| Thanks, we'll eat the bananas, and leave one for you to slip on, on the way out |
NIMBY tactics 101: Skip substance, focus on fringe issues, dwell on irrelevant, scapegoat named opinion.
1. Ape Shall Not Kill Ape (Anonymous) to Mike O'Neill and Victor Spano: You commingling with the "hateful ones"? Aside from your campaign being about Kathy Meeh comments, Ape has "three (3) questions for each of you": 1) Got bananas? 2) Who you sharing bananas with? 3) How many bananas you giving us, before we slip you out the door on a banana peel? Pacifica Riptide, "City Council race: Open Letter to O'Neill and Spano", 10/22/14.
Reference- Fix Pacifica reprint from Riptide, 9/16/14,"Past city councilmember Jim Vreeland has apparently died." The link includes comment sequence, context, the artificial NIMBY driven dust-up and diversion which occurred-- strategized disrespectful behavior against the memory of their Saint Vreeland. They knew better, and did it anyway.
2. Michele Coxon (dittohead) to O'Neill and Spano: "Hateful opinions = BIGGER, MORE, unchecked development." Pacifica Riptide/Michele Coxon/Special, Opinion: "Bigger is not better", 10/22/14. "Strangely, city council candidates Mike O'Neill and Victor
Spano have been endorsed by her (Kathy Meeh) and would appear to share here hateful opinions. ... Building Bigger and More requires Bigger and More of
everything else to support it..."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
122 comments:
NIMBY count is at three.
Officials expect this number to rise dramatically in the hours to come.
If you come into contact with an individual using the word NIMBY, please report the incident to authorities. Under no circumstances should you attempt to reason with the individual on your own.
Hahaha, mainstream candidates? Hahaha, mainstream corporate puppets with rubber stamps for any earth covering proposal that will come along more like. Hahaha, mainstream Candidates... How do you come up with this stuff with a straight face... ? O'Niell, Spano, Dyer and Ruchames are out in right field, hoping the ball doesn't come their way. They are Dino's (Democrats in name only) and care less for the residents than they do for their wallets.
"focus on fringe"
Kathy, I'm glad you recognize that the views you espouse on Fix Pacifica are fringe views.
Admitting this is the first step towards reintegrating yourself into polite society.
Calm down 751 am. You'll bust a gut. Your writing style is so easy to spot. It's kind of a frantic imbecile nouveau.
These people only look right wing if you are a tin foil hat wearing, chemtrail believing, hippie, nimby, far left radical socialist libby like you.
I guess Obama is right wing to you too?
We'll see who's out of touch after Nov 4th.
I can't recall one elected official in Pacifica's history who willfully destroyed the career, reputation and life of one or more of our citizens except ......... Jim Vreeland!
It speaks volumes about the unethical people who are trying to rewrite history, twist the facts and deify this person.
It is even more reprehensible that they are trying to gin up a phoney political soap opera to demonize everyone running against their "let's bankrupt Pacifica candidates" Digre, Keener and the kid.
These people are sick. Poor BJ really got duped into a very embarrassing LTE.
What/who equates to a "mainstream" candidate in Pacifica? What / who equates to a "green" or "nimby" candidate, and why are any of these artificial designations even important?
Who will make a good city council candidate? Is it a record of public service? Is it someone who can work with others and not draw such oppositional lines that nothing will be able to be moved forward? Where do newcomers that have hardly been involved or spoken up publicly prior to running for council fit in? My votes are going to the candidates who clearly share information about how they see the role of being on city council, how they will seek out and listen to what is important to city residents and business owners, AND have a record of standing for the community and the environment. Not all of these things are wrapped up in one person; glad that there are a few seats and looking forward to casting my votes for a balanced mix.
1248. It's not like others haven't tried.
114 I'd add one more category. Is it someone adept at hiding their true colors under the cloak of collaboration
and connections? I confess, I've always had a weakness for them at the ballot box. The result is not so good.
944, creative, but try "fringe issues". City dysfunction is the DISEASE of your 30 year version of "polite society", aka: containing those who know this city must have a balanced economy to survive. 4% retail, 1% industrial, 52+% permanent empty space is not balance.
114, congratulations on your mixed, undisclosed "play nice rather than efficient" city council choices. Should this weak candidate slate win, the city will fail and you will be eaten by NIMBIES. (A city council majority of 3 strong candidates moves this city forward.)
Kathy Meeh Said: "114, congratulations on your mixed, undisclosed "play nice rather than efficient" city council choices. Should this weak candidate slate win, the city will fail and you will be eaten by NIMBIES. (A city council majority of 3 strong candidates moves this city forward.)"
Hardly Kathy, people that can work together are how things get done -- as usual going for the black and white -- "nice and efficient" are not mutually exclusive. Infighting doesn't produce results. The three candidates best suited for the job, that are my own slate -- not one prescribed by any side -- will move the city forward. (And worse things could happen then being nibbled on by a NIMBY... being devoured by indistinct development that doesn't fit with Pacifica, geared towards a Daly City mentality, and deteriorates the environment would be the real tragedy.)
This is the part of my Post John over on Riptide chose to edit out and he called it "libelous" just now on the Apeshit thread.
I don't see how this is libelous?
"Trying to use this issue to defame her [Kathy] and the candidates you dislike for political reasons is as disgusting and transparent as the space between your ears.
