Home News ‘Yes’ on Ridley-Thomas, ‘No’ on 98 and 99, Says ...

‘Yes’ on Ridley-Thomas, ‘No’ on 98 and 99, Says the Chamber of Commerce

169
0
SHARE


The Board of Directors of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce today has endorsed state Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Culver City) for the 2nd District seat on the County Board of Supervisors in next Tuesday’s election.

Additionally, the Chamber is urging a no vote on both Prop. 98 and Prop. 99.

[img]123|left|Sen. Ridley-Thomas||no_popup[/img]­ Since Sen. Ridley-Thomas’s rival, Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks, has presented himself as the candidate of the business community, the endorsement came as a surprise to some persons.

But Chamber directors reasoned that Sen. Ridley-Thomas knows the territory better than Mr. Parks, and has worked with Culver City interests.

Said Hal Katersky, Chair of the Chamber:

“Sen. Ridley-Thomas has worked with the Chamber on many issues. He also has reached out to our business community through personal meetings and representation from his staff.”

Angela Gibson, Vice Chair of Governmental Affairs for the Chamber, speaking with familiarity, said that “MRT has and will continue to work with the Culver City business community to grow our local economy.”

Over the holiday weekend, Sen. Ridley-Thomas landed another business endorsement, the South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce.

Additionally, the senator noted that he is supported by business stalwarts such as Tim McCallion, president of the Greater Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Ed Roski, CEO of Majestic Realty, and Frank McCourt, owner of the Dodgers. Mr. McCourt’s wife Jamie served as mistress of ceremonies a year ago last January at City Hall in Culver City when Sen. Ridley-Thomas was ceremonially sworn in as a new member of the state Senate.

As for the controversial propositions covering eminent domain and rent control, Culver City Chamber President/CEO Steve Rose left no doubt where the business group stands.

“We are encouraging a no vote on both 98 and 99 because they are just bad legislation,” Mr Rose said.

“Both deal with eminent domain. This draws a lot of attention when it is talked about among residents and business people because of the way it may be used in the name of economic development.

“Whether you are for eminent domain or not, both propositions are poorly written. That is the main reason for opposing them.”

­