Robbins: The Facade That Is Anaheim’s “People’s Council”

Seven months ago our city welcomed in what was then lauded as a new era in Anaheim politics. An era that would be renowned for truly representing the residents that comprise this so-called “City of Kindness”.

I write today with a new perspective on this era, and on the “People’s Council”. 

Four words:

It is a sham. 

It is no secret that I stand in stark opposition to the “Pro-Resort” faction that only now, after decades of rule, comprises a minority on our city council. And say what I might about the individuals that engage in the promotion of a “Pro-Resort” agenda, I must now applaud them for at least having an agenda. I must applaud them for at least having policy proposals that they hope to put into action.

Over the past seven months, our “People’s Council” majority has proven to be nothing more than a clan of mindless zombies hellbent on the destruction of two of their colleagues. While fun at first, the endless barrage of fire thrown at Council Members Lucille Kring and Kris Murray has become absurd, to the point of devolving into a pointless drivel; it is fodder for a public that still seems to revel in watching two people suffer under the wooden gavel of a vindictive Mayor and his friends. It is fodder meant to distract us from the truth behind our “People’s Council”.

Much like the Congressional policy-devoid, eight year promise that was “Repeal and Replace”, the “People’s Council” faction in Anaheim has spent years running on an anti-Resort/anti-Disney platform. In both scenarios, upon seizing power and finally having the ability to execute their so-called “policy”, it was revealed that there was actually no “policy” at all. Rather, we have been left with empty promises made for the sole purpose of getting demonstrably clueless individuals into power.

We do not have a “People’s Council”. We instead have a majority that has bent the knee to a Mayor who seemingly goes above and beyond to punish those who dare speak out against him; we possess a Mayor who’s sole policy objective centers around a vindictiveness that rivals any seen in local politics. The “People’s Council” is a council that seeks to please only one, with an utter disregard for the “People” that gave them the power in the first place.

Anaheim is no “City of Kindness”. Anaheim has no “People’s Council”. There is clearly no plan to move our city into the future. And only Anaheim’s residents will pay the price for the lies we were made to believe.

I urge our “People’s Council” to prove me wrong. I urge them to pursue policies that actually benefit the residents that trusted them to do so. I urge them to do something that prevents me from watching in a state of utter disbelief as they continue to do absolutely nothing. 

Daniel Robbins is a 23 year resident of Anaheim, graduate of Loara High School, and graduate of CSUF with a Bachelor’s in Economics. 

Opinions expressed in editorials belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.

Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please contact Voice of OC Involvement Editor Theresa Sears at TSears@voiceofoc.org

  • Pingback: Robbins: The Facade That Is Anaheim’s “People’s Council” – ABC Content Board()

  • Pingback: Robbins: The Facade That Is Anaheim’s “People’s Council”()

  • Philmore

    As a several decade resident, council attendee( until recent circumstance restricted that to online – only), I have to ask, “What the … are you talking about ?”. After you and your wife have your 3 minutes of fame at the podium, do you leave the building and expect to catch the news that “Yup, it all got done the way you want !” in tomorrows papers ? Perhaps same-day Amazon delivery and 30-minute pizza delivery have colored your expectations of what occurs in the meetings vs. how things HAVE to be conducted BY LAW. Do you have a clue how many OTHER departments of City Government have to be involved (and agree ?) BEFORE what you only see as a disussion and vote ? (And my opinion is that the exit of the guy warming the City Managers chair may lead to a speedup) Have you heard of things like “Roberts Rules of Order” and the City Charter ? Despite cynical, historical disappointment of City actions in favor of the Tourism industry, the Podium is not a take out window.

