The only way that the mayor can get anything done of note is to have a majority on the council, which Mansoor does.
Most important, however, is the real issue in the seating discussion, which is that the city is experiencing a crisis in leadership.
The seating issue has exposed Mansoor for what he would claim he is not: a one-issue candidate. But if you ask 10 randomly selected voters where he stands on issues other than illegal immigration, you'll probably get blank stares.
Mansoor got elected largely on his firm stance on illegal immigration. He would be the new sheriff in town and would run all of them out by sundown. But to do so, he assured us, he would not pick on those who committed only minor infractions, only those who are suspected of big crimes.
That position deteriorated quickly when a bicyclist was arrested and prepared for deportation. Instead of making a statement distancing himself from the issue or reaching out to the city's Latino community to assure them that he had nothing to do with the arrest, he supported it.
That's as deep as he gets.
Mansoor has fumbled on the allocation of parks, on the stop and start of a youth-in-government panel, and on development by supporting a massive residential complex without providing affordable housing for teachers, police and firefighters.
Take away the emotional issue of illegal immigration and you have someone who cannot seem to look years ahead, a crucial quality in a city leader. What is important to this mayor is his agenda, and so far, it's not adding up to very much.
After illegal immigration, there is no substance, only rhetoric. As Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, "There is no there there."
A true leader who wanted seats arranged would have, as I wrote last time, built in a win for the opposition, if only to spare Costa Mesans the spectacle of musical chairs.
