Of course, by "citizens" he meant "citizens with money." Winning elections is a dollars and cents game, especially now that Sacramento's campaign contribution laws have been effectively eliminated. It also discounts the fact that most citizens have a direct link to city government via their city council member, and the city council members would lose considerable power in a "strong mayor" system. The Mayor, with that much less attention to give, would not be able to meet with as many citizens or directly address neighborhood concerns in the same way that city council members do. His priorities would be focused more on maintaining his office, which means money and lots of it--which means maintaining the favor of developers and big-money interests, most of whom don't even live in the city of Sacramento.

It sounds like this wasn't a "town hall" event in the sense of providing an update of how the city is doing--he was out stumping for the "strong mayor" initiative on the city's dime. The answers he is giving haven't changed since this campaign started, just the same content-free platitudes about transparency and accountability. It sounds like his response to the huge potential legal problems with the initiative was just a deflection--instead of answering the question, he basically said "everyone else is doing it" by tossing out the "world-class city" line.

The "world class city" line is utterly meaningless. It's basically the same as a guy telling his girlfriend that she's fat because he wants her to go on a diet--it's intended to make us feel bad about ourselves. Many major cities have council/manager governments--and no California city has a "strong mayor" system with as much unchecked power as this initiative would provide.

Bad idea...I'll just vote no

I'm working out of town and could not attend the meeting. I'm interested in what was discussed on the Curtis Park Village issue...which I think is a really bad idea.

There is nothing that an actual 'meeting', town hall or otherwise, could possibly offer in explanation of the benefits of the SMI apart from KJ's lies, distortions, and frauds about the measure's origins and fruition, especially with no credible challenge from a complacent audience or absence of subject matter expert opponents. Frankly I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than listen to this empty suited empty headed mayor rationalize his pathological need for more authority, especially with an FBI investigation breathing down his back and any opposition to the measure quashed by his loyalists' tactics evidenced at earlier such meetings. I hope he doe indeed go way public, for he's headed for an inevitable collapse when the reality of his past and present finally pierces the veil so carefully constructed by p.r. firms and other pretenders seeking only to cynically fool rather than offer anything substantive for this town...