Santa Cruz City Council

Santa Cruz City Council

Here is a good source of information on Santa Cruz City Council candidates:

I haven’t had a ton of exposure to the candidates, so my opinion is very tentative at this point. I’m currently leaning toward Justin Cummings and Drew Glover.

One thing I do know is that I don’t particularly like Richelle Noroyan. I was present when the City Council was discussing eliminating the ban on sleeping, and I did not like her position or attitude on this position (she was against removing the ban and it seemed like it was for very fear-based reasoning.)



5 thoughts on “Santa Cruz City Council”

  1. Donna Myers is running as an environmentalist. She publicly supported Desal. She also supports the 60 million dollar parking garage. She did not get the Sierra Club endorsement for good reasons. When I was on the Council I also noted that she supported some of the anti-homeless ‘neighborhood protections measures’ touted by Take Back Santa Cruz.

    I want to remind people that they do not need to vote for 3 candidates. I am still checking out Phil Crawford, but I will likely just vote for Drew and Justin.

  2. I want to elaborate on Micah’s important point. If several of us vote for our third choice candidate, just because those of us in the City can vote for three, then that third choice person could end up with just a few more votes than our first choice.
    Unlike the least-bad candidate for president, our third choice council candidate may be directly competing with the best candidate for the low-vote spot on the council.

    1. I am also moved to point out something about Greg Larson. Now that I have gotten my 3rd full color mailer from Greg, it is clear that he is going to blow past the voluntary spending limit of just under $40,000.00 for running a campaign. This is, literally, unscrupulous. A scruple is a norm set up to control a culture. When I talked to Greg he said he thought he needed to spend more to win. I think that we need to have limits on money in politics and, even presuming that Greg would be an excellent City Council member, that the means justify the ends.

      1. This comment bothers me, Micah. The label ‘unscrupulous’ is a pretty charged word. It bothers me because I see politics turning into something in general where we label people we disagree with instead of stating facts and saying we disagree with them. I agree that the amount he spent is relevant information and I may disagree with it also, but do we need to label his entire character? Is he the only one who went over that amount? I hate money in politics as much as anyone, but does that choice really point to him as being less moral than everyone else?

  3. I looked up scrupulous in the dictionary and I agree with you. “Unscrupulous” is too charged a word in this case. I shouldn’t have used that term. I wouldn’t call him unethical and I didn’t realize that unscrupulous was a synonym. I thought it was more on the lines of ‘the ends justify the means. I was wrong. Greg violated a culture that I agree with and find important. That doesn’t mean he is unethical. Thanks for keeping the debate more civil.

Comments are closed.