Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Governor Looks to Latinos for Support


Lynwood, CA - The Dailybulletin.com indicates that the governor is looking for Latino support, and will host an event in Lynwood which will include announcing a group called Hispanic Families for Arnold.

Read story here.

Read another story here.

Read Wave Newspapers story
Read LA Times for another story (requires suscription)

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

A TODOS LOS ESTUPIDOS QUE APOYAN AL GOVERNATOR AQUI EN LYNWOOD, EMPEZANDO POR LETICIA, LES RECUERDO QUE COMO USTEDES, LA MALINCHE TRAICIONO A SU PUEBLO.

NO A LA TRACION DEL PUEBLO, FUERA EL GOVERNATOR.

Anonymous said...

Tu estas hablando de Leticia Vazquez,Fernando Pedroza,Maria Lopez,GUadalupe Rodriguez,Aide Castro,Lorene Reed, pearline Calderon,Margarete Araujo, estas seran las personas que pertenesen a la coalicion de {Hispanics Families for Arnold}

Anonymous said...

NO SON MAS QUE UNA BOLA DE TRAIDORES.

Anonymous said...

Mira que sorpresa de Leticia lo puedo esperar pero de los otros si que es sorpresa bola de traidores.

Anonymous said...

Las unicas personas que son parte de esa coalicion son Juan Enciso, Lorraine Reed, Los Calderones, Leticia Vasquez, Alfreddie Johnson, y Maria Lopez. Los otros solo fueron envitados del evento.

Anonymous said...

Do you know what protocol is? When ever an elected official of such a capacity visits your city, it is the duty of the elected officials to greet them. You do not ignore them and act like they do not exist.

You also forgot to mention Guadalupe Rodriguez, Sylvia Herron, Ethel Pacheco, Paulette Bradley, Julio Mendoza and many many others. Local teachers, students, parents, the superintendant and on and on and on.

You obviously do not understand protocol.

Anonymous said...

One thing is to attend the event for protocol and another is to support the Gov. with his "Hispanic Families for Arnold" The real question is who was there for the Arnold support.

Anonymous said...

Who ever is Hispanics for Arnold is who was thier to support him. But why is Arnold bad? How did he betray el pueblo?

Anonymous said...

I'll let you know how Arnold is bad...you cannot support any republican candidate and be a hispanic...that is an oxymoron. Arnold specifically denied what they call "illegal immigrants" the right to drive legally and he also supports the militant minute men project. Funny how they claim that terroist are the reason they want to secure the border with Mexico when in reality terrorist are more commonly known to come from the north....whatever...supporting Arnold as a latino is like supporting the Devil for a catholic. Vasta...no more confusion...lynwood politicians get your priorities straight...it is okay to follow protocol and be there to greet the man but don't suppor this puppet programs...

Anonymous said...

IF he supported the minute men why weren't they able to set up shop in San Diego? Why should anyone be able to drive if they are not legal in country? Driving is a privilage not a civil right. If we the actual residents can loose the privilage of driving then why should someone who isn't legal be able to? Also have you ever tought that the last thing you want to do is give the government an opportunity to know where all illegal immigrants are all time. Remember that we need to be carefull what we ask for. If anything illegal immigrants should be given a fair and affordable opportunity to become legal. A license doesn't fix anything. They still can't work or own homes legally or even finance a car legally. So again why is Arnold so bad?

Anonymous said...

CON RESPECTO A LOS COMENTARIOS ANTERIORES, QUE ESTUIDOS FUERON GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ, AIDE CASTRO Y TODOS LOS DEMAS QUE FUERO POR PROTOCOLO. A ESOS SE LES DICEN PALEROS. COMO PUEDEN DECIRSE LIDERES SI NO SON MAS QUE PALEROS. ESTAN O NO CON LOS LATINOS? EL GOBERNATOR NOS UNA PATADA EN LA COLA TODOS LOS LATINOS Y DESPUES DE QUE VIO NUESTRA REACCION SINTIO MIEDO. AHORA VIENE A QUERER COMPRARNOS. BOLA DE TRAICIONEROS, ESO ES LO QUE SON.

Anonymous said...

I'll let you know why Arnold is bad, part II....Your "why whould an illegal be able to drive" speech was typical. The reason that people who support latino rights should have backed the drivers license measure is because we need to get what we can get. The damn republicans are not willing to give our people that come here to work and break their backs for this economy a fair shot at legalization so we must do what we can. Giving them drivers licenses were a step in the right direction. And being able to drive can be both a privilege and civil right...it is unconstituional and therefore a violation of one civil rights if "Hispanics" as a group were not allowed to drive because of their race....hmmm seems like what they are doing right now huh, just covering it up by calling our people illegals...Funny how they decide who is legal and who is not...remember raza these farmer john boys aren't indegionous...Viva la Raza and support your beliefs by not supporting republicans...its our duty as Americans...

