Measure D Mailbox: Second Mailer Asks Voters To Support 2-Year Mayoral Term

Anaheim voters have received a second mail piece asking them to vote “yes” on Measure D, which would change the term for Anaheim mayors from four to two years, while limiting him or her to four consecutive two-year terms – preserving the current limit of eight consecutive years as mayor:

MeasureD-8.5x11-Mailer-Version2-Final-Cropped_Page_1

Here’s the official argument in favor of Measure D, and the official argument against.

If approved by the voters in June, Measure D would be into effect immediately, meaning all the mayoral candidates would be running for a two-year term in November, instead of a four-year term.

The mailer was sent by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce PAC. Other than this mailer and another “Yes on D” mail piece that went out last week, the only voter contact so far on this issue has been two “No on D” robocall IEs from the Tom Tait for Mayor 2014 campaign, slate mailers (Tait’s campaign bought those owned by Landslide Communications and his consultants John Lewis and Matt Holder; all the rest appear to be carrying the “yes” position), and campaign sides from both sides.

35 comments

  1. Stand For Anaheim

    YES ON D!!!! This is fantastic news

  2. Proud Colonist

    YES ON D!

  3. BigBoxOfRedWhine

    It is a sad commentary on what passes for political thought in Anaheim, that it’s beyond the will or ability to look at Anaheim’s particular needs and circumstance, and instead play “Copy the Neighbors”, and sadder still that the taxpayers pay six – figure salaries, only to get such slacking results.
    Of course the “neighbors” continually change, depending which spontaneous decision needs to be excused (‘justified’ is a misnomer) , (and Multi million dollar spending has its OWN set of “neighbors”!),
    but worse yet when you aren’t even SHOWN the complete list of “neighbors”.
    For the few that ARE interested, “Every Other” City with a Directly Elected Mayor is ONLY 5 more, OF 34 in Orange County – Irvine, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Orange, and Westminister – that’s IT! But for Santa Ana, ALL of them are Smaller by population, budget, City employees, and about every other scale, and NONE of them have ANY of Anaheim’s 3 City Enterprises – Utility – Stadium – Convention Center. (Under budget problems, Santa Ana even shed its Fire Dept to OCFA, and stretched its Budget Cycle out to 2 years to FURTHER lighten the workload! )
    Perhaps seeing the “whole” list (of 5!) would get folks wondering how running all these different sized Cities could be seen as “interchangeable”? I sure can’t see that. I hope this year’s unfortunate drought, hasn’t confined ‘cherry picking’ in CA to statistics in political mailers, but so far that seems to be the case!

    • There’s no appeal to bigotry in this mailer, Mr. Diamond. But every post and comment you write is definitely an appeal to stupidity!

    • Matthew Cunningham

      BBORW: Yes, Anaheim has all those things, but you omit a crucial point: the mayor doesn’t run the city. The city manager and the department heads do that.

      The mayor presides over the council meetings, and possess greater public authority than councilmembers due to the nature of the office, and the reality that news media looks to the mayor rather than councilmembers for public comment.

      But the fact remains that the only thing the mayor runs is the council meeting. In fact, the city charter bars the mayor and councilmembers from giving direction to department heads.

      Changing the mayor’s term from two to four years doesn’t interfere with the city manager’s ability to do his/her job, nor with the ability of the mayor to pursue his or her priorities. The only real limit on the latter is the mayor’s ability to lead and put together three votes.

  4. I’m really sorry to get in the way of your appeal to bigotry, which I’ll paraphrase as —

    Do you want to be like “Los Angeles (MEXICANS!), San Francisco (GAYS!), Oakland (BLACKS!)”?

    — but the reason not to want a 2-year Mayor for Anaheim is that it increases the reliance of politicians on big financial donors. And Anaheim is already hopelessly corrupt as it is. Not enough for your taste, I realize, but still — really bad, and there’s no good reason to make it even worse.

    (I guess that if you were going for an appeal to bigotry, though, it was smart of you to have left Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Westminster off of the list!)

    Now tell me — would you show this ad to people outside of the area if you wanted to burnish Anaheim’s reputation? Because I’ll bet that Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas and other competitors for tourist business would be happy to show it around to paint Orange Countians as xenophobes. Because, as we all know, if there’s one thing that the tourist and convention industries value in a destination spot, it’s xenophobioa!

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Leave it to a leftist to respond by yelling “racist”! But, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that adherents of a decrepit ideology keep waving that particular bloody shirt. Thank God this buffoon will never be DA.

    • Is it true Diamond that your landlord got your rent check late because you used rent money to pay for your filing fee?

    • After Cynthia stepped in it with her offensive rant about war zones, dogs and toxic independence, Greg is doing his best to invent anything that could change the focus. This was a poor attempt.

    • There’s no appeal to bigotry in this mailer, Mr. Diamond. But every post and comment you write is definitely an appeal to stupidity!

