Bowman is well known for his aggressive tactics against another local tree trimmer. He is suspected of cutting the brake lines of his rival's work trucks. Be afraid.
From personal experience, this guy is a very angry, unstable character. He has given death threats to folks in the neighborhood. Threatened to burn their houses to the ground and kill their animals.No one should have to live in a civilized society with that kind of behavior.
I am worried that this guy will get backed further into a corner, then goes postal.
Council granted him a major use permit to continue his landscape maintenance business from that adress (over the objections of neighbors). He falsified documents to show continuous previous use.
He currently has existing violations on site. I'm sure the council would love for him to now vanish as they realize the neighbors were right, he's not fully funtioning.
Now you know why "shrinks' get paid the "big bucks" (right!). We deal with people like this all of the time. Seriously though, the man sounds as if he is delusional and possibly psychotic. Whoever deals with him, please be careful. If, in fact, he is mentally ill, he could be very dangerous. Hopefully, if the City or Sheriff go in, they will take a psychologist along with them.
This council granted Bowman a permit to continue his business (over the recommendation of Pat Murphy who said he was operating a big business in a residential area). They did this to "get" Maggie who lives on the same street. Now this nut case has come back to haunt them and their illegal actions. Dan D said he knew Bowman's documents were "bogus" but he voted with the rest of the council to get Maggie. What exactly does that make him.
When asked at a candidates forum why he was running for another term, Dan Dalager said "I guess I'm like the girl who can't say no."
When are we going to get rid of this really stupid, arrogant embarrassment to this city and elect someone who does not speak in sound bites that could get the city sued.
Dan - stupid, arrogant, embarrassing, speaks in sound bites, will get the city sued
Bond - calls everyone "folks" and speaks down to everyone in sound bites and sleeps thru most council meetings
Jerome - arrogant, speaks down to everyone and uses his position to hurt people
At what point does Caltrans step in and declare this distraction a traffic safety issue for those braking suddenly on the freeway to read the signs? Seeing this can be a little traumatic to the little ones in the car.
Who Cares about spelling. This guy is a dip shit and the council and staff (sheriffs) need to take him out for the safety of all of Encinitas. Bowmen needs to be caged or hung!
Notice the absence of the rest of the council doing anything to reign this guy in. They are all dedicated to getting rid of Maggie and elcting another yes man like Long.
The lawnmowerman and bossypants are liking this a lot. Get rid of lawnmowerman in November. Then we need to recall the rest of the council.
Why doesn't the cityu attorney ask for a restraining order to stop this type of behavior?
Think he's related to Bush? "Texas yokel freaks out, goes apeshit."
Mary thinks "he needs to be caged or hung!" This is America! We can take his property & torture him. We should act fast, before he blows up an Abortion clinic, invades a Muslim country, or molests a young boy! I think he's a fine example of a God fearing Jesus freak. God bless America! Cause no one else will.
I think the sign is meanspirited, for sure. But I wouldn't want another "witch hunt" to get started here. I guess this guy would be the "bad warlock" from the west.
No need to arrest the guy or put him in a loony bin, without giving him a fair hearing, first. He is not threatening anyone on the sign. If he has done what is rumored, then, yeah, that needs to be checked out, but not by a mad posse of reactionaires.
If his sign is posing an immediate danger, as some say it is, then Graffiti control could simply give him 3 days to abate, or go in and spray the words out, then charge him.
I know that this guy seems like a real nut case, but some people did feel that the landscape biz was/is same or similar use to the greenhouse co. that was there. I don't know about the difference in the traffic, though. I know that we get a lot of traffic from Lou's here, and that's part of our neighborhood.
Maggie should not be singled out, but she didn't come to our defense when we were singled out, either, by the City. I agree with "Jesus says."
I know it hurts my feelings when Council, through Glenn Sabine et al, have called me names. Guess that makes me a softy.
Maggie Houlihan should move away if she doesn't love her neighbors. She brags in Council meetings about how much her home is worth now. If she or her husband are old enough, they can do a trade and not have to pay the tax consequences, either. Moving away has been suggested to us by the Assessment Appeals Board, and the developer, "sponsored" by the City, who has plagued us for six years, developing two lots, still working on one, two houses down, with illegals. The developer has openly bragged he is trying to drive us away, to get our property. The City has cooperated by suing us, then saying we owe them $100,000 for their corrupt attorney's fees. Not!
