Letter: Ferreira says “Let’s give Bonnie McClung a chance”

Letter to the editor posted by Mike Ferreira on Jan 01, 2006 at 10:33 am in  Government
6 comments • Click to email this story

The election is over.  The election was not a direct choice between Bonnie and I.  Rather, Bonnie was the third highest vote-getter in a field of six contesting for three seats, and I was the fourth.  The margin between third and fourth place ended up being excruciatingly small but the recount has confirmed that the reduced margin (unofficially, eight votes) is nonetheless a margin in her favor. There’s no rule that modifies the result because of the closeness of the result.  She’s our Councilmember for the next four years.

Let’s think back to the campaign.  Bonnie did not engage in the divisive rhetoric that various spearchuckers and promoters revelled in.  She kept her message positive.  That wasn’t easy for her given all of the factions that were looking for punch/counterpunch.  Her restraint should be recognized for the strength that it took to maintain it.

There is also political merit in her restraint in that it means she hasn’t publicly committed herself to any radical changes.  Which means she has the flexibility to assess issues on an “as new” basis. Sure, she has a point of view that will affect those assessments. But she also has had a career in government and administration which gives her an inclination toward consensus, not confrontation.  That governmental experience could also be a benefit to the Council’s interaction with City staff.

So, let’s give Bonnie a chance by observing her interaction on the Council on a variety of issues.  By letting her make a number of decisions before we draw any conclusions - we’ll be drawing more accurate conclusions.

Mike Ferreira
Half Moon Bay

Comments

Comment 1 by Suzanne  on  Jan 01  at  12:16pm  •  All my comments • 

Thanks for the healing words, Mike. And thanks for your years of public service to this community. With any luck, there will be many more!

SuzanneBlack

Comment 2 by lani ream  on  Jan 03  at  9:21am  •  All my comments • 

Don't know about you Mike but retiring "at large" Commissioners and creating concurrent terms with City Council members seems pretty radical to me. Half Moon Bay can have the award for being the only community in the Bay Area with direct appointments and concurrent terms. To have that action be the first for this newly elected council is dramatically political, in my opinion.lani ream

Comment 3 by Deborah Ruddock  on  Jan 03  at  6:15pm  •  All my comments • 

I agree with Lani Ream. The city council's plan is not only "radical" and "political", it's divisive as well. The new majority's campaign backers clearly are in a great hurry for changes favorable to their agenda, but it's going to cost the council a lot of ill will from other folks in the community. Hope it's worth it.

Comment 4 by ken king  on  Jan 04  at  9:39am  •  All my comments • 

As Naomi Patridge pointed out two weeks ago, and again last night, it is just politics and they have the power to do it. Several planning commissioners who spoke related it took them a year to get up to speed on the issues, so assuming that's true, the commission will proceed by fits and starts given as many as three neophites may join at a given time, or two new ones may swing the majority another way. And that is the point that seems to be overlooked in this decision, that the politics can cut both ways and disrupt important projects they care about.

Comment 5 by Joe Falcone  on  Jan 04  at  11:47am  •  All my comments • 

Last night's City Council meeting was an exercise in divisive politics. Ms. McClung described the current Planning Commission (consisting of an architect, a lawyer, a retired teacher, an economist, a journalist, a mathematician, and an engineer) as "not being balanced" and "not having sufficient diversity of thinking". Enough said.

Comment 6 by Deborah Ruddock  on  Jan 04  at  12:07pm  •  All my comments • 

I'd like to make a correction to my own comment. The council's restructuring scheme is not "radical" it's regressive. And the more I think about it, it's actually kind of silly. Instead of making a mess of things to get "their people", their mouthpieces, on the planning commission, why don't they just assume the planning function themselves? They can do this under California law. Everyone is going to assume they're manipulating their appointees anyway. By assuming the planning function, they will streamline the process and make their policy positions clearly visible to the rest of us, who can then streamline our voting accordingly.

Deborah Ruddock


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.

Search Coastside and San Mateo County media.