My friend Michael Jackson, who has taken on the formidable challenge of unseating an incumbent in the Redondo Beach City Council race, told me his uphill battle just got a little more difficult. It seems a person or people have embarked on their own campaign, a campaign to remove his name from public view.
It seems in the last week, five banners his campaign paid for and placed around the city have been stolen. The first thing I thought when I heard about it is probably the same thing you thought when you heard about it. Who stole the signs?
As I worked through the question, my first thought was someone who dislikes him for some reason stole the signs. That didn’t make sense, I’ve known Michael for a few years and he just doesn’t seem to evoke that kind of response from people. He’s a good guy and people like him. In fact, on the Harbor Commission, I’ve seen him work for harmony at times when I’ve chosen to give up on that possibility.
The next obvious answer would be one of his two opponents in the District 2 city council race. That one’s just too crazy. I can’t imagine a legitimate candidate for Redondo Beach City Council who would automatically assume his or her message was so weak the only chance of winning was to try to remove all of Michael Jackson’s yard signs from the city.
If it was just a rash of random yard sign thefts, the other candidates’ signs would be gone too but they all seem to be in place. That leaves only one group from which a suspect in these thefts could be found, supporters of one of Michael Jackson’s opponents.
No doubt, people get passionate about this political stuff. I’ll be honest. I thought about destroying a yard sign for the party I didn’t support in the 2012 presidential election. There are two reasons I didn’t follow through with those impulses, One, I’m not a sleazebag. Two, I’m not a thief.
I also knew that if my candidate’s message was sincere and persuasive, he’d win the election. More fundamental than that, I had to believe my candidate had a message. If a supporter or supporters of one of the candidates in District 2 feel the best way to win the election is to commit larceny on behalf of their candidate, I have to believe it’s an act of desperation by people who understand their candidate has no message.
Read more at Building the Best Redondo...
Definitely poor form but just as importantly it is ineffective.
AES has undeniable negative impacts on our City, our businesses and our environment. Why force residents to move, when that would not solve the problem? By your "the power plant was here first" analogy, the site should then rightfully be a salt lake with an unneeded salt production business, like it was long before there was any power plant near this site. Since we don't need it's power any more, and haven't for years, it is time to retire the power plant permanently. It is a no brainer.
I'm still trying to figure out how a blog post about yard signs turned into a pre-redorded message about particulate matter.
While Fred is one of the vocal ones, there are far many more residents and business owners of the same ilk. Would you have all them leave? Your ad hominem attacks ignore the base issues. Why should we allow one business so much adverse impact on our town? When many residents bought their homes the promise was the power plant was going away. Politicians said it, realtors said it, city staff said it. Mayor Greg Hill stated that ridding the town of the power plant was his mandate in 1997. The Heart of the City sold us on the phase out of the power plant in 2000-2002. We saw smokestacks come down under the promise the whole plant would be gone. We had a community visioning effort in 2004 which resulted in two visions, neither of which had a power plant. And the city staff who participated never stated keeping the power plant was required, desired or even likely. In 2004 City Staff recommended phasing out the power plant by rezoning. The City made a new power plant a "contingent use" and added the ability to specify a setaside for parkland in future development in 2008. And of course, the studies on the impacts of air pollution on health continue to reveal strong findings and evidence about how harmful the power plant pollutants are that did not exist just four years ago. This is not something that just started in 2011. This has been building since 1997. Things have changed substantially since the power plant was built. It is time to retire it permanently.
"And of course, the studies on the impacts of air pollution on health continue to reveal strong findings and evidence about how harmful the power plant pollutants are that did not exist just four years ago." Please name the studies of Redondo Beach...now notice I said Redondo Beach, not general studies about power plants and industrial pollution, from other places...Redondo Beach, I think my request is pretty clear here. I've been waiting for the studies of the air quality in Redondo Beach that substantiate your claims about the poor quality of our air. My mind is open on that subject but like many of my neighbors, I see through the smoke screen (excuse the pun) of self-serving, vague, political B. S. and wish you would produce the facts. Remember I said Redondo Beach. That is what we're talking about.
Stating facts and opinions contrary to another's statements is not "bullying". It is called "debate". Ad hominem attacks are "bullying".
When you have the money to fund the study of just Redondo Beach, you can ask for your own study. It will take years. We don't have the time or the money. There is ample evidence...even in AES' own submission. The Federal government is considering making the standards even tougher based on the corroborating recent medical studies showing just how bad these pollutants are. Even the AQMD rep testified to the City Council that there is no "safe" threshold for particulate pollution. The lower the exposure, the longer your life expectancy. But most disturbing are the recent studies that show the impacts on children's lung development. But even if you ignore the health and environmental impacts, you have the negative fiscal impacts on surrounding properties, businesses and the city itself. The City published its study on that in 2004 and concluded the power plant should be phased out by rezoning the property. We don't need the power. We should not let one company have such widespread negative impacts on our community.
I am saying that what YOU desire cannot be competed by the time a decision is made. Your article is about nasty politics. In two of your responses here you have first called us bullies, when it was Kelly who was bullying; and now liars without substantiating your denigration. Who is being "nasty" here? I have always cited evidence and in most cases posted the actual data or the links, but I have at least provided the references. I'd be happy to discuss my application and assessment of those references, if you'd be so kind as to be specific as to which specific statements you think are in error.
I don't live in Mr. Light's district, so I can't vote for or against him, but if I did, I would be concerned about how much time he feels necessary to spend on comment threads responding to every. single. comment... On every. single. article. How would you have time to run the city if you feel the need to spend so much time responding to people on the internet?
These responses take just a minute or so. Patch emails me to alert me when they are made. It's neither time consuming nor hard. I follow the Clinton edict that you leave no attack unanswered. Seemed to work for him.
But you make my point yet again. Another ad-hominem attack, rather than a well supported argument on the issues at hand.
The Citizens Growth Management and Traffic Committee set up by Mayor Gin met for over a year. It had between 20 and 30 folks representing stakeholders of all types across the city. 90% of our decisions were concensus opinions. We did not start that way on each decision, but through thoughtful debate we came to common ground on the vast majority of items. I value differing opinions. I may present contradictory data that supports my side of the debate, but that is hardly an attack. When the opposing side has no basis for their side of the argument or is clearly wrong, I call them out on it.