The American way says that everyone should get a fair hearing. Maggie has not always done that. We were denied any. When we asked her, why? - she said "you broke the law." She doesn't know the law, and we didn't violate any laws. We were raided by the City with six sheriffs for an alleged zoning violation, when we are no such thing.
When Maggie does raise questions about the Consent Calendar, or other agenda items, she almost always prefaces her remarks with, "I'm going to vote for the item." So it's just blowing words into the wind.
This guy obviously needs to vent. I think he has some rights with posting on his own property. Too bad Maggie and he have this feud going, now. Maybe someone could appeal to him. Jesus saves, not Code Enforcement, and not our current Council, either.
One thing we don't need, more manipulation by exploiting people's fears. Kudos, Dr. Lorri, for your posts. Yes, we can be careful, but not force ourselves down people's throats.
We don't want car accidents, but thank God for freedom of speech, and individual rights. We can have balance here, but those with the guns, the "powers that be" can't lord themselves over the rest us us.
I have to wonder what would be happening if it was Christy's name there and not Maggie's. Would the sheriff be more or less forceful? Would code enforcement be more or less adamant? Would fellow council people call for the swift enforcement of our city's code? Of course the correct answer is that they should react the same whether the name is Christy, Maggie or one of us. Unfortunately in Encinitas we seem to have two standards for enforcement, those with connections and those without. Let's change that in November.
You two surely can relate to this guy, after all both you and him are just "misunderstood"!! Perhaps you can go to his place and reason with him!! And then he can have a $100,000 dollar lein against his property also. Maybe he is the victom of some sleazy developer also? NOT!!!
Nope he's just some loonie with an ax to grind against M. Hoolihan, but he does have a .....job and that's more than can be said for you!!!
Fake Leucadians, Real Thimbleheads posting under different names always, but hey J.P. has your defense. The 1st amendment protects bad taste and you two certainly leave a bad taste.... whereever you go!!
Candidate Tom Brown says he has handled big budgets, etc. operating his company. His website says "his wife, Sandy, is the CEO and as a woman owned company, allows them to bid as a minority firm."
We have jobs, bum. You don't have taste, or a job, except to pass judgment and side with creeps.
No one said this guy was merely "misunderstood" or said anything about his being taking advantage of by a developer or the City. You are the one who brought up "misunderstood?" Maybe you think you are.
I feel sorry for you, too. If you think you know who we are, why don't you just say it? Go ahead, coward. You have a lot more to lose than we do. Hope you get over your shakes, soon, really. Maybe then you could think straight. Better have another drink. That'll calm your nerves.
You better thank God you have your 1st Amendment rights, apesh~t. We all can post however we want to, and, obviously, so can you, road side-ape. Who are you playing blog pig? You're just another poser, thinking you're "connected," everyone else is a loser.
Yeah, all your words sure stick on you, bum poser. Thanks for venting, stabbing us in the backs. Guess we are learning good lessons about "characters" like you.
Hey, I would be happy to give my partner minority status. I think it's nice his wife heads his company, really.
He seems genuine to me. He seems like he would have more business sense than current Council dolts, and deceivers. Still say roadside poser could be Stocks, or Mr. Marvin. Doesn't matter, could be a she wolf/pig, but it's someone who thinks it's "in the know," and, sadly, it's not.
why is everyone freaking out. He is just getting his floats ready for the Encinitas Christmas parade. The cub scouts are marching right behind with mary magdelena effigies. oye ve
Check out this council report. Council is giving themselves a raise on consent calendar. Our City Manager has terrible math skills. He thinks its 5%. Its way over that.
Encinitas City Council Members receive a modest salary compensation for service as a local government official. Compensation is set by Encinitas Municipal Code in conformance with State law. Changes in compensation are allowed through the adoption or amendment to an ordinance by the local legislative body and are restricted to a 5% increase per year from the operative date of the last compensation adjustment per California government code Section 36516.5. Current council member compensation for service on the Encinitas City Council is $897.93 per month which has been in effect since December, 2002. ANALYSIS: State law restricts adjusting Council Member’s salaries during their current term of office. However, State code does allow compensation adjustments for all members of the Council when one or more members of the body become eligible by virtue of beginning a new or renewed term (Gov. Code §36516.5). Based upon the allowable annual increase of 5% and last operative date of a salary adjustment of December 2002, the monthly salary compensation for Encinitas City Council members would be $1,077 with the adoption of this ordinance and become effective after the seating of the new Council in December of 2006.
