No Place for Racial Rhetoric

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, television stations across the nation replay King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and we celebrate his accomplishments. I think about how far we’ve come, but sometimes I’m reminded of how far we have still to go.

I attended a Moorpark City Council meeting last month and left 4 1/2 hours later feeling like something was not right. What bothered me was the reason for such a lengthy public meeting—mainly, the use of race in debate of one of the agenda items.

I suspected it was going to be a long night when I arrived and noted that nearly every single parking place at City Hall was occupied. Once inside, most of the seats were also taken. Crowds of residents milled around and the meeting began nearly 45 minutes late.

One issue took up most of the evening and prevented other issues from being addressed until after 10 p.m. That was the bitter and sometimes racially charged appeal of the issuance of a partial liquor license for a local grocery store. Briefly, the store owner will be getting a license to sell unopened containers of beer and wine in his store, which is located in a primarily Hispanic neighborhood.

Members of the crowd spoke about the deleterious effects that alcohol has on the Hispanic community as a whole and claimed that because some of the residents abuse liquor, this particular store owner should be denied a liquor license.

Both race and religion came into the debate when speakers indicated that because the neighborhood was Hispanic, the store owner, whom someone referred to as being Muslim and from Jordan, was exploiting what the speakers claimed were issues of alcohol abuse.

Citizens have few outlets to be heard publicly and I support the opportunity we are given to address our concerns at public hearings; however, dredging up issues of race and religion seem counterproductive. What was true at the time of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech is true now: The color of someone’s skin or ethnic background have no place in political decision-making.

I must also add that lawyers for both sides spoke—one for about an hour, one for just a few minutes. It seems to me this citizen-oriented venue should be a lawyer-free zone. They can talk all they want in court during litigation; but back to the issue of the liquor license.

When council members finally got their chance to weigh in and vote on it, each one politely explained why they rejected the appeal. Most noted they were very uncomfortable with the tone that had been inserted into the discussion and hoped it would not be repeated. I have to concur.

This experience did not contribute to the likelihood of my attending future council meetings. If I really need to hear the meeting, I will do so online.