Metroblogging Los Angeles’ 2007 Grinch of the Year Award

Landslide Winner: Pasadena Mayor Boogard

bogaardgrinch.jpg On behalf of the writers (I use the term lightly with me) it is with some chagrin I announce Pasadena’s mayor Bill Bogaard winner of this years Grinch Award.

Why “chagrin” you may ask? The San Gabriel Valley is a big chunk of Los Angeles Metro anchored by Pasadena. We are all interrelated and we deserve better. Don’t get me wrong I really do love Pasadena and along with my friends that live there we are amazed the direction leadership there has been spinning (swirling?).

Mayor Bogaard earned this award for a variety reasons. At we blog local and think global. He has offended many on the global level when he courted the Chinese mainland to come to the Rose Parade, watched the removal of a woman who spoke out against it at a city council meeting as her mother was rounded up and sitting in a re-education camp. When asked to write a letter to the Pasadena Sister City in China he denied that request.

He put together a measure that could potentially tax internet use. Tried to silence the rebuttal to the ballot measure when he was called out on that potential, then hired attorney’s to quash the rebuttal. During all of this a watchdog group found a letter written to our senator asking her to vote no on the extending of free internet access. In the end his attorney’s agreed that the measure opens the door to taxing internet access as a utility. He lost the court battle, the measure remains on the ballot to be voted on this spring.

More after the jump….

There you go the reasons why I nominated him. There are so many other reasons but you get the drift on the direction Pasadena has gone. They deserve better.

Our own David Markland started drafting his own announcement before turning it over to me as he is off to points way far east of here for the holidays. The bit he wrote that got my attention “Alas, it appears the Pasadena blog mafia – and their enthusiastic readers – have been able to rally more votes for Mayor Bogaard than the AMPTP, LAUSD, Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association, and LA City Nerd COMBINED. (160 in total… not a lot, but comparatively a landslide). “.

There isn’t a local blog mafia. An area this size can and does organize itself to get the point across to the bigger LA area when needed. Sure we are affected by the whole WGA strike, many of our residents are WGA members or work with the studios and are affected. Sure LAUSD not paying many of the teachers is a HUGE problem but apathy I think affected that count. In the end Boogard won because I think he offended a much bigger group than even Metro LA.

From Markland the final stats:
Pasadena Mayor Bogaard
Votes: 80 (50%)

Nick Counter and the AMPTP
Votes: 28 (18%)

The LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District)
Votes: 24 (15%)

The Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association
Votes: 18 (11%)

The LA City Nerd
Votes: 10 (6%)

So now I am dying to hear from those that voted. Especially those that voted for Bogaard…what swayed you to make him Grinch of the Year?

Nifty graphic courtesy our own David Markland.

6 thoughts on “Metroblogging Los Angeles’ 2007 Grinch of the Year Award”

  1. Very interesting. Maybe because I live in Agoura Hills and because my news focus is so wide now, I didn’t realize how many boneheaded moves the mayor of Pasadena has made. Thanks for the FYI.

  2. I voted for Mayor Bogaard because he thinks courting China is more important than human rights. Consider these two statements from Police Chief Melekian, who, I am sure, would not have made them without the Mayor’s input:

    “Citing security concerns, Police Chief Bernard Melekian on Tuesday rejected a proposal by critics of China to precede the Tournament of Roses parade with a human-rights march down Colorado Boulevard.”

    But see also:
    “Melekian, however, does not expect that any possible demonstrations against the controversial Rose Parade float honoring China and the 2008
    Beijing Olympics will turn violent or unmanageable, telling reporters Monday that he anticipates the degree of security for the parade to be not much different than in other years since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

    So what happened between the first and second statement? An inside source suggested that the Communist Party opposed the human rights parade, so the city changed its position. Can that be true?

Comments are closed.