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

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Flip Flopping

During the '04 election, John Kerry was consistently accused by the Republican buzzword machine of flip-flopping on issues.

Though I do not support Kerry or Bush, the phrase just struck me as strange somehow. It implies that he is changing his mind all the time, I guess. But how did they manage to indicate that he "flip-flopped" due to partisanship?

Let's say My Pet Goat decides to launch some nuclear warheads at... say, North Korea. If a sudden peace agreement were negotiated in time to stop a global nuclear conflict, would he be "flip-flopping" if he decided to call off the attack?

I just mention this as a reminder to expect similar pointless, groundless assertions that will likely be used by the Repubs during the upcoming '06 congressional election. Ray Haynes, Dennis Hollingsworth and all those young and old Republicans out there would rather drink Draino than lose their control over congress. I expect it'll get fairly dirty.

132 Comments:

The association of Big Friggin Developers (BFD) is planning to finance the campaigns of many local politicians. With one possible exception. They've told one fellow with the initials of KS that they're going to stop forcing him to enjoy the benefit of all that campaign spending (which he publically says he does not want) unless he gets one zillion apartments approved for construction in Murrieta before the next election. He says he does not want that money spent on him, but he's going to get a zillion apartments approved anyway. (Just happens to be a coincidence that the developers want the same thing KS wants.) A city employee expressed concern that there might be a traffic problem with a zillion apartments. That problem was solved by firing that employee, and buying a truck load of paint to restripe all streets in Murrieta. Every street in Murrieta is going to become six lanes, just like Jefferson. "If traffic gets too heavy, we'll just buy more paint! You'd be amazed at how many lines we can paint on a street," said an excited city planner at an apartment brainstorming session. And so the story goes. Stay tuned, everyone. Stay tuned.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:43:00 PM
ANON, what info can you give about this terminated employee? when did this termination take place? An employer fired for asking such a question? If true, this is unacceptable.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:46:00 PM
Sorry Ed, the intent there was nothing more than a bit of farcical lampooning of the City's general bufoonery. This apartment and street "widening" business is so bizarre that I thought a bit of levity was in order.
7:43

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:00:00 PM
Well, mistreating employees hits a sore spot with me. I have been contacted over the last two years by several Murrieta City employees who wanted professional representation concerning treatment they have received. Its a very sensitive issue with me and one I do not take lightly.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:07:00 PM
Ed,
Sensitivity reigns in this town over all of these issues. I understand that it affects those who deal with it day to day.

It's good though to enjoy 7:43 sarcastic wit.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:16:00 PM
7:43/9:00:
"To everything there is a season", and this is not the time for humor, even if you mean well. There are serious realities facing us as homeowners. This town is being intentionally abused for the sake of political advancement, and maybe worse. To those of us who love Murrieta the actions of those people who are pulling strings at City Hall (be they elected, appointed, or hired) in favor of high density developers seem nothing less than criminal. The wholesale destruction of the future of our town is a grave matter. Please refrain from your ill-advised attempts at humor, at least for the time being.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:21:00 PM
Dear 9:00 (PM yesterday),
As an educator I correct students all day long, and on occasion they correct me. I noticed that you used the word "bufoonery". The correct spelling would be "buffonery". An easy way to remember this would be by comparison of the word "buffoon" to "balloon" (notice the double "l" and double "f"). This is even easier to remember if you think of the fact that the residential population of the commercial areas in Murrieta is suddenly ballooning.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 9:49:00 AM
9:49 - An educator? You are full of baloney. It is not "buffonery". It is "buffoonery". Either way, we know you are referring to the very dense high density residential approval activities at Murrieta City Hall.
We2 ("Educators")

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 9:57:00 AM
Murrieta T,
So I can see that youre really blinded by sites like Newsmax and of course Fox News. Thats where the recent propaganda about Kerry comes from. Answer me just one question. I've asked Roy the same question. Why is it that whenever questioned about the wrong doings of any Republican, the conservative response is always to attack the Democrats? There is never an answer that responds to the question. Why did Bush take us to war? Because of Bill Clinton....Why did the Bush White House mislead the nation....Democrats voted for it too. Why is Rove still working at the White House even though the President stated anyone involved with the Plume incident would be gone.....Democrats are trying to punish us. Why are we in Iraq at all....Democrats wanted us there too. It's the broken record of Ken Mehlman's talking points issued down from Karl Rove.

So your point is that Kerry was seen talking to Kennedy and changed his vote right? Conjecture on your part right? Then isn't it logical that any of us can do the same thing concerning the things that have gone on in the Republican party in the last few years? So my conjecture is that Cheney and his crew lied taking us to war, and if Bush wasn't involved he is a very stupid man. Now, all the facts point that way. Just like the facts point to Kerry talking to Kennedy changed his vote. Your logic will work against you every time because you have spent at least the last few years defending everything the conservatives have done. They have done nothing right at all.

So is it a flip flop when our President says "Mission Accomplished" and then says we have to "stay the course"? Because 90% of American casualities have happened since we accomplished nothing. I would say that a vote change doesn't have as much effect on Americans as 2100 and 20,000 dead and wounded American Boys. Do you? But, then thats the fault of Bill Clinton right. President 6 years ago.

So, now if you respond it will only be to berate liberals instead of standing up for your failed ideology and explaining. And while thinking, try not to read Newsmax, listen to Sean Hannity or Limbaugh for your answers. Tell us with facts. Oh and by the way...you never answered why there were three Terror alerts right before the 2004 election and none since. I guess we are safe until August 2006.

Oh and by the way another 10 of our sons died today and no one can tell me what the end to staying the course is? Until all the oil is pumped out of Iraq? Great Commanders in Chiefs have plans after we shock and awe, Bush couldn't stay the course in the National Guard how will he ever have a plan to stay the course now?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 11:40:00 AM
"Blinded" by Fox News, etc? So, where do we find the fountain of wisdom? CNN? CBS? ABC? There are many of those media outlets that have editors and reporters who have intermarried and shared cocktails over the past two generations, and their slants and commentary now share the same DNA. Sure, Fox is not a den of saints either. Choose your poison.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 12:00:00 PM
Hello. Some light came through the fog at 12:00. Very true point. Fox is no good, but the commentary and slants of the other networks and their brethern in print is no better. None of the slanted national news hogwash from either side is worth being parroted on this web site.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 12:39:00 PM
12:00 and 12:39 - What you both say is true, and where else could we get such a 'fair and balanced' slamming of both sides of the spectrum? That's what makes these blogs great. But I want to mention that I like hearing from anyone who has some real personal insight into local, state or national issues. And, I like hearing from people who have strong opinions, if they tell us where those opinions are coming from. Jeff, Rholmgren and a few others have provided some interesting and lively commentary once in a while.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 2:56:00 PM
Is there one network that is as biased as Fox News. Everyone of their anchors editorializes. They are all slanted to the conservative agenda. It would be like having Air America as a News program. Fox slants everything. Hume, Cavatio and Gibson are all strongly biased conservative. Gibson even wrote a book on the stealing of Christmas and it's as biased as you can get. Hannity and O'Reily are the two most dishonest conservative hacks in this country and they have the nerve to challenge Hannity with timid Alan Colmes. Come on, everything on Fox is unfair and unbalanced. Now give me one Anchor on ABC, CBS or NBC that comes on the nightly news and spews the rhetoric that Fox spins. LOL. You all are living within the conservative agendas, or you would see that every hour they spew bias. They act like Ann Coulter is their hero. Lol.....this is why we have a President in power that has blinded so many and fooled so many. I still haven't heard anyone tell me about the terror alerts that were given every few minutes before the 2004 election. And see again, the conservative response is not an answer but an attack on in this case other stations. For once, no talking points, just answers.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 3:26:00 PM
Jeff really has a point. I never noticed that fox news was a right leaning as they are. I started watching after jeff made fun of rholmgren to see what he was talking about. It was as if everything they said was out of the mouth of the white house. I got the movie outfoxed and it was laughable what they do. Have you ever noticed that the women giving the news are all white and blonde.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 3:55:00 PM
Murrieta T let's see if Jeff can answer this one simple question.

What is the Conservative Agenda? Go ahead Jeff give your best attempt. It is nice to know that the people are educated enough to understand the slants that news outlets have. The news organizations that claim to be objective are so full of it! Thirteen years ago I worked on a job at News 8 in San Diego for 2 weeks. The things the were said off camera just blew me away! THis was during Clinton's first election. I will just say that the women anchors liked Clinton ALOT!

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 5:17:00 PM
Jeffy boy would not be such a Fox hater if the multi-channel libbies had not managed to swamp his brain with endless douses of propaganda. Can't see it, can you Jeff? Why do you think you know what you know? You get all your knowledge from a select group of networks and papers, all of which zero in on anyone who disagrees with them. Come on, Jeff, take a look around. In this blog there are some people who don't take mental marching orders from either end of the political spectrum.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 5:51:00 PM
Jeff is just silly. He has spent too much time listening to liberal war hating idiots. Ignore his ranting. Rholmgren has beaten him with facts on this blog time and time again and he keeps coming back with the same garbage. Some people never learn. Good job Murrieta T.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 7:41:00 PM
Jeff, you really have to get off your "I hate Bush" soapbox. Don't get so hung up on technical questions/isuues but rather focus on the large picture, a safer future for our country and the rest of the world. Thank God for President Bush who was willing to risk his presidency and popularity for a cause he so strongly believed in. Thousands of Americans were killed abroad in embassies, restaurants, nightclubs, ships, and airplanes. We did nothing, until the enemy took us on in our own country. Thank God for Bush who took action, because he knew the enemy was becoming too big and powerful and Americans would always be a target for the enemy.
How do take on an enemy that has terrorist cells all over the world, integrating themselves in all societies all over the world, until they strike. Lure the enemy and bring them to a place where we can take them on! That to me is good strategy. We all know that Sadam was a friend to the terrorist and their causes. His financial reward for the families of suicide bombers, his terrorist training camps, his WMD he used when gasing thousands of Kurds, his invasion of Kuwait! The list goes on! I grieve for our fallen soldiers and their families, I also grieve for the thousands of American civilians that were killed by our enemy. No, war is not a pretty picture, but neither is losing our citizens to terrorism! Thank God for Bush who chose America over pleasing France, Germany or Russia!
By the way, have you followed the number of our economic growth and the huge increase in employment? If you never hear anything positive, take it as a biased hint, tune into FOX news! Gottogo!

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 02, 2005 7:46:00 PM
7:46,
How sad. Bush has so many fooled. First Murrieta T. There goes that conservative name calling. You challange them amd all they have is name calling. Grow up and learn how to answer a question without belittling the person asking. Example is Congresswoman Simmons. She had to stand up and lie and then call names when she has no answer to what has been stated.

So by going into Iraq the world is safer. Tell Spain, tell Italy, tell Lebanon and of course tell Britian that there will be no attacks anymore because George Bush is so brave a President he is attracting all the terrorists to Iraq to kill them. What kind of logic is that? Is that what you think he is doing. Can I please become a conservative? Please??

The WMD's that Saddam used on the Kurds....actually the Shihites, were given to him by who??? Yes....us.

Thank God Bush has damaged our friends abroad, so next time we have an issue they will be reluctant to help. His Dad was the smart one, enlisting a hundred countries. As of yesterday Austria and the Ukraine are pulling their troops out.....thats our friends now....Austria and the Ukraine. LOL.
As for positive growth, he is just starting to work back to what was lost since he's been in office. It's growth over yesterday not 6 years ago. Greenspan came out yesterday and warned about fiscal spending.....I thought that conservatives were conservative. LOL. Another 5 billion was spent on Iraq last month. I thought the White House said that Iraq oil was going to pay for this war.

I will stay on my soapbox as long as I think our country is going down the wrong path and am proud to do so.

5:51, I know what I know from watching and listening to everyone. Thats how a person can weigh bias, if they take the time to hear it.

Murrieta T, I will not say youre gutless for not answering my questions. The Federal government didn't close down New York city by issuing a terror alert. The Mayor of New York did. As the former Director of Homeland Security at the time said, he wasn't sure why the terror alerts were issued at the time before last years elections. Then for some odd reson he quit. He said the warnings were issued because the White House told him to. That silly rascal Rove.
What is the conservative agenda today? Support corporate America no matter how it affects the world. Support the Evangelical Right again no matter how it affects Americans. Thats the two main drivers today.
I love messing with all of your heads. Especially Roy's. See, if a liberal President was doing things that were hurting the Country I loved I would be standing here questioning that White House too. I read above and find no answers. I see Murrieta T give me the White House version but then again he can't see past his conservative ideology. Our President and his staff have misled us. Plain and simple and in years ahead, as more things come out, You will be the sheep that followed the liar without asking why. I wish I could have a blind ideology....I guess you have to fit in that class of people....start thinking idependantly. I promise then you can vote for anyone. It takes more research then pulling one lever.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 6:07:00 AM
What Jeff needs to understand is that the Seyarto/McAllister/VanHaaster brand of developer serviant thinking is opposed by far more Republicans than anyone else. The multi-family apartment developer loving agenda lies somewhere between campaign-financed-influence and socialist ideology. The fact that someone like Jeff spews hatred at everything Republican is actually a negative in the fight to protect Murrieta. As a Republican who loves the true Republican ideals, I choose to ignore the mouth-foaming ravings of a left-blinded fanatic like Jeff. At the same time, I choose to recognize that what is being done by the Seyarto, McAllister and VanHaaster brand of politics is not truly Republican despite what label they pin on themselves. Their agenda is instead a rapidly growing disaster for Murrieta.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:42:00 AM
7:42,
Then you need to grow up, think past your ideology and stand up against the wrongs that any man, be it conservative, liberal or independant sits before you. And. yes, defending the big business such as developers over the average residents IS what the conservative agenda backs. Like it or not. Why do you think that Roy and Murrieta T think Seyarto and McAlister are great guys? They could never belittle a Republican. Oh my God!!!
The Republican party endorsed VanHaaster, Seyarto and McAlister during the recall.

