Councilwoman Kristin Gaspar said that while she did not object to the photos of Houlihan, she would rather have seen the Council stand by the City Manager's decision made in December.The notion that Gus Vina came up with this goofy censorship idea on his own with no input from the council is absurd. Gus Vina had no personal animosity toward or political rivalry with Houlihan. Stocks and Gaspar had at least the latter and likely the former. Gus Vina serves at the pleasure of the council and wouldn't unilaterally come up with a scheme like this without getting input from the council.
And here's Jerome Stocks defending the censorship in January to the North County Times:
Mayor Jerome Stocks, who was often at odds with Houlihan when she was on the council, has said he considers the Houlihan image to be "political" and thus shouldn't be allowed to be displayed on city-owned property.If there's one bright spot to this fiasco, it's that Glenn Sabine has either stopped advising the council to blow tens of thousands of dollars on frivolous legal challenges, or the council has stopped taking his advice.
t was amazing to see and hear our council and staff say that the banner permits with Maggie's image were not denied. That is NOT true. Everyone involved with the Arts Alive Banner program knows that Stocks was the individual behind the rejection of the permit for the banners and the rejection of the park permit for citizens, family and friends to gather for her memorial at Cottonwood Creek Park. They met anyway but that does not excuse this distasteful action.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why I see more and more 'DUMP STOCKS' banners in town.
Gaspar has been very consistent in her very successful effort to prove all her "uniter" campaign slogans as bull shit.
The most dramatic moment at the council meeting came when the permit applicant Danny Salzhandler made a sudden appearance just as the agenda item was ending. This was after he came under heavy criticism from Stocks and Gaspar for not even being at the meeting and their statement that his permit had been approved. Both failed to acknowledge that he had been told that the original application needed to be modified.
ReplyDeleteIt was a typical Stocks-orchestrated maneuver to save face. He quickly closed the meeting, and Salzhandler left without speaking. Both Stocks and Gaspar were losers in this case. Gaspar seems to have lost her bearings and her poise. Why she ended up voting no is a mystery. A desperate vote of support for Stocks?
Maybe Kristin Gaspar voted no because she wanted to prove that she is an independent thinker and not a puppet of Jerome Stocks or maybe she hit the wrong button and just didn't want to admit to making a mistake.
ReplyDeleteTo all you Art Alive people, I don't want to purchase a banner with any image on it apart from the Artists creation.....therefore I won't be bidding on any banners this year.
ReplyDeleteThen we'll sell you the vinyl cover for an extra $200.
DeleteEven if 9:04 doesn't bid on a banner, as if he ever has, sales should be good with all the advertising that Stocks has generated.
DeleteThanks Jerry.
I don't bid on shitty art work, regardless of who it helps. Most Art Alive artists are hacks. Arts Alive should start vetting the artists like L101 does for The Art Walk. Copying someone else's style is called plagiarism.
DeleteI'm grateful for this blog, that we can make comments. I'm disappointed that most of the comments (or all?) are anonymous, which somehow encourages cyber bullies, and the "lowest common denominators" to post their judgments, such as the one, above, calling artists "hacks," and accusing them, without any evidence, of plagiarism.
DeleteThe Art Alive Artists should stick it to the city by each and everyone of them painting Houlihans image on every banner next year.
ReplyDeleteSabine is too busy banging the city fianances officer.
ReplyDeleteGaspar is an air-head - but the citizens of Encinitas put her in office. What does that say about the intelligence of the electorate in this city?
ReplyDeleteIt says that most voters in this city have there heads so far up their asses they would vote for a woman in a wonderwoman outfit. That what it says.
DeleteWhy should you be surprised? This is the same electorate that sent Obama and Bush to the White House. I sure hope that we wake up before it is too late.
DeleteIt's too late.
DeleteThe lemmings march to the sea!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but it was Vina who signed the decision to censor!
ReplyDeleteDid Mr. Vina participate in a Brown Act violation? Fire him! He can step down if he believes violating the Brown Act is unethical and save us from firing him.
Would we be upset if Phil Cotton did the same thing? Is unethical behavior is acceptable to people that are good a smooth talking and shaking hands? Remember how many people looked the other way at Dalager's actions because he was such a nice guy?
