Mansoor Siding With Big Government
MARCH 24, 2011
By STEVEN GREENHUT
I just heard from Assemblyman Allan Mansoor’s office and learned that the Costa Mesa Republican, who had been on the fence regarding ending redevelopment agencies, decided to side with big government and the status quo and vote against eliminating the agencies. Mansoor could have been the next Tom McClintock or Chuck DeVore, a conservative beacon in a land of corporate Republican sell-outs, but decided instead to be the latest in a long line of forgettable Republicans more concerned about re-election than principle.
I’ll give Mansoor some credit. Unlike many of the other Republican Assembly members who boldly offered lame excuses for not voting to kill local socialism, he at least sought out opinions from conservative activists and others who realize that RDAs are vile creations that destroy property rights, squander tax dollars and run up debt. No conservative could possibly vote to save them.
Mansoor’s staff said that the Assemblyman will not vote to eliminate the agencies because of language that would promote unionization in successor agencies. But those successor agencies have only limited authority. And a Republican analysis distributed by Chris Norby, the only one who voted to kill the agencies, disputes that finding. Per these findings:
“According to SB 77, redevelopment successor agencies would exist to pay off existing bonded indebtedness … . Successor agencies could not change any labor agreement. While SB 77 does not explicity prohibit third-party eminent domain, it does defund it.”
Mansoor sided with eminent domain. He sided with big government. He sided with stimulus programs and debt spending. He is no conservative.
No commentsWrite a comment
A housing moratorium on San Francisco’s November ballot is aimed at keeping rents and housing prices affordable in the city’s
A prescription drug bill, Assembly Bill 339, would save money for many with chronic medical conditions. But critics warn that