The Coalition of the Left that has been driving the single-member council districts train is holding a press conference this morning about the city’s settlement with ACLU of the Moreno v. Anaheim lawsuit, per this UNITE-HERE news release on the website its community organizing off-shoot, Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD):
A refresher for readers: OCCORD is a non-profit, community organizing off-shoot of the militant union UNITE-HERE; it was founded by UNITE-HERE staffers and is funded by unions and non-profits like the left-wing New World Foundation. It’s self-stated mission: “OCCORD is a leader in the emerging movement to reclaim Orange County, California, from the extreme laissez-faire policies and entrenched anti-immigrant sentiment that have long dominated our region.”
Another source of OCCORD funding is Wells Fargo Bank, via grants directed to it by Wells Fargo community relations officer Vivian Pham. Pham, a liberal Democrat, was appointed in 2012 by Mayor Tait to the Anaheim Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) one month after moving into Anaheim. She was one of two Democrats the mayor appointed to the committee, which was charged with making recommendations to the city about how the council should be structured and elected. The CAC was heavily lobbied by OCCORD and UNITE-HERE; Martin Lopez, a UNITE-HERE officer, was also a CAC member. Lopez was public in his belief the court should simply impose single-member districts without giving the voters a say in the matter.
Just some background to today’s conference, which will basically be a re-run of the same small group of individuals who have lobbied for single-member council districts from both sides of the dais at meetings of the City Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Tom Tait is as left-wing as they come. Holing press conferences with the ACLU and labor unions.
What’s next for this rich “republican”….does he want to ban large sodas like Michael Bloomberg tried in NYC? Kiss his Republican party endorsement goodbye.
That’s not very reasonable, Reasonableguy2. Better go find Reasonableguy1. He appears to have cornered the market on your reasonableness.
For argument, Kring just held a press conference a few weeks ago with at least two labor unions in her corner. Two plus million tax payer dollars later, she just voted for the settlement that Tait is discussing today.
Going by your logic, siding with the ACLU and labor unions is anti-republican. I guess Kring can kiss that Republican party endorsement goodbye, too. Not only does she side with big dollar labor, she wasted a few million delaying the inevitable and followed it with a flip-flop vote. I guess we can throw Murray under the bus too as she called this a “win.” Calling anything the ACLU supports must be anti-Republican, right? Anyone else running?
Lining up Tait against Bloomberg is WAY beyond a reasonable comparison. Tait hasn’t done anything that restricts your individual liberty. You want to slam him? Do it on his record and not with an anonymous slap form the dark that has no basis in fact. If you really want to stick with throwing stones, be sure you’re not standing in Kring’s glass house first.
Unbelievable. It is continually disheartening to see the mayor giddy to be lead to slaughter by the lefty groups he hangs around with these days. Doesn’t he have any friends left that can open his eyes?
Bloomberg? A closer parallel would be NYC’s new Lib Mayor Bill De Blasio with his inaugural speech the “Tale of Two Cities.” Hmmmm, where have we heard this before? Tait and De Blasio’s divisive class-warfare style of governance is right out of the Lib’s playbook. Divide and conquer baby! (Hence the Tait/Galloway Riots). The DNC and ACLU love Mayor Tait (a liberal deep inside with a fat “R” next to his name). Here is a New Year’s resolution for you Tait: Be honest with the Anaheim tax payers for once and change party affiliations. (And while you are at it, stop playing “Hide the Property” over at Angel’s stadium).
Credo, indeed. If you understand the significance of that word in Anaheim, shame on you for misappropriating it as a pseudonym to sling mud. If you’re just ignorant, look into it.
What’s the fascination with calling Tait a liberal on this blog? You folks clearly don’t understand how to use the slur.
There are two Republicans in the race for Mayor in Anaheim. One has a record of expanding government’s reach to the tune of billions of dollars. One has a record of voting against public encroachment of the private sphere.
For the record, if you’re going to use the word liberal as a slur and time travel back to 1988, you use it to show that a politician believes the government has a substantial role in picking winners and losers under the guise of leveling the playing field. It means that they believe in taking your tax dollars and appropriating them to fuel concepts that aren’t demanded by the market but rather by politics. It means that when confronted with opposition, they demonize their opposition as uneducated and malicious.
If you want to use it as a slur, there is only one Republican in this race who has a voting record of taking public tax dollars and handing them out to the winners of her choice while claiming public opposition is just a product of misinformation and malice. It isn’t Tait.
