I would like to thank Assemblyman Norby for his generous donation of exquisite Mexican food and Mr. Chris Thompson for his donation of beverages. While we ate dinner, the Brown-Whitman debate was tuned in on a donated TV. Among those joining us was congressional candidate Phil Liberatore and several other candidates for local races. Of course the Sebourn for Council balloons were a hit with the many children present and a distraction for those still working on their homework.
Although I wasn't planning the event as a fundraiser in and of itself, many of you chose to make donations in spite of the struggling economy and personal hardships. Others offered to take time out of their busy day to work the phones and call voters or walk precincts. Thank you. Unless a candidate is swimming in money to pay consultants and workers to walk and talk to voters, candidates like myself must rely on the charity of friends and family who are willing to sacrifice their time for the campaign. If you would like to donate money, time, or materials, please email me at email@example.com.
Also on hand was the assistant to the president of SCAG. You may recall SCAG from an earlier blog post I wrote here. Based on their own website, SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is the Big Brother everyone warned us about. SCAG infringes upon and nullifies the autonomy of municipal governance and creates a publicly funded government agency which voters have little to no control over. It would appear that my earlier blog post grabbed their attention sufficiently. The assistant to the president said she was conservative, which is neither here nor their. She then wanted to know how I planned to implement AB32.
My answer to SCAG: You are assuming that Prop 23 will not pass. Whether or not it passes, I intend to cut about 1/3 of the council's 2010 expenditures which I think will have a substantial impact on the City's carbon footprint. This is particularly evident when you see how much pollution the Redevelopment Agency's bulldozers belch out while they bulldoze homes. Let's also not forget the amount of various trips by staff to the Superior Court to fight law suits and condemn property. Nor can we forget about the bits and bites of data transmitted for those purposes, the lights under which the staff work, and all of the paper used to file law suits, motions, and exhibits.
But what I am wondering is why the assistant to the president, who introduced herself as a planner, would ask about AB32 and not issues pertaining to zoning and the general plan. For an agency with a mission statement of "developing and fostering the realization of regional plans that improve the quality of life for Southern Californians" they seem to be focused on an issue having little to do with land development or land planning. Rather than asking about AB32, she should have asked why I feel SCAG is Big Brother. Or why do feel SCAG is the embodiment of big tax and spend government. Instead, it was a bad law that will be impeded this November and eventually repealed or significantly amended which she chose to ask me about.
SCAG's existence while under the radar of taxpaying voters is coming to an end. It's time the taxpayers realize the breadth and depth of waste within this publicly funded special interest program known as SCAG.