Classic Barbra Williamson Quotes

Site Search:

A new quote from Barbra Williamson:

The Acorn: Voters will keep their say on growth

I think anytime you give the opportunity for residents to vote on something, they believe they are a part of the process ...

Note exactly what she said. She did not say that it is good to have residents be part of the process, but instead it make residents BELIEVE that they are part of the process. There is quite a difference there, but I doubt that she realized what exactly she said. Notice that before this she said that asking what people wanted was like opening Pandora's box. Is it because they can control what people vote on much better than a survey? Or is that she is selective in what she wants people to be able to give their opinion on?

Here is a new quote from Barbra Williamson which clearly shows that she does not want to know what the people think:

When Sojka said he would follow "the pleasure of the community", Huber said that's a good idea: The city should survey residents to see how they feel.

But Williamson said that would be like opening Pandora's box.

"If the community was hot and bothered about this, they'd be in this room," Williamson said.

Yeah, don't inform people that the issue is going to be discussed and the discuss in in the middle of the night, so then you can claim that they would be in the room if they cared. If they cared, they would inform people that it was going to be discussed and they would do it at a time in which people could attend. Putting it in the agenda on a Friday night for the next Monday is not informing people.

Here is a classic Barbra Williamson quote:

By barbra williamson on April 19, 2006 2:37 PM

I accepted the $$ prior to the project being discussed, however, even if it were on the table, I would have accepted the $$$. It takes $$$ to run a campaign...try it some time...Just because a candidate accepts money from a developer it doesn't mean that we will vote for their project, and the developer KNOWS that. What they are doing is making sure that they get a FAIR hearing on their project.

Developers have to donate money to Barbra Williamson's campaign in order to get a fair hearing???? Everyone should be able to get a fair hearing without having to donate money. To require someone to donate money in order to get a fair hearing reeks of corruption.

Also, you should be aware that " Williamson found in violation of city's campaign finance laws ".

A quote from the above article:

Although Williamson and her fellow council members approved the current code pertaining to election contributions in 2001, Williamson said she hopes the council will put together a committee of residents to revise the regulations and make the complicated ordinance easier to understand.

So, Barbra Williamson voted on the current code, but now claims that it is too difficult to understand? She also claimed that she was not fined and she just had to return the money, but the article states that she had to pay the check to the City.

Another interesting quote:

By Barbra williamson on April 17, 2006 3:09 PM

Ok, lets talk about campaign contributions........The politicians want to limit the amount of $$ you can received from a contributor...I say hogwash!!! Once you start putting limitations on politicians, they are going to find a way to become very creative. I think you should allow any dollar amount, BUT the candidate must provide photo copies of the checks, and their bank statements....This way, the public can see where their $$ are coming from and if they don't like it that candidate A received $500,000 from Mr. Smith, they don't have to vote for him. And you know if something looks out of wack, the newspapers will be all over it. And I agree with Arleigh, I don't support the Stricklands moving $$$ back and forth between their campaigns, even if it is illegal, BUT at least I am aware of it, and can decide for myself whether to support them or not.

Barbra

A new quote from Barbra Williamson:

The Acorn: Council says no to historic designation

Councilmember Barbra Williamson said her decision was easy once she heard that none of the homeowners was supportive of the plan.

"That clinched it for me right there. I'm sorry (the residents) had to go through the exercise, but now we know where everyone (stands)," she said. "We always recognize the residents first and put them first."

It is amazing that she does not get what she is saying. How sorry can she be that the residents had to go through this when all it would have taken to stop it was to have the City Staff ask the residents in ADVANCE and just stop it when it was found that they did not want it.

It seems to me that her response is just typical of her and it does not seem honest to me. Does she really think that people believe what she is saying? I have to wonder if she actually believes her own statements.

So, were the residents recognized first and put first when the strawberry vendors were banned? Or was it just after the outrage that the Council decided that they had better listen to the residents?
Another new quote from Barbra Williamson:

The Acorn: Committee: Some council benefits need to go

"I have to tell you quite honestly, we're not in this job because of the benefits. They're there and they're really nice, but when I took a look at those (recently), I was shocked actually."

The Council Members are supposed to be overseeing the City, so can someone explain to me how exactly Barbra Williamson can be shocked at the benefits? You would think that after 20 years on the Council that she would know what is going on. If she does not know what is going on, as the quote shows, then she needs to be going from the Council ASAP.

Index for Save Simi Valley

Written: 08-Dec-2010

Updated: 23-Dec-2011

If you want to submit your own article, please read the first article and send email

Send Mail

Anti Spam