1988? A short walk down memory lane indeed but let us revisit the results of failed liberal policies in both New York City and Anaheim. Results that all but chased away job creators in their most iconic world renown locations respectively and replaced them with crime infested havens for drug thugs and prostitution. Giuliani’s hard work to rid crime and embrace new business has served NYC extremely well and has made New York City one of the greatest come-backs of our time. As for Anaheim, the results of a city hospitable to new businesses is evident: its called a booming economy and jobs!
Tait knows all about capitalizing on booming economies and the jobs it has provided for the employees of Tait & Associates, as he has personally profited from Garden Grove’s pro-business climate while choking up our own. How convenient. Anaheim voters beware – just as Obama knowingly perpetuated one of the biggest lies upon the American people to get himself elected so has Tait. His secret personal land transfers of property near Angels Stadium was done so he could thrust himself into negotiations while fooling the Anaheim tax payers. And his business dealings with Garden Grove while attempting to obliterate Anaheim’s opportunity to compete is hypoctitical… This decoy, who advocates for ACLU principles, hobnobs with the likes of Jose Moreno, appoints extreme left-wing activists like Vivian Pham, all while killing jobs in Anaheim is no Republican.
1988 isn’t a short walk. It’s quite a ways, actually.
I hear you killed some jobs. Yeah . . . and some butterflies. And quite possibly some puppies. In fact, I understand you’re a Communist. Not because you fit the definition of the term, a term whose definition I clearly do not understand, but because I don’t like you. I know that Communists are supposed to be bad, that you’re bad, ego you are a Communist. As part of your Bolshevik propaganda you advocate the overthrow of freedom and democracy beginning with the Mayor of Anaheim, who eats moonbeams and poops freedom. I need not offer any evidence to support these claims, I need only publish them for their truth to be self evident.
Look, smart guy. You’re confusing “job creation” with corporate welfare. On top of that, you can’t call Tom Tait a job killer while extolling his success in private enterprise– where clearly he is creating jobs (anyone running this blog ever have an opportunity to work in a job created by Tait in the private sector? Know anyone who has? Feel free to chime in and condemn this jackass.) Furthermore, you can’t claim that Anaheim has a booming economy and also claim that Tait stifles it for his own benefit. He either stifles it and it’s stifled OR he doesn’t stifle it and it booms. You can’t have both, son.
What exactly is a secret land transfer and how does Tait’s position on Angel negotiations benefit the value of his secret land? I’m pretty sure his position is that he doesn’t want the Angels to leave, which does nothing to either enrich his position or to harm others. If you have evidence to the contrary, offer it up to support your non-claim.
What hypocrisy are you accusing him of and how has he stifled Anaheim’s ability to compete? Are you talking about Gardenwalk? You understand that the ONLY reason that $158,000,000 public tax giveaway was necessary was to support a loan with poor terms that the developer secured (8% interest vs. 4.25% or market rate). Opposing that kind of white color welfare is not obstructionism, let alone a basis to call someone a hypocrite, and clearly, CLEARLY, Tait could not have possibly benefited from his “no” vote, which wasn’t successful anyway.
Advocates ACLU principles? You’re kidding me right. You get, I mean seriously, that the ACLU’s “principles” are advocating for the Bill of Rights. Maybe you don’t like some of the people they don’t defend and you meant something else, but that’s what the principles of the ACLU are. Additionally, he doesn’t advocate them any more or less than anyone else on the council. This week’s settlement was a unanimous vote. Unanimous!
The only thing that could possibly make your liberal conspiracy theory more tin-foil like is if you claimed that Kurt Pringle was behind all of it for his own personal gain. Show me the votes, Credo. Show me how Tait ripped off Anaheim taxpayers for his own personal gain. Show me how he took taxpayer dollars to benefit campaign donors for projects that taxpayers don’t need let alone didn’t ask for. Pony up, then we’ll talk about your secret liberal agenda designed to hoodwink the populace– because I will happily show you the votes from Kring that do exactly that. I’ll show you her position before the election that she used to fool voters into electing her to office, I’ll show you the flip flop votes and statements from the dias, and I’ll show you how people connected to her campaign donations directly and substantially benefited from her flip flop vote. There is exactly one hood winker running. Again, it isn’t Tait.
This is a race about records, who supports the taxpayer interest, who makes the case for change in Anaheim to benefit its citizens and their families rather than advocating for the already wealthy, and who does not.
