The Anaheim City Council meeting is beginning. The dominant issue is, of course, adopting a council districts map and deciding which four seats will be on the ballot this year. The details of the battle have been covered here and elsewhere.
The left-wing coalition pushing its own Reyes map (which they and their media supporters call “The People’s Map”) and preferred district sequencing will surely be out in force and full of moral indignation. Their talking points will be as phony as they are predictable. Some that we are certain to hear:
“This Is The Civil Rights Issue of Our Generation”
Advocates for UNITE-HERE/OCCORD’s chosen map and sequencing are claiming this is the “major civil rights issue of our generation in Anaheim.”
Uh, right.
That is beyond hyperbole. This claim so trivializes the term “civil rights” as to drain it of any real meaning. A disagreement over whether a council district should be on the ballot this year or in 2018 doesn’t remotely qualify as a civil rights issue. Is any Anaheim resident being deprived of the right to vote? Are Anaheim citizens being required to pass a literacy test or pay a poll tax in order to exercise their franchise? Of course not. This “civil rights” palaver is silly and insult to common sense and intelligent discourse. It’s symptomatic of the Left’s habit of anointing their political priority du hour as the “civil rights issue of our time.” Anyone engaging in it disqualifies themselves as a serious person.
“This Is The Will of the People”
Here’s another gem: claiming failure to adopt the Reyes map (aka the “People’s Map”) and the lefties’ preferred district sequencing defies the “will if the people.”
More nonsense.
Anaheim citizens voted on measures to shift to by-district council elections and expand the number of council members. They did not vote on the Reyes map or any other map, nor did they vote on how the new council districts would be sequenced.
The Reyes map does not represent the will of the people. What it – and the demand to place Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 on this year’s ballot – do represent are the political objectives of a coalition of left-wing interest groups. Pretending voter approval for Measure L and M equals their endorsement of UNITE-HERE and OCCORD’s chosen map and district sequencing is an impossible leap of logic.
No one elected OCCORD, UNITE-HERE or Los Amigos. They are not accountable to Anaheim voters; UNITE-HERE and OCCORD aren’t even in Anaheim. The city council, by contrast, is elected by the people, and accountable to the people. They have far more legitimacy in this process as representatives of Anaheim citizens than the assorted union organizers and left-wing activists who are the core of the “People’s Map” brigade.
Double-Talk From The Left
Some West Anaheim residents recently created an online petition asking the city council to ensure Districts 1 and 2 (which encompass West Anaheim on the Reyes map). Whether or not the Reyes map is resurrected or remains dead, the point of the petition is ensuring the West Anaheim districts of whichever map is adopted are on the 2016 ballot.
I posted the petition on the Anaheim Blog Facebook page, which led to this exchange on the FB page of Jeanine Robbins, one of the anti-STR leaders who has forged a political alliance with UNITE-HERE and OCCORD:
Austin Lynch is a senior organizer for the militant UNITE-HERE union, and it takes some nerve to condescend to “these folks” (the petitioners). For the last few weeks, Lynch and his comrades have been trying to shaft West Anaheim – asking for central Anaheim’s District 3 to be on the 2016 ballot instead of West Anaheim’s District 2. Lynch’s coalition assailed the council majority to voting to put both West Anaheim districts on this year’s ballot. It’s a bit strange for Lynch to ask these West Anaheim activists to join the UNITE-HERE/OCCORD coalition’s effort to sacrifice the interests of West Anaheim on the altar of racial politics.
Furthermore, left unacknowledged by Lynch, Robbins and OCCORD staffer Marisol Ramirez is the fact that they had the Reyes map – unanimously approved by the council, However, collective political greed got the better of this coalition, and they were undone by their intransigence regarding when District 3 would be on the ballot. It was their refusal to support putting both West Anaheim districts on this year’s ballot that precipitated this debacle – which makes exasperation expressed by Lynch, Robbins and Ramirez all the more surreal and hypocritical.
God bless West Anaheim, and they certainly deserve their own representatives on council.
But I seem to have missed the part where they fought a years-long lawsuit for district elections, and won based on convincing a court that West Anaheim was being disenfranchised based on the California Voting Rights Act. Could someone show me a link to where that happened?
Vern, Moreno and the ACLU didn’t “win”‘the lawsuit. They settled. If you’re interested in acquainting yourself with the facts, try reading the settlement agreement.
Fighting for two years and ending up with what you wanted, I call winning.
Then you should have said that from the beginning, rather than bollixing up your facts.
And the lawsuit was filed three and a half years ago, not two years ago. But thanks for reminding me why I have zero faith that your scribblings are factual.