Hey, captain braniac,
Quoting someone isn't defamation.
Is it lame or libelous? Vote now please. I know, but you'll have to pick one. These opportunities come along all the time.
10/23, 831, "..people that can work together are how things get done.." Okay, tell me what economic development to produce city revenue you support? A Red Legged snake zoo doesn't count.
Hutch 441, thanks for posting the ripped-out edit and warning you received from John Maybury (editor-in-chief, Riptide). He may just need a dictionary, or possibly a brain transplant. Could be part of the NIMBY disease, "disgusting and transparent" in intent, as you suggested.
Since that attempted scapegoating isn't going so well, Maybury (the editor-in-chief) has allowed in a divisive anonymous comment from "truth seeker" (think the opposite), who claims "at a minimum Steve Blogmaster Sinai is equally responsible for my comments." Whereas, that should make John Maybury "at a minimum equally responsible for comments" of anonymous "truth seeker" (think the opposite), and the recent series of trash articles and "alternative" comments posted there. This is pretty stupid stuff, which may amount to an insidious manifestation of NIMBY bacterial malady. Just saying...
So here are some definitions: libel. Then, defamation: "The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false." NIMBIES have never been very good at "free speech" issues. But I'm thinking if all else fails, the Rippers could always complain to Google. What do you think is really happening on Riptide? They think they're losing, they're acting like it. Hope so, with that good luck to them!
No one is claiming that you don't have a right to your comments, Kathy, but people also have a right to call you out on them as well. You can't piss and moan about someone doing the same things as you do.
What goes around, comes around.
849, what is your comment in reference to, if anything? Subject, topic, comment. Or did you just have a meal that didn't agree with your digestive system.
Kathy Meeh said...
"849, what is your comment in reference to, if anything? Subject, topic, comment. Or did you just have a meal that didn't agree with your digestive system."
Why did you remove 849's comment, Kathy? We all want your explanation of why Victor Spano is threatening to sue BJ Nathanson for libel.
I had removed the comment about Spano and Nathanson until I see some evidence that it's true.
Here you go:
http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2014/10/city-council-candidate-spano-threatens-lawsuit.html
It sounded like Victor wanted to talk rather than immediately sue anyone. But yeah, probably not his best moment.
I doubt Victor has much of a case. If you're going to run for public office, you need a thick skin.
Thanks Kathy for looking up the legal standard for libel/defamation/slander yesterday and posting it at 8:38:
"The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false."
All I can add is that California also has anti-SLAPP protections (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). SLAPP suits are a legal device used to silence critics and is usually preceded by a legal threat.( Legal threats are often veiled or indirect, e.g. a threat that a party "shall be forced to consider its legal options" or "will refer the matter to legal counsel.")
New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, in reference to SLAPPs: "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
Can't believe Spano actually called her, but that's him on the recording. Who calls a woman who clearly isn't a fan in the middle of an election campaign? No way was that going to end well. Brilliant move!
Geez? What was he thinking? You know whe actually now has a legal basis to sue him!
Ian you outright lied (as usual) over on Riptide when you said Victor threatened a lawsuit and accused BJ of slander. Not very good reporting newsboy. Can I please get a copy of that recording Ian?
Here's the audio recording www.pacificariptide.com/files/audio20recording202014-10-242016-29-51.wav
Your credibility is shot in this town.
I believe Victor could actually have just cause to sue you Ian.
This is getting very entertaining though so I hope not. You and your buddies are hilarious trying to find something to save your drowning candidate Keener. Keep it up, you're only helping Victor.
Clearly this is a fake. I have zero doubt this is a NIMBY trick.
This is not the first time Spano has shown poor judgement during his campaign. No one else has to do a thing.
Hutch... The recent increased ugliness in the campaign isn't doing either Spano or Keener any good. I appreciate Spano reaching out to talk and clear the air, though to do it under the guise of "I've consulted an attorney" is a bit threatening, particularly over what is a personal point of view piece that is a traditional part of the election process in Pacifica. You too are sounding a little desperate.
Clear the air? When you mention you've consulted an attorney, you're not trying to clear the air, you're trying to intimidate. To silence. Poor judgement.
1136 Pray, tell us, what are the signs it is a fake? Has candidate Spano denied it?
1145, 1208 the letter to the editor was a dirty NIMBY smear trick accountable to BJ Nathanson, (and those of you who may have advised her). Such a baseless attack on a city council candidate is your POOR JUDGEMENT.
Fix Pacifica is not an exclusive slogan or title to this blog alone. Its a concept, a vision, a goal. With an economic development background, city council candidate Victor Spano hopes to help fix Pacifica (and Pacifica does need fixing). A Half Moon Bay candidate for city council is using her slogan: "fix Half Moon Bay"-- see how that works?
So I think what Kathy Meeh is saying is that when Nathanson called "Fix Pacifica" a "hate site" and Spano took umbrage for being falsely associated with what he obviously believes is a hate site too, to the point he is threatening to sue?
But if Victor Spano thinks you do run a hate site, I wonder why he accepted your endorsement? Likewise if he really doesn't think you run a hate site at all, why would he be upset with Nathanson? Or just maybe he can't make up his mind?
Just to be clear, the blog doesn't endorse anybody. There's no editorial board, and Kathy and I disagree too often on candidates anyway.
