Dwight Manley’s and Rep. Ed Royce’s Nightmare on Birch Street: the continued presence of Latino and Asian protesters like Dayne Lee, Ana Lety Hernandez (wearing sign), and “Grandma Cha” in front of Royce’s lofty Brea Birch Street office slamming his voting record. (It’s not clear whether that’s a projection of Ed Royce himself looking out of the second-story window.) Brea Grand Landlord and Political Boss Manley wants to put a stop to all THAT!
UPDATE: The first thing that Brea Mayor Glenn Parker did after the Pledge of Allegiance was to seek — and receive — unanimous consent to take the item off of the agenda to be brought up no earlier than the Council’s Jan. 16 meeting, “in light of additional information that they had recently received from the community.” (That’s my paraphrase from memory.) When this was met with strangled cries from some in the audience who wondered whether they could still speak on the issue and whether the meeting would be open and noticed, Parker had the good sense to violate protocol to answer them directly from the dais rather than cast them from the room for violating protocol (possibly inviting a bloodbath. But probably not.)
This was the right move. Activists willing to sit through the video on the Brea Centennial and recognition of its Committee members get to speak today and register their feelings and emotions, which may then be taken into account, but then also come back in a month and hold their feet to the fire to the extent that they don’t come up with a better plan — or, better yet, a decision against any plan at all.
This would not have happened without the prompt and intensive activism of some outraged Brean insiders, of Indivisible 39, of OC Young Democrats, of UNITE-HERE and it’s partners, and of the unaffiliated activists here in the Council Chambers with me right now.
A Luta Continua — The Struggle Continues — but at least we didn’t lose outright tonight by a sucker punch knock-out. I will be putting in a CPRA request after seeing the video of Parker’s speech, seeking among other things to find out what information changed their minds, why it wasn’t available before, and what motivated this whole craziness in the first place.
[Original post follows]
I hate having to go to a Brea City Council meeting this week, given that I’m mostly convalescing both online and offline these days, but my little city — politically dominated this decade by twerpy testy greedhead developer/landlord Dwight Manley — is preparing to do something SO TOTALLY WRONG this Tuesday, out of fealty to both the landlord twerp and his tenant the Congresstwerp, that I feel I have no choice. If you love the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government with grievances, then you should come along too and speak your mind.
And if you’re one of the five or six Democratic candidates and two independents (plus whoever Tony Bushala might run) planning to take on Congresstwerp Ed Royce in the upcoming election — or if you’re Ed Royce himself and (even less likely) you actually don’t want the Brea City Council to sacrifice these essential freedoms just to make it easier for you to pretend that people don’t HATE, HATE, HATE the votes you’ve recently been casting in Congress — then you should DEFINITELY show up and record a little 2-3 minute campaign video on the City of Brea’s website on the City Council’s dime. It’s a great chance to tell the Council that you don’t think that, if elected to Congress and officed on Brea’s Birch Street, YOU should be spared the indignity of facing public protest, because unlike the congresstwerp your spine is not made of candyfloss and feathers. (Note: if Ed Royce shows up Tuesday night and vigorously takes this pro-freedom position, I will feel unable refer to him as “Congresstwerp” again until the polls close on November 5, even if in other respects he continues to be a pulsating fluorescent spangled twerp.)
Here’s the City Manager’s Staff Report on the new ordinance, which received a first reading with I’m told nary a comment previously and is not headed for what’s slated to be its LAST reading, as the plan is to waive any more readings before taking a final vote.
