Friday, November 7, 2008
The folks at the County continue to count paper ballots, there are several hundred thousand to get through, and they do not appear to work weekends so the next update will be Monday. For your weekend stress levels, here are the latest numbers.
CITY OF ANAHEIM Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts: 177 of 177
KOSTAS "GUS" RODITIS
ROBERT J. FLORES
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Anyone looking for the big picture can review this blog for the posts we have been sharing for months in an effort to educate Anaheim voters regarding the poor leadership of Councilwoman Lorri Galloway. Make yourself at home, there is plenty here, and we have included documents and sources for anything we have posted. But in these last few days before the election, we thought we would recap with a few bullet points for those looking for the “quick hit”.
Lorri Galloway’s own campaign materials list the reasons for re-electing her to be her civic improvements such as new libraries, police and fire stations. Literally every one of the improvements that were opened during her Council service were planned BEFORE her election in 2004. Lorri Galloway’s own claims are false, and she is taking credit for the work of others. Galloway’s only contribution to those improvements was to show up for photo ops.
Lorri Galloway is currently running a negative campaign against Planning Commmisioner Gail Eastman, and Disney. Lorri fed incorrect information to columnist Frank Mickadeit, who, instead of verifying the info, reprinted it as gospel. Mickadeit has since corrected the info, but Lorri’s campaign team still used the misleading Register headline to create a phony case against Disney and the candidate most likely to beat Galloway in this election. Galloway has been quoted saying she will oppose ANY development Disney is involved with, regardless of its merits. We don’t think hating the City’s largest employer, and the source of over 50% of our General Fund revenue, is a great campaign platform. Using a Council seat for personal vengeance is not the leadership we are looking for.
Galloway will complain to anyone who listens about special interests in this election. Yet, her own campaign has been funded by Public Employee Unions, Service Sector Unions (the protestors fighting Resort employers) and developers who have profited immensely from Galloway’s decisions. Who is in who’s pocket?
Galloway completely lacks even the most basic understanding of our local economy, and the need to keep revenue flowing into our General Fund to offset the pet projects she promotes. When confronted with economic reality, she has said, do not talk to her about the economy, she only represents one segment of the population. For her sake we hope that segment, made up largely of out-of-town union interests, shows up to vote. For our sake, we hope we have done our jobs to educate the people of Anaheim in why Lorri Galloway should not be returned to office
For all of you who have helped, thank you. This could not have been done without you. We at No On Galloway are proud of the campaign we have run. We have held to our standard to only print those items we could prove, and we have posted our documentation along the way. While Galloway’s opponents routinely find their signs ripped out or defaced, and replaced by Galloway signs, we have not stooped to that level. Nobody on our team has touched a Galloway sign. Indeed, there is a huge Galloway sign at Lorri’s not-so-secret-satelite-shelter in the heart of Gail Eastman territory, and it has been untouched all this time. Our No On Galloway banners are all posted on private property, while Galloway was the first in town to put hers on public property. While we are forced by circumstances to share negative information, we have fought a clean fight. It is now in the hands of the voters, and God. Please pray for the political health of our City.
Thank you all for your time.
Clementine Zimmerman and friends
Saturday, November 1, 2008
While we have already addressed the major points of misinformation here (See “Lorri Gets Desperate” for Details) let’s address what is behind those ads and mailers.
