Why Not Vote for the Best on March 8?
Angela Reddock – City
Council
Richard Alarcón –
Mayor
By Jim
Smith
It is perhaps the height of irony
that progressive voters want candidates who are not beholden to developers and
corporations. But when those candidates don't take big contributions from the
fat cats, they are said to be unelectable because they haven't raised enough
money!
Case in point: There are two candidates
running on the left side of the pack in the upcoming local elections - Angela
Reddock for our city council slot and Richard Alarcón for mayor.
Incredibly, some progressives are turning up their noses at these candidates,
not because of their positions on the issues, but because they haven't raised
enough (developer and corporate) money. Here's my personal view on why you
should not only vote for Reddock and Alarcón, but get out and campaign for
them.
Angela Reddock supports a
moratorium on commercial development until issues like traffic, protecting the
environment and overdevelopment can be resolved. Neither of the other candidates
favor such a moratorium. In addition, unlike the other council candidates,
Reddock is not receiving campaign contributions from developers.
Both of the other city council
candidates, Bill Rosendahl and Flora Gil Krisiloff, have been appealing to the
well-known progressive tendencies of voters in Venice and throughout the
district. However, a look at who is supporting them raises concerns.
Rosendahl is raising a great deal of
money from supporters outside the district because of his career as a TV
"personality." He is also raising money from developers, and from some leaders
of the anti-progressive faction in Venice, including Marta Evry, Robert Feist
and David Buchanan (They and their friends are also giving to Krisiloff). Last
week, former Mayor and Schwarzenegger-appointee Richard Riordan spent $24,978
for a mailer for Rosendahl, according to the city's Ethics Commission.
Riordan has spent a lot of money
trying to convince us that he is a "moderate" Republican, but if fact, he is
not. He was the leader of the "Impeach Rose Bird" campaign that destroyed the
progressive majority on the California Supreme Court. Bobbie Fiedler, who was
the anti-busing Queen of L.A. when the district was trying to integrate its
schools, has also contributed to Rosendahl. If he is as progressive as he claims
to be, then why are people like this so interested in getting him
elected?
Krisiloff's claim to fame was
from sitting on the West L.A. Planning Commission, where she was not
particularly known in supporting residents over developers. In addition to
getting her funding from assorted developers and anti-progressives, Krisiloff
has also received the endorsement from the current, unpopular councilmember
Cindy Miscikowski. It is rumored that she will retain Miscikowski's even more
unpopular rep for Venice, Sandy Kievman, if she is
elected.
It's been claimed by some who
are more interested in supporting the winning candidate rather than the best
candidate, that Angela Reddock can't win because she hasn't been able to raise
enough money. There is truth to the underlying argument that elections can be
bought. However, this is an election that will be decided by only a few thousand
votes. Getting into a runoff election will require even less votes. Therefore,
spreading the word, walking precincts, putting up signs, phone banking and other
traditional democratic ways of promoting a candidate can have a big impact.
Richard Alarcón is running
the kind of progressive campaign that Antonio Villaraigosa ran four years ago.
Unfortunately, Villaraigosa has chosen to campaign this time from the middle of
the road. Alarcón is the only candidate for mayor in 2005 who supports
community control of development. You can imagine the huge difference that could
make for the future of Venice if binding decisions about Lincoln Center or
preserving Lincoln Place were made in Venice. Alarcón has also made
fighting poverty a centerpiece of his
campaign.
He is also proposing the strongest ethics
requirements of any candidates. Plus, he has pledged to replace Dept. of
Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) chief, Greg Nelson, who has caused Venice so
much grief.
Like Reddock, Alarcón is an
underdog at this point. However, his ratings in the polls has been rising,
thanks to his strong showing in the debates. If any area goes strongly for
Alarcón, it should be Venice. We have the most to gain from having a
'Peoples' Mayor in Los Angeles.
A
statement by Gaius Marius is as relevant today as when he spoke it more than
2,000 years ago: "Election to a post of authority seems to change most men's
characters. As candidates, they are full of energy, humbly entreat your support
and behave with moderation. Once elected, they become arrogant and slothful."
Let is take care whose high-powered advertising we listen to and who we
elect.
You can check out who's giving
money to the city council and mayoral candidates at
<http://ethics.lacity.org>.
Posted: Tue - March 1, 2005 at 07:58 PM