No fuckin way we should pay those assholes $1,077 per month! In reality they ought to get $1,077 or more per week for the silly crap they must put up with and pretend to be "sensitive" about!! God knows I wouldn't do it for twice the price!!
Hell no....no way council... I say get appointed as the fire chief for repaying favors and you get $1077 per week plus!
That the ticket....become a fireman....get your own council elected and reap the benefit. Plus $15 million borrowed against my childrens future and send it on snew living quarters for dem white boyz.
On the one hand, this guy seems like a dangerous lunatic that I'm glad I don't live closer to. On the other, anyone who doesn't like Houlihan can't be all bad.
I remember when Houlihan lied to me and then supported putting a horse trail (gravel) through my Leucadian residential neighborhood that would have taken down most of the old trees and blighted the place. But then, I'm sure that most of us West of I-5 are suffering because we can't ride our horses through residential neighborhoods.
Interesting about the raise, on the consent calendar. No, raises aren't necessary, now, when Council has floated bonds, without public approval, for all the capital expenditures. It is not prudent to raise operating expenses.
People who use this blog to try to put down others, to say someone is not accountable for his or her actions, for instance, while wildly speculating, and not pointing to anything specific, just take away from the positive intent of community concern and spirit that we are promoting here.
To put down an individual poster down for allegedly being a "victim," and to falsely say that person claims he or she is not responsible, is blatant example of such name calling and deceit, twisting the truth to try to discredit the poster without facts, just mean-spirited lies.
I think a few post just to denigrate and destroy the blog, by saying that kind of stuff, including calling people losers, queer, threatening (in jest?) to lynch people, etc.
We can voice our complaints and concerns about people's actions; but ultimately, we are all accountable to a higher power, in my opinion.
More bad government. The city easily could have let us vote on the pay raises, according to the Government Code, at the coming election. The Government Code says nothing about compounded interest. Also, what was our population when we first incorporated? Council should not have slyly put this on the consent calendar, where it is typically not considered in open hearing, or as a separate agenda item. Importantly, our Council will now be paid what current Government Code specifies for populations of more than 250,000!
Consider all these questions when you check out the following Government Code. Also, the last part of this brings up questions about excessive compensation of City Council members for other positions on government boards that they hold. The 5% is 5% per year. In this case, our city was not at 50,000 when first incorporated. But the 5% per year increase we are looking at now should include board compensation, or they should only get $150 extra per month for each board, as I read this. 5% times 4 years, since 2002 equals 20%. *********** Government Code 36516. (a) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary, the amount of which shall be determined by the following schedule:
(2) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including four hundred dollars ($400) per month;
(3) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including five hundred dollars ($500) per month . . .
(6) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month. For the purposes of this section the population shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance.
(b) At any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensation, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the compensation specified in the election call. Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.
c) Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended which provides for automatic future increases in salary.
(d) Unless specifically authorized by another statute, a city council may not enact an ordinance providing for compensation to city council members in excess of that authorized by the procedures described in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
For the purposes of this section, compensation includes payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which the city council member serves. If the other statute that authorizes the compensation does not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.
If you are not comfortable with this item (council pay raises)placed on the concent calendar, go to the meeting and fill out a speaker slip to speak to that item. I believe if speakers are present regarding an item on concent, it must be pulled and placed on the regular calendar, thus initiating open discussion.
Good article in today's (Sunday's) NCT, "Pondering property sales, by Adam Kaye, and quoting Kevin C.
Check it out, JP. This does explain the missing $1 million from the Mossy deal. The land was appraised (only one appraisal) at 8.5 and the existing building at 1 million dollars! The building is not worth that, in our opinion. Also, when the SDWD sold their land for $1,000,000 to Encinitas thru Council/Board of Directors Joint Power Authority (bogus), the public works yard buildings were considered a "tear down." No credit was given for the building, and no allowance was made for the loss of revenue by SDWD for losing rent from City of Encinitas Public Works rental revenue.
This is a scheme, pure and simple, as Donna Westbrook suggested. I hope someone can take this case on Pro Bono, and get an award of costs and fees against the City as Jarvis Taxpayer's Association did. And do you know why? Because our City is not following the law.
