Anaheim Observer Civic affairs in OC's largest city.
As readers may know, the coalition of left-wing pressure groups trying – with much success – to control Anaheim’s districting process degenerated into a mob at this week’s Anaheim City Council meeting. After a council vote went against them, coalition operatives erupted, shouting “Shut it down!” in an attempt to prevent the city council from continuing the people’s business.
Mayor Tom Tait attempted to gavel them to order, which the mob ignored. He should have instructed police officers in the chamber to remove the disruptive agitators so the council could attend to agenda items to which law-abiding Anaheim citizens want it to attend. Instead, the mayor adjourned the meeting – thereby giving the mob what it wanted, and leaving no doubt as to who was actually in control of the council chambers.
The preceding is by way of giving context to this photo, which one of the instigators, OCCORD, posted on its Facebook page earlier that day:
The gentleman in the lower right of the photo, wearing the short-brimmed fedora, is Paolo Magcalas, who teaches the Ethnic Studies course inaugurated this fall at Loara High School to teach impressionable students that America is a racist nation that oppresses people of color. Those are his students, and that is obviously his public school classroom. Here is Magcalas a few hours later at the council meeting:
Does anyone think the average, taxpaying Anaheim voter thinks using students to make protest signs so they can be part of an unruly political mob is the best use of class time and their education tax dollars? It will certainly good training if these students aspire to college careers as progressive campus thought police eager to shout down dissenting voices.
Loara High School is in the Anaheim Union High School District, whose board of education cried poor mouth to convince Mayor Tait and Councilmembers James Vanderbilt and Jordan Brandman that they must be given a permanent slice of the city budget pie. Great to see the tax dollars the AUHSD does have are being put to such productive use.
Magcalas told the OC Register this spring:
The yearlong class will cover how Native Americans were treated by European settlers, immigration and the Civil Rights movements, and race relations in Orange County and Anaheim.
That will include a discussion of the civil unrest that erupted in July 2012, when two Latino men were fatally shot by Anaheim police – a topic that Magcalas said led to developing the class.
“I was sad to see what was going on in my community in 2012,” Magcalas said. “I want to teach the students how to properly take action in their community, rather than destroy it.”
So, in a class whose creation was inspired by a riot, students were used to at least support what turned into a near-riot. We don’t know how many, if any, of Magcalas students went to the December 15 council meeting and joined in shutting down the city council.
The AUHSD’s curriculum director, Diane Donnelly-Toscano, told the OC Register in May:
“We want the students to have a whole curriculum that goes beyond reading, writing and math,” Donnelly-Toscano said.
Judging by the photo, I’d say mission accomplished.
Ada Briceno, the vice-commandante of UNITE-HERE Local 11 and interim honcho of OCCORD who was one of the leaders of the mob action, has vowed to “escalate” going forward. That should make for some fun classroom exercises in Loara High School’s Ethnic Studies course.
Will Tom Tait count this as an act of kindness?
They self inflict poverty and show no respect for the democratic process.
“… support what turned into a near-riot.”
The non-violent protest in front of two dozen or more cops was a “near-riot”?
Make some specific allegation about someone, wordsmith. Don’t tease us, say something actionable.
I think we’ve all noticed how quickly our friend Mr. Diamond is to make veiled or unveiled threats of litigation whenever faced with opinions or comments he doesn’t like.
Greg would fit right in on an elite Ivy League campus with all the junior fascists.
Greg Diamond is a bully. His comment is yet another example of that. Despite years of political activism, he’s accomplished little that’s meaningful or substantial. But he craves attention. Blogging and suing (or threatening to sue) give him a sense of self-importance, although it’s a false sense.
Here you two go again, using words like “facist” and “bully” like you have any idea what it means.
Get a mirror, boys.
Anonymous bomb-thrower is calling me a bully for contemplating proper use of legal process!
This is almost as good as when Florice Hoffman did so at a DPOC meeting.
Your benighted and baseless opinions are noted — and, being mere opinions, are not actionable. But a corporate executive will generally tend to be more clever than a mere wordsmith. (Until the wordsmith turns, as they sometimes do.)
Blovi, is that you again?! Merry Christmas!!!
Great article on how things in Anaheim, as far as the activist are concerned, are all interconnected. It is not the community rising up as a whole. Not even the Latino community rising up as one. All of this is a carefully orchestrated movement perpetrated by OCCORD. Sadly the mayor has been their willing enabler.
