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

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

ETHICS

The city council is to discuss a code of ethics for Murrieta tonight a half hour before the council meeting. You mean they didn't have one already?

63 Comments:

Well the ethics policy the City had didn't do its job. vanHaaster had to make a public apology and that was just for the one unethical scheme for which he got caught. He never made an apology for hooking his business into the sewer of his neighbor rather than extending the sewer line down the street as any other business owner would have had to do.

The existing ethics policy did not stop Seyarto and McAllister for trying to cover up the vanHaaster day-care center ethical problem. They made sure that their friend got away with his multi-million dollar project.

The existing ethics policy did not stop vanHaaster, Seyarto and McAllister from continuing to negotiate with the City Police and Fire Unions while their recall elections were proceeding, clearly to gain their support against the recall.

The existing ethics policy did not stop vanHaaster, Seyarto and McAllister from allowing their developer friends to raise and spend over $550,000 in a campaign of lies and untruths to skew the recall election.

Seems to me that we either needed a new policy or one that was enforceable. Of course, maybe what we really need is some new council members who will read and adhere to the ethics policy.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:14:00 AM
It is also unethical for a developer-loving politician to use blatantly misleading statistical statements as justification for satisfying the lust for profits in the multi-family housing field.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:54:00 AM
K. Seyarto
This city's so called "wheel" isn't being reinvented. It's got a flat, and that's the way it has been for a helluva long time in this town. I am a small developer and I know how ethics and courtesy and everything else is different at city hall if you are a small instead of a big developer. It is so obvious who your friends are. Your moral values and ethics all just happen to be the same as the moral values and ethics of big developers. Well I think you yourself are one of the crooked nails that made the wheel go flat. Flats happen that way on construction projects. Lots of crooked nails around big developments. So what are we supposed to do with a crooked nail like you? Are we supposed to leave it there and let it explain why we are so lucky to have it sticking in our tire?
Been There

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:29:00 PM
You have to be making a feeble attempt at joking. "Been There" compares you to a crooked nail stuck in a tire, and you call that "libel". What a sadly strange kind of paranoia it is that you must have to deal with on a daily basis. No wonder you seek refuge in the friendship of big developers. They make you feel protected. How depressing. I really do feel sorry for you.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:53:00 PM
K. Seyarto
I can't believe what I just read. If it makes you feel better I meant "crooked" as in "bent" or "twisted". Ever seen a bent nail? Lots of them around construction sites. It was you who apparently decided to make it mean "corrupt", not me. From the sound of your reply, I think I hit the nail right on the head.
Been There

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 4:52:00 PM
I just wanted to apologize to the entire community. I really blew it over the past ten years. I should have followed the same preachings that Jeff and Ed Faunce advocate. When the Murrieta Ranchos development came under planning commision review I should have opposed it on the basis that it would impact traffic around the High School and on Washington specifically. I should have reminded the past council that Murrieta was for the citizens that live here currently and that we did not need the impact of Murrieta Ranchos on our community. I also should have spoken up when Pacific Oaks was being reviewed. We did not need that housing tract. It would add alot of traffic to Jackson and also destroy some great open space for mountain biking. I should have again reminded the council that their responsibilty was to those who already live here. Their policies should have catered to us first. I am sorry Jeff because if I had thought like you and Ed sooner maybe you and Ed would be living somewhere else.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 4:56:00 PM
Thank you for that Rholmgren.

Now, about this nail business. Maybe KS could tell us, in his own words, what a 'corrupt nail' would be, if that's his interpretation of Been There's nail thing. I just can't picture what a corrupt nail would be.

OK, I hear you panting. Speak, Rholmgren. Speak!

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:13:00 PM
I encountered a corrupt and very crooked nail last weekend during a home consruction project. Everyone can relate to that one nail that just keeps bending every time you try to hammer it home.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:44:00 PM
Perfect. Now we know that at least one person thinks nails can be described as 'corrupt'. So, if a nail is poorly struck, and bends,the nail has not only been made crooked... It has been corrupted. Well, then, we also may say the nail has been savaged, beaten, warped, rearranged, deranged, distorted, mangled, fanagled and maybe even turned into a duck. In other words, any word can be made to mean almost anything if someone wants to play with definitions. KS wanted to turn a simple, poorly struck nail into a vile insult. Because it suits his purposes. And in the same way, he defines information about statistics related to multi family housing in a way that suits his purposes. And he does so with the same skill and convincing ability which can corrupt a nail, or turn it into a duck.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 6:10:00 PM
What statistics? From what I understood K.S wanted a study to back up the assertion that high density has a higher crime rate. I think that would mean number of crimes per 100,000. I see alot of assuptions being made without any facts to back them up.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:41:00 PM
Is there a study that proves higher density leads to a higher crime rate ( crimes per 100,000)? It just seems to me that people are making assumptions and assertions without any proof that higher density leads to higher crime.

Jeff just to let you know that in my circle of friends you have the credibility of a circus clown. I am just responding to another one of your posts that attacks my credibility just because I am a Conservative. How LAME!

