Of course, the fact that some big real estate and development organizations had kicked in around $180,000 in loose change did help to fuel those rumors. I am still not exactly sure who the chumps were that actually invested in downtown places like Howie's, although some here in town still do have fairly strong opinions about who actually did.
Today it is nearly 8 years later and the identities of those poor souls is still a big secret.
But that isn't what I wanted to post about today. I was perusing the Pasadena Star News late last week, and a quite interesting article about the faithless selling out of the Arcadia Highlands by a few elected officials there caught my roving eye. Titled "Arcadia OKs development of 2 large homes despite ‘mansionization’ argument" (link), this is one passage that really jumped out for me:
Now that sounded like something I needed to know about. Any time a City Council as dodgy as that bunch delivers one of those "this is not the time or place for that" speeches, when it so obviously was exactly that place, well, I'd love to be able to post about it here.
So I dropped The Tattler's e-mail address on a couple of what I'd hoped were key Arcadia websites. This along with the promise that if the involved persons would send me that forbidden and banned City Council information, I would gladly make it available to my readers. After all, isn't that what a blog is supposed to do?
Later that evening the following showed up in my e-mail box. Anonymity was requested by the source, and of course we're fine with that here at The Tattler. As far as I'm concerned, if you want see peoples' names and happy faces, go spend some time on Facebook. Here we only care about what people know.
I saw your post. I am causing all my neighbors' property values to go down because I am trying to abide by the Resolution which governs our design review zone. In other words, I am fighting the mansionization of our area recently imposed on us by our City Council.
I simply requested public records of our City Councilmember's campaign contributors. Attached are the Form 460's for Chandler and Wuo. It appears that all these contributions are legal and that voting on issues that involve any of these contributors is legal. But there certainly is a built in bias.
What shocked me most is that Chandler had very few contributions form "non-developers". Wuo is extremely vague and ambiguous about how he makes his money. A real estate investment company can be anything.
But can a Mayor and City Councilman that rule in favor of McMansion developers at every step of the way, while also accepting what really are large amounts of campaign cash from them, be considered admirable, or even remotely ethical?
No. Certainly not in my opinion.
Our friends in Arcadia provided me with the 460 Forms for both Roger Chandler and John Wuo. But what was even more intriguing is that they also provided us with a chart that uses that information to show just how incestuous this developer-politician love nest actually is.
We're going to go with that one. Check it out:
If you want to read the whole thing click here.
For the sake of the other passengers on that plane to China I hope the oxygen masks are working.