Here Comes the Sun

The long cold winter of our voices, Teresa Barth's voice being frozen out is over. Tonight Stocks and Bond leave and Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz become our new city council members. Like Barth, they are committed to the sunshine of open government.

Thought it fitting to let Nina Simone's version be the song of the day.

We Know About Bullies . . .

Art by Sarah Saldana

Art by Ricardo Levins Morales 

Mayor, We're Not Amused with Your Massive Waste

Those who are watching are very unhappy with the current council majority marshaled by Jerome Stocks. Besides the unwelcoming behavior, rudeness and marginalizing of the public shown in so many clips, described in the several hundred posts here; he has mounted personal campaigns for his own ends rather than for what he hypocritically terms the public's business.

In the past year this mayor has directed the most wasteful use of staff time and energy, in turn a significant number of the populace's time and energy for what? The two most glaring examples are those wherein Mayor Stocks was embarrassed and he manufactured an official format to retaliate.

When a room full of people turned their backs on Jerome Stocks as their new mayor he blanched and stammered.  Within 6 weeks he'd choreographed a scheme to appoint a mayor who had the most votes at his or her last election and this mayor would pick his or her own deputy mayor.  Of course the whole dance number between he and his partner Kristin Gaspar was to be his coup de grâs to position Princess Narcissus as the first of many of the crony club in the mayor chair.

This effort was thwarted several times, thankfully, by Bond or Muir who didn't play along. Nonetheless - time, energy and using up precious council attention from the people's business to Stock's annual embarrassment to justify abusing Teresa Barth's right to serve her constituency as mayor. See, her embarrassing revelations of Stocks has never been forgiven or forgotten.  This 2012 election's Proposition K - should we vote for mayor position? Prop L -should it be for 2 years? Prop M - should it be for 4 years? It is all part of the original embarrassment of Stocks. He probably won't stop until he can buy the damn title outright.

The second monster waste is based on payback for the whole Arts Alive Banner debacle where Stocks made an ass of himself in treating Maggie Houlihan's image on the banners as a kind of personal threat or rebuke or something or other equally false.  More than a year later and countless meetings, staff assignments, paid outside lawyers, ACLU, bogus subcommittee, tv time, lots of press ink (and digital band width) devoted to Stocks heartless petulance, yet need to justify / blame / deflect, etc.

On October 10, at what was to be the final time this abhorrent agenda item was to be aired, Lisa Shaffer spoke to the essence of this incredible waste.

So, on top of thousands of dollars and hours the council voted to adopt a terribly written and unnecessary sign ordinance for a non-existant risk  to "avoid public controversy or the perception of any such figures both positive or negative." As Shaffer says, "Why is that a legitimate goal for the city?"

Why indeed?  Public controversy and public perception are Mayor Stocks' seeming fixations. He can grow furious if he is called out, exposed or challenged.  His failing in his own very fragile self-regard here has cost the city far too dearly.

Sometimes candidates could stand to be embarrassed, when they behave in contemptible ways.

Myths Encinitas

True Facts™ (clarifications at end)
After 11 years of public service, Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan died on September 16, 2011 and her colleagues in the majority at City Hall made a conscious decision to ignore her passing.  The flag at City Hall was not lowered.  The permit to hold a memorial was refused.  Her wishes to name a successor to her council seat were not only ignored, the special meeting was a TV/streaming blackout and the majority selection of crony fire chief Muir was an insult to injury for the representation of the Encinitas minority voices.

And, then the tipping point ultimately came in the Arts Alive! Banner program honoring Maggie Houlihan in recognition of her support for the arts as it was mishandled, misdirected and Jerome Stocks accused the sponsors in print of political purposes.

This is where the myth begins.  Jerome Stocks was immediately criticized by Maggie Houlihan's supporters, the Art Community and by the local papers.  He could have come away from all of this blow back without any political loss of face with the tiniest bit of diplomacy and good grace.  Instead, under the guise of serving the public (via property rights) he chose to drag this community through 9 months of controversy and divisiveness.

Our Mayor Stocks began his long campaign to create a justification for his petty, cruel behavior.  He has come to stand for utter lack of integrity in his role as mayor.  Stupidly, he continues to this day denying he said the things he is recorded saying.  He has, of course, relied on the cronies seated on the dais, Deputy Mayor Gaspar, Councilmen Jim Bond and Mark Muir to go along with and even expand upon each mythical aspect - be it the timeline, the participants, the City Manager role, the ironclad (it is not ironclad) process and procedure and straw man arguments. 

