This photo, from the Facebook page of Surfing Madonna artist Mark Patterson, appears to be a check for $20,000 for the city's beach and parks projects from the proceeds of the first Surfing Madonna Run.
The Surfing Madonna volunteer art was condemned by former mayors Jerome Stocks and James Bond as illegal and unwelcome.
Way to go Mark, one of the great people in our community!
ReplyDeleteAnd we thought you were dedicated to telling 'the truth', Water Closet?
DeleteThe above commentary does not match the facts one iota.
3:22,
DeleteReally? You want to start characterizing Stocks' & Bond's whole authority trip as something else?
How about this for a start?
“That just furthers my argument that a big part of this particular piece of guerrilla art was to put the establishment or the administration in a difficult place,” Encinitas Councilman Jerome Stocks said Tuesday.
He actually believed that this beautiful anonymous gift to the public was a personal affront directed at his government.
WCV
Don't forget Vina's comment: "...a defacement"
ReplyDeleteMark's a great guy; an artist with a good cause: Mother Ocean, Mother Nature, Mother Earth.
ReplyDeleteFather Time keeps the beat ♪♫♩♬
When that check was presented, I found it was unfortunate that no mention was made of any lessons learned. I have never heard Gus Vina admit learning from a mistake of his or Council's actions or inactions, past or present.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the Surfing Madonna was moved to where it's now located. It doesn't look crooked to me, either, as someone before distorted through his/her kittywampus, crooked photo, posted on Leucadia Blog, perhaps?
The present location is closer to the original installment, under the Trestle, where it was better protected from the sun.
More people can see the Surfing Madonna now, as they pass by. I'm glad Surfy Surfy and Cafe Ipe' patrons and business owners got to enjoy the Lady of Guadeloupe's temporary stewardship, for awhile, but too often She was blocked by an umbrella, when I'd ride by on foot, by bike, or in car.
May some of the old, which just went out, be a prevailing attitude of secret alliances and privilege that places higher value on money and power than on quality of life and connection with our true nature.
May our riches be in understanding, peace, and family, including our family of friends. The Oceans, our beaches, our open space, our private and community gardens support the sanctuary of sustenance, cooperation and creativity.
Council, the City Manager and the City Attorney, now and before, have been unable to find a balance between our community good, self-interest, and blind bureaucratic ambition. Yet the Mayor et al were all so thrilled to pose and take credit with Mark Patterson, for the Surfing Madonna Run event.
I feel that one should only take as much credit as one is willing to take accountability. Mark took accountability for his artistic creation and vision, when he revealed his name. He also had to pay the City a $5,000 fine, which could have been avoided, if Council gave a variance and an "after the fact" permit for the Mosaic to be left where it was, with a protective covering, for which members of the public had offered to pay.
But it all had to unfold as it did; that was the beginning of the citywide effort to Dump Stocks. Stocks, himself, made his ouster possible, by his inequities. He remained in office for three terms, because most of the voters were before unaware of Council's shenanigans under Stocks, Bond and Dalager.
I was cleaning out my wallet and found an old campaign "business card" from Mayor Barth. At the top of the card it says:
Vote For Teresa
√ Let the voters decide on uponing
√ Live within our means . . .
****************
I have been surprised and disappointed by how all those broken campaign promises have played out, so far, for greater transparency, more honesty and fair play.
Photo ops and PR sound bites ≠ transparency. Allowing the City Manager and City Attorney to enable a City strategy to gang Council/staff up against the public on behalf of commercial development interests is not fair play. Implying, insinuating and alleging that a Sunshine Ordinance will be passed and the City Attorney would be replaced ≠ honesty.
Sorry, Teresa Barth's business sized campaign card, from 2010, says:
ReplyDeleteVote For Teresa
√ Let the voters decide on upzoning
√ Live within our means . . .
Dump Barth.
DeleteMany fliers are still stapled to phone polls along Hygeia, a month and a half after the event. How fitting! Whoever posted them is a litterer, just like Mark.
ReplyDeleteIronically, I believe the run was a city-approved event.
DeletePerhaps anarchists would have been more responsible about cleaning up the flyers.
WCV
Actually, litter is on the ground. This would be not taking the flyers down. I'll stop and grab those my next time down that street to help Mark out.
DeleteCity-approved means the city is responsible for advertising & clean-up? I don't think so.
Delete"Actually, litter is on the ground"
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+litter
I'll take them down, just to satisfy. Mark's still a good guy.
DeleteCity approved doesn't mean city sponsored. The website doesn't list the city as one of its sponsors. Cleanup is on them not the city.
