Righeimer Gives Mansoor A Boost - Kinda

A "NON-POLITICAL" POLITICAL EVENT
Monday night Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, who owes his presence on the City Council to former councilman Allan Mansoor who appointed him to the Planning Commission a few short months after he moved to town to give him a leg up on the competition, hosted a "Stand Up With Jim" evening in Conference Room 1A at City Hall at which Mansoor - a candidate for City Council in November - was a "Special Guest".  It was payback time.

LOST?
A funny sidebar... I arrived at City Hall at exactly the same time Mansoor and his lovely little family arrived.  I went directly to the conference room through the front door but, for some reason, Mansoor walked his little brood all the way around the building and entered in the back door of City Hall.  Could it be that he got lost?  Anyhow, the wife and kids hung out in the lobby except when checking in from time to time, as in this image.

A SMALL CROWD SHOWED UP
Anyhow, on with the show.  Fewer than 30 people - many of whom are avid Righeimer supporters - showed up for this non-political, political stunt.  There were many familiar faces - some of whom you'll recognize in these images.

RIGHEIMER CONTROLLED THE DIALOGUE
As is his style, Righeimer controlled the conversation and, occasionally, remembered that Mansoor was in the room and threw him a bone to answer.  He opened by introducing Mansoor, who then gave a little history of his involvement in The City, including his previous 8 years on the council.

PUBLIC SAFETY
One of the first subjects discussed public safety - specifically police staffing and crime.  Mansoor, a former Orange County Deputy Sheriff, told us that it takes a long time to find, hire and train a good officer and praised Chief Rob Sharpnack for not reducing his standards to speed up the process.

JERRY BROWN'S LEGACY - MORE CRIMINALS ON THE STREETS
There was a discussion of Prop. 57, the latest scheme by Governor Jerry Brown to unleash more criminals on our streets, following in the wake of Prop. 47 and AB 109.  At one point Mansoor told the audience that simply hiring more cops wouldn't necessarily result in less crime.  He told us that we needed to "adjust our expectations".  That got everyone's attention, particularly when one speaker asked if he meant we shouldn't hire more cops.  He backpeddled a little, and referred to the above-mentioned pieces of legislation that turned criminals loose and changed some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.  Some of those crooks don't even get sent to jail.  Mansoor said they just laugh in our faces.

PETTY CRIMES NOT ENFORCED
Righeimer addressed those criminals on our streets and said, "They gotta eat", so they will commit petty crimes - auto burglaries, etc. - knowing that they won't go to jail.

HOMELESSNESS
Homeless was another issue discussed at length.  Righeimer said we've never really pulled out of the recession and blamed our homelessness situation on "attractants".  And, the problem is exacerbated by the proliferation of sober living homes in the city, some failed residents of which end up as homeless sometime criminals on our streets.

SOBER LIVING HOMES
Group Homes - sober living facilities - got a lot of discussion.  Righeimer explained some of the financial facts - very expensive drug tests, for example - that are paid for by insurance - ObamaCare.  Mansoor said there is no willingness to address the problem in Sacramento.  The lobby for this business is too strong.  Our two ordinances were discussed, as was the pending avalanche of request for Special Use Permits for existing units, asking for "reasonable accommodation".  The Solid Landings settlement was discussed, but Righeimer didn't acknowledge what activists have found out - that some of those homes have simply become occupied by other sober living entities.

BARRIE FISHER
Resident Barrie Fisher spoke of her neighborhood, which has several sober living homes adjacent to each other.  When asked by another resident about strategy to manage this issue, there was no real answer.

MARGARET MOONEY
Resident Margaret Mooney spoke up and complained that not enough was being done about homelessness.  Righeimer asked her what she wants to do, to which she replied we need permanent suppportive housing.  Righeimer brought up his red herring $20 million bond issue that was rejected.  Mansoor said we are willing to do our part, but that other cities should be encouraged to do their part.  He had no specifics about just how you incentivize other cities to take on some of the burden of homeless.

