MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.: Old Town association?

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Old Town association?

Maybe Old Town Murrieta should form an association, but Rex and the CofC should not be a part of it, not even in formation. These Old Town business owners are finally recovering from a lean year, so naturally we should sock them with association dues. It's just our way of saying Danke.

Another question: Why must Murrieta always exactly copy Temecula? As I've said in other posts, Murrieta as a unique town with its own personality. So what comes next, are we going to pretend we have wineries?

158 Comments:

You can't prohibit anyone from posting political signs anywhere in town, so that's the only reason the CofC should be in Old Town, just to spread their political views, because that's all they really are in this town is a political action committee for Seyarto, Vanhaster, and little Mac.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:04:00 AM
The chamber has ignored old town over the years. So now that it's been given a pretty face the chamber wants to come calling with cash in hand?

Any business that opens its doors to the chamber under these circumstances would have to be owned by a member of the world's oldest profession.

Cant wait to see who they are.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:24:00 AM
You all have just gotta be kidding. The Murrieta C of C will wanna be paid for their services. Those people think theyre Gods gift to business and politics. In reality theyve got the political instincts of a cow and just about as much class.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:52:00 AM
To ?:
I'm new in town & will (I think) be locating a business here. What the heck is going on with the Chamber in this town? I've never even heard of so much controversy going on over a Chamber of Commerce.
Sign me: Newbie

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 4:55:00 PM
Dear 9:24: (Who I know, but will not identify as a professional courtesy, and who is also known on this blog website as "Been There")
The Chamber of Commerce in Murrieta has performed an important service over the years. The people who run this Chamber have political leanings, it is true. Whether they should express those leanings through the official office of the Chamber is a legitimate subject of debate.
However... Regardless of how you feel about the Chamber being political, the Chamber is still vital to the community. (And yet, I myself do not like the politicing by the Chamber, which seems so unprofessional.)
As a business professional, and a person who has represented the real estate interests of some great local businesspeople, I have to say that Murrieta will benefit by a strongly supported Chamber. To punish the Chamber is to punish a large part of the business community in town, and the innocent business owners don't deserve that.
I for one would like to hear ideas put forth that would help heal the awful wound that has existed in this town since the election. Especially as regards the Chamber, which is supposed to be there to help our businesses, and as a result help all of us in town.
I have no political ax to grind in any corner. Just want to see the community growing stronger and more harmonious.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:47:00 PM
JLM, I don't know who you think I am, but you've got me wrong. You definitely do not know me.
Been There

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:06:00 PM
JLM, you've got to be kidding about the Chamber. It is the shadow government of Murrieta. It is an arm of the County Republican machine and is dominated by area based (as opposed to Murrieta based) real estate and financial interests.

The fact that some City Council members and highly placed City staff (our City Manager) are members makes the circle unbroken.

The Chamber supported Dan Stevenson and his developer minions in opposing the will of Murrietans with his totally over-the-top political slush fund collections. The Chamber does not support the truth about what has happened and is happening in Murrieta. The Chamber is mainly interested in quickly developing the big businesses based elsewhere so they can pull there profits out of this City.

The Chamber is not concerned about the gridlocked streets, the over crowded schools, the missing parks, the substandard City services. They don't care.

The fact that they voted Dan Stevenson as their "Citizen of the year" shows their real contempt for the average resident.

The Chamber is despised by many residents. As long as it is run by Rex and dominated by Stevenson and the other real estate and financial interests, it cannot be trusted by any thinking Murrietan.

In fact, look around Riverside County and you will see that the Chamber model which we see here prevails elsewhere. Supervisor Jeff Stone is trying to get his own Chamber started in the Hemet area because he understands how the Chamber organization can be used to take over the political processes of the area.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:50:00 PM
JLM, on further reflection, the problem with the Murrieta Chamber is but a microcosm of the political malaise in our entire country. Ever since businesses got the right to make political contributions, they have pushed individuals out of the picture. To a business, a political contribution is just another “cost of doing business.” It is a cost which can be factored in and regained. The professional politicians know that if they sell out to the businesses, there will always be plenty of money to support them. The citizens, o them, to hell with them they don’t produce enough money.

If we want to gain ground on the incredible incompetence, stupidity and downright contrariness of our elected officials, we citizens must stop the flow of money from businesses to politicians. If we do not, then what we see around us is our destiny.

At the national level, the politicians have given the store away to the wealthy, they have no energy policy designed to protect the average citizen from the shock of depleted oil, they have handed FEMA over to their political patronage cronies who are incompetent to plan for our safety, and they refuse to protect our borders against an invasion of illegal alien entries.

At the State Level, the same decimation of social programs occurs which makes the lives of average citizens very difficult. For example, Regan’s emptying out of the mental institutions leaving many to become our homeless problem. The incarceration of enormous numbers of citizens at a annual cost that exceeds an Ivy League collegiate education. A constant bickering between the two major political parties (because they both want the security that the business donations will give the) so that California residents must use the Initiative process to try to get “something done” about critical problems.

At the local level, the want-a-be professional politicians are hard at work trying to convince the developers and related businesses that they can be trusted to deliver. That is why our own Councilman McAllister announced that he has become a developer consultant.

The tactics and businesses which support this business agenda to simply take over all politics has gravitated from the National scene down to the local level. The best example was Dan Stevenson’s hiring of the Sacramento based republican spin machine to use its tactics honed in National and State elections to oppose the recall in Murrieta.

It may be too late to save our political system. Certainly, if citizens are not roused to see what’s happening to them at every level. We have met the enemy and it is essentially our business community. Committed to a “bottom line” analysis of every political issue even though there are many issues which must be dealt with in the public arena which cannot have a “bottom line” value affixed, e.g., the duty of FEMA to prepare and be prepared for natural disasters.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:29:00 PM
Way to go Ed!!!!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:13:00 PM
Mr. Faunce,
I agree whole heartedly that a Chamber of Commerce has no business being abused; and it is being absolutely abused when its primary function becomes that of a political base for any person, group or party. When I say that "the innocent business people don't deserve to be punished", I refer to the business owners throughout the community who, in many cases, are somewhat forced for practical business reasons to join a Chamber in this or any other American town. When I say that the Chamber has performed an important function over the years, I am absolutely not referring to the hidden function of this particular Chamber, but rather to the basic business promotion function that Chambers perform in our region and throughout the nation. The fact that our Chamber has a very unfortunate political bias has not entirely handicapped its effectiveness as a business promoter. In my business, which is the more local flavor of commercial real estate, I am an eternal optomist. Just as people do with other political problems, I believe we can look beyond the current situation, and see the Chamber in a new light. It is I admit a vision based on hope and faith that the Chamber, through its voting members, will cut the political root and get strictly down to business. As a businessman, I recognize the importance of this matter.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:31:00 AM
Mr. Faunce,
One more thing. You used your blog entries as a dumping ground for a whole lot of political thought which departed from the subject at hand. I would like to be able to agree with you on a subject like the Chamber without making it sound as though I agree with an entire political agenda. I am not a politician, and do not want to get into political philosophy.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:57:00 AM
"Been There",
Sorry 'bout that. I do know who 9:24 was, but I used the wrong blog tag in referring to him. I know you only from your posts, but at least to that degree I can say I do know you.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:24:00 PM
JLM,
Tell me the resident, why I should support businesses that belong to the C of C, when they don't have a agenda I support? If they are just a different faction of the developers but still part of the overall scheme of things along with the City Manager and the three stooges, why should my money be spent on business here, when my money can be spent elsewhere as my choices are endless? Why don't the local businesses stand up to the political ambitions of their own organization? I believe that a large portion of Murrieta gave a strong indication to the politicians and businesses of Murrieta last election. The next election, maybe some of the fence sitters will have seen that fearing, the changing of councilmen didn't destroy our community. Ed is right in most of his reasoning about the direction of government on a local and nationwide level. Strong arm tactics and misleading the voter has led us to where we as residents and citizens. We need to look to a different direction as this one isn't working. Part of that direction is not supporting the big business if it supports big money. Big Money has a big appetite and rarely throws money to our benefit.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:52:00 PM
I wonder where ourCouncilmen Seyarto went on all our posts. Seems to me that he said quite a bit and said some things that were unethical. But maybe by stirring up things the way he did, the developers caught wind of my calling out the Van Haaster agenda and told him to shut up. They may not want the average resident thinking they have had an agenda planned since the recall election. Just a thought.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:56:00 PM
Mr Faunce that was a nice left wing diatribe for a man who at one time denied being an Orange County liberal.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:56:00 PM
Jeff, I fully agree that if you do not like the political nature of the Chamber that you should shop elsewhere. In the world of business, dollars are votes. I personally would like to see the Chamber devoted purely to the job of promoting the ethical businesses of our community, standing distinctly apart from political agendas. If everyone (or even just a good portion of the residents) in the community made it known loud and clear to the business owners that political bias is bad for business, the business owners will in turn vote for a non-political Chamber. It is really as simple as that. And there is no substitute entity out there that is readily available to take the Chamber's place. Could be done, is possible of course, but highly unlikely to happen in most communities. Most businesspeople have their hands full just trying to make ends meet in a very competitive world. Let them know what you, the customer, really want. You are their bread and butter. They will listen.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:00:00 PM
I have always endorsed the idea of a competing chamber. Why complain about the existing chamber. If you do not like it form another and compete.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:03:00 PM
To JLM, the business community has already missed out because there was a move to begin to develop a "Buy Murrieta" program among the same group of residents who became Rescue Murrieta. However, once the Chamber flew its true colors, the idea was abandoned.

Murrietans really do want to support the quality businesses in their own community.

Edward Faunce

PS Yes, Rholmgren, your simple minded left vs. right analysis was duly noted. However, there was no "beef" so there is nothing to which to respond. So boring . . . .

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:14:00 PM
Sorry Mr Faunce for the boring and simple minded but true analysis of your post. I felt no need to go any further because your own post exposed your own hypocracy.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 8:05:00 AM
Mr Faunce,
I am a businessman who for practical business reasons must remain neutral for the sake of my particular customer base. I am not a general, and this is not my war. But I know for a fact that a politically bias in a Chamber of Commerce is an infection which drains the essential energies out of a Chamber, and turns a Chamber into little more than a political tool. In the short run, it might seem OK, but in the long run the bitterness and acrimony which results from the divisive nature of the organization can do far more harm than good.
Very frankly, I do not like to go near the politics of either yourself; or Seyarto, VanHaaster, McAllister. The idealism that dominates the minds of all of you results in a never ending public circus.
It is a politically neutral position to want the insidious nature of politics removed from the local Chamber of Commerce. The role of the Chamber should be above politics, and should purely be to promote the ethical businesses of this community. Anyone who can move toward that goal will have the support of myself and many others. But anyone who tries to dislodge one political agenda only to replace it with another will fail and will earn nothing but distain for their efforts.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 8:25:00 AM
Good post JLM. It concerns me greatly that this community is growing more polarized and that organizations that should be neutral for the sake of promoting community business are involving themselves in a public political arena that they should stay out of.In my business I never ever discuss politics with clients. It is business and social small talk only. It is basic business 101 and maybe the chamber needs to practice keeping out of public politics.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 9:02:00 AM
To JLM,
I agree with most all you say, making very good points about what the consumer should do with his spending dollars. You know we will see another run by Van Haaster in the near future or someone else designated by the Developers to push their agenda on the City Council. So this Chamber of Commerce and City Council will never end the political agenda until delevopment ends or slows here in Murrieta and the developers will pull up stakes and move on. How they leave our community doesn't matter, as long as they have filled their pockets. I think also that the strong handed politics here will then subside to things like road improvements and crossing guards. But until then, we the residents have a chance to guide our direction and what happens here. I assume that everyone contributing here, left or right, cares one way or another. It is the politicians that in some way benefit from the developers that bothers me. That's why I post here. I can argue any day with Rholmgren about the war and gas prices but what matters to me are what will fill our empty lots and how wide our streets are. We have been taken advantage of until now. Look and drive the streets. I see some good improvements but I see new development that downright stinks. I still see streets running through our small old town and just West of Businesses that have running water and potholes blocking them. They just don't get fixed. We have the ability with incredible weather here to complete projects in a very short time. We don't have the snows and cold of the North and East, yet their constructions projects last for shorter time periods then ours. When are we going to see this, and blame the City Council that has been in place for the years preceeding this recall election? They still want power and we will be stuck in a community that had good ideas, but just didn't get it right.

As for political agendas, agree or not agreeing with one or another, if we allow big business (developers) to manipulate us, they will leave us incomplete and wanting. It seems more that we work for them instead of them doing everything we want. We need to hold out for the best deal in development, not the one that puts power and money(?) into the pockets of our politicians. We need the right support group (such as the C of C), to help watch our back, not to watch the back of the developers.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 12:54:00 PM
To JLM, you said:
“It is a politically neutral position to want the insidious nature of politics removed from the local Chamber of Commerce.”

Actually, such a position is more naive than politically neutral. By doing nothing, you become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Eternal vigilance is the price of many commodities in a democratic republic.

You then said: The role of the Chamber should be above politics, and should purely be to promote the ethical businesses of this community. Anyone who can move toward that goal will have the support of myself and many others.”

Well Rescue Murrieta tried hard to get the Chamber out of the political arena. Did you support us? We argued to the City Council that it should not be giving the Chamber an annual stipend. Did you support us in that argument? We complained that many of the Chamber’s leaders did not live in Murrieta and represented area businesses rather than Murrieta businesses. Did you stand up and give us your support?

What I find disturbing about your post is how you claim to support those who tried to take the Chamber out of the political arena, yet you demean and distain those who had the temerity to stand up and do what you would not do for yourself. For example, you said: “. . . I do not like to go near the politics of either yourself [referring to Faunce]; . . .” What politics? I am not a politician. I did not run for office.

You ended your refrain saying: “But anyone who tries to dislodge one political agenda only to replace it with another will fail and will earn nothing but distain for their efforts.”

You, I’m afraid, are doomed to always be sitting on the sideline cowering at the thought of getting your pinkies soiled by political fights. The effort to dislodge a political agenda which pits a combination of developers, real estate and financial institutions, joined at the voting finger with a City Council block is what is going on in this City. The effort to replace that political agenda with a political agenda that kept the “old boys” out of the City Council’s back room should never be disdained. Unless, of course, you’re one of the “good ole boys” - which it doesn’t sound like you are.

Edward Faunce

PS Rholmgren “true analysis”? What analysis? Left, right, left, right. Sounds like you should sign up for a marching band. At least you could keep on the appropriate foot. But analysis? Sorry, you get a zero.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 4:07:00 PM
EF's response to JLM sounds like PMS. Not a politician, EF? Then what are we to make of all the political pontification? What daffy definition would make an EF anything other than a politician? Does one have to run for office to be a politician? Actually, no. And yet EF, though fit to be tied in his last entry, made several interesting points. Indeed, where was JLM during the bloody battles of the last campaign?

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 6:00:00 PM
Ed Faunce JLM is involved but does look at things differently than most. I have no problem with most of the Chamber's dealings. I only disagree with them taking a public stance on political issues. I would have no problem though if they chose to do do their politicing privately behind closed doors. I actually find the Chamber issue to be old news. It really doesn't motivate me to debate. I also do not throw in the left vs right arguement unless there is a point to make. As far as the Chamber is concerned left vs. right really has no relevancy. And Mr. Faunce I really do not give a rat's arse whether my posts impress you or not. To me your opinion is meaningless. Mr. Faunce your replies indicate that my short "zero" posts hit closer to the bulls eye than you would have liked. I also find it to be absurd that Rmers still think that they are so right and have a majority of the Murrieta Communities support. The recall election proved we are, or were, very evenly split. Hopefully in the next election cycle not so many people will buy into the same RM "the sky is falling" mentality.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 6:55:00 PM
6:00 is right. A "politician" is most generally defined as anyone who is actively involved in affairs of government. Mr. Faunce fits that definition squarely.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 7:11:00 PM
7:11, I am "6:00", and I just caught your response. Indeed I am right, but I do not agree with your definition. Most authoritative sources - including some but not all dictionaries - would include a reference to elections when defining anything to do with politics or politicians. There is, in any case, no requirement that one be an actual candidate for office to be considered a politician. In any case, there is no doubt that EF is a "politician" by any reasonable definition of the word.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 7:23:00 PM
EF,
Another great response to what needs to still be fixed in our community. We need to rid the blood suckers who come into our community, as the non-Murrieta members of the C of C.

