I have to say, I was appalled by this Chron editorial about “carpetbagging” in City Council races.
In 2003 the council rolling stone was M.J. Khan, whose $2.3 million family residence was in Piney Point Village but who rented a $73,000 home in District F in order to run for office. Despite protests from his opponent, Terry McConn, that Khan was not qualified to make the race, Khan won. He was re-elected two years later and is seeking a third term.
[…]
To eliminate such electoral house hopping, city officials should explore ways to legally tighten the definition of residency to capture the candidate’s primary domicile rather a temporary political crash pad. If it cannot be done through local ordinance, the changes should be pursued in the state Legislature.
Transient candidates demean the office they are seeking while calling their own ethics into question. If candidates are willing to bend the law to their benefit before they get elected, how will they conduct themselves after they gain the power of the position?
“How will they conduct themselves”? Why don’t you take a look at MJ Khan’s four-year record in office and tell me yourself? There’s no need to hypothesize – we have actual data to examine. I’m sorry, but this strikes me as an entirely unwarranted slam on Khan, who as far as I know has done good work as the Council member for District F. If the Chron thinks otherwise, they should say so and cite specifics instead of making vague insinuations.
It’s funny, but in searching the Chron’s archives about the 2003 race for articles about District F, I only found this one having to do with Khan’s residency – it went unmentioned in other stories. I should also note that though the Chron endorsed a candidate who didn’t make the runoff for the November election, they backed Khan over McConn in the runoff, never mentioning the residency question in doing so. Why they’re suddenly so concerned about it now, I couldn’t say.
Having said all that, I’d be willing to back a candidate who made clarifying and/or toughening the residency requirements for Council a part of his or her campaign, as I wrote on Kuff’s World. It’s not a high-priority issue for me, but I’d certainly appreciate not having to have these little mini-controversies every few years. Not to mention not having to read editorials like this one.
Chronic should stick to Historic Preservation lest they lose residency of their own
I’m glad the Chron is finally hitting this. In answer to your question, it should be noted that editors and reporters come and go. That they finally have some reporters and editors paying close attention to local elections is good.
Residency matters. It’s basic: live in the place you want to represent. Elsewise, you get the “rotten burroughs” of 19th century England.
Be glad the Chronicle is doing what a local paper is supposed to do.
RD, Chronic changing its opinion faster than a flip flop candidate is nothing new and Chronic opinions wont be anchored by the current crop of employees. The next phone I buy is going to have a full keyboard.