It’s important to note that he stood side by side with these folks at their press conference prior to the meeting. Does anyone really think – as a headliner of their “protest” – that he had NO idea whatsoever that they weren’t intending to shut that mtg down if they didn’t get their way?? Judging by the speed with which he and Councilmember Vanderbilt left the dais that evening leaving the others aghast, I’d have to say they had some inkling.
And it should be noted that OCCORD which originally had a veneer of respectability (and a lot of corporate sponsors too) when Take Back Anaheim started in 2012, has now completely come clean. Corporate donors are gone and It’s new website leaves no room for doubt that they are nothing more or less than a militant arm of Unite Here and the local Service Industry unions.
So here’s another connection for you – OCCORD is now supporting residents who want to stop STRs. Why? Because STRs cut into the hotel business which their members depend. These poor residents, like the Mayor, are becoming patsys for this unions gain. Coming out to speak on behalf of OCCORD’s agenda as a tit for tat. It’s just sad.
Out of curiosity, why did you feel unable to present this well-written (albeit wrong) opinion using your own name?
I am listening to my son explain what is going on in anaheim to his friends. An accurate description to be sure – after trying their hardest to stall district elections and after spending $2 mil of taxpayer dollars – the council majority voted unanimously to approve the peoples map only to rescind it later due to their own political aspirations and corporate cronyism. The arrogance involved in this decision is galling. To pretend they know more than the people who spent 1000’s of hours on this issue as well as the panel of 5 retired impartial judges is asinine. The council majority refuses to listen to people’s voices so the people will speak in November with their votes or with a recall before then. This has nothing to do with Occord/ the people of this city are fed up with Disney pulling the strings of the council majority. As far as STRs – when you live next to a property that has 30 strangers coming and going every few days then you can talk – the residents are taking their neighborhoods back. Jordan Brandman told me to blame him for the STR problem- it doesn’t get much clearer than that.
You were clearly not around when this issue started a few years ago. If you had been you would know that the guy who sued the city Jose Moreno refused to settle the lawsuit against the city by putting districts to a vote – he thought “the people” were irrelevant. The money that was spent defending the city was to ensure that you and I as residents had a say in how we are governed. As a long time Anaheim resident, I support the city council’s decision. If you really want to understand this issue go online and watch the Citizen Advisory Commission meetings. If you think OCCORD has the city’s best interests at heart you are sadly mistaken.
It wasn’t that long ago when Greg was up in arms when acrimony reached fever pitch in nearby Santa Ana, with “protesters” yelling F%CK THE POLICE. A knife was pulled.
Greg Diamond and company roundly criticized Mayor Pulido for shutting down the meetin in the interest of public safety. He Villified Pulido (as did the knee-jerk bloggers at Voice Of OC), yet there is no such criticism for Tait, who basically sided with the angry mob.
Refresh my memory with a citation to a source stating that a knife was “pulled.”
Yelling “f— the police” is, like it or not, a certified constitutional right.
The meeting was not shut down “in the interest of public safety,” anonymous liar.
A buck knife was found. It wasn’t pulled, but do you know how big a buck knife is? http://voiceofoc.org/2014/10/santa-ana-mayor-cancels-meeting-after-battle-with-activists/
I haven’t refreshed my memory on this diversionary story, but my recollection is that having a knife of that size was not illegal. Could be wrong.
It was presumably “left behind” — very different from “brandished” — by someone who did not want the police to find it in a search, possibly due to the very real possibility of their being killed over it.
It is against the law to carry a buck knife into a federal, state or local government building which includes schools and courthouses. Also, you can publicly carry a buck knife but it cannot be concealed (in California). Knives like switchblades or ones easy to conceal are illegal in California. I believe only active military have no restrictions on carrying knives.
I also never said the buck knife was brandished. The person who left the knife behind would likely have been arrested if found in his/her possession.
Some “Buck” knives are small – I seem to recall that in that instance the knife was on the small side.
I vaguely recall that the rule prohibits something like 4-inch fixed blade and this was a 3-inch fixed blade.
He still could easily have been shot over it. Even without brandishing it — a verb first mentioned by someone else way up in this comment thread, by the way — because in practice the Second Amendment does not apply equally to urban minorities.
You’d be correct Junior; the purpose of a buck knife is to gut a deer so it either has to be big and if small, very sharp
In the context of the meeting, the person who left it behind certainly made a big mistake bringing it to city hall to begin with.