You’re starting when? Actually people like Fitzgerald have been trying to get districting for decades. I was counting the Moreno suit and its resolution. Not counting up to the present day.
The hair-splitting and semantics of the foe of truth…
Your friend Fitz. You know how to pick them.
The Moreno suit was filed in June 2012. It’s now January 2016. if you think that is two years, you have a problem. Oh sorry – that’s “hair-splitting” according to a guy with a passing acquaintance with the truth.
Take it easy on poor old besotted Vern. That decrepit blog is his reason for being.
It’s quite difficult to avoid using rough language on someone who’s both so arrogant and so dense. We were talking about THE LAWSUIT. 2012-14. That is why I said TWO YEARS. (And $2 million of taxpayer money wasted by your bosses fighting and losing.) I was right. You are wrong. As usual. So pipe down, loser.
Whoa there. Don’t blame me for your deficit of self-mastery and clarity.
We’ll never know which side would have won that lawsuit. The fact they settled indicates both sides were uncertain of winning. The plaintiffs wanted the court to directly impose by-dsitrict elections without a vote of the people, but agreed to a settlement in which the question was put to the voters and the city made no admission that at-large elections discriminate against Latino voters.
And for the record, “I’m right, you’re wrong, so shut up” is hardly an argument.
The CVRA actually defines c what winning is and it includes ac settlement as a win for the plaintiff. That’s the law. Apparently you disagree, but tough cookies.
In case you haven’t noticed, Vern wasn’t making an argument. He was making a statement. In this case, a true one.
He is right. You are wrong.
And Vern is wrong. He said the plaintiffs “convinced a court”. No, they did not – there was never a court ruling. He claims they won what they wanted in court – false and false. And was not a two-year fight.
Crimminy !
We just stepped into this arena and are being mentioned with some of the most powerful, savvy, up coming leaders in Orange County.
Jeanine has a lot to say and she is upfront with her comments. We came in with our issue but became aligned with these great people – Austin and Mirasol from OCCORD and Unite Here.
My wife Jeanine Robbins laughed when she saw this article and the screen shot because she is proud to be united with Austin and Mirasol.
I am so happy that you put her in their league thank you Matthew. And in that regard we will attempt to be level headed in our politics and look at all sides.
See everyone soon!
Thank you for your comment, Mike. I am largely sympathetic with where you and other residents are coming from regarding the proliferation of STRs in central Anaheim. I’d feel the same way if a significant number of houses in my neighborhood converted to STRs in the blink of an eye.
I’m not saying Austin Lynch and Marisol Ramirez aren’t good at what they do. I don’t know what you’re politics are aside from the STR issue, but I would encourage you to take a closer look at their politics and the political philosophy of OCCORD and UNITE-HERE, and decide if they are consonant with your own views on various issues. Now and in the future, there will be other issues confronting Anaheim. The politics of these two groups are pretty radical Left when it comes to economic issues, law enforcement, immigration and the role of government in our lives. Their goal is electing like-minded individuals to the Anaheim City Council, so you should ask yourself if you want a city council inclined to raise existing and/or impose new ones; who reflexively view the police as aggressors and victimizers; who shut down a city council in the conduct of the people’s business because a vote didn’t go their way. How would potential councilmembers who not only want to end the deportation of illegal immigrants but grant them immediate citizenship, direct the Anaheim police department when it comes to criminal illegal immigrants?
I understand these groups are assisting anti-STR residents in their fight, but they expect a political quid pro quo. Give more thought to how these radicals want to alter the policy direction of Anaheim city government.
Exactly. Couldn’t have said it better MC. When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
While your at it, find me an example of Yes on L and M voter communication that said anything about CVRA or drawing a council district map to try and ensure preferred racial outcomes in some districts.
Oh that’s right – the Yes on L and M people muzzled their racial politics because they wanted to win.
Vern, the map of 1848 is probably a lot less complicated and Jose Moreno can represent us while riding to city council meetings on a horse.
The People’s Map is too complicated for you? Poor Jim Bob – perhaps a bonobo monkey could explain it to you.
If deciding which district is on the ballot in which year is “the civil rights issue of the decade,” then why does the settlement agreement leave the permanent decision to chance? One of the districts assigned to 2016 (a Presidential year) will be randomly flipped to 2018 and the elected Councilmember’s term cut to only two years. Did Mayor Tait and “The People” really feel that “the civil rights issue of the decade” should be left to a coin toss?
Careful. You’re making sense.