Victor asked if he could use "Fix Pacifica" because he thought it was a catchy, meaningful phrase. (And as the person who came up with it, I agree!) Nothing more.
Kathy, you really have outdone yourself with that post. Are you nuts? BJ's letter, her opinion, are not the problem. You of all people should know that. The problem is a guy running for public office with very poor judgement, no sense of cause and effect, and maybe a bit of the bully in him. Nip that one in the bud.
1237 You really think Spano can't make up his mind? I think he's a global thinker. Whatever positions are out there on an issue, he's going to take them all. Global, see? Just depends on what part of the global audience he's talking to at the time.
1254 no, BJ's Letter was baseless speculation (BS), a fiction, a smear on a good candidate. She didn't understand the issues, and she had a tantrum which she used to attack the candidate, the blog, and me. Now that is really "poor, unethical judgement", big time!
Victor Spano is no bully. He is a smart, compassionate, savvy guy, with a economic development background. Perfect for city council, and any progress that may occur over the next 4 years, (and some of us are counting on that).
In my observation and experience, NIMBIES are the bums who can't tell the truth, stalemate city progress, and bully others. And if you think I'm "nuts", you are one of those bums, Anonymous 1254.
Wait a minute, if as Steve 12:53 says
"Victor asked if he could use "Fix Pacifica" because he thought it was a catchy, meaningful phrase." Would you have granted similar license to Sue Digre if she thought it was catchy, or would you have objected because she is opposed to most of your positions? Be honest now!!!
NIMBY's are out in force this weekend trying to con voters with lies and deception about highway widening. Their flyer says "14 Concrete Walls" No mention that most are below grade and not visible. Oh and the "bottleneck" theory, which doesn't account for extended turn lanes.
And Ian has left the room.
Feverish spinning aside, the facts remain. Spano, a candidate for public office made the decision to call a woman who wrote a letter critical of him. In the course of the call he mentions he's talked to an attorney. People can interpret that as an attempt to intimidate or anything else that seems reasonable to them.
Anonymity has its benefits.
107, well I agree that Victor Spano is a "global thinker", but your comment is low-grade baloney. Victor Spano supports the city retaining two libraries, fixing the highway, developing Beach Blvd, etc. All the "stuff" we like here at Fix Pacifica. Here's his website.
What? you don't support candidates you can positively talk about here? Is your political position, "vote for more city deterioration and traffic jams". That's nice, why ARE you here?
Kathy, I'll vote for O'Neill and probably Ruchames. I don't think either man is foolish enough to screw up much before the election or in office. Third vote might go nowhere, but it won't go to Victor Spano. I've personally heard him switch positions on an issue in one conversation as more people joined in. I don't trust that eager salesman thing, and this phone call is strike three. I can see why people might like him at first-I did too, but he just doesn't wear well.
208, BJ Nathanson is a past Planning commissioner, who made a decision to trash Victor Spano's city council candidacy at a key time in the election.
This was likely part of a NIMBY strategy to discredit one (1) strong progress candidate of four (4) in order to weaken/dilute further that vote, if not to gain more votes for NIMBIES (Digre, Greener, and Kid). We all understand this issue, don't we? If the candidate is harmed (by reputation, status, campaign cost, vote outcome), why shouldn't he seek a court remedy? He should.
1:44, I believe I would have grudgingly let her use it. The phrase "Fix Pacifica" is my gift to the community.
250, Victor Spano is clear enough on city issues. We all know candidates blend somewhat with their audiences. Then again, what's to trust about anonymous comments.
Meantime, I did vote for candidates I think will try to improve the city: Victor Spano, Therese Dyer, Mike O'Neill. Had there been a fourth vote, it would have been Eric Ruchames.
Hahaha. The fool made the call. If it damages his electibility he has no one to blame but himself. Uh oh, was he advised by one of his good buddy legal scholars on here? It's politics and rule #1 is don't step in it-particularly in the final days of the campaign. Tape says he's going to make a rebuttal. Where? In the Trib? Did he meet the deadline for LTEs? It might be better for him if he didn't. Better should disarm a terrorist or thwart a bank robbery. Get some good coverage. Did you ever see The Contender? Good movie. 9 days left. Time will tell.
250 You saying you won't vote for Spano is meaningless since you didn't put your name to it. You are most likely someone who was against him all along and are just saying that in an attempt to pull votes from him.
Go ahead vote for Ruchames, the man who tried to tax our phones. The man who wants a 35 M library (paid for by us). And who will also look out for all his union buddies.
Smart move.
Humbling, Sinai, humbling-- a friend to mankind and political candidates. A statesman. You take care, lest someone suggest naming something after you. Here, in Pacifica.
329 Anon, you sound familiar. Yup! With some people on here, sooner or later, it always comes down to the issue of anonymity. I love it when they raise the anonymity issue anonymously. Or kinda sorta. Hey, is that like being anonymous in name only?
Kathy Meeh said...
"1254 no, BJ's Letter was baseless speculation (BS), a fiction, a smear on a good candidate. She didn't understand the issues, and she had a tantrum which she used to attack the candidate, the blog, and me. Now that is really "poor, unethical judgement", big time!"