I see Mr. Zenger is delighting himself in citing and pasting my comments. I o know what a buck knife is and I’ve owned several. Here’s a look at their current product offerings. http://www.buckknives.com
And please Dave, cut and paste this one. “Dave Zenger was fired from his county of Orange job by Supervisor Shawn Nelson for insubordination and being repeatedly disrespectful to his supervisor.”
If you have the stomach, you can catch a glimpse of Greg’s narcissistic personality at his blog. This guys self congratulatory ramblings are unbelievable. Even in the form of a tribute to a dead friend, Diamond can’t help but put HIMSELF front and center. His lack of humility knows no bounds. For an educated man, Greg shows little class.
For all their faults, I can’t help but believe David Zenger and company are rolling their eyes with this one!
If that’s not more telling about the guy’s view of himself, I don’t know what is….
Maybe a peek into his medicine cabinet.
Hi Blovi, Happy Hanukkah!!!
[Hypocritical person attack deleted] Hanukkah ended a while ago! Happy Festivus!
Sorry Greg, I guess I misstated. An individual involved in the protest left a large knife behind, the blade, often called a “buck knife” is generally used to gut wild animals. In Santa Ana that weapon has a different use. It is nonetheless a dangerous weapon, that in my summation was left behind because the police, in the interest of public safety were going to do a search.
Call me what you will, but, you are a one trick pony with the anonymous stuff. You have nothing to lose, others clearly do, otherwise CATER would have released the names of the persons supporting an organization who is suing the very entity they do business with. I believe Ms. Wards words were something along the lines of: “Many of our supporters have “deep ties to the city government, and stand to lose a lot financially if they were to be exposed”. I’d say that is more damning than a guy named “Hank”, or Anaheim Insider, Who Is CATER……..
Apologies upfront for the “Hank” comment, couldn’t resist.
Thanks for the invitation to call you what I will, but if I do Matt won’t print it.
Donating money to an organization is not the same as making anonymous personal attacks. I don’t think that anyone involved with CATER even engages in anonymous personal attacks. It’s of course impossible to make any such estimate regarding supporters of the Council majority — as (if I recall correctly, and if not I can be corrected) even Matt claims not to know who you all are.
“I don’t think that anyone involved with CATER even engages in anonymous personal attacks.”
That’s highly doubtful… have you ever read the comments on your blog???
“Donating money to an organization is not the same as making anonymous personal attacks.”
Agreed. Anonymous personal attacks are annoying at best but ultimately meaningless. Donating to CATer has a real impact on Anaheim’s budget, forcing city attorneys to take time to deal with what I see as pointless suits.
I can’t think of anyone involved with CATER who engages in anonymous personal attacks. Go ahead and name some people who engage in anonymous personal attacks on OJB. I don’t think you’ll find any who are involved with CATER. And if they are, my policy is that when someone complains about a personal attack, I’ll consider either “owning” it, annotating it, or taking it down. Other blogs — generally don’t.
Do you know what WE think that we accomplished in the suits — beyond the obvious delay of a terrible Stadium deal? I’d probably have to explain it on OJB, where I’m not moderated.
So help me understand some of this.
Propping up hotels to feed the economic engine is so important that we will forfeit hundreds of millions in bed taxes (money not available to repair our crumbling infrastructure and residential neighborhoods that are seriously showing their age) but if STRs run by those who donate to Brandman’s campaign and/ or control PAC money cut into the hotel business the union is bad for stepping in to protect the hotel business that we are underwriting. Is that right? Or is everything OCCORD does wrong simply because they are OCCORD and the issues themselves are irrelevant.
Help me with this other conflict. You say Moreno and the other plaintiffs refused to settle the lawsuit with a vote of the citizens, and demanded the City Council simply enact District Elections. Can you please explain how this happens if the a Council lacks the legal authority to change the Charter on their own and require a public vote? I don’t think even a Judge can change the City charter by court order. Your argument makes no sense.
So perhaps you can enlighten me.
This is from a letter from a September 4, 2012 letter to the City of Anaheim from Moreno’s attorneys in the Moreno v. Anaheim lawsuit. Read and be enlightened, Cynthia:
“We told you that the Plaintiffs would not postpone litigation on the possibility that the City might put a measure to the voters in November 2012, and that the City should instead consider a negotiated resolution to a court action, which would allow the election system to be changed without subjecting the question to a vote of the entire electorate, which is equivalent to an at-large election in its discriminatory effect on Latinos.”
