The council districts map sponsored by a coalition of progressive and Democratic Party interest groups has been adopted. The city council has determined the ballot order (although not the order pushed by that same coalition and Mayor Tom Tait): Districts 1 and 2 (West Anaheim); District 4 (the Latino-plurality, south Anaheim); and District 5 (Latino-plurality, central Anaheim) will on the 2016 ballot.
Last week, Mayor Tom Tait published this “candidates wanted” post on Facebook:
It’s not surprising that Mayor Tait is recruiting council candidates. He’s started the process of assembling a Tait Slate earlier and earlier with each election cycle since 2012. Recruiting via Facebook is a novel approach.
Tait’s FB post inspired a number of both positive and negative comments on the subject of by-district elections and other Anaheim city issues:
Very true. The political feasibility of such a move is another matter, but the point not only remains, it undermines one of the prime selling points used in the Measure L campaign: shifting to by-district elections means you’ll be represented by someone from your neighborhood. It’s tough the “carpetbagger” charge stick if an Anaheimer moves from one part of the city to another in order to run for city council. Anaheim’s districts are the size of the City of Fountain Valley in terms of population; it’s not as if most voters will notice.
Councilman Jordan Brandman has been very open about moving to west Anaheim and running for re-election from there should he not make it to November as a congressional candidate. Mayor Tom Tait brought the fluidity of residence uncomfortably to light at the last council meeting when he point-blank asked Councilman James Vanderbilt if he was planning to move to District 6 (Anaheim Hills) and seek re-election from there.
But hey – whatever lines Measure L proponents had to feed voters in order to get their votes, right?
Leonidas Cisneros, a recent intern for Rep. Loretta Sanchez who appears to be a democratic socialist (judging by his Facebook page), affirmed why he voted to re-elect Mayor Tait before launching into a confused progressive rant:
Mr. Cisneros, like other progressive and/or democratic socialists, pours new meaning into old words – in this case “disenfranchise,” which in reality means literally taking away a citizen’s right to vote. Mr. Cisneros’ also uses the word “Latinos” as if all Latinos subscribe to a single political world-view.
That said, let’s examine the premises in Mr. Cisneros’ comment:
- Increasing the council majority threshold necessary to place a tax measure on the city ballot “disenfranchises” Latinos.
- The council approved the Anaheim Taxpayer Protection Act in order “eagerly” disenfranchise Latinos.
- Anaheim Latinos all support imposing a gate tax on Disneyland.
- The “demands” of this monolithic Latino bloc must be adopted, regardless of election outcomes.
- By-district elections (or any elections, really) are only legitimate insofar as they translate the political and policy preferences of this monolithic (and presumably progressive) “Latinos” voting bloc into law. The legitimacy of elections or an election system (at-large, by-district, etc.) is determined by outcomes, not whether they are free and fair.
Mayor Tait let’s these absurdities go unchallenged, merely responding that he opposed the Taxpayer Protection Act – a measure Mr. Cisneros made clear he believes was deliberately designed to disenfranchise Latinos.
A Mr. Jason Hufnagel attacked the noxious idea at the heart of the Jose F. Moreno-ACLU lawsuit, the drive for by-district elections and the racialist mau-mauing of Jordan Brandman:
Yes. Mr. Hufnagel, it is ridiculous. And yet, it also carries the status of received wisdom among progressive Democrats. Witness the murmurings by OC left-wingers Jeff LeTourneau and Greg Diamond that Anaheim Councilman James Vanderbilt isn’t really a Latino because his mother is Chilean, not Mexican. Welcome to the wonderful world of the Left, where citizens are examined, classified and sorted according to the accident of birth that is race and ethnicity.
Ms. Jeannine Robbins retorts that Hufnagel is “missing the point” of by-district elections, but she herself misses the point because there is no guarantee that Anaheim’s council districts will be represented by people “familiar with the issues in those areas.” The recent example of Connor Traut and the West Anaheim Neighborhood Council makes that abundantly clear.
And since the great minds behind Measure L failed to include a run-off provision, Anaheim could very well have several councilmembers who did not receive the support of a majority of their constituents.
The second reading of the districting ordinance (including the ballot sequencing) will be on the council agenda next Tuesday. There will no doubt be a parade of the usual suspects from the professional Left, demanding the council pull West Anaheim’s District 2 from next year’s ballot and replace it with District 3. They will denounce Brandman and Murray and Kring for putting both West Anaheim districts on the 2016 ballot (after all, representing ion for West Anaheim was a big talking point for districting advocates) instead of allowing the politics of race to control their votes.
Hopefully, West Anaheim residents will also be there as well to speak up the approved ballot sequencing of Districts 1,2 ,4 and 5 in 2016, which actually conforms to the rhetoric used by by-district election proponents.
I really want the west Anaheim seat to be won by someone who has not only lived in west Anaheim, but fought for it, volunteered for it, understands our problems and has plans on making a difference. There have been too many people working too hard, for no money volunteering to try and better this area. I would just cry if the seat went to anyone that just wants to be in politics, and never did anything for west Anaheim. No one needs to ask you your credentials, all candidates know already in their hearts if they are really worthy. Please, please do not vote for a “politician”, vote for someone who has PROVEN already that they care. We do not want you if you are not deserving.
Wonder if Tait will do a better job vetting his chosen candidates this time. Arrest records please….