I don't hate anyone so get over that. I do hate the politicians that are unethical, liars and have cheated the taxpayers. Thats what I hate. I don't like when people are so tunnel visioned that they can't see past their ideology. It's not realistic nor is it logical to defend things because they represent this ideology. By being open minded you can see the wrongs and imperfections of people. Those are the things I dislike and believe are wrong. Is my questioning your ideology being left? Thats your big problem. You have to find someone else to blame. Is that not clearly evident in each post on here. Roy and Murrieta T are the culprits. Challenge their ideology and they go nuts. Watch in the next posts that all they have is to attack me the person, not answering the words I post. The fact that I predict it and it happens just shows how tunnel visioned and sheeplike they really are. Nothing liberal is good, only conservative values are right. If that is their judgment of right and wrong, we are in more trouble then I thought.

Trus Republican ideals.....Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frist, Delay and of course the true leader Rove are the ideals you believe in?? LOL...Please continue to ignore me....your ideals have left one American city in shambles, a country in near Civil War, the nation of 85% Christians thinking they are being persucuted because the clerk at WalMart won't say "Merry Christmas" to them. Next thing you know we won't be free to speak unless its conservative talk. Oh I guess that freedom is being taken away too.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 8:24:00 AM
The only reason a person like Jeff has so many questions is that the simple-minded, one-sided networks that he loves and hates only provide the surface of events and personalities, and at that only enough of the surface to support their thin agendas.

Jeff, instead of relying on the people of Murrieta or the networks to provide everything your mind thinks about, why don't you really get into the subject matter. There are libraries and bookstores full of some detailed reading that can help you discover that the world is far deeper than the world you've been shown on TV.

Frankly, Jeff, you bore everone in this town with your ramblings.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 8:45:00 AM
Oh come on Jeff you can do better than that! Think about it Jeff. How could the Republican party ever win an election with Corporations and the far right as its base? You are talking about a small part of the electorate here. Jeff try again : What is the Conservative agenda. Jeff there is definitely a general set of beliefs that goes with being a conservative. I will flip it around on you. A very general attribute of a Liberal is that they like to bash Corpoations every chance they get. They hate Walmart and decry corporate power at every turn. It is a pretty stupid thing to do in my opinion. Without powerful corporations contributing to the tax base in so many ways Liberals would not have enough money for their socialistic goodies.

Jeff I make an effort to listen and read reports with Liberal slants. I want to understand my enemy. I don't need a daily dose of Rush or Sean to reinvorgorate my beliefs. I was a Conservative before both those guy's carreers even started. If by chance you find copies of "The Way The World Ought To Be" or Deliver Us From Evil" in your mail box do yourself a favor and read them. I know reading these books will not change your core beliefs but at least you will be able to answer my simple question effectively and understand your enemy.

7:46 ...BULLSEYE! The Democrats really have painted themselves int a corner in so many ways! Unemployment is down DESPITE Katrina.... Bad news for Democrats.
The economy is growing at almost 4%? Bad news for Democrats. Gas and energy prices are going back down. Sorry Democrats. What if we continue to defeat our enemies? Poor Democrats. In other words here are what the Democrats would LOVE to happen during the next 2 election cycles: The economy tanks and unempoyment doubles and the economy has negative growth. Oil goes to $100 a barrel. We lose the War on Terror and withdraw from Iraq in disgrace. We then experience another Terrorist attack on our soil. The Liberal Democrats would be giddy! The worse the news is the better the odds are their power will be regained. Do we Americans want to support a group that depends on bad news for America for their political gain? 7:46 I would rather be on the side that celebrates the continued defeat of our enemies and rejoices as the economy shows the strength and resilency that is the envy of the rest of the world!

I was travelling down Jefferson and trying to envision the third lane in both directions. Can anyone picture cement trucks inches from the sides of their cars? There must by a way to stop this shoehorned version of Jefferson from becoming a reality. There will be enough North/South route once those missing street segments are finished. The other traffic issue that is REALLY unsafe is the Clinton Keith/215 bridge. When cars are heading east on Clinton Keith they are trying to squeeze 2 cars into 1 lane to get onto southbound 215. The scariest thing of all is that some Highschool students are walking over the bridge without a safe right of way. It may be a good idea to post a police presence near this bridge when the school lets out so that dangerous situations can be avoided. Why does it take the overbloated beauracracy of Caltrans so long to finish all of their approvals? Their slowness is a good excuse to allow cities to outsource their engineering to other qualified companies. Woops! That would be against the law and would threaten the jobs of the overpaid/underproductive slow moving engineers at Caltrans.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:18:00 AM
Rholmgren - A 4 lane Jefferson will work only if the huge mass of apartments is not built. It was said right when someone compared 400 residences to a small town. If that small town is concentrated on Jefferson, then even 6 lanes will not be enough. It will be eternal gridlock on Jefferson Avenue in the morning and evening rush hours, when all those people in that whole town of apartments addition to everyone else is trying to funnel their way along a street which should never have been turned into a freeway substitute.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:34:00 AM
9:43, Good luck keeping those apartments out of Murrieta. Kelly Seyarto's big mouth has almost given developers an open invitation to sue this town any time they get turned down. He loves it. I think we should require Kelly Seyarto to pay this town's legal expenses every time a developer sues. Thank you, Kelly Seyarto, for paving the road to hell for Murrieta. At least you've given someone in this town a clear road. Too bad that road had to be the highway to success for developers and their attorneys. Why is this not a crime?

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:01:00 AM
Murrieta T:
As someone who reads at everyone's entries in this site, I want to say 'thanks' for your excellent and well thought out entries.
Jeff's assumptions and prejudices and attacks on everyone and everything he perceives as an enemy never change. He has what is sometimes called a 'foxhole mentality', which is a narrowly construed and often paranoid view of the world. He lobs hand grenades out of his foxhole every time he thinks one of his enemies is around, but he ends up hitting not only his enemies but people who kind of like him as well. Too bad.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:08:00 AM
Murrieta T,
You're right reading back you didn't say anything about McAlister. I apologize.

Roy,
Again you try and push what Rush Limbaugh said yesterday about the economy. This economy is not anywhere close to being where it was in the late 90's. Yes it is better then a year ago, but how can it help not be. You can only go so low. I read your disguised posts and understand how weak you really are.

11:08, so it is your theory that because someone disagrees with your ideology then it is reason to not like them. Thats very standard in this world. Well, I will say that political belief is only one small aspect of life and if you are so foolish to believe it is more then that I am sorry for your life's judgments. I don't live in a foxhole but have and it's somewhere I never want anyone to have to know. Grenades are for war, smart banter is for posts. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but talking to conservatives they don't want to hear opinions when it makes them look stupid. I know in my writings I'm challenging Republicans to question why they HAVE to believe everything thats told them.

Murrieta T, telling me that the White House told us the terror alerts came from Intelligence prior to the election is like telling me that we found WMD's and Bush was right like Roy did. The reasoning behind the terror alerts was the fear factor before the election. Bush will protect you, Kerry won't. Now Kerry is an idiot, I agree. But what is Tom Delay, a saint? What about Scooter Libby? Kerry has no power. But Tom Delay is the Majority Leader in Congress and he has been accused of 9 ethics violations and been indicted and then worse is yet to come and you say nothing. So why would any of your comments be worthwhile reading if all you spew is hatred for Democrats. Like I said...Kerry is an idiot. It's because I don't have fear that he represents my ideology that I can easily belittle him. Do you guys have Bush dolls at home and do you bow East at dusk?

Lastly, come on Chamber of Commerce members...is this all you have? The VanHaaster agenda is rolling.....bring it on. Remember that all you conservatives that say you love Murrieta. The Republican party wanted VanHaaster and Seyarto in power. But then I guess they really had the residents of Murrieta at heart.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:40:00 AM
Murrieta T,
Ma'am,
I though I answered Roy's question. They believe in the power of the Corporation period. To acheive this they wrap themsleves in the Flag and walk around talking about God but are so wrapped in the flag they can't see what it really stands for and don't talk about the God my Bible talks about. You know the one that says thou shalt not kill, and love thy neighbor.
Terrorists were in Afganistan. We allowed them to flood into Iraq because we gave them ready targets, our Military.
If my comments offend anyone, they are my beliefs, and I stand by them. I'm glad I don't HAVE to believe certain things and can change my mind if proved wrong. I don't have to defend anyone. If people do something wrong to hurt my country, as an American I feel it's my duty to ask questions and challenge them. I am not offended when someone challenges me. I am offended when I am belittled and called a coward for my beliefs by people that have never stood up and risked anything for this country. To be a coward is to sit by and NOT challenge everything when it appears things are wrong. I am NOT always right. But the things I say are not just me. Over half of Americans think that Bush is wrong, that we are in the wrong direction, that he does and would mislead us. So these people are all stupid and only conservatives are right? Are conservatives always wrong....of course not. It's not conservatism I'm against, it's believing there is no other way.

Roy, Ive already read Sean's book. Have read read anyone else's? I have no "core" belief. I believe in me, I believe in the end in America and I believe in God. To HAVE to believe in more is too hard. Credibility is hard to gain when you talk the same talk as others within your ideology. You can't stand and say things that liberals believe are right. See.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 12:01:00 PM
Jeff - Republicans "have to believe everything that's told them?" You must be clowning. There have been several posters who have identified themselves as Republicans who have said they don't do that. You again show your thinking to be so prejudiced and clouded and frozen in place that a ray of light can never get through. Sometimes your posts cast judgements that could have easily been custom made to fit your own case. Your paranoid attacks on anything you disagree with certainly do fit the 'foxhole mentality' description. Did you ever wound anyone with 'friendly fire' in 'Nam? Ever commit an atrocity out of frustration or fear? You seem to fit the profile. If so, take a good look at yourself. No one is judging you here. Lighten up, and be a friend to people who want to converse with you.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 12:37:00 PM
12:37,
I don't think all conservatives or Republicans think that way just as all Democrats don't think certain ways.
I don't believe I'm paranoid of anything. What I see on here makes very little impact anywhere, they are just opinions. I try to think with logic that is not blinded by a ideology. I use common sense, and experience as my guide. When something acts and walks like a duck, it most likely is a duck.
Yes to your question and not out of fear or frustration.....out of what I hate...believing everything I'm told and not questioning it. Have you ever been in that situation? I doubt it. So when you or anyone talk on here about war or defending our great country, consider what you think you know and then know that you know nothing at all.
Actually, like I said in a previous post, politics is a very small part of my life and hopefully yours....Im enjoying decorating the inside of my house today with my beautiful wife.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 1:08:00 PM
I continue to watch people attack Jeff for being an American and stating his views. Right or wrong, he has that right. I see more of you attacking the fact that he has views counter to yours by insisting he's paranoid and not attacking his talking points. He mentioned many things that are just passed over and because his views are opposite from some of us all he gets is basically to shut up. I read the same polls and all of what he quotes is true. President Bush is not believed nor is he held with high respect. There is much to say to that fact. So why don't some who think he is attacking you personally start attacking the things he says. I thought for sure MurrietaT would come back and talk about Rep Delay, but instead she didn't say anything. Instead of attacking him as he has said you would, attack his logic. I think that you would to me become more credible in your argument.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 1:40:00 PM
Doesn't seem really strange that all the Republicans on here who defend the National politics hate the fact that the same politics of Corporate power when played on them by the Council members are just destructive to their personal fates? I guess if it's done to some other guy too bad. When Developers or Corporate America run over you, its different. Jeff you mentioned tunnel vision.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:33:00 PM
Jeff it is funny to see that you think that the late 90's economy was better than now. Wasn't that the Dot Com and stock market bubble that was about to burst? I will take the brick and mortar real estate boom that we have had in the last 5 years over the bubble any day. Your corporate answer absolutely proves you do not understand your opposition the way you should Jeff. Read a few more books on Republican thought and get back to me when you learn something. I will hammer you later on the Liberal agenda. I know what you are. You have no clue what I am yet.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:29:00 PM
Hey 7:33 - You're being nominated for the Bright Bulb award! If we shoot those Republican jerks down now, maybe we can help the developers win in Murrieta! Then, when we're all one big happy family stuck in gridlock, we can step outside our cars and pop the cork on the champagne to celebrate the fact that we bopped the Republicans in the nose at just the right moment. With entries like yours, we deserve gridlock.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:03:00 PM
My take on the conservative agenda is this. A lust for power through three distinct controls. Military, Economic and Religion.

The military control stems from the need to intimidate and scare others to admit that the US is the master (Do any of you remember shock and awe). Conservatives feel that the military is the foundation of government. Liberals believe that the people are the foundation and the military is the servant of the people.

Economic power is through Corporate power. This power base comes through the lobbyists at the state and national levels that actually write the laws that enrich them, (an example being the bankruptcy bill, which was written by the credit card lobbyists). Liberals on the other hand fight to limit the dangers of the Corporations through the judiciary and with tighter regulations (do we not see the Bush administration wiping away regulations that help control Corporate greed?). Thats where this struggle occurs, the conservatives desire for money at no limits or regulations and the liberal who wants to limit this desire, although both freely partake of the benefits.

