Who benefits from city council activism?

Published: Oct. 29, 2005

By Craig A. Huey

South Bay cities and individual city council members often make political statements and endorsements, and yet few of their constituents are even aware of their action.

The questions citizens must ask are: Is this really good for the city? Is it in the interest of the taxpayers of the city? Should the cities or the council members politicize themselves in partisan politics?

Rolling Hills Estates City Council Steve Zuckerman created a controversy in Sacramento. At a council meeting discussing the governor’s role in creating the new budget and placing Proposition 1A on the November ballot, he made this statement:

“...What we are looking at here really is paying the governor back for his election. He bought the election by reducing the (vehicle license fees). It was sheer bribery to the public—he is a demagogue. And we’re now paying back for his election, and so my feeling is it absolutely stinks to high heaven...”

Most residents were clueless of this political attack, or that only one council member meekly objected to his remarks.

Politicians look for friends and oppose their enemies. For a city councilman to publicly proclaim opposition to the governor when cities now and in the future need the governor’s cooperation may not be the wisest action.

During an election year, politics becomes even more intense. For example, Sheriff Lee Baca has gone to South Bay city councils to ask for support for his half-cent sales tax increase. And both opponents and proponents of Proposition 71 (stem cell research bond) have done the same.

Should a city council politically take a position on behalf of its city?

In running for a council seat, the candidate is nonpartisan. Issues discussed revolve around city matters. Once elected, councils or individual members take political stands their voters and constituents may disagree with.

In this election, cities have taken official positions on Propositions 1A and 71 and county Measure A.

For example, Measure A raises sales tax by a half-cent to provide more police more police protection. Proponents and opponents all want more police. But many South Bay residents don’t believe a sales tax increase is needed for the funding.

They argue that the country has the revenue to properly finance more police. But the L.A. County supervisors won’t cut waste and inefficient programs to pay for more police. Supervisor Michael Antonovich has a plan to pay for this without the tax increase.

Despite citizen opposition to the tax increase, the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lomita, Rancho Palos Verde’s and Rolling Hills Estates have endorsed the tax increase on behalf of their citizens.

Even the highly controversial Proposition 71 was endorsed by Carson. I’m sure many constituents have moral issues with harvesting of embryos and cloning them for research.

But what should be of more concern to all Carson taxpayers is that this is a $3 billion bond issue California can’t afford. Political endorsements by the cities are troublesome. Cities especially should take great care in representing all their constituents. And all voters should be aware whether their city is really representing their best interests.