Tait’s recruiting candidates on Facebook? Is there no one else on his street he could talk into running?
The fact thatTait championed districts as bringing government “closer to the people” and in one of his first acts to put them into place, he blatantly suggests his Tait slate candidate James Vanderbilt should move from the district he’s lived in for years. His measure only required a 30 day residency and now he’s encouraging carpet bagging musical chairs between districts. That is blatant fraud Mr. Mayor!
Jeff and Greg are special interest shills. No different than Cheveron or AT&T.
These two uninvolved, non-residents feel they are the saviors of poor brown people, lets see them move from BREA and live amongst the unwashed non voting souls they hope to save……
Nope never gonna happen.
Let’s look at the actual public record in contrast to the erroneous claims made here. The video of the Public Hearing is online for those who missed it. It begins at time marker 56:45 into the meeting, and Public Comments end at time stamp 1:40
MC says: “Councilman Jordan Brandman has been very open about moving to west Anaheim and running for re-election from there should he not make it to November as a congressional candidate. Mayor Tom Tait brought the fluidity of residence uncomfortably to light at the last council meeting when he point-blank asked Councilman James Vanderbilt if he was planning to move to District 6 (Anaheim Hills) and seek re-election from there.”
Echoed by:
“Longtime Anaheim Resident
December 2, 2015 at 9:37 am
The fact thatTait championed districts as bringing government “closer to the people” and in one of his first acts to put them into place, he blatantly suggests his Tait slate candidate James Vanderbilt should move from the district he’s lived in for years. His measure only required a 30 day residency and now he’s encouraging carpet bagging musical chairs between districts. That is blatant fraud Mr. Mayor!”
Now look at the video of the meeting itself and tell us WHERE that happens?!
The Mayor did NOT ask Vanderbilt if he was moving to District 6, and despite the belief of “Longtime Anaheim Resident”, the Mayor did not “suggest” Vanderbilt move from his own District!
Minute marker 02:11:27:
Mayor Tait merely suggests that Vanderbilt’s current residence is not an obligation to remain there, (especially since he was elected At Large) and should he move, the District would have no representation under the argument posed by Brandman and Murray. Tait does not suggest James grab a U-Haul truck, much less suggest which direction to point the hood ornament.
02:27:47
Mayor Tait wraps up with this;
“Let me just ask this question, and Council member Vanderbilt does not have to answer, but might you be moving before 2018?”
As Tait clearly stated, he only asks because it is Lucille Kring who dismissed the idea that Vanderbilt is going anywhere.
Lucille Kring said James is unlikely to leave his home after 20-something years there. Kring then goes on to suggest herself as a Realtor if James did decide to move! I hope she was kidding but it was tacky to do in the context of an open meeting of such importance!
As an aside, I can think of nobody I would less want working on my real property agreement than a real estate lawyer who doesn’t understand the legal ramifications of using the specifically enumerated amount of ONE DOLLAR as the “consideration” in a written contract, versus the wording to indicate an unspecified nominal amount to be determined in negotiations…as though they are interchangeable because her staff told her so.
Vanderbilt then declines to answer unless the question is posed to all of the Council, and rightfully so, as Brandman has told everyone OTHER THAN the public watching these public meetings that he intends to move, making his support for the amended motion of Murray a flat-out blatant attempt to rig the system, as Brandman eliminates his option to run where he lives now and “forces” him to move to West Anaheim.
Since there is no factual basis for the claims being made here, it may be safe to believe some are intentionally starting new rumors about the Mayor (like the erroneous claim he supported gang member memorials with public funds despite the record showing it is NOT TRUE) Since very few residents are willing to go check the facts themselves, before you know it the neighborhood email chains are buzzing with some bizarre theory that Tait moves human beings around the city like pieces on a chess board, in some Machiavellian game against some unseen opponent. There is only one player working that chess board and it is NOT Tait. Your own post proves this, by sharing the Mayor’s facebook outreach efforts to identify the everyday rank-and-file local grassroots leaders he would love to nurture and equip, so they may step up and lead the areas they live in and care about!
The Mayor would not bother with such a move if hand-picked cronies are already selected and prepared to be airdropped like the 82nd Airborne into the seats selected for them by the grand chess master. To reach out to those local leaders only to dismiss them in favor of special interest buddies would be the ultimate slap in the face, like if the power brokers actually blow off those neighborhood leaders already living in District 1 and prepared to step up and run, and instead support Connor Traut’s arrogant assumption that he is the heir apparent to the northwest Anaheim seat! It says we checked out the home grown heroes but had to import someone from outside since the selection was found wanting. Who wants to send that message? (other than Jordan Brandman’s campaign people?) You certainly don’t go LOOKING for local people on Facebook to then dismiss later in favor of your own homies brought in from the outside!
Check your facts, people,don’t take my word for it, go look at the public record that the City Clerk works very hard to put online for our use (when she can extract the info from department heads) because you will not find those facts posted here at Pay to Play Central!
So unless Brandman says something from the dais, then he hasn’t really said it? Come off it, Cynthia. Matt’s right: Brandman’s never made it a secret that he would move to a different part of the city when districts happened, even during the period when the council approved at-large districts. Since he would have been drawn into a district with Gail Eastman, he told anyone who asked that he would move.
And Tait was out-of-line putting Vanderbilt on the spot like that. It was obvious Vanderbilt didn’t appreciate it. You’re such a Tait sycophant.