Letters to the Editor: Sept. 13, 2012
Our nation’s great divide
The recent completion of the Republican and Democratic presidential nomination conventions highlighted the increasing degree of polarization of America. Not since the years leading up to the Civil War has the divide seemed so great. No matter which side comes out ahead, it seems likely that the winners will act in a mean-spirited fashion, while the losers will become even more resentful. Is this how a democracy is supposed to function?
With this in mind, it becomes essential to start the difficult process of depolarizing the present situation — beginning now. Otherwise, we may share Yeats’ vision in The Second Coming, that “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”
Harvey W. Yurow, Ph.D. Rancho Bernardo
Kudos to contractor
Regarding the Aug. 30 story about repairs to the Chaparral Elementary School track:
Cheers to Darrell Brown of City Service Paving for his amazingly generous donation of time, money and effort to a school that is not even in his area. The fact that a business owner who is not from Poway, not from San Diego and not even from San Diego County gave so freely in this terrible economy says much about his character and his business. You can bet that he will be the first person I call and/or recommend if someone is in need of any paving services.
Quite the sad commentary that someone could not step up in their own community to help.
Thanks also to Jane Radatz for all of her work. It’s people like these that inspire me to volunteer and try to make a difference in our community.
Joyce Petersen, Poway
Can’t support Romney or Bilbray
Full disclosure: I’m a liberal. I watched all of the Republican convention on C-SPAN to get the most unbiased view.
I’m convinced that Gov. Romney is not a bad person, but when you strip away all of the flag waving and American exceptionalism, what you are left with are the same tired Republican talking points of previous years: tax cuts for the 1 percent, saber rattling talk about war with Iran, drill baby drill, anti-gay marriage, gutting public education, and to hell with the environment.
There is no way I can vote for this man or any other candidate expressing similar views, and that includes Rep. Brian Bilbray.
Pete Babich, Poway
Grosch endorses Vaus
In the past month I have had several inquires from Poway citizens on my opinion of the candidates running for Poway City Council. All of the candidates are good men, but I tell them I’ll be voting for Jim Cunningham and Steve Vaus. Both have been very proactive in our community and that speaks well for the future of Poway. In addition, both men will provide diversity on the council, which will further help our city.
Jim has done a good job as a first-term City Council member. He impressed me from day one with his understanding of the issues that have come before the council. He is involved with our community and he makes himself available to all. When our veterans asked for his help, he was there. There are many more instances that I can list, but you get the point. Jim deserves a second term because he has earned it.
I have known Steve for three years and I have witnessed his involvement in our community from searching for Chelsea King, to his volunteer work as a park ranger, to helping our teens and to his involvement in our schools. He is proactive; he has a good heart and I believe he is the right person for the job to represent all of Poway.
But this is just one man’s opinion. I encourage everyone to do their own research, go to the candidates’ websites and attend one or both of the upcoming debates in Poway. Then decide for yourself.
Dave Grosch, City Council member
Mangum a man of integrity
The overreaction regarding the PUSD bonds shows that some do not read newspapers (which endorsed the bonds) or attend school board meetings or read agendas and minutes posted on the district’s website so they could be fully informed. Instead, these critics are willing to kill “the goose that lays the golden egg” — Poway Unified School District —to vilify former board member and current City Council candidate Jeff Mangum.
When I moved to Poway 20 years ago, it was for the schools not the city. Ask anyone — we all moved here for the schools. Because of PUSD’s excellent reputation, people are willing to pay more to buy a house or rent an apartment in Poway. Businesses come here knowing that good schools help attract the best employees.
One of the first people I met in Poway was Jeff Mangum. He reaffirmed that I made a good choice, that Poway was family-friendly and business-friendly. I supported Jeff as a school board member because I knew him as a man of honor and integrity committed to providing the best education to the children of Poway.
Now scare tactics have convinced prospective Powegians they will be paying a billion dollars in taxes. The critics and the candidates they support have done much to harm property values and frighten businesses away.
In November, I’ll be voting for Jeff Mangum because I know he would never do anything to harm the reputation and prestige of the city he has called home for 24 years.
Teresa Hayman, Poway
Poway cannot afford Mangum
Jeff Mangum (Letters, Aug. 30) served up a healthy portion of 20/20 hindsight tripe that should be tossed in the trash, along with his candidacy for City Council.
