Monday, September 4, 2006
Differing Views
The Labor Day edition of the Daily Pilot carries a few
interesting letters to the editor taking me to task for a recent
letter in which I suggested that our young jailer/mayor and his
council majority may hold some responsibility for the recent
rash of violence - supposed gang activity - in our city.
One writer suggested I have a short memory and referred to gang problems "a score or more years" ago. Well, I have a pretty good memory and, having lived in this city for more than three decades, I do recall previous incidences of gang activities. I do remember that it took some creative solutions by our leaders at that time, including the Costa Mesa Police Department, to quash it.
Another writer was, according to his letter, "deeply dismayed" by my letter, calling my suggestion "an outrageous and inexcusable accusation". He questioned my observation about the recent increase in violent crime, which he characterized as a "laughable falsehood". He then observes that, "As an obvious reader of the Daily Pilot, the writer should have known as he wrote it that his statement was blatantly false." Well, I am, indeed, a reader of the Daily Pilot and, for that very reason I know the truth the writer seeks, and have written about it many times, including in the letter that prompted him to write.
Yet another writer "was struck by the realization that there are still a few people out there that really don't seem to be able to grasp the critical need to support Mayor Allan Mansoor's agenda." He went on to say, "Naming past chiefs of police and other counties' law enforcement officials does not carry any weight, since times and conditions change. Those currently in office are assessing the threats and remedies for today's problems." He went on to say, "I would strongly suggest that those in opposition become educated on the issues. That accomplished, I think the soundness of Mansoor's agenda would become obvious."
Where do I start with that one? First, I do grasp the critical need of this issue. That need is to expose and reject the mayor's agenda, not support it. I have, in fact, educated myself on the facts and actions of our young jailer/mayor - to a much greater extent than this particular writer. If he had done as he suggests, and done his homework, he also would realize that the mayor's plan cannot work because it diverts precious police resources from their real jobs to perform administrative tasks. He would understand why every law enforcement leader in the county rejects it.
As far as "past police chiefs" are concerned, this gentleman obviously did not watch then-chief John Hensley testify before the City Council on March 7th of this year - not so long ago. If he had heard Chief Hensley address the council that evening he would understand why the current proposal by the council majority is flawed. He would have heard him say, with absolutely no hesitation, that he didn't support the mayor's plan, and gave the reasons why. Sadly, some of those reasons have been proven accurate in recent weeks. I don't think it's inappropriate to consider Hensley's views in this matter, since he was pitched into that briar patch by the mayor and attempted to deal with it the best he could. Even though he was the top law enforcement official in the city, he was not consulted about the mayor's plan before it was approved. It was only three months later, when council members Foley and Dixon questioned him, that the public finally had a chance to hear his views. It's hard to imagine a more credible source, since he was living the situation every day and had, at that time, been elected the president of the Orange County Police Chiefs Association - an honor bestowed upon him by his peers and representative of the esteem in which he was held by Orange County law enforcement leaders.
Nor do I discount the views of his predecessor, Dave Snowden, who served this city with distinction for seventeen years and was among those who had to deal with the aforementioned gang activity several years ago - effectively, by the way. The cornerstone of that effectiveness was building trust within the Latino community - something the mayor's plan has all but destroyed.
What is "obvious" is that the mayor's plan - supported by his buddy, Eric Bever and lame duck councilman Gary Monahan - has divided this city and caused tension and distrust.
Finally, another writer took aim at the political action committee, Return to Reason, claiming that candidates it supports are not strong enough to "lead us." He says they are, "old-school and we need new ideas, not old." Then, ironically, he said "We need more people like Jack Hammett to step up and give support for a strong leader in Mansoor." Mr. Hammett may have been a good leader for his time - two generations ago - and a war hero, to boot, but that doesn't mean he would be an effective leader today. I'm grateful for the part he played in the evolution of this city, but I think his support of our young jailer/mayor is misguided. That final writer is correct, though, in one statement he made. It is not possible to return to simpler times in this city, but that's exactly what the supporters of our young jailer/mayor hope for. Candidates supported by Return to Reason and who oppose Mansoor and his running mate, Wendy Leece, have demonstrated not only their dedication to this city through decades of public service, but the intelligence and leadership to guide Costa Mesa into the next decade of this century.
One more observation. It was refreshing to see these four letters from actual Costa Mesa residents. Until now, most of the mayor's support has come from interlopers - usually one of the Minutemen and their camp followers - who seemed determined to place this city on the tip of the spear in their battle to cleanse this country of those they feel are here illegally. I'm sorry these writers disagree with my views. They, of course, are entitled to theirs. I just happen to think they are wrong.
The writers mentioned today wrote with much emotion. The immigration issue is an emotional issue - one that does not lend itself to simple solutions. Our young jailer/mayor has taken advantage of the turmoil swirling throughout this country and is trying to use it for personal political gain. The writers want to believe he's correct, but clearly have not studied this issue and don't like to hear a viewpoint opposing the mayor. Well, they'd better get used to it, because mine is not the only voice opposing the mayor and his cronies.
As I said in an earlier posting, the mayor's support comes, in large part, from outside our city - from people who would attempt to influence Costa Mesa politics through their manipulation of our gullible, young mayor. At this point, one would have to say they've been successful. He's been figuratively hoisted on the shoulders of the radical right, praised for his "leadership" and "courage" by those who would scrub our country clean of illegal immigrants and was made the poster boy for intolerance world wide. All this for a flawed plan which can not work.
So, I welcome more divergent viewpoints. I suspect those four letters published today will not be the last we see in defense of the mayor. I only hope future writers use their intellect, not their emotions, when attempting to defend him.
