As Elizabeth Schneider (“District elections are here, like it or not,” April 20) and her ilk would say, Santa Marians such as myself are “three steps behind where we are now.” I am sure that is akin to the excuses that the “democratic government of Venezuela” gives for its failed people’s trampling ways? Though, like most proregressives, she gave a decent timeline of the “facts.” There was no reasoning as to the whys of these actions, or the unjust moral and ethical reasoning behind them.
Yes, the people of Santa Maria if they wish can pull a nuclear option. They can, as voting citizens, ask their City Council to reconsider their actions. It won’t be pretty, but neither is fake democracy birthed by extortion. And nobody can say that this initiative was birthed any other way. Mr. Sanchez lost fair and square, but I guess that doesn’t play well in America anymore? In fact, he lost more than once fair and square.
Ms. Schneider left out glaring facts that I expounded upon in the opinion that she referred to previously (“Let the people decide,” April 6). That fact: Santa Maria, unlike any and all of the cities that “lost” lawsuits, was the trendsetter after the ’90s. Our 22-year track record actually has many winning candidates from “underrepresented groups.” But those facts mess up the hidden power-grab agenda of those pushing this bogus feel-good policy for Santa Maria, because it simply doesn’t play well to their base, and certainly doesn’t make for good sound bytes or sloganeering.
They really don’t care as much about true democratic voting unless they win, or “the right kind of people” win. Santa Maria above all the cities in California proves that we did change and have for almost a generation gotten it right!
Ms. Schneider also leaves out the facts that the losing side in the Santa Maria lawsuit, even when proven wrong by the fruit of our cities’ actions, wasn’t satisfied and went on to vindictively punish the whole state with a severely unfair and flawed law. Gee, I wonder where I have heard of a losing candidate punishing others “in the name of democracy”? When in anyone’s right mind is it moral, just, and fair, that one person can cry “wolf,” threaten with a “legal gun” to extort a city or municipality, and hold all of its citizens hostage, force them to capitulate by ransoming their legal right to a free and open vote, and call that “democratic”? I guess only in California. Maybe Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to get a whiff of this?
As Ms. Schneider did get right, “the City Council heard reports by the city attorney, city manager, and members of the public” (organized beforehand by Sanchez and Davalos), and yes, they heard the facts of how Mr. Sanchez’s threat would cost the city if we lost. But, again, out of all the cities that did lose, the facts show that they should have lost based on their records. I believe that the “law” is poorly written, unethical, and an unjust way to try to accomplish the greater good, but who would have thought that based on those involved writing it that it would turn out otherwise?
Our vote was 3-2—only a simple majority, without much time to mull over everything involved. Faced with extortive threats of untold millions, the inability of getting all of Santa Maria involved through investigative journalism and press reporting, social media interaction, and input, they had to make a snap decision. But, then again, the people pushing an extremely one-sided agenda didn’t want it any other way. They feign the desire for true democracy but really mean the democracy of a ruling proletariat.
If Santa Marians believe in true democratic reform, there is a nuclear option. Count the costs, two of the City Council did. We have a shot at winning against Mr. Sanchez and his ability to take away our right to vote as we wish. You can ask the council to end the charade and reconsider.
In the end, Mr. Sanchez and his ilk may win by trampling our rights. And for the informed voter out there, read the fine print, think just a little bit outside the box. Just because he, Ms. Davalos, and Schneider win doesn’t mean that these actions end. That again, is another fact Ms. Schneider failed to mention. You see, the law itself is flawed, because after all of this, there is absolutely nothing that stops the next “underrepresented group” from acting like former candidate Sanchez, crying “wolf” and starting it all over again. It’s an endless door for the disenchanted to force others to bow to their will.
If America is to stand for anything anymore, or ever again, it should be for a free and open democratic process, where everyone has the right and privilege to vote for whomever they wish. But sadly, some don’t think that you have that right, and offer their solution. Or, as the famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm stated: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Robert Scott is a resident of Santa Maria. Send your thoughts to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in May 4-11, 2017.