Your commentary bleeds with bias, but you feel you need to point out I “might not be the most unbiased crowd in the voice” — which is curious since I have never claimed to be unbiased. Yes, we do have a tendency to side with our friends, but I do not blindly agree with them, as the instances I gave in earlier comments shows.

“You advocated for the SunCal deal, oddly enough when you were paid by the team working for SunCal. Tell me how objective you were then.”

Yes, and you know that because I disclosed it in every blog post. I didn’t claim to be objective, but tried to be factual. [Enough with the straw man arguments, Cynthia!].

“You supported spending First 5 dollars on private contractors, not exactly without some level of self-interest, using the same argument that if we did not pay the tax (as smokers) we have no right to determine where it is spent.”

Whaaa…? Not sure where to start with that stew of half-truths, spin and untruth. Why don’t you take another whack at saying what you were thinking,

“You now support pulling TOT (public funding) for the use of a 100% subsidized private project, when you have your own connections to those who benefit from the deal.”

Really? When did I say that?

You advocated for the SunCal deal, oddly enough when you were paid by the team working for SunCal. Tell me how objective you were then. You supported spending First 5 dollars on private contractors, not exactly without some level of self-interest, using the same argument that if we did not pay the tax (as smokers) we have no right to determine where it is spent. So if we did not pay the bed tax as visitors it is OK to give it away? You now support pulling TOT (public funding) for the use of a 100% subsidized private project, when you have your own connections to those who benefit from the deal.

No Matt, i do not see you as the last bastion of freedom and small government. If looking at your connections makes me creepy then fire away, I guess.

I disagreed with Curt Pringle, Todd Ament and Harry Sidhu on the SOAR initiative — just like I disagree with Tom Tait on the “Let the People Vote” initiative. I have been absolutely consistent. I opposed ballot-box zoning in 2007, and I oppose ballot-box budgeting today. Neither of those initiatives is an example of conservative governance, despite having the support of some conservatives.

That was an awful lot of writing for you to do and still fail to make a logically coherent point.

“Diverting it to benefit the friends of the politicians doling it out is nothing short of evil.”

Really? You are being completely overwrought, falsely characterizing what happened – all while trivializing the concept of evil.

”What remedy is available to the people of a community when our elected leaders really, really screw it up?”

Regularly scheduled elections, which take place every two years.

”Matt, as you have pointed out, I did oppose Tom Tait for Mayor, in the belief that he was the “special interest candidate.” When Curt Pringle raises six figures for you in one lunch, what is one left to think?”

There’s always the obvious conclusion, Cynthia: that Curt has always been an excellent fundraiser, and that he believed his friend the best candidate to carry-on “freedom friendly” policies.

I’ll wager if you examine the campaign finance reports of officeholders you support, you would find lots of “special interests,” though I doubt you would call any of them “special interest candidates.”

”And I would challenge that it appears Tait’s supporters also made the assumption that they were buying access-hence their vindictive reaction to his refusal to give away tax money that rightfully belongs to the people of Anaheim.”

You’re not “challenging,” Cynthia. You’re jumping to a conclusion.

”How can you fault me for making the same assumption?”

Precisely because, by your own admission, you are making an assumption based on appearances filtered through your own biases.

“I have also apologized, profusely, to the Mayor for that mistaken character assessment. I have said repeatedly, I have never been so glad to be so wrong about another human being in my life.”

That’s great, Cynthia. I never had to make such an apology because, due to my almost 20-year friendship with Tom, I knew the assumptions about him you vocalized during the 2010 campaign were completely wrong.

”How is preventing our leaders from diverting tax money from its intended public purpose NOT conservative governance?”

First, taken as a general statement, that is neither a matter of liberal or conservative governance, but of good governance. Second, even taking this description of the GardenWalk vote at face value, it is not a justification for the Let the People Vote initiative, and certainly doesn’t make it conservative, for reasons I have already stated. That is what elections are for. Ballot-box zoning and budgeting make for bad governance. And when city councils vote to put measures like this on the ballot, they are essentially making a vote of no-confidence in themselves as a governing body.

”I understand you are enjoying some new office space. It is so nice to see someone moving up despite this crummy economy. Good luck to you, my friend.”

That jibe is eerily reminiscent of a comment you directed at me on OC Blog in 2007, during the SunCal-Disney battle:

“Matt, you used your home address? That was brave. Nice place. Nearly 2,000 square feet at OC prices? You must be very good at blog hosting. I’m impressed.”

That was a weird and creepy thing to say then, and it is weird and creepy now.

Really? I have news for you Matt. Thanks to our elected leaders, we all face massive unfunded liabilities that must be paid for. If we are not growing the TOT to meet those demands, the City will either come looking to us for increased fees on services we use, or increased property tax assessments. Or they will cut back on the city services which we expect our taxes to pay for. So yes, in protecting TOT they are protecting me, the taxpayer. We made that case during the SunCal fight, when the same folks who advocate for the TOT giveaway today once said, “Every dollar paid by tourists in TOT is a dollar that does not have to be paid by residents.” They forgot their own argument that for every 2 cops on the streets of Anaheim, one is paid for by tourists. Who will pay for those cops down the road when we are paying for 2 cops on the beat and 2 cops out on a pension?

Whether it is TOT or cigarette taxes, it matters not where the tax originated, those taxes belong to the people of that community, and diverting it is wrong. Diverting it to benefit the friends of the politicians doling it out is nothing short of evil.