I keep going back to BJ's letter and trying to find out where the "baseless speculation / smear" hype that is being referred to is is coming from. There is nothing there beyond a typical letter to the editor. The largest critique is about Fix Pacifica and one of the web moderators - versus Spano. Is that why some are so upset here? Spano's response though is out of line and not what I would want in a City Councilperson.
Maybe he got bad advice. Still, he followed it.
Kathy Meeh said...
107, well I agree that Victor Spano is a "global thinker", but your comment is low-grade baloney. Victor Spano supports the city retaining two libraries, fixing the highway, developing Beach Blvd, etc. All the "stuff" we like here at Fix Pacifica."
Who doesn't want to support two libraries? The reality though is that there is limited money and funding to maintain two libraries. Has candidate Spano stated where additional funding will come from or how to maintain these facilities so that they support 21st century education? Who wouldn't like a fresh look on the highway (sans an additional +hundreds of feet of pavement)? Has candidate Spano in specific detail shared what he is actually for or against on this project? Beach Boulevard is ready to go,through work by the city to conduct mitigation, get permits and bring the project in front of the Coastal Commission, without any involvement by Candidate Spano. So, what are you voting for here?
NIMBY 519, we all read BJ's letter to the editor-- remember us? Its an unfair, fictional rant with suggested slimy implications against a city council candidate. This is really crummy, targeted rotten to the core stuff.
As for Fix Pacifica, its a blog. Not a person. November 4th will come and go for us. As for the nasty inaccurate comments thrown at me, "sticks and stones". All things considered, nothing changes for me or the blog on November 5th.
537, BJ Nathanson got really "bad advice, still she followed it". Whereas, Victor Spano was savvy enough to talk to legal, where he got really good advice, (and that's good business practice).
Bottom line: its clear that NIMBIES can't win an election on merit, your city vision is substandard, and you cheat. That's exactly what you've been doing this political season, (lying, cheating, and attempting to reinvent history).
This is really only a big deal to the NIMBY's. Just another lame attempt to try and see what sticks. You guys really have no clue what most people care about. Most voters don't give a crap about a phone call or using the slogan Fix Pacifica. To me it shows spunk to call her on her BS.
But it does look like council made the right decision in removing BJ from the planning commission. She seems to be firmly anti growth.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of speech. That's why it make this country UNIQUE.
I am voting for Spano and Dyer.
Hutch said...
"NIMBY's are out in force this weekend trying to con voters with lies and deception about highway widening. Their flyer says "14 Concrete Walls" No mention that most are below grade and not visible. Oh and the "bottleneck" theory, which doesn't account for extended turn lanes."
Ah, cough, cough, who's out in force with lies and deception? You're getting a bit carried away yourself Hutch, with nothing that backs up your point of view.
604, the following is as much as I know about the questions you asked (from the forums, his literature, a conversation with him, and city information):
1. Libraries: Keep two, remodel what we have, and CAN afford.
2. Highway: Fix (widen), review project specifications.
3. Beach Blvd: the city is working on preliminary developer approvals through regulatory agencies, (the concept was general mixed-use/housing). Victor Spano talked to the city about a potential buyer several months ago, (the city said too soon).
Victor Spano seems to be a very practical, careful, efficient, astute, "take care of business" kind of city council candidate. Definitely vote for Victor Spano! (Oh well, maybe not you.)
Hutch,
No one "removed" BJ from the planning commission. She quit as she was frustrated with fellow commissioners that were declining and stalling projects that had already met code and permit requirments but went against their personal ideologies.
Was that an honest mistake Hutch or have you just been caught in a lie?
And that concludes this portion of our tour to the Twilight Zone with Kathy and Hutch. Good show! We'll just have to seek the truth elsewhere.
Hutch said...
"This is really only a big deal to the NIMBY's. Just another lame attempt to try and see what sticks. You guys really have no clue what most people care about. Most voters don't give a crap about a phone call or using the slogan Fix Pacifica. To me it shows spunk to call her on her BS."
Spunk to you Hutch, seems to be reactionary and very very very poor judgement to me and many others.
659 Harsh! I've come to the conclusion that Hutch is the true avis rara, ie, willing to con but also likely to be conned. With Kathy, every so often her constructs are so far-fetched you just know she has to be aware she's full of it. That's a willingness to say anything, embrace anyone in defense of your ideology.
Kathy Meeh said...
"604, the following is as much as I know about the questions you asked (from the forums, his literature, a conversation with him, and city information):
1. Libraries: Keep two, remodel what we have, and CAN afford.
2. Highway: Fix (widen), review project specifications.
3. Beach Blvd: the city is working on preliminary developer approvals through regulatory agencies, (the concept was general mixed-use/housing). Victor Spano talked to the city about a potential buyer several months ago, (the city said too soon)."
1. If there were monies to remodel and keep two, that would have been done. Instead library hours have been cut. We have outstanding library staff and great programming; the people that have been running them for years though are supporting the one library concept because they know the fiscal facts and what is involved in library operations. (I'd like to keep both too, but we there are those pesky facts.) How specifically will Mr. Spano keep and remodel both?
2. Nothing specific there -- more words that could be an endorsement of widening or not.
3. Nothing here. Who is the buyer? what's the project? The city is already moving things forward and buyers will be plentiful; it's the project that we need to watch.
6:59, I proved my point. The anti highway flyer is a lie. no 14' walls, no bottleneck. If you doubt me please look at the EIR and tell me where I'm wrong.
