Estate attorney and traffic commissioner Catherine Blakespear has announced her candidacy for the open city council position.
Her web site is here. It's professional, generic, and short on issues. It doesn't mention Encinitas' financial problems at all.
What kind of council member would Blakespear be?
I think that Teresa Barth has every intention or running for Mayor. I think by announcing she is retiring Barth is hoping to deflect srutiny of her horrible record the past 8 years. Barth lied on the Prop A ballot statement, was wrong about the coastal commission, voted to raid capital project money, voted to increase debt, sided with Sabine and Vina instead of residents-
ReplyDeleteBy annoucing her retirement Barth avoids scrutiny meaning Gaspar will be exposed in the public domain for her bad votes- then just before the election Barth will announce she is running- wait for it.
Barth's hope is to draw Gaspar into the Mayoral race and open up the seat for Blakeshear - I hope Blakeshear is not taking direction from Barth. I hate to think she would be a Barth clone or disciple. Barth has made the city worse not better and Barth is for upzoning the city and defeating Prop A with overlay zones under the guise of 'housing element' and strategic planning.
Unfortunately Blakespear is taking directions from Barth. I think your suggestion makes sense that the hope is to draw Gaspar into the mayor's race. I still think that Muir is the more likely candidate for mayor. He can run, lose, and still keep his seat. Gaspar has more risk, is much younger, and can wait. It will depend on whether Muir wants to run. Both won't run against each other for mayor.
DeleteBlakespear has the baggage of her opposition to Prop. A. That a big one. Already there is a lot of talk of opposing her on that issue along. And we know the Prop. A people are good at organizing.
Yes, those who haven't been sued by the State of California for illegal loans, FPPC violations and refusing to respond to State inquiries: but how many does that leave?
DeleteEnough to have passed the initiative.
DeleteI truly appreciated Catherine's help in purchasing Pacific View. But I do think we are paying too much. As a lawyer, Catherine should be able to help Teresa negotiate better, with Tony, to demand that EUSD should carry a minimum of a 30 year loan at 0% interest. That could be done, according to an officer at the State Allocations Board with whom I spoke, by telephone. I've been in touch with the SAB several times, because it is unlikely that ANY money from the sale of Pacific View could go into EUSD's general fund.
DeleteThe most concerning point on CB's campaign points is her last bullet point, re Encinitas Public Service:
Member of ERAC, advising the City Council on the general plan update
Probably most Prop A supporters would not vote for her, although I am grateful we are purchasing Pacific View.
I think that someone saying Teresa Barth is going to run again is just a ploy, an obvious attempt to use this blog to divide and conquer.
OK, I think Catherine could have learned a lot by the passage of Prop A. So I take back what I said, that probably most Prop A supporters would not vote for her.
DeleteWe can be open to positive change, by learning from our mistakes. I would like to ask CB about her experience on ERAC, as well, what she learned from that. It seems to me as though that whole exercise turned out to be an exercise in futility, and a huge waste of our time and money.
But there is a great deal of data available from the surveys done that should be quantified and qualified, which the City has not yet studied.
Encinitas is going to need to complete a General Plan Update at some point, I would imagine.
On Prop A Blakeshear would be well served to take the position of the people have voted, it has passed, I support it. She would also be wise to say that during the PRop A process the council told untruths to the public on the ballot statement- and she oppoes that behavior and will tell the public the truth. She can also say that she opposed the city wastaing $50,000 on the developer law firm Vina signed on with and thinks the money should be spent serving taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteThese are commons sense position all will wupport - they also are points that will paint clear differences between her and existing council members.
And why not throw in that she fully supports the closed-door meetings that Pam Slater Price and Bruce Ehlers held with the California Coastal Commission that stopped the Commission from holding a public hearing on Prop A because Pam and Bruce recognized that Prop A wouldn't stand up to scrutiny and finagled the private meeting that resulted in 180 degree turn-around by the CCC administrators who were cowed by a retired CCC director Pam imported from Malibu: should the new candidate support backroom deals like that one or perhaps all the Brown Act violations Barth committed during the last 12 weeks meeting with Baird without council approval of public notification? Or spending money the city doesn't have? Should the new candidate support that? Or how about, if she is elected and doesn't get her way, waiting but a single day and then making very troubling allegations against her peers that she'll then disown when they are found unfounded and too expensive?
