The Good Times writer, I think, was trying to point out how lame a City Councilmember can be and how evasive when dealing with specific questions on a subject he's publicly promised to address, as Rotkin did. He's being deceptive in claiming the questions laid out are "not the questions...asked at the public meeting". The question asked there was a broader question about RDA and city agency support for gentrification projects downtown, which each of my questions specifically relates to. Nor had any of the questions been answered previously.

It's a useful lesson for us as we face the upcoming foregone-conclusion plebiscite in November that will probably reelect the recycled redevelopment foursome Kennedy, Primack, Porter, and Reilly.

If sitting Councilmembers can brazenly lie while they sit at City Council, then guess what they'll do around election time when there's even less accountability. Rotkin's not up for reelection this year in the Recycle Derby, but four tired old faces are.

Sitting Councilmembers break their sworn commitments to constituents (Porter on bringing up the Sleeping Ban). They abruptly shift course on issues once in or close to power (Reilly supporting anti-homeless parking signs, permit parking, enforcement against Camp Paradise, endorsement of the Sleeping Ban). They arrogantly use power to punish opponents in violation of the Brown Act (Kennedy muzzling, harassing, and arresting opponents at City Council in violation of the "decorum rules"). They decline to communicate with those whose opinions they reject (Primack--hasn't returned a phone call or e-mail in 4 years).