Anaheim Families and Business Owners for a Better Tomorrow, is a legally filed PAC, run by professional political operative Kinde Durkee. Ms. Durkee is routinely shown in internet searches being tied to campaigns of questionable nature, especially those mailings that mislead with false information, using “doctored” logos of other organizations. When one looks at the funding behind the PAC, we find that it is largely financed by neither Anaheim Families, nor Anaheim Businesses. Here are the latest FPPC filings showing where the money is being donated from:
Wylie Aitken, Santa Ana Attorney, heavy involvement in the Democratic party machine
Amin David, Latino Activist, head of Los Amigos, and ironically the one Anaheim address shown on the filings
UA Local 250, Gardena
OC Federation of Labor Committee PAC (COPE) Burbank
Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1877, Sacramento
Elm Street, Burbank
Why would these companies and Unions run negative pieces against Disney and another candidate? The obvious reason to discredit Gail Eastman is that she clearly has the best chance of defeating Galloway for re-election. With Galloway out of office, these Unions and developers lose their ally on City Council. As reported earlier in the post “Galloway Caught with Her Hand in the Affordable Housing Cookie Jar”, Elm Street was given a massive and unprecedented increase in profits by Galloway and Chavez, bumping their profits from the standard 15% of an affordable housing project to an unheard of 50% of the project. That is 35% of many millions of dollars that will never come back to the affordable housing fund it came from. Galloway did this while looking directly at the developer and saying, “I hope you acknowledge how much Council has been supportive of you.” It appears they are showing their appreciation now.
How much of an ally has Galloway been to the Unions? Let’s look at Galloway’s own words, as seen on the questionnaire she filed for an endorsement by COPE.
Lorri Galloway tells the Unions that as an elected official and representative of the people of Anaheim, she will walk Union picket lines and speak at Union rallies. In this document, she admits to participating in recent civil disturbances that blocked traffic, and resulted in multiple arrests in the Resort District of Anaheim. During these protests, Union employees, many who do not work at the Disneyland Resort nor live in Anaheim, dressed as Disney characters, and shut down public streets with the intent of being arrested for the publicity. This created a direct expense to the taxpayer for the public safety employees we paid to direct traffic, arrest, and process these troublemakers, led by an elected City Councilwoman! In addition, witnesses report union workers blowing air horns at guest rooms to disrupt the “guest experience” of our tax-generating visitors.
Is this an appropriate role for an elected official?
While the mailings were paid for by Unions and developers, to date, FPPC/Secretary of State Late Filings do not show the expenditure for the TV ad, which clearly states on the screen that it was paid for by Anaheim Families and Business Owners for a Better Tomorrow. Who has enough of a stake in Lorri’s Galloway’s leadership to put up that much money to keep her in office? Stay tuned as we look into that very question.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
In addition, Mickadiet has since met with Gail Eastman, who clarified that she never makes a decision without a full presentation of the facts, including staff reports and public comments so that she can make an informed decision. But of course Lorri is not going to let voters know that. Galloway follows the standard playbook and lifts the bits and pieces of information she find useful, because her goal is not to benefit her City, her goal is to benefit Lorri Galloway.
For those looking for clear information on the hotel issue, we offer here a piece from Mayor Curt Pringle, shamelessly lifted from the RedCounty blog without the permission of Matt Cunningham, but we are crediting him, and hope he forgives us. Below is the entire quote from Mayor Pringle, unedited, and we hope it clears up some confusion about hotel development, and the way in which Galloway is abusing information to suit her own need for re-election. We would also like to restate that Gail Eastman has not expressed an opinion one way or the other regarding the hotel development. For more information our readers can also contact the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce at http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=24905329&msgid=348177&act=M30J&c=272806&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anaheimchamber.org%2F.
“I appreciate all of the Anaheim talk on the Blog over the last few days about our incentives for four/five star hotel properties. I would like to share my perspective on this.
It is always interesting that some wish to immediately be negative about what they hear on one issue, and from that, seek to claim that their interpretation of the situation defines conservatism or proper government management. I know there are opposing views, but one point of non-agreement does not define an entire political philosophy.The city of Anaheim takes great pride in its Resort district. It is an important economic engine to our city. We have fought hard this year to preserve it!
Even with 20,000 hotel rooms in our city, new hotel development is vigorous in Anaheim. At this moment in time, nearly 1500 new hotel rooms are under development in Anaheim. Many other developers are coming to the city expressing interest in developing hotels.
So we have seen in managing for our city’s future that many additional hotels are necessary. But in all cases, except the current construction of the 250 room expansion of the Disney Grand Californian, all of the new hotels are three star properties.
The current market conditions allow for the development of three star properties in our city, even with their current high property and construction costs.