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:05:00 PM
Rholmgren,
I'm not attacking the conservative part but the ideology part of your mentality that says EVERYTHING that any conservative says or does is right. That is as incredibly unrealistic as anything imagineable. But again, name calling. This is all you have to comment back. Circus Clown.....do they make pretty good money?

Assumptions? Assertions? This is what I mean. If Kelly thinks something is so, Rholmgren defends him no matter what. Let's look at areas of higher density around inner cities. No, they don't have higher crime then less dense areas? It's common sense. Why if something goes against your ideology do you defend it even though you know the truth. Let's look at our local county jail for example. Where do most of the criminals sitting in there come from. Yes, there is a small population of white collar criminals and an occassional murderer. But come on Rholmgren, most are from the more dense areas and lower income. You want a study, take a tour. No wait, ask some of your friends, you know the former gang boys, they should have first hand experience,
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:27:00 AM
The Rholmgren/Seyarto propaganda machine now resorts to trying to turn us against our own common sense. Two plus two does not equal four in the same way that areas of high density housing do not equal higher crime rates. The Rholmgren/Seyarto mindset is trying to turn Murrieta into the Riverside County version of South Central Los Angeles, the very worst of which is appropriatly known as "Apartment Hell". Rholmgren/Seyarto are going to put on their logic defying act just long enough to see this city go right down the toilet. Then the two parts of that one brain will break apart. Seyarto will move away, and Rholmgren will be left to bark alone in the master planned slums of Murrieta.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:48:00 AM
K. Seyarto
I'm glad you got the nail thing straightened out. I've never thought of you as a corrupt nail. But then, I've never thought of you as a straight nail either. Just a bent one.
Moving right along, I want to agree with you on something. I've been around the condo block a few times in other communities. Never directly involved in apartments or condos, but working on other kinds of construction in the same areas. And if you are saying that the current condo/apartment level in Murrieta is okay, I would agree with that.
But - something else is now on its way into Murrieta - and that 'but' is a really, really big one.
I have to look into matters at city hall once in a while for my own work. Sometimes I have a little time to kill while I'm there, so I take a look at other public records and files.
I'm not someone who has time to get very involved in this stuff. This blog entry might be the biggest contribution I make to public matters. But I've got to tell you. Or maybe you already know. But in any case, this is it. There are some very,very big apartment and high density plans in the works for Murrieta, and I don't think people in the community know much about them.
Some of this high density stuff is getting (or has already got) what they called "administrative approvals". There is so much going on that it blows me away. I think people should demand to have every single bit of high density planning AND applications AND existing approvals put out on the table in plain sight.
I agree that Murrieta is okay right now with the existing high density that is already built. But if this other stuff keeps on coming, this town is going to go to hell. I've seen it in other places over a lot of years.
Whatever. This town is your baby, not mine. I'm no politician who is trying to argue for anyone, and I probably won't even be around here to see the nasty results if they are allowed to happen. But I do understand the concerns of people who call Murrieta their home town. I just don't think they have any idea how big those concerns are going to become. I hope everyone will take a little time to go down to city hall and ask to look at ALL the high and medium-high density approvals that have already been made or are in process of being considered. When you start looking at them, be sure you're sitting down.
Been There

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:32:00 PM
Kelly,

You know you just answered the point of all this discussion and your talk about $85000 salaries with the prices for these apartments and condos. How do teachers and young adults, all the people you say need a place in our community that we overbuild these developments for, to afford this LOW-INCOME housing? It's not for low-income. It's for professionals that don't want the upkeep of a home. WOW...now your argument is dead in the water. And to Rholmgren who wants to give low income familes a chance so they can eventully buy homes....these are not low income developments that you've stood up and ranted and raved about. So Rholmgren you need to re-think the possibility of your gang member friends living in the "new" Murrieta and stand up and ask the dear Councilmen about this. But you won't will you. Just pucker your lips and follow behind.

