InOmbra April 5, 2012 @ 9:32 a.m.

The simplistic views of Paul's followers are suitable (maybe) only for tiny populations. If only they lived in a country that had a population of just a few thousand! They aren't educatable, and don't care if you point out history and its lessons. Like the 1800s and early 1900s, when toxic, useless, or addictive "medicines" were advertised and sold freely, without regulation. And so what, they say, if it is well-known that raw milk can be lethal, and you won't know it until your child gets sick and dies. (Unless you have a home microscope, a culture lab, and an education in microbiology. That's the ticket! Oh wait, isn't that sort of what the FDA does for all of us?)

"But shouldn’t there be regulation of unethical companies that might put dangerous products on the market?"

" 'I think that’s a social function,” says Koehl. 'I can read in the newspaper that XYZ Corporation is swindling folks.' "

But Ms. Koehl, what if the newspaper has a financial interest and doesn't want to print the story?

Silly people.


InOmbra April 5, 2012 @ 7:17 p.m.

Ms Koehl, I just wish you'd put your marvelous energy into something real.

In Michigan, Democracy is being totally and flagrantly destroyed. Check it out. Michigan needs people like you to protest.

Or learn what you can about ALEC, and how it is a model for bad government in your state and how it is destroying America. The lobby mill, you know?

Or, if you want, just pay close attention to the destruction of Democracy right here in San Diego, by paying attention to what is going on in the Council committees and in the City Attorney's office.

.The FDA is not your enemy. It isn't imperfect. But please. Stop. Instead, work to make it better.


InOmbra April 25, 2012 @ 5:52 p.m.

San Diego council loves scoundrels like Li Mandri and Zucchet.

Why? Why can't San Diego pols and our council hall be the nexus of an honest, clean, transparent, demanding take-no-s*** government?

We could do so much with a reputation that transcends Enron-by-the-sea. The payoff would be HUGE!

Start now. This day, this minute.


InOmbra April 25, 2012 @ 6:34 p.m.

And here's Marco!

Starting at 00:5:33, Marco...go on, and at and 00:6:15 and 00:06:50, see Marco's admissions that the code he wrote in 1998 and 2003 has "some problems." Ha ha!

Watch Marco nervously scratch and fidget. Watch Marti and Todd love them some Marco. Write your City Attorney and tell him what you think. And yes, if you keep watching, you see Marti talking to Hueso's brother about his taxi cab business.


Cassander July 5, 2017 @ 2:01 p.m.

I've made the same arguments before that the MAD opponents present here.

This time around, I'll just emphasize how much the city is invested in strategically neglecting neighborhoods in order to convince property owners that putting themselves on the hook to fund a maintenance assessment district is their only option. Once one is in place, anyone complaining about services to city hall is told to take it up with the local MAD. Meanwhile, MADs free up the money the city would have to use for your area to spend elsewhere. It's a win-win for the city.

"[W]hat are we supposed to do, hold the city's feet to the fire...?" YES! That's the point of having government collect our property taxes in the first place: to ensure that those spending them are accountable. If you think it's too hard getting politicians to do what you want, you haven't tried petitioning the cliques that always end up running these MADs—which have shockingly little oversight. And if you don't like a MAD, you have to get the city council to vote for dissolution or run a petition drive to get it repealed. Read for yourself.

I for one am tired of rewarding shiftless behavior in government. Elected officials are not children that you sigh and perform their chores when they shirk them. It's high time we remember why they are called "public servants."


garyroberts Nov. 20, 2018 @ 12:23 p.m.

I’m the homeowner quoted in the article as saying the legalities of neighborhood historic designation are complex, and recommending that residents who want to fight a historic designation hire a property or land use attorney. (I am neither, and no, this isn’t a plug for legal services.) Due to space limitations for comments, I offer one example of the legal complexities I was referring to.

City staff told the City Council, “the Municipal Code does not require the property owner’s consent to designate a historical resource.” In other words, in their opinion, the consent of the governed didn’t matter. But this hardline position – that public sentiment wasn’t a governing criterion – was in disconnect with the reality on the ground in South Park. Shouldn’t a historic district be something that everybody in the neighborhood wants, not just a few vocal true believers?

The proposed South Park historic district implicated a residential neighborhood comprising 395 separately owned properties – a neighborhood where the home is probably the owner’s primary residence, where the home may be the owner’s single biggest investment, where the owner may have poured his life savings into the property, and where owner may have owned the property for decades before the neighborhood was designated “historic.” Under those circumstances, shouldn’t the level of support for a historic district matter? Shouldn’t it matter that there was so little support for the district in South Park?

In the case of South Park, 64% of the property owners didn’t return ballots, and just 27% of homeowners – 105 properties out of 395 properties – returned ballots expressing support for a historic district. Considering all the time that the true believers – SOHO and David Swarens (who chaired the Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee and served on the SOHO board) and his group – had to mobilize their supporters to mail in “yes” ballots favoring a historic district, and considering how well organized they were, if there actually was a groundswell of support among South Park homeowners for a historic district, shouldn’t SOHO and Mr. Swarens have been able to come up with a higher level of support than just 27% (105) of all of the South Park property owners (395)? In the absence of numerically widespread support, shouldn’t the city have held off approving the South Park historic district?