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

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Displacement

I'm back from vacation and have been catching up on the shenanigans taking place in our government. The recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Kelo vs. City of New London especially caught my attention. Though simplifying the eminent domain process for city governments, I think this decision has special ramifications for the state of California.

Soon many Americans could get an opportunity to live like native Americans, circa 1838-39. Thanks to the Supreme Court and extensive lobbying by developer interests, small land owners in this country will soon face having their land taken away and given to those rich enough to get richer. In other states this could be bad, in California this could be worse.

As far as California is concerned, the Supreme Court has managed an end run around proposition 13. Californians have relied on prop 13 for decades to protect them from government piracy. Now if a city is dissatisfied with Ma and Pa Kettle’s relatively unprofitable fixed-income property taxes, they need only use the new relaxed iminent domain laws to steal their land for the so-called good of the many (city governments and developers).

Don’t get me wrong, there are still real cases of urban blight that require imminent domain, but the laws were already in place for these hard cases. So why did the Supreme Court find it neccessary to rule the way they did in (Kelo v. City of New London)?

If you look at the fifth amendment below, it looks to me like the Supreme Court is really pushing the envelope when it comes to opinions regarding constitutionality. When the Bush administration chooses the next Justice, and the Republican-controlled Congress confirm him/her, I'm relatively certain that constitutional opinions will get even more creative.

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

posted by J. L. Kunkle at Sunday, June 26, 2005

59 Comments:

  • After the election, I was upset that vanHaaster lost the election. Now I feel like someone who almost got hit by an oncoming train, but was narrowly missed. This Supreme Court decision puts all of our properties at potential risk. If vanHaaster were still in power, I believe that risk would be much, much larger. In fact, if vanHaaster were still around, after this Supreme Court decision property values would eventually plunge in this town, because no one would want to buy a property if they knew it might be taken away from them just so a mayor's pet corporation could grab it. I've never been happy to see "my candidate" lose an election, but I now find myself breathing a sigh of relief. I can admit I was wrong. "Thank you" to everyone who did the right thing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 10:14:00 AM  

  • Please

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 8:37:00 PM  

  • 10:14 you sound like a waffling chicken little. Go back to your coop and think of something else stupid to say.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 10:05:00 PM  

  • Anonymous is not stupid. See my response to Councilman Seyarto on the Brandt home sale discussion. The Kelo v. New London case is going to be the source of enormous conflict between the wealthy and the little people. The politicians will always find that their wealthy benefactors have a better idea for developing property than just letting the little people live out their lives.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 10:16:00 PM  

  • Anonymous 10:16 said...
    After the election, I was upset that vanHaaster lost the election.

    No you weren't, there is no way after a single court decision that would make you change your mind, Jack was in office for 13 years and arces homes were not getting plowed under for business. Enough with B.S. OK.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:21:00 AM  

  • Although I did not vote for van Haster,I agree with Anonyous 10:16.
    A lot of people were on the fence with van Haster. The supreme court decision can easily put someone like the former mayor in a new light. I would not want that kind of gun in the hands of someone who had a nearly 100% record of doing the will of big developers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:25:00 AM  

  • Every public official had better be very careful with any show of support that is shown in regard to the New London Case. Private property rights are a core Amercan value. If I were a New London resident I would exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms. There is no way I would allow my private property to be taken away for the benefit of another private citizen. From what I have read the area that the city wants is not blighted. It just has a great river front location. I hope the New Londoners take a stand.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:40:00 AM  

  • In this forum and across the nation, the vast majority of opinions about the Supreme Court decision have something in common. Surveys, editorials, and the opinions of citizens are all revealing that most property-owning Americans of every political persuasion think the Supreme Court decision was fundamentally wrong. Supreme Court Justices are as human as the rest of us, and history has from time to time proven decisions of the Court can be very far from perfect. This is clearly one of those times. From what I’m reading in this forum, neither the local political leaders nor the property owning citizens are likely to allow the Court’s odd decision to negatively impact our lives. I do not always agree with Kelly Seyarto, and I had a real problem with the way the former mayor handled certain matters, but I do agree with Mr. Seyarto that everyone should stick to the facts when throwing verbal punches. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly.
    Tom Suttle

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:08:00 AM  

  • I agree with RHolmgren, this decision indicates a Supreme Court that is formulating opinions based more on agenda then on any literal attempt to establish constitutionality. I think it is about time that Supreme Court seats had term limits.

