You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Tom Tait’ category.
Just close your eyes and listen to the Magical Single-Member Council Districts Unicorn!
This November, Anaheim voters will decide on two initiatives: whether to replace the current at-large council election system with the single-member district (or “by-district”)system being pushed by a left-wing coalition; and whether to expand the city council from four to six members.
Ballot arguments for and against the by-district initiative were filed on Monday. The pro argument is signed by Mayor Tom Tait and Councilman Jordan Brandman. I’ll comment in greater depth soon, but a couple of things jump out.
For months and months, the advocacy of single-member district by proponents has been racially-based: a relentless focus on the ethnicity of current and former councilmembers and claims that at-large elections “disenfranchise” Latino voters. Indeed, that was the entire basis of the Jose Moreno/ACLU lawsuit that put this initiative on the ballot.
However, except for a very oblique reference to “reflecting our neighborhoods,” the ethno-racial appeals are entirely absent from the pro-single-member districts argument – no doubt reflecting a cynical awareness by the pro-districts coalition that for voters who haven’t majored in Chicano studies, calls to gerrymander city council elections to produce a pre-determined ethnic composition holds little appeal.
Instead, the pro-argument promises that all things bright and beautiful will happen to Anaheim voters if they adopt single-member districts: cleaner streets, filled potholes, trimmed trees, whiter teeth, happier marriages and an answer to the question of whether intelligent life exists on other planets. OK – not the last three things, but that’s probably because it would have put them over the 300-word limit.
In any case, here is the Argument in Favor, followed by the common sense truth of the argument against.
Doug Pettibone
For months, much of the discussion among politicos about the November city council election has centered on who would be the second member of the Tait Slate.
Mayor Tom Tait has been putting together a campaign to defeat his council colleagues Kris Murray and Gail Eastman and replace them with candidates of his choosing. Anaheim City School District Trustee James Vanderbilt was recruited to pull papers back in February.
On Monday, Anaheim attorney Douglas Pettibone (not to be confused with guitarist Doug Pettibone) pulled papers to run for city council. Pettibone lives in Anaheim Hills and his law office is in the Stadium Towers building. Judging by his $500 contribution to the Tait for Mayor 2014 campaign on April 24 of this year — plus the fact that the address for the Doug Pettibone for City Council 2014 committee is a few doors down the street from the mayor — makes it a good bet he is the second member of the Tait Slate.
Anaheim Insider here.
At the end of Tuesday’s Anaheim City Council meeting, City Attorney Michael Houston reported out actions taken during closed session.
With respect to closed session item number 1, “CATER et al versus Anaheim Public Financing Authority .” the City Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Public Financing Authority met in joint closed session and by a vote of 4 to 1, with the Mayor voting “no,” approval was given to defend litigation entitled “CATER and IOC, or Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility and the Inland Oversight Committee, v. the Anaheim Public Financing Authority et al,” with respect to an action alleging that actions taken on May 11 relating to the issuance of bonds violated various provisions of the California Constitution and the City Charter.
So, Mayor Tait voted against defending his city from a lawsuit filed by the non-profit arm of his re-election campaign. Why? Maybe the Mayor can explain at the next council meeting why he doesn’t won’t a fight a bogus lawsuit that is seriously jeopardizing the Anaheim Convention Center’s ability to keep its biggest convention, NAMM, and sign other big conferences like the American Heart Association.
On the other hand, Tait joined the rest of the council in voting to defend the city from OCCORD’s lawsuit against the May 2103 economic assistance agreements with the GardenWalk Hotels. Why one and not the other?
Anaheim Insider here.
There was a strong turnout last Thursday at Lucille Kring’s mayor campaign fundraiser at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse in the Resort area, out on the patio with the results of 20 years of bond-financed investment in the Resort in full view.
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackackaus headlined Kring’s fundraiser. He talked about the great work being done to crack down on criminal gangs in Anaheim, praising the city’s police department as “one of the best” and originators of the GRIP (Gang Reduction and Intervention Program) program that is now used county-wide. He talked to the crowd about using gang injunctions, cracking down on the worst perpetrators, and working hand-in-hand with the Anaheim Police Department to do some very hard and needed work to protect neighborhoods and families.