Subject:
Public Assembly Regulations – Adopt Ordinance No. 1201 Establishing Public Assembly Regulations and Amending the Brea City Code for Second Reading by Title Only and Waive Further Reading.RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1201.BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Demonstrations, marches, parades, processions, and rallies are regularly conducted on the City’s streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public property each year. Although such activities involve free speech rights, the City has the ability to impose content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations to promote substantial government interests including the following: protecting the safety, comfort, and convenience of persons using streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public property; regulating competing uses of public fora; maintaining public property in an attractive and intact condition; preventing unreasonable interferences with residential properties and lawful businesses; and defraying the cost of certain departmental services provided for the activities.On December 5, 2017, the City Council unanimously introduced the attached Ordinance No. 1201 to add a new Chapter 12.28 to the City Code to establish public assembly regulations consistent with federal and state court precedents. The key components of these regulations are as follows:
– An assembly permit requirement for public assemblies that meet certain criteria
– Prohibitions on the carrying or possession of certain items at a public assembly
– Prohibitions on certain conduct at a public assembly
– Restrictions on the use of sound amplification devices at a public assembly
– An indemnity requirement
– A departmental services reimbursement requirementFor purposes of these regulations, the term “public assembly” is defined as a demonstration, march, parade, procession, or rally that assembles or travels in unison on a street, sidewalk, park, public right-of-way, or other public property owned or controlled by the City and that meets any one of three criteria. The first criteria is that the activity does not comply with applicable traffic laws, regulations, or controls. The second is that the activity takes place on public property in Downtown Brea and involves 30 or more participants (this criteria reflects the City Council’s direction to revise the 20 participant threshold proposed by staff). The last is that the activity takes place on public property outside of Downtown Brea and involves 75 or more participants. There is a lower threshold for Downtown Brea because, due to the unique and compact nature of that area, public assemblies there can be unreasonably disruptive with fewer participants than public assemblies elsewhere.
These regulations will exempt certain public assemblies from the permit requirement. For example, no permit will be required to conduct a public assembly at the City Hall plaza in response to news or affairs coming into public knowledge within three days prior to such public assembly. There also are exemptions for public assemblies in facilities rented from the City, for activities conducted pursuant to a film permit issued by the City, and for funeral processions. In accordance with the City Council’s direction, if an exemption is not applicable, then the permit application will have to be submitted at least four days prior to the proposed public assembly regardless of the location of the event.
Now if you’re like me, you might be thinking to yourself “huh, that doesn’t seem too hard to beat, given some technicalities or terminology and drafting errors that need not be expressed here, and given that it will probably not be applied in certain other situations (such as sports pep rallies) it’s likely to end up not being content-neutral after all, setting up the City of Brea for a nice fat series of lawsuits.” But let’s not get into that today. Let’s focus instead on the sections that I’ve rendered in brownish-orange.
(1) Let’s be clear on one thing from the outset: Dwight Manley owns the bulk of Brea Downtown, so much of this is a giveaway of your rights to make him happy.
Why does the Council want to make him happy, you may ask, because you haven’t been paying attention? That’s because:
- Three years ago, he basically bought the majority of the seats on the Council with unprecedented volumes of campaign contributions;
- He then forced the Council to give him a gigantic new parking garage at public expense, to improve the value of his property, and pitched a fit this year when the public wasn’t going to give him the Great Glass Elevator that he wanted, so he made the Council spend for on it;
- A year ago, to destroy a school bond that would increase property taxes — and did I mention that he owns the bulk of the property in Downtown Brea? — he spent massively not only to fight that bond but also to try to take over a majority on the School Board so that no future bonds could be proposed.
Dwight Manley seems to see Downtown Brea as sort of his own Main Street Disneyland, and he wants to make the place look spiffy and happy for the tourists, rather than someplace where people live and have political grievances that they want to express. So you present unsightly protests in Manleyland, even if some huge sudden national political development happened, he’s happy for you to join in public protests that can’t be scheduled four days in advance, so long as they are restricted to City Hall Plaza, where few people are, rather than occurring in THE PUBLIC DOWNTOWN AREA, where lots of people are. You still get to protest, just not where people have to look at your unsightly selves.
Even if you do have four days advance notice, there are still limits on your use of sound systems, AND on what you can carry with you (except presumably concealed weapons, unless Manley wants to go after the Second Amendment too), AND on your “conduct.”
We’re talking about what happens ON PUBLIC LAND HERE! The Public Downtown becomes entirely adapted to Manley’s PRIVATE wishes — and economic benefit.