6:00,
Maybe EF should be a politician, most of what he says rings true.

And EF,
Rholmgren doesn't have any "true analysis". He does the right-wing argument. Attack the person because they can't argue the facts. Go back through his hundred posts and you will find example after example of his attacks on the person making the comment. Not examples of him stating his argument. He has good mentors, the last example are the personal attacks by all the right-wing media on the state and local politicians in New Orleans. It's what Bush, Cheney, Rumshead and Rove do best. Issue personal attack talking points for Rush, O'Reily and Hannity. Rholmgren doesn't know any different. He's been schooled by the best and doesn't have different ideas then what's been taught by them.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 7:25:00 PM
Why on earth does anyone care whether or not Ed Faunse is a politician?

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 7:35:00 PM
A politician undertakes the vocation of politicking (or potlicking) for money.

A bureaucrat values the public monies without the uncomfortableness of having to run for election and justify the public trust at election time.

What America (Murrieta is part of America) needs are Statesmen.

If the CofC wants to be political, then they need to have their public dole cut off. Perhaps the mere threat of this might get them to shut up.

By J. L. Kunkle, at Friday, September 09, 2005 11:23:00 PM
11:23 - Money is not a requirement in the definition of politician. There are many elected posts and community leadership positions which are filled by people who are merely fulfilling ego or so-called self-realization (aka ego) needs. Rarely (and I believe never yet in Murrieta) does a politician come along who is interested purely in the good of his or her community.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 7:07:00 AM
OK, let's assume just for the sake of arguement that Ed Faunce is a politician by some definition. So far, at least two identified politicians have run from this blog with their tails between their legs after being scolded or criticized. Ed Faunce has taken heat, but has not run away. He's still "in the kitchen". If he is a politician, he's got what it takes. Hang in there, Ed. This town needs you.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 7:52:00 AM
The term "politician" implies a vocation, just like the term "technician", this infers monetary compensation for services rendered. Are you trying to say that professional politicians work for free? In case you hadn't noticed, our illustrious city council has recently voted themselves a pay raise, sort of an attaboy I guess for surviving the recall. It is to be noted that Kelly Seyarto voted 1 to 4 against it.

It has already been established elsewhere in this blog that recompensation for political service is not only in the form of a city check, political influence is also a valuable coinage.

By J. L. Kunkle, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:51:00 AM
This town needs Ed Faunce the same way that the civil war south needed carpet baggers at the end of that war. He has helped bring a more sophisticted poisoning of our local politics. Thanks Mr Faunce.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 9:05:00 AM
First, Rholmgren, I am not a carpet bagger. I purchased a home and moved here. I moved my business here (Temecula) as well. I’m not living out of a bag. Your property values have risen because of thousands of new residents, like myself, who have moved here to make Murrieta our home. You must be more precise in your use of language. In any case, all residents, even those arriving more recently, have a stake in seeing that our City fairly and honestly deals with its problems.

Second, exactly what “poison” did I bring? I did notice that Murrieta had a serious cronyism problem. But then that poison was already here. It had flourished under watchful eyes such as yours.

I noticed that VanHaaster controlled the City Council and that he was impervious to pleas from residents. Presumably I was not the cause of his imperial attitude.

I noticed that the Planning Commission was stacked with developer interests and that certain members were bootlicking the Council’s voting block of VanHaaster, Seyarto and McAllister. I had nothing to do with the appointments to the Planning Commission.

I noticed that VanHaaster got caught, and he tried to make a public apology, about his private meetings with Planning Commissioners to obtain approval of the VanHaaster day-care center.

I noticed that when the residents showed up, en masse, at a City Council meeting to discuss the unethical manner in which the VanHaaster day-care center was accomplished, Councilman Seyarto personally vouched for VanHaaster and allowed his friend’s day-care center to proceed.

I noticed that McAllister sold his business and announced that he was going into the business of representing developers. Believe me, I had nothing to do with McAllister’s decision to create an instant conflict of interest with his elected office.

I noticed that building was proceeding at a feverish pace, yet, residents were sitting in long traffic lines because the infrastructure had fallen far behind.

I noticed that the schools were seriously overcrowded, but the Council continued to allow building more residences bringing in even more students for which the City is unprepared.

I noticed that the Chamber was getting an annual gift from the City and that City staff and Council members were prominently featured on the Chamber’s web site.

None of these poisons accompanied me to Murrieta. They were all here while you allowed them to happen, Rholmgren.

And lastly, we all noticed that the developers, headed by that upstanding Murrieta citizen, Dan Stephenson, spent over $500K to keep their cronies in office. While we all noticed this "buying" of the City Council, the only person I can recall approving of this, is yourself.

I guess the poison I brought was my willingness to speak up about what I noticed. To those of you who sat quietly by, and allowed these things to happen, my speaking up would be poisonous only if you wanted Murrieta run by the cronyism which prevailed.

Good thinking Rholmgren. Brilliant analysis. Like I said, maybe you should opt for joining up with a marching band. Keeping in step is what you’re good at.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:27:00 PM
EF,
Perfect summation. I would think you had some experience at this. This is why the next go round we need to do something to counter the stacked side of Murrieta politics.

I, personally got involved at the tail end of the recall, when I noticed beautiful expensive fliers stuffed in my mailbox. Then I saw a little lady standing in front of Albertson's getting yelled at by a man because she wanted me to sign her petition. I added the two instances together along with cold call from some organization and said that I should look into this push to support members of our City Council. This time around, I for one will step up to the plate with dollars and my time to keep this voting block from ever taking power again. We need to get the politics out of our small government because all it does is create confusion and harm to this community and our tax dollars directed into the wrong hands. So thanks EF, for your last e-mail.

Now, for Councilmen Seyarto. He will get on here and again personally attack everyone that questions his ethics and decisions. If I could recommend something to you Kelly. If I was you and my part-time job cost me 30 or 40K a year and I was a Fire Captain, I would re-think my priorites. I would have to think 30-40 thousand a year into your children's college account could help them get something better or even into a savings account for after they have a family. But then I think about the politics I grew up watching in Chicago where Aldermen made $40,000 a year yet spent $50,000 personally on their campaign. Makes you kind of think where money comes from doesn't it. Now, Kelly wouldn't you think long and hard about supporting a public official that spent a large portion of his salary on his job?? Or a politician that was in busines to promote the people he handed out approvals or contracts to?? Kelly, from your past posts, I have seen your responses to be full of arrogance. I expect more of the same and can't wait for more. I have also seen in the past when you get your foot stuck in your mouth, use the excuse that you don't have the time or it's a waste of your time to answer questions. You have also said I personally continue to ask the same question, but I have never really had them all answered head on. You go off in your attack and arrogant mood and never address the facts. I will continue to ask whether you answer or not. You do work for me and all the residents of Murrieta even though you repeatedly deny it. I, the taxpayer, will even have to pay that raise of yours. But you continue at every turn to belittle the Mayor. In other posts you addressed him by name and then as in your last post, talked around his name but we all know who you mean. Being one of the many taxpayers that pay your salary and expense account, I would like you to spend your time for our benefit, the people of Murrieta and not to undermine the Mayor in your pursuit of the VanHaaster re-election agenda. You just proved by changing your vote in the pay raise issue that your vote can be swayed by selfish motivation and not good decision making. If it is swayed by jeaolusy and revenge, as that vote proved, what if a developer offered his support or cash or other things to move you to vote in hs direction? Kinda makes us think.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 3:21:00 PM
Mr. Faunce believe it or not I was and am happy with many of the current situations here in Murrieta. All you see are problems by the dozen. I do not know you personally but by what I've read you seem to find a problem around every corner. The perception of negativity is not very inspiring. I have always been impressed by all the positive accomplishments in our community over the last 12 years that I have lived here. Our future will be challenging but I am optimistic that as long as the city leadership is not hijacked by people like you things will be O.K. I wish I had time to go over your post point by point but it is the weekend and I have an extremely active social calender to attend to. If you hear a loud soulful thump thump cruising through Murrieta Ranchos tonight it was probably me leading a marching band of cars.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 7:44:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto claimed that the "same people" are making comments on this site "over and over". There are at least four blog partcipants who have clearly made posts under such circumstances. At least one - Mike - has stated that he has both used his name on some posts, and not on others. Mr. Seyarto, where is the sin in this? You are looking for boogey men, and there are none. We are all just citizens enjoying a new form of communication, and you are clearly uncomfortable with it. If it has not been clear, a couple participants have dropped hints to one another to identify themselves. If anyone on this site is afraid of "retaliation" from Mr. Seyarto, please say so. He apparantly thinks you are afraid of him. I doubt there is anyone in town who has any such fear. I seriously doubt there is any reason that anyone should fear Mr. Seyarto.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, September 11, 2005 9:58:00 AM
I’m surprised by these recent posts. The ones about anonymous blog entries.

All across this nation we’re seeing forums like this one popping up. The whole process is having a very stimulating effect, particularly in the area of public thought and policy. It is very, very free-flowing and natural for people to toss signed and/or unsigned thoughts into a conversation. Good ideas do not need names attached to be good ideas, and bad ideas do not get any better by being signed.

The only exception I would make to encouraging anonymous entries would be those involving attacks on the character of others. I’m talking about using someone’s name in a derogatory manner, and then signing anonymously. Obviously unfair. And the only way such activity could be dealt with would be via the exercise of discretion on the part of the site monitor. I personally dislike any kind of political censorship, but when it comes to anonymous attacks on the character of anyone, an exception is clearly in order.
Tom Suttle

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 9:51:00 AM
Censure Anons and censure everyone not using their whole real names. What are you left with? Politicians. Why do you think we vote as Anons?

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 11:47:00 AM
Tom,
I think you are right when you state that all people have a right to contribute to this blog anonymously. We just need input and response in order to see if the things we say are well taken or not.

It's very hard to not respond when someone personally attacks another. I so far have been called a coward, liar, fogerer, liberal and should hang myself. I may have done all of these things some time in my life and I'm sure that if each one of us looks at our pasts we can find things to not be proud of. The ones calling the names are the ones that have no logical or defendable responses back. Example: If I believe the War in Iraq is wrong, people who cannot defend it come back with their only retort....calling and labeling. That's all they have left. Instead of stating facts that support their opposite view. They call people who support my view as a coward or unpatriotic or ungodly or a bleeding heart liberal. They don't have anything else and use the name calling to draw support to their side using phrases or expressions that most people find disrespectful. These people are what we find in our government today. Example: When the White House failed to respond in a meaningful way immediately after the recent hurricane and the local government screamed, the White House immediately called names. They immediately pushed back the failures and blamed local government. I would totally support any government that would say, yes, we have a problem and roll up their sleeves and dig in. But we had our own President say, "What problem". To me thats why I cannot support the current administration in it's arrogance.

That same arrogance is right here in our own town. We have it with Councilmen Seyarto. When seeing how unethical it appears to have developers financially back him, to continue his unending support for them with every vote he casts. Even on here, he stated that the City Council should be concerned with the financial interests a developer has. In this free market, that has developers lined up to fill their pockets, we don't have to partner up with them. We have the ability to draw the most effort and infrastructure from them for the dollars we spend. But at least Seyarti and McAlister want to promote them to the point of selling this city down the river. When someone stands up against that, and calls a spade a spade, they call names. They say we are naive. He will say we aren't asking the question the right way. That we are being rude. But he is the one that is showing rudness and arrogance. The arrogance was displayed when he told all of us that he would vouch for Van Haaster's character in the day care center. Who is vouching for Seyarto's character? Instead I would have liked to see Seyarto stand up the same way I wanted our President to stand up and say, your right, what the developers did in the recall election did look bad. I wanted him to say, I am going to show this community the real Kelly and work out of the Van Haaster shadow and the shadow of unethical doubt. I wanted him to challenge my questions with real strong answers, but I got nothing to hang my hat on. I am not convinced that he and McAlister haven't sold our town down the river to developers.

An example of what I think Murrieta, at least in the newly built areas should look like, go drive over to Rancho Santa Margarita and see the infrastructure they have in place. Drive through the streets and notice how the business are placed. I haven't researched it any more then a drive through, but that difference jumped out. So come on Kelly, roll up your sleeves. But down the revenge factor. Play nice with all the kids on the Council and get us back from the developers who have infiltrated our Chamber of Commerce office and the City Manager's office. Do the will of the people, not the will of the almighty dollar.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 12:39:00 PM
Jeff, you said:

“Example: If I believe the War in Iraq is wrong, people who cannot defend it come back with their only retort....calling and labeling. That's all they have left. Instead of stating facts that support their opposite view. They call people who support my view as a coward or unpatriotic or ungodly or a bleeding heart liberal. They don't have anything else and use the name calling to draw support to their side using phrases or expressions that most people find disrespectful. These people are what we find in our government today.”

This tactic was chronicled in Shakespeare’s Julius Ceasar where he warned about political leaders who can all too easily send the citizenry marching eagerly off to war by manufacturing crises that purportedly threaten national security and making popular appeals to patriotism.

Much more recently, a well-known historical figure said:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," _______ shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The question of the day is, who is the historical figure to whom the above quote is attributed? I put a ___________ in place of his name. If no one guesses it, I’ll post it. Rholmgren will be surprised to find out the identity of his tactical predecessor.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 3:19:00 PM
I looked it up, so for the sake of the game can't give it away, but is the dig at rholmgren facetious, or an attempt to damn by association?

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 5:11:00 PM
5:11 "facetious"??? Interestingly, an uppity word used before by Kelly. But Kelly always signs, of course.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 5:42:00 PM
Anon 5:11 asked: ‘. . .is the dig at rholmgren facetious, or an attempt to damn by association?”

Facetious, yes, of course, but only because I really don’t expect Rholmgren to have an “Aha” moment. One can, however, hope that others will see how easily duped and manipulated the American population has been. The technique is well known. The political correctness of calling Jeff unpatriotic because he questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war plays right into the hands of leaders with hidden agendas. It is also anti-american in the sense that it stifles a citizen’s right to speak his mind. Rholmgren, and any others who verbally attacked Jeff, need to get some humility and remember that “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 6:48:00 PM
Jeff and E.F. Look back on my posts and oyu will see that I did alot more than just label and insult. Jeff please stop twisting the truth like you are so used to doing. Again I said "I would hang myself if I thought the way you do." In no way was i saying Jeff hang yourself. At least get one thing straight. E.F my knee jerk reaction was to say Churchill and I wanted it to be Chaimberlain of WW2 treaty with Hitler fame, but I know it was said, and taken a little out of context, by R.R.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 7:16:00 PM
Rholmgren said: "Jeff from now on you are Bennedict Jeff the traiter. The more that people think like you; the more down the tubes our country will go. If I thought like you Jeff I would take a rope and tie it to a tree and hang myself from it. You sound so sad and depressed go seek help.

That's telling me that a person thinking like me should hang themselves. Very classy....oh and I forgot the Benedict Arnold part.

It just shows your thinking links to the same thinking of all conservatives. Call names when you have no logic in your responses. Here are the same people that rode the Clinton administration, partly for good cause on the Monica issue, saying that this is not the time to question mistakes that have been made in New Orleans. Face it Rholmgren, for conservatives Bush is the liberal version of Clinton. You have absolutely no defense for this President yet you would die trying. It proves my point about ideologies. Even when terribly wrong people who follow ideologies would defend them and the people establishing them above the good of the people. Very sad way to think. Bush is your nightmare. Like EF said, you are doomed to follow the same path over and over. Do you think you can find another Terri Schaivo, maybe it would take the pressure off GW for a month or so. He moved faster to save her life then the lives of all the residents of New Orleans.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 8:10:00 PM
Rholmgren - Churchill? Actually it was churhill's primary WWII enemy. It was said by the Nazi general, Hermann Goering who Tried to destroy England.

Nazi leader Hermann Goering, was interviewed by Gustave Gilbert who recorded Goering's quote in Gilbert's book "Nuremberg Diary."

Scary!