There are still people in this world that stand up an say no to unethical behavior, even when their own fortunes and lives are at stake. Is Mr. Vina afraid for his life?
People like Sharhira Amin are the types of people we should be inviting to immigrate into the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahira_Amin . We need more people willing to risk their own names and fortune over issues of integrity. We don't need more elected officials who think it is acceptable for staff to do the wrong thing.
Does Mr. Vina take orders from less than a majority of the council. Does that make him worse than a Brown Act violator?
No one said anything about a Brown Act violation, here, to my knowledge. What was at issue was citizens' First Amendment right to freedom of expression, and an abuse of discretion by public officials in declaring that "political content" can be banned.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that the law was too vague. In retrospect, I see that the City simply abused its discretion in interpreting sign code, which was recently revised, after a detailed report by Glenn Sabine's partner, Randal Morrison, a so-called "First Amendment specialist." He informs cities how to structure their sign ordinances so that they will pass Constitutional and case law (legal precedent) muster.
What COULD be a violation of the Brown Act, is that once again, Stocks was able to add language to the motion, this time Mark Muir's motion, that NO NEW SIGN APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED PENDING REVISION OF OUR SIGN LAW!
That scenario was not on the agenda. Council can certainly give staff (or Randal Morrison who was present on the far west side of staff's dais) direction to come back with proposed revisions to our current code. However, without a full staff report, and adoption of new code after public and Council discussion, and a second reading of the ordinance, it would be a violation of the Brown Act and due process of law, on the CITY's part, to suspend, effective immediately, current code for potential future applicants, declaring they CANNOT APPLY FOR PERMITS FOR SIGNS ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
The Planning and Building Dept. does not refuse new applications when building code is being revised or revamped. To do so is unheard of and improper, illegal. Again, after Stocks added his "revisions" to Muir's motion, no Council or public discussion was allowed.
So, yes, just as with Stocks' improper second substitute motion for a two year term for mayor, an alternative also not on the agenda, with no council or public discussion after the motion was made, the decree that no new applications will be accepted pending revising current rules, is also a violation of the Brown Act, when it was not noticed on the agenda, and without the public being able to "weigh in." Stocks cannot simply throw in a bunch of "conditions" for taking off the stickers, without first agendizing a discussion of the alternatives.
All the people that say the the city manager was told by the council to take action are saying a Brown Act violation occurred or that Mr. Vina takes orders from a single council member rather than directing council level decisions back to the full council for a public airing.
DeleteI completely agree. To refuse future applicants to be able to apply under the terms of the existing code, is also a violation of their First Amendment rights, and amounts to the SAME THING as simply "not accepting anymore applications, pending revision." City Attorney is trying to "squeak by" with another one of his infamous "loopholes," upon which he apparently bases so much of his legal theory and ethics.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Sabine, who serves at the pleasure of council majority, so therefore, at the direction of current mayor, Stocks, was the person who improperly advised Gus Vina that Maggie Houlihan's image was a political representation, and therefore the Arts Alive Banners were unacceptable according to the original application.
Kristin Gaspar seems disingenuous, extremely foolish, or entirely self-absorbed not to be able to understand this. We can all see how it is the City that did not follow the process, by abusing its discretion in wrongly interpreting current law. The applicant attempted to go through the process; he was denied a permit, until the stickers were affixed over Maggie Houlihan's image on the back of the banners.
The Surfing Madonna controversy was dissimilar, because that was done without first attempting to apply for a permit, originally. Because the community, at large, loves the piece, and because it was politically expedient, accommodations were eventually made, after the artist came forward. However, we continue to feel that the art could have stayed where it was, after the artist paid his fine, and "made amends."
Council could have granted a variance for the Surfing Virgin to remain at its original location, protected by plexiglas. If that spot was too dangerous, that could have been determined, at a hearing re allowing a variance. As it now stands, as far as I know, the artwork is "in limbo" as the State wrongly declared, through an unelected bureaucrat, that the image's being installed adjacent to a state highway would show preference of one religion over another. This is being legally challenged, as well.
When Council, on staff recommendation, does revise current code, it could be legally challenged, as well, if the language is too restrictive, or so vague that an abuse of discretion is likely by officials who too liberally interpret "citywide and non profit functions" to have anything to do with banning political content. To ban political content would be Unconstitutional. The City can legally regulate the medium, not ban the message.