The third is the bond between conservatives and religion. We see it today as Evangelists have linked themselves to Republicans through just a few agendas, sacrificing some of Jesus key teachings (like helping the poor no matter what and thou shalt not kill, but I guess those aren't too important). Liberals sacrifice even more of his teachings but serve to somewhat balance the missionary tactics of the Conservative right.

Conservatives today have a ready made model for America. Nothing new needs to be invented or talked about (Evolution, Women's rights, equal pay for women, Homosexual marriage but ramptant divorce is OK). An unregulated economy (oil and the lust for it);state established religious beliefs (Evangilical Christianity); Continual military campaigns against countries that don't fall in line with the above two (Roy you stated that we haven't gone far enough that we should invade Iran and Syria, who cares how many die. What do you think of that statement Murrieta T?). They think it would be better of us to be in the early 1900's.

Some of the progressive measures that conservatives have fought and lost:
Abolition of Slavery...even though it was a Republican President.
Abolition of Child Labor.
Trade Unions and Labor Unions.
Fair Labor standards and Practices.
Employee Safety on the Job.
Abolition of the special. privledges of the priesthood.
Freedom from religious tests for public office.
Voting rights for women.
Voting rights for African Americans.
Minimum age laws.
Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Universal Health Insurance.
Equal Rights for women.
A Women's right to control her body.
Women's right to thing such as Adoption, custody, inheritance of property.
Right to buy and sell birth control.
Adult consensual sex.
Clean air, water, soil and food regulations across the board.
Regulation of the Tobacco industry.
Banking, Insurance regulations.
Automobile safety regulations.
Rights of Citizens to sue Corporations.
Right of Habeas Corpus.
Connecting human rights with our foreign policy.

Do you want me to list the hundred more agendas that conservatives have stood against and luckily lost? I challenge anyone to disagree with the record of opposition.
So conservative ideology stands for what I listed above.....enough said.

Now I can also list Liberal agendas that fall far short of helping this country survive. But Roy, you are an ideologist and you are conservative so why would I teach you what to attack liberals with. And Liberals didn't mislead us into war, so right now on that subject I'm pretty strongly supporting anyone challenging that lying administration. It proves ideologies are just the blind being led by the rich and powerful. I want no part as I am a far better judge of what my family requires then Nancy Pelosi or Karl Rove. Now Roy, attack me for telling the truth or take point by point and show me that I'm wrong. No clue.....think again Rush I mean Roy.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:32:00 PM
Wasn't that the Dot Com and stock market bubble that was about to burst? I will take the brick and mortar real estate boom that we have had in the last 5 years over the bubble any day

Rholmgren,

The brick and mortar bubble is approaching. It’s the same story of getting rich quick, in the ‘90’s it was Dot Coms, today real estate and once again a lot of people will get burned, just like in the Dot Com days.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:51:00 PM
Rholgrem,
He just nailed your agenda.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 5:15:00 AM
It seems to me to fit this White House if nothing else. I don't feel all Republicans fit under the blanket of total conservatism. I want us to be fiscally conservative but not as morally conservative. As far as religion goes, I never would have thought what you wrote but more and more it seems like the Pat Robertson's and Jerry Farwell's try to manipulate this Republican administration it is true. You're right when you say they give up some of the main teachings of the Bible to stop Homosexuality and Abortion. But I too think this is just a trend that will be overturned. I don't think that God thinks it is more important to stop a man from loving another man more then he wants to stop dropping bombs. Just my thoughts.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:10:00 AM
Jeff good answer. I will post a response later because I am leaving soon for the Charger game. I will leave the insults out Jeff. I will try to answer point by point. You brought up alot of issues.

11:51 There is a bg differce between now and the Dot Com bubble. There has been only one time in my lifetime where the housing market went negative and prices dropped. (Late 80's/early 90's) I will bet my house that prices will not drop significantly any time soon if ever. The houing market is not a straw house. Right noe=w it is just cating its breath after racing up in value in the last 5 years. The one big fact that overides every other market factor is that there is still not enough supply being built to keep up with demand. I think Califorinia is still under built by over 200,000 units. I would only start to worry if the pace of construction increased from this point forward. In California the artificial contraints on buildable land will prevent the pace from increasing and the market may never reach the equilibrium needed to cause prices to plummet. And isn't it interesting how so many College think tank econmists have been wrong in so many ways when it comes to predicting the housing market over the last 5 years? I read somewhere how one economist was confronted and questioned as to why his previous year's predictions had been so far off. He answered that his housing price "formula" failed to include housing equities effect on pricing. Maybe some of those economists are too fantasy book smart and are not reality street smart. How else do you explain leaving out the largest part of the housing economic wealth out of an equation? Chargers 38 Raiders 17

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:34:00 AM
11:51 / A couple thoughts here from an old real estate guy. I'd say the upswing in So Cal residential has been going on the better part of 9 years. The bottom was hit in most local areas around '95, and it's been up, up, and then up more ever since. Until the past few months at least, when most residential has been kind of hovering. The very upper end of residential and commercial still show strength locally, both with regard to raw land and improved properties. Some buyers from overseas have huge amounts of money, and they seem to want only the cream of the real estate crop. I think "Quality" is always the key word, in real estate or anything else. That's true now, in my opinion, more than ever.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:02:00 PM
The most logical approach to development in Murrieta is to do what it takes to create a high sales tax income in areas of high commercial value, and to keep traffic as free flowing as possible. If some multi-family high-density apartment agenda must be satisfied, at least keep it far away from our commercial corridors and our busiest streets. This is common sense, logic, good public planning, and the main key to the future prosperity of Murrieta.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:03:00 PM
Yeah 1;03. And unfortunately it's the exact opposite of what's being done. This city has been thrown to the wolves. Show any resistance and they expose their big ugly teeth, and their equally repulsive lawyers. The only thing more disgusting is that we have a Judas or two on the council, more than willing to deliver us into their clutches.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:42:00 PM
Jeff,
All along I thought you lived in Murrieta. I hadnt realized you reside in fantasy land.
Both parties have fought for and against many of those issues. It is absurd for you to include things like slavery and womens voting rights when the republican party was born of people united to protest slavery. Abraham Lincoln being the first republican president and the president to end slavery. They have also unified many times to bring equal rights to women.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 3:24:00 PM
OMG - Everybody duck! - Jeff's going to be lobbing more left wing looney grenades from out of his hot and bothered foxhole!

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 3:58:00 PM
Murrieta T,
I gave you the book on the conservative agenda, gave you examples of the use of that agenda and you give me taxes and I'm suppose to say oh thanks. You answered but a small, small aspect of giving tax breaks to the rich and still cutting programs to the poor and I don't want to hear that the poor don't pay taxes. The middle class pays there fair share and still don't benefit from inheritance or luxury money that the rich do. It's a joke and all you are doing is repeating what the Republican talk shows spew. I laid out three main agendas and you addressed a small portion of one and then you think that you have answered it. Well, when you go to the Catholic, Cornerstone or Cavalry Church, look up while your praying and tell Jesus that you think your ideals are taking care of the poor and sick as its priority. Sorry to be so blunt. If you want to address something, come back as a total issue, not one single area you think is the conservative agenda. Murrieta T, you're right the Liberal agenda is not right either....I'm not arguing their agenda or defending it. Many conservative things when used correctly ARE THE RIGHT way to go. Many liberal agendas are the right way to go....it's a combination. But youre sooo defensive of being linked to the facts of your agenda because they look so ....all I can call it is ignorant or prejudice. Why not find the best of both ways....or is it that only conservatives are right about everything? Answer that. Are Conservatives right about everything?

3:58,
Wow...your so intelligent...LOL LOL...I'd love to hear you talk....LOL.

3:24....Do some real research, not from Fox News or Sean Hannity but really research what you are talking about. My Master's at the University of Wisconsin is in History and I specialized in the Civil War. You want to discuss Slavery with me....anytime.

Again.....all they have is HATE, Prejudice because they have no real facts....people...try thinking out of the box, don't believe everything you are told by one group. Now you think Roy is going to have all the answers. Read back in his posts.....where he talks about attacking Iran and Syria today, or where he thinks we should attack countries for their Oil......what a legend. I would debate any one of you on the history of this country at anytime.

But no.....like 3:58 all you have are personal attacks....very very weak and typical of every conservative that talks anywhere.....oh oh wait....its Clinton's fault....In 2025.....its Clinton's fault.......GOD!!!!

You all have to be so defensive of your ideology because it is so blantently wrong in so many key areas. The frustration of having no real answers causes you to.....um...um...call names and attack the person talking....it's so much fun to piss you all off.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:09:00 PM
11:51 There is a big differce between now and the Dot Com bubble. There has been only one time in my lifetime where the housing market went negative and prices dropped. (Late 80's/early 90's) I will bet my house that prices will not drop significantly any time soon if ever.

Yep the early ‘90’s, and from what I read, in the Press Enterprise a month or so ago, that home affordability in California is at 25% of the population and that is equaled to an all time low which happened in the last home price downturn and that happened to be in the early ‘90’s. People are buying and selling homes like stocks (flipping is what it has been called) also people are getting into risky loans like interest only loans just to get into a home so they can afford the mortgage, well a lot of those loans soon are going to convert to loans where they have to actually have to start paying down the principle as well as the interest and that will push them beyond their financial limits

In my opinion the banks are going to be holding a lot of real estate that they will try and get off their books, which will drive home prices down.

Anon 11:51

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:05:00 PM
Anon 11:51 said: ". . . a lot of those loans soon are going to convert to loans where they have to actually have to start paying down the principle as well as the interest and that will push them beyond their financial limits."

Yes, but there are at least two other changes which could make the "real estate" bubble worse than the dot.com situation.

First, credit card companies are now required to bill for more than just interest. If I remember correctly, the monthly billing amount must include a payment against the principle which would pay the balance off in ten years. I haven't heard yet whether failure to pay, or a late payment, of this additional charge will activate the credit card company's right to increase the interest rate. But don't be surprised if they do. This is going to hit the consumer at the same time that they get hit with the increased mortgage payments.

And by the way, the increase in interest rates on credit cards can be triggered by a late mortgage payment even if you are not late on your credit card payment.

Second, the new bankruptcy bill may eliminate the consumers' ability to walk away from major debts, e.g., upside down mortgage payments.

Imagine, having to make a mortgage payment on a house you've had to walk away from because you cannot meet the balloon payment. Your credit card interest payment jumps to 20 to 30% and you'll never be out of debt - but of course you're not bankrupt for purposes of getting a fresh start.

I thought debtor's prison had been abolished.

This scenario is brought to you by our esteemed republican led congress and administration -- the same one that just gave us a drug plan that is so rediculously complicated that seniors will be unable to figure it out.

God help us because our leaders have been bought and paid for by the corporations!

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:59:00 PM
Jeff - Just curious, but was Johnson prez when you were in 'Nam? Bless his Demmy heart, with the Gulf of Tonkin Rez and all. You know what I mean, Mr. Massa of Hist'ry? You are truly one mentally-slanted goofball, Massa Jeff!

Ed - Thanks for your intelligent comments on the frightening relationship between the bankruptcy bill and the housing bubble. I have wondered why we have not heard more (than almost nothing thus far) about this subject. I fear we are looking at a future of indentured servitude in this country, with the credit card debtors becoming literally the servants of big time collection agencies (now backed up by power of the courts in addition to their famed harrassment techniques). A related scenario I fear is that if the real estate market and economy will concurrently slide backward (to whatever degree), people will (as they historically have done) use credit cards as short-term stop gap measures to keep up their house payments. If the economic slide then continues, an ever deepening trap is set from which there is no escape for the homeowner. The home and the credit card become "married" to the debtor, and any "divorce" in that strict union now becomes more painful and bitter than it has ever been before. The full ramifications of this inevitable real estate/credit card tragedy are more severe than I can describe adequately in this blog, but homeowners really need to think this matter through far in advance of the time when they might become tempted to keep their home afloat with credit card debt.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 05, 2005 8:13:00 AM
Mr. Faunce and 8:13
Interesting comments all. We all need to think about these entries.
... And while I'm writing, a note to Jeff too... I don't think you are making anyone angry with your comments. Some of the back and forth on this site looks as though it is intended to be light hearted, so I would not take the criticisms so seriously.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 05, 2005 9:04:00 AM
I have read through many of the Republican responses on this blog and I have seen that they have been mainly of three sorts: 1. Name calling, 2. Sloganeering, and 3. The VERY occasional informative post with relevant information.

Jeff is not a mirror, people.

Could we perhaps see an actual cited indictment of Kerry, the 'Idiot' Democrat, free of Rove-esque manipulations? I'm sure the truth is out there; somewhere.

By J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, December 05, 2005 12:30:00 PM
Oh yeah, I think the debate on 'interest only' loans and credit card debt is salient. Look for the post...

By J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, December 05, 2005 1:06:00 PM
I am a Republican by party, but not by the party definition found in Jeff's distorted and biased dictionary. I do not have a bad word to say about John Kerry. He is intelligent, and a patriotic American, who comes across in an emotionally stable way. I do not cast dispersions on the Clintons, although I disagree with their philosophies in many ways. I have no corporate or other business related agenda. I watch the news on all networks, and take each with a load of salt. I see the biases expressed in this blog site, pre-eminently by Jeff and Rholmgren, and in them I find the most ineffective and unconvincing of all possible ways of expressing political beliefs. Nothing but insulting tirades of emotion, laced with accusations and insults and "information" that simply replays the words of the various pundits and biased commentators that fill the airwaves. Each one of them - Jeff and Rholmgren - claims not to hate, and in the same breath pours out more hatred than I ever hear coming from my own politically-inclined acquaintences, and I'm talking about a great number of acquaintences on both sides of the political divide. In my world, and the people I associate with, this is the norm. I would be ashamed and embarrassed to align myself with either Jeff or Rholmgren.

