• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

The sole action item on the April 7 agenda of the park committee responsible for the governance of Kate Sessions Park was a proposed change to the park’s current 12-hour alcohol ban to a 24-hour ban.

On August 18, 2009, council district 2 staff member Thyme Curtis, former Northern Division police captain (now chief) Shelley Zimmerman, and Community Parks I deputy director Clay Bingham met with the Friends of Kate Session Park group and a few community residents to discuss their concerns regarding alcohol consumption at the park. During that meeting, it was agreed that there would be a one-year evaluation before considering a 24-hour ban.

On January 19, 2010, Friends of Kate Sessions Park submitted a request to the Santa Clara/Pacific Beach Recreation Council to convert the 12-hour ban to a 24-hour ban.

Between January and March 2010, there have been six town-council meetings and various committee meetings with board members voting on the issue and making recommendations in favor of the ban. These recommendations were made despite the fact the SDPD has repeatedly indicated that there have been “no exceptional enforcement issues, including alcohol, at Kate Sessions Park, with the exception of the July 4, 2010 holiday.”

Several community members who have attended the meetings stated that the public turnout representing those opposed to the ban has been nominal, due to poor public notification. “The meeting was posted in the Pacific Beach Rec Center. That’s how the public was informed," said an attendee.

A Pacific Beach resident added, “It’s the same less than a handful of complainers who show up at all the meetings, in front of boards of self-selected busy-bodies who want to control people. If alcohol at Kate Sessions Park was such a problem, you can bet this place would be packed with people…they’d be lined up outside...but they’re not.”

For others, the Kate Sessions alcohol ban represents a much larger basic issue...

“Increasing governmental control and restriction of rights isn’t freedom, and bans are just Band-Aids,” said a Pacific Beach resident. “We now have to apologize for what we say on television or radio, we’re banning words, we’re banning having a beer on the beach, now the parks…really, where does it end? People are stupid. They just sit back and pretend this isn’t happening. People need to get involved — wake up, speak up, defend their rights, before it’s too late.”

“We serve the people and the people have spoken,” said Joe Frichtel, representative for the Mira Mesa Recreation Council, to the ten community members in attendance. The Community 1 Parks Area Committee voted 11-0 in favor of the 24-hour alcohol ban.

For video of one man's opinion, click here.

Image: llamafest.com

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

BarfinPB April 9, 2010 @ 8:55 a.m.

Nice op-ed piece Carolyn. There are just a few things you left out. Public notice – you forgot to mention that there is a Facebook page dedicated to the issue of alcohol at Kate Sessions Park with 1856 followers and notice of this meeting was posted on it 10 days before the meeting by your featured speaker. Ooops.

How about the first speaker in opposition, you know, the guy who stated his frat bros are binge drinkers and they need a public park for their habit? That speaks for its self.

Let’s not forget your comment, we need to educate the public. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting a pop quiz be completed before purchasing a keg?

I don’t understand what this article was about. Was it 6 community groups were paid off for their votes in favor of the proposal? Is it Life, liberty and the pursuit of a beer bong? Is it that anyone who supports the proposal is a mean person?

0

David Dodd April 9, 2010 @ 9:17 a.m.

"Nice op-ed piece Carolyn. There are just a few things you left out. Public notice – you forgot to mention that there is a Facebook page dedicated to the issue of alcohol at Kate Sessions Park with 1856 followers and notice of this meeting was posted on it 10 days before the meeting by your featured speaker. Ooops."

Yes, because lawfully it MUST be recorded on Facebook. And all Facebook accounts that have access and use the park were automatically notified. In fact, the City of San Diego and the State of California currently mandate that everyone owns a computer, has online access, and subscribes to Facebook. Good call, there, Barfin. If you want to argue the article, perhaps you could site all alcohol-related problems in the park over the last year or two. Better yet, put it in your Facebook account.

0

escortalex April 9, 2010 @ 10:11 a.m.

Gringo, while I appreciate your humor, the Facebook account was mentioned because that's where the pro-alcohol folks learn about issues like this. And despite the fact that 1856 pro-alcohol people got e-mails from their Facebook accounts, mobilizing them to pick up their pitchforks and torches, storm the castle and stop the ban....three people chose to show up and speak. And only one of them actually lives in the Kate Sessions neighborhood.
One speaker said, "If you allow drinking, then you can control it." Yep. Just like it was "controlled" at Reed Street on Labor Day, 2007...or at the numerous other riots on SD beaches. He also said that many of his friends were binge drinkers in college, and they're still binge drinkers...and if they can't binge drink in the park, they'll go somewhere else and do it.
D'oh! It's not the police department's job to babysit drunks, nor is it the taxpayer's responsibility to fund such babysitting. And the purpose of a neighborhood park is to have a place for people to relax....it's not supposed to be a venue for binge-drinkers to pursue their hobby, when that hobby interferes with other people's enjoyment of the park.
And Refried...one speaker in favor of the ban DID provide a list of all the alcohol-related problems in the park, and it was pretty impressive. Hence the UNANIMOUS vote of the Park & Rec Council. Want to binge drink? Do it at home, or in a bar, or in your own neighborhood park. Want to enjoy the view, let your kids play in a tot lot, throw a frisbee, have a wedding, walk your dog, sunbathe, picnic, or play kickball? You're welcome to do it at Kate Sessions, or in your own neighborhood park, or at the beach. Ms. Matteo, please follow up on the quote you chose to include in your piece. Please document the "right" that all Americans have to drink beer, get drunk in public, urinate in public, and to charge admission to events held in neighborhood parks, without even getting a permit from the city to hold those events. It's been a long time since my civics classes in high school, and I seem to have forgotten that part of the Constitution. Thank you.

0

David Dodd April 9, 2010 @ 10:41 a.m.

alex,

Not my intention to make a call over whether or not there should or shouldn't be a complete alcohol ban in that park, but relevant information is truly the only valid argument against the author's intentions in the presentation of the article. I have never used the park, nor will I in all probability, booze or no booze; thus I have no pokers in the fire.

You claimed that there is a list of alcohol-related issues there, I would rather see that than an argument based on empirical evidence, that was part of my point in my reply. The other part is that Facebook is a nebulous source to official notification of a hearing. When you get a chance, list the incidents, that would be a rational argument with the article and likely prompt some good discussion.

0

CuddleFish April 9, 2010 @ 11:34 a.m.

Just goes to show that very few people bother to get involved in civic matters, would prefer to show their ignorance on a public forum.

The local recreation councils are the advisory group to the Park and Rec Department. They take information and action items about local park and rec issues, deal with them on their duly noticed agendas. The meeting and action item was presumably timely noticed at the Rec Center because this issue was brought to the local recreation council because it is a park issue and that park falls under the jurisdiction of that recreation council. That's all that needs to happen at the community level. This is not the final word. If anyone feels strongly about this matter, they can go to the Community Parks meeting, to the Park and Rec Board meeting, call the Park and Rec Department, go to the City Council meeting and voice their opinion, write letters to the Editor, there are dozens of ways to influence City policy.

But the best way, and the reason rec councils and other advisory groups have so much say with the City, is to get involved, learn about the issues, and the process, attend these meetings, become members, and being informed and knowledgeable, vote. Yes, the good old fashioned process. So much harder than just flapping one's ignorant gums, I know, but then democracy is a tedious little duty.

0

Freedom April 9, 2010 @ 3:03 p.m.

Correction to post # 1 by BarfinPB

Original Content: "Nice op-ed piece Carolyn. There are just a few things you left out. Public notice – you forgot to mention that there is a Facebook page dedicated to the issue of alcohol at Kate Sessions Park with 1856 followers and notice of this meeting was posted on it 10 days before the meeting by your featured speaker. Ooops."

Corrections:

1)The FB page you referenced has only 883 members not the 1,856 you inaccurately posted. Details, details.

2) There was NO MENTION OF THIS MEETING on that FB page.

3) You must be one of those handful of complainers who attend the meetings, or perhaps one of those busy-bodies wanting to control others, because that's exactly what THEY DO at these meetings! Like you, they exaggerate and lie and pretend there are problems where there aren't just to get their way. They say there are all the incidents when the police say there aren't. And on these forums you can sometimes get away with blowin your fabricated cookies until someone like me bothers to check the facts.

OOPS!

0

David Dodd April 9, 2010 @ 3:20 p.m.

"...because that's exactly what THEY DO at these meetings!"

The thing that's even worse, is that it's pre-planned. The council has already decided what it's going to do in advance, and any perceived input from the community is a smoke-screen. Those that make the laws are the first to exploit them. I'm with you, show me the evidence of abuse, then I'm more likely to be sympathetic to the ban, until then I side with the author of this article. She seems to have done her homework, interviewed appropriate people involved, and taken a view that leans more toward a broad attitude than some specific political agenda.

0

escortalex April 9, 2010 @ 4 p.m.

Hi refried. The document presented at the meeting listed 27 alcohol-related incidents at the park since last August. In some cases, the reporting person made a note of the incident number. Until you get involved in an issue like this, people don't know to ask for an incident report number. Here are the incident numbers that were noted: 41957, 65108,66872, 66910, 13242, 19786, 28802, 39034, 60193, 44401, 27961, 38176, and 11793. Pretty boring. Want to know what kinds of problems those incidents represent? Public urination (multiple), drunk in public, noise, profane language, DJ with amplified music and no permit, trash, a large slip and slide left on the hillside, drinking after 8 pm, theft of water for another slip-and-slide, skateboarding, vehicle driving on the grass (2x) (to a party), smoking pot and tobacco near the tot lot. The participants in each of these incidents were drinking. And each of these is nominally illegal.

The meeting was properly noticed, and this item was on the agenda. AND 1800 or so people got an email from Facebook about this issue. AND it's been the topic of a half-dozen meetings of different community/advisory groups, as well as the topic of newspaper articles and TV news reports. Point is, if you care about the issue, it is relatively easy to find out when the next public meeting is, and speak your mind.

There was one humorous moment during the meeting. The only speaker who complained about the lack of notice also complained about the lack of a public process to decide such an important issue. Apparently the five or six previous meetings, and the pending community meetings and presentation to the city Council's Public Safety and Neighborhood Services committee just don't qualify as a "public process." It was a teeny-tiny bit ironic. I would not have been surprised if someone had laughed out loud at her, but the audience and panel were very respectful.

Cuddlefish, thanks. My previous post was already too long...I intended to tell people to get involved if they care. And yes, this topic was noted on the agenda, and the public was properly noticed.

0

CuddleFish April 9, 2010 @ 5:56 p.m.

Escortalex, there was no question in my mind that the writer of this biased and uninformed article would get things wrong, as she has gotten things wrong in the past, by not doing what good citizens do, and that is, getting involved and familiarizing herself with the process, failing that, interviewing the key people in this matter.

I entirely agree with you, support the recreation council in this issue, and reiterate my point: If people really care about these and other civic matters, they can get involved -- or continue to show their ignorance by posting about things they know nothing about on public forums. One takes the desire, good will, and effort to be a good citizen of the United States, the other takes only the ability to type.

0

TopDog555 April 9, 2010 @ 6:22 p.m.

Hey morons that have never used Facebook:

Nobody was notified.

In order for the 1,800+ people to have received notice about the meeting, the ADMIN of the Page needed to post to the page.

This didn't happen.

The only people that saw about the meeting were the random few people who happened to visit the page - which nobody does.

Get a clue.

The only days that are out of control are holidays.

This is BEYOND idiotic.

0

David Dodd April 9, 2010 @ 6:55 p.m.

Alex, incident numbers are given when citizens call the cops and the cops are unable or unwilling to respond. To say that all of the reported incidents involved alcohol is simply repeating what the officer over the telephone wrote down for the complaint. And so, yes, it's boring and not at all what I am referring to. What I am curious about is the number of incidents serious enough for the police to respond to. If you can't supply that information, then I guess that the only way we'll know if the article is fair is to contact the PB (North Division) police department and ask, even though apparently they saw no need to support the "Friends of Kate Sessions Park".

"AND 1800 or so people got an email from Facebook about this issue."

I think that TopDog555 covered that pretty well.

"AND it's been the topic of a half-dozen meetings of different community/advisory groups, as well as the topic of newspaper articles and TV news reports."

Site the newspaper articles. This is what tips me off that much of the public was unaware, I follow the media quite closely, and not in the two weeks leading up to April 7th do I recall any mention of this vote. Thanks in advance for linking those articles.

0

BarfinPB April 9, 2010 @ 7:09 p.m.

Freedom,please put the beer bong down. Here is the notice on FB.

HEY ALL- THERE IS A MEETING OF PARK AND REC TO TAKE testimony and vote on the 24 hour ban- Community Parks I Area committee on April 7th at 7:00 p.m. at Doyle Recreation Center, 8175 Regents Road, La Jolla. Get there early for parking and a seat. You will be allowed to speak 2-3 minutes to oppose a ban; save our beautiful park for responsible alcohol use! Thanks! March 30 at 7:54pm

I stand corrected on the number of fans, it is 1828, sorry.

Topdogg, thanks for your meaningful insights. The use of Morons and idiots really helped in making your point. Next post, try Nazis or Hitler or scumbags.

0

Freedom April 9, 2010 @ 8:06 p.m.

Many of you guys are moronific!

1)CuddleFish - AKA "THE MASTER OF SHOWING IGNORANCE ON A PUBLIC FORUM" You are hilarious! Once again you have your facts all WRONG. You act like you're the authority on all matters, but you repeatedly get it wrong! I was at the meeting. Were you? Nope, you weren't. How can you, in good conscience,(and hopeful to maintain even a molecule of credibility) say that the author "got it all wrong"? You weren't even there. You haven't been to any of the meetings. You, yourself aren't up to date with the issue. Yet you come on here and barf nonsense. Just to catch you up "MASTER" on reality, this well written article accurately represents what happened. The author got it all right. She just wrote things those "handful of busy bodies who want to control people" don't won't you to know. If you're so brilliant why didn't you cover the story yourself? Does it boost your ego to get on here and post uneducated, inaccurate rebuttals to issues you know nothing about? Careful, your moron is showing...

2) Refried - Man, you're brilliant. You get it. You're right on! Love you, man.

3) Escort Latex - Excuse me, I need a drink to talk to you. Ok. You must be the guy that brings his infant to all the meetings for dramatic affect. You must have selective reading and hearing bodily functions. The cops made their statement. It's in all the documents at the meetings, and, it's in this well-written, unbiased article as well and here it is again in case your subconscious, self-serving mind blocked it out:

"SDPD has repeatedly indicated that there have been “no exceptional enforcement issues, including alcohol, at Kate Sessions Park, with the exception of the July 4, 2010 holiday.”

It's just a FACT. But, it's a fact you don't like because you want your way. And you're prepared to dramatize and misrepresent incidents in order to get it, in order to sway the unaware public, and the unaware councils. You can find this FACT, the author has included in her article, on the hand-outs at the biased council and committee meetings.

AND, NO ALEX THE MEETING WASN"T POSTED ON FB! Do you need glasses, or is this disorder genetic?

Also, Alex, your comment about the HILARIOUS moment at the meeting when someone addressed the LACK OF PUBLIC PROCESS regarding notice for the meetings. She was right. And your immaturity is obvious by the fact you found it humorous. The public process IS lacking. Public Notification IS a problem. Can't believe you can't admit it! It's almost as if these councils don't want the public involved. It's a bunch of old cronies representing a youthful community, hosting outdated ideologies, and most are HYPOCRITICAL, including yourself. I suggest you get THE BIG PICTURE, as the author of this article has done so, SUCCESSFULLY...and that's what pisses you off most. You know she's right, but it won't help your self-serving case, will it?

0

CuddleFish April 9, 2010 @ 8:48 p.m.

Freedom, generally I don't respond to personal attacks, but for the record, please go back and read my posts. I did not speak to the specifics of the matter at hand, drinking at Kate Sessions Park, I addressed the issue of citizen involvement.

For those of you who care to know, Community Parks I and II are committees that are comprised for the most part of people who have been involved in park and rec issues for years, mainly chairs, or persons selected by chairs, of the various recreation councils. They are unpaid volunteers, assisted by Park and Rec staff, who come together once a month to discuss issues which come under their jurisdictions. They are generally extremely well aware of the issues affecting the parks and recreation centers within the City.

I note that the vote on this issue was 11-0. That suggests to me that the committee was somewhat underwhelmed by the opposition to the ban. If Freedom is any indication of the opposition, I am not impressed, and not at all surprised they lost the battle. But the war is not yet over. There's still the Park and Rec Board, the City Council, letters to the editor, public protests, media attention; as I stated before, there are a myriad of ways to influence City policy.

Or you can sit on your butt and whine on this forum and see how far that gets you. :))

0

BarfinPB April 9, 2010 @ 8:52 p.m.