7:09 I thought BJ was removed. If she wasn't it's my mistake. Have no problem copping to it.
But I really doubt she quit because projects weren't getting approved. Why would she back Keener if she's in favor of development?
@7:33, you and other NIMBY's.
Spano is a salesman. Nothing more. And he ought to ply his trade in the real estate industry and stay out of politics. His poor judgement could be a real problem.
Ian dude? I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you lied and said Victor threatened BJ with a lawsuit for slander?
That is totally untrue. Here again is the recording: www.pacificariptide.com/files/audio20recording202014-10-242016-29-51.wav
Come on Ian, don't be ascared? Don't hide. I know you like to make (BS) comments and then let the debate go on but but you lied man. Man up. Can you cop to it? Or just bull s%^$ us more?
Please tell me how a supposed "journalist" can lie for political reasons and continue to have a free show on Pacifica TV that is reporting on local news and politics?
Didn't Dan Rather have a problem with something like that?
This is the 2nd time in 2 weeks you are ignoring journalistic norms. The other was an attempt to muzzle free speech.
Come on Ian, what say ye?
Hutch, BJ quit because she's a principled, honorable person. Always has been. She may or may not share the enviro ideology, but she felt the PC was overstepping its limits and she said so and resigned. Anything there you understand?
7:42...The "one library concept" which in itself sounds new and interesting is however sadly resisted by many residents of Linda Mar / Park Pacifica who do not want to lose their neighborhood library service. Unless you can have that 'one library" in the city's most populous area, at the Sanchez Library site. Politically, it will be hard for you to find universal support for the single library.
Saving Sanchez Library is a highway one widening alternative. Also, remember Sea Level Rise!
Didn't it bother anyone else that former Council candidate BJ Nathanson (remember when she quit the CC race because she was SO disgusted with the political gamesmanship going on in this town) came up with this 11th hour, pre-election, Hail Mary October surprise? And, it just so happens that of all people, the most strident, the most radical anti-development, anti-growth of the uber environmentalists in Pacifica, one Ian Butler, ends up with the audio file of Mr. Spano's phone call to Ms. Nathanson? How convenient! And you remember Mr.Butler, don't you? For those of you scoring at home, he was the one who insisted that the Red Legged Frog and the SF Garter Snake would go extinct if Sharp Park Golf Course was allowed to continue its operations. That is, until it was pointed out to him that Sharp Park had never, at any time, been designated as critical habitat for either species by USFWS. Seems he'll say anything to promote his extreme agenda. So I ask the obvious: "Did any of you likewise receive an audio copy of Ms. Nathanson's phone call from Mr. Spano?" Didn't think so...
843, that was my recall of BJ. But act 2 (that little LTE 10/22 hit piece) doesn't look so good.
742, Library: think a $35,000,000 taxpayer bond would be better than doing remodel on one or two buildings? And would one fancy 21st century library be better for those who live in the south of town? Those are "pesky facts" too.
2. Highway 1 widening, Beach Blvd. Interesting how NIMBIES are always pushing to reduce consideration to specifics prior to studies, drafts and regulation. It worked that way with the quarry 2006 concept too. OMG, there are no engineering drafts ahead of conversation-- you must have no plan! 3. As you said, the city is "moving things forward" (hopefully for both Beach Blvd and Highway 1 widening). That's all we need to know. Hurray for the City!
709, 728, do you have anything to say that makes sense? I didn't think so.
Gee, I just listened to Spano's phone message and what he says is that he's had a discussion with a lawyer and is trying to decide how to proceed about the letter. I don't think the discussion with the "lawyer" was about writing a will, so it's reasonable for anyone to assume he's implying, in a mealy-mouthed way that he might sue Nathanson. If that's what Butler took away from that tape, it's reasonable. Quibbling over the exact words Butler used is a diversion. Typical. The call was blatant intimidation. No other reason to call and mention "lawyer". None. You wanna make nice, you just say let's talk. You don't "lawyer up". Spano should kick his "lawyer' to the curb.
Kathy, BJ's Act 2 as you put it, is totally in keeping with her being a person of principle. No one should overlook such a phone call from someone who's asking for the public to trust their judgement. The voters can decide whether it's a problem or not, but it needs to be exposed.
Hutch, you are going full Schlesinger, just trying to start a fight. I'm not interested.
If you can somehow interpret Spano's words to NOT be a legal threat, you are a better man than me. It was admittedly rather vague, but on that point, Larry Rosenstein unearthed this nugget on the legal blog popehat.com:
"vagueness in a legal demand is the hallmark of frivolous legal thuggery."
Wikipedia had these examples in their definition of legal threat:
"Legal threats are often veiled or indirect, e.g. a threat that a party "shall be forced to consider its legal options" or "will refer the matter to legal counsel."
Now compare those examples to Spano's message:
“I had a discussion today with an attorney at law regarding slander, and we both agree that I should try to talk to you and see if we can get some sort of agreement on what to do next regarding your letter to the Tribune.”
I gotta tell you, I just transcribed this for the first time and it's creepier than I expected to see the words written out.
9:35 The fact is that Victor never threatened to sue BJ for slander as Ian Butler stated. It's really pretty simple. That was a blatant lie and par for the course for Ian. You can choose to read it any way you want but facts is facts.