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 9:19:00 PM
Have you noticed that the more the Dems are losing power; the more they turn more fanatically left. Why is it Jeff that the country has been turning to the right over the last ten years after 50 years of a liberal Democrat congressional rule? E.F is right we do not want to repeat all the mistakes made by the left during their 50 year rule. To be honest Jeff I voted for Bush because at least he is not socialistic like Kerry. In 2008 I want someone more right wing than Bush. I want lower taxes, no estate tax and the beginning of the dismantlement of the welfare state. I want a simplified tax code and for government to stop using the tax code as a tool of social engineering. I want to make decisions based upon what is best for my family and business and not based on what type of deduction I would get.I want more privatetization of government services and more competition in the bidding on government contracts. I want reduced government regulation (Especially when it comes to the energy policy)and more power devolved from the Federal level to the state and local level.(Less layers of government lead to faster decisions especially during natural disasters.)
Most of all Jeff I want two new Supreme Court justices to the right of Scalia so that we have a Constitutionalist Supreme Court and not an activist Supreme Court.The Supreme Court needs to stick to its intended purpose of interpreting law not creating it. You had better pray Jeff that the Dems stop their 10 year erosion of power. I don't see it happening. I see a further swing to the right that may last well past the end of our lifetimes. The Left had their 50 years and now it is our turn to have 50.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 9:27:00 PM
Kelly,
Just as I said in my previous two posts would happen, happened in your post here.

Where in any of my posts did I state that I was against local shopping opportunities, starter homes and affordable housing, for chasing away jobs and creating smog? Was I for bringing back burning witches at the stake too. No that would be up Rholmgren's alley. You again, try to turn away from my posts what I have said. My posts have asked that we not let developers walk off with all the profit and the residents stuck with more traffic and much less infrastructure then we deserve. This is the central part of your failure siding with developers. They need to leave money on the table. You let them walk away with all of it, and add no added value to their developments. Thats what politicians and big business do for each other when they become attached at the hip. Van Haaster, McAlister and You have failed by letting this happen. You have failed us thus far in this manner and the developers know it. Thats why keeping you in office was worth a paltry 500K to them. If you are such a brilliant politician, tell me why else they would do it. So in your last post you took my above statement and turned it around on me to make me look like I am against all the things I am actually overwhelmingly for. If a group of developers spend 500K on your support in a recall election, what do they figure that you are worth to them????? How many million do they think they are saving by keeping their allies in office? So to tell me your supporting my kids is not a factual statement. You are supporting the interests of your buddies and that also includes the C of C and City Managers office. It looks unethical period and smells to high heaven of corruption.

You state above that you would have had them build a Boy and Girls club instead? Well here is your chance!!!! Tell them now that you will not take their money and support if they don't contribute a matching amount to such a community venture. That's an incredible idea and it would prove to many of us the kind of politician you are. But you won't.

Lastly, you showed us that you will back and support an unethical path as your good friend Van Haaster met with the Planning Commission and then apologized. So we have only the record to show how and why you back and support someone.

Go back Mr. Councilman and read my posts and come back here and tell me where I said I was against any of the above statements you made, or consider yourself a liar because it is untrue. But I will counter that and show you the posts that I have said, where I thought that you and your buds let developers run this city and take more then they deserved. One way or another you are in their pocket and we pay the price.

I also stated that you work for me and each resident of our community. Not just me....but turning facts around to make others appear outrageous is what you do.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 10:03:00 PM
Rholmgren,
This must be candid camera right? These posts have to be a joke. Alan Funt is that really you?

You are the perfect example of what's wrong with people that are so brainwashed in an ideology. I would be embarrased if I backed an ideology like yours and got on here and said the things you say.

Yes, cutting taxes has been such a great thing. Individually you got what a few hundred dollars??? Where did that go redneck boy, a few cases of beer. Hooray. Or did you add a couple more assault rifles and shoot up some more deer and rabbits. Heck, a blind man could hit a rabbit using an AK-47. Or did you take your handgun and target practice on some ducks. I know we all need to have a handgun. I read daily how men save there families by blowing away an attacker. Oh, that was a little boy accidently killing the neighbor boy playing with Dad's loaded gun.

No estate tax, there is another great tax break....for the wealthy.

So right of Scalia is.....the Klu Klux Clan, white supremesy, hatred for minorities, and probably you.

You are OK with us killing people for oil or any other commodity we need.

You are OK with killing period.

To heck with any Corporate regulations because they will do whats best for our families....right?

Well, read the papers and see where conservative support is today.

Keep going right and we will all be wearing sidearms and shooting people and .....well.....look....we'll be back in the 50's.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 12, 2005 10:17:00 PM
Jeff did my last post mention killing ? Is that all you have? Jeff the tax code has gotten so skewed that people even get a refund check when they have payed no taxes. The top 10 percent of wage earners Jeff pay for more in taxes than the 90 percent of wage earners that remain. I started out poor Jeff. I resent people who envy other people's wealth. If you have a WORK ethic anything can be achieved in the U.S. I just looked at the success of others and tried to emulate their habits. The estate tax taxes money a second time. It is not fair to tax someone's net wealth after they have paid a lifetime of taxes. I do not care if it benefits one group over another. It is morally wrong to double tax personal income. I am also against most other taxes that fall into the double tax category. (sales tax gas taxes etc etc) Today the tax code with all these different types of taxes makes it nearly impossible for a normal citizen to know what they are paying in taxes. Sure you have your income tax return, but that only shows a partial picture. Simplify the tax code so that we as citizens know what we truly pay.
And everyone should pay taxes Jeff... even the poor. Ignorance is bliss for you Jeff. You assume right wing is white supremecy and racist. My family is Hispanic and White. My niece is African American. My brother in law is an African American right wing Republican. He is more right wing than I am. Figure that one out Jeff. My beliefs are no joke Jeff. I am a hard core Reagan Republican and my bretheren and I have been running cicles around them Dems since the early 90's with our ideas and imaginations. The lefty Dems are devoid of both but still wonder why their power base is desolving.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:14:00 AM
One more thing Jeff. I think guns and rifles are dangerous also. I have taught my kids about gun safety and have also showed them the proper way to fire a weapon.And trigger locks need to be on every weapon and every weapon should be locked up and its ammo should be locked up in a separate location. I started shooting at age 7 and so did they. I used to hunt Jeff and you are right that assault rifles are an over kill when used for hunting. But then again Jeff a well armed citizenery would make an oppressive government think twice.....

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:41:00 AM
Gun ownership for private homeowners is a necessary right in a society of liberals who routinely free criminals on parole or probation. Including criminals who have been convicted of home-related crimes including violent home invasion assaults.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:12:00 AM
Kelly Sayarto says "I didn't want anyone to spend any money on trying to save my seat on the council." Anyone hear hime say that during the election? First time in history KS didn't loudly announce to whole wide world some thing he did or didnt want. What a wild and amazing coincidence, it just happened to be the election when this first time event happened. What BS! A real wing nut that shows his real colors every time he turns around. How can anyone ever beleive anything he says? Are there really that many thousands of suckers in this traffic jammed town? You people have what you deserve.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:36:00 PM
9;12 I did not see the rash of weapon misuse that was predicted by knee jerk liberals when Florida passed its right to carry laws. To the contrary crime and violent crime are down because criminals are not sure who is packing the heat in public. The only drawback has been that foreign tourists are targeted more because criminals know they are not armed. I use to frequent areas in San Diego almost 15 years ago the were high with crime and gang activity. I must confess that I frequently carried a .38 under my seat for protection. Fortunately I never had to fire it but I had to point it at some gang bangers once that were demanding that I get out of my truck after I had just gotten into it. It was fortunate that pointing it at them and verbally warning them was enough.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:29:00 PM
Hello 4:36.
You're not going to win any awards for the way you put things, but you have a good point. Kelly Seyarto has never failed to make his wants known. He now says he wanted no money spent on him in the last election, but it seems he failed to say so during the time for campaign expenditures. (Or at least to the best of my memory). This lack of a definitely announced "want" does seem to be inconsistent with the reality of Kelly Seyarto's past behavior. Let's all allow him the chance to explain, and if the explanation sounds like something better than mere spin, let's take the point away from 4:36, and put the point in the Councilmember's favor.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:33:00 PM
Rholmgren: If you had not had the weapon to defend yourself in the truck incident, you might not be here today. There are liberals in our society who would prefer that outcome. In fact, there are lots of people who are not here today who have fallen prey to the likes of the gang bangers you described. If all those people could cry out from the grave, they would put the anti-self-protection faction of liberals to shame. But they cannot cry out. Among the victims of America's left wing, they are truly the silent majority.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:43:00 PM
633 If you understand what I said then the way I say it is just fine. You sound ok but shove your insult.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:21:00 PM
Hello 7:21. Good response. And I apologize.
6:33

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:44:00 PM
To the gun crowd,
Keep your hand guns. It's a right you have. Go target practice. But don't try to tell me that you are safer. I have never seen an example in the newspaper of a man shooting dead a surprised burgler. I have never seen where a petty thief walked up to rob a couple with a gun and the man pulled a gun and shot the robber. I have never heard of a woman pulling a gun from her purse to stop from being raped. It is not a common occurance for the millions of hand guns out there. If it was a common occurance the NRA would be publishing article after article. Don't tell me how safe you are because you teach your family to be safe with training because over the years I have read plenty of stories of gun accidents, anywhere from a two year old to the family dog accidently killing someone. It's like telling me how safe driving is because you have taught your kids to drive safely, they are still children and they are not safe. If you really cared about safety, you would be the group making it so tough to own one, but you are the majority share of the NRA and that is the group that wants almost no legislation barring hand guns or gun manufacturers. I know that if I ran into a gang or a crowd and I drew a hand gun to protect myself that they'd draw ten. Thats the problem. So Rholmgren, god forbid, an accident happens to you, look down at that gun and tell me how safe it kept you. You all live in fear and feed off of it. You hold that gun tight and say how safe it made you feel, but in the real world it isn't the safest option. Unless you are breaking the law, carrying a loaded gun, which is illegal if I'm correct? So, if someone approached you with a gun, you would have to be the fastest gunslinger in the west to pull your unloaded gun and load it and get off a shot before you are dead as a doornail. Think about it. In the middle of the night someone breaks into your home, and stealthly walks through your home, how quick will you wake and locate your gun before you are dead? Unless you sleep with it next to you, and if you are that afraid....how sad to live in such fear. Alternatives are neighborhood watches. Secruity systems on your home and car. Cell phones and just plain common sense. But I guess Rholmgren since you cruise bad neighborhoods, I hear that you can pick up a HUMVEE with a gun turret pretty cheap. Just watch out for the roadside bombs because those used ones just arrived back from Iraq. Anti-self protection....no. Intelligent thinking...yes. Beware of bad situations. It is the same people that carry guns that drive the incredibly large pickups for fear of getting in an accident. They may as well surround themselves with a fort and hide within it's walls. Bad things happen to good and bad people. It's an effort to avoid bad situations but much safer then carrying a gun.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:05:00 PM
Jeff you are against so much that I was wondering if there was anything domestically that you were for. Do you want higher taxes? Do you believe that more money should be thrown at poverty programs even though over 6 trillion has been spent since '65 with no dent or improvement in the poverty level. Do you think inner city girls should be taught in school to not have children before marraige? (In New Orleans 76% of all black girls and women give birth as single parents and end up on the dole. Why should we reward bad behavior? Why should addicts or alcoholics qualify for disability benefits? Why reward bad behavior? Why do we give government benefits to non citizens? Why reward bad behavior? It makes no sense as a parent to reward your children when they are bad and punish them when they are good does it? So then why do we want our government to in many instances reward bad behavior with financial support while at the same time punishing the successful with punative progressive taxation?
Jeff you want more programs for the poor? More taxation? It would be throwing good money at previosly spent bad money. Almost 7 of every ten of our tax dollars are spent for the administration and overhead of all the socialized government programs. Is that an efficient use of resouces? Would you support a charity that had that much overhead? You want more regulation? Take a look at the encyclopedia sized tax code and try to understand the regulations we already have. I mentioned in an earlier post that Washington should mandate a national blend of gasoline. They could make it the clean burning Califoria summer blend. Would that be bad deregulation Jeff?

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:13:00 PM
Oh Jeff you are have such a narrow mind and perspective. You said," I have never seen an example in the newspaper of a man shooting dead a surprised burgler" Maybe you need to read more... alot more. Obviously you have proven once again to be myopically ignorant. Anyone who reads this should run a google search with the words "gun self defense stories" There are sites like Claytoncramer.com or henlylaw.com (just to name two)that have thousands and thousands of news stories of people using firearms in self defense. Please Jeff do not be so intellectually lazy.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:28:00 PM
Jeff,
There are many stories of the kind you describe, and there would be many more if people did not fear doing what it takes to assure their own protection.
One such story happened here (in Tenaja, next to La Cresta) a few years back. A home invasion robbery, in which a family was being terrorized at gunpoint. In the house there was a young man the invaders did not know about. The young man shot and killed one of the home invaders as he was in the process of putting the family through hell. This is not a happy story. The family was left traumatized. But thanks to the courageous youngster - and the fact that he knew how to use a gun - the family lived.
There are many other stories, but I'll give just one more example. This one a bit less tragic. It happened also a few years ago locally, when heavy rains were flooding local roads. A man was driving his car, which was suddenly swept by a torrent of rushing water into a local lake (Canyon Lake). By chance, the man had a protective handgun in his glove compartment, which he used to shoot out his own window as his car was sinking. Because of the water, the window control had been frozen, and the water pressure kept the door from opening. It turns out that the hand gun was not legal in its glove compartment location, but from what I heard the driver was not cited.
There's no shortage of stories on either side of this issue. But the fact is that the constitutional rights have always been upheld, and that has worked to the benefit of many law abiding citizens. I would never suggest that a law abiding citizen not exercise his or her right to protect his or her family.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:35:00 PM
I'm a handgun owner who fortunately has never had to use the gun. I support constitutional gun rights, but I am glad that there are background checks required for most gun purchases, and I think they should always be required.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:03:00 PM
To all gun control proponents: Background checks are great but 1: Criminals do not obey laws 2: Stolen guns do not get background checks and they are much cheaper than store bought guns.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:45:00 PM
8:35,
I respect that there are a few situations where a person with a hand gun was at the right place at the right time. But even in your scenerio, it took someone that was hidden to come through and be a hero. But we aren't talking about a few thousand handguns. We are talking about millions. You are talking as if everyone carrying one is protected and thats a untrue statement unless they were allowed to holster loaded weapons and show their sidearms to scare off predators. It just isn't logical.

Rholmgren,
Is it all about money to you? If it is why the heck wouldn't you be sitting here and asking your President why over the next five years that we will have thrown one trillion dollars into Iraq? If we spent 6 trillion in 40 years on our own poor, what kind of contrast is that? Who should we spend that money on, Iraq's people or our own? If we don't support our homeless and poor, what would happen? We would degress into a third world state. Every nation has poor and homeless. Look at any nation around us. But we stand above them because we take care of ours. Right or wrong, it is the only system we have. Without it people would then begin taking from others and crime would increase ten fold. Starving and hungry people don't look for jobs, they look to get food and clothing and soon they begin to do whatever it takes. The money spent on programs today instead would be spent on prisons and police enforcement and when we spend it on those government controlled systems, corruption increases but just in different parts of the system. It's a never ending battle. So what would you propose? Sterilization? Walling our borders? Throwing the poor and homeless that you no longer clothe and feed into interment camps? Send them to Iraq? Force them to serve in the military? All of a sudden we are not free anymore and we are forced into a system where the only free become the wealthy. It would also decrease the middle class. You would be wealthy or poor.

But, this is what our government should be focused on fixing. Instead, we are spending 18% of what you say we have spent in 40 years on our poor on rebuilding a country that most Americans can't find on the map. So, today, I say we stick with the programs that keep our poor and weak off the streets the best we can. It isn't the best system in the world but I will keep giving to it to prevent watching the poor get poorer. Third world countries that don't have programs do not become a great society when they reject systems to help their poor. We are the greatest nation in the world.
Bush does have the abstention program. It must be working well right? Instead of teaching our children about condoms, tell them not to have sex at all. That worked for me and you right? We all abstained....right?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:45:00 PM
The point goes to Councilman Seyarto.
6:33

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:14:00 AM
Jeff - To say that something is not logical discounts the possibility that the logic escapes you. When you discount that possibility, you stop learning.
In every society on earth outside of China there is a heavily armed criminal element. Firearms can be and are now manufactured by every level of industrial society, including third world industrialists.
We cannot stop the manufacture of third world weapons any more than we can stop the processing of cocaine. If our own arms manufacturers are prohibited from their very legitimate trade, then our porous borders will have a whole new import industry. And then, the only guns being sold will be sold to criminals.
The fact that you or I may not like any of these facts will not stop them from being true.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:44:00 AM
Councilman Seyarto, you said: “Did you ever consider that the PAC that formed was not necessarily fighting for us but was fighting against the alternatives?”