Anonymous said...

You only see what you want. It would be a civil violation if Hispanics weren't allowed to drive. However that is not the case. The fact is to receive a license you must be able to prove legal residence in the country. What would put them in the right direction is that our politicians make it affordable and fair to become legal. I am Latina but the truth is a license is not enough. Arnold over Angelides I'm not sure yet. Their is many months left for the election and we all have lots of research to do regarding our governor. One more thing one of the questions asked to Arnold was were he stood with supporting immigrants. He states he supports those who do it through the legal process and supports all hispanics and wishes them an opportunity to become legal like he was given. Whether we like it or not the law is the law and it is illegal to come into the country with out the proper process. What we need to do is demand our people to go out and vote and demand change in the in the INS Dept.

Anonymous said...

"You only see what you want"...works both ways...the truth of the matter is that by not passing the drivers license law the people effected with an over whelming majority are latinos... It is true that the right way to go about it is to have our congress pass a law that will allow undocumented workers to become "legal", by problem however, with the republican party and certain right wingers that claim, "They (immigrants) should do it the right way, the way my parents and grandparents did it, the legal way", is that in the past 50 years alot has changed...what many of our European brothers and sisters did was show up to Ellis Island and they signed a book of entry and that was it...now the law is totally different and makes it almost immpossible to come to the U.S. legally...this thanks to right wingers like Arnold...remember the zoot suit riots and the illegal deportation of thousands of latinos, some U.S. citizens...this is what the Republican party is capable of...No on Arnold...

E-HOG said...

Might I remind you that the Zoot Suit riots were during World War II. Who was in power? A Democrat (See Franklin Delano Roosevelt). That's what a Demorat is capabe of. Thank you very much.

Arnold is in no way a right winger. He is the one moderate enthusiastic California Republican the party has. This is what makes him apealing to moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents.

Angelides is too far to the left to win against a moderate candidate like Arnold. Angelides is as left as you can get. Arnold, is a fiscal conservative but is also a social moderate. Angelides stands little chance.

BTW, its not almost imposible to come legally to the United States. The United States accepts almost 900,000 LEGAL immigrants yearly.


Oh and,

Go Arnold!

Anonymous said...

Hey e-hog FU!

E-HOG said...

Really.

How nice.

What a foul mouth.

Anonymous said...

e-hog watch out, Leti's gonna get you soon... very soon.

Anonymous said...

MIRA NADA MAS A LA PINCHE IPOCRITA DE LETICIA VASQUEZ. AHORA SI MUY HISPANA. ERES UNA VERGUENZA PARA TODOS LOS LATINOS LETICIA VASQUES.

NO SE NOS HA OLVIDADO EL HODIO QUE SIEMPRE LE HAS TENIDO A LOS MEXICANOS Y QUE TE AVERGUENZAS DE TU PASADO MEXICANO.

LETICIA VASQUES ERES UNA VERGUENZA PARA LOS LATINOS.

Anonymous said...

Y una mentirosa tambien.

Anonymous said...

Arnold has been going around and pretending to be supportive to all these Latino business's.
He doesn't even care if these people got their money legally or not. What? He wasn't told that they started their business with drug money?

Anonymous said...

i have a friend at school who just arrive months ago "illegally" and went to the DMV and no questions were asked about his citizenship status, why because he's white!! my nephew who is a second generation Mexican American (brown)was demanded to prove evidence of citizenship! DESCRIMINATION?????? AND YES I DISLIKE THE NAZI HIPOCRITE! HE SHOULD GO BACK TO EUROPE.......

Anonymous said...

Hispanic families for Arnold? All I saw there were the Mayors pets. And none of her pets are hispanic! Too bad Arnold didn't know that having Letty set the whole event up, cost him alot of votes come November. Why was Leticia the only councilmember invited? How selfish and hipocritical you are Letty. All you ever think about is your ugly self!!! Get over yourself!!!!Your days are counted embarressing this community. Can't wait to sign the next recall petition!!

Anonymous said...

Sad...but true.

Anonymous said...

Leticia Vásquez considera que la suya es “la típica historia de inmigrantes” . Sus padres, pobres mexicanos esforzados, criaron a cinco hijos espléndidamente prósperos —una, Leticia, 34, es en la actualidad alcalde de Lynwood, California, la pequeña ciudad en la que creció. Es un relato conmovedor que suscita de inmediato toda una serie de clichés sobre “el sueño americano”. Sin embargo, la historia no termina con vino, rosas y aplausos. Continúa, por el contrario, en el territorio turbulento de la raza, la corrupción y la polarización.

