OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Kris Murray Raises $90,000 at Re-Election Kick Off

Posted by Matt Cunningham on June 27, 2013

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray held a re-election kick-off fundraiser yesterday evening at the Diamond Club at Angel Stadium. The event was attended by 175 people ( a mixture of community and business leaders, her three council colleagues, former Mayor Curt Pringle and a variety of others) and raised at least $90,000.

That is a huge amount to raise at a single political event in Orange County, even more so when you consider it is for an election that is about a year-and-a-half away. Murray has held together her victorious 2010 coalition, which if anything is now stronger and broader.

To put the blow-out success of this fund-raiser in perspective: during her first (and winning) city council run, Kris Murray raised a total of $114,000 for all of 2010. Yesterday, she raised 78% of that in a single night. With a few days left in the reporting period, she could possibly break the $100,000 mark – and that still leaves 15 fund-raising months between now and November 2014.

There are two council seats up in November 2014, held by Kris Murray and Gail Eastman. For all the howling from the peanut gallery and the media focus on the demands of vocal, organized factions (of which part of the leadership hails from outside Anaheim), Murray and Eastman are strongly positioned to be re-elected. Despite the claims of some gadflies to speak for “the people of Anaheim,” their divisive, class- and race-based rhetoric is not appealing to the great majority of Anaheim’s citizens. When the rubber meets the road next summer and fall, Kris Murray and Gail Eastman will be able to communicate a record that will lead Anaheim voters to reward them with a second term.

Posted in Anaheim | Leave a Comment »

Cypress Election Results: Measure A Goes Down In Flames

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 26, 2013

The Cypress election was not a very close one. Take a look at my post previewing the race by clicking here.

Not much to say about this one. Take a look at the results:
Cypress Election Results

Posted in Cypress, Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

55th AD Watch: Another Candidate Dual Run?

Posted by Allen Wilson on June 25, 2013

We reported last month about Diamond Bar Councilwoman Ling-Ling Chang flirting a run for two offices:  City Council and State Assembly.

OC Political learned that Diamond Bar Councilman Steve Tye who is up for council re-election this November is flirting a run for State Assembly in the 55th AD in 2014 as well.

When Tye was confronted about his flirtatious run for two offices replied, “Where did you hear that from?”

Pols should learn not to answer a question with a question.

Now, it begs the question:  Why are pols bringing out the yardstick and the crystal ball?

Candidates should learn that running for office doesn’t allow you to use two lifelines as if running for public office is a game show.

 

Posted in 55th Assembly District, Orange County, State Assembly, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

73rd AD Watch: Orange County Business Council Supports Steve Baric

Posted by Allen Wilson on June 25, 2013

OC Political received this Press Release from Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric Campaign for Assembly:

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA – – Republican candidate for State Assembly, Steve Baric, announced the endorsement of the Orange County Business Council (OCBC) today in his campaign for the 73rd District. The OCBC works to enhance Orange County’s economic development and prosperity. The organization serves as the leading voice on every issue that relates to the betterment of Orange County’s Businesses and community development.
 

OCBC’s President and CEO, Lucy Dunn, endorses Baric’s leadership record, “Sacramento needs leaders who understand small business owners—the heart of California’s recovering economy.  Steve also knows the importance of public safety and local government. He is well-rounded in experience and accomplishments, making him an ideal candidate voters can trust to get things done for Orange County.”

The OCBC adds its name to Baric’s growing list of supporters which already includes notable endorsements such as Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
 
The 73rd District includes the Orange County cities of Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano as well as the unincorporated areas of Ladera Ranch, Ortega, Silverado and Trabuco.  Almost 49 percent of the district’s voters are registered Republicans, and 25 percent are registered Democrats.
 
Steve Baric, his wife, Melissa and son Matthew, live in Rancho Santa Margarita.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Election In Cypress Tomorrow

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 24, 2013

I meant to post this at some point (oops, forgot). The City of Cypress is hosting a special election tomorrow on a property issue. Since it is a special election, voters will most assuredly not rush out to the polls to vote on this. I am not a degenerate gambler but if I had to play the role of Vegas odds maker on this one, the over/under would be at 20% turnout.