Topdogg-

Somehow I have a feeling you are not housebroken. However, you take direction well. Next post please work in sexual preference, racial profile, political affiliations and of course don’t forget to talk about my mom.

0

SDaniels April 9, 2010 @ 10:11 p.m.

Freedom, your writing is almost exactly like the author's of the article. That's all I really have to contribute, aside from my wholehearted agreement with your astute observation:

"It's almost as if these councils don't want the public involved. It's a bunch of old cronies representing a youthful community, hosting outdated ideologies..."

This 'phenomenon' is reallly widespread--you don't even know ;)

0

CuddleFish April 9, 2010 @ 11:26 p.m.

No council or committee which advises the City doesn't want the public involved, and all welcome people of whatever age, creed, color, to participate in their discussions and deliberations, as guests, and as members. If democracy is an outdated ideology, then by all means don't do anything to further it, just throw stones from afar. Be part of the problem, then, and don't cry about the solutions arrived at because you couldn't bother yourself to get involved in the process.

0

David Dodd April 9, 2010 @ 11:47 p.m.

A comment from http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...

"As to the action taken by the School Site Council, clearly they rigged the agenda by "revising" it under the 72-hour loophole, instead of properly noticing the action item. Further, whatever discussion took place during open public comments, when an Action item comes up, discussion must be allowed before a vote is taken. The fact that the vote came out as it did without discussion suggests that there were prior discussions between Council members..."

Pretty underhanded how they got rid of Smith. And pretty underhanded how they banned alcohol at the park. That is, unless it's a matter of conveniently agreeing or disagreeing with your ideology and not some nebulus argument about involvement in the process. After all, in both cases the council acted according to their "rules". That isn't democracy in either case, because the council invents what they need to in order to ultimately do what they want. Then "they" vote. As if the vote was ever in doubt in either case.

0

BarfinPB April 10, 2010 @ 12:33 p.m.

Time to point out the factual mistakes and biased subtleties made in this article: ACTUAL TEXT FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORT:

On August 18, 2009, Council District 2 staff member Thyme Curtis, former Northern Police Division Captain (now Chief) Shelly Zimmerman and Community Parks I Deputy Director Clay Bingham met with the Friends of Kate Sessions Park group and other interested community residents to discuss their concerns regarding alcohol consumption at Kate Sessions Park. MANY community members were present and the discussion included a wide range of viewpoints. THREE commitments were agreed to at the meeting and they were 1) a consensus for a one year evaluation before considering a 24 hour ban 2) targeted enforcement at the park by the Police Department and 3) trim shrubbery and place a portable toilet in the area where public urination was occurring

Carolyn’s spin: On August 18, 2009, council district 2 staff member Thyme Curtis, former Northern Division police captain (now chief) Shelley Zimmerman, and Community Parks I deputy director Clay Bingham met with the Friends of Kate Session Park group and a FEW community residents to discuss their concerns regarding alcohol consumption at the park. During that meeting, it was agreed that there would be a one-year evaluation before considering a 24-hour ban. (Very subtle Carolyn, (FEW and ommisions)

Carolyn, if you had read the Friends handout you would have noticed and reported that 4 public meetings were held after August 18, 2009 and all solutions were discussed. The consensus was watching the problem will not solve all the issues and a proposal to change Kate Sessions Park from its current status of 12 hour restriction to 24 hour was agreed upon.

ACTUAL TEXT FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORT: The Police Department indicated there were no exceptional enforcement issues, including alcohol, at Kate Sessions Park, with the exception of the July 4,2010 holiday.

Carolyn’s spin: SDPD has "REPEATEDLY" indicated that there have been “no exceptional enforcement issues, including alcohol, at Kate Sessions Park, with the exception of the July 4, 2010 holiday.” Once again Carolyn you changed the report by inserting the word "REPEATEDLY".

Carolyn, you filled out a speaker card in opposition, you publicly spoke, you ignored speaking with the proponents, you only interviewed the opponents, you changed the actual report and then you wrote an article. Unless the rules were changed, Pulitzer will not be calling, you took a position and thus became an advocate.

Refriedgringo, Freedom, Topdogg, I welcome your thoughts concerning the above inaccuracies. In your replies, can you leave my mom out of it? Thanks.

0

David Dodd April 10, 2010 @ 2 p.m.

Your issue is with two words, Barfin? "Few" vs. "many" and the use of the word "repeatedly"? If only 10 community members showed up, then that could be few and it could be many, depending on one's perspective. If there are only 100 households in the community then 10 is many, if there are as many as 2,000 then ten is few. The use of the word "repeatedly" was not in quotes of the report, it could be that there were other meetings that took place where SDPD denied any issues. And, I presume that the actual report was written by a proponent?

That much is splitting hairs.

I think that you will find, some of the time, that articles do seem to take a side because the person reporting the issue either cannot have access to those representing the other side of the issue, has limited access to the other group, or simply wishes to present the article from a certain perspective.

Such as this: "For others, the Kate Sessions alcohol ban represents a much larger basic issue..."

And then if you read the quote below it from the Pacific Beach resident, you'll see that the perspective of the author was to present this as an example of a much larger issue. I understand that you are very much against drinking in public parks, but I do not understand how you don't see how some people feel that it is yet another right taken away from the majority of people that don't urinate in public, get drunk in public, and so on.

Here's a parallel: I just had a conversation with my wife about the new law here in Mexico that requires all cell phone users to register their cell phones with the government and provide a ton of information, which will give the government access to telephone conversations as well. The idea is to enable law enforcement here to round up all of the bad guys, but it violates many articles of Mexico's constitution guaranteeing the right to free speech and privacy. She's pissed off and I don't blame her.

I realize that the alcohol ban in the park is a much smaller issue, but the principal is similar. That's what I read into the article's perspective.

0

Freedom April 10, 2010 @ 2:23 p.m.

SDaniels,

You really think so? Thanks for the compliment! Maybe I'll embark upon a new profession and start stringing, too!

Freedom

0

CuddleFish April 10, 2010 @ 4:55 p.m.

And now the other shoe drops: Carolyn Matteo filled out a card and spoke in opposition to the ban.

Thanks, BarfinPB, for providing that information, and the actual text of the report. It is exactly what I had expected.

0

BarfinPB April 10, 2010 @ 5:29 p.m.

Thank you Refried or Carolyn. You have now shown that I was correct in post #1 where I pointed out that this is not an article but an op-ed piece. I would like you to present your words to any journalism class and see what they think: “I think that you will find, some of the time, that articles do seem to take a side because the person reporting the issue either cannot have access to those representing the other side of the issue, has limited access to the other group, or simply wishes to present the article from a certain perspective.” Carolyn, you filled out a speaker card in opposition, you publicly spoke, you ignored speaking with the proponents, you only interviewed the opponents, you changed the actual report and then you wrote an article. What part of the above am I making up? Please – no parallels just admit that this is what you did, a sincere apology and we can all move along.

0

Freedom April 10, 2010 @ 6:19 p.m.

1) F.Y.I I do believe the "Anonymous BarfinPB" is the founder of Friends of Kate Sessions Park...what's her name, Cathy Anzonio or something like that.

2) You said Carolyn "Changed" the report...she used the word "few" instead of "several"...cut me a break! You're grasping here...

3) Opinion? I don't see any opinions. I see quotes and facts. Hey cronies, time for new bifocals. It's about time someone opposed you cranky old, subversive, fuddy duddies.

4) The word "repeatedly". There were 6 meetings. Cops were present at several. Cops "repeatedly" said the same thing.

0

David Dodd April 10, 2010 @ 6:20 p.m.

Barfin, it isn't an op-ed piece, you're getting to the point where you don't know what you're talking about. If you want op-ed pieces, San Diego CityBeat is loaded with them. You're only upset that the perspective of the piece doesn't reflect your particular ideology, that drinkers are all bad people or no one should drink in public or whatever you're trying to say. Whether Carolyn "filled out a card" or even "spoke" at the meeting probably wouldn't have changed what she wrote about it, just because she didn't simply type the exact notes written by someone who was FOR the ban on drinking is what's making you mad.

Your quoting of my text presented to, let's say, any sports beat writer of any newspaper anywhere, much less a journalism professor, would be met with laughter if you attempted to present the text as some proof of what an op-ed piece is. Take the U-T sports section as an example. Canepa is mostly op-ed, here's an example: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/05/boys-of-summer-cant-put-much-stock-in-spring/

Now let's discuss perspective. Here's a piece from last night's Padres-Rockies game written by U-T beat writer Chris Jenkins: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/10/padres-hitters-pitchers-rocked-denver/

Here's a piece from that same game written by Denver Post beat writer Troy Renck: http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_14856466

This is my last lesson to you Barfin, read each story and notice the difference in perspectives. Notice the similarites in the facts described differently, using different words to describe the same thing. And note that each beat writer is a fan of his own team. I bet they each attend games even they they aren't writing about them, and cheer, and so on. If you call this op-ed, there's no telling what you call Canepa's columns.

I've never met Carolyn, no idea who she is, but you certainly have an active imagination. I currently live in a country where is is illegal to drink anywhere in public, and have no issue with that. You, however, have not only spewed your own personal views in here under false pretense (attempting to point out inaccuracies in the column that aren't there when it's really just a question of your ideology getting bruised), but you've decided that I'm Carolyn. Just admit that this is what you did, a sincere apology and we can all move along.

0

David Dodd April 10, 2010 @ 6:54 p.m.

"On August 18, 2009... it was agreed that there would be a one-year evaluation before considering a 24-hour ban."

"On January 19, 2010 Friends of Kate Sessions Park submitted a request... to convert the 12-hour ban to a 24-hour ban."

Okay, here's a great point. Five months is not one year, if it isn't a question of ideology and some people in here question why there is a perspective to this piece, how do you defend this? And worse:

"The sole action item on the April 7 agenda of the park committee responsible for the governance of Kate Sessions Park was a proposed change to the park’s current 12-hour alcohol ban to a 24-hour ban... The Community 1 Parks Area Committee voted 11-0 in favor of the 24-hour alcohol ban."

So, I guess I should congratulate the Friends of Kate and the committee on reducing the calendar year from 12 months to 8 months. Or is this op-ed? No, it's the premise behind the author's perspective.

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 1:35 p.m.

Thank you Pinto for your lessons. If I have this straight you live in Mexico, you have no pokers in the fire, you post on any article in the Reader, you know no facts of this issue, you do not know the writer, you account for 26% of the posts on this issue and you dole out advice based on all of the above. You have posted over 2500 times and I think it’s time for you to leave your room. Feel free to give everyone a lesson of what the last statement means. I truly have enjoyed all the complements I have received here: Skinhead, idiot, moron, fuddy-duddy, cronie, hypocritical, and of course being told I don’t know what I am talking about. I would enjoy being able to hear you speak at the next public forum on this issue you know nothing about.

Freedom, I totally understand your view of freedom and liberty, I just think this is your persuit regardless of the impact upon others, how considerate. Please buy Toppdogg a subscription to the UT as this will not only educate the dog but will provide you a certain level of comfort in your home.

I wish all of you well.

0

David Dodd April 11, 2010 @ 2:22 p.m.

Well, Barfin, is "Pinto" supposed to be some racial slur? You should probably just use the word "beaner" so we understand your perspective. Should I presume that you're racist?

"I truly have enjoyed all the complements I have received here: Skinhead, idiot, moron, fuddy-duddy, cronie, hypocritical, and of course being told I don’t know what I am talking about."

While I maintain that your understanding of journalism is deserving of not knowing what you are talking about in that arena, I certainly have been quite patient with you and haven't resorted to name-calling. Apparently, as much as name-calling bothers you when you're the victim, it's just fine for you to do it to others. Bravo! Very duplicit of you.

And I'll let Dave and Chainsaw know that you miss them. The references are pretty stupid in the comments section of the Reader, but I'll bet they'll appreciate knowing that you love to use their characters from the old morning show to attempt to put anyone with a contrary opinion in their rightful place.

More to the point, your credibility is shot and I've lost my patience with you. Next time just call me a wetback and be done with it.

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 2:38 p.m.

Please explain this parallel – Pavlov’s dog and a bell vs. a new post for you. Pinto is racial? Stretch it! So, when are you going to show up and publicly speak on this matter you know nothing about?

0

David Dodd April 11, 2010 @ 3:01 p.m.

There is no more public speaking on this matter, the NIMBY'S won again, congratulations. And please, continue with the name calling! It's awesome! (Especially the veiled racist one's.) It makes you sound so intelligent! I'm awestruck, as I'm sure anyone is. You may have all of the last words you wish now, and be sure to keep up the name calling, it's so very mature of you. As for me not knowing what I am talking about on this issue, my comments have all been relative to this article in some way, and I am convinced now more than ever that the author did an excellent job at telling the absolute truth on the matter, and her persepective was brilliant.

And YOU convinced me! Again, congrats. Now, be sure and call me names and attempt to insult me, because that's a sure-fire way to get me to respond, and certainly makes you look like a winner. I ALMOST promise I'll be back on this thread in response to your BS. Well, almost. Well, no, actually I won't.

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 3:17 p.m.

Thank you for signing off. There is no veiled racial comments in anything I have posted. If that is what you perceive, that is your perspective. I understand your choice of becoming an expat, however your opinion on a neighborhood issue without understanding all surrounding issues is a mystery to me. Wait, I hear a bell, time for you to post somewhere else. Ding! I will miss you.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 3:28 p.m.

BarfinPB,

I did some name calling myself. I can admit it. Not one of my best moments. With that confession aside...COME ON! It's SOOO obvious "PINTO" IS A RACIAL SLUR. It's a bean. Bean leads to "beaner". It's quite clear. Subtle, but clear.

Seems to me you're incredibly lacking in self-awareness. Perhaps this forum is a good place for you to get your much needed therapy. You know, some feed back as to your being so OUT OF TOUCH.

Also, how come you're the only one on here bitchin? Is this Ban for YOU? This Ban's for YOU, isn't it? It's all about YOU! I'm gonna go to Kate Sessions and have a beer, for the two of us...

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 3:36 p.m.

BarfinPB,

Love how you speak "IN CODE" so you can't be understood.

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 3:42 p.m.

Freedom, there is no code here. Show up, speak up as you have on two occasions. Is that code?

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 3:50 p.m.

Barfin,

There goes your imagination, again. You think I'm somebody I'm not, just like you thought Refried was Carolyn! You're hilarious!

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 3:53 p.m.

Hey Everyone,

Barfin's posts are perfect examples of how she handles Kate Session Park issues! She misrepresents, misinterprets, misinforms and mishandles. Good thing people like her are running things round here!

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 3:57 p.m.

Freedom, I really don’t care who you are. Deal with issues and you have done your part in community involvement. I like that type of effort.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 4:36 p.m.

Barfin,

You say you don't care about who I am, but you do, you clearly went out of your way to investigate Refried. So you do care on some level.

You say, "Deal with issues and you have done your part in community involvement. I like that type of effort."

No, actually you don't like that type of effort, obvious by your coments. Back to the self-awarness thing. YOU like the type of effort that is expended in AGREEMENT with your ideology of you wouldn't have said HALF of what you have.

And it's not just about "dealing with issues". It's about HOW WE DEAL WITH ISSUES that counts. Especially for those with self-granted power over others.

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 5 p.m.

Freedom, let’s make this as simple as possible. I am a proponent and you are an opponent of the current proposal. That is agreed. What solutions are you proposing to solve the problems that have occurred last year and are now occurring this year at this neighborhood park? I do respect your solutions.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 5:27 p.m.

Barfin,

Are we talking about the REAL ones, or the ones you MAKE UP?

Seems to me there are approximately 3 PEOPLE who are HAVING PROBLEMS with ALCOHOL consumption in Kate Sessions Park because their houses BORDER the park . TONS of PB residents have problems with the BARS they live nearby.

The urination issue happens EVERYWHERE IN PB. Drunk driving happens EVERYWHERE IN PB. Noise is EVERYWHERE in PB.

The SDPD has REPEATEDLY indicated that there have been “no exceptional enforcement issues, including alcohol, at Kate Sessions Park, with the exception of the July 4, 2010 holiday.”

So, Cathy, what is the REAL PROBLEM at Kate Sessions Park?

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 5:41 p.m.

Freedom, every public forum has agreed that there is a problem at this neighborhood park, even the opposition. For some reason you still chose to attack me and not deal with the issue being 26 miles turned into 17 acres of legally drinking area. What are your solutions to deal with this issue? I will repeat this question until you answer it.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 5:44 p.m.

Correction: Seems to me there are approximately 3 PEOPLE who SAY they are HAVING PROBLEMS with ALCOHOL consumption in Kate Sessions Park...

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 5:54 p.m.

