A fired executive of Chicago's beleaguered red light camera company alleges in a lawsuit that Redflex Traffic Systems doled out bribes and gifts at "dozens of municipalities" in 13 other states and says he is cooperating in an ongoing federal investigation.Redflex got the contract with Encinitas to install red-light cameras in 2004 despite there being very few collisions, and almost no serious injuries, at the two intersections on El Camino Real.
The explosive allegations, accompanied by few specifics, suggest investigators may be examining Redflex's business practices around the country in the wake of the company's admission last year that its flagship camera program in Chicago was likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme.
The current city council voted unanimously to keep the contract with Redflex despite the city's own data showing very little impact on the already low accident rate, and despite dozens of other cities deciding to ditch the controversial program.
The program collects negligible revenue for the city, but takes more than $1 million per year out of the local economy and sends it to San Diego County, Sacramento, and Redflex.
I always knew that George H. would be proven right! He has so much more sense than any on council or the majority of our City employees.
ReplyDeleteThis is another case of a consultant or vendor selling services to the City with a claim that it addresses a problem. The problem it solves is how they can get our money!
Enough is enough. Dump the red light cameras!
I concur!
DeleteCorruption - the American way!
ReplyDeleteWho is George H.?
ReplyDeleteGeorge H. has been a frequent CC meeting public speaker against red light cameras, during oral communications. But many public speakers, over the years, have objected that red light cameras are not now necessary.
DeleteOne lawyer, who seemed like a very reasonable and well informed man, ran on a platform of getting rid of the cameras. That attorney candidate was unsuccessful, probably because he didn't have the support of the Flower PAC/developers/commercial associations and inbred public/private partnerships and business relationships with various contractors.
Russell and I voted for him! Neither of us have ever received a red light ticket, either . . . nor have my adult daughters. So this is just an issue of fairness, to the taxpayers, to us. The red light cameras cost far more than they are worth. There is a reason that Poway and San Diego has eliminated red light cameras, along with so many other cities that the parent company, in Australia, is now in trouble.
The Deputy Sheriff present gave a report. The City went with the Sheriff's recommendation to keep the cameras.
Council had consented, last year, probably "going through the motions" to get some good PR, to finally put the Red Light Camera issue on the agenda again, after another one of George's requests. When the item was eventually heard, George gave his own excellent report. The City should have allowed him to give the report for the Agenda item. Instead, his wife and I gave George a time donation that night.
The Deputy Sheriff could have answered questions, or, been given up to 10 minutes as a group speaker, representing the Sheriff's Dept. But the City has long shown a decided bias in favor of staff, or Contractors and against the public, including those of us requesting "future agenda items" be set. I realize that staff and the Sheriff are supposed to be experts in their fields, but when they are not educating themselves, doing accurate monitoring, and looking, realistically at the numbers, then they are all letting down. They are supposed to be public servants, not part of a hierarchy of overreaching authority of entitlement.
Aaron Rosenberg spoke at city hall about Redflex and the red light cameras.
ReplyDeleteCouncil agenda of Jan. 14, 2004 has a nice little letter about the Encinitas contract and having a Most Favored Customer Provision. Now we know what that mean.
Rob Blough, the traffic engineer handled the engineering department contacts with Redflex. Blough should start digging out all his old files.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRob Blough was patronizing and rude to me when I put in a CPRA request and tried to ask him about the monitoring of traffic on 101, Neptune and Vulcan, why it was only done BEFORE and after Highway 101 lane elimination, for motorists, in the months of October 2012 and October 2013.
ReplyDeleteNeither before nor after monitoring has been done during peak holiday periods, including spring break, race track and fair season, and winter holidays. Peak traffic periods are the time periods that would more likely demonstrate a negative impact on coastal access/egress, including as already subpar coastal Leucadia emergency response times are affected.
When I tried to ask Blough for a "legend" or explanatory material for the 60 page report of traffic, with before and after numbers for October, only, I was given a link for a nearly 200 page instruction manual. I had asked the Clerk if this could be formatted so that I could review it, as one can for Agenda staff reports, without downloading the larger file onto my computer. The Deputy Clerk told me IT is looking into it.
No word back, yet. This was weeks ago. I have to say the Clerk and the Clerk's dept. have always been polite, professional, and helpful to me.
But I did get enough information from my records requests to see that accurate and comprehensive monitoring was not done. There must be a before and after "reading" to analyze the effect of any public works installation.
The only accurate and statistically significant way to monitor traffic impacts would be for the lane to be redrawn, as staff had recommended for the 1/30/13 agenda report, a little over a year ago, with two lanes northbound, as well as southbound, for motorists, not eliminate the lane until after a Coastal Development Permit was processed to reconfigure Highway 101. The City had applied for an exemption for the CDP, which was denied.
I hope Rob Blough still has his old files. Hopefully they have not been destroyed, since the initial contracts are probably 10 years old?
When the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. were installed, the ten year traffic report didn't show any issues at Hermes and Leucadia Blvd. Traffic didn't need to be slowed down, there. At least those roundabouts went to the Traffic Commission, hence the ten year traffic report, provided through staff.
I wonder if the new housing development that went in, eliminating a lot of pre-existing affordable rentals, used that Hermes/Leucadia Blvd. roundabout, to be granted a mitigated negative impact declaration? The promised roundabout for Hygeia, to be installed during the second phase, which phase was to include the promised landscaping and sidewalks for Leucadia Blvd never happened, either. That money, along with a great deal of our TransNet tax monies are going to pre-construction lobbying and plans for North 101 Streetscape project that would be hunky dory WITHOUT bottlenecking traffic down to one lane in each direction through traffic installation devices that would cause gridlock during peak periods, when traffic is ALREADY backing up.
New Jersey, through Christie, has it's Bridgegate. We may have a "Red Light Camera-Gate," and a "Roundabout-Gate" on our hands. Public service becomes public taking . . .
Roundabouts? Red Light Camera Thread Hijack-Gate strikes again.
DeleteGeez Lynn…. someone rude… to YOU???? Never….
DeleteHow could that happen to such a sweet lady…. Haaa.
Did you ever get out of your home today and go on a walk?
Remember. Healthy body- Healthy Mind!
Try and get some sleep before 2am - you might find, you can actually enjoy the mornings….
Lynn might be on to something. I'm not anti-roundabout but it seemed rather odd the number of them proposed in the street-scape plan. It smells of a particular councilperson in bed with a specific contractor.
