Saturday, October 13, 2012

A Strong Poltical Figure: Still Impacting Elections

Last Week's The Coast News, page 1 

Maggie Houlihan's image being on the art banners around town, and the fallout, caused great distress to many people. It became mired in fighting over what should/could be posted on the city light pole banners. 

Houlihan's posthumous image in the community was strengthened by the banners. Her image is active in the current election and her endorsements were found on page 1 of The Coast News

The banners let the people know she was a community hero and supported the arts. If you like arts and heroes vote for Maggie. Because that's no longer an option, people can vote for her quasi-proxies.

The expenditure of money on the page 1 advertisement is evidence that people believe Maggie is still an important political figure influencing elections.  Perhaps, she was also a political figure when her image was placed on the city's streetlights?


  1. So true. In every way, Maggie continues to influence both the course and character of local politics. I think she is having a pretty good laugh right now.

  2. I feel like you're saying the banners were indeed political in nature. I still disagree.

    Since she's not up for council, any candidate can use her image if they so choose--but only a few can pull it off authentically.

    In the ad, the image is used in an explicitly politicized manner. On the banners, it was used as an apolitical memorial to the person. Big difference.

    You suggest that the banners were implicitly political because she was (and her image remains) a potent political force. It takes a lot of reading into things and logical leaps to get to that point...and it remains a subjective interpretation. It's up to individual to decide what the image implies. As long as the image was explicitly apolitical, which it was, there should have been no problem.

    We all lose when the city codifies censorship laws regarding public art displays.

    So much for that Mount Rushmore banner I was planning to paint.

  3. The newly proposed ordinance limits "political figures" to those actually living, in San Diego County.

    I still feel it's overly broad, but it's better than completely and illegally suspending non-profits from being able to apply for permits for signs or banners in the public right of way for six months, which was orchestrated by outgoing mayor, Stocks, with his wrongful second to Mark Muir's motion to allow the blue vinyl stickers to be removed from the Arts Alive Banners.

    Stocks added the improper condition to his second that current banner code would be suspended pending revision of the ordinance. When City Attorney Glenn Sabine's partner, Randal Morrison finally came back, on August 22 with a report on sign law, Stocks, after public discussion was closed, did not recognize Muir's support of Barth's motion to lift the ban on banners as a second, but instead appointed Muir and Bond to a bogus subcommittee, that met with Sabine, not Morrison, and came back with a TERRIBLE proposed ordinance, on 9/26, designed to codify what had been Council and counsel's abuse of discretion.

    On October 10, the illegal moratorium on banners was finally lifted and the proposed ordinance was further tweaked, but it's still overly broad in determining content. But under this law, Maggie's image would have been allowed.

    The proposed ordinance also codifies Council's right to suspend current code at any time. This should only be done, legally, after two public hearings and two readings of the proposed striking of the current law, until such time as amended law gets two readings and becomes the new effective Encinitas Municipal Code.

  4. The newly proposed ordinance limits "political figures" to those actually living, in San Diego County

    If Mike Andreen moves just a little further north, we'll be able to put him on a banner!


Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
There is nothing more powerful on this Earth than an anonymous opinion on the Internet.
Have at it!!!