DeleteYou must be talking about Patterson being great which I would agree. The other in the picture sucks a whopping $180,000 of tax paid pension from the coffers every year. I don't put that in the great category for the tax payers of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteSo we only need 160 more checks like that to pay for the new lifeguard station at Moonlight.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember the council not liking the artwork itself, just where it was placed and without permission. The biggest surprise of all was that the trestle base, if not the whole thing was city property not NCTD. Vina's comment of a defacement is just legalese for a non approved placement. And yes there was the public versus religious aspect dialog on to where to move it. I passed by it on Vulcan a lot when it was in it's original location and I often saw one or more people step out into Encinitas Blvd to get a better look and/or to take a picture. If someone got hit doing that don't think that the city wouldn't have been sued.
ReplyDeleteOf course this begs the question if it's so popular now why the artist didn't first try to find a proper location in the first place without the guerrilla tactics. Do people like it solely on it's own merits or how it first got placed?
It's in a nice place now.
As I said, Mark Patterson took accountability for his artistic creation and vision, when he revealed his name. He also had to pay the City a $5,000 fine, which could have been avoided, if Council gave a variance and an "after the fact" PERMIT for the Mosaic to be left where it was, with a protective covering, for which members of the public had offered to pay.
DeleteNo matter where artwork is placed, people can stop and gawk. That excuse that someone could get hurt was NOT the reason it was removed. It was because it was unpermitted, and anonymous. Our City could have given Mark a variance, after he came forward. Other retroactive permits have been issued, across our City.
To the City, this was about the City proving it has "the guns;" we'd better keep in line, and follow the rules, even when the City breaks them. And when the City gets caught, it seems only taxpayers and ratepayers are stuck with the consequences, such as what's going on now with the Hall Property Park cover-up.
Stocks and Bond hated that it was "Guerilla art." They failed to see the significance of its message. Gus Vina is part of the mentality of "YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITY."
But we don't; respect must be earned.
So now it costs us tax payers $130,000 to have a city spin doctor blogging on the blog. We need to elect council members that will fire Vina.
ReplyDeleteMore like 75k, man, people love to inflate the numbers. And I'm not down with Phil Cotton, I'm not willing to make that comparison that he or Kerry Miller weren't as bad as Vina. They were both bad in their own way. Cotton to me wasn't even qualified to be a city manager, anywhere.
DeleteI now return you to your regularly schedule bashing of Vina...
Closer to $92,000 when benefits are added in.
Delete4:29 PM
DeleteNo inflating of numbers. Vina asked for $130,000 and the council approved it. The position was established at $130,000. HR may have a lower range, but that doesn't negate the amount requested by Vina.
Maybe the balance will go towards paying off fines, hiring consultants, paying for lost lawsuits, or some other wasteful purpose.
DeleteFair enough, Vina asked for $130k, but the position as advertised doesn't pay that amount. So how is that costing us $130k....
DeleteCommunications City of Encinitas Communications Officer $68,761 to $96,754 A completed application packet is required and must be received in HR by 7/10/13. Contact HR at or visit or apply at City Hall, 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 EOE. This job has originated from a member site of TheJobNetwork - U-T San egory: Marketing, Advertising & Business Dev., Keywords: Full Time...
DeleteEveryone at city hall is at the top of the pay range. The communications officer is probably making the $96,754 base salary with the additional 25-30% of benefits for a total of $130,000.
DeleteIf you can prove it, I'd love to see the evidence. If you're paying someone in their late 20's with limited experience $100k a year, you should resign. Usually at an agency, it's in the mid range, I would guess $80k at the highest.
DeleteAgree with 3:37. Phil Cotton was a bargin when you consider how easy we got off. He wrote himself a $10,000 check and tooka paid 3-week vacation at our expense, but that was not so bad when compared to all of the people Gus has hired for his own use.
ReplyDeleteOther than the communications position, who has Vina hired for his own use?
DeleteRutan and Tucker was hired by Vina because it was not to his benefit to limit building in any way. He made this decisions on his own and asked the council after he had hired them--tho he pretended that he had only interviewed them and would not release their name or the fact that he had already signed a contract.
DeleteThe city manager has certain latitude on contracts under $100 that he can approve without going to council. There was only a month window for the council to respond to initiative. They needed a response quickly as in reality it was less than a month because the report would have to be published with the agenda. Whether it was Rutan & Tucker or some other law firm, The city manager was going to have them lined up ready to go.
DeleteBy the way, Rutan & Tucker work with Encinitas predates Vina's arrival here. They successfully defended the city in the Hernandez lawsuit. Whether or not you agree with Rutan & Tucker's report, getting them (or anyone) on board early was just good planning.