DeleteThe Cabezon
Which council person and which contractor?
Delete9:59, no trolling please. If you can't add to the discussion, zip it...
DeleteFred, be happy we weren't told that Norby doesn't get a pension. Be thankful for the small things.
DeleteMy comments were related to the City's inaccurate monitoring of traffic through Rob Blough.
DeleteBlough should begin looking through his records with Redflex; hopefully they haven't been destroyed.
Phil Cotton signed a Feb. 8, 2011 7 year plus 3 additional years contract extension with Redflex. Previous contract extensions were only 1 year. Why did the council allow Cotton to sign a 7 year plus 3 without any discussion? The contract runs to at least 2018.
ReplyDeleteOn council was Bond, Barth, Stocks, Barth, and Houlihan.
Yes, but it can be cancelled for any reason with 60 day notice.
DeleteWCV
OK, start counting: 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 60!
DeleteIf I am reading the Chicago article correctly, it seems that a lot of bribes were taken in 13 states. I am pretty naive on this stuff, but is the article saying that someone in Encinitas took a bribe to get the cameras installed? If so does anyone have any idea who took the bribe or bribes if there is more than one person? This is serious stuff if it is true and if the investigation looks at all 13 states.
DeleteGeorge Hejduk probably knows more about Encinitas red-light cameras than anybody past or present on staff and council.
ReplyDeleteKeeping useless, expensive red-light cameras is yet another example of staff and council doing what they damn well please regardless of facts and what the taxpayers want.
It sounds a little like a quid pro quo. They give "donations" to council members or staff members in exchange for a recommendation to put in these lights so that they can have a continuous revenue stream from residents. This is an example of the many services that the staff selects on our behalf. Dump the staff!
DeleteAccording to a newspaper article Rob Blough said: "hundreds of cars per day were running stoplights at El Camino Real / Encinitas Blvd intersection before red light cameras. The first month they were installed, 450 tickets were issued. At $500 per ticket,"
ReplyDeleteIf only half of them were paid, somebody(s) raked in over $100,000 that month. Where's over a million bucks a year going from that intersection for the last 10 years?
But who counted "over 100 cars per day" running red lights there prior to the cameras? That sounds a bit high to me for the "minimal" amount of accidents said to have occurred there. I know who to ask though. The couple that shakes the Thai Pan sign there all day several days a week for years: Greg and Maria. (So that's on my to do list now next time I buy some delicious organic carrot juice at eclectic Trader Joe's). BTW, that Thai place is awesome right next to Kohl's.
Not too long ago I was in the slow lane on Enc Blvd heading west before the intersection. The light was green, but there was a huge semi-trailer stopped in the fast lane next to me before it began to roll. It obscured vision to the left of everyone along side of it coming up to the intersection. I was in line first to roll through the green light, but a barrage of bright flashes went off and they warned me of impending doom so I slowed down. Someone was running a stop. Sure enough, a truck was speeding through the intersection against a red light as they were making a left turn in front of us. Had anyone been going faster than I was because they had the green light, the truck would have smeared them.
So I have mixed feelings about the red light cameras at this point in time. Plenty of questions though like:
Who pays for them?
How much are they annually?
Where does all the money go?
What are the crash totals prior to and after them?
Junk like that.
Fred, click on the link in the post on the words "city's own data." There are crash statistics as well as financial info. The city says they make $85,000 a year from the cameras. The citation stats are not in a very convenient format, but you can back-of-the-envelope calculate about $1.4 million a year in fines.
DeleteWCV
Most probably Redflex helped the city with the car counting.
DeleteCorrect. Red Light cameras are a money maker for Redflex and the city. That's the appeal.
DeleteSo the city realizes about 7% of what's collected? Hmmm. Not much. But on the other hand it is a positive cash flow for the city and they definately make most people pay more attention at that intersection - if not make them all white knuckle as they drive through. But if most people don't want em...
DeleteAs I recall when the council reviewed this recently, the number of red lights run have dropped dramatically probably due to the cameras. Before the cameras, I have personally seen a number of cars run the left turn light on eastbound Encinitas Blvd at El Camino Real. Not as dangerous as straight ahead but still technically running a red light.
DeleteI also recall someone mentioning that the fine is set by the state which is a combination of base penalty and other additional fees. Currently, the penalty $490 which Encinitas gets a portion.
Just so everyone knows, anytime you outsource a city function to private entities, you run the risk of graft. And it usually happens at the top, i.e. the elected officials, because it's so easy to hide it in campaign functions like contributions and in kind service.
I'm not saying anything has happened here but just look what they're discovering down in San Diego.
I would not be surprised if one of the 6-figure engineers is being paid to handle the red liehg cameras. It could actually be a money drain like everything else that goes on at the City. City workers will always tell us how vital their services are. I see Fred's point, but most people do not want them.
ReplyDeleteInstead of "flower capital" "money drain capital" would be fitting.
DeleteDump the red light cameras. ( of course there's a simpler way to deal with them... Take a can of spray paint and spray the lens, every tickets is obscured and worthless and Redflex would have to send someone out to clean the lens, after doing that once a week for a year they'll stop the cameras...but all that would be illegal).
ReplyDeleteWhich councilmen received the campaign donations from Redflex?
ReplyDeleteSome other Redflex camera cities are doing their own investigations. When will Encinitas city council order an investigation here?
ReplyDeleteStocks was definitely for sale at that time ,let's hope they find somthing.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be a council member. Too easy to track. My money would be on one or more staff people if bribes were offered and taken. If they were offered, the staffer should have told the City Manager, which I think was Phil Cotton, or was it Kerry Miller?
ReplyDelete$tock$, Dalager, Gaspar…. all on the dole of developers and Special Interest like Employee Unions.
ReplyDeleteWe dumped $tock$ and Dalager last few elections elections, now its time to dump Gaspar!
The current council is blowing it. Vina Strategic Retirement plan is working great at the cost of taxpayers. Nothing has been done in one year except Vina is one year closer to retirement and Encinitas one year closer to bankruptcy.
My prediction is Vina will be announcing his retirement within two years if City Council is stupid enough to keep the failure as City Manager for two years.
I am voting against all incumbents this next election. I hope we get some good candidates.
Yes everyone I know is voting against incumbents and that is not just three neighbors, lots of people are mad as a hornet at this poorly managed city!