Jose Moreno and the rest of the left-wing districts coalition opposed a vote of the people on by-district elections. What they sought was to have them imposed on Anaheim by judicial fiat. Their current claims of “defending democracy” are a hypocritical joke. These are ends-justifies-the-means radicals who say whatever the situation requires in order to advance their political objective, which has been consistent throughout: an Anaheim City Council with a progressive Democratic majority. Pay yourself on the back for helping them, Cynthia; the token Republican support provided them with useful camouflage.
Correct, Matt. Voting rights, like other civil rights, are not subject to a popular vote. But this was the only way that the city would settle and plaintiffs presumed — very correctly — that such a measure would pass, so they took the deal knowing that someone else would be able to bring a lawsuit if the public voted against voting rights. Is this too complicated for you?
What voting right enjoyed by other Anaheim citizens was being denied to Jose Moreno, Amin David, et al? We’re they not allowed to register to vote? Were they prevented from casting a ballot? Or have progressives manufactured another “civil right” that whomever one votes for has to be elected, regardless of how many of one’s fellow citizens disagree?
And you can ditch the condescension, Greg. Hubris and narcissism aren’t attractive qualities in a person.
Read the lawsuit and study up a bit on whether voting rights extend beyond merely being able to register and cast a ballot.
I’m sorry if that seems condescending. You seem to require that sort of simple advice. Nothing that plaintiffs supported in this whole fracas was legally novel at all. You should know that — and my guess is that you already do.
There is actually no constitutional right to vote; there are voting laws, but since you referenced “voting rights” you should know there’s no constitutional provision for it. here’s a link: http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/
There’s the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law if voting is allowed at all and due process prior to its being taken away, along with the 15th amendment and others covering women and youth.
These are constitutional provisions regarding voting rights. They apply in this situation, as no one is discussing eliminating the right to vote for City Council at all. Nice fine and all, but please leave constitutional interpretation to those who have studied it.
Let us be governed by The Experts. Very progressive (no sarcasm).
Turn that barb around on Anaheim City government, Matt. Have they ever said that only the experts are entitled to an opinion?
Given your poor record at practicing law, d say you’re a poor student. There’s a difference between a right and a law
[juvenile personal insult deleted]
Yes there is a difference between a right and a law, just like there is a difference between a parsnip and a turnip. What difference does that difference make here?
As for my “record practicing law”: what successes does CATER CLAIM in its cases? Mostly it’s in damaging admissions that the city has had to make in winning its cases. (The third one is still underway.) Go ahead, show the understanding that you’d need to show to have a reasonable opinion.
Who said anything about CATER? I didn’t.
And one more….what precisely IS the appropriate response to a Government body that has become dictators, implementing their own will to push personal and professional agendas even In the face of certain (more) litigation?Following years of trying to work with the a city to even discuss District Elections, the plaintiffs got fed up and sued, as is their right. They did nothing WRONG and if you want to claim that it is wrong to do something that is perfectly legal just because some don’t like it, you can start with the City Council majority whose refrain is a constant stream of “it’s not illegal”
An overwhelming majority of citizens were clearly supportive of District Elections, your position that the vocal minority of Anaheim is behind this is not borne out by election results, and clearly the naysayers against Districts are in the minority in this one. OCCORD followed the rules, worked their butts off campaigning for Districts, and won fair and square. Citizens then participated in lengthy hearings along with the retired judges, to produce maps that even the council majority (initially) had no objections to. If anything OCCORD created significant citizen engagement, and if you didn’t like their involvement there was nothing to stop anyone here from loading up busses of like minded citizens to attend the same hearings and share an opposing view. Of course you would have to find others of like mind…The people you are griping about followed all of the rules, took advantage of the very same opportunities any interest group could have utilized, they won fair and square. Now at the last minute, the council is pulling a fast one and trashing all that work, dismissing the will of the voters (I didn’t hear anyone get up at council to oppose this) and this is where you need to tell us, WHAT exactly is the proper response supposed to be for those who see their elected leaders flush the clearly stated will of those they are tasked with representing? The Council didn’t even provide info in what they object to or what alternative they wish to see, they simply said, no, you don’t get what you want, period, too bad, we are in charge. At what point do you think citizens have the right to STOP saying, “pretty please can we exercise our rights as citizens?” How long do out expect the public to keep getting kicked in the teeth and say nothing? OCCORD shut the meeting down in protest, to send a message. You note nobody rioted, no violence broke out, nobody was harmed. The poor babies at the dais who have been abusing their positions of authority were shouted at, and you act as though the French Revolution has taken place, with heads in a basket at the foot of Madame Guillotine. People shouted. Oh goodness it is the end of the world. People who have been abused for years shouted at their abusers. Oh no! We expected them to keep taking the abuse because there is a decorum policy in place! How about we start with those elected to office showing some respect for the citizens and then the citizens can return that respect during meetings. Being quiet has gained nothing so far, except more abuse by those who have forgotten why they are in office. Welcome to America where people have the Constitutional right to shout at their leaders.