    By Blogger J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:22:00 PM  

  • I don,t think term limits on the supreme court are necessary. What we need are new appointees who interpret the Constitution as the framers intended. The judicial activism displayed by the court over the last 50 years have been eroding the civil liberties that were supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution. The courts were never intended to create law under our system of a Federal Republic. Their job is to INTERPRET the law. It sure is scary that nine men can make up law and will never have to worry about re-election or recall.

    Does anyone have an opinion on the inflated contruction costs for the third high school? Maybe the money would be better spent expanding the two existing high schools as well as do some major road construction around the two existing high schools in order to diffuse the concentration of traffic during peak hours. I really think 155 million dollars for a new high school is an outragious waste of finite school funds.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:12:00 PM  

  • Hi Rholmgren, you said: "It sure is scary that nine men can make up law and will never have to worry about re-election or recall."

    Don't forget about Sandra Day O'conner she's the one who wrote the powerful dissent in Kelo v. New London. Also, she's been the swing vote on the Court for a number of years. Also Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on the Court. So it's seven men and two women!

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:07:00 PM  

  • Did everyone read the letter to the editor by Tina Tyra in today’s Californian? Those of us who know Murrieta’s city government know that the city will backslide on its word whenever it can and will actually be VENGEFUL IN THE LONG RUN if anyone stands up to it. UNLESS you’re a major developer, you’ll be treated like garbage by the city if they think they can get away with it. Just when the city thought the eminent domain controversy was fading away, the decided it could mess around once again with one of its former victims. The lesson to be learned is that we must all stick together. THE PROPERTY-OWNER-BE-DAMNED ROOT RUNS DEEP AT MURRIETA CITY HALL! Don’t be fooled by the self-serving rhetoric of Seyarto and McAllister. And don’t assume that any of the other council members, or the paid help at City Hall has your best interests at heart. They DO NOT really care about your interests. And they will destroy your rights if you let them. Stick together, everybody. Now that the supreme court has put endless power in the hands of city government, we must stick together, or or property rights are GONE FOREVER. If we do not stand together, we will most certainly fall individually.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:05:00 AM  

  • It sure is good to finally be on the same side on an issue Mr. Faunce.I have always voted for Mr. Seyarto, and I also stand by Mr. Mcallister.I just hope the current City Council members are tuned to the fact that their support would evaporate if this type of Eminent Domain was ever used in Murrieta. I think critical thinking is an important part of reaching a political position, however the moral and ethical aspects of confiscating personal property for the gain other personal entities overides any intellectual position.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:16:00 AM  

  • Rholmgren said...I just hope the current City Council members are tuned to the fact that their support would evaporate if this type of Eminent Domain was ever used in Murrieta.

    I don't think this would ever happen with the current city council and even if Jack was still there, which some on this blog have stated would happen. But you never know what future city councils will do just look at the city of Cypress in which they were using eminent domain to confiscate church property for a Costco. We need to change the laws of eminent domain in which personal property can’t be seized for commercial use.

    Mike

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:37:00 AM  

  • The fact is that Murrieta is already damaged goods as a result of the city government’s nasty eminent domain tactics of the past year. I read today’s article (letter) in the Californian. This is a city which continues, to this very day, to demonstrate callous disregard for private property owners. What potential property buyer in their right mind is going to buy property in Murrieta, knowing it can be confiscated by the power hungry elite on our city council, and their like minded hirelings at city hall? Other than greedy major developers, the home and land property market in Murrieta is going to fade as soon as the public grasps what is going on. Major developers will gladly watch property values fall, ready to latch onto the resulting bargains when the city picks up properties at deflated values. As a real estate professional, I can tell everyone that this whole situation is a growing storm which is already starting to erode our property values. This is because our city government already has a reputation for dealing with property owners in a very mean spirited and greedy fashion. As things now stand, with the kind of city government which occupies the elected and non-elected offices at Murrieta city hall, a real estate professional cannot in good conscience suggest to anyone that they consider buying property in Murrieta. As a result of the US supreme court decision, cities with reputations like that of Murrieta are going to suffer, even if the city government decides to quietly lay low for a while. People know this city’s true nature and track record in dealing with private property owners. It is a dismal record. I wish I could say I have a good short-term solution to suggest, but there is none. Thanks to the reputation our power-crazed developer-friendly city government, combined with the supreme court decision, we’re now in a treacherous property value position. For those of you who call my concern politics as usual, my own record in this blog site shows that I used to be a supporter of people like vanHaaster. Reality has handed me a rose. A thorny one. Experience can be the toughest teacher of all to learn from.
    JLM

