Voters must consider council’s stance

A clear pattern is emerging on the Costa Mesa City Council. Those who

would like to oversimplify the pattern are blaming it on a gender gap

-- the two women versus the three men. Gender has nothing to do with

it.

The fundamental difference in these two voting blocs is their

attitudes toward government. To possibly varying degrees, the two

women believe in using government for a breadth of socially desirable

purposes. The three men don’t -- a fundamental difference that merits

serious consideration during the next local election.

Last week’s execution of the human relations committee by a 3-2

vote is only the most recent example of this division. The committee

received a pittance in public money and believed strongly enough in

its work that it offered to operate without any public funding. Its

membership reflected the diversity of the population of Costa Mesa

and worked actively to foster communication and reduce prejudice

among those diverse elements -- goals we should all be embracing. The

only discernible baggage the committee carried to merit its abrupt

cashiering by the council was its support for activities that Mayor

Allan Mansoor flat out doesn’t like.

In the tough-guy world of total privatization in which Mansoor is

immersed up to his eyeballs, the committee was guilty of one fatal

sin: It was supported financially and, thus, in principle in its

humanitarian goals by government. In Mansoor’s world, this seems to

be a capital crime, punishable by execution.

Consider, for example, his use of a proclamation honoring National

Arts and Humanities Month as a platform to denigrate public support

of the arts. Or his insistence on replacing an effective

city-operated job center with private agencies not designed to deal

with the same problem. Or his refusal even to consider how Costa Mesa

might support local citizens who depend on medical marijuana to ease

their pain.

Most of Mansoor’s positions have been shared by his council pals,

Gary Monahan and Eric Bever. Occasionally there are defections. One

notable example happened last year when Mansoor tried to cut off city

funding to the Interfaith Shelter and Monahan voted for the other

side.

Excising the human relations committee, its chairman, pastor

Dennis Short of the Harbor Christian Church, told me “came right out

of the blue, without any warning.”

He said, “We had a lot of dedicated people on this committee. We

haven’t yet had time to get together and decide where we go from

here. It’s all very sad.”

Mansoor’s comment to a Pilot reporter, following the vote, was

consistent with his reaction to similar earlier votes: “I simply

don’t believe this is a function of government. I believe it is best

handled through private organizations, working through private

means.”

This reasoning is identical to that of Rep. Chris Cox in

conspiring to turn over the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station to

profit private developers instead of supporting its desperately

needed use as a public airport.

There are several things wrong with such reasoning, but two in

particular stand out.

First is the apparent conviction of both Mansoor and Cox that

privatization always offers the best solution to public problems.

They seem to be perpetually fighting a battle against the social and

political reforms of Franklin Roosevelt that have served this country

so well since the Great Depression. That leaves no room for the

recognition that both privatization and government, when applied

excessively, can be counterproductive and that seeking to make use of

the positives of both approaches serves the country -- and the

community -- best.

Second is the hypocrisy of supporting government involvement when

it serves the needs or convictions of the privatizers and denouncing

it otherwise. Current examples are conservative support for federal

restrictions on cheaper medications from Canada, and restrictions on

stem-cell research and the morning-after pill. And, of course,

government interference in the Terri Schiavo affair. On the local

scene, we have Bever floating the idea of using eminent domain --

surely one of the most extreme uses of government power -- to solve

the problems of Triangle Square.

In a recent letter to the Pilot, Mansoor wrote, “It is clear to me

that the three men on the dais have more conservative views than the

two women. I am sure this is frustrating to them when some of the

votes come down.”

It is also frustrating to those voters who question whether a

respected term, such as “conservative,” properly describes an

attitude that would reject, out-of-hand, any government activity

aimed at helping relieve social or cultural needs and problems --

unless, of course, such activity would be favorable to the private

sector.

The upside of all this is that local voters will have some very

clear choices when the next local election rolls around. In that

sense, Mansoor has done a public service by clearly defining his

strong biases.

That leaves the question of why someone who dislikes government as

much as he appears to would want to serve it. And whether a balanced

look at how government might more broadly contribute to addressing

local issues would be desirable.

Both are questions local voters will want to consider.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.