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

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Political signage

I have noticed that political signs advertising for the school board election have sprouted like ugly weeds among the landscaping in Old Town Murrieta.

I saw a code enforcement officer removing signs for garage sales yesterday, but she must have missed the ones in Old Town (that is unless they sprouted last night). To help her in her cause of protecting Murrieta from looking trashy, I am going to vote AGAINST anyone who's political signage is junking-up our fair town.

In Old Town I saw signs for CRIST and HANNY, but I didn't notice any signs from Thomasian. This is not a veiled endorsement of Thomasian for school board, because I have seens signage elsewhere. I am only going to not vote for people who trash up Old Town.

Old towners went through a lot to get that place fixed up, and any candidate who lacks the ability to appreciate that, must by inference also lack the ability to serve the public as a school board member, or any other position of public responsibility.

posted by J. L. Kunkle at Sunday, October 09, 2005

47 Comments:

  • As in so many other areas of life, politicians have succeeded in making themselves largely exempt from the rules they place on others. Political signs are just one small example of a very big problem. Other examples include political junkets, and even 'sponsored seminars' which are sometimes mostly food and fun events for easily swayed politicians.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:48:00 AM  

  • Murrieta could become a leader in public disclosures. Some public accounting already exists, but not nearly enough. To be created: A city law, not just a policy, affecting all elected, appointed and hired city positions, which requires detailed accounting of all seminars, conventions, and similar activities which are attended either on the city's dime or paid for by others (both private and public and socalled not-for-profit groups). This accounting should detail all related costs and benefits, including transportation, lodging, meals, and other such cost or monetary value information. The accounting should also detail precisely who (and/or what organization) has contributed to the meeting, event, seminar, convention or like activity.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, October 09, 2005 12:25:00 PM  

  • This is 12:25 again, Just recognizing that some people may be spending some of their own funds on these events. If so, that's wonderful, and the new city law (ordinance, if you will) would give those people a chance to toot their own horns without making it look like they're tooting their own horns.

    To keep this in sync with the topic of the string, I also propose that people who OPPOSE any part of this disclosure idea put signs all over their yards so we can see just who it is that would oppose disclosing such information.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, October 09, 2005 12:32:00 PM  

  • "Signs Signs Everywhere there's signs
    Blocking up the scenery Breaking up my mind"
    Tesla

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, October 09, 2005 3:31:00 PM  

  • Regarding city employees, council etc. going to conventions etc, they should be thanked for going. But I agree that it would be a good thing to make records for public scrutiny. If the officials who go to these events are clean, they have nothing to worry about.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:27:00 PM  

  • The mental and physical litter of political signs are something we have to put up with. I was in a town where they tried to stop it, but there are some federal or state laws that made it hard to control.

    About the other issue someone brought up in this blog string, I can't see stopping city staffers or politians from going to conventions or such events, even if they are "rubbing elbows" (or noses, or anything else) with developers. But, I like the idea of requiring detailed reports and financial statements about what happened and who was involved. We need to know what goes on out of public view if the public is involved, and all these things involve the public or our public officials would not be going to them.
    Been There

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 8:24:00 AM  

  • Anons 12:32 (on 10/9) and 8:24 (on 10/10), here's some interesting facts.

    The California League of Cities is an organization composed entirely of public agencies.

    Each of those public agencies is subject to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) which allows public access to information.

    Although, as far as I can determine, there is no specific legislative authority for the creation of a "League" of Cities.

    A number of years ago I tried to obtain information from the League making by making a demand under the CPRA for the League's information. I argued that an organization comprised entirely of public agencies, all subject to the peoples' right to know, should not be able to conduct the peoples' business, on a collective basis, as a private corporation or unincorporated association.

    When that was unsuccessful, I, along with several others, went to Sacramento and tried to get the legislature to specifically put the League under the CPRA. Privately every legislator we spoke to agreed that it should be done, the usual result was obtained --- Nothing.

    So here we have the creation of a powerful lobbying entity (some have called the League the shadow State Legislature) operating entirely out of the public view.

    The scary part is that the developer control over the Murrieta City Council, which we have seen, is replicated over and over throughout the State. Thus, the League turns out to be fairly dominated by the same interests - on a Statewide level - as each City is at the local level.