Councilmen needs to explain to us what developments are targeted for true low income familes, the ones that are at the National average for low income benefits and just condos and apartments that match the pricing of new homes. Kelly, these homes are not directed towards low-income, just the middle class and up that are lazier then the family that want the yard and upkeep. Don't sell this anymore to us as low income. I guess you do think low-income salaries are at $85000. Better do a little research.
Circus Clowns.....lets see.....love the conservative's calling names.....they are so good at it.
MurrietanEyes,
He doesn't want to get the developers to surround these complexes with...now hear this comment Kelly....real quality infrastructure.....like using the development property to build parks.....why???? Because it costs the developers dollars that they can pocket. And then Kelly can't get his payment....ooppps.....his support.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:38:00 PM
12:32,
What a great platform for Councilmen Seyarto to run on this next year. Yes, Councilmen show us the plans that have been pushed through. And then stand up and ask the voters to vote for you on those plans. Throw some spin about caring for poor young people, our children and teachers. Then we can really decide who's pocket you are in.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:43:00 PM
Jeff you should not be so government oriented. I think Federal poverty standards are the same here as in Biloxi Mississippi. We all know it is much more expensive to live here. 50,000 dollars a year here will barely get you into a condo and in Mississippi you will be able to afford a nice single family residence. I also would not trust any government involvement with low income housing. I think that government inner city developments (The Projects) were a huge socialistic mistake.When I am talking about low income development my goal is to reach as far down the economic ladder that is possible while still facing the realities of our high priced real estate. If higher densites make it possible for someone who earns 35,000 a year to buy instead of rent then I think we should try to create a business environment that enables developers to construct residences that can be purchased at that income level. The whole community benefits because everyone including those at lower incomes can benefit from the wealth effect that comes with rising equity. Why reserve such opportunities for those with higher incomes? And Jeff your inner city analogies just do not generally apply to California suburbia. Jeff go look in the mirror and start ranting out loud ME ME ME ME ME ME ME. You are selfish and self absorbed. I have to go now Jeff because when I write a post opposing your views circus music keeps popping into my head.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:44:00 PM
I was just wondering about one more thing. Jeff, Ed, and M.E.: All three of you have so many negative things to say about Murrieta's politics and living conditions. I was just wondering if there were any good reasons why all of you live here.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:59:00 PM
Rholmgren has just graduated from the Seyarto School of Social Engineering. That qualifies him to share his knowledge as he did in his 5:44 entry. If that entry sounded kind of silly, just remember what school he graduated from. And, remember that his academic requirements were all waived because he was always so busy being a blog site cheerleader for the instructor he worshiped and adored.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:06:00 PM
Mr Faunce, the vanHaaster property is connected with the city sewer system and has been since the sewer line became available. All proper inspections were made and all fees and costs (totaling 22,000.00 because of initial Water Department errors regarding the depth of the line) have been paid and were paid on time.

This rumor was started by Mr Enochs whose plumber friend, Mr Quayle, was originally working the vanHaaster project and Mr Enochs encouraged the plumber to cease his relationship with vanHaaster and run against vanHaaster in a prior election.

Mr Enochs chose to perpetuate this rumor and you have chosen to continue to use it to your advantage.

You, being well schooled and well spoken, and as an attorney, a persuasive person have accomplished your goal of punishing a councilman for daring to attempt to put a child care center in your neighborhood.

You have won. Utilize your skills for other, more positive endeavors to benefit the city and quit beating a dead horse.

You have won.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:08:00 PM
Oh my goodness. K Seyarto and his special friend are all caught up in helping the poor. (Never mind that they're saying the way to do that is by helping big developers.) These guys are hard core Republicans. Um hmm. Sure. And I bet when no one is looking, they dress up like liberals..... and do naughty things....?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:25:00 PM
Rholmgren Rholmgren,
The reason I was asking you what circus clowns made is that I thought you both know.

Rholmgren, you change directions every time Seyarto does. First your for low-income housing, and wanted me to know about your former gang member friends and then when Kelly mentions the rent for these new developments, you switch gears and flip flop. Now you want me to understand Southern California living and pricing. No, you need to get your talking points straight with the crooked nail himself. Now go back and tell your dear gang boys to unpack cause Kelly doesn't want them here anymore.

This is what your typical Republican neo-con ideology is like. When you dont have any proof. No reasonable answer. Attack the person that challenges your ideoloigal values. Then say love it or leave it. I will live here much longer as any of you and will complain each time I see things that will not benefit this community. I am not in any financial position to benefit from my position. No one is going to hand me anything for fighting for the things I believe. So again, follow behind your conservative leaders and kiss up and one day when they stop we'll help pull you out by your feet.
7:08- must be related to Van Haaster....because no one can possibly defend that crook. You want us to think the things he sis are a dead horse as you try to revive his career. He's just a dead politician.

The only reason that you're hearing circus music Rholmgren is I'm reading the future like a fortune teller at the circus and that is this is all pre-Van Haaster agenda talk.
Clown....no...I think he lives at 1600 Penn. Ave. or is that the house of liars.

Doesn't look like you have many fans on here Rholmgren and Kelly a bunch less.