I KNOW IT ALL....
Righeimer reprised his old refrain about being on the OC Housing Commission for more than 12 years and that it's a tough problem because of all the attractants..  He suggested transitional housing, but Mooney told him HUD is not funding transitional housing.  He rejected the "voucher for life" solution.  I asked Mansoor if, during his tour in Sacramento, he saw any indication that the State is interested in solving what is clearly not just a local problem.  He said no - that state government is broken.

BATTER UP!
Ron Amburgey wondered to Mansoor if we still had a problem with illegal immigrants because that was his big cause when he was on the council.  Mansoor said we took more than 1300 criminals off our streets during his tour - clearly a softball tossed to him by a friend.  A resident wondered about the continuing costs of the Benito Acosta affair - which she supposed was over $800,000 at this time.

The meeting ended promptly at 7:30 after 90 minutes of spirited discussion - most of it by Righeimer.  It was clear that Mansoor didn't have many answers - not surprising.

FOLEY/GENIS TOMORROW
Tonight councilwomen Katrina Foley and Sandra Genis will hold a similar meeting in the same venue at the same time - 6:00 p.m.

A Sad State Of Affairs

QUITE A ROLLERCOASTER RIDE

For more than a decade I've written on this blog and elsewhere about Costa Mesa and the politics of this city.  During that time there have been many, many highs and certainly a few lows, too.  For example,

EVEN CLOWNS ELECTED
We've seen people like the chronically-inept Chris Steel elected to City Council after trying nine times before.

THE SEWER OF RACISM
We've seen the political discourse driven, from time to time, by a notorious racist.

BENITO ACOSTA
We've seen a Latino activist dragged from a City Council meeting and arrested.  The costs for the ensuing lawsuit continue to show up on Warrants to this day, ten years later.

THE LEADER OF THE TAKEOVER
We've seen a carpet-bagging political opportunist move to town and almost immediately be appointed to a prestigious commission in repayment for campaign support by a re-elected council member.  That provided him with the political platform to be elected and re-elected (barely) to the City Council.

PROFITS BEFORE SERVICE

He led a cadre of wrong-thinking individuals in a take over city government and attempt to "run it like a business", forgetting that a municipal government IS NOT a business - it exists only to provide services to the populace, not produce a product for profit.

ACTIONS RESULT IN LAWSUITS
That group immediately created chaos in City Hall by attempting to - illegally - layoff nearly half of the members of the Costa Mesa City Employees Association - the so-called Miscellaneous Employees.  That act resulted in one young distraught employee to leap to his death from the roof of City Hall and a lawsuit that remains unresolved to this day, more than 4 years later.

ANTI-PUBLIC SAFETY BIAS

We've seen the two top elected city officials actually sue the men and women of the Costa Mesa Police Department, while gutting that once-proud department by imposing unrealistic staffing levels and spending hard-earned tax dollars filling potholes instead of providing public safety.  The toxic atmosphere they created caused experienced officers to retire early and/or seek jobs with other venues.  They forced the delay in replacing those officers, putting public safety in jeopardy by reducing staffing levels unseen in this city in more than two decades.

UNNECESSARY COMMITTEES

We've seen those same men create a list of unnecessary new committees and stack them with cronies as payback for political support.  These unnecessary committees sucked up thousands of valuable staff hours performing analysis and reports at a time when their skills were required elsewhere.

THE CHARTER, TWICE!
We've seen them attempt to change the basic structure of municipal government by jamming a Charter down our throats, only to have that scheme overwhelmingly rejected TWICE by the voters.

PLACING BLAME, BUT TAKING NO ACTION
We've seen them vilify municipal employees because unfunded pension liabilities have created fiscal complications, but they refuse to take any positive steps to resolve that issue.

GREASING DEVELOPMENT SKIDS
We've seen ordinances passed that dissolve protections for the residents in favor of greasing the skids for developers, who will build projects then never been seen again, leaving residents to deal with the aftermath of overtaxed infrastructure.