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:25:00 AM  

  • You've got to be joking JLM, give us all one example of the city of Murrieta seizing someones home for a commercial project? But then again I guess since you're a "real estate professional" you have no interest lowering property values

    Quote:

    I can tell everyone that this whole situation is a growing storm which is already starting to erode our property values.

    Yep sell, sell, sell so you can buy, buy and buy and make $$$.

    Yepper our city is in dire need like no other city in Southwest Riverside County.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:48:00 AM  

  • to anony, 11:48:
    JLM is right in at least one way.

    I myself am looking for investment land. Had been looking in Murrieta, but not now. This city gvmt. loves big developers, not small guys like me. I can see them taking my land if they see more tax revenues from commercial developers.

    I dont think JLM is right to think they'll "lay low for a while". There's to much pressure from big development to "lay low".

    And of course there's no example of them taking land to sell developers before. The law just changed. But we know they've done everything else for big developers, why not this???

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:51:00 PM  

  • Anonymous 11:48 said...

    I myself am looking for investment land. Had been looking in Murrieta, but not now.

    Sure...okay...because as an investor you don't want sell your property to a developer, give me a break.

    The law just changed.

    It did, when??? Because the eminent domain law hasn't changed in California; which means the city council had these powers for years...so this goes back to my question, when has the city siezed land for a commercial project???

    On the other hand I'm with JLM, run everyone run to Temecula run away from the big bad city council!!! Then I too can get your home at a good price!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:22:00 PM  

  • Thank you Mr. Seyarto for continuing to take from your valuable time to attempt to maintain sanity in this environment of dialog that at times runs amok. Your expertise in government and knowledge of city history that you continue to share, with patience and wise counsel, is most appreciated.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:40:00 PM  

  • Anon 1:40: If you want to kiss Kelly Seyarto on his hind quarters, why not just go to a council meeting and do it in person? I've never seen such spineless, gooey, brown-nosing muck as that which you just gave us the hopefully forgettable experience of reading.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:40:00 PM  

  • ANON at 1:22
    Eminent Domain law changed all across the nation as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision. I wish I could comfort myself in the land of fantasy that you are coming from, but I am required to deal with reality.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:00:00 PM  

  • Kelly S: Don't worry, they'll let you know who they are in due time. Probably when it's time for a favor.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:40:00 PM  

  • I don't know how the city valuates property under the current eminent domain process. It would seem to be fair to some how use the median price of property or land as a basis of valuation. May be some pre planned formula based on the median would at least guarantee property owners fair compensation. I would hate to think that valuations are based on subjective appraisals. JLM I don't think the sky is falling and I seriously doubt your assertion that property values are dropping. I watch the market closely and believe it or not things are still pretty rosey around town.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:57:00 PM  

  • Kelly Seyarto:
    So, you are denying the widely held belief that you vote in favor of major developers who in turn have favored you with massive campaign donations? Or are you just saying that loving words alone are not enough to do the trick. Please clarify. So many of us seem to have the wrong impression.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:06:00 AM  

  • Anon 12:16 Please clarify why developers are bad and how legal campagn donations from developers are somehow evil.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:35:00 AM  

  • Rholmgren,
    Allow me to answer. The issue clearly goes to influence, and the fact that such donations would not be made if that influence were not working. It also throws light on why average citizens in this town have received, until very recently, very little respect at city hall. Things, fortunately, are changing. And that is no mere coincidence. You yourself are part of that change.
    Knecht

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:52:00 AM  

  • Absolutely.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:18:00 AM  

  • To Rholmgren who said: "Please clarify why developers are bad and how legal campagn donations from developers are somehow evil."