DeleteDump Barth too - she has been around too long and has accomplished nothing. She is not a reformer.
DeleteBarth has become nasty and narrow minded. Anything Vina tells her she does.
DeleteThere is a culture of corruption at the City. They are time theives, liars, and cheats. It is only a small step from their daily activities to take actual bribes.
ReplyDeleteIn the early 2000's Redflex was a penny stock. Every new contract helped increase the value of the stock.
ReplyDeleteAre the red-light cameras in red-light districts?
ReplyDeleteKrisitin Gaspar step father was a developer. her very good friend ( DAVID MEYER) a developer and married to an ECKE .Yes let's not forget MIKE ANDREEN and last but not least her good friend JEROME STOCKS.She is a shill bought and paid for DUMP HER
ReplyDeleteIt is disconcerting that someone so unqualified as Gaspar can get on the council using developer paid glossly PR mailers and the publicized Woman Woman stunt. The voting public (30%?) are clueless to the confusion and ineptitude at City Hall. In Barter Town, the monied elite run the show.
ReplyDeleteWhat has Gaspar done?? Nothing.
I agree - DUMP HER!
Before someone can be dumped, especially a person who has money coming in her way, we had better have a strong candidate. And that begs the question: WHO? If we don't, Gaspar will easily win, as will Teresa for Mayor.
ReplyDeleteI have personally witnessed those red light camera's several times turning very early trying to catch people with a very short yellow light besides the shortened green light time span. This crap is a sanctioned criminal enterprise and should be thrown out of our town and all others. One time as I was turning left and west onto Leucadia blvd from Camino Real the light flashed yellow and turned red in no time. I was the 3rd car back and there was no delay with the 2 drivers ahead of me when it turned green. By thetime I was halfway through the turn the light turned and was red before I got through. I didn't receive a ticket bit it had me worried at the time. As I headed over the hill I approached a sheriffs car and at a stoplight told him what I had just seen happen. The company may deny they have any influence on the timing of the lights and the traffic engineer for our fair or not city says the same thing. Then tell me who the heck is responsible for the varying times of these if they are not. Follow the money and therein lies the answer. We are better than this and should throw these bums out of their for profit only business model. I told George about this one time at a council meeting to help bolster his position if it could be of any help. This is not a one time occurrence and I have personally witnessed the same at least three times. Who knows how many of our fine citizens have been taken advantage of by this criminal enterprise and paid dearly? Enough already. Throw these bums out of our fine city.
ReplyDeleteA short yellow light duration would be easy to prove with a camcorder. It might offer a good defense for anyone getting a ticket as well because there are no videos (i.e. real time proof) of how long their yellow light was on when they rolled through a red and it would seem to me the court would have to prove the light was long enough if a ticket were challenged on those grounds.
DeleteThe city sets the conditions on the timing of the lights and camera. I can't speak to how the cameras are timed in Encinitas but in other cities I know they have the camera on a 1 or 2 second delay after the light turns red to try to eliminate the "I was too close to stop" defense. For safety reasons there is usually a few second delay between the red in one direction and the green in the other.
DeleteI have also counted, and saw, for myself, that the left hand turn green arrow, has a very short yellow. It turned red in about two seconds, leaving people already in the intersection feeling very vulnerable, and catching others off guard, who have been waiting to turn, and underestimate how long the yellow will last.
ReplyDeleteThere should be an investigation of the bribes, as they relate to our City's contract with the Redflex, whether or not there was bribery in Encinitas.
Thanks, 7:24, for getting this thread back on subject.
Investigations cost money. Who pays ???
DeleteWhen did it become ok to run yellow lights? Yellow means be prepared to slow down and stop! It Yellow does not mean speed up and fly through the intersection before it turns red! If your the third car or fourth car in the intersection past the limit line trying to turn left when the light goes yellow, you deserve the ticket just for being stupid,
DeleteThat's right. Without any indication of impropriety here in Encinitas, Lynn wants an investigation. Lets spend city time and money on a witch hunt.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete8:09
DeleteOf course it's not a good idea to speed up at yellow lights. But if a light is yellow when you enter the intersection and then turns red before your turn is complete, you shouldn't get a ticket. And I would hope it's illegal to deliberately shorten the length of yellow lights for any reason including to garner more violations.
5:59
The short yellow light would best be presented with a movie by a citizen using a stop watch and played on the big screen at a council meeting - if indeed those lights are not timed with traffic standards. That would make it a matter of public record and might save the cost of an expensive investigation out sourced to who knows who. If there is any validity to yellow light monkey business, car insurance companies should do their own investigation. The less dents they have to repair the better (which is also a reason they prefer roundabouts, BTW).
One evening at city hall, someone brought a video compilation they made of many cars going too fast on the hair pin turns on Manchester by the lagoon in Cardiff - complete with tires squealing. (Insert your own squeaky wheel pun). I would think anti-red light camera folks could easily take it upon themselves to prove a short duration of yellow lights if it was important to them. It'd be a lot more reliable than hearsay.
Right, an investigation doesn't have to be expensive. People can submit California Public Record Act requests for documents. People can ask that contracts not be destroyed for those contractors with which we have ongoing contracts.
DeleteYes, it would be good for someone to actually time the yellow lights with documented evidence, as in a video recording, which is dated, and preferable with a timer on it, counting the seconds. However, I believe when the cameras were timed in San Diego, they were "off," and that was a big part of the reason their red-light cameras have been discontinued. It should be our City's Traffic Dept.'s responsibility to check the timing of traffic signal devices, including the duration of yellow lights, and compare the durations for intersections that don't have red light cameras to those that do. Remember, these employees are paid large amounts to act as public servants, to do what is right by the citizens of Encinitas.
Is there some kind of existing evidence on bribes, specifically which employees.
DeleteThere is evidence of bribery in other jurisdictions. What I would be looking for, if I were investigating in Encinitas, would be evidence of malfeasance of office by Traffic Engineers' (including Rob Blough) possibly not correctly and adequately monitoring the timing of the signals in question, investigating whether the City has been using a before and after basis for analysis, the "gold standard" as a comparison of timing monitored for signals with and without red light cameras.
DeleteWow Lynn! That's a very bold left handed accusation to call out Rob Blough for corruption and malfeasance. Out for a witch hunt? Really? You're seriously getting close to crossing a line on the ethical blogging behavior you and your followers claim to have. Any proof or just more hearsay?