9:04 PM
DeleteYou need a larger shovel for all the manure. The city manager can approve just about anything in an emergency up $100,000 . That very generous change from $25,000 to $100.000 of spending taxpayer money was given to Phil Cotton? by a previous council.
What emergency was happening? City Council needed some law firm to CYA them.
The city manager has discretion to spend up to $100,000 without council approval. The problem with the Rutan and Tucker report is that the money was spent for an extremely biased report that turned out to be wrong on just about everything. It was all conjecture and speculation, and thus worthless. If it had been a neutral assessment, the cost could have been justified.
DeleteThe Hernandez case is not a good comparison. Rutan and Tucker defended the city in a lawsuit about the Housing Element filed by agricultural workers, some of whom were living in rustic camps on the Ecke property in the area where the golf cart bridge crosses Leucadia Blvd. The camps were known locally as "Little Tijuana." The city won. The homeless day laborers were left out in the cold.
The point about the Hernandez case was that Rutan & Tucker were already known to the city and weren't specifically tied to Vina. Also, they are a prominent law firm for this kind of work. Whether or not you agree with their report is secondary. For what it's worth, the Hernandez case was won back when cities could self-certify their housing elements which is no longer allowed.
Delete3:35 PM
DeleteStill drinking that joy juice from New Year's? You comments are muddled. Where did you get your information about the self-certify. The Hernandez case had nothing to do with self-certification.
Vina went behind the Council's back in hiring Rutan and Tucker.
While the Hernandez case may not have technically rested on self-certification, there was such a program adopted soon after the decision. When the Hernandez case was heard, HCD review and comments were only advisory. HCD has never certified an Encinitas housing element.
DeleteAnd here is the SANDAG statement on self-certify:
Self-Certification Pilot Program
The state requires that all cities and counties prepare a housing element of their general plan every five years, and that they submit their housing elements to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a determination of substantial compliance with state law. State legislation (AB 1715) sponsored by SANDAG in 1995 created the opportunity for jurisdictions within the San Diego region to self-certify the housing element of their general plans.
San Diego jurisdictions viewed the housing element self-certification option as having three purposes:
1. to give jurisdictions more flexibility in how they meet affordable housing goals,
2. to focus on housing production rather than paper generation, and
3. to eliminate the State Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) review and certification of the updated housing elements.
A jurisdiction must meet several criteria to self-certify, but the linchpin in the self-certification process is whether a jurisdiction meets its affordable housing goal for the relevant housing element cycle. These goals are for low, very low and extremely low income households.
For more information on the self-certification process, see SANDAG's ‘Housing Element Self-Certification Report: Implementing a Pilot Program for the San Diego Region.'
The Surfing Madonna is a wonderful work of art. The original placement was a legal problem because it was private art on public property. If it had first been placed on private property, there would have been no problem. Because of its theme and intent, the public embraced it. From a legal and liability standpoint, the City couldn't. When the Madonna was first placed on the wall under the bridge, if somebody else had placed a mosaic of Hitler on the wall on the opposite side of the road, nobody would have objected to a fine and a demand that it be taken down.
ReplyDeletewhatever. The City could have looked the other way. Its illegal to walk across the tracks right? Its illegal to dress up the kook right?
DeleteIts illegal to do tons of things in our town, but the City choses to look the other way.
I already don't like this $130k spin doctor sitting at City Hall blogging on my tax dollar. Geeze. Whats next firemen going shopping or sleeping on the tax dollars dime?
Yeah, the Surfing Madonna is getting national exposure and the city can just look the other way? While the Kook gets dressed up, it gets taken down relatively quickly and the adornments aren't permanent. Also, people don't have to step into 101 to get a good look at it.
DeleteWhere is the city's communication person blogging? By the way, Carlsbad has had one for years.
9:10pm. So is death on the tracks, and any shitty attorney will argue that the Kook itself is a distraction to drivers and pedestrians alike.
DeleteNo difference between the kook and the Madonna. Only the City chose to railroad Patterson.
Who cares where the spin doctor is blogging! Just because some other loser City does it, doesn't mean our City needs to waste its tax payers money on your crappy and wrong opinions.
What a huge waste of $130k a year to pay for a blogger. Council better wake up. Elections are coming.
Fire Vina. Sad Sac is ruining this surf town.
People didn't have to "step onto 101" to get a good look at the Surfing Mandona when it was on under the trestle.
DeleteI still think the trestle, including its supporting structure, is owned by NCTD, but is in the PUBLIC right of way. Our City seems to think it owns anything in the public right of way. Not true.