In late March of this year Houlihan's husband, Ian Thompson, notified the city council through Coastal Law Group that they would file a law suit against the city for infringement of 1st amendment free speech rights in this Art Banner ruling against showing the late councilwoman's image.  The ACLU also contacted the city regarding the violation of 1st amendment rights in this case.

Even here Stocks lied about the council being available to meet within Mr. Thompson's April 6 time frame when he said council members were out of town.  And when the council met and agreed to allow the banners to show Houlihan's image, despite the elaborate tap dancing by city manager, assistant city manager and the Deputy Mayor, the collateral damage was Stocks again refusing to give  any concession or any degree of cooperation as an act of goodwill.  He dug himself deeper into his mythical kingdom of "I'm right and everyone must pay for not obeying my words".

No signs whatsoever will be allowed in Encinitas until language of signage requirement is clear.  The video clip from this April 13 meeting shows the whole orchestrated narrative, including Stocks coaching the designated new guy motion maker, Muir in the next big waste of time, staff priorities and public goodwill - analysis of the false cause of banner outrage, unclear language. Even this ridiculousness was extended into August with another meeting to create a subcommittee - based on hired attorney (from Glenn Sabine's law firm) reading of the sign requirements. Jeebus.

From Dec. 18, 2011 to this Wednesday's upcoming meeting it will have been more than 9 months of Jerome Stocks personal animus for Maggie Houlihan has stirred controversy, created false narratives re-writing history and kept us from topics of real importance to citizens.  It has been painful and insulting to Maggie Houlihan's loved ones, supporters and close friends. This is wrong even to people who were not fans of Houlihan.  

It is simply not serving the public. It has cost the city in outside legal fees, staff hours and focus and valuable agenda time at the many council meetings with the mythical pretense of serving the public or as Stocks claims property rights or Gaspar claims of process and rules not being followed (no really, she said this) or Muir claims of really confusing language or Bond rambling, well Bond rambling. Throughout Councilwoman Barth is clear and consistent, the public implores and even the press  . . . doesn't matter at all to the club.

So, the Arts Alive Banners raised a lot of money at the  auction this spring, days after Artists 101 Colony director, Danny Salzhandler jumped the city hoops of filling out a form and then he set about removing the vinyl stickers the city Stocks had forced the group to place over Houlihan's image (at the cost to this group of $800).  DEMA and the Artist 101 have remained respectful and never overtly hostile to Stocks et al. 

All of this underscores what is shockingly bad behavior on Stocks' part and his co-conspirators in the majority.  Although he is the leader behind this myth making behavior, the council majority has in no way acted with any integrity.  Which brings us to this week and the agenda item for this Wednesday, approving the signage standards.  The complicit staff have dutifully buried a simple fact of one ambitious man's personal passions directing city government operations against a rival after her death. The latest mountain of bureaucratic bullshit. 

The agenda packet guided by quantity of words over quality of information follows: 

BACKGROUND: At the August 22, 2012 City Council meeting, Council Members Bond and Muir were appointed to a subcommittee to review and make recommendations regarding potential changes to the City’s Banners Program over the public right-of-way.

The ad-hoc committee met on two occasions on September 5th and September 12, 2012. At those meetings the ad-hoc committee identified the scope of issues, obtain legal input, reviewed potential draft language and obtained input from representatives from Main Street and Arts Alive organizations. Suspension of acceptance of Temporary Sign/Banner Applications for banners and signs over public right-of-ways by non-city entities has been in place since April 11, 2012. No new applications for banners over public right-of-way have been accepted during the suspension period. 

ANALYSIS:
The desire in addressing issues on banners over public right-of-way program is to obtain an option that allows continued use of the streetlight standards and other public right-of-way areas for non- profits community groups to promote civic events, cultural, historic or other messaging of community interest, yet manage risk to the City.

In order to continue a banner program allowing civic-minded, non-profit parties to provide banners over public right-of-ways, the following issues were considered:

• Exclusively promote non-profit, civic events or promotional or celebratory depictions related to the City; 
• No depictions of political figures; 
• Council reserves the right to cancel the program. 

Attachment “A” contains the current temporary sign narrative regarding banners over public rights- of-way in the Encinitas Municipal Code and the proposed language changes.

The proposed language changes were also shared with other community/business groups not in attendance at the September 12th meeting via email communications.

FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS: No fiscal impacts.

RECOMMENDATION: The subcommittee recommends that Council consider revisions to the Encinitas Banners Program over public right-of-way and direct staff to prepare necessary revisions to the Encinitas Municipal Code.

