"Improvers", Carpetbaggers and Sounding Off
Over at the CM Press this morning the guy who very much resembles my theoretical character, Your Neighbor, presents a schedule of events for his readers to consider. Sound familiar?
Anyhow, part of his presentation today is a gloating rant about what he refers to as the no-planning commission, and makes reference to tonight's meeting being the first for the "improver" commission - stating that all the members have ties to the angry group of malcontents who describe themselves as "improvers". In my view, that's a real stretch. Four of the five certainly have strong ties to that group, with Sam Clark being the latest appointee. To say that carpetbagger Jim Righeimer is an "improver" tests credulity. He hasn't even been in town long enough to unpack his bags, for goodness sake. No, Righeimer is occupying that chair as political patronage until something better comes along - a council seat or maybe another run at the Assembly seat held by Van Tran. This perch will give him a place to get some name recognition until it's time to move on.
Incidentally, with at least four of the planning commissioners carrying the "improver" banner, what are chances of Brown Act violations among this group? Do you really think they won't be pre-fabricating decisions on development issues in this city? Just wondering...
Tuesday's council study session is going to be very interesting. The discussion of the Youth in Government program, trash-canned at a recent council meeting, will be enlightening. At last report, none of the New Majority had requested that any information be discussed or presented. It will be interesting to see just what kind of "input" our young jailer/mayor makes on this issue. You will recall, his reason for discarding this program was because he hadn't had a chance to provide input in the nine months after it was first introduced. Talk about a slow learner!
Sunday the Daily Pilot published one of my submissions under their "Sounding Off" banner (here). It's going to be very interesting to see what kind of comments are published in the online version responding to this particular piece. I'm thinking they will very likely prove my point. I'm grateful to the editors of the Daily Pilot for considering my commentary print-worthy.