SQUEEZING OUT BUSINESSES
We've seen ordinances passed that penalize business owners for calling public safety organizations to receive protection from unsafe and/or illegal situations at their establishments.  The goal, as stated unequivocally by elected officials, was to force those business owners to take a more "realistic" view of the value of their businesses by pummeling them with fines to encourage them to sell out to developers.

PITTING NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR

We've seen ordinances passed that almost seem designed to turn neighbor against neighbor.  Simultaneously, they have created and implemented a smart phone app that encourages that same behavior.  In fact, one of our top elected officials may be the biggest proponent of this app and regularly snaps photos and reports folks who have allowed their lawn to grow too long and other similar minor infractions.

SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT CADRE

They created a cadre of special Code Enforcement officers outside the normal structure who report directly to the Executive Offices, and they've been used as a personal enforcement unit by the City Council majority.

VILIFICATION AND THREATS

During recent years we've seen political discourse sink to, perhaps, the lowest level in any one's memory.  We've seen critics increasingly step up during meetings to present opposing views, only to be chided by members of the City Council.  We've seen members of the public admonished and threatened by officials for speaking out.  We've had members of the public warned against speaking out by staff members.

FREE SPEECH QUASHED

We've seen Freedom of Speech placed in jeopardy by procedures implemented which are specifically designed to discourage participation by the public.  They have institutionalized stifling of dissent.

STRANGLING DISCUSSION
And, this stifling of dissent has spread beyond the walls of City Hall.  A social media site has been created that crows about being the "best source of news about Costa Mesa" and invites all-comers to join in the discussion.  Several elected and appointed community leaders actively participate in the discussions, expressing their opinions on important issues and openly criticizing opposing views.  But the out-of-town rabble-rousers - with no vested interest in the future of Costa Mesa - who administer it block dissenting voices by either refusing to admit them to the site or by ousting those already on board if they dare to express an opposing viewpoint.  In addition, they troll other competing sites and expel members from their site if they dare to post a critical comment.  And, despite their claim of being a superior news site, non-members may not even observe and read that "news", much less particpate in the discussions.  It is a site for insiders only, where like-minded individuals chatter back and forth, agreeing with each other and presuming their views on important issues are the correct views.  This kind of strangulation of public discussion reeks of WWII Germany.  It shouldn't be too surprising, since the aforementioned racist is a major driver of conversations on the site.  How very sad for those folks who joined up expecting more, only to find discussions framed by an internationally notorious Nazi sympathizer.

A NEW LOW
This weekend, though, we may have seen the bar set at it's lowest point.  It has been widely reported that during what has historically been the City's favorite family event, the Lion's Club Fish Fry at Fairview Park, two prominent members of the public - one a former elected and appointed official and the other an activist and former candidate for City Council - got into a heated disagreement that ended with one spitting in the face of the other after being mocked about his disability.  The other man then retaliated with what was described as a "sucker punch" to the face.  We are told that it ended at that point.  To our knowledge, although there apparently were several witnesses to the event, no charges have been filed.

A SAD COMMENTARY

From what I know of this situation, there likely was fault on both sides and was the result of long-simmering animosity between the two participants, but there is no excuse for that behavior.  Unfortunately, this only further demonstrates how the political process and attendant discourse has declined in our city during this current regime.  The incivility on social media comment threads, including the threads on our two local newspapers, seems to have emboldened bad behavior on both sides of the important issues facing our city.  That bad behavior finally manifested itself in physical confrontation this weekend.  It's a sad, sad commentary on political life in our city.

Adios, Free Speech - The Dictator Has Spoken!

 DICTATORSHIP TO BE ESTABLISHED
Next Tuesday evening, July 1st, very near the end of the scheduled City Council meeting, the Costa Mesa City Council will be asked to consider replacing an existing section of the Municipal Code - section 2-61, Propriety of conduct while addressing the council, with a completely new version of this ordinance titled Conduct While Addressing The Council.

