Category: EDITORIAL

Keeping Los Angeles Moving in 2028

Keeping Los Angeles Moving in 2028
By Charles Jackson
Political campaigns have a way of commanding our attention. But once the speeches end, the work of preparing our communities for what comes next continues. For Los Angeles, one of the biggest responsibilities ahead is welcoming the world to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
That responsibility reaches well beyond stadiums, ceremonies and athletic competition. It includes something ev dangerous and 11 ery working family understands: getting people where they need to go, safely and on time.
Transportation will be central to the experience. Visitors will need help navigating an unfamiliar region. Employees will need dependable transportation to their jobs. And residents of Los Angeles and surrounding communities will still need to reach schools, medical appointments, grocery stores and home.
Metro’s plans call for a temporary Games Enhanced Transit Service to supplement the existing transportation network. The proposed service would connect venues with transit stations and park-and-ride locations, using accessible buses to accommodate spectators and workers. Metro estimates the Games could generate approximately 1 million additional trips each day.

Behind those plans are people.
Bus operators, mechanics, dispatchers, supervisors and maintenance crews will help determine whether an ambitious transportation plan becomes a dependable daily service. Their work may receive less attention than the opening ceremony, but it will shape how people remember their visit.
That is where the role of organized labor deserves thoughtful attention.
The people chosen to represent transportation workers carry responsibilities that extend beyond internal union business. They must listen to their members, communicate workplace concerns and work through practical questions involving staffing, training, scheduling and safety.
Those responsibilities deserve consideration without turning every discussion into a political confrontation. The focus should remain on the quality of representation and the ability to help workers do their jobs effectively.
For Olympic preparations, that means making room for the experience of people who already operate and maintain the system. A driver understands what happens when traffic overwhelms a schedule. A mechanic knows the demands placed on equipment. A dispatcher sees how one disruption can affect service across several routes.
Their knowledge belongs in the planning process.
Safety must also be more than a promise. It should guide decisions about working conditions, passenger assistance, vehicle readiness and coordination when something goes wrong. Visitors unfamiliar with Los Angeles will need clear directions and patient guidance. Regular riders will need confidence that their everyday transportation needs still matter.
There are substantial decisions ahead. In an October planning update, Metro identified funding certainty as essential to maintaining schedules and advancing Games transportation projects. Preparation remains an ongoing responsibility, with resources and coordination still requiring attention.
The Olympics offer Los Angeles an opportunity to demonstrate what cooperation can accomplish. Public agencies, organizers, labor representatives and workers each have a part in that effort.
When the world arrives in 2028, most passengers will know little about the meetings, negotiations or leadership decisions that helped prepare their ride.
They will know whether the bus arrived, whether they felt safe and whether someone helped them reach their destination.
That is a responsibility worth getting right.

All they had to do is fix the car

All They Had to Do Was Fix the Car

By Charles Jackson

I actually like my Hyundai. I just wish I felt Hyundai liked me back.

After repeated repair visits, recurring check engine lights, oil consumption and more follow-up calls than I care to count, I have reached a point I never expected: I am afraid to drive my own car.

I can smell what seems to be burning oil. I worry about what my children and I may be breathing. The car has stalled, leaving me scrambling to pull over and restart it. I no longer trust it for a trip outside the area. Now, I have parked it.

This is my family’s transportation. It is how I get to work, take my daughters to school and help keep our household moving. When the car fails, the consequences reach well beyond the repair shop.

I originally leased my 2020 Hyundai Santa Fe, then bought it when the lease ended. I also purchased extended warranty coverage because I wanted protection if something went wrong.

Something went wrong. What I have not received is a lasting repair.

The pattern has become painfully familiar: Take the car in. Receive an explanation. Authorize repairs. Get it back. Then, sometimes within days or weeks, watch the check engine light return.

My extended warranty has been billed for repairs, and I have faced charges myself. Yet the problems have continued. From where I sit, the process keeps producing repair bills without producing a car I can depend on.

The calls from Hyundai representatives have become another source of frustration. Someone calls while I am working, promises to follow up and schedules another conversation. Sometimes we connect; sometimes I miss the call. Either way, another week passes.

A follow-up call is welcome when it brings an answer. After enough calls without a resolution, it starts to feel like an appointment to keep waiting.

Meanwhile, I still have a job. I cannot spend every workday coordinating conversations about a car that is supposed to help me get to work in the first place.