They won't change their ways unless they are sued, unfortunately. And Counci is too busy, lining up at the government trough, to rock the gravy boat.
Why doesn't Maggie go get a restraining order if this guy is posting that kind of language about her on the block where she lives? I'm sure a judge would put a restraining order on the individual, unless his speech is protected. I don't know where the balance lies between freedom and harm on this one.
The Court should hear from Maggie, if it is upsetting her. It might end up being a positive for her next election, as the mean clown was. Someone should tell the guy, though, if he doesn't know, that she won't be running again until 2008, if then. Maybe she will bow out, too? after two terms, she should?
We think we would be better off if Council had term limits, and we voted for a separate Mayor, citywide, who must win the election by a majority of the votes cast, be eligible for primaries, and who could have a separate term of 8 years, total, if re-elected, out of Council, for example. So the individual, if elected as Council Member at large and, then, as Mayor, could serve a total of four four year terms, two as Council Member, and two as mayor. Of course, the mayor would not have to be a member of Council to be elected. This would give the people someone in their corner, more, than a City Manager who just goes along with whatever the rotating mayor and council order by fiat.
Bowman is well known for his aggressive tactics against another local tree trimmer. He is suspected of cutting the brake lines of his rival's work trucks. Be afraid.
ReplyDeleteFrom personal experience, this guy is a very angry, unstable character. He has given death threats to folks in the neighborhood. Threatened to burn their houses to the ground and kill their animals.No one should have to live in a civilized society with that kind of behavior.
ReplyDeleteI am worried that this guy will get backed further into a corner, then goes postal.
Council granted him a major use permit to continue his landscape maintenance business from that adress (over the objections of neighbors). He falsified documents to show continuous previous use.
He currently has existing violations on site. I'm sure the council would love for him to now vanish as they realize the neighbors were right, he's not fully funtioning.
Now you know why "shrinks' get paid the "big bucks" (right!). We deal with people like this all of the time. Seriously though, the man sounds as if he is delusional and possibly psychotic. Whoever deals with him, please be careful. If, in fact, he is mentally ill, he could be very dangerous. Hopefully, if the City or Sheriff go in, they will take a psychologist along with them.
ReplyDeleteThis council granted Bowman a permit to continue his business (over the recommendation of Pat Murphy who said he was operating a big business in a residential area). They did this to "get" Maggie who lives on the same street. Now this nut case has come back to haunt them and their illegal actions. Dan D said he knew Bowman's documents were "bogus" but he voted with the rest of the council to get Maggie. What exactly does that make him.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked at a candidates forum why he was running for another term, Dan Dalager said "I guess I'm like the girl who can't say no."
ReplyDeleteWhen are we going to get rid of this really stupid, arrogant embarrassment to this city and elect someone who does not speak in sound bites that could get the city sued.
Dan - stupid, arrogant, embarrassing, speaks in sound bites, will get the city sued
Bond - calls everyone "folks" and speaks down to everyone in sound bites and sleeps thru most council meetings
Jerome - arrogant, speaks down to everyone and uses his position to hurt people
At what point does Caltrans step in and declare this distraction a traffic safety issue for those braking suddenly on the freeway to read the signs? Seeing this can be a little traumatic to the little ones in the car.
ReplyDeleteHang in there Maggie. Nobody deserves this. Not Jerome, Christy, Jim, Danny nor you.
ReplyDeleteIn fact Jerome, Christy, Danny, Jim should be screaming at the top of their lungs to remove this.
Their silence is deafening, their silence is revealing of thier character.
All of us, no matter our political opinion need to unite and express our outrage at this scar on the body politic of Encinitas.
Hang in their Maggie.
Pardon the spelling errors above but I'm on a blackberry with a stylus.
ReplyDeleteWho Cares about spelling. This guy is a dip shit and the council and staff (sheriffs) need to take him out for the safety of all of Encinitas. Bowmen needs to be caged or hung!
ReplyDeleteplease anonymous- give up your crackberry and return to life!
ReplyDeleteIts time for Jihad. Hang Bowman!
ReplyDelete"American Landscape" Could be a perfect name for a HBO series. Every episode features a different wacko.
ReplyDeleteNice abandoned car you have there on your property creepy guy.
ReplyDeleteLove thy neighbor.
