Janet’s Bridge To Re-Election???

First we had Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) “Bridge to Nowhere” and now we have Supervisor Janet Nguyen’s (R-Little Saigon) “Bridge to Re-Election”.  What is it with Republicans and wasting millions of tax dollars on bridges?  So much for being the party of fiscal responsibility.

In what is clearly her latest effort to pander for votes in the Vietnamese community, Nguyen (pictured left with fellow conservative hypocrite Newt Gingrich) is proposing a pedestrian bridge in Little Saigon that has a price tag of $2.5 million.  The Register’s Martin Wicksol correctly points out that, “In the rapidly approaching election for the First District supervisor, nobody’s going to be able to say that incumbent Janet Nguyen hasn’t paid attention to Little Saigon. With an all-Vietnamese American field in the race, that area could make the difference — and it looks like Nguyen knows it.”

You may remember that Nguyen’s most noteworthy action since being elected to the Board of Supervisor’s was getting a satellite office opened in Little Saigon despite the fact that Little Saigon is roughly 15 minutes away from the county offices and the Hall of Administration.  That project will end up costing taxpayers more than $128,000 a year just so Janet Nguyen can pander for votes.  No other member of the Board has a satellite office despite the fact that their districts are much further away from the county seat in Santa Ana.

According to the Register Nguyen’s latest pork barrel project, dubbed the Freedom Bridge, “is expected to stretch over Bolsa in a location between Brookhurst Street and Magnolia Avenue near the Asian Garden Mall” in the city of Westminster.  Despite the fact that the proposed bridge is in Westminster, city officials there say they have been kept in the dark about it by Nguyen and her staff.

“The county should do a better job of providing the city with information and including us in the decision-making process,” said Councilman Kermit Marsh.

The $2.5 million would come from the state Proposition 1-B bond act which allocates funds to improve highway safety, air quality and traffic reduction.  Too bad Supervisor Nguyen didn’t feel that this money could be better used in Santa Ana to help fix our streets.  You don’t think it could be that she needs the votes out of Little Saigon more than she needs votes out of Santa Ana do you?  But hey what’s $2.5 million when she gave us $5000 to buy playground equipment?

Supervisor Nguyen has clearly demonstrated one thing to voters, that is that she is quickly becoming the “Queen of Pork Barrel Spending”.  Rather than addressing the needs of the majority her district Janet has chosen to use her office to pander for votes in Little Saigon.  Thanks to poor planning by us Democrats we will likely have to suffer through four more years of her pandering.

 

  11 comments for “Janet’s Bridge To Re-Election???

  1. jose s.
    March 21, 2008 at 9:43 am

    maybe they can make the bridge go to irvine valley college where the flags of the nations used to be and call it “bridge to communism”

  2. March 21, 2008 at 9:58 am

    Jose,

    Just so you know these folks are at it again, this time at USC. They are demanding USC remove the flag of Vietnam. Here is the link to the Register story:

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/flag-university-community-2002686-nguyen-communist

  3. Dan Chmielewski
    March 21, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Nice photo of Janet with a serial adulterer hypocrite most responsible for the partisan divide in America

  4. WTF Dems?
    March 21, 2008 at 11:53 am

    You Democrats have absolutley no room to complain. You failed comlptly to place a candidate in this race to oppose janet Nguyen. You desrve everything she will do to you in the next four years.

  5. March 21, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    The 11:53 anon poster has a good point. I understand that Frank Barbaro himself refused to help fund any primary challengers.

    As for this bridge, isn’t pedestrian safety important to you guys? It’s not like the bridge will be built in time for the election. Chances are it won’t be up for several years.

    I think it was far more egregious for the Santa Ana City Council to give their City Manager a huge raise when he has performed so poorly. Unless you are impressed by a city with 3 carjackings in two weeks.

    What about Sal Tinajero voting to raise our sewage rates by 60% over five years? Or the SA City Council raising our water rates even though our city spends far more on administration of its water department as compared to other cities?

    Or how about the state legislators, who are majority Dem, giving themselves yet another raise this year, as our state slides into a recession and is several billion dollars in debt?

    Or Don Perata driving a muscle car while he wails about emissions? Thank God we at least are finally rid of him!

  6. March 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    “As for this bridge, isn’t pedestrian safety important to you guys?”

    If this was about pedestrian safety don’t you think that Janet should look towards doing something in Santa Ana? Santa Ana has one of the highest, if not the highest, pedestrian fatality rates in the nation.

    Leave it to Pedroza to spin Janet’s pandering for votes with our tax dollars into an act of philathropy on Janet’s part.

    This bridge is about politics and nothing else. Janet figures if she throws around enough taxpayer dollars the folks in Little Saigon will come running to her.

    Pedroza usually rails against governement waste, but when it’s his girl Janet he defends it or tries to spin it into an attack against Pulido or Sal or whomever he is hating on that day.

    Face it Pedroza, Janet is OC’s Queen of Pork.

  7. Thomas Anthony Gordon
    March 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    37K of Measure M tax dollars meant for road repair spent on a pretty median in Floral Park instead of patching Santa Ana’s blown out streets and wasted by Santa Ana’s City Council to buy votes.

    http://www.theorangejuice.com/2008/01/why-floral-park-loves-mayor-pulido.html

    $ 603,500 to spiff up a bridge on Flower Street over Santiago Creek to “enhance the public safety and appearance of the bridge” instead of patching Santa Ana’s blown out streets and wasted by Santa Ana’s City Council to buy votes.

    http://www.theorangejuice.com/2008/02/floral-park-gets-more-from-pulido.html

    Nearly 700K spent in Floral Park in less than a month and all to buy votes.

    Talk about waste fraud and corruption.

  8. March 21, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Thomas,

    So do you support Janet’s “bridge for votes”?

    Do the actions in Santa Ana somehow justify Janet spending $2.5 million on a “bridge for votes”?

    Or is this just an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Janet wants to spend $2.5 million on a “bridge for votes”?

  9. jose s.
    March 22, 2008 at 10:34 am

    thanks for the link to that article sean. i’m glad usc isnt taking their flag display down. who the hell do these people think they are.

  10. March 22, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Sean,

    BTW, the OC Weekly is reporting that your boy Sal and the rest of the Pulido hacks spent $60,000 on trophies for overpaid city employees. Now THAT is pork spending at its worst!

  11. March 24, 2008 at 9:45 am

    The following comment was just left on the OJ in regards to the $60,000 that was spent on trophies by the city of Santa Ana:

    “I wrote the trophy contract for the City of Santa Ana. Your facts are not correct. The contract is mainly for trophies to be awarded by the Parks and Recreation Department. 90% of the contract total cost will pay for trophies for participants in Parks and Recreation youth sporting events. Those participants paid a registration fee, that included the cost for the trophies. The City of Santa Ana Parks and Recreation Department purchased the trophies with funds from the registration fees. An extremely small percentage of the contact total cost will be used for employee awards AND to award outstanding citizens of the community. The Request For Council Action for the contract, dated January 7, 2008, which is public information, explains this very clearly.”

    Looks like Pedroza got it wrong again. In an effort to hastily slander Councilman Tinajero he forgot to check the facts. No surprise there.

Comments are closed.