The key developers of the Oat Hill Project put up close to 1 million dollars in order to move the project along.
Unfortunatly, the city spent just about all that money, and we are not much further along, and certainly not 1 million dollars further along, that we should be.
THe cities mis management of these funds is just another example of the lack of ability shown by this council.
This dysfunctional and disorganized council has put the city in jeopardy with their poor decision making. Even worse, they have failed to uphold their fiduciary duties as caretakers of these funds.
This may be "experience" but it is definately NOT leadership.
One Million - GONE
Moderator: Issa
Forum rules
Please follow the terms of use as illustrated on the main page of the forum. Only registered users may post in this forum. Classified posts and events must be posted in the Classifieds and Events forum. Thank you.
Please follow the terms of use as illustrated on the main page of the forum. Only registered users may post in this forum. Classified posts and events must be posted in the Classifieds and Events forum. Thank you.
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
-
Councilmember Coffey
- Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:10 pm
Fuzzy Wuzzy
Mr. Maguire,
I commend your attention to a situation that existed in this city and that is the so-called “fuzzy math” problems. Thanks in large to former staff members. Our interim finance director attempted to correct some of the problems and finally supporting the purchase of new finance software that is more efficient for our city’s use.
You may recall that on several occasions I called for audits with the city's finance department. The last audit a few years back produced more than 30 million dollars worth of accounting errors. While most of these errors were corrected or written off it is still distressing that it happened. I am optimistic that since the problems have been identified, a good portion of the issues corrected, that the new finance director along with the city manager and staff would locate a more proficient finance software for our city’s finance department to rely on.
The stakeholders or major landowners were asked to do a master plan for the Oat Hill area a few years ago instead of submitting separate applications. The entire process was flawed from the beginning and cost the stakeholders who were fronting the money for all property owners to complete an overall plan by requiring it to be a master plan instead of a specific plan.
The former city manager along with a former city planner determined an amount to be placed upon deposit with the city to draw upon to pay related expenses to the processing of the project.
Unfortunately the money appeared to be commingled with other city money and used for non-related expenses. During the time of the funds being disbursed the main consultant was essentially approving her own invoices for payment without oversight. The result was an amount that was bid on for 18 months worth of work on this project was spent in 8 months.
The only part the council played in this process was the initial approval of the lead consultant. Then a review of the first presentation of the project at an April 2005 council meeting, which led to the request of more open space and a sports park. My obvious disgust for the initial project and it’s inception fueled the creation of the Oat Hill Master Plan Committee which the Vice Mayor and myself participated with for the next 18 months along with two Planning commissioners, consultants paid for by city disbursed funds on behalf of the stakeholders as well as independent consultants paid directly by the stakeholders and members of the public.
I was also a member of the Oat Hill Technical committee that was exclusively the technical consultants and city staff so I could insure continuity between the two committees. That was the project that was most recently presented. There has been no council action on this project that would reflect any mismanagement of funds. That presumption is based on former staff members.
Also I believe the amount is closer to 870k. I do not agree with the handling of the money or the lack of a statement to be produced when requested by the stakeholders within a reasonable time frame. This was primarily due to the misplacement of funds and the inability of the current software to produce such a report.
I don’t mind getting blamed for something I did, but I certainly won’t be blamed for something I didn’t do.
I commend your attention to a situation that existed in this city and that is the so-called “fuzzy math” problems. Thanks in large to former staff members. Our interim finance director attempted to correct some of the problems and finally supporting the purchase of new finance software that is more efficient for our city’s use.
You may recall that on several occasions I called for audits with the city's finance department. The last audit a few years back produced more than 30 million dollars worth of accounting errors. While most of these errors were corrected or written off it is still distressing that it happened. I am optimistic that since the problems have been identified, a good portion of the issues corrected, that the new finance director along with the city manager and staff would locate a more proficient finance software for our city’s finance department to rely on.
The stakeholders or major landowners were asked to do a master plan for the Oat Hill area a few years ago instead of submitting separate applications. The entire process was flawed from the beginning and cost the stakeholders who were fronting the money for all property owners to complete an overall plan by requiring it to be a master plan instead of a specific plan.