    When the League presents legislative proposals or rejections, it claims to do so as an organization representing the "peoples' chosen representatives." But no citizen has voted to establish the officers or rules of the League.

    And the League of Cities is only one of many such quasi Governmental agencies. We also have, for example, SCAG, Southern California Associated Goverments. Then there are the various associations of City Managers, City Attorneys, pension systems and the like.

    Why should public agencies be allowed to join together to form "private" agencies which operate outside of the public's view? Why should each individual City's residents find their interest in particular legislation diluted by being run through a League of Statewide membership?

    Your proposal that detailed reports be made is a step, a small step, in gaining control over our local affairs. Ultimately, the amalgamation of public political power in behind the scenes associations must be dealt with or we'll always be subject to legislative action at the State Level which precludes our local control.

    Just my observations.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 9:37:00 AM  

  • Very interesting indeed. If conducting city business (either above board or below board; directly or indirectly) at meetings of any kind is not already a matter legally requiring written public disclosure, it should be. And any meeting which gives the appearance of having such potential should be viewed as having such possibilities. If we can't get a handle on this at the state level, we sure as heck should be able to do it at the city level.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 10:20:00 AM  

  • For those who did not know about this semi-secret side of local government: Welcome to the dark ugly under-belly of politics.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 10:58:00 AM  

  • I for one don't care if our City Councilmen are sent to seminars at our expense but I do think they need to come back and use some of what they are taught. It's almost laughable that Seayrto went to a seminar, told us what he had learned and then wrote in his post the complete opposite. No it's not laughable, it's sad.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 12:46:00 PM  

  • 12:10 No one is talking about plain old seminars. That's innocent college talk. We're talking about gatherings involving power brokers. Conventions and other large and small stages of get-togethers which may technically fall outside the spotlight of the Brown Act, but which involve disussions of matters of vital public interest. If the elected officials, appointees, and payrolled public officials who attend these events are clean, they will have nothing to hide, and will be willing to provide written disclosures of who they talked to, about what, and what "percs" were part of the various events.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 4:02:00 PM  

  • Uh, yeah. Thank you for that, Mr. Seyarto. Glad to know how great an advocate you are on behalf of your constituents. Oh, wait, you didn't quite say that, did you. In fact, you're the guy who kinda has an attitude about what your constituents want, aren't you? Umm, I guess you're saying how much you oppose special interest groups, such as developers. Oh, wait. You didn't really say that either, did you? Let's see here, what DID you say? Is it kinda nothing but beating around the bush about how much you hate Ed Faunce? Hey, now we're talking. Got it! Yeah. Now, back to the important subject. The part about "If the elected officials, appointees, and payrolled public officials who attend these events (not just League of Public Lords events)are clean, they will have nothing to hide, and will be willing to provide written disclosures of who they talked to, about what, and what 'percs' were part of the various events."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 7:38:00 PM  

  • Geez Kelly 7:38 wasn't even my post. Way to go 7:38.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 8:02:00 PM  

  • Kelly shows his hand-once again. Only this time, instead of defending developers, he's now defending insurance companies. And we all know just how willingly those ins. Companies pay off. No need for lawyers, right Kelly?

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 8:31:00 PM  

  • Kelly, you said:"Ed, I am not sure what the whole insurance industry comment is about."

    Well Kelly, you trotted out the old tired hot coffee case. Are you unaware that the insurance industry has used that case for years to deflect the real damage it does to thousands and thousands of righteous claims which are routinely denied. Simple minded people who like simple themes and slogans all spout that coffee case drivel just before they go into their second stanza and sing the trial lawyers refrain.

    Persons who have been wronged by outrageous claims adjusting and denials must look to trial lawyers to help them get justice against the megabucks insurance companies.

    Perhaps you are fortunate in never having had need of such assistance. I guarantee you that should you ever get into a claim dispute with an insurance company, you would be in over your head quickly trying to represent yourself.

    Oh, and by the way, I'm not a member of the Trial Lawyers. Actually, I've never handled a jury trial. You got bad information.

    You also said: "The question I posed to you was who were you representing when you opposed the League's attempts to give the cities a stronger voice against other special interest groups."

    Well, you've gotten bad information again. I have no idea what you're talking about. Never done that.

