Comments on: Letters to the Editor: Oct. 18, 2012

By: Loophole Larry

Loophole Larry — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:01:45 +0000

Next sign ordinance update will be named Vineyards Law. No campaign sign for a candidate shall be closer than 10 feet from another for that candidate.

By: UglySigns

UglySigns — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:25:28 +0000

Gary Vineyard must feel that it's ok to "skirt" the sign code by creating one giant sign out of three smaller sides. Gary – your signs may technically be legal but they show your complete disregard for the spirit of the law. 3 smaller signs connected together equates one giant sign.

By: Helen

Helen — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:00:44 +0000

Of course not. The issue is – while Mangum is focused on trying to fix the bond issue he was part of – you seriously think he should be running a city? The deception that you're buying into is that the resolution Mangum signed in 2010 somehow "died" before the 2011 final bond. The fact is the 2010 resolution is what was sent to the county, attached to the validation action and is identical to what was passed in 2011. So I suppose the real question is-how deep is the deception by PUSD and how dumb are Poway voters to buy that there is any difference between 2010 and 2011. Plausible deniability is not real.

By: Tom Yarnall

Tom Yarnall — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:01:35 +0000

Helen, will you be disappointed if the committee finds a way to re-do the bond and have it financed in a reasonable fashion?
Will you be disappointed if people do not go to jail for their "apparent" egregious actions.
Will you be disappointed if the AG does not file a charge against the PUSD Board and John Collins for malfeasance?
Will your crusade continue after the election, or will all be forgiven if your man wins? That's the way it usually works in politics.
My last word.

By: KJN

KJN — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:20:53 +0000

Tom — you are AWESOME!

By: Helen

Helen — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:02:57 +0000

The Grand Jury is only convened once a year. The investigation will come from the AG or from a taxpayer lawsuit. I don't think Mangum is the ringleader. I think he was part of the problem going back to 2008 and 2009. Read Chris Cruise's Poway Blog Spot. She has the actual bond details and the payoff. And I don't buy the argument they were deceived by "slick" bond salesman. The focus on the 2011 bond is short sighted. The bond underwriters donated $25k to the Prop C committee. In 2009 the board issued a bond with a $9 million premium. In order to get the extra cash they had to jack the interest. And no call feature. Not one of the bonds issued has a call feature. It's not complicated. We elected these people to pay attention to the details. Now Collins has ordered the foreclosure of 7 homes, yet his own home is in foreclosure. This is a leadership problem from the top down. I consider myself to be a fairly conservative republican but for the time being I have no confidence in Mangum being able to focus on the city issues. His next few years are going to be spent focusing on defending himself from what will either be a taxpayer lawsuit or the AG's office challenging the legality of ALL the bonds with excessive premiums.

By: Tom Yarnall

Tom Yarnall — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:48:44 +0000

Helen, you may not know that early on I called for hearings by a committee with the authority to put witnesses under oath. That is documented. Since that has not been forthcoming from either the D.A. or the Grand Jury, I assume there has been nothing illegal about the issue. A horrendous mistake? You bet.
I would like to know the details. Was the PUSD Board and John Collins overly influenced by the slick bond underwriters/analysts? What was the Boards motive beyond the best interest of our students? Do you think Jeff Mangum was the ring leader of a devious plot?
Don't you want the truth instead of just hearing people throwing around accusations to get their man elected?
I believe the committee is better than no committee.

By: Helen

Helen — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:15:33 +0000

Tom the "committee" Mangum created is not charged with anything. iT is a private group he has put together. The member's identities are secret. There is an impression that his committee is legitimate and has some authority. They do not. As a matter of fact both the PUSD audit and this committee's report should both be viewed as highly suspect and self-serving. An independent audit would by necessity be called for and completed by no one affiliated with the district. Tom you are an intelligent man and for the life of me I can't figure out why you don't get this?

By: Babs

Babs — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:01:08 +0000

California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, "I would fire staff that made a deal [PUSD Bonds] like this. And if I were a voter, I’d pick a different school board. But that’s just how I react to how egregious I think this deal is.”
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/article_...

By: Nice try

Nice try — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:40:34 +0000

Wow, you overestimate my technological skills…it's called Facebook. Check it out sometime.