-
5. Controlled Growth and the Official-Englsih Movement
- Temple University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
CHAPTER 5 Controlled Growth and the Official-English Movement I n May 1982 a Monterey Park Progress editorial headed "A Different City Council" pointed out that for the first time, four of the council's five members (Manibog, Chen, Almada, and Peralta) came from ethnic minorities. Also, for the first time, moreover, there were two Hispanics serving together (Almada and Peralta), a Chinese American (Chen), and two women (Davis and Chen).l The new council 's new perspectives were soon evident as well; one of its first acts was to denounce federal raids on businesses that employ undocumented workers. After learning of an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) raid on a Monterey Park shoe manufacturing business, David Almada made a motion, seconded by Rudy Peralta, that the council send letters of protest to President Reagan and INS Commissioner Alan Nelson. The motion, passed unanimously, was lauded in the same editorial: "It is not unusual for a city council to take an official position on state and federal legislative proposals or programs.... And the Progress, for one, has no objections. As a matter of fact, we confess to some degree of admiration for the council's action. They showed some spunk. And that, too, is different from previous city councils." 2 Initial harmony among the members, however, all too quickly became discord, bringing political turmoil that often pitted the council against the community. This chapter highlights events between 1982 and 1986, including the passage of controlled-growth propositions that were actively opposed by a majority of the city council, continued growth and change during which the council's efforts to assist newcomers were often misconstrued and resented by older residents, and finally an "official-English" movement that became entangled with development issues. Propositions K and L After the surprise results of the April 1982 city council election, heated community debate quickly focused on Propositions K and L. Monterey Park Progress "Publisher Emeritus" Eli Isenberg began the flurry in his May 12 "It Seems to Me" column: "Vote yes on K, and you limit the 96 Controlled Growth 97 number of residential units that can be built to 100 a year for 10 years. Vote yes on L, and you require a vote of the people ... on any zone change involving more than an acre.... Props. K and L were initiated by the Residents Assn. of Monterey Park, whose leaders include Planning Commissioner Sonya Gerlach and former councilmen Harry Couch and Irv Gilman. All three ran for election on 'no-growth' and were defeated for council. They hope to 'turn it around' on June 8." But, Isenberg added: "City Manager Lloyd de Llamas has said that the planned development of North Atlantic [on the table since 1980] would create $5 million in added municipal revenues within five years of its completion. Cities that fail to find new sources of revenue, de Llamas says, will cease to exist." 3 Local commentator and muse Harold Fiebelkorn joined the fray in a May 26 column: "According to RAMP, all of the studies that have been made by experts in their field, all of the research that has been conducted by a competent and experienced staff, and all of the ambitions of reasonable people to promote Monterey Park are pure poppycock.... In promoting Props. K and L (many of us believe this stands for Kooks at Large), they [RAMP members] have made some astounding revelations. Firinstince, it is said that if we stop growth in Monterey Park, we would soon evolve into a society that no longer has bunions because people would no longer be forced to stand up on the bus.... if you believe all that, we have a very fine bridge in Brooklyn that we can let you have for a very low down payment and some very creative financing."4 The biggest controversy erupted when an opposition group, Monterey Park Citizens for Community Progress, published a mailer that quoted City Manager de Llamas as saying, "If these ballot measures are not defeated, Monterey Park will die." At the May 25 city council meeting de Llamas publicly denied having made the comment. "No, I didn't say it," he told the council and an audience of angry residents . Though acknowledging that he did not think the two initiatives were good legislation, "I don't feel that the city will fall in the ocean if [Propositions K and L] are passed." 5 At the same meeting Mancha Kurilich, coordinator of the Citizens for Community Progress...