  5. How about we don’t want those to copy those cities because they all have structural deficits and gridlock for government. What a buffoon Diamond is for stereotyping those cities based on race. Wouldn’t have even occurred to me. And Anaheim is 50 percent Latino thank you very much. Go back to Brea – you are the bigot blogger!

    • Good point PC. If Diamond really believes his own comments then he has shown more about his own intolerance than anything else. Terrible that an organization like the DPOC would endorse someone that either believes or uses such tactics.

  6. Dan Chmielewski

    “… but the reason not to want a 2-year Mayor for Anaheim is that it increases the reliance of politicians on big financial donors.”

    But oddly, this hasn’t happened in Santa Ana, Irvine or Orange which have a directly elected mayor and two-year terms. But this is the messaging the Tait-bots are married too…..

    • BigBoxOfRedWhine

      “Hasn’t happened in Santa Ana” ? LOL. I realize Irvine is the center of your universe, but Google the name ‘Pulido’ and see what returns – or just try a Newspaper. or the Voice of OC, or……….wait, a minute, who’s that guy on your Council, there….Larry..something….? Yeah, those guys both took a vow of poverty, (forehead slap) I forgot!

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Dan is absolutely correct. That talking point from Greg is another manifestation of his limited political understanding and knowledge. It was either him or one his similarly handicapped cronies who claimed, in all seriousness, that the “special interests” cooked up Measure D so that they could make campaign donations more frequently!

      What Greg doesn’t understand is that two-year terms don’t hinder someone who is a strong fundraiser and four year terms don’t necessarily help a poor fundraiser become a good one.

      • That would actually be me, Matt. Thanks.

        I’m not Greg’s crony. You should know better than that.

        Measure D does exactly what you state in your comment. It allows the Chamber of Commerce in Anaheim to double the donations it makes to Mayor’s race . . . along with the PACs it aligns with. Anaheim caps election contributions on a per-election basis and this change doubles the amount of elections for the Mayor’s seat, thus doubling their contribution potential. Considering that sitting councilmembers get a free shot at running for mayor during each of their terms, it’s conceivable that this change also allows the Chamber to increase its influence with Council members as well.

        Throw that in with shifting the Mayor’s race to mid-cycle elections, which have substantially lower turnout, you’ve got yourself a nice little recipe to buy yourself a Mayor. It doubles the amount they have to spend, it reduces the amount of people they have to advertise to . . . well, you get the point. It makes it much harder to oppose the Chamber’s agenda and much easier to elect those who toe the Chamber line.

        That’s what this is, plain and simple. The Chamber wants to handpick the mayor. This helps them do it.

        Pretending it’s anything else is intellectually dishonest.

        Well, Anaheim– do you want the Chamber picking your Mayor or not? I’m sure some of you think that’s a damn fine idea. I don’t.

        At least that’s honest.

        • Matthew Cunningham

          Sorry, Ryan. I couldn’t remember who made that argument. And you owned up to it.

          I imagine your theory might have resonance with people whose political experience is nil – because it is at odds with political reality. With the exception of unions, raising campaign funds isn’t easy. Your theory is based on the fanaasy notion that organizations like the Chamber PAC actively desire having to raise and donate more money. You’re asking intelligent people to believe that Measure D is, in reality, a secret plot to allow committees and donors to be able to donate a maximum of $1,900 to a mayoral candidate every two years, instead of every four. All this effort just so that these mysterious donors can maybe give an extra $3,800? Come on – that’s fantasyland stuff.

          “Throw that in with shifting the Mayor’s race to mid-cycle elections…”


          Mayoral elections already take place in mid-term election cycles.

          If Measure D passes, mayoral elections will also take place during presidential elections. In addition, it would mean that 3 of 5 council seats (inclusive of the mayor) would be on the ballot every two years — permitting voters to change the majority, if they wish.

          And Ryan, nobody “hand-picks” the mayor. Does the Chamber PAC – or OCCORD, or CATER or OCEA – want to influence the outcome of the council/mayoral elections? Duh – that’s kind of the point of voting, donating to candidates and initiative campaigns, IEs, all of that. But nobody “hand-picks” the mayor. That’s tin-foil hat thinking.

          • Matt,

            If the Chamber doesn’t benefit from this change, and they do, why are they bank rolling it? You’re intentionally clouding the issue with noise.

            Furthermore, the Yes on D signs around town are a straight up lie. Strengthen term limits? Ewwwwww. That’s wrong. It has nothing to do with term limits, which the chamber opposes to start with. So the chamber writes it, signs it, pays for it, lies about it, and you want me to believe all if this isn’t about the chamber getting more control over the mayor?

            There’s your fantasy land.

            The off cycle shift was a bad choice. I should have said shifting between off cycle and on cycle. I would expect voter turnout for the mayor’s race to drop substantially from today’s numbers if this measure passes in comparison to current numbers in of cycle years. Particularly if the incumbency is based on being elected to a first term in an on cycle year.