DeleteOr, how about she claim she once taught ethics, but then in retrospect her actions loudly claim she doesn't truly subscribe to the 'meaning' of ethics: like "I am turning in a competitor to the UT for perceived misconduct, but I do not understand why the UT needs to print my name. Why can't I attempt to harm my opponents but do it without taking responsibility for it?"
Should the new candidate support things like that? Hmm?
9:51 you clearly are an ideolgoue and support developers. That is terrific. To each their own.
DeleteI am an independent. The 5 council members signed their name to lies on a ballot statement that went to every vote in Encinitas. They are, all 5, despicable in their self seeking disregard for honesty.
All 5 also approved of Vina spending $50,000 on Rutan to write a bogus report used against residents. Now Gaspar claims there is no money for projects- of course there isn't the council wasted it.
Being the election season I have no doubt you will respond with more conjecture and spin - but the facts are the facts.
I am no fan of Barth, Muir, Gaspar, Kranz or Shaffer - they are all responsbile for the bad state of the city. I will be voting for new people in November. I hope others join me,
9:51 brings up some interesting points, I would love to hear more. Of course, anyone who thinks politics isn't about who you know, is whistling past the graveyard. Each side on a position is going to use every contact, every move, every advantage they have.
DeleteThere is one key point above, will Prop A. stand up to scrutiny? Good question, as it is the key question to every initiative that has ever been on the ballot in ca. Is it legal/constitutional, will it get struck down. Will the other side poke holes in its shortcomings and have part of it tossed out? Totally fair questions.
The rest is just conjecture and or opinion without backup. Politics is dirty business folks, even for those we like and support. Anyone who doesn't know that need not apply...
You sure sound like Mike Andreen. I guess you will be working in Gaspar's campaign again. Still sore from being cut out of the No on Prop. A campaign by Barth? Are you confusing Barth with Shaffer, who did teach ethics? Even if Barth did meet with Baird, it wouldn't be a Brown Act violation.
Delete10:21 I can see your 'conjecture and spin" through your smokescreen
DeleteProp A passed, live with it. I
t passed because one resident told another resident about what is truly going on. We remain a small town.
Barth, Gaspar, Muir, Shaffer and Kranz- let's call them the liar's - as they lied on the ballot statement- have been working behind the scenes with Gus Vina and the developers to overturn Prop A using the following strategey
1. Using taxpayer money that could be spent providing services to instead scheme on a 'strategic plan" they can sell to the public to upzone teh city. They know the public knows the General Plan Update is a loser so they have a new name - see how it works?
2. Using taxpayer money that could be spent fixing roads to instead create a 'communcation strategy" to "communicate and educate the public" to the new 'Strategic Plan" call it community manipulation
3. Threatening the public that a big bad bogeyman called "The housing element" must be passed- the same argument they used in 2013- this will be the tool to cause fear, misinformation and confusion- think Jim Babwae on steroids, think all the lies on Prop like - "You can't remodel your kitchen" Gaspar, "No upzoning has happened with a vote"- Kranz "There will never be 5 story" Muir, Shaffer and Barth.
Liars never win, they are exposed and driven from office, jobs, realationships and marriages.
4. Use taxpayer money that could go to serve residents to instead execute the developed "communication strategy" to spread fear, miisinformation and convince residents to vote against their own best interests -just like Prop A and MIG-
The fact is Prop A passed becuase Encinitas residents are mobilied in all 5 communities and the truth is easily seen by all. Candidates promoting lies, untruths and acting in their own interests have been, and will be, exposed for who the are and driven from office.
Anyonewho doesn't know that need not apply-
9:51- Can you tell us when that meeting happened between Slater-Price and Ehlers? That is huge if it happened?
Delete12:58 whats huge is the council lied to entire city by signing their names to a ballot statement lie. What's huge is Gaspar Barth and Muir wasted 50,000 dollars on the developer law firm that spread misinformation. What's huge is that finally somone other then the loser always wrong overpaid city attorney gave the council legal direction.