The former city manager along with a former city planner determined an amount to be placed upon deposit with the city to draw upon to pay related expenses to the processing of the project.
Unfortunately the money appeared to be commingled with other city money and used for non-related expenses. During the time of the funds being disbursed the main consultant was essentially approving her own invoices for payment without oversight. The result was an amount that was bid on for 18 months worth of work on this project was spent in 8 months.
The only part the council played in this process was the initial approval of the lead consultant. Then a review of the first presentation of the project at an April 2005 council meeting, which led to the request of more open space and a sports park. My obvious disgust for the initial project and it’s inception fueled the creation of the Oat Hill Master Plan Committee which the Vice Mayor and myself participated with for the next 18 months along with two Planning commissioners, consultants paid for by city disbursed funds on behalf of the stakeholders as well as independent consultants paid directly by the stakeholders and members of the public.
I was also a member of the Oat Hill Technical committee that was exclusively the technical consultants and city staff so I could insure continuity between the two committees. That was the project that was most recently presented. There has been no council action on this project that would reflect any mismanagement of funds. That presumption is based on former staff members.
Also I believe the amount is closer to 870k. I do not agree with the handling of the money or the lack of a statement to be produced when requested by the stakeholders within a reasonable time frame. This was primarily due to the misplacement of funds and the inability of the current software to produce such a report.
I don’t mind getting blamed for something I did, but I certainly won’t be blamed for something I didn’t do.
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
The FACTS explained Once Again
I believe it is wrong to continue to blame our former city manager for some of these problems-he's been gone since January.
1) Cindy and Lori railroaded Barry Comraderie in as Planning Director AGAINST the recommendation of then City manager, Mark Joseph. There was another candidate who's qalifications were better suited to AmCan's needs. Lori then, against the advise of city attorney Ross, represented Barry in the purchase of his home-A crystal clear example of Conflict of Interest.
2) Prove that funds were commigled. That's a huge and reckless accusation. The fact is Barry didn't approve the contract for payment, as another example of his not being qualified for the position. The city has HUGE amounts of CASH in the bank.THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE EMBEZZLING OR DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL, as the nefarious allegations claim. AmCan has repeatedly won awards for the 'Books'.
3. Coffey became an ally for ICC to have AmCan build a $750,000 bridge which services, you guessed it, Brock's property. She and Maguire also are trying to push through the Oat Hill project. It's close proximity to a fault line, airport route and the 1500 proposed homes provide more environmental problems than the traffic impact report used as a basis for the WalMart lawsuit. HMMM wonder why? Maybe the $750 MILLION profit their allies gain to make if the project is approved (1400 * $500,000 home).
4. Cindy's claim that when Council members sat on the OatHill committee there were no problems-yet she's missed half the meetings. AND continues to blame the city manager who hasn't been employed or on the committee since inception. Clearly an example of her "leadership". IF she had attended the meetings, maybe she could have identified problems before they became bigger problems. After all, it's only money. And we all know how she handles her money.
In our next chapter-why a retired president living in and for Vallejo UFCW is Cindy's campaign sign person. Can you say "bought and paid for Politician serving Union Special Interests".???
As I said before. Don't be taken in by the slick advertising. Ask ?s get informed. It's a real EYE OPENER!!
1) Cindy and Lori railroaded Barry Comraderie in as Planning Director AGAINST the recommendation of then City manager, Mark Joseph. There was another candidate who's qalifications were better suited to AmCan's needs. Lori then, against the advise of city attorney Ross, represented Barry in the purchase of his home-A crystal clear example of Conflict of Interest.
2) Prove that funds were commigled. That's a huge and reckless accusation. The fact is Barry didn't approve the contract for payment, as another example of his not being qualified for the position. The city has HUGE amounts of CASH in the bank.THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE EMBEZZLING OR DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL, as the nefarious allegations claim. AmCan has repeatedly won awards for the 'Books'.
3. Coffey became an ally for ICC to have AmCan build a $750,000 bridge which services, you guessed it, Brock's property. She and Maguire also are trying to push through the Oat Hill project. It's close proximity to a fault line, airport route and the 1500 proposed homes provide more environmental problems than the traffic impact report used as a basis for the WalMart lawsuit. HMMM wonder why? Maybe the $750 MILLION profit their allies gain to make if the project is approved (1400 * $500,000 home).
