Dear Editor,
I have read with dismay all of the recent negative campaigning regarding the upcoming 2012 Culver City Council elections.
Speaking with one of the candidates on Thursday evening, I related that I believed my neighborhood was a relatively nice one in Culver City; the fly in the ointment however, in my opinion, has been 2 traffic accidents involving school children crossing the street I live on as well as an adult struck by a vehicle at the nearby Overland Ave/Franklin Ave intersection. Compounding my fears about neighborhood safety, last September there was a sexual assault near my home, in broad daylight, where two juveniles were subsequently arrested.
Daily I observe vehicles mostly ignoring stop signs rushing through the Veterans Park Residential neighborhood – some drivers have cell phones to their ears, others hold something in front of their mouths as they pass through, and I’ve observed a few reading papers in their laps — can we say “No Cop – No Stop”? We need leadership that will keep residential neighborhood safety near the top of the list of priorities for CCPD,
I came to know Meghan Sahli-Wells while participating in community workshops for a $1.5 million dollar Safe Routes to School grant application. The infrastructure portion of the application was never filed, mostly I fear, due to the City Council’s reluctance to go against a few local residents’ concerns with some of the proposed safety changes. So that concern for residential neighborhood safety accounts for my votes for Meghan Sahli-Wells, Scott Malsin and Jim Clarke.
Scott Malsin was encouraging to me and my efforts to solve the traffic problems in my neighborhood when the grant issue went before the City Council (and where it came to a quiet end). I believe Jim Clarke’s experience with grants will prove essential in Culver City’s future, and solving the traffic safety issues that concern me — and perhaps help avoid the complications that stopped Culver City from applying for that $1 million in infrastructure grant monies.
I admit the whole business with the health insurance issue and Scott Malsin gave me pause; however, I think those that had a real problem with the issue had decades to address and solve it to the entire city’s satisfaction. So there’s where Andy Weissman comes in. He and I have not seen eye to eye about the parking problems downtown – I not believing that valet parking was going to be a magic bullet to solve my dissatisfaction with the parking structures — which I try to avoid to this day. Mr. Weissman stepped up to address the health insurance issue. He has also shown concern about the business parking intrusion in the residential neighborhoods that add to the traffic safety issues that are a major concern for many Culver City residents.
I’m going to cast my four votes, not being able to get my head around the “bullet ballot” concept, on April 10th. I encourage all my fellow Culver City neighbors to stand up and be counted as well.
Respectfully
John L. Heyl
Mr. Heyl-
You wrote a nice letter that describes the process you used to decide on which candidates you support. I applaud your decision to vote for your favorite four.
I understand that many people do not understand/believe in “bullet voting,” but people who choose to do this are not necessarily voting against the other candidates. Bullet voters are usually very passionate about a particular candidate(s) and want to enhance the chances that their candidate is elected. Bullet voting is a personal preference that is no less legal, ethical or moral than other choices.
In my experience, candidates and/or their campaign teams do not ask their supporters to bullet vote; to do so would be unethical. Since I vote based on the perceived integrity of a candidate, I would not vote for anyone who told me how to vote.
Thank you for taking the time to be part of the political process.