I saw a show Rholmgren and thought it might be modeled after your life. Did you sell your autobiography to NBC. "My name is Rholmgren...I mean Earl".
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:55:00 PM
7:25 and Jeff you both are really reaching. I will tell you both straight out as I have told Jeff before that I do not take marching orders or advice from anyone. I post everything here from my own hunble Republican mind. I need no help from Rush, Sean, or K.S. You may think we are connected at the hip in some way , but I guarantee you the relationship exists as a fantasy in your own mind. Jeff your jabs at Bush are feeble. Liar Liar! WMD WMD WMD It is all Bush's fault! Before anyone has a chance I want to blame Rita on Bush. It is his fault. All the death and destruction will be Bush's fault. The inadequacies in emergency responce in Rita's aftermath will be Bush's fault too. Jeff you must be a pill to hang out with. I am sure that all of your lower income employees would love to know that it is O.K. for them to live in low income areas of Wildomar, Perris , or Lake Elsinore but it is out of the question if they want to live near you.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:39:00 PM
Hey Rholmgren,
How are you tonight? I don't really blame Bush for Rita. I blame him for lying and not accepting his errors and putting us all at risk. Not being truthful and pushing this conservative BS thats destroying the country I love. It's funny how so many people think exactly the same and defend things with the same rhetoric even when they are wrong. LOL...
I don't care if lower income people live in Murrieta. I just don't want to be overrun with any level of population. I would rather Murrieta be famous for it's parks, public library, even a water park out by French Valley. I don't think we need to get denser, because it provides more money for developers. I encourage government low interest loans to lower income families. DO YOU? That's not about me.....it's about you Rholmgren. I want families to be helped to live here in lower cost homes. I just don't want 200 low income families stuck in a apartment complex, with no where to go and nothing to do. It leads to trouble, period. Where do you reformed gang friends live....nice homes? Not in Southern California unless a trailer is a nice home. I support growth, but look at us. We have grown too much, too quickly. It's like we are in a race. Why??? There is no prize to build on every square inch. Why do we need more homes. We have to stop sometime, why not sooner then later and use some of this land to build things we can use to keep the residents here, spending money here. If there are no parks or areas of entertainment, we will go to them and spend our money in their restaurants and stores. Why would you Rholmgren need Murrieta to build more homes. Thats a fair question. When we build on every inch, do you want more? When is it enough? Why not a recreation area?
Here's news for you. I hand out both a quarterly bonus based on performance and profit and at the end of the year I add to an already matching $1 for $1 401K plan. If I was allowed I would also give low interest loans but it's not legal for me to do.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:18:00 PM
What does it say about a man's character and integrity when he insists upon believing and repeating unproven allegations without questioning the motivation of the individual who has provided that information.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:54:00 AM
God bless Murrieta councilmembers Enochs and Ostling for refusing to cave in to the pressure of being sued by a developer. They are refusing to settle on principle! (The story is in today's Californian). Those others on the council who bow before the developers' power should be ashamed of themselves. It takes courage to fight the bullying tactics of the powerful apartment and condo development world. The two men of real courage on this council have been insulted and bad mouthed by Seyarto and his followers for years, but those two - Enochs and Ostling - are standing guard over this community while taking major attacks from the developers and their servant Seyarto. When all else is forgotten in the history of this town, the courage of Enochs and Ostling and every citizen in this community who fought the major housing developers will be remembered and honored.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:11:00 AM
Regarding Ethics: It would be helpful if the council addressed the issue of Blackmail, which walks the fine line of negotiation.

Whether you agreed with the potential of the annexation of Wildomar by Murrieta or not, the proposal by Supervisor Buster to offer County funds to alleviate any financial burden Murrieta might incur made annexation viable. At the last moment, Mr. McAlister, who was not a part of the city designated exploratory team, confided that he was going to inject himself into the process and demand extra monies from the Supervisor, (a move which he could personally use for political propaganda)in exchange for maintaining his positive position. Mr. vanHaaster considering this blackmail in exchange for a vote pulled the item from the calendar and the rest is history.

One of Mr. Gibbs first acts as councilman was to contact Rex Oliver at the Chamber and state that he would not vote for monies for the Chamber if Mr. vanHaaster were allowed to participate in specific activities representing the Chamber.

For you newcomers, Mr. Enochs has a long history and is well known for exchanging personal favors for council votes and it has been accepted in the community as his way of doing business.

Ethics issue: This will be an interesting debate by these participants.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:22:00 PM
10:11 - It is refreshing to see true courage being recognized.

Mr. Enochs and Mr. Ostling may not be perfect people but they have withstood being brutally attacked for years by Mr. Seyarto. And now they are withstanding the legal attack by developers who can not believe anyone would have the courage to stand up to them.

It has been a long time since we have witnessed real courage on the part of a Mayor in this town. Warnie Enochs may rub a lot of people the wrong way but he has real guts to face down the attorneys big developers can hire.

I can not even imagine the former recall candidates having that kind of courage.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:38:00 PM
"One man with courage makes a majority."
— Andrew Jackson

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:51:00 PM
One man's hero is another man's chump.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:45:00 PM
True Rholmgren.
You have provided us with the best example of hero worship since Barney and Fred.Kelly is clearly the man you adore. Your hero.
Good lord, man.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:08:00 PM
9:54,
What does it say about the man....that he knows the difference between the truth and a lie.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:10:00 PM
LOL Rholmgren,
Your hero is a chump!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:11:00 PM
If you knew who my heros were Jeff you would probably not think that they were chumps. My heros are not in politics. Jeff how come the anti war movement can't stage a decent protest? I have seen a handful of people at he Temecula Duck pond. I have seen the latest Cindy Sheehan forays to Washington. Most news stations showed tight camera shots. Other stations showed some wide angle shots and there were only a few hundred people present. And I am being generous. If the anti war movement is so popular then where are the throngs of protesters? It would impress me and cause me concern if thousands or at least tens of thousands gathered somewhere in protest. I have concluded that the anti war movement is a very hollow movement. It brings to mind an image of a man with a megaphone screaming in the center of an empty stadium while news cameras focus in tightly on him. The media is basically covering non events and trying to portray them as being important news. The Cindy Sheehan movement was faux news.
God must be angry at Bush. It looks like Rita may wreak more havoc on New Orleans. Bad news is good news for the Democrats. Democrats never benefit from good news. The Dems are probably huddled together right now strategizing on ways to impeach Bush for causing Rita.
All of you other ((im)posters who are try to lump me together with K.S. are so far off. I have never ever communicated with him. It may surprise all of you anons that there are many like minded people here in Murrieta. Some of them have posted here but were verbally bullied by all of the Ed and Jeff wannabees.
Gary Bryant has been busy lately. It sure is interesting to see the clients he represents and the issues his clients are in court for. Tell me this guy doesn't have an ax to grind!