    You, however make intelligent response impossible, flinging a single subject-unspecified accusation of “inactivity” and an immediate diagnosis of “vindicitiveness”. It may come as a surprise to you that (whatever ?) “promises” you alledge have to wait their turn for time while processes the city is LEGALLY COMMITTED TO (like the 2 meetings in June of Budget Hearings – stay for any of those ?) get first priority. (And BTW, (whatever you want) likely costs MONEY- Unlike many cities now in the news for BK filing, ours prefers to identify FUNDING before proceeding) But again, without a single specific in your rant, who can tell ? YOUR “doorstep issue” of STRs certainly got much (and Quick) attention, I hope you don’t now expect that as the norm for everything. (Overhanging lawsuits tend to speed things). If “nothing” goes on, how can “nothing ” take until 10, 11, or 12 at night ? My cynical guess is that “doing nothing” just means foot-stamping petulance that the Council doesn’t snap to attention and ramrod through Daniel Robbins’ agenda.(Whatever that is) Anaheim has 350,000 other residents. Grow up.

    • Cynthia Ward

      Philmore-This Robbins is the offspring of Jeannine and Mike, who I believe you may be thinking of. He has no wife (there is a very nice girlfriend involved) and for the record, I consider the Robbins family my friends and it breaks my heart to have a differing view of some of the issues they have become so passionate about. I want to work with them to find answers, but I believe we need a different path to victory. Daniel’s op ed here doesn’t offer enough specifics, so I will take a chance on addressing what I have heard from him in the past, and pray I am correct.

      I have to say I am disappointed to read this. I believe Daniel to be one of the sharper knives in the drawer, and that razor’s edge economist’s mind I had come to admire is not reflected in this opinion piece. Don’t get me wrong, I too am disappointed that more direction has not been demanded from the new majority, and I had frankly hoped that some of that direction would involve major investigation of past misdeeds by the former majority, as well as some significant audit of major spending that has gone without oversight for too long. I believe if we can recapture some funding that was approved by fraud we could potentially fund some of the issues I suspect are driving the bus on young Mr. Robbins’ agenda highway.

      Rather than trying to correct the wrongs of the past our new majority seems content with simply no longer squandering funds into the future, and while an application of fiscal prudence is needed (and refreshing) it does nothing to resolve the loss of revenues I believe may have been the result of deliberate fraud, or at least incompetence or negligence on the part of senior staff and/or their elected overlords. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to get ANYTHING accomplished with a City Manager who is resistant to change, and we saw too many cases of Paul Emery delaying response to requests for action or in some cases flat out REFUSING to do his job. Until Emery was removed nothing the Council attempted was going to take place. One thing at a time, Young Paduan.

      Aside from the need to move the immovable mass of Paul Emery aside in order to clear the path for honest government, I don’t see where Daniel outlines exactly WHAT vision he believes is supposed to be implemented by the Council majority. Mr. Robbins, the City has done what it can to deal with the STR issue that was once front and center for your family, causing the collapse of entire family businesses in order to keep you more comfortable (and rightfully so, I don’t argue.) But now that the STRs are phasing out and there is relief on the way, you seem to overlook the disruption caused by the homeless and the bad actions that spill into our neighborhoods on a level that makes the STRs look like a minor annoyance in comparison.

      If the angry op-ed here is about homelessness (Mr. Robbins doesn’t say) it is a major concern for us all, as the impacts of the crisis are felt by even the most financially stable of us. But here’s the thing; Homelessness is not within the authority, or funding, of a municipal government. There is little to nothing that the City of Anaheim can legally do to solve homelessness, and the fixes we know to be beneficial (Utah’s Housing First) are nearly impossible in our landlocked urban setting without open space to build “housing first” units to put people in! Yet despite the lack of money or governmental authority to address this public health issue, Anaheim has already done more than any other community in the County to offer solutions for this massive crisis. Over 700 people have been reported being taken off the streets and into permanent housing, thanks to collaborative efforts of various organizations and agencies working together, with help from the City of Anaheim. An entire housing complex (and a beautifully designed one at that) just opened on Lincoln and another is planned for the site of a nuisance motel, also on Lincoln. While there is still a great deal of work to do, I am tired of hearing activists insist the City of Anaheim has done “nothing.”