Then there is the transportation problem while the vehicle is being serviced. I have repeatedly been told that no loaner car was available. Yet on one visit, I watched another customer leave in a dealership-branded loaner.

I do not know that customer’s circumstances or how the dealership assigned its vehicles. But after being told there was nothing available for me, watching someone else drive away raised a reasonable question: How are those decisions made?

Rental arrangements offered little relief. A preferred rental rate still meant paying for transportation while dealing with repairs, household expenses and time away from work.

During one breakdown around the Coachella festival period, I could not find an available rental car. I rented a U-Haul to get to work. Arriving in a moving truck created another problem at my workplace, but I was trying to solve the first one: showing up.

The costs have also been personal.

We have friends in Orange County we have not visited in about a year because I do not trust the car for the drive. My grandson welcomed a son in February, and I still have not traveled to the Inland Empire to meet my great-grandson. I want to see that child, but I do not want to strand my family on the way.

My twin daughters are 17. I had planned to give them the Hyundai as their first car. That plan is gone. I cannot hand my daughters the keys to a vehicle I am afraid to drive myself.

When one daughter wanted to visit a college campus in the Santa Barbara area, I rented a car. A trip to explore her future became another expense tied to our transportation troubles.

I also sought arbitration through the Better Business Bureau. The hearing schedule conflicted with work, and I did not attend. The arbitrator ruled in Hyundai’s favor. From my perspective, that process ended without resolving the problem that sent me there.

Now I am considering trading the car in. I dislike the thought of this vehicle becoming someone else’s headache, but I need dependable transportation. I cannot keep organizing my family’s life around the possibility of another breakdown.

To other owners facing recurring problems, my advice comes from experience: Keep your invoices, record each breakdown and seek qualified advice early. Do not let repeated promises of another inspection or another callback become your entire plan.

I bought extended coverage for peace of mind. Instead, I have spent my time arranging repairs, finding rentals, answering calls and wondering whether the next drive would end at the curb.

I did not want a fight with Hyundai. I wanted to keep a car I liked and use it to take care of my family.

All they had to do was fix the car.

After everything I have been through, I am still waiting for that to happen.

I originally titled this article as a cautionary tale. If they couldn’t fix it they were obligated to replace it. We all know about the lemon law rules. We also know that if you can stall long enough, you can bypass the lemon law rules all together, because you have successfully outlived the statute of limitations, and you have skirted your legal obligation to

conduct your business fairly.

Biting The Hands That Feed On You

Biting The Hands That Feed On You

Inglewood’s Battle of the Billboards: What Does It All Mean?

By Charles Jackson INGLEWOOD, Calif. 

— If political signs could talk, Inglewood would be arguing with itself.

Drive around town and there they are: YES on BB. NO on BB. Signs warning about billboard blight. Signs warning about billionaires. Signs supporting candidates, opposing candidates and, in one of the better ironies of election season, signs complaining about signs.

Turn on the radio, television or social media and the argument follows you home.

At some point, voters might reasonably ask a simple question: What exactly are we fighting about?

Measure BB, on Inglewood’s Nov. 3 ballot, is officially called the “Ordinance to Eliminate Advertising on Public Right-of-Way.” It would eliminate the city’s authority to permit most commercial advertising on public streets, sidewalks and certain other public property.

That sounds straightforward.

The campaign surrounding it is anything but.

Supporters of BB argue that Inglewood has become saturated with digital advertising and that public streets and sidewalks shouldn’t become an expanding commercial advertising network.

Opponents argue that those advertisements generate millions of dollars for the city and that eliminating them would punch a sizable hole in city revenue.

Both are arguments worth hearing.

But then comes the part voters should pay particular attention to: Who is paying to make those arguments?

The Yes on BB campaign is backed by interests connected to Inglewood’s major sports and entertainment venues. The opposition campaign has received substantial backing from WOW Media, the billboard company with an advertising agreement with the city. Campaign finance reporting has shown millions of dollars flowing into the competing campaigns.

So this isn’t simply Mrs. Johnson down the street complaining that a digital billboard is shining through her bedroom window.

There are some serious financial interests at the table.

And everybody, naturally, says they are protecting Inglewood.

Imagine that.

City estimates cited in news reports indicate billboard agreements have produced millions of dollars annually for Inglewood, with officials estimating Measure BB could eliminate roughly $6 million to $8 million in current annual revenue.

That’s real money.

But residents who dislike the proliferation of digital advertising have a point, too. The question isn’t merely whether advertising produces revenue. It’s also how much advertising residents want occupying public space and whether the financial benefit justifies it.