As I've said many times in recent months, it's going to be an election unlike any other in the city.
12:59 pm pdt
One writer suggested I have a short memory and referred to gang problems "a score or more years" ago. Well, I have a pretty good memory and, having lived in this city for more than three decades, I do recall previous incidences of gang activities. I do remember that it took some creative solutions by our leaders at that time, including the Costa Mesa Police Department, to quash it.
Another writer was, according to his letter, "deeply dismayed" by my letter, calling my suggestion "an outrageous and inexcusable accusation". He questioned my observation about the recent increase in violent crime, which he characterized as a "laughable falsehood". He then observes that, "As an obvious reader of the Daily Pilot, the writer should have known as he wrote it that his statement was blatantly false." Well, I am, indeed, a reader of the Daily Pilot and, for that very reason I know the truth the writer seeks, and have written about it many times, including in the letter that prompted him to write.
Yet another writer "was struck by the realization that there are still a few people out there that really don't seem to be able to grasp the critical need to support Mayor Allan Mansoor's agenda." He went on to say, "Naming past chiefs of police and other counties' law enforcement officials does not carry any weight, since times and conditions change. Those currently in office are assessing the threats and remedies for today's problems." He went on to say, "I would strongly suggest that those in opposition become educated on the issues. That accomplished, I think the soundness of Mansoor's agenda would become obvious."
Where do I start with that one? First, I do grasp the critical need of this issue. That need is to expose and reject the mayor's agenda, not support it. I have, in fact, educated myself on the facts and actions of our young jailer/mayor - to a much greater extent than this particular writer. If he had done as he suggests, and done his homework, he also would realize that the mayor's plan cannot work because it diverts precious police resources from their real jobs to perform administrative tasks. He would understand why every law enforcement leader in the county rejects it.
As far as "past police chiefs" are concerned, this gentleman obviously did not watch then-chief John Hensley testify before the City Council on March 7th of this year - not so long ago. If he had heard Chief Hensley address the council that evening he would understand why the current proposal by the council majority is flawed. He would have heard him say, with absolutely no hesitation, that he didn't support the mayor's plan, and gave the reasons why. Sadly, some of those reasons have been proven accurate in recent weeks. I don't think it's inappropriate to consider Hensley's views in this matter, since he was pitched into that briar patch by the mayor and attempted to deal with it the best he could. Even though he was the top law enforcement official in the city, he was not consulted about the mayor's plan before it was approved. It was only three months later, when council members Foley and Dixon questioned him, that the public finally had a chance to hear his views. It's hard to imagine a more credible source, since he was living the situation every day and had, at that time, been elected the president of the Orange County Police Chiefs Association - an honor bestowed upon him by his peers and representative of the esteem in which he was held by Orange County law enforcement leaders.
Nor do I discount the views of his predecessor, Dave Snowden, who served this city with distinction for seventeen years and was among those who had to deal with the aforementioned gang activity several years ago - effectively, by the way. The cornerstone of that effectiveness was building trust within the Latino community - something the mayor's plan has all but destroyed.
What is "obvious" is that the mayor's plan - supported by his buddy, Eric Bever and lame duck councilman Gary Monahan - has divided this city and caused tension and distrust.
Finally, another writer took aim at the political action committee, Return to Reason, claiming that candidates it supports are not strong enough to "lead us." He says they are, "old-school and we need new ideas, not old." Then, ironically, he said "We need more people like Jack Hammett to step up and give support for a strong leader in Mansoor." Mr. Hammett may have been a good leader for his time - two generations ago - and a war hero, to boot, but that doesn't mean he would be an effective leader today. I'm grateful for the part he played in the evolution of this city, but I think his support of our young jailer/mayor is misguided. That final writer is correct, though, in one statement he made. It is not possible to return to simpler times in this city, but that's exactly what the supporters of our young jailer/mayor hope for. Candidates supported by Return to Reason and who oppose Mansoor and his running mate, Wendy Leece, have demonstrated not only their dedication to this city through decades of public service, but the intelligence and leadership to guide Costa Mesa into the next decade of this century.
One more observation. It was refreshing to see these four letters from actual Costa Mesa residents. Until now, most of the mayor's support has come from interlopers - usually one of the Minutemen and their camp followers - who seemed determined to place this city on the tip of the spear in their battle to cleanse this country of those they feel are here illegally. I'm sorry these writers disagree with my views. They, of course, are entitled to theirs. I just happen to think they are wrong.
The writers mentioned today wrote with much emotion. The immigration issue is an emotional issue - one that does not lend itself to simple solutions. Our young jailer/mayor has taken advantage of the turmoil swirling throughout this country and is trying to use it for personal political gain. The writers want to believe he's correct, but clearly have not studied this issue and don't like to hear a viewpoint opposing the mayor. Well, they'd better get used to it, because mine is not the only voice opposing the mayor and his cronies.
As I said in an earlier posting, the mayor's support comes, in large part, from outside our city - from people who would attempt to influence Costa Mesa politics through their manipulation of our gullible, young mayor. At this point, one would have to say they've been successful. He's been figuratively hoisted on the shoulders of the radical right, praised for his "leadership" and "courage" by those who would scrub our country clean of illegal immigrants and was made the poster boy for intolerance world wide. All this for a flawed plan which can not work.
So, I welcome more divergent viewpoints. I suspect those four letters published today will not be the last we see in defense of the mayor. I only hope future writers use their intellect, not their emotions, when attempting to defend him.
As I've said many times in recent months, it's going to be an election unlike any other in the city.
No comments:
Post a Comment