Precisely, the PAC knew what it had in place. Your position is that development is inevitable, you’re not anti-developer and you are not an obstructionist to development. (That also includes vanHaaster and McAllister) So why wouldn’t the developers raise $500K to keep the three of you in office?

You also said: “We have a very postive economic environment in our city. Some people don't want that to change. In fact, I don't think Ed Faunce or any of his friends want that to change either.”

Yes, and Faunce, as spokesman for Rescue Murrieta, said that on many occasions. So where is the dispute?

There were two basic reasons for the recall.

First, a very large segment of residents were outraged over the vanHaaster under-handed and unethical tactics to gain approval for placing a large institutional day-care center in the very same area where the residents were overrun with grid locked traffic. The area around MVHS and Thompson Middle School were the scene of twice daily traffic nightmares. This was caused, in part, by the fact that MVHS was at near double student population compared to its design. When it was discovered, someone leaked the secret out to the Californian, that vanHaaster had been meeting secretly with the Planning Commission members to get approval for the day-care center, the residents could not believe that the Mayor was planning on adding to the already over-burdened infrastructure secretly. He knew, as did every other member of the Council, of the residents’ complaints about the traffic mess.

But when the day-care center project came before the Council and a packed Council chamber of residents tried to stop the madness, you and Councilman McAllister defended vanHaaster and voted to deny the appeal. Because the vote was tied 2-2, the Planning Commission’s approval was not overturned and joila, the vanHaaster day-care center was approved.

But it was not just the fact that you voted to deny the approval. As the Chair of the meeting, you told the residents that you would not allow them to address the vanHaaster ethics, or lack thereof, and that you vouched for vanHaaster’s ethics. Maybe you didn’t notice the seething anger your position caused. But it was that very night, in the City’s parking lot, that the recall began.

So, you see Councilman Seyarto, you continue to play the wrong note. When you claim that the effort to remove vanHaaster, Seyarto and McAllister were motivated by anti-development sentiments, you are singing off key. The same night that you voted to deny the appeal of the vanHaaster day-care center, you and McAllister also voted to overturn the Planning Commission on the rezoning of the South East corner of Nutmeg and Washington from estate residential to commercial. This only added additional fuel to conflagration over the vanHaaster day-care controversy. Then you approved the eminent domain action which offered a Murrieta property owners $0 for taking a strip of land off of the front of their properties.

None of these recall motivating factors was the result of anti-developer sentiment. So you need to correct your message.

Second, another recall motivating factor was the traffic problems which the entire City was experiencing. Remember “Got Traffic, Vote Recall.” That message resonated with nearly everyone. Your answer is don’t obstruct the developers, just put up with a little inconvenience.

But the residents were asking that the Council enforce the Murrieta General Plan. Consider the following:

1. California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” (§65300). The California Supreme Court has called the general plan the “constitution for future development.” See State of California General Plan Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2003), p. 10 (a copy can be viewed at http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf).

2. There are seven mandatory elements required for every General Plan (GP). They are: land use, traffic circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise and safety. See General Plan p. 18.

3. It is required that “All elements of the general plan have equal legal status. For example, the land use element policies are not superior to the policies of the open-space element.” See GP, p. 12.

4. “The circulation element is not simply a transportationplan. It is an infrastructure plan addressing the circulation of people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. By statute, the circulation element must correlate directly with the land use element. The circulation element also has direct relationships with the housing, open-space, noise and safety elements.” See GP, p. 55

The GP Guides also point out that the seven elements must be kept in balance, at all times. What Murrietans were telling you, and the other Council members, was that the GP was “out of balance.” The City was being developed too fast for the infrastructure to keep pace. One case in point was the approval of the Orchard Mall at the intersection of Clinton-Keith and the 215 without securing the improvement of the bridge over the 215. A traffic nightmare because of the new high school and increased traffic along Clinton Keith and the 215 as well.

In summary, you have misrepresented the reasons for the recall. They were the unethical behavior of the City’s Mayor and the Council’s failure to keep the elements of the GP balanced.

You said, “Get a clue you guys. It isn't necessarily me they like. We have a very postive economic environment in our city. Some people don't want that to change.” The translation of this comment is that the developer’s did not want a change on the Council because they were being allowed to develop their projects WITHOUT having to keep the other required elements of the City’s GP in balance. Sure that’s a positive economic environment for the developers and does produce economic income to the City. But it was being accomplished at the expense of a quality of life for which the GP had provided - but was being ignored.

Finally, you said, “You need to understand that the PAC that opposed the recall wasn't my PAC. It wasn't Jack's or Doug's either. It was a PAC that was comprised of many different interests, all of whom depend on postive [sic] growth in our economy to survive.”

Composed of many different interests? Yeah right. The PAC collected its $500K from developers doing business with the City. Of course they depend on their continued fast development to grow their economic advantages. But when they are done, they will abandon Murrieta and move on to Wildomar, Menifee etc. and the entire process will be repeated all over again. Meanwhile, we Murrietans will be left to bond and tax ourselves to put in the missing infrastructure and to balance out the elements of the GP.

That developer PAC was “your, vanHaaster and McAllister’s” PAC whether you want to admit it or not. By the way, you will notice when you examine the PAC’s contribution lists that there are few individual Murrietans who contributed (excepting, of course, Dan Stephenson and some of his employees.) Contrawise, RM got nearly all of its funding from City residents who had to cough up part of their income without the hope of gaining it back through increased prices. They were only trying to make their community work according to the promised plan.

Edward Faunce

PS 7:14 don't be so quick to award Seyarto points.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:42:00 AM
7:44 - Yes arms are produced now even in west africa and southeast asia but the production is small scale. If Colt Springfield etc are out of the equation those small producers become major producers. We think we have problems now, just wait. Maybe Jeff and Ed have stock in third world arms. Might not be a bad idea.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:47:00 AM
Mr. Faunce,
Points come and go. Let them fall where they may. Match point comes on election day.
7:14

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:52:00 AM
I always questioned the judgement of anyone who:1) Bought a house near an airport and complained about plane noise. 2 Bought a house next to a freeway and complained about traffic noise. 3 Bought a house near a High school and Middle school and complained about traffic. 4 Bought a house next to a vacant lot and then complained when the lot was developed. If you are prone to complaining then buy a house in a location that has permanent features around it.(No noise No traffic noise no school close by)

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:13:00 AM
I always questioned the judgement of anyone who:1) Bought a house near an airport and complained about plane noise. 2 Bought a house next to a freeway and complained about traffic noise. 3 Bought a house near a High school and Middle school and complained about traffic. 4 Bought a house next to a vacant lot and then complained when the lot was developed. If you are prone to complaining then buy a house in a location that has permanent features around it.(No noise No traffic noise no school close by)

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:13:00 AM
Rholmgren, you just don’t get it. You think that governing is like a team sport. Yea, my team’s winning, is your consistent mantra! You think that complainers show poor judgment.

But complaining is a constitutional right. The Constitution protects the citizens right to petition their governments for redress of grievances.

As for the school traffic problem, it was a City wide, not just a neighborhood problem. Because of the over paced housing development, MVHS was at double design capacity. (I’m not sure whether Thompson Middle School was over capacity as well, but it would not surprise me if it were.) Parents and students driving from all parts of the City were stuck in traffic. They were complaining as well as the nearby residents. The entire West side was grid locked twice a day because the infrastructure simply could not handle the traffic load. (Especially with the 4-way stop signs which predominated at that time.)

You remind me of the Marlborough Man image. You know, the self-sufficient, rugged individual, who squints through weathered eyes with the look of “I’ve done it my way, by my bootstraps.” I hope you remember how he ended up.

Apparently you have not yet lived long enough or suffered sufficient adversity to appreciate the poet’s words, No Man is An Island.

Your bombastic style of ridiculing every opposing viewpoint labels you unfavorably. Especially, when you operate on canned talking points and party ideaology.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:59:00 AM
I would like to recommend that anyone composing a rebuttal to a post count to 20 before hitting the "submit" button. Some of the name-calling is getting pretty bad, and I think that anyone using name calling, no matter how valid their argument, compromises it's validity through the use of this type of language. I know it gets frustrating sometimes when your arguments have been mis-represented in rebuttal, but this is merely a straw-man tactic and if you see it, you should call attention to it as it hurts the opposing argument more than it hurts yours.

There are many valid posts in this blog and anyone who reads through them will become much more savvy to Murrieta politics. I would like to thank E. Faunce, Kelly Seyarto, Rholmgren, and Jeff for keeping things interesting. Keep it up!

By J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:57:00 AM
Yes the "Big 4" are interesting. But 2 (no, make that 3) of the 4 use way too many words attempting to make their points. I check this site usually twice a day to see what's new. No time to read War and Peace each time. The shortest posts are by far the best reads. At least, for someone whose life is not all wrapped up in this blog.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:30:00 PM
To Rholmgren: you said, yesterday, “. . . a well armed citizenery would make an oppressive government think twice . . .”

I must say that I do agree with you (blush, blush). If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Third Reich disarm their citizens before beginning its expansionism?

I know that guns in a society are inherently dangerous. But then freedom is also dangerous. Maybe the cost/benefit analysis should go like this: private ownership of guns is going to result in a certain number of accidental injuries and deaths as well as intentional ones. But the exposure of all the citizens to a government take over, with no means to respond, outweighs the societal costs of private gun ownership.

You also said: “Take a look at the encyclopedia sized tax code and try to understand the regulations we already have.”

Again, I can relate to this because I had to take a course in the Internal Revenue Code at the UCLA School of Law and that was 39 years ago. It’s much worse now. But didn’t Jerry Brown make his presidential bid by holding up the IRC volumns and promising to trash them? Hasn’t many thinking citizens tried to advocate for a simple tax code, only to fail. Has Bush (W) tried to eliminate the unfair tax situation on the working and middle class of this country?

In fact, what we see is that the current administration continues to pack on tax favors for the corporate interests at the same time that those same corporations are eliminating and exporting the American working peoples’ job and continuing to fleece them with high prices, e.g., medications and fuel.

I have said before that I believe we are watching the failure of government, at many levels. I honestly believe that if decisions were being made by canvassing the average engaged citizen, that many of the governmental decisions would be eliminated, reversed or never made in the first place.

You know Rholmgren, you are more like those who claim to be libertarians than anything else.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:41:00 PM
I agree with 12:30, but only if he/she is saying that Faunce is the exception. The other three most frequent posters are usually the same old stew warmed over again and again. KS toots his own horn, Jeff cries about everything, and Rholmgren is like the neighborhood dog that never stops barking. What happened to some of the interesting old characters who used to haunt this site? A lot of them seemed to just fade away after the recall.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 1:00:00 PM
1:00 - The blog regulars take a lot of heat from people like me and you, but we would not be able to enjoy this Murrieta forum without them. Like JL Kunkle, I appreciate all the perspectives. Seyarto, Rholmgren, Faunce and Jeff all have fans around town. By the time the next election rolls around, some of them may have convinced enough people to vote one way or another that the future of Murrieta could be affected.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:35:00 PM
Ed,
You again hit the nail on the head. Seyarto wants people to think that people like you and I are against growth and development. That's the misleading trick that we see in politics today.

We are for developement and growth but want infrastucture long before money is made by these developers selling homes or renting apartments. Of course Kelly didn't address my comments about the fact that I have never stated that I'm against development. I have stated far too many times that I'm for the growth of this community but not at the cost of our infrastructure. Kelly and "his friends" just want the power. It comes across in his posts. Kelly please from now on state facts and the facts are we are pro-growth but anti-developer profit at a cost to us. At least on my end I am anti-unethical behavior. I'm also anti-name calling but I guess with the people that ride the right side of the fence that will never end. Was that short enough?? LOL.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:19:00 PM
Mr Faunce I just want to make one thing very clear. Try to read into the substance of my post and over look the "bombastic" aspect of it. Sometimes I will try to be more colorful in order to stimulate and motivate discussion. If I were talking to you about the same issue face to face I would disagree with you in an even keeled non insulting way. You are right in many respects that I have alot in common with the Libertarian point of view. I look at the Libertarian party and see an "old school Republican party." Today I see a Republican Party that has strayed from many of Reagan's principles. Hopefully the Republican party can embrace more of today's Libertarian ideals.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:50:00 PM
Is it financially possible or responsible to front infrastructure improvements before development? Two projects that were fronted were the Jefferson cooridor and Murrieta Hot Springs between 15 and 215. If the city did the same thing city wide would it be affordable? Would the bond interest inflate the infrastructure cost? It seems to me that today the city approves projects, collects fees, then builds infrastructure. ( This is oversimplified) I just want to know if the demands of Jeff are fiscally possible.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:20:00 PM
trueMurrietaNative,
Growth should mean parks and nature centers. We have some incredibly beautiful parts of our town that could easily be manipulated into some incredible areas. Just building homes, apartments and businesses without beauty and places to enjoy it would be counter productive to growth.

Rholmgren,
What is this a college writing class? Your bombastic style fits more to a thug then a writer.

What's wrong with infrastructure paid for by some of the enormous profit that the developers walk away with. They should lay this infrastructure in first then build around it.

Again, Rholmgren, the development that I live in still has done very little to build the final 30 homes. Now its 20 months and still no yards, just constant dust. Put they did put on garage doors. So thats twenty months of homes patially built across the street from homes that have been built for 3 years. Kelly made a point to tell me in a post that these homes had move in dates of September. Maybe he meant 2006. You'd think city planning and the council would hold these developers to a plan but they haven't.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:13:00 PM
One quick thing Jeff. It would be illegal for any city to demand that developer profits go toward infrastructure. Every conpany's goal is to walk away with a profit Jeff. I hope your company has the same goal Jeff. Where do you think all that profit goes Jeff? Reinvestment maybe? Job creation possibly? Do you think it contributes to the overall wealth effect?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:27:00 PM
To trueMurrietaNative: The open space aspect of a City's General Plan can be best understood by reviewing the State of California General Plan Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2003), at pp. 82-87. A copy can be viewed at http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf.

While we have open-space in our General Plan, I'm not sure that it has received equal treatment with all of the other seven elements.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:34:00 PM
Rholmgren and Councilmen Seyarto,
Yes profit should go into job creation and reinvestment into the business, but when developers can throw 500K into keeping their agents in seats of political power, that money is far better spent on us. I am not asking to have these companies come away with zero profit Rholmgren. I'm asking that we negotiate more added value into the contracts. Stop lights, roads surrounding the development upgraded, wider streets, larger lots, better developed landscaping as well as sewer systems and other structures. Large parks, not kiddie parks. These items can be put in place and included in plans.

Again, it is unreasonable to think that these developers put up 500K to keep the three councilmen in place because they were unhappy with the other candidates. They were fighting the recall far before any candidates had thrown their hats into the race, so Kelly's comments on why he was supported doesn't hold water. The facts are that they spent 500K to keep in place an easy three vote block, assuring them passage of anything they desired. Your right Rholmgren, I don't spend money in my business without seeing some profit at the end of the line but we have a profit sharing system in place with the employees, which distributes a secure percentage each year. If profits are up, profit sharing goes up. But in the world of development, they do not plan to reinvest in the community. They make their money and run. There is no way in the world that they would drop half a mil on our Council unless they were going to see a payoff in the end. They knew if that voting block lost one block member, the easy road to money would pass at least until the next election. That's why you will see more belittling of the WE and Gibbs and Ostling. You will also see more of the " remember when Jack was Mayor" stuff coming from the C of C. Everyone who reads this blog and lives in Murrieta should take one minute and think about why a developer group would invest 500K to protect a voting block of three Councilmen. If you come up with the answer that they spent that money because they thought the alternative of three unknown Councilmen was very scary, you'd be right. They were losing their free pass. Let's make them fess up now and spend some of that money developing all the infrastructure around each development.