DeleteThe Engineering Department is full of inept people! Look at the fines that we have gotten from the park situation, and any number of other problems from that department and Planning. Those 2 departments in particular make people hate ALL city employees.
DeleteInept doesn't mean dishonest.
DeleteHere's what you do- hook a chain around the camera pole and pull the fucking thing down. It's illegal but works. Now which of you pin heads has the balls ???
ReplyDeleteI was at the last council meeting regarding the red light camera issue. I was dismayed that Lisa Schaffer appeared most interested in the revenue stream created by these infernal machines, than the issue of safety. No one on staff, including Blough, would commit that the cameras reduced the number of accidents. To the contrary, the data provided by the city was ambiguous, at best. It's time to revisit this issue. Email all council members with a copy of the Tribune article, and demand that the council reconsider its position. And yes, the contract provides for a 60 day termination.
ReplyDeleteSchaffer is a union goon. She supports any revenue that provides cash to the city to pay goon salaries and goon pensions.
DeleteWow, calling someone who's an elected official a goon. Nicely done, lord of the understatement...
DeleteDear 8:09 the two or three cars ahead of me proceeded as soon as the light turned green and likewise I did the same. In this instance it was green as I went to turn left and before I got through it was red. I was not running a yellow light so there is no cause for suggesting that was what I was doing. You must be drinking their cool aid or getting some benefit pay off after I clearly described what I directly have experienced. Now what do you have to say? I was not running a yellow light as I made clear enough to anyone who can read. These light times have been manipulated to catch undeserved drivers and greed is the answer. I can only imagine how many people have been caught unjustly by this on going sanctioned criminal enterprise. Your presumption that I was running a yellow light speaks only too clearly for where your loyalties lie. These have been manipulated illegally by, take your guess, for profit at the expense of our citizens. This stinks. Throw them out now.
ReplyDeleteBy the way I have a perfect driving record so I am not out for some type of revenge. My personal experience with this manipulated timing just raises my hackles for the abuse of the publics trust by a sanctioned enterprise calling itself a safety factor when first presented when in fact they are not that at all. Greed rules here with this program and they are corrupted and we are too if we allow them to continue. Now go put that in your pipe and smoke it to your own health.
DeleteSmoking bad.
DeleteI agree Fred, smoking is bad and second hand smoke just as much so and how have these stupid vapor shops been allowed to flourish unopposed and plying the public with a healthier alternative to cigs. Yea right. Don't believe it. Candifying if there were such a word the use of nicotine and god knows what else they have put in there should be regulated out of existence. They are just another delivery device for the tobacco companies. Yes Fred smoking is bad and stupid and inconsiderate of those who like to breath unadulterated air in all public spaces. Smokers lack of comprehension for others is consistent if nothing else. I know you support these camera's but please be aware that you may not have personally seen these fluctuations of the timing but others have and we are not making this up. Why would we? I feel for the two cars behind me that day as when they entered the intersection it had been green also. Want to bet on whether they had to pay? I certainly hope not.
ReplyDeleteNot saying any witnesses have made anything up. But how do we know there's more than two witnesses with all the anonymous posters? I'm undecided about red light cameras, but of course if there is corruption occurring I'm not for that. Only saying a scientific review has more credibility and might even support eye-witness accounts.
ReplyDeleteOpps, I mean Hearsay bad.
Well, you won't see the city ordering any scientific reviews. The status quo is working for tem, apparently.
DeleteGeorge has brought this up umpteen times at council meetings, only to be met with the usual blank-faced stares from the five.
809... says to 11 36... Me thinks thou protest too much. I was never speaking about you either. You sound like you have a victim complex.Guess what? Nobody cares.
ReplyDeleteHow many lifes has those cameras saved - I'm betting at least one - WORTH IT!
ReplyDeleteTo those who don't like them, I have 3 simple words for you to follow - FOLLOW THE LAW!
That's faulty logic: because it's there, it must be doing some good.
DeleteThere were no fatalities at those intersections in the years before the cameras as far as I know.
Further, the most dangerous types of crashes at signals are drunk or distracted people blowing through reds and T-boning someone or hitting a pedestrian. That is exactly what red light cameras do NOT deter.
Red light cameras catch and deter only people missing a yellow by a second or so, which almost never results in a collision because of the delay between their red and the cross-traffic's green, and the time it takes stopped traffic on El Camino Real to accelerate from a stop once the light turns green.
WCV
Studies around the country are showing that cameras contribute almost zero to public safety, and are pretty much only a means to lighten the public's wallets.
I would not be surprised if the red light camera folks target well-heeled communitites where they could optimise their profits. WIth this, they have something in common with Encinitas city workers!
DeleteIf they put one in some San Diego communities, they might lose money since some communitites have fewer than half of their drivers who even have insurance!
Agree 100% with WCV. This is all about marketing a benefit for citizens that we neither want not need!
To try to be clear again, that left turn lane signal onto Leucadia blvd west, the green light was very shortened to barely thirty seconds if even that long followed by a very short yellow and with those cars behind me the automatic signal to change should have not been shortened except to try to catch someone. You say follow the law well we all were but the attempt to catch someone was purposefully designed into their system. Even the cars behind me went through on a green but got the red before making it through. I don't run yellow lights, fully stop at designated cross streets and this was only too obvious what was going on there thus my speaking to a deputy sheriff a few minutes later. He said he would check it out but he was headed away so who knows. These fluctuations are built into their system to snare people and unless one has an operating dash cam there is little recourse. Sometime someone will catch this recorded and that day can't come too soon. This is real and when you get caught unjustly with no way to fight it remember you have been warned. My driving record speaks volumes over the decades around here. Spotless, so don't confuse me with some imagined hurried driver trying to get through the next signal. Throw them out now.
ReplyDeleteIn the interim, I recommend making a left further up on Garden View or somewhere else. I avoid that intersection like the plague...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd if you're going south on 101 to city hall or the library etc., make your left at green arrow on Encinitas Blvd, not D st. or E st.. The latter are hazardous for lefts and back up people behind you as you wait for 2 lanes of traffic to clear and or pedestrians to cross. Also, if someone is trying to make a left at D or E from the south turning west at the same time your trying to turn, it makes it difficult not only for you to see past their car, but for them to see past yours. Is that perfectly clear?