Desde hace un tiempo, Vásquez fue puesta en la picota por sus compatriotas mexicano-estadounidenses que la acusan de ser —tal como ella lo ve, al menos— demasiado complaciente con los votantes negros. Sus adversarios, cuyo intento de destituirla del cargo falló la semana pasada debido a que sus peticiones eran deficientes, afirman que la raza no tiene nada que ver con su descontento.

Para Armando Rea, ex alcalde y crítico prominente, el problema es que Vásquez, una “mentirosa patológica”, está decidida a cobrar impuestos que la comunidad no puede pagar. Los folletos que hicieron circular, quienes proponían su destitución, también la describen como un títere de un alcalde anterior, Paul Richards, que es negro y que actualmente está en la cárcel por malversar fondos de la ciudad. Vásquez, que declara conocer apenas a Richards, ve las acusaciones solamente como una cortina de humo para ocultar el racismo: “Existe esa mentalidad de que si usted apoya a alguien ajeno a su propia etnia, es porque no le gusta lo que es”.

Bienvenidos al mundo patas para arriba de la política étnica en el siglo XXI, en la cual negros y Latinos, considerados en su momento aliados naturales, cada vez compiten más por el poder y donde la promoción de la armonía racial puede llegar a generar rabia y admiración en iguales proporciones. Lynwood constituye un caso ilustrativo en lo que se refiere al poder del prejuicio, los obstáculos del conflicto étnico y quizás, finalmente, el potencial para la cooperación interétnica. También puede presagiar el futuro de Estados Unidos —un futuro que verá de manera creciente a los negros y los Latinos luchando, a veces juntos y a veces unos contra otros, por superar una historia de marginación.

Las tensiones étnicas de Lynwood derivan, en parte, de la rápida transformación étnica de la ciudad. En la década de 1970, los negros comenzaron a llegar en cantidades significativas a esta pequeña comunidad de trabajadores de Los Angeles, en gran medida blanca. En 1983, Lynwood eligió a su primer miembro negro en el consejo, Robert Henning, a quien se sumó dos años más tarde Evelyn Wells —una mujer negra, que enseguida designó a Henning para que fuera alcalde. El consejo (que nombra al alcalde) la siguió. Rápidamente, los negros pasaron a dominar la estructura del poder político.

Mientras tanto, los latinos eran cada vez más numerosos. Rea, el primer latino miembro del consejo, fue electo en 1989. En 1997, los Latinos (que representan el 82% de los 72,000 habitantes de la ciudad) obtuvieron el control del consejo de cinco miembros. Vásquez, que entonces no era activa en política, recuerda que “golpeaban a la puerta diciendo que debíamos deshacernos de los miembros negros del consejo municipal”.

Con Rea instalado como alcalde, la ciudad despidió a varios negros y dejó de lado a algunos contratistas negros. “Se deshicieron de 15 personas de golpe. Trece de ellas negras,” sostiene el Rev. Alfreddie Johnson, aliado de Vásquez actualmente en el consejo. Tres contratistas negros iniciaron juicio acusando a Rea y sus aliados de discriminación racial feroz. Rea rechazó categóricamente las acusaciones. “En mi consejo no hay color”, declaró en ese momento.

Actualmente nadie en el gobierno parece saber exactamente cuánto se pagó en definitiva por arreglar las denuncias de discriminación o cuántas personas se vieron afectadas, pero Vásquez y Johnson insisten en que la cantidad fue sustancial y la experiencia resultó traumática. Vásquez, ex maestra de escuela electa en 2003, se considera a sí misma un puente entre las dos comunidades. Johnson ve a Vásquez como una enviada de Dios: “La singularidad que tiene... es esa enorme afinidad con la gente negra”.Muchos habitantes negros de larga data están agradecidos. “Necesitamos a alguien, sin importar de qué raza sea, que hable por nosotros también”, dijo Dorothy Smith, trabajadora social y docente jubilada. “Muchos latinos quieren hacernos callar totalmente”.

En tanto los latinos pasan a constituir la mayoría étnica en sitios que en su momento fueron orgullosamente negros (incluidos Compton, una capital del hip-hop, y Watts, en su momento la meca negra de L.A.), y en tanto los titulares los elogian como el grupo minoritario más activo y grande de Estados Unidos, muchos negros comparten el temor de Smith de ser “silenciados”. Earl Ofari Hutchinson, escritor y activista de L.A., recuerda la amarga reacción que generó por escribir una serie de artículos que simpatizaban con los inmigrantes latinos: “Nunca recibí tanto correo de odio de los negros. Tocó una cuerda sensible entre los negros, una cuerda muy tensa”.

