Guest Commentary - How Things Work in Elk Grove

By Bob Felts

I thought I’d respond to the “nays” on “Better off after incorporation?” and the valid examples of things gone awry in good 'ole EG (ref: comment section of Wed, July 1 posting). Our illustrious leaders should take note that John Q is apparently not a happy camper, but does it really matter? There must be an echo somewhere because I heard similar complaints about EG during the campaign last fall—and yet 2 of the 3 usual suspects were still re-elected. How'd that happen? And I'm going to guess in 2010, Pat Hume will also be re-elected in spite of all the negative comments in this little survey. Likewise Gary Davis would win if he chose to run. It’s kinda like methane gas from cows—it’s a process no one particularly likes but it can’t be halted. 

So EGN's poll overwhelmingly shows people think we've “failed,” and yet we have only one new council member. What's wrong with that picture? If you're unhappy with your leaders, folks, vote ‘em out; otherwise you’ve forfeited whining rights! 

As a side light and as long as I’m throwing punches, I bet city managers wish we had that big WalMart Supercenter (300 employees?) up on Florin Rd. in our economically drained town instead of watching Sac County haul in that tax revenue. That’s a great store on Florin, doing a booming business, and bringing new life to that neighborhood. How about that— WalMart as a philanthropist??? Probably not, but it would have looked real good out there where all those vacant shells are—you know . . . that weed infested, chain-linked, open-air eyesore we affectionately call “The Promenade”—and the tax income and jobs provided, though min wage, would be welcome. At this point it might even look good in Sheldon where EGCAPP killed it not so long ago. As they say in CA, oh well . . . but it is a little hard to run on a campaign promise of bringing business to Elk Grove, then work conversely to stop the country’s biggest retailer (and the only one with real money) from building, or to force them to operate IAW local NIMBY rules. I know, I know . . . it’s a conundrum indeed. Unfortunately we can’t have it both ways.

Back to the subject, here's some thought sure to be heretical to some people (not intended), but it may explain why we’re steadily discontent with city progress or leadership but we don’t “clean house” at election time. I may be totally wrong, but here goes anyway:

I've always maintained the city is controlled by only 50 or so people. It’s a tightly knit, clannish bunch with high name recognition, and they all know each other in one way or another. They serve the community in such places as our local Chamber, our civic clubs, our commissions, our community activist groups and our arguably well-meaning endorsement committees, to mention a few. The last of the group are the genteel, societal and financially well-off people who operate behind the political scene with donations, community grants or services and other philanthropic endeavors. Often they are long-time residents, sometimes descendents from settlers in the area, maybe “old money” or “old property” people. This is not to say they serve no good purpose, for they usually do many nice things for the community. I’m only saying they play a part in city control through gifted and effortless influence.

This “Gang of 50” I’ll call them, are regulars at all the gala events in EG such as the Mayor’s State of the City banquet, the Citizen(s) of the Year Award, Spotlight Elk Grove, etc., and are frequently in the news for one thing or another. 

Finally, tagging along behind all of these people are some special interest people, eating at the same tables and hitched at the hip to all the others by what? You guessed it—money. Now here's the assumption: As long the same players are always involved, and as long as campaign money is the qualifier in a campaign rather than real ideals, your elected officials will be who the high-hatters, old-timers, developers and select business people want in office—not who YOU want. And those elected will most likely have an unsettling aura of familiarity about them, having been metamorphosed from symbiotic cocoons, so to speak. And the cycle repeats, as it has always in American politics.

No, you say? On a shoestring budget last fall, I tried to bring integrity, ideals and economic practicality to the election hoe-down, but was whipped like a red-headed stepchild late to dinner by Sophia, who played her heredity, “war chest” money, networking and community service cards faster than EG water rates have gone up (BTW, that’s fast). Regardless, someone online recently accused me of “sour grapes” (could be) and asserted I ran an ineffective campaign that caused my loss to Sophia. But it wasn’t the campaign; it was the factors I discussed above. Mostly I was just naïve when I filed, thinking I might bridge the gap between myself and the “Gang of 50.” I tried and did pretty well for a “newbie,” but I lacked name recognition, endorsements, support of the decision makers and last, but not least—cash. Simple as that. I was even told by an elected council member it takes lots of money (even potential high personal indebtedness) to get elected. That simplistic statement succinctly summarized (like that alliteration?) what’s really wrong with our political process.

So to the dissatisfied in EGN's poll, here’s my suggestion: Want real change in Elk Grove’s future? Take a stand. Vote Hume out next time, vote out Scherman and Cooper in 2012 (they probably won't run anyway), and make sure none of them sneaks in as elected Mayor!!! With Hume and Davis gone in 2010 and Scherman and Cooper gone in 2012, at least you'll have a new set of people to whine about. 

Best regards, and don’t forget to fly your flag!

Bob