Like I said before Kelly, why don't you take a drive to Rancho Santa Margarita and see real infrastructure. It shows, and we have the ability to match or do better then that community. Why not be the best rather then say we are better then some?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:46:00 PM
trueMurrietaNative
In our capitalistic system, anyone with intelligence and a will to work can earn enough to buy their own open space, and even to donate land for a public park. It is of course easier to tax the industrious people of society, and hire bureaucrats to come up with the plans, and give local elected officials a sense of self esteem.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:05:00 AM
To Anon 8:05 -what are you thinking? That open space for a City is an individual choice?

Maybe you missed the point that in California, by statute, every City must have a General Plan and that Plan must have an open-space element It's not a personal choice matter.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:40:00 AM
8:05 - Interesting perspective. In your mind, I could see Seyarto and Jeff sharing the same ground. I may be wrong about this, so someone please correct me if I am, but Seyarto and Jeff are both interested in taking money from one hand (developers, sales taxes, and so on) and giving it to another (public parks, parades, gaudy street lights in old town, ten thousand Murrieta assistant city managers, and so on). And I think the libertarian point of view might be the opposite, more like 8:05, which is to keep government and government spending to a minimum. Is that libertarian? I've always thought of myself as a coservative. But if Seyarto is a conservative, maybe I am a libertarian.
Been There

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:48:00 AM
Mr. Faunce - So, the statute is wrong. What's new? We have more than just Murrieta politics to worry about in this world. I didn't "miss the point". The point you mention is a small one. You, sir, are missing the big picture.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:56:00 AM
Now we're discussing state statutes. What's next, Supreme Court Justices? Before you know it, we'll be running the entire world from this Murrieta Blog.
Been There

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:16:00 AM
I heard that Jeff And Ed Are collaberating with Oliver Stone to make a conspiracy movie about Murrieta.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:27:00 AM
Maybe they could call it "All Dan Stephenson's Men."

Kelly is difinitely right about one thing, the lack of affordable housing in this town has made it to where my kids couldn't afford to live here (even if they wanted to).

By J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:51:00 AM
Jeff and Ed did talk to Oliver Stone. Unfortunately, Oliver thought they were a bit "out there" and just said he'd get back them.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:24:00 AM
Kelly,
Let's look at your post point by point.

First of all, what difference does it make to anyone what neighborhood that Ed's house is built in unless you are extremely jealous. Reminds me of your comments about the things the Mayor owns and the size of his toys. Maybe you should hold on to that 40K that you give to give your job.

It would be very hard for us to attract more jobs into an area that is inundated with housing developments. Leaves little room to attract large businesses or Corporate offices. The ones we do build seem to be more in way of retail jobs.

I have been in Santa Margarita many times and Antonio Parkway is 6 lanes wide and has very little traffic congestion. The others I travelled were also easily managed as to traffic.

Your right when you moved here there may have needed to be trade-offs. But not anymore. It seems like every open area or lot is now spoken for and the development is ongoing, money and tax dollars flowing in. I don't want the infrastructure to happen all at once. I want it to happen BEFORE the houses are built. Not after they are underconstruction and the roads are jammed with construction traffic and then at the same time being torn apart. That's not growth, that's stupid planning. The developers want dollars flowing before their money is spent selfishly back in. They could care less the nightmare it causes to the residents that live near or have to travel through these areas. Then in the end, the areas aren't fully completed and they are gone, on to the next development.

I am not playing a blame game. I blame you only for being a pawn in all of this. I have no time to gain political power, thats a game played by others including you.

You're right the election is only a year away. Have you thought about spending more time at the firestation?

You haven't heard one person say..."when Jack was Mayor"? Well you just did!!!!! You complained that the shift in power has not improved things. That right there is saying that "when Jack was Mayor" things would have been better. You'd better go back and rehearse the VanHaaster re-election agenda line with him and the developers when you try and complain about the current council. As a matter of fact, aren't you a member of that council that is spending money on lawsuits or are you a seperate enity. No, that's right, you are in the Van Haaster DIETY.

I haven't read any letters to the editor about you, McAlister or VanHaaster but if you know of any, please list them so we can read them. What right do you have to look down your nose at a resident "old lady" who has an opinion? I don't know this lady but I strongly suggest that she come on here and tell us her opinions. Because I think if she talks to loud out there, she might have someone shout her down.

What I believe is what I see and comes from the life's experiences I and everyone else have earned THIStown's City Council over the last two years in regards to the Day Care issue and the recall election contribution and the support driven by Dan Stephenson's group is unethical.

Rholmgren and 11:24,
Oliver wouldn't get involved with a movie conspiracy here because it just involved petty thiefs and the people that support them. If it's not about a 100 million in graft then he didnt want to bother.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:40:00 PM
Jeff I think Orange County has just a little more tax base than Riverside county. They are an employment powerhouse and we are their lonely stepchild. True Murrieta Native I think you are sssstttttuuuuuttttteerrrring.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:46:00 PM
Rholmgren,
To a post you did a few days ago. I will not let you forget how easily you talk about killing others. It's very easy when it doesn't involve you, or you can turn TV off after hearing the numbers. Everything you post, to me at least is peppered with your radical right feelings including the way you feel about anyone that is not at your suppossed level in life. You know nothing about the death that is going on in Iraq until you see it first hand. All you know is an ideology. We see it on here as well. If Councilmen Seyarto was a Democrat, you'd hate him and everything he does, but because he is a Republican, you kiss his backside. Thats the logic I can't understand. You reason without reasoning. You follow the leader and it doesn't matter what that leader does, you will defend. Have you seen me one time on here defend anyone because of their ideology? Not once. So most of what you say comes sprinkled with the blood that you are OK spilling.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:51:00 PM
true murrieta native:
anyone who has lived here their whole life should take a lot more blame for what has happened instead of complaining. most of us just got here, and are wondering whose watch this town was on as it slid into apartment hell. it was your watch. and now we get to listen to you moan and groan. you ask for US to come up with solutions. the solution is obvious. you spent a lifetime on your rear watching the problems grow. get up off your rear. then do something other than complain. or just leave.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:49:00 PM
2:49 - If the term "apartment hell" includes condos, I think the term describes our situation well. This crammed in mass housing is getting absurd. And I've heard there are hundreds upon hundreds of apartments (and/or condos - please, let's not split hairs) that are "in the pipeline". Has anyone in this town ever stepped into apartment-crammed neighborhoods and loved it? Have you seen the apartment jungles of east and south-east LA? Concentration camps for the minimum-wage masses. What is happening to Murrieta is, or should be, a criminal matter. The old timer city politicians that have allowed this to happen should be locked up. What could have been the motivation for what is being allowed to happen to this town? I hear a whole lot of reasons - from active local politicians - that we should all just lay back and appreciate what's being done to us. The words that would describe my feeling about these people can not be printed in this web site.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:47:00 PM
Jeff sometimes I am not sure if you are talking out of your mouth or the other puckered part of your body. Being pro war does not mean I am pro killing. Your linear thinking needs to broaden. The only reason I am for this war is because I want to defeat those who have killed innocent civilians on our soil. Be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran ,Syria or any other country that harbors head decapitating terrorists; I want our military to do its job and defeat our enemies. Stop with the moral reletivism routine. The people we are fighting are evil.The terrorists we are fighting need to be dealt with now, over there, so that we are safer over here. It is better to keep the heat on them than to retreat so that they can regroup and plan attacks at their leisure. Two members of my family (one is a doctor at Balboa Hospital and the other is a Marine Corps Seargent)have served in Iraq over the last year and I have spoken with them at length and there is alot more good going on over there than bad. The problem is that the media likes to over sensationalize the bad news and ignore the good news. The media does the same thing here. Watch the first ten minutes of the news every night and try to pick out one positive piece of news. People like you watch all the negative reporting and absorb it like mind numb zombies. You do not question whether there is bias. You do not wonder why no good news is reported. You just parrot the negativity without question and run with it. Before you accuse others of lacking reasoning skills perhaps you should seek out those who have served in Iraq and try to get a more true well rounded view of what is really occurring. Watch tonight's news Jeff. How many of the car accidents or assaults or murders did you witness today or this month or this year? Probably none and the world is not nearly as bad as the media portrays it to be.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:59:00 PM
Kelly,
That's all you have. To attack the comments of others. You have absolutely no defense to most comments I have directed at you and you simply sidestep most by not addressing them. Good political move but look where it;s getting the President.

Just funny that when you don't like people like WE or EF you talk about the nice things they have. I mentioned before and you blew it off but it just keeps coming up in your posts. It's a shame that you covet what other people have and that turns to anger in your posts.
I have not twisted anything that isn't sitting out their crystal clear for people to see if they open their eyes. That two percent may dwindle with each post I make. Until poof.....and then where will your developer friends be. I want this community to witness each line you write and your arrogance toward the residents who don't agree with you. I am sarcastic, but it's an attitude that people who look down their noses at the people they serve deserve. And Kelly you do work for ALL of us, not just the Stephenson/VanHaaster group. We have seen that money can't save political jobs in this city. It takes one group to open the eyes of residents and show them what is really happening. Hopefully they see you for who you are and what you are trying to do. I'm not the one using the rhetoric, you are.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:21:00 PM
Rholmgren,
If a Democrat was in office, every thing that happened on the news you'd blame on him. Every turn he made would be wrong. You would not think that the media sensationalized the bad things happening to him. It wouldn't fit your ideology.

Tell me what positive things we have done in Iraq? I just read that only 40% of the power that they had has been restored and to those homes it is rationed. Only 60% have fresh drinking water of those who had it prior to the invasion. Hospitals are running at 60% of pre-invasion levels and unemployment is at 50%. Yes, I did see we handed out candy bars and we are making sure that about 70% of pre-invasion oil is making it into the system. But then again we are going to spend a trillion dollars there too. Maybe half that could have helped our country.

How bad would it be if we had't invaded Iraq? We would have about 15,000 less injured soldiers. Even if Hussian killed half of the civilians that we killed in our bombings and the insurgents have killed in their bombings they would be better off. They would still have all of their utilities working. We would be about 300 billion dollars wealthier. Maybe , just maybe some of the National Guard would have been here to help during the Hurricane and that may have saved some lives. But, then again, Iraqiis kind of like the suicide bombers that are running around and they like American candy bars. I guess they like our soldiers walking down their streets just like we would love it if we were occupied by another country.

Oh yea, Jeff, don't say bad things because Uncle GW's ratings will go down. Be quiet and stop complaining. The media is so bad, yet all the cable news channels are full of conservative talk shows. Let's face it Rholmgren, Republicans have screwed things up pretty badly. Our deficit is through the roof with no end in sight. We are at war. Gas prices have more then doubled. Inflation is rising as are interest rates again. Spending is down. Gay marriage is taking over. Medical insurance costs are driving business down. Evangelistic pastors are claiming that weather is punishment from God for the homosexual lifestyle and not for killing thousands in Iraq. (I wonder why God let the Red Sox and Patriots win their championships in Mass. even though they have legal gay marriage. Guess God isn't consistent)We have no global warming. President has at least misled us if not out and out lied about many issues. What's his rating at now.....10%. Even his Dad and Mom were polled against him and they are having Bill and Hiliary over all the time.

Wow, can I be part of this ideology too?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:54:00 PM
trueMurrietaNative - RIGHT ON! I may be one of the newbies myself, but I know some of the stories about how the old timers have tried to fight off the armies of builders led by developer general Stephenson (and who cares how his name is spelled, or that of his obedient missus). The old timers are like the defenders of the Alamo, hopelessly outnumberd and outspent and yet fighting against the advance of "Apartment Hell" (another "RIGHT ON" to that absolutely perfect term) And they kept on fighting to the bitter end. There is principle involved here. Principle that Seyarto and his kind can't grasp because they don't have a drop of it in their bloodstream. Let's remember that the Alamo was lost, but the cause went on, and is strong to this day. May God Bless You, all you Murrieta Natives who fought the good fight. Some of us among the Newbies can see who you are, and what you have fought so long and hard for (and the kind of people you've fought against) and we are here to form the next battle line in that good fight. We can't save what has been lost, but we can sustain and rebuild the backbone of spirit that the developers and their puppet chums at city hall have tried to destroy. REMEMBER MURRIETA!

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 7:52:00 AM
Jeff you should start a television show and call it Moral Reletivism Gone Wild. So too , in general, it is O.K. for people to die under Saddams rule but it is not O.K. for them to die during the war on terror. I guess to you it would be worse if an athiest killed a child than if a Christian killed a child.Cindy Sheehan claimed the the Iraqi (or foreign) terrorists were freedom fighters. She also stated the America was not worth fighting or dieing for. With that statement she spat and kicked dust on the graves of all of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom. The Terrorists are freedom fighters? Do you think that if the Terrorists won that they would immediately hold elections and start a Democracy? So much blood was spilled in our past to further the cause of freedom. What makes anyone think that the price of Iraqui freedom would come any more cheaply? One thing you forgot to mention Jeff is that the Iraqis do have one thing now that they did not have under Saddam..... HOPE. They have a chance to be free and to enjoy the opportunities that come with it. Short term thinkers like you expect results in a year or two. We are fighting a war that may take a generation to conclude. The lives that are lost are every bit as important as the brave souls who now reside at places like Arlington National Cemetary. Your criticisms Jeff are like those of Cindy Sheehan but instead you are spitting and kicking dust in the face of your own past sacrifice. Like I said if I thought like you I would hang myself. (In shame)

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 9:15:00 AM
Some of the most long winded writers on this blog are pretending to fight the world's battles, and ignoring the disgusting decay of their own town that is happening right in front of their eyes. The latest entries that talked about 'apartment hell' tell the story. Wake up and smell the sewage, folks. The stinking nature of what is happening to Murrieta courtesy of Seyarto, VanHaster, and MacAllister. 'Apartment Hell', if you live in the old town areas of adams jefferson juniper and so on, is here. And the devil lives on in city hall.
call me, Oldster

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37:00 AM
Hey oldster I have owned several single family homes but before that I must have rented 5 or 6 different apartments. This community needs a variety of housing choices including apartments. All of my apartment experiences were positive. It is obvious that the west side around the civic center is going to be a denser more urbanized area. If you do not like that sort of development then move to an area that suits your tastes. I guarantee you that there will be many fine people who will enjoy and occupy those apartments on their road of upward mobility. It makes me sick when I read about the selfish attitudes that people have towards multifamily dwellings. Guess what oldster within 10 or 20 years there will be a point when land scarcity will make it extremely difficult to maintain the building pace of single family residences in So. Cal. At that point we will have to turn inward and develop more densely. Are you part of the crowd that does not want suburban sprawl or high development density?

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 10:12:00 AM
Rholmgren,
You have the perfect conservative party line. The War in Iraq IS NOT THE WAR ON TERROR!!!! We did not attack Iraq to rid it of terrorists. We attacked Iraq because they as a country suppossedly had WMD's. Not because they were harboring Al Queda. It's been proven over and over and over again that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden, by the way...where is he? The war to rid the world of WMD's is just a huge lie. Now, terrorists have infiltrated Iraq to get a free shot at our military. All they need is a rifle or homemade bomb. So what have we done. You are on the 30% of raving conservatives that wouuld defend this President if he attacked St. Mary's college for girls, because this is all you know. But you are a chicken hawk. One who never served, never shed a drop of sweat of the military. When you do more then talk about our military and about killing then come and talk to me....then maybe you'll have a clue. The war in Iraq is all about oil. It's Karl Rove's war and you can defend it all day long as most conservatives are jumping ship.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 10:32:00 AM
The apartment/condo topic is a good one. Important. Let me jump in with a different perspective. In my line of work, I've kept an eye on the way communities develop for decades, in places like Orange County, Ontario/Alta Loma, and many others. I can personally feel the pain of those who have lost their country environment, and their fears for the future. Some communities do indeed go directly from progressive development into "apartment hell" (which is, by the way, not a brand new term). Is Murrieta headed in that direction? Well, that depends more on what happens now than on what has happened to date. At present, a sustainable balance has been achieved. It may sound crude, but the local "working class" housing has been made adequate to supply the employee needs of a healthy commercial/industrial base. In Murrieta's old town area, the only mistake - and it would be a grave one if it happened - would be to increase the number of apartments/condos in the old town area beyond the number now under construction. Call it gut instinct, call it the knowledge that comes from decades of real estate experience, but I know for a fact that "build out" for a healthy apartment/condo contingent has been maxed out in this area. It is time for the sales-tax generating commercial sector to be approached harder and faster than it has ever been approached by city hall. And I know they have been trying.
"Apartment Hell" is not the destiny of Murrieta if the brakes can be slammed on it right now. But if not, well, that may be another story entirely.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 10:33:00 AM
9:37,
Apartments mean more tax dollars and revenue dollars for big business to thrive on using less land. That's all it's about. Why do you think a conservative would support such a thing? It's not about poorer familes or kids trying to make it. If it was, they would be rallying around programs that help get them better paying jobs and better health care. It's about money for big business. If it was about the less fortunate or kids starting out then they would care about the immigration problem. They would make it so that any CEO hiring a illegal immigrant would serve two months in jail, no tolerance policy. That would put some ten million illegals headed back south of the border. That's what they would be for if they cared about the kids and the poor. But they can't be for a policy like that because much of our economy thrives on the cheap labor that illegals provide. Ask Rholmgren, he knows he used to live in apartment complexes with the gangs that infiltrate them. You are right, we don't want to become inundated with apartments. We know that areas like that turn into Lake Elsinore. But we need more schools and parks the more we pack people in. Rholmgren wants density, but I think we should grow to serve the people, not serve the local government with more taxes.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 10:46:00 AM
10:33: Its BS to say Murrieta has made a good try at getting business into town. The property around the freeway intersection remains vacant. In an economic boom, it remains vacant. This city government could not sell a glass of water in the desert. But it seems they are great at selling apartments and condos. Murrieta: a great place to sell out and leave.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 11:02:00 AM
11:02:23 Telling it like it is. With Murrieta's government maybe some Condos or apartments are in the future of the Golden Triangle. VanHaaster is not out of work, he's busy writing a book on how to turn gold into lead.