DeleteHey you closed minded heavy set people who blog to all hours of the morning; may I suggest you go on a walk or bike ride today and do your body and mind some good.
ReplyDeleteThe exercise will help your body including your mind function better and the fresh air will help as well. Maybe the result will be more concise focused logical comments on this blog.
Have a great day!
I notice the city is running around town repainting the no parking red zones. Why ?? Clearly the painted red zones are visible?? Did the city come into hundreds of gallons of free red paint?? It's not like we can't see the red zones.... What I'd like the city to do is find some extra asphalt and FIX MY FUCKING STREET!!! Fix all the fucking streets! Enough of this PV nonsense. If the city has money to buy PV they have money to fix the streets!!!
ReplyDeleteAh geez this infantile projection again! Grow up! Could you come off as a more selfish child and lack of vocabulary used clearly indicates your true age no matter how many years you may have under your belt. Grow a pair and join the adults if you can see past your own visage. Is it always necessary to be profane? That is your id and maybe just maybe you can see an alternative to your limited ability to grasp what to be mature in thought and action really means. It not always about what you want. It is about the cause for the greater good for many here who care enough to want a better future for our precious town.
ReplyDeleteAh jeez.... What is the greater good?? When I watch a city that lacks basic infrastructure and maintenance of what structure it has look to buying a rundown dump such as PV, all a giant ruse to keep the people scratching their heads, versus providing maintanence of existing structure. All streets in the city suck, oops to powerful a word for you...sorry, all streets in the city are in a state of poor repair. But not the red paint no parking zones.
DeleteSo I'll restate my previous request but in a kinder way... Fix my friggin' street.
There, happy now??
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis thread, began with WC's post, "Encinitas' red-light camera vendor accused of widespread bribery of city officials." It's not about Pacific View. In any case, we don't have to choose between road maintenance and keeping land donated to the local community in the public domain. That issue isn't black or white, "either/or." That's more fallacious logic, the black and white fallacy, to be precise.
DeleteCall up public works and detail the places on "your street" that need repair. They are to keep a log of all complaints, and do follow-ups. The receptionist will transfer you to the Public Works' voice mail. The pothole I had complained about on Encinitas Blvd, just east of Hwy. 101, was finally repaired, on the evening of Transit Workshop, Part II.
To me, the greater good would be to do both; the city should do a better job of road repair and maintenance and should work with our local elementary school district to insure that donated land should remain in the public domain, for the children, and future generations.
I agree… the keep is "to you"
DeleteThe rest of us don't agree with "you"….
Focus on Priorities, let PV go.
Yes that is a slight improvement in your vocabulary. See, how hard was that to not be profane. Keep it up. Of course your selfish self interest still prevails. Do you think the rest of us aren't dealing with the same road conditions? Hey we are all on the same side here. How did that happen? At least until the community's best interest is once again involved. For those of us who have been here a long time PV is special enough to rate a priority over yours and our streets especially when this invaluable gift to all of us being stolen by Baird and his pliable fellow board members. Thanks Mo. I wish there were others on the school board who would stand up like you and work to make this stay in our hands and not the greedy developers who are circling like the vultures they are and yes that goes for Dewald, Harwood, and their kind. This property should never be rezoned for any residential housing and Eminent Domain should begin asap. Bairds prior history with liquidating public assets should have prevented him from ever being hired in the first place. That begs the question who influenced the choice of Baird being hired. Is it too much to think there was some outside influence directed toward the school board members that went up there for the initial interview in Ojai? How was he chosen over other candidates at that time? His history was available and no secret especially to those who made that fateful choice that we are all stuck with now. Something smells about the choosing of him and where he has chosen to go since being hired. Surprised that he has behaved as he has? Nope. Hiring him in the first place has me wondering who actually influenced the choice to bring him here. There had to be some influence being peddled by more than those few on the school board who brought him here knowing he would be amenable to selling off PV. Throw this bum out and save this gift for our towns future use. Next time EUSD calls for public money to support our schools through a bond measure just how do you think that will go down after this debacle Baird has created on his own? And consider the next time we all vote for school board members and who will survive that vote. Only one that I can see at the present. Thanks Mo. Saving this site is the most we can all do for the public good and not let it be squandered for the cause of greed by a small minded few. Thanks for those who care enough to fight for this one time irreplaceable property that our city managers and council has abused for too long.
ReplyDeleteThanks, 6:23. Excellent comment!
DeleteLynn
ReplyDeleteYour 8:20 comment is your best to date by far. Keep it up.
Does anyone have any idea how much eminent domain would cost this City and we would most likely lose. Let't let PV go and focus on our infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteFully agree!!!
DeleteCouncil needs to quit trophy building and focus on priorities.
Eminent Domain could save the City money in purchasing PV, because the District is being unreasonable. Lawyers have NOT said the City would most likely lose. On the contrary. Attorneys that specialize in Real Property Law have stated that the City would only have to prove that the intended PUBLIC benefit would be greater than the CURRENT USE.
ReplyDeleteThat is what the law states. According to the report for the January 22 CC Meeting, Agenda Item 11C, there must be a BALANCING when considering eminent domain between PUBLIC AGENCIES, balancing the greater PUBLIC benefit with respect to the CURRENT USE of the property and the intended use of the agency that wishes to purchase the property. That is why there must be a plan presented for the use of the property going through eminent domain proceedings, a plan presented by the intended purchaser.
Other than the plans for public use, the other primary question would be the fair value, which must be paid, through Eminent Domain. Among the resulting questions the Court would address is whether or not "rezoning is likely in the near future." A Court would take into consideration the proposed use would maintain donated land in the public domain, and that Council has twice before refused to begin rezoning procedures.
The Court would also consider that any rezoning, IF approved by the Planning Commission and City Council would also require approval through the Coastal Commission and a PUBLIC VOTE, because of the requirements of the Right to Vote on Upzoning initiative. According to Prop A, any rezoning from public/semi-public to mixed use and/or residential, according to our updated General and Specific Plans, and EMC, by definition, now REQUIRES a pubic vote, paid for by the developer, who in this case would be either EUSD or a private party, such as John DeWald.
The people who live here don't have to "let PV go," in order for the City to put more focus on infrastructure.
Let's let the red light cameras go. The cost to the general public outweighs their benefits. But if you want to keep discussing PV, I suggest you go to that prior thread. Thanks.
Terribly long…. zzz you lost me after the first paragraph. Try harder. Come on take a walk, clear your head, think of your point, and write it in under 50 words.