Cypress_Seal

Let’s take a quick (and factual) look at what is on the ballot tomorrow. We start with the impartial analysis written by the Cypress City Attorney:

Measure A, if approved by the voters, would amend the Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan, the Cypress General Plan and the Cypress Zoning Map in the manner explained in this analysis, and is placed on the ballot in compliance with the requirements of a prior 1987 voter initiative, commonly known as “Measure D”, which is set forth in Sections 5.28.020 and 5.28.050 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The current Specific Plan was approved in a 2012 voter initiative, commonly known as “Measure L”. This Measure A would do the following:

1. Amend the Specific Plan. The amended Specific Plan would (a) reduce Planning Area 1, which is part of the former Cypress Golf Club, from 35.7 acres to 5.0 acres, (b) create new Planning Area 10, which consists of 30.7 of the 35.7 acres of the former golf course and (c) create new Planning Area 11, which consists of 11.2 acres of underutilized land within the Los Alamitos Race Course property that is currently part of Planning Area 8. This land is currently located in the PS-1A (Public and Semi-Public) Zone, which, as set forth in the existing Specific Plan, permits uses such as hospitals, cemeteries, churches, public buildings, schools and colleges.

The amended Specific Plan would expand the allowed uses (d) in modified Planning Area 1 to include most commercial uses permitted in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood ) Zone and several additional uses permitted in the CG (Commercial General) Zone, (e) in new Planning Area 10 to include most residential uses permitted in the RS-6000 (Single-Family) or RS-5000 (Single-Family) Zone (RS-5000 homes would be allowed in 50% of Planning Area 10 with a conditional use permit), and (f) in new Planning Area 11 to include most commercial and business park uses permitted in the CG (Commercial General) and BP (Business Park) Zones. The amended Specific Plan would also update text, figures and graphics in the document.

2. Amend the General Plan. The initiative measure would (a) amend the Cypress General Plan to change the land use designations for the 46.9 acres within Planning Areas 1, 10 and 11 from “Community Services and Facilities (Golf Course (Privately-Owned))” (35.7 acres) and “Community Services and Facilities (Race Track (Privately-Owned))” (11.2 acres) to “Specific Plan” and (b) amend text in the General Plan to conform to the amended Specific Plan.

3. Amend the Zoning Map. The Cypress Zoning Map would be amended to change the zoning designation for the 46.9 acres within Planning Areas 1, 10 and 11 from “PS-1A (Public and Semi-Public)” to “PBP-25A (Planned Business Park)”.

A “Yes” vote means you support amending the Specific Plan, the Cypress General Plan, and the Cypress Zoning Map in the manner set forth in this initiative. A “No” vote means you oppose amending the Specific Plan, the Cypress General Plan and the Cypress Zoning Map in the manner set forth in this initiative. This measure would take effect only if a majority of those voting on the ballot measure cast a “Yes” vote at the June 25, 2013 special election.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure A. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Cypress City Clerk’s office at (714-229-6683) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.

Date: April 2, 2013
s/ William W. Wynder
City Attorney

If you made it through the previous section without falling asleep then you should be good to go for the rest of this article. Here is the argument in favor:

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A

This initiative would modify the zoning for two parcels of land in the City of Cypress, a 35.7-acre parcel that borders Cerritos Avenue and was part of the Cypress Golf Club that closed in 2004, and an 11.2-acre parcel near the Los Alamitos Race Course between Katella and Cerritos Avenues. The current zoning for this vacant or underutilized land only permits uses such as hospitals, cemeteries, churches, public buildings and schools, which generate little revenue for the City, discourage the development of job-creating uses near the City’s primary commercial corridor and preclude single-family housing right across the street from an existing single-family neighborhood.

Measure A would expand the allowed uses on the 35.7-acre parcel to include single-family housing on the western 30.7 acres and neighborhood commercial on the eastern 5.0 acres, and permit commercial, warehousing and light manufacturing uses on the 11.2-acre parcel, all consistent with the existing uses in the area.

A September 2012 fiscal report commissioned by the City concluded that eventual development of the property would generate $412,000 in annual net revenue to the City and generate 354 permanent jobs and 141 construction jobs, with constructed-related expenditures of $32 million.

This initiative does not approve any specific project. It simply allows the property owner to propose additional commercial and residential uses. Any proposed project would be subject to full discretionary and environmental review by the City, like any other project, and would provide ample opportunity for public input.

Measure A’s approval would permit the productive use of long-vacant land and generate badly-needed jobs and revenue for the City, while preserving the City’s decision-making authority.

