Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />19:7768-L <br /> <br />FOLLOWING IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE RECORDED ,STATEMENT OF <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN EDWARD L. BUTTERWORTH <br /> <br />FASHION PARK <br /> <br />JANUARY 19, 1971 <br /> <br />"I want to say on behalf of the Council that we are very grateful to those who <br />testified. We are especially grateful to the organized groups - the proponents and <br />opponents - who presen~ed their cases in a very efficient manner and saved us a con-' <br />siderable amount of time and certainly their preparation reflected considerable <br />preparation and attention to the details of this vexing problem. And again like the <br />other Councilmen, I want to thank those of you who have written. Your letters were <br />not filed. They were read and they were considered by me and by the other Councilmen. <br />I think in the light of the very intense feelings that we have on this matter we are <br />all grateful for the temperate language and the gentlemanly conduct which did prevail <br />at these particular meetings. On the other hand I think it is also fair to say that <br />the Council has allowed everyone to talk about as long as they had anything to say, <br />and while I think this may have prolonged the hearings we all felt that it was <br />important that everyone would have a full and fair opportunity to present their views. <br />And needless to say our gratitude goes to Mr. Cozad and his staff, and to the City <br />Clerk, Mrs. Van Maanen, for their diligence and their labor in amassing a prodigious <br />amount of information and made it available. I suggest that probably everyone of <br />us had in excess of 2,000 to 2,SOO.pgges.6f information. <br /> <br />"r read in the Los Angeles Times Sunday morning that some unknown person or persons <br />stated or at least held the belief that this zoning application has been '~reased" <br />all along and presumably in favor of Santa Anita. In my opinion such a statement <br />in the absence of some evidence to support it is beneath contempt and brings into <br />question the moral values and standards of anyone who would hold such a belief in <br />this community - again in the absence of some evidence to support it. I want to say <br />very clearly Mr. Jack Saelid's name was mentioned in this article and I want to <br />particularly say that I am not referring to this very distinguished citizen who <br />expressly in that article had disavowed holdingiany such intent. I say that because <br />I couldn't stand to have any misunderstanding on this. But I would say this, that <br />in the absence of some supporting evidence it is my opinion that it is this kind of <br />statement that destroys or at least undermines the democratic process at a time when <br />we are trying to tell our young people that this is the best means yet that we have <br />discovered for menro govern themselves. I hope very much that you people in this <br />community, if you hear somebody begin to pass this information, if there m no <br />evidence to support that, that you will treat it with the contempt which it deserves. <br />It is impractical to comment upon all of the observations that have been made. They <br />all deserve an answer. The time does not permit. There are some that I would like <br />to reflect upon. <br /> <br />"Needless to say, the financial health of the company, if indeed it is allowed, will <br />guarantee the continuation of racing while the defeat of the proposal might bring it <br />to an early conclusion. There was contrary testimony that Santa Anita is in excellent <br />financial health. It is my opinion that the financial posture of Santa Anita has no <br />relevancy to the application for a change of zone or a conditional ~e permit. The <br />condition of the applicant's balance sheet, whether he has made or lost money last <br />year or the last ten years, does not have any relevancy to the merits of this appli- <br />cation and in my judgment I view this testimony as irrelevant. <br /> <br />"I note that both the proponents and the opponents have taken the position publicly <br />that individual Councilmen are politically obligated to vote for their viewpoint <br />because each has represented to the voters that he supports the concept of Arcadia <br />as a community of homes. The proponents have told us that the burden of property <br />taxation is becoming intolerable; that residential living is best in a community <br />that is balanced between commerce and homes: that additional tax revenues from <br />Fashion Park will release homeowners from an increasing burden of taxation. The <br />opponents say that when three Councilmen ran for Council positions last April each <br />represented he would support the concept of Arcadia as the City of homes; that <br />citizens campaigned for Councilmen on that. basis; that the three of us who were <br />elected last April are obligated to vote against Fashion Park because of these <br />political commitments. <br /> <br />EDWARD L. BUTTERWORTH <br /> <br />1-19-71 <br /> <br />- 13 - <br />