    Developers are not bad, at least in the abstract. Developers are needed, often desperately. We all benefit from the physical structures that developers build.

    What has gone wrong is that developers work through business, e.g., corporations which, unlike ordinary citizens, have immortality. That is, corporations can theoretically live forever and are allowed to amass great wealth. That wealth has become the "mother's milk of politics." Consequently, the desires of the ordinary citizens are potentially and actually ignored -- at every level of government -- in favor of the overriding desires of businesses.

    The recall just past is a perfect illustration. While the final figures are not in, it is fair to say that the developers probably raised and spent three quarters of a million dollars. The ordinary citizens raised and spent less than $20,000. In fact, the recall proponents were jeered at for raising so little. In fact, the recall proponents raised far less from invidiual Murrietans. The result is that our City Council reflects the economic interests of the developers to a far greater extent than it reflects the ecnomic interest of ordinary residents.

    The enormous disparity also undermines ordinary citizens' confidence that government, at every level, represents citizens. Even if Councilman Seyarto is correct that his vote is not influenced by the enormous sum spent to save his incumbency, many citizens will never be convinced. Our collective experience is not only that "money talks" it "screams."

    This debate has been going on for some time primarily within the discussion over public funding of elections. The danger to our republic is that as more and more citizens feel that they have no real voice or influence, public support for our political instutions wanes.

    The recall election seems to have rejuvenated citizen interest if the number of applicants for the various commission openings is any indication. I believe that is due to the belief that citizens began taking back some of the developer control over our community.

    So, are developer (business) campaign contributions evil? It depends on how evil is defined. But given the negative effect on our political instutions described above, such campaign contributions seem to me undesirable.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:57:00 AM  

  • A correction: Faunce (10:57) inadvertently said: "The ordinary citizens raised and spent less than $20,000. In fact, the recall proponents were jeered at for raising so little. In fact, the recall proponents raised far less from invidiual Murrietans."

    That sentence should have read: The ordinary citizens raised and spent less than $20,000. In fact, the recall proponents were jeered at for raising so little. In fact, the recall opponents raised far less from invidiual Murrietans.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:02:00 AM  

  • There’s a politician in Murrieta who brings up everything from “dead four year old’s” to the “Brady Bunch” in his very long wordy attempts to defend the fact that he’ll bow down to almost any developer any day of the week, and he’ll kick the little guy average Joe citizen right out of town if it suits his idea of what’s right, which is by strange coincidence the same thing the developers think is right, which happen by strange coincidence to be the same people who stuffed the anti-recal war chest with over half a million bucks. Way too many coincidences for this average Joe.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:27:00 PM  

  • HEY JOE,
    WHY ARE YOU NOT AS WILLING TO GIVE UP WHAT'S YOURS FOR "THE MASSES" AS SOME POLITICIANS ARE WILLING TO FORCE YOU TO GIVE IT UP? DON'T YOU KNOW YOU ARE A WORTHLESS SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, AND "THE MASSES" ARE ALL THAT COUNT? WHO THE H DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, JOE?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:07:00 PM  

  • Two ways to become a millionaire, make someone give you a million bucks, like a city contractor, or make a million people give you a buck, like our government. With either method, its the accumulated wealth and the power derived from it that makes things so dangerous for the little guy.

    By Blogger J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:59:00 PM  

  • Seyarto said earlier, "If folks want to have rational dialogue on this blogsite, I am more than happy to participate." I heard that Kessin Klein (ex-planning commissioner), who had been writing in this blog site under a cute name, got mad and left the blog scene. Maybe he thought everyone was thinking in a politically incorrect manner too. Is it time for some of Seyarto's famous "re-training"? Or will he pick up his marbles and leave like KK did?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:03:00 PM  

  • Mr Faunce: I asked the simple question as to why developers are bad because most bloggers on this site are quick to the punch when developers, or their corporations, are mentioned. Developers perform many good services in our community. People are quick to demonize them but seldom give them credit for their quality developments or their charitable contributions. I also sense socialist leanings from people who will frequently bash the rich or rich corporations. The power of the ballot box is the check that balances out big money. I also agree with you that not enough has been done to deal with the overwhelming donation power that corporations have in ALL elections.