Freedom, Wink wink to everyone you wish. Just as the correct part of the article said. See you in a real public forum. Enuf.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 6:48 p.m.

Cathy of Friends of Kate Sessions Park a.k.a. BarfinPB,

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? "WINK"!?!

And, "ENUF?"

It's enough WHEN YOU SAY IT'S ENOUGH, right. That's how your governance works. That's how you're committee works.

Just like, it's time for a ban when you say it's time for a ban. This whole idea was YOURS! You initiated the ban. But you don't want anyone to dare question the facts in an attempt to bring light to truth.

You can't even answer my question identifying the problem at Kate Sessions? It was your opportunity to SHINE, Cathy. Blew it.

POINT MADE!

0

PB92109 April 11, 2010 @ 7:04 p.m.

Wow: alot of anger and emotion here. I recognize that neighbors don't like large crowds partying in a nearby PUBLIC park. No compromises suggested such as no kegs, or no amplified music. Things that would limit the disturbance factor but not make it impossible to enjoy the park and have fun,

I see no benefit in calling names - one side is fuddy duddies and the other are binge-drinking drunks. Surely not all involved are one or the other.

There are more forums, not yet scheduled: The Park and Recreation Board, which meets on the 3rd Thursday afternoon of the month downtown, then apparently the City Council Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. They can docket the matter when they feel like it or when Kevin Faulconer, the PB councilmember, pressures them into it.

Freedom, the so-called "Friends of the Kate Sessions Park' are not run by a woman named Cathy but by Michelle Youngers and Richard Kiser-- you can research this by searching the web. It appears that this group may have started the ball rolling to get the ban in place well before the date stated in the report:
09/26/09 issue: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-09-26/local-county-news/organization-is-watching-problems-at-kate-sessions-park

The reporter is accurate in stating that the local meetings were not given widespread notice as there was no published notice in any printed media of the meeting on the 7th, and nothing in the Beach and Bay Press, La Jolla Light or La Jolla Village News about this meeting or any of the meetings held with the other community groups. I am a member of the PB Town Council and there was no mention in the March newsletter of the matter being on the March 17th agenda.

CuddleFish- we do not have democracy here, we have representative government. In a perfect world it would work but I believe the deck is often stacked-- once the matter is brought before these boards and committees the decision has already been made by the powers that be as to what they want. Hence the lack of notice, little publicity, no postings in the park of the meetings, etc. Just my point of view from personal experience having served on one of these committees.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 7:21 p.m.

Dear PB92109,

You are getting a standing ovation. Hope you can hear it!

Freedom

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 7:36 p.m.

PB92109 Hey Rob, thank you for being a voice of reason. I don’t support everything you posted but I think you and I agree on many of the issues. Cool dude. Give me a call.

0

Freedom April 11, 2010 @ 8:14 p.m.

Hey BarfinPB,

It's a little late for my ideas, don't ya think? You'll most likely get your ban. Happy? You're certainly well on your way. You and you're steamroller committees have crushed the opposition, kept the matter as secret as you could, and tugged that rope a good ways in your favor during your specially designed 8 month year. And if it wasn't for this silly little article, no one would EVER KNOW! Damn her. Ethics, shmethics. It's the winning that's important!

I'm sure you'll live happily ever after with that newly added notch on your politically incorrect bra, knowing that your private, oops...I mean PUBLIC park is now filled with only loud, tantrum tossing, diaper dirtying, screaming, annoying children...oh, there's an idea for your next ban. Children! They can be very disruptive you know...not to mention all that poop. I say get rid of em. I'm sure you'd agree. And if anyone could do the job...

Hey, another freedom lost. Who can't feel good about that?

0

BarfinPB April 11, 2010 @ 8:44 p.m.

Freedom Once again, what are your solutions to the problems?

0

CuddleFish April 11, 2010 @ 9:34 p.m.

PB92109,

Let me cover a little more ground, and repeat some of what I said in my earlier posts. First of all, in re-reading the article, which is nearly incoherent in stating even the most basic facts (this is typical of Matteo's form of "citizen journalism), I saw that this matter was discussed and voted on at the Community Parks I committee meeting, not at the Recreation Council meeting as I originally understood due to the information stated in the first sentence of the "article." That Community Parks I committee, like Community Parks II, is made up of chairs, or representatives, from all of the rec councils under the jurisdiction of Community Parks I, and the vote on the ban was 11 - 0. This means that eleven different people from eleven different rec councils were persuaded that it would be better to vote for the ban, knowing that this is an advisory vote, but also knowing that their vote would carry a lot of weight with the ultimate authorities. Now, the article doesn't go into a lot of detail as to what that decision was based on, but let's take Freedom's position, that a few "fuddie-duddies" decided out of the blue where no reason warranted it to ban alcohol at Kate Sessions Park. Highly unlikely that a disparate group of eleven people who have no reason to either support or deny a ban would vote for it just because some "fuddie-duddies" asked. My guess is that the people in that room, who have worked together for years, knew (that) the people at Kate Sessions had researched this issue and brought forward this ban as a solution to a continuing problem. As to whether there was a huge law enforcement problem or a small quality of life problem makes no difference, and here's why: Friends of Kate Sessions Park bring forward a matter, and the recreation council acts on them, then forward them on to the authorities who will make the ultimate decision. Those meetings are duly noticed, the agendas posted, both at the rec centers and on the City's Park and Recreation department website. As I stated in earlier posts, and I repeat here, anyone who disagrees with the ban can still be heard on this matter through various venues. As PB92109 stated, and as I said before, opponents can appear before the Park and Rec Board, before the City Council, write to their Councilman, write Letters to the Editor, mount public protests, do any number of things to object to, stop, overturn, the proposed ban. THAT'S THE PROCESS. Now, to my knowledge, that process does not call for recreation council meetings to be noticed in newspapers. Whether anyone believes that should be part of the process is immaterial, but here's my suggestion once again to all the whiners on this and all other civic issues: IF YOU WANT TO INFLUENCE CITY POLICY, GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

(cont.)

0

CuddleFish April 11, 2010 @ 9:48 p.m.

By the way, anyone who thinks these decisions are foreordained once again show their ignorance of these matters. Read what was stated in the article:

“We serve the people and the people have spoken,” said Joe Frichtel, representative for the Mira Mesa Recreation Council, to the ten community members in attendance.

That is precisely the situation the Committee finds itself in each month as they are faced with making these decisions. Let's take Freedom's and Matteo's position, for the sake of argument, and assume Friends of Kate Sessions Park consisted of "a few" people who proposed and supported the ban, that they initially proposed a year's evaluation of the ban, but decided to move the matter forward earlier than they initially proposed (I am assuming that this occurred due to wishing to have this ban in place by the Fourth of July weekend, the date noted as when law enforcement stated there had been problems, and in order to go through the various steps needed to have the ban in place by then), and that "a few" opponents showed up at the Committee to protest the ban.

The Committee weighed both sides of the argument, however, very likely gave more weight to the "few" who had a record of committed involvement, had studied the problem, suggested a reasonable and sensible solution, and followed the correct process, where law enforcement was neutral and no political or business owner pressure was brought to bear, forwarding their advisory vote to the next level. That is the correct attitude, and that is why I said in an earlier post that I supported the committee's decision.

0

Freedom April 12, 2010 @ 8:33 a.m.

CuddleFish aka CITYBEAT MAGAZINE REP & PRINCESS OF PROPOGANDA ,

Talk about getting facts wrong...talk about incoherent...

You wish your silly little, SLIVER of an almost publication had a CITIZEN JOURNALIST half as good as the one who did this article. I looked around at the other articles on this site, seems this author is the one who gets people involved! Isn't that the purpose of this whole thing?

Looks like this article contains not only the BASIC FACTS, but FACTS that no one knew about til now! Good for her for bringing light.

Additionally, the FACTS in the article can be found on the hand-outs/agendas provided at the meetings. I have them right here in front of me. Do you?

SO, if the councils/committees are disseminating INCORRECT INFORMATION then yes, this article TOO would be incorrect...

Silly Fish...Tricks are for kids!

0

Grasca April 12, 2010 @ 8:23 p.m.

I am one of members of Community Parks 1 who voted on the 24 hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Park. No one contacted before the vote or influenced me in any way. I find it insulting to say my vote was "pre planned." That is not true nor is there a shred of evidence to back up this accusation. When things don't go your way, is it necessary to make false claims ? One of the anti alcohol ban speakers seem to indicate that while he knew of drunken incidents and slosh ball tournaments, he and his drinking buddies were not the one urinating in public and causing other problems. In a de facto way he acknowledged the problems. I found that interesting.

0

CuddleFish April 12, 2010 @ 10:01 p.m.

Grasca, unfortunately that's how some people are. They would prefer to insult you by insisting you are corrupt than to actually admit they are stupid, ignorant, or just plain wrong.

Thank you for all you do for the citizens of San Diego, which people like this will never know, understand, or appreciate. It is people like you who are dedicated and committed volunteers that improve San Diego's Parks and Rec Centers for all of us.

0

Grasca April 12, 2010 @ 11:14 p.m.

Thanks CuddleFish for the acknowledgement. I drove 20 minutes to attend this meeting, struggled to find parking in a packed parking lot, and then spent more of MY time as a VOLUNTEER listening to a staff presentation and speakers both pro and con on the 24 hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Park. If anyone can present proof that myself or the any of other volunteers on the Community Parks 1 Board conspired and pre-planned the unanimous vote, I challenge them to do so. Since Freedom, Refried Gringo and their companions will not write under their real names, I am only guessing at their identities. Show me your real names and I will show you mine. Then we can see separate the dedicated volunteers from the minority whiners.

0

CuddleFish April 12, 2010 @ 11:39 p.m.

They may be willing to provide their real names, Grasca. More to the point, one should ask them what advisory groups and committees and boards have they served on and for how long.

0

pawsinsd April 13, 2010 @ 5:41 a.m.

The sole requirement for sitting on a rec council is sitting one's behind in a chair for three consecutive meetings. I did that and was refused entry because my park was represented by the rec council but I did not live within their mapped area. I complained to officials, using the first Tea Party defense.

Why did they despise me so? I had a dog and came to ask for a legal leash-free area in our community. Rec councils are advisory and yes, they are made up of control freaks who call out Animal Control trucks after widows with Bichons and Yorkies where the trucks break water lines then complain to the city about broken water lines.

I left San Diego seven years ago, partially because of harassment from park controllers in our neighborhood. Alcohol ban? Whatever. The problem is that Park and Wreck won't allow for public comment on their issues they have "validated" by the people's behinds who sit in those chairs. If you have to go to the rec center and view a partially covered page on the bulletin board, that is NOT public notice.

0

Grasca April 13, 2010 @ 7:50 a.m.

PawsinSD did sit on the Doyle Recreation Council and was terminated because that very same person missed numerous meetings. I have never heard of a citizen being denied membership to a recreation council unless that person did not qualify under the council's by laws. Paws also served on special committees organized by Park and Recreation Department, spoke at City Council meetings, Doyle Recreation Council meetings and other venues about leash free areas. Paws had her chance to participate and did. A LEGAL leash free area was established at Doyle Community Park and also at various parks throughout the City. There are clearly posted signs in each City park which detail the permitted activities under the Municipal Code. If citizens want these laws enforced or changed, I say "Bravo." Let's be honest, Paws, and not stretch the truth for your own purposes. Also, please stay on topic as this discussion is not about dogs.

0

CuddleFish April 13, 2010 @ 8:40 a.m.

In all my time I have only known of one person who was kicked off a recreation council by the council itself, and that was because when asked this guy would not declare whether he was a resident, or a business owner, or why he was there. The rec council had asked repeatedly, had queried staff who had no idea, even found out where he worked (way across town), but the guy stubbornly refused to say, and so he was dismissed from serving.

The reason most rec council bylaws require that members live in, or own a business, in the area of the council they want to serve on is obvious, pawsin. Most councils are pretty small, anywhere from fifteen to thirty members, and most people know the other members, why they are there, who they are affiliated with, where they live or work. Virtually all of the members have some well-known interest for being there. So that when they bring forward an issue or concern, or vote on a matter pending before the rec council, their reasons are valid and their motives understood. Thus when the matter moves on to the next level, everyone can feel pretty confident that they are acting in the best interests of the City.

0

Grasca April 13, 2010 @ 9:27 a.m.

Pawsinsd was on the Doyle Recreation Council so her tale of being denied membership is simply not the truth. I personally feel that my time as a community volunteer in many areas has helped make our community better. It take time, talent and sometimes treasure to be a positive force. The people who whine on this blog probably are not community volunteers. However, I support any citizen's right to lobby for their causes in an approved and legal fashion. It is the outright lies and personal attacks which concern me on this blog. Calling someone a moron really does not advance your cause.

0

Grasca April 13, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

A reading of pawsinsd's blog (http://blog.cookingwithdee.net/) confirms that this person left the area because of marriage instead of "harassment from park controllers in our neighborhood."

0

CuddleFish April 13, 2010 @ 5 p.m.

Well at least pawsinsd spoke up. The others who were so eager to speak anonymously are remarkably silent now.

0

Grasca April 13, 2010 @ 5:05 p.m.

Yes, but she was not truthful. As a long time volunteer I take exception to paws' description of "sitting on your butt for 3 consecutive meetings" as being the way people become rec council members. That was insulting. It is interesting to note that Refried Gringo, Freedom and Toppdogg have blest us with Radio Silence.

0

CuddleFish April 13, 2010 @ 6:47 p.m.

I think that says more about paws' mentality than the factual situation. If all paws did for three consecutive meetings was sit on her butt then I can just imagine what sort of a member she would have made -- I've seen these types, and maybe paws isn't in this class, that come in with an agenda and do nothing beyond forward those interests. The rest of the meetings they sit there and could care less about the rest of the agenda, the people there, the discussions, reports, workshops, projects. So yes, people can sit on their butts for three consecutive meetings and not listen to a word said, not engage in dialogue, not contribute to the discussions.

This is why I praise people like the dedicated volunteers of Kate Sessions Park and like Grasca, who actually do care and contribute their time, their attention, their interest, to the betterment of the Park and Recs in this City. I can assure everyone that most volunteers on the rec councils are like her, and as a resident of this City, I thank them for their service.

0

Grasca April 13, 2010 @ 8:03 p.m.

I like praise that is not faint. It is interesting that the usual route for most Park and Recreation volunteers begins with one issue and then expands. I like participating in the Egg Hunts and Lunches with Santa and Family Days at our center. It gives me an opportunity to be part of a bigger community than just family and friends. I have met many dedicated staff over the years and see just how their dedication changes lives in small ways for the park patrons. If all of this volunteerism was only "sitting on my butt" then I would have abandoned it long ago. I would suggest that anyone who wants to make a difference for their community should join a recreation council or community planning group.

0

Freedom April 13, 2010 @ 8:07 p.m.

Hey CuddleFish & Grasca,

Get a room, will ya...

Didn't you hear? Mutual butt kissin has been banned in public forums.

0

pawsinsd April 13, 2010 @ 8:07 p.m.

Wow! I've been gone for seven years and haven't seen this much excitement for a while. As far as butts go, one needs no resume or qualifications except to be on a rec council except to sit in a chair for three consecutive meetings, remain silent, and then become a voting, talking member. I was denied access at first because this rec council represented our park but our park and us were just outside their designated area.

I worked very hard to support the initiatives of rec council members with regard to classes and special events and voted to approve nearly every monetary decision. Until I was appointed VP of the Friends of Parks and Recreation Foundation I worked closely with staff and the rec council chair on gaining city grants for programs the rec council deemed worthy. After becoming a member of a grant-making body it was a conflict of interest for me to advocate for one rec council over all the others.

To say I was terminated for non-attendance is pretty silly, because there was no way I could continue to serve from halfway across the country. I still maintain a solid commitment to helping parks and wildlife areas and only regret that so many people, so many years later, still express such vitriol over my online presence. A little piece of advice: get a life.

0

Freedom April 13, 2010 @ 8:26 p.m.

Pawsinsd,

Well said!

From, Your friendly neighborhood butt kisser.

Gotta run, late for a BKA meeting (butt kisser anonymous). Hey, Cuddle and Grasca, you comin?

0

pawsinsd April 13, 2010 @ 8:48 p.m.

Thanks, Freedom. I didn't make it about dogs, my old neighbor did. My issues were appropriate public notice and the fact that one needs no qualifications whatsoever to be on a rec council. And Doyle had to amend its bylaws to include our park and neighborhood residents because as a former public servant, I notified the Mayor and head of Park and Rec of my exclusion. That decision was turned around in a heartbeat and my 15 minutes of public activism was unleashed. I think I'll go back to cooking now. Good luck at the BKA meeting. I think your friends probably have a room by now so they'll not be present. Cheers!

