A very important decision will likely be made at the next city council meeting on Dec 18. Let the people of Tracy decide who will be the fifth council member. It is time for the City Council to give this decision to the voters.
After hearing from people present Dec. 4 — mainly supporters of the third-place finisher in the recent City Council election, Ray Morelos — the council had a discussion and found itself divided 2-2 about the process to be used to select the fifth council member.
The council seems only to agree to not hold a special election. Mayor Pro Tem Michael Maciel said that this decision is the council’s “baby,” and Councilman Robert Rickman justified his position by stating that the residents of the city have a “high degree of trust” in this council.
Tracy resident Steve Nicolau explained in an eloquent manner the necessity for the people to elect their representatives in our democratic process. Despite the fact that it may be inefficient and slow, it is the only fair solution. These four council members, who apparently presume to know best who should be the fifth person on the council, are biased in a very obvious way. These four council members now know firsthand that this person might be a deciding vote on future splits along this same line. As Mayor Brent Ives stated, this decision is “fraught with political innuendo.”
Spending $250,000 of the taxpayers’ money to ensure all of the people of Tracy have a voice in determining the makeup of the council would be an unselfish act, and might prove to be the best $250,000 our City Council has voted to spend in a long time.
Wonder what questions Maciel had listed he wanted the three "candidates"/ He knew he was going to have to cave in and wanted to be sure he continued to control the selection.
Hang in their Rickman and Young. There is hope for the citizens yet.
I would like you to explain why you feel that spending $250 thousand dollars on the airport would not be a waste of time. I see one other article where you said something against Surland's development which would actually bring water and sewerage and other infrastructure closer to the airport.
I brought my children to that airport one day and let them play at the park. When they said they had to go to the bathoom we had to leave because they only have port a pottie trailer outside.
I don't think you know what you are talking about when you blame things on people you disagree with. You obvoiusly have never been to the airport. If someone wanted to invest $250 thousand dollars in the airport I'm sure they would have already stepped forward.
FYI I read your comment just a few minutes ago on the other blog about Surland. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. Surland development would complement the airport and help them, but instead you put them down with negativity and unwarranted criticism.