DeleteCome on Lynn, try and learn and improve yourself. As a result, you will be helping the whole world and especially your family.
Unfortunately Lynn, the Naylor Act can be invoked anytime the School District feels like it. So even Eminent Domain would not necessarily stop it. And again, the public good has to really be the public good, under "eminent domain". An artist colony would not be considered "eminent domain". Also, the school has a lot of asbestos that would have to be removed. It would cost a fortune to redo the school. As much as many of us would like to preserve it, personally, and I know this is not a popular position, I really would rather fix our infrastructure. And I have lived here 35 years, no I am not a "newbie"
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Lorri… I've been here over 20 and raising my family here.
DeleteLet PV go and focus on priorities.
5:52, why don't you let go of your insistence that you know what the public's priorities are?
DeleteLet go of your EGO!
Please someone prove me wrong!
ReplyDeleteThe Naylor Act would be invoked by the City. The Naylor Act provides that 30% of a School District's (total) surplus school property is to be provided as low as 25% of its appraised value when the school site is offered for LEASE or sale. You are wrong about an artists' colony foundation and learning center non-profit, such as a Charter School, not "qualifying" as a greater benefit, than the CURRENT use of the school.
DeleteLorri, sorry, but you are misunderstanding. You are also incorrect. The school DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF ASBESTOS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. I'm not yelling, just emphasizing what I've stated many times before. Preliminary inspections have been made, through the City's subcommittee.
With the help of volunteers, it would NOT cost a "fortune" to rehabilitate and maintain the school. After some initial expenses, for supplies and some contractors and further inspections, there would be a revenue stream to the City to help repay the purchase cost.
Lorri, we do NOT have to choose between doing a better job on maintaining and repairing our infrastructure and purchasing Pacific View. If you read all of my posts on both this Pacific View thread, and the previous one, posted by WC, you will find proof of all of these. Please don't fall into the twisted logic of those who would privatize an irreplaceable community asset. I have read the Special Counsel on Eminent's Domain's preliminary report and I have spoken to private counsel specializing in Real Property Law. The City has an excellent case for eminent domain. Our chance of having to pay EUSD's attorney fees is extremely low, to nil. We can easily prove that the better public benefit would be to maintain the donated land in the public domain, for a community art and learning center, as opposed to the school district's current public use, which has been to let it sit idle.
Eminent Domain would have to determine the fair price which the City should pay, and the likelihood that after Planning Commission, Council, Coastal Commission and Voter approval, that the property would be rezoned in the near future, or at all.
If you'd like to discuss this further, Lorri, or others, please go to the previous PV thread. One has to click on "load more" on the bottom right in order to see all of the current comments.
DeleteThis thread is supposed to be about the red light camera scandal, and I'd like to respect WC's initiating post by not continuing to diverge off subject. I know I have been guilty of going off topic, too, so I apologize. I do like to answer allegations and correct misunderstandings, when and where I see them.
Pacific View needs to be saved for historic reasons. Lynn is again right, this is in the "heart" of Encinitas' character. The vision of Walmart and drive through Starbucks is not good, we had a past council that was aligned with the dark side. No more!
ReplyDeleteAccording to several City staff people,as well as other competent and authoritative people that I have spoken to, the school does have asbestos, so I guess that is all I will say about that Lynn. It certainly makes sense, due to the age of the school. As far as the school site itself, what can we put on the land that would be considered eminent domain. Usually that includes roads, freeways, or a public good. As much as I enjoy art, in all forms, I cannot help but wonder if a true eminent domain situation will exist. Our city's roads are crumbling, we have so many "to do" things for our City to keep it from crumbling , either fiscally or from just sheer neglect of the infrastructure. The auction, according to Baird, has to have a starting bid of 9 million plus. Where is the City going to get that money, and then build something? The numbers don't work, at least for me. There is a lot of "heart" in our City, and perhaps we have to be happy with that, and let this go? Just my 2 cents, FWIW.
ReplyDeleteMany old buildings have asbestos. It doesn't have to be removed if the current classrooms are rehabbed and maintained. I can't buy into hearsay evidence from unnamed staff people (who often are mistaken) or other unnamed "authoritative people" with whom you have spoken, that contradicts the subcommittee reports that were released for the January 22 Council Meeting. There were preliminary inspections. Asbestos would NOT have to be removed.
DeleteLorri, a judge would consider whether keeping donated land, with our Historic Old Schoolhouse situated on it, for a true community arts and learning center would be a higher value than a potentially higher one time injection of funds (higher than eminent domain taking, whereby the school district would ALSO get a one time injection of funds at "fair market value," from the City.
The standard of proof only has to be that the public benefit in the City's plan is greater than the benefit of the School District's CURRENT USE, which is that the PV site is sitting idle.
So the only difference, to the school district, would be in the amount of the one time injection. Eminent Domain still requires that the public agency previous owner would be compensated by the new public agency taker.
The Court would consider the likelihood that the surplus school site could be rezoned after going through the Planning Commission, City Council, the Coastal Commission, and a public vote, as required, by definition, by Prop A, and Government Code, which requires that any rezoning requested by the district must adhere to our General Plan and Specific Plan for Downtown Encinitas, as well as Encinitas Municipal Code and "local procedures."
Lorri, someone is feeding you misinformation. The City does NOT have to choose between doing a much better job on road maintenance and infrastructure and purchasing PV for a reasonable price. Please, if you want to discuss this more, e-mail me, or continue on the Pacific View thread, from a few days ago. This is the red light camera thread!
Baird is asking too much as his minimum bid price. I wouldn't be surprised if he got NO offers for that amount. Anyone would be a fool to assume the city would rezone, after a public vote. In Eminent Domain, the Court is the final arbiter, not Baird and his highly exaggerated expectations. Again, he's got dollar signs in his eyes, and the District does NOT need a one time injection of monies as much as we want to keep land donated to the children and future generations in the public domain. Baird is all about short term gain and privatizing an asset from this town, which he has been associated with only since the second half of 2009, so for less than five years. He is an interloper and in my opinion, a high pressure salesman, trying to capitalize on public assets to enhance his resume, his political ambition, and his ability to manipulate his compliant Board of Trustees (with the exception of Mo Muir).