“…what precisely IS the appropriate response to a Government body that has become dictators…”
The proper question is why anyone should take you seriously when you make such hysterical, patently absurd statements?
“…dismissing the will of the voters…”
Dishonest nonsense, Cynthia. Tell us when the Yes on L and M campaign asked Anaheim voters to pass those measures in order to produce councilmembers of a certain ethnicity (in this case, Latino)? When was sequencing of council districts discussed and debated? You can’t, because the Yes on L and M campaign (in which you participated) never mentioned either of them – not even the Yes mailers that targeted Latino voters mentioned Latinos. Voters were told that passing Measures L and M would result in the city more quickly filling pot holes, removing litter and painting out graffiti. Anyone claiming the Reyes Map or putting Districts 1, 3,4, and 5 on the 2016 ballot is the “will of the voters” is being disingenuous. Such revisionism isn’t surprising given that the Yes on L and M campaign was a one big con.
“…WHAT exactly is the proper response supposed to be for those who see their elected leaders flush the clearly stated will of those they are tasked with representing?”
First of all, the Anaheim City Council isn’t bound to obey the will of OCCCORD, UNITE-HERE, OCCCO and Jose Moreno. Members of the former were elected by the citizens of Anaheim; the latter are special interest groups and political activists (and the first three aren’t even from Anaheim).
It’s not surprising that you’re making excuses for your allies’ mob antics. The are proper responses available if one is a responsible adult citizen. They do not include shouting and carrying-on in a deliberate attempt to prevent a duly elected legislative body from carrying out its functions simply because one does’t like the outcome of a vote.
“How long do out expect the public to keep getting kicked in the teeth and say nothing?”
Conflating scripted, orchestrated demonstrations by cadres of leftists, union members and a few others with “the public” is disingenuous – and that is a charitable characterization. If this cast of characters were truly representative of the people of Anaheim, they would have been experiencing success in electing progressive candidates to city council. But they haven’t, because their politics are significantly to the left of most Anaheim voters. Hence the multi-year exercise in re-writing the election rules known as single-member council districts.
The power and responsibility for drawing council district lines rests with the city council – not a bunch of left-wing militants who are adept at manipulating public hearings.
So the guy from Orange and the guy from Irvine are saying Anaheim leaders don’t have to consider the views of their own constituents because they are being presented collectively by the voice of OCCORD and some of OCCORD’s leaders don’t live in Anaheim. Good one. While I agree OCCORD cannot and does not speak for all of Anaheim (no group does) they are the only ones who showed up for the dance, and you have offered no evidence that contrary views were offered by anyone else. But keep insisting this is anything other than the Permanent Political Aristocracy clinging to their power structure by any means necessary, no matter what the cost might be to the community.
It’s easy to see the connection to the same folks who cheered for rioting being a “win” if it got them out of publicly taking a stand in 2012. So rioting is a “big time win,” but shouting in a public forum is akin to revolution and anarchy. Sure….
The double speak over here is never going to give way to reasoned debate. I’m done. My New Year’s Resolution is to quite wasting my time arguing with idiots. I no longer believe it is my responsibility to offer a contrasting argument in case others stumble across the false charges over here, because a quick review of this site by any reasoned reader tells them what they need to know of the credibility level, and if they believe what you are shoveling they deserve the misinformation they get. You may return to propping up each others’ arguments with increasingly hysterical accusations against those who don’t agree with you. I am going to go use my time more effectively, hopefully doing things that make you even angrier, because the more you hate me the more I know I am getting it right. Folks have caught on, they know who the good guys are (and who they are NOT) and 2016 is the year you finally become irrelevant once and for all. Happy New Year.
“So the guy from Orange and the guy from Irvine are saying Anaheim leaders don’t have to consider the views of their own constituents because they are being presented collectively by the voice of OCCORD and some of OCCORD’s leaders don’t live in Anaheim.”