DeleteProp A people meeting the CCC big deal, Barth Gaspar and Muir- ran down there with their bag of lies and left exposed and empty handed - that's huge!
Hey, Jim Babawae, I feel you out there
10:46, that's funny, because I too have come on and said "Thanks Mike Andreen". I've never seen anything remotely Andreenish on this blog. I used to go at it with him on Patch all the time.
DeleteI stand by my middle paragraph. I backed Prop A, but will it withstand the attacks that you know are coming, that's my point. You know the city is gunning for Prop A.
I now return you to tin hat theater....
What's huge is Gaspar loves developers, development, and her bar owner friends. I bet she gets a lot of perks from all of them. This is why she needs to be gone. She has done nothing to help this city except get us more in debt. Yes, she has been a huge part of the problem. Fess up Gaspar and own your mistakes.
DeleteThe Coastal Commission staff has meetings, by phone and in person with our City staff. Coastal Commission staff can and probably does meet with less than a quorum of the Commissioners, without that being a public meeting. There is nothing nefarious about a former County Supervisor and a former Coastal Commissioner, meeting with Coastal Commission staff to iron out some misunderstandings.
DeleteGet over yourself, 9:51. Prop A supporters were correct. No LCP amendment was required for Prop A. You lost; now you are being a sore loser and casting about to try to place blame. It lies with you.
One person on Coastal Commission staff, our North County rep, Eric Stevens, has been wrong on several issues, including his wrongly thinking an LCP amendment would be required, and his thinking that premature lane elimination for motorists on North 101 did not require a Coastal Development Permit. His "higher-ups," including District Manager, Deborah Lee, have contradicted his incorrect communications to City staff, with subsequent letters. All of the letters are available, through the City. Don't try to make it sound as though this is some kind of wheeling and dealing. There was no 180 degree turnaround, only in your mind and in Eric Stevens' misunderstandings.
DeleteThere is nothing illegal about lobbying the Coastal Commission. The city does it all the time. In the case of the CC appeal about the approval of the Hall property park, the city hired lobbyist Susan McCabe for $20,000. She worked with the CC commissioners in the back rooms and got the result the Stocks, Bond, and Dalager wanted. The citizens paid for it and will also pay for the $80 million regional sports park, which is really the project that broke the back of the city financially. Gaspar, of course, supported this extravagant sports complex in her election campaign.
DeleteOH MA GOD Gaspar voted for that big extravagant sports complex? That is good to know that it was HER that helped the city go in debt. Nice job Gaspar. Let's see how you try to get out of this one. Lies? Lies? And more Lies about how fiscally conservative you are? Full of crap. Start telling the truth.
DeleteThe vote for the Hall Park was unanimous after deep engineering by Stocks and Bond. How do you get $80 million? Construction was $19.3 and purchase was about $20 million if memory serves. Round off at $40 million.
DeleteHow do you get to $80 million.
Delete$22 million on original bond, $19 million in bond payments up to 2014, $19 million in development costs ,new bond payments of $.5 million for 20 years ($10 million), miss costs of maybe $1.8 million, bond payments of $1.4 million for 20 years($28 million) and......you get about $80,000,000.00.
9:22- The city is in bad shape they spent nearly $2M more than they took in this year. Next year there will be an added $500,000 in operating costs for the Hall Park. Andrew Audet wrote of this financial burden and the need for responsible spending in a column in the Coast News writing the park will cost $46M to own that includes the purchase price of $21M plus interest on the first series of bonds - before any construction costs.
DeleteEncinitas Mayor Jerome Stocks wrote a response to Audet's editorial confirming that the $46M total cost was the true cost of owning the property - but trying to spin it that the purchase price was $21M and that the interest should not be included. Audet rightly pointed out the city was obligated to pay $1.4M in annual interest on the bond. That means for the 11 years the land sat vacant and unuseable taxpayers paid nearly $15.4M to bankers. The total cost to retire the first bond is $28M (the number might be slightly smaller as the city may have refinanced)
The cost to own the park is $46M (puchase price plus debt payment) and does not include the additional costs to purchase a few smaller parcels surrounding the site.
