by Steve Strichart
Okay. So here goes… It has been the policy of the Signal Tribune to not publicly support one candidate over another. In 14 years, we have never endorsed any candidate. My wife Neena feels very strongly about this. However, there comes a time when, in my opinion, policies have to be “bent” in order to be responsible to our readers. I almost never try and push my opinions on my wife, but I do own half of this newspaper, and for this election I feel obligated to voice my opinion regarding Signal Hill’s Measure U.
I have read the measure front to back and sat through or watched city council meetings where the issue was discussed, argued and shouted about. The bottom line is that, as far as I’m concerned, Measure U does not do what the draftees first claimed it would or what it was intended to do. If Measure U would be such a wonderful and useful tool, why is it that no other city in the state of California has an even similar law on their books? It’s because the way the initative is written, it would be detrimental to the management of any city. Instead, we’ve learned that so much of the language is up to interpretation that, if passed, it could be dragged through the courts for years.
First of all, we elect our city council members to run the city to the best of their ability. That includes keeping us safe, providing us with clean water, and meeting our everyday basic needs as residents of our city. If they don’t do a good job, we can always replace them at the polls. I, for one, believe the present city council has proven themselves over and over again to have a strong hold on the economic reins of this city. There have been no frivolous taxes or fees imposed on our residents. But when fees needed to be raised, they were done with resident input at public meetings and at council meetings.
If Measure U is added to the mix, each new fee that needed to be raised or introduced would have to be voted on and passed by two-thirds of the registered voters in our city. How many voters are going to go to the polls to vote on a fee increase if it doesn’t directly affect them? That means the few are dictating to the many. And, if anyone thinks an election is thrown together in a day or two, think again. By the way, it can cost up to $75,000 to hold an election. Do we have to have an election to vote on whether we can spend the money on an election? Do you see where this is going? Measure U would do nothing but complicate the process for raising fees when the necessity rises.
Making the city re-evaluate any bonds or loans after just 10 years is another financial disaster waiting to happen. No city can qualify for a bond or afford a bond that has a 10-year sunset clause in it. Here again, the very people we elect to make these decisions for us so we don’t have to would be handcuffed and unable to do their jobs.
It seems to me that Measure U was written and pushed onto the ballot by people who have publicly stated that they do not trust our current city council. I have been a Civil Service commissioner for over 15 years, and the position has afforded me the opportunity to work closely with City Hall. Looking back over that period, I find myself hard-pressed to remember anything that would cause anyone to be so distrustful of the city council.
The one former supporter of Measure U that did get elected, Lori Woods, changed her stance and is now against it. Have you asked yourself why? Our city treasurer, who happens to have an extensive background in financial matters, has also changed his position. They both realize that their original understanding of Measure U has gone by the wayside. The proponents of Measure U seem to have a vendetta against our present city council with no thought how it will affect the future quality of life for the citizens of our fine city.
I encourage everyone to get out and vote. Make up your mind to be a part of how our city is run and how it will be run in the future. Remember, it’s your future too.
As for me, I say vote ‘no’ on Measure U!