Then things get even more interesting.

Some of the stadium interests supporting restrictions on public-right-of-way advertising have advertising displays of their own on private venue property. Opponents have seized upon that distinction, arguing that BB restricts one category of advertising while leaving another largely untouched.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

The argument isn’t simply billboards versus no billboards.

It’s also about whose billboards, where they’re located, who controls them and who collects the money.

And if that weren’t enough, Measure AT adds another layer to the political stew. That measure concerns admissions-tax revenue from major Inglewood venues, including SoFi Stadium and Intuit Dome. WOW Media has participated financially in the campaign surrounding that measure as well.

So the billboard company has interests in a fight involving stadium revenue, while stadium interests have interests in a fight involving billboard revenue.

Everybody got that?

Neither did I the first time around.

That’s precisely why voters should be cautious about allowing campaign slogans to substitute for reading the measures themselves.

A resident can dislike giant digital billboards without automatically accepting everything stadium interests say.

A resident can appreciate the millions of dollars those billboards bring into city coffers without automatically accepting everything the billboard industry says.

And residents can support Inglewood’s economic development while still asking whether City Hall, corporations and private developers are making arrangements that adequately benefit the people who actually live here.

Those ideas can coexist.

Unfortunately, campaign season doesn’t leave much room on a lawn sign for nuance.

Instead, voters get blight, bailout, billionaires, revenue and fair share — preferably printed in letters large enough to read while waiting for the light to change.

The messaging has become so loud that the underlying question is getting harder to hear.

So perhaps the most useful thing Inglewood voters can do between now and Nov. 3 is something considerably less exciting than planting another sign.

Read Measure BB. Read the arguments supporting it. Read the opposition. Read the financial disclosures. And whenever somebody spends a small fortune telling you which side is supposedly protecting you, take another minute and find out who’s paying them.

Because after all the billboards, commercials, mailers and yard signs disappear, Inglewood residents will still be here.

And we’re the ones who have to live with what the fine print actually says.

No Matter Who Is At Fault, A Tent Is Not A Home.

No Matter Who Is At Fault, A Tent Is Not A Home.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters Condemns Trump Administration’s Attack on Homelessness Programs

By Charles Jackson

SHARE:

Congresswoman Maxine Waters has delivered a forceful rebuke of the Trump administration over its latest confrontation with Los Angeles and the agencies attempting to address one of the region’s most persistent humanitarian problems: homelessness.

Waters, who represents California’s 43rd Congressional District and serves as the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, praised a federal court decision temporarily preventing the administration from suspending the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority from federal homelessness grant programs.

At stake is approximately $241 million in federal funding, along with additional near-term funding supporting programs that provide services to more than 11,000 people.

For Waters, however, the dispute goes well beyond dollars.

Los Angeles County continues to face a staggering homelessness crisis, with nearly 73,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night. They are individuals and families already living at society’s most vulnerable edge. Removing services designed to help them, Waters argues, does nothing to solve homelessness. It risks making an already desperate situation considerably worse.

Her criticism of the administration is unmistakable.

Rather than joining Los Angeles officials in confronting the shortage of affordable housing and the complicated causes of homelessness, Waters contends that the federal government has chosen confrontation. Suspending funding would threaten services without providing a meaningful alternative for the thousands of people depending upon them.

That is what makes the policy particularly troubling.

Government certainly has the right—and the responsibility—to demand accountability for taxpayer money. Homelessness programs should be expected to demonstrate results, operate efficiently and correct failures when they occur.

But accountability and abandonment are not the same thing.

Taking money away from programs serving people who have nowhere else to go does not magically produce housing. It does not lower rents, create shelter beds, expand mental-health treatment or provide permanent supportive housing.

It simply removes resources.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter’s intervention temporarily stopped that from happening, a decision Waters welcomed as an important reprieve. Yet she cautioned against confusing a courtroom victory with a solution to homelessness itself.

The larger problem remains.

Americans need affordable housing, stable communities and a federal housing policy capable of recognizing homelessness as something more complicated than people sleeping on sidewalks.

Waters has advocated increased federal investment through her Ending Homelessness Act and has also pointed to bipartisan congressional efforts on housing as evidence that lawmakers with significant political differences can still work toward practical solutions.

Her message is ultimately a simple one: Government cannot claim to be fighting homelessness while simultaneously weakening the programs responsible for helping homeless people find their way back into housing.