Delete"Whatever" 8:50? Are you a teenage girl?
The "step onto 101" comment was for the Kook, not the Madonna.
OK, 1:47, but the liability issue, addressed by 4:23 also was referring to the objections of some that people viewing the Surfing Madonna under the trestle were more subject to being involved in a collision with a car, on Encinitas Blvd. My point is, pedestrians did not have to step onto Encinitas Blvd. to view the Surfing Madonna.
DeleteIf the City had given a retroactive permit, then a sign could have been placed under the art, warning people to stay out of the street. Just as we have signs at ocean overlooks and beach accesses to stay off the bluffs. The ocean is also an "attractive nuisance," from Jerome Stock's way of thinking, because a few people are likely to climb the fences at overlooks to get a better view, etc.
Personally I don't feel that all spiritual icons or archetypes are "establishing a religion," with respect to possible violations of the State or Federal Constitutions.
The Surfing Madonna, or the Mother symbol, in general, is a metaphor for creation, protection, and "stewardship," to me.
9:10 pm …. the kook and the SM are the same. A lawyer could sue the crap out of the City for distractions to drivers and pedestrians traveling by.
Deletewho cares where the spin doctor is blogging and that wasteful cities like Carlsbad waste taxpayers money for years. We can and should do better.
Fire Vina and reduce staff costs.
Lynn. I saw people frequently step out on to Encinitas Blvd to take pictures and get a better look even during heavy traffic. Sometimes dodging cars. To sit there and blithely say "well they didn't have to" is to ignore reality. It was dangerous as westbound traffic is all jammed up under the bridge during rush hour.
DeleteThe city initially assumed the whole bridge structure was NCTD. They didn't appear thrilled when it became their problem.
Trust me, NCTD has enough problems. Mainly people quitting because the head of the agency is an nutjob...
DeleteIt's not worth arguing about now, it's on private property, in a nice spot. The guerilla installation was fun, but you had to get out in the street to get a decent photo. I know, I took several....
DeleteAnd no one taking photos ever got hit. Obviously, those snapping photos were cautious about traffic.
DeleteBut it is "too late" now, for the original location. Council did not "step up" when it could have, when Mark Patterson first came forward. Also, Council knew all along that the trestle, itself, belongs to NCTD, including the supporting structure beneath. The public right of way is just that; the public has a right of way.
The City took upon itself maintaining the area directly adjacent to Encinitas Blvd. Jerome Stocks had the trestle painted, at City taxpayers' expense, when it was actually NCTD's responsibility for that, as well. Also, the City did not maintain the minimal grounds, as in dirt and weeds, adjacent to the trestle, along Encinitas Blvd. They let that go to weeds.
Make no mistake, Gus Vina and Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond's declaring the Surfing Madonna to be a "defacement," and "graffiti," was about CONTROL, about disallowing "pop-up art." Anything spontaneous and unpermitted, is considered Guerilla defacement, and a CHALLENGE to the authority of Council, who sits on high, deciding what is best for us, the citizens.
All too often, bureaucratic officials, including elected officers, do what is best for their inflated egos and their need to micromanage. Some art is "found art," and it doesn't always go through bureaucratic channels before its installation.
I'm glad the Surfing Madonna has been relocated, and that Mark Patterson has shown true charity and genuine humility by keeping his cause, SAVE THE OCEANS, first and foremost. To me, he shines, as does his art.
Pays for about a month and a half of Muir's pension.
ReplyDeletePeople did have to step into Encinitas Blvd to get a full shot picture of the Surfing Madonna when it was under the bridge - something no one anticipated. But some not only stepped into the street for pictures but praying as well. It all worked out and now a full shot of the Madonna is no problem. Safer worshiping is also possible now, if praying to an object is your thing. All things considered, I'm glad it found it's way back near the Bethlehem bridge. Our local masterpiece enjoyed around the world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletelol, Fred, re safer praying :)
DeleteAnd while we're on the Save The Ocean topic, check this out...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9dd_1388778335
Media relations person??? Another barricade to defend indefensible policies and decisions by a flawed City Manager.. Plus the city needs a pension reform referendum on the ballot ASAP.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think someone (like you) should start writing the referendum. Otherwise, it's all talk...
ReplyDeleteAbout a mural of Muir eating a ham sandwich as the city metaphorically burns to the ground! And a distracted Gaspar putting on make-up like Cleopatra. Barth, Shaffer and Kranz are doing the woop woop woop routine . . .
ReplyDeleteMuir said this might cover his tab for one outing to Burger King.
ReplyDelete