Because revision of the code could take some time, and could face challenges, the City should continue to accept applications for sign permits on the public right of way, and review them, on a case by case basis, perhaps getting direction from someone more familiar with sign law, and our First Amendment guarantees, than unelected city attorney, Glenn Sabine.
The dumb idea of trying to extend the political fervor over the Madonna by suggesting it be put on that corner predictably backfired. Everyone on the council knows that is state owned land. It took the issue out of the council's hands and put it in the State's. The State's actions prove that Mr. Stocks had reasonable ground for concern over the issue of separation of church and state.
DeleteThe State's actions do not "prove that Mr. Stocks had reasonable ground for concern over the issue of separation of church and state," but that Jerome Stocks KNEW THAT COULD LIKELY HAPPEN, AND SO SET THE SURFING MADONNAS SUPPORTERS UP FOR FAILURE, by "passing the buck."
DeleteThe City could have LEFT THE ARTWORK WHERE IT WAS, with pexiglass affixed, as offered by a member of the public. The understructure of the railroad bridge is not considered state property, and Jerome Stocks, as chair of NCTD could have made that happen. He didn't want to! If he felt that location to be unsafe, he could have suggested a different location that he didn't "predict" would be unacceptable.
I hope the Artist, Patterson and his legal counsel challenges the State's actions. Just because an unelected bureaucrat, somewhere, states that posting the art shows preference of one religion over another, doesn't make it so, but that was the reason Garrick's bill couldn't get out of committee. The committee didn't want to challenge the bureaucrat's decision. That doesn't mean that the decision was correct, or that it represents the truth. The image shows a cultural icon with a secular message, "Save the Oceans."
Jerome Stocks was rude and condescending at the 4/25/12 Council Meeting when he asked a group of high school students attending, "Did you come to talk about the Surfing Madonna? I didn't think so; ha ha!"
All of this time, energy, wasting of tataxpayers money, emotions, deceit, dishonor and ill will is all caused by our Mayor, Jerome Stocks.
ReplyDeleteYup and the city is broke financially because of every city council that approves too high salaries and pensions. And that would include EVERY current and past council member.
DeleteThese games of banners and permits are just that, games. Designed to keep the citizens from peeking behind the curtain. Without financial reworking of all contracts and pensions, Encinitas won't be able pay it's bills in 5 years......and then you won't care about any banners.
98% of the population isn't interested in the political infighting. They also think that all the crying about it is par for the course.
DeletePay it's bills in 5 years?? Hell, I don't care about the banners now, let alone in 5 years. Jeez, I'm just trying to keep my head above water and a roof over my families head. This is nothing but a bunch of bozos worried about their friends face on a banner. Must be nice to have that much free time on your hands...bunch of 1%'ers.
DeleteGaspar showing her true colors. There is no doubt that the banner permit was rejected by the city manager. That is why the image was covered. There was no determining how long a council appeal would be if there was an appeal. The organizations had commitments to sponsors and artists. It was decided to hang the banners with the tape hiding the image that Stocks could not tolerate being displayed. And the claim that the sign policy had any plausible reference to political images is ridiculous. Danny followed the process, was rejected and hung the banners as allowed by the permit. Gaspar knew that the permit applicant had nothing to do with the law suit threats. The applicant is a recipient of the volunteer of the year for all of Encinitas, Rotary member, Arts Alive Founder, Artist, Board member of Cardiff101 MainStreet and offers his time and energy for many other causes. Gaspar owes the applicant an apology. She knew that he had nothing to do with the threatened legal action, but used that as her reasoning to vote no. She knew the applicant would not be there. This is all on Stocks. He is the one that did not allow the flag to be flown at half-mast, had a permit for a memorial for Houlihan rejected. And he had Sabine read things in the sign code that were not there and had the new city manager explain this strange interpretation of the sign code. And the city council gets a rose for doing the right thing from NCT. How can Stocks get away with doing these horrible things. It is horrible to say but how would he feel and how would his wife feel if Stocks died and know that someone would fight to make sure friends, family and supporters would be thwarted from honoring him. Very bad form. Not worthy.
ReplyDelete.