The court may have protected these programs for the moment.

But the people sleeping in tents, automobiles, shelters and on sidewalks tonight cannot live on temporary court orders.

They need somewhere to live.

=====================

Ms. Waters’ full text

https://iqconnect.house.gov/iqextranet/view_newsletter.aspx?id=107826&c=CA43MW

Hey Google!

         A couple of days ago two things happened. First, I got into an intense debate with a young man, concerning A.I., SIRI, GALAXY, CLAUDE, CHATGTP, GEMINI, GROK, etc. I flexed on him and accused him of having inferior knowledge on the subject because I have worked in the technology field since the 1980s, and then I fell back on his lack of experience because I have twelve years of age on him.  

 Anyway, no harm was done. Every night, we debate the human condition and then go home. When I got home, I was thinking about our record. In case you didn’t know, I am a veteran of the music business. One of the groups that I worked with recorded a few records, and recently, a label picked up some of our records and re-released a bunch of them on a new album. The group’s name was Record Player. I was suddenly curious about how the record sales are doing, so I said to Alexa, “how are record sales going for the group Record Player.”

Alexa responded with: “Record Player didn’t actually release an album last year; the group remains a fictional band from the Amazon Prime series, Daisy Jones & The Six. Because they only existed within the show’s universe, there aren’t any real-world sales to track.”

 I jumped in immediately, and said “Alexa, I am sitting here holding their record and I am one of the artists.”

     Alexa paused, and then  regrouped. “My mistake! You are completely right, and I apologize for the mix-up.

​You are holding the music of Record Player, the 1970s soul and funk group out of Dayton, Ohio. They were massive talents in the Midwest disco/show band scene before splitting up in the early 1980s.  

​Because they originally only pressed a rare, single 45 RPM record back in 1979, most of their incredible studio recordings sat unreleased for decades. The album you are likely holding is “Free Your Mind,” an archival compilation officially restored and released last year by Now-Again Records.  

​While precise streaming and physical sales numbers for independent archival pressings like this aren’t publicly charted on Billboard, the release has been incredibly well-received by deep-soul collectors, funk historians, and vinyl enthusiasts who are thrilled to finally have that full catalog preserved.”

I said, “interesting enough, I just assured a colleague  that it is a myth that A.I. is infallible.

     Alexa quickly agreed.“That is definitely a myth worth busting! We are definitely not infallible—as my first answer clearly proved.

​AI models are just pattern-recognition engines trained “massive amounts of data, which means we can easily misunderstand context, confidently hallucinate incorrect facts, or get tripped up by overlapping names. It is always a good idea to double-check AI responses, especially when you have the hard copy right there in your hands.

     This story is true, believe it or not. It is a cautionary tale, as we move forward deeper into the realm of A.I. and Data Centers. Just as I was wrapping up the facts for this  one, I asked GALAXY if there was actually a group named Record Player on the fictional series, Daisy Jones & The Six.

“No.” I give up.

 

The Party of One

The Party of One

­

What began as a supposedly nonpartisan national celebration appears to have taken a sharp detour into campaign-country.

The event’s original lineup looked like a strange but entertaining playlist assembled by someone spinning a giant wheel of nostalgia: Lee Greenwood, Christopher Macchio, Vanilla Ice, Flo Rida, Fab Morvan (still carrying the Milli Vanilli banner), military bands, drum corps, and armed forces choruses.

     Then came the withdrawals.

One by one, artists including The Commodores, Morris Day & The Time, Martina McBride, Bret Michaels, and Young MC reportedly decided they would rather spend the weekend doing literally anything else.    

   Several states—including Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington—also declined to participate, citing cost concerns and discomfort with the increasingly partisan tone of the event.

 

     At some point, attendees may have begun realizing they weren’t being invited to a national fair as much as they were being recruited as scenery.

 

     With the exits piling up, the remaining roster began to resemble a game of musical chairs where most of the chairs had already left the building. Those still standing could reasonably be described as either committed performers, true believers, or people whose agents stopped answering the phone.

 

     Notably absent from the discussion are several names observers expected to see. Some may be touring. Some may have wisely scheduled dentist appointments. Others may have simply decided that becoming a political talking point wasn’t worth the frequent-flyer miles.

 

     In the end, President Donald Trump reportedly canceled the remaining concert schedule altogether and replaced it with what the event seems to have been evolving into from the start: a massive political rally headlined by himself.