"BENITO ACOSTA" TAUGHT US NOTHING!
The lengthy staff report, HERE, outlines why the contract legal council, to which we pay outlandish fees, think this is necessary.  They use as a reference point the Benito Acosta affair in which then-mayor Allan Mansoor  cut his presentation off at 2:25 and had him dragged from the council chambers because he wanted to finish his allotted three minutes.  It's been nearly a decade since that event and, based on what this new ordinance says, it looks like we've learned NOTHING!  And we're still paying, literally, for it to this date.  References are made on almost every Warrant the council approves for charges for "Acosta Appeal", or similar entries.  Ironically, the Warrant included in the Consent Calendar of this meeting staff report does NOT include an Acosta reference.

FIRST MUZZLING, NOW JAIL TIME
I've written many times in this space about the heavy-handedness of the current council majority and, more specifically, Mayor Jim Righeimer when it comes to stifling dissent.  He's manipulated the agenda to quash public comments by forcing folks to wait until the very end of the meeting - sometimes well after midnight - to step to the podium to address valid concerns with the elected leaders of this city.  He frequently interrupts speakers, including fellow-councilmembers, during their specified time, which certainly breaks their thoughts and diminishes their presentations.  Fortunately, Sandra Genis and Wendy Leece refuse to let him bully them.

NOT A CARROT - A CLUB
This new ordinance, if passed as it is written, provides the authority to the mayor to bludgeon speakers into submission and to abridge their right of free speech.  If the council follows this advice it will be like funding a retirement annuity for Orange County lawyers, who we will have to pay to defend actions based on this bogus ordinance for decades to come!

I IMAGINE...
I can see it now... "Stop talking!  Somebody else already said something like that!"  "Shut up, or else!"  "Sir, please leave the chambers, now!"  "Officer, please escort that person from the council chambers!"  "Sir, I told you to leave and now you've returned!  Officer, please arrest that person for violation of Section 2-61, b (8) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code - being repetitive!"

TAKE A MINUTE TO READ IT...
I've copied and pasted the text of much of this proposed new section of the Municipal Code below.  Take a couple minutes to review it.  I've highlighted some of the sections I think are going to be problematic in bold red for ease of reading.

"UNDULY REPETITIVE"
In my view, perhaps the most egregious item on this list - one that could end up with a speaker being charged with a misdemeanor if carried to the extreme, is number 8.  This item describes an act of disorderly behavior as, "Continuing to speak after being informed by the presiding officer that the comments are unduly repetitive of either prior comments from that speaker or comments by other speakers."  So, the mayor gets to decide whether your comments - the product of your own thought processes and passions - are "unduly repetitive" of comments made by other speakers?  Really?  This item, alone, tells me that we've learned nothing from the Benito Acosta affair.

AND MORE...
I suspect some of you may find other elements of this proposed section of the Municipal Code troubling, too.  To me it clearly demonstrates that the mayor will stop at nothing to clamp down on opposing views, including violating the right of free speech.

HERE'S THE TEXT OF THE NEW SECTION:

2-61 Conduct while addressing the council.

(a) Any person who engages in disorderly behavior that actually disrupts,
disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any city council
 meeting shall, upon an order by the presiding officer or a majority of the
city council, be barred from further audience before the city council during
that meeting, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c), below.

(b) Disorderly behavior under subdivision (a) may include, but is not limited to,
the following:

(1) Speaking without being recognized by the presiding officer.

(2) Yelling, or using a loud, disturbing voice.

(3) Using profanity or obscene gestures.

(4) Continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired.

(5) Speaking on an item at a time not designated for discussion by the
public of that item.

(6) Throwing objects.

(7) Speaking on an issue that is not within the jurisdiction of the city
council.

(8) Continuing to speak after being informed by the presiding officer
that the comments are unduly repetitive of either prior comments
from that speaker or comments by other speakers.

