Friday, August 17, 2012

Trash station theater continues

Although no one seems to have tipped me off to the press conference (and why hold a press conference outside of a closed City Hall?) it looks like someone decided to file a lawsuit. I had predicted this some time ago but it does appear that the transfer station will be heard in a court of law. If someone can send me a copy of the case number and what was filed I would appreciate it.

For the IESC, the original organizers of the anti trash station movement, they get demerits from opponents for failing to persist after the project was opposed. "United Voices of Pomona" appear to be a newly constructed group with no web presence as of yet - it is unclear who the plaintiffs are or how many exist. As one person wrote on their Facebook page,
Hey IESC, didnt see you standing with the community at today's press conference. Were you too busy hanging out with the owners of this transfer station? Let me remind you that the community DOESN'T want this and we will make sure YOU and this transfer station go down. 

Of course, the many Pomonans without jobs or would like to see city services increased without taxing the population would disagree.

It also bleeds over into the 2012 elections, with the issue of the transfer station, the library, and possible tax increases for fire looming. The City Clerk has helpfully posted public contact information for all candidates.

For District 1, attorney John Nolte joins former Disneyland superintendent Jojo Doniza and Rubio Gonzalez against incumbent Danielle Soto. District 4 has transfer station supporter Candace Berry and labor organizer Juan Carlos Garcia Juarez against Paula Lantz, while District 6 may have the longest list of candidates, many of whom will be strong. Running against incumbent Steve Atchley are photographer Debra Martin, art dealer Ron Vander Molen, businesswoman Eunice Russell, Assemblywoman Norma Torres's son Robert Torres, and Mario Ramos. For Mayor running against incumbent Elliott Rothman are councilman Freddie Rodriguez and businessman Tomas Ursua.

Still no Ginna Escobar recall.


Anonymous said...

So who's going to win?

TJ said...

I can see the headlines now-The Transfer Station opposition having a rally celebrating their victory in the lawsuit, just as the lights go out in city hall for the last time because of the city going bankrupt. It is mentality like this that has kept Pomona in the bad financial and moral wasteland that it has become. Basing your campaign on fears and lies, misleading the public through simple scare tactics while claiming some kind of moral high ground continues to damage this city and its ever decreasing reputation. Lets hope some candidates with the guts and determination to actually stand up for what is best for Pomona in its current sad state of affairs; understand how budgets work, business is brought into the city, having some vision and guts, bringing accountability to city hall, setting a tone of honesty and ethics instead of figuring out which butt to kiss to get themselves elected or stay in office (for the perks) can win in this election cycle. We can't afford 4 more years of pay to play politics that is happening now.

calwatch said...

Incumbents have tremendous advantages in a multi candidate race. For mayor I could easily see the winner getting less than 40% of the vote... it depends on how serious Ursua wants to run, and how much fundraising he can get.

For the council seats, unless there is some bombshell, the average non involved voter will think that things are going OK and keep them in. They may have vaguely heard about the library closing, but that they saved it. Or they might have heard about the trash station, and wondered what the fuss was about. People turn out for presidential elections for the big issues, which are the presidency (even though it is irrelevant in this state) and the ballot measures. Much of the votes for city council candidates will be based on two things - slate mailers and sample ballot statements. Daily Bulletin take in Pomona is low (although the free shopper usually has at least one Pomona story), a highly select group of people read the blogs, and regional media ignore this town unless the library is closing or there's a shooting. Word of mouth is important in torpedoing someone, but it is less important in electing someone. I would not be surprised if the winner in District 6 ended up with less than a third of the vote.

John Clifford said...

I agree with Calwatch. It's a shame that someone can be elected that a vast majority voted against(as Cal said, with less than 1/3 of the vote would mean that 66% or more would have voted against them). We struggled with this issue on the Charter Review Commission. The city can't afford to run 2 elections to have a runoff and the feeling was that runoff elections have low voter turnout and voters don't like having to vote twice (although in presidential elections they seem to be OK with a primary/general).

The commission looked at a lot of options and decided to include Instant runoff voting or ranked voting as the preferred way to elect our officials. This method would let voters basically say how they would vote if there was a runoff and use those preferences to "instantly" runoff the election if there were not a clear majority for any of the candidates. However, the county doesn't have the capability at this time so even if we pass the charter amendment, it will probably be a decade or longer before the county can accommodate it. So we end up with those without a clear majority running our city (at least three of those on the council now won with less than 50% of the vote--again, meaning a majority of the people vote for someone else.