Here is another roundup of some of the most thought-provoking reader comments of the week. Comments are selected by our editors and subject to editing for grammar, spelling, clarity and length.
Click on each topic’s headline to see the article in question.
No taxpayer money for wealthy team owners. Period.
The best way to get a team to show actual commitment to a community is to make the team invest in its own facilities. Want a loan? Maybe, on the condition any remainder must be paid back immediately if the team moves.
Too many team owners have insufficient commitment to the communities in which their teams play, but yet they really want those communities to have a commitment to their teams. Sorry, but it’s a two-way street.
Sort of telling, isn’t it? All these years without concealed carry, and suddenly a bunch of folks feel “unsafe”? Sheesh.
Let those requesting permits pay the cost. I sure don’t want to.
Next up? Stand Your Ground.
As president of Anaheim Cops 4 Kids, I would agree with [editorial writer Hector] Villagra that Chief [Raul] Quezada, as any police chief, has his hands full in dealing with running of the Anaheim Police Department.
I also agree that preventing kids from joining gangs is a priority. Therefore I take issue with [Villagra’s] comments about Anaheim’s gang strategies.
There is no city in Orange County that has done more prevention outreach in communities than Anaheim. For over 20 years, Cops 4 Kids has reached out to children in the community and through targeted intervention worked at reducing gang membership.
Our Jr. Cadet program currently has over 500 children attending, and thousands more have participated. The efforts have earned the recognition of the Orange County grand jury, and the program is being duplicated by departments around the state.
I would invite you, Mr. Villagra, to join our next graduation and interact with the parents of the children and see if they believe Anaheim has not done enough to prevent gang membership.
— Joe Vargas
Depending upon what the fees cover and don’t cover, it’s not “double taxation.”
A rational approach to this (which is often beyond elected officials) is for taxes to pay for all the infrastructure and to have people waiting for a call. The “fee” should then be to cover any additional expenses. For example, mileage, supplies consumed etc. — all those things that would not have been an expense if nobody had actually called.
This is somewhat (not precisely) similar to a business’ “fixed costs” versus “variable costs.” The “fixed costs” are those incurred even if everybody sits around on their duffs. The “variable costs” are those costs incurred to actually produce or deliver the product or service.
Using this concept, the ‘fixed costs” should be covered by taxes so society as a whole has the service readily available. The “variable costs” should be billed to the person needing the service.
Another beautiful gift from [City Councilwoman Lucille] Kring, who chalked up problems like inadequate timekeeping to the sloppiness that can arise when doing something successfully and with excitement: “Sometimes you get so involved in the excitement … you forget about ‘Oh, I should dot the I and cross the T,’ ” Kring said.
It’s a basic requirement necessary to complete a job as a contractor. Does anyone really believe that Lucy Kring would tell a client of hers: “Well, I just got so excited with your legal issue that I forgot to keep track of how many hours I worked on it. Anyway, I bill out at $300 an hour. Here’s your bill for $30,000.”
Not qualified to lead — at all.
— Ryan Cantor
Of course the accounting was a mess. The first required audit at six months was never done. The vendor wasn’t even hired until the Chamber of Commerce was almost a year into mangling the contract.
But really, the bigger questions are: Who were the principle beneficiaries of millions in tax credits and were they being rewarded for jobs they were going to hire for anyway and how many of these new jobs were just replacements for pre-existing positions?
Shall we ever know? Of course not.
— David Zenger
What is the prospect for a viable mayoral candidate to emerge this election cycle? I’d say slim to none.
Who in the community could possibly take on the long-standing mayor [Miguel Pulido]? Two currently sitting council members tried and failed miserably. Another longtime city activist was crushed as well.
So we can sit and complain about Pulido all day long, we can write blog accounts that he is the son of Satan, crooked, corrupt and everything else, but if you can’t get someone better to run against him, we are stuck with him. At the end of the day, runs win baseball games and votes win elections.
Who in Santa Ana has the name recognition, financial resources, clean closet (no affairs, divorces, drug convictions) and gumption? Answer that one and you have your answer.
Until Santa Ana can come up with a better candidate, well, we’ll keep reading this kind of thing.
— Alex Perez
I suspect there is no answer, because there are no viable candidates. That actually should be the real discussion.
If there are, in fact, close to a half a million residents in a lower economic class community, many of whom have no voice because of immigration status and citizenship status, and not a single person can challenge the supposedly corrupt mayor, one must wonder.
It brings to the surface an important and ignored question: Those launching the attacks cannot vote, don’t want to because of economic interest or don’t feel strongly enough about the community. That leaves a transplant or a straw candidate. Or they can stick with Pulido and continue to complain and shoot arrows.
Is there no single person who is capable of running for mayor of this clearly dysfunctional city? I have to agree unfortunately.
— David Vasquez
Nguyen was actually quite successful. She increased her medical industry campaign contributions from $15,000 to $95,000 during her term on CalOptima.
The fault for every shortcoming done by this Board of Supervisors is directly the fault of voters. Voting takes studying, and when a board is represented by one party only, it is ripe for corruption.