Current Language: D. Banners over public right-of-way shall be permitted subject to the standards established by the City and approved by the City Manager or designee. Said banners are for civic and non-profit City-wide recognized special events. The banner shall not exceed 45 square feet in area and shall be located only on City approved structures. The banner may be displayed no more than 14 days prior to the start of the event and must be removed within 3 days of end of event. Installation shall be to City specifications. Fees to recover City costs in reviewing the applications shall be established by the City Council.

Proposed:
“D. Banners over public rights-of-way.

(1) Banners over public rights-of-way shall be authorized by a City permit pursuant to this section and subject to the standards established by the City and approved by the City Manager or designee. Said authorization shall be known as the ‘City’s Banner Program.’

(2) Said banners shall exclusively promote or depict:

a. non-profit civic authorized events such as art festivals, athletic events, car shows and similar events; and
b. promotional or celebratory depictions of or related to the City such as points of interest, attractions and milestones. 

(3) Banners shall not promote nor depict the likeness of any political figures. The phrase ‘political figures’ shall mean former elected public officials, present elected public officials and current candidates for any elected public office. The phrase ‘candidate’ shall mean any person who has publically expressed or demonstrated an intention to run for any public office and/or filed the appropriate papers with a government agency to do so. The purpose of this subsection is to avoid public controversy regarding the perception of any such figures, either positive or negative.

(4) The Banner shall not exceed 45 square feet in area and shall be located only on City approved structures. The Banner may be displayed no more than 14 days prior to the start of the event and shall be removed within 3 days of the end of the event. Banners not related to a specific actual event shall not be displayed more than 90 days.

(5) Fees to recover City Costs in reviewing the applications shall be established by the City Council.

(6) The City Council reserves the right to terminate the City’s Banner Program at any time; provided, however, that any banner erected prior to said termination may remain in place for the duration of its authorization to do so.”
_________________________________END_________________________________

9/26/12 True Facts™ Clarification 1: Permit was not issued for the memorial gathering because when application was made, it was explained a permit wasn't required unless there more than 500 attending. This line is eliminated.
9/26/12 True Facts™ Clarification 2: Flag was not lowered due to Nov. 19, 2008 council vote to follow Federal regulations for flag lowering. City Link scroll to the end, page 9. This was an agenda item because ex-Marine City Manager Phil Cotton was against Jerome Stocks having directed staff to lower the flag for one of his favorite ex-mayors of Encinitas.

This is how adults deal with learning what is true and what is myth.  They acknowledge a mistake.

What remains central is that the city did not honor Maggie Houlihan in any way.

Can't believe we are still protesting this . . .

Joni Mitchell wrote "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot" 42 years ago. It could have been written today for our council majority and their backers. Two generations of protest on behalf of the quality of life. Is anyone listening? (They aren't.)

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Late last night
I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi
Took away my old man

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

History of Rock and Roll - 100 Riffs - 1 Take

Did you miss the musical weekend in Leucadia's Summer Fun on the 101 last week? Me too.

Via Mock Paper Scissors, The Chicago Music Exchange

Surfing Madonna: Graciousness and Not Gracious

This week Leucadia's Café Ipé next door to Surfy Surfy became the new home for Surfing Madonna - the Ocean's activist in art. Great photos and background stories at both links and here.  Be warned, Surfing Madonna online post at North County Times slimed by troll patrol as usual in the comment thread.

Here are council meeting clips from last January 2012 at City Hall when artist, Mark Patterson offered the famous art piece for free (covering all costs of installation and maintenance) as an art loan to Encinitas. 

*sigh* Stocks really did ask the artist his name after he spoke. Yes he did. Anyone who followed the blundering of the council majority broadcast nationally for months on end in 2011 knows that the mayor must have been really embarrassed at the Republican establishment praising the artist at this very council meeting. Oh, wait . . .

Stocks' lack of perception is the stuff of town legends. Kristin Gaspar seems to have a vocabulary that includes concern sounds and she uses them a lot for what is called concern troll behavior. The definition below was coined to the virtual world, but it applies to real world polit-speak as well. For Gaspar it is the go-to approach to argue against most things related to the public good.

"A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending."

Beneath the patina of praise and thanks for the gift of art, the council majority is rather insistent about hypothetical risk factors in the future and require legal assurances that the artist will carry all of the liabilities. Classy. (/snark)

Art Banner Auction - A Tribute in Spite of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor

The Arts Alive Banners will be auctioned Sunday!