“I don’t like to be negative,” Rackauckus told those in attendance, “But I’m sorry to say that in this effort we have gotten no help from the office of the Mayor.”
The OC Register has published a round-up article on the three local ballot measure before Anaheim voters this Tuesday: Measures C, D and E.
Measure D would change the mayoral term from four year to two years; the global limit on eight consecutive years as mayor would remain unchanged.
The article quotes the three mayoral candidates views on Measure D:
Mayor Tom Tait:
“If a two-year term makes sense for the mayor, shouldn’t it also apply to council members who serve four-year terms? A four-year term allows time for a mayor to set goals and implement a vision. If a mayor were required to run every two years, a significant amount of time would be spent on running for re-election, rather than on the job of running the city. Due to the great expense of running for office in Anaheim, passing measure D would further empower special interests.”
Councilwoman Lucille Kring:
“If you have a mayor who is out of step with the will of the electorate, and people are upset about it, then it would make sense to have a two-year mayor. Four years can be a long time for some people, and sometimes the person holding the gavel is not a leader. If they’re doing a good job, then they will be elected. If not, then the people will have an opportunity to elect someone who will move the city forward.”
Former Councilwoman Lorri Galloway:
“The mayoral race is extremely expensive, because you’re running for the highest office in a large city, so people need to start raising money a year before the election. If a mayor’s term is only two years, then they will consistently spend their time raising funds rather than concentrating on their work for the people in this city. Plus, you can’t accomplish very much in two years, because there are projects and policies that could span an entire four years.”
The arguments advanced by Tait and Galloway are, in my opinion and with all due respect, flawed and don’t match up with reality.
Anaheim Insider here.
The irascible Cynthia Ward, along with Tait camp follower Brian Chuchua, makes up CATER, the non-profit that sues the city to obstruct policies that Mayor Tom Tait object to. Fresh from driving up the cost to Anaheim taxpayers of the Anaheim Convention Center Expansion, now Ward is waging class warfare against Measure E, which would bring legalized fireworks back to Anaheim after a quarter-century absence.
Ward sent out an e-mail today against Measure E. In her typically over-the-top style, Ward wages class warfare against fireworks, trying to paint the election as Hills elitists v. the salt of the Earth flatlands folk. She actually infers passage of measure will turn Independence Day into “Elitists Day!”
Ward makes it clear she opposes legalizing safe-and-sane fireworks, which she calls “carcinogen bombs.” For conservatives in Orange County, legalizing fireworks has long been an issue where rhetoric is supposed to meet the road. All the Fullerton libertarian-conservatives types Ward is super chummy with were rightly gong-ho to legalize them in 2012. However, the conservative principles Ward pretends to champion melt away because fireworks once a year bother her dogs, which she cites in her e-mail as the top reason for her hostility to Measure E.
The self-anointed “Truth-Teller” twists the truth into a pretzel:
“Steven Albert Chavez Lodge announces he will be using the sale of carcinogen bombs in the flatlands to backfill his inability to raise money for the Anaheim Hills fireworks displays, in an area not subject to the impacts of the fireworks his group will be dumping into OUR neighborhoods.”
In Ward’s convoluted mind, Measure E is a sinister conspiracy of Anaheim Hills elitists to gull flatlands rubes into funding the Anaheim Hills 4th of July fireworks show by buying boxes of safe and sane fireworks from greedy community groups. She gets all that by twisting beyond recognition a couple of quotes from a mail piece targeting Hills voters, who have a more heightened sensitivity to brush fires. that makes sense because there is a lot more brush in the Hills than the flatlands.
Real vote of confidence from Ward in her fellow flatlanders, thinking we’ll burn West Anaheim down the minute we light off a “Jumbo Purple Rain.”
The highest profile measure on the Anaheim ballot this June is Measure D, which would shift the mayor’s term from four years to two years; the mayor would still be limited to eight consecutive years in office, however.