Pacific View is important to save. Visit the schoolhouse, there are only a dozen things in Encinitas that shouldn't be pillaged and this is one of them. Envision dense development there, definitely what would happen and needs to be avoided. To choose that lame sports park over this site and what it would offer for views and pedestrian traffic is absurd. You can kick a ball anywhere, a site like Pacific View is truly unique, especially how it is oriented to downtown.
ReplyDeleteThen buy it and save it. Talk is cheap PV will be expensive, just don't ask taxpayers to save your little schoolhouse.
DeleteIt already belongs to the taxpayers. Don't allow Baird to privatize.
DeleteA few pensions brought into reality would supply the funds, Muir should be first.
DeleteAgree on all points 5:48. But unfortunately we are stuck with the multi million dollar Park. I have visited the schoolhouse with a educated person about asbestos. He said there was a lot of it. All I am saying is "How do we pay for it"? Baird wants and arm and a leg and I don't think our CIty has the money to shell 9 mil out and then put up a almost non profit art center or whatever else one has in mind. I's a sad situation that could have been remedied if Baird were to have accepted the City's original offer of 4.2 mil.
ReplyDeleteLorri, please, please, asbestos is a red herring. Do you think the City could have had its public work yard offices there, or that Encinitas Glass could still be leasing, or that the school could have remained opened until 2003 if existing asbestos had to be removed? My knowledgeable reports, including through the reports made public from the subcommittee meetings after Baird released the City's offer of $4.3 Million, in violation of the Brown Act, indicate the opposite of what you are saying your "educated person" is claiming.
ReplyDeleteAsbestos would NOT have to be removed for the existing classrooms to be rehabbed and maintained as a true community art and learning center. Don't get hung up on asbestos, please. And please do me the favor of continuing this conversation by personal e-mail, or on the previous Pacific View thread that WC posted. If you go to the last post that shows, you'll notice, in blue, on the bottom right, a link that says "load more" (comments).
I see no such thing. What " load more" comments are we talking about??
DeleteOk, now it may not be worth going back, to you, because, as WC explained to me: "Comments go pending if the post is more than 10 days old. It's to prevent commercial spam comments."
DeleteBut, in case you're interested, if you do go to the PV thread, which is seven posts back, now, I believe, click on comments, as usual, then go to the bottom of the comment page. You will see the following:
Reply
....................Load more [in a blue font, centered on page] ...
Links to this post
Create a Link
Newer Post Older Post Home
If you click on the blue link: "Load more," you will then see the remainder of the comments.
However, I don't know that WC automatically checks "pending comments," so, as I said, you may want to post about PV elsewhere. Go for it. And if anyone finds my comments too long and tedious, I can only repeat, you are FREE to skip them, lol. Just as I am free to skip those that complain about me, personally.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLynn-Who are you to tell Dr. Lori where she can post. That would be Wc's job if he felt it was necessary. Personally I am an expert in the removal of asbestos and have gone to the site of the schoolhouse. I can say with 99& certainty the schoolhouse is loaded with asbestos. Can you imagine the toxic stuff in there? Makes the Hall Property tame. Asbestos is NOT a red herring and it should not be brushed under the carpet as you are going. That's exactly how the City go caught with its pants down on the park. There were toxins, and citizens had to sure for it to be cleaned up. Cannot afford to do it again, no matter what you might personally want. As another posted said "Buy it yourself fi you want it so bad. In fact get a bunch of your friends to buy it. I would rather have a better road system, and some form of rapid transit.
ReplyDeleteI asked Lorri to do me a favor and post on the PV thread, not the red camera thread. I'm grateful she obliged. Your bringing that up is another red herring.
ReplyDeleteThere are no toxins. You are confusing PV with the Hall Property. Many older homes have asbestos, and it is NOT a health and safety issue unless the walls, siding, or flooring must be dismantled. It only becomes an issue when it is removed. It is stable, acts as a good insulator, and many homes built in the 50's or before have it. Any danger was to those people installing it, or removing it. But preliminary inspections have ruled out asbestos as a problem.
Whatever you may imagine, PV already belongs to the public. The asbestos issue is a red herring. You can cling to your delusions if you wish. The land should not be privatized, because the greatest public good would be to keep this historical, irreplaceable asset in the public domain, in its current zoning, public/semi-public, with the Old Schoolhouse intact, and the classrooms rehabbed and maintained as a true arts and learning center. The land was donated for the children and for future generations. What I want if for the greatest public benefit to be realized, instead of selling off our public assets, one by one, to the highest bidder.
If you like the National Parks so much, why don't you buy them? If you like the library so much, why don't you buy the land upon which it sits, from the County? You are not the arbitrator of what constitutes a trophy project.
You obviously don't understand logic.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
Fallacy: Red Herring
"Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring
"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/
ReplyDeleteRed Herring
Explanation
"The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.
Example
Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand:
“You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?”
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/
Fallacies of Relevance
"Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply don’t bear on its truth. In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance don’t do this; the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if they don’t have any evidential value.
Examples
Many of the familiar informal fallacies are fallacies of relevance, for example:
Personal attacks (arguments ad hominem) attempt to discredit a point of view by discrediting the person that holds it. The character of the person that holds a view, though, entails nothing about the truth of that view. Such arguments therefore commit a fallacy of relevance.
Appeals to consequences attempt to persuade someone to accept a position based either on the good consequences of their accepting it or on the bad consequences of their not accepting it. There is no guarantee, though, that the position that has the best consequences is true. Again, then, such arguments commit a fallacy of relevance."
??? What does any of this have to do with red light cameras???
DeleteStay on point....
"Fallacies of Relevance"
DeleteYou mean like comparing the naming of a park to breaking the law? Thanks for reminding us Lynn.
While comparing naming of a park to breaking the law has no relevance to red light cameras, I will comment on that, as it relevant to my related discussion of logic.
DeleteIn the case of Council's naming the former Hall Property, Encinitas Community Park, there is a relevant "technicality in Encinitas Municipal Code. According to zoning definitions, which are an official part of EMC, Encinitas Community Park does NOT fit the definition of a Community Park. It is a sports specialty park, by Code definition.
When asked about this disparity, after members of the public objected (many more appropriate names were submitted through the Parks and Rec Commission, by the public; none were chosen), City staff seemed to laugh and said, "We aren't going by definitions."
That's like saying "we aren't going by EMC; we aren't going by the law!" So breaking local law is relevant to naming of the former Hall Property Park.