On another subject, in case anyone is not aware, there is a city council meeting tomorrow night. The agenda for the meeting can be found in the government section of the city's web site.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 05, 2005 1:17:00 PM
1:17,
Please show me one comment of hate that I have shown. I hate no one. If the truth hurts and embarrasses you, I can't help that. I hate no one and believe everyone has the right to speak. All I hear from all the conservatives is how slanted I am, yet, isn't it surprising how none have come back and answered the main topic of my post. The conservative agenda. I guess because either they don't know it or they have written Ray Haynes and he will tell them more about the global warming that isn't happening. Just one person come out and tell me where I am wrong on the three distinct power controls of the conservative political agenda. Military, Economic and Religion. This is slanted? Every news article concerning the White House speaks to each of these daily. I would love to change my mind and think that George Bush and company really just made many errors by mistake.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 05, 2005 1:45:00 PM
Jeff and Rholmgren: Something has to be said about what was written at 1:17. You've heard about the political internet coffee people. Anyway I know who 1:17 is. I also know that he knows that the two of you are very vocal and you share one thing in common and that is opposition to the proposed "mega" apt complex. Have I said enough? I hope so. 1:17 is in a minority of one.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 05, 2005 2:23:00 PM
Edward and Anon 8:13,

I copied and pasted your posts on home values to the new topic created by J.L. Kunkle and put my replies there.

Anon 11:51

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 05, 2005 9:41:00 PM
Murrieta T,
I didn't say that today's Republican Party still favored these things, but these are the issues that in mass they voted against in past votes over the last 150 years. Even today we could talk about Tom Delay's trip to Saipan to defend the sweatshops. This has been documented by 20/20; Wall Street Journal. We could talk about the right of Women to claim rape, as of a recent vote the state of Texas wanted to limit punishments to rapists, limit evidence that could be brought forward; limit what is legal in 40 other states. Interesting the ones that do not have such laws are the highly Republican Corn Belt.
I don't get the words hateful or spiteful you use. I am neither at anyone. I am laying out facts as I see them. This is a blog and these are my statements. I'm not running for office and you are not forced to answer them. My statements are not in hatred at you. This is a discussion. Conjecture is all we have as we are not privy to exact details. Thats how we vote, on our feel for candidates, not what we know for a fact. Do you for instances know for a fact how John Kerry acted in Vietnam? Do you for a fact know what kind of service George Bush did in the National Guard. You don't, you and I weren't there and all we can do is take what we believe in our minds to be credible and use that in our decisions. I think that when people become so defensive of something they don't really know nor understand totally they need to look at it piece by piece.
You go on to mention the ACLU. Please be honest and tell me what you really know about the ACLU? What you've heard Conservative talk show hosts say? Or do you really know what their agendas are and who they have defended. Oh yes, I know you know about the Far Left things they have done. I support some of their causes but am not foolish enough to say they are right always. They support many unrealistic agendas but some our key agendas to the freedoms given us in the Bill of Rights. You do believe in the Bill of Rights correct? It's funny that the ACLU wins a majority of it's cases. Why is that? Now this is not conjecture as OUR AMERICAN COURTS use American Laws to rule in these cases. Just like the Teri Schiavo case. They used the laws that have been enacted. So if the ACLU is winning and you believe in America, you know a patriot and all, how can you now believe in the protection under our laws that they have provided. Or is it that you only want protection for conservative ideals? When making blanket statements about a group that fights to protect citizens rights then you are acting that you consider conservative ideals more importnat then AMERICAN IDEALS.
I don't understand the difference in the agenda of the Republican Party and the agenda of Conservative Christian Republicans? Are they not the same?
Like I said above, when we vote we have to measure everything we have heard and everything that we have read and weigh that against our own experiences of life. So when asking about the terror alerts. No none of us have documented proof one way or another. All we have is ourselves to judge in that case. Since I try and gain an overall perspective I am calling a duck a duck. Thanks for admitting that your points were just conservative rhetoric and not objective reasoning.
Now with my list I DO have documented proof of voting records to back my statements. What proof do you have to back thats its total rubbish. Should I take your overall take or the proof from congressional records, statements by the parties. I gave you facts in that list, not conjecture. My three points can be taken with each piece of political news during the day and you will see that I did in bulk terms, lay out the overal agenda. Do you want to see where yesterdays two main headlines fit in with the 3 main points?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:57:00 AM
Gottogo,
I was one of those people who voted for George Bush so am I insulting myself? Why is it that conservatives when challenged resort to the "love it or leave it" theory? Yes, this is the greatest country in the world. But that doesn't mean it can't get better. It doesn't mean that we should sit back and say how wonderful it all is and let it be degraded by anyone in anyway.
You are so off-base about Katrina. I don't even want to take the time to discuss it. The one thing you should do is read the responsibilites of each Government agency before accepting the conservative blame as fact, although it has been disregared now by everyone. "Brownie's doing a good job" someone said. I guess if I mention his name it will insult you. Read about FEMA's responsibilites during evacuations and that of State and Local goverments. But again, your post is not coming from heavy research, it is coming from what you've read and heard. What channel do you watch for News?
Who said that Europe was ever better then the US? Then what you are telling me is that today the US economy is better then in the last 20 years? Now I know what channel you watch for News.
Why not speak up about America and it's politics? Did you say the same when Republicans were ranting daily about Clinton's affair?
Why not stand up to Politician's ethic's?? We can't let them police themselves. It wasn't the Congressional Ethics committee that caught Cunningham, it was a newspaper.
Again, my dialogue is against anyone committing ethics violations. I just want some of you to look outside of your box. Think a little before you defend, sometimes whats undefendable. An example is Rick Roberts, San Diego Conservative talk radio host, when talking about Cunningham's ethics guilt. He said that he should be judged by his complete service to America. Is this the same message that he delivered when John Kerry's Vietnam service was attacked? LOL.
gottogo, there are many strings and this string was talking about Republican's as I remember. If you want more strings on Murrieta ask JL Kunkle.
None have us have all the answers. We just have to have the right ones for ourselves.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:25:00 AM
I can't make sense of 2:23's strange input, but I think we all need to know that there are people out there who would like to silence the Rholmgrens and Jeffs of the world. It is good for everyone - Jeff, Rholmgren, and everyone else - to write whatever is on their minds, and not to be silenced by other writers who try to humiliate and browbeat anyone into submission. I am proud of you guys for having the courage to take a stand.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:40:00 AM
Yeah Jeff, Who are you to tell everyone else what their 'agenda' is? So, whose agenda are you following? Or are you more like the rest of us, making your own decisions about what's right and wrong? Get off your high horse, please.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:19:00 AM
Murrieta T,
In my post when I stated that the Republican parties votes are out there representing the stands they have taken, it is not one individual I am talking about but the majority that are on record.

I understand that you are a busy Mom, and I too have many other items that go far beyond this blog on my plate.

When mentioning Kerry you act like I'm attacking conservatives because they are conservative. That's not my point. I'm not defending Liberals. Mentioning Kerry or Kennedy does nothing to back me down. Mentioning someone with Integrity or Ethics would make me jump to their defense more then what side of the aisle they sit on. I am a McCain man on many many issues, but not all. I want someone that is not afraid to stand up and say what they really feel no matter what the rest of the Country thinks. In some matters I agree with Rep Murtha, but I disagree that we should leave Iraq today.
My arguments are with people who follow......read the word follow....a specific ideology. They assume that everything they are told by that ideolgy is correct and true. That they listen to biases of what ideology propagandists like the Fox News Channel, Air America Radio and the hate mongers Sean Hannity, Jeanne Garafillo, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
I agree with your comment on how I reacted to your comments on Kerry. I was attacking the ideology and using conjecture. I did the same.

I am very disappointed with our government. I am very disappointed in this world. It seems the more we pay, the more thats stolen from us and not just money.
Ethics is the most important trait of a politician and the party in power, in my mind is at it's worst today. You mentioned the improvement in the economy. But realistically it's still far below the levels that Bush got it at, be it the dot.com or not. He had a surplus thats gone. The defecit will never recover. We are not on a right track in any area. With all my questions at you, now be realistic, where are we headed in the right direction at?
No one is countering me and saying but Jeff....look at this or that. There is little or nothing that has improved since the Bush White House came to power in 2000. I couldn't be complaining if you were throwing great things back at me. What I do see is a country that is not safe after 5 years (as of yesterday's news); a country at war with Iraq when we should be at war with Al Queda and Bin Laden; gas prices soared for no reason and have settled 100% higher then in 2000; infrastruture falling apart; ethics problems hitting the highest posts in our country. Corporations growing out of our misfortune. People of faith worried about things like Gay marriage when the real issues are the poor and homeless and killing that is going on.
So why attack ideologies. Because they are the biggest proponents of all that is bad. They cannot meet in the middle, they only see what will benefit their cause and they would do ANYTHING to support themselves, including sending our sons to war.
You are a Mom. Will you be OK if today you sent your son to Iraq, and in a year found out that it is not a war to protect Iraq, or the US or the world, but as Rholmgren told me in a post, to take oil as we want? How satisfied will you be if he came home in a body back like 2100 other Mom's have had to face. If that is a patriot, then I'm not. If I fought for this nation to be able to take what they want and force their will on others then I was not fighting for the right ideals. The ideals that I cherish today.

As for ramblings....I don't see your posts as one liners.

To 9:19.....I was asked what I think the Conservative agenda is, it's not me spewing what it is. So I said what I feel. I am man enough to follow my own mind and heart and don't need any one group to guide me. You think I question here, just think of the questions and discussions I've put my pastor through on religion. As for a high horse, the only one I ride is that I am as ethical as I can be and have learned much in my years. I am telling no one how they should act or what they should believe. Like I have said many times, I am wrong a lot in life and just as I did in this post, easily admit when I feel disproved.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:30:00 AM
Murrieta T,
I think the information in the last post brings alot to my knowledge for one. Where is this information readily handy?

Question- start with your version of the Conservative agenda.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:13:00 PM
Murrieta T -
Thanks for doing some reading on the MU-3 issue. There is much research material available in some links within the city's site, but the last time I jumped in and started searching around, there was material I could not find that I had read in the past in the zoning-related volumes at City Hall. One thing very important is that there are certain limits on MU-3 density, above which special approval is required (approval which is by no means an automatic right within the density guidelines). The city council has complete discretion in such approvals. No vested rights for very high density exist in MU-3 zones. This detail regarding MU-3 zones is not something they amplify at city hall. There is too much unoffical pre-approval malarky that has gone on, and things could get messy if the very high density plans in progress are challenged. The big wigs at city hall would probably prefer that we not know any more than necessary about the MU-3 apartment density guidelines.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:06:00 PM
3:06,
Then why doesn't someone go and ask the question. Can the residents of Murrieta know the exact plans for High Denisty plans especially in the MU-3 areas?" As residents we do have that right and the papers can then report it. No?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:16:00 PM
Interesting sidelight about tonights council meeting... the City Attorney could get the ax, and Seyarto is complaining as he always does. Saying it's "politics". Well guess what people? It IS a political result of the election. The current city attorney has a good track record on legal matters, but Seyarto may have doomed him with his unstoppable mouth in the same way he doomed Van Haster. People would have been unhappy for sure, but not unhappy enough to make a recall succeed without the potent destructive force of the Seyarto mouth. Congratulations to Seyarto for continuing to destroy all his friends. In one way or another, he does it to all of them. What a shame. What a waste.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:22:00 PM
I would really like to, to get to know people also, but every Tuesday I meet by tele-conference with my Board. If over the Holidays they have one I would love to give my opinion. It would be nice to put faces to some of the bloggers. I will try to catch some of the web cast if it works after my meeting...means i'll be home late again.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:15:00 PM
Murrieta T I am a realist. At one time I did mention that our presence in the Middle East was partially because of oil. It does not take a Mensa to figure out what would happen to the U.S. economy if the Middle East became over run by Islamafacists who then threatened to cut off our oil supply. Although humanity has advanced in so many ways over the past two thousand years there are still battles fought over land and commodities as were fought thousands of years ago. The ancient battle for wealth and power has not advanced as far as our technological battle over our environment. I am sure that we all wish that the need for foreign oil would end tommorrow. It would end quickly if the Liberals would allow the construction of Nuclear plants and allow more domestic energy production.
Jeff that one post you left on the Conservative agenda was like a rapid combination of punches in boxing.
Your first ten items were pretty ancient. It looks like you think Conservatives want to return to an era without women's voting rights and slavery. Maybe you also think Conservatives want to return to the days when children worked in factories and women had no legal rights. I should go back even further Jeff: Your first ten items make it seem as if Conservatives want to return to the stone age when the men were men and the women were scared! I am sorry Jeff those first ten items were just a dumb joke from you right? Jeff the issues on Social Security , Medicare and Medicaid are simple from a Conservative view: They are needed but they should not be abused. Today these programs are abused and bloated. There needs to be means testing on all three programs. Even a guy as rich as Bill Gates will qualify for all 3 at age 65. And did you know that half of all the Social Security money goes to people under the age of 50? If I were a Senior I would be mad that some of my benefit money was being diverted away from its intended retirement purpose. The Universal Health care issue is socialism at its worst. A single payer monopoly with the government in charge? I cannot think of one government social program that is run well now. I would be for anything that injected a little capitalistic competition into the medical field. I think that the third payer system as it stands now is inefficient and anti competitive. Most of the rest of your list has to do with regulations. This is an over regulated country from the National to the local level. There are so many laws and regulations that it is nearly impossible to know if you are in compliance unless you hire a huge law staff, as corporations do, or hire an attorney as an individual or a small business at times must do. Many regulations are just unfunded mandates that place a drag on productivity and creativity. But I do agree that some regulation is needed for pollution standards. This post is all chopped up and Murrieta T is right about trying to conquer too many issues at once. Jeff your list did nail it that you do not understand the Conservative agenda. Murrieta T's follow up gave you an idea of what it is about. In some ways I still do not understand Liberals either. Why do Liberals support the right of women to kill their babys and also support the killing of the infirm( Schiavo) and then turn around and and want the life of a scumbag like Tookie Williams spared? I guess they value murderers more than the innocent.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:09:00 PM
MurrietanEyes,
You are totally right. Now Seyarto has a chance to get his name in the paper at every chance the Murrieta Insider gets to put it at the forefront. McAlister is not up for a vote this time if I am correct. This is pure politics. Any Councilmen that will not take the lead needs to be let go. And then after turning down a challenge he is installed as Mayor Pro-tem. Are we as a community blind to this back room tactics? First we need to address a Councilmen that is too weak to not take the lead at any time and then accepts a sub-lead. What happens if Seyarto can't serve. We are STUCK with a man who doesn't want it. His excuse was the recall. Seyarto had no problem. It is business as usual....is this the City of Chicago....Daley and his machine of corruption. Murrieta stand up!!