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:01:00 PM
How much support money do you think Seyarto and McAlister earned from Alexander Communities? Another 10K or is it more? Do any of you see this. Seyarto and McAlister NEVER EVER side for the community but always for the Developer. The developer always wins here. So from now on, if a developer doesn't like a decision here, he sues the Councilmen and they withdraw and they know they still have Seyarto and McAlister on the payroll and it still is a slam dunk. These two Councilmen along with the master puppeteer Van Haaster, we will continue to lose as a community. These developers know exactly how to manipulate the system and always know that they have these two bought and paid for. It's a shame and we have to stand up and stop this. They are scheming and planning behind the curtain. Are we all that blind? Seyarto is always saying the future will tell us, yet our future is now. We are selling out the future of this town. I'm not negative, just realistic. If you can't see the unethical behavior in what happened with the settlement of this lawsuit backed by our two Councilmen who were not personally named in the lawsuit.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:07:00 PM
There is no force large enough in this community to stop the developers from getting van Haaster back into office.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:36:00 PM
Rholmgren said, "It would impress me and cause me concern if thousands or at least tens of thousands gathered somewhere in protest." We shall see what we shall see. This isn't the Vietnam protests that you have read about when it comes to anti-war protests. If we had a draft in this country it would be. But boys aren't forced to enlist, they do it now because it is in their heart. Some people such as Rholmgren have no clue. What do we expect to be a happy ending to this war? Do we expect to have a new ally. Do we expect to get discounted oil? Do we expect the country of Iraq to be a mini-America. What is a good outcome here? Do we expect a purely Democratic governemnt where freedom rings? Is that now why our boys continue to die every day? Well if all or any of the above are what you expect and what you think is worth the blood of our servicemen and the cost in your tax dollars you will be sadly mistaken. The end will not be any of the above. What we will end up seeing most likely is a carbon copy of Iran. Yes, we may get a 20 year lease to place a military base in Iraq. Yes, we may get more oil, for a time, but was it worth the projected 3000 dead and 25000 wounded? Or the Trillion dollars? We have problems here in our homeland that need addressing. We have safety issues here that need fixed, yet we are off making the oil companies and military contractors rich. They will be the true benefaciaries of this war. And what industry do our leaders come from and are still financially tied to? Guess? But the war mongers and chicken hawks will send our boys to war and scare the public with threats of safety and terror so that we will sit back and let it happen. This war is not about terror. It is about oil. Thats the bottom line. Yes, terrorists have flocked to Iraq because they can have a free shot at killing an American. They weren't there in training camps but have come only because we are there. Bush will say 9-11 when talking about the war in Iraq but the only connection is that the people involved are Islamic. That is the only connection. It would be like the world blaming us if France attacked Iraq because we are a Christian nation.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 6:26:00 AM
Rholmgren,
God isn't planning to pay anyone back with Hurricanes no matter how conservatives want to frame this. It's not because of Mardi Gras. Our homosexuality or that we are at war.
It's because the Gulf waters are so warm and the storms are feeding off them. Bush has burned himself, because his attention is not on the citizens of America but on his ideology. It's not on the poor. Its not on the aging. Its on what he can do to advance his friends and fellow neo-cons. God is not involved with the weather except that he warned us that hurricanes and earhtquakes would be the signs at the end of this system of things.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 6:30:00 AM
The only connection Rholmgren that you have with Seyarto is your ideology. You have no monetary stake in Developers making more money then they need to as Seyarto has. It only strengthens your conservative agendas. Like I asked before, you want the low income families to have the same chance in buying homes through building more low income apartments but your not for low-income federal loans....go figure.

And when did I bully anyone and call them names??? Thats a conservative agenda and thats what makes you feel good. I dont have to call names....I just use logic.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 6:34:00 AM
The developers will use lawyers with suponeas in the same way organized crime uses thugs with guns to force its will upon this town.
They will win. You can not stop them. You'll all be better off if you just accept reality.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 6:55:00 AM
Jeff I never said I was against low income federal loans. There you go again. Get your facts straight! Find the post where I said it and I will stand corrected. You have your ideology Jeff and I have mine. And please do not say that you do not have one when you obviously do. And again Jeff I never said that you bullied any posters. I said the Jeff and Ed wannabes did. In case you still don't get it that means someone else. Jeff you are so used to twisting the truth in your own posts that you are spreading the disease to my posts. Stop it.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 8:52:00 AM
Murrieta City Council:
Surrender quietly before we open up with a full scale assault designed to confuse and scare you out of your thin skins.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Love,
The Apartment Developers of Murrieta

