Shriver or Kuehl?

Editor:

On November 4, 2014, you have the power to decide who will be LA County’s 3rd District Supervisor – either Bobby Shriver or Shiela Kuehl.

Why should you care?

For the first time in 20 years, this is a competitive race and the new Supervisor will oversee your tax money – a $26 billion budget. The new Supervisor can put LA on a course to prosperity and fiscal fitness, or poverty with outrageous government spending.

For the past year, I have had the honor of listening to, and debating against and with both Shriver and Kuehl. I respect both for their dedication and service to our community whether it be locally or in Sacramento, but they have very different leadership qualities and qualifications.

With a dismal 13% voter turnout in the June primary, Kuehl came in first with about 10,000 more votes than Shriver. John Duran came in third, and I came in 4th place with about the same number of votes that Kuehl beat Shriver by.

The day after the primary election, both Kuehl and Shriver called to ask for my endorsement. I interviewed both candidates in July.

As the only other woman candidate, I wanted to support another woman who had the guts to run; however, I couldn’t, in good faith, support her candidacy.

Why? Because this race isn’t about gender, it is about our collective future.

Who will be able to reform County Government?

We need reform in many areas of local government – from Department of Children and Family Services to the Sheriff department, the homeless, Veterans, those in custody, Campaign Finance, and Pensions to name a few. Shriver has a record of fighting for reform and is not beholden to special interest groups, unlike Kuehl. According to Malibu Times publisher Arnold York, “Every one of those [Kuehl] mailers [from police, firemen, nurses, teachers and other unions] is an I.O.U. from that group expecting county dollars in return from the supervisor they are trying to get elected.”

Who will be able to best build and increase partnerships with Business and Non-Profits to promote economic recovery and provide public services?

Shriver has a record of raising millions of dollars to fight the AIDS epidemic. At the UCLA debate, Kuehl called Nevada a “fool” for creating an environment friendly to businesses. Shriver would like to attract and retain business in LA.

Who will encourage civility and professionalism in local government?

On the campaign trail Kuehl belittled local “part-time” office holders, who work hard to make their communities better. (See http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bobby-shriver-sheila-kuehl-supervisor-john-duran-blowback-20141016-story.html) Shriver has shown he will listen to others and is open to different points of view.

Who will encourage others to participate in democracy?

Kuehl discouraged and attempted to “scare” others from running for office. (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2013/01/10/11950/sheila-kuehl-opens-committee-run-la-county-board-s/ “In the coming weeks Kuehl will set up a campaign website, look for early donors and endorsements, and “see if I can’t scare everybody else out of the race.”) Shriver welcomes competition and believes it is good for democracy to have more choices.

Bobby Shriver will bring fresh ideas, creative solutions, kindness and will work hard to serve all people in LA, not just those who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in independent campaign expenditures.

I believe Bobby Shriver will deliver not just good Government, but cutting edge Government. and will be able to make LA County a beacon of light for our State, our Country and our planet and put LA on a true-north course towards prosperity and progress.

Shriver didn’t win the primary, and he won’t win this election without you!

Help make it a sunny day in LA and join me in voting for Bobby Shriver on November 4.

Thank you for sharing, caring and voting!

Pamela Conley Ulich

Mother, Former Malibu Mayor, Former LA County 3rd District Candidate

Accomplishments matter

Editor:

Somebody ought to explain to Holly Lynne that accomplishments are the best way to judge a person. Accomplishments are real, talk is cheap. What a person has done in the past is a more accurate way to judge what they will do in the future than talk of plans.

Kuehl has been in the public sector for many years with an impressive resume. Shriver’s motivation to run for S.M. city council was to stop the city from making him trim the hedges in front of his house. His accomplishments on the council were mediocre at best.

John Treanor

Santa Monica

Gruber and development

Editor

Pam O’Connor has been widely castigated – and deservedly so – for taking large contributions from developers, at least some of which appear to be in violation of the law. She is in the pocket of big developers, as her consistent support for their projects demonstrates. She must be defeated.

However, while O’Connor has been the focal point of residential anger against council members who represent big developers instead of residents, we must not overlook the fact that developers also have another candidate in this upcoming council race: their “stealth” candidate, Frank Gruber. At the recent public forum, when the 14 candidates attending were asked whether they would accept contributions from developers, 11 held up placards saying “No”; O’Connor held up her placard saying “Yes.”

What about Gruber? He didn’t answer the question, refusing to hold up his placard. Why, you might ask? Because, like O’Connor, he is a tool of developers, but it hasn’t become well-known yet, and he would like to keep it that way until after the election. In the meanwhile, developer contributions are enabling him to finance a campaign totally in lockstep with O’Connor, while simultaneously avoiding directly answering questions on any issues important to Santa Monicans.

His evasion of publicly stating his position on any of those issues is typified by his statement at a public forum in which each candidate was given one minute to summarize his or her vision for the city. While others discussed issues facing the City, Gruber wholly avoided them. It is the same strategy followed by Terry O’Day, another tool of developers, two years ago, and, unfortunately, it succeeded in 2012.

Santa Monica cannot afford to allow it to succeed again. There are five well-qualified candidates running who are committed to supporting the residents of this City and preserving and hopefully enhancing our way of life. Frank Gruber is not one of them. Santa Monica cannot afford to elect a council member who, as he stated during his disastrous term on the Planning Commission, does not even believe that residents have the right to “quiet enjoyment” of their homes. No more ominous warning could be sounded as to what Santa Monicans will face if he is elected to the Council.

Michael Brourman

Santa Monica

Airport

To the Editor:

Re the claim by Dave Hopkins in his 10/29/14 letterabout supposed “City estimates of City costs to date in legal fees have been at least $5m in three recent failed lawsuits,” the reaction from city officials is”more nonsense.”Lies and more lies.

Mr. Hopkins, by the way, is Founder and Chairman of Air Transport Business Development, Inc., with 25 years of experience that includes selling, leasing and acquiring more than $18 billion worth of jet transports and jet engines, according to his company’s web site.

Regarding the 10/29/14 Measure D ad stating that plans are afoottoreplacethe Museum of Flying, Barker Hangar, Spitfire Grill, Typhoon, Barker Hangar, the tiny Ruskin Theatre, the artist studios, and the little string ofbungalows used for SMC art classes? Dream on. Lies and more lies.

Santa Monica College officials’ response to whether the ad’s description ofdeals to use airport land for a 4-year campus are true? From the president of SMC, “The Measure D claim is a 100 percent fabrication on the part of its authors.” Lies and more lies.

USC’s interest in using the airport land for a satellite campus? None. Lies and more lies.

The Measure Dcampaign to keep Santa MonicaAirport open forever has so far received$633,748 from the national Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the National Business Aviation Association, plus $125,256 from non-local aviation business and pilots, and $97,645 from local aviation businesses.

From the aviation interests’ point of view, the thousands of families in Santa Monica and Los Angeles who are affected by the Airport’stremendous noise, air pollution, and frequent crashes are a small selfish minority, while the aviation businesses are supposedly not at all concerned about maintaining their enormous profits from this burgeoning jetport, just with protecting us poor residents from “development.” Lies and more lies.

Here’s the truth: Voting “yes” on Measure LC will

— keep Santa Monica residents in control of our airport land,

— preserve this open space for the residents’ use — not special interests,

— empower the City to end jet noise and jet air pollution, and

— ensure that no development is allowed without voter approval.

I urge everyone to vote “Yes on LC, No on D.”

Zina Josephs

Santa Monica

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.