Having been annoyed a few times in my life, I am bemused when angry people sputter and vent in public places. They often embarrass themselves because they argue with their hearts instead of their minds.
A kingsized example landed in the middle of Council Chambers last night:
As speaker after speaker trooped to the microphone in the City Council hearings to protest the planned but not yet official Entrada Office Tower project, many speakers expressed two rock-solid, inflammatory and absolutely unverifiable convictions:
Without a wisp of evidence, they routinely accused the City Council of having previously made up its mind — at least four of them — to approve the project.
Without missing a beat, they claimed even more volubly in their next breath that it was improper for the outgoing Council majority to vote on Entrada. They complained that the new Council majority, to be installed on Monday, April 28, was the more appropriate body to make the Entrada decision.
Their biased slips, of course, were showing.
Partisans had no legal grounds, of course, for preferring the untested new Council majority over the battle-proven old Council majority. Their shouting had nothing to do with fairness or a rush to judgment.
They simply went Council shopping the way lawyers go judge-shopping.
Which One Looks Better?
The partisans concluded, with the most visceral evidence, they stood a better chance of getting their way with the new Council. That was the whole argument.
It appears this afternoon they may be fooling themselves.
All three of the new Councilmen — Andy Weissman, Mehaul O’Leary, Chris Armenta — are on the record opposing the Entrada plan. But they may never have a chance to vote. The boys’ new best fans have instantly convinced themselves, in the absence of meaningful evidence, that their favoritest Culver City politicians were elected last week mainly because they stood unflaggingly against the corporate hurricane called Entrada.
But consider this:
As a Planning Commissioner, Mr. Weissman— who turned 58 years old all day today — had no choice. He was forced to declare himself on Feb. 27 when the Commission voted up or down on Entrada .
As a result, as matters stand now, he would be forced to recuse himself if Entrada comes up in the next few weeks — because he already has declared himself.
Armenta and O’Leary — Safe or Vulnerable?
As last night’s Council meeting was breaking up about 3:15 this morning, I asked City Atty. Carol Schwab about the status of Mr. Armenta and Mr. O’Leary.
She resisted the temptation to offer an opinion. “I need more information,” Ms. Schwab said.
Both Councilmen-elect are hardly disinterested observers. They have thumped hard, and publicly, against Entrada. Will they be forced to recuse themselves, too, if Entrada comes up after they are seated on the dais?
Especially have the latter two gentlemen been so forceful in their opposition to Entrada — they even testified last night on behalf of the protestors — that the developers would be foolish to tolerate allowing them to vote.
What about bias on the other side, against Entrada?
Is Bias Only on One Side?
Having studied him for awhile, the partisans figured out quickly that Councilman Gary Silbiger was unapologetically on their side.
Pretty reliably, he does what the majority of people want.
Casually, he referred to the Entrada proposal last night as “monsterish.” Not a peep of protest about biased language was heard.
The tightly wound protestors did not think this was an example of prejudice because he was the smart one on the dais. He was on their side.
Mr. Silbiger’s gross breach of etiquette was like stepping onto the dais in a bright red suit. Before a vote on a controversial subject, Council members are supposed to act open-minded and unprejudiced.
Just asking, Ms. Schwab.