As a sitting Poway Unified School District trustee, he helped shepherd this billion-dollar debacle-of-a-bond through the majority of the time in which the details were being hashed out. Claiming to not know the pertinent details speaks only to incompetence, and knowledge of those details without action is tantamount to criminal arrogance.
Poway simply cannot afford to risk having a City Council member who has demonstrated, through inaction at the very least, a disregard for the financial well-being of Poway’s residents.
Fortunately, Poway has a deep bench of electoral talent from which to draw, and two of the current crop of council candidates have proven track records of working hard to improve the lives of the residents, seeking to address problems and nip them in the bud before they become crises, and keeping our city finances in order. Those two are far more deserving of your vote than a person who has instituted Mello-Roos for the rest of us, and has been tested and proven that he can be trusted to enact legislation that will cost Poway residents almost a billion dollars in additional property taxes.
Peter De Hoff, Poway
Vineyard will represent everyone
Thanks, Dick Lyles, for your transparency. You’ve cleared up any misconception I may have had regarding “big money” candidates from north Poway and your opinion of “other than rich” people of Poway.
In your Sept. 6 column you make it clear that if a candidate doesn’t get “…$100 donations from 150 members of the local community…” they’re “not credible” or apparently “worthy” candidates in your eyes or the eyes of the “rich people” you represent.
I guess in that case that anyone of the rest of us “poor folks” who live in the central, south, east and west parts of Poway and who can only afford to donate our time or perhaps $5, $10 or a whopping $20 to a candidate are also not worthy citizens of Poway. This has proven to be the case for over 20 years now.
Let me get this straight. I vote for “your guy,” the “rich guy,” if I’m rich and live in north Poway and if I’m not rich I vote for a guy like Gary Vineyard who pledges to represent all of the citizens of Poway equally, regardless of where they live. That’s a no-brainer, I’m going with Vineyard.
Dave Pike, Poway
Get loud, Titan fans
I just attended the Poway High vs La Costa Canyon football game and left embarrassed.
I am a naval officer who has moved a lot. My kids are in third grade and kindergarten, but I go to local high school games where ever I am. Poway students and fans need to do a better job cheering for their team. When the opponent has a third down, the fans are supposed to cheer and get loud to make it hard for the other team’s offense to hear and to boost your defense.
La Costa Canyon had a few students at the game and they were loud. The Poway side just did the “tomahawk chop.” You could almost hear a pin drop.
I encourage the fans to get loud for their team.
Sonny MCGowan, Poway
Related posts:
- Four are early entrants to Poway City Council election
- Poway council candidates certified to run
- Vineyard turns in City Council candidacy papers
- Letters to the editor: Sept. 6, 2012
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=28532
Posted by Staff
on Sep 12 2012. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Theresa – not only did Jeff Mangum know about the billion dollar bond he knew all the details prior to leaving office. And as the public record requests start coming in, we're discovering that the city did a "validation" suit in the court. Now as a "an interested person" you would think the district would have notified you that technically you were being sued. The district complied on only the most basic levels, enough to say what they did was "legal." But you have to ask yourself, over the last few years of bond series, when payouts were 6 to 1 and 9 to 1 – and the people who financed them made millions on YOUR tax dollar – well not YOUR tax dollar but the tax dollars of homeowners 20 years from now, is what the district did ethical. Kamala Harris sent a letter on March 11, 2011 warning the district that what they were doing was probably illegal. The PRA's going back to October , 2010 when Jeff Mangum voted to authorize the $105 million bond, he KNEW the cost and he KNEW the damage. Maybe you don't care because you're be old and wearing a droolie bib by the time these start paying out, but for some of us, regardless of the droolie bib or not, what he participated in was UNETHICAL.
How about YOU don't be dumB? I am beyond sick of Mangum's opponents (many of whom, by the way, have stopped using their real names here…too obvious to tie them to Vaus' campaign and show their ulterior motives) trying to make it seem like he knew all of the details of the 2011 bond and that he was unethical. Mangum simply voted on the issuance of the bond, not the bond specifics (though it's funny how you people keep failing to make that distinction). I find your inaccurate statements and INFLAMMATORY OVERUSE OF CAPITALIZATION unethical. Did you read Ms. Harris' letter? It wasn't addressed to the school board. Now, I'm not saying that the board didn't see it or discuss it (I don't personally know….see, I can admit when I don't know something instead of making things up), but stop trying to misrepresent things in order to incite anger. You Do Not Know Jeff Mangum. Unethical doesn't belong in the same sentence with his name.
