This Sign Does Not Point to the Red Light District… One of the most intriguing, if not somewhat comical San Diego political stories in recent memory is the saga of the sign posted against Maggie Houlihan. Houlihan, a councilmember in Encinitas, is not even facing re-election this year, yet is dealing with an angry constituent who posted a very large sign on his property along the freeway claiming the lady is a…well…a whore.
Ouch.
The Union-Trib’s Logan Jenkins penned a great piece on the travails of Maggie and her sign nightmare in yesterday’s paper, even referencing P.J. O’Rourke’s 2003 “Parliament of Whores” as a primer on politics. Read Jenkins’ "Another Sign of Incivility in Encinitas" here.
It should be noted that I have met Maggie Houlihan. She is a nice lady, any philosophical leanings aside. There is nothing to suggest any ill-repute on her part, either morally or politically. Not in the least.
So, we have an angry anti-Maggie individual exercising his right of free speech, no matter how offensive, don’t we? Is it libel? Is it obscene? Well, we’re not sure of all of that yet, but the guess is that Maggie, although the sign may not meet the legal definition of obscene, may have somewhat of a civil case against the sign owner in the libel arena. Let’s not forget, however, that when it comes to opinions, it’s pretty much open season in the law on anyone who chooses to put themselves in the public spotlight, politicians chief among them. Councilmember Houlihan would have to prove malice. Perhaps she can.
So, at the vortex of conflicts between free speech, obscenity, libel, and good manners, one thing is presently for sure. The owner has removed the sign, forced to do so by the City of Encinitas, for one simple reason. The size of the posting, a whopping 12′ x 6′, is larger than the city’s ordinance allows. We can assume that if the owner had selected something smaller than the size of a small billboard, the sign would still be up, at least perhaps until the courts weigh in.
Ain’t politics grand?
My Local Golden Pen Award… To Scott Lewis of VoiceofSanDiego.org for his piece, "Board Rooms of San Diego, Unite!," in which he warns of the herd mentality and staff infection (my words) that often go along with sitting on boards, councils, and commissions. Read this excerpt:
We, in San Diego, have been particularly vulnerable to failings of boards, commissions and councils as they forfeited their oversight responsibilities while either overly trusting their staff, or doing the exact opposite: pursuing an agenda with the staff merely enabling them.
Whether it was the Red Cross, or the San Diego City Council, we have watched as those charged with providing oversight have found it much more expedient and easy to blindly approve major initiatives. Not understanding a deal was too often not enough to convince a board member that he or she shouldn’t vote for or against it. Forget the pension crisis, or the securities fraud or the sewer rates chicanery, one need only look at one of the biggest issues the city is facing now: what to do with the Navy Broadway Complex.
A couple of members of the San Diego City Council now say they didn’t know what they were really voting on when they approved a development agreement that mandates construction of such dense and unattractive buildings on one of the city’s most valuable plots of land.
They didn’t know much about it. But they voted yes anyway.
Politicians, the Lewis piece is a must read.
Bureaucrats vs. Supply Side Economics… Longtime friend Roger Covalt, a one time GOP nominee for state assembly (against Pete Chacon, for you historians), has shot off a letter to Poway Mayor Mickey Cafagna, the current chairman of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) questioning the economic sense of raising transportation rates. Considering yesterday’s NCTimes article on SANDAG’s search for just about any tax, rate, fee, or toll to increase, the letter is timely:
Dear Mayor Cafagna:
I read the UT’s article regarding FasTrak rate hike proposal (10/05/06 “FasTrak fee hike weighed”). Since you are the Chairman of SANDAG, I would like to tell you my thoughts about this proposal.
A study of economics would show that a tax increase (which this would be) normally brings about a decrease in spending (less FasTrak users in this case), and a decrease in taxes would bring an increase in spending (more users). There is also the issue of increased pollution due to the higher fees which would cause more commuters to take the slower (and more gas consuming) freeway.
If FasTrak really wanted to increase revenue (and lessen pollution), then lower the FasTrak charges and don’t even think about a monthly service fee for low use users. FasTrak is already an elitist device, forcing the lower income commuters to avoid the FasTrak. It will become even more so if the proposed higher fees and the monthly service fee for low use users goes into effect.
So if SANDAG is serious about increasing revenue AND lowering pollution, then lower the fees. It’s as simple as that.
Roger C. Covalt
My inkling is that SANDAG probably has every reason in the world to ignore the economic question, and has mounds of data to back themselves up, but I am very interested in the response when it hits Roger’s mailbox.
In the meantime, have a great Sunday!
October 15th, 2006 at 12:00 am
FYI, No response from Sandag or Cafagna is of today (10 days after it was sent). Come on readers-write to the members of Sandag (Barry is an alternate!) and question their fiscal reasoning for this proposal. The membership of Sandag can be found at: http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?fuseaction=about.board
October 15th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Ms. Houlihan should review California Civil Code Section 46.