Thus far, the battle has been confined to the ubiquitous slate mailers. The Tom Tait for Mayor 2014 campaign purchased space on some slates for “No on D” while the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce PAC purchased slates for “Yes on D.” Looking at the slates that have been landing in mailboxes, the “Yes” side seems to be on more slates – but it’s hard to quantify the impact and it’s probably a wash on that front.
The “No on D” campaign reports taking in $1,975 in two donations: $975 from Mayor Tait, and $1,000 from James Vanderbilt – the AUHSD trustee who is Tait’s candidate for council this November and who has quickly become the mayor’s Man Friday. $349 was spent on a robocall that went out about 10 days ago, and $1,042 on signs. The latter is enough to have COGS print them but not enough to have COGS puts them up. “No on D” will have to rely on volunteers to put up sing, which would explain why you hardly see any of them.
The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce PAC has already sent out a mailer that hit this weekend:
The OC Register editorial board is rolling out its endorsements for the June primary ballot. Weighing in on the three proposed amendments to Anaheim’s city charter: Measures C,D and E, the OCR editorial board got two out of three correct.
The OCR supports a “yes” vote on Measure C (a bundle of largely technical modifications to the charter); and on Measure E – which would legalize the sale and use of safe-and-sane fireworks in Anaheim. The endorsement of E is no surprise, given the Register’s long-standing support for the legalization of fireworks.
Where the editorial board got it wrong, in my opinion, was in opposing Measure D, which would change the mayor’s term to two-years. The reasons the newspaper cites for opposing it:
The change would take effect immediately, rather than after Mayor Tom Tait has been elected to and served a second term
- Concern that Measure D “will do nothing more than clip Mayor Tait’s wings.”
- The editorial also expressed the suspicion that Measure D was “political gamesmanship” aimed at a single person – Mayor Tait.
The irony here is that by basing its opposition not on concern for how Measure D might affect the office of mayor, but out of concern for how it might affect a specific individual – the OCR editorial board is committing, in principle, the same sin of which it suggests Measure D proponents are guilty. Tom Tait is not the last mayor Anaheim will ever have, and the city will have a different mayor in December of 2014, 2016 or 2018.
Anaheim Insider here.
John Phillips, host of a mid-day conservative talk radio show on AM790, took aim at Mayor Tom Tait on Tuesday, hammering him over the Angels negotiations. Phillips also spent part of the segment interviewing Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray. He tried to draw her into joining him in slamming the mayor. Murray didn’t take the bait and stuck to her message of finalizing a deal based on the negotiation MOU (although that didn’t stop Phillips from continuing to swing away at the mayor).
Readers can listen to a podcast of the segment.
Why is this man smiling?
The first independent expenditures of the 2014 Anaheim election season came from the Tom Tait for Mayor 2014 committee, which made $4,999 in IEs between March 26 and April 25 buying “No on Measure D” spots on slate mailers for the June primary election.
The Form 496 filed for the IE also offer an early glimpse at Tait’s mayoral fundraising since the New Year: since the mayoral/council election isn’t until November, campaign reports ordinarily would be due until June 30. According to the report, Tait’s 2014 fundraising has been robust, adding $51,099 to his re-election war chest – the bulk of it in March and April.
When you consider Tait raised $84,574 during all 12 months of 2013, his haul this year is pretty impressive – especially for someone who really doesn’t like fundraising. The IE filing only lists contributions and not expenses, so it’s hard to say what the Tait for Mayor cash-on-hand is – but I’d guess it’s a little over $100,000 at this point.
A question prompted by this expenditure is whether it’s the beginning of a larger IE effort by the Tait for Mayor committee to defeat Measure D, or merely nailing down slates until there’s money in the newly-established Committee Against Measure D.
Vote-by-mail ballots went out today. It’s a pretty safe bet that well over 50% of Anaheim voters will cast VBMs this June, we’ll find out pretty soon how much of his re-election funds Mayor Tait will put into beating Measure D.
Stay tuned.
I haven’t posted anything in many, many months. Blogging wasn’t really in my wheelhouse.