Sobre el telón de fondo de la violencia entre latinos y negros en las cárceles del Condado de Los Angeles (que terminó en la muerte de dos presos negros), y la lucha interétnica en las escuelas, Najee Ali, director ejecutivo del Proyecto Esperanza Islámica, organizó una presunta cumbre negro-latina este mes. Allí, Christine Chávez, la nieta del legendario líder de los trabajadores rurales César Chávez, habló emotivamente de su abuelo y de cómo había tomado como modelo para su trabajo el movimiento de Martin Luther King. “Para que un movimiento formado en su mayoría por trabajadores latinos tuviera éxito debíamos llegar a otras comunidades”.

Luego de las manifestaciones masivas y en gran medida latinas de mayo por la reforma de las leyes de inmigración, algunos piensan que esa época probablemente quedó atrás. “Encendí el televisor y vi a millones de personas en todo el país y tuve una sensación de miedo”, confió Ali. “Estábamos siendo marginados”. En su reflexión, Ali llegó a la conclusión de que la protesta allanaba el camino a los negros y los latinos juntos para “exigir una porción más grande la torta”.

Muchos que asistieron a esa cumbre estuvieron de acuerdo. En vez de pelearse entre ellos, sostuvieron, los negros y los latinos deberían concentrarse en los intereses de los poderosos que explotan a ambos grupos. Como dijo la Senadora Gloria Romero del estado de California, “Nadie sale al campo para decir: 'Sal de aquí, hermano, ahora estoy trabajando.' Estos empleos son ofrecidos, no tomados”.

El eco de este mensaje llegó a Tar Hill, N.C., donde los trabajadores negros y latinos en la colosal fábrica procesadora de cerdo de Smithfield originalmente tenían muy poco que decirse. Para contribuir a derribar las murallas, el sindicato de Trabajadores Unidos Comerciales y de la Alimentación organizaron una cena mensual a la canasta. “La gente empezó a traer toda clase de comidas... de todos los tipos étnicos, y a compartir sus historias”, dijo el organizador sindical Eduardo Pina. “Personas que en general no se tienen confianza reconocen qué similares son sus situaciones”.

Ted Shaw, director del Fondo Educación y de Defensa Legal NAACP, considera que a los negros les conviene solidarizarse con la lucha de los latinos por sobrevivir. “Creo que los negros deberíamos pensar mucho antes de... apartar a una comunidad creciente y poderosa con muchos intereses en común” dice.

En realidad, nadie está en desacuerdo con la idea de concentrarse en los problemas comunes en vez de retirarse a enclaves étnicos. No obstante, cabe preguntarse cómo funcionará en definitiva el mensaje de unidad entre negros y latinos. Aunque el principio no es para nada controvertido, resulta bastante difícil llevarlo a la práctica; casi siempre resulta mucho más fácil ver las cosas que dividen a los estadounidenses que ver lo que nos une —o debería unirnos. Lo que está dejando muy en claro la nueva demografía es que no solamente los blancos pueden llegar a tener problemas de visión sino también los negros y los Latinos.

Con informes de Andrew Murr.

© 2006, Newsweek Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Aide Castro said...

I am sorry to inform you that last night your Lynwood City Council voted to increase water fees by 30%. After the first increase it will be followed by another 15%, then 5%, finishing with a final increase of 3%.

The vote was as follows:
Maria Santillan - Yes
Louis Byrd - Yes
Leticia Vasquez - Yes
Alfreddie Johnson - Yes
Fernando Pedroza - No

During public orals I gave all council members a copy of my water bill so that they were able to see in actual dollars how each individual household will be affected. On my bill I gave them an example of how much more I would have to pay. The example I gave was the following:

July bill $84.50 x 30% = $25.35
$25.35 + $84.50 = $109.85 new bill
$109.85 x 15% = $16.48
$16.48 + $109.85 = $126.33
$126.33 x 5% = $6.32
$6.32 + 126.33 = $132.65
$132.65 x 3% = $3.98
$3.98 + $132.65 = $136.63

$84.50 original bill divided by $136.63 final bill after increases gives you a total of 62% increase.

The reasons given by staff and council were that the increases were needed due to reserves being depleted, infrastructure repairs, and to produce revenue for quality of life services, and finally because the bond rating company used, recommended it.