I’ve been ignoring this argument as petty and inconsequential even when it comes from the dais, but since I’m making myself at home on this thread for today…
Let the one Latino-majority district have the booster-shot of democracy on this presidential year; after that it’s fair enough for there to be a one-third chance they might have to re-elect their incumbent on a non-presidential year. Citizens gotta start getting used to voting at least every two years at some point, but for now they deserve a head start, and as i said, whoever they pick this year would have the advantage of incumbency in ’18.
Like all of the DAMNING arguments devised and test-driven on this site, a minor quibble.
(I should’ve said “a quarter chance…”)
This little effort fizzle out or what?
What “little effort”?
Oh, I was referring to the grand “Justice for West Anaheim: the Civil Rights Issue of our Era” movement that you mentioned in your article. Did it fizzle?
I never said that. Tarting up political goals as “the civil rights issue of our time” is the tired schtick of lefties like you.
It’s too bad West Anaheim activists were a day late and a dollar short in weighing in. I think by-district elections will be bad for Anaheim, but since it’s the law, I agree with the perspective of those petitioners. Unfortunately, they don’t have the funding, paid staff and organizational muscle of the UNITE-HERE/OCCORD coalition, which paid lip service to West Anaheimers concerns while pursuing their real goal of changing the rules in order to elect progressive Latinos to city council. They don’t have OCCORD’s $500,000-plus annual budget or UNITE-HERE’s ability to tax its members paychecks. They’re volunteer activists.
Yeah, those damn latinos are so powerful, it seems like they run the world these days, doesn’t it? What’s a white man to do? It is all so unfair.
Did I say anything about “those damn Latinos?” No. You’re the racialist, not me. I pointed out some incontrovertible facts that OCCORD and UNITE-HERE and the political advantages they have here, and you lamely attempt to play the race card. Is that what “thinking people” do?
Vern has a hard time coping with intelligent, reasonable, informed opponents. He’s much more comfortable with Paul Lucas telling him our great and influential he is. Strip away the florid language and Vern’s just an insecure jerk.
I forget how lightweight this place is. Matt will avoid the main points, find some small detail to dicker over – often wrongly, as in the above – and his little anonymous amen chorus of Salacious Crumbs will cheer him on, how intelligent, reasonable, informed he is! How dumb all his opponents are!
The mosh pit is the place for thinking people.
Vern, if you want to call getting basic facts wrong a “small detail,” go right ahead. It’s symptomatic of your shoddy blogging, in which facts and truth take second place to making whatever point it is you’re trying to make.
And then you cap it off with typical self-congratulatory puffery about how smart you and your amigos are. Since your collective commentary generally consists of complimenting each other and confirming each other’s delusions and prejudices, I’m not surprised you believe that.
No, sir. With all due respect, the small I mean major details you dinged me on were a faceplant for YOU. The lawsuit DID last two years. And the pro-districting forces DID win. I say, good day, sir.
Nowhere have I said the pro-districting forces did NOT win, so we can dispense with that straw man.
And I’ll indulge your backtracking that your original comment regarding the UNITE-HERE/OCCORD victory last night was really about the January 2014 settlement of the ACLU lawsuit but point out that it was filed in June 2012 and settled in January 2014. That’s 30 months, which is two-and-a-half years. But maybe you consider math a small detail.
Check the time. My original comment was written when last night’s victory was still yet to occur and completely unexpected (by myself.) But keep digging…
Lololol
It remains to be seen what all this means, politically.
Let us not forget, Donna Acevedo ran and LOST, Jose Moreno ran and LOST, even “southpaw” Pettibone quit. So it’s entirely possible this is theatrics, if I am wrong the scent of the $$$$$ that the OJB crowd claims waff’s over the head of local politico’s will be HARD to resist for an upward mobile part time college professor making $40K per year. Don’t Be surprised when Jose disappoints you.
You make several mistakes:
a) give any credence to the OJB crew’s feverish political cosmology. They simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
b) Jose Moreno is an ideologue. He does this because he is committed to his ideology, and campaign donations aren’t going to transform him into an advocate for business and economic development.
c) Moreno isn’t a part-time professor; he’s a tenured professor and a university department chair.
He very well could be a tenured professor, albeit one who earned $40,000 in 2014 according to the state employee database, less than a janitor at the former capitol landmark in Benecia, CA (cool spot BTW).
Now, mind you, that kind of income is Kardashian like to Greg, Vern and David, but, I stand by my point, idealouge or not, stronger men have bent. Especially if he is upward mobile.
Given his lack of success at the school district, I don’t see great things coming from him anyway.
Who is this struggling “David” you refer to? Maybe I can help him out, my work has been on an uptick.
I was referring to the once profound David Zenger, who is among the half dozen denizens of the “unemployed/homeless” blog you own.
Good for you on the work front, maybe you should encourage Diamond to get some employment.