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 2:21:00 PM
If I may I'd like to add my two cents worth to the conversation. I don't think I know who "JLM" is. Those initials don't match up with anyone I know. But I can back up what he ( or she ) is saying. I too have worked with more than one growing real estate markets.

Murrieta in its present size and shape is at its saturation point for high density and medium/high density housing. At least this is true in and around the commercial corridor areas. The outskirts of town ( near city limit lines ) still have some justifiable potential for such housing types, but no where else.

There is a multi family density line that can be crossed which can put a local economy into the long term doldrums. Murrieta is at that point.

I have to admit that if I had listings right now that would be suited to multi family dwellings I would probably not be writing this. The temptation to earn money in today's real estate market is so great that mistakes are being made that people will have to live with for the next hundred years. Agents like me are making plenty of money. I blame both my profession and easily manipulated city governments for the damage that is happening.

Most people do not understand the kind of public relations talent and influence at work for the big dollar world of housing development.

I am not just an agent. I am a local homeowner who has a great deal of concern about where things are going. It is hard for someone in my business to express these kind of opinions. If certain people ( my associates ) knew I was expressing these kind of thoughts, they would not be happy campers.

Thank you to whoever is paying to provide this blog site.

XYZ

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 4:34:00 PM
XYZ,
It's nice to hear some honesty that isn't politically motivated. I would like to know what that saturation point is? If we are at that point and with the traffic that binds up such a small city, are we following the plan and if so, is the plan skewed. We have some very nice areas in this city that instead of selling out to developers should be used for large parks, nature walks, even baseball diamonds.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 6:00:00 PM
Dear Jeff,
Thankyou for your nice reply. I am sorry if anything I said was taken the wrong way. I am not an expert on community planning, and can not answer questions that require the specialized knowledge of governmental agencies. I suggest you inquire with the planning department of the City of Murrieta, or other governmental entities, departments or agencies as may be appropriate.
XYZ

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 8:57:00 PM
Jeff: Don't fall for this XYZ stuff. It is a setup. It illustrates the unreliable nature of sites like this which are full of unverifiable entrants. Some of the entrants on this site and many others like it are bogus. Some are genuine. How can you tell the difference? You can't. It's the same with the politicians in this town. Some are bogus. Some are not. Verrrrry hard to tell the difference, and just when you think you've got it right, they prove you wrong. Take it as a lesson in life. No one is laughing, this is serious. Anything anonymous or unverifiable should be taken not just with a grain of salt, but with a whole ****load of salt. By the way, I don't know your last name. Are you even real? If so, come out of the closet. Stand up and be saluted by those who like what you have to say.
call me Minerva

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 9:56:00 PM
9:56 or Minerva,
I'm as real as it gets I guess. I know I have made enemies and some frienda by stating my feelings. I'm not always right for everyone but I'm right for me. I am sure most are not exactly who they say they are on here, but I would hope most talk from their heart whether we agree or not it stimulates us thinking. I am a Murrieta resident, an area company owner or CEO if you want to call it that and I love America and God. I just don't think that everything I'm told is always the truth by the people that run our world, be it the Federal, State, Local governments or the church I call home. I really don't have much of an ideology except to be true to myself. It may seem I'm very liberal but to me it seems that most people on here are so far right that when I am in the middle I seem left. Anyway....I realize how misleading this media is. The only real people are Ed, Kelly, JLK and Rholmgen has to be real because you couldn't make him up.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, September 16, 2005 11:43:00 PM
There are two possibilities of what is happening here. One is a whole lot better than the other. I'm outta here now. I wish you all well in the future.
JLM

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:10:00 AM
JLM I have to agree that there will be a point where there will be enough apartments in old town.I think that you are right in that the concentration of apartments in that area has reached the right balance. There is a really nice color-coded map at city hall that shows how every Murrieta lot is zoned. I think people need to go down and look at it for themselves. Some people complain about what is going in at vacant lots around town without ever realizing that the lot they are complaining about has been zoned commercial or for apartments long before their houses were built.

Jeff you are still so Myopic! Everyone knows that the WMD arguement was just part of the arguement for war. Do yourself a favor and go to the library and pull some newspapers from 2003. Many reasons for war were given . I am not going to do you the favor of telling you the reasons here because you need to read more for yourself. Do not be so intellectualy lazy(again)and do some research before you state simpleton reasons for the war. Your WMD arguement makes it sound like you have been brainwashed by T.V. or Michael Moorers blog site. Anyone who is interested in reading more Cindy Sheehan wacko comments should visit Moorers blog. She is a real loon!(Be careful who you support Jeff!)

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:56:00 AM
There you go again Rholmgren,
When a conservative right wing Republican has no defense they attack the person. They label everyone as this or that. I support me Rholmgren, unlike you. You support everything Cheney, Frist, Delay, Cunningham, and Rove think up. They used the excuse about WMD's period. They didn't go to the UN with anything else. Thats the only fact. Now after they were caught with no viable reason left, they want to say,.....of yes and we wanted to help all these innocent victims of Iraq. Yes and we wanted to give them schools and hospitals....BS!!! We went for OIL and Military Bases!!! If we cared about the people there are plenty of countries we could help have helped without attacking them. You need to watch something other then Fox News and not listen to O'Reily, Hannity and Rush. Maybe just maybe you would understand compassion. To talk about war and killing, your comments are baseless because you only know about target practice and playing Doom on the computer. Go call Clinton and Moore and Sheehan names because of what they say. Because your ideology has failed and most (what 65%) agree with me. All you do is say things that are untrue. If you want facts I can send you a copy of the 9-11 report that was commissioned by Bush. Oh yea, thats just lies too right? Everything that is said that is outside your ideology is a lie right? Have you ever been wrong??? LOL LOL!!!! Congress yesterday began talks to set a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq. Guess you are wrong huh? Well not the troops off the bases we will get or the prisons we manage. Guess some of the boys are having too much fun. The only brainwashing thats done on TV is Fox News. At least other channels don't lie and mislead and yes, there are facts to back that too. People watching that channel think that Hussian was Bin Laden's brother and that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to destroy us for allowing gay marriage. Thats the conservative mentality that you follow. Want to see comments by conservative Senators saying these things? Now be a good little boy and go play Doom and watch the blood flow.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 10:25:00 AM
FACT: Over the past 10 years, Murrieta has gone from being a poor rural "area" to being a thriving city, respected by the older and newer citys throughout the region.

FACT: There has been a core of courageous councilmen who have stood at the forefront of the city's advance into the twenty first century. Four councilmembers in particular have withstood immense pressure to promote projects and plans that will have lasting financial benefit to the community.

FACT: Those councilmembers are (former) mayor and councilman Chuck Washington (most recently a governing member of our sister city to the south); current councilman Kelly Seyarto (who has also served as mayor); (former) mayor and councilman Jack vanHaaster; and current councilman Douglas R. McAllister.

FACT: The residents of the City of Murrieta will enjoy a future enhanced by benefits that would never have been possible without the courageous efforts of those four gentlemen.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 11:14:00 AM
Jeff I did not even bother to read more than the first few sentences of your post. It is too much like Dejavu. I know you did not even bother to do more research did you. I am not blindly right wing , but you certainly are blind to facts.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:04:00 PM
Mr. Rholmgren,
Regarding your entry pertaining to the “color coded” (zoning) maps of Murrieta. There is a misconception that has been spread by no-growth factions that only those properties specifically designated as multi-family can be used for such purposes. In fact, the “Multi Use” (MU) zones are perfectly legitimate candidates for multi-family housing under the zoning descriptions for those areas in the City of Murrieta. This includes, in part, the great majority of properties throughout the so-called “corridor” areas of Murrieta. Please check your detailed zoning descriptions at the city. The result of the no-growth propaganda regarding this great MU zoning land resource has resulted in less than proper attention being devoted to these areas by multi-housing developers and the brokerages who deal with such developers. The multi-use (residential and commercial) zoning rights are already in place in these MU zones. Very valuable property rights already exist in these areas.

Too much attention is being given to the commercial development needs of the MU corridors. Yes, commercial is valuable, but it will come. The fact is that commercial business “follows rooftops”. That means that the more families live in an area, the larger the sustainable base is for commercial development, and thus larger deposits into the public treasury from the eventual sales taxes. Do not make the no-growth proponents mistake of trying to put the cart before the horse. That is a tactic designed to slow residential (and thus commercial) construction to a crawl.

The recent propaganda campaign being mounted in Murrieta against multi-family housing is counter productive. If Murrieta wants large scale revenues from sales taxes, the “rooftops” need to come first. The more residential development there is in and around the so-called commercial corridor areas of Murrieta, the more sales tax revenues will result. All Murrieta residents, in their own self interests, should be actively involved not in discouraging, but in encouraging multi-family development in all the MU zoned areas of Murrieta. In the long run, it will be better for our parks, schools, streets and yes, our quality of life.
IM4Murrieta

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:35:00 PM
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.

-Thomas Sowell 1992

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 4:43:00 PM
12:35 thanks for the details and I could not agree with you more. I am an inclusionary housing advocate and that is one of many reasons that I am against many parts of the Rescue Murrieta agenda. They are stealth slow growthers who have bought what they want and now they want to deny others the same opportunities by limiting the types of residences that are to be built here. Their demands for larger lot sizes, wider streets, and green belt set backs are a stealthy way of eliminating the entry level housing from our community. Such requirements would make multi family housing more difficult to develop. This community is lacking in the development of entry level new housing in the 1300 to 1700 square foot range. This house size could be built on lots smaller than 4500 square feet if the house has the right type of foot print on the lot. The city should encourage this type of development throughout the city and not concentrate it in one spot.

4:43 Thomas Sowell is a genius.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 6:11:00 PM
MurrietanEyes,
You're right.

Why do we need more entry level housing? Why would that be a focus in our community? Of what benefit to the residents that have paid big dollars for their homes does this add. It does not bring residents into this community that will step up into a house as apartment rents are much to high to allow lower income families a chance to save the down payment for a home. Again what benefit does an abundance of low income housing add here? Let's all look to the communities of Wilomar and Lake Elsinore to the North of Clinton Keith and West of the 15. This is low income housing. Drive through there and then come back and tell me that this is what we want in abundance here? If that is what we want, then why didn't we leave the low income businesses along Jefferson near the police station stay? They were low income, right? For the same reason that I will explain why the home owner doesn't want an abundance of low income housing.

I understand that as a community we should have what is required by the government. But what apartments today are really low income? The rents are staggering, I know, I help my son live in one as he goes through school. Some people on here want smaller lots and smaller streets, then why don't we build some massive trailer parks. Hey, Rholmgren!!! Low income housing. Small lots. Smaller streets. And what comes with these cramped areas. Gangs and crime. Where do gang members live? In apartment complexes. Now we have heard in your posts that you frequent areas that you need to carry a gun. Well I don't want you to bring those friends into my neighborhood. I don't feel threatened today where I live but at the end of my street, located just across the Murrieta city line in Wilomar is a new apartment complex. This will make me think twice about my home and it's safety. It will also add more local traffic, with these lower income and younger kids speeding through my neighborhood. It just will. I am not jumping up and down, happy that we are helping lower income families at the expense of the value of my home and my families safety. Let's hope nothing like that happens. With lower income, comes problems. Let's face it, I don't have any problems now with the mostly professional familes that live in my neighborhood. But what about the lower income familes that don't have anywhere to go but the streets around my home. Parks are about a mile away. They aren't going to walk there. Their park will be my street. So if the Rholmgren's of Murrieta want apartment complexes all over this city, to increase taxes and income for developers, he needs to live next to them. I see nothing wrong with bigger lot sizes for our kids to enjoy our backyards. I don't like streets that are filled with cars lined along both sides and two cars can't easily pass each other. All this is about is more money in the developers pocket. I have even seen them stick homes where the driveways run in front of another home deep into the back of this homes property, not even facing the street. Very poor planning.
Rholmgren and Seyarto are not going to stand for anything that will increase our home values or increase our enjoyment of our fine town. They are for bringing as many people into as small a space as possible, to reap tax benefits and fill the pockets of developers. Thats what conservatives are for. They use the excuse that they are helping the poor, but the high rents keep them poor. Then our kids have a tougher time finding that after school job because those jobs go to the low income familes as they don't have the skills for the higher skilled jobs. They stay poor and developers make more money.

Did we not just see in New Orleans, to an extreme example, what happens when low income familes are thrown together in just a few short hours? Now in a far less stressful situation we put them together in a small apartment complexes. Kind of scary huh?

Rholmgren wants smaller homes. But developers don't want to waste even a small lot on a small square footage house. Why when they can double the square footage on that same small lot by building up. If I'm a builder, I want the biggest homes on the smallest possible lot. The bigger the home the more money they get and they used the same small lot. So his theory will never happen here. That 4500 sq. ft. lot will not have a 1400 sq. ft home but a 2800 sq. ft two story home for twice the price.

Lets look at increasing and beautifing what we have instead of increasing the density with low income families.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 10:12:00 PM
VanHaaster, Seyarto and McAlister courageous? Rude and arrogant. Not courageous. Seyarto however is courageous in his other profession. He should stick to that one. VanHaaster is a crook. And McAlister is.....well nothing but a third vote.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 17, 2005 10:17:00 PM
M.E RMers were quoted many times on this blog as saying they wanted larger lot sizes, wider streets, and greenbelts.It was not an official position of RM but many of its members stated that is want they wanted in Murrieta and that includes our illustrious Mayor.