(9) Attempting to engage the audience rather than the City Council.

(10) Disobeying any lawful order of the presiding officer or a majority of
the city council.

(11) Refusing to modify conduct after being advised by the presiding
officer that the conduct is disrupting the meeting.

(c) Enforcement. The rules of conduct while addressing the city council set
forth above shall be enforced in the following manner:

(1) Call to order and warning to desist. Whenever practicable, the
presiding officer or a majority of the city council shall give a warning
to the person who is breaching the rules of conduct to be orderly
and to comply with the rules of conduct hereunder. Such a warning
 shall articulate the rule of conduct being violated and the manner in
which the person must comply.

A warning shall not be necessary when it would not be effective
under the circumstances, including when, but not limited to, the
disturbance is such that the warning cannot be heard above the
noise, or the conduct of the person or persons constitutes an
immediate threat to public safety, such as the throwing of objects or
specific threats of harm and the apparent, present ability to carry
out such threats. A warning shall also not be necessary when an
individual violates the rules of conduct more than once during a
council meeting, or continuously violates the rules of conduct
council meeting after council meeting.

(2) Order barring person from meeting. A person who engages in
disorderly behavior shall be barred from the remainder of that
council meeting by the presiding officer or a majority of the city
council when that person: (i) continues the disorderly behavior after
receiving a warning pursuant to subdivision (c)(1); (ii) ceases the
disorderly behavior upon receiving a warning pursuant to
subdivision (c)(1), but later in the same council meeting resumes
such disorderly behavior; or (iii) engages in disorderly behavior and
no warning is practicable under the circumstances, pursuant to
subdivision (c)(1).

The continuation of disorderly behavior after receiving a warning,
repeated disorderly behavior during a council meeting, disorderly
behavior at council meeting after council meeting, or disorderly
behavior that is so significant that a warning cannot be given,
constitutes the type of behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs or
otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a city council meeting.
 
(3) Removal. If the person barred from the meeting does not voluntarily
remove him/herself upon being instructed to do so by the presiding
officer or a majority of the city council, the presiding officer or the
majority of the city council may direct the sergeant-at-arms to
remove that person from the council chambers.

(d) The following conduct shall be unlawful and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor:

(1) Continuing to engage in disorderly conduct, which disrupts, disturbs
or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any city council
meeting, after receiving a warning pursuant to subdivision (c)(1) of
this section.

(2) Refusing to leave a city council meeting after being directed to do
so pursuant to subdivision (c)(2) of this section.

(3) Returning to a council meeting after being barred, removed or
directed to leave such meeting pursuant to subdivisions (c)(2) and
(c)(3) of this section. 

YOU MAY WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ONE...
As the mayor continues to steamroll over our rights, I suspect there may be one or two of you who feel strongly enough about this to step to the speaker's podium Tuesday evening to address it with the council.  Keep in mind that it's not the law yet, and the old ordinance had the word "insolent" removed from it because that was a problem.  So, I guess you can be insolent if you wish - I don't recommend it, though.  And, I certainly don't recommend you echo resident Tim Lewis from the last council meeting.  Otherwise, just tell them how you feel.

A VIDEO REMINDER...
And now, Benito Acosta, Allan Mansoor, and former Police Chief John Hensley reprise their roles in this video clip.  As an aside, look for Tea Partier Phil Morello, bellowing at the top of his lungs at the very end of the clip.  It's always a pleasure...

What Does The Agenda For Tuesday's Council Meeting Tell Us?

THE NEXT DICTATORIAL SHOW
The Costa Mesa City Council will meet again next Tuesday, May 20, 2014 in City Council Chambers at City Hall for the next installment in government by imperial decree.  The closed session will begin at 4:30 and the open session is scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m.  The closed session - held in Conference Room 5A -  involves conferences with negotiators for all three of the employee organizations - the Costa Mesa Police Officers Association (CMPOA), the Costa Mesa City Employee Association (CMCEA) and the Costa Mesa Firefighters Association (CMFA).  You can read the entire agenda HERE.