What remedy is available to the people of a community when our elected leaders really, really screw it up? Referendum. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at how another leader you admire has handled this same situation in the past. Here are a variety of quotes from the LA Times and OC Register, in 2007-08.

“We’re asking Anaheim residents to do something very important and that is to overturn the City Council’s vote,” said Pringle, who was one of two members to vote against the zoning change. “I hope every Anaheim resident joins this coalition.”

“Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who campaigned for the initiative, said it was a necessary measure. “This resort plan was put in place over 10 years ago, and if you divert from that plan, I think it’s an important-enough decision to ask the voters.” he said. “To get this amount of signatures to put something new on the ballot shows a keen level of awareness of the voters on this issue.”

“Victory came after the City Council agreed Tuesday night to strip itself of its power to decide what can be built in the city’s high-powered Resort District. Under the new ordinance, any future decisions — such as whether to build housing for resort workers — would have to be approved by a citywide vote, assuming the council approves such a plan in the first place.”

“Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said the vote essentially “ties the hands” of this and future councils from putting housing in “the economic core of the Resort District.”

“Pringle, the Anaheim mayor, said he wasn’t bothered by the fact that the council has less authority in the city’s tourist district.”

“It has worried me over the last couple of years to think this council or any future council would reduce the value of the Resort District by pulling out major properties for housing uses,” he said. “So I will take this level of protection from the council’s actions as a very good and important thing.”

I will follow up with the words of a “conservative Anaheim business leader” back in the day.

“We don’t think it’s wise to leave it in the hands of three people on council. It’s important to protect the long-term health of the resort.” Todd Ament

Matt, you say, “Let the People Vote is contrary to genuine conservative governance, in which we elect representatives to govern, and if we don’t like how they govern, then we replace them.”

Again, let’s look to a leader you have vocally supported;

“To those who may try to claim that this action supposedly disrespects the democratic process they are plainly wrong. Our state has a long-standing initiative, referendum, and recall process – a system of direct democracy which became part of the California State Constitution as a result of a 1911 special election called by legendary California Governor Hiram Johnson. For nearly a century, this reform process has provided California voters at the state and local level with the constitutional right to repeal legislative action through the referendum, make their own laws through the initiative, and remove elected officials through the recall.”

“It is significant to further note that in an online poll that the Orange County Register has been conducting regarding the City Council vote, 70% of those responding to the poll have voiced their opinion that they do not agree with the City Council’s decision on the zoning amendments. Thus, folks, ask yourselves why some do not want the people of Anaheim to vote on this important matter. As explained by Governor Hiram Johnson in his 1911 Inaugural Address: “I do not by any means believe the initiative, the referendum, and the recall are the panacea for all our political ills, yet, they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”

“I urge every Anaheim resident to thoughtfully consider exactly what this significant resort area zoning matter is truly about and to sign the petition which will place this important referendum on the ballot. In doing so, you will be protecting our quality of life in Anaheim and preserving future growth of the revenue generated in the resort area that so vitally funds our police, fire, parks, recreation, and other related city services. It is the right thing to do under the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen. We must not be short-sighted when it comes to making determinations that will have long-term impact on the future economic security of our city.”

That was Harry Sidhu during the SOAR initiative. You do remember him, Matt, the guy you defended to the death in 2010?

Matt, as you have pointed out, I did oppose Tom Tait for Mayor, in the belief that he was the “special interest candidate.” When Curt Pringle raises six figures for you in one lunch, what is one left to think? And I would challenge that it appears Tait’s supporters also made the assumption that they were buying access-hence their vindictive reaction to his refusal to give away tax money that rightfully belongs to the people of Anaheim. They do not just seem to merely disagree with him, they are emotional about it, downright ANGRY with him, as if he has betrayed them on a personal level. That is more than a political difference of opinion. How can you fault me for making the same assumption? It seems Tait was the only one who did not get that memo!

I have also apologized, profusely, to the Mayor for that mistaken character assessment. I have said repeatedly, I have never been so glad to be so wrong about another human being in my life. I am especially grateful right now, when it seems like Tom Tait’s backbone of steel is the only thing standing between special interests and unfettered access to the City’s treasury.

Our view of government has become so skewed that so-called conservative leadership such as OCBC and OCTax now stand in support of using public funds to benefit the private sector, while public benefit such as road repair and public safety goes begging. I thought we were supposed to be the party of smaller government, the party of get-the-Hell-out-of-the-way-and-let-the-private-sector-create-jobs. When tax money goes into the pockets of unions it is a betrayal of conservative values and costs a candidate an endorsement; when it goes into the pockets of Republican leaders it is economic development and praised. What hypocrites we have become. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats let poor people in on the highway robbery while Republicans hoard the swag for those with whom they share a tailor.

How is preventing our leaders from diverting tax money from its intended public purpose NOT conservative governance?

Oh and Matt, so good to hear from you, it has been a while, hasn’t it? I understand you are enjoying some new office space. It is so nice to see someone moving up despite this crummy economy. Good luck to you, my friend.

The direct democracy tools you salute do not enhance the checks and balances instituted by the Founders, which were meant to act as checks on popular passions. On the contrary, the Progressives saw them as means for bypassing the checks and balances (which they disliked) and instead giving direct expression to those passions.

These are the intellectual fathers of the direct democracy tools you cite, and hence of the Let the People Vote initiative — which, again, is not conservative but Progressive governance.