We all want to keep our jobs, right? And most of us, I would hope, have a desire to achieve beyond our current station in life. Sifting through the thousands of job-related decisions one makes each day, what percentage is truly for the good of the business and what percentage is completely self-serving? Maybe you don’t have a job like that. But if you’re a politician representing the city of San Clemente, you most certainly do. That specific consideration is waged on each and every decision you make. The question for you, as a political animal, is will the decision benefit the city more or benefit you more? Or, will it only benefit what you percieve as a positive political decision? At the March 20th, San Clemente City Council meeting I witnessed what I percieved to be political self-preservation at it’s clumsiest. Again, a predetermined G. Wayne Eggleston deliberated with image and image alone in mind. How else can you explain his reasons for voting against the rezoning of 7 acres of land from neighborhood commercial to residential. He stated that his two greatest concerns were;
a) the process in which the city undertook the project and
b) traffic.
a) It was made abundantly clear during the meeting that the process was standard protocol.
b) traffic,…Mr. Eggleston must have a very low opinion of his constituents intelligence, or as stated above, he only voted against the Amendment to make himself look good, or both. Who actually thinks that 135 units would dramatically affect traffic? Have you ever driven down Vista Hermosa? Have you ever been at the Vista Hermosa/La Pata intersection? As pointed out by Lori Donchek, the affected thoroughfares would retain “A” LOS (Level of Service) cIassifications. And at “A” classifications, motorists are able to regularly drive well above the posted speed limit. In a school zone, how safe is that? Mr. Eggleston shares some of the same charm and demographic as the late Liberace, and he has been equally successful in steering his following to support his agenda, but back to my original question; what percentage of the decisions are best for the city in which he serves and what percentage are solely for political self-preservation?