You’re putting words in my mouth (what a shock). I never said the council doesn’t have to consider the views of their constituents. I do dispute that OCCORD et al speak for the “broad community” (regardless of what the Voice of OC writes), and that the “broad community” even has an opinion about the Reyes map or the sequencing of council districts. Furthermore, the legislative authority of an elected city council is not trumped by the carefully planned and orchestrated campaign by OCCORD and Co. to dominate the public hearings and create the illusion that their agenda is supported by the citizenry at large. It’s laughable when someone says “Oh look – every speaker supports 1,3,4 and 5 on the 2016 ballot. That’s what everyone wants!”
Progressive activist groups love long public hearing processes, especially in jurisdictions in which they aren’t successful in actually electing candidates. They try to use them as a kind of substitute legislative process – they manufacture the facsimile of public support and then demand the actual elected body obey “the community.”
And I can’t help but notice you still only have an issue with non-residents opining on Anaheim affairs when their opinions are in opposition to yours.
You might consider, as a New Year’s resolution, to endeavoring to disagree without being so disagreeable.
Wow. Greg Diamond is really rubbing off on you!
Use paragraphs please.
You are unhinged. You know it was Jose Moreno who didn’t want a vote of the people. He’s the one who wanted a system dictated to Anaheim. The council and city defended our right to vote. That’s democracy. The rest of this is smoke and mirrors.
The system is dictated by the federal and state constitutions, as well as supporting statutes.
That’s CONSTITUTIONAL democracy LAR — which is our national flavor of democracy.
And last time I checked the mayor and council voted unanimously TWICE for a moratorium on STRs which I support. What exactly are you accusing the council of not doing – has your precious mayor proposed anything else? The answer is NO.
Alright, let’s put this myth to bed where it belongs. The revisionist historians here have had a little too much kunningham koolaid.
The sitting council majority did not spend $2,000,000 defending anyone’s right to vote. I don’t know who concocted this latest one liner, but it’s beyond absurd.
Jose Moreno, et al, did not oppose a vote on district elections. There is simply no evidence of this. Extrapolating this conclusion from a prayer for relief is not only logically invalid, it is lazy.
The council majority OPPOSED putting districts to a vote on multiple occasions.
But for Jose Moreno’s lawsuit, there never would have been an election. Had an election been held earlier, the lawsuit wouldn’t exist.
Finally, as it sits today, Anaheim is in violation of state law. While the owner of this website clearly hates the CVRA, the CVRA is the law. The council majority spent $2,000,000 opposing the CVRA, which was never going to fly. They also fired their city attorney, who is now suing Anaheim for another seven figures, as part of this debacle. Depending on how current issues resolve, the total bill to taxpayers may exceed $5,000,000.
So, all you spinnsters out there can continue to oppose state law, make up motives for those wishing to enforce the law, and continue to waste millions of dollars defending the indefensible OR you can accept that the law of the land is in fact the law. Cherry picking which laws we follow and which we don’t, well, we all know what that leads to.
Please stop the lies. It’s Christmas. Jesus wants you to tell the truth.
“Jose Moreno, et al, did not oppose a vote on district elections. There is simply no evidence of this.”
I’m not extrapolating anything. It’s right there, in black-and-white, in his attorney’s letter.
“The council majority OPPOSED putting districts to a vote on multiple occasions.”
Yes, the council majority opposed single-member districts, and opposed putting them on the ballot a few times. So what? Is that new information?
“But for Jose Moreno’s lawsuit, there never would have been an election.”
Probably. The council wouldn’t have put it on the ballot. And since there was no genuine grassroots demand for them, there was no citizens petition drive to put it on the ballot. I suppose Jose Moreno, OCCORD and UNITE-HERE could have gone to their rich left-wing friends in San Francisco and asked them to fund a campaign to qualify an initiative.
“Had an election been held earlier, the lawsuit wouldn’t exist.”
Moreno et al filed their lawsuit several weeks before the first OCCORD/UNITE-HERE-orchestrated demand to put an expanded, by-district elected council measure on the ballot.
“Finally, as it sits today, Anaheim is in violation of state law.”
That’s your opinion. Everyone has an opinion, among other things.
“…make up motives for those wishing to enforce the law…”
That’s rich. The motives of the Moreno/OCCORD/UNITE-HERE grouping have been very clear – it isn’t necessary to “make them up.”
“Please stop the lies.”
Doctor, heal thyself.
This ought to be good for a few laughs.
Show me, in black and white, that Jose Moreno opposes ANY election to impose districts.