The colorful banners, designed by artists throughout the region and the world, will go to auction starting at 2 p.m. Sunday in the Courtyard at Cardiff Town Center, at the corner of San Elijo Road and Birmingham Drive. The minimum bid for a banner is $150, with proceeds shared between the artists and arts organizations 101 Artists Colony, Cardiff 101 and Leucadia 101. What a battle it has been to allow Maggie Houlihan, a friend to the artists of Encinitas prior to her death last fall, to be honored and remembered through this civic project.

At this last May 16 city council meeting, Gaspar the rigid post, was unbending in her self-supporting stance regarding the her accusatory words and behavior towards the Artist 101 Colony director, Danny Salzhander on April 11 this year. After Danny and most all of the previously packed council chamber were long gone and most watching at home had, like this editor, clicked off the meeting, when the Deputy Mayor offered her explanation of her conduct just minutes before the close of the meeting.

"Definition of Apology" by J. E. Brown
Fake Apologies and How to Recognize Them

• While a true apology shows concern for the receiver, many fake apologies begin with "I'm sorry" but end with a point that is completely incompatible with remorse: {You're reading
• Standing by what you did is not remorse, therefore not an apology.
• Demanding to be forgiven is self-serving. A good general formula to help you recognize non-apologies is "If it's self-serving, it's not an apology."
• Changing the subject is not an apology: "Well, what about what you did?" Changing the subject indicates an unwillingness to apologize.
• Verbal abusers often show resistance to apologizing. Continuing to insist that what you've done was not verbal abuse somehow, or that verbal abuse is somehow not wrong, or that Wrong is somehow relative -- that's not an apology. The point of apologizing is not to say that the crime still feels reasonable to you.
• "I'm sorry but ____" is not an apology, because it does not communicate an understanding that you did wrong.
• Any blaming of the receiver's perceptions: "I'm sorry you perceived that I ____." Calling someone delusional is a tactic, not an apology.
• "You misunderstood." Pretending that your words didn't mean what they mean, i.e. pretending that your words don't have literal meaning, is not an apology.
• "I'm sorry you misunderstood" is a more blatant, in-your-face form. Most often, when someone says "I'm sorry you misunderstood," neither is true.
• Calling the receiver "ungrateful" for not instantly forgiving. In general, calling the receiver ethically defective, perceptually defective, etc., are not apologies, but are forms of gaslighting.
• "But I didn't do it on purpose!" The universal excuse of good intentions isn't an apology; it's an excuse for doing more of the same, for continuing to offend. It's a childish belief that one can continue acting in a hurtful way as long as there is some nebulous "good intention" involved. Hitler apologists like to make use of this one, often in the form "He was only doing what he thought was best for his country, and that's not so evil, is it?" Yes, in fact, it is. Don't be taken in by excuses that look at the problem through the wrong end of the binoculars. Any offense can be described from such a high level that the problematic details conveniently disappear. But the motive behind the search for such a viewpoint isn't really remorse, is it? Saying "I don't see the connection between my actions and your reaction" is not an apology. It's a denial of responsibility. It's a suggestion that the hearer overreacted.
• "I'm sorry [but] you ____" is not an apology. It's a blame-shift.
• "I'm sorry you got all offended" is not an apology. It's a slap. It's a technique for adding insult to injury.
• "I'm sorry you feel that way" is not an apology.
• "I want to apologize" is no more an apology than "I want to lose weight" is a diet.
• "I'm sorry about what happened" is not an apology, any more than saying "I hate when that happens." ;^) When someone says "I'm sorry about what happened," consider answering, "And...what was that, exactly? I'd just like to be sure we're on the same page." People have been known to completely miss the point and apologize for the wrong thing.
• Variant: "I regret that it happened." Referring to one's actions as "what happened" is not an apology because the speaker is not taking responsibility. There are two kinds of phenomena: those which "just happen" (earthquakes, tornadoes, old trees falling down in the wind) and things which are caused by deliberate, chosen actions (like the house damaged by a tree which falls when a drunk driver collides with it). Of course, the drunk driver will usually claim "It was an accident," as if to say "I wasn't the cause." This is merely propaganda, designed to trick the gullible.
• "I'm sorry for what I did" is an improvement. Still, it leaves things unsaid; it doesn't specify what the speaker did, perhaps even conceals it on purpose, perhaps because the speaker doesn't understand or agree that what he/she did was wrong. What a pronoun is to a noun, this statement is to an apology. A complete apology is not vague; it doesn't say "I'm sorry about...that thing I did." If the parties don't agree as to the nature of the error, they don't agree as to the meaning of the apology. The promise inherent in the apology has been left blurry.
• One sometimes sees this method used between nations. The thought process seems to be, "How small an apology can I offer while still causing the receiver to think I feel remorse?"
• There are other ways of distancing oneself from responsibility. "That's in the past" is an assertion that the passage of time is a substitute for an apology. It's a suggestion that one is entitled to hurt others as long as no one notices for a very long time.
• "We've both said unfortunate things" is not an apology. It's an accusation. It's inflammatory. It's an attempt to shift the spotlight.
• "I'm sorry about that. And now, isn't there something you'd like to say to me?" An apology is not a quid pro quo -- reciprocation is not required, unless wrongdoing occurred in both directions. But if not, only an uncivilized person would apologize to you as a way of forcing an apology out of you.
• Deathbed apologies are not necessarily real. Real apologies are not triggered by intense emotions or deadlines or expediency. True apologies are motivated by "I'm sorry for what I did," not "I'm sorry we weren't close, I wish I could figure out why we weren't."
• "Of course I'm sorry" contains just a hint of annoyance. It's a bit like saying "Am I sorry? What a silly question. What are you, stupid?"