However, a friend sent me this op-ed published by Mayor Tom Tait several days ago in the Orange County Register. It struck a nerve with me. Angered me, truth be told; and I feel it is an issue worth discussing.
Mayor Tom Tait write an opinion column touting public safety as his number one priority. However, it appeared his real purpose was re-packaging personal initiatives like “Hi Neighbor” as public safety programs. The mayor said relatively little about actual law enforcement and taking criminals off the street other than a boilerplate “I have been tremendously proud of our Anaheim Police Department in their efforts to meet the public safety needs of our growing, diverse and complex city,” offered in an almost check-the-box way.
The gap between those words and his actions as mayor disturbs me. How can Mayor Tait say he is proud of Anaheim police officers and at the same time embrace activists who routinely stand in front of him at council meetings to denounce those officers as thugs, racists and murderers? Tait doesn’t respond by telling these speakers of his pride in the Anaheim police department. On the contrary, at a recent council meeting marked by protesters saying “f— the police,” Mayor Tait went out of his way to personally assure them the Anaheim police would not seek them out in retaliation for their hateful rants. How can Tom Tait tell Anaheim residents he’s proud of their police if he thinks it’s necessary to promise those same police won’t search out critics for pay-back? If I were one of the Anaheim police officers in the council chamber, I’d feel as though my mayor is tacitly agreeing with the protesters that I’m dangerous.
Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Shaikin has a column that, I think, fairly and accurately sums up why negotiations between the City and Anaheim and the Angels are stalled:
You’re the mayor. A guy walks into City Hall and offers to spend half a billion bucks to revitalize property owned by the city, at no cost to the city. What do you say?
If you’re Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait, you call it a taxpayer giveaway.
This is not a knock at Tait. This is a tip of the cap toward a mayor who has been so incredibly successful in framing the debate surrounding the Angels’ stadium lease negotiations that the process has ground to a dead halt.
It has been six months since the Anaheim City Council voted to approve the framework of a deal designed to keep the Angels in town for the long term, and to determine how to cover the estimated $150 million needed to keep Angel Stadium up and running for the long term.
The Angels first asked the city for cash. The city, properly, said no.So the two sides agreed the Angels would cover that $150 million and, in exchange, would lease the land surrounding the stadium — the parking lots — for $1 per year. If the Angels successfully developed the land, they could make back that money, and maybe more.
In Anaheim, the mayor has one vote on the City Council. Tait was outvoted, 4-1, but he has publicly objected to proceeding with the deal ever since.
It is not so much that Tait is the voice of the opposition. It is that Tait is the only voice.
Shaikin goes on:
Anaheim Insider here.
I recently criticized agitator Cynthia Ward’s FPPC complaint against Kris Murray as nonsense. Ward claims Murray violated the FPPC’s mass mailing rule because she’s featured in an Anaheim Chamber of Commerce mailer. I’ll let her faulty reasoning speak for itself:
The complaint is nearly done formatting, let’s see, do I have it all?
Chamber accepts public funds. Check.
Tangible item. Check.
Mailed to at least 200 addresses. Check.
Public official name and/or photo included. Check.
Official participated in the mail piece. Check.That about does it.
Ward is guilty of a double standard, because Mayor Tom Tait is all over the Chamber of Commerce invites to the annual State of the City event. If Ward really believes in Murray is in violation of the mass-mailing rule, then she must also file a complaint against Tait. Otherwise, it’s simply a case of the mayor’s biggest cheerleader harassing one of his critics (which we all know is really the case).
Anaheim Insider here. The real one.
Tom Tait had a campaign fundraiser last week. It was mildly attended from what this insider’s sources have said: about 40 people, give or take. Many were family members or staff, along with those you’d expect: Amin David, Jose Moreno, Cynthia Ward; the mayor’s personal clique of supporters more than neighborhood representation. No surprising given how the mayor has progressively alienated his supporters.
Tait touched on the topic of his opponents. He took partial credit for Councilwoman Lucille Kring’s election in 2012 and called her a flip-flopper, and mentioned Lorri Galloway as his friend and colleague who decided to run against him.
