Thursday, April 12, 2012

Maggie Banner Image Approved

Encinitas Patch story: Council OK’s Uncovering of Houlihan’s Image on Arts Alive Banners

 The 4-1 vote came after much public outcry.

 Excerpt: The Arts Alive banners along Coast Highway 101 will soon bear the portrait of late Encinitas Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan. Houlihan’s image is currently covered with vinyl stickers—but in a 4 to 1 vote with Encinitas Deputy Mayor Kristin Gaspar opposed, City Council voted Wednesday to allow those stickers to be removed through the request of the applicant, Danny Salzhandler of the Artists’ 101 Colony. 

See also Coast News story

See also: Encinitas Undercover 

8 comments:

  1. From Coast News:
    "But she,(Gaspar), said that since the applicant, Arts Alive organizer Danny Salzhandler, chose not to submit the final application with Houlihan’s depiction on the back, and chose instead to cover it with adhesive, the process wasn’t followed."
    This is not what truly occurred. The Banner application was rejected by the city manager because the image Of Houlihan was on the back. All of the banners were printed with Houlihan's image and her birth and death date. The tape was put on after the city REJECTED the permit. To have the city say that the permit was not rejected, as the council stated, is NOT TRUE and despicable. All who have been involved with the Arts Alive Banner program know that Stocks has been the driving force behind fighting anyone from honoring Mrs. Houlihan. His efforts began with not flying the city hall flag at half-mast and having the city reject a park permit that family, friends and citizens requested for a memorial at Cottonwood Creek Park. They held the memorial anyway.
    Encinitas should be embarrassed by the actions of Stocks and Gaspar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad the stickers can be removed.

    Stocks still tried to delay. And he "took control" of Muir's motion by adding "conditions," that make the vote a violation of the Brown Act.

    What was NOT on the agenda was deciding to NO LONGER ACCEPT NEW APPLICATIONS for sign permits pending Council and public discussion, then possibly adopting new language for our sign laws, after a proposed ordinance, with a staff report, and a second reading.

    This process of updating and revision could take some time, as we've seen with our "updating our general plan." Do we suspend our current general plan while we're trying to figure out how, and if we must update? NO. Planning and Building continues to accept permit applications, even when the building code is being updated, including fees going up dramatically, as the City runs out of money for unfunded pension liabilities, and our finance director resigns, before new accounting methods will be required for reporting unfunded debt.

    Just as changing our system of mayoral selection to a two year term, retroactively, so Kristin Gaspar would have been mayor for two years, beginning in 2013, NO LONGER ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR SIGNS TO BE PERMITTED ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY was not on the agenda, had NO public discussion, and no Council Discussion after Stocks "decreed" the condition as part of his seconding the motion.

    Unelected City Attorney Glenn Sabine should follow the intent of the law and set an example of good ethics as a public officer and an officer of the Court.
    By Sabine's saying the City is not suspending current law, but will refuse to take new applications until the law has been revised, is absurd.

    Refusing to take applications for permits denies potential applicants our freedom of expression and freedom of petition. It's THE SAME THING, in that not accepting future applications effectively DOES suspend current law! This is a loophole that won't work, Mr. Sabine!

    Bring this issue back. Meanwhile, you can't legally refuse future applications until you've adopted the revised code, after a second reading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, city law cannot Constitutionally prohibit political content. At the direction of current mayor, Stocks, Sabine improperly advised our new city manager, Gus Vina. This resulted in the initial application being denied. So the banners could be installed, Danny Salzhandler temporarily placed stickers over Maggie's commemorative tribute on the back of the banners. Time was an issue. Danny DID go through the process.

    The City HAS NOT given due process of law to the citizens. We are criticized for "threatening litigation," when that has been our only resource. There has been NO SEPARATION OF POWERS, no checks and balances. Stocks and now Gaspar, attempt the skullduggery of trying to twist the truth back on itself. Are they so foolish or ignorant as to believe their own deceit?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, I deleted to repost this correction:

    Any revision of sign law could take some time, and may be challenged if it's too narrow (banning political content) or so vague as to invite the abuse of discretion that just happened. Personally, I now think the law is ok as it stands; it's our City Attorney's refusal to properly advise what the law means that got us into trouble here!

    Obviously to ANYONE with common sense, anyone being truthful, requiring the signs to be for citywide events, used by non profit organizations, IN NO WAY REFERS TO POLITICAL CONTENT. To specifically disallow that would be unconstitutional. Council can regulate the medium, not ban the message, as referred to by Sabine's partner, Randal Morison, on his website, signlaw.com.

    Poor advice leads to poor interpretation, poor performance, and abysmally poor public relations. It lead to a lack of due process on the part of the City and a further violation of the Brown Act regarding the provision of the vote that would refuse potential future applicants' from being able to pull a sign permit. for which condition there was no public or Council discussion on 4/11/12, at the Special Meeting.

    Also, that meeting could have been given, and should have been given 72 hour notice, as was the regularly scheduled Council Meeting that followed. All other Council Meetings, including all other Special Council Meetings, WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING 24 HR. NOTICED CLOSED SESSIONS, are routinely given 72 hour notice.

    Council and staff knew well ahead of time about the meeting. The public was only given 24 hour notice because our mayor and our city attorney like to DISCOURAGE public participation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. N Leucadian Garden Tour tomorrow. Check it out on line and remember Maggie while you walk the tour. Another of Maggies lasting legacy of positive community stewardship.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.