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.
Given that the concern about [Santa Ana City Manager Paul] Walters seems to have been his close relationship to Pulido (to the exclusion of the council), and that the concern about Pulido seems to have been whether his getting wealthy in the mayor's position involved any improprieties (which Walters may have been in a position to know and do something about, but if so, apparently didn't), such a hearing might be a lot more interesting than even Walters and Pulido expect.
Is there immunity from suit for defamation, as exists for court hearings and at least some legislative business, for council members if they bring up their real concerns during this sort of hearing? I don't know that council members would need to say more than this:
We think that Pulido may have profited improperly from his position as mayor.
We are concerned that the lack of transparency in City Hall may have facilitated any such result.
And we are concerned that, given his close relationship to the mayor, Paul Walters is not the person whom we want running the investigation or in a position to hamper it.
So we are relieving him of his position.
What court would step in and prevent that sort of move under those circumstances?
Oh well, bring on the hearing, if that's what Walters and Pulido really want.
— Greg Diamond
This council has not considered any outside factors like stakeholders. The council has failed to consider what the bond rating agencies will do to their ability to borrow money.
Lack of stability will cause Santa Ana to have its bond rating downgraded, making it impossible to borrow money. Interest rates will rise, and bond holders will want the money now, not later. We are headed for bankruptcy sooner than later.
Way to go "Stupendous Six!" These council members are over their heads, and when the state takes over, they will be ousted.
— Way to go Santa Ana
The real problem is the City Council. Replacing the city manager is simply a bully's quest to teach the mayor a lesson and doesn't move the city one inch closer the utopian vision expressed by the editorial's author.
— SA Resident
This council should be able to decide the fate of Mr. Walters, and I'm personally offended that he declared he'd stick around for five or six years.
Maybe he doesn't understand, but he serves at the pleasure of the council. Declaring you are above them and will stay as long as you wish is the ultimate in hubris.
Walters needs to go because he can't help himself. He's declared himself king, and that cannot continue.
Homelessness is a county problem. And Fullerton should not be the solution!
Do you not think that the [county] supervisors want to rid the eyesore of the homeless from [the Santa Ana] Civic Center and send them to your backyard? Out of sight, out of mind.
The only reason the supervisors are addressing homelessness today is because they're reminded of it every morning when they come to work. As soon as they are rid of the eyesore, their problem with go away. It will become yours.
So I ask you not to fall for their scam. Fight them. The homeless population should be distributed proportionately around the county — and yes, to South County too.
[Supervisor Pat] Bates knows that she would get major pushback from the South County residents if she promoted homeless shelters in San Clemente, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, etc. But she has no problem doing it to you.
The route you take is your business. I just want you to know what you're dealing with up front. I can practically guarantee that a 29,000-square-foot homeless shelter in one city is going to cause nothing but problems for you and your fellow citizens. It simply isn't a fair solution. A fair solution would be to allot the problem throughout the county and not to impose it primarily on one city.