If you’d rather not pony up the votes, take your tin foil and your abusive insensitive use of a screen name and stay home. It’s a word that’s use to promote faith, understanding, and GOOD in this world. It’s not something you get to tack on as a tag on your attack dog collar. Doing so is disgusting.
Cantor – you can’t name one thing Tait has done other than take credit for the kindness of others. He’s a marketing gimmick and a hypocrite. He voted for the programs you call corporate welfare over and over again as a member of the council and the record is well documented. Now he pals around with people who sue the city and then congratulate those plaintiffs on “their victories” while lieing to the general public that the council should have settled sooner – really? I notice you are silent on Matt’s other post with plaintiffs letters clearly stating they refused to have a vote as a term of settlement. Where’s your mea culpa on earlier statements that council is the one who cost taxpayers by delaying unless you believe ACLU and the courts should decide for voters? That’s outrageous and if that’s what you believe then no one in Anaheim including my Hispanic neighbors gives a damn what you think. Tait pumping his fist yesterday and chanting Its Time Anaheim was disgusting pandering for a man who said repeatedly that he supports the programs you criticize on the campaign trail and repeatedly to local community members in local meetings in our homes. Tait is the only one picking winners and losers – unfortunately, his consistent denegration of our leaders and antics in public make Anajeim the greatest loser as a result of him having been elected Mayor. I would personally take anyone over him in the next election.
He voted against Gardenwalk. Was it two or three times? He voted against that absurd MOU to giveaway Anaheim’s largest public asset for $1 a year. He also voted (or wanted to vote but failed for a second, right?) to let Anaheim residents VOTE on districts. Good enough for me. His opponent? Yes to giving away $158 million dollars even though she campaigned to oppose it. Yes to giving away Anaheim’s biggest public asset for $1 without ever soliciting input from the public, and no to letting the voters have their say regarding districts. Liar, liar, pants on fire, why don’t you go jump in a river and float away.
Mea culpa? You’re mistaken. The council is responsible for 1) deciding to incur legal bills and 2) settling. They own the pay out. That’s it. It’s not the ACLU’s fault that the majority in Anaheim weighed the risk and rolled the dice, figured out they were screwed, and agreed to settle. There was only one way out of having to fork over money: Win the case. They didn’t. That’s the consequence for being elected to a position of power, making a judgement call, and getting it wrong. You’re accountable for your own (good or bad) decisions. In this case, the council wasted years and millions of dollars to just do something they were asked to do at the get go. Yeah, they deserve to get beat over the head with this. Absolutely.
As to your statement about what I do and don’t believe regarding districting . . . well, i suppose that’s up for debate with you and your neighbor. The good news is that you get to debate districting with your neighbor and finally get to be heard this November. Nice, right?
Credo – would you mind using a different pseudonym? Ryan and I are both faithful Servite High School alums, and “Credo” is the signature salutation of our school and closely identified with it.
Mr. Cantor – the only option the city had to settle sooner was to allow the courts to impose districts – totally overriding an elections process. Yes or no – if you were elected to serve a city is that what you would have done? The plaintiffs letter and the City Attorney’s presentation at the council meeting on Tuesday (were you even there?) clearly showed that the litigation would not have been settled and would have continued to cost the taxpayers of Anaheim in continued fees and court oversight if the council had seconded his motion to put his measure on the ballot. Why did the Mayor not secure legal protections from the lead plaintiff – his good friend Jose Moreno – before seeking a ballot measure? He was willing to move this and not secure anything for the people he was elected to serve – THAT’S NOT LEADERSHIP! Worse – he congratulated the plaintiffs on their “vicorty” at their celebratory press conference yesterday. And Tait, you and all of his cronies try to paint the council as causing this fiasco. How much Kool-Aide are they serving at his gated Anaheim Hills home?
Tait was mayor for more than a year before this lawsuit was filed – he had Galloway with him on the council – if he wanted to move to districts and hold off on a lawsuit all together, that was an option he did not take. You are uninformed on our city’s programs. If you want a laundry list of Tait’s votes to share TOT for development and even sales tax to build GardenWalk or his votes for 3 at 50 to pad pensions then do a little homework. And why don’t you ask him when he found religion on districts – because according to many people, he was always opposed to them in the past – even opposed to increasing the size of the council. Why don’t you ask him yourself and see if he has the integrity to be honest with you. He’s the ultimate flip flopper and you are a patsy.
Good gravy. Where to start on this one.
This isn’t complicated. I mean, really. It’s pretty simple.
The People (P): We want districts!
The Majority (M): No you don’t.
P: Yes, we do! Let us vote! If you don’t, we’re going to sue.