I am not saying an increase is not needed. The metropolitan water district did increase their fees by 3%. However we only purchase 20% of our water from them. That means that 80% of the revenue generated for that percentage can stay in the department. We also need to take in consideration employees. They need a cost of living raise. The water department employees are certified through the state and they need training every so often. I also understand that their medical benefits probably have increased in cost. For that I will justify another 3%. The infrastructure also needs to be invested in, so I'll give them another 3% for that. We must be given an itemized explanation of what each project consist of and how much will it cost. No matter what they claim I'm willing to bet they will not be doing all these repairs immediately or all at once. Last 1% to pad the reserves. The point I am trying to make is that those are the only reasons our revenues can be used for.

Last night the City Manager allowed our Mayor Pro Tem to misinform the audience that these increases were needed for quality of life services and issues. The City Manager clearly knows that the revenues generated from increases on our water can only be used for the water department and nothing else. Yet our council last night voted to approve these increases under the impression that they will be able to allocate some of the revenue in other services. The fact is you can't. The City Manager also advised the council that we may loose our bond rating if these increases aren't done. Wrong, the bond rating company recommended an increase, but they never specified an amount. The key word is recommended. Their is a big difference between you must, and I recommend. As long as we comply with the original guidelines given at the time of application their is no reason to loose our rating. Goes right back to how the City Manager advised the council that we have 10 million in reserves so we don't need to do budget cuts. Yet he failed to mention to the council that although we do have those reserves, they are their to back up our bonds. That was simply a scare tactic in my opinion. The City Manager new that if the council voted against the increase his budget would fall apart. I would Like to know why the City Manager included in his budget the 30% increase? What would he have done if it didn't pass? Why was he so sure? I guess that would explain why he didn't care that the council was not properly informed. His only mission was to get it passed.

Time after time we are asked to pay for prior and new, council and staff mistakes. Mr Byrd made the comment that staff had set up a workshop for the community to voice their concerns and only 11 people showed up. He asked. What happen to the rest of the community? He said he took that as the residents were okay with the increases. Although we all know he's wrong to make this assumption, I really think he was trying to send a message to the community. He's basically saying to us organize and unite to make a difference. The same people that go and talk at every meeting don't make a difference. That tells me simply since the community isn't speaking up, I don't care, I'll just do what I want. Last night our council clearly said we don't care how our community will be affected.

I expected lots more people at council last night. I was disappointed that several people who claim to be leaders and aspire to sit on council were not their. But I was happy to see some new faces in the audience who did go and speak against the increases.

In reviewing the agenda, I also found item number 22 suspicious. It was called Utility Users Tax Matters. Several residents were under the impression council was considering to increase the tax. However in reading the resolution recommended for the item, it states the council is hiring legal representation regarding proposition 218 and other related matters. So I looked up Prop 218. This measure took affect back in 1996 to protect our tax dollars. In other words no taxation with out representation. Proposition 218:
Your right to vote on all local taxes
Proposition 218 gives you the right to vote on all local taxes, and requires taxpayer approval of assessments and property-related fees. Now bureaucrats can't find sneaky ways to raise revenues! Non profit organizations such as Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association go around different cities looking into complaints from residents. Learning all of this, I realized that I don't remember us, the voters ever voting in favor of this Utility Users Tax. All I know is it went from 3% to 6% to 10% were it is now. Back to my point. Is our council in trouble with Jarvis? Why do we need legal representation regarding Prop 218? I want to know what is council trying to hide from us. If I am correct the City of Lynwood would owe their residents lots of money. So as you can see their some sneaky stuff going on. We must keep our eyes open.

This is our city, therefore we must protect our financial interest. I am just one person and I need help from the community. Please write your elected officials and let them know we are not going to put up with the abuse any longer. Speak up people. I beg and implore that we stand up together against the injustice commited.

On a positive note I was very pleased with the new street sweeping contract. The routes were re done and they even included alley clean up. Along with the purchase of two natural powered machines. I also was very happy with the new weed abatment project. Every quarter city employees will be maintaining properties that have not been kept up by their owners. In turn to recoop the money they will be fining and adding liens to the properties to insure repayment. When a lien is on your property anytime you go to refinance or sell, escrow always insures payment of all liens to transfer clean titles. So good job on those two issues.

Although it might seem that I am picking on our City Manager, I would like to clarify that I don't think he's that bad. Like I said in the past he has great ideas. He just needs to be a little more carefull about what he's proposing and how our community is being affected by his recommendations. I feel it is his responsibility to make sure our council is well informed before making any decisions.

Thank You,
Aide Castro

2:10 PM, August 16, 2006