From: Carol Daus
To: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: In Favor of #31 (24-547) and In Opposition of #30 (24-541) Date: Thursday, August 1, 2024 1:24:30 PM
Dear Council Members,
As a longtime resident and taxpayer of Huntington Beach, I continue to wait for the transparency that you four majority council members campaigned on. After being
elected,
Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark told the OC Register that she was excited about being part of a team that is "engaged and transparent with a 100% accessibility." This was a false campaign promise because since taking office, you four have been completely non-transparent about policies. The Pacific Airshow settlement is the most egregious example of your secretive style of government. That's why I applaud the 3 minority members who propose an objective, third- party audit to review the settlement costs and value, as well as provide a metric-driven report that succinctly reveals the net direct economic benefit to the City.
I enjoy the airshow, but not
when sketchy deals with the operator are kept hidden from the people.
If everything was
conducted ethically and legally, the majority council members and our city attorney should welcome this proposal.
YES on 24-547: Determine Total Cost of Pacific Airshow
Settlement!
And while I'm on the subject of transparency (since this also seems to be a theme in another agenda item), please provide the public with information on:
1) The status of the City Manager/Police Chief dual position.
Is the City Council actively
recruiting for a new city manager?
If not, is this permanent? How is the compensation
handled?
2) When will the library Parent/Guardian Review Board be announced? Members have applied and are waiting for an announcement.
3) When will the new library cards be released?
(It was announced that they would be
released last March????)
(If the library required an overhaul--which the majority believed was needed last summer to remove what they deemed was pornographic material--why have they done absolutely nothing about it?)
I am strongly opposed to #24-541, just another culture war antic on the part of the council majority.
Enforcing this type of action on teachers in the state of California is unlawful. Teens and children have rights too. Only a handful of states, such as Idaho and Alabama, have passed legislation that resembles Gracey's politically-charged and hateful policy. Since this could never be enacted in
HB, it's 100% performative and would only result in costly lawsuits if it moved forward. What's next? Attacking HB women over their reproductive rights? Please stop the culture war nonsense! You may get on Fox News by announcing these wedge issues, but you're not helping residents. You're only creating a more polarized community.
No on 24-
541!
Thank you,
Carol Daus
Huntington Beach resident
8/6/2024
30 (24-541)
From: Debbi Parrott
To: [email protected]; CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: Agenda item 30
Date: Thursday, August 1, 2024 4:44:58 PM
Dear City Council,
This agenda item (30) is ridiculous. First of all, this is another example of not doing the CITY'S business. This is beyond your decision-making scope or power and just another chance for GVM to do political posturing to impress MAGA politicians. As an educator, I know that if a student shares with a counselor that they wish to be referred to as X at school but not in correspondance at home, it is because that student does not feel SAFE sharing this at home due to potential emotional or physical abuse or unsafety in regards to their identity. If GVM was really concerned about protecting children, she wouldn't be proposing this frivolous lawsuit against the state which will, as per usual, fail.
PS Elon Musk (who is hardly a model for anything and is estranged from his own trans child), is moving part of his SPACE X program back to Long Beach and still has part of his company
in SF so he is full of crap.
Additional Sources
SPACE X leaving California? Not entirely
Previous reporting stated X was subleasing its entire San Francisco headquarters, which a JLL spokesperson has since said is incorrect. Instead, the company will continue to occupy a portion of office space that has been actively used by the company’s remaining skeleton crew of employees for most of the past two years.
With gratitude,
Debbi Parrott