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 9:19:00 AM
Hi,
I have been reading the entries on this web site for many months. I have to say a big mistake is being made when it comes to who is to blame for the developer influence in this town. The politicians are to blame, but they are not the biggest problem. This city government, those hired and working every day at city hall, are the ones whose living depends on the developers. A big part of the city work force exists solely as a result of the development effort. Planners, inspectors and many, many more. Developers know that the more of these people there are at city hall, the more the government will support development. It is a viscious circle. The city manager and all of the assistant managers in this town are actually like paid politicians. Very highly paid politicians. They are influencing the Council and the Planning Commission in ways unseen. This is no big secret, but it is not said very often. It is the elephant in the room that no one mentions. I once worked in a bureaucratic setting and have seen enough of what goes on. If you want to see where some of this town's problems are coming from, turn some of your focus to the workaday world at Murrieta City Hall.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 9:38:00 AM
Someone in our coffee shop group made a joke about a council man being on "the take". I wont dignify the bad joke by saying who they were talking about. I do not think anyone in the council is on "the take". They would have to be very stupid, and they are not. If there is no 100% sure reason for someone to make that kind of acusation they should keep their personal opinions to themselves.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 11:22:00 AM
11:22,
Being "on the take" can mean many things. Your vote can be bought with the promise of campaign support. So....let me see.....500K and then I vote in favor of every developer issue.....what does that say to you.....nothing??? In the world of discussing we only have to be pretty sure, as this isn't a court room. Knowing that they are not unless you are 100% sure is making the same mistake in the opposite direction....unless you are married to one of them????????
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 1:34:00 PM
9:38,
Are you the same person that mentioned about the future apartment plans that were viewed while in the planning office. If so I would love you to interject more often. Your point is very well taken and needs some attention.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 1:36:00 PM
I was 9:38. My knowledge is kind of general about the way these kind of town-sized bureaucratic organizations work. They start building up staffs and they need more and more projects and building fees to survive and grow it gets out of hand. City management leaders and their staffs sometimes end up with huge incomes and power. Some city staffers end up with such close ties to the construction world that they have special say with the political leaders and it all comes back to the financial power in that construction,developer, world. Not usually, hardly ever, bribes and that sort of illegal thing, but still money has a way of talking. A very complicated web of relationships can start to form in any organization when fast growth and lots of money is involved. What people sometimes do not look at is what happens to political leaders when they leave office. Lots of so called consulting jobs which are retirement gravy work for some old, and some not too old, former civic leaders. They don't get much pay now and may even lose a few dollars in the short run but it can come back in long term aces. And it happens with people in jobs such as planning and public works. Development company owners have enough money to be happy to pay former city officials as consultants and still get the benefit of the inside connections their companies need. Even if legal it still is at public expense in one way or another. I think a code of ethics should include binding agreements against any such consulting income in whatever form it could take. That is important but my real big concern is that someone needs to get the big time construction project bureaucracy under control at the city offices. It could be that a group bureaucrats, with power unknown to the public, may now be running the show and getting way out of control. May, I said, but in truth I think in Murrieta it is more certain than that.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 3:33:00 PM
3:33,
That is exactly how I feel about the unethical behavior. I don't think that these Councilmen are getting big money right now, but in the future there can be big time perks, after all is said and done. Now when I say they are not getting handed cash, that doesn't mean small things aren't happening behind closed doors. What I think though now is that Kelly and Little Mac don't have to pay a dime for their campaigns. They are fully financed by these outsides interests and it dwarfes what anyone else can personally raise or fund themselves.
Great comments!!!
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 4:49:00 PM
Rholmgren,
Well I have asked you many times and Ive gotten no answer, and in your post you didnt say you are for them. Are you or arent you? If a wannabee is like me and they are a bully, to copy me, I would have to be a bully. So you did call me one but only in a round about twisted way.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 4:52:00 PM
Jeff I think the poster is referring to a captured beauracracy. The relationship between government and those served becomes so interdependent that government workers want to maintain or expand a need in order to justify their existance. For every one dollar spent in a Welfare program it takes seventy eight cents to administer the program. Fewer Welfare recipients would threaten those employed at the welfare offices,so it is in the Welfare worker's best interest to promote and expand Welfare and therefore guarantee Welfare worker employment. Why do you think it is so hard to end a government program after it has started? Now that Murrieta has staffed itself the way it has all of those city employees are going to do exactly what the Welfare employees do. Promote and expand to guarantee their employment. Why do you think I am a Conservative? I want smaller government with less staffing so that these kinds of interdependent relationships can be limited. It may seem like this stance conflicts with my pro development views but nothing is perfect is it.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 5:18:00 PM
Well, we finally agree on something. I am all for less government and like I said before, on some hot buttons I may appear completely on the other side of you ideology but I don't defend or protect any politician or their ideology. I dislike Tom Delay as much as Ted Kennedy, but each has some things I agree with. I defend no side. Liek Ive said in past posts, I like John McCain. He appears honest and to me thats half the battle. I can believe in someone that is above board. I would expect you to argue if I said the name Tom DeLay or Bill Frist today that they are stellar characters when they are not as is being proved out today. But their sins are as bad as Clinton lying to the American people. So I chose what I feel, not what I'm told to do. If I think something will hurt this city I also say it and if someone is caught with their pants down, I want them out. If they appear from behind a building pulling their pants up, I feel that something just happened. I can always be wrong but the chances are slim. I will take my gut feeling most of the time. Van Haaster tried to use the system to his advantage and got caught. Seyarto and McAlister are using the system still, and know the tricks, but one day even the smartest ones get caught. Look at DeLay, Frist and Rove. If youre honest people don't attack you. When youre dishonest you hear alot of yelling. It's not just me yelling at Seyarto....many people feel that way. Like I said, this Councilman almost got voted out and replaced by a trainee.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 6:16:00 PM
I like Rove and Frist but I do not like Delay. Kennedy to me is so far out of sinc with reality that he should retire. I think the Frist allegations are pretty shaky. Maybe he did know something about the stock before it went down. I have sold stock based on someone's opinion within a company before and should I be indicted for unethical behavior? We all have our sources and reasons for taking actions and just because he made a wise choice does not make him a criminal. I heard Mrs Clinton say that she would not vote for Roberts because she was too vague with his answers. This is the same woman who could not remember anything of importance when questioed by a grand jury a few years ago. She repeatedly was quoted as saying "I don't recall." What a hypocrite. Jeff I do see a slight conflict with your last post and other past posts. If you are for less government than why are you upset at all the percieved cuts, or true cuts, that Bush has made in his budgets.I wish the guy would cut everything non military 25% across the board. I think there is at least that much wasted spending.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 7:34:00 PM
Rholmgren,
We had a 5 trillion dollar surplus in 2000. Where did it go? Bush's cuts have gone into the pockets of the wealthy and you know it. Yes, cut government but don't give it to the rich. Give it to the people that need it. We have always had the best military in the world. Spending more and more does what? How many times over do you want to capable of blowing up the world. What nation is going to attack us. If we want to be safer, stop buying tanks and start putting the money into stopping crime in our cities and improve intelligence.