    You are operating on rumor, speculation and surmise. Your repetitious refrain "that's what you do to" sounds like childish schoolyard rants.

    But, I'm not in charge of the development of a major city. I have not been casting the votes which allow the developers to continue to build witout sufficient infrastructure. I have not been the beneficiary of over $550K in contributions to keep me employed in any job. You, however, qualify on each of these scores.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 10, 2005 10:59:00 PM  

  • Mr. Seyarto,
    Thank you for your response, but the central point of the disclosure concerns noted above is being danced around and distorted. Unintentionally, I'm sure.
    Please keep this in mind: No one has even hinted what you suggest, about keeping the city personnel from attending educational events. And FPPC form 700 does not even touch the heart of the central issue. That central is complete disclosure of all contacts with both public and private concern representatives, such as major developers and their representatives, whose interests can and do come before the city for decisions which can and do affect the lives of people in this town. And of course disclosure of the complete context of discussions with those individuals. Discussions which CAN (and often do) have ramifications with regard to development and other decision making in this town. Disclosures of matters which are above and beyond Brown Act requirement, but which are discussions nonetheless of major importance.
    This last note is not to Mr. Seyarto, but to the regular citizens of Murrieta: Do you think the only contact our council members have with major developers is up front at public meetings? Do you think these people do not mingle and develop special relationships at conventions and the like? You might be very surprised if you heard the whole story. And not just developers, but state officials who have their own agendas for towns like Murrieta, do you think they are not doing the same kind of mingling outside the Brown Act view. (It's all legal of course, but it's THE WRONG THING TO DO.) These questions are the tip of the iceburg of questions, the answers to which are the real reason condos and apartments have, as someone had earlier said so very well, started 'growing like mold across the so-called commercial corridor vicinities of Murrieta.'
    All we want is FULL disclosure, and IF the officials and employees, including Mr. Seyarto, are clean, they won't mind making those FULL DISCLOSURES part of their regular routine.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:51:00 AM  

  • Mr Faunce I was just wondering. You say that W.E. had nothing to do with the recall. Is it true that both you and W.E. had a pretty close friendship prior to the Recall ever taking place? Maybe that friendship was what started the chain of events that got the Recall rolling? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:34:00 AM  

  • Jeff If you are so convinced that more park space is needed then DO something instead of complaining. Maybe you ,or someone who believes the way you do , could get the ball rolling and start a petition drive to levy maybe 5 or 10 dollars per residence per month to acquire and maintain more parks. If a drive to create more parks starts Jeff I would support you here and in real life. I will even donate time to gather signatures. I am not against more parks. If you feel that more parks are important then make them happen. Otherwise complaining about the present situation is just a waste of time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:03:00 AM  

  • It appears that Kelly and his Rholmgrinweiller are both trying to evade or water down the full disclosure issue. The question is: Why?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:09:00 AM  

  • To Rholmgren, yep, it's the wrong tree.

    I had met W.E. on at least two occassions when we both helped the Friends of the Murrieta Library with their annual fundraiser. However, I never attended any social events or socialized with him at all.

    I've tried over and over to communicate the fact that I was not the person who actually started the recall talk. The person who said "You have no choice but to recall them" is a long time resident of Murrieta, but whose name I will not disclose because I don't believe in "outing" people.

    The recall movement was born and immediately got legs without any involvement of W.E. I readily confess that once the residents began to move in the direction of recall, I became active and took on the job of being the official spokes person for Rescue Murrieta.

    But actually, I'm just one voice and one vote. The recall required hundreds of volunteers and thousands of petition signers and voters. There are plenty of RM'ers who actually gave more time than I did. Y'all are giving me more recall credit than I deserve.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:02:00 PM  

  • Seyarto and his troupe of performing puppets are very, very good at steering everyone away from current issues.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:20:00 PM  

  • I have an idea. We should require all public officials to be wired at all meetings with anyone. If you want full disclosure record everything. I think that keeping a written record of all contacts and disclosing all that was said would take more time than the coversations themselves. Also there is no conspiracy to change subjects on this string.

