Comments on: Names of Santa Rosa City Council applicants made public

By: Laura Gonzalez

Laura Gonzalez — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:04:00 +0000

Rumor is public safety has informed City Council they want Dippel (who hasn’t been on any boards or commissions.) Why did they only interview some of the candidates? Why do they have the power to “inform” the council of their choice like that? Is this more back room deals like they did with Ours and Bartley last time? Where’s the transparency? This is sounding like a done deal. IS THIS EVEN LEGAL???? And why Dippel who came in 8th place? I thought the hang up with Don Taylor was that there “wasn’t a mandate from the public.”

4 3

By: Phaedra Glidden

Phaedra Glidden — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:33:37 +0000

Mockingbird ~ UN Agenda 21/ICLEI is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. I highly recommend you do your research about this. Otherwise, you sound like a silly bird parroting what others tell you, kind of like the “Mockingbird” you name yourself after.

11 0

By: MOCKINGBIRD

MOCKINGBIRD — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:22:30 +0000

James Bennett-you of the ICLEI and Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists are the last person this county needs on the city council or in ANY public office.

Caller-you are right. Dan is more conservative. I voted for Banuelos and I wouldn’t have voted for Carlstrom too if I had known she was presenting herself to the voters as a diehard progressive and she’s now shown her true colors.

I say replace Susan with someone of like politics since we voted in Susan. I don’t want the board loaded with conservatives in a predominantly progressive city. We need balance.

4 20

By: Kirstin

Kirstin — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:26:34 +0000

@Caller: I assume you would make the same statement about Caroline Bañuelos who also lost and was 17 votes behind Don Taylor?

@James Bennett: I completely understand reluctance to fill out the property disclosure form for the chance to speak for 15 minutes before the council and the public. I would think that would be restrictive for a number of otherwise potential applicants.

21 1

By: Caller

Caller — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:01:30 +0000

@Juvenal — good point. City Council appointing Don Taylor because he lost by less than other losers would be as silly as Mitt Romney being appointed in Obama’s absence.

6 4

By: James Bennett

James Bennett — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:37:04 +0000

I owe the Watch Sonoma County forum an explanation, as I posted that I would be obtaining an application packet for council eligibility. I did, the package includes a “Form 700″ that requires disclosure of real estate holdings, business interests, values and income from same.
I don’t really care to have my private business public when the only upside would be a short opportunity to speak some truth. My chances of being selected from this council are approximately zero.

We don’t need inordinate intelligence or skill sets to be an admirable city council representative. Just someone that has a rudimentary understanding of what makes a town work. Namely; a fertile small business (most jobs come from sml. biz) and real estate climate. In our area a favorable environment for tourism helps. AND, a genuine loyalty, desire to be of service, a respect and adherence to the oath. An empathy for what small business and most citizens are dealing with right now would be nice. The central dynamic to the whole thing is working for the people, but our ICLEI membership has subverted that.

Next week The North Bay Independent alternative newspaper will go to print. That’s my little contribution toward protecting our freedoms. I think it will be more effective than saying the same crap over and over on this board. Or watching SR Council twitch and squirm or get up to use the wash room when I take my 3 minutes.

I hope we find a way to come together this year and recognize the significance of our engagement right now.

I guess necessity is the mother of invention.

23 5

By: Juvenal

Juvenal — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:25:29 +0000

@Over Easy

“Don Taylor came in closest in the last election and should be bumped in as a matter of fairness.”

Similarly, if Barack Obama should become unable to perform the duties of the presidency, would you support installing Mitt Romney as President–”in all fairness,” since he “came closest”? Never mind that this would violate the Constitution.

If you think that runners up should be considered to be sitting on the bench waiting to play, legislate that…

8 15

By: Caller

Caller — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:48:15 +0000

@Over Easy -
The public chose the top four candidates in the election, so Don Taylor was rejected by the public. He was REJECTED more times than any other candidate.

Also, it’s possible that, if the top four candidates were out of the picture, Banuelos or another candidate might get more support than Taylor. You’ll never know.

12 11

By: Steveguy

Steveguy — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:39:12 +0000

To those that think Dan Taylor should be a shoe-in… Tiffany Renee could make the same claim if it was Petaluma.

Beware your thoughts and feelings.

9 6

By: Over Easy

Over Easy — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:27:48 +0000

Don Taylor came in closest in the last election and should be bumped in as a matter of fairness. Than man deserves the chance, who else has tried so hard so many times to get the spot?
I’m not sure why he would really want it but he deserves it in my book.

23 12