4. Cindy's claim that when Council members sat on the OatHill committee there were no problems-yet she's missed half the meetings. AND continues to blame the city manager who hasn't been employed or on the committee since inception. Clearly an example of her "leadership". IF she had attended the meetings, maybe she could have identified problems before they became bigger problems. After all, it's only money. And we all know how she handles her money.
In our next chapter-why a retired president living in and for Vallejo UFCW is Cindy's campaign sign person. Can you say "bought and paid for Politician serving Union Special Interests".???
As I said before. Don't be taken in by the slick advertising. Ask ?s get informed. It's a real EYE OPENER!!
-
Councilmember Coffey
- Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:10 pm
Give it up already
Victor-
I think if you were privileged to conversations that existed from multiple parties you would probably have a different perspective but since you obviously lack that input I can only surmise that your intent is to diffuse what the results reflect from the recent poll of this weekend.
I find it to be ironic that issues you are discussing in this post are virtually the same as the questions the residents were asked by the “ghost poll” this weekend.
But for those who were not called let’s recap.
"Prove the funds were commingled."
The statement to the developers proved that by the listing of expenditures. These expenditures that were not relative to the projects but were exclusively the responsibility of the city.
"American Canyon has huge amounts of cash in the Bank."
How much is huge? What funds are self-regenerating and what funds useless studies and consultants are depleting? A problem acknowledged by the former CM. A majority of the money is one-time fees and will not be replaced.
"Coffey became an ally for ICC to have AmCan build a $750k bridge which services, you guessed it, Brock’s property."
Brock is a consultant to ICC. He does not own the property that the Hannah Drive Bridge connects to. However if you would have done your research you would have discovered that the Hannah Bridge was the last of a three bridge agreement that existed prior to the city being incorporated with the county and no matter how hard a certain staff member tried to hide it the document still surfaced.
But let’s not forget that the Napa Junction III project listing the Hannah Drive as a traffic outlet. When it’s not even on the general plan….LOL
"Pushing through the Oat Hill project-"
You must have me confused with somebody who approved the Napa Junction project on Negative Declarations. All I am asking for is that all potential developers be treated consistently and fairly. Due diligence allowing for the Environmental Impact Report to be completed is reasonable. Then and only then will it give a complete picture as to what, if anything can be designed on those parcels? You know “due diligence” like the one the residents were deprived of with your special project that the residents will now have to “pay” for was approved. Additionally it was the 2003 MOU where the former CM served up the grove for affordable housing prior to any project being proposed by any other entities.
"1500 homes or is it 1400 homes?"
If the facts aren’t stated correctly in your post then I can't help you. The fact is 1500 homes was the creation and admitted mistake of Public Works Director Weil who has since rescinded that total from the original traffic study parameters at the circulation committee meeting. But then you weren’t there and neither was Garcia. Sorry you didn’t get the memo. But it was discussed at the council meeting and confirmed that the total over exaggerated and was way out of line in no way close to accurate.
As for the Airport D area, by the airports own study this is not a problem according to the most recent study released. They simply don’t want any development there in order to protect a possible airport strip for possible future income for the county.
I would also suggest that you speak with Ken Baki of Standard Pacific Homes or with any other home builder I didn’t know that building a home was 100% pure profit especially when the city council just voted to increase their building fees to over 45K per unit.
Ninety percent of the Oat Hill accounting problems occurred prior to January as evidenced by Mr. Hess at the August council meeting. I am encouraged that the issues will be corrected and worked out and it has become a priority for this administration.
As for my attendance with Oat Hill I attended all but 3 meetings as they were twice a month and most of the twice a month technical meetings. I think I would know better than you or your guest’s references what transpired and what didn’t since they joined in at a much later time. As for the other councilmember check the minutes and it is reflected that it was a 100% approval for the project to advance for a council review and EIR application approval. In which Bennett made the motion for the EIR to begin and Garcia seconded it.
"Lori then against the advise of Ross represented Barry in the purchase of his home- A crystal clear example of Conflict of Interest-"
Only for those with rose colored glasses not telling the truth. Ross made no such claim and Luporini didn’t sell the home her daughter did. She received no commission.