Credit Card Art, Dude

Whether you were able to attend the first annual art show yesterday at the Sr. Center or not, this artist from Venice Beach deserves a look. 

"Just because it's legal doesnt make it right." - Artist Cain Motter on the gluttony of credit companies.

Source: Common Dreams

Offensive

Our mayor and company, are currently enamored with the word offensive. Both my hypocrisy and my irony meters crashed.

The show of unity in concocting their narrative wasn't a surprise to anyone familiar with the methods used by Stocks, Gaspar, Muir and Bond.  Blaming others is the MO and during this art banner betrayal of basic consideration for Maggie Houlihan's memory; this meant the city manager, assistant city manager, the 101 Artist Colony's Danny Salzhander, Teresa Barth naming truth and the public in general (a given).

It smells bad, no it stinks.

Deputy Mayor Gaspar had a lot of filler, fluff words edited out for length and clarity of her scripted message - strip away all but the rules and process. Both she and Stocks dredged up the Surfing Madonna, which simply took them deeper into revisionist history territory.  As if the Art Banners re-write wasn't enough?

Contrast the clip above with Councilwoman Barth, our Mayor in Exile. She consistently acknowledges and shows respect for her colleagues and staff even in disagreeing with their perspective. But, she is to be commended above all for bringing the real issue into this meeting, compassion for a living person's contributions.

Update: Failed to mention, the vote was 4:1 (Gaspar was a no) to allow 101 Artist Colony's Danny Salzhander to go through the silly exercise of filling out another application (process!) which the city manager promised to approve the same day so the covers can be removed from the banners. And nobody will get any signs or banners into the city process now until somebody re-writes the code to be more clear, whatever that means.

Designated Fall Guy

No matter what the mayor keeps repeating, what the deputy mayor echos or what the city manager says in this clip; nobody really believes this guy made this decision on his own.

 

Scapegoat is probably the more appropriate term; that is, person who takes blame for another's action.

boob,chump,doormat,dupe,easy, mark, fall guy, fool, goat, gull, mark, patsy, pigeon, pushover, sacrifice, schmuck, sitting duck, stooge, sucker, victim, weakling.

Ugly words and ugly behavior on the part of those in charge. Let's get this guy some new bosses.

"Myths" Encinitas

Mondays may need to become Myths Encinitas feature day.  Today will kickoff a recent Myths Gaspar version.  Kristin Gaspar is quite the myth maker and she was to be central.  But, seriously, our mayor, Jerome Stocks lives and breathes myths and has years on the deputy mayor.  Jim Bond creates his version of history of his 20 years on the dais most every meeting.  At the last meeting Kristin turned on Teresa Barth and wailed,

"Teresa, that is why this council has supported you 100% of the time when it comes to agendizing issues."

[yabba, yabba, yabba . . . ]

"The public has a right to know that a hundred percent of the time we have supported you in your agenda . . . your items agendized, 100% of the time."

That's horse pucky, a flat out lie myth - three times!. There are hundreds of examples in the years Barth has served where she receives 0% support.   The example below was chosen because it illustrates the lengths the council majority and their personal consigliere  Sabine will go to frustrate the simplest of requests, even if it would be a gesture of cooperation with the minority voices on the council, provide goodwill to the community and help mitigate the disastrously bad press (in this instance) nationwide regarding the Surfing Madonna.