0

CuddleFish April 13, 2010 @ 9:01 p.m.

I was actually at a meeting tonight. And will be at a meeting tomorrow night. Excuse any delay in responding to your comments.

On the other hand, it may be that I don't find them worth replying to. :)

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 8:19 a.m.

For those too young to remember Joe Friday and Dragnet.

"Just the facts, ma'am" While "Just the facts, ma'am" has come to be known as Dragnet's catchphrase, it was never actually uttered by Joe Friday; the closest he came were, "All we want are the facts, ma'am" and "All we know are the facts, ma'am". "Just the facts, ma'am" comes from the Stan Freberg parody St. George and the Dragonet.

Paws: all we do know are the facts and you should stick to them.

0

ErikSD April 14, 2010 @ 12:20 p.m.

I was planning on having my wedding rehearsal dinner at Kate Sessions park this summer, and now I may need to relocate, which really sucks because it's a beautiful park. Banning alcohol affects more people than just the ones getting wasted.

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 2:01 p.m.

You can still get a permit, serve alcohol, and have your wedding rehearsal at Kate Sessions. The ban is not in effect. Even if it was, you could get the necessary permits from Park and Recreation Department and serve alcohol. This question was answered by staff at the meeting of the Community Parks 1 meeting. I am not certain but think you would go to the Pacific Beach Recreation Center to secure the permits. I agree that some are ruining it for many. Go to the City of San Diego website (sannet.gov) and find out more information in the Park Department section.

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 3:09 p.m.

Information from sannet.gov

Events at Community, Neighborhood, Mini-parks and Lake Grounds

The City of San Diego maintains over 300 community, neighborhood, and mini-parks as well as concessions at six lakes. If you would like to hold an event at one of these parks or on lake grounds, please review the Special Events in Public Parks and on Lake Grounds brochure for information regarding the permit process. Once you are familiar with the permit process, you can download a Park/Lake Grounds Use Application. After you have completed the application and gathered any required attachments (authorization memo, IRS 501 (c) tax exemption letter, sound check and performance schedules, etc.) take application and attachments to the recreation center or lake concession nearest to where you would like to hold your event. For additional information regarding special events in parks, please contact the staff at the nearest recreation center or lake concession.

Special Events on Park and Lake Grounds Brochure (PDF: 458K) Park/Lake Grounds Use Application (PDF: 30K) Application and Permit for Posting Sign(s) on City Park Property (PDF: 277K) Please view the Rules and Regulations Governing Park/Lake Grounds Use Permits (PDF: 170K)

Fees

Applicable fees such as Ground Use, Picnic Shelter Reservation, Party Jump/Generator, Canopy set up, Special Equipment Set up, etc. will be assessed per the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department Fee Schedule.

Fees are in addition to fees collected for events involving other City department requirements.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 3:35 p.m.

Perfect! So, in addition to a ban raping the public of yet more of their FREEDOMS, a ban also rapes the public of more of their TIME and MONEY, because NOW you will all have to go and file a pile of applications and PAY for using the PUBLIC park because the TAX DOLLARS you ALREADY pay for using the park just AREN'T ENOUGH!

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 3:38 p.m.

Grasca,

You're self-absorbed and lacking in consciousness. It's laughable.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 3:40 p.m.

Oh, and, I suppose your inclination to be CORRUPT is what has YOU on the WINNING side! You go girl.

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 3:56 p.m.

The fees apply to gatherings of persons over a certain number which I believe to be 75. These fees have been in effect for years. You should complain to the Director of Park and Recreation, the Mayor and your council person if you find them objectionable.

I will be reporting your abusive and slanderous postings to the blog moderator.

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 4:04 p.m.

Posting Rules Interactive areas, discussion boards, chat rooms, blogs, etc., are intended to encourage public debate. We expect people to differ — judgment and opinion are subjective things — and we encourage freedom of speech and a marketplace of ideas. By using these areas of SDReader.com, you are participating in a community that is intended for all our users. Therefore, we reserve the right to remove any content posted on our site at any time for any reason. We prohibit profanity, libel, spam, racial epithets, and the harassment and abuse of others.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:06 p.m.

Grasca,

They're not abusive and slanderous. Look up the definition of Slanderous in the dictionary. I'm not surprised by your posting, wanting to now try to take away my FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Grasca the DICTAOR. And to think you actually have the audacity to sit as a member on a council that represents the public. Frightening...

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:07 p.m.

Spelling correction: GRASCA THE DICTATOR

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:11 p.m.

So, I see how you operate. If you don't like it you set out to get rid of it. Control the people. Control the park. Control people's speech. Control the blog comments. Control freak.

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 4:12 p.m.

Change to "libelous and abusive statements."

Are you an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California ?

Step 1 Understand the definition of defamation of character. Defamation of character is the communication of false information stated as a fact which brings harm to an individual or an entity, such as a business, group or government. For it to be defamation, the statement must be delivered in speech or in writing to at least one person other than the victim. Step 2 Learn when to use the term slander. Slander is used when the defamation of character is spoken. This can be person to person or a person speaking to many people. Step 3 Say the term libel when referring to the written defamation of someone's character. Libel is the defamation of an individual's or an entity's character which is published in a written medium, such as a newspaper. However, any written communication can be libelous as long as it's transmitted to a third party. Step 4 Use the libel term when the defamation of character comes from audible media. Now, most courts consider defamation of character made during a radio or television broadcast to also be libel, even though the defamation was spoken. Step 5 Know the absolute defense against libel and slander. There are a number of possible defenses against libel and slander, but the only one which is an absolute defense is truth. If the statement is true, it cannot be considered libel or slander.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:14 p.m.

Grasca,

I think I'll report you for abusing PAWS in your earlier posts.

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 4:18 p.m.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 4:20 p.m.

Defamation per se All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was untrue. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include: Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness) Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women) Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [5][6]

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:21 p.m.

Is this not what you did to DEE aka PAWS? Can dish it out but...

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 4:22 p.m.

If Freedom will post contact information, I would be happy to deal with this person directly.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:23 p.m.

This is so funny. I don't even know who you are. Is Grasca your real name?

0

David Dodd April 14, 2010 @ 4:25 p.m.

"I will be reporting your abusive and slanderous postings to the blog moderator."

"Slanderous posting" is an oxymoron. You, Grasca, on the other hand, are simply, well, more of the same without the "oxy". STFU, go back to your board meetings or whatever idiocy you fill your day with, and leave space open for rational people to discuss the issue.

With any hope at all (presuming they have the good common sense to appreciate the lunacy of the proponents of the PASSED driniking ban that the park nazis ramrodded through their convoluted system continuing to post diatribe against this story), the Reader staff in charge of viewing your complaint will inform you that you are every bit an instigator.

I find it horrifying that you feel the need to investigate anyone here that doesn't agree with your ideology, your time was back in the days of Hoover, when such immoral practices were applauded by a population that believed they were being protected by something. The problem is that no one protected anyone from Hoover. Or from other people like yourself.

0

Russ Lewis April 14, 2010 @ 4:26 p.m.

"If Freedom will post contact information, I would be happy to deal with this person directly."

No one need post anything. Simply click each other's name in bold (under the comment) and go from there to leave a private message. Expect, however, that harassing messages can and will be reported to admin.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:27 p.m.

I'm not here to DEAL WITH YOU. I'm not interested in communicating with you. Period. Do you think this is all about you? I don't even know who you are.

I'm here to spread awareness about an issue that is largely misunderstood, poorly publicized, and unjustly processed.

0

David Dodd April 14, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

Freedom, people like Grasca would never reveal their real name, although if I dug hard enough I'm sure I could come up with it. But, you know, I'm not inclined to care very much about someone so anonymous and so hell-bent on controlling people's lives to care. Twenty bucks says she's doing her damndest to find out who we are. This is democracy in the 21st Century. Sieg Heil!

0

Grasca April 14, 2010 @ 4:34 p.m.

USER PROFILE: REFRIEDGRINGO

Joined: Sept. 24, 2008 Blog: Beyond The Big Metal Fence Comments posted: 2085 (view all) CONTACT REFRIEDGRINGO (log-in required)

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:48 p.m.

Refriedgringo,

Never met her, but I find her subversive, manipulative...beyond controlling. I pity the community that would have her someone like her, on their council.

I will reiterate that I have knowledge and reason to believe that the Proposal to Ban Alcohol in Kate Sessions Park is largely misunderstood, poorly publicized and unjustly processed.

That is, afterall, why I am here.

0

Freedom April 14, 2010 @ 4:52 p.m.

Dear Grasca,

I did this with your information because you did it with Refried Gringos. Just to show you what it feels like. I'll expect you'll have mine up soon as well. But, meanwhile, just wondering, what is the point of this?

User profile: Grasca

Joined: May 7, 2009 Comments posted: 21 (view all) Contact Grasca (log-in required)


0

thestoryteller April 14, 2010 @ 6:17 p.m.

russl: You and anyone else can report harrassing messages all you want to admin (believe me I have). Unless the Reader's ass stands to get sued for libel, they don't care.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 6:52 a.m.

What is wrong with being civil ? Using words like "moron," "butt kisser," and "subversive" has nothing to do with the topic at hand - a proposal to ban alcohol at Kate Sessions Park. Maybe the SD Reader doesn't care but I do. The proponents of the ban have followed the City process. Votes have been taken in publicly noticed meetings which follows both the spirit and intent of the Brown Act. It is too bad that this discussion has gotten out of control. Without pointing fingers it seems that anyone who feels they are on a losing side in this particular public process will insult, stretch the truth, and indulge themselves without simply sticking to the facts. The biggest non truth in the discussion was the accusation that the outcome of the Community Parks 1 one was arrived at ahead of time by the members of this committee. If you can prove this, then you need to file a formal complaint to "cure and correct" the action.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 7:30 a.m.

Grasca, I entered the discussion to defend what I felt then, and certainly know now to be that this article - while written from the perspective of an opponent to the ban - did not contain facts that were untrue. In the process, several proponents of the ban have succeeded in turning it into an ideological argument, yourself included.

"The biggest non truth in the discussion was the accusation that the outcome of the Community Parks 1 one was arrived at ahead of time by the members of this committee."

No, it's the truth that cannot be proven. The committee was not interested in getting public opinion, and neither are you or you wouldn't be here arguing. The committee was interested in doing what it wanted to do, which was to ban alcohol from the park. It succeeded. It used the rules it wrote concerning such matters to its advantage, and passed the law. No one has accused the committee of acting illegally. The article is not untrue. There is no longer drinking in the park.

The question is this: Why are you still here, still attempting to fight a battle you've already won? The likely answer is that you are instigating an argument that is no longer relevant because you enjoy arguing. In that case, I have to wonder why you would be surprised that people are no longer being civil toward you.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 8:11 a.m.

"There is no longer drinking in the park" is not the truth. The 24 drinking ban has not passed in terms of adding Kate Sessions park to the ones listed in the Municipal Code which prohibit consumption of alcohol. No one has "won" in terms of a final outcome. Other than following both the Brown Act and Robert's Rules of Order which allowed a staff report, public comment, having a motion and subsequent discussion and vote by the committee members, there is nothing else which could or should have been done at the Community Parks 1 meeting. Have you interviewed City staff and members of the committee to arrive at your mistaken notion that "the committee was not interested in getting public opinion ?" Since committee spent a considerable amount of time listening to staff, the public, and each other and arrived at a decision, what more could the committee have done ? I suppose you could travel north across the big metal fence and appeal the decision in some formal manner ?

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 8:31 a.m.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone and 1984 wrapped into one, Grasca. Virtually everything in the Forum God's, aka refriedgringo, post is wrong, but you will never convince him of that. However, I will enjoy watching you present factual, well-reasoned arguments to no avail and much snarling. You are fighting the good fight, Grasca. God bless.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 8:31 a.m.

Why should anyone care about a committee that doesn't know the definition of "a year"? That was a lie. Defend that lie. They voted before the year's time they agreed on.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 8:32 a.m.

Cuddlefish, how many of those park meeting did you attend?

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 8:40 a.m.

Community Parks 1 Committee did not agree on a year. Kindly review the article by Ms. Matteo.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 8:52 a.m.

"On August 18, 2009, council district 2 staff member Thyme Curtis, former Northern Division police captain (now chief) Shelley Zimmerman, and Community Parks I deputy director Clay Bingham met with the Friends of Kate Session Park group and a few community residents to discuss their concerns regarding alcohol consumption at the park. During that meeting, it was agreed that there would be a one-year evaluation before considering a 24-hour ban."

I did.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 9 a.m.

Community Parks 1 was not at this meeting and did not participate in the discussion. You are confusing the participants.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 9:05 a.m.

May I suggest that individuals needing clarification in an official sense go the City of San Diego's website, sannet.gov, and scroll to the section for Park and Recreation. You will find contact information for staff. You should direct your questions about various meetings to the Park and Recreation staff who attended the meetings.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 9:05 a.m.

May I suggest that individuals needing clarification in an official sense go the City of San Diego's website, sannet.gov, and scroll to the section for Park and Recreation. You will find contact information for staff. You should direct your questions about various meetings to the Park and Recreation staff who attended the meetings.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 9:14 a.m.

"Community Parks 1 was not at this meeting and did not participate in the discussion. You are confusing the participants."

Right, so that initial meeting with "Community Parks I deputy director Clay Bingham", meant that he must not have really been a Community Parks I deputy director, right? Are you challenging that he wasn't there, wasn't representing Community Parks I? Are you claiming that Clay Bingham broke the law when he represented Community Parks I and made that agreement of one year?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 9:30 a.m.

http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/general-info/orgchart.shtml

Heck, there's Mr. Bingham, right there. Seems that rather than posting endless nebulous information, Grasca would've been better off just admitting she's full of it.

Parks I was there, made the agreement, and broke it under pressure from the NIMBY'S. Typical stuff.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 9:39 a.m.

Oh, and for anyone who wishes it, Clay Bingham's office telephone number is (619) 221-8910. He reports directly to Scott Reese, Park & Recreation Asst. Director, who reports to Stacey LoMedico, Park & Recreation Director, who reports to the City of San Diego C.O.O. Jay Goldstone, who reports to Mayor Jerry Sanders. Six degrees of Jerry Sanders. Boo-ya. Yet, only Grasca, Cuddlefish (who has yet to answer my question), and a select other few NIMBY'S are more than happy to tell you that we're stupid and don't understand how local government works.

We understand, and it pisses us off, and so do the people who think they have all of the answers. They don't, they just like to pretend that they run everything.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 9:39 a.m.

The Director of CP1 is not on the committee as a voting member. The committee is made up of non staff volunteers when it comes to taking a vote. To my knowledge no members of the volunteer committee were in attendance. Staff has a duty and right to meet with citizens. What you are implying is that individual volunteer members of Community Parks 1 came to this meeting, took a position in advance of their vote, and subsequently voted in complete violation of the Brown Act. I can only speak for myself in saying that I knew nothing of this meeting and did not attend it. You should contact Mr. Clay Bingham and obtain an official list of who was there. Perhaps you can rest easy after you do your research ?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 9:44 a.m.

And Carolyn, you are outstanding, you smelled a rat, and the more people like Grasca and CF comment here, it cements the fact that you have a great nose for this, write more stuff! I love it.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 9:55 a.m.

"Perhaps you can rest easy after you do your research ?"

Already did it. An agreement of one year does not need to be voted on by NIMBY's. Of course, such an agreement can be broken by pressure from the NIMBY's. This is what happened in this case. The minimum was done to "satisfy" public notification and, without much in the way of what the volunteer board had already decided it wanted to do back in August of 2009, it did it with ease.

I think that you should contact Mr. Bingham and obtain your official list, you're the one claiming it wasn't within his realm of responsibility to make such an agreement. I also think that you need to brush up on the Brown Act.

"Public may not be asked to register or identify themselves or to pay fees in order to attend public meetings." 54953.3;54961

You're not allowed to find out who was in attendance. Further, since identification isn't required, wherever you found your information about attending members is in violation of the act.

0

Freedom April 15, 2010 @ 11:33 a.m.

Refriedgringo,

You are a smart one. This board is lucky to have you here.

I had NO IDEA about the Brown Act, so thank you. "Public may not be asked to register or identify themselves or to pay fees in order to attend public meetings."

They have a SIGN-IN sheet. They do this at MANY council meetings. Sometimes, they go around the room and have people identify themselves by name AND occupation. Some sign-in sheets ask for your name, phone and email address! At some meetings they chase after you to sign in. This is a violation? I had no idea. THANK YOU!

These self-appointed,volunteer "representatives" of the people are either 1)ignorant of the laws, meeting format,and their limitations, OR 2)They intentionally ignore them. Which is it?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 12:02 p.m.