Jeff I love the way you already conclude that entry level housing means low income housing which also leads to Gangs and crime. There are plenty of examples throughout So Cal of the types of housing that I am talking about and they are quite attactive and they would blend in nicely with Murrieta. They look nothing like the low income areas of Wildomar or Lake Elsinore ( Or the really bad area of Mead Valley.)Are they denser? Yes. Do they have park space? Yes. The closest example locally would be the Old School House development of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (Although what I am talking about would be a hair denser and with housing a hair smaller) You need to get out more Jeff you sound like a snob. Do you think you are more deserving of nice housing than anyone else? Everyone deserves opportunities Jeff, so why do you advocate policies that would deny others upward mobility? This type of housing would not affect the all important value of your house. It would just be housing that is 3 or 4 rungs down the value ladder. Your last post really shows your ignorance Jeff. The councilmen you talked about did many great things long before the cement cured on your present house. Among their accomplishments were: Puchasing the land for the Civic Center and the New High School for a prayer. (The High School site is over 200 acres and I think it was bought for a few million dollars) Widening Jefferson and Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. Adding the Nutmeg Street Overcrossing. Building a new police station. Many more great things happened long before you moved here Jeff.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:57:00 AM
MurrietanEyes,
Good for you!! All Rholmgren knows is how to support Republicans and the conservative thought process. It's all he knows.
I looked at the Old School House development for my son and it was so overcrowed and small for the money they want. And there are no parks. No playgrounds or baseball diamonds for the kids. So push young families into over priced developments and all you get is a big problem. Low income familes have trouble maintaining the areas they live in and over 5 years, most of these low income housing turn into Lake Elsinore apartments. The high end apartments and condos are out of the price range of these familes. Why is Murrieta the site that we need low income familes, above what the government demands anyhow? There are other communities that already have low income housing, in areas I described. Do I the home owner benefit? NO...I don't. The developer rakes in the money.
And yes, apartments bring gangs and crime. Thats just how it is. The lower the income level the more problems. So in the end, Rholmgren is not for bring in and helping low income families, he's for putting more money into the pockets of the developers, just like Van Haaster, Seyarto and McAlister. If Seyarto was for the home owners that already exist in this town he would be for making things better for us, not building on every square inch.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:23:00 PM
Councilmen Seyarto again calls me what I am not. I am not a Big Wig anything. I too realize that apartments are a place for some good people but it also brings in undesireable people. I believe in doing our fair share, not over building these apartment communities to serve the big business. It's not stereotypical to say something thats true. Im not a politician and can say what I believe to be true. People are going to listen or not and most would agree that apartments can be a breeding ground for crime and gangs. They don't live in half a million dollar homes. I don't see the shift in families moving from Southern California to other states. Look at the tremendous growth in Murriteta and Temecula. Why would anyone even mention a fear of losing young residents. When I am out, thats all that I see. Young families. Using the fear tactic is not realistic telling anyone people will leave this community. More and more come everyday. If it begins to weed out some, then it does.

I think the people who live in this community today should be number one to you. Not proposed residents. Number one should be the people that pay tax dollars today. But your focus is on what you can do for the developer and his dollar. When they have over built here and gone, you will have lost your purpose and all you will have are the current residents.

Companies like mine have no problem attracting employees. It is the high cost of insurance that you know for a fact run us out of California.

You continue in your post to inject more fear, as if California is dying from the lack of low income housing, yet the issues are not simplistic as you say. They are multi-phased. The government sets standards for the amount of low income housing to qualify for benefits from them. I agree we should meet those standards but to surpass them benefits only big business and not the average resident who struggles to make that house payment and to pay for such simple things like gas. But that home owner is the key member of this community, not low income families. You as a City Councilmen need to remember that we are your patrons, and we deserve your attention. I don't pay you to worry where my children will live. That's my job. You need to make this community a better place for the people who fill the tax chests. And that won't be the low income families. There are many low income apartments through out the Inland Vally. We should share in this type of developement but not lead it. You and Rholmgren need to move next to one of these complexes and then tell me how stereotypical my assement is.

The young population continues to buy in our community and there is no problem with them leaving Murrieta. But since you have made that comment, it would be nice to see the stats you MUST have to defend your argument. All I know is that we have just built our second High School and before that one was built, we needed a third. Doesn't seem like people are moving to Iowa.

Maybe the Council should subsidise homes for the low income families instead of public relation firms?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:36:00 PM
Jeff I just want to know how you have the arrogance to stereotype low income people? You must have a small yet elite circle of friends. I have friends who you would consider low income and yet these friends of mine are also high quality people. I also know people who are multi millionaires but are of poor character. Actually I have found in my life that there is no relationship between wealth and quality of character. I also have wealthy friends that are down to earth and are truly model citizens. I have friends that go to Charger games with me who are reformed gang members. They are great guys and all people deserve the opportunity of upward mobility. You need to get out more Jeff and mingle with all types of people. You may discover that even people of lower incomes can make good friends and neighbors too. You have your big house Jeff and I have mine and the big difference between us is that I want others to have the same opportunity while you want to throw roadblocks in the financial progress of others. You are morally reprehensable.

Keep laughing M.E. I would rather be comic relief than come across as you do: A frigidly boring and sad yet hateful person. There are places where you can seek help though, and I hope you turn your bad attitude around.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 9:38:00 AM
I posted @ 4:34 Sept 16. I thought I would check back in today & see if anyone had commented. I see my 'XYZ' signature, and another entry obviously intended to hurt. I am not'bogus'. In my work office politics are bad enough and enemies are easy to make if anyone 'rocks the boat'. It is a hard world we live in sometimes,, and it is to bad I have to sign 'XYZ' or 'ETC', but the world is what it is. Some people are putting down people who use 'anonymous' names, but they are not the ones with somethig to lose. I probably should not write when I am angry.
XYZ

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 11:22:00 AM
No one can blame you for being angry. I am angry too.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 12:07:00 PM
This is 12:07 again. One more thought. We need to examine the motives of whoever would try to sabotage the initial XYZ entry. Is it paranoid to think some apartment developers might have started a propaganda effort? They must have a lot of money at stake.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 12:15:00 PM
Councilmen Seyarto,
I sit in my office at work and chuckle about the Big Wig comment. The people I work with only consider me that when I have to make the big decision, but the rely on me making it. I am right some of the time and can be wrong. But I always lead with both my head and my heart. Yes I have employees at both ends of the financial spectrum and no Rholmgren I don't have elite friends who look down on lower incomed people.

Kelly, the last thing you have to worry about are people leaving Murrieta or Temecula in droves. I'm sure lower income familes may be moving to Phoenix but it's hardly an issue to scare residents into allowing apartments to be built all over town because of it.

We all said the same thing growing up. How could we ever afford a home that costs so much starting out? When I was young in Chicago my family home was worth $50,000 and when I saw homes for $150,000 I said at my 2.00 an hour I will never be able to buy a home. But as we grow we learn that salaries increase and who would ever have thought that I would make a six figure salary. We all start in apartments or condos and if we have the motovation to buy a home we work hard to save and trade up using our equity. Most all of us have done that and I see no end to that process.

But, with that said, I am for building the required amount of apartment space to meet government standards. More then that does nothing for the home owner in this town except lower our property values. Show me one report or statistic that indicates to me that building apartments in a city raises property values, secruity or quality of life. There isn't one, so we are listening to a man that let the development community back him with twenty times more then any other candidate spent to avoid a recall. I can't listen to anything you say in regards to Developers in this city. Your remarks are tainted. They will always have that developer/councilmen relationship that is unethical. The same would hold true if we lived by a large forest and the logging companies had spent twenty times more then what others spent to re-elect you. Every comment you made in a favorable light toward logging companies would smell wrong. Thats the cards you decided to play with and now you have to play the hand out.

I again am not against ANY apartment complexes or low income housing. I am against only building more then we are required to build. There are many cities that have many apartment complexes and they built them to service the needs of the community they have. I believe we should build and support the current residents and their needs on Murrieta. Let's vote when it comes to putting in a lake with a park surrounding it rather then another apartment complex and see where the voters stand. I would love to bet my house on it. Improve the quailty of life in our town and young people will continue to flock to it. Build and overcrowd this place and introduce crime and you will find some unhappy residents.

Isn't funny how you don't get the concept that you don't work for yourself or the builders or Van Haaster but for all of us. Thats really strange that a politician doesn't accept and understand that.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 1:00:00 PM
Jeff, you said: ". . . I am for building the required amount of apartment space to meet government standards."

Would you be surprised to discover that there were NO government imposed standards? Would you be surprised to learn that under the vanHaaster/Seyarto prior administrations that they voluntarily took on the building of low income apts/condos probably at the urging of Dan Stephenson and/or Larry Markham?

I believe that the former City administration has not leveled with the residents about this. Kelly needs to cite the statutes etc. that require building the low income facilities.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 4:32:00 PM
Kelly, so you admit that you are into social engineering. You think that it's OK for you to decide what to build in this City based on your perception of demograhic shifts. Wow!

I didn't know that you were a demographer in addition to a City Planner.

Of course the more apartments and condos you allow, the greater the demand on our already squeezed PD and other City Services. Not to mention the overcrowed schools, non-existent parks, gridlock streets, etc.

That's right Kelly, just keep packing those rooftops in cause the developers have convinced you that "commercial follows rooftops."

Well, a lot of other things follow rooftops as well and they are not mostly good for the residents that are already here.

Personnally, I doubt that you really understand the requirement that the General Plan must be kept in balance - at all times.

Neither you, nor any other member of the City Council, past or present, appear to be qualified to design a City. There are professionals who do that. Has Murrieta used the services of such a professional? Or is it a case of the developers leading the blind?

Tell us, we are anxious to know.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 4:44:00 PM
Mr. Kelly Seyarto,
As an educator, I want to be sure you are aware that the insult inherent in the old saw "pot calling the kettle black" has its thickest roots in thinly shrouded bigotry. Some people who use the phrase are well aware of its implication, but feign ignorance or innocence when confronted with the facts. Just in case you are really ignorant of the truth, please be aware that the saying you used, which is indeed very old, was never really all that popular until the Jim Crow era; and it never became popular at all among people of good character. You seem portray yourself as someone looking out for the lower-income or socially deprived classes, but to date you have done so most forcefully when supporting a cause that also benefits people in the business of low income housing. This may all be mere happy coincidence for the involved housing developers. I hope so. But this all could prove to be other than coincidence if you were to do something clearly unselfish and without bigotry. Perhaps you could open your own home's doors on a long term basis to a low income family from New Orleans? Or maybe you'd prefer to merely stop using phrases with well known and quite obvious double meanings. The latter might prove a much more comfortable choice for someone who has been in the habit of using such phrases.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 6:45:00 PM
So Councilmen Seyarto,
What does Dan Stephenson have to do with the City Council and what contact have you had with him in a professional manner? Or for that matter Van Haaster and McAlister?

How come you don't realize the negative aspects of bringing in more and more low income families. I heard you trying to sell it to us in your posts. From the way you talk it's as if they are what we are missing to make this a complete community. Why are you always on the side of the Development community? Always? You know they are not in business to make this a wonderful community. They are here to make money as fast as they can and move on to the next community. Yet EVERY post you make is in their defense. You stay completely away from any reasonable comments about the negatives of low income housing and apartments. It shows this immense bias. It would be reasonable for you to state the good and bads to it, but you don't. Have you considered going into development sales after the fire department?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 7:52:00 PM
Rholmgren,
I have to address you on your last post. I have friends at most levels of society but no reformed gang members. I kind of tend to stay away from violent groups who are known to hate and carry guns....oh i didn't mean to bunch you Rholmgren in with them.

So when saying there is no connection between people with money and the quality of their character I find that hard to believe. Should I show you the videos of the violence in inner city areas? Remember I come from Chicago where low income housing worked so well. Today they are tearing most of it down. The police wouldn't even enter these places because the bottom line was they were afraid. This is not a statement of prejudice but a statement of fact. Now please read this.......slowly. I don't think ALL people of low income means are of bad character. But the breeding grounds are started in these areas. You don't see people in our neighborhoods rioting and looting, you don't see gang members hanging out on the corner. It's the way it is. I didn't start it but I will defend my community from it.
I don't think opportunity comes from high priced apartments. Low income families barely make enough to live on let alone save a home down payment. But if you want to help them, stand up and fund housing programs where the government funds low interest loans. But that doesn't benefit your corporate world. So do this, call Sean Hannity up tomorrow, bash Hillary for a few minutes then ask him what he thinks about funding low income housing loans. LOL. Morally reprehensible?? I leave that to people who support this war, support increasing profits to the conservative corporations at a cost to me. Bush was voted in because he was suppose to be our protector. Well, he was asleep after 9-11, Bin Laden is still running loose, he failed in one of the most critical disasters to ever hit the US by letting all those poor people down on the Gulf Coast. 3000 GI's are dead and 14000 wounded in a war that has helped no one. Protector of the rich and famous is all he is. Protector of oil companies and Haliburton. Protector of the poor?? LOL....I hate to laugh. We spent two months talking about some white girl in Aruba but do you hear anything about the missing 2000 poor children. LOL.....right....Fox News is all over that story. Talk about morally irreprehensible. You better think twice.

Fridgidly boring and sad?? Name calling....it's the conservative trade mark. Does Karl Rove give classes to you guys? Wait, it's raining and the streets might flood.....Bill Clinton's fault. It will be his fault forever. LOL.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 8:15:00 PM
Sir, I did not comment on the origin of the saying. It is the when and the why of the saying's becoming popular that tells the story. And this is just one such story among many. In a way, people leave fingerprints of their own pasts in their words. Clues about their deeper selves.

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 10:24:00 PM
Councilmen Seyarto,
When I smell corruption and hear it talking I speak my mind. If you don't like it you can easily ignore it or comment back, your choice.
I realize not all politicians are for sale. But when a politician only sees one side of the fence and only expresses that side (opinion) as fact, I question his ability to reason or his ability to make common sense judgments. To SELL us on this low income housing without also talking about the negatives that come with it is unreasonable and equally lacking good decision making. To give both sides and hear some other educated opinion is not a bad thing but a good and fair thing. But all you do is sell the developers side, not only of the low income housing issue but every issue that comes along concerning the side that profits developers. Again, if it was a comment here or there but on every issue you take their side. Now what does common sense tell someone when that happens. That either that individual hasn't reasoned out the good and bad to an issue or that they don't want anyone else to reason it out and they sell it "as is" and hope no one thinks beyond "rooftops". You are one of those salesmen types. Your opinion would be much less pro developer, if you explained the evils that accompany low income housing. But thats not what sales people do. They try to sell their product no matter what the REAL value of that product is. I TRULY hope that you aren't in the developers pocket but it doesn't appear that way because you surely aren't making sensible decisions for the residents of this town. If you had been the first reponse to someone mentioning the crime that accompanies low income housing, you would have pulled out some statistics showing how wonderful these developments are to a community. Instead you belittle the challengers argument, by calling them uneducated to the subject manner and to just in essence..."shut up". But isn't that the same exact thing you did when Van Haaster was questioned during that Council Meeting last spring where his unethical behavior was questioned and you basically told everyone in the room to "shut up", that all that mattered is that you vouched for his ethics. Same pattern here, yet, Van Haaster apologized for unethical behavior later. So do we trust in everything you say? Why would we? Are you going to vouch for crime not increasing with these added developments bringing in lower income families? That really wasn't a sarcastic question this time. It was a statement of fact. Give me more then Kelly says so about the negative aspect of these developments. Prove to all of the residents that crime will not increase with real data. You can't because it will increase crime and that is just common sense.

I personally give in many ways to charity and don't golf. Lost part of my hand many years ago. I attend my church and am the guy driving around delivering turkeys thanksgiving eve or taking christmas gifts dressed as Santa the week before Christmas.
My part time job is not attending govermental functions and learning the nuts and bolts. One day maybe I will find more time, but it's 10:30 now and I need to head home from my office.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, September 19, 2005 10:36:00 PM
It is an intentionally misleading distortion of statistics to say that 100 housing units will generate as much crime as 100 multi-family units.

Middle to upper end single family residences are far more often the targets of crime than the sources of crime. Multi-family unit dwellers have a high level of victimization by people in their own neighborhood, and upper/middle single family homes - more lucrative targets - have a high level of victimization by elements from the same multi-family neighborhoods. Very significant: The opposite is not true.

There is an inverse relationship between crime rate and the geographical distance between upper/middle single family neighborhoods and multi-family neighborhoods. In other words, the further the inhabitants of upper/middle neighborhoods are from multi-family neighborhoods, the safer the upper/middle inhabitants.

These facts do not change just because a developer-friendly politician plays with statistics and uses every trick in the development handbook to distort reality.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:06:00 AM
Councilman Seyarto, you said: "You keep referring to the public hearing at which I informed people after they kept attacking Jack's daughter (and getting more and more vicious about it) that the discussion for the public hearing was limited to the issues related to traffic. That was why people requested the appeal. We would never have an appeal based on someone's perception about unethical behavior. That is something that is under the pervue of law enforcement. That is exactly what I explained to people who were hell bent on making the public hearing into a public flogging. I didn't tell anyone to shut up. . . ."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Yes you did, in effect, tell the residents to shut up. I was there. I heard you say that you could vouch for vanHaaster's ethics and there would be no further discussion of that issue.

But, of course, you cut off discussion only after you had your say about vanHaaster's ethics. You think the attending residents didn't notice that cheap shot?