P: Come on, let us vote!
M: No. You don’t. And we’ll prove it. Here’s a committee composed of people we’ve hand selected to hand us a recommendation. We’ll see what they have to say, then we’ll act.
Committee: Let the people vote.
M: No. You don’t really want districts. You want pseudo districts. That’s what we’ll do.
City Attorney: Oh, uh– hey guys, we’re kinda f’d. The bill just came, it’s seven figures and the court in Palmdale just said we’re wrong. Again.
M: Snap. What are we gonna do?
CA: Well, the people said they wanted to vote. Maybe we just give the people what they want and claim it’s a sweet idea.
M: Excellent. [your best Monte Burns voice here.]
FYI– probably wouldn’t be exactly legal for Tait to negotiate an independent settlement with Moreno without the city attorney and the blessing from the council. What you’re mislabeling as leadership is actually something they send you to prison for. Well done.
Leadership in this case is Kring standing up to the microphone and telling everyone she screwed up. Because of her, the city gets to fork over a few million, then she can explain why her history of bad judgement calls and flip flopping is the recipe for the right mayor in Anaheim. I’m sure what we’ll get instead is some finger pointing followed by a wildly enthusiastic request to LOOK OVER THERE! THE ANGELS ARE LEAVING!
Ryan: Whoa there! You cannot say “the people” asked to vote on single-member districts. That is simply untrue. Not only did the folks claiming they speak for “the people” explicitly said they did NOT want a vote, they said having a vote would be discriminatory to Latinos.
You’re right. We won’t know that until there’s a vote. I concede.
Sub “Representatives Claiming to Be The People”.
Counterpoint: There’s a difference between Moreno and the community at large. I’m sure there’s a very large chunk of people, perhaps not including Moreno, who wanted a vote. They matter, too.
Mr. Cantor – there was no call of “the people” to put districts on a ballot before the lawsuit was filed. I don’t even think Jose Moreno (who has yet to implment them in his own school district) ever even made a public statement asking for them before the lawsuit was filed. You are now just making this up. The Mayor certainly never asked for them either before the lawsuit was filed so if you are going to blame other council members then the blame should be applied to the Mayor as well – him more than the others because he is close to the plaintiffs and one could argue he should have tried to negotiate with them before the lawsuit was filed and not congratulate them on costing the taxpayers millions after they finally agreed to put the matter to a vote. The primary issue you keep refusing to answer is if the only option to settle for a year and a half was to allow for the courts and ACLU to impose districts and draw the lines – would you vote for that settment or continue to fight for the democratic rights of those you were elected to serve? You conveniently refuse to answer that question!
It’s like talking to a tree.
There is ONE and only ONE way to avoid cutting the ACLU a check. It’s to win the lawsuit. There is no possible way they could have done that. They went into this whole quagmire knowing that.
So, what would you do? You KNOW you’re going to lose. You absolutely know it. The statute is written in such a way to force you to pick districts, the case law forces you to do it. It just going to happen. What do you do? Do you become an obstructionist and drag your heels in at a steep cost to your parks, libraries, and emergency services or do you do what you have to do– because the state says so.
If it were me, and it wasn’t, I would have put it to a vote. A long time ago. I would have put it to a vote because that bolsters both my moral and legal claims protecting the voting rights of my citizens. I’d also make it very clear that if Anaheim residents aren’t happy about the CVRA, they need to talk to their state representative– because this was a battle that was fought and won in Sacramento long before the consequences came to Anaheim.
The gambled with the people’s money and lost. They should own that.
And I never said that Tait should have tried to negotiate a settlement independently- I said he should have pushed for legal protections with all obviousness through the legal channels available to him. Why would he send a ballot measure to the council before the city had secured those protections? It was the only leverage the city had to avoid continued litigation – clearly a read of the plaintiffs letter shows that to anyone willing to consider facts. Read the plaintiffs letter that is more than a year old before further commenting. You look ridiculous.
But if we . . . we coulda . . . we shoulda . . it wasn’t our fault . . . ah, but alas, we didn’t. Can we still take credit for it?
I look ridiculous?! OK. Man, I’d hate to be the three people responsible for wasting over two million dollars for the same reason a dog chases its tail. Wow. We’re going to have to make up a new word to describe them!