ReplyDeleteNotice the absence of the rest of the council doing anything to reign this guy in. They are all dedicated to getting rid of Maggie and elcting another yes man like Long.
ReplyDeleteThe lawnmowerman and bossypants are liking this a lot. Get rid of lawnmowerman in November. Then we need to recall the rest of the council.
Why doesn't the cityu attorney ask for a restraining order to stop this type of behavior?
Think he's related to Bush?
ReplyDelete"Texas yokel freaks out, goes apeshit."
Mary thinks "he needs to be caged or hung!"
This is America!
We can take his property & torture him.
We should act fast, before he blows up an Abortion clinic, invades a Muslim country, or molests a young boy!
I think he's a fine example of a God fearing Jesus freak.
God bless America!
Cause no one else will.
I think the sign is meanspirited, for sure. But I wouldn't want another "witch hunt" to get started here. I guess this guy would be the "bad warlock" from the west.
ReplyDeleteNo need to arrest the guy or put him in a loony bin, without giving him a fair hearing, first. He is not threatening anyone on the sign. If he has done what is rumored, then, yeah, that needs to be checked out, but not by a mad posse of reactionaires.
If his sign is posing an immediate danger, as some say it is, then Graffiti control could simply give him 3 days to abate, or go in and spray the words out, then charge him.
I know that this guy seems like a real nut case, but some people did feel that the landscape biz was/is same or similar use to the greenhouse co. that was there. I don't know about the difference in the traffic, though. I know that we get a lot of traffic from Lou's here, and that's part of our neighborhood.
Maggie should not be singled out, but she didn't come to our defense when we were singled out, either, by the City. I agree with "Jesus says."
I know it hurts my feelings when Council, through Glenn Sabine et al, have called me names. Guess that makes me a softy.
Maggie Houlihan should move away if she doesn't love her neighbors. She brags in Council meetings about how much her home is worth now. If she or her husband are old enough, they can do a trade and not have to pay the tax consequences, either. Moving away has been suggested to us by the Assessment Appeals Board, and the developer, "sponsored" by the City, who has plagued us for six years, developing two lots, still working on one, two houses down, with illegals. The developer has openly bragged he is trying to drive us away, to get our property. The City has cooperated by suing us, then saying we owe them $100,000 for their corrupt attorney's fees. Not!
ReplyDeleteThe American way says that everyone should get a fair hearing. Maggie has not always done that. We were denied any. When we asked her, why? - she said "you broke the law." She doesn't know the law, and we didn't violate any laws. We were raided by the City with six sheriffs for an alleged zoning violation, when we are no such thing.
When Maggie does raise questions about the Consent Calendar, or other agenda items, she almost always prefaces her remarks with, "I'm going to vote for the item." So it's just blowing words into the wind.
This guy obviously needs to vent. I think he has some rights with posting on his own property. Too bad Maggie and he have this feud going, now. Maybe someone could appeal to him. Jesus saves, not Code Enforcement, and not our current Council, either.
One thing we don't need, more manipulation by exploiting people's fears. Kudos, Dr. Lorri, for your posts. Yes, we can be careful, but not force ourselves down people's throats.
ReplyDeleteWe don't want car accidents, but thank God for freedom of speech, and individual rights. We can have balance here, but those with the guns, the "powers that be" can't lord themselves over the rest us us.
I have to wonder what would be happening if it was Christy's name there and not Maggie's. Would the sheriff be more or less forceful? Would code enforcement be more or less adamant? Would fellow council people call for the swift enforcement of our city's code? Of course the correct answer is that they should react the same whether the name is Christy, Maggie or one of us. Unfortunately in Encinitas we seem to have two standards for enforcement, those with connections and those without. Let's change that in November.
ReplyDeleteBad taste is protected under the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard,
ReplyDeleteRuss T.,
Fake Leucadians, Real Thimbleheads!!
You two surely can relate to this guy, after all both you and him are just "misunderstood"!! Perhaps you can go to his place and reason with him!! And then he can have a $100,000 dollar lein against his property also. Maybe he is the victom of some sleazy developer also? NOT!!!
Nope he's just some loonie with an ax to grind against M. Hoolihan, but he does have a .....job and that's more than can be said for you!!!
Fake Leucadians, Real Thimbleheads posting under different names always, but hey J.P. has your defense. The 1st amendment protects bad taste and you two certainly leave a bad taste.... whereever you go!!