But that’s not the worst of it. Look up at the last two lines in that summary list above. “An indemnity requirement” and “A departmental services reimbursement requirement.” What do those mean? Essentially, you had best not plan on exercising your first Amendment rights in Brea unless you’re willing to pay to do so and to cover whatever additional costs might ensue from your doing so — which I’m guessing includes fights breaking out because hooligans don’t like your message.
Outraged yet? Let’s look at the actual wording of the ordinance, so you don’t have to take my (or the City Manager’s) characterization of it as gospel. Bear in mind: You’ve probably just heard of this for the first time now and the plan is for the city cancel not even to require any additional debate after this Tuesday, when it wants it to have passed! So here’s the ordinance, copied from the PDF at this link:
December 19, 2017
ORD. 1201
ORDINANCE NO. 1201
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREA
ESTABLISHING PUBLIC ASSEMBLY REGULATIONS AND AMENDING
THE BREA CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
A. RECITALS:
(i) Demonstrations, marches, parades, processions, and rallies are regularly
conducted on the City’s streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public property each year.
(ii) The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the City’s interests in protecting
the safety, comfort, and convenience of persons using streets, sidewalks, parks, and
other public property; regulating competing uses of public fora; maintaining public
property in an attractive and intact condition; preventing unreasonable interferences with
residential properties and lawful businesses; and defraying the cost of certain
departmental services provided for public assemblies.
(iii) Downtown Brea is a unique, compact pedestrian-friendly area devoted to
shopping, entertainment, and dining uses. The City Council finds that the permit
requirement threshold for public assemblies in Downtown Brea must be lower than the
permit requirement threshold for public assemblies in other areas because public
assemblies in Downtown Brea can be unreasonably disruptive with fewer participants
than public assemblies in other areas.
B. ORDINANCE:
SECTION 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Ordinance, are true and
correct.
SECTION 2. Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property) of Part I (Municipal Code)
of the Brea City Code is amended by adding a new Chapter 12.28 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 12.28: PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
Section
12.28.010 Short Title
12.28.020 Purpose
12.28.030 Definitions
12.28.040 Permit Requirement
12.28.050 Permit Exemptions
12.28.060 Permit Processing
12.28.070 Prohibited Items
12.28.080 Prohibited Conduct
12.28.090 Sound Amplification
12.28.100 Indemnity
12.28.110 Departmental Service Charges
12.28.120 Violations
§ 12.28.010 Short Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Public Assembly Ordinance”.
§ 12.28.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the City’s interests in protecting the
safety, comfort, and convenience of persons using streets, sidewalks, parks, and other
public property; regulating competing uses of public fora; maintaining public property in
an attractive and intact condition; and defraying the cost of certain departmental services
provided for public assemblies.
§ 12.28.030 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the
context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
CITY MANAGER. City Manager or designee thereof.
DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE CHARGE. Actual fire safety and traffic control costs
incurred by the City in connection with a public assembly for which an assembly permit
is issued.
DOWNTOWN BREA. That portion of the City bounded by Imperial Highway on
the south, by Brea Boulevard on the east (including properties with frontage on the east
side of Brea Boulevard), by Ash Street on the north, and by the terminus of Birch Street
and the Gateway Shopping Center on the west. A map depicting the boundaries of the
Downtown Brea area is available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during
normal business hours of the City.
INDIGENT NATURAL PERSON. A person who satisfies either of the following criteria:
1. Is receiving benefits pursuant to the Burton-Moscone-Bagley
Citizens’ Income Security Act for Aged, Blind and Disabled Californians (Welfare and
Institutions Code § 12000 et seq.), the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to
Kids Act (Welfare and Institutions Code § 11200 et seq.), the Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program (7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.), or Welfare and Institutions Code § 17000.
2. Whose monthly income is 125% or less of the current monthly
poverty line annually established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. A demonstration, march, parade, procession, or rally that
assembles or travels in unison on a street, sidewalk, park, public right-of-way, or other
public property owned or controlled by the City and that meets any of the following criteria:
1. Does not comply with applicable traffic laws, regulations, or controls.
2. Takes place on public property in Downtown Brea (including any
areas over which an easement for public pedestrian use or access exists) and involves
30 or more participants.