Recognizing these benefits, the Cypress City Council adopted a resolution supporting Measure A and encouraging Cypress voters to approve the initiative.

As longtime Cypress residents, we urge your support of Measure A.

s/ Walter Bowman
Former Mayor/Councilmember

s/ Anna Piercy
Former Mayor/Current AUHSD Board Trustee

s/ Andrew (“Andy”) Lachina
Attorney

s/ Steve Robbins
Insurance Broker

s/ George Hallak
Retired

This argument in favor does not have the star power behind it that you normally see when the elected officials/establishment get behind a ballot measure. Anna Piercy is the only current elected official to sign on in the original argument.

Here is the argument against:

ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A

In 2012, Cypress voters approved Measure L, which rezoned a 33 acre site on Katella Avenue between Cottonwood Church and the Residence Inn to have the following uses: market-rate senior citizen housing, assisted living facilities, professional offices, including medical services, and mixed-use commercial. Unfortunately, the project being proposed for the site is a 725,000 square foot warehousing, light manufacturing & distribution center with at least 129 truck bays. This is not what we voted for!

Concerns over traffic, air quality, noise, and safety are significant concerns for our city residents. Can you imagine if the truck bays turn over 3 to 4 times a day? That could mean almost 1,000 more truck trips on our streets every day. Currently, our streets are already overburdened with existing traffic. Do we need to add more?

Now with Measure A, Cypress voters are being asked to approve more mixed- use commercial acreage on Cerritos Ave., between Walker St. and Denni St. While Measure A would also rezone property for single- family housing and neighborhood commercial uses, there is no guarantee that it will be built at any time in the future. What we can likely expect is that a mixed-use commercial development will be proposed and based on what we’ve seen so far, it will be more trucks, more traffic, noise, air pollution, and safety issues.

Before we approve a zone change, Cypress residents are entitled to know from our City Council specifically what will be approved and built on the remainder of the race track property.

Please vote No on Measure A. It’s a bad fit for our city.

s/ Citizens for Responsible Development

s/ Tom Wendt

I am impressed that the folks arguing against the ballot measure got a fancy sounding group to agree to lend their name to the signature section but they screwed up by not filling up all the signatures that they could use.

Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor:

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A

Do not be fooled twice!

The proponents of Measure A want us to once again trust the owners of the land near the Los Alamitos Race course. One year ago with Measure L, voters were fooled into thinking they were approving “Senior Housing, Assisted Living, professional offices and something called ‘Mixed-use Commercial” on 33.5 acres near the race course.

Our trust was violated with the land owner’s recent proposal to consider warehouse and light manufacturing buildings with 129 semi-truck bays on the Measure L approved property along Katella. Warehouse and light manufacturing in the Cypress Code are Industrial uses! They are not Commercial uses and certainly not Senior Housing!

The traffic on our streets and access to our freeways are already bad enough. Jobs are needed but we want good paying jobs with responsible development.

With measure A, we are being asked to trust the same land owners to develop more land near the race course. This time the “carrot” dangled before the voters in Measure A is Single Family Housing. Don’t forget, we’re not getting senior housing and assisted living facilities from last year’s ballot measure.

We are entitled to know exactly what Cypress land use zone we are voting on and the specific use that fits into that zone. Until then..Do not be fooled twice!

Vote NO on Measure A.

s/ Thomas R. Wendt

Again, they only used one signature space and I noticed that Mr. Wendt did not use a title to identify himself in either statement (I applaud him though, every ballot measure should have somebody at least informing the public on both sides of an issue).

Lastly, we have the rebuttal to the argument against:

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A

We respectfully disagree. Measure A is a very good fit for Cypress. Measure A would not permit ANY new commercial uses on the primary 30.7-acre parcel along Cerritos. Rather, the ONLY new permitted uses would be for a single-family residential neighborhood like the existing neighborhood across the street.

The new uses permitted on the adjacent 5-acre parcel along Cerritos would be neighborhood commercial uses, consistent with its smaller size and proximity to the existing and proposed residential areas. It would NOT be used for a manufacturing facility.

Measure A simply allows the property owner to propose a residential project and related commercial uses along Cerritos. And any such project would be subject to full discretionary and environmental review by the City, with full opportunity for public input and participation.

So, contrary to the opposition’s claim, Cypress residents are NOT “being asked to approve more mixed-use commercial acreage along Cerritos.” This is unsubstantiated fear, not fact.