Audet wrote in the editorial that in 2008 the city said the park would cost $36M to build and that in 2012 the city only had $9M saved- Audet was right-
In 2012 the city presented three financing options for the park-
Pay as you go- use the $9M set aside and begin phase one of the park with a ball field or two, skate park and dog park and evaluate phase two at a time when the city was in better financial shape
"steal and Spend" Raid accounts and take $7M from funded projects residents were counting on like beach access repair, wayside horns, quiet zones, sewers, road repairs- and use the money for more ball parks
"Borrow and Steal" Raid the $7M from funded projects + go in debt another $8M. Going in debt another $8M increased the city debt service by $500,000 a year and reduced the city's ability to borrow- Andrew Audet spoke to the council on this issue in July of 2012 and in the 2013 annual budget meeting when the public learned the city was putting another building up as collateral to do the bond issue. Audet also wrote a commentary on this steal borrow and spend plan as risky - it turns out Audet was right, now there is no money for anything else.
The council of Gaspar, Muir and Barth chose the "Steal and Borrow" plan raiding the accounts of $7M and going in debt $8M. Now Barth has suggested raising taxes and Gaspar is blaming Barth and Pacific View- each are equally responsible for wasting our money. Gaspar said in the coast news there is no money for projects to serve residents -of course there isn't, she spent it all.
To build the park the award to USS Cal builders was $17,087,681 + $2,258,767 at city manager's discretion totaling $19,345,448.
This amount when added to the $46M to own the property totals $64,345, 448. Then add to this the bond debt service on teh second bond estimated at $500,000 a year for 20 years and you get $74, 345,448 to build the park- nearly double the $40M you reference-
Also, it must be considered that the award to Cal Builders was protested by the other bidders because the company did not have the right certifications at the time of the award for dealing with toxic soils and grading- after starting the project the city was sued by water board for pollutant run-off into streams and lagoons - the city is on the hook for nother $400,000
Audet wrote three community commentaries about the true cost of the Hall Park and Stocks responded to one of them, the response from the city hall was revealing. He also wrote about the risky finance plane - The Coast News probably still has it in the archives if anyone is interested.
A san Diego Tribune article said that the city said the cost of the park was 20 million
DeleteThe U-T is wrong. The original bonds to buy the property were for $22,645,000. Two others parcels of land on Somerset were included, plus other associated costs. Annual repayment was $1.5 million for 30 years. The bonds were refinanced in 2010 with the annual repayment reduced to $1.4 million. All of this information is available on the city website.
DeleteOther costs include $700,000 to SDG&E for utility relocation, $100,000 to Sohagi Law firm in Los Angelus, and $600,000 for the preparation of the EIR. Add the other stuff mentioned above plus the park design with all of its changes and it isn't hard to reach $80 million.
She is obviously smart. My concern is for the family of these young mothers.
ReplyDeleteI believe kids need their mother. Life without being a City Council member is busy. Why would someone volunteer to take on 30 hrs a week more in tasks and spend that much less time with their family?
Where are your priorities Ms.Blakespear and Gaspar?
I guess I see things differently from a priority standpoint. But then again, I am old and things are changing. Sigh-
She's already a lawyer, so I'm assuming is she can handle that, she can handle council. And I'm sure they have a nanny...
DeleteShe's an estate-planning lawyer. That's a super-clerk job. She not a Marco or Everett kind of lawyer.
Deletemarco can't be compared to Everett. EVerett has integrity
Delete2:09-Right on.
Delete1:39 PM. Whether Blakespear would make a good council member or not, your comment is so totally arrogant. Unfortunately, it's typical of too many comments here. At least she is trying to do something. What are you doing besides making stupid comments?
DeleteNot comparing Marco with Everett or equating them. 1:39 is talking about the kind of law they practice. Like doctors, lawyers specialize. Blakespear is an estate-planning lawyer. Among other things, Marco and Everett argue civil cases in court before judges and juries. Estate planners don't do that. They do wills, living trusts and other things of that nature. 4:31, like many who comment here, you're a presumptuous ignoramus.