    Mr Faunce thanks for the straight answer. I accept your answer that W.E. was not directly involved at the beginning of the recall movement, but I still have reasons to believe that W.E. did many behind the scenes moves that stirred the political pot. I think you know what I am talking about, but these are things that I would rather not post publicly.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 4:50:00 PM  

  • Introducing an absurd idea (ie: the wired Rholmgren concept) does not reduce the importance of a good idea (ie: the suggested requirement for full disclosures of the kind and in the circumstances mentioned in this string).

    Why would it be that Kelly Seyarto and his bros would be so very much against the concept of full, honest disclosure?

    If they are clean, they will not run from, try to thwart, nor dodge the idea of creating an enforceable city requirement for full written disclosures as earlier suggested in this string.

    What is so hard or wrong or frightening about honest disclosures?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:11:00 PM  

  • Following this disclosure thing, and it has merit. Simple, very brief summaries of who, what, when and where, made into a public record. Then, if anyone wanted to follow up on specifics, they could ask at a public meeting. Simple, clean, effective. This could go a long way toward getting rid of behind the scenes pressure by slick and professional PR people of the kind hired by megabucks development concerns.
    Been There

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:30:00 PM  

  • I am all for full disclosures but, does anyone feel that any politician is going to disclose every discussion? If he's going to be dishonest or unethical do you think he's going to disclose it. Do you think if there is a backroom deal a Councilman is going to come on here and tell us, or if he is required to submit documentation he is going to do it. Of course not and it would be absurd to think they would or should. I do think any expenses that we have to pay for should be tracked and any expenses incured by a Councilman paid out of his pocket for a City trip or project should be reimbursed.

    I don't think we can manage ethics through reporting of discussions.

    Watch the recent daily happenings in Washington. They can't get politicians to tell the FBI the truth, or the Federal Securities Exchange or the Supreme Court.

    We have to watch the way they vote and the sides they take in our city and if we smell something funny, we vote them out.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:02:00 PM  

  • Jeff - Like any law or rule, it must have teeth to be enforceable. If public employees think they can lose their jobs by violating a rule, the penalty will keep them honest. Same reason most people stop at red lights when there's not a cop in sight. A good habit is developed because violating a law has costly consequences. If we stop making laws just because someone might break them, society itself would break down. Who in a cushy public sector job is going to want to risk it all for a developer's sake? If there's no disclosure rule, they have nothing to lose. The same old sad song will keep playing just like it always has. We can vote out a council member, but it's a long round about process to discover and root out city employees who are giving big developers the inside track with the not so obvious help of elected and appointed officials. This silent (undisclosed) service to developers is not illegal unless we make it illegal. If we don't make it illegal, we deserve to have condos and apartments shoved down our throats.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:40:00 PM  

  • 6:40,
    I agree there should be laws for disclosure. But if a backroom agreement is made, what politician is going to say that he had that conversation? The politican would only state what he wanted us to hear.

    It would be the same with anything that someone wants to hide from the public. Unless the person he is talking to makes a conversation or a deal public we can never know. Mayor Enochs could at this moment be making a behind the curtain deal with a developer. Do you think he's going to come forward and disclose it? No, of course not.

    But we can see the results of these deals and conversations as we watch the slanted voting that takes place in the Council. Can we state for a fact that a deal has been swung...again No. This is very hard to enforce.

    We did however catch an unethical Councilman and he got recalled. We have two more that show us with each vote they cast where their allegence lies. It isn't with us.

    Kelly's time is coming. McAlister's time will come too. The developers may spend even more this go round and we the residents have to be ready with money and resources to get the word out. We need to stand up. People say I am negative but it's about keeping the issues in the forefront or they will turn into fantasies about the Golden Triangle.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:29:00 PM  

  • Good evening everyone. I'm almost hesitant to say this, but I've heard by way of a usually good (but not 100%) grapevine source that there's a huge apartment complex that got what's called an "administrative approval" here in Murrieta. Talk about city employees having power, and "rubbing noses" with builders like someone said. How the heck a high density (right - not just medium but high density) complex could have got an approval without council ok in an MU3 area is way beyond me.
    I don't know more details than this, how it got approved or if it's really a slam dunk deal for the developer, but if this project moves ahead, we're talking high density 400+ apartments right smack dab in the commercial corridor just a stone's throw from the Golden Triangle. I know it sounds too insane to be true. I'm not going to say anything more about this crazy sounding situation, because there's an outside chance my source on this was wrong, but from what I heard, and from where I heard it, I think it's for real.
    Been There

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:48:00 PM  

  • To Jeff, you mentioned that the developers will be coming with their money at the next election. There are a couple of facts that I think should be mentioned.