So Ian do you want to apologize to Victor for attempting to fraudulently stain his reputation for political reasons? Or maybe you don't want to comment due to pending litigation against you?
953, you're wrong. The letter to the editor was not principled. The phone call was justified (hence principled).
The public cannot trust the judgement the person who wrote the outrageous, out of control letter to the editor. And that has nothing to do with the judgement of the candidate, Victor Spano. Yet, you, and some of your friends, keep tracking back to smarmy "blame the victim" tactics, rather than blame the instigator who was BJ Nathanson. (Worse, Nathanson may have been urged to print that Letter by some of you, who gave her inaccurate information.) I don't know, but this is another repeated 'ol NIMBY trick. Not very credible are you?
Yeah, by BJ's attack letter I would not exactly say she has principals. She pretty much attacked Victor in a deceptive way to help her candidate John Greener.
Wow Ian you are a real piece of work. It takes a small man to not admit he blatantly lied in such a clear cut way.
Wow, you "transcribed it." Maybe you should have quoted him directly instead of making shit up?
Yes maybe we could interpret Victors words as suggesting a lawsuit. You could have said that. BUT YOU SAID HE THREATENED TO SUE HER FOR SLANDER. That never happened. Therefore it is a BIG lie. Can you comprehend that amigo?
No, I think you can not.
From the dogged mind-bending defense of Spano on here, ya gotta wonder if he wasn't advised by the Fix Pacifica Legal Team. Never leave a message, first rule of intimidation--Tony Soprano coulda told ya.
Love that nugget in Ian's post from Popehat.com. "vagueness in a legal demand is the hallmark of frivolous legal thuggery". Yeah, baby, as long as it's frivolous.
I never knew we had so many legal experts around town.
This is better than the crap on TV.
Cheap comedy and entertainment. Just don't run out of popcorn.
Actually, the underlying principles are pretty important. Free speech for example. Or, a candidate's suitability for office. The cheapness and sleaze is pure Pacifica. Pass the popcorn, please.
1044, back into the gray area huh, NIMBY? "Free speech" is one thing, intentional lying is another. There is a clear distinction between the two. Intentional lies should at least called out. Lies that target others to cause harm may have legal consequences.
Once again...
I keep going back to BJ's letter and trying to find out where the "baseless speculation / smear / intentional lying" hype that is being referred to is is coming from. There is nothing there beyond a typical letter to the editor. The largest critique is about Fix Pacifica and one of the web moderators - versus Spano. Is that why some are so upset here? Spano's response though is out of line and not what I would want in a City Councilperson.
What Victor did was dumb but all in all, harmless. He's not going to sue anyone. This blog gets threatened with lawsuits several times a year because people are offended by what's been posted. I take those threats for what they are - groundless hot air and bluster.
I spent about a day reconsidering my vote for him, but decided to stick with him. His positions on the issues are much more important to me than his thin skin, which I suspect will get thick very fast if he's elected.
Everything the noby nimbies try backfires in their face.
Try to get rid of Kathy and this blog, Maybury loses his leftist column.
Put out a deceptive flyer, people see it as such.
Try to throw mud at Spano, you get even more marginalized.
Sinai, we don't know whether what Spano did was a one-off or in character. Might be thin skin, but he claims his experience in gov't makes him a city hall insider. Odd he didn't pick up on avoiding political pitfalls. Your moderate voice on here might help as no others have.
But, IMHO, with his background he should have known better. Judgement is his problem and this was just a preview. He's got doghouse written all over him.
The question isn't whether he actually intended to sue, it is whether he intended to intimidate by implying he might.
And the answer is ...duh!
733, considering the potential damage from such a politically calculated, misleading trash letter to the editor-- oops, you missed the question. The question is about the deed, not the initial potentially legal phone call.
Considering I'm a contributor to his campaign with the future of the city at stake, should Victor Spano's candidacy fail as a result of this affront, if he takes legal action against BJ Nathanson and those who supported dropping this dirty bomb, I'll contribute to that effort and urge others of good conscience and above average ethics to do the same. This kind of political irregularity goes way beyond free speech, and should not be tolerated.
Like Nihart never flew off the handle. This little phone call is nothing. I've gotten calls from most council lobbying me. Really no big deal. This is not the White House. It's a tiny little town.
Unfortunately, it's as big a deal as people want to make it. Spano made the call and it's his candidacy he's cast doubt upon. It has nothing to do with Nihart. Best thing the guy could do is apologize to Nathanson and not say another word about it and ask his supporters to drop it, but something tells me if he got his rebuttal in the paper (stupidly widening the audience from blogs to Trib subscribers) it'll be incendiary rather than diplomatic. Oh, well. He's the only one who'll get burned. Maybe a sympathy vote?
What the hell is a potentially legal
phone call, Kathy? I would have applauded a scathing rebuttal letter in the Tribune by Spano, but calling up a woman who has criticized you and your homies and then doubling down by leaving a message for an unknown audience is beyond stupid. It's also kinda creepy. Stick to real estate, Spano. Get rich.
Kathy you said: "should Victor Spano's candidacy fail as a result of this affront, if he takes legal action against BJ Nathanson and those who supported dropping this dirty bomb, I'll contribute to that effort and urge others of good conscience and above average ethics to do the same."