No its not Lynn. It's a stretch. The reason why it is a special use park is because the park is greater than 20 acres. And that's it.
DeleteYou and your park detractors call it "special use" or "regional sports complex" because of the negative connotation it brings.
What they "seemed to laugh" about was probably how you and others can't accept the simple explanation, that is was greater than 20 acres, and instead see some great conspiracy.
No, my understanding is it's not only all about size. It's a sports park because of the number of sports fields.
DeleteNevertheless, the Zoning code in EMC, whether because of the size of the park or the number of sports fields, or both, preclude it from being, by definition, a Community Park. So by naming it Encinitas Community Park, Council and staff knowingly didn't abide by our local law, which is Encinitas Municipal Code.
You are again being illogical with personal attacks, implying that those who point out that the name of the Park contradicts EMC are conspiracy theorists. Staff and Council, despite all the names suggested for the park, did determine, together, that they would not "go by City definitions." Not going by EMC zoning definitions is breaking local law.
Can you point to the law that says that the park name must adhere to the zoning definitions?
DeleteStating the staff "knowningly didn't abide by our local law" is accusing them (personal attack style) of breaking the law. Which law?
It's your stretch to say that the name must follow the zoning definitions because it fits your narrative.
You and others highlight the term "special use park" in the same sentences that then say:
".. will serve the entire community of Encinitas .."
".. will include areas and facilities for both active and passive
recreation and facilities not found elsewhere in the City .."
But you ignore those and instead focus on "special use". Throw in a couple of "regional sports complex"-es, even though it is not, and your spin is complete.
And, yes, i associate you with the anti-park group that includes conspiracy theorists who believe some outside group (CalSouth or other) will be able to dictate our park usage.
Rather than snark at the irony that the park is not named according to our code (a technicality), you associate it with breaking the law. Good for you.
11:39, I am reading from the City's webpage, re http://www.encinitasca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=416 3.1 Land Use and Public Policy, Page 4 of the PDF file:
Delete"In the Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is designated as a Special Use Park. Special Use Parks are defined as parks that are developed for a specific type of use, rather than a broader range of multiple park and open space uses, though they can provide many of the same facilities as a community park. . . . a Community Park is limited by City standards to 10 to 20 acres. For that reason, the proposed project is designated as a Special Use Park."
So it is our General Plan, which is supported by EMC, that defines in the Recreational Land Use element that the former Hall Property is a sports specialty park. There was some wiggling around the definitions in the GP, in the EIR, but basically, previous Council did choose to ignore the General Plan designations.
Our General Plan is also part of our City Law. I did not find Sports Park and Community Park defined in Chapter 30.04, "Chapter Definitions." So I am correcting my previous misunderstanding and misstatement.
Again, the name Community Park does not abide by our General Plan designations. That msy not directly violate a specific definition in Chapter 30:04 of EMC, part of our zoning code, but only because different types of parks are not therein defined. Also, it is more specifically the size of the park that also qualifies it as a specialty park.
Human observation would be that the number of sports fields and installments makes it a Sports Specialty Park, in common sense terms.
Nevertheless, according to our GP, it's a specialty park. Community parks are smaller, 20 acres maximum. So I suppose Council thinks its ok for it to not abide by the GP designations when naming the park? I was QUOTING staff, when it was pronounced by Patrick Murphy "We aren't going by the definitions." So he wasn't going by the General Plan. That may not be breaking the law, but it is not abiding by the intent of the GP, which is our primary governing document.
Good for you, 11:39.
The General Plan is the Encinitas law that previous Council and staff knowingly (because former Planning Director Murphy knew that the former Hall Property Park does NOT fit the GP designation of community park) DISREGARDED.
DeleteYou really felt compelled to follow up your own post with this? It's hard admitting you're wrong, isn't it?
DeleteBuried in the middle:
"So I am correcting my previous misunderstanding and misstatement."
Classic.
With CAPS even!
DeleteHoping to help you with clarity; my only misunderstanding was thinking the law was not followed because of EMC Zoning Chapter 30.04 definitions, when it's worse than that. The General Plan was disregarded in the naming of the Park. Because the bureaucrats could.
DeleteBut, you obviously fail to understand, you are so busy attempting to correct me, you fail to correct your own misunderstanding, rationalization, and diversionary tactics.
They aren't working. It isn't the least bit hard admitting I confused EMC definitions with GP designations. Yet you pounce on that like a tom cat, chasing a leaf. LOL!
What misunderstanding Lynn? I said it was ironic that the park was not named according to our code. But i didn't call anybody a law breaker over it. You exaggerate the significance of it to fit your anti-sports-fields stance. And now you paint yourself as a victim of "diversionary tactics". Huh?
DeleteNice imagery though: "a tom cat, chasing a leaf". I like it.
Any discussion can be negatively affected by use of fallacious logic. That applies to a red light camera discussion, as well.
ReplyDeleteI too had asked for comments on PV to be directed toward that thread.
This reminds me of a "discussion" I had awhile back with various posters in regard to what is and is not a "fact". Thank you Lynn for a nice semantic chuckle!
Delete- The Sculpin
Lynn- Have you become the blog administrator? First you tell Dr. Lori what and where she should post, and then you direct her to the "correct" site. I think she and any of us can post where we want and if WC doesn't like it he can delete it.The irony is not lost on me. Your posts are tediously long and often have nothing to do with the particular issue being talked about.. You bring up the word "roundabout and how much you don't like them in many threads that have nothing to do with roundabouts. Why don't you set up your own blog so you can tell people what to do? I, for one, would have liked to hear more about her views on PV right on this thread. I usually don't go back and try and find a comment on a past thread. So get a blog and stop telling others what to do. It is not becoming if you want to be considered as a rational, passionate, and introspective person.
DeleteLorri, Russell and I are good friends. She can post whatever she wants anywhere she wants. I was only attempting to remain on subject. She knows I wasn't telling her what to do. Friends can make suggestions to one another without their taking offense. She is more secure in her point of view, and so am I, than to allow a cowardly internet troll come between us.
DeleteSo what you are saying is do as I say not as I do. Correct??
DeleteCall me, a cowardly Internet troll.
Don't need to, 7:12. You already called yourself one.
DeletePV is subject to prop 65 warning labels.
ReplyDeleteWhen a thread gets so long you have to "load more" comments, well that is way too much work to bother with, it's all about the city so post wherever whenever.
ReplyDelete