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:23:00 PM
The Council meeting is over. Here are the chicken tracks.

First, McAllister waived the Mayor's position and Seyarto is now the Mayor. This was an obvious political move.

Second, the Alexander Communities project at Lemon and Jefferson was approved because the vote was tied 2 to 2. Councilman Ostling couldn't vote as he lives too close to the project. Gibbs made a detailed presentation showing why the project should be denied. But Seyarto and McAllister are owned "lock, stock and barrel" by the developers. They have no problem with allowing the high density condo development. These two council members voted their economic interests rather than the community's interest. They should never be returned to this council.

Third, the second AC condo project was voted down 3 to 2. Again, Seyarto and McAllister tried to help their buddies.

The message here is that the war to control Murrieta's build out is raging ferociously. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The Chamber and the developers are using every means at their disposal to get their projects underway.

Will Murrietans stand up? Do most Murrietans even care? Stay tuned.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:49:00 PM
7:23 you are right on the mark when it comes to seeing that the number 2 person that couldn’t accept the challenge would be willing to step in for the number 1 person. What’s disturbing is the posts on the blog site related to Murrieta are being side stepped for regional and national politics instead of focusing on our own hometown. If we don’t take care of our own family, then who will ? Some people may not be able to attend council meetings to have their voice heard, but we all know the powers that be are watching this site and a lot things have been said in the past that are worth watching. It seems that since KS left the blog Murrieta issues are no longer a topic or something of interest. Does anyone realize that may have been the real agenda from behind the scenes in getting KS off the blog, to stop the discussion about the Murrieta and the issues it faces? So why don’t the posts just push the non-Murrieta politics aside, save it for another day and focus on the real issues at hand. 1) the most recent being the politics seen tonight at city council the with mayor position; the latest word on the street about the 6 lane Jefferson Avenue; 3) 400 unit apartment complexes where they are needed the least; 4) or at least the fact that our own Harper sitting at one of the main council chamber tables feels it’s appropriate to sit through a meeting eating peanuts, looking more like he’s at a little league game. Come on people, get with the program that this blog site was intended for and start discussing what’s affecting us all.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 12:07:00 AM
12:07,
I was poster 7:23. You are right that each string should have its own title and I ask JL Kunkle to separate out National politics and Murrieta politics on each string. That way if someone is totally uninterested in National politics they can tune that string out. You're right we need to start this war. Ed, you are right too. We have less then a year to rid ourselves of Seyarto and that weakling McAlister. Here is a Councilman that is so weak he will not stepup and take the bull by the horns. Bought and paid for. These two are both at odds with our interests and it will never end. I contacted Laura Mitchell at the Californian and asked if she would write a story on our blog site and the discontent that is going on with people that care. Her reply was that she couldn't get involved. But we are news too. Do we have to stand in the street to get a story written? We need to advertise this site. Does it take fliers, walking door to door to get people to come visit this blog? Ed, I have never had a connection to RM, not that I'm not 100% behind everything that they represent but I never had the time. Is this something that we can bring them back for. I think we need their power to push our agenda. What does everyone think?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:14:00 AM
Jeff, you asked several questions.

First, you asked: "Do we have to stand in the street to get a story written? We need to advertise this site."

There are some very easy steps for getting the word out. Letters to the editors of both the Californian and Press Enterprise in which the URL of the website is mentioned.

The Californian will publish a Community Forum article in which a contributor can talk about the issues which are generating community discussion and also call attention to the Murrieta Blog's URL.

Of course paid advertising is also possible both in the papers and spots on local radio are relatively cheap.

Second, you asked: "Ed, I have never had a connection to RM, . . . Is this something that we can bring them back for."

Actually, RM has never gone away. The RM "core" group has continued to meet and is watching the Murrieta situation very closely. Many of the issues and ideas from this Blog are topics of discussion at those meetings.

As I recently mentioned to Rholmgren, there needs to be an organization of Murrietans and so far RM is the only such organization which has taken a political stand on behalf of the "common, ordinary Murrieta resident and family.

You may be right that the time is fast approaching for RM to begin to organize Murrietans to "rescue" our City from the 400 unit apartment complex discussed in this Blog.

I'll mention your questions to RM's core group.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:00:00 AM
I have sent letters to the editors and would hope that some of the outraged on here do too. I advertised this site. I read in Laura Mitchell's column that there was a disruption at the meeting. I listened online but didn't hear it. It seemed calm. Gibbs and Enochs had some lightweight comments also. It's time for the residents to take back our city.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:10:00 AM
Jeff, the Californian comment about a disruption in the meeting was referring to the 1999 meeting. Here's the exact quote:

"Seyarto had been mayor in 1999 and 2000. In 1999, the council meeting at which the mayor's selection took place was disrupted when some members of the audience became upset at Seyarto's selection, saying it was Enoch's turn to be mayor, according to a news report covering the meeting. They shouted their discontent, and one person had to be escorted from the meeting, according to the report."

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09:00 AM
Jeff the right residents already control the city. You mentioned some lightweight comments from Enochs and Gibbs. It seemed to me the Mr. Gibbs put in alot of effort in preparing for the meeting. I can appreciate that even though I oppose some of his views. He definitely belongs on the council. Mr Enoch's lack of preparation was again evident. What is he doing on the council? His rambling comments give me a headache. I sometimes wonder, as I listen to him speak, whether he can spell his own name. Maybe Mr. Faunce should replace Enochs when Warnie is up for re- election. I do not agree with Mr. Faunce's positions many times but his arguements at least make logical sense.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:26:00 AM
Sorry Roy,
We are headed down a path to lose. Last night's voting continues to show that the development community along with Stephenson and Van Haaster controlling the voting of Seyarto and McAlister. You'd think these two would be smarter and on occassion split their vote. But they are playing into the hands of all of the residents who care. By voting for the development community with EVERY vote, what they do is set a permanent record for us to use as proof that they are in the pockets of developers that are steam rolling Murrieta. Last night is just a carbon copy of what I'm talking about. Why are hard working guys like Seyarto turned into puppets? How do you convince someone like him to act in such an unintelligent way. Many many times on this blog I told him that the things he was writing were actually pretty stupid to put down in actual e-mails. I made sure that some people saw his comments and he's gone from here. I for one will follow through and do my best to get the word out about the voting record of these two men. Let the citizens judge who's team they are on. Seyarto will now have the spotlight, city events, city holidays....watch who graces the Murrieta Insider at every possible moment. There will be a publicity biltz till November, just to get his name out as Mayor. McAlister on the other hand is just a pawn and nothing more. He is in place as a patsy. Roy, you of all people should be all over him for not stepping up to the challenge. Or is this more of your laying down if the word conservative or Republican is linked to a man. A man would have stepped up. A weak pawn turns his back and whimpers off. Guess we saw the reality of our Councilmen last night.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:35:00 AM
Murrieta T,
Not seeing these guys on a regular basis, maybe it is Ostling and Enoch's time to be passed over. If what you say that Gibbs is working hard and I have talked to him through e-mails then we need to back him this November as a true asset to Murrieta. If Ostling lacks the energy and ability to fight for things that need to be done then he needs to be thanked for his service but passed on when it comes to support. Doesn't it seem strange to you that Gibbs sees AC as trying to get what he thought was a glorified slum through yet Seyarto and McAlister pass a yes vote. If ANY development appears even close to being in that quality wouldn't you think for Murrieta that the vote would be a "no" across the board? Doesn't that in itself show you who's interest those two really have at heart. I don't attack their interest in other Murrieta aspects like the new web site or the High School notes, but when it comes to any development issues these guys are not friends of this city. McAlister will never challenge the Van Haaster/Stephenson line. He will vote with Seyarto on EVERY development issue. Wouldn't you say its weak that any elected public offical would turn down the challenge of Mayor unless it was a personal or health issue?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 2:06:00 PM
Jeff it seems to me that the planning commission guidelines (which are set by the council) are what need to be attacked instead of Seyarto and McCallister. The project met and exceeded the guidelines that currently exist so it passed by a 2-2 vote. I think Mr. Gibbs may want to raise the guideline bar on this type of development and I see nothing wrong with that.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:04:00 PM
Why wouldn't all our Councilmen stand for raising the bar for this cities benefit? Why one or two? Seyarto and McAlister are voting the same with each vote on development and this one is giving in to what I assume is inferior design or construction. It's hard to defend Councilmen that are weak or give a poor effort but really hard to defend ones that are unethical and bought and paid for. Realistically Roy, if you look at these two, with no prejudice, you have to see that there are some big issues here. Reasoning has to be part of the equation. Reasonably two Councilmen don't always vote as a pair and before that as a trio for the benefit of every developer. Right or wrong it's not reasonable. Really what it is, is a downright crime.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:32:00 PM
Ed,
I hate to ask this question of you but is it possible for someone to get information on the voting of each Councilmen on each issue over the last five years? I'm not asking you to do it but can we just request it from the City?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:34:00 PM
Murrieta T,
Just your statement that Seyarto and McAlister should be ashamed of voting yes, is they key to this whole issue. The Council is OUR (being the residents of Murrieta) last line of defense. If they can't override an ordinance that damages this city then we are all in sad shape. Ed has mentioned in other posts that the residue of VanHaaster are still within the City Manager's office and the current Planning Commission. These are the people that we also need to cleanse. Even if your opinion of Seyarto is somewhat favorable you have to realize that something is going on here....if you are reasonable.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:13:00 PM
Jeff Then lets agree that the bar should be raised. The planning commission will keep approving these type of projects until the bar is raised. I think that once the planning commission approves a project it creates a momentum for council approval. It gets awkward when the council votes against projects approved by the commission. Like I said Jeff attack the problem at its core and raise the bar.The guidelines for the A/C development were set and the developer met or exceeded them. It made no sense to deny the project when all guideline citeria were met or exceeded. Some type of commercial or high density is going to be built on these MU3 lots. Mr. Seyarto was right last night that the same people keep coming out against either commercial or high density development on these lots. If these people do not want either type of development then what do they want? I agree with T that school playgrounds should not be included as open space. I still think we should put something on the ballot and tax ourselves around $70 a year to purchase and maintain parks. Why not solve the problem instead of complaining about it for the next ten years?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:58:00 PM
Roy,
Finally I agree with you across the board. Except what I said before about our protection. It is not up to us, the residents to be up in arms about raising the bar. Every Councilmen should be screaming loudly, asking for public support to make it happen. I guess one raised his voice and two followed with their votes. Any developer bringing developments that resemble slums should be attacked full blast. We don't need anymore developers that look to just clear the bar. We need them to break records clearing it each time. Messages need to be sent that any developer trying to barely squeak by will be dealt with using rejection of their plans. This will NEVER happen with Seyarto around. McAlister, like I said is a weak nothing, who still is led around by the VanHaaster crew which includes Seyarto. I really don't think this community needs new web sites, they should be concentrating on our future. Thank you Mr. Gibbs for stepping up.
See Roy, It's not hard to agree when you're able to go anyway you choose. Now what is your opinion of McAlister turning down his turn to be Mayor? I think that when an elected official turns down a chance to step up he should be banned from that position for a period of time or sent to the end of the line. He shouldn't have a second chance. He told us he didn't want it, then gets pro-tem.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:45:00 PM
Over the next few months we will find that Jack Van Haaster will be challenging for Ostlings Council seat. Isn't that right Kelly?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:50:00 PM
Ed,
in response to your Dec 07 entry, I am also of the opinion that a group needs to emerge to express a strong voice regarding the upcoming elections. However, I would advise it to be someone other than RM! They went after the reall and did a great job. My concern is, they annoyed and offended a lot of people. People who might have supported their cause, but because of rudeness, unprofessionalism, mudslinging and constant badgering at council meetings,a lot of people were not inclined to support them. It is my belief, we have a better chance if we have new faces addressing the public, not connected with the recall. Should you yorself decide to run for council, a new group would be able to support you more successfully if RM was not involved!
I appreciate all the research and information you put on the blog for all participants to see. I think we should take out an ad in PE and Californian and advertise this blog, as long as we stay on Murrieta and Riverside Co. issues. Perhaps if we advertise this blog regularly, and write pages ( paid advertising) in the papers closer to election time, we would not need to irritate people and harrass them in front of stores, at their front door or in their mail boxes! Anyway, just an idea.