    Mr. Seyarto: It looks like the Council put alot of effort toward reaching a fair settlement with Laura Brandt. Straight forward fair settlements are in the cities best interest. It looks like everyone learned something after what happened with the Jefferson eminent domain situation. I hope the city treats every future eminent domain case the same way.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, July 01, 2005 10:26:00 AM  

  • Good bye Kelly. Too bad you found it so hard to take the hard words. Just think how much harder it would have been if you had been one of the decent folks whose whole lives were altered by the day care center.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, July 01, 2005 2:44:00 PM  

  • Jeeeze! The Romans didn’t need a colliseum, just a site like this! I feel like a gladiator stepping in front of lions and spears just by entering this comment. Some of you people are ruthless.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, July 01, 2005 3:19:00 PM  

  • 2:44 ANON: Good point. Seyarto and his friends in city government cry crocadile tears when they "are required" to destroy the "little people" for the "overall good of the city" (i.e.: the misnamed "day care center", in reality a much larger institution which anyone could see would wreck a quiet residential neighborhood), but they cry real tears when they are handed a bit of criticism for the hurt they have caused others. Jack vanHaaster literally cried like a day care child on the dias when he lost the election, and Seyarto still sulks like a scolded toddler when words are used against him which don't even begin to sound like his sarcastic mouth of earlier months. These people do not even begin to recognize the deep and lingering ill will they have caused among so many people in this town. To this day, all they and their friends can do is pat one another on the back and tell each other how great they have been for Murrieta. The aptly named "Murrieta Insider" today shows a full page from the "true majority" of Murrietans, praising Jack vanHaaster. What? Did Jack's "true majority" have something against voting? Sour grapes continue to be served by the vanHaaster groupies. But what else do they have to offer? Absolutely nothing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, July 01, 2005 6:18:00 PM  

  • 6:18: Thanks for bringing the vahHaster ad to our attention. We thought the "true majority" part was kind of funny. If they had just had more money to spend to let the "true majority" know about the election. Maybe next time they can try again. Would a full million do it? Or 2 or 3 or 4?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, July 01, 2005 7:02:00 PM  

  • Anonymous 3:19 said...
    Some of you people are ruthless.


    A better description would be more like childish behavior. Instead of well thought out intelligent posts toward Kelly Seyarto they are posting unsustainable remarks about “being in the pockets of developers” and personal attacks…and I guess the reason would be is that when you have nothing to back your comments you need to rely on insults and lies.

    Sheesh and some of these people are teaching our children this junk; I don’t think Murrieta needs saving from our city council but from some of our adults.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, July 02, 2005 7:38:00 PM  

  • Anon 7:38: You yourself are insulting people by calling them liars, so unless you can solidly back up your assertion about lies, then you are certainly a person of lesser character than those you are attacking. And "childish behavior"? The throwing about of the term "liar" is a playground tactic most of us left in grade school. If indeed you are a grade school student please accept my apologies if any of this sounded critical; for if such is the case, your silly-sounding attack is understandable; and in all liklihood, your mind will mature in time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, July 02, 2005 8:03:00 PM  

  • Anonymous 8:03 said...

    Anon 7:38: You yourself are insulting people by calling them liars

    Just some…not all.

    so unless you can solidly back up your assertion about lies

    Well can someone prove that certain member’s of the city council receives cash or favors from developers? All I ask I just one of the many of you have placed that accusation. Then I’ll take my turn.

    then you are certainly a person of lesser character than those you are attacking.

    Sure whatever, but I guess you are just one of the few that I’ve pointed my finger at, so I guess you’re one of the people who likes to criticize but then feels the whole world is doing them wrong when it comes back at them.

    Anon 7:38

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:40:00 PM  

  • To 9:40 and 8:03: I'm sorry, but both of you sound very, very immature.

    8:03 sounds overly embittered and sarcastic. Some of the old pro-recall crowd just can't seem to get past the anger that fueled their emotions before the election. Please, it's over, you kicked out a mayor of 13 years. Does that make you proud of yourselves? The pre-school thing is a dead issue. Get over it.

    9:40 sounds like someone trying to toy with the words people say. Most pro-recall people made a big deal of the fact that developers pour cash into the bank to help the incumbents politically, for purposes such as to beat the recall. That kind of funding is both legal and at the same time fair game for criticism.