CONVERSATION
There are no presentations presently scheduled so, after Public Comments, Council Member Comments and the report from CEO Tom Hatch, the Consent Calendar will be considered.  Typically, items on the Consent Calendar are of a routine nature so may be handled in one single vote.  That hasn't happened in a long time, though.  If someone - a staff member, council member or member of the public - requests an item be pulled for separate discussion Mayor Jim Righeimer has decreed by royal edict that those items be trailed until the end of the meeting.  That means if you are concerned about an issue you'd better pack a lunch and bring a pillow.

CONSENT CALENDAR - WARRANT 2515
Items of interest on the Consent Calendar include #3, Warrant 2515, HERE, which shows us payments that have been made recently to vendors.  I'll give you just a little taste with a few that caught my eye.

• Apple One Employment Services - $5,930.24 for nine separate entries for temporary employees for Planning, Development Services and Recreation.
• Albert Grover & Associates, Inc. - $78,517.01 for "Baker/Placentia TSSP" for February and March
• Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - $14,543.00 for legal services for the 60th Anniversary Investigation and more.
• Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth - $18,270.00 for legal services
• Accountemps - $2,874.51 for Finance temporary help
• Government Staffing Services, Inc. - $2,200.00 for Project Management Temporary Services
• Jones Day - $2,280 for CMCEA legal services thru 2/28/14
• Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - $8,570.00 for PD labor negotiations and CMCEA Labor Negotiations
• Melad & Associates - $5,490.00 for Bldg Permit Technical Services
• Meyers Nave - $2,600.94 for Fairview Park legal services
• Scientia Consulting Group, Inc. - $3,823.75 for IT Service
• Woodruff Spradlin & Smart - $1,115.70 for legal services for Benito Acosta v City! Still?!

ACOSTA?  STILL?
You'll note that we spent nearly $50,000 on legal expenditures on this warrant, including another $1100 on Benito Acosta - former Mayor Allan Mansoor's gift that just keeps on taking, and taking - a decade later.

ELECTION DETAILS
Number 5, HERE, is a group of resolutions regarding the November elections.  The staff report is interesting reading.

FIXING FIRE STATION #4
Number 6, HERE, is for architectural and engineering services for modification of Fire Station #4 to accommodate larger apparatus.

SQUEEZING A "PROBLEM MOTEL" OWNER
Public Hearing #1, HERE, is the appeal of the Planning Commission's recent revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for the Sandpiper Motel on Newport Boulevard that allows extended occupancy of rooms at the facility.

APARTMENTS AND...
Old Business #1, HERE, and #2, HERE, involve the second reading for the 240-unit apartment complex at 125 East Baker Street.  Despite the fact that the city has roughly 60% rental residents and 40% owners, the City Council seems determined to pass this project in a commercial/industrial zone.  This will almost certainly drive adjacent industrial businesses away in the very near future.  So much for being "business friendly"!

...MORE APARTMENTS!
New Business #1, HERE, is VERY interesting.  This is a General Plan Screening request to develop a 236-unit residential development at the site of one of Mayor Jim Righeimer's "problem motels" - the Costa Mesa Motor Inn.  This is request to re-zone the property from General Commercial to High Density Residential, permitting 59 dwelling units per acre.  Some will recall that the mayor has stated quite boldly that it was his goal to cause owners of "problem motels" to take a more realistic view of the value of their properties.  Well, apparently his plan has sufficiently bludgeoned the owner of this particular property that he is now considering a change in use.  Former Development Services Director Don Lamm will apparently make the pitch for what is being called "Costa Mesa Luxury Apartments".  Here we  are again with more apartments - this will make nearly 600 discussed at this meeting Tuesday.

