At 2:53 p.m. on Monday, an email arrived in my inbox. It announced a special meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council at 4 p.m. Tuesday, with a short agenda attached. What could be so urgent that a special meeting is required? Oh look, a Charlie Kirk memorial mural emergency!
“Issue Statement: This item proposes consideration of a mural project as an artistic expression honoring the principles of freedom and free speech while memorializing Charlie Kirk. The project is proposed to be funded through private contributions to avoid impact to City resources.
“The proposal includes formation of a City Council ad hoc committee of three council members authorized to identify a suitable location, select the artist(s), and review artwork design, ensuring the project complies with city guidelines.
“Recommended Action: Direct staff to explore the creation of a mural as an artistic expression honoring freedom and free speech, memorializing Charlie Kirk….”
(See “Huntington Beach will explore creating a memorial honoring Charlie Kirk,” Daily Pilot, Sept. 24)
Why does this require a special meeting? Why not put it on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting? Indeed, why propose it at all? Most likely, it’s that sponsor Councilmember Chad Williams and co-sponsors Councilmember Andrew Gruel and Mayor Pat Burns (who frequently limits free speech at City Council meetings to just 60 seconds) know this will be yet another divisive topic. So let’s do it with very short notice, when most people are at work, to make it more difficult to attend and speak against during public comments. Don’t allow enough time to compose and email supplemental communications that would appear in the public record.
Charlie Kirk was a controversial right-wing activist with no direct connection to Huntington Beach. The City Council should not be using city staff (paid with our tax dollars) to work on this, nor should a memorial to Charlie Kirk (under the guise of a mural honoring the principles of freedom and free speech) be placed on any city property. It must be funded by private donations and be on private property, perhaps Calvary Chapel of the Harbour. City Council members should be involved in such a project only as private individuals, not as representatives of our city. We are not all MAGA.
Michele Burgess
Huntington Beach
Over the last couple of weeks, Huntington Beach has once again been in the news for all the wrong reasons. And yes, at the Sept. 16 City Council meeting, the members of the City Council finally denounced the hate group that infiltrated the vigil held for Charlie Kirk. But what they failed to address is the deeper political climate that allows extremists to believe they are welcome here in our city and at our pier.
Huntington Beach has a long history of racism and white nationalism. But this does not need to be our future. The current council has failed to move our city away from this negative reputation. Instead of working to bring our community together, they have continued to fuel division by putting national politics first and by dismissing anyone who shares a different opinion.
Under their leadership, invocations are now only made by those handpicked by the City Council. Under the current council, our government website endorses a program ostensibly about civic education that per their own website, seeks to “help restore our Constitutional Republic and the Biblical principles that cause our nation to thrive.”
These actions speak far louder than any “public statement denouncing hate groups.”
These statements failed to address the root cause — that the actions by the current council have created an environment where the groups feel they will find like minds.
Since my announcement that I will run for City Council I have been grateful to have experienced such a warm reception. Because when you ask people what they want, they will tell you.
We are a beautiful, warm, friendly city of people who choose to live here for the beaches, great schools, and the strong quality of life. Isn’t it time that our City Council acts in a way that supports these values as well?
Taryn Palumbo
Huntington Beach
Prop. 50 and voter choice
Some Californians have overlooked the critical facts about Proposition 50 — and in doing so, have missed the very reason this measure was introduced.
Prop. 50 is not about partisan politics. It is about protecting fair representation and voter choice. The measure was crafted to counter the blatant redistricting abuses unfolding in Texas, where partisan lawmakers have manipulated district lines to entrench power.
Redistricting is supposed to happen once every 10 years, after the U.S. Census, to ensure population shifts are fairly represented. In California, that process is entrusted to an independent, nonpartisan commission —specifically to prevent politicians from drawing maps to their own advantage.
Texas chose a different path. Legislators there recently redrew district maps outside the census cycle, at the urging of President Trump, who pressed the governor to find five more Republicans to secure control of the U.S. House in 2026. The gerrymandered maps they produced shifted Democratic-leaning communities into Republican districts, a textbook case of partisan gerrymandering.
Prop. 50 is California’s safeguard. It authorizes a temporary boundary adjustment for the 2026 election to prevent Texas-style rigging. Afterward, the 2028 election reverts to standard census-based maps, and following the 2030 Census, California’s nonpartisan commission resumes full control for 2032 and beyond.
This is not a partisan maneuver — it is a voter protection measure. Prop 50 ensures that elections remain fair, representative and free from the corrosive influence of political manipulation.