But in planning for the future of Anaheim, we have considered how we could grow the Resort district, both in number of rooms and the average nightly rate.
We do not need to do anything to encourage three star properties. But four star properties and the additional construction costs that are required to get these properties to that level are much higher and they may not be built at the current cost of construction.
Four star properties can add to our opportunities to bring additional conventions to Anaheim and can assist in the growth of the Resort area.
On Tuesday’s agenda, we voted to provide a potential tax reimbursement to hotel developments if they seek to build four star properties. Our plan would be to require the full 100% of the bed tax be collected on the three star property equivalent rates. But we would consider, based on need, if we would reimburse for the first 10-15 years, the additional amount of taxes collected from the three star rate equivalent to the four star rate.
We are not reimbursing what the market will provide – in this case a three star property. But we see the value in growing the Resort for the long term. And a mix of high end hotels, even with higher construction and development costs, will insure that we have the mix of properties that will continue to grow the Resort.
At the council meeting, I respect that Councilmember Harry Sidhu wanted to delay this discussion for a few months in order to get more information.
And I also respect that Councilmember Lorri Galloway joined with HERE (Hotel Employee/Restaurant Employee Union) in opposing this plan. The HERE representatives were the only ones who spoke against this proposal.
I see a similarity in the council action on Tuesday, to when, in the Legislature, we provided a manufacturer’s tax credit on the purchase of new manufacturing equipment or when we provided an R&D tax credit to encourage more high tech research firms to locate to California. Some people didn’t like any type of tax credit or incentive programs. And I can respect that.
But with these incentives in Anaheim, I feel we are taking steps today to prepare for the long-term fiscal health of our city.
Sometimes planning for the long term is not seen by everyone in the short term.
But I will hold Anaheim’s fiscal position up as an example of a fiscally responsible and secure government even in these economic times. This year we have made a mid-year budget reduction of 2 ½%; we have maintained a 13% general fund reserve and are truly in a strong budget position.
I will proudly match our city’s planning and budget position to any other local government from Rancho Santa Margarita to Riverside. “
April 24, 2008 5:21 PM
Monday, October 27, 2008
Today’s photo is the Elm Street Commons project. It is a 100% affordable housing project, located on Elm Street just west of Anaheim Blvd. To make way for these enormous apartments, a single family, historic home was removed, and another lot was absorbed. At first, we just felt sorry for the poor saps who were left behind on the street, to be forever dwarfed by a gargantuan stucco box. But wait, there’s more!
It seems the funding on this project got a little creative. On November 28, 2006, SADI, the developer for Elm Street Commons, came to City Council to have their standard DDA approved through the Housing Authority. Standard practice in Anaheim is to give the developer money, to be paid back over time, 85% to the City, and the developer keep 15% as profit. The 85% is then recycled into more housing projects, which keeps Anaheim building apartments for the working poor. Whether you agree with building subsidized housing or not, it is an efficient system. In the development of the Elm Street Commons, the City offered many millions of dollars in direct funding, plus incentives added later such as a sewer project the developer decided the City should do. Rather than approve the otherwise ordinary deal, now-convicted-felon Richard Chavez pulled the development from the Consent Calendar, allowing discussion. In the end, the City Council, led by Chavez and backed by Lorri Galloway, changed the condition of the agreement, bumping the developer’s profit from the standard 15% to a whopping and unprecedented 50% profit for a private corporation!!
Mayor Curt Pringle admonished Council not to approve this deal, saying, “By taking money out of that pot and not returning it to that pot it limits the amount of affordable housing we will do in the future.” The change meant that the developer would not be paying back 35% of the cost of the project to a revolving fund, and therefore that 35% would not be available for housing the working poor in the future. Why would Chavez propose such a move? Seems the same folks had filtered money through a shady PAC (Hometown Voter) just before the vote, funding an Independent Expenditure on behalf of Richard Chavez’ failed re-election. Why would Lorri Galloway take money from the very people she claims to champion? Perhaps the answer is in her Council statement, as she looked at the developer and admonished him, “I hope you acknowledge how much Council has been supportive of you.”
Well the developers at Elm Street Commons sure did remember to acknowledge that 35% jump in their profits, funded by robbing Anaheim’s working poor. Again funneling money through PAC filings with Treasurer Kinde Durkee, who is frequently under investigation by the FPPC, a donation of $15,000 was made by Elm Street, which funded the Clear Channel billboards Lorri has all over the City. They also underwrote a large mailing, and the graphic arts for the mail piece
But wait, it gets stickier. Jump over to the filings for Orange County Leaders for Change, and you see Elm Street money mixed with a donation from SunCal, administered by the same Treasurer, Kinde Durkee, and spent on the campaigns of both Lorri Galloway and Diane Singer. If you recall, both Diane and Lorri backed SunCal’s attempt to strip the Resort District of an income-producing parcel in exchange for affordable housing subsidies. Developers, developers everywhere, and they all seem linked to what they can take from Anaheim, through the "leadership" of Lorri Galloway.
Watch the City Council meeting yourself here at http://anaheim.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=72
This item begins about 38 minutes into the meeting. We are trying to pull the section of video to make it easier to view, and will post it here if we can get that to work.
Lorri Galloway used her position on the Anaheim City Council to take money from affordable housing funds and increase the profits of a developer who is now financing her campaign expenses. She does not deserve another four years on the City Council. This race is getting down to the finish line, and the polls show it will be a tight race. No matter whom you might support for City Council, we ask everyone who reads this and is as disgusted as we were, please forward this page to every Anaheim voter you know. Felon (and Galloway employee) Richard Chavez was defeated by roughly 200 votes. Lorri Galloway can be defeated, if we all work together. Please help.
Join your neighbors by voting No On Galloway on November 4, and share this information with every Anaheim voter you know.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The property located at 100 S. Canyon Crest Drive was purchased on June 2, 1994 Doc # 1994-00374291 (2 pages) The purchase price was $125,000.
The Eli Home had received grant money from several sources, including a sizable grant from United Parcel Service. While the Eli Home had been given funding to purchase the property, they recorded a Deed of Trust Doc # 1994-00374292 (3 pages).The disposition of the grant money intended for the purchase is conjectural. In theory, the Eli Home should have had a mortgage free base of operations. Over time, the Eli Home has not only taken in donations for their costs, but stripped the properties of their equity.
Within the last year, the Eli Home Inc. has completed the following transactions related to the Anaheim Hills property:
Doc # 2006-0000864080 (2 pages) On December 20, 2006, The Eli Home Inc granted the Canyon Crest shelter property to Robin and Kimberlee Tulleners. According to the Eli Home website, Robin Tulleners serves on the Board of Directors as Treasurer. Robin also works in the mortgage industry. Kimberlee Tulleners serves on the Eli Home Advisory Board, as Program Director.
Doc# 2007-0000055038 (19 pages)
Robin and Kimberlee Tulleners sign a Deed of Trust with National City Bank (Robin’s employer is National City Mortgage Company) in the amount of $582,000.00, essentially stripping the house of its remaining equity.
Document # 2007-000045747 (2 pages)
On May 30, 2007, the Eli Home Inc and Robin and Kimberlee Tulleners granted the Canyon Crest property, now worthless, back to the Eli Home Inc.
Similar transactions have taken place with the Orange shelter, which we will post at another time.
While none of us is expert in real estate, and we are hesitant to scream “mortgage fraud”….we are left with the undeniable knowledge that the National City Bank now holds a mortgage for a property that the trustees no longer hold the Deed to. There is also the issue of donations for the purchase and upkeep of the property not being used as promised by the Eli Home, Inc. It was the practice of stripping properties of equity until payments became unmanagable that has destroyed our current ecomony. Eli Home, under the direction of Lorri Galloway, has shown extrememely poor judgement, spending beyond their means, with equity obtained through questionable mortgage practices. We are now to trust this same leader with our General Fund at a time when Anaheim has no money to lose on speculative practices. November 4 is coming quickly. Do you trust Lorri Galloway with Anaheim’s future?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
1 New Police Station
2 New Libraries
2 New Community Centers
Let’s look at those claims, beginning in West Anaheim.
1 New Police station has indeed been added to the streetscape of West Anaheim. The West Anaheim Police Station on Beach Blvd. held its groundbreaking on September 13, 2002. Lorri Galloway was not elected to office until November 2004. She had nothing to do with the planning or funding of the new Police Station and her only connection was in attending the Grand Opening on March 31, 2007.
1 New Library was indeed added in West Anaheim while Galloway was in office. The Haskett Branch Library was demolished in September 2004, a month prior to Galloway’s election. http://www2.anaheim.net/article.cfm?id=740
Plans for the new library were underway before Lorri Galloway even filed papers to run for City Council, and the grant application shown here reveals that funding was requested in the year 2000, without involvement from Lorri Galloway. http://www.library.ca.gov/lba2000/funded/haskett.html Lorri did attend the opening. Maybe that is what she takes credit for.
The West Anaheim Gymnasium, attached to the West Anaheim Police Station, was constructed with the Police Station, and funding was approved before the election that put Lorri Galloway into a City Council seat. http://www.anaheim.net/administration/PIO/news.asp?id=480
Lorri Galloway’s campaign, from mailing to website, is built on the lie that she created these improvements in Anaheim. Lorri Galloway simply sat back, watched the work of others completed, and then took a bow for the work. If these are her reasons for being re-elected, she does not deserve the seat.
It is time to look for integrity and truthfulness in our candidates. This blog will not promote any one candidate, and indeed those involved in this blog differ in their support of candidates. But it is certain that Lorri Galloway does not represent those character traits that the people of Anaheim are looking for.
Lorri has lied about her work in West Anaheim. Coming soon, East Anaheim claims of improvement.
We recently had a run of comments, and while postings claimed to be from various pseudonyms, they looked suspiciously like the same person. To be fair, we did allow these posts of opposing viewpoints. We also invited the posters to dispute any claim we made, and offered to give equal time and space to opposing views. To date we have not received any communication even attempting to rebut anything we have posted here as untrue. Again, it is our stand that Lorri Galloway has been such a bad leader, both in the public sector and as a non-profit director, that we need not invent charges against her, it is simply our intent to educate the public regarding those actions that are provable. We again invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint to share it here, in a respectful manner. It is never our intent to slander or defame with false information. Those reluctant to post here on the blog may email information to NoOnGalloway@gmail.com, and opposing views will be treated with respect.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Case in point:
In 1995, Lorri Galloway as the Eli Home Inc, filed a lawsuit claiming slander, against defendants Gene Secrest, Jeannie Averill and Vicky Conway.
Case # 746160 Santa Ana Superior Court. In time, the Eli Home amended the lawsuit four times to add defendants including the Orange County Register, Freedom Newspapers, and reporter Marla Jo Fisher.
After years of stressful and expensive legal defense, each of the defendants were dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. All of the lawsuits filed by Eli were found to be “meritless”, and “filed solely to punish the defendants for their criticism of the Eli project and to impose litigation costs upon them for exercising their right to free speech and to petition the government”
The judges involved, under the SLAPP statute, awarded attorney’s fees and costs of filing motions to each of the defendants. In addition, the Eli Home’s own attorneys, Faran and Kievet, filed two separate Motions to Withdraw as Attorney of Record, citing that “the Eli Home Inc. has failed to maintain their financial obigations relative to the payment of fees, costs, and expenses.”
No On Galloway has obtained those public records related to the lawsuit, and while the file it too large to post on Blogspot, we will share that information with those concerned, if contacted directly. We will also be sharing smaller files as we continue the education of Anaheim voters concerning who Lorri Galloway is, and how she conducts herself as a leader, both in the public sector as an elected official, and in the non-profit sector, as the Executive Director of a charity that claims to serve Anaheim’s children. Her behavior in both areas gives us a view on whether she is fit for re-election to City Council.
If you have information to share, please email to NoOnGalloway@gmail.com, please provide primary record information, as we cannot post information without documentation. This keeps our credibility high with voters, and hopefully our lawsuit exposure low.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Thanks to alert reader DixQuartz, we do have confirmation of the CSUF rumor. While the Cal State website claims Councilwoman Galloway graduated with a degree, it appears that the Lorri Galloway who earned the degree is not the Lorri Galloway who is running for re-election to Anaheim City Council. The search was reportedly based on the Councilwoman's Social Security number, which did not match the Lorri Galloway listed on the website.
Today's Anahiem Bulletin reports on a young Anaheim Hills man named Ian Galloway, whose parents are Lori and Greg. So it does certainly appear that there are TWO Lorri Galloways in Anaheim Hills. One holds a degree at Cal State Fullerton, the other simply claims to. The problem is, one is running for re-election to Anaheim City Council, can we trust someone this ethically challenged to run our city?
Friday, October 10, 2008
This clearly refers to gearing up for the Justice Center, in its initial planning stages. The Anaheim Family Justice Center opened in October 2006, making this quote a minimum of TWO YEARS OLD! This is not a current endorsement of Galloway by Mayor Curt Pringle, but an ancient pat on the back for a specific project.
Lorri continues this theme, using a YouTube video endorsement from local philanthropist Bill Taormina, shot in early 2007, when he was still on her Eli Home Board of Directors, prior to leaving, and prior to openly supporting another candidate for Council in 2008. Yet she still uses the misleading endorsement from Taormina. Where are the current endorsements from those who support her today?
The recent mailer lists endorsements from individuals who are politically active outside the current City Council. Lorri Galloway has served on the City Council for 4 years; time enough for her fellow Council members to know her and her work very well. Yet not a single member of the current City Council endorses her in this mailer. Lorri Galloway cannot muster active and relevant support from her own Council peers, and must reach into the past to drag out dusty old press releases for the appearance of support from Mayor Curt Pringle. The voters of Anaheim need to reach the same conclusion as Lorri’s current Council peers, that Lorri Galloway is unfit for public service in the City of Anaheim.
Vote No on Galloway.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Lorri Galloway made the City of Anaheim a laughingstock with her appearance on this television program. While Galloway could not control Rob Riggle’s interview, she could easily have predicted it. The Jon Stewart show consistently follows the same format for every episode. Some guests are flown to New York to be interviewed by Jon Stewart in the studio. Those guests are taken seriously, and are treated with respect and dignity. Guests who are interviewed in the field by Jon Stewart’s staff of comedic talent are consistently mocked and ridiculed. With a minimal amount of homework, Lorri Galloway, or her staff, could have discovered this, and avoided the humiliation she subjected not only herself to, but also the entire City of Anaheim. Lorri Galloway’s agreement to do the Jon Stewart interview without determining what the interview would be related to left Anaheim with egg on her municipal face. Lorri Galloway is unfit to represent Anaheim to the rest of the world.
Monday, August 25, 2008
She uses the baby’s death for an excuse for everything from why she supports another politician to why she ran for office. She has even shamelessly been photographed at the grave (twice). www.ocregister.com/.../abox/article_1281039.php
Let’s look at what really happened to baby Samantha. Lorri Galloway complains that while there was evidence that baby Samantha was being abused and neglected, Social Services agencies did nothing to protect her. If one takes the time to review the story, Baby Samantha Rose Gutierrez was being raised in a garage converted to living space. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/11/local/me-samantha11
There is no provision in the Building Code for this type of conversion, it is against the law. Had the City of Anaheim’s Code Enforcement division been called in to deal with the illegal conversion, the Gutierrez family would have been removed from that garage. Eli Home counselors appear to have visited the home. Had the family been reported to Code Enforcement for dangerous living conditions, Samantha Rose may still be alive today. One would think that in light of the death of a baby that Lorri Galloway claims as “her own”, she would be in support of Code Enforcement, in an effort to maintain safe and viable housing for other children being raised in dangerous circumstances. Instead, almost immediately upon taking office (Spring 2005) Lorri Galloway voted to take authority away from the Code Enforcement division. Lorri Gallloway helped to decimate the one City law enforcement division that could have helped baby Samantha Rose Gutierrez escape her dangerous and illegal living conditions. In Anaheim today, many families are living in converted garages, conditions that are nothing short of firetraps. Within the last year, a young man died in a garage on Harbor Blvd, where he was sleeping while being warmed by a space heater that caught fire. Had the Code Enforcement division been given the authority they once had, that young man may still be alive. How many innocents must die because Lorri Galloway wished to make Code Enforcement “friendlier”?