"And we all know how she handles her money"
As for handling my money you tried on several occasions to list innuendos about how I manage my money. I operate a community owned paper where new business can pay as they can afford it. My husband works in retail in Napa. We are college educated and don’t brag about where we live, how much our home is worth or popping open a $150.00 dollar bottle of wine on Friday nights.
I have proven that I am the most conscientious about the city’s finances by not approving endless repairs without a facilities audit, questioning 1 million dollar change orders, and showing disgust for 700K cost increases due to bad contracts made prior to January. And to my supporters that is all that matters. Remember I have a proven track record while serving on council. That is the advantage of taped meetings.
"In our next chapter- why a retired president living in and for Vallejo UFCW is Cindy’s campaign sign person. Can you say “bought and paid for Politician serving Union Special Interests”.???"
As for the gentleman he is a retired senior from the UFCW Retirees Club who resides in our community. He is probably more respected in the Pinoy community. Surprised you don’t know him but apparently you have met somebody who does. Or this would be a non-issue. This gentleman is kind and generous. He has been helpful with several candidates over the past 30 years and many people know and respect him. When he read your posting here he felt very sad for you. It is a sure display of character when you attempt to discredit a complete stranger for the purpose of personal gain. Whether you do it for yourself or on behalf of your candidate Leon Garcia.
As for the balance of the posting I am not willing to discuss closed session business with you although it is apparent that other council members are. That shows an ethics issue and professional issues. Closed session is just that closed. Discussions, articles, “claims’ are all based on speculation such as this one and yet you state them as fact. This concerns me as to the sensitive nature of personnel issues being discussed with you gives cause for concern as it should for the voters. Obviously somebody isn’t taking the oath of office seriously. Yes let’s make them Mayor.
I really enjoyed my lunch with Mr. West and Mr. Callison. They said a very interesting fact. Leon will not get out there and defend his positions on issues, nor will he defend any accusations made. That is a character flaw. But if he can’t defend himself and has you trying to create a diversion of the facts by more character assassinations then one can only ask how can the people support him if he can’t stick up for himself then how the heck will he stick up for American Canyon?
Lastly, I am not interested in participating in counterproductive diatribe with you. You are attempting to play the bad guy and bait candidates while people view your candidate as an angel. I will tell you now it isn’t working. The gig is up. Most of the candidates have put themselves out here in cyberspace to be criticized, picked on, and challenged. All but your candidate who hides behind you and your group.
I am not interested in participating in this forum in this capacity anymore as you have made it destructive and I know that was not the intent of the Webmaster.
Ac94503 was excited about the candidates presenting views, offering opinions and suggestions or defending options. It is not for aggressive incoherent fact less attacks on current council members or candidates.
I have defended you on this website before chalking it up to passion but this lacks passion this is a scared campaign manager who is attempting to discredit candidates who are much stronger and more liked than your campaign ever anticipated. Thank you for making that clear with your posting and continued postings.
I think if you were privileged to conversations that existed from multiple parties you would probably have a different perspective but since you obviously lack that input I can only surmise that your intent is to diffuse what the results reflect from the recent poll of this weekend.
I find it to be ironic that issues you are discussing in this post are virtually the same as the questions the residents were asked by the “ghost poll” this weekend.
But for those who were not called let’s recap.
"Prove the funds were commingled."
The statement to the developers proved that by the listing of expenditures. These expenditures that were not relative to the projects but were exclusively the responsibility of the city.
"American Canyon has huge amounts of cash in the Bank."
How much is huge? What funds are self-regenerating and what funds useless studies and consultants are depleting? A problem acknowledged by the former CM. A majority of the money is one-time fees and will not be replaced.
"Coffey became an ally for ICC to have AmCan build a $750k bridge which services, you guessed it, Brock’s property."
Brock is a consultant to ICC. He does not own the property that the Hannah Drive Bridge connects to. However if you would have done your research you would have discovered that the Hannah Bridge was the last of a three bridge agreement that existed prior to the city being incorporated with the county and no matter how hard a certain staff member tried to hide it the document still surfaced.
But let’s not forget that the Napa Junction III project listing the Hannah Drive as a traffic outlet. When it’s not even on the general plan….LOL
"Pushing through the Oat Hill project-"
You must have me confused with somebody who approved the Napa Junction project on Negative Declarations. All I am asking for is that all potential developers be treated consistently and fairly. Due diligence allowing for the Environmental Impact Report to be completed is reasonable. Then and only then will it give a complete picture as to what, if anything can be designed on those parcels? You know “due diligence” like the one the residents were deprived of with your special project that the residents will now have to “pay” for was approved. Additionally it was the 2003 MOU where the former CM served up the grove for affordable housing prior to any project being proposed by any other entities.
"1500 homes or is it 1400 homes?"
If the facts aren’t stated correctly in your post then I can't help you. The fact is 1500 homes was the creation and admitted mistake of Public Works Director Weil who has since rescinded that total from the original traffic study parameters at the circulation committee meeting. But then you weren’t there and neither was Garcia. Sorry you didn’t get the memo. But it was discussed at the council meeting and confirmed that the total over exaggerated and was way out of line in no way close to accurate.
As for the Airport D area, by the airports own study this is not a problem according to the most recent study released. They simply don’t want any development there in order to protect a possible airport strip for possible future income for the county.
I would also suggest that you speak with Ken Baki of Standard Pacific Homes or with any other home builder I didn’t know that building a home was 100% pure profit especially when the city council just voted to increase their building fees to over 45K per unit.
Ninety percent of the Oat Hill accounting problems occurred prior to January as evidenced by Mr. Hess at the August council meeting. I am encouraged that the issues will be corrected and worked out and it has become a priority for this administration.
As for my attendance with Oat Hill I attended all but 3 meetings as they were twice a month and most of the twice a month technical meetings. I think I would know better than you or your guest’s references what transpired and what didn’t since they joined in at a much later time. As for the other councilmember check the minutes and it is reflected that it was a 100% approval for the project to advance for a council review and EIR application approval. In which Bennett made the motion for the EIR to begin and Garcia seconded it.
"Lori then against the advise of Ross represented Barry in the purchase of his home- A crystal clear example of Conflict of Interest-"
Only for those with rose colored glasses not telling the truth. Ross made no such claim and Luporini didn’t sell the home her daughter did. She received no commission.
"And we all know how she handles her money"
As for handling my money you tried on several occasions to list innuendos about how I manage my money. I operate a community owned paper where new business can pay as they can afford it. My husband works in retail in Napa. We are college educated and don’t brag about where we live, how much our home is worth or popping open a $150.00 dollar bottle of wine on Friday nights.
I have proven that I am the most conscientious about the city’s finances by not approving endless repairs without a facilities audit, questioning 1 million dollar change orders, and showing disgust for 700K cost increases due to bad contracts made prior to January. And to my supporters that is all that matters. Remember I have a proven track record while serving on council. That is the advantage of taped meetings.
"In our next chapter- why a retired president living in and for Vallejo UFCW is Cindy’s campaign sign person. Can you say “bought and paid for Politician serving Union Special Interests”.???"
As for the gentleman he is a retired senior from the UFCW Retirees Club who resides in our community. He is probably more respected in the Pinoy community. Surprised you don’t know him but apparently you have met somebody who does. Or this would be a non-issue. This gentleman is kind and generous. He has been helpful with several candidates over the past 30 years and many people know and respect him. When he read your posting here he felt very sad for you. It is a sure display of character when you attempt to discredit a complete stranger for the purpose of personal gain. Whether you do it for yourself or on behalf of your candidate Leon Garcia.
As for the balance of the posting I am not willing to discuss closed session business with you although it is apparent that other council members are. That shows an ethics issue and professional issues. Closed session is just that closed. Discussions, articles, “claims’ are all based on speculation such as this one and yet you state them as fact. This concerns me as to the sensitive nature of personnel issues being discussed with you gives cause for concern as it should for the voters. Obviously somebody isn’t taking the oath of office seriously. Yes let’s make them Mayor.
I really enjoyed my lunch with Mr. West and Mr. Callison. They said a very interesting fact. Leon will not get out there and defend his positions on issues, nor will he defend any accusations made. That is a character flaw. But if he can’t defend himself and has you trying to create a diversion of the facts by more character assassinations then one can only ask how can the people support him if he can’t stick up for himself then how the heck will he stick up for American Canyon?
Lastly, I am not interested in participating in counterproductive diatribe with you. You are attempting to play the bad guy and bait candidates while people view your candidate as an angel. I will tell you now it isn’t working. The gig is up. Most of the candidates have put themselves out here in cyberspace to be criticized, picked on, and challenged. All but your candidate who hides behind you and your group.
I am not interested in participating in this forum in this capacity anymore as you have made it destructive and I know that was not the intent of the Webmaster.
Ac94503 was excited about the candidates presenting views, offering opinions and suggestions or defending options. It is not for aggressive incoherent fact less attacks on current council members or candidates.
I have defended you on this website before chalking it up to passion but this lacks passion this is a scared campaign manager who is attempting to discredit candidates who are much stronger and more liked than your campaign ever anticipated. Thank you for making that clear with your posting and continued postings.
-
amcannative
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:40 pm
Cindy Cindy Cindy
I back Leon for Mayor. Don and I told you that at lunch. We told you that he is the only one that has not sued the city and that we respect that. We told you that we wished he would call you on your miss-information. I believe what we said was that Leon has to show that he can engage and challenge you, I am confident that he will. We also told Leon that
We are not stupid enough to tell you something that we did not tell Leon and if you think we would confide in you, you're dumber than your frauduelent signs with the small "4"- Leave us out of your commentary, or we will talk about your comments. Remember what I told you at lunch Cindy, you throw stuff against the wall and hope it sticks and what ever does you exagerate and capitalize on- this is an example. By the way I hope you have permission to put your signs on the Theresa way property and the Adobe Lumber fence, and all the Cal-Trans spots on the Highway. An ethics violation of the city policy that you voted on would look ugly!
You and Minding City Biz have alot in common- leave me out of your mud slinging, I did not do anything to you. Don't poke this giant in the eye with a stick, I may contact a PR firm in Vallejo and learn something about you, that you and Brett Jolley don't want me to know.
Ed West
Ed West
We are not stupid enough to tell you something that we did not tell Leon and if you think we would confide in you, you're dumber than your frauduelent signs with the small "4"- Leave us out of your commentary, or we will talk about your comments. Remember what I told you at lunch Cindy, you throw stuff against the wall and hope it sticks and what ever does you exagerate and capitalize on- this is an example. By the way I hope you have permission to put your signs on the Theresa way property and the Adobe Lumber fence, and all the Cal-Trans spots on the Highway. An ethics violation of the city policy that you voted on would look ugly!
You and Minding City Biz have alot in common- leave me out of your mud slinging, I did not do anything to you. Don't poke this giant in the eye with a stick, I may contact a PR firm in Vallejo and learn something about you, that you and Brett Jolley don't want me to know.
Ed West
Ed West
-
Guest
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
My Name
Mr. West there is a difference between mudslinging and telling the truth. Their is also a difference between being on a committee and working for the betterment of the community. Anytime questions are asked about any member of your group, everyone just gets a bunch of Rhetoric from Victor Rivera. It seems to me you better look within your group before your start slamming others for wanting answers prior to making a decision.amcannative wrote:
You and Minding City Biz have alot in common- leave me out of your mud slinging, I did not do anything to you. Don't poke this giant in the eye with a stick, I may contact a PR firm in Vallejo and learn something about you, that you and Brett Jolley don't want me to know.
Ed West
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
I guess if CC and I are the only ones who have enough muster to sue the city when we think the city is dead wrong, I guess that makes us the only candidates who should be Mayor.
As far as I can tell, Vic Riveria and Ed West are running for Mayor for Leon Garcia, who, apparently wont stand up to anybody, or anyone.
And that is exactly why he is the wrong choice for Mayor of our city.
The city mismanaged the money, and CC confirm it on the second post on this site.
As far as I can tell, Vic Riveria and Ed West are running for Mayor for Leon Garcia, who, apparently wont stand up to anybody, or anyone.
And that is exactly why he is the wrong choice for Mayor of our city.
The city mismanaged the money, and CC confirm it on the second post on this site.