What misrepresentation? By your own admission you don't know all the facts. They are out there if you just take the 2 minutes to look. And stop trying to point fingers at everyone else.
I don't know all the facts, but neither do you (unless you were on the school board in 2011). I'll stop pointing fingers at "everyone else" when they stop vilifying and misrepresenting the facts.
Misrepresentation #1: "Jeff Mangum knew about the billion dollar bond he knew all the details prior to leaving office."
Not true. Please show me some facts to back that claim up. You can't just say it and will it to be true.
Misrepresentation #2: Kamala Harris sent a letter on March 11, 2011 warning the district that what they were doing was probably illegal.
That 2011 letter (which, by the way, was written AFTER Mangum left the school board) was NOT addressed to the school board. DontBDum's comment is implying that Mangum knew of this letter and knew that the board was warned about doing something illegal. This isn't just a misrepresentation, it's completely untrue. How could he know of this if he wasn't on the board? This is once again an attempt to drag Mangum's name through the mud by misleading people.
Misrepresentation #3: "…when Jeff Mangum voted to authorize the $105 million bond, he KNEW the cost and he KNEW the damage."
Again, this is simply untrue. If you're going to make such accusations, please back them up with facts. How did Mangum know the cost and damage of a bond whose specifics were not worked out until 2011, the year after he left the board? No really, I would like some proof if you're going to make such statements.
JohnN and your pal GoPoway! – You quite simply have no idea what you're talking about. This is what is known absolutely by the documents that are readily available to you and others (if you are even willing to read them):
In the October 2010 meeting the approval of issuance gave permission for a CAB, with no call, up to 40 years, with up to a 7.5 interest rate. (Mangum moved and Vanderveen seconded.) That is EXACTLY what the final deal was (actually the final interest rate was only 7.45) My point is, Mangum gave approval to EVERY DETAIL which led to the 9/1 payback ratio.
Here's NC Times backup: "In an era when school districts and cities are getting loans at interest rates of less than 2 percent, Poway Unified will pay an average annual rate of 7.45 percent, and it will have a repayment to principal ratio of 9.5-to-1, according to bond issuance documents." (NC Times Aug 21, 2012)
JOHN N give it up!!!!! If that doesn't sound like an attorney trying to defend HIMSELF, I don't know what does. Save yourself for the REAL trial Mangum!
Seriously? That's the best response you've got? I'm serious, I really am wondering where peoples' facts are…what's wrong with that? It just seems like you don't have any facts to back you up, hence your ridiculous comment. Wow.
JOHN N. Why provide the facts? You know them! We've had to do all the research ourselves to find out the TRUE facts. GIVE IT UP! We're all tired of the excuses & LIES. We had respect for you Mangum, until the facts came out & you continue to make excuses. OWN IT, maybe you'll earn some respect back!
I'm not sure if you're accusing me of being Mangum (?) or if you're just throwing comments out to him, but I'm not Mangum. I'm asking you to provide facts because you're making accusations about him that are either misleading or untrue. Obviously you don't see that (or don't want to see that). Mangum hasn't lied about anything and he apologized in last weeks letters to the editor. Either you don't have information to back up your claims against him or you're lying. I would still love answers to my previous questions.
There were 5 other Trustees and a Superintendent involved in the selection of a capital appreciation bond. Why all the focus on just Jeff Mangum? Because he is running for the City Council and the other candidates and their supporters, except for Cunningham who is probably a shoo in, are doing everything they can to get votes for their man.
Because of his 16 years of dedicated PUSD service before the CAB fiasco Mangum was probably favored to win a seat.
It's too bad many have passed judgement before the true facts are known. Hopefully there will be more clarity when the forensic expert makes his report. If he does so before the Nov election,we all should be in a better position to make an informed decision as to who to vote for and not just be swayed by emotion. I do wish it would be a 3rd party investigation with subpeony power, but we have what we have.
At this time I am not sure who to vote for, but I think most all candidates, including Jeff Mangum, would do a good job at City Hall.
