies demanded the City Council place the Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations on the ballot. One of those recommendations was a ballot question to the voters asking if they want to keep electing the council at-large.

But Mayor Tait didn’t want to “let the people” vote on that, so the CAC recommendation that he opposed was ignored when draft ballot resolutions were brought back for a vote on Tuesday — wouldn’t want to take this “let the people vote” thing too far.

After his ballot proposals were rejected by 3-2, Councilwoman Kris Murray moved to let the people vote on residency-based districts and whether they wanted to expand the council to six members.

Mayor Tait was the only “no” vote.

So much for “letting the people vote” which obviously applies only to measure supported by the Mayor and his friends on the Left.

No comments

  1. This is a very good point the liberal media is passing on – the CAC sent a recommendation to give voters an opportunity to weigh in on single member OR at-large. The council chose the latter and they are being villified as totally opposing the CAC recommendations – when in point of fact, they offered a plan that is consistent with all of the recommendations – on election of council, size of council and even moving on the primary ballot even though the cost is 10 times the general election ballot.

  2. … The CAC was split on the type of district proposal so it was completely in the purvue of the Council to make a determination. Mayor Tait also shut down questions from his colleagues, effectively using his role as chair of the meeting to censor his colleagues who are equally elected to govern. The Year of Kindness is clearly not something he intends to lead by example.

  3. Once again, like his attacks on APD, Tait is leading by fiat dictated by the ACLU. Why should our city capitulate because we are sued – before the city has even mounted a defense? Who says Anaheim is in violation? So far, it’s only been ACLU and Jose Moreno. Who’s leading who – it’s becoming much clearer where Tait gets his orders. It was shocking he opposed letting residents vote on the option before them. I applaud Councilman Brandman for putting the city first.

  4. I am in total agreement (not always the case). Mayor Tait has no core-values. He responds to threats instead of leading.

    I except that soon he will announce his support for Lorri Galloway to take his place as Mayor. After all it appears that he gets his talking points from her and the public-employee unions.

  5. It was awful to watch how Tait caters to the mob, only gaveling them to order when they really, really got out of hand. And he has become a real hypocrite on this “let the people vote” stuff. If Tait really meant it, he would have also directed staff to bring back a resolution for a yes-or-no vote on continuing at-large elections.

    What has happened to him?

  6. District based at-large elections defeat the purpose of district based representation. It is much more likely to run a grass-roots campaign if you only have to canvas your smaller geographic area. With this hybrid method, that Newport Beach uses, a candidate must solicit funds from the center of major political activity. You will have the same arguments that areas of the city are underrepresented because of the influence of big money.

  7. Stand for Anaheim

    Tait is a liberal wing nut. Why can’t the GOP see that?

  8. Ryan – political influence and funding is not weeded out by single-member districts. This is the OCDem’s and big labor’s highest priority because smaller districts are easier to control and their paid union reps can walk those districts. This isn’t about improving representation or making sure Latino’s have access – it’s just about control.

Leave a Reply

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

*