JUST SAYIN’-It is true that the Los Angeles CD 6 incumbent, Nury Martinez (right photo), and challenger, Cindy Montañez (left photo), share a long history together in the Northeast San Fernando Valley—once friendly and close, now, unquestionably acrimonious and acerbic.
After listening to the responses from both during a recent debate that I co-moderated, I could not help but conclude that Montañez seems to be holding a personal vendetta against her opponent.
Perhaps, it is because she was embarrassed when Nury beat her resoundingly for the seat vacated 18 months earlier by the newly elected Tony Cárdenas, the first Latino to represent his District in Congress. Between the earlier Primary and General Election, Montañez saw a 19 point lead vanish when she lost by 10 points to Martinez in that summer’s election. Perhaps, it is also because she feels entitled to an elected position after also losing to Alex Padilla when both were running for State Senate (he is now our Secretary of State).
Montañez seems so desperate to win this time that her debate answers were often filled with claims made out of whole cloth—answers that she, for the most part, cannot back up with facts. She seemed comfortable creating her own truths and often came off as mean-spirited and vindictive. Her answers were so often off-the-mark, inconsistent, and dotted with prevarications that I could feel steam coming out of my ears.
Too frequently she did not answer the questions that were posed to her but instead insisted on saying what she wanted to say and would not stop even when her allotted time was up. Often, she sounded like the proverbial broken record, repeating over and over the points she wanted to emphasize.
Except for one question about the TPP, she seemed ill-informed about a breadth of political and socio-economic issues. One could interpret a number of her answers as being more pro-corporate than pro-constituency (despite her protestations otherwise).
At times, she attempted to impugn the reputation and integrity of the sitting Councilwoman (and with no time for rebuttal, there was no opportunity for clarification). Montañez used a specious argument when she repeatedly accused Councilwomen Martinez of utilizing tax-payer dollars to pay for District office space and staff.
She continually attempted to make the point that somehow by renting the office space, the sitting Councilwoman was using our dollars (an implication of illegality) to pay the landlord’s mortgage. If I am not mistaken, all elected Los Angeles lawmakers (including our Councilmembers) are “guilty of the same crime.” In fact, they each are allocated such tax dollars to run their offices. Perhaps, I misunderstood her point.
Montañez asserted that mixed-use accommodations can only cause our communities to reach a population saturation point, that it is perhaps not our concern to worry about those looking for places to live and work and patronize if it means unwanted changes in population and demographics.
The fact is that such places are designed to offer state-of-the-art, affordable housing (apartments and condos) for young people just venturing out on their own, for recent colleges graduates, newly married couples, or seniors (who wish to downsize). She contended, however, that the construction and development of such facilities are really just a ploy to bring in the very poor who would not be able to afford their rent or mortgage and thus devastate property and other values. In fact, such construction would offer opportunities for new and existing businesses to develop and grow the community; for people to use bicycles or walk to work, school, or shopping instead of staying in cars that pollute and congest.
Montañez implied that all this is just a ruse, that such buildings would make it possible for companies to erect huge, blaring signs on top of these buildings--digital and other billboards that would blight the neighborhood. She seems to believe in all sincerity that such mixed-use complexes are somehow not intended for the general welfare of the greater community.
Although both candidates oppose fracking, a technology which has been scientifically proven to be deleterious to our health and ecology, they diverged with regard to other environmentally friendly policies.
{module [1177]}
Martinez fully supports clean-energy programs which include solar, wind, and geo-thermal methods, and thus has been and will continue to be a friend on environmental decisions and with regard to the Home Energy Improvement Program (HEIP) from which hundreds of families have already benefitted in reducing not only energy usage but also energy costs.
She also favors the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Program which has already helped countless businesses to reduce their energy usage while, the same time, actually profiting financially from the program. Montañez, on the other hand, seemed not to be as informed as she might be on these issues and was unsure about their greater benefits.
Achieving a fitting, practical wage for our workers was one of the big issues where the differences between the two candidates became very clear: It was evident that Montañez does not support raising the wage of nearly all Angelinos to $15 an hour nor did she seem an advocate for a minimum 5 days’ earned paid sick leave.
The concern she shared was on behalf of the businesses that she assumed would in some way be negatively impacted (disregarding the fact that economists have proven that providing wager-earners a living wage produces a clear multiplier effect: more pay, more purchasing power, expanded manufacturing, higher standards of living, and, ultimately, greatly increased numbers of employed).
In contrast, Martinez has consistently given her support to helping the working man and woman achieve a livable wage with all the concomitant benefits.
Having listened and analyzed up close and personal, I endorse Councilwoman Nury Martinez. It is up to you, the voters, to make a decision on March 3 as to which candidate will represent you and your District in the best, most compassionate, most sensitive, and most productive manner. Remember, it will affect you for the next four years at least. Choose wisely.
Just sayin’.
(Rosemary Jenkins is a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance. Jenkins has written A Quick-and-Easy Reference to Correct Grammar and Composition, Leticia in Her Wedding Dress and Other Poems, and Vignettes for Understanding Literary and Related Concepts. She also writes for CityWatch. Views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of CityWatch,)
-cw