Candidate Tom Brown says he has handled big budgets, etc. operating his company. His website says "his wife, Sandy, is the CEO and as a woman owned company, allows them to bid as a minority firm."
ReplyDeleteof yeh
We have jobs, bum. You don't have taste, or a job, except to pass judgment and side with creeps.
ReplyDeleteNo one said this guy was merely "misunderstood" or said anything about his being taking advantage of by a developer or the City. You are the one who brought up "misunderstood?" Maybe you think you are.
I feel sorry for you, too. If you think you know who we are, why don't you just say it? Go ahead, coward. You have a lot more to lose than we do. Hope you get over your shakes, soon, really. Maybe then you could think straight. Better have another drink. That'll calm your nerves.
You better thank God you have your 1st Amendment rights, apesh~t. We all can post however we want to, and, obviously, so can you, road side-ape. Who are you playing blog pig? You're just another poser, thinking you're "connected," everyone else is a loser.
Yeah, all your words sure stick on you, bum poser. Thanks for venting, stabbing us in the backs. Guess we are learning good lessons about "characters" like you.
Hey, I would be happy to give my partner minority status. I think it's nice his wife heads his company, really.
ReplyDeleteHe seems genuine to me. He seems like he would have more business sense than current Council dolts, and deceivers. Still say roadside poser could be Stocks, or Mr. Marvin. Doesn't matter, could be a she wolf/pig, but it's someone who thinks it's "in the know," and, sadly, it's not.
But challenging to guess, isn't it?
Someone on Council, or closely connected, is definitely posting.
ReplyDeleteThat is a perfect name for a reality show. Sounds hilarious. Ha ha.
ReplyDeleteBut here, you need to use your imagination, more.
why is everyone freaking out.
ReplyDeleteHe is just getting his floats ready for the Encinitas Christmas parade. The cub scouts are marching right behind with mary magdelena effigies.
oye ve
Check out this council report. Council is giving themselves a raise on consent calendar. Our City Manager has terrible math skills. He thinks its 5%. Its way over that.
ReplyDeleteEncinitas City Council Members receive a modest salary compensation for service as a local
government official. Compensation is set by Encinitas Municipal Code in conformance with
State law. Changes in compensation are allowed through the adoption or amendment to an
ordinance by the local legislative body and are restricted to a 5% increase per year from the
operative date of the last compensation adjustment per California government code Section
36516.5. Current council member compensation for service on the Encinitas City Council is
$897.93 per month which has been in effect since December, 2002.
ANALYSIS:
State law restricts adjusting Council Member’s salaries during their current term of office.
However, State code does allow compensation adjustments for all members of the Council
when one or more members of the body become eligible by virtue of beginning a new or
renewed term (Gov. Code §36516.5).
Based upon the allowable annual increase of 5% and last operative date of a salary
adjustment of December 2002, the monthly salary compensation for Encinitas City Council
members would be $1,077 with the adoption of this ordinance and become effective after
the seating of the new Council in December of 2006.
Cheers to RSB.
ReplyDeleteIts hard is a queer wanting attention…. If it’s hard, go take a cold shower.
Russ T is full on victim.... I stepped on a rusty nail again. whoa is me.... I am not responsible for any of my actions.
No fuckin way we should pay those assholes $1,077 per month!
ReplyDeleteIn reality they ought to get $1,077 or more per week for the silly crap they must put up with and pretend to be "sensitive" about!!
God knows I wouldn't do it for twice the price!!
Hell no....no way council... I say get appointed as the fire chief for repaying favors and you get $1077 per week plus!
ReplyDeleteThat the ticket....become a fireman....get your own council elected and reap the benefit. Plus $15 million borrowed against my childrens future and send it on snew living quarters for dem white boyz.
On the one hand, this guy seems like a dangerous lunatic that I'm glad I don't live closer to. On the other, anyone who doesn't like Houlihan can't be all bad.
ReplyDeleteI remember when Houlihan lied to me and then supported putting a horse trail (gravel) through my Leucadian residential neighborhood that would have taken down most of the old trees and blighted the place. But then, I'm sure that most of us West of I-5 are suffering because we can't ride our horses through residential neighborhoods.
Interesting about the raise, on the consent calendar. No, raises aren't necessary, now, when Council has floated bonds, without public approval, for all the capital expenditures. It is not prudent to raise operating expenses.