Last but not least I would like to address a couple of remarks you made in your Dec 04 input. "God help us because our leaders have been bought and paid for by the corporations" Is this annother put down, as well as your sarcasm concerning " our esteemed Republican led congress"?
Allow me to point out that corporations are not bad in itself, many samll businesses/companies join forces to incorporate, i.e. lawyers, unions or doctors unite to gain power and strength to drive their agendas.
It is only individuals who are corrupt and greedy and they exist everywhere, including our government.Iam thankful for some of the good these corporations are doing, they are large donors to public events and always generous when disaster strikes. They provide jobs with health insurance, retirement plans and they provide needed services in our society. Is that not what we want in Murrieta?
I would not like to read " God help us because our leaders have been bought and paid for by unions or trial lawyers"!
I believe we are in a republican belt ( shifted from OC ) and it is wise to leave politics out of Murrieta and avoid offending people, if we want to be successful in achieving our goal. Remember, many conservatives helped in the recall campaign to oust fellow conservatives because they did abuse their position on the Council and that is the way it ought to be: Murrietans need to rule, not conservatives or liberals. The same is to be said on the national level, in my opinion.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:35:00 PM
1:35,
I agree with you. I heard many comments about RM going too far. I know it was a small group against big money developers, but people like Tom and Debby Butler, Barbara Nugent, etc. were too nasty for people to support the group 100%. Ed Faunce would do much better to be supported by another group, or by telling RM to tone it down a bit on the vicious and vindictive chatter.
Ed, 1:35 also has a good point if you do decide to run for council. Like it or not, you live in a republican county, a republican city. You would do well to tone down your anti-republican, anti-corporation views and stick to the city issues where people agree with you. Don't alienate voters.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:49:00 PM
Don't alienate voters? Does that mean give up your ideals? Does that mean to only talk things that the Republican or Conservative voters want to hear? Is it that Conservatives wouldn't vote for a Democrat that outshines the characters we have on the Council today?
Wasn't it the Republican Party that supported the three Councilmen and endorsed "No Recall"? Should they be praised for that? Or should we say, it's OK?

Youre right saying this is Conservative country. But when someones ideals differ, should they compromise so voters feel better? I say No. But Councilmen at this level shouldn't have to be partisan to ideologies should they? It shouldn't matter if a resident is liberal or conservative because to the Councilmen all they should be is a taxpayer.

Was RM a Liberal backed organization? Is that why they are called nasty? Maybe the only way to defeat these people was to be nasty? Seems Seyarto was pretty nasty and he stayed in power? Seems Nancy Knights editorial in her paper was pretty nasty about McAlister. Nancy Knight is a Conservative right?

If you want this sight to only have local political talk then ask JL Kunkle to only post topics that serve that need. But He posts other National topics, who are you two to try and limit or belittle or censor what is said or talked about if it ruffles you a little or you don't want what others find to be true. Aren't we all learning about others views here?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:15:00 PM
Jeff I guess there are some people that support Mr. Faunce's local views but they do not want to be turned off by percieved Leftist rants. I think Mr. Faunce will still say whatever he sees fit. I doubt a post or two will change anything. Murrieta T your views on the city are very articulate. Did you say that you had an aversion to public speaking? You obviously understand more about what is going on with the city than most citizens. It would be nice to hear some of your thoughts voiced at the Council meetings. One thing that I have noticed is that the apartment complexes are smaller here than in other cities I have lived in. Almost every complex I lived in was larger than 400 units. They had multiple pools,volley ball, and basketball courts. Others had Tennis or Racquetball courts and a clubhouse with a gym. It just seems to me that by building smaller complexes distributed throughout the city that there will be decentralized effect on traffic. But the cost of this strategy is a lack of anemities. I would prefer larger complexes so that some or all of the anemities that I mentioned above could be incorporated into the complex. Under the current small complex format adding these goodies makes little financial sense to the builder or future property manager.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:39:00 PM
Roy,
Again I'm agreeing....have I been transformed. Yes, Ed Faunce is not going to be bullied. It's the point. Shutup about anything wrong with Republican's or you'll not get our vote. That's just wrong, period. You'll should step off your high horse and come to the reality that no ideology is perfect nor has perfect people running it. Look for the strength in what people say, not what they label themselves. Why, don't people just think logically? Does the tooth fairy come around with sprinkle dust at night......"everything that conservative or liberal politicians do or say is right, no matter what". My gosh, grow up. That was directed at the two previous posters not you Roy.

Again youre right about Murrieta T's responses to local politics. She is articulate and bright. One thing you didn't respond to T is the McAlister decision, do you not see this totally political? Either you believe totally in McAlister for not accepting and look down at Seyarto for accepting, or the other way around. They are a tag team in the recall thing. Any elected official be he conservative, liberal, white, black, straight or gay needs to step up when his community calls. This guy turned his back away from us because his "real" bosses told him to.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 6:54:00 AM
Rhomgren: You are right about the differences in large and small complexes. The driving force behind either of them is the difference in occupants. Will they be singles looking for the added amenities, or small families (1 or 2 small children) looking for a small, tight-knit, family orientated community and where safety is a concern. If a community is to grow, then I believe there is need for both in Murrieta. However, the 400 unit plus complex proposed on Jefferson is not an appropriate place for such a large facility which would expect to house mostly singles, and where multi occupant vehicle trips would be slim to nonexistent, thus more traffic. To the contrary, a family type complex on a major artery is also not appropriate due to safety concerns. You say it would be nice to hear T speak at council meetings. Do you ever attend or speak at these meetings?

Murrieta T: You do seem to know your stuff and many of the issues around town. Would you be willing to take the lead in forming and educating a community group of residents? RM opened the door for the residents, but now it is time for them to step aside and let a fresh, non-controversial group to take the lead.

Just Curious

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 7:07:00 AM
Just curious, you are right, I totally agree with anon 1:32, the critism was constructive and helpful for anyone garnering public support. Jeff, as usual, is mouthing off and does not see the big picture.
A new, different group needs to emerge from which leaders will be elected. Murrieta T., are you interested, because you seem very interested in local politics. Just thinking1

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 7:28:00 AM
Good thoughts, 7:07. Glad I tuned in when I did. Here's something else to think about: A city official made a point of informing the Californian that the curb of Jefferson would be all of 16 feet from an office bldg. Well, after performing the planned miracle of turning the upcoming new Jefferson Avenue from 4 lanes to 6 lanes (to help accommodate traffic from the planned mega apartment monstrosity), the car and truck traffic in the side lanes will be running almost right on the curb, instead of having the usual side pull-over or parking setback. At the present time, guess what traffic corridor is also 6 lanes, and runs parallel to Jefferson. It's the 15 Freeway. Yup. Between Murrieta Hot Spgs Rd and Cal Oaks, 6 lanes. And now Jefferson. But the freeway is a better traffic neighbor. The freeway has huge setbacks. No offices or condos just 16 feet from the traffic. And on Jefferson, of course, the curb and sidewalk run along the same line. Let's hope the drivers never swerve just a bit when those sidewalks become crowded with pedestrians, as they will be with 400+ apartments. It's a planned nightmare, a disaster that is unfolding at city hall. Maybe this is Murrieta's version of disaster planning...?

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 7:35:00 AM
This weekend I am going to take my rolling measuring machine to measure the width of Jefferson and also the width of another 6 lane road. I just want to know if this Jefferson issue is real or not. Murrieta T maybe we can put a Darth Vader mask on you and deepen your voice :) Jeff you had better hope that someone gets wise and removes Howard Dean from his position on the DNC. That man is Flip Flopping more than a beached grunion. Did Anyone read about the demise of Clark Foam? Good Job California! What an awesome job of regulating hundreds ( or perhaps thousands )of jobs out of existence! California Dreamin'......

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 8:24:00 AM
Rholmgren - Thanks for your efforts in getting the full measure of the Jefferson issue. We all have to know how much sense it makes to put 400 additional residences worth of traffic in this area. If a planned 4 lane road has to be painted into 6, it's worth it to keep the 4 lanes from going into automatic gridlock. If a few pedestrians get mowed down because sidewalk setbacks are insufficient, and because six lanes of tight traffic invites swerves, then that's OK. Murrieta will have soooo many people that a few pedestrians won't even be missed. I know where you stand on the apartment issue, so this is just a bit of ribbing at the expense of the geniuses in our planning department.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 8:43:00 AM
Not just six lanes, but a turning median also. Amazing what paint can do. Maybe these painters at city hall could figure out a way to paint the existing office building and condos about forty feet further away from the new Jefferson Freeway. And then they can turn some water into wine.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 9:31:00 AM
Darth Vader lay claim to KS? You must have a very low opinion of Mr. Vader. Maybe somthing more like Developer Dog claiming KS as his tail-wagging puppy. No, even a developer has too much self respect to claim KS as anything other than his chummy little buddy politician. Let's try again. How about Moe...? Sorry Moe. Just kidding. No offense. With you and Larry and Curly, it was only an act.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 11:48:00 AM
So we have the ball rolling. What we see is that this whole 400+ apartment complex makes little sense in tax dollars, in traffic congestion, in every area we taxpayers need to protect. So now we're complaining...where does that leave all of us. Someone asked Murrieta T to form an information group, another great idea. But can and will it be less controversial then RM? Can it be the group to drive our point across? I think RM became controversial because they challenged the strength of the City Council. This new group will again attack that strength....Seyarto. If you attack him, you've attacked the money and power of the developers and they in turn will attack. I believe any formed group of residents will become controversial and be attacked. BUT WE HAVE TO DO IT.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 12:09:00 PM
Murrieta T,
So the AC attorney already knew McAlister's plan. So are my theories of conspiracy or are they what is happening. The development community wanted McAlister to step aside, he was not in danger this year of losing his job, but Seyarto is. Conspiracy? That is the plan. If we citizens ever want this city to do the right thing for us as a group we must rid ourselves of Seyarto. He is an employee of the development group and does not serve us when deciding on development issues.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 12:12:00 PM
Murrieta T,
Not only is Seyarto's seat up for grabs, but so is Ostling's. Have you ever thought about spending the hours that you are not running the kids all over as a Councilwoman? Gibbs, Faunce and Murrieta T? Food for thought. I'd trust you with my tax money.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 12:33:00 PM
I don't know who at the city offices was responsible for bowing down to the developer of a 400 unit apartment complex by turning a planned 4 lane street into 6 lanes in a desperate attempt to solve the traffic emergency the apartments would create. Whoever it is should be fired by the city manager for flagrant abuse of their position. And if the city manager won't fire that person, then the city manager is being irresponsible and is also guilty of bending to the pressure of people who are abusing this city with development plans that are obviously not in our best interests. Someone must take responsibility for the awful abuse of our trust that is going on behind closed doors in this town.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 5:53:00 PM
Obviously there was some insider knowledge about the McCalister move. Didn't M.E. mention the rumor at around 3:33 on this blog? Maybe the attorney reads this blog? It may have been a rather large circle of people that knew beforehand. THe only people that were probably blindsided were Enochs and Ostling and their RM supporters. I thought that it was pretty funny how the Mayor rotation was used against them.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 7:51:00 PM
oh Rholmgren RM had a prepared speech saying that if McAllister waived the Mayorship it should be assigned by vote. But they picked the major without allowing the residents to speak. We were not blindsided, we were silenced.

Edward Fauves

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 8:58:00 PM
Rholmgren: Good people are always surprised at the deviant nature of people of low character. An example for all time is the 9/11 attacks, which most good and decent people found surprising. There is nothing to be proud of in "blindsiding" your fellow man. There is nothing clever and nothing to be proud of when an elected official "blindsides" anyone. Don't forget, the secret nature of what is going on behind closed doors between some of our elected officials and high density developers is designed to blindside the public. If anyone finds this sort of thing funny, then the deterioration and ultimate destruction of the quality of life in our town will probably be a real hoot.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 9:03:00 PM
The people who wanted the the Mayor rotation are now crying the loudest. I guess the rotation is only good when it works your way.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 9:27:00 PM
Rholmgren - What people are put off by is the way some other people will look for any way possible to abuse the rules and the system which was designed to create a form of fairness which did not exist before. The same abusers of the rules are those who now abuse this city by crowding our streets and even redesigning the way our street lines are painted just to see how many cars and apartments they can squeeze in. You like these guys? They're all yours.

By Anonymous, at Friday, December 09, 2005 11:01:00 PM
Rholmgren: To keep you out of traffic, here is the skinny on Jefferson Ave:

The City circulation plan calls for Jefferson Avenue to be an Arterial Highway. City Standard 101, consisting of 2-12 foot inside lanes, 2-14 foot outside lanes, 2-8 foot shoulders, and a median width of 18 feet with allowance for a left turn lane with in the 18 feet, defines an Arterial Hwy. However, the circulation plan indicates Jefferson to use a modified Standard 101, consisting of 6-11 foot lanes, a 10 foot median, and 2-5 bike lanes.

