Hey, SLO progressives, were your ears burning on Tuesday morning, around 9:10, 9:15?
That’s when the first of Supervisor Adam Hill’s critics — many of whom also identified as opponents of progressive politics — stepped to the podium at the Board of Supervisors Chambers. One by one, speakers criticized Hill as a negative, disrespectful bully who’s an embarrassment to the county and unworthy of being named the chairman of the board. (As if there were ever any chance of that.)
Hill was accused of everything from misusing county resources to picking on the media. One or two innuendos of sexual wrongdoing were tossed in for good measure, and there was a not-so-subtle reference to the “smoking wreckage of his personal life.”
One man advised the board to “assign (Hill) duties and if he does them, fine. If he doesn’t, fire him or recall him.” (If only it were that easy to get rid of an elected official!)
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Third District voters weren’t off the hook, either. How could they have elected such a morally reprehensible individual?
From there, the attack moved on to encompass the entire “progressive agenda.”
“I find nothing favorable about the left-wing, liberal philosophy,” said one speaker, who went on to reel off a laundry list of things he opposes, including Black Lives Matter (“politically funded thugs”); banning off-road vehicles from the Oceano Dunes; closing Diablo Canyon; smart growth policies (including cluster housing); the proposed Chumash Marine Sanctuary; banning off-shore drilling; sanctuary cities; blaming climate change on human activity; and denying Phillips 66’s application to expand on the Nipomo Mesa.
Another speaker blamed progressives for “somehow convincing women that it’s OK to kill their unborn children.”
“Women are much more stable after having their babies and have a much lower suicide rate,” he said.
Sure, everyone has a right to his or her three minutes at the podium. But wasn’t the topic the selection of a chairperson and a vice chair? What in the heck did Black Lives Matter, climate change, Smart Growth and “women having their babies” have to do with picking a chair? For that matter, what did Hill’s alleged “smoking wreckage” of a personal life have to do his ability to chair a meeting?
If Chairman John Peschong had issued a couple of gentle reminders to a) stay on topic and b) refrain from “smoking wreckage” comments, we doubt anyone in the highly partisan crowd of Peschong fans would have minded.
Instead, we were subjected to another depressing example of just how wide and irreversible the partisan split in our county has grown.
Not that Peschong’s the only one to blame. Every member of the Board of Supervisors has, at one time or another, contributed to the hyperpartisanship of what’s supposed to be a nonpartisan board representing all residents of the county.
For that, we’re delivering a brickbat to each and every supervisor ... with Chairman Peschong’s in the shape of a gavel.
Bouquets and brickbats appear occasionally in The Tribune. If there's something (or someone) you would like to honor with a bouquet or chastise with a brickbat, email your idea to firstname.lastname@example.org.