Measure A would allow desirable single-family housing and provide much-needed revenue for the City. That’s why the Cypress City Council UNANIMOUSLY adopted a resolution encouraging Cypress residents to vote in favor of Measure A in the special election on June 25th. We hope you agree.

We urge you to vote YES for Measure A.

s/ Walter Bowman
Former Mayor/Councilmember

s/ Anna Piercy
Former Mayor/Current AUHSD Board Trustee

s/ Andrew (“Andy”) Lachina
Attorney

s/ Steve Robbins
Insurance Broker

s/ George Hallak
Retired

I don’t know what the result will be tomorrow. Voters are in the mood to say no to most things, but turnout will be dramatically lower than a regular election which can give the Yes on A side a huge advantage if they can turn out their voters. A great example of voters being in the mood to say no is what happened in the recent Los Angeles election. Liberal L.A. voters turned down a sales tax increase!!!!!

Posted in Cypress | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers: Assembly Member Quirk-Silva votes for ACA 8 — a direct assault on Prop. 13

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 20, 2013

Our friends at the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers put out this post earlier this week regarding the party-line vote on ACA 8 (OC’s Tom Daly and Sharon Quirk-Silva voted for ACA 8 while Travis Allen, Curt Hagman, Diane Harkey, Allan Mansoor, and Don Wagner voted against it):

Assembly Member Quirk-Silva votes for ACA 8 — a direct assault on Prop. 13

In an unusual Saturday session, Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) joined other Assembly Democrats in approving and sending to the state Senate a proposed state constitutional amendment ballot measure that — if approved by voters statewide — would let local governments incur bonded indebtedness (which shows up on property tax bills) for “public improvements and facilities” that those local governments may specify and for “buildings used primarily to provide sheriff, police or fire protection services.” Under ACA 8, only a 55% local voter approval would be required instead of the current two-thirds voter approval required under Proposition 13.

Read the background in this story by CalWatchdog investigative reporter Katy Grimes, and read the analysis of ACA 8 in this commentary published today by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

To see how all members of the Assembly voted, click here.

Posted in 55th Assembly District, 65th Assembly District, 68th Assembly District, 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, State Assembly | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Assembly Democrats Join Senate Democrats In Assault On Public Records Act (Updated)

Posted by Greg Woodard on June 19, 2013

Following up on Chris Emami’s story from yesterday, as reported by the OC Register today, the Assembly passed AB76, which has identical language to SB71, and will be submitted to Governor Brown for his signature.  Every Republican legislator in the Assembly and Senate (except Tom Berryhill – 14th Senate District who is listed as “Other”) opposed both AB76 and SB71, and just a single Democrat voted no for either bill (Senator Leland Yee – 8th Senate District).  If Governor Brown signs the bill into law, it will eviscerate the open government protections of the Public Records Act by making local agencies’ compliance with the Act voluntary instead of mandatory.

Courts interpreting the Public Records Act have consistently held that the Act is to be read broadly in favor of disclosure of documents to the public, and the Act has only a few categories that are exempt from disclosure (and when a local agency refuses to provide documents, it must explain why).  Under AB76, disclosure will be voluntary, meaning that local agencies can refuse to provide documents, and do not have to provide any reason for the refusal.

Ironically (or perhaps not when it comes to Democrats and their legislative tactics), AB76 was added as a budget trailer bill.  Trailer bills are often drafted in secret, sometimes just days or hours before they are voted on in both houses of the state legislature.  You read that right, a bill that allows local agencies more secrecy and less transparency was drafted in a most un-transparent manner.

Journalists often use the Public Records Act to sniff out public corruption.  The City of Bell scandal was exposed in part by use of the Act, as have many other stories of local government waste and fraud.  In addition, private individuals and groups often use the Act to obtain documents needed to challenge local government decisions that affect their property or the environment.  If the changes to the Act become law, local agencies who are hiding things from the public will no longer be compelled to produce any documents, and scandals will go unexposed.

Assemblyman Don Wagner, 68th Assembly District, says AB76 highlights the dangers created by the Democrats’ stranglehold on power in Sacramento: “AB 76 shows why the entire public — Republicans and Democrats alike — should be worried about one party rule.  Eliminating compliance with the Public Records Act has nothing to do with the budget.  So why is this abomination in a so-called Budget Bill?  Because Democrats have complete control and can do it this way to avoid the public scrutiny that comes with committee hearings and an open discussion through the normal legislative process.  This bill, written behind closed doors without a shred of bipartisan input, shields even more government behind those very same closed doors.  The public should be appalled.”

