I’m all het up today with some righteous indignation. What better time to un-retire the blog?
I’m not a political insider. I’m not a wealthy donor. I don’t own a big business that brings economic activity and jobs to the area. Whatever I’m not, I am a long-time citizen of Sactown and I’m concerned.
I’ve been reading about KJ’s strong mayor initiative and watching the story unfold at City Hall. Heck, I even attended one of the Charter Review Committee’s town meetings to learn more about it. I came away from that meeting with a very strong sense that this initiative is not what I want to see happen in this city.
First of all, I have yet to see a clear statement about what problem, exactly, we’re trying to solve here. Joe Serna, Phil Isenberg, and Anne Rudin were all very successful, influential mayors under the current system.
Second, the current SMI makes it more difficult for the public to address the mayor directly. To me, that sounds like less representation. I want to see the mayor at council meetings. I want the mayor to listen to what the citizens say. I’d especially like to see him respond to the citizens with something more substantive than “We’re done here.”
Third, the SMI was written by a very well-connected political consultant. There was no public vetting of the wording, the changes it makes in the city charter and mayor’s powers–nothing. This is one-sided. This is nonparticipatory. Sure, the ballot box is participatory, but why shove an unvetted initiative down the public’s throat? I dunno, that doesn’t sound like the “team player” mayor I thought we elected. And, why the big rush? Changing a city charter is important. I think it’s great that the city charter is being looked at. But shouldn’t major changes in the city’s governance structure be open to public debate? Shouldn’t the changes be implemented over time, rather than rushed? Don’t we want the job done right? The Charter Review Committee’s recommendations don’t sound like “business as usual” to me–as KJ accused them last night. They sound like thoughtful, considered recommendations from a group of intelligent people who have put in a lot of effort on citizens’ behalf.
Fourth, as a citizen, I am really unnerved by the “volunteers” running around city hall. What the hell are these people doing, anyway? There’s no accountability there. These people aren’t public servants. They don’t have Sacramento’s best interests in mind…or if they do, how would we know?
Fifth, I applaud the goal of bringing jobs and economic activity to Sacramento. I really do. But I am alarmed at the recent Nestle issue: We are being asked to conserve water in our homes, yet a large company can come in and buy vast amounts of our water at industrial rates and re-sell it at an enormous profit? Does this make sense? It sure doesn’t to me. Sure, they’re bringing in a few jobs, but aren’t we selling out here? Clearly, even to this untrained observer, this smacks of back-room dealin’s to me. I don’t know what they are, I don’t know who was involved, but it causes me to lose trust in my local government.
Finally, although there are like 800 more things that could be added here, why does KJ keep talking about education? Education is great. It’s important. It’s not his job. Let someone else do that, ‘kay? I want to see my mayor focus on doing the job we gave him. The rest is just distraction.
With the SMI, there’s no debate, no thoughtfulness. Sending it straight to the ballot gives us only two choices: take it or leave it. I’m saying no way, KJ.
/rant