As it exists today, south of MHS, the normal section of the street is 86 feet, curb to curb. It consists of 2-11 foot inside travel lanes, 2-21.5 foot outside travel lanes, 2-5 bike lanes, and a 10 foot median. This configuration is consistent with the normal Standard 101 in the fact that it consists of 4 travel lanes.

At MHS, Jefferson transitions to 100.5 feet wide. This is somewhat consistent to the circulation plan requirement in the fact that at points of major intersections the street is to be widened to accommodate additional turn lanes, whether they be left or right turn lanes. The circulation plan reference is Standard 207 Critical Intersection Geometrics. The difference between Standard 207 and as is Jefferson exists today is that the standard says the intersection is to be widened anywhere between 106 feet and 120 feet.

In conclusion, and using the City Standards, Jefferson is designed for 6 lanes, with little or no accommodation for turn lanes, whether they be left or right turn only. One would have to ask how are travelers to enter the 400 unit apartment complex? Will another intersection be created at the entrance to complex, one requiring the street to be widened in accordance with Standard 207, thus creating a major (critical) intersection between MHS and Juniper? Is this what is really needed, another short distance intersection ? Or would the travelers be restricted to use a normal street section to enter the complex where no additional turn lanes are created and anyone wanting to turn left into the complex would be required to use 10 foot median with little or no separation from oncoming traffic?

I briefly spoke to the City Traffic Engineer about this subject and the 6 lanes. The reply I got was “it’s all a lot to put into such a narrow corridor”. I came away from the conservation thinking the Traffic Engineer was not on board with the 6-lane concept, but could do little about it at this time, if at all. If anyone knows more about the 400 unit complex, it would be helpful in having more informative conversations with the Traffic Engineer, in hopes to stop to this fiasco before it really gets rolling.

For those that want to know, no I did not go out measure Jefferson. All of the information can found on the City’s website, including the construction and signing plans used to construction the street.

Just Curious

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 10, 2005 7:40:00 AM
Murrieta T: True, no big deal, and yet more evidence to support the long held notion that Seyarto and his clique will flaunt, bend or pervert the spirit if not the letter of any rules to do whatever they please. It is part of the ongoing evidence of the kind of arrogance with which the minds of Seyarto et al are apparantly thoroughly saturated, to the point at which they drip. Do these kind of people care if they overrun this town with traffic and apartments if that is what suits their greedy mass housing development bretheren? No. Their noses are so high above it all that they cannot even smell the foul stench of their own doings. The question is, are we going to stand still and let them do it all over us? If you look at the mass housing development which has already started growing like mold across our precious commercial corridors (an area which could be the sales tax-generating machine for this city for the next hundred years) you have to wonder what motivates these politicians. It is certainly not the future well being of this town.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 10, 2005 1:06:00 PM
Murrieta T,
Why the question, "who cares about Seyarto"? As you mentioned, this is totally politics. The C of C, the developers, Seyarto and McAlister are all setting us up for November. I believe Roy knows it just as well. All Seyarto needs is one more vote on the Council to again take whatever control we have of our City Council and hand it back to the Developers.

Roy knows this too, with Seyarto as Mayor he gets all the photo ops, free pubicity and access to every event. This IS the VanHaaster agenda plain and simple. It does mean more then just one vote to Seyarto. If we are blind to this then why have a blog and talk on here? If VanHaaster or a carbon copy is voted onto our Council, we might as well hand the Keys of our city to developers like Alexander Communities. They will build their inferior low income housing, mega apartment complexes and there will be absolutely nothing we can do.

So we need to make a big deal out of it. Do you really think our discussing how many feet this is or how a rule states something really matters in our City Council. They aren't reading this and making any changes to their own thinking. The only thing we really have is our power to vote them out. Why do you think Roy doesn't want us to talk about who is Mayor?

We also need to make a big deal out of McAlister wimping out and opening this photo op up for Seyarto. Soon, very soon, Van Haaster will step back in and run again, for Ostling's seat.

I saw RM change things for the better with the removal of VanHaaster, let's not waste that effort. I'm not satisfied with more people moving in mass to Murrieta. This afternoon, the I-15 was bumper to bumper going South at Clinton Keith and the exist took 3 stop lights before I could cross. What good does that do for us? Can you imagine what it will be like in three years?.

Roy, yes to your question about $70 a year for parks.

I'd gladly pay $1000 for 5 Councilmen who had my best interest at heart. We have 2 that have sold out to Development, 1 that doesn't have any energy left, 1 that doesn't really care and only 1 that is trying. Is that the type of City Council we should be proud of?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 10, 2005 2:43:00 PM
Nice letter to the Editor Jeff. It had pretty good form and punctuation. It is too bad that its basis was speculation based on faux facts. I am going to cut it out and save it for later next year. It will be funny to see how mistaken and wrong you are.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:44:00 PM
What other conclusion can anyone thinking logically draw from McAlister's move? McAlister just doesn't want to be the figure head? That's all it is right?

Murrieta T,
So you think it's logical that the developers all monitor this web site? That's why the AC attorney knew about the McAlister move? Thought you said he knew for a fact? You didn't say he said let's see what Dougie might do? Right?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:19:00 PM
To Murrieta T and Jeff, I nderstand both your positions. Jeff, yes it is galling to see how blatant Seyarto, McAllister, the Chamber and Stephenson's developer group act. Yes, MT we should focus on what we can actually change, i.e., the push to buildout our commercial space with high density housing.

The truth is that this episode testifies to the unfinished RN business -- ridding our City Council of Seyarto and McAllister. These two were targeted by RM because it was obvious that their allegiance was misplaced.

Seyarto made quite a show, after the recall was over, of saying that it was time to move on. RM said "Ok, let's see how the Council performs now." And RM backed off.

But those who kept Seyarto and McAllister on the Council had no intention of altering course. This last charade announces the continued struggle for control of Murrieta's development.

Frankly, I'm glad they slimed up the plan to rotate the mayor. Now if Murrietans don't take ballott-box action against these two we'll deserve what we get. We've been forwarned and we can see the take over plan in operation.

The reason why I made the two pasts showing the true identity of Southwest County Taxpayers etc (the developers' PAC) and the bogus Murrieta Chamber of Commerce was to alert people to just how far the "Traitors" hane already infiltrated our City structures. If anyone had any doubt, they can lay it aside now.

But the struggle to reclaim our city must focus on these high density projects, as MT says.

There must be a residents group which will arise. If RM is not that group, then another must be formed and the sooner the better.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:43:00 AM
Should we "reclaim" the city so that the RM "core" members can set the agenda? That group will always be the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong agenda. Maybe some new faces are needed. Those "core " members have been pushing the same agenda for years. They were the oddballs out long before you came to town Mr. Faunce.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:06:00 AM
Think about it. Speaking of agendas, there is a fairly obvious reason that the existing businesses associated with the Chamber would prefer to see the commercial corridors of Murrieta turned into high density housing. Existing businesses would love to have a future with as little competition as possible. They would have to work less hard to get a jucier slice of the economic pie. On the other hand, a thriving, well planned, and competitive commercial zone with easy access to major freeways (in our town, that translates into the commercial corridors near the golden triangle) would provide a vigorous, healthy, and strong capitalistic marketplace, creating a major flow of incoming tax revenues from all over Southern California. This powerful economic tax-generating machine is seen as a threat by existing business owners. Just like the apartment developers, the existing business owners are concerned not with the larger picture of Murrieta's overall sales tax revenues. They just want to watch their own little purses. And if that means thousands of bottom rung housing units permanently taking over our commercial corridors, that's fine with them. Until the commercial zones of this town are completely built out, the Chamber of Commerce will be actively working to undermine the kind of commercial development that is in the highest and best interests of Murrieta. At the present time, Murrieta's future as a strong and independent tax-rich city is threatened more by two sitting councilmen and the Chamber of Commerce than by anyone or any thing from the outside world.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:51:00 AM
To Anon 9:51, precisely! And furthermore, the more bodies that are crowded into Murrieta the more potential consumers for the existing businesses.

Rholmgren, RM is certainly not adverse to "new faces." I said we need a residents' group, not necessarily RM. Does anyone on this Blog care to put out an organizing call or plan?

And as far as RM's agenda, the only agenda that I signed on to support was to get a City Council, and hopefully thereby a City staff, that first and foremost looked after the average Murrieta family.

Enough already of the out-of-town developers' and businesses building Murrieta to suit their agendas. Rholmgren, RM supporters live in this town - just like you. We want a City that works for residents. I think that agenda is very inclusive. Certainly, no one was denied RM membership if they were a City resident.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:59:00 AM
Rholmgren, I should have also responded to your charge that some of RM's core members have been "the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong agenda" and "oddballs."

There was also an ealier post which specifically mentioned that Tom and Debbie Butler and Barbara Nugent were "too nasty."

I have found the Butlers and Barbara Nugent to all be very honorable people. Without their efforts, the recall would probably not have happened. In particular, Barbara donated hundreds of hours in tirelessly directing the signature gathering on the petitions. She personally walked many miles delivering flyers to neighborhood homes. Debbie Butler was just as tireless in her efforts.

They all cared enough about our City to give their personal committment for all of us. I take my hat off to all three.

But, we all know that the recall opposition and many other members of the community felt offended by some remarks directed to McAllister by Tom Butler. Those comments were described as "nasty" even though the charges were not denied.

Recently the Murrieta Bugle, the December '05 issue, made a even more complete statement concerning McAllister's past. Apparently those making these charges have investigated them and are prepared to back them up with evidence.

Now, I don't think that personal and family matters should be used against McAllister unless he makes his "family values" an issue or if he campaigns on his family matters. If he makes his prior family an issue, then of course people are entitled to know the truth, whatever it may be.

I was made the object of "nasty" campaign literature by the anti-recall people, which included Mcallister. I don't recall any hue and cry about that as long as it was Haynes, Hollingsworth, the Chamber, the local Repub party, etc. making the charges. And I wasn't even a candidate.

Tom's statements are water under the bridge. He has continued to serve Murrieta (a member of the GPAC committee) and was selected to be on a City Commission since the recall.

OK, that's how I feel about these three friends who worked so hard to rescue our City Council. But, myself, and I'm sure I speak for the other three mentioned, as well as all other RM members, we are perfectly willing to serve a residents' committee without being the leaders should a new committee be formed.

So, someone out there pick up the laboring oar and call for an organizing plan. Many, many good residents will respond.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 11:28:00 AM
I agree with all three of you but to lesser degrees.
Ed, you are a leader here like it or not. You need to stand up, I believe, and throw your hat in. To hell with the Stephensons, Holligworths, Haynes and VanHaaster's. We need you now. Every citizen should be invited to join this group. Roy, youre wrong to try and isolate anyone with concerns for Murrieta. There is dislike here, deservedly so, on both sides. But the determination of this group should be to break up Seyarto and McAlister now and then rid ourselves of McAlister the following year.

Murrieta T, do you think that the developers attorney reads this blog or do you think it is more logical to think he was told of McAlister's decision before the meeting? Some of what the residents decide has to be from what we logically think, because we will never know first hand everything.

Can we the residents stop this apartment bilitz? Can we stop the building of apartments at Murrieta Hot Springs and Jefferson even if we try our hardest? Do we have that power? I truly don't think we can. But we can change the faces on the Council and stop the future bilitz. We have to start now.

I can't understand how any of you want to quiet or push down the importance of eliminating Seyarto and securing someone with spirit and heart for Ostlings seat. I believe it IS the most important task we the residents of our city have. It is something that we alone have the power to change.

If you tell me we as a group can stop the plans that will be approved over the next few months I will push on those items harder then letting Seyarto stay and Van Haaster from coming back. But unless I'm convinced otherwise, I stand with my gut feel that Seyarto's seat is the most important agenda we have. If he stays and an ally joins him, our city is lost.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 2:35:00 PM
If 400 apartments between MHS Road and Ivy can't be stopped, then nothing destructive of Murrieta can be stopped. We're talking density that exceeds any 'automatic right' approval level at the planning commission or council levels. We're talking about the start of an unfixable, massive ongoing traffic control meltdown. There could not be an economic mistake of more obviously major and enduring proportions. There would be a huge traffic safety concern for the hundreds of kids from lower income familys who would live in such apartments. It would be only a matter of time before kids are run over, and this city and various of it's employees and are rightfully sued. In other words, this monsterous project is the Unholy Grail of Bad Ideas. They just don't get any worse. If Seyarto wins this one, it means he is playing from an unbeatable stacked deck. It means he is backed by players too financilly big for this city to defend itself against. It means Murrieta City Hall is a den of idiocy, if not corruption. If anyone really thinks this project can not be defeated, then they also have to believe Murrieta is among the most miserably hopeless political points on planet Earth.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 2:59:00 PM
2:59,
Do you hear any of our Councilmen saying that these apartments won't be built? Isn't that where the stoppage will come from? I hear nothing from them. I hear that someone talked to the a traffic engineer about the six lane highway and that highway is being built to accomadate these apartments. Don't you think a Councilmen should be screaming?

So tell me how you think the residents can beat this project without the three we need on the Council talking about it today?

Don't for one second think I am for this project. I have been talking for months against ANY new high density projects. I argued for months with Seyarto, if you'd like to read back on the posts. I just dont see a way.

And yes, City Hall is full of corruption, Im sorry to say.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 3:18:00 PM
Jeff, I must confess that I informed ME about the plan to have McAllister waive his turn as the Mayor so Seyarto could be Mayor during his re-election year. I got the information from a reliable source earlier on the day of the Council Meeting.