ReplyDeletePeople who use this blog to try to put down others, to say someone is not accountable for his or her actions, for instance, while wildly speculating, and not pointing to anything specific, just take away from the positive intent of community concern and spirit that we are promoting here.
To put down an individual poster down for allegedly being a "victim," and to falsely say that person claims he or she is not responsible, is blatant example of such name calling and deceit, twisting the truth to try to discredit the poster without facts, just mean-spirited lies.
I think a few post just to denigrate and destroy the blog, by saying that kind of stuff, including calling people losers, queer, threatening (in jest?) to lynch people, etc.
We can voice our complaints and concerns about people's actions; but ultimately, we are all accountable to a higher power, in my opinion.
More bad government. The city easily could have let us vote on the pay raises, according to the Government Code, at the coming election. The Government Code says nothing about compounded interest. Also, what was our population when we first incorporated? Council should not have slyly put this on the consent calendar, where it is typically not considered in open hearing, or as a separate agenda item. Importantly, our Council will now be paid what current Government Code specifies for populations of more than 250,000!
ReplyDeleteConsider all these questions when you check out the following Government Code. Also, the last part of this brings up questions about excessive compensation of City Council members for other positions on government boards that they hold. The 5% is 5% per year. In this case, our city was not at 50,000 when first incorporated. But the 5% per year increase we are looking at now should include board compensation, or they should only get $150 extra per month for each board, as I read this. 5% times 4 years, since 2002 equals 20%.
***********
Government Code 36516. (a) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary, the amount of which shall be determined by the following schedule:
(2) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including four hundred dollars ($400) per month;
(3) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including five hundred dollars ($500) per month . . .
(6) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month.
For the purposes of this section the population shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance.
(b) At any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensation, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the compensation specified in the election call. Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.
c) Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended which provides for automatic future increases in salary.
(d) Unless specifically authorized by another statute, a city council may not enact an ordinance providing for compensation to city council members in excess of that authorized by the procedures described in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
For the purposes of this section, compensation includes payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which the city council member serves. If the other statute that authorizes the compensation does not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.
If you are not comfortable with this item (council pay raises)placed on the concent calendar, go to the meeting and fill out a speaker slip to speak to that item. I believe if speakers are present regarding an item on concent, it must be pulled and placed on the regular calendar, thus initiating open discussion.
ReplyDeleteGood article in today's (Sunday's) NCT, "Pondering property sales, by Adam Kaye, and quoting Kevin C.
ReplyDeleteCheck it out, JP. This does explain the missing $1 million from the Mossy deal. The land was appraised (only one appraisal) at 8.5 and the existing building at 1 million dollars! The building is not worth that, in our opinion. Also, when the SDWD sold their land for $1,000,000 to Encinitas thru Council/Board of Directors Joint Power Authority (bogus), the public works yard buildings were considered a "tear down." No credit was given for the building, and no allowance was made for the loss of revenue by SDWD for losing rent from City of Encinitas Public Works rental revenue.
This is a scheme, pure and simple, as Donna Westbrook suggested. I hope someone can take this case on Pro Bono, and get an award of costs and fees against the City as Jarvis Taxpayer's Association did. And do you know why? Because our City is not following the law.
They won't change their ways unless they are sued, unfortunately. And Counci is too busy, lining up at the government trough, to rock the gravy boat.
Why doesn't Maggie go get a restraining order if this guy is posting that kind of language about her on the block where she lives? I'm sure a judge would put a restraining order on the individual, unless his speech is protected. I don't know where the balance lies between freedom and harm on this one.
ReplyDeleteThe Court should hear from Maggie, if it is upsetting her. It might end up being a positive for her next election, as the mean clown was. Someone should tell the guy, though, if he doesn't know, that she won't be running again until 2008, if then. Maybe she will bow out, too? after two terms, she should?
We think we would be better off if Council had term limits, and we voted for a separate Mayor, citywide, who must win the election by a majority of the votes cast, be eligible for primaries, and who could have a separate term of 8 years, total, if re-elected, out of Council, for example. So the individual, if elected as Council Member at large and, then, as Mayor, could serve a total of four four year terms, two as Council Member, and two as mayor. Of course, the mayor would not have to be a member of Council to be elected. This would give the people someone in their corner, more, than a City Manager who just goes along with whatever the rotating mayor and council order by fiat.