While we’re waiting . . .
Second, claiming there’s “no genuine grassroots demand” does not fold with the outcome of the election. The overwhelming, OVERWHELMING, support for districts more than suggests actual grassroots demand.
Third, you’re presupposing no possible election in any year after the CVRAs adoption. Had district elections come forth as part of any Charter Amendment beyond say 1996, it probably would have passed and it probably would have prevented a lawsuit.
If you’d like to outline a case demonstrating Anaheim’s current conformance with the CVRA, we’d all love to see it.
Finally, accusing me of lying, as you’d put it, is intellectually dishonest (and, again lazy.)
As your reply clearly demonstrates, you have substantive bias concerning both the CVRA and Jose Moreno. Unfortunately for Anaheim taxpayers, your obsession with both contributes to their millions of dollars in legal bills.
Anyway, begin your rant. I’m listening.
“This ought to be good for a few laughs.
Show me, in black and white, that Jose Moreno opposes ANY election to impose districts.”
I’ll post – again – the relevant passage from the letter sent by Moreno’s attorneys to the city. Remember (since you seem to have missed it) that Moreno is one of the plaintiffs referred to in the letter:
“We told you that the Plaintiffs would not postpone litigation on the possibility that the City might put a measure to the voters in November 2012, and that the City should instead consider a negotiated resolution to a court action, which would allow the election system to be changed without subjecting the question to a vote of the entire electorate, which is equivalent to an at-large election in its discriminatory effect on Latinos.”
This is amazing.
You understand this doesn’t, at all, come close to stating in black and white that the plaintiff OPPOSED referendum, right?
Come on, man. At least make this challenging.
If this were a contest to see who can be the most smug and conceited, you would win going away.
The plaintiffs said, through their lawyers, they didn’t want a city-wide vote, which they considered discriminatory against Latinos. Their demand was for the court-negotiated, direct imposition of by-district elections. In other words, they didn’t want a city-wide vote on council districts. You, however, insist the plaintiffs weren’t demanding what they were demanding.
Nice personal attack.
You’re extrapolating a conclusion by removing both context and intent, which is not a valid line of reasoning.
This is a demand letter as part of a negotiation.
Your thought process would also mandate a conclusion that a prospective home buyer is not interested in buying a house because the buyer offered below the asking price.
With regard to the demand you cite, you erroneously infer broad intent that isn’t supported by the narrow expressed demand.
In other words, this isnt black and white and it clearly does not prove Jose Moreno opposed putting b anything to a vote.
Considering the final settlement resulted in Moreno endorsing an election, it’s fairly obvious your conclusion that Moreno doesn’t support a vote isn’t supported by the facts on the table.
I’ve heard Moreno reads this site, maybe he can chime in to when he did and did not support a vote of the people. I’m sure it will have no correlation to his perceived ability to get a seat on the council while Tait is still there.
“Second, claiming there’s “no genuine grassroots demand” does not fold with the outcome of the election. The overwhelming, OVERWHELMING, support for districts more than suggests actual grassroots demand.”
Is there an existing grass-roots demand for a life-time council term limit? No. But if it was on the ballot, it would pass. The voters also approved Measure M. Are you going to honestly claim Anaheim voters were clamoring for a bigger city council? According to your reasoning, there was a deep and pre-existing public demand for the iPhone; the reality is no one knew they wanted an iPhone until it was invented and marketed.
“Had district elections come forth as part of any Charter Amendment beyond say 1996, it probably would have passed and it probably would have prevented a lawsuit.”
Possibly. Funny how this “broad community” coalition never tried to tap into the massive public demand for by-district elections and put it on the ballot themselves. After all, that should have been easy, huh? Instead, they litigated and demanded the council put their particular policy agenda before the voters.
And have I accused you of lying? I don’t even know who you are.
Iphone is a false analogy. Won’t go there. Concerning the rest, I’m not arguing any of those items represent anything.
And to wrap it all up with a neat little bow you claim these folks litigated to demand the question be put to the voters not eight minutes after claiming the primary litigant OPPOSED doing exactly that.
That’s pretty priceless, sir.
“Iphone is a false analogy.”
Gosh, if you say so.
“…you claim these folks litigated to demand the question be put to the voters not eight minutes after claiming the primary litigant OPPOSED doing exactly that.”