Delete9:36 PM. Oh, I guess saying that as a lawyer, she has a "super-clerk" job isn't a put down. As if being a trial lawyer is the only kind of real law. What does that have to do with being qualified for city council? Many lawyers rarely, if ever, go to trial. Do we want to make previous expertize in civil and land use law a requirement for council candidates? Much of the legal process is forms and filings that can be handled by para legals. Referring to an estate-planning lawyer as a "super-clerk" is a putdown whether 1:39 PM knows it or not. All 1:39 PM had to say was that Blakespear was an estate-planning lawyer. I think we are all intelligent enough to know what that entails, although maybe in your case the ignoramus fits. And by the way, while I did say 1:39 PM was arrogant, I didn't call him stupid. I said his comment was stupid. We all make stupid comments from time to time.
DeleteAnswer: Better than Kristin Gaspar. That said, would like to know her positions. I can't see Barth running now, that would be too much maneuvering. You're either in or you're out, ask Ross Perot about the success of jumping in and out of a campaign.
ReplyDelete-Mr Green Jeans
Good one.... II sure wish Ross Perot won. He was right on every item.
DeleteTrue, he had some good ideas. He was also bats**t nuts, had a napoleon complex, and made an ass of himself in the debates. Other than that, he was in...
Delete1:40
DeletePerot made sense. He said "If ya see a problem, ya fixt it!" He was also the only candidate at forums that showed graphs. But he wasn't from a party prefered by Americans that have collectively raised the National Debt to over 17 trillion dollars. Who's bats--t nuts?
Like I said, I liked his ideas, but not Perot the person. You can't have a tinpot dictator as president. He would have been about as successful as Ventura in Minnesota. Some people do not play well with others, Perot is one of those people. Carl Demaio is one of those people, Filner is one of those people.
DeletePerot actually was the one who got Clinton over the hump, he took a big slice of the Republican pie that first time and that benefitted Clinton. And then we never really heard from him on the political stage again. Too bad, he brought some good ideas to the table, but methinks his candidacy was about one thing, himself and his love for himself...
Mr. Green 3rd party...
If anyone's going to pull our country out of a financial Armageddon, it will be someone with business savvy and Mr. Perot has that goin' for him.
DeleteRoss Perot for mayor!!
Delete6:18 hit it on the head. Perot was a tinhorn dictator. Millions of pipsqueaks like him could have spouted the same crap. Find the Larry King Show when Al Gore and Perot were on together. Gore cut Perot to ribbons and put him in his place, which is a hole where little men with small minds and big mouths dwell.
DeleteAh, but politics is not business, and business is not politics. To succeed in politics, you have to know politics. Ask Arnold Schwarzenegger about that. For us to pull out of financial Armageddon, we the people have to take the reigns.
DeleteWe have to flip the script from "We Are Afraid of Government" to "The government is afraid of us". That and we have to make the hard decisions on what is important to as a nation, and make sure we fund what we want and then receive it".
It's like PV, you got it, now how are you going to pay for it, outright? That's where the leadership comes in. I don't care who it is, a longtime pol or a businessman, but you have to have a plan.
Personally, I've worked for many companies that are as poorly run or more poorly run than city hall, so there's no perfect solution. The one big difference is in public life we can vote people in and out. We have the power.
My recommendation at this point is to vote out Gaspar, she hasn't passed the sniff test, despite being from the private sector.
-Mr Green Jeans
I guess nobody here saw how EDS, the company Ross Perot founded, operated under him. I did. While Perot was certainly entertaining during the campaign I never would have voted for him. Lets just say EDS treated many of its employees about as well as Walmart and we all know how most of the commenters here feel about Walmart.
DeleteIf a sanderling ran I would vote for it over Gaspar or Muir. So would everyone I know around encinitas, we have had it with the present leadership!
ReplyDeleteBang your pots.... Drive them out!!!
ReplyDeleteHappy to hear the someone else is in the race and would love to hear more about what her positions are on the important issues. I hope more will jump in the race so we have some good choices. Gaspar needs to go. A poster mentioned why someone with little children would give that time up to be with their children to be in the public eye. Kids grow up way too fast and the important time to be with them is when they are young. Why would a mother want to miss that once in a lifetime chance of being with her children most of the time? The only answer I can come up with is the "limelight" is more appealing. What a shame. Priorities are not where they should be. NO TO GASPAR.