But the other thing that you have not explained is that the appeal was a setup from the beginning. Here's how the setup occurred:

1. vanHaaster met privately with a majority of the Planning Commission about the vanHaaster day-care center.

2. The Planning Commission approved vanHaaster's plans [big surprise].

3. Someone blew the whistle on the sordid affair and the Californian printed the story.

4. vanHaaster made a public apology in the newspaper, but stopped short of saying that he would forego the project.

5. Residents interpreted vanHaaster's action as "eye wash" meant only for public consumption. He never intended to give up the project even if he acted unethically.

6. Warnie Enochs said that he was going to appeal the Planning Commission's approval on both traffic and ethics.

7. Another council member (was it you Mr. Seyarto?) beat Warnie to the City Hall and filed an appeal raising only the traffic issue.

8. When the appeal came up on the City Council agenda, vanHaaster demurrely left the Council Chamber, leaving Seyarto in charge of the meeting.

9. Seyarto made his public statement about his approval of vanHaaster's ethics, then restricted what the residents could say.

10. Seyarto and McAllister voted to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission. Enochs and Ostling voted to grant the appeal.

11. Because the vote on the appeal was 2 to 2, the Planning Commission's decision was not overturned. Joila vanHaaster's project sailed through despite the fact that the local press said "it did not pass the smell test."

Oh, yes number 12, Rescue Murrieta was born that very night in the City Council parking lot.

So you fool no one. The appeal was planned and handled to insure that vanHaaster would get his project. It did cost him his council seat, and, it should have cost Seyarto and McAllister their seats as well.

Finally, number 13, Dan Stephenson and his developer cronies rode to the save their Council majority, but saved only Seyarto and McAllister. Those two continue to vote the developer "ticket" and appear to be in the developers' hip-pocket despite Seyarto's protestations to the contrary.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:37:00 AM
Ed Faunce's post sounds more like hearsay or a conspiracy theory than anything else. Remember folks talented attorneys are also talented truth twisters.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:33:00 PM
Councilmen Seyarto,
You've answered some of my questions and I appreciate that. I don't have to take your word for it and basically don't. I do agree there has to be some differences in the types of housing in Murrieta but not to the extent we are planning. It sides heavily toward the developer community. All I can compare it to is Rholmgren getting on here and defending every Republican or conservative on every issue and the other side is always wrong. You lost you credibility a long time ago because of that.

I sat at that Council meeting and heard your words and listened to the other side that night. I saw an arrogance in your manner and when I used the words "shut up", there are many ways of expressing it as Ed said. On that night I began to watch what was happening in this community and it pissed me off. You are a very educated man and I had hoped you would have gotten over the recall election and stepped into a new role on the Council but by your comments in this post about Ed and his little buddy it shows this arrogance and that you can't work for us as a Councilmen. You have a big attitude problem and it doesn't fit. I have repeated far too many times about the appearance of unethical behavior with you and McAlister. If you adopt an ethics policy it should include respect for the other members of the Council.

I would vote of Ed Faunce today, just off his comments. Not only would I vote for him, I would support him. Next election Councilmen Seyarto may find you sitting next to Van Haaster but not in council seats. This time around there will be more publicity about the links that are so obvious here and the Van Haaster agenda. Jack Van Haaster is a crook, plain and simple and he benefited from using his power from the system to gain an end to those means. I realize I am only one vote but hopefully someone out there has read my comments and one will join me in voting you out and another and another. It soon adds up. You may be able to retire really early then. Time is not on our side as more and more projects that don't benefit the residents build.
You continue talking about future residents but we, todays residents should be the ones that matter to you. But if you let us matter, your developer friends wouldn't get there way. But you would be remembered for doing good. Instead you will be remembered as one of the three council members that were being recalled. I think that you are the spinmaster and the poison pill. But you are not alone, we were sound enough to rid this community of one pill.

Just think, if you do adopt an ethics policy tonight it would be just another thing that Van Haaster couldnt do when he was Mayor, but then with his ethics it's clear he didnt want to. My prediction is that you will stand in the way of any progress that Mayore Enochs wants to make. We will see.
Jeff
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:59:00 PM
Councilmen Seyarto,
You've answered some of my questions and I appreciate that. I don't have to take your word for it and basically don't. I do agree there has to be some differences in the types of housing in Murrieta but not to the extent we are planning. It sides heavily toward the developer community. All I can compare it to is Rholmgren getting on here and defending every Republican or conservative on every issue and the other side is always wrong. You lost you credibility a long time ago because of that.

I sat at that Council meeting and heard your words and listened to the other side that night. I saw an arrogance in your manner and when I used the words "shut up", there are many ways of expressing it as Ed said. On that night I began to watch what was happening in this community and it pissed me off. You are a very educated man and I had hoped you would have gotten over the recall election and stepped into a new role on the Council but by your comments in this post about Ed and his little buddy it shows this arrogance and that you can't work for us as a Councilmen. You have a big attitude problem and it doesn't fit. I have repeated far too many times about the appearance of unethical behavior with you and McAlister. If you adopt an ethics policy it should include respect for the other members of the Council.

I would vote of Ed Faunce today, just off his comments. Not only would I vote for him, I would support him. Next election Councilmen Seyarto may find you sitting next to Van Haaster but not in council seats. This time around there will be more publicity about the links that are so obvious here and the Van Haaster agenda. Jack Van Haaster is a crook, plain and simple and he benefited from using his power from the system to gain an end to those means. I realize I am only one vote but hopefully someone out there has read my comments and one will join me in voting you out and another and another. It soon adds up. You may be able to retire really early then. Time is not on our side as more and more projects that don't benefit the residents build.
You continue talking about future residents but we, todays residents should be the ones that matter to you. But if you let us matter, your developer friends wouldn't get there way. But you would be remembered for doing good. Instead you will be remembered as one of the three council members that were being recalled. I think that you are the spinmaster and the poison pill. But you are not alone, we were sound enough to rid this community of one pill.

Just think, if you do adopt an ethics policy tonight it would be just another thing that Van Haaster couldnt do when he was Mayor, but then with his ethics it's clear he didnt want to. My prediction is that you will stand in the way of any progress that Mayore Enochs wants to make. We will see.
Jeff
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:59:00 PM
Councilmen Seyarto,
You've answered some of my questions and I appreciate that. I don't have to take your word for it and basically don't. I do agree there has to be some differences in the types of housing in Murrieta but not to the extent we are planning. It sides heavily toward the developer community. All I can compare it to is Rholmgren getting on here and defending every Republican or conservative on every issue and the other side is always wrong. You lost you credibility a long time ago because of that.

I sat at that Council meeting and heard your words and listened to the other side that night. I saw an arrogance in your manner and when I used the words "shut up", there are many ways of expressing it as Ed said. On that night I began to watch what was happening in this community and it pissed me off. You are a very educated man and I had hoped you would have gotten over the recall election and stepped into a new role on the Council but by your comments in this post about Ed and his little buddy it shows this arrogance and that you can't work for us as a Councilmen. You have a big attitude problem and it doesn't fit. I have repeated far too many times about the appearance of unethical behavior with you and McAlister. If you adopt an ethics policy it should include respect for the other members of the Council.

I would vote of Ed Faunce today, just off his comments. Not only would I vote for him, I would support him. Next election Councilmen Seyarto may find you sitting next to Van Haaster but not in council seats. This time around there will be more publicity about the links that are so obvious here and the Van Haaster agenda. Jack Van Haaster is a crook, plain and simple and he benefited from using his power from the system to gain an end to those means. I realize I am only one vote but hopefully someone out there has read my comments and one will join me in voting you out and another and another. It soon adds up. You may be able to retire really early then. Time is not on our side as more and more projects that don't benefit the residents build.
You continue talking about future residents but we, todays residents should be the ones that matter to you. But if you let us matter, your developer friends wouldn't get there way. But you would be remembered for doing good. Instead you will be remembered as one of the three council members that were being recalled. I think that you are the spinmaster and the poison pill. But you are not alone, we were sound enough to rid this community of one pill.

Just think, if you do adopt an ethics policy tonight it would be just another thing that Van Haaster couldnt do when he was Mayor, but then with his ethics it's clear he didnt want to. My prediction is that you will stand in the way of any progress that Mayore Enochs wants to make. We will see.
Jeff
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:59:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto
Before making more promises that you will review or do any other thing, you may want to look back through ("review", if you will) the history of your own posts in various strings of this web site. Some of us who pay attention have noticed there are some promises you have made to review matters at the city, and then respond.
Promises you have had months to fulfill, but not kept. Please review your old posts, and then do those other reviews and fulfill those promises before asking for more to review. Then, if you want more to review, more will be provided.
Back when you had all those pots and kettles you told us all about, I bet some adult told you the old saying about finishing what was on your plate before asking for more. Well, some sayings are better than others. The one about the plate is better than the one about the pots and kettles.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:06:00 PM
Councilman Seyarto, you said:

“You are wrong about how the project got appealed. I appealed the project based on traffic concerns raised by people who live around there. I also informed Jack that if the planning commission approved the project, I was going to appeal it and that he shouldn't take it personally. I sensed the growing controversy and thought we owed it to those who were complaining to review the project at the council level.”

When I read in the Californian that Warnie Enochs had announced that he was going to file an appeal, I knew that you would race to City Hall to beat him to the punch. I predicted that you would file a preemptive appeal, that Jack would leave the meeting knowing that a tie vote means he wins. I was not surprised when my prediction proved 100% correct.

But now you tell us that you actually spoke to Jack vanHaaster about appealing the Planning Commission’s decision. Hmmm, so an actual conversation took place! Let’s see - how would such a conversation have shaped up?

Seyarto: “Listen Jack, this day-care center has really stirred up a lot of controversy. When the Planning Commission approves it, I’ll file an appeal so that we can control the scope of the Council inquiry.”

vanHaaster: “But an appeal, any appeal, is risky. What if it gets three votes. I could lose everything I’ve worked so hard to get on this project.”

Seyarto: “Sure, Warnie and Dick will vote to support my appeal, but I’ll vote against my own appeal.”

vanHaaster: “That leaves Doug as the crucial swing vote. Do you think he can be counted on? He has split with you and I on at least one issue.”

Seyarto: “True, but Doug got taken to the woodshed on that issue. He won’t make the same mistake again. Bottom line, most residents are not watching too closely. By appealing the Planning Commission, I’ll be able to take credit for challenging your project. By removing yourself from the Council meeting, you’ll look good because you are avoiding an obvious conflict. By my appealing, we maintain control. When the tie vote comes in, you’ll get your day care center.”

Whether these words were actually spoken, no one knows. But we do know that this understanding passed between and among you, Jack and Doug.

There was no doubt in my mind that the entire appeal and Council review was a setup. Now you have provided us with an important fact I did not have before, i.e., that you Jack discussed the appeal of the Planning Commission before the Planning Commission had even acted. Yeah, I knew it instinctively. You have confirmed it!

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:55:00 PM
Kelly,
I have never seen Ed being accused of unethical activity or the appearance, but someone else has and the friend he vouched for apologized for it. Let's see who am I going to vote for......ah......ah.....guess what it's not you Councilmen.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:47:00 PM
KS is a happy and fun guy he says. Happy to be having fun messing up Murrieta. Talks about the beauty of an election but talks down the democratic recall of his chum. Quoted in the paper as calling that election "Black Tuesday". Another one of his famous color digs. Knocks someone for spelling a word with one letter wrong. Whines like a child at someone's attempt at humor in comparing him to a nail, but calls another man's noble public service a farce. Enjoys living in this city, because it is his personal playground. He gets to play with big projects and gets praised by the people who make tons of cash off of those projects. Says negativity drags him down. We all know the feeling. He has dragged us all down at one time or another. Says he digresses into our world, and wants intelligent discussions. Looking for an intelligent way to defend the savaging of Murrieta, KS? Looking for an intelligent person to say you've done a good job? That is not going to happen. You will always have the Rholmgrens of the world, and the love of developers who make money off of you. Don't expect intelligent people to jump on that sorry bandwagon. But you don't need intelligent supporters to stay in office, for you will always be a candidate who appeals to voters whose minds can be bought by slick, expensive advertising campaigns. There are plenty of those kind of people out there. And every one of their votes counts just as much as an intelligent person's vote. Oh well, can't have it all. You might feel a whole lot better right about now if you drive over to the Chamber for a drink at one of their social mixers.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:58:00 PM
4:58: You are wrong about the 'slick expensive advertising campaigns'. Kelly Seyarto has said he does not go for that kind of stuff. In the recall he tried to stop the developers from supporting him but no matter what he did to try to stop them they just would not stop. That's not his fault.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:14:00 PM
5:14,
Was he trying to stop them on his way to the bank or on his way home?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:59:00 PM
Hey Kelly,
No matter how you spell it you aren't doing it very well. Seems you don't have much support on here. Maybe you should start your own blog and call it.....almost recalled councilman speaks out.
See Kelly when you belittle me, you belittle all of the residents in this town that have done any research at all. I'm not talking about the ones that don't care or that are your friends but the ones that want us to be the best. You belittle them too. We have seen your public arrogance and can just imagine how you laugh at this community behind closed doors. It matters that you look down your nose at us. You were this close to being replaced by a trainee. A trainee Kelly. Not someone experienced. You got 2 % more or you'd have been recalled. I wouldn't be calling anyone names until you clear you own.

Oh, and like I said in a previous post. When these guys have no defense, you change the subject. Or you say that what we say is to repetitive and change the subject. Just a different way of not having a logical answer. What I recommend you to do is this Saturday, meet with Rholmgren and get your talking points straight because he is failing as your straight man.
That was a joke....crooked man.....straight man...LOL

Oh and I havent seen you at any of my company fund raisers either offering to come up to me and introduce yourself.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:18:00 PM
Hey Kelly,
No matter how you spell it you aren't doing it very well. Seems you don't have much support on here. Maybe you should start your own blog and call it.....almost recalled councilman speaks out.
See Kelly when you belittle me, you belittle all of the residents in this town that have done any research at all. I'm not talking about the ones that don't care or that are your friends but the ones that want us to be the best. You belittle them too. We have seen your public arrogance and can just imagine how you laugh at this community behind closed doors. It matters that you look down your nose at us. You were this close to being replaced by a trainee. A trainee Kelly. Not someone experienced. You got 2 % more or you'd have been recalled. I wouldn't be calling anyone names until you clear you own.

Oh, and like I said in a previous post. When these guys have no defense, you change the subject. Or you say that what we say is to repetitive and change the subject. Just a different way of not having a logical answer. What I recommend you to do is this Saturday, meet with Rholmgren and get your talking points straight because he is failing as your straight man.
That was a joke....crooked man.....straight man...LOL

Oh and I havent seen you at any of my company fund raisers either offering to come up to me and introduce yourself.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:18:00 PM
Jeff since you are so keen about statistics I will throw one at you. Less than 2 percent of Americans read blogs. If you translate that to Murrieta that would mean that maybe 700 registered voters are participating in or reading this blog. I personally have also noted that there are very few people who post on this blog who I would consider meeting in person. The rest of ya'all seem to have too much negative energy and post like your underwear has been pulled too tightly up the crack of your posterior. Jeff you know who you and your "friends" are.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:55:00 PM
It's really funny. Rholmgren if this town was run by Democrats you'd be right on here complaining no matter what they were doing, and guess what. If they were doing something I believed was wrong I'd be complaining to. But not you. All you know is to defend EVERY Republican, EVERY conservative. It's an unrealistic way to think and you come off as having no credibility to the common person. They know you don't look at things logically, just at how it serves your ideology. You defend everything but have no real reasons to defend it. You defend the war and defend the Bush's administrations response to the hurricane, instead of saying what most people, even many Republicans say.....Bush is not doing a good job and he's not even doing a fair job. He is realy bad. He's just a figure head that had a name that Rove, Cheney, Runsfeld threw up there to wave the flag, scare us with fear and if we complain tell us then we are against Jesus. It will be looked back on as probably one of the worst administrations of all time and I know secretly you would love for him to just disappear. You aren't sitting here telling us all the good things he is doing, just defending all his lies and mistakes. Think about it? Are you saying....Hey Jeff, I told you so. Nope.....its Jeff you coward and Jeff you circus clown.....you have nothing else to say....just act like a 7 year old.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:29:00 PM

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

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Old Town association?

158 Comments:

About

About Me

Links

About Me

Previous