As Emami said in his story, this is a terrible bill that will have a dramatic negative impact on local government transparency.  Democrats apparently believe that secretly passing bills that allow local agencies to act with more secrecy is good government.  I hope that most Californians disagree.

****UPDATE****

As Don Wagner mentioned yesterday, Sacramento Democrats have done one of the most rapid u-turns ever (perhaps the nuclear retort from the media inspired them).  Wagner reported this afternoon that the Assembly voted today to pass the same budget trailer bill as AB76, but without the provisions that would eviscerate the Public Records Act.  While the Senate initially resisted similar efforts, reports are coming out that they will acquiesce and pass a similar bill to the Assembly’s fix.  Governor Brown is expected to sign the fix, therefore preserving the Public Records Act in its current form, which is a good thing for all Californians.

Wagner also reported that both the Assembly and Senate will propose constitutional amendments to eliminate the state’s obligation to reimburse local agencies for Public Records Act compliance.  (Warning, boring political inside baseball stuff ahead).  Apparently, when the Legislature ended redevelopment agencies (another measure that crossed the aisle considerably), the local agencies got too cute and started seeking reimbursement from the state for the cost of every minute copy, office supply, etc. that they incurred for compliance with the Public Records Act but previously had not sought reimbursement for.  That may have taken the Democrats in Sacramento by surprise but unfortunately their “fix” would have ended open government as we know it in this state.  I guess the moral for Democrats is not to target the media’s bread and butter because they actually start doing their job when you threaten the source of their juiciest stories.

I would like to return the favor and thank Don for all of his information and for all of the Republicans in Sacramento and their efforts to undo this terrible stinker of a Democratic bill.

Stay tuned in case there are even more breaking updates.

Posted in California, State Assembly, State Senate | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Good News For Californians: CD 52 Update

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 18, 2013

I got a press release this morning from Jim Lacy at Landslide Communications touting a poll that they ran in the 52nd Congressional District race that is likely going to see a November matchup of Democrat Incumbent Scott Peters and Republican former Councilmember Carl Demaio. This is one of the most competitive seats in the State of California (Congress) and will likely have both sides spending a lot of resources.

Republican Carl DeMaio, former member of the San Diego City Council, is in a statistical tie with Democrat incumbent Scott Peters in the race for the 52nd Congressional District in San Diego County next year, according to a new poll commissioned by Landslide Communications.

The Landslide poll was taken late last week and includes 606 participants who are “likely voters.”  The interviews were conducted and data compiled by NSON of Salt Lake City, a respected polling firm.  Significant findings include that DeMaio is currently tied with Peters, even when voters are informed that DeMaio is gay and supports gay marriage, and that introducing those issues to the voter has no significant statistical affect on their response, even when given another Republican candidate to opt for.

Click on the links below to read the poll summary or cross-tabulations, and today’s FlashReport article on the survey which notes it is “good news for DeMaio.”

Landslide        52nd CD Poll Executive Summary

Landslide        poll. 52nd CD. Crosstabs

http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2013/06/18/breaking-cd-52-survey-demaios-being-gay-and-support-of-ssm-not-an-issue-with-district-gop-voters/

In my opinion this race is shaping up to be a Republican gain in 2014 and will likely be as close as they come. In 2012 Scott Peters beat Brian Bilbray by less than 7,000 votes, this is with Obama on the ballot driving out Democrats to vote. Gubernatorial elections have much higher turnout for Republicans and Demaio has strong name ID having just been on the ballot for Mayor of San Diego in 2012 (gave Bob Filner a run for his money too). The stars appear to be aligning for Demaio and the Republicans on this one, hopefully the campaigns play out favorably on this one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

SB 71 Passing Could Reduce Transparency In Government

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 18, 2013

A reader sent me an article this morning from the Southern California Public Radio Blog discussing the impact of SB 71 which is slated to be signed soon by Governor Brown. The bill does not outright abolish the California Public Records Act, but it does in my opinion create a loophole that could be used to avoid compliance with the act. I suggest that our readers take a look at the blog article on their website.

