Editor -
You wrote: "And in fact, the City Council voted unanimously last May to adopt a two-tier pension system . . ."
Wasn't the vote actually a year ago last May, ie. May 2010, as shown in a May, 2010 edition of the Almanac? Web Link
The date is significant because it shows that the Council was already working to renegotiate the overly generous pensions BEFORE Measure L reached the ballot. In other words, it shows that Measure L was not really necessary as our Council - along with councils up & down the state - was already working to correct this mistake.
[You are correct: The date should have said May 2010, not last May.]

The council may have voted before the referendum reached the ballot but they didn't do a thing until this initiative was organized.

To make the larger point that Measure L was a totally unnecessary initiative:
Our City Council - like city councils up and down the state - worked to rectify pension plans for new employees once the recession hit and it became clear that the benefit package was not affordable. Why our city felt the need for an initiative to accomplish this while almost all other cities were able to work through their elected officials to accomplish the same end has never been adequately explained. Roy & company have claimed that the Council would have done nothing without the goad of the initiative. The fact that the Council voted unanimously for a 2-tier pension plan six months before the election shows that wasn't the case.

In my opinion, Measure L was a waste of time, energy, civic comity, and, increasingly money. Now we read that the Council has had to set aside $50,000 for legal charges to defend this unwise initiative that, in all likelihood, will be overturned.

Steve:

Measure L was not a waste of time as it prevents future councils from pandering to the unions once again. When the council said they would institute a two tier retirement plan that was all well and good, but there was nothing in that vote that would keep future councils from giving up the farm to the unions. Measure L prevents that. So, no, it wasn't unnecessary. It was mandatory to prevent the unions from buying future favors from future councils since we obviously can't count on them to cross the unions.

Menlo Voter -

You say the initiative was necessary to prevent future councils from pandering to the unions but you ignore the question of why hundreds of other communities haven't felt the need to pass similar initiatives in their towns. Could it be that they it isn't necessary in those towns? Which suggests it probably wasn't really necessary in this town either.

Steve:

who knows why other towns haven't passed the same initiative? Perhaps many will after this one winds its way through the courts. If the courts uphold it, I'm betting you'll see more.