Sorry if you got confused; I should have been clearer. You’ll recall this started as a response to Cynthia Ward’s skepticism that Jose Moreno, in his litigation, wanted to bypass a city-wide election and have the court impose by-district elections (which is true, whether or not you choose to accept that truth).
My reference to “they” asking the council to put an 8-seat council with by-district election on the ballot pertains to the larger left-wing coalition, not the name plaintiffs.
True because you say so? Ah, I see. Groundless assumptions for me, but not for thee?
Well, if you feel that the vast majority nofv Anaheim voters were tricked by a vast left wing conspiracy, I guess you didn’t try hard enough.
That’s gotta be difficult b for you.
“Reality Is…”?
Sounds like Ryan Cantor got himself a new fake name!
You are wrong. The plaintiffs and their attorneys refused to settle by putting the issue on the ballot. Their letter to the city in 2012 is public record. You are the one rivising history.
Again, inferring complete opposition to a position based on a prayer for relief is logically invalid and lazy.
Please stop being lazy.
“A vote should not be necessary, but if the City is unwilling to act without a vote, then let’s have a vote and see whether its result renders the remedy sought in this suit moot.”
That WAAAAAAY to complicated for some people! And yet they claim to understand what Kris Murray is saying from the dais!
C’mon Matt, that’s not fair. I’m sure if the Kris Murray had advocated to pour city tax dollars into the schools and the school teachers had their students paint posters during class supporting the anti-Gate Tax initiative, Cynthia, Greg and team Tait would have been all for that or at least would’ve been silent. I mean they’d just been learning civic involvement, right?
As if the schools in Anaheim are doing so well?
DEAD LAST!
Nice Leadership Jose, Al…The worst test scores in OC in 2015.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/test-682268-county-districts.html
Jose and Al FAILED leadership speaks volumes.
TRY AND REBUT these numbers Diamond. Please do so in 1,000 words or less.
Why the hell would anyone take a look at scores on Common Core tests and utilize them to determine the overall success of a school district’s educational potential?
I have to be honest here, I attended Oxford Academy for 5 years (having opted to go to Loara during senior year for the “real” high school experience) – back when Oxford was consistently ranked among the 10 best public high schools in the nation. I can tell you that very few of my classmates at either school took any sort of standardized testing seriously. In fact, at Oxford we would consistently rush through the majority of standardized testing in order to ensure a proper amount of time for partaking in the “potlucks” that would occur post-test, every single day during testing. Any students who actually cared about focusing were swiftly moved to the back of the room so that the rest of us could partake in the festivities.
However, a real measure of educational success (at least in my opinion) would be scores on AP testing – you know, tests that actually provide students with college credit, and therefore, a purpose to take them seriously and hopefully succeed in scoring high enough to pass.
At Oxford, all of us were well aware that our continued success on standardized tests was not due to the actual teachings we endured. Rather, our success was due to the fact that most of us were at least reasonably intelligent and could correctly answer questions consisting of “N=2, What is N-1”.
Unfortunately, as has been commonly cited among various academic literature, individuals from low-income areas consistently perform poorly on standardized testing. Do you find it coincidental that Laguna Beach and Irvine scored the highest in the ranking you posted? Educational attainment and success is directly tied to economic development – see any basic textbook on international macroeconomics. To accuse two individuals of negatively impacting the ability of Anaheim students to perform is ridiculous, at best.
Daniel, you know not of what you speak. So few students are in AP, why nut test onearly 20th century Russian poetry?
The point is SCHOOLS IN ANAHEIM ARE AMONG THE WORST IN THE STATE. And for some reason, these two don’t want parental choice.
I know not of what I speak?
Perhaps you need to go back through my comment and read it again.
Anaheim is indisputably one of the most economically disadvantaged cities in Orange County.
Macroeconomic principles tie educational attainment/success directly to economic development.
If you want to increase standardized test scores maybe YOU SHOULD SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT instead of blaming the issues on two individuals. Parental choice has literally nothing to do with educational success. Do you know how many students at Oxford had parents that openly didn’t bother to even concern themselves with their child’s education? And yet, magically, the school scores extremely high on a NATIONAL level.
Since when do AP tests revolve around early 20th century Russian poetry?? In fact, when have they ever?? Do you honestly believe that AP Biology, AP U.S History, AP Calculus, AP Chemistry, AP Literature, and AP Economics all have no merit?? If so, should those classes be taught at the college level?
Seriously, what the hell are you even talking about?
Maybe someone needs to go back to school and actually learn what an AP class is….
^ caps lock is quite nice, isn’t it?