ReplyDelete11:13-If you are using the argument that moms should stay with their kids, then Blakepeare shouldn't be considered as a viable candidate either.
ReplyDeleteMy point exactly 3:45. That is why we need more candidates. Glad you got it.
DeleteI think 9:20 made excellent points. I would like to know how CB feels about Prop A, now. My understanding is that she didn't vote on Prop A because she was "conflicted?" I like that she's an attorney; I hope she is open minded, even-handed, and has integrity and ethics. In fact, I'd like to ask her if she'd support Council's enacting, ASAP, a sunshine ordinance, and setting up an Ethics Commission, to help do so, in addition to looking at questions involving open government, including the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and the Fair Political Practices Act. For instance, many private citizens and grassroots groups, even professional politicians, can have challenges understanding and complying with conflict of interest laws and disclosure requirements. An Ethics Commission or Ethics Committee, could benefit our City, as a whole, and citizens, individually.
ReplyDeleteAs a lawyer, I would hope she could figure it out. Obviously, our City Attorney could not, or would not. His "impartial analysis" for the sample ballots was not factual or truthful, and was anything but impartial.
I would like to ask Catherine how she feels about replacing our City Attorney and City Manager, and allowing a Forensic audit, especially of of the ERGA books. The ERGA subcommittee report is to be on the agenda this coming Wednesday. City Manager Gus Vina, despite clear indications of "cooked books" brought to the subcommittee, by concerned members of the public, feels a forensic audit would be "too disruptive."
4:15
DeleteYes. I believe CB said she was conflicted as to Prop A and abstained. Our Pacific View committee met with her for lunch a week or so ago. Glad Sheila was there to share with her what to expect. Could hardly blame anyone for abstaining from Prop A though, with all the conflicting stories prior to that election and the "Yes means No; No means Yes" approach. There should have been more public debates about it, but glad LTC had one and will always be dismayed L-101 refused one at a board meeting when Bruce Ehlers wanted to tell everyone why it was good, and Mike Andreen wanted to tell eveyrone why it was bad.
Lynn she is smart ...
DeleteShe will not be listening to you.
8:27 You weren't conflicted about Prop A, I wasn't conflicted about Prop A, and the thousands of others who voted for it and passed it weren't conflicted. How is it that you give Blakespear a pass?
DeleteSounds like Blakespear was relying on what Barth and company were telling her. That would be confusing. The rest of us got it clearly.
Delete9:46
DeleteYou didn't notice plenty of people were conflicted about Prop A? Really?
Catherine Blakepeare did not support Prop A. That was pretty obvious from the ERAC meetings. At least we now where she stands. She went along on the unanimous vote from the committee to consider higher buildings (4 or 5 stories tall "where appropriate"). Though she seems nice and smart her stand on PROP A is enough for me not to vote for her. At least we know where she stands, nothing worst than Shaffer and Kranz supporting Prop A to get elected and doing a complete 180 once elected.
ReplyDeleteI would vote for Audet instead if we could convince him to run.
Audet would win if he would only run.
DeleteBut he isn't going to run, it happens everytime....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteShe has 2 young kids and is an attorney. Does she realize how demanding being on council can be? I am afraid that if she is elected her kids will be the biggest losers: A win-Lose if you will.
ReplyDeleteWell, she and Gaspar both have young kids. They both have the right to run, how they run their lives or raise their kids isn't my purview.
DeleteGaspar has three young kids and a physical therapy business with her husband. How is Blakespear's job and family relevant to her being a candidate for council?
DeleteThe point is being made, that the kids end up the losers. If that is what they want for their children, so be it. Most of us put our kids first as they should. It's their choice. If the limelight is more appealing, then that is the decision they have made. I feel sorry for the kids of today. They seem to be shuffled all over the place and raised by day care centers, nannies and who knows what. But, that has nothing to do with their decision to run for council. I get it.
DeleteNot all mothers and fathers have the luxury of staying home 24/7 with the children. The mother's place is in the home was a myth and strategy created by the US government after WWII to get women out of the workplace so the returning men could have jobs. WWII also changed the US from an agrarian society to what we see today - the stack and pack city. Making a living on a farm needed everyone in the family to work, including the children. No soccer clinics or play time dates were arranged.
