Linda Lucks brings out the worst in neighborhood politics. She really makes a case for the disbandment of all neighborhood councils. The truth be told why do we need another governing body in our neighborhood that does not meet the needs of the residents they are supposedly suppose to service.

The blurb in Patch conveys impressions that I doubt Linda Lucks even perceived. She comes across as having been grossly mistreated by very crude people.  But there is a way that she expresses herself and presents her case that comes across as arrogant, vain, and self absorbed -- not the work of a self aware person.

Her lack of the least appreciation for the attitudes and concerns of her opponents is starkly evident. She seems to be complaining of being opposed by unreasonable people rather from other citizens with different points of view. She cites cases where she is being threatened with death over issues concerning quality of life issues, which is bizarre and which most people would expect to be from garden variety crazies rather than serious opponents to what she is doing in public office. The lack of candor regarding the dimensions of the controversy makes her seem like someone who is offended at having been challenged with respect both to her authority and the rightness of her decisions. It's all to vague and conveys a sense of having been rudely and unreasonably treated by people who just aren't as cogent and as normal as herself.

She continues to fail to appreciate that she might not really be representing the community as much as her attitude seems to indicate. She seems to be emphasizing the solid community support that she enjoys by having been elected by 750 of 1291 voters while ignoring that the community population is over 40,000. It's as though she does not understand that the post she holds is considered unimportant by virtually all residents of Venice.

She seems not to be able to grasp or deliberately is trying to pretend that she does not only represents a busy but tiny segment of a fairly large community whose influence upon City government is based upon perceptions that the vast majority don't care what they ask from whomever is representing Council District 11.  It's a well known phenomenon, where a small but dedicated minority is able to obtain support from popularly elected public official because they will support the official very actively and they don't seem to require anything that the majority of voters care about.

Lucks was elected by a margin of 209 voters out of 1291 who participated out of a community of 40,000. All you need is to replace her is to convince a majority of those who did not vote that she is imposing upon them and she's out.

Long_time_resident said
She seems to be emphasizing the solid community support that she enjoys by having been elected by 750 of 1291 voters while ignoring that the community population is over 40,000. It's as though she does not understand that the post she holds is considered unimportant by virtually all residents of Venice.

 

She did not mention that Jim Hubbord, her only opponent, got up at the candidate forum and said that he did not want the position and would not show up to meetings if elected; he simply ran so that Lucks would have an opponent rather than be the only candidate. 

So, she was triumphant over someone whoes election motto was "don't elect me" to a position that no one else in the community wanted.

Crazypants. 

How many votes came from outside Venice? Do you know?

Who supervised the votes? Who oversaw the eligibilty of the voters? Do you know?

If you can answer these questions, I 'll stop "Whining".

Yes. Keep up the good work.