brewery33

The quest for the lowest common denominator

Today on Twitter I ran across an article from the apparently beardless @davidsiders. It seems the Council person whom I have been recently impressed with reminded me why I am not a fan. @susaneggman questioned the intent from a legislative committee concerning large unruly crowds at City Centre Cineplex, inferring that the ordinance was an attack on people of color.

This screams, look at me, I am a tolerant politician that understands that “the man” wants to lock up and harass the diverse youth. Upon @susaneggman entering the social space, I have been very skeptical to her intent. She is up for re-election, and as we all know, politicians want to be your best friend during election season, as well as garner press. But re-election bid aside, why pull the race card?

The race card is the strongest form of weakness. Pardon my use of a oxymoronic description, but the use of this wretched political tool angers me to the core. When will politicians stand up and protect the laws and stop trying to inject opinion? Since when does it matter what color you are when you are doing something wrong? It is still wrong.

Let’s break this down real logical like. My initial bitch is the entrance of race in response to a legislative committee’s attempt to make a law to quash the crowds at City Centre Cineplex. The committee stated a response that the proposed law is in conflict with the Constitution. Fair enough.

At this point, the item was debated as to what necessitated fixing, meaning the initial complaint of City Centre business owners unhappiness with the disrespectful and unruly crowds. Enter the well timed race card tossed by a Council member. Since there is no law stating preference of color in mitigating lawless behavior, why then would a politician inject this idea? The complaint merely outlined the out of control horseplay that was ensuing at the venue. The legislative committee found that the Constitution protects the rights of people to assemble. Why then undermine the complaint by attempting to politically decapitate the request? What is being implied?

As hard as it is, it behooves a politician to withhold statement of opinion and refer to the law. If a law is being compromised, and it is impacting local business to the point that the complaint makes it to a City Council meeting, where the Council summons a legislative committee to create a policy, it is the duty of the elected official to preserve integrity of the process.

Councilman Holman exemplifies the proper fashion in handling this matter by referring to the overseeing agency. His statement was plain, stating that the problem is an ”enforcement issue”. Since the complaint was not in reference to anything other than the assembly of disrespectful youth causing trouble at the venue, where would one corroborate a racial inflection?

The existence of opinion is for our media to disseminate and suggest. If we continue to allow our politicians to expound their opinion, the law stands to lose credibility. The Record, our local paper, is currently allowing their proverbial territory to be trampled by the elected conglomerate. Opinion is powerful, especially when it is distributed from a respected pulpit. If a person upon whom the responsibility is laid to uphold and enact the law, states an opinion regarding the law in question, the elected official willingly places politics above the integrity of the written law. This is disingenuous. The law falls victim to a skewed perception that has been volleyed onto the official floor.

Every person has an opinion on law. Every person who has been on the wrong side of the law has the opinion that their interest is not being rightfully tended to. If there is a problem with disorderly conduct taking place at a private venue, what business is it of the City Council to give their civil rights assessment? Wouldn’t one think that the City Council would be diligent and pass along the concern to its liaison at the local law enforcement agency? At what point do we allow the justice system to work? When does an opinion become a valid standpoint upon which to base an argument in the arena of law? Since when did public safety become a matter of political opinion and exit the respected arena of upholding the law?

The administration is one of the most difficult aspects of government. In the enactment and enforcement of laws, the victory of the City is complete, but not so in regards to administration, the reason being that it is easy to see the advantage of the enactment and enforcement of laws but not the administration of domestic, religious and business affairs, of which should be kept to a minimum by government. (Link to wiki)

My humble advice to the City Council is to refrain from inviting race or opinion for that matter, into your political debate regarding the rules and statutes of the Stockton City Charter. Your job is to uphold and enact the law. If you wish to change the law, then so be it. The proper channels are afforded you to accommodate such requests within our City Charter and California State Constitution.

Basically speaking, practice restraint. We all know that politicians have ever increasingly lost the ability to do so. Our City will not benefit from such sort sightedness. Consider the pragmatic legacy that our City is to realize, not the spoils of political warfare. Bring integrity back to the office. Govern with authority not suggestion.

The future of our City does not lie in the annals of City Hall, but in the perseverance of its people.

Question everything or you will be left with nothing.