I'm not going to write out the entire transcript, but I'm struck by the relentlessness of the attorney to make Teresa Barth jump through hoop after hoop.  The hypocricy of demanding adherence to a rigid council policy standard while letting Stocks violate it repeatedly.  Some highlights:

"That's why you folks play the game," said Sabine (?). . . . "Go through the findings" . . . Stocks interruptions . . . disregard of mayor Bond and meeting rules. And even at the end of the meeting, Teresa Barth cites reference to adding an agenda item from a book the attorney gave her. He responds with 2/3 majority means a 4/5 vote required . . . "

It seemed to go on and on . . .

For additional background to this particular meeting, the clip link here shows the public's speeches regarding the Surfing Madonna. They are two of the many last year around this time.

Correction: The clip made of Kristin Gaspar's non-agendized attack on Teresa Barth faded out before she'd finished her spittle flecked assault. The following is the closing of that tirade to frame herself as a victim(?). It doesn't really make much sense, but it is included to keep all the myths of this speech together.

"And, ah, I don’t know where else in life it works that you treat people that way and then you expect that when it come time for one person to cast that one vote, that my vote will drift your way. It just doesn’t happen in the real world and that’s why I’ve stated before that I’ve always felt like the ball was in your court when it comes to that vote and I treated everything with a fresh perspective. And I quite frankly I’m tired of carrying the burden of that victim role. Um . . . Because it’s not my burden to carry. Um . . . So, I wanted to clarify that and also on the two years, the intent behind that was to make certain that a councilman had served for at least two years before becoming mayor. It wasn’t to do anything else, other than that. It was the intent that we discussed it before was that if you had an election the highest vote getter could be someone new to the process. I was one of those people new to the process and it was to avoid that situation."

End.

"Lack of Grace" Raspberry

North County Times

"A rotten raspberry to the city of Encinitas for its ham-fisted ---- and possibly illegal ---- move to ban art banners honoring the late Maggie Houlihan. Ian Thompson, Houlihan's widower, is rightly outraged that the councilwoman's image is prohibited from being displayed as a "political likeness." What political message? Is Mayor Jerome Stocks seriously concerned that Houlihan is going to run against him in the next election? The explanations are as confusing as the ban. The city should do the right thing and overturn this ill-advised rule.

Teen Film Maker - Arts Alive Banner Coverage

New Encinitas resident, Patrick Canler, made the following video at the Arts Alive Banner unveiling this last Saturday and has submitted it for online publication at Coast News. Good job!

 

Go visit this at Coast News to give some traffic figures to this talented young man, our next generation community activist. 

Blog note:  Editor will be happy to front page any video clips this young man produces during this critically important election year.  He has a real talent and vitally important perspective we don't want to miss. 

2011 IN REVIEW: Surfing Madonna

April 2011 Fools?
The story that put Encinitas on the national media map was the city council majority (Stocks', Bond's and Gaspar's) utter cluelessness with the population's goodwill and city planner Patrick Murphy's "artless" response to the anonymous art gifted the city. This mosaic piece became known as the Surfing Madonna. On April 29, 2011, San Diego Union Tribune's Logan Jenkins gave the city a brick - see here. As expected, the city council majority has not been in any way flexible, sensitive or apologetic to the artist or anyone in the art community.

One of the worst things about the bad publicity that Stocks, Bond and Gaspar engendered nationally is that all of the council members get painted as lobotomized (to use Jenkins' characterization). It made it difficult for Teresa Barth and Maggie Houlihan, who are supportive of the public's desire for artist projects of all kinds in the community. The artist Mark Patterson came forward, extended the olive branch, acted in ways to accommodate dialog, but Stocks especially has made repeated attempts throughout this year to justify this council majority and his own missteps.

Quote of the Day

Putting "a political likeness" on the banners "is simply not consistent" with city policy or the organization's temporary sign permit, Stocks said, adding that it would be the same if the pictures were of former President George Bush or former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

source: North County Times today

Mayor Stocks' odd analolgy drew this response.

chris thomas said on: December 18, 2011, 5:21 am

No, this is NOT anything like putting up a banner with Bush or Arnold. They are not dead and did not serve over a decade on our council, was two time mayor, received the most votes when she ran for council and died in office. This is only citizens honoring the dedication of a fallen comrade.

If the situation were reversed, how would Stocks feel if he knew that some politician would fight to stop the community from honoring him.

Horrible, dishonorable form, Mr. Mayor.

Stocks Erupts: That is a Lie!