Here is the complete text of The Brown Act:

http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/2003_Main_BrownAct.pdf

The intent of the act seems to be in protecting citizens from being run over by their local Government and in guaranteeing their rights to be involved in local decisions. The problem is this: A select few seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to rule the majority by hiding behind this act. The editor who headlined this article should get a blue ribbon. Wake up, San Diego, don't let the Grasca's of your community dictate to you what you can and cannot do. You do not have to be within a certain distance of a park to speak at these hearings, and while the deck is stacked against you (72 hours notice, please, what a sham), back someone to protect your rights as a citizen.

When asked what your name is, invoke the Brown Act to protect yourself from harrassment. You do not have to sign in. You do not have to reveal your name. Just like Grasca or CF refrains from revealing theirs here.

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 12:32 p.m.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Okay, have had enough amusement, am off to do something productive with my time, have fun, children!! :)

0

Duhbya April 15, 2010 @ 12:47 p.m.

"LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!"

What jealousy sounds like when it rears its ugly head.

Also easily identified by its scat: By CuddleFish

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 1:06 p.m.

Translation of comment # 124: I was pwnd, I'll run along to attempt to torment someone less capable.

My guess is that where CF goes, so goes Grasca.

And, perhaps, this glorious comment thread will peter out at around 130. Still, quite impressive. And further, hopefully, the public using these parks and beaches will get smart and battle back. After all, you're not up against much in the way of intelligence. Just don't let them use their own words to make you afraid of exercising your rights. Their volunteerism is the most dangerous thing you're up against. It's veiled. Beware of anyone volunteering their time out of the goodness of their hearts, because odds are that they aren't. They can devote tons of time to it that you cannot. That's the sad part.

Elect your representatives very carefully.

And stick up for your rights.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 1:15 p.m.

The Brown Act is a complex document which deals with, among other things, the proper noticing of public meetings. The 72 hour notice of the CP1 meeting was done in accordance with the Brown Act. No one was required to sign into the CP1 meeting. If you did not wish to sign in, no one denied you access to the meeting. However, just as is required at ALL OPEN MEETINGS of the San Diego City Council, speakers both pro and con, are asked to fill out speaker slips which do ask for certain information. If you feel that the San Diego City Council and other recognized community groups operating under the Brown Act are in violation of the speaker slip issue, then I would suggest seeking clarification from the City Attorney. No one was required to sign in which is different from filling out a speaker slip. As for a formal agreement between the proponents of the ban and the Park Department, I doubt if one exists. However, you could research this. I suspect the Park Department may have suggested one year to the proponents but that no formal document or contract binding the proponents to this time frame exists.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 1:32 p.m.

Mr. Refried Gringo is listed as a "stringer" for the San Diego Reader on the article which he wrote in February 2010. I have no idea what his current status but that would place Mr. Refried Gringo and Ms. Carolyn Grace Matteo in the same category. I do not know but would like to confirm if "stringers" are paid for their contributions.

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 1:38 p.m.

Ooooh, sorry, Grasca, we crossed, that last post was directed at the posts before yours.

Yes, stringers are paid for the stuff they submit. :)

0

Freedom April 15, 2010 @ 1:42 p.m.

Fact: There was a sign-in sheet at the meeting...in addition to speaker forms.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 1:42 p.m.

I did research it Grasca, and posted accordingly.

"However, just as is required at ALL OPEN MEETINGS of the San Diego City Council, speakers both pro and con, are asked to fill out speaker slips which do ask for certain information."

This is in direct violation of the Brown Act. I have pointed that out.

"No one was required to sign in which is different from filling out a speaker slip."

Here's what the Brown Act states:

"Under the Brown Act, a member of the public can attend a meeting of a legislative body without having to register or give other information as a condition of attendance. (§ 54953.3; see also 27 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 123 (1956).) If a register, questionnaire or similar document is posted or circulated at a meeting, it must clearly state that completion of the document is voluntary and not a precondition for attendance. (§ 54953.3.) A legislative body may not prohibit any person attending an open meeting from video recording, audio recording or broadcasting the proceedings, absent a reasonable finding that such activity would constitute a disruption of the proceedings. (§§ 54953.5, 54953.6; Nevens v. City of Chino (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 775, 779; see also § 6091.)"

Your circulation people did not state that completion of the document is voluntary, to my understanding, therefore it was in violation of the Brown Act.

"Under the Act, the public is guaranteed the right to provide testimony at any regular or special meeting on any subject which will be considered by the legislative body before or during its consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a).)"

The Brown act may not prohibit you from filling out a slip in order to speak, but that slip must not violate the Brown Act. My understanding is that it did. Speakers do not need to identify themselves beyond being a member of the public. John or Jane Doe is just fine.

Since I did not speak at this meeting, I cannot file a compaint with the City attorney. However (hint) anyone who did, may use these provisions of the Brown Act to formally complain that their rights were violated. Up to y'all. If I lived in PB, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

0

Freedom April 15, 2010 @ 1:43 p.m.

Of course Stringers are paid! Do you really not know that...someone in your position? Do you really think an author would volunteer for the kind of abuse one gets on these message threads?

0

Freedom April 15, 2010 @ 1:49 p.m.

I think the author of this article,Carolyn Matteo, should file a complaint. Not only were her rights violated at the meeting, but then, Grasca came on this public site, and notified the world "that" she had voted and "how" she had voted at the meeting! Crazy!

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 1:51 p.m.

Grasca, "Mr. Refried Gringo" has never submitted a stringer story to the Reader. You are telling a lie (big surprise there). You need to link where "Mr. Refried Gringo" has ever submitted a stringer story. Or, what you can really, do, is to come clean and admit that you take every one of those names on the lists at your meetings and research them. You know, where they live, how they vote, any dirt you can get on them. Isn't that how you "volunteers" do your business?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 1:52 p.m.

134: Exactly. They don't tell you that you may refuse to fill out the sheets (in direct violation of the Brown Act), and they use them against you. There is a much larger and more dangerous story in all of this.

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 1:53 p.m.

OMG, the paranoid refriedgringo persona is out again!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 1:57 p.m.

Now, Grasca, I encourage you to come clean. Please reveal to the world your ulterior motives. You really did join the recreation council in your area because you are an agent of the New World Order in cahoots with the Park and Rec department people and your Council representative, hell-bent on taking over the world via the Brown Act, right?

Come, come, ve haf vays off making you talk!!!!

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 2:01 p.m.

137, What, that I'm sick of you trying to direct everyone's lives on this website? Please. Go kiss SD CityBeat butt, they seem to like you over there.

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 2:01 p.m.

"Translation of comment # 124: I was pwnd, I'll run along to attempt to torment someone less capable."

What does this remark mean?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 2:02 p.m.

@140. It means that you wouldn't get the comment. And you didn't.

0

CuddleFish April 15, 2010 @ 2:07 p.m.

No, it means something much worse than that.

You have exposed yourself for what you are, refriedgringo.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 2:15 p.m.

"No, it means something much worse than that.

You have exposed yourself for what you are, refriedgringo."

What, I'm a manipulative jerk that leaves comments wherever you decide to comment only dierected at you in order to make me look somehow superior to you? No, this is simply many months of putting up with your crap and your obvious attempt to run me outta here. Not going to happen. I've had enough of YOU. And, I'm not putting up with your crap anymore. Stuff it, CF.

0

Duhbya April 15, 2010 @ 2:23 p.m.

So much for:

"Okay, have had enough amusement, am off to do something productive with my time, have fun, children!! :)

By CuddleFish 12:32 p.m., Apr 15, 2010"

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 2:31 p.m.

I never wrote that Ms. Carolyn Grace Matteo filled out a Speaker Slip at the Community Park 1 meeting or that she spoke to the issue of a 24 alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park.

Refried Gringo #1 When you search under the name of refried gringo, the name of David XXX XXX appears and is identified as a stringer for the San Diego Reader. I referenced this article by Mr. Brown - From 18 to 86 By David XXX XXX | Published Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010

Does Refried Gringo #1 from this blog have a doppelganger named David XXX XXX (Refried Gringo #2) who writes for the San Diego Reader as a "stringer" and uses the same screen name - "refried gringo ?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 2:38 p.m.

Grasca, now that you have gone to the lengths to google and research my nick, you may now tell us your real name, completely, and in detail, so that we might do the same.

I'm waiting.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 2:42 p.m.

Res ipsa loguitur - The term comes from Latin and means "the thing itself speaks", but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself." The Latin sentence is found in Cicero's speech Pro Milone.

Nice to meet you.

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 2:47 p.m.

BarfinPB makes a good point about broad community input. Does it stretch across the border now ?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:01 p.m.

All of these people who refuse to state their names? This is AWESOME! Hey, come on cowards, name up. Are you scared? Afraid of something? I'm not, my true and given name was so obvious, I made it that way, I have nothing to hide, even though Grasca (or CF or whomever) pretended that it was some hidden thing undiscovered. Name yourselves! Do it, I dare you! Grasca, what's your name? Barfin, what's yours? Do it guys. Do it. Come on, you know you should, after all, it's about what's fair, right?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.

"BarfinPB makes a good point about broad community input. Does it stretch across the border now ?"

It does, I pay taxes over there. Next question? No, better yet, your NAMES!

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:08 p.m.

Your name, Barfin. Your name. You are completely irrevivant without your real name. Sign the sheet. We demand you real name. Otherwise, your opinion is irrelevant.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:10 p.m.

Names! If you can't give your real name here, then your opinion doesn't count! Give it up. Chickens, you're all chickens!!!!!

Names. I didn't hide mine, even though Grasca right out lied about how she got it, so give up yours! Names!

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:16 p.m.

Ah, I see. No names. Well, here's what happens. Hopefully, someone contacts the City attorney, violations of the Brown act in this case are rampant. Y'all scardycat manipulators can continue with your horsecrap, meanwhile, hopefully, the good citizens of San Diego will take it back. Even if they don't in this case, I can only hope that they will have been educated that people like Grasca, CF, and Barfin are controlling your life and you liberties, and if you really want this type of representation, you'll take the power back. It's yours San Diego, not theirs.

And Barfin, I was born in SD. Bet you weren't.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:17 p.m.

Name, Barfin, do you have one, what is it, what are you afraid of?

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:19 p.m.

Barfin, you're getting stale, NAME let's have it!

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.

Come on, Barfin, Grasca, CF, let's have your real names, I'm braver, smarter, and wiser that all of you combined! Let's have some NAMES! In the name of BROWN, I want names! I DARE YOU.

0

Duhbya April 15, 2010 @ 3:23 p.m.

Judging by the content of the posts, it's possible that "Barfin" might be the actual name. Or perhaps that's code for "Ralphin" or (Up)"Chuckin". A genyoowine "ding"-a-ling, at any rate.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:36 p.m.

You know Duhbya, I'm actually a pretty peaceful guy. I came into this comment thread only because I thought the stringer story was pretty good. I don't drink in parks. I'm actually not really concerned about it. But holy wow, this just went on and on, and then pretty soon it seemed to turn into a argument where ideology was concealed by some local law. And then the Brown Act. And then I read the Brown Act, and - for right or wrong - I had to laugh. And then, regardless that apparently the proponents of the ban won the vote, they just keep coming! Like fireants!

It's folly, I know. But perhaps it serves to inspire a crowd that might care to stand up to this. I remember in History as a young lad reading about how much the French admired the U.S. in that local politics had so much ability to affect National politics. I reckon they might have been right. Scary. It isn't about drinking in a public park. It's about being raped of freedom at the local level.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 3:37 p.m.

Barfin, if you are to afraid to supply your name, then eff off.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 4:01 p.m.

Name, Barfin. Name. Name. Name. Apparently, you don't have one. If you have no real name, then you aren't relevant. Go away, Barfin. Supply your name or split. No Vern no Ned, your name or go away, you are a huge problem otherwise. Supply your name. I'm tired of anonymous people trying to tell me how to live my life, give us your name. Otherwise, you're a tool. Anonymous people suck, Barfin. Your pal Grasca (or CF or whomever) is busy trying to get information on my name (much luck guys), while you run interference. Names. Provide them. It's okay for you to violate the Brown Act, we get it, but not good to provide your own name. Chicken. Lazy, compeltely idiotic, chicken. Do it, I dare you.

You are making this so good :)

You're proving the point of the author. I'm so delighted in this.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 4:03 p.m.

Your name, Barfin. Nothing is relevant without it. Couldn't care less about my percentage of posts, no one's counting that. We want your name. Now. Provide it.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 4:04 p.m.

Hey Barfin, you believe in local politics, and they take names, provide yours. What's your name, Barfin?

0

Duhbya April 15, 2010 @ 4:43 p.m.

refried: your points in #164 are well-taken. In fact, I just went back and re-read the first three posts. They synopsize and legitimize your assessment quite well. The level of intimidation (a.k.a. bullying) is chilling in this thread. Yet another microcosm of the soapboxization of America in my opinion, i.e., most anyone with a keyboard and internet access can make the claim of infallibility on any given issue, falsely or not. GBS - Glenn Beck Syndrome. I hear you on the peaceful comment - often I'm embarrassed by what I've just typed, sentiments so out of character for me yet begging to be released, for posterity's sake if nothing else.

"Fire ants are known for their lively and aggressive behavior, swarming over anyone or anything that disturbs their nest. When these pesky critters invade an area, they do it with a vengeance."

0

BarfinPB April 15, 2010 @ 4:51 p.m.

Duhbya - I want your real name! Sorry, for a moment there I thought I was Refried. Get it?

0

Grasca April 15, 2010 @ 5:07 p.m.

El Nuevo Perico Tijuana, Baja California. Muy frio.

0

Freedom April 15, 2010 @ 5:47 p.m.

Once again, Refried "the genius" gets the pivotal point, the root, the crux of this matter... and with all differences aside the bottom line is that this issue is a representation on a micro level of how we Americans, inch by inch, park by park, beach by beach, beer by beer, word by word, are being RAPED OF OUR FREEDOM...

0

BarfinPB April 15, 2010 @ 6:14 p.m.

Freedom - Wow - Rape? Do you wish to share with us something of your past.

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 7:09 p.m.

Why Barfin, you know my name! And you've proven my point! Anonymous idiots love to look up as much information they can against normal citizens! Yet, Barfin, we have yet to know your name.

Name, Barfin. I want your name. I want it now. Name, Barfin. What are you afriad of, Barfin? I've supplied plenty of information, Barfin. Where's yours, Barfin. Name, Barfin.

(Note to anyone reading this, see how it goes? Anonymous people in YOUR neighborhood want you to come to meetings and get your name and information (in violation of the Brown Act), so they can attempt to use it against you? See this happening? This is what you are voting for, people. This is what you are ignoring, this goes on every day where you live, some NIMBY neighbor has a file on you!)

0

David Dodd April 15, 2010 @ 7:37 p.m.

Wow. I think I'm making someone work overtime at the Reader, hey I apologize, it was never my intent to do that. I do very much appreciate y'all protecting my name, I'm truly touched by it. I just looked back on the comments and some are deleted, others protected. You guys truly have my gratitude.

I'll stop, I'd rather you have a nice dinner than worry about my identity. However, if this has provided a nice lesson for the good folks of San Diego, perhaps it was worth it. I hope that's the case, and at the very least, stringer writer Carolyn Grace Matteo is a keeper, and hopefully the future of the San Diego Reader. And to y'all looking up information on me, keep it in your file and let the Reader website administrator rest in peace tonight. Give the file to the FBI or something, they can add it to what they already have.

I won't be back in this comment thread, the point has been made.

0

Freedom April 15, 2010 @ 9:36 p.m.

Re: Coment #177

What are you in 2nd grade? Nice logic.

0

Duhbya April 16, 2010 @ 3:33 p.m.

Barf: my given (legal) name is on this website for any and all to see. Yours?

0

Grasca April 16, 2010 @ 6:38 p.m.

Not that it really matters but where is Duhbya's given legal name on this blog ? I love the his cat photo of a tuxedo feline which indicates this person is okay in my book. I hope we can all agree that cats are God's creatures. And to my knowledge cats are not binge drinkers.

0

CuddleFish April 16, 2010 @ 7:06 p.m.

Duhbya doesn't like me! :) He's all right, though. Talks about his cats on the blog threads. A lot of us do, Grasca, you can check it out on the Neighborhood blogs. :)

0

CuddleFish April 16, 2010 @ 8:05 p.m.

Admin, I find this conduct completely objectionable and outrageous. What refriedgringo is threatening to do is little short of blackmail, and smacks of Internet stalking, and is certainly controlling conduct and bullying.

Grasca has done nothing on this thread beyond respond to charges that her vote on the alcohol ban was somehow corrupted and politically influenced, charges which if I were her I would seek legal counsel to bring a lawsuit on defamation of character.

Please tell refriedgringo that his idea of himself as Forum God has gone too far. People must be allowed to speak freely on this forum without fear of threat of their personal information.