JohnN – Here's some facts for you:
1. You are partially right when you said that Mangum did not know the terms of the bond when he made the motion. In the proposed Official Statement on the bonds that was with the agenda report of October 11, 2010 (when Mangum made the motion), and in the Resolution that was in the agenda report, it says that the bonds could be up to 7.5% and up to 40 years. This was permissible under the fine print of Prop C. So Mangum didn't know the exact terms of the ultimate bond at that point, but he did know the maximum it could be.
2. Where Mangum is tripped up is that no less than FIVE times in these two documents it states that the capital appreciation bonds do NOT have a call feature and cannot be refinanced. It says it repeatedly in bold print, underlined, and separated out – repeatedly.
So . . . did Mangum read his agenda report? And if so, why didn't he ask about going out into the bond market with NO call on the bond. IN fact, the previous CAP bonds had no call feature either – and he was involved in all of those.
We have to ask, WHY NOT? I've refinanced my house many times and that's the first question I ask. Can I refinance this loan?
Why didn't our school board, including Mangum, ask that question EVERY time they issued these bonds? Now we're just screwed with nothing to be done about it and on the hook for a billion dollars.
Are those enough facts for you John? Go read for yourself.
And no, I'm not Vaus. He's not the only person running for office you know.
You, Mr. Lyles, and all your friends fail to recognize that there are many intelligent voters out there who are frosted about this — and it has nothing to do with any campaign. Figure that out.
Nobody is happy about how the bonds turned out, including JohnN. Including me. Including Jeff Mangum. JohnN is just pointing out how some people are trying desperately to make any negative connection to Mangum that they possibly can. As Tom said above, Mangum is only one of many players, yet gets waaaaaaay more attention. Certainly makes you wonder why.
One of the reasons Mangum is getting so much attention is that Dick Lyles wrote a big column on how the only reason people are upset about the bond is to get at Mangum for political purposes. That opened a huge can of worms for everyone to spew back and say no! They're ticked about the whole thing and Mangum is NOT off the hook on this. Then Mangum wrote a letter apologizing for not predicting the economy. This enraged citizens even more. I've never seen so many responses and I doubt all the political opponents could have orchestrated that one. So people are reacting to that as well. Mangum's getting a lot of attention in the paper and here because he and Mr. Lyles are the ones stirring the pot. And yes, it's City Council and there is a campaign going on so people are looking at him carefully. And then there's Mangum's ongoing claims that he knew nothing about the bonds at all. . . People are just not buying it. So all in all, that's a lot of attention. Now you know why. In my opinion . . .
I think Dick Lyles' initial article telling the other candidates to not bother running was really the first of two last straws. Lyles' stated that Mangum was the only one running who didn't have an ego to satisfy. Although even on Mangum's website he states "he is the only candidate who is not a self-promoter." Which is really strange since you have to self promote to get elected. It's not like you stand to the side and everyone else speaks for you. I think this whole thing is just a mess and embarrassment.
Why did his apology enrage people? It was genuine. And why are you saying he's stirring the pot? I'm not him, nor am I affiliated with his campaign…seems to me like he's trying to take the high road by not getting into arguments with people. You're also twisting his words by saying that he knew nothing about the bonds at all. He didn't say that. Back when this story first broke, what he said, when asked, was that he wasn't sure about the 2011 bond because he wasn't on the board when it was passed. This is true…he didn't know the specifics of that bond when asked because he wasn't on the board when it was ultimately decided. I don't have a problem with people judging him based on his partial involvement, people are entitled to their own opinions. I'm bothered by the twisting of words and the reasons for doing so.
Mangum was one of few that made this decision for the bond. I believe the concern on this board is his involvement with a decision we all will suffer for. The reason he is being singled out is because he's running for City Council now. None of the other board members that helped pass this bond are running for City Council. His opponents were not involved in passing this school bond either. The issue is clear, do we want Mangum as a leader in this city again? If other board members involved in the school bond were running for City Council, would we want them as leaders again? They would be encountering the same reaction from our community. We need responsible people in our city that care about the FUTURE. The decision for this bond was irresponsible. Those involved in making the decision should never be allowed to make other decisions in our communities future again.
If the interest rate on the 2011 noncallable bond had been 3.5% like the first bond rate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the bond market tanked and the rate doubled to 7%. Mangum did not vote for the 7% rate. He wasn't on the board anymore.
All the proof you need is on Thanks A Billion Facebook page. Documents available to read on the page showing Mangum was involved. https://www.facebook.com/#!/ThanksABillion
I would hardly call Thanks a Billion all the proof you need. Inflammatory, hateful, and very much like a lynch mob? Yes.