            But, I didn’t. Alas.

            • Matthew Cunningham

              Well gosh, Ryan. If you SAY the Chamber benefits from Measure D passing, then no evidence is needed!

              • You know, if you’d have just admitted that sooner– we could have saved ourselves a lot of grief.

                Nice to see you’ve come around.

            • Matthew Cunningham

              The Chamber opposes term limits.

              Wrong. Show me where the Chamber opposes term limits.

              The Chamber wrote Measure D.

              Wrong. Actually, staff wrote it in accordance with the recommendation of the Charter Review Committee. And Todd Ament signed, as did Gloria Ma’ae, Anaheim civic activist, CRC member…and not the Chamber of Commerce.

              This is about the Chamber getting more control over the mayor.

              I’ve come to accept that is your particular delusion, shared in common with a few others. It isn’t true, but you want to believe it – just as there are people who want to believe the Moon landings were staged.

              Measure D will cause turnout for the mayor’s race to drop.

              Honestly – I don’t even know where you pulled that one out from. Will Measure D also contribute to global warming?

              Voter turnout isn’t driven by mayoral campaigns in Anaheim. Voter turnout is higher in presidential years (when the mayor is not on the ballot) and lower in mid-term elections (when the mayor is not on the ballot). Contrary to your assertion, voter turnout will be higher in half of the mayoral elections if Measure D passes. You do want more Anaheim voters to have a say in who their mayor is, don’t you

              • Sick of politics

                The CRC voted to end term limits altogether. The council chose not to include it on the ballot.

              • Todd Ament opposed term limits. You oppose term limits. As I recall, Ms. Ma’ae also donated to the Chamber PAC and I’ll chuck out a guess that she voted to tank term limits, too. A Chamber President, a Chamber Contractor, and a Chamber Donor.

                Good enough for me. You want it engraved on a stone tablet or something?

                Their idea, they wrote it, they paid for it, now they’re lying about it . . . WHY? BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THE CHAMBER. Why else?

                Your reductio is old and tired. A lot like the Chamber’s lies.

                Strengthen term limits. What. A. Crock. Did they pay someone to come up with that or is that the product of their own organic genius?

                • Matthew Cunningham

                  Tom Dunn, Tait’s appointee to the CRC, also opposed term limits. Try working that into your silly conspiracy theory.

                  When a person is on the outside and has little to no information about a situation, it’s actually pretty easy to concoct a conspiracy that fits their prejudices.

                • Matthew Cunningham

                  It cracks me when I read these kind of comments from you and the other OJ Blog-types. None of you paid any attention to the CRC process while it was taking place. I doubt you have watched a single meeting, Ryan. But all of you are absolutely certain you know the reasons behind every charter recommendations. It’s comical.

        • Matthew Cunningham

          Ryan, I’m curious: what is your opinion of Measure E, which would legalize safe-and-sane fireworks? You have been mute on the topic.

          • If Anaheim wants kids selling explosives to other kids in the name of fundraising, who am I to stand in the way?

            I don’t have an opinion, but if they’re going to be legal, I don’t get why they can only be sold through a non profit intermediary.

            • Matthew Cunningham

              I don’t know that they have to be. That is how TNT does it. Do you think they shouldn’t partner with non-profits so Boy Scout troops and little league can make some money?

              • Matt, I haven’t even read it. I’m assuming it looks a lot like Fullerton’s recent measure. Charity groups submit a proposal, they draw names out of a hat, only a few charities get to actually sell at a limited number of booths. Next will come the fantastic discussion on if each charity gets to negotiate their own contract with different fireworks vendors or if the city will put out an RFP. Blah, blah, blah, boring boring boring.

                If they’re legal, then make them legal for everyone to sell. Letting the city choose between the have and have nots is not a good use of limited government.

                But hey, it’s fireworks. It’s small time. Really, I don’t like the idea of the Cub Scouts literally handing out matches telling kids to have a good time. It seems, well, wrong. I’m not the one hosting a booth– so who cares?

                Anaheim has much bigger problems than Measure E. I don’t have a lot of passion on it either way . . . but I won’t be shocked if the Chamber gets behind TNT for an RFP. In fact, I’ll wager a nice shiny nickle that’s what happens.

        • Sick of politics

          It does allow the chamber to donate more frequently to influence an election. It also allows unions, OCEA, Occord and the like. Special interest groups exist on both sides of the aisle.

  7. Dan Chmielewski.

    Pulido doesn’t raise all that much money. Read the forms yourself. Agran doesn’t raise that much money. Read the forms yourself.

  8. Surrender, Ryan. Cunningham is eating your lunch.

    • I surrender, RJ.

      I thought that tri-tip was pretty darn good. Matt, since apparently you also had it– what’d you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


Skip to toolbar