Below the line came in one of our in boxes. It was from Yost and Yost's campaign manager, but according to them, it was sent out in their independent capacity as board members of a "California non-profit public benefit corp".
They also say the city made an official determination that these election signs are not campaign signs. Cool.
The LB does not condone the disbursement of ANY signs on city property.
What if Jerome ran a non-profit, cough cough, like We Love Encinitas and put out Dump Barth signs, and collected a lot of money not reported on his forms, or collected over $1000 and didn't file, or organized a non-profit but used it primarily for campaigning? What if Jerome sent out an email saying what hours code enforcement and public works was off duty? Yost and Aronin were asked if they wanted this posted and the answer was yes.
_____________________________________
Dump Stocks Campaign Status Report
It's looking good! We've got Stocks on the run!
But, we can't let up now. We need to do all we can before election day.
1. DUMP STOCKS Yard Signs
We still have about 40 signs available. We need people willing to put them up Friday evening.
A couple of thoughts: Signs put up on city-owned public spaces Friday evening won't be removed until Monday at the earliest - maintenance employees don't work over the weekend. And, signs placed curbside along shopping centers Friday evening are unlikely to be removed over the weekend, for the same reason. (Encinitas Neighbors doesn't condone either action).
If you can help get these signs up, they can be picked up anytime from my front porch:
[clip]
Let's make sure we get every sign up!
2. DUMP STOCKS Mailing
We're planning to put out a DUMP STOCKS mailing to target neighborhoods where they're likely to have an impact. We need to raise $1250 by Friday. The mailing will be delivered to the post office Saturday and delivered Monday. We'll mail as many pieces as we've raised money for.
If you can help: Contributions can be made via the DUMPSTOCKS website - www.DUMPSTOCKS.org.
Or, send a check made payable to "Encinitas Neighbors" and send it to
Encinitas Neighbors
PO Box 232426
Encinitas, CFA 92023-2426
We can do it! See you at the the DUMP STOCKS celebration!
Bob
[clip]
--
Bob Aronin
Encinitas Neighbors Assn.
www.Encinitans.com
___________________________
Apparently, not as many people as expected wanted Dump Stocks signs.
If this way of setting up campaign funds/expenditures is fine for the anti-Jerome
crowd, please don't crow when there is just an implied appearance of
Jerome doing the same. In this case it is not just apparent. It is
admitted reality..
I do believe that, after 12 years of control of our city, it is time for a change.
ReplyDeleteI do not support the tactics that 'BOB' is endorsing. I am confident that the Kranz/ Schaffer camp would also not support Bob's inappropriate proposals.
I do not, at all, support all the issues Bob presents.
I would recomment to not donate any money to this group and not to plant any illegal signs.
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS UNETHICAL PROPOSAL.
Know the issue and vote. Encourage everyone you know to VOTE.
Stocks is a scumbag. I hooe the community pitches in cash to dump Stocks in favor of a golden future for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is that $tock$ and/ or Muir is likely to be put back into office. Muir most likely, as people don't know anything about his shady background. The developers will have still maintain their majority pawns. Kranz should have gone on the attack - he is too passive and will be a runner up again. Shaffer should be a shoo-in - she is preeminently qualified above all the others.
ReplyDeleteGood guys follow the rules even if they don't have to. Be on the side of the good guys, not just for the least worst.
ReplyDeleteShaffer and Krantz are both preeminently qualified above both Stocks and Muir..... I don't see Shaffer over Krantz.
ReplyDeletethe only reason Stocks may make it back on Council is because the public are so uneducated about City matters and the amount of attack adds from Jeromes lap dogs.
There is a HUGE difference between supporters advocating violation of the municipal code and ELECTED OFFICIALS engaging in violation of the municipal code they swore to uphold.
ReplyDeleteHow about campaign managers and candidates?
ReplyDeleteSame rules apply to campaign managers and candidates, with the caveat that "informing" and "committing" are two different animals. The post was carefully crafted.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am GRATEFUL for the DUMP STOCKS campaign. It was a big factor in Stocks' defeat! Everyone played a part.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the FPPC, a DUMP STOCKS sign relates to free speech, and cannot be limited, on private property, as to when its posted, or taken down, before or after the election.
The DUMP STOCKS bumper stickers were being dispersed long before Barb Yost was a candidate. DUMP STOCKS was a BRILLIANT marketing strategy, which WORKED.
By the way, the before mentioned, hypothetical, "dump Barth" would NOT be effective. There is no play on words, as with DUMP STOCKS. There would be little or no public sentiment endorsing that slogan.
No incumbent candidate likes it when the public, through grassroots groups foments dissent, unrest, dissatisfaction. Yet the DUMP STOCKS "call" has been MUCH more heartfelt and genuine, to me, than the insidious campaigns by political action committees, that are usually completely legal, although they are far more hateful and misleading.
DUMP STOCKS was a play on words relating to how the Stock Market has declined in reliability, how many stocks have now been dumped by investors. Stocks and Bond are both now out. They used a play on their names to their advantage, and now it has worked against Stocks. Just as Stocks' engineering Muir's appointment to Council, over Tony Kranz and Lisa Shaffer has come back to bite him in the behind, as Muir IS the one to actually displace Stocks!
With respect to City property, or City right of way, technically, we, the people, OWN the City. I can see why there needs to be some regulations, so we are not constantly overwhelmed with distracting signs, which do seem like graffiti, but I would place our First Amendment rights before the city's "proprietary" rights.
The Surfing Madonna is a classic example of when the City placed its rights of control over the community's desire to preserve a beautiful piece of art, with a secular message, in its original location.
The whole six month banner ban was a FARCE and should NEVER have happened. That was Stocks' doing, but Council should NOT have supported the modification to Muir's motion on April 11, that Maggie Houlihan's image could be revealed, and that the sign code would be reviewed and possibly revamped, to Jerome's conditioning this all, through his illegal second (as this alternative was NOT on the agenda) that current banner code, or sign law with respect to signs in the public right of way, would be indefinitely SUSPENDED, PENDING A NEW ORDINANCE.