I was told that the matter had already been planned out. I'm sure that when MT over heard AC's atty at the Council meeting, he did not get his info from this Blog.

No, the entire caper was just a cynical manipulation of the Mayor rotation system.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 3:42:00 PM
And we know that Ed. They will continue to manipulate right into the November election and by then Seyarto, McAlister, possibly VanHaaster or someone else the development community hand picks will be in and where will all of us be. Sitting here complaining with no options. They have all the cards right now. Too many people, ignorant of what's going on here will walk into the voting booth and just pull the switch because they saw a picture of our current Mayor on the cover of the Murrieta Insider, kissing a baby. We will say why didn't we stop this when we could. Well, we have the time now and we can. I think that those fence sitters need to look at what happened the other night, read the logic into it and take a side or stop complaining about high density apartments. The only way to change our direction is to change the Council.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 4:03:00 PM
An established PAC is much better than a startup. Despite many conservative representations of RM being the devil incarnate, if the existing RM PAC was infused with some new blood IN ADDITION to the original, and very effective crew that started it, it would make a much more effective resistance to the ongoing exercise in scandal that is taking place within the City of Murrieta.

And if anyone is still interested in anyone "toning down" their messages, complacency requires moderation, but change requires action. For a fairly tidy assessment of the stance this blog takes on moderation, see the post by Jeff on 8 Dec. at 6:15.

By J. L. Kunkle, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:00:00 PM
And even before the 400 apts come before the Council, they must go before the Planning Commission.

A large contingent of Murrietans speaking against the apt complex would do wonders at the planning commission.

Also, don't forget that the Planning Commission has historically been the training ground for elevation to the City Council. So keep your eyes on those Commissioners, especially Randon Lane (perhaps a JvH protege) and Steve Rawlings, (owner and publisher of the Murrieta Insider). Two prime candidates for the Chamber and the developers to tout for Council membership.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 12, 2005 12:29:00 AM
MT which council member did you talk to? Did he specifically mention the location of the complex in question? I think there may be some confusion because I think there are more than one 400 unit complexes being proposed. Let me know if I am wrong. As far as the 9:51 post goes I agree with some of it but I do not see a track record that has catered to established businnesses at the expense of bringing new business to town. If that were the case the Grand daddy of all mom and pop business killers Walmart would never have been allowed here.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 12, 2005 9:21:00 AM
Rholmgren - Your comments are well taken. However, the sequence of events before, during, and after the Wal Mart approval are of interest. In fact, it was Wal Mart's entry that put the fear in the bellies of many of the Chamber members. The City Council largely welcomed the Wal Mart with open arms. Ironically, some Wal Mart supportive local politicians then exploited the open sore of financial fear they had created among Chamber members. They did this by encouraging support for the desires of the mass housing developers who wanted to spread condo and apartment development throughout the commercial corridors. That was when the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce changed from being supportive in a normal sense of their city government, to becoming staunch supporters of politicians who wanted a housing build-out in the commercial corridors. This would put an end, theoretically, to most of the threat of future commercial competition. The actual results can now be seen by what is happening in those commercial corridors. The proof is right there in front of our eyes. The big time commercial future of Murrieta, and huge future sales tax revenues, are going right down the toilet. Murrieta has been sold out and betrayed, and it's been done in a slick, calculated, and very professional manner. The transformation of the commercial corridors of Murrieta into an abyss of condos and apartments is the result of a marriage of political and mass-housing development interests. At such marriages are guests who bring gifts in the form of massive financial support for present and future campaigns. When those guests raised their glasses to toast the bride and groom, they were really toasting the financial plunder of a beautiful town.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 12, 2005 10:34:00 AM
Roy,
If you are correct and there are more then one complex in that area going in, are we to fight each one as they come to us? If thats the case we are in for a frustrating time, little information to go on, and who is going to do this fact finding? I find the deeper we go the more frustrating it will get and eventually the tires will fall off. Why isn't anyone on the Council stepping up and doing this? Are the people on here the only ones who care?

Everyone:
Like I said, if we don't rid ourselves of the two enablers we will never have a fix for these issues. It will just go on and on.

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 12, 2005 12:43:00 PM
Faunce: and prior to a Planning Commission hearing, projects may also be heard in what is called a Director’s hearing. This is a public hearing and is normally scheduled during business hours. Not all projects go to Planning Commission, and not all projects go to Director's Hearings. However, if anyone waits until a public hearing agenda to published to find out information about a project, it is too little and too late. Staff has already determined it’s recommendation, and usually for approval. An application for development is public record as soon as it deemed complete by staff. That does not mean as soon as it is submitted, but rather when all the requirements for the application have been met. Questions of staff, starting at the public counter, must start long in advance of any public hearing. Questions and RFI’s regarding the project have to be obtained, reviewed and further discussed with staff. If this is done prior to preparation of the conditions and prior to staff recommendations, then one would stand a chance in having their concerns put into the conditions and staff's recommendation. It also becomes part of the public record. The information also has to be disseminated to the public, via the media, this blog site, word of mouth, and an organized group. These efforts take a monumental amount of time, of which one person can hardly do it all. To everyone on the blog, the time is now to get organized if you truly are concerned about any project, especially the 400 unit complexes. Whether you agree with what RM did or does do, I would venture to say this is how they won the election, by doing their homework well in advance of D day.

Just Curious

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 12, 2005 8:11:00 PM
Just Curious
Excellent post. But many are called, and few will step up to the task. I'm sure you've been to Council and Planning Comm meetings where the audience is full, and the TV and web are broadcasting to the wider community. Yet so few stand to speak, and fewer still have done the kind of pre-planning and groundwork laying you describe. Public speaking comes natural to very few among us. Some of those who do speak do so in spite of the fears of speaking which cause their voices to quiver, yet the substance of their ideas come through loud and clear. Those are the heros of our community, who forsake the comfort of being quiet to take a stand for their neighbors. God bless those people. And those who have the brainpower and patience to research the facts. They are the only ones who can protect this town against the paid PR professionals who are working with apartment developers and certain politicians in this town to squeeze the financial life out of a city for their own gain. They are trying to financially rape this town which is still in it's very young childhood just to satisfy their own lust for political and apartment building business advancement. To hell with them all. We MUST stand together.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:06:00 AM
Anon 10:06 Yes, public speakers are far and few between. But unless the groundwork is laid out and pre-planned for the speakers, it again is too late when one comes to the podium. It seems that not only on this blog, but also Citywide, there are few residents to take on the task of researching and talking to staff, even though it’s those same exact people that are looking for change. It’s not rocket science. People can be trained what questions to ask and how to ask them. Sure, everyone is busy with either family life, work, both or other. However, if anyone is looking for a change they must be willing to put in the time. And not always as effective, phone calls can be made. There are many staffers at City Hall that are will to respond by sending information via email. First and foremost, an organized group has to be formed. This group doesn’t have to be politically minded, only one made up of residents willing to do what they can to do to help in correcting the current direction the City is headed. Are there any volunteers out there?

Just Curious

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:38:00 PM
To 10:26 I read your post five times. Do I need to say more?

To Just curious I'm kind of curious about your stuff. From long experience in this town and others, I happen to know that a clever technique used by manipulative citys is to draw citizens into the process when it comes to a project that should never even get the time of day. By doing that, they get people on board with this or that little concession to make them feel like they're making a difference. The fact is that it's a slam dunk fact that these 400 plus apartment projects should not be in the commercial corridors in the first place. This goes to common sense, and to the fact that the only reason they are being considered is for the betterment of the political futures of Searto, McAllister and the other guy who got shown the busines side of the boot. Let's assume for the sake of arguement that you are not here from the dark side. And I don't yet suspect you are. But given that assumption, why do you want to give quarter to the details of a city scheme that does not even deserve to exist? By doing that you are implying something that should not be implied. So, exactly where are you coming from? My take on this kind of matter is that it needs to be hammered full on. Mr.Gibbs, Mr. Enochs and Mr. Ostling and anyone who is worthy of a political future in this town should know that more condos and apartments in the commercial corridors is a flat out wrong concept. Getting invoved in any sidetracking details will not serve any purpose as far as I can see.
Been There

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:56:00 PM
Been there: Your assumption is correct. I am not from the dark side. I also agree with you about city MO’s in sucking residents into the web of development, resulting in the residents coming on board with a project they had initially objected to. Also, as seen in this city, staff will recommend to the developer to contact the neighborhood to set community meetings. The developers will also distribute those same glossy flyers we saw during the anti-recall campaign. What I laid out was nothing more then due diligence before a speaker stands up in hearing, spurring out comments that have no basis. ie Too much traffic is often a comment, with nothing to support the comment other then conjecture. If one wants to challenge the traffic component, then one needs to read the associated project reports. Case in point, a traffic report for a project in this city noted the results of a count of vehicle trips on Washington in the vicinity of the high school. The flaw found in the reported vehicle trips is that the count was preformed during a school break period when traffic was significantly less. These examples, and many others, are reasons why the legwork needs to start sooner then later, as if you wait until just a few days before the public hearing, then you might as well stay home.

Apartments and commercial can work together, if properly planned. Case in point, Rcho Cal. Rd has a mix of both. I would attribute this to the proper planning of Rcho Cal Rd and it’s street improvements, primarily pre-planned intersections and road widths that include 6 lanes, with protected turn lanes. For our own Jefferson, to suddenly widen the traffic pattern to 6 lanes with no allowance for dedicated turn lanes, all because a high-impact project is proposed, is nothing more then a knee-jurk reaction by the city. Sure, the circulation plan says Jefferson is designated for 6 lanes. This is what the city will rely on when they say “it will work”. However, in the grand scheme of things, it’s not going to work. Certain staff members can be quoted in saying “it’s a lot for a small corridor”. To fully understand why the circulation plan indicates Jefferson as a six lane “ arterial highway”, thus challenging the knee-jurk, one needs to research back in time to see what the adjoining designated land uses were designed for. My bet would be commercial, not multi-family. Also, I would say that other then the ones shown in circulation plan, no intermediate intersections (entrances for apt complexes) were in the thought process.

So as you see, I am not from the dark, only one that knows that homework must be done and how to do the homework. And if you do this, then hammering out the issues with any council member can be done intelligently, and possibly give them insight where they had none, as they cannot know everything about everything.

Just Curious

By Anonymous, at Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:42:00 AM
Mr. Faunce.
As I looked over the posts from last week ( I was out of town on business)) it struck me, that you have a double standard. You were very forgiving about Tom Butlers public comments that exposed McAllisters personal past family affairs in a slanderous manner. To me, it clearly exposed Tom's character and how he will hit below the belt and participate in mudslinging if it serves his purpose. The vicious attacks came constantly at council meetings from him, his wife and Barbara N. It did seem like Rescue Murrieta was driven by hatret and a "win at all cost" attitude. It is good to speak out at council meetings, I did support the recall, but I would not like some of the folks of RM representing me. That is why I never joined the group.
Mr. Faunce, you stated: Toms comments are water under the bridge and he has served Murrieta since. Perhaps that same forgiving standard should apply to KS or McAllister ?? Just thinking.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:04:00 AM
Just thinking,
Yes, forgiveness is a good trait, however, how do you forgive these two guys when they continue to vote us into development hell? Every vote is made to support developers not residents. Look at the last vote and the rejection of the AC plan. Seyarto and McAlister are lining their pockets at our expense. It may or not be cash but it is money when they don't have to put out any at election time and all other challengers do.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:01:00 AM
To Anon December 17th, 8:04. I had thought that I would not respond to your charge that I have a double standard, but after reflection, I believe that a response is required.

First, you said that I was very forgiving about public comments that were "slanderous" to McAllister. As I recall, the comments made concerning McAllister and his former family, they were not "slander." The statements were true. I have personnally seen the Riverside County Court documents in which the District Attorney sued Doug McAllister. Those documents are public records.

Furthermore, a member of the former McAllister family published a letter in the Murrieta Bugle which was the opening salvo concerning McAllister's treatment of his former family.

When "slander" is urged, the perfect defense is that the statements were "true."

You also tied Tom's comments to RM, but I was, and still am, the official spokes person for RM and no official comment was made concerning McAllister's family nor his abandonment of them by RM.

However, McAllister's backers paid to have a four page glossy mailer sent out to Murrieta attacking me and falsely stating that I -- a liberal Orange County trial lawyer -- was trying to take over Murrieta. McAllister didn't seem to be bothered by that false mailer. So you'll excuse me, perhaps, if I don't find a heartfelt reason to forgive either DM or KS.

RM made a deliberate decision not to expose the information we had concerning McAllister's prior family. But, at a City Council meeting, McAllister opened the subject himself and Tom Butler responded to McAllister's own comments. McAllister can hardly complain about Tom's statements after the Councilman initiated the discussion in a council meeting that was being televised to the entire community.

Now, you also ask whether I should apply the same forgiving standard to KS or McAllister as I did for Tom Butler?

It's not up to me to forgive Tom B or not. Certainly I have no basis on which to grant forgiveness to KS or DM. Neither has apologized for the hit piece their supporters mailed out against me. I'd be a fool to tell either that I forgave them, as if they cared one whit.

Furthermore, the harm from KS and DM, which mostly disturbes me, is not from the past recall battles, but rather is their ongoing sell-out to developer and business interests creating an unfriendly residents community.

So the insults from KS and DM continue, while Tom's contribution to the community is to serve. I just don't see any congruency in those situations.

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Monday, December 19, 2005 12:27:00 AM

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

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Flip Flopping

132 Comments:

About

About Me

Links

About Me

Previous