    First, Murrieta has a spending limit in ordinary elections of $.50 per registered voter.

    So how, you ask, did the developers get to spend $550K in the recall election.

    Aha, there's no limit imposed on recall elections. So, we took Dan Stephenson's best shot and still cracked his voting block. He won't be able to buy the election next time.

    Remember RM's motto in the recall -- the ballot box is mightier than the bank account!

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:49:00 PM  

  • Mr Faunce I thought I was barking up the wrong tree but after some research I am finding some conflict. At one point in time you denied that W.E had attended initial Rescue Murrieta meetings and later you had to recant because a local reporter reported W.E.'s presence. Why did you change your story?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:46:00 PM  

  • Been There I've seen what you're describing recently on some promotional material. Close to Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Jefferson intersection. Top notch commercial territory. It seems like a very illogical place for such a concentration of high density apartments. But I didn't hear there had been approvals of any kind. What would the population be for that size of complex anyway? I figure an average 3 to 4 residents per unit. If it's over 400 units, that's pretty wild to think about. If you get any more wind of this, please mention it here. I'll do the same. JLM

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:15:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren, what do call research? You said: "after some research I am finding some conflict. At one point in time you denied that W.E had attended initial Rescue Murrieta meetings and later you had to recant because a local reporter reported W.E.'s presence. Why did you change your story?"

    Go back to this Blog for the month of January and check out the posts in the "We Need Proof" section.

    You will find that I said "At one of the early meetings, even before the Notice of Intent to circulate recall petitions were properly signed, Enochs visited the meeting, was introduced and shook some hands. He obviously supported what we were doing. He did not address the group nor did he offer any assistance, financial or otherwise. He has never attended any other Rescue Murrieta meeting nor has RM asked for his assistance in any way."

    I'm not going to spend any more time on what is now ancient history. Get a new topic, this one is worn out.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:52:00 PM  

  • Dear 10:15, Apts. going in the area you describe is I believe ok as part of the fast track process the council approved years ago. The fast track process has worked very well thus far in bringing major business areas to Murriea, and tax revenues the city sorely needed. The fast track process has a safeguard against very high density in that administrative approvals cannot be rubber stamped on anything outside the MU3 designed limits. So, the very high density kind of complex you described would have to go before the council for approval. I am familiar with the area you are talking about, and I have never seen any such high density apartment complex go before the oouncil. You are I think worrying for no reason.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:20:00 AM  

  • I'm sorry, but if HD apartments were approved by staff (and I think they were), it means staff went out of bounds. The question then becomes whether council has the hanging body parts needed to address the problem.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:21:00 AM  

  • Mr Faunce I read the January posting and it had the tone of a slow easy pitch sent right over the plate so that you could hit a home run. You still did not answer my question. Why did you initially and officially state as the RM spokesperson that W.E. had not attended any R.M. meetings. The January post was part of the recant. This string is about disclosure and it seems strange that you or RM felt the need to keep W.E. presence a secret. I give you credit for the recant, but why was it necessary to deny W.E.'s presence in the first place?
    This may sound like old news to you but you have become a political heavyweight in Murrieta in a very short time and ethics are important to Murrietans. If you made a mistake by first officially denying the W.E.'s presence and admitted it that would be understandable. But please do not pretend that the recant was your official position all along.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:47:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren, there was no "recant" there was only an explanation that W.E. was NOT INVOVLED IN THE RECALL. PERIOD. END OF CONVERSATION.

    Now, go find some new topic of interest.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:01:00 PM  

  • Additionally, Rholmgren, on January 22, 2005, in this Blog, under the Post "Disenguine", I specifically answered the charge that RM changed its story. As I said, you're trying to resurrect old, dead stories.