 

Changes to Public Records Act stirs controversy
Julie Small | June 18th, 2013

If, as expected, Governor Jerry Brown signs Senate Bill 71 this week, local government agencies will no longer be required to follow key provisions of California’s Public Records Act. The bill was part of the budget state lawmakers enacted over the weekend.

California law requires local governments to respond to public requests for information within 10 days. For example, a citizen could ask to see contracts that a city awards an independent contractor. If the municipality is unable to meet such a request, or if they reject it, they have to explain why. Both those requirements are about to be suspended for local governments.

The state maintains this is a budget move, because it has to reimburse local governments for complying with some aspects of records requests. The Department of Finance estimates that exempting local governments from those requirements could save the state tens of millions of dollars a year.

But Peter Scheer of the First Amendment Coalition says the change will create opportunities for local authorities to cut off public access to information:

“People are going to file public records request for records that they need, and under this new legal language,  a local city or a county is going to be able to write back and say ‘denied’ and they’re not going to tell you why…I think that’s just crazy.”

But the Finance Department’s H.D. Palmer says local governments can adopt their own process — and he expects they will: “We believe that these are best practices that local governments have and will continue to abide by.”

And if they don’t, Palmer said local agencies will “have to tell everyone publicly in an open meeting, and they could conceivably be leaving themselves open to litigation.”

The public still has a legal right to information about local governments — and an expectation they’ll get it.

Jean Hurst with the California State Association of Counties agrees.  After all, she says, local governments have provided public access to data for more than a decade now:

“I think a local agency would be hard pressed to say in an open meeting, ‘We’re no longer going to respond in a timely manner to your request for public records.’   That would be just surprising to me.”

Hurst believes the public expectation of transparency, and the threat of lawsuits, will prompt agencies to comply with the entire Public Records Act — “for the most part”.

But Jim Ewert, an attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, thinks it’s naive to expect all local agencies and authorities will fall in line. Case in point:  the former administrator for the City of Bell:

“Can you imagine Robert Rizzo having the opportunity to just say no, or actually not say anything at all, when people ask for public information?”

Ewert hopes to get the legislature to reinstate the provisions of California’s Public Records Act they just voted to suspend.

This bill is a terrible idea. As somebody that has made quite a few public records requests over the past few years, I can honestly say that most city staff members are extremely friendly, easy to work with, and timely in their responses. Some cities have gone over the 10 days and I have not reported it because they kept an open line of communication and were honest about the delays. Without naming any names, some cities are extremely belligerent and extremely tough to deal with. SB 71 would give these “belligerent” cities some leverage that they do not deserve to have (refer to the Robert Rizzo quote above).

Posted in California | 2 Comments »

Whats On Deck This Week 6-17-2013

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 17, 2013

We are in the midst of budget season for most governmental agencies, which could make for some news stories in the coming weeks of budget cuts vs. tax increases. This makes for slow news days in the short-term in the Orange County Area.

OC-Coast

241 Freeway- The only substantive item that sort of effects Orange County this week is the 241 extension meeting. This meeting of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board could decide the fate of the 241 freeway (toll road) extension. For those interested in making the trip down south to attend the meeting, it will be held at 11:00 AM (Agenda claims a vote will not take place until at least 1:00 PM), location is 9174 Sky Park Court, San Diego, CA.

Calderon- Our fantastic blogger Allen Wilson has done an excellent job covering the ongoing Calderon saga. In his most recent article Allen points out that the investigation appears to be centered on the Central Basin Water District. Stay tuned to the blog for potential breaking news on this subject as it becomes available.

Central Committee Meeting Tonight- Nothing on the agenda appears to be super interesting, but for those interested the Republican Party of Orange County is having their monthly Central Committee meeting tonight. For those interested in attending, it will start at 7:00 PM and is located at the Hyatt Regency in Irvine.

Advertisement Blitz- Now that we are less than a year away from the 2014 Primary Election you can expect to see some new sponsors appear on our blog. We are going to be making a big push on these over the next 30 days.

Welcome Atlas PAC!- Our newest blogger here at OC Political that was just brought on board last week is not actually a person, instead we are lucky enough to have gotten the Atlas PAC organization to agree to having us create a blog account for them.

Campaign Finance Database- We are only $5,000 short of reaching the goal of fully funding the campaign finance database research that I unveiled a few months ago. With any luck we will begin to post these databases in the next three weeks.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »