STORYLINE Sacramento City Hall / Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Johnson reacts to initial ruling in strong mayor case

by Kathleen Haley, published on January 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

Mayor Kevin Johnson commented on today’s initial Sacramento County Superior Court ruling that the strong mayor initiative should not be placed on the June ballot.

Johnson made his remarks to reporters before an open house on proposals for a new Sacramento entertainment and sports complex. Sacramento Press staff reporter Suzanne Hurt reported Johnson's comments on Judge Loren McMaster’s draft decision:

“I think it was a temporary setback,” Johnson said. “This is something we’re going to fight. We’re going to fight nail and tooth.”

Johnson noted that the early decision was “very disheartening,” and indicated that it affects voters’ rights.

“Voters deserve and have a right to vote on this initiative,” he said.

Photo by Anthony Bento.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

edited on  January 14, 2010 | 7:30 PM
Johnson's comment is "very disheartening". I hope his fighting tooth and nail doesn't continue to take him away from other existing city priorities and doesn't take any more time away from him to begin fighting for Sacramento area youth to know and have LIFE and FREEDOM. Or does our mayor prefer many of us to walk on a treadmill? walk in reverse? walk to morgues, funeral homes, graves, courts, jails, prisons as he fights tooth and nail for more power? Or does he think city residents affected by and exposed to violence are taking his unacceptable, insignificant, ineffective gang summit as addressing youth violence? Because he surely didn't fight tooth and nail to address youth and violence- Life and Freedom.

Re: Johnson's comment " “Voters deserve and have a right to vote on this initiative,” Heck, did he even read -or was he so busy again looking at self that he missed--- The judge wrote, "“The Court recognizes the right of the people to vote on initiative measures...The Court does not lightly dismiss such, and has taken this very important right in consideration in ruling on the matter.”

For goodness sake, residents- voters- people have a right to truth, transparency, an initiative not done in the dark, LIFE, FREEDOM ......so much more than watching him fight a loosing battle "tooth and nail" for more power.
6 2
REPLY
edited on  January 14, 2010 | 7:44 PM
Bet he's glad he has dental insurance. He'll need it for dentures and he'll also need plenty of bandages for bleeding finger tips when his teeth and fingernails are gone! Too be honest, now that I think about it, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing him fight. It WILL be interesting to see him fight a battle that it appears money can't buy off.
6 2
REPLY
January 14, 2010 | 8:26 PM
What he is trying to do is take control away from the city manager, an unelected position. By taking over the manager's duties he will have more control over budget issues and departments. I don't know what his intentions are, but under this form of government, it is very hard for him to make any real changes. His power is completely diluted. I would personally give him the power and see what kind of changes he can make. Most likely it will be used to enrich his friends and campaign donors, however, the current system offers only very slow change and protects the establishment.
1 2
REPLY
edited on  January 14, 2010 | 10:43 PM
So, in other words, currently he can only slowly enrich his friends and campaign donors, and the purpose of this initiative is to more rapidly enrich his friends and campaign donors?

The city manager is supposed to be an unelected position--the city manager is a professional manager who is totally responsible to the elected officials. He can't make the rules, he just carries them out as instructed by the city council. If the city council decides they want him gone, they can do so with a two-thirds majority at any time.

The "strong mayor" rules wouldn't do away with the "unelected city manager," the position would still exist, directly under the mayor. The difference is that the city council would no longer be able to fire the city manager should they be unhappy with the manager's performance.
4 2
REPLY
January 15, 2010 | 9:03 AM
Based on the practices of Arno Political Consulting in gathering signatures in other contests, it's likely that the only 'voters' KJ is referring to, whose 'rights' are being denied by this decisioin, are dead ones...
2 1
REPLY
January 15, 2010 | 9:03 PM
Hey now, I wouldn't say that--based on Arno Political Consulting's practices in Los Angeles, I'd wager that plenty of the homeless people who got candy bars or noodles in exchange for their signatures are still alive. I'm also sure that some of the people who were lied to by signature gatherers, told they were signing a petition for something else entirely, are also still alive. They didn't get kicked out of Ohio for fraudulent vote-gathering for nothing, after all!
1 0
REPLY
January 15, 2010 | 11:56 AM
The SMI is mis-labeled. It should be called the "Strong-Land-Developer-&-Megacorporation-Initiative". I think we need to get back to a form of government that serves the general public. We pay enough in taxes, now we need service!
2 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background