There are abundant bromides a mini-municipality might drop on the townies while explaining the reasons for its shenanigans. One being “legacies of beloved figures from yesteryear,” another “venerated traditions that need to be upheld.” “Best practices” are cited ad nauseam. Then there is “being honored for sacrifices we made today by future generations.” Who won’t give a hoot.

All hogwash, platitudes spoken by officials attempting to spoof constituents with way too much sunshine. Which, as we know, is abundantly free. Even in these troubled times.

No, most actions taken by city officials, elected or hired, have to do with money. Especially money coveted by the municipality they serve. It’s never enough, with the financial viability of a city’s government becoming a primary reason for its existence.

Fortunately Sierra Madre provides us with two vibrant examples of not-so-best practices in action. Coincidentally, both involve residents putting signatures to paper in order to make something happen. One being Paramount Pictures seeking permission to film in town, the other a petition that put a festering land-use dispute on the ballot.

Paramount needed resident signatures to gain approval from the city of Sierra Madre for a project to be filmed on Alverno’s picturesque campus. Which they did. Due to a shocking report in this paper, things got sticky:

“The Southern California News Group confirmed six households never signed the sheet and found other fake names through property records. Other discrepancies were particularly blatant, including streets and addresses that did not exist. A subsequent review of 11 film permits approved in the past year revealed that at least four appeared to use made-up names to circumvent the required neighborhood approval process.”

How did Sierra Madre react to news that it had approved film applications based on paperwork containing forgeries and faked addresses?

“The city later revealed it did not have a process in place to verify signatures.”

Blaming “process” for mishandling paperwork is like implicating the family dog in a sabotaged homework conspiracy. Truth is, City Hall saw little need to question Paramount’s scat because that could have interfered with the fee flow.

There are two citizen groups in Sierra Madre opposed to building 42 McMansions at the Passionist Retreat Center. Long years of construction noise, truck traffic and mayhem await anyone unfortunate enough to live nearby. A petition with 1,300 verified signatures demanding an initiative be put to a public vote passed Los Angeles County purview, with the vote to be held this November.

How has City Hall reacted? With far greater passion. Check out one response in an opinion piece from the city’s adjudicated newspaper citing the city attorney’s reaction.

“’The Initiative severely constrains the Passionists’ alternative to develop their property for religious purposes’ ... This puts the city at huge financial risk and the taxpayers will be liable for any lawsuits the city loses ... The first to go will be things like Community Services and the Library because the city is not mandated to operate those like Police and Fire.” If hysteria was fertilizer the famous local wistaria plant would grow to three times its current well-pruned size.

The city attorney’s turgid report regarding resident signatories calling for an initiative on the Passionist “Meadows” project is a whopping 52 pages long. Why so massive a City Hall response? Especially compared to forgeries from Paramount?

Cash money, baby. The resident initiative could jeopardize significant tax revenues from those 42 McMansions.

In Sierra Madre there are two rules. If it makes money for City Hall, it flies. If it doesn’t? Fuggetaboutit.

John Crawford publishes the Sierra Madre Tattler.