      What exactly is your solution to homelessness? yes we need to build shelters. Where would you suggest we put them? Can you point to a large piece of empty real estate owned by the City or County that can house those seeking shelter? (for the record i would have supported something on the Karcher property, which is very close to my home, because homeless people in shelters are far preferable to homeless people on the freeway offramp which is what I have now. And “no homeless people anywhere near me” is not on the menu of options being offered to my community, no matter how much the “drive them out” crowd wants to buy into that sick and heartless dream.) But even the Karcher property could not house everyone in need, and its proximity to schools, churches, residences, and sensitive locations prevents housing those with certain criminal records, leaving out a good sized chunk of the population that is in need of housing. I understand from a neighbor who attended a meeting I was unable to make that Doctor Moreno checked with staff to identify ANY location in Anaheim that could allow a shelter/encampment ANYTHING to move us forward, and given the limitations tied to funding streams I understand there are NO locations in Anaheim that can use Federal funding if we include the population most in need of assistance. The “Alfresco Gardens” idea is well intentioned and I admire those who want to help, but it too is not eligible for funding, using the pots of Federal dollars the County is sitting on (because those griping about the Supes sitting on the money haven’t checked to see the strings attached) and given the refusal of AG’s leadership to run background checks for campers in order to house the most campers possible, I would scream like a banshee at this plan being dropped into my area. A shelter or service center is needed, but it needs to have protections so we don’t put rapists in a tent next to a woman knocked out on her needed psych meds. Also a tent city does not provide shelter from the elements, it only provides shelter from evictions. (I like the tiny house movement, which has a greater chance of being funded and accepted by locals, and I provided professionally developed info to the AG leadership, but was ignored) There are no easy answers, and to claim the City is “doing nothing” simply because you can’t visibly see the work they are attempting behind the scenes is naive and unworthy of the brain I have seen at work in young Mr. Daniels.

      As far as retaliation against the 2 remaining Council from the prior majority, cite ONE instance in which the Mayor or other Council INSTIGATED any form of retribution. List ONE, Daniel. I have been to the meetings or watched online, and the two remaining members on the end of the dais incite their own inane attempts to torture the Mayor or Dr. Moreno, and the only actions taken are to disarm them before they hurt others or themselves with their own tongue-lashings. I have not seen even one attempt to pro-actively pursue vengeful actions, and this is remarkable given how genuinely abusive they were toward the Mayor (and frankly the public) for years before the majority flipped.

      Daniel, unless you have specifics to cite, I suggest you rethink this. Offer us definitive examples of abusive behavior toward the 2 remaining Council members, and please share exactly what agenda you believe was promised to you/voters and how that implementation is supposed to work. Also I suggest you take a good look at what happens now that Anaheim enjoys a new (interim) City Manager who is not for sale, and who we all look to for responsible leadership in a strong-City Manager model city structure. You might still be surprised, and maybe even pleased, at what might be ahead for us. And remember I am your friend, or at least I think of myself as one, and hope you see me as such. You have a sharp mind I would love to see used to move Anaheim forward, but you need to remove the chip from your shoulder first, and add to your education in Economics a basic understanding of local government functions. Do that, and you will become a serious contender for public office someday, and I look forward to what you might do to make Anaheim a better place worthy of your idealistic vision. Thank you for your passion.

      • Philmore

        You are correct Cynthia. I apologize for directing my response at the wrong Robbins, and thank you for your extensive expansion of context and information. Interested readers might also find study of the differences (and limitations !) of “Strong Mayor” ( San Diego, etc.) and “Council – Manager” (Anaheim) forms of City Government educational.

    • David Zenger

      “You, however make intelligent response impossible…”

      Quite accurate. I get the vibe of some sort of perceived personal slight from the tenor of this essay.

      • Daniel Robbins

        Read the response I just posted and report back should you still feel that this is about a “personal slight”.

        • David Zenger

          Where is the “response” posted? I don’t see it.

        • David Zenger

          Waiting.

        • David Zenger

          Still waiting…

    • Daniel Robbins

      Jesus Christ, this is an insanely aggressive response to an op-ed that was meant to be seen as a wake up call to a city council that made grandiose promises of proper representation and community empowerment while running for office.

      You wonder why the meetings run 6 hours? Let me tell you, since perhaps you miss some of what occurs.