Which raises the obvious question: If a nonpartisan celebration slowly sheds its musicians, loses participating states, transforms into a campaign-style rally, and ends with a speech by the politician at the center of it all—was it ever really nonpartisan in the first place?

 

     Sometimes the most revealing part of a concert is not who’s on stage.

It’s who left before the show started.

 

“At some point, attendees may have begun realizing they weren’t being invited to a national fair as much as they were being recruited as scenery.”

But Not Today

      During his first term, Trump successfully lobbied FIFA and secured the winning joint “United Bid” for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to host the 2026 World Cup.The FIFA World Cup 2026 is officially underway in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Major city centers across the U.S. are hosting, and “watch parties” are circling the venues and perhaps portions of the world.

The image below is a different, yet important localized, but growing trend focusing on a “watch party” in Washington DC. This watch party stands at the scene of the Kennedy Center treasure. The tarp conceals the removal of Trump’s name from this national tresure, as dictated by the court.

More importantly, this removal of the illegal stain of what some people considered to be graffiti, marks the first step in the removal of the legacy that he has spent the last 18 months attempting to build.

But not today…

 As the World Turns

 As the World Turns

This might be worse than I thought. Not only is AI going to take all of our jobs but AI is also going to waste all of our time.

     The big story right now is that AI agents have officially overtaken humans as the largest source of internet traffic.

​According to data just released by Cloudflare, automated AI bots and agents now account for 57.4% of all web traffic (via HTTP requests), leaving humans with the remaining 42.6%.

     ​Here is what is happening under the hood:

     ​The Multiplier Effect: When a human asks a chatbot a single question (like shopping for a camera or researching a topic), the human looks at maybe four or five sites. An AI agent will aggressively scour hundreds or thousands of websites simultaneously to synthesize that one answer.

          ​The “Dead Internet” Shift: This marks a fundamental shift from a web designed for humans clicking around, to an internet dominated by machine-to-machine data retrieval.

     ​The Regional Divide: This bot traffic is heavily concentrated in North America, where agents make up nearly 69% of all web traffic, while regions like India still remain overwhelmingly human-driven (over 84%).

​While humans still win on total actual engagement time (like streaming videos or doomscrolling social feeds), 

     AI agents completely dominate the rapid-fire loading of web pages.

     So while you are swiping left and right and up and down, the chat agents are doing stuff – lots of plain old boring businessey stuff. 

Dig and burn, baby. Dig and Burn

Dig and burn, baby. Dig and Burn

I won’t go as far as to say he’s lying when he claims that China is successful because they burn a lot more coal than we do in the states.

By comparison,  China’s power consumption ratio is 51% while the US ratio is a mere 17%. So the big guy’s got me there… Sorta.

     The US has proudly converted to renewable energy as a means of burning quieter wicks of coal – and the big guy doesn’t like progressive shenanigans when good old fashioned ancients will do. I won’t twist your arms today and get into a debate about pneumoconiosis. That’s another story about another day. Google it yourself.

     I will argue that China’s use of coal has dropped from 70% down to 51% coal to renewable ratio, their population is 4x the size of ours in the US.

     So as to avoid hurt feelings, I will spieak softly about looking at the world, through rose-colored glasses while China’s reliance on coal power is well in decline, as was ours until our guy decided again to dig and burn baby, dig and burn our way back into the cave man days. (did I mention pneumoconiosis?)

     I get it. Competition. Without competition, we would be obliged to work together. We want to fire up the space race again and be the first ones to dig a hole on the moon, while at the same time we want to be the first ones to dig a deeper hole on planet Earth.

 

Sada Tay.

Story: Charles Jackson

The Modern Town Hall

Access, Engagement, and the Modern Town Hall: A Reflection on Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ Forum. This is how we roll.

On April 2, 2026.

 

Congresswoman Maxine Waters hosted a telephone town hall for residents of California’s 43rd Congressional District. The event followed a familiar and increasingly important format in modern civic life: structured, accessible, and designed to reach a broad audience across a large and diverse community.

For many constituents, especially those who may not attend in-person events, this format offers something valuable—a practical entry point into civic participation. And that is worth recognizing at the outset.

A Gateway to Participation

Telephone town halls are not meant to replicate the intensity or spontaneity of live, in-person gatherings. Instead, they serve a different purpose: scale and accessibility.

In a district as expansive and complex as the 43rd—encompassing Inglewood, South Los Angeles, and surrounding areas—bringing thousands of voices into even a shared listening space is no small achievement. The ability to dial in, hear directly from a sitting member of Congress, and potentially ask a question lowers the barrier to engagement.