3. Takes place on public property outside of Downtown Brea and
involves 75 or more participants.
SOUND AMPLIFICATION DEVICE. Any bullhorn, megaphone, speaker, or
similar device used to amplify the volume of a voice or a sound.
§ 12.28.040 Permit Requirement.
No person shall conduct or participate in a public assembly unless an assembly
permit has been issued for such activity.
§ 12.28.050 Permit Exemptions.
An assembly permit shall not be required for any of the following:
A. Public assemblies that are conducted at the City Hall plaza and are
occasioned by news or affairs coming into public knowledge less than three days prior to
such public assembly.
B. Public assemblies in a City facility that has been rented from the City.
C. Activities conducted pursuant to a film permit issued under Chapter 5.224
of this Code.
D. Activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of
its authority.
E. Funeral processions conducted by a mortuary or funeral home.
§ 12.28.060 Permit Processing.
A. Application Deadline. Assembly permit applications shall be filed with the
City Manager not less than four days prior to the date of the proposed public assembly.
B. Application Contents. Assembly permit applications shall be filed on a Cityprovided
form and shall contain the following information as applicable:
1. Name and contact information for the person who is organizing the
public assembly and will be responsible for its conduct.
2. Name and contact information for the organization on whose behalf
the public assembly is proposed to be conducted.
3. Date, time, and location of the public assembly including any staging
area, disbanding area, and travel route.
4. An estimate of the number of persons who will be participating in the
public assembly.
5. An estimate of the length of the public assembly in miles.
6. An estimate of the number persons who will be observing the public
assembly.
7. The type of security or other arrangements that will be provided to
assure that participants are properly directed.
8. The minimum and maximum speeds that the public assembly is to
travel.
9. The maximum number of march, parade, or procession units in the
public assembly and the maximum and minimum interval of space to be maintained
between the units.
10. The number and type of vehicles in the public assembly.
11. Written permission from the owner of any private property that will
be used as a staging area or a disbanding area.
C. Application Fee. Any person seeking an assembly permit shall pay a nonrefundable
application fee concurrently with the filing of the application. The assembly
permit application fee amount shall be as set by City Council resolution.
D. Indigency Waivers. An indigent natural person shall be exempt from
payment of the assembly permit application fee upon obtaining an indigency waiver. An
organization in which a majority of its members are indigent natural persons also shall be
exempt from payment of the assembly permit application fee upon obtaining an indigency
waiver. A request for an indigency waiver shall be made at the time of permit application
and shall be accompanied by such relevant information and documentation as may be
necessary for verification of eligibility. The City Manager shall grant an indigency waiver
upon verification of eligibility.
E. Permit Approval or Denial. The City Manager shall approve an assembly
permit application unless one or more of the denial findings specified in Paragraph F
below is made in a written notice to the applicant. The City Manager shall consider each
application upon its merits, shall not discriminate in granting or denying applications, and
shall not deny a permit based upon a subject matter or viewpoint involved in a proposed
public assembly.
F. Denial Findings. An assembly permit application shall only be denied on
the basis of one or more of the following criteria:
1. The application is incomplete.
2. The application contains false or intentionally misleading information.
3. The applicant, or the organization on whose behalf the public
assembly is proposed to be conducted, has an unpaid departmental service charge debt
to the City for a prior public assembly.
4. The public assembly is proposed for a time and location for which
another activity has been previously authorized.
5. The public assembly will require the simultaneous closure of the
roadway portion of more than two streets that run in a parallel direction between the hours
of seven a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, or between the hours of ten a.m.
and six p.m. on Saturday, unless the activity will occur on a national holiday.
6. The public assembly will require closure of the roadway portion of
any street in a commercial zone for more than three hours in any one day between the
hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, unless the activity will occur
on a national holiday.
7. The route or location of the public assembly traverses a street or
other public right of way that was scheduled for maintenance, construction, or repair prior
to the submission of the permit application and the conduct of the public assembly would
interfere with such maintenance, construction, or repair or would create a threat to the
health or safety of the public assembly’s participants.