      This is the typical layout of a city council meeting now:

      Scheduled meeting start time: 5 P.M.
      Actual meeting start time: 5:30 P.M.
      Presentations of awards/opening of the meeting lasts until around 6 P.M.
      Public comments begin around 6 P.M. and run until 7:30-10 P.M. depending on the range of issues being brought to bear that meeting. Longer public comment period now means that the council is discussing social justice issues, not policy issues as used to be the norm.
      No report on closed session agenda items.
      No comments from council, or minor comments.
      Certain items are pulled from the agenda.

      Council discussion on items:

      Items pulled from the agenda come up for discussion, vote patterns are already clear.
      If an item is contentious, Tait and Co get into an argument with Murray/Kring. These arguments last anywhere from 1 hour, to 3 hours, depending on how much running in circles they can do. Council votes down “party” lines, hours long argument could have been avoided.

      Meeting ends. Kring/Murray visibly frustrated. Tait and Co looks happy. Faessel looks…intrigued?

      You wonder why I am upset about this pattern of meetings? Because I have absolutely no idea what direction the majority is taking the city in. I know which direction they ran on, but their actions have not matched the campaign rhetoric. Meeting after meeting we carry out the same pattern, with little to no variation.
      There is no discussion about issues that actually matter to the public that they made grandiose promises to. There is no discussion regarding affordable housing (during the single presentation regarding this topic, Mayor Tait actually cut off the presenter and asked them to speed it up because it was getting late. This was after a THREE HOUR debate regarding the pride flag). There are no discussions about how the city can ensure that the Walt Disney Corporation utilizes their hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to return some of the wealth to the community. There are no discussions about promoting new industries within our city borders that might bring with them new employment opportunities that pay more than Disney’s beloved minimum wage. There are no discussions about what can be done to promote the availability to educational opportunities within our communities, or improve them. There are hardly even discussions about the states of parks within our city’s borders. Note Tait’s response to a public speaker who asked about park repairs at the last meeting. A response which followed this increasingly familiar pattern of responses to the public: “We acknowledge that there’s a problem. We will try to get around to fixing it. Next speaker.”

      ^ All of those issues that I mentioned as not being discussed WERE promised by the “People’s Council”.

      Our council has no direction, and seems to have forgotten the promises that were made not to me, but to the thousands of individuals that rallied behind them. *Scroll to the bottom of this for an explicit list of promises.*
      THAT is my point. I couldn’t care less about my own position in all of this. I expect no benefits personally, nor do I want any. I do, however, want the community to reap a reward for their efforts.
      Do you want to know who I care about? I care about my girlfriend’s 10 year old sister who attends Palm Lane Elementary and is considered “advanced” despite having “mediocre” reading and math skills. I care about my friends who have worked at Disneyland for 4 years, and yet still make $11/hour. I care about families teetering on the edge of poverty, or those who are already engulfed by it (16% of Anaheim’s population, by the way). I care about communities who see no viable options beyond gang membership. I care about the students that graduate from high school and feel unprepared for the life ahead. I care about the fact that a college degree now yields a job that pays $11 at Disneyland (the aforementioned friend, who has many coworkers all in the same position). I care about a workforce that carries out the daily grind with no end in sight, not paid enough to ever dream of buying a house, barely paid enough to afford a car.

      Secondly – I know that a portion of attacks were directed at my parents, and not myself, but we need to get some facts straight. This is where I get slightly aggressive, so be warned.

      A) Myself, and my parents, were at every single budget hearing. Not just “two” as you identified in your post. For someone who claims to be a “council attendee”, I’d think you would know that. I’d also think you would have noted the “prelim” hearings as well.

      B) Did you forget the portion of the council proceedings wherein the budget hearings take place at a specified time, prior to closed session? You know, specifically so that they do not disturb the regularly scheduled entertainment? Guess so.

      C) Talk about ignorance. Do you stay for the entirety of the six hour meetings, or watch them from home? Because my parents stay. Til the very end. Every. Single. Time. I watch them from home or from the gym, through workouts and other projects. Every. Single. Time.