0

CuddleFish April 16, 2010 @ 8:15 p.m.

I would like to speak to your little gang on this thread, refriedgringo. I post on threads, speak my piece, and take my lumps. If your secret correspondents are too cowardly to speak for themselves on the forum, fine. But the fact that they manipulate you to do their dirty work is despicable. My guess that some of the people who are doing this are the same people who attempted to control me in the same way, which is why I broke off contact with them. I am no one's tool. Shame on them, and shame on you, refriedgringo, for allowing your altogether too good opinion of yourself to cloud your judgment and blind you to the truth.

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 8:25 p.m.

CF, I have your proper name as well. Mine was researched and stuck into this comment thread. Along with the names of my children. The Reader deleted those comments, but y'all want to continue with all of this, so I'm game. Now that the playing field is leveled, I think it's completely appropriate that since Grasca violated the Brown Act (oh, I have some bitchin' stories from very upset citizens), and since you act all outraged over it while defending the actions of Grasca, I say let's take off the gloves!

After all, I didn't post the names of my children on this website, now did I? And I didn't invite the many emails that came my way, now did I? Blackmail? Hah! I call it sort of justifyable. After all, I'm not going to post anything on a website. But, you know, what information I run accross on my own (due to the audacity of those who think that their bully tactics will actually get them somewhere in life) is at my own discretion to use as I see fit. But, you know, continue to complain when it doesn't go your way.

Hey, CF, you reap what you sow.

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 8:32 p.m.

"If people really care about these and other civic matters, they can get involved -- or continue to show their ignorance by posting about things they know nothing about on public forums. One takes the desire, good will, and effort to be a good citizen of the United States, the other takes only the ability to type."

You wrote that, CF. You wrote it because of my opinion here. You do this all of the time. You seek out where I post and continue to do this. And you accuse me of stalking? Are you kidding me?

Oh, I have so many more examples. It isn't enough for you to have a difference of opinion, you have to run the damned show here. Now, quick, email and message people here in the Reader, tell them what a monster I am. This is, after all, what you usually do. And yes, I know. And be sure and push that "report" button, I'm sure that Reader admin looks foreward to you doing that.

0

CuddleFish April 16, 2010 @ 8:36 p.m.

You need to take a walk and get some fresh air, refriedgringo, because you are paranoid tripping.

Admin, refried needs to take a break from this forum. This is getting out of control. Serious.

0

CuddleFish April 16, 2010 @ 8:40 p.m.

I am perfectly willing to allow the Reader access to my email account to prove that I have not been emailing anyone about you, refried, and I am perfectly willing to release the Reader from any confidentiality in regards to reports from me about you, because there are no such reports. I have never reported you. I have never written your Christian name or your children's names on a thread or in an email. I have not stalked you. I have not posted following your comments in weeks, as I told you I would not. Where I have posted, it is independent of your comments. Whatever is in that paranoid brain of yours, and whoever is manipulating you, has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 8:42 p.m.

Cuddlefish, you are delusional. You create problems and then want people to bail you out. I'm sure you would love to see me gone from this website, but I'm not going anywhere, I love the magazine, love the people, love the vibe, and you don't intimidate me at all. Nice try though. I'm sure it works well in those "other civic matters" I know nothing about. Doesn't work with me. Take some of your own advice:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 8:47 p.m.

CF, if I'm the paranoid one, why are you denying what I haven't accused you of (other than stalking, of course, which you do with my comments here)?

"Mine was researched and stuck into this comment thread. Along with the names of my children."

I'm pretty sure I didn't name any names here. But you seem frightened, none the less. I wonder why...

0

CuddleFish April 16, 2010 @ 8:50 p.m.

You are mistaken, refriedgringo. I have nothing to fear.

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 8:58 p.m.

"I have not posted following your comments in weeks, as I told you I would not."

That's a lie, straight-up. You did it in here, I pointed it out. There are other areas as well. I generally avoid anywhere you post a comment before I do, you seem to have difficulty with it. There's always going to be one in every crowd that can't get along with people, I generally avoid that person, and here, that person is you. But, since you feel the need to not only comment (and why not comment, and even have a different opinion), but to make sure and take a personal jab, then why shouldn't I just lay the cards on the table? I'm sick of your crap, I'm tired of you following me around in here, and regardless of you calling it blackmail or a need for a time out or whatever delusional thought process you go through, the simple explanation is that your act is obvious!

I don't care that you don't like me, I care that you can't take a hint, so I'll put it bluntly: Leave me the hell alone, and if you can't do that and if you won't leave because you're obsessed, then all of the information provided by the wonderful people who enjoy peace and harmony on this website will be at their own disposal to use as they see fit! Enough. Of. Your. Crap.

0

Russ Lewis April 16, 2010 @ 9 p.m.

In case you thought otherwise, Gringo, I observed yesterday that it was in fact Barfin' who indiscreetly posted your biographical data on here. (Who picks "Barfin'" for a screen name?)

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 9:05 p.m.

Thanks, Russl. I noted that as well. I actually don't have much of a problem with it, I doubt that anyone could even find my house with directions ;) But the point that was made last night, in my opinion, is that these committees take names and do research. I got more than a few emails last night from people who have actually been harrassed for voicing their opinions against the voting members. I think that Carolyn has an awesome article waiting to be written if she wants it. My information, subject to the conditions it was passed along to me, is hers.

0

Freedom April 16, 2010 @ 9:10 p.m.

Refried is accurate. CF follows people around, seems to follow those he feels threatened by. He makes derrogatory comments as if putting down others will somehow make himself look a bit brighter. He did it with the author of this article as well. He doesn't state facts, he uses propaganda and half-truths. Funny thing is he doesn't think anyone recognizes this.

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 9:23 p.m.

I understand the confusion, Freedom, but in the name of truth and honesty, CF is actually a chick. At least, her given name is female. In case anyone thinks I'm being an a-hole for divulging that information, it wasn't meant in a harmful way, CF is a female.

0

Russ Lewis April 16, 2010 @ 9:34 p.m.

I've also been accused of "stalking" a lawyer on these pages with a degree in law and apparently no instruction in manners. To comment on the same thread as someone else is not the same thing as stalking. Let's keep in mind that 1) this is a very small playground we've got here and people are liable to bump into each other and 2) literal stalking is a crime. To falsely accuse another of a crime is itself a crime (defamation), and anyone who doesn't want to get kicked off the playground would do well to avoid libel. Just sayin'.

0

David Dodd April 16, 2010 @ 9:51 p.m.

I find it interesting that you and the lawyer don't get along, russl, I like both of you. Perhaps a difference of opinion just got out of hand, no idea. You both seem quite rational, quite intelligent, it's an interesting issue. Heck, Don Bauder called me "naive" not too long ago, I didn't take that personally. SDaniels took me to task at some point in the recent past, and although it steamed me for the night, I got over it the next morning. She's a smart lady (and pretty damned attractive, too).

Hope you and the lawyer get together and have a beer at some point, russl. I'll join y'all, if that what it takes ;)

0

SDaniels April 17, 2010 @ 12:58 a.m.

So...it steamed you for the night, gringo? I'll take that as direct confirmation that my superior point of view opened your pores and proceeded to thoroughly permeate every cell of your body as well as brain ;)

I remember what happened with Russ-Puppy-Gate: It was the dumbest thing ever: Somebody let SurfPuppy off his leash, and he started calling JW a firewhiner, as per usual. A few Bauderians, with Russl suddenly at the helm, wanted SurfP to provide conclusive data about something or other--oh, that firefighters are GED wooses, maybe.

Things got heated, Puppy got a little too excited, and before you know it, he was calling Russl a particular 'pet' name he has for government workers. Russl, I'm sure you remember. Although, I really hope it doesn't flame up again--I like you both, too.

0

David Dodd April 17, 2010 @ 1:38 a.m.

Nah, SD, it steamed me for the night because you wasted your talent on my comments rather than to break down something more deserving of such a keen observational mind. I'd rather have such notable consideration on the inside jacket of my first novel ;)

In such a case, I'd probably easily sell out my advance in a week's time. And I'd volunteer to be among those to hose off the flare-up of any russl v. SP feud. Two smart people shouldn't be at odds simply because there's no fire hydrant in sight. A pitcher of good beer might be enough to put out the flames ;)

0

SDaniels April 17, 2010 @ 2:43 a.m.

Two smart people shouldn't be at odds simply because there's no fire hydrant in sight. A pitcher of good beer might be enough to put out the flames ;)

Here, here!

0

Grasca April 17, 2010 @ 7:10 a.m.

Confusion. Some on this blog write in other sections of the SD Reader and willingly provide their legal names and information about where they live, names of family members, and other personal information. When this is republished, the writers feign indignation. I don't think that you can have it both ways - being anonymous and also telling the world who you are and what you think in another written venue. The SD Reader sees fit to publish the contact information with name and number of a City official but then blanks out the legal names of one others. I would like clarification from the SD Reader staff about their privacy policy. If this is truly a forum for all of us to exercise Free Speech, then no one should be exposed any more than they have chosen to expose themselves. The drinking comments in the final blogs get us back to the real topic - the vote of an advisory volunteer committee on a proposed 24 hour ban of alcohol at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. If there is anything left to debate about this topic, this is the direction which the discussion should go.

0

CuddleFish April 17, 2010 @ 9:28 a.m.

I've been wanting to point that out for the longest, Grasca, but didn't want to stir the fire. It doesn't take a genius to find the blog where much information has been posted that anyone can access. But the real identity was never the question, at least for me, since I have known it almost since I arrived here months ago, and I am too lazy a person to stalk anyone, or google them, or try to track them down to slap their ugly puss, which I hasten to add I wouldn't do anyway, not worth my time. The real question all along, which I identified from the beginning, was how much people don't know about the process which the City has set up to ask for citizen's guidance on matters pertaining to City policy. As an example, as you probably know, the City Park and Rec department is currently asking it's Rec Councils to approve of changes to the Muni Code re dog parks, or leash-free areas as they are requesting to be called. The Park and Rec department also is seeking to get guidance on its Trails policies. Now, are any of the people here who were so intensely interested in the alcohol ban going to read through those lengthy reports, sit in on three consecutive meetings where they will have to listen to several other reports on things such as Little League, Lacross tournaments, Adult softball, Carnival dates and rain clauses and fee negotiations, repairs to field, permission for Church of the Rock to set up food distribution on what dates, need for new equipment for the Teen Center, how many children used the Craft room during the last session, vandalized benches, schedule for upcoming summer swim lessons, sports council disputes re usage of the field between Little League and Soccer League, people using the passive areas of the park for activities, additional signage requests, the need for security cameras and more lights, reports from Council aides, State rep aides, Congressional aides, Code compliance officer, police liaison, Area manager, Center director, requests for funding all the various projects and programs, reports from workshops, consideration of amendments to bylaws, voting in of new members, nominations of officials, communications from residents, and all the other petty little details that form the bulk of an agenda? That little call for action from certain posters that people should storm the recreation councils? Be our guests. No sleeping during the meetings.

0

CuddleFish April 17, 2010 @ 9:32 a.m.

As to the alcohol ban, Grasca, if you would kindly post the information as to the next Park and Recreation Board meeting, I would imagine the agenda is not yet available, I believe that is where this issue is going to next be discussed. Since they have already met in April, the next meeting would be in May.

After that, the issue goes to the City Council, I would imagine in May. The Park and Rec, assuming the ban passes, would then have time to implement the ban before the Fourth of July holiday. If there is enough opposition, then the City Council might delay any action until there is further study. Those who are opposed to the ban ought to appear before the City Council as politicians rarely do the right thing. If they are lucky, the media will be there to capture their comments re the Kate Sessions Park fascists who are trying to take away their Constitutional rights to beer bongs.

0

Grasca April 17, 2010 @ 10:11 a.m.

I do not know if the May agenda of the Park and Recreation Board, an advisory body composed of citizens nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the City Council, will include the proposal for the 24 hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. Interested parties should check the Park and Recreation site at sannet.gov. I believe that the agenda for the Park and Recreation Board is posted, in accordance with the Brown Act, 72 hours before the meeting on this site. Proper noticing by City staff allows all persons time to consider the agenda items and decide if one wants to participate in the process. One could also check at their local recreation center or call their council representative.

0

Grasca April 17, 2010 @ 10:21 a.m.

From the sannet.gov site :

San Diego Park & Recreation Board

The Park & Recreation Board was chartered by the City Council under Municipal Code Section 26.30 to serve as an advisory board on matters relating to the acquisition, development, maintenance and operation of parks, beaches and recreation properties and facilities.

The Board consists of eleven members who serve without compensation. Appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, the members serve two year terms, for a maximum of eight years. The Park and Recreation Director serves as Secretary to the Board.

The Board meets the third Thursday of the month, 2:00 p.m. in the Council Committee Room of the City Administration Building located at 202 C Street.

Questions about The Park and Recreation Board can be directed to Board Staff at 619-525-8213.

0

CuddleFish April 17, 2010 @ 11:03 a.m.

Thanks, Grasca, you're a peach! :)

I will call Monday morning to find out if the alcohol ban will be discussed at the May meeting, will post whatever I find out here, though it may be too soon to find out about the agenda at this point.

By the way, I did a google search re the alcohol ban and easily came up with several articles that discussed all the particulars from the beginning of the issue right up to the end. Articles were in the local newspapers, as well as the San Diego U-T, as well as Internet zines. as well as television reports. Stories went into detail as to why the alcohol ban was being considered and whether people were for or against the ban, some further stated what the various steps were in order to establish an alcohol ban, who the governing bodies were, when they met, whom to contact for more information at Park and Rec. I would say that these articles were more than enough Public Notice.

Selected at random: http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/1359021/proposal_made_to_ban_booze_at_park?cpt=8

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/11/parks-neighbors-seek-alcohol-ban/

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-08-23/politics-city-county-government/alcohol-ban-discussed-for-kate-sessions-park

http://sdnews.com/view/full_story/3019621/article-Beach-party-moves-to-Kate-Sessions-Park

http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/3704475/article-Organization-is-watching-problems-at-Kate-Sessions-Park

0

David Dodd April 17, 2010 @ 5:16 p.m.

"Some on this blog write in other sections of the SD Reader and willingly provide their legal names and information about where they live, names of family members, and other personal information."

First, that is not correct, I have yet to see anyone providing such information. Mine was sleuthed. This is what "volunteers" do, they gather information. This is what you did, Grasca, to come up with my real name. Second, I really don't care that my real name is used here, I've gone to no great lengths to hide that, unlike yourself. You haven't revealed your real name because you are a coward, and you are a liar. I haven't revealed your real name here because, unlike yourself, I have ethics and morals. Guess I'll never make it into local politics.

Again, for anyone attending these meetings that Grasca is so pround to be a part of, you do NOT have to provide your name, nor anything. And don't. When they pass around that clip board AND FAIL TO TELL YOU THAT YOU DON"T HAVE TO FILL IT OUT, IN VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT, don't fall for it. Otherwise, it is possible that you'll suffer consequences. I have a feeling you'll read about this type of thing in an upcoming issue here :)

"The SD Reader sees fit to publish the contact information with name and number of a City official but then blanks out the legal names of one others. I would like clarification from the SD Reader staff about their privacy policy."

Rather that go to the websites that Grasca directs you to, simply go to the websites representing the City of San Diego. That's what I did. The names and telephone numbers of your representatives are listed there. Grasca is obviously feeling some sense of empowerment, forgetting that the telephone numbers of City and County officials are listed publically for a reason. Grasca does not represent you, San Diego. Otherwise, her telephone number and real name would be listed there. It isn't.

"The drinking comments in the final blogs get us back to the real topic - the vote of an advisory volunteer committee on a proposed 24 hour ban of alcohol at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park."

Oh no, Grasca, that isn't what you meant at all, is it? You have a great future in politics, your lies are brazen, bold, and basically meant to offend the common sense of anyone who reads your crap. Your pals here are CF and someone named Barfin. Otherwise, I'm guessing that people see right through you.

Why would you want to know Duhbya's real name? What's in that for you? Don't tell me curiosity, I know better than that.

0

Duhbya April 18, 2010 @ 4:48 a.m.

"Why would (Grasca) want to know Duhbya's real name? What's in that for you?"

He/she wants to meet Babe? (the cat). BTW, Grasca, I did not say my name was on this blog, I said "website". Whoops, there goes your Sunday.

0

Grasca April 18, 2010 @ 8:09 a.m.

Live right so the preacher will not have to lie at your funeral.

0

CuddleFish April 18, 2010 @ 8:47 a.m.

LOLOL!!! A good Sunday morning to you, Grasca, and to everyone. :)

0

David Dodd April 18, 2010 @ 10:05 a.m.