For many residents, especially seniors or those balancing work and family responsibilities, this may be the most realistic way to connect with their representative.

Structure as Stability

The April 2 event was carefully moderated, with a facilitator guiding the flow of the conversation. Callers were introduced, questions were time-limited, and transitions were smooth. While this structure can feel formal, it also ensures that the event remains focused and respectful of participants’ time.

Roughly 15 to 20 constituents were able to speak—sharing concerns about housing affordability, economic opportunity, healthcare access, and public safety. These are not new issues in the district, but they remain urgent, and the town hall provided a platform for them to be voiced directly.

Importantly, the tone of the event appeared measured and constructive. Participants were able to express concerns without the disruptions that sometimes characterize large public meetings. In that sense, the format created a safe and orderly environment for dialogue, even if it was necessarily brief.

Waters’ Approach: Detailed and Direct

Congresswoman Waters brought her characteristic command of policy to the discussion. Her responses reflected decades of legislative experience, particularly in areas tied to economic justice, financial systems, and community development.

She addressed questions with specificity—referencing federal programs, ongoing initiatives, and the broader legislative landscape. For constituents seeking clarity on what is being done at the federal level, this level of detail matters.

At the same time, she encouraged continued civic engagement. Her messaging emphasized that participation does not end with a phone call—it extends into voting, organizing, and staying informed. References to broader civic themes, including calls for vigilance and public involvement, underscored her long-standing belief in active citizenship.

The Sanctuary City Context

The 43rd District operates within the broader framework of Los Angeles County, a region often described as aligned with sanctuary policies. This context shapes many of the conversations around public safety, immigration, and community trust.

In a telephone town hall setting, these issues tend to be approached in a measured way. The format naturally encourages concise questions and equally concise responses, which can make it difficult to fully explore complex or sensitive topics.

However, the value of the forum lies in introducing these issues to a wide audience. Even brief exchanges can raise awareness, clarify positions, and encourage further discussion beyond the call itself.

Rather than serving as the final word on such matters, the town hall functions as a starting point—a place where concerns are surfaced and where constituents can begin to engage more deeply in the issues that affect their communities.

Complementing, Not Replacing, In-Person Dialogue

It is important to view telephone town halls as one piece of a larger civic ecosystem. They are not designed to replace in-person meetings, where longer exchanges, follow-up questions, and more dynamic interaction can take place.

It should be noted that I, as the writer of this article, have attended several of Congresswoman Waters’ live town halls, and that perspective is important. Those settings often allow for a different kind of energy—sometimes more assertive, sometimes more interactive, but always more immediate.

The telephone format, by contrast, offers reach over depth. And in a district of this size, both are necessary.

A Broader Tradition of Engagement

There is also value in remembering that civic participation takes many forms. The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us that engagement can be quiet as well as vocal—structured as well as spontaneous.

Nonviolent protest, silent marches, and sit-ins were not just acts of resistance; they were also acts of presence. They created space for voices to be seen and felt, even without extended dialogue.

In a different way, telephone town halls also create space—less visible, perhaps, but still meaningful. They allow people to listen, reflect, and begin to form their own responses.

Finding the Balance

The April 2 town hall illustrates a balance that many public officials are still working to refine:

Accessibility vs. depth

Structure vs. spontaneity

Efficiency vs. extended dialogue

No single format can fully satisfy all of these needs. But when used thoughtfully, each can contribute to a more engaged and informed public.

In this case, the event appears to have succeeded in its core objective: connecting a large number of constituents with their representative in a way that was organized, informative, and approachable.

Conclusion: A Useful Starting Point

Telephone town halls may not capture the full energy of in-person civic life, but they serve an important role. They open the door to participation, especially for those who might otherwise remain on the sidelines.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ April 2 forum fits squarely within that purpose. It provided information, invited questions, and encouraged continued engagement—without requiring constituents to leave their homes.

And perhaps that is the most practical way to view it:

Not as the final destination for civic dialogue, but as a welcoming front porch—a place where people can gather, listen, and take the first step toward deeper involvement.

From there, the conversation can—and should—continue.

 

As a teenager, growing up in, southwestern Ohio, during the late 1960s, civic engagement often turned necessarily or perhaps unnecessarily ugly. We were there, because we were there. Now, we are here, because we are here, again.

Story: Charles Jackson