Posted by on May 29th, 2014 and filed under Viewpoints. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

On Downtown Development
As more and more multi-housing projects go up in the downtown area, I keep asking where is Mike Mohill to put on the brakes? Mr. Mohill is for smart growth and not run-away growth…approximately 3,800 new apartments are in the pipeline… congestion and traffic will only worsen. High rises are being dumped on narrow streets. Traffic infrastructures cannot handle these buildings. Enough is enough! I know he would be listening to the people who put him into office rather than city unions, land developers or other special interests.

And what about our special landfill that Mohill spoke about years ago in restricting usage only to Glendale residents. Unlike the other council candidates, Mike Mohill addressed the council for years on a range of issues.

If I wanted to know Mohill’s position on many of the city issues, all I would have to do is pick up any of our local newspapers and often one of his letters could be found in the letter to the editor section. It is unfortunate that the other council hopefuls have chosen to be silent, but only now, because they are running for council, want as much publicity as possible.

Mike is the only candidate who appears frequently at the city meetings fighting for the residents and businesses of our city. Even though he is often ridiculed by most of the sitting council members and treated rudely, he does not give up. He’s a fighter and I like his spirit. I will vote #2, Mike Mohill, on June 3.

Frank & Bonnie Tortorelli

Strongly Opposes Mohill
I vehemently disagree with the letters in [the May 22] issue in support of Mike Mohill! Mr. Mohill has been a long time disgruntled wannabe!

His election would only add to the past brouhahas in the Glendale City Council meetings! I have attended several of the pre-election forums and I can see that Mike Mohill would not be a positive addition! (Are those people that wrote those letters members of his family or friends?)

I have not definitely made up my mind for whom to vote but, at this time, I believe Paula Devine would be the best choice! She is educated, a retired teacher, and has the best perspective for the future of Glendale! And I believe we need another female’s views on the needs of our city!

Francis Adams

Thumbs Up for Barnes
I want to encourage our voters to mark their ballot for Rick Barnes. He knows that the city cannot wait out the problem until it goes away, no one is going to fix the problem for us, and tough decisions must be made to protect the people of Glendale.

One problem is the many vacant store fronts that are costing the city tax revenue and the city is trying to make it up with added taxes and fees. Rick wants to streamline the permit process and cut fees which would encourage business to come to Glendale, and stop rising utility rates to fund the General Fund which hurts residents and business. Rick feels that Glendale is fortunate to have our own fire and police departments and that a solution can be found for our pension cost problem.

With over 30 years of Rick helping so many families find and buy their “dream home” I am sure that Rick’s negotiating skills can add greatly to bring fresh ideas to the council and help manage Glendale’s incoming funds very carefully.

I ask you to cast your vote for Rick Barnes for city council.

Mary Owen
La Crescenta

Mohill is Her Candidate
As a young mother struggling to raise two children with my husband in Glendale, I am very concerned about the escalating increases in our water and electric rates.

It is very important to my family and me that we have a city council that will address our needs. Right now, I do not believe that we are being adequately represented.

We have an election coming up on June 3. It is time to vote in a council person who truly cares about the citizens of Glendale and who is not just in the pocket of special interest groups. I feel this person is Mike Mohill.

We need someone who can speak up for us and work diligently to stop our city council from squandering our hard-earned money. A case in point: the city recently had to disregard a rate payers study that cost over $50,000 that was incorrectly formulated in favor of a new study that cost over $100,000 by another company.   Mike Mohill would have been diligent in protecting the taxpayers’ money.

I fear that if we stay with the present salary structure and pension plan, we will have reduced city services and will have ever-increasing water and electric rates.

After hearing Mike Mohill speak at several city council meetings and having attended several of the candidates forums, I am convinced that he is not afraid to challenge the city council and face up to the tough issues we need to address.

I believe Mike Mohill is the best candidate for city council. I intend to vote for him. He is not tied to any special interest groups.

Sally Shaw
La Crescenta

Mohill Misinformed?
I am a retired Glendale fire captain and a member of the Republican Club of the Foothills but am writing as a regular citizen.

I have seen the write-ups for Mike Mohill and am compelled to add my observations on Mike. At the [Glendale] City Council meetings it seems that most of his presentations are very negative and are more attacks than positive suggestions, which turns me off. I have also talked to him about three-men engine crews, which is his obsession, and explained how a captain can direct the fire attack and let the fire burn waiting for the rest of the crews to arrive or have the engineer pump the water to the firefighter and captain who are wearing breathing masks, pulling hose into the fire and trying to monitor the radio hanging on a chest hook. It just is too much for three men.

Also a study was done over 20 years ago about L.A. County taking over Glendale Fire. It was decided that the closed Glendale stations would increase the response time excessively, and with undermanned crews could cause more fire damage, injuries and maybe citizen deaths. This was reason enough to not go with the county.

Another point is that LACO crews could be assigned to Glendale and next year somewhere else, then other members coming in would need to learn about our city all over again. Our firefighters are here to stay and will know our city.

Mike Mohill listened to me and went right back to his old thinking.

Also CALPERS did run into trouble because [of] the 2008 market crash, but is now in rather good shape by the latest reports, so the retirement system failing is old, wrong news.

All of this is why I could not vote for Mike Mohill and ask others to join me.

Marvin Owen
La Crescenta

Time to Say “Au Revoir”?
I live in the western edge of La Cañada Flintridge, support the territory transfer and participated in the recent GUSD-commissioned survey of my neighborhood to measure our support for a transfer to LCUSD. I believe GUSD initiated this survey for the sole purpose of mollifying board president Mary Boger, who stated at the April 15 board meeting, “I will be happy to say, ‘au revoir’ to Sagebrush when I have had the opportunity to be presented with evidence that the majority of the registered voters of the Sagebrush territory are willing to assume that taxation” referring to the $450 annual parcel tax.

Well, Boger got that evidence at the May 20 GUSD board meeting. A commanding 85% of the exceptionally high number of respondents stated that they “definitely support” the territory transfer that would include a change in district boundaries and the obligation for homeowners to pay the parcel tax.

So, how does Boger respond to the evidence she requested? She questions the honesty of the Sagebrush constituents and openly doubts our motivations.

I have to ask – can our board president be more disingenuous? We expect our elected officials to be honest, open-minded and transparent in their decision-making. Perhaps it really is time for Boger to say ‘au revoir.’

 Paul Hardy
La Cañada Flintridge

A Concerned Citizen     
I [recently] attended the Glenoaks Canyon Homeowners meeting in regard to the Scholl Canyon Landfill. The community meeting room was packed, but our resident councilman, Dave Weaver, was conspicuously absent. The landfill is going to be a hot issue in the coming special election and Councilman Weaver would be voting without the knowledge and sentiments of his local constituents.

There were three council candidates in the room, but concerned citizen Mike Mohill was the only one who asked to speak. Mohill informed the residents that in 2008, when revenue generated by the landfill was down, he told council he was against allowing other cities the use of our landfill to make-up for revenue shortfalls. Let the revenue fall he said, let the landfill last as long as possible for current residents. He further asked the public works director if our landfill was approaching its demise, why was council approving about 3,800 new apartments with more in the pipeline?  The additional apartments would generate more trash. The public works director had no comment.

Of the five council candidates for 2014, only candidate Mike Mohill, an individual beholding to no special interest and a fixture at city hall, has the in-depth knowledge of the day to day operations of our city and would be most capable after being installed as a council person.

A. Vukos

Categories: Viewpoints

Leave a Reply


Photo Gallery
  /  Los Angeles Web Design By Caspian Services, Inc.