Yeah, isn't that the facebook page where someone tried to find out who is running the page and hiding behind the description "a concerned Poway citizen?" When she kept asking who was really behind that Facebook page she was banned from being allowed to participate. Yeah, like I'm going to believe anything I read on that page? Major censorship going on there.
That may be all I needed was proof. Really wish Mangum could of taken the time to be more upfront about his involvement with the bond. Not sure I would of believed he was a part of it. He's always appeared to be a good upfront guy. Now I'm the one that feels like an IDIOT for seeing this sooner. Sorry for standing up for what I believed before I looked into the facts.
Nope, he's not JohnN…nice try making it seem that way though. I find this whole thing disgusting. People quick to judge and condemn, people who are SO sure that they know how Mangum would have voted if he were still on the board, people who are SO sure they know what they would have done if they'd been in the situation. People who demand that they're owed an apology but then mock Mangum when he does apologize. I still think Mangum is the best candidate for the job. I do. I've read the information, I know him, and I've compared him to the other candidates. Good thing we're all entitled to our own opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not saying people aren't mad about the bond. But I am sick of some of the most vocal people saying that this has nothing to do with the candidates they're supporting. Please. It's easy to tie people to their donations and sign distribution. You may be mad about the bonds, and hey, if you can try and take down your candidate's most difficult opponent, why not?
JohnN – I have to figure that you are in fact just so bent on not acknowledging truth and fact that no one will ever convince you. The documents produced on the Thanks a Billion FB were the documents supplied to Mangum and the Board prior to the October 2010 meeting. The 40 years was known by him, the no call feature was known by him and he knew that the costs related to the bond could go significantly higher than what was given to him in October. Yet he stated he didn't know any of that on his FB page right after this all started to be exposed. And since this is an election it is absolutely relevant what Mangum did or did not know. His apology was carefully crafted so as not to implicate himself . The Board cannot come out and overtly state we made a mistake because that would probably fast track a lawsuit. It is important for the voters to know who they are voting for and if a particular candidate held office before what the voting track record was. In Mangum's case, for him to say he did not know or could not have known is a flat out misrepresentation and twisting of what is clearly proved in the documents supplied by the District. And the digging will continue until all documents have been disclosed and produced for all to see.
I'm not bent on not acknowledging the truth. I've seen it and have my own opinion about how I feel about it and what I think. And like you, I'm allowed to share my opinion. And now I'm immensely curious about who you are (or perhaps who you are friends with), if you are someone who had access to what he said on his Facebook page.
See my comments above. That facebook page is being run by someone who is hiding his/her identity. Someone who censors and bans participants if they don't agree with what they post. Unless they are willing to say who they really are, everything on that page is suspect.
John (if this is fact JohnN)- don't feel like an idiot. We all got played. The fact is at least you recognize facts for facts. Mangum is not a bad man – no one on the Board is a bad person. But what they did was irresponsible. What we have learned is that we need to keep a close eye on our elected officials and we need to educate other communities on how to prevent this from happening again. New legislation is being drafted now to make long term CABs illegal. It will have bipartisan support.
Thank goodness kangaroo courts were banned long ago. Now if we could just do something about lynch mobs.
Tom, how refreshing…a voice of reason!
What voice of reason? I respect Tom's opinion but this isn't a "kangroo court" nor a "lynch mob." These are blog comments and opinions. Most of the opinions have fact supporting their accusations against Mangum and the Board. We should also remember this involves Vanderveen and Patapow. To be honest, maybe we shouldn't care what the Board did because many of us will be long gone in 40 years. Heck, who knows how what the U.S. will look like economically in 40 years. What's interesting are those supporting Mangum (and he is certainly entitled to supporters) don't argue facts they merely point fingers and make accusations that this is all to benefit a "candidate." To the Mangum supporters, please go back and actually look at the numbers. Go back to 2006 or 2009. Those were no-call CABs. All this information is available for your review. Instead you rely on carefully crafted apology that basically said nothing and a shell game put on by the Board. It takes years to get to this point.
Yeah, and the early no-call CABS were at 3.5 percent. Who needs to have a callable loan and refinance it if the interest rate was that low? Nice way to try to make it look bad — once again you don't give all the facts.