    Whatever uninformed or malicious accusations were made by one side in the recall were offset by words of equally poor judgement on the other side. It appears to still be happening.

    8:03 and 9:40, no one can insist that either of you leave this site, but I for one am asking both of you to do so.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, July 02, 2005 10:36:00 PM  

  • to ANON 10:36... Dittos. Thank you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, July 02, 2005 10:59:00 PM  

  • 8:03 and 9:40, no one can insist that either of you leave this site, but I for one am asking both of you to do so

    I feel strong about my original opinion, but don’t expect me to leave. The debate has been strong and heated even after the recall.

    So let me ask you this Anon10:36 why aren’t you asking other people to leave this site when people have been throwing around insults on several other posts? I’d just like to know why we were singled out went derogatory remarks were made about, for example, a council member and yet you’ve been silent.

    Anon 7:38

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, July 02, 2005 11:09:00 PM  

  • Hi. I was the Dittos, and I don't actually agree with the part that either of you should leave. Just so tired of people name calling, and then people feeling they have to respond, ad infinitum. The reason that I and some of my friends read the entries is that we find a few interesting thoughts and ideas coming through in spite of all the repetitive arguements.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 8:25:00 AM  

  • 8:25, aka "Dittos"... You have agreement out here among many readers, but please don't expect all of us to express agreement by using the term "Dittos". The word doesn't strike everyone the same way, if you know what I mean. But let's not go there.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 9:09:00 AM  

  • to "7:38", OK, fine, I'll just ask the other person to leave, and you can stay. What difference does it make? The two of you are just nuts off the same tree, coming in from different angles, and smashing up in front of us. Amusing to an extent, but now it's getting old.
    "10:36"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 1:02:00 PM  

  • No 10:36, I don't think anyone should be asked to leave. You may not like my posts and I might not like yours but I believe we all should be able to post, if I don't like what I'm reading I'll just skip over it.

    You may think you're better than me but you're not, you've been throwing out the insults in your posts just as well.

    Anon 7:38

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 4:46:00 PM  

  • J.L please there are way more than two ways to become a millionaire. Most million and billionaires either invented, created, or invested their way to wealth. Warren Buffet the investor; Paul Allen and and Bill Gates with the creative way they capitalized on the purchase of an operating system; Oprah Winfrey and her innovative talk shows. Oh and lets not forget what Sam Walton did. Were any of these people contractors? Did they force anyone to fork over a million bucks?

    DO ANY OF YOU ANONS HAVE ANYTHING MORE INTERESTING TO SAY? Y'ALL SOUND LIKE A COLLECTIVE OF CONNECTED BUTTHEADS. ADD SOME SUBSTANTATIVE SPICE TO ALL THE NAME CALLING FLAVOR

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 4:55:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren:
    Sincere thanks for bringing some substance back into this string. The old "80/20" rule of thumb is never far from correct, and in this entire forum about 80% of the substance comes from about 20% of the participants. Although you and I do not always agree, I appreciate the fact that you and certain other rational minds are willing to hang in there and hash out the issues. We all stand to benefit from doing so.
    JLM

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 5:34:00 PM  

  • Thanks JLM Your comments are always a good read. It gets really boring to read things like: Your a liar. No you are a bigger liar. Then: you are childish Then: go away and leave this blog. What a boorish string.The last good posting was from K Seyarto. After his posting the anons sent the string spiraling around the toilet bowl drain.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 9:45:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren and JLM,

    It’s like this on all forums I’ve been to, people posts insults then others feed off of this and drift away from the original post, that’s just the way it is. Hey I’m guilty of it myself on this forum and I have posted what you two are feeling but then realized I went over the line.

    It would be nice to get back on the subject of city issues without insulting anyone, then maybe this forum, just like our city’s slogan (sort of), we can grow and help our city as a group of citizens that have come together even with different views. I know it sounds like Fantasy Land, but what better place for everyday Joe and Jane who works all different hours or needs to give time to their families give their opinions on the internet about the way they feel the direction of our city should go and to have these views accessed through the same internet by our local leadership.

    *sigh* Yep just living here in Fantasy Land.