C'mon! You can do better then that! Why not become a party to the lawsuit? Are you afraid of the consequences of a SLAPP suit or are you prepared only to support Spano to last dollar! Put your money where your mouth is ! I NIMBY dare you!
Oh, so now, it's the letter that's the problem. That's the old Fix tactic of diversion. It was just a letter to the editor, one of maybe a hundred in an election season. They can get pretty nasty. Ask present and former council and candidates. This letter made special because it blasted Fix Pacifica's dancing on the grave of Jim Vreeland and oh look, there's the Fix poster boy, Victor Spano. Yes, yes, I know, you were just telling the truth about Jim. Brilliant. It's SOP to attack candidates for their affiliations on here and elsewhere. Why not Victor? Let's not quibble about an actual endorsement, Victor was warmly and publicly embraced. I believe posters even cautioned him, Hutch and Kathy about the coziness because this blog has a reputation. Do you think Victor rues the day he was embraced by Fix? Marriage of convenience? No other suitors? Whatever. Like Churchill said "When you find yourself walking through hell, keep walking." And for God's sake stay off the phone and avoid all contact with your critics for 8 more days. Think positive! Half the votes were in before this disaster.
816 You're absolutely right, Nihart has meltdowns and she lobbies people, not at the same time. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't start the convo by saying she's discussed the situation with a lawyer. That's an attempt to intimidate. To silence. Nihart flatters and cajoles, uses and discards. It's a safer technique to get people to do what you want.
"...if he takes legal action against BJ Nathanson and those who supported dropping this dirty bomb..." Hahahaha. Oh please, I hope Victor takes legal action. He'll be laughed out of court so fast it will make his head spin.
826, sure send the apology in a cease and desist letter.
Apologize for being trashed by BJ and the NIMBIES? An apology should come from them (you know the perpetrators). Even so, consider suing them.
833 I think you know what I said. The phone call may have been preliminary to potential legal action consideration. Figure it out. How is the voice mail/recorded phone/personal cell phone call an issue to care about when the outrage is the assault on Victor and his campaign?
I'll bet you check your voice mail from time to time, and you're not always available to answer your phone. What is your phone number, I'll call you and see if someone else or the public answers. Your comment seems kind of creepy to me.
859, the homeowners policy may help defend, if the case is viable. Then there's the ACLU. 859, guess there will be no donations from you.
Yes, the ACLU. I'm sure they'd love another shout out from Pacifica. Better you should call the psychic hotline.
I don't think BJ set him up, but even if she did he made the call and then the bonehead left a message to be heard by anyone, saved and replayed, ie, proof of his poor judgement. Nah, no way a set-up because who would ever imagine a candidate making such a call?
Send the apology in a cease and desist letter? To whom? Your buddy Horace at the Tribune? He decided to print and make it public and we all know what exacting journalistic standards he has.
LOL
"I'm going to sue you for ceasing and desisting voting for me!"
Is that how this dumb lawsuit is supposed to go?
I suggest that the Resource Center be called upon to provide their conflict resolution service with a neutral mediator.
Here are two people who never met each other in person, who are lighting rods for polarized political factions, I think they owe it to themselves to try to meet and work things out. It could be a Pacifica-beautiful moment.
Could Nathanson and Spano agree to discuss their issues in a safe and comfortable setting?.
Truly reasonable people might accept such a proposition. Unreasonable folks with agendas and axes to grind would balk.
Anyone notice that nobody is talking about Ruchames? Either he's going to be another Monfrans or he will sneak in to win this. I doubt he will will. Seems like he's just going through the motions and will wait until next time. I say this one will go to Spano, O'Neill and sorry to say Digre.
Kathy Meeh said, "...when the outrage is the assault on Victor and his campaign?..."
Will keep asking....
What is this outrage all about? What assault? There is nothing, nada, zero, that is out of line in the comments made in the LTE. Very little mention is even about Mr. Spano, the real slap is on Fix Pacifica. Mr. Spano responding in the way that he has does seem to reflect the close alliance that the letter is suggesting.
Let's cut to the legal chase on this matter, and I speak authoritatively. The only sentance in Nathanson's letter that refers to Mr. Spano that is pertinent to this matter is: "It is one thing to be endorsed BY Fix Pacifica, but Victor's campaign appears to be an endorsement OF Fix Pacifica."
Is this defamatory? In law libelous statements must meet certain criteria to be judged such.
1. You must be accused of an immoral, illegal or unethical conduct. So whether true or not IS the alleged endorsement by the Spano's campaign of "Fix Pacifica" immoral, unethical or illegal? No, the statement does not rise to being immoral, unethical or illegal regardless of whether it is truthful. Now IF you can meet condition one then you need to meet condition two.
2. Harm to reputation. If a voter was willing to believe a single sentence in an op-ed with no further investigation on their part was enough to change their vote then he or she did not hold you in very high regard in the first place. You apparently did not lose any reputation, because it was not there to start with.
So any competent lawyer that Mr. Spano spoke with would have pointed these facts out. Finally Victor Spano can't sue anyone for this regardless. The statement clearly says "Victor's campaign". which is a separate legal entity from Mr. Spano personally. If the campaign were to act on this then it would draw in other individuals legally associated with the campaign who could bear a judicial burden of costs and damages.
Everything else is utter BS.
903, the letter to the editor is the core issue.
