Post by Mountain Times Editor on May 17, 2004 7:57:56 GMT -8
Mayor unfit to lead
It's too bad Azusa Mayor Cristina Madrid awoke Wednesday feeling sad ("Money viewed as pivotal in Azusa vote," May 6). More appropriate emotions for Madrid would have been enlightenment and elation. When 75 percent of the electorate stand up for property rights and overwhelmingly vote-down the mayor's latest assault against property owners, it should send a clear and unmistakable message to her.
She does not represent the will of her constituents and has not led them in noble causes. Whether it's her vendetta against Azusa Pacific University for buying properties from willing sellers and improving them, or railing against their tax status, or coed jaywalkers, or her latest Quixotic crusade against Miles Rosedale, one thing is clear. She is unfit to lead Azusa anywhere but to repression and mediocrity.
She goes on to say in the article that she put everything on the line for that parcel of land. On the contrary, she put nothing on the line. Rosedale had the accumulated wealth of generations on the line against the extortionate will of a band with an undeserved amount of power. Any amount of money used fighting for his cause and rallying the citizenry is money righteously spent.
Mayor Madrid also should feel elated that hers is not a parliamentary position. If it were, the 3-1 vote against would be viewed as no-confidence with her immediate ouster instead of another fight at the polls next election. Until then, none of us should lose sight of the fact that there is no public good without the protection of every individual's (wealthy or poor) rights.
Sam Sparks
Glendora
www.sgvtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,205%257E24946%257E,00.html
It's too bad Azusa Mayor Cristina Madrid awoke Wednesday feeling sad ("Money viewed as pivotal in Azusa vote," May 6). More appropriate emotions for Madrid would have been enlightenment and elation. When 75 percent of the electorate stand up for property rights and overwhelmingly vote-down the mayor's latest assault against property owners, it should send a clear and unmistakable message to her.
She does not represent the will of her constituents and has not led them in noble causes. Whether it's her vendetta against Azusa Pacific University for buying properties from willing sellers and improving them, or railing against their tax status, or coed jaywalkers, or her latest Quixotic crusade against Miles Rosedale, one thing is clear. She is unfit to lead Azusa anywhere but to repression and mediocrity.
She goes on to say in the article that she put everything on the line for that parcel of land. On the contrary, she put nothing on the line. Rosedale had the accumulated wealth of generations on the line against the extortionate will of a band with an undeserved amount of power. Any amount of money used fighting for his cause and rallying the citizenry is money righteously spent.
Mayor Madrid also should feel elated that hers is not a parliamentary position. If it were, the 3-1 vote against would be viewed as no-confidence with her immediate ouster instead of another fight at the polls next election. Until then, none of us should lose sight of the fact that there is no public good without the protection of every individual's (wealthy or poor) rights.
Sam Sparks
Glendora
www.sgvtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,205%257E24946%257E,00.html