Simon Reyna (letters, June 11) criticizes The Signal’s endorsement of Spencer Pratt and argues that Pratt has “absolutely zero experience.” If experience alone is the standard, then the obvious question is: How should voters evaluate the record of the experienced candidates already governing Los Angeles?
Karen Bass is the incumbent mayor. Nithya Raman is a member of the Los Angeles City Council. Both are already part of Los Angeles’ political leadership. If experience is the deciding factor, then their records should be subject to scrutiny as well. Experience is valuable, but it is not a substitute for performance.
Mr. Reyna never addresses the reasons The Signal gave for its endorsement. He does not discuss homelessness, public safety, addiction, mental illness, housing costs, or any of the other issues facing the city. He does not explain why the editorial board’s reasoning was wrong. Instead, he dismisses the candidate and attacks the newspaper.
He also claims Pratt has no experience. While Pratt has never held elected office, that is not the same thing as having no experience. More importantly, many elected officials begin their political careers without prior experience in elected office. The relevant question is not whether a candidate has previously held office, but whether that candidate’s ideas and qualifications compare favorably to the alternatives.
If Mr. Reyna believes The Signal made the wrong choice, he should explain why the records and policies of the other candidates make them the better choice. That would contribute to a meaningful public discussion. Simply declaring a candidate unqualified does not.
Reasonable people can disagree with The Signal’s endorsement. But disagreement is most persuasive when it addresses facts, records and policies rather than assumptions and insults.
Arthur Tom
Santa Clarita