It is time to elect Councilmembers who respect public safety. It is time to vote “NO” on Lorri Galloway.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
This week, Lorri Galloway attended a demonstration where Police arrested twenty-eight leaders of Unite Here 681, a labor union heavily aligned with Lorri Galloway. This Union has staged 14 public protests, while only sitting down at the bargaining table 11 times. It appears the Galloway supported Union is more interested in press attention than actually working out an agreement with their employer. While this Union has the right to demonstrate, the expenditure of public safety employees to respond to these repeated demonstrations, where Union workers deliberately block public streets, disrupting the flow of traffic, and endangering others, is irresponsible at best. Lorri Galloway’s involvement in this activity shows a disregard for those taxpayers who are paying for those public safety employees. Lorri Galloway has a long history of Police response to her Union supporting tactics. In April 2007, Police responded when Disney security caught Lorri Galloway, Unite Here 681 Union leader Ada Briceno, and an LA Times reporter trespassing on Disney property. While the PR machine spun the story as Disney retaliation, the reality is that Galloway’s press party failed to check in with Disney security before conducting a behind-the-scenes interview on Disney property. All press is required to follow the same security measures, even press accompanied by a Councilwoman. Any corporate Security team would have responded to reporters tresspassing in a secure area without permission. http://ocblog.typepad.com/ocblog/2007/04/i_spoke_today_w.html It takes the expense of public safety personnel to respond to Galloway and her Union antics. Is this the behavior we want from our Council representation?
Earlier this week, Lorri Galloway voted against City funding for the Chamber of Commerce, saying, “"I do have a philosophical belief that the city should not be subsidizing private business,". http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-chamber-contract-2122906-year-events
Obviously, Lorri Galloway does support using public funding to subsidize the activity of private business, as long as the private business is her Union supporters.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
One of those past rumors was the accusation that while Lorri Galloway flaunts her membership in the CSUF Alumni Association, it was a ruse to hide the fact that she had never completed a university degree. That rumor is untrue. Lorri Galloway did complete her B.A. in Health and Human Services in 1987, according to the CSUF website.
The question here is, does a degree in social work help or hinder her qualifications for City Council? Is the Anaheim City Council a social services agency? Lorri Galloway’s continued commitment to provide taxpayer subsidized housing to those employees who have voluntarily chosen careers in the City of Anaheim appears to indicate that she believes it is. Do the voters agree? While compassion is something we hope all residents would strive for, are social service programs an appropriate use of tax dollars, or is that task best left to private charitable organizations?
The City of Anaheim is reportedly asking departments to cut expenses by at least 10%. Revenue streams from sales tax and property tax are performing below expectations, and only the Galloway-opposed Resort district is producing its share of revenue. While City departments tighten belts, Lorri insists on spending more money for subsidized social programs. Is this what the voters of Anaheim want? That question will have to be answered in November.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Letters to the Editor in The OC Register, Monday August 11, 2008 says it all.
“Awful Campaign Graffiti
All over our Anaheim neighborhood large campaign ads for Lorri Galloway are sprouting up. With more than 100 days until voting takes place, her insensitivity to our neighborly quality of life is as callow as any ignorant graffiti tagger. Names and slogans are splashed over private and public property without regard to the aesthetic that the city works hard to maintain. If the councilwoman thinks so little of the city environment, how ignorant is she of other important issues facing Anaheim? City ordinances should restrict the display of campaign posters and billboards to within a month of upcoming elections.