8. The staging area or disbanding area cannot physically accommodate the number of participants expected by the applicant.
9. The public assembly would result in a violation of any federal, state, or local law. [Note: Cannabis remains illegal under federal law.]
G. Permit Conditions. The City Manager may condition an approved permit
with reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, or manner of holding the public
assembly as is necessary to coordinate multiple uses of public property, to assure
preservation of public property, to prevent dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible uses, to protect the safety of persons and property, and to control vehicular and pedestrian
traffic in and around the venue.
§ 12.28.070 Prohibited Items.
A. Prohibitions. No person shall carry or possess any of the following items
while present at a public assembly:
1. Lumber, wood, or wood lath greater than one foot in length. [Note: for signs]
2. Plastic pipe or metal greater than one foot in length or greater than
one-quarter inch in its thickest dimension. [Note: for signs]
3. A sign, poster, plaque, or notice that is not constructed solely of a
cloth, paper, or cardboard material less than one-quarter inch in thickness. [Note: for signs]
4. A projectile launcher or similar device used to hurl an object, liquid,
or other substance.
5. A gas mask or similar device used to filter air breathed and that
would protect the respiratory tract and face against irritating, noxious, or poisonous
gases.
B. Exceptions. Paragraph A does not apply to the following:
1. Any person carrying or possessing a piece of wood that satisfies all
of the following criteria:
a. Is blunted at its ends.
b. Is two inches or less in width.
c. Is one-fourth inch or less in thickness or, if not generally
rectangular in shape, is three-fourths inch or less in its thickest dimension.
2. Any disabled person carrying or possessing a cane, walker, or similar item necessary for such person’s mobility.
§ 12.28.080 Prohibited Conduct.
No person shall engage in any of the following conduct while present at a public
assembly:
A. Violate any permit condition contained in the assembly permit issued for the
public assembly.
B. Fail to abide by instructions given by a traffic control officer or law
enforcement officer for the purpose of accommodating emergency vehicles or traffic
through a public assembly route.
C. Give traffic control instructions to non-participants of the public assembly.
D. Ignite or burn any open flame device (including a candle, portable or
stationary torch, road flare or fuse, fuel fired lantern, signal flare or sky lantern), bonfire,
recreational fire, cooking fire, warming fire, sign, or effigy.
§ 12.28.090 Sound Amplification.
A. Time Restriction. No person at a public assembly shall utilize a sound
amplification device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.
B. Manner Restrictions. No person at a public assembly shall utilize a sound
amplification device that does any of the following:
1. Produces loud or raucous noises which interferes with the conduct
of any business in the vicinity of the assembly.
2. Disturbs the peace, quiet, and comfort of persons in the vicinity of
the assembly.
3. Is audible at a distance of 250 feet from the point from which the broadcast emanates.
§ 12.28.100 Indemnity.
A. Requirement. An assembly permit shall not be effective until the permittee
has submitted to the City Manager an executed indemnification agreement approved as
to form by the City Attorney.
B. Scope. The indemnification agreement shall require the permittee to
defend, indemnify, and hold the City and the City’s officers’ employees, and agents
harmless from and against claims, damages, expenses, loss or liability arising out of or
resulting from the alleged acts or omissions of the permittee or the permittee’s officers,
employees, or agents in connection with the permittee’s public assembly. The
indemnification agreement shall not make the permittee responsible for losses to the City
arising from audience reaction to the permittee’s public assembly; shall not make the
permittee responsible for activities at the permittee’s public assembly that are outside of
the permittee’s control; and shall not require the permittee to waive any cause of action
the permittee might otherwise have against the City.
C. Exception. An indemnification agreement shall not be required if the
permittee cooperates with the City Manager to design the public assembly to respond to
specific risks, hazards, and dangers to the public health and safety identified by the City
Manager as being reasonably foreseeable consequences of the public assembly.
§ 12.28.110 Departmental Service Charges.
A. Reimbursement Requirement. A permittