Every poll -- including Sandy Sheedy's -- shows the Mayor with a strong job approval and re-elect numbers. But hey, since you're wrong about everything else you posted above, why get that right either? And while you are out it, how about letting sacpress readers know your real name.

Actually, your victory was simply not allowing citizens like yourself to vote on the concept that is in place in most American cities the size of Sacramento. Mayors in these cities (like Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, or Jerry Sanders in San Diego, which went to a strong mayor system) are held accountable for their government. They hire folks to run the city, with the difference being that the Mayor is held accountable. In our current system, the city manager reports to city councilors instead of voters. It's pretty clear this is a failed experiment in Sacramento given the turnover in the city managers office lately.

I guess the difference, Mr. Fifth Generation, is that in those cities, voters actually get to vote for the person in charge (the Mayor). So if they are doing a bad job, they actually can hold them accountable for it. As you point out, Mayor Johnson supported keeping more police on the streets and fire stations open, while the City Manager favored a budget cutting them. In San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee was just elected by a significant margin. So I guess I'm in favor of having citizens having a government that's accountable to them, not a city manager accountable to other politicians.

Voters. Because you can't vote for a city manager.

As a self-proclaimed "historian," Mr. Burg, I would expect you to know that : (1) Ballot measures are written by attorneys because they require changes in the law. So that an attorney wrote the measure shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. (2) Nearly all ballot measures require paid signature gatherers to reach the ballot. Not a single ballot measure in recent memory has been put on the ballot without them, either on the state or local level. And thanks for yet another personal attack. Classy as always.

When the facts aren't on your side, you have to engage in personal attacks. Glad you always keep it classy, Mr. Burg.

Lisa, I'm not a registered lobbyist and never have been. And there was nothing incorrect about what I wrote. Indeed, most major American cities the size of Sacramento have a "strong mayor" form of government. Here's a list: http://strongmayorcouncil.org/25largestcities.html City managers aren't elected by voters; they aren't accountable to us. These type of governments work best in smaller cities without full-time elected officials.

Actually, Mr. Burg, most of California's major cities have this system of government, including LA, San Diego (which recently switched to it), San Francisco, and Oakland (thanks to Jerry Brown). The reason is simple: it brings accountability to government. You actually can vote for the person in charge, as opposed to a city manager who does not report to the voters.

Isaac, I'm pleased you support allowing a vote on changing the city charter. Unfortunately most of the City Council didn't want to give you that right. If you'd bothered reading the article the above before venting, you'd know that the initiative would appear on the ballot, and you'd be able to vote on it as you wished. And "You Want What" .. the Charter Commission on this issue was not elected, it was appointed. As in unaccountable to the voters.

Actually, it's about making the city work. That's why nearly every city the size has it. It's also about accountability. Citizens don't vote for the city manager nor have any say in his performance. Contrary to your statement above, a system where you elect the person in charge not only gives you "access to the decision maker," he allows you to hold him/her accountable.

Actually, Mayor Johnson spoke about having the "strong mayor" form of government during his first run for office. It's even in his campaign brochure. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of your rage? Jerry Brown was a strong mayor. Gavin Newsom was a strong mayor. In fact, nearly all of California's large cities have this system of government rather than the chaos that now is common practice at City Council meetings.

It's unfortunate Joe that you don't believe that having good schools is central to having a strong city. Around the nation, Republican and Democratic mayors alike are making that connection. As you probably know, Mayor Johnson has consistently supported higher budgets for public safety (he was outvoted on the City Council on that ) and has played a key role in helping win federal grants from the federal community policing program.

Wow, Isaac, sorry you have so much pent up hostility. I hate the let the facts get in the way of your rage, but the Mayor actually has consistently worked to put more cops on the streets (and has helped get several grants to do just that), pushed for an independent auditor, and is working closely with the business community on long-term plans for riverfront development. I'm glad you posted the link about the issues as well, because it shows that the Mayor was actually working for the city in venues where it matters. It also points out that none of those meetings had any major votes. The Mayor's poll ratings are high because he's put a ton of energy into being Mayor, holds regular community meetings with citizens, and has accomplished a lot despite not enjoying the governing structure that the mayors of LA, SD, SF, and the state's other large cities have.

Happy anniversary. What a breath of fresh air on the City Council!

Nice article. I've been hearing more and more, though, that restaurants themselves are "yelping" and boosting their own scores thru fake names and such. Same with TripAdvisor and other rating sites. The New York Times had a story about that not long ago. So buyer beware!

Bummer. Hope we can find your insight on Insight and elsewhere. A big loss to the Sac Press. Hope you can back to doing your thing real soon.

What the city council did is exactly why they should continue to have control over redistricting rather than a citizens committee (and I served on the City of Sacramento's Redistricting Advisory Committee). Voters will be able to hold council members who supported a redistricting plan they don't like directly accountable for their actions if they wish. We can't do that with what happened at the state level -- the state redistricting commissioners aren't accountable to voters, and were appointed by the State Auditor -- someone else not accountable to voters. It would be healthy for the electoral process if city council members up for election this year had opposition. That way, voters will have a choice to express their views and preferences, and perhaps this issue could be one where voters can weigh in.

Sadly, Paul, the local BDS leader says she will not rule out future litigation against the Co-op and issued a press release yesterday with a laundry list of complaints against the Co-op, including attacking our store once again.

Error in link: should be www.sacfoodcoop.com And thank you Co-op owners for your strong support!

The Court dismissed the dismissed the lawsuit because BDS didn't pursue it, as there was no merit in their case that the Board had violated its Bylaws. There is a clear and strong win for the Coop and confirms the BDS claims are bogus.