"Live right so the preacher will not have to lie at your funeral."

And know that Grasca's taking notes and slipping them to the preacher. That would include your name, your license plate number, anything she can use. Yes, your license plate number is often recorded at these functions. Isn't that right, Grasca?

0

CuddleFish April 19, 2010 @ 9:59 a.m.

As I promised, and FYI, I called and confirmed that the Sessions alcohol ban is tentatively planned for inclusion on the Board agenda in May. The formal agenda will be posted a week before the meeting.

The Board meets the third Thursday of the month, 2:00 p.m. in the Council Committee Room of the City Administration Building located at 202 C Street. In this case, that would be May 20, 2010.

0

vintage_soul April 19, 2010 @ 12:03 p.m.

I am confused. Which board/committee met on the 7th of April? Also, 2:00PM is not exactly a convenient time...well, unless you DON'T want other people invloved.

My opinion: It seems like if the laws already in place were actually enforced then there would not be a problem. The city needs to crack down on the people abusing the park. Also, it seems like a bunch of people confined to a specific area make it pretty easy for the police to enforce these laws.

Lasy year, I spent the 4th of July at K.O.S. Park. There was plenty of drinking going on but I didn't see anything that was completely out of control. I do have 2 complaints and they're regarding rules/laws not being enforced. 1.) The slip 'n' slide, although comical to watch, is illegal and a waste of water. It could easily be prevented. 2.) The amplified music is annoying and could also easily be stopped.

After enjoying the day at the park, the few people I was with and many other people picked up trash and then packed up our belongings and then WALKED home. We then returned in the morning to pick up any other trash that was still there. And YES, I was drinking alcohol all day long and amazingly lived to tell the story about how I survived another day at K.O.S. Park.

The alcohol is not the problem...it's the people abusing the park and breaking the law. Last time I checked we pay taxes for the enforcement of laws...right? Simply banning alcohol at one place just makes it a problem at another. Try again...

0

Grasca April 19, 2010 @ 12:11 p.m.

Park and Recreation Board is meeting at 2 pm and may hear the Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park agenda item. See post #196 for further details. Then the matter will go to a Council Committee and on to the full City Council for a binding vote. It would be difficult to schedule any public meeting at at time convenient for every citizen.

0

vintage_soul April 19, 2010 @ 12:34 p.m.

@Grasca - Thank you for the information.

So 2:00PM is convenient for the majority of citizens? Shouldn't the mettings be held at a time that would optimize the involvement of the community? I don't speak for everyone but I am quite positive that it would be difficult for the majority of citizens to attend a monthly meeting at 2:00PM on a Thursday.

Forgot to mention: Thank you Carolyn for writing this piece.

0

David Dodd April 19, 2010 @ 1:06 p.m.

"Shouldn't the mettings be held at a time that would optimize the involvement of the community?"

Yes, because 2PM is perfect for all who usually work during that time. vintage, you nailed it. And if people from the community started showing up at 2PM, I'm certain that they would change the time to nine in the morning. Or three in the morning. Whatever works against the community.

Wake up, San Diego. Take your City back. Carolyn wrote a great article (not a blog, an article), and I sincerely hope that you people who have enjoyed KSP get your say. Do not sign the sheet they pass around, that information could be used against you and it is in violation of the Brown Act. Simply attend and even speak and be the part of your community that is obviously being taken away from you.

And again, vintage, great comment.

0

Grasca April 19, 2010 @ 1:07 p.m.

The City Council and the Council Committees start at 10 am and then resume at 2 pm. The Planning Commission also meets during the day. I am guessing the times have something to do with keeping public buildings open. After hours meetings probably cost more money for the City which we all know is broke. From the looks of things on Channel 24 (live feed for City Council and other meetings) where there is a will, there is a way. People attend if the issue is that important to them. The trolley is a good way to go as it drops a person directly off in from of the City Administration Building where the hearings are held.

0

Grasca April 19, 2010 @ 1:12 p.m.

What times would citizens find convenient to attend public meetings ?

0

CuddleFish April 19, 2010 @ 3:04 p.m.

As to the meeting times, I believe Friends of Kate Sessions meets in the evenings, all Rec Councils meet in the evenings, the Community Parks I and II meet in the evenings. If you missed those three meetings (plus I believe this was also discussed before the PB town council) which were the three (or four) which local residents should be able to attend, and you know want to complain that the Park and Rec board meets in the afternoons, well, I don't know what to say. Also, vintage soul, you don't have to be there at the Board meeting in person to speak about this matter, you can call and register your opinion, or you can write a letter, or you can call your Council rep's office.

I personally have no dog in this alcohol ban fight, since I don't use that park. My comments from the beginning have only gone to the process. There is a process and it is very open to community involvement and public input. It gripes me when people come in and say, There was no public notice, no public involvement. Sure there was. Plenty of it. And there are more opportunities for public involvement. All it takes is a minimum amount of effort. Less fake outrage, more real participation in the process.

0

vintage_soul April 19, 2010 @ 3:14 p.m.

@Grasca - Again thank you for the information. And, yes, it would make sense that after-hour meetings would be more costly which is something the city is trying to avoid. With that said, it's unfortunate that decisions are being made with very little involvement from the communities and citizens that the decisions affect. BUT like you said if an issue is of importance to a citizen then where there is a will, there is a way. Personally, I beleive 5PM or later would be more feasible in optimizing citizen involvement but that doesn't appear to be an option.

So it looks like anyone interested in having their voice heard regarding the alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Park should make the time available to attend the Park and Rec Board meeting on May 20th at 2:00PM.

@refried - Thanks for the kudo. I just hope others reading this will get involved and will take the time to attend the meeting.

0

vintage_soul April 19, 2010 @ 3:32 p.m.

@Cuddle - The Parks and Rec website is difficult to navigate. I cannot find where it states the time and place for the Community Parks I meetings nor can I find any minutes from these meetings. I also found it difficult to find anything regarding this ban on the Parks and Rec website. I understand you can call and voice your opinion but I personally believe making your statement in-person has more of an impact. I agree with you regarding your statement, "Less fake outrage, more real participation in the process," and more people should take this advice. It appears that I am joining this process in the late stages but my understanding was that there was supposed to be a 1 year trial period starting in August of 2009 and that this would then again be discussed in August of 2010. That doesn't appear to be the case...

0

vintage_soul April 19, 2010 @ 3:36 p.m.

correction I meant evaluation period NOT trial period

0

CuddleFish April 19, 2010 @ 3:58 p.m.

From what I read in the articles, vintage soul, and I could be wrong, an alcohol ban was discussed before there was discussion about the year long evaluation period.

If you read the articles, their case is logical and persuasive. The increase in alcohol related issues at the Park increased after the beach booze ban went into effect. Witnesses have stated, and police arrests seem to support this, that they have observed a number of keg parties, loud amplified music, public urination, destruction of park property. It appears, again just from reading the articles without any firsthand knowledge, that problems related to alcohol use at the park seemed to be increasing, certainly not abating, according to Friends of Kate Sessions, despite SDPD's increased efforts (assuming this), and I don't see that another month or two would have made any difference.

However, if that is your position, then do go and argue it before the Board, or to your council rep.

As to how difficult the park and rec website is to navigate, I must say I found it easier than the Reader website to use. You google san diego park and rec, it will give you the official website, once you click on and open that link, the first column on the page lists boards and committees, you click that link the first thing that comes up is the Park and Rec Board and below that a phone number for staff. I don't know how much easier it can get. Further, people can always call the City info line, 211, and they will tell you who to call.

0

vintage_soul April 19, 2010 @ 4:32 p.m.

@CuddleFish - Maybe I shouldn't have said "difficult to navigate" and instead said difficult to find information regarding this topic and meetings pertaining to it on the Parks website. Regardless, it appears that the information is avilable if simply sought after. It also appears that there is plenty of facts and figures to support the ban. I have no doubt that arrest and incidents have gone up after party goers were forced inland from the beaches but I believe that with more enforcement that we could bring those numbers down. But, hey, maybe I am living in a dream world. Banning alcohol at KS will simply force party goers to other parks and eventually they'll all ban alcohol...but maybe that's the plan. It's too bad that some people can't be responsible and considerate and the community is forced to ban all people from enjoying a beer at the park.

0

PB92109 April 19, 2010 @ 4:38 p.m.

214

Vintage Soul:

Park and Recreation told me they only have one webmaster and do not have enough staff to post minutes or agendas for any of the volunteer groups below the level of the Parks and Recreation Board.

So you will NOT find any of the meeting agendas or minutes for Area Committee Community Parks I online.

The meeting agendas are posted in the PB Rec Center, I believe, at least 72 hours before the meeting date. As for the minutes I think you would have to contact someone from the Park and Recreation Dept. to obtain them. I do not think that the minutes from the April 7, 2010 meeting would be available yet as they would have to be approved by the Committee at their next meeting, most likely, before they could be released.

The Park and Recreation Board always meets on the third Thursday at 2 PM. The first two meetings held by Park and Rec. (the agency having jurisdiction over Kate Sessions Park) were in the evening- one in January and this last one in April. Only the January meeting notice was actually posted at KS Park itself.

0

Grasca April 19, 2010 @ 6:03 p.m.

The reality is that there is no time which fits all in terms of public meetings. As vintage wisely stated if the proposed alcohol ban for Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park is important to you, you need to make time for the next noticed meeting. However, I did read that the item may be on the agenda. It is not certain at this point. Also, there are other future meetings to attend so this is not the final meeting with the final say. It is a process.

0

Grasca April 19, 2010 @ 6:09 p.m.

I don't believe that it is customary to post notices of public meetings in parks without a recreation center like Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. The meetings are posted at the recreation center. Someone on either side would and probably did remove notices from a site where staff is not present to assist the public. Those who really want to know generally follow an issue for a long time and are not left in the dark. The City has no investment in keeping meeting times hidden as far as I know. For groups like Town Councils and other non official City groups I do not know how they publicize their meetings in a City wide sense.

0

vintage_soul April 20, 2010 @ 11:01 a.m.

Scrolling over this I don't recall seeing any proposed solutions. I have one but am not really sure how feasible it is. I recognize that there is a problem. That problem is the irresponsible people that wreak havoc at KS Park causing damage to the park, annoying local residents and increasing the need for more law enforcement. My solution: 1.) Outlaw kegs. 2.) Outlaw amplified music except in the case where a permit has been obtained for receptions, reunions, etc. 3.) And this is the big one...opponents of the ban would form an organization that is responsible for collecting donations to fund the procurement of a private security company for the weekends and holidays. The security company would be responsible for enforcing the rules of the park, would act as a deterent and would contact law enforcement before any situation could get out of control. For lack of a better name this organization would be called Citizens for the Responsible Use of Kate Sessions Park...not really catchy but it works. The organization would work with Friends of KSP, the Community Parks I committee and local law enforcement BUT ultimately the responsibility would lie with the organization to reduce the number of incidents to pre-beach booze ban numbers...and lower over time. My suggestion would be a 1 year trail period. After the trail period ends, there would be a review of the organization's progress. If the number of incidents have not been significantly reduced then we would move forward with the ban, BUT if there is a sign of true progress then I would suggest continuing with the organizations work.

Is it out there? Yup. Is it expensive? Probably. Is it a flawless plan? Nope. BUT...this is an ACTUAL proposed solution to the problem where as simply banning alcohol at the park only makes it a problem elsewhere.

0

Grasca April 20, 2010 @ 2:25 p.m.

To outlaw anything at this park would require the same process for the alcohol ban if I am not mistaken. I don't believe security guards have ticketing abilities like the SDPD. So if someone was bringing kegs or playing loud music without a permit under your suggestion, the security guards would have to contact SDPD. How many security guards would be needed and on what days and for how much ? I can see this as a big expense. It would also be very challenging to document illegal behaviors and then evaluate them fairly. I can see either side claiming foul in this respect. I think that it best to proceed with the proposal as it exists and see what the elected officials do.

0

vintage_soul April 20, 2010 @ 3:10 p.m.

The simple presence of security would act as a deterent. Yes, they would have to contact SDPD but with time people will understand that KS is not an option for their kegger. Like I said...it's an idea. Not seeing too many of them here. Money you ask? Well I will quote you, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I am not worried about tickets and evidently the SDPD isn't either because if they increased their presence at KS they could pay some serious bills with the tickets they COULD write and if they did maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. Continue with the ban...I have no doubt it will pass with flying colors...with or without my involvement. Can't wait to see which park is next...welcome to the no fun zone. Again the alcohol is not the problem. It's the irresponsibility of the people consuming the alcohol. Banning alcohol at one location simply moves it to another...i.e. beach booze ban. Banning alcohol at parks and beaches does not reduce drunk driving, destruction of property, fights, loud music or any other incident cited as a reason for the ban...it moves it elsewhere and makes it someone elses problem. So if you can get people to act responsibly by having a security presence then you have a solution. You do NOT have a solution with the ban...you're simply moving the problem, not solving it.

0

Grasca April 20, 2010 @ 3:31 p.m.

You bring up an interesting point in terms of SDPD. Could the police be doing more at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park in terms of ticketing the offenders ? Security guards earn between $9.04 and $12.09 per hour with overtime between $12.93 to $18.19. Managing a security force plus paying for it would be a challenge for volunteers.

0

CuddleFish April 20, 2010 @ 3:55 p.m.

Your suggestion re the security guards would amount to the same result as banning alcohol, vintage soul. If people carry on like this anywhere, park, public place, private home, police and public authorities will clamp down, then the party people will go somewhere else and then police and public authorities will clamp down, and so on and so on. Let's face it, and as you acknowledge, there are people who want to drink themselves stupid, which I think most people personally don't object to as long as it happens somewhere that doesn't cause problems for others. That's the problem here, and I suspect it would be a problem anywhere: Too many people, too much noise, destruction of property, fighting, public urination and other drunken behavior -- what place would allow all this, even once, much less regularly? You can frame Friends of Kate Sessions as NIMBYs but if you think about it no one would stand this sort of thing very long. So you are quite right, in the long run, this conduct will not be allowed anywhere. Maybe a frat house, or some very isolated private property.

0

vintage_soul April 20, 2010 @ 4:16 p.m.

Thank you. That's what I am saying. Why isn't there more of a police presence? Most fines seem to start at the $250 level...that's a lot of money. PLUS the people are basically in a large confined space...how much easier does it get for them to try and keep it a controlled environment?

I'll admit the logistics of maintaining a private security force plus paying for it are beyond me...at this point. BUT if the opponents of the ban really want to responsibly use the park then I think that the funds would not be a problem. Although, I'd rather see the police do the job that our taxes pay them for instead of hiring a private company...but again, I am living in a dream world.

What about a $5 environmental/security fee to erect a sun-shade/tent? Fees could be collected at the park and persons would receive a placard or sign to post at their spot. This would generate income to pay for security or an increased police presence plus general maintenance.

Again these are half-baked ideas but I firmly oppose the ban especially when nothing else has been attempted. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't last summer the first one with the beach booze ban in place? What did they think was going to happen? Poor planning if you ask me.

0

vintage_soul April 20, 2010 @ 4:20 p.m.

@Grasca - FYI #224 was to you not Cuddle.

0

Grasca April 20, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

I wonder how the Fourth of July will be at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. The City and SDPD seem to be reactive and not proactive. This is why the SWAT Team eventually had to resolve the near riot at the beach. I just hope that there is not a repeat at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. SDPD seems to equate the biggest problems at this park over the last Fourth of July. This leads me to believe SDPD is probably not pursuing ticketing at the park with vigor. For a City that is near bankruptcy park violations (if given) would be a Gold Mine for the City coffers. I could not agree more and wonder why SDPD has not solved the problems at this particular park. It seems that the park's problems were not taken seriously by SDPD so the most extreme solution, the alcohol ban, was the only recourse.

0

Freedom April 20, 2010 @ 4:30 p.m.

"Too many people, too much noise, destruction of property, fighting, public urination and other drunken behavior -- what place would allow all this, even once, much less regularly?"

It's called PACIFIC BEACH, CF.

You know, someone made a good point at the meeting. There are more bars, more liquor licenses in Pacific Beach than zoning allows. PB is considered one of the 3 PARTAY Capitals of the US.

SO, help me to understand this WILL YOU? You take a community and SATURATE it with ALCOHOL (no one complains about the millions being pocketed to extend those licenses beyond what's legal)then... you ALLOW liquor companies to decorate the streets with their ALCOHOL BILLBOARDS...then you have the AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLE DRINKING ALCOHOL.

Pacific Beach subsists on the REVENUE from ALCOHOL!

What activities/events does Pacific Beach Town Counil or Friends of Kate Sessions park provide for our youth as an alternative to engaging in alcohol related activities? Over-the-line tournament?Oops, nope, not that one.