      D) If you believe that STRs were the only item of importance to us in the multi-decade history of our living in Anaheim, then you are solely mistaken.

      E) To your “grow up” comment: *sigh*

      Part 1, continued:

      This seems to be something that bounces off you “old-timers”, but economic conditions in our country as a whole are changing at an extraordinarily rapid pace. Your desire to wait in standby mode, instead of working towards ensuring that our local communities are prepared for what is to come, is incredibly dismaying.

      You see, this is the problem I have with our city. OUR city. Not yours. Not mine. OURS.
      Things have changed in Anaheim. Things have changed around the entire country. Our city, in particular, is hanging on the edge of a cliff from which I would really prefer we step away from unscathed.

      Look at economic census records for our city. Hell, look at the regular census records. Compare them to the past. Take a long look at the shifting demographic and income patterns. Take a look at the shifting employment sectors and then glace over at cost of living indexes. If you can’t see the issue then I am struck with even more fear for our future. You say things take time. If your definition of “time” is multiple terms of office, I’m telling you that we do not have time. It took decades to get us into this mess. Our city suffered grievous wounds for those mistakes in 2008. Don’t believe me? Go ahead and look at the city budgets from that era. Pay attention to what was cut, and pay attention to how all of the cuts directly impacted the residents. Go ahead and check out Disney’s income statements and balance sheets from that time. They’re all available online, usually in a nice, organized fashion. Notice how the engine that drives our economy seemed to be doing pretty swell while our city’s government crumbled?

      Here are Disney’s records so that you don’t even have to look them up yourself. As a regular “council attendee”, perhaps you already know what happened during the recession, so I will refrain from posting the city’s budgets during that time.

      https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/WDC-AR-2008.pdf
      https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/2015/10/2009-Annual-Report.pdf

      And what has been changed since then? Nothing. We have dumped even more money into an industry that is considered to be one of the most volatile in times of economic uncertainty – tourism. We have further indebted ourselves to an industry that does not, and will never willingly, crank out economic benefits equivalent to what our government has fed into it. Go ahead and take a look at the business cycle, and let me know if you think we have adequately prepared for the next phase. Here’s a hint – we haven’t. It’s time that we do.

      For reference here are the campaign “promises” pulled from Moreno’s 2016 campaign website. Go ahead and tell me which one of these has received attention thus far.

      1. “Investing in neighborhoods” – Here he promises to create “world class neighborhoods”.
      2. “Prioritizing our children” – Here he promises to generate collaboration between entities throughout the city to provide more access to sports leagues, volunteer programs, and extracurricular academic programs.
      3. “Creating family-sustaining jobs” – Here he promises to expand job opportunities for local communities and generate career paths in fields that provide what I interpret to be a “living wage”.
      4. “Keeping our community safe” – Here he states that crime is trending upwards in Anaheim. Therefore, he states that there needs to be development of a relationship between the APD and local communities.
      5. “Sustaining our neighborhood integrity” – His opposition to STRs
      6. “Oppose Corporate Giveaways and Crony Capitalism” – Here he states his opposition to the subsidies.
      7. He pledges to end pay-to-play politics.

      Out of these “promises”, I am able to check off #6. This would have been done regardless of the election outcome, as was stated by the “Pro-Resort” faction prior to the election.
      I can also check off #5, which was fulfilled before he got elected.
      I can partially check off #1, because they have discussed neighborhood and park repairs on several occasions.

      So I am left with a single, half checked promise. Does someone want to explain why that is peachy and should be viewed as such? Because I can tell you that SOAR is already loading up their arsenal, holding fundraisers, and recruiting candidates to take back power.

  • David Zenger

    Jeez, Daniel, did Tait run over your dog?

    • Daniel Robbins

      Honestly, I watched the community rally behind the cause portrayed by “The People’s Council” candidates. We are seven months in and nothing has been achieved, or even attempted.

      Instead of using their majority to push through legislation, we have been left with three hour discussions every two weeks about how they can best punish Kring/Murray next time. It feels like they’re lost in space, and suffering from a simple lack of policy objectives or goals.

      The majority needs a wake up call, especially since they may be poised to lose seats in 16 months.

