Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Muzzles, Transients and Quashed Churches
Just in case you missed it, during the Costa Mesa City
Council meeting on September 20th, Mayor Allan Mansoor floated a
suggestion to even more severely limit opposing viewpoints on
the dais.
In response to Councilwoman Linda Dixon's inquiry about rotating the order in which council members speak during the Councilperson Comments section of the meeting, Mansoor agreed that it was a good idea. He then slid into the mix a suggestion to limit those comments to three minutes each.
This is a truly bad idea! It's bad enough that the male majority tends to ignore comments and opinions of the two female members - the highest vote-getters in the last election - but to put an arbitrary time limit on their opportunity to speak to issues important to them and their constituents as they go about doing the city's business is unconscionable!
Of course, no one should be surprised by Mansoor's suggestion. Since the election, the Mansoor-led majority has continually moved to stifle opposing debate of contentious issues. In fact, during the meeting on the 20th Mansoor ignored Councilwoman Katrina Foley's request to speak on an issue before a motion was made, even though she was quite insistent. He just blew her off, and made his motion. Not only was that rude, but it is unacceptable behavior by anyone conducting the council meeting. Every council member deserves the right to be heard on any issue before a motion is made on it. This heavy-handed disregard for decorum and the will of the people is a perfect example why the voters of this city should think carefully before casting a vote for Mansoor should he decide to run again in 2006.
***
At the same meeting Westside restaurant owner and community activist Mirna Burciaga once again beseeched the council to do something about the drunks and transients who infest the area around her business. She complained about drunkenness, public urniation, people having sex in public, etc. The response to her from our city "leaders" was interesting. First, our mayor suggested she sue the entities that attract the people to the neighborhood, implying that the city is not responsible for loiterers on our streets. Then, councilman Eric Bever attempted to get her to state, for the record, just which businesses are responsible for the derelicts around her business. One had the impression that, perhaps, those two buddies were trying to foist off the resolution of this very serious situation onto the citizen.
Bever and Mansoor have, for years, complained about the various charities and other "magnets" for "undesirables" on the Westside and have tried to expel such entities from the city. Of course, I saw that as part of the song book of intolerance published by one persistent activist in town who seems to be scripting much of what is said at official forums these days. This person is trying to rid the community of folks with Latino surnames, pure and simple.
***
In a related event, during the most recent Planning Commission meeting the subject of storefront churches was discussed. During that debate it became clear that some on the commission were not so much concerned about providing opportunities for religious entities to set up shop, but that they were worried that such an entity might just become a de facto replacement for the Job Center, which is scheduled to close at the end of the year.
Seems to me that the city needs to purchase some new paddy wagons and find a way to expand the city jail, because once the Job Center closes the hard-working men who find jobs there every day will be forced to congregate elsewhere. That, of course, violates city law and will result in them being arrested for solicitation. I'm sure Chief Hensley worries about just where he's supposed to put those men on January 1st. Happy New Year - now go to jail!
It's clear to me, from their actions and public statements, that some members of the council are adament that there will be no Job Center in this city. This, despite the fact that it has provided a public service for nearly two decades. It was a good solution to a real problem when it was created and is no less valuable today. I'm sure those council members who oppose even the concept of a job center are assuming that those men who need jobs will simply disappear once the job center is closed. What a pipe dream!
Our next opportunity to shape the future of this city comes in a little over a year. I hope you all will begin paying attention to your elected officials between now and then. If you don't, you will end up with the city government you deserve - one that thrives on the lack of public awareness and ignorance of issues.
11:44 am pdt
In response to Councilwoman Linda Dixon's inquiry about rotating the order in which council members speak during the Councilperson Comments section of the meeting, Mansoor agreed that it was a good idea. He then slid into the mix a suggestion to limit those comments to three minutes each.
This is a truly bad idea! It's bad enough that the male majority tends to ignore comments and opinions of the two female members - the highest vote-getters in the last election - but to put an arbitrary time limit on their opportunity to speak to issues important to them and their constituents as they go about doing the city's business is unconscionable!
Of course, no one should be surprised by Mansoor's suggestion. Since the election, the Mansoor-led majority has continually moved to stifle opposing debate of contentious issues. In fact, during the meeting on the 20th Mansoor ignored Councilwoman Katrina Foley's request to speak on an issue before a motion was made, even though she was quite insistent. He just blew her off, and made his motion. Not only was that rude, but it is unacceptable behavior by anyone conducting the council meeting. Every council member deserves the right to be heard on any issue before a motion is made on it. This heavy-handed disregard for decorum and the will of the people is a perfect example why the voters of this city should think carefully before casting a vote for Mansoor should he decide to run again in 2006.
***
At the same meeting Westside restaurant owner and community activist Mirna Burciaga once again beseeched the council to do something about the drunks and transients who infest the area around her business. She complained about drunkenness, public urniation, people having sex in public, etc. The response to her from our city "leaders" was interesting. First, our mayor suggested she sue the entities that attract the people to the neighborhood, implying that the city is not responsible for loiterers on our streets. Then, councilman Eric Bever attempted to get her to state, for the record, just which businesses are responsible for the derelicts around her business. One had the impression that, perhaps, those two buddies were trying to foist off the resolution of this very serious situation onto the citizen.
Bever and Mansoor have, for years, complained about the various charities and other "magnets" for "undesirables" on the Westside and have tried to expel such entities from the city. Of course, I saw that as part of the song book of intolerance published by one persistent activist in town who seems to be scripting much of what is said at official forums these days. This person is trying to rid the community of folks with Latino surnames, pure and simple.
***
In a related event, during the most recent Planning Commission meeting the subject of storefront churches was discussed. During that debate it became clear that some on the commission were not so much concerned about providing opportunities for religious entities to set up shop, but that they were worried that such an entity might just become a de facto replacement for the Job Center, which is scheduled to close at the end of the year.
Seems to me that the city needs to purchase some new paddy wagons and find a way to expand the city jail, because once the Job Center closes the hard-working men who find jobs there every day will be forced to congregate elsewhere. That, of course, violates city law and will result in them being arrested for solicitation. I'm sure Chief Hensley worries about just where he's supposed to put those men on January 1st. Happy New Year - now go to jail!
It's clear to me, from their actions and public statements, that some members of the council are adament that there will be no Job Center in this city. This, despite the fact that it has provided a public service for nearly two decades. It was a good solution to a real problem when it was created and is no less valuable today. I'm sure those council members who oppose even the concept of a job center are assuming that those men who need jobs will simply disappear once the job center is closed. What a pipe dream!
Our next opportunity to shape the future of this city comes in a little over a year. I hope you all will begin paying attention to your elected officials between now and then. If you don't, you will end up with the city government you deserve - one that thrives on the lack of public awareness and ignorance of issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment