MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Our new mayor

Warnie has been elected the new mayor of Murrieta by a 4 to 1 vote of the council. The dissenting vote was councilman Seyarto's. The feud goes on....

posted by J. L. Kunkle at Wednesday, May 18, 2005

43 Comments:

  • When will we get a chance to kick Enochs out of office? It can't happen soon enough. He has mostly been on the losing end good council votes. His type of politics is like a cancer on our community. His ideas are like a toxic waste that should be dumped down a deep hole. This is day 1 of Murrieta held hostage.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:32:00 PM  

  • So much for the New, Improved Version 2.0 Kelly that he promised. You would think the slim margin he held his seat by would have clue checked him. Obviously not.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:33:00 PM  

  • Warnie Enochs has tended over the years to bend with every political breeze simply, I think, to win support from that part of the community that did not like the controlling majority. Taking the posture of a fighting underdog is traditionally a fairly easy way to get votes. Now that the mix is different, and Warnie is in the spotlight, he's going to have to reveal more of himself. I think his base of support in the community will quickly begin to melt unless (1)he proves to be a surprisingly good mayor, or (2) Kelly Seyarto berates and badgers the mayor in a way that rubs people the wrong way. It will be unfortunate for the city if self-serving or sarcastic speech continues to be used by anyone on the council.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:17:00 PM  

  • I think that Mayor Enochs was a much better opposer than a leader. What will he lead Murrita to anyway? Mr Mayor stick your finger in the air. Which way is the political wind blowing today? Wafflers are weasles.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:13:00 AM  

  • Holy schmoly Mayor Warnie. Here's a man who, by his own admission on council, has not been able to get along with a single leader of the chamber of commerce for the past 10 years. A man who has not been able to form a majority alliance in 10 years workng with a variety of other councilors - not just Jack & Kelly. That translates to roughly 20 business and civic elected community leaders he hasn't been able to work with in 10 years. This is the man we want representing us when Murrieta goes to attract professional high paying jobs to the region? Are you kidding me? Especially after this unsettling from the recall itself - now we're relying on Mayor Warnie to calm the waters and right the wrongs?
    Hang on tight Murrietans, it's likely to be a rough ride. It's like that Willie Wonka song - there's no earhtly way of knowing... just which way that we are going... hang on while the wind is blowing...
    Good luck everybubububody.
    noWonder

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:33:00 PM  

  • Personally, I see no wrong in Seyarto's dissenting vote of the Mayor. Clearly Seyarto believes that Enochs is not the best councilman to fill the position, and Seyarto has clearly voted his conscience.

    Does anyone feel that Seyarto should have "toed the line"? Just because it was inevitable for Enochs to become Mayor, does not (in my opinion) mean that Seyarto should have voted for him. It's not an alpha-male/ beta-male thing, and its not a popularity contest.

    I think that, as Mayor, it is now Warnie Enoch's responsiblity to bridge the gap, and work on unifying (if it is anyone's at all.)

    Jmorell

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:35:00 PM  

  • I support Mr Seyarto and his dissenting vote. We all know he is a man of principle. Enochs is now Mayor and his type of leadership makes us look almost as bad as Elsinore's leadership. Enochs has not been a coalition builder in the past and his political stances threaten Murrieta's business future. When can we vote the guy out?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:53:00 PM  

  • I've been reading this blog site for a while now, but this is the first time I can raise my hand. Let me explain. When I was in school, one of my teachers told me to raise my hand whenever I understood what he was talking about. He said if I got it, everyone did. Well, what a couple people said earlier in this string made me understand, for the very first time, why Warnie Enochs has been on the Council for so many years. He's been the protest vote against Jack and Kelly. OK, duh, I finally get it. But there's something I still don't get. Why did Jack get the boot, and not Kelly?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:31:00 PM  

  • Jack's impropriety in relation to his daughter's daycare center was a legal breach of trust. Jack's meetings with the planning commisioners on behalf of his daughter's project was unethical if not illegal( Brown Act violation)Kelly has not been accused of anything illegal. Maybe more people were angry at Jacks indescretion than Kelly's so called rude behavior.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:10:00 PM  

  • Being that “Mayor” is essentially a figure and does not hold any real power. I think Kelly had the opportunity to extend a olive branch to Enoch. That would have then put the ball in Enoch’s corner to play ball and maintain civility for the good of all the city. Instead in my opinion, Kelly continues to be the “Rude Boy.”

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:42:00 PM  

  • This is a facinating and very thought provoking exchange. If the presence of Enochs on the council is, in part, the result of a "protest vote" against Seyarto; and the recall was, in part, brought on by Seyarto's rude behaviour; then Enochs has Seyarto to thank for becoming mayor. It's like a Shakespeare-style tragedy, full of irony.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 7:57:00 AM  

  • Now that Warnie has been awarded the ceremonial title of mayor, something he has spent so much time and political energy on, he and the rest of the council hopefully will be able to address the business of Murrieta. My bone with Warnie is all the political fallout we have had to endure to satisfy his ego. Remember to keep this in perspective the title of Mayor in Murrieta is largely ceremonial and has no special power over any other councilmen. Hopefully Mr. Gibbs creed of “service before self” will rub off on Mr. Enochs, but after what I’ve witnessed over the last ten years I doubt it.

    BC

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 1:03:00 PM  

  • I'd say BC has it right. The business of Murrieta has to come first, ahead of the egos. Enochs may find himself reflecting on the old saying "be careful what you wish for", because he has to do a whole lot more now than just grumble from the sidelines. No doubt Enochs is going to try to make himself look competent in the center chair, but Seyarto's personality is such that he's going to have a hard time resisting the impulse to repeatedly put Enochs down. This is an ugly situation for our city. These guys may have been on opposite sides of many issues, but both of their egos are big burdens for Murrieta to bear.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 1:37:00 PM  

  • Regarding the child care/swim school project which helped bring about the recall for Murrieta Mayor vanHaaster.:

    Since the vanHaaster name was on the project, well known to all the planning commissioners, who presented and discussed the plans is moot, be it a paid consultant or a family relative.

    If influence plays a role, then apparently, no sitting persons on any city council or their relatives (or friends) should attempt a project approval by the planning commissioners during their term of office.

    Incidentally, there was not an unethical, illegal or Brown act violation. - Do not repeat unfounded rumors. Check it out.

    This fiasco was initiated by neighbors who sought to purchase the property and, when rebuffed, signed the original recall petition to gather signatures. Check it out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 5:05:00 PM  

  • No matter what way you twist it, turn it, spin it or churn it, there just ain't nothin' "moot" about a planning commissioner's neck under a mayor's boot.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 5:11:00 PM  

  • Come on,

    He was the Mayor and a sitting City Councilman. There is, at the least an appearance of an ethical violation. He sits down with planning commissioners to speak on his daughter’s behalf, but didn’t know his wife received a salary from the daycare. You cannot tell me he did not exert some influence on the commissioners, directly or indirectly from his position and titles.

    Please,

    If it walks like a duck………

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 5:17:00 PM  

  • If influence plays a role, then apparently, no sitting persons on any city council or their relatives (or friends) should attempt a project approval by the planning commissioners during their term of office.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 5:34:00 PM  

  • Hey Anon at 5:05, vanHaaster lost. Check it out. Wake up and smell the coffee. Accept reality. Get on with your life. Let bygones be bygones. Adjust.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 5:37:00 PM  

  • Lemme just ask a hypothetical question, if I may. Suppose you were a father - or a mother and you had a child with enough gumption and financial backing to start a business much needed in the community. Wouldn't it be your right to approach members of the planning commission and talk to city staff before you put the project in motion.
    I mean, you're gonna want to know what kind of street or sewer improvements might need to be done, what that stuff will cost; what the zoning reg's are, so you can plan your project with enough parking, not exceed height and setback requirements. It would behoove you to understand if the project even has merit, if the planners see the need for this type of business in this location - or would one type of business succeed but another fail?
    Wouldn't that be prudent stuff to do BEFORE starting a project? And is it your right as a citizen to talk to people, ask questions, meet with and email city staff and commissioners, understand the process.

    Now what if somebody told you you couldn't help your kid do this. Said you couldn't talk to the planners and other city departments. Why, that would be wrong, don't you think? This is America, after all, and a small town too. We don't do business like that, Comrade.
    But because Jack happens to be a father and a long serving city councilor, he is denied this right, which the rest of us are apparently freely accorded. Hmmmmm, what other rights are given up as when you serve your city? Do they give you a book when you get elected? Don't talk to any of your friends about anything, no chit-chat with city employees and other volunteers, always be of sunny disposition, no Rolling Stones T shirts on the dias - that sort of thing.
    Well, it must be a serious breach - the man got recalled for it so it must be a matter not to be trifled with and worthy of bringing the town virtually to it's knees. I breathe much easier today than I did last week and traffic is already better. That Gibbs is a hell of a guy.
    noWonder

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 6:08:00 PM  

  • There are a lot of us who like Jack vanHaaster. For whatever reason, when it comes to the day care matter, he decided to tread along a politically dangerous line, perhaps - just perhaps - intending to insure a favorable result for his daughter. It may or may not have been entirely innocent, but at any rate it was a mistake. It obviously cost him some votes. I do not, however, agree that this was the issue that cost him the election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 6:23:00 PM  

  • That’s public office, A target on the wall. Injustice or perceived injustice, its all the same. Public service means sacrifice, he knew that going in. Just like Kelly should develop thicker skin. People will always complain.

    If you cant take the heat……….

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 6:25:00 PM  

  • Since he was voted out. Then obviously the majority of those voting think, he was wrong. So, how was he roasted? Life isn’t fair, deal with it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 7:03:00 PM  

  • I agree with vanHaaster's friend who said this was not the issue that the election turned on. I was there, and I saw what happened with the recall petitions when the eminent domain matter made the papers. Without that issue, there would probably have been no recall election at all. Van Haaster lost because he was in the mayor's chair when that issue hit the fan, and $300,000 was not enough to save him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 7:10:00 PM  

  • Eminent Domain Issues affect every city.

    There are designated procedures that dictate how staff and council are to proceed with the intent of what best serves the interest of the city. (That would be all of us.) One obligation is to properly manage the city funds and, most certainly, attempt fair settlement not just to any individual, but also to all persons affected by a particular site. It is imperative that one homeowner not be given an advantage because he has chosen to take his complaints to the public arena.

    The question is one of the city initially offering zero compensation. The homeowner, often, cannot see the value to the property through the proposed improvements and the city has the improvement expenditure and then is asked, in addition, to compensate the property owner. Remember the city is charged with protecting the city funds. (Your money.) When the improvements are made and the effective double payment of compensation is given to the property owner, that money comes from the pockets of all the citizens of the city in order to favor the few.

    Public discourse does not bring about better settlements.

    The procedures are set in motion and both sides participate to a conclusion.

    No one desires to lose property to others for any reason and fair settlement often involves emotional issues as much as real value.

    No councilperson or member of staff can alter the procedures, nor should they be able to do so.

    Would that public officials never faced this issue. It is never perceived with value.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 8:09:00 PM  

  • Let me guess.

    That long letter about eminent domain was written either by an undertaker, or someone on city staff.

    Who else could take such a cold view of another person's property?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 8:31:00 PM  

  • That bureacratic hype sounds good until you know someone they've offered zero to, and then forced them to hire an attorney and spend a year and a fortune just trying to make things fair. Some of us do know people who went through that experience. And just wait till someone like Seyarto is raking someone you know over the coals with his sarcastic mouth. Then you'll understand why people signed the recall petitions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 9:18:00 PM  

  • Just logged on, and can't believe what I read. I know two people who went through hell on this imminent domain with the city. The council and city people make it sound so legit - they've got their clever way of putting things - but I saw them treat people like dirt. Vanhaster gave one person who was getting a street on her doorstep just a couple minutes to talk, and then told her pretty much just to shut up and sit down. Go to council meetings, people. You don't really get the whole picture if you see it on TV. Some of this stuff you've got to see in person to believe.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 10:10:00 PM  

  • Anonymous said, with respect to Jack van Haaster's private meetings with the Planning Commissioners that: "Incidentally, there was not an unethical, illegal or Brown act violation. - Do not repeat unfounded rumors. Check it out."

    Well I have checked it out, and the Planning Commission clearly violated the Brown Act.

    The California State Attorney General issued an opinion saying that where a public body met seriatim to deliberate about the public's business, that such seriatim meetings are a violation of the Brown Act. See Opinion No. 80-713 October 30, 1980.

    The Californian, in an Editorial early in the recall process, made the same argument that Anonymous has made on this blog, towit, that it was OK for Jack to meet with members of the Planning Commission to discuss his daughter's daycare center plans.

    In response, the following Community Forum Article was printed on June 2, 2004. To my knowledge, the Californian dropped the argument that there had been no violation of the Brown Act. Here's the Community Forum Article.

    Panel clearly violated law By: EDWARD FAUNCE - For The Californian

    Did the Murrieta Planning Commission violate the Brown Act (open meeting law) when private meetings were held with Mayor Jack van Haaster? I say "yes!"

    It has been reported, and the parties involved concede, that the mayor met privately with at least four commissioners to lobby for approval of a 400-pupil preschool and swim academy in a residential zone. It is contended that no Brown Act violation occurred because they met one at a time and did not discuss how they would vote.

    This is too narrow an interpretation of the Brown Act, which recognizes that "deliberation and action" are dual components of legislative action.
    Deliberation includes not only collective discussion, but also "the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision." In order to protect the public's right to know, our state courts recognize that "An informal conference or caucus permits crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance. There is rarely any purpose to a nonpublic pre-meeting conference except to conduct some part of the decisional process behind closed doors."

    In this context, the Planning Commission violated its duty to conduct the public business openly and not in secret. Who do the commissioners and the mayor think they are kidding? The mayor helps appoint the commissioners. Commission membership is seen as a stepping stone to the City Council. So when the chairman, Kassen Klein, permitted his commissioners to privately meet with the mayor, Klein allowed the public's business to be conducted in secret.

    The commission's subsequent public hearing was an orchestrated farce. The community was given little or no opportunity to know the facts on which the commission acted. Instead, the community members were treated to a parade of witnesses attesting that Rachel van Haaster is a nice young woman. One commissioner said that preschoolers need a "homey environment." A 400-person day care and swim academy is homey? Try institutional.

    When community members complained about traffic, parking and hours of operations, it was readily apparent hard facts were not available. The city traffic experts insisted that an additional 1,500 cars per day will have no negative effect on the twice-daily crush now occurring in the area. Outrageous!

    Councilman Seyarto appealed the commission's approval, but only the traffic issues. He clearly supports the mayor and does not want to raise the ethical or Brown Act issues. However, the City Council must squarely face the fact that the van Haaster project was pushed through by the single most powerful politician in the city in secret meetings.

    So what must be done? At a minimum, all private lobbying of the commissioners must cease. The public's business must be done openly. The chairman, Kassen Klein, should be dismissed from his commission membership.

    Such a breach of duty requires that there be consequences. The entire van Haaster day-care project should be rejected by the City Council because there was no public disclosure of the private facts. The standards for establishing such a large institution in a family zoned area must be timely published so that the affected community knows what evidence is relevant. Failure to take these minimum steps will transfer this stain to the entire council.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, May 20, 2005 10:11:00 PM  

  • Addressing the question put forth by "The Franchise" May 20, 5:50p

    There is a time frame in which several irrational activities were conducted.

    Sometimes a public figure, a politician will use personal or family trauma as an excuse to "bleed" in public in order to gain sympathy.

    Sometimes a public figure will swallow hard and take retribution rather than use personal or family situations as a behavioral excuse. As such, an apology was issued with an assumption of responsibility.

    Consequently, that is where the answer must rest.

    The voting electorate is charged with the responsibility of choosing which type of civil servant they would prefer.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:57:00 PM  

  • Kelly Seyarto said: "Ed Faunce can lawyerize this issue all he wants. He has an interesting interpretation of a serial meeting which essentially extends the prohibition of more than a quorum of any governing body meeting outside a pubic meeting beyond the body itself. If there were any substance to Faunce's theory, then Jack would have been charged with violating the Brown Act. But he wasn't."

    But Kelly, I did not say that Jack violated the Brown Act. Specifically, I said: "In this context, the Planning Commission violated its duty to conduct the public business openly and not in secret."

    You see it was the Planning Commission which was the "public" body involved, not the City Council. It was the Planning Commission which had a duty to conduct the people's business in public.

    Kelly, you show a certain anti-intellectualism when you said: ". . . Faunce can lawyerize this issue all he wants. He has an interesting interpretation of a serial meeting . . . ." What it seems you are saying is that I have spun, i.e., lawyerized, the concept of "serial meeting" to fit my purposes. Ah, but it is not I with whom you must argue. It is the California Attorney General's Office. It was the AG who described the concept of serial meeting and how that violates the Brown Act. I am just the messenger of that opinion, not its originator.

    As for "lawyerizing," one thing lawyers have to do is pay close attention to details. What you missed - that it is not Jack who violated the Brown Act, but rather the Planning Commission - is a crucial fact in this discussion.

    However, Jack did, in the estimation of a significant number of residents, commit an ethical violation by meeting with the Planning Commissioners, seriatim. But he did not violate the Brown Act.

    One other thing, Kelly, perhaps you noticed that this last week six employee members (both past and present) of the San Diego City Employees' Pension System were indicted on felony conflict of interest charges. Their conflict was that they voted to amend the pension agreement with the City and increased their individual pensions. So you see, having a conflict of interest, as a public servant, is no small matter.

    Jack voted to improve the road in front of his daughter's alleged daycare property while forgetting to acknowledge his wife's economic interest and while failing to disclose his family's interest in the property. The entire daycare center affair is still an open question, as far as I know, specifically as to potential conflicts of interest.

    You may recall that on that fateful night when Jack gratuitously said he recused him self from voting on the Planning Commission's recommendation, you said that you would personnally vouch for Jack's ethics and that the "smell" of the entire proceeding would not be a subject for discussion.

    Then you and Doug voted to deny the appeal and joila, Jack's indiscretion and the Planning Commission's violation of the Brown Act were whitewashed.

    That's the same night that the three of you voted to change the zoning at Nutmeg and Washington and after those two votes, the recall erupted in the City Hall parking lot.

    Kelly, it was specifically your arrogation of power - telling the residents that they could not even discuss the impropriety of the van Haaster day care center - that dragged you and Doug into the recall effort. You do not have the right to tell the residents that they may not discuss what is right before their eyes. If the Council refused to discuss the problem, then the residents were forced to deal with the problem.

    Rholmgren commented earlier in this blog that he believed that the reason why Jack was the one recalled was because of the legal/ethical problem of the daycare center. Kelly, if you and Doug had refused to allow that project to go forward, you probably would have spared the City the entire recall effort. But it appeared to the residents that the two of you would close ranks with Jack, no matter how smelly the project, leaving no alternative but recall.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:16:00 PM  

  • I’d just like to interrupt this entire blog site for a moment to express a note of amazement - a very good kind of amazement - at everything going on here.

    In and around the third and fourth centuries BC, democracy stirred in the world for the first time in Athens. For the first time in history, people started thinking and governing with words instead of with swords. (What a difference that little “s” makes). This happened in a metropolitan Greek society which was at the time clustered closely enough that it was easy for people to get together and share thoughts, argue, and let ideas evolve.

    The nation in which we of Murrieta live was founded by people with the courage needed to overthrow a powerful aristocracy. But of equal or even greater importance, our forefathers were people of principle. In forming a new government, for a model they looked far from what was most familiar, the monarchies of then-modern western Europe. They looked all the way back to ancient Greece. The idea that moved our forefathers was the single most unselfish and vitally inspired leap of civic thought to occur in the world since the dawn of the Renaissance.

    Unlike ancient Athens, the colonies spanned a geographically huge area of land. Direct democracy was impossible, and representative democracy was the next best choice. They took that alternative of necessity - the closest they could get, at the time, to a direct democracy - and the result has become the envied model of the free world.

    Until recently, Americans in small towns had more access to what was happening on Capitol Hill than the goings-on in their own City Halls. From the 18th through much of the 20th centuries, governing cliques and the press controlled the very limited information available about what was happening in our own neighborhoods. Sometimes they sparred in a healthy manner, and sometimes they got way too cozy.

    But then something started changing. New methods of mass communication brought previously invisible matters into the field of public vision. The politicians and news media still had lots of power, but something was changing.

    We all know the old saying, that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Well, we are witnessing that power right here on this “blog” site. That’s a funny word. “Blog”. So silly sounding in fact that it completely belies the importance of what is happening.

    We are witnessing the rebirth of the public mind. This is “small town” Athens, born again after twenty-three-plus centuries. Direct public discourse, here and now. It is the realization of the dream of the founders of our nation, but which lay, because of the barrier of geography, beyond their grasp.

    There will always be those who will knock it, of course, for it treads on some very powerful toes. But this very public arena has become the new seat of local political power. It is the public mind in action, pondering public issues. Having some stupid thoughts, having some brilliant thoughts, and sorting it all out.

    I wish to express my personal gratitude to J.L Kunkle, who is someone I’ve never met, and possibly never will. His moderation of this forum has been conducted in a manner which I hope will serve as an example to the founders of other such forums which will, undoubtedly, become a vital part of the civic life of every community.

    Tom Suttle

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:38:00 AM  

  • Smoke and Mirrors.

    While everyone is stirred up debating legal technicalities, isn't there something else going on that is hidden in the haze?

    Was the recall election about city issues and not about a personal vendetta against a child care/swim school being located in a neighborhood in which you have a personal interest, - Mr. Faunce?

    That was quite a tirade (May 20, 10:11pm) for someone who seemingly just won his objective and now wants everyone to be congenial and treat each other with respect.

    Of course you were, again, able to side step the real truth by initiating a legal debate.

    You have made me think about this.

    Maybe this was not really, as far as you are concerned, about traffic and apartments and shopping centers, even eminent domain, those items you wielded to lure supporters.

    Smoke and Mirrors.

    We witness the recall of vanHaaster and two councilmen who supported the project, demanding removal of the planning commissioners who approved the project, the suit against vanHaaster and the city that keeps changing courses from environmental to the Brown act to loss of value of neighbor homes, adjustments, amendments and appeals, all methods to tie the project up in the courts.

    Is this why you find the need to continue to legally debate and defend the issues of the childcare/swim school center when the electorate has moved on to other city matters?

    Yes, maybe this is all about a personal vendetta over a piece of property.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, May 22, 2005 2:02:00 PM  

  • To Anonymous who referred to "quite a tirade" in my 5/20 post.

    Anon, you apparently did not understand that the post was quoting an article that was published in the Californian almost a year ago.

    The reason why I made that post was to respond to a comment, also from Anonymous, that there were no legal violations in connection with the daycare center. Anon even said "check it out." Well, I had checked it out and the Californian had published my critique last June.

    Now we have Kelly Seyarto doing his usual - I know better than anybody routine - claiming that if there was a violation of the Brown Act then there would have been some legal action filed. Now that's a real non sequitur. There are many reasons why a legal action would not have been filed, but that does not mean that there was no violation of law. The filing of a legal action is not automatic even when the law is violated.

    Back to Anonymous's question as to whether this is a vendetta about the daycare center. No and I hope you will review the previous posts in this thread to see that it was another author (Anonymous) who raised the subject about the legality of the planning commissioners private meetings with Jack.

    When someone challenges the bloggers to "check it out," it is to be expected that those who have done so may well respond. But having responded, it does not make sense to then claim that the response is a personal vendetta. You do approve of questions being answered, right?

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:04:00 PM  

  • I understand Kelly Seyarto to be a man who would defend a friend and an ally to the bitter end, and beyond. I would want such a person as a friend and defender. I understand Ed Faunce to be a man who would fight for a cause until hell froze over. I would want such a person as a friend and defender. I cannot understand how the two of them can, for the good of the city, find common ground. But then, after all, I am the classroom dummy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 6:14:00 AM  

  • There exists a parcel of land in Murrieta that supported a small business. A single woman, who lived there alone, had purchased the land to use the business to sustain her livelihood.

    Unknown to the woman upon purchase, neighbors coveted the property.

    The neighbors successfully lobbied the city to shut down the woman's business and then proceeded with offers to purchase the land at under market value. The offers became harassment and during this siege another younger woman with different plans for a business for the property and unsuspecting of the neighbors animosity, paid a fair price for the land.

    The original owner fled the state, glad to be rid of the ill feeling neighborhood.

    The hostility was then transferred to the new owner, which has ultimately led to the downfall of a community leader.

    Still the conflict continues through the court system, attacking the city, the owner and her family.

    There remains the option of using the land for horse grazing or estate homes that the neighbors might find more compatible. However, these options would serve the very elite few, while the purpose sought for the property, a childcare/swimschool was intended to accommodate the community as a whole.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 10:24:00 AM  

  • Per Mr. Faunce May 21, 09:16pm

    "Rholmgren commented earlier in this blog that he believed that the reason why Jack was the one recalled was because of the legal/ethical problem of the daycare center. Kelly, if you and Doug had refused to allow that project to go forward you probably would have spared the city the entire recall effort."

    The recall was about the daycare/swim school and personalities and not about traffic and apartments and shopping centers, even eminent domain, those items you wielded, Mr Faunce, to lure supporters.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 11:08:00 AM  

  • To Anon, who said: "The recall was about the daycare/swim school and personalities and not about traffic and apartments and shopping centers, even eminent domain, those items you wielded, Mr Faunce, to lure supporters."

    First, you make it sound like I was the sole driving force behind the recall. Not true.

    Second, the daycare center was absolutely related to the traffic problems. It was a proposed 400 child institution to be built in the same neighborhood as MVHS and Thompson Middle School. The traffic was a nightmare.

    Third, your analysis of my statement is too simplistic. If Kelly and Doug had refused to go along with Jack's scheme, it would have signaled a substantial change in the voting block. All of the problems you mentioned were driving forces behind the recall, traffic, shopping malls, apartments and the $0 eminent domain.

    You need to quit trying to make the recall a "one man band." RM elected me as the spokesman, not their leader.

    Anyway, I like what "classroom dummy" has said about finding common ground and moving on. We have a council of five men all elected for the job. We need to stop personal statements and to address issues, debate facts and propose solutions.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 12:23:00 PM  

  • Unbelievable!!! The comments that the neighbors coveted the VanHaaster property is absurd!!! This propperty was offered at one time to a neighbors relative but the price was too high. When the owner was in financial trouble she offered it again to the same person and at that time the person wasn't interested. It was then put in an escrow account by VanHaaster for many months with the stipulation that the conditional use permit be obtained first before closing. (They tied this person up for many months at an absurd price) The owner would draw from this account every month to make her payment. Who coveted her property????? This piece of property is zoned ER-2 and therefore is not zoned for a daycare/swim school at the magnitude of 394 children. To do this project required a conditional use permit which needed to be approved by the planning comission. This is why Jack courted the commissioners. This would have never flown if it were another family. Check the facts. Jack and Seyarto knew about the daycare when they voted on the street being paved. This has been a dirt portion of Douglas owned by the two properties on either side of Douglas and Vineyard. At the time of the vote the city didn't own the street. The citizens of Murrieta paid for the paving. By the way, Douglas has now become a speedway because people don't want to get tied up at Fullerton and Washington at the new light. Jack said he had no financial interest in the project but conviently forgot his wife earned more than 10,000 less than 100,000 working at the daycare. Jack is also on the deed for the current daycare at Valensole. Conflict???? Who coveted??? The neighbors were only interested in keeping their neighborhood ER-2 with the equestrian flavor. No one in the neighborhood wanted to buy this property.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 3:31:00 PM  

  • The owner of the proposed daycare/swim school left the state because she had a job offer she wanted to take. The VanHaaster escrow held her up for many months.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 3:51:00 PM  

  • The previous owner of the daycare/swim school property lost her conditional use permit because it expired. Her permit to store rv's was not renewed by the city. Apparently the city thought it didn't belong there also. She lost her income when the permit wasn't renewed. It was never listed with a realtor so how did vanhaaster know it was for sale?? Who approached who??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 8:05:00 PM  

  • van haaster could have saved his job by simply abandoning the day care center and reselling the property, once his highly-tainted role was revealed.

    instead, he thought stevenson's undying support would put him above moral and legal consequence.

    citizens have now learned to be very wary of the local "Ben Cartwright" (Bonanza) alter-ego types and their $500,000 puppets.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:26:00 PM  

  • The daycare center was a symptom of a much bigger disease. There are still things that need to be brought to light and brought under control, and then the healing can begin.

    By Blogger J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:35:00 PM  

  • Yeah, let't start by bringing Enochs many transgression to light - after all he's the one being investigated on charges by the DA's office. If you wanna bring something under control, try starting with Enochs outsize ego, which has brought the city to the brink many times just because nobody with half a brain wanted him representing our city in any official capacity. Can you imagine Enochs trying to talk some corporate type into relocating high paying jobs to Murrieta - scary thought ain't it. Elect Nancy Knight to some damn position or another (preferably in Arizona or some place) and send Enochs to jail and then the healing can begin. Might have to slap a muzzle on the Fauunster as well.
    noWonder

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Google