Vreeland. A NIMBY strategy for an attack on that article began with a comment overreaction at 9/18/14, 7:44 PM. That comment was immediately followed by a series of attack comments, which were stopped/spammed, blog policy, item 3.
Victor Spano's slogan is "Fix Pacifica" (that was his choice because he wants to help fix Pacifica). His slogan is separate from this blog, but the attachment to this blog was made by you, if you're BJ. Its not uncommon for a candidate to desire to fix their city. Currently a city council candidate in Half Moon Bay uses the slogan "Fix Half Moon Bay". Its a slogan, not a marriage. You should read through the Vreeland article sometime, there are plenty NIMBY distractions "dancing on the grave of Jim Vreeland" (your comment).
We tend to prefer progress and progress candidates on this blog, and reject those who "Don't Fix Pacifica". That's a component of our Fix Pacifica reputation. But, as you see everyone posts comments here, including you.
"His slogan is separate from this blog, but the attachment to this blog was made by you, if you're BJ."
You must have missed the part where Steve said Victor asked for permission to use the name, Fix Pacifica.
You also missed the part where Victor posted a couple of times about the connection between his slogan and the name of this site on his Facebook page.
Perhaps you were in the midst of celebrating having typed out the word NIMBY for the 10,000th time. In that case, your errors are understandable.
955, OMG "cut to the chase", take another look at that "Don't fix Pacifica" smarmy letter letter to the editor, and the timing. Big link of him to Fix Pacifica described as hell. Big candidate rejection. If Spano is harmed enough to lose the election, think again. But, he should probably consult a different lawyer than you.
1022, Victor asking Steve about Fix Pacifica was a courtesy, an inquiry, a clarification and a heads up, nothing more. Steve may or may not comment on this further. Obviously you did not inquire about such details prior to blasting Victor, the blog, and me.
I don't know what Victor posted on his facebook page, I seriously doubt that he suggested any direct connection to Fix Pacifica blog. He may have posted articles. Most friends of city economic improvement like several to a few of the following four (4) city council candidates: Victor Spano, Mike O'Neill, Therese Dyer and Eric Ruchames.
I use the word NIMBY to clarify issues, and to avoid some confusion that may come from twisted NIMBY content. A weak example of that would include the errors you allege I made at 1006 in a comment which I did not include extended information that you considered "missed parts". Good luck with mind reading.
@933: I don't think that Spano was ever going to be in the top 3, but his phone message might mean he drops to 5, behind Keener. So maybe BJ's letter worked better than she could have hoped?
1119 I think the letter does little, if any, damage to Spano. People who liked Vreeland were not going to vote for Spano even before the letter. Others may not like the guilt by association thing. It's the phone call that's the problem. It's just on the blogs so far, but if the phone call ends up mentioned in the Tribune in any way, shape or form it will damage Spano. It's both creepy and unbelievably stupid. Can absentee voters cancel their votes? I think they can.
Kathy, where's your LTE supporting Victor. Did it run already or is it in this Wednesday's paper?
1158, "Vote to fix this city", affect change. Sent to the Tribune 10/22, posted on the blog 10/24.
1139 & 1156 Again, you guys have no idea what voters care about. Hint, it's not a phone call or a letter. You can wait to pat yourselves on the back.
We shall see.
Where in the world is Eric Ruchames? Running a stealth campaign? Maybe just trying to stay clean. Half the votes have already been cast by mail. His name comes up in quite a few conversations among absentee voters.
11:35 In what way does his name come up in conversations among absentee voters? For? Against? Just curious!
I think Eric Ruchames strategy of staying silent is going to backfire. It's the same way they tried to run the measure v campaign. Just put some signs out and stay quiet.
112 For, in the AARP demographic. Maybe it's the cop thing?
118 I doubt Eric cares what a Fixie thinks. He's going to run his campaign his way, win or lose. No dirt, no trash, no circus. Measure V? Low-voltage in this race whether a challenger or incumbent was for or against.
Jack be NIMBY
Jack be slick
This LTE was nothing more
Than a political trick
Old Mother Grace
Went to her polling place
To cast herself a vote
But it had been replaced
By trails and open space
And a big fat promissory note
236 That's positively ghastly, Goosey.
Old Mother Grace did a hell of a job with the abundant material some people left lying around.
Mother Goose 236, I'd love to post some of your prose and poetry as small articles (possibly with appropriate graphics), but we need your name to do that. If you're willing, let us know. Your work is way too good to remain in the commentary section of our blog.
Kathy, unless there is more than one poetic goose in this barnyard, that Mother may be a political dilettante inspired by whatever rhymes. Goose for hire? Don't give up your editorial control.
Another example of socialist type sencorship over on Riptide. I made 3 comments about Ian's statement about Victor being untrue and John didn't post one of them.
The last one didn't even mention Ian. I said " For the 3rd time, it is not true that Victor threatened to sue BJ for slander."
I guess they're not big on truth.
Hmmm didn't Castro, Lennon and Stalin behave like this?
Can we do a story on this?I have dozens of comments that John never posted. He doesn't want me over there fine. He'll lose half his 45 posters.
GO GIANTS!!!!!
Tyrants like Castro, Lenin, Stalin also weren't fans of their critics writing Letters to the Editor. And they didn't use a telephone answering machine to deliver the message.
Post a Comment