RENEWAL OF HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY AGREEMENT
The last item on the agenda, HERE, is the renewal of the user agreement with the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS) for 5 years.  If approved, this is a good decision by the council.  The members of the HSS have been good tenants and good stewards of their little slice of Fairview Park.

Latinos And Election Of Council Members By District

AN INTERESTING ARTICLE
A long piece by Jill Cowan in the Daily Pilot Saturday afternoon titled, "At-large voting: Latino handicap?", HERE, will certainly generate some interesting discussion in Costa Mesa political circles.

CHANGE IN STATE LAW?
A bill proposed by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, would force all General Law cities with populations over 100,000 to elect council members by district.  In my view, this is a major over-reach by the State government.  If the objective is to provide more "representation" to our large Latino community, perhaps it should begin by getting out their votes.  History shows us that the large mostly-Westside population of Latinos seldom turn out at the polls, nor do they put forward candidates for commissions or committees.

REPRESENTATION
If the goal is to have each geographic area of the city "represented", we don't need this new law to do it.  Wendy Leece, Eric Bever and Allan Mansoor have represented the Westside in recent years.

NOT LIKELY...
However, if the Hernandez bill is an attempt to guarantee that one particular ethnic group is "represented", then perhaps we need a law that requires EVERY ethnic group have proportional representation on the City Council.  Of course, I offer that as an example of the absurd...

NO GUARANTEES
While I agree that we have seen few Latinos run for office - Cowan mentions Mirna Burciaga's failed campaign a few years back - simply forcing the city to elect council members by district would not necessarily result in more Latinos participating in the process.

PANDERING TO RADICALS
I began paying attention to local politics about the time Chris Steel and Allan Mansoor were elected.  Mansoor became the darling of the far right radicals among us.  He was named an honorary Minuteman, for goodness sake.  He is notorious for tossing Benito Acosta out of a council meeting and having him arrested after cutting short his time at the speaker's podium.  We are STILL paying legal fees on the lawsuit that resulted from his hasty, ill-advised act.  During his tenure, with the urging of current councilman Gary Monahan, the Job Center was shuttered, forcing day laborers back onto street corners - and it generated even more legal problems.

THE MOUTH FROM MESA NORTH
For most of the last decade a big part of the political agenda in Costa Mesa was driven by the persistent drumbeat of one racist individual, who took credit for both getting Steel elected and then, later, rejected by the voters.  He crows about getting Paularino Park - in his Mesa North neighborhood - turned into a passive park, forcing mostly Latino soccer players to find another venue for their after work exercise.  Fortunately, that campaign stopped right there.  Although that person continues to spew racist views from his blog and elsewhere online, his influence in the city has diminished - a good thing for all of us.

OK, BUT...
I DON'T necessarily have a problem with Costa Mesa council members being elected by district.   But the votes should be limited to residents within each district, not at-large, the way it's done in Newport Beach.  Candidate Lee Ramos, (shown here with his campaign manager, Dennis Popp) quoted in Cowan's article, seems concerned that by doing so we might "limit the talent we have in the city."  Of course, since he's part of the cabal controlled by country club cronies Mayor Jim Righeimer and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger, having been appointed to two very influential committees by them, I'm not surprised at his reaction.  If we were electing council members by district today he might be running against Monahan, who has shown to be virtually unbeatable each time he ran.

...THE STATE SHOULD BUTT OUT!
I DO have a problem with the State TELLING us how we must elect our council members.  Because of the strong liberal orientation in Sacramento, I won't be surprised if the bill proposed by Hernandez passes.  What I also have a problem with is that this bill will only add fuel to the fire for those in the community advocating a change to a Charter form of government.  Considering how the current council majority plays fast and loose with the existing rules, I shudder to thing of the damage they could do under a Charter form of government.

SHOULD BE INTERESTING
It's going to be interesting to 1) see what kind of discussion Cowan's article generates in the community and, 2) whether the bill Hernandez initiated gets passed by the state legislature.  It's an election year and his seat is up...