After all, some businesses are more equal than others.

The Barlow’s developer got a green light to go full speed ahead on an ugly and unimaginative slew of sheet metal buildings, giving the entrance to town all the charm of an outlet mall, but CVS and Chase must not have had the right connections.

What I think really needs to be banned is the occupy tent and its fair weather propaganda distributor, when he is not in jail for making threats against the bank or customers of the banks. The trashy looking tent, with its lettering smearing down the side, the city council approves of and allows to stay- free of charge, defacing the charming small town character that we strive so hard to emulate. (Yes, Mr. Slayter, it is contrived)
This passé movement with it’s short, pathetic history of rioting,camping illegally, demanding free stuff and destroying property and it’s tiny, disturbed contingent of freeloading groupies the council wants to encourage, basically giving them the best real estate in town and getting nothing but hassled in return.
Because nothing says quaint and charming like a beat up tent covered in propaganda with a parolee or two accosting and indoctrinating passers-by.

It must be really lonely for Patrick Slayter- the only council member left with a shred of common sense.

2  1

I thing I would like to do to the council person of each town, is to give them a local numbing shot so they can’t walk, and see what it like to get around, without the use of there legs.

10  2

This is more soft pedal incrementalism toward this anti-private property ICLEI crap. Along with the “Climate Action Plan” they’ll impose mandatory solar retrofits.

While we have a glut of natural gas, while they blow up hydro-electric dams.

We have turned into the easy girl in school with our rights and willingness to let someone have their way with us.

It’s time to point at this oppression’s earmarks every time we see it.

NO.

19  4

16  4

18  4

I agree that a small amount of government zoning codes may be required. As an example, having a bar next to a School is not a good idea; however this broad attempt by the City of Sebastopol to infringe on individual’s rights is not just unethical it is unconscionable.
I predict that the City will soon be in binding arbitration with JAMS, where a retired judge will read to them the statutes and what they mean. Then the City attorney will be forced to contact their insurance carrier with the judgments. This will be astronomical as the indirect costs will not be limited.
The City in my opinion has the responsibility to provide infrastructure, Police, Fire and other Civil services, becoming a quazi communist state where the Czars will determine the land use belonging to individuals is a far step beyond their actual responsibilities.
I personally would like to see the municipalities focus on their actual responsibilities more and provide the basic infrastructure that is failing or in dire need of repair. I would like to see them remedy their debt by actively resolving the defined benefits pension crisis that has dwindled the public coffers. Yes, that is hard difficult work, but it is the REAL work that needs to be performed.
In the article, Vice Mayor Robert Jacobs states: “ As the City grows and develops and learns, there is a lack of clarity in what the CITY wants future growth to look like.. It is important the city council become pro-active”. I strongly disagree. I see that as a power and control struggle as well as infringement of rights. This is an abusive marriage with government and certainly very bad parenting.
It does not matter what the CITY COUNCIL wants future growth to look like, what does matter is what individuals who are property owners want their properties to look like.
Sebastopol has a unique small town identity because of just that individual freedom. To be true leaders the City Council will need to abandon the theory of collectivism and realize that each individual is free and capable of making property decisions.

23  4

Decades ago liberal meant open minded. Who are you people to take away my choices?

23  4

Yes, you CAN flip off the police. A Federal Judge just said so. While that particular ruling may not impact the West Coast, just yet, it will :)

A man in Oregon last year sued his local police dept for the exact same misconduct by the local police. They had to pay him around $5,000.

Think twice, officers, before you play games that you cannot win.

6  9

But government has no authority, no matter how much they pretend, to interfere with private business where the roads are already zoned and can handle the traffic.

Think government does not pretend?

How about the following?

A Federal Judge in New York State just ruled that a police officer cannot arrest you for simply flipping him the bird.

The police sniveled that their victim, the man who flipped them off, was acting in a threatening manner. The judge ruled that such a defense by the police was essentially absurd as the rude gesture had been used in the USA for over 100 years.

The victim continues in his litigation against those police officers as he should. They PRETENDED that they had authority that they did not.

It simply takes some litigation against government misconduct to flesh out the government pretenders. Once in court, they find it difficult to continue hiding behind their job titles and hiding behind the City Attorney.

Moral of the story? Sue the police and any other government bureaucrat who you think is pretending. You will win.

10  5

1  0