    Mike

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:27:00 PM  

  • I think that if you see a post that you don't want to read, then it is important that you do read it. Understanding can only be reached when both sides of an issue have at least a partial understanding of those who are of an opposing opinion.

    This does not apply to playground tantrums. They are usually short and easily recognized and therefore avoidable by both poster and reader.

    Hi, RHolmgren,
    Oprah has millions of people giving her money, so does Bill Gates and the estate of Sam Walton. Not to minimize the achievements of these giants of industry, but it is my opinion that an inherent property of capitalism is that the first bankroll from most achievements gets largely invested in stifling the competition. Contrary to popular belief, this does not encourage innovation.

    By Blogger J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:01:00 PM  

  • I would like to post a comment regarding the coming council decision to rotate the position of Mayor. Two ladies (who not acquainted with each other) have recently commented in my presence, at different times, that they were placed in the uncomfortable postition of having the current Mayor in his position of Councilman "come on" to them when they attempted to discuss a property issue that was being reviewed by the city. It is known that spouses of a particular fireman and policeman have reason to also be unhappy with this Councilman's interference in their family life.

    This Councilman's approach to visiting female dignitaries has been well known to successive persons who have served through the years on the Murrieta council as well as members of City staff, some of whom have commented to the Councilman that his demeanor was not proper or suitable for his position. This is one of the reasons that he was unable until very recently to put together a vote, which he did by utilizing the newest members on the council in order to obtain the position of Mayor.

    Since fellow Councilmen would be in the favorable position to know of the personality traits of their fellow Councilmen, they are best suited to choose who would properly represent the city as Mayor.

    The position of Mayor is not well served by a rotation system.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 5:51:00 PM  

  • 5:51: Everyone knows it's hard for a politician to come up with a good smearmeister; but what foul, maggot-infested barrel did they have to scrape the bottom of to come up with someone like you?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 6:51:00 PM  

  • Would Kelly Seyarto like to deny he wrote 5:51 before someone accuses him? And would Kelly Seyarto and Jack vanH. like to deny anonymous accusations against their character which are far worse than those of 5:51 before those accusations are made?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:26:00 PM  

  • JL I would disagree that people are "giving" money to Oprah or Bill Gates. I think they are earning it. I would also have to disagree that competition has been stifled. Look at all the Oprah wannabe shows that were produced in the late 80's and throughout the 90's. Microsoft spawned thousands of businesses that utilize their operating system. Walmart is the most efficient retailer and low price leader. I think that Target has become a much better retailer as a result of Walmart's competitive heat. I will bet you a hundred bucks that within 20 years all of the above will be out innovated by an invention(s) that as of now are just thoughts in a young Mensa's mind.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:48:00 PM  

  • Capitalism and politics. They have a lot in common. American as apple pie. At their best, both are as hard-fought as a good football game, and every bit as exciting. Winners love them. Patriots embrace them. But because they each produce winners, they also produce those who did not win. That hurts. But it's life. And it's OK, because in America, we get to try again. And again. And again. And chances are, if we all keep trying, we all win. That's not Pollyanna. It's for real. And it's kinda cool.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:02:00 PM  

  • Microsoft has frequently used its market leverage to force major parts of its code into other's software that would have been just as good without it. Sometimes better. The difference is that the software designer must pay a licensing fee to Microsoft for using it, or else it would be incompatible with Microsoft's OS. Microsoft gained the high ground early on, but this is a large part of what keeps him in power.

    Oprah Winfrey became a kingmaker in the publishing industry by promoting books on her talk show. She created "Oprah's Book Club" and any book even mentioned here would become a guaranteed bestseller. She has huge clout in her millions of devoted fans, and it doesn't hurt her reputation when she can give cars away to everyone in her audience. This is what keeps her in power.

    As for the semantic reference to giving,does evangelical religion have any bearing here? I think it does.

    Capitalism is a complicated beast, and it relies on mass consumption. Using Darwinism to justify it's excesses is nothing new and has frequently caused much bloodshed, and since darwinism has no place for sustained production, than I would suggest that capitalism is not perfect.

    I am not against capitalism as long as it is used responsibly, but all men are not angels, and therein lies the flaw.

    By Blogger J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Google