I'm so glad you read the PowerPoint and didn't bother to actually look at a factual chart that shows a 6 to 1 payout on an earlier cab for $3m and paying out at over 19million. How is that acceptable? You need to stop drinking the Koolaid. The FB page referred to in an earlier post was Mangum's FB page not Thanks a Billion's FB. Chris Cruse's blogspot – Poway Blog has much of the correct information.
The reason you think the interest rate is 3.5% is because the District tried to massage the numbers by adding in the grant money. They tried to say that because they got X dollars from the state they don't really owe a billion dollars. That's incorrect. To simply it for you, let's say you want to a buy a house, the bank is willing to loan you X dollars but you're short on the down payment. But your folks step up and donate Y dollars. The Y dollars do not reduce the X dollars. You still owe X times interest and the bank fees. All Y did is to give you some extra cash. The District is trying to say that over the years because they got Y dollars from the state it offsets the total they borrowed. It doesn't. And just wait until you figure out that in the $105b it's really more than that. There's about $20 million in costs that were paid to cover the prior Series A costs (called a premium). So the reality is when you factor in the premium it's $125 billion. The fees were legal and outrageous. When the Series A in 2009 was run why weren't the premiums paid? Why did they roll it over to 2011? They stuck the $20 million in a different column as a "premium" in the 2011 bond and will try and say it's not part of the bond but a cost. But it is included in the bond repayment. So there aren't any 3.5% loans. There are however millions in premiums. That's pure profit at taxpayers expense.
The most intellectually concise comment yet. I'm reposting this because it sums up what most of feel:
"Mangum was one of few that made this decision for the bond. I believe the concern on this board is his involvement with a decision we all will suffer for. The reason he is being singled out is because he's running for City Council now. None of the other board members that helped pass this bond are running for City Council. His opponents were not involved in passing this school bond either. The issue is clear, do we want Mangum as a leader in this city again? If other board members involved in the school bond were running for City Council, would we want them as leaders again? They would be encountering the same reaction from our community. We need responsible people in our city that care about the FUTURE. The decision for this bond was irresponsible. Those involved in making the decision should never be allowed to make other decisions in our communities future again."
In one more sign of Mangum's sense of entitlement – he has put up a big sign on or very nearly on the Blue Sky Preserve land. That's protected land and he should be heavily fined for that breach.
Speaking of signs. Mangums sign was put on my property & a nearby neighbors without permission. I don't know him, but if this is any sign of how he does things in the community, does what he wants without speaking to us, he's lost my vote!!!! I noticed his signs all along my road, and I know he didn't ask two of us for sure. If anyone wants my vote, show a little respect for the residents in our community & talk with us before putting your signs on our property.
It is within your rights to remove signs posted on private property without the owner's permission.
It is NOT permissible to remove signs that are posted on public areas such as public easements and right of ways (sidewalks, etc). Removing political signs from private property where permitted by the owner is illegal and considered theft. Removing signs placed on public property is also theft and you can be arrested.
No signs are permitted in the center medians.
Worth noting Mangum didn't feel a need to tell us he was sticking us with a billion dollar bondhy should he need to tell us he's sticking a sign on our property??
Several comments have been posted about unwanted Mangum signs being placed on their property. Mangum is the big money challenger and can afford to put large signs up everywhere. If you want to challenge that, I would recommend contacting the other candidates and have them place a sign on your property in place of the Mangum sign. I'm sure they would be happy to oblige. The other candidates listed in alphabetical order:
Jim Cunningham (http://www.jimforpoway.com/)
Steve Vaus (http://www.votevaus.com)
Gary Vineyard (can't find his web address – help here from Gary's supporters?)
See the City of Poway Web site for the
Poway Municipal Code
Article V. General Requirements
17.40.090 Exempt signs.
D. Temporary signs for elections
If you don't think that campaign signs are in their proper spot, contact the city. They'll contact the sign owner or whoever's name is on the sign to get them to take it down. I actually give campaigners a slight benefit of the doubt on this. The campaigners are probably not personally putting up every sign, they have helpers. The helpers, while told the rules, sometimes slip up and put signs on fences, streetsigns, in the medians, etc. They look like good spots to put a sign where they'll be seen, but violate the election sign ordinance. At least the city lowered the allowable maximum sq.ft. of a sign so we don't see all the 4×8 ft posters everywhere.