State Assemblymember Holly Mitchell (D-Culver City) just committed the kind of stunning, insensitive, anti-public relations blunder that not even a rookie politician should make.
Comes now the test of whether she can recover.
We will not have to wait long.
Voters should retain this incident when they go to the polls in November.
To recap:
After the State Supreme Court approved application of the death penalty to all 400 Redevelopment Agencies last Thursday, we contacted the offices of state Sen. Curren D. Price Jr. (D-Culver City) and Ms. Mitchell for reactions, their visions about what will follow, their explanations of why they voted last spring to kill all of the Agencies.
Sen. Price’s response was published the day after the court ruling.
Ms. Mitchell?
On Day 6 after the decision, Ms. Mitchell remains AWOL.
Culver City wants to know why Ms. Mitchell voted to eliminate Agencies.
Culver City wants to know Ms. Mitchell’s opinion of the Court decision.
Culver City wants to know what Ms. Mitchell intends to substitute in the stead of Redevelopment Agencies.
Culver City wants to know why it is paying Ms. Mitchell $95,000 a year plus expenses and she does not respond to the most pertinent questions of the day.
Culver City wants to know where you are.
Last I saw of her, she was an astute, tuned-in politician with a serious mien.
Has she been captured by Martians?
Are the questions too embarrassing?
This is a gaffe of proportions that even a clumsy pol should not stumble into.
In the absence of a live body, Ms. Mitchell’s office sent along a 565-word essay it said appeared last March (!) in the Culver City News.
My golly. May we see a show of fingers of survivors who read it?
Meanwhile, if you see Ms. Mitchell, ask her to call.
Balancing California’s Budget: Not Pretty But Possible
I have been in Sacramento as a legislator less than four months. When I arrived, despite being a freshman in the Assembly, I asked to serve on the Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. That is where the battle for the dollars necessary to protect safety net programs for the most vulnerable among us must be fought. As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for! Speaker John Perez appointed me chair of the committee.
The problem is that California is broke, in fact we are staring at a 26 billion dollar deficit which the state is constitutionally and pragmatically obliged to eliminate. Without new revenues, severe cuts to our colleges and universities, prisons, public safety, child care, foster care and critical health programs will become inevitable. Governor Brown is offering a budget compromise to the voters of California: He’s prevailed upon the Legislature to cut the deficit in half, to reduce expenditures by $12.5 billion. Once those cuts are agreed to, he will ask voters on the June ballot to extend tax revenues that the state currently receives, but which are soon due to expire, just long enough to eliminate the other half of the deficit. If the Republicans allow it and the voters agree, we will have put our house in financial order. If, however, voters choose not to approve the temporary tax extensions, Brown said he would balance the budget by cutting another $13 billion out of the public sector economy.
I took a hard look at this proposal and found no better budget alternative than the brutally frugal one Jerry Brown had lain on the table. I studied every alternative proposed and engaged in countless strategy sessions with fellow legislators and community advocates about saving services we agreed are already under-funded and over-stretched. But we could shut down all of California’s universities and prisons, and still not have enough money to satisfy this deficit’s appetite. I do not have the luxury of self-delusion with so much at stake, and voters did not elect me to tell them less than the truth: The only way I can see to avert catastrophe is to brace ourselves for major program reductions.
Sacrifices must be made, and triage is the order of the day. That includes programs highly praised and sorely needed in my own district which cannot be spared. Although I know firsthand, for instance, how powerful a tool community redevelopment agencies are for leveraging tax dollars for maximum local benefit, I also know that they siphon nearly $2 billion annually from state coffers. Still, I continue to look for ways in which these and other programs can be saved.
The Legislature has listened both to the needs of Californians for services and to their need to lighten the burden of the state’s expenses during these hard economic times. We have fashioned a compromise that none will love – everybody takes a hit. Polls show that most voters respect this approach, and express willingness to shoulder the burden of extended taxes in return for a smaller government footprint in their lives. Not only do I have confidence in California voters on this critical matter, but I believe we will all benefit from a fresh start. As prosperity returns, I believe we will again embrace a progressive future for our great state. It is time to take the first hard but hopeful step.
