Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Wake Up, Speak Up
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.— April 11, 2010 9:48 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
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.)— April 11, 2010 9:34 p.m.
Tundra # 13
Beware the San Diego Giant Raccoon!!!!!— April 11, 2010 3:05 p.m.
Come See Me Today
What a lovely piece of writing, nan! I love the pic caption!— April 11, 2010 1:21 p.m.
Steve is a Loser
Couple of questions, MsG. Where and how did you meet Steve? How long did this relationship last, in total?— April 11, 2010 7:37 a.m.
Steve is a Loser
Great essay, MsG!!! Wow!!!— April 10, 2010 9:40 p.m.
Do you like your name?
I love the name Joseph, Joe, Joey. :)— April 10, 2010 8:32 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
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.— April 10, 2010 4:55 p.m.
Do you like your name?
No.— April 10, 2010 9:45 a.m.
Super Outreach
Nice bit of reporting, Dorian, as always. This meeting is typical of Richard's style, he is a big believer in the open democratic process. He is also staunchly labor, so I will not be surprised if the teachers' union has a big say in who our next supervisor will be. Lastly, as a leader himself, he places a lot of value in leadership. It will be interesting, as a reflection on him, to see who they hire. I personally was a huge fan of Terry Grier. I am hopeful that the process of healing and stabilization he started will continue.— April 10, 2010 8:09 a.m.