Frist's brother is the biggest stockholder of that company. And you are telling me he didn't have insider information and knew exactly what the quarterly reports said? And you want Martha Stewart in jail because of 300K. Frist should be hung by his feet and put in jail for years. He didn't sell this stock during times, when that company went up and down, but it never had lost this much in earnings. He found out and sold. He's another crook and like Martha should rot with Delay and Rove. They are all power hungry and they end up in the same place in the end. See that Kelly?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 8:52:00 PM
I think the Martha Stewart thing was way over blown. It is almost comical that she ends up in jail and guys like O.J. and Robert Blake are running around free. I do not know where you got the 5 trillion number from. I remember people were projecting the surplus out ten and twenty years but to me that is almost as realistic as trying to project out my own salary over a ten or twenty year period. Do you think you could accurately project out your companie's revenues that way? I think those projections were as pie in the sky as the projections in the '80's of never ending deficits. You and I look at money differently. How does government give money to the rich? If we are middle class or rich we pay higher taxes but the money belongs to US first. We PAY taxes to the government. If you get a return you are recieving what was rightfully earned by you in the first place. As far as giving money to the people who need it; that is subjective. Who should decide who needs the money more? I certainly do not want the government taking more money from me to give to somone else that government decides needs it more. I am totally against the Socialistic idea of wealth redistribution. Think about it. Why should I contribute to the welfare checks of under aged girls who could not keep their legs closed and had a child(ren). Why should I contribute to a disability check being given to a lifetime alcohol or drug abuser. Why is it my responsibility to help pay the rent of someone who decided to drop out of High School and now can't do any better than a minimum wage job? I have no problem helping those who are truly disabled by afflictions not caused by abusing themselves. I also believe in giving those that want to help themselves a chance. As I see it today though the demands for social spending are an endless black hole. Today Louisiana asked the Feds for 250 billion MORE dollars to basically pay for every type of damage caused by Katrina. That includes paying off peoples mortgages. I will call it the wish list from hell. Where do you draw the line? How much of the damage should shouldered by the people who CHOSE to live in that area? How much should be shouldered by private insurance? I think that a portion of the reconstruction should be paid for privately. I do not think that it is government's role to pay for everything that gets destroyed by a natural disaster.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 23, 2005 10:02:00 PM
Rholmgren,
The surplus, and yes it was 5 trillion in 2000 when Bush took office was spent before we invaded Iraq. So had Bush not given the tax breaks to the rich and to corporations we might have money in the bank. But he gave it away. He has increased government spending. He has gotten us into a war we can't pay for and now how many natural disasters are coming with more global warming. Hey does that Rep from the Insider want to write another article about global warming?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:48:00 AM
Oh Rholmgren,
Youre right about the reasons that we are in a mess but not helping would turn us into a third world country. You will never get rid of the poor and indigent. You will never get rid of the criminals and lazy. It's the way it is....unless you kill them all? So if you don't provide for them, you turn into a country of extremely wealthy and extremely poor homeless. What do you want? You can have it as it is today, with more and more pushed to the middle or have the ends massing into groups. Segregated cities where the Lords and the serfs live. In that society, you and I the middle class head toward the bottom as the rich get richer. Crime would increase ten fold. You may not want to pay for the poor, but in essense it's all you can do.
So conservatives talk a big game but changing this system will never happen unless you........shoot them all.....isn't that why conservatives want guns? So when the time comes they can just take whatever they want? LOL. There is no politician that will ever get elected on a plan to end social programs. There is no politician liberal or conservative that will ever stop illegal immigration. There are ones that want to protect the people and the other side wants to protect the corporations that use them.
So all these poor people should give what when there homes are flooded.......I think since they have nothing they should come live by your house.
If we have a earthquake and it destroys everything you and your family have....what are you going to do? Where are you going to eat? Sleep? I'm not talking about your neighborhood, but Southern California? You can't drive anywhere the roads are gone. No electricity. The only way you get help is the Federal government...LOL...you talk a great game but you have no solutions.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:00:00 AM
OK Kelly,
Now is the time to put the money where your mouth is. The City of Murrieta has built a foundation to help different areas of our City structure. It is going to be built through donations. I ask that every Councilmen in this City ask each corporate support group to donate to this foundation instead of their re-election. Not also donating, but fully and completely into this foundation. Say that you won't except their support, but want it to go there instead. OK....lets see who gets in line to do this. Kelly and McAlister should be first in line and the donations from there support groups should easily pay for everything we need in this town.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:04:00 AM
Hey Rholmgren,
How many protesters of the war was it that you said you'd be worried about? I think we are about to see another flip flop here by a conservative on what numbers it will take to make him think America is getting it's fill of body bags for oil.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:57:00 AM
Jeff where was the 5 trillion spent before Iraq? How can the government give money away to the rich. They earned it and it was theirs first. If you want business to expand lower taxes. Make the pie bigger. The rich and well to do middle class got to where they are by saving and investing. A dollar invested in the private sector creates $64 due to the wealth effect. A dollar that goes to government is a dollar flushed down the welfare toilet. As for your war protest: Go put on the song "The Freaks Come Out At Night" and turn down the T.V. and enjoy the WACKO SHOW. Do you think those people represent main stream America? Oh come on! As for the poor Jeff we have spent 6 trillion on the poor since '65 and the problems of the poor have NOT improved. Do you think that maybe the issue is more of a cultural and responsibility problem than a money issue? Do you think the poor would be better off if we had spent 12 trillion instead? Hell the poor would be down right rich if we had spent 24 trillion instead right? How about the minimum wage. Forget about raising it to 10 dollars an hour. Let's end the problem of the working poor once and for all and make the minimum wage $40 an hour. That should do it right? Let's expand the food stamp program and give that benefit to the 90% of Americans who are not rich. I have an idea. We should build a government funded house for every poor person. They deserve to have a house like everyone else. Oh we should also buy a car for every poor person. We could then guarantee that during a Katrina like evacuation everyone would have a car to get out of town. No Jeff I take back all of those ideas. Just send every poor person a $5000 check every month that will end poverty for sure.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 24, 2005 5:05:00 PM
Rhomgren,
President Bush needs you. OK......you saw 100,000 march against your war....didnt you say that youd think about it if there were tens of thousands........YOU DIDNT MEAN THAT DID YOU?