      Fortunately, my dog still lives 😉

      • LFOldTimer

        “We are seven months in and nothing has been achieved, or even attempted.”

        Come on, Daniel.

        Did you really expect any real difference with the ideological sea change on your Anaheim council? Seriously?

        As I’ve said so many times before – they all wear different colored jerseys for show but play on the same team.

        Did you really expect the Republicans to enact sweeping conservative legislation after capturing the majorities in the House, Senate and the Oval Office?

        Did you really expect the State Republicans to vote down Cap & Trade? 8 traitors voted for it kicking it over the finish line.

        I hate to break the news to you, Daniel. It’s a one-party system, sir.

        They fight on TV when the cameras are rolling then retreat to the smoke-filled rooms to concoct their secret dirty deals.

        Be like me. Hope for the best – expect the worst. That way you won’t be so disappointed that you feel compelled to author a blog in protest when you feel fooled again.

        • Cynthia Ward

          LFOldTimer, you are dead wrong on this one. The new Council majority in Anaheim is neither Democrat nor Republican, they are simply committed, caring citizens who genuinely want to make Anaheim a better place and see the damage their predecessors have done. be a cynic in your own back yard, I see hope in Anaheim today, for the first time in a long time.

          • LFOldTimer

            They aren’t OVERTLY Democrat or Republican. But all of us know about the ideological divide on the Anaheim council, Cynthia. And the divide is right down party lines. So let’s not ignore the obvious.

            And this is true on nearly every council. We see who the Democrat party supports during election season. And we see who the Republicans support.

            So even they don’t run based on party affiliation their platforms are a dead give-a-way which side of the aisle they represent.

          • Philmore

            From Ballotpedia, Tait is (R), as are pro-Resort frequent opponents Kring and Murray. Frequent Tait ally Dr. Moreno is (D), and Faessel, Barnes and Vanderbilt all claim NPP. Hard to see a clear partisan divide here., vs the one for Tourism Industry contributions.

          • LFOldTimer

            Tait is an outlier in the sample. I suspect most would consider him to be a classic RINO.

            The others are blatantly clear even with the said NPP claims.

            Birds of a feather always flock together. Watch how they vote.

            Just curious….did the GOP of OC endorse Tait for Mayor? How ’bout the Lincoln Club? I have no idea as I don’t follow Anaheim politics that closely.

          • Philmore

            RINO ? I guess that label would depend on whether your stereotypical idea of Republicans tends toward principled fiscal conservatism or corporate cronyism. I claim the former and don’t see that RINO applies. (No luck cut-and-pasting the link to the 3/1/14 OCR article about the GOP endorsement of Tait, into Disqus, but you can Google it)

          • LFOldTimer

            Isn’t Tait the same guy who held hands with Mayor Garcetti in LA at a rally for illegal aliens that trashed Trump, promoted sanctuary cities and applauded legal defense funds for illegals financed with American tax dollars?

            That’s not a Republican. That’s a fake Republican.

          • Philmore

            The OCR article was for County GOP. Family obligations bounce me in and out of the area and I confess I missed news of the Garcetti rally. However to my knowledge, Anaheim has voted for neither sanctuary status nor defense funds, as I believe Santa Ana has (?) and for me votes are what count. Conversely, Moreno caught partisan flack for endorsing Tait, which to me is baseless for a non-partisan office (but then I’m NPP) I was going to defer to Cynthia, but perhaps Google can assist while she recovers from typing the missive above?

          • LFOldTimer

            Don’t get me wrong. I actually supported Tait’s position on several issues. I backed him for opposing the hotel developers and on Angel’s Stadium.

            I did a little research since my last post to you and learned that the OC Republicans (Baugh, etc.) actually endorsed Tait in the last election. So go figure. It surprised me since he doesn’t seem to get along very well with the other Republicans on the council.

            Yeah, I know that the Anaheim council hasn’t addressed the sanctuary city issue – although if I recall correctly one of the female Republicans on the council wanted to put it on the agenda for discussion. But I don’t believe it’s was voted on. I might be mistaken. And there’s been no mention of a legal defense fund financed by Anaheim tax dollars for illegal aliens.