Once again you don’t answer the question. How about this one? When did Tait ever move to settle this case sooner? What action did the rest of the council not take that could have resolved it sooner? And don’t say voting for a ballot measure sooner because the plaintiffs clearly said the voters don’t matter so putting it to a vote would have gained nothing. This is the first time that the council had an option to settle that protected me the taxpayer. If there was an earlier time – enlighten us. And are you an elections law expert? Trial and appeals are exhaustive and expensive. The council could have continued to trial and you and noone else knows if the city would have won and established new case law. I’m betting they only came to the table because the council adopting the Santa Ana system was too great a risk to take. Why else did they come to the table after more than a year of saying no to letting the people vote? I’m done with this back and forth given you wont live with the consequences if this measure passes. No point in discussing it further with someone who refuses to see reason or facts in this case.
I don’t know anything about what occurred in closed session. If I did, it would be illegal for me to disclose it to you.
If I had to guess (and you say I have to), I would guess that this was the first time the council offered to hold a vote in exchange for dropping the suit. I would guess that’s based on the recent Palmdale decision, which confirmed that Anaheim would likely lose. There’s no evidence to suggest that this is not, in fact, the council’s first attempt at a resolution involving a vote.
I don’t think pseudo districting had anything to do with it. If you read the CVRA, it’s actually very specific regarding how districts ought to be implemented and a city wide vote is not an option. As such, there’s no risk to the ACLU’s case because of it. Because the Palmdale decision is the most recent change, I think that has the most bearing on the likely reason for the change in attitude.
You claiming that you’re the more reasonable doesn’t make it so, but in the end– you get to vote and I don’t. Choose wisely!
If the ACLU felt so confident in their ability to win (which you say was a slam dunk), why settle and dismiss with prejudice ?
Perhaps it gets districts sooner, but if I had to guess (and I have to guess because I’m like that), I’ll take the high road and the plaintiffs agree that facilitating change through the democratic process is better than the judicial process. Perhaps that’s what they wanted all along and everything else was just a negotiating tactic. Who knows.
If I’m being cynical, I’d guess that they have no problem sticking it to the city twice using another lawsuit and another plaintiff.
You’re asking us to believe that the plaintiffs – who had clearly stated they wouldn’t settle the suit even if the city placed single-member districts on the ballot, and even characterized such a vote as discriminatory against Latinos — suddenly cast aside their determination to impose their scheme via the court and embrace a method they called discriminatory?
That requires a pretty serious suspension of disbelief — especially if the city was doomed to lose the lawsuit, as you contend.
Sorry – it was the plaintiffs insistence on a court-imposed solution that bypassed the voters that dragged out this suit, and hiked the city’s legal fees.
So now you’re commenting, eh? I’ll be back shortly. I have to pump up for some bloviating.
Well, Matt, seeing how that’s E-X-A-C-T-L-Y what happened . . . yes, that’s what I’m asking. If they didn’t change their mind, then they wouldn’t have settled, right? I think you probably meant to write something different in that first paragraph. That, or I’m not reading it correctly, which is entirely possible.
I think it’s a pretty serious suspension of belief to entertain the notion that the council majority was willing at any point other than some time last month to settle the suit with a vote. If they did, why they voted to the contrary is probably grounds to boot them out of office for not being of sound mind.
Yes, the plaintiffs did change their minds, but I really don’t think it is for the altruistic reasons you posited. Gosh, maybe they were afraid of losing this case that you say they could not lose? Did they stop believing a popular vote was discriminatory against Latinos?
And since, as you acknowledge, they did change their minds, that merely confirms it was their prior refusal to do so that dragged out the legal fight longer then necessary – meaning it was the plaintiffs who cost the Anaheim taxpayers all that money, not the dreaded council majority.
No, Matt– it does nothing of the sort. In order for that idea to hold water, the council would have had to make the offer. They didn’t, so it doesn’t. They don’t get to take credit for an idea they shot down, particularly since they shot it down more than once.
There are three people who are responsible for dragging out the legal fight and costing Anaheim taxpayers over two million dollars that could have gone to city services like libraries, road improvements, or emergency services: Murray, Eastman, and Kring. Again, all I expect to hear from them is denial, deflection, and some sort of demeaning remark.
No point wasting time arguing with Ryan. He’s not going to concede anything, even in the face of the facts. He’s just an anti-council majority attack dog.
I mean, Ryan’s position is the council majority should have given in to the ACLU lawsuit because there was no way the city could win, but he can’t explain why the plaintiffs would settle a lawsuit they supposedly couldn’t lose on terms they had been rejecting as anti-Latino. All he really does is say over and over, “It’s the council majority’s fault,” as if that’s an argument.