In an article about the new city budget, (“City Reverses its Red Ink,” May 18) I was pleased to see that it is in the black. I also noticed that $30,000 was set aside for a “consultant” to help the city evaluate our old homes. This past issue, I read Councilperson Pearson’s letter to editor on justifying her position, which I don’t think she needs to. Her opinion about older homes and economic sense are valid and appropriate and I agree with her opinion. Not all old homes were built alike, nor have or had historical value. To me, this is like keeping a person who is brain dead alive through heroic methods.
Getting back to the “consultant”. Over the last six months I have gone several times to the city and tried to find their list of consultants and vendors. I was especially interested in the landscape consultant and a few others. Each person I asked said they did not know if the city had such a list nor how these consultants were chosen, how much they are paid, who did they know in the city, what were their qualifications, who were their competitors for the job and how often they are used. Consultants can be biased and can be hired for their bias.
Does this call for transparency? I think so.
P.S. Laguna Village should emphasize the fact that they are a political action committee and are registered as that with attorney general, not soft peddle the fact. The amount of money they give a candidate is based on their expectation for their candidate to do their bidding.
Ganka Brown, Laguna Beach