It’s Shameful When a Democracy Only Allows Rich Candidates in the Debate

VOICES- (Re: Jack Humphreville’s CityWatch Column “The Elephant in the Room …’) The candidates included only those who raised over $100,000 thus far, which generally means they are political insiders. 

I (am a candidate and I) fought to be included in the debate because I am the only candidate who is a lifelong resident of Hollywood, serving on Hollywood United Neighborhood Council and my Homeowners Association for multiple years developing solutions to balance the needs of tourism and growth with the quality of life for hillside residents. (Also,) and for the past decade have been a philanthropist focused on services for homeless, foster, and high risk youth through Children's Hospital division of Adolescent Medicine, and my own organization, Women & Words. 

I made my background known to the Chamber, which includes the fact that I own a 20 year, national, award winning transportation planning and marketing firm, and a Southern California real estate asset management firm. 

My background includes an education as a Chancellor's Scholar at UCLA with BAs in Economics & Psychology, and also Price Entrepreneur Award, UCLA MBA graduate. 

I do oppose the Millenium project and most of the high density developments in CD4 for their ego maniacal size and/or the lack of serious congestion mitigation measures in their plans (such as reconstruction of the Argyle ramps, private shuttle to transit stops, etc.), and have inserted pension reform and "live within our means" budget details in all the debates I have been included in. 

It was a disservice to the electorate that money was the only quality attractive to the Chamber for the candidates invited to the forum.

(Sheila Irani is a candidate for Los Angeles City Council, District 4.)

-cw

 

 

 

CityWatch

Vol 12 Issue 102

Pub: Dec 19, 2014