    This is what I said on 1/22:

    "Mr/s. Anonymous’s statement that Council member Enochs is somehow responsible for the recall is a pure fabrication by the ruling Council Trio, especially Seyarto. The newspaper story that reported that Enochs attended a meeting, shook some hands and then left came from myself. The charge that Rescue Murrieta (RM) changed its story is absolutely false.
    The question asked me was whether Enochs was “behind” the recall movement. I answered that he had nothing to do with the formation, the organization and the daily operation of RM. The reporter then said to me that he had heard from another source that Enochs had been in attendance at one of our meetings. I immediately confirmed that fact. It was I who said that he had come to the meeting, shook some hands and then left. I also said that he never attended any other meetings and has never been consulted by RM regarding the recall. I did not change my story as “anonymous” so cynically suggests. There were two different questions to which I responded."

    Rholmgren, any good lawyer knows that when you try to impeach someone using former answers, it is required that you must also know the question(s) that was asked before commenting on the answer.

    That's why I asked you what you thought "research" means. You have failed to do the basic research to find out what questions were being responded to before making your baseless and politically charged accusations.

    Now get back in your kennel and stop barking about nonsense.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:46:00 PM  

  • Since when does a barking dog need to have any good reason to just keep on barking? Since when does an intelligent person have to reply to a barking dog?

    Rholmgren would have these strings digress into impertinent malarkey. Let's not follow him there.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:00:00 PM  

  • Let's face it, whether WE attended RM meetings or not, he was definately campaigning for the recall. Behind the scenes and in the newspapers he carried the banner high. I would say that no matter how you look at it, he was an integral part of the recall effort.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:13:00 PM  

  • 3:13 You know what? Believe what you want to believe. So what? What you believe, wrong or otherwise, does not matter at all.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:16:00 PM  

  • 3:16 Possibly, but in this case I'm right!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:32:00 PM  

  • Imaginary victories are all some people have to cling to. Takes your mind off the very real loss by JvH, does it?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:01:00 PM  

  • To Anon 3:13:
    No one from RM disputes that WE was campaigning for the recall or carrying the recall banner high. My response to Rholmgren was only that RM did not use WE for organizing or prosecuting its recall efforts.

    Even if WE did not exist, the RM recall would have gone ahead. But, of course, just like the welcome by Dan Stephenson's group to the Chamber in opposing the recall. RM likewise was the recipient of numerous non-RM members support for their side on the recall.

    But this discussion is non-productive except to show that Rholmgren desires to sidetrack and distrack the legitimate discussions about our City.

    For example, tonight at 7:00, the Planning Commission is going to hear the Alexander Community's argument to put two more condo projects on Washington Blvd.

    This is the same group who built the "eyesore" Sonrisas condos.

    This is the same group that sued Gibbs, Ostling and Enochs claiming that they voted against the projects out of revenge for its contributions against the recall.

    Apparently it has escaped the developer's attention that the votes of Seyarto and McAllister should be challenged as being the product of a payment made on their behalf.

    Alexander has shown itself to be an undesirable business partner for Murrieta development. They should be totally unwelcome for any further involvement in this community. They think they can buy influence on our City Council. Then when they do not get their way, they sue our Council members, personally.

    Alexander - Get out of our City. That's how I feel about that group.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:03:00 PM  

  • In the case of conventions and seminars, and the full disclosure of council activities there, RHolmgren is correct in his assessment of the difficulties in what constitutes "full" disclosure.

    However, I would like to suggest that all we need is a list of all attendees, including developers, because it must be assumed that by attending, they and city employees/council, did communicate. Though inconclusive, this could be a starting point for a more detailed inquiry.

    By Blogger J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:34:00 AM  

  • I thought that the record everything idea was pretty far out there but it seemed to me that is what it would take to productively produce a true full disclosure. With the way that technology is advancing it seems that we will soon have mini video cameras on every phone capable of recording hundreds of hours of video. In the future we will have to constantly wonder if we are being videoed and recorded.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:14:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren: Privacy is something we all care about. But with common sense as a guide, we can at least help keep keep liberal extremists and their social engineering doctrines in check by simple reasonable reporting requirements placed on city employees, elected and appointed officials.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:44:00 PM  

  • Privacy is becoming a huge issue. We all know about the webb sights where people post their camera phone picures. The next big thing will be the posting of video phone video. How comfortable will we all feel when without our knowledge video footage could be taken of us and up loaded to the net. Pretty scary. It will be interesting to see when the first privacy issue is raised at the Supreme Court.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Google