            I just thought it was strange that Tait went to LA to support Garcetti in promoting sanctuary cities in CA and the legal defense fund – and to oppose Trump’s desire to enforce immigration law. Republicans don’t have much use for Garcetti or his push to protect those who are in the LA and the country illegally. So it was odd.

            Tait seems to question public safety pay & pensions too.

            So apparently Tait’s a fiscal conservative and a social liberal unless I’m missing something.

            Again, I don’t pretend to be an expert on Anaheim politics. I only glance at the headlines and form loose opinions on what goes on there.

          • Cynthia Ward

            Tait is a fiscal conservative and his social views are firmly rooted in his initiative to emphasize Kindness as a basic culture in Anaheim. So when faced with a choice, his answer is “what would Kind people do?” I initially found this to be naive, and I will admit to some mocking. But it turns out he knows his stuff. When a community is rooted in looking out for one another, they survive disasters, both man made and natural, in ways that disconnected societies do not recover from. I have more info on that but not the time right now, but even the Kindness thing is a fiscally conservative position, it gets people to rely on themselves and one another instead of looking to government for answers. Tait was backed by the GOP, Not the Lincoln Club, which has been taken over by corporatists. Former leader of Lincoln Club backed District Elections too, because they are the ultimate example of creating smaller more responsive government, which is what the GOP is supposed to be about. BTW-Denise Barnes is a Republican, and while the GOP went “no endorsement” on the 1st District seat the CRA did endorse her, and Tai, and James Vanderbilt. Also the CRA took the unprecedented move to not only NOT endorse Kring but to OPPOSE her candidacy for re-election, based on her voting record that is the opposite of every Republican platform she can bust up. She is a disgrace to the Elephant.

            On the flip side the “other Republicans” on the Council, Kring and Murray, do not enjoy the same support that Tait enjoys. Murray was consider ineligible to even be considered for endorsement by GOP Central Committee during her re-election in 2014, along with Gail Eastman (Eastman was not returned to her seat, Murray just barely squeaked by, despite the massive money Disney dumped into them) and Kring was NOT going to be endorsed in 2016, until Tait endorsed a Democrat who turns out to be a better Republican and a better Catholic than Lucille, but go figure) and ONLY then did the Central Cmte at the last minute back Lucille. It infuriated me because Lucille, like Harry Sidhu, is one of those Republicans who costs us votes, when I am walking precincts people point to them and say if that is what it means to be GOP I want nothing of it. I have no answer for that. They are right. But the GOP endorsed her.

            As far as Tait and Garcetti, Tait is co-chair of the Immigration Committee for US Conference of Mayors so they have had some interaction, but I don’t believe Tait supports sanctuary cities, obviously I don’t speak for him, but you may have seen him with Garretti for other reasons. I would double-check the report if I were you, but I could be mistaken. I know Tait has signed on to asking the Feds for immigration reform to clarify their position rather than leaving millions in limbo with no way forward in any fashion, but beyond that I can’t tell you what his views are, why not contact him and ask him, he is very open and a good guy to talk to.

          • LFOldTimer

            Thanks for the crash course on Anaheim Politics 101, Cynthia. It appears that the only rule when it comes to party loyalty on the Anaheim council is that there is no rule. I’m surprised that Tait was still able to garner the support of the county GOP with his anti-Disney position. With DIsney’s clout I thought that would be a deal breaker. But apparently not.

            I noted that Obama invited Tait back to a big conference on police-community relations a couple years ago.

            Tait supports ‘immigration reform’ which is code for amnesty. This is where I part ways with him.

            I understand Tait is termed out in 2018. He doesn’t seem the sort to retire from politics. Any speculation where he goes from here?

          • Cynthia Ward

            Disney’s people are largely Dems, and with Pringle losing his traction The Mouse has lost much of its roar at GOP Central. They still call a lot of shots at DPOC.