Tait kept up his pitching for the Democrats’ pet party-building project in central OC: by-district council election in Anaheim. he pointed out that by-district elections would be on the November ballot and thanked Jose Moreno, the liberal ethnic politician whose lawsuit against Anaheim cost the taxpayers almost $3 million. Tait said by-districts elections would give everyone a voice; someone might let him know that the same number of people can vote in both at-large and by-district elections.
“Outrage Over Police Shooting Dominates Council Meeting”
So reads the headline of the March 26 Voice of OC article on public speakers who voiced their outrage at last week’s city council meeting.
To recap the shooting:
- Two probation officers checking up on a parolee, approached three men in broad daylight near the intersection of La Palma and Citron. Two of the three men ran away. One of those was Robert L. Moreno, Jr., a documented gang member and felon with a violent criminal history.
- While fleeing, Moreno brandished his weapon at a mother and her young children who were getting out of their car, threatening to kill them if they talked to the police.
- Moreno was hiding behind a trashcan when K9 Bruno (on a 20-foot leash) found him. Moreno opened fire, hitting the dog.
So, the parade of angry speakers at last week’s council meeting were outraged at Moreno’s callous disregard for life, at his threatening an innocent family with death, at firing his weapon at law enforcement officers – right?
Wrong.
They were outraged…at the police.
One talking point made by advocates of single-member council districts for Anaheim is that is it not a political project of the Left – notwithstanding the fact that the organizational and political heft behind the push for council districts is coming from a coalition of left-wing political organizations and figures such as OCCORD, UNITE-HERE, the Democratic Party of Orange County, the Orange County Labor Federation, the ACLU, Dr. Jose Moreno, Amin David, Vivian Pham, etc. The smattering of Republican supporters serve as a tissue of bi-partisan camouflage.
Take this flyer for a “Rally for Anaheim” rally to be held March 22 at Little Peoples Park on March 22. The rally is being organized by two left-wing non-profits, OCCORD and Orange County Congregation Community Organization – with special guest Mayor Tom Tait:
The Facebook page invites people to come and “Show your civic pride and join us to learn more about district elections in Anaheim.”
One of the organizers listed on the flyer is Marisol Ramirez, a director of OCCORD and an organizing intern for the militant UNITE-HERE Local 11. Here is Ms. Ramirez at last summer’s anti-police rally (organized AnswerLA.org and now-Anaheim Council candidate Donna Acevedo) waving a Party for Socialism and Liberation sign saying “COPS: George Zimmermans With A Badge“:
Marisol Ramirez holding a Party for Socialism and Liberation sign saying “Police Are George Zimmermans With A Badge.”
A Voice of OC story published this morning regarding news that Angels owner Arte Moreno had met with the City of Tustin about possibly moving his team to that fine city is basically a platform for Mayor Tom Tait to say “I told you so” (as the story headline says):
News that Angels owner Arte Moreno has reached out to Tustin leaders regarding a possible move did not surprise Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait in the least.
In fact, Tait said the inevitability of such hardball tactics from the billionaire team owner is exactly why he urged his City Council colleagues last year not to agree to extend the negotiating window on a new stadium lease, something they did anyway.
“To even be able to threaten leaving is only possible because the council majority unilaterally extended the time where they allowed the Angels to leave the existing lease to 2019 from 2016,” Tait said. “If they did nothing, then practically the Angels couldn’t go anywhere. And as I said when they voted on that, if the Angels do leave, you can trace it back to this vote.”
That’s one way to look at it, but by no means the definitive way or even the correct.
Critics of the MOU extending the opt-out date to 2019 claim leaving it at 2016 put the Angels over a barrel and the city in the negotiating driver seat. What leaving the opt-out date at 2016 would have done is increased the pressure on the Angels to make a decision quickly – and that decision could have easily been to exercise the opt-out clause, in which case the city would have found itself with a big, empty, fifty-year old stadium on its hands.
Anaheim City School District Trustee James Vanderbilt
UPDATED at the end of the post with additional information from another source.