In PB you just need to walk 12 feet to get to the next bar.

ISN'T THAT THE REAL PROBLEM?

0

vintage_soul April 20, 2010 @ 4:32 p.m.

@CuddleFish - I want to control the environment not force people out of it. BUT maybe you're right...maybe forcing people to be respectful and responsible is not possible. BUT I would rather an attempt be made instead of the classic ban, ban, ban approach. It's a great park and I would like to preserve it and keep peace within the community while still allowing alcohol. Dream on right?

0

Grasca April 20, 2010 @ 4:54 p.m.

I think the problem at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park is long standing enough and for whatever the reason had not been solved to warrant the 24 hour ban.

Yes, there are far too many bars and liquor licenses given in Pacific Beach which makes it a Mecca for drinkers. Why were so many licenses issued ? What can the bar owners do to raise awareness ?

Similar problems exist around SDSU in terms of the disrespectful behavior which flows from uncontrolled drinking.

SDPD is probably dividing its time between the bar fights and park problems in Pacific Beach. Rapes, burglaries, and murders too litter the scene in PB if what I read is the paper is accurate.

0

PB92109 April 20, 2010 @ 5:38 p.m.

Re-read Carolyn Matteo's article at the top, this is from the fourth paragraph:

"...the SDPD has repeatedly indicated that there have been “no exceptional enforcement issues, including alcohol, at Kate Sessions Park, with the exception of the July 4, 2010 holiday.”

Therefore the police are not supporting a ban at this time, only the neighbors who do not like what is going on there. I think Vintage Soul's suggestions of a compromise are an excellent suggestion and Vintage I encourage you to bring them up at the next public meeting. Banning kegs and loud music should go a long way to solving the excess consumption/excess noise issues; also banning slip and slides.

The neighborhood group has been unwilling to compromise, according to their testimony before the PB Town Council last month.

0

Freedom April 20, 2010 @ 5:50 p.m.

Oh, come on! Slip-and-slides are fun! I think that ALL the board members, reps of Friends of Kate Sessions Park, and anyone else involved in decision making pertaining to the ban should be REQUIRED to participate in one before they vote!

There's just NO WAY anyone with blood pulsing through their veins could ban this incredibly fun ride once they've tried it...

All I have to say to ALL of you is:

"Peter...don't you know who you are?"

Quote by Wendy Darling in Peter Pan

0

Grasca April 20, 2010 @ 9:41 p.m.

I don't think you can enforce a ban on parkland without going through a specific process. So the idea of banning loud music and beer kegs would still need to be addressed in the same way that the 24 hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park is being addressed. In other words the proponents of the new idea would have to jump through the same hoops which the Friends of Kate Sessions Park have done. The City will not enforce these suggested bans without community input and Council action. It takes a long time to get any changes authorized by the City.

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ 9:37 a.m.

Were model releases obtained from the CP1 committee members just linked to this article ?

"A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed. Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph."

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 10:49 a.m.

What link are you referring to, Grasca? Was there a post that I missed?

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 11:55 a.m.

Regarding Post # 233: "Were model releases obtained from the CP1 committee members just linked to this article ?"

What do model releases have to do with the price of fairy dust in Neverland, or for that matter, the proposed 24-hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Park?

Or, Grasca, is this just another one of your attempts to dominate the public by retaliating against those who dare challenge you, to let the Reader know that you are not happy that they have (through the publishing of this article), stirred public concern, increased public awareness and revealed what appears to be a largely mismanaged, misoperated, misdirected committee of dictators?

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ noon

The link was recently added at the end of the article by Ms. Matteo. Of course, the video is also posted on YouTube. If the poster would remove the shots of the committee and focus on "one man", the issue would be resolved in my opinion. There is no need to show the committee in any real documentary sense. This is merely an attempt to try out the "chill factor" so volunteers might feel intimidated. Or at least this is my guess. Footage of "one man" and his opinion is all that is necessary to make the point.

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ 12:32 p.m.

You cannot have democracy if citizens do not have forums where they can speak their minds without fear of retribution. For all those who objected to sign in sheets and speaker slips at this particular meeting, I would ask if you want unauthorized and unnecessary video of volunteer committee members posted ? Right of privacy for some and not others ? Right of free speech for some and not others ?

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 12:35 p.m.

Re: Post #236: "The link was recently added at the end of the article by Ms. Matteo."

Once again, Grasca's statement is inaccurate.

1) The link has been at the bottom of the article since the day the article was posted, April 8 (2 weeks ago).

2) Stringers can't "ADD" things to the Reader website.

3) The article, including the link to which Grasca references, was originally posted on April 8. Since that time, Grasca has submitted 54 oppositional posts pertaining to the content of the article without ONCE noticing THE LINK.

Congratulations, Grasca, you've just lost another pound of credibility on that fact-free diet!

Dear Public,

Is this another oversight on Grasca's part, or another deliberate attempt to misinform and manipulate the public? You be the judge. Either way, SHE'S REPRESENTING YOU! ON A COMMITTEE! YIKES...

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 1:24 p.m.

LOLOL!!

Freedom aka Carolyn Matteo, time to expose your game.

Dear Public,

Think about the type of person that carries on this sort of deception and refers to herself in that split personality sort of way in order to defend her viewpoint. Rather cowardly, not to mention sneaky, IMO.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 1:53 p.m.

CF,

You ooze hypocricy, but of course, anonymously. People in glass houses...

As for my being Carolyn Matteo, I'm flattered, but, once again, you get your facts confused. It's ok. We expect of you at this point.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Keep up the good work, Carolyn, you've got them all on their toes, where they should be.

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 2:02 p.m.

Thought it worth repeating myself, since the anonymous "Cuddle Fish" is so intent on distracting with sensationalism...

Re: Post #236: "The link was recently added at the end of the article by Ms. Matteo."

Once again, Grasca's statement is inaccurate.

1) The link has been at the bottom of the article since the day the article was posted, April 8 (2 weeks ago).

2) Stringers can't "ADD" things to the Reader website.

3) The article, including the link to which Grasca references, was originally posted on April 8. Since that time, Grasca has submitted 54 oppositional posts pertaining to the content of the article without ONCE noticing THE LINK.

Congratulations, Grasca, you've just lost another pound of credibility on that fact-free diet!

Dear Public,

Is this another oversight on Grasca's part, or another deliberate attempt to misinform and manipulate the public? You be the judge. Either way, SHE'S REPRESENTING YOU! ON A COMMITTEE! YIKES...

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 2:18 p.m.

Let's continue this amusing game. :)

Freedom, do you deny that you are in fact Carolyn Matteo?

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ 3:01 p.m.

Back to topic - Is it legally permissible for the CP1 Committee members to be included in footage as part of the SD Reader article without obtaining their permission ? I would like a legal opinion from SD Reader staff. I have never seen footage of volunteer committees included in SD Reader articles before this one. If it is the SD Reader's custom and practice to do so, may I please be provided with examples ? Again some are complaining about speaker slips and sign in sheets so I guess those need to be posted in a video to so we can see who was at the meeting once and for all besides "one man."

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 3:03 p.m.

Regarding Post #243: "Let's continue this amusing game." :)

CF,

So, you like games do ya? Like to go off on tangents that lead nowhere? Don't have a good argument for the issue so you attack the author? Dazzle us with your brillance reflected in your dozens of, "LOL's"? Come on, you can do better than this.

I see this board as an opportunity for people to get involved in their communities in a productive way, to cast light in the dark caves harboring the underhanded. A place to grow in awareness of mishandled issues that effect all of us; a catalyst for change.

This is an issue about the proposed 24-hour Alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Park and every American's continued loss of their freedoms.

Perhaps a little Ritalin? or better yet, a beer at Kate Sessions? Meet me there at 4:00. It's on me! What's your favorite beer? I bet it's a microbrew from Belgium. Anyway, I'll be the one with the keg, some fireworks, a slip and slide, and my German Shepherd, off the leash... ;)

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ 3:18 p.m.

Velve clicquot, a loaf of bread and thou. Try to do better than Wonder bread.

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.

I will repeat the question:

Freedom, do you deny that you are in fact Carolyn Matteo?

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ 3:29 p.m.

Some seem to be experts on what stringers can do in terms of adding material to articles. It is all news to me. I withdraw the word "recently" but still would like an legal opinion about the model release issue and examples of video featuring volunteer committees linked to other SD Reader articles. Let the experts on stringers now speak.

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 3:31 p.m.

Grasca,

What are you so afraid of? What is it that you have to hide? It's obvious you don't want the public to be able to identify the members of this self-appointed,PUBLIC, volunteer committee. Why is that?

Freedom

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 3:35 p.m.

Cuddle Fish, Darling,

Meet me at the park and find out...

:) Kisses

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 3:40 p.m.

Freedom, do you deny that you are Carolyn Matteo?

0

Freedom April 22, 2010 @ 4:03 p.m.

Grasca,

Good thing you're married to an attorney...

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 4:34 p.m.

jayallen, my dear, you can settle the question:

Is Carolyn Matteo posting as Freedom?

0

CuddleFish April 22, 2010 @ 4:43 p.m.

I ask you specifically, jayallen, because you have made much over the issue of credibility when you busted, or seemed to, one poster by disclosing, erroneously as it turns out, that poster as reporting another poster. You stuck your nose in there, in a way that was IMO inexcusable. Here it seems to me you, and the Reader whom you de facto represent, have a genuine interest. You have the capability of sorting this matter.

Is Carolyn Matteo posting as Freedom?

0

Grasca April 22, 2010 @ 4:47 p.m.

Back to topic - if the some of the public opines in this thread that sign in sheets and speaker slips violate their privacy, why would a video link added to an article which depicts the volunteer committee members not be equally offensive ? Again - does the SD Reader have a legal right to post this video without first obtaining model releases and have other volunteer committee members been included in videos appearing in the SD Reader ? If you read the relevant law, models need to be compensated and also sign a release. I am just not certain if this particular situation fits into that category.

0

Jay Allen Sanford April 23, 2010 @ 1:35 a.m.

My, quite a lively thread!

RE 244: I'm no lawyer (tho I played one one TV...), but it's my understanding that a meeting which is open to the public can be filmed and broadcast/posted without needing releases signed, so long as the content isn't manipulated to constitute slander or libel (ie adding voiceover, editing quotes out of context, etc). Most news outlets would probably seek releases (and pixate/obscure faces of folks who don't sign), but that's more a suggested fail-safe than a legal requirement. For stringers - who are essentially (and arguably) freelance journalists - getting release signatures wouldn't be a bad idea, but I doubt that'd be a requirement, unless that stringer been problematic with video content before --

RE 248: I believe some stringers CAN later revise the content they've posted - same as Reader bloggers can - but all 'pends their access to the administration panels and their understanding of how to work such actions within the system.

RE 254: I have no idea if the stringer and the other referenced screen name are the same person. It's possible for website operators to formulate a good guess via source ISP and (possibly) registration info, but I no longer work that side of the website - as I recall, you need separate email addys to create separate Reader accounts (tho I'm not positive about that), so most people determined to hide any connection between various screen names can easily do so -

Even a matching ISP is no proof that two commentators are indeed the same person. For instance, most all Reader staffers' accounts will show the same ISP, even tho we may live and work miles apart, due to the way we're logged into the system ---

0

Grasca April 23, 2010 @ 7:27 a.m.

Thank you for the response, SD Reader. I think it becomes clear that the stringer, using an abundance of common sense and good manners, should have notified members of the CP1 committee that their images would be used/manipulated in the "one man" speech/ video link. To present a fair and balanced view as most journalists would have done the stringer in question could have included the opening remarks of staff outlining the problem and describing the task of the volunteer committee. But then this piece was always intended, in my opinion, to provoke emotions and controversy rather than report the facts. Because the stringer took this approach, some contributors have also taken the low road with personal insults and threats to those who oppose their view. Kate Sessions is and will remain an Neighborhood Park. The disrespect that the drinkers show for themselves and the neighborhood is the real issue. The reason that a proposal for a 24 hour alcohol ban at this park is being considered can be traced back to these drinkers and no one else. The people did speak at CP1. Some just did not like what they heard.

0

Freedom April 23, 2010 @ 8:15 a.m.

Oh, the irony...

Re: Post #239 by a "Cuddle Fish" . The ANONYMOUSLY posting "Cuddle Fish" is disturbed about not knowing the IDENTITY of an ANONYMOUS poster. So, SHE continues to harass me to disclose my identity. Oh the irony...

Cuddle Fish posts:

"Dear Public,

Think about the type of person that carries on this sort of deception and refers to herself in that split personality sort of way in order to defend her viewpoint. Rather cowardly, not to mention sneaky, IMO.

Tsk, tsk, tsk."

Fact: "Cuddle Fish" is actually a FEMALE, who has failed to identify herself, and represents herself on this board with an image of an African American MALE called, CUDDLE FISH.

I believe the term for this phenomenon is "projectionism",seeing in others, an image of oneself.

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 8:49 a.m.

LOLOLOLOL Carolyn, you are s***-poor at investigation, as I have pointed out numerous times in your threads. :)

Really, it would help if you put on your glasses once in a blue moon. Simple. :)

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 9:07 a.m.

And by the way, I spoke to a number of people involved in this alcohol ban issue who were at the meeting, they told me that Matteo was rude, angry, refused to speak to, much less interview, the proponents of the ban when they approached her. Nice way to be objective. Then she writes this story that is nothing but distortion and propoganda, and exposed when the actual report is posted here. But Matteo was never an honest person to begin with, as anyone reading her articles knew from the beginning. And let me clarify this further: Using a screen name to pretend you are a member of the public responding to your own article is deceptive and undermines what little credibility you ever had. If this is Matteo, then she has duped and manipulated her supporters. She won't admit who she is because she is trapped by her own deception. I'm sorry for her.

0

Grasca April 23, 2010 @ 10:11 a.m.

Who is the legal representative for the SD Reader ?

0

Duhbya April 23, 2010 @ 11:53 a.m.

"Who is the legal representative for the SD Reader ?"

CuddleFish, apparently.

Is CuddleFish posting as Grasca?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 12:22 p.m.

Ooooh, I get to play a lawyer! G'ahead, ask me all the legal questions you want. :)

0

Duhbya April 23, 2010 @ 1:04 p.m.

Hmmm......ok - Does a public school have to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) to form at a high school or middle school?

0

Freedom April 23, 2010 @ 3:03 p.m.

F.Y.I.

I was at the meeting. Carolyn was not rude and was open to listening to anyone who had anything to say to her. It's a great article she wrote, or none of you would bother to be here. Again, I'm your cheerleader, Carolyn. Keep up the good work. Stick and stones. At least you've got them thinkin...a rarity for the anonymous Princess of Propaganda, Cuddle Fish.

P.S. Keep up that projecting, CF! You're so good at it.

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 3:31 p.m.

Hmmm......ok - Does a public school have to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) to form at a high school or middle school?

By Duhbya 1:04 p.m., Apr 23, 2010

Maybe.

Next.

Where's SurfPuppy when you need him?

By russl 2:43 p.m., Apr 23, 2010

I dunno.

Next.

P.S. Keep up that projecting, CF! You're so good at it.

By Freedom 3:03 p.m., Apr 23, 2010

Ten years in Atascadero.

Next.

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 3:47 p.m.

By the way, sources tell me the guy in the video is Chris Winkle. Zat right?

Well, then you are two for two, buckaroo. Lost the dog fight, lost the alcohol ban.

Anyway, yawn, off to make a few phone calls, see you guys later.

0

nan shartel April 23, 2010 @ 4:09 p.m.

Jay Allen public litagater...what were u doin' up so late???:-O

dat's kinda like a very well read alligater

Cuddles ur an African male...well...dats ok i'll still swim in ur school:-)

and where is SURFPUPPY when u need him??? ;-(

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 4:14 p.m.

LOLOLOL!!! Nan, a poet, and we all know it!!! xxxx

You can be in my school or I can be in yours, an African male in red learning the tango!

0

CuddleFish April 23, 2010 @ 4:21 p.m.

FYI I talked to three people who were at the meeting, and all three said the same thing, that Matteo was rude, angry, and refused to interview the proponents of the ban. Further, it is clear from what has been posted here that she distorted what was in the report to suit her biased viewpoint.

(Am on hold, in case anybody (Duhbya) cares. :)

0

Freedom April 23, 2010 @ 6:08 p.m.

Cuddle Fish,

Your ego is obviously bruised. I was at the meeting. I talked with Carolyn. She is a sweet (and quite bright) lady, available to all. You're trying to discredit her because you are weak. Your writing is weak. Your logic is weak. All you have is lies and propaganda. You're not even focusing on the issue. You sound like a spoiled two year old.

Keep up projecting your own qualities and character defects on others...Ms. Anonymous...and don't miss your dose of Ritalin. LOL Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

0