            On Immigration Reform, I agree that giving a free ride to people who broke the law feels blatantly unfair to those who followed the rules an waited. My 1st hub was an immigrant (Europe) his parents waited 18 years to get to the US. Watched their first 2 babies die in the Hellhole they lived in (Ceausescu’s Romania) so rubber stamping illegal acts to cut in line just feels unfair, unjust and UnAmerican. On the other hand, are you REALLY going to round up MILLIONS of people? Not everyone comes from the same nation of origin and overstays, to pin down nationality and the process of ensuring we are not sending people back to DIE, having escaped human trafficking etc. just seems lie a bigger nightmare. But something in the middle, allowing for a pathway to become citizens IF specific steps are taken…? I admit I don’t have the answers, but I know Tait to be a fair and decent man and he DOES have access to the best minds on the immigration issue so I have confidence he and the others will come up with something to request of the Feds. What I like most about Tait is that even if we don’t agree, he will respectfully hear me out, and I mean he truly listens, and takes in what I am saying, (not just waiting to rebut my obviously inferior views like others in office) and if we cannot find middle ground we part ways still as respectful friend and allies in other areas. We don’t have to agree on everything to come together to work on those items we do agree with, and is that not the ultimate portrait of a true leader?

            As far as the future, he has said repeatedly he wants no further position, being the Mayor of Anaheim was the coolest thing ever and he doesn’t want to do anything else. Me, (and others) we would LOVE to see him take on Kris Murray in her bid for Todd Spitzer’s 3rd District Supe seat. So far he has declined to even discuss it, but again I don’t speak for him I am only sharing my own views, which clearly don’t see the same thing our young author of this op-ed is seeing, and wanting to know what Mr. Robbins sees that I don’t, because despite being polar opposites in political views I also respect Mr. Robbins’ sharp mind for economics and his passion for the same community I love.

            OK, using up my “limited keyboard” time (bum wrist) on comments and I have actual work to get done today so signing off. Have a good day.

          • LFOldTimer

            “On the other hand, are you REALLY going to round up MILLIONS of people?”

            You’re a bright lady, Cynthia. You know that’s not even necessary. It’s just another phony excuse. Although Eisenhower did it that way and it didn’t seem to present an obstacle for him.

            All that’s needed is to roll out E-Verify. We have all the technology. If they can track a purchase on a VISA or AMEX card in a foreign nation and post it on the next CC statement – they can certainly determine whether a SS number is fake and instruct the employer to terminate the user or face a $15,000 fine and jail if the directive goes unheeded.

            And a foreigners who reenter the US after being deported facing 5 years in jail wouldn’t hurt either.

            Fairness was always a mainstay value in the American way of life as I grew up. That’s what made us different from many of the rest. Making some wait “18 years” to come to America the lawful way while rewarding those who merely sneak across the border is the antithesis of fairness. All of us know that, though only those who refuse to look through biased eyes will acknowledge it.

            “But something in the middle, allowing for a pathway to become citizens IF specific steps are taken…”

            That’s rewarding unlawful behavior. So let’s call it what it is. Do you want to go down that road and further erode American values? I, for one, don’t. I want to leave behind a nation that follows some semblance of a moral code – like our parents did for us.

            “I admit I don’t have the answers, but I know Tait to be a fair and
            decent man and he DOES have access to the best minds on the immigration
            issue so I have confidence he and the others will come up with something
            to request of the Feds.”

            Fair and decent men refuse to reward unlawful activity and punish lawful activity. The best minds on immigration? ha. Sure. You mean biased minds that promote agendas that benefit their own lot in life? Now there we’re getting closer to the truth.

            Again, I agree with Tait in many respects. And I like him because he can tend to march to the beat of a different drummer and isn’t loyal to the generally accepted ideological positions of one party or the other. If he ran for supervisor in a district I was registered to vote I might even support him.

            But personally I think Tait benefits from illegal immigration in one way or the other (politically or otherwise) and that’s the reason he’s sympathetic towards it. He knows right from wrong. There’s something motivating his expressed beliefs other than a moral code.

      • Cynthia Ward

        How do they discuss how to punish Kring/Murray next time? I have never seen that discussion and I watch all of them.