One of the questions about this November’s election is who Mayor Tom Tait will recruit to run for city council in an attempt to build a majority and end what will be three years of isolation from his council colleagues. A telephone survey of Anaheim voters conducted this morning gives some indication of who those candidates might be.
I was briefed on the questions asked by a source who was surveyed this morning, and judging by the nature of the questions it seems very likely it was commissioned either by Tait’s mayoral campaign or by a person or organization interested in supporting his re-election.
The survey ran through a predictable array of issues, followed by asking respondents if Tait’s stance on the issue made them more or less likely to vote for him. For example, respondents were told Tait was the only vote against the GardenWalk deal or the Angels negotiation framework, and then asked if that made the respondent more or less likely to support Tait. Other issues used in this way were Tait’s support for requiring a city-wide vote on using TOT-rebate programs to encourage luxury hotel development or for single-member council districts.
The survey also tested messages against Lucille Kring and Lorri Galloway; for example, saying Kring reneged on a promise to oppose the GardenWalk deal and then asking if that made the responded more or less likely to support her.
Time to review the Form 460 campaign finance disclosure reports filed by the various incumbents and candidates seeking the favor of the voters in November.
MAYOR
Mayor Tom Tait (Republican) is seeking a second term, and is being challenged by Councilwoman Lucille Kring (Republican) and former Councilwoman Lorri Galloway (Democrat). Here their 2013 numbers:
Tom Tait (click here for report)
Raised: $84,574
Spent: $33,411.7
Cash on hand (COH): $73,858.52
Debt: $5,700 (owed to fundraiser Phyllis Schneider)
Loans: $0
Lucille Kring (click here for report)
Raised:$30,270
Spent: $3,896.86
COH: $26,373.14
Debt: $0
Loans: $0
Lorri Galloway (click here for report)
Raised: $7,000 (personal loan)
Spent: $4,000
COH: $3,000
Debt: $7,000
Loans: $7,000
For the sake of perspective, keep in mind that Tait was fund raising throughout 2013, raising the bulk of his funds prior to June 30 and $34,749 since then; considering Kring’s late entry and the fact that she didn’t begin raising money until December, her fund raising pace more than kept up with the mayor’s.
However, all the perspective in the world doesn’t change the reality that Mayor Tait has already locked up most of the key slate mailers and has $46,000 more cash on hand than Councilwoman Kring.
COUNCIL
Only three people have filed to run for city council: Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray, Councilwoman Gail Eastman and Rodolfo “Rudy” Gaona.
Kris Murray (click here for report)
Raised: $74,295.99
Spent: $21,683.65
COH: $57,777.94
Debt: $0
Loans: $0
Gail Eastman (click here for report)
Raised: $41,858
Spent: $7,535.31
COH: $44,581.69
Debt: $0
Loans: $0
Eastman didn’t get started on fundraising until late in the year, but both she and Murray have healthy campaign bank accounts as they enter 2014 with 8 months left for fundraising and no credible opponents in sight.
Readers may have gathered from my preceding posts (here, here and here) on the Charter Review Committee recommendations and the proposed charter amendments that has issued from the CRC’s work, but the more recommendations that were more political (for lack of a better descriptive) in nature were separated into discrete ballot measures. The rest of the recommendations – mainly streamlining-oriented charter changes sought by city staff — were assembled together in a single ballot measure (the proposed Measure 1).
That was the source of some discussion on Tuesday night. Citing the state’s “single subject rule” for statewide ballot initiatives, Mayor Tom Tait expressed his preference for putting each item in Measure 1 into a separate ballot measure for the sake of clarity and transparency. That has the downside of crowding the ballot with so many measures that they fail under their own weight.
City Attorney Michael Houston pointed out that ballot measures placed before voters by city councils are exempt from the single-subject rule, although the council could certainly apply that rule of its own volition. He provided direction on how Measure 1 could be separated into three different ballot measures, but believed a strong case could be made that Measure 1, as drafted, conformed to the single-subject standard because they are “reasonably germane” to the topic at hand – namely the restructuring and modernization of city government.
Anaheim Blog 
Recent Comments