You know what you say is mostly meaningless. You have no answers....you say....nothing.
All I know is that no one is trying to change this socialistic system except you.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 24, 2005 5:51:00 PM
Jeff I read an editorial in the Californian this morning by Star Parker. She had some interesting numbers to throw out. 7 trillion spent on the war on poverty up to now. She also did some math. We spend 500 billion a year on 80 poverty programs. There are 37 million people that the census bureau say live in poverty. Divide the two numbers and that comes out to $13500 per person spent on the poor. I will take that one step futher than the article. Take the $13500 and subtract out the 78% administrative cost. Now each poor person actually recieves $2970 in benefits. The question really is how much more than 500 billion a year do we have to spend to really make a difference? If we spend three times more(1.5 trillion) then the direct benefit will average $8910. Can you see that in order to raise the benefit level to the point where poverty does not exist that you would have to bankrupt the country? By the way Jeff there are tons of people who want to change our socialistc system. You just choose not to listen to or read about them. Also Jeff look at the pictures of the protesters. Are they mainstream? Most of the protesters look like idealistic college students. I was one of those once. I am sure glad I grew older and wiser.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:46:00 AM
Rholmgren,
Just one question. If we spent zero dollars on the poor, where would we be. They would be clawing at your door like the movie dawn of the dead for what you have. One way or another they would get it. I'll take the peaceful way. But it would make for target practice for your AK47.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 26, 2005 6:19:00 PM
Well Jeff good intentions do not solve problems and the issues with the poor cannot be solved by throwing more money at them. Their needs are endless. I heard the satisfation arguement in college and to me it meant dooming a group to being worthless. So is that it Jeff. Welfare to you is a payoff to the poor so that they will have a meager level of satisfation and leave the rest of us alone? How compassionate of you.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 26, 2005 9:07:00 PM

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

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

ETHICS

63 Comments:

About

About Me

Links

About Me

Previous