DeleteNow let me put it this way 10:35. How many jobs does one need to take you away from your children? I can understand one because in this day and age it does take two people to work to sustain a comfortable style of living and raise children. However, if you add more jobs to that (such as council member) plus all the other extra meetings you are required to attend (and get paid for by the way), then that is more than one job -- thus, less and less time for your children. Who takes care of them when they are sick and mom is at a council meeting? They want their mother. PERIOD. Priorities, priorities, priorities.
Delete10:58 AM
DeleteSure you didn't work for the post WWII US government? A woman's place is in the home. You have no right to be in politics if you have children. Does that sum up you ideology?
Dad takes care of the child while mom is at the council meeting. The "true job" of a mom or dad is to raise a child that is independent, provide an example of civic involvement, and social responsibility.
11:33 No I don't work for the government and I wouldn't. I want to earn my own way, not take money from the taxpayers. The true job of a "mother" is to be there for her children. If you want to be a mother, take care of them. This subject has now been exhausted, so go back to WWII and relieve it if you wish. Priorities, priorities, priorities. The kids suffer big time.
Delete12:34 PM
DeleteA little testy there in your comments.
12:34 is just pissed because he wants the 50's to come back.
DeleteWhew! For a minute I thought you were referring to Caldwell's Antiques address.
DeleteHere's one example of someone who was on council in past with children. I hear the youngest child is in his mid 20's and still living at home with mommy and daddy. Sounds like he still needs motherly attention. Kids should always be first priority IMHO.
ReplyDeleteThe last few comments are sexist and irrelivant to the debate of who's capable to run for political office. Why do they not have the ability to have a job, hold a seat and raise a successful family? What? That's only for men to do?
ReplyDeleteAu contraire.
DeleteI know of some good men who wouldn't run for council because they value time with their families.
8:01 In case you are unaware, young children need and want their mother -- this is an undisputed fact of life. Nothing sexist about it. Fathers are also great caretakers. Priorities, priorities, priorities.
DeleteI agree with 8:05pm
DeleteThe same applies to Dads as well.
When my kids were young, I would never give up precious time with them to listen to a rambling gadfly that saids the same thing over and over.
8:32 Somehow the name crappy pappy doesn't suit you. You sound like you were a great dad to your kids.
DeleteAsk his kids.
DeleteGreat, we solved the issue of child raising. Now let's get back to saving city hall.
DeleteLet's see... Muir's kids are near the same age as Gaspars and when Stocks first ran for office his kids were even younger and yet none of you made that an issue with them?
DeleteYes we did. Do you think many people are saying many good things about either of those two parenting skills?
DeleteEspecially if you follow the moral compass of Lead by example. Ouch.
I hope there is some repenting going on today. We know us taxpayers are paying daily for past injustice.
Muir has one kid, just of for everyone's information. Where did yo get "kids" 7:47?
DeleteMuir's son is on the youth commission.
Delete12:29 God help us all.
DeleteAnti Prop A and part of the unanimous ERAC vote makes her a non-starter for me. No more sheep in wolves' clothing...three times are enough for this voter.
ReplyDeleteWhoops, guess she had a typo on her website, now corrected to read GPAC. :D
DeletePerhaps she thought we said GPAC instead of ERAC at our lunch the other day as well. That would make more sense to me since ERAC was mostly developers. I'll ask her.
DeleteYou can all rest easy and put down the tar and feathers. Blakespear was on GPAC, not ERAC. Also, it appears she didn't start attending until the end, after ERAC was created, because her name doesn't appear in the GPAC minutes until April 2012. By then all GPAC really did was go through the dot exercise. Maybe you should demand to know where she put her dots. Just kidding, sort of.
DeleteERAC is on her flier too. Perhaps the candidate is confused.
DeleteRough start.
DeleteAnd she is the one who is going to focus on the details of what is going on at City Hall? She's already lost credibility if she is not careful enough to realize which committee she was on. Maybe she wasn't really against Prop A? Maybe she thought it was another Prop? Who knows? Does she know?
Delete