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
-
Guest
WOW! 3 of my neighbors have ed west signs in their yard. Now only 1 does. Although I am sure it will come down by dinner. I called them this morning to read what he wrote. They are stunned. That last post sealed the deal for their votes for Ed. But I know, he can live without the votes, I have seen him say that a few times on this site. What are you going to do if you are on council? Threaten everyone till you get your way? You are a piece of... work- that's it. For the short amount of time I have lived in this City, I am disgusted in the way certain people handle themselves. I am also disgusted in the way the City Council seems to just pass it all through without asking why cost are skyrocketing. Only one asks why. She gets my vote.
I have for the most part stayed out of the harrassing, mudslinging and backstabing, but I had to voice my opinion this time.
I have for the most part stayed out of the harrassing, mudslinging and backstabing, but I had to voice my opinion this time.
-
amcannative
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:40 pm
Wants to know
You are no new citizen, you have lived here for years, you just changed your moniker.
I have received $600 in donations in the last week from individuals. Your neighbors did not remove their signs they were taken by other fans. What I have demonstrated is that if you push me and lie abot me and mis-represent me, you will get a response. Cindy lied about our conversation and lied about the facts and lies regularly about the issues. Don and I showed her the lies in the letter she sent to her supporters.
Being a candidiate does not mean that ww have to be victims, I will defend my self against false hoods and attacks. The same people that are critisizing Leon for not standing up are critisizing me for standing up.
By the way Paulett do you want the e-mail from Linda Reid that I received asking me for a sign?
Start using your name- Want's to know
Ed West
I have received $600 in donations in the last week from individuals. Your neighbors did not remove their signs they were taken by other fans. What I have demonstrated is that if you push me and lie abot me and mis-represent me, you will get a response. Cindy lied about our conversation and lied about the facts and lies regularly about the issues. Don and I showed her the lies in the letter she sent to her supporters.
Being a candidiate does not mean that ww have to be victims, I will defend my self against false hoods and attacks. The same people that are critisizing Leon for not standing up are critisizing me for standing up.
By the way Paulett do you want the e-mail from Linda Reid that I received asking me for a sign?
Start using your name- Want's to know
Ed West
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
Well I am glad Ed West has finally come around and will defend himself against false hoods and attacks and lies.
I support West's right to do that- I sure hope he starts to support mine!
Like:
When he insinuated that I did not live here " who knows where he lives"- a complete and total fabrication of the truth-when challenged, no response
When he blasted me for defending myself, and the rights of every other candidate and the voters, in federal court - for the blatent disregard for the US Constitution in the illegal sign ordinance, and the outrage of the 3 candidates passing a sign ordinance in the middle of an election to restrict other candidates, an election they are running in.
Perhaps later in the month West will start running his own campaign, instead of Garcias. My criticism is not West standing up for himself, but rather his having to stand up for Garcia. Perhaps that will be another new clarity.
I support West's right to do that- I sure hope he starts to support mine!
Like:
When he insinuated that I did not live here " who knows where he lives"- a complete and total fabrication of the truth-when challenged, no response
When he blasted me for defending myself, and the rights of every other candidate and the voters, in federal court - for the blatent disregard for the US Constitution in the illegal sign ordinance, and the outrage of the 3 candidates passing a sign ordinance in the middle of an election to restrict other candidates, an election they are running in.
Perhaps later in the month West will start running his own campaign, instead of Garcias. My criticism is not West standing up for himself, but rather his having to stand up for Garcia. Perhaps that will be another new clarity.
-
Guest
-
Guest
Bloomin' signs
Sorry to bring up a boring subject but I would like to keep the facts straight. The signs on the fence at Eucalyptus and Teresa are there with the owners agreement.
One candidate asked to have the signs there, the other was invited to place their signs there.
The signs at our front gate were invited by the property owner to be placed there.
Hope that helps to clarify things.
One candidate asked to have the signs there, the other was invited to place their signs there.
The signs at our front gate were invited by the property owner to be placed there.
Hope that helps to clarify things.
-
mindingcitybiz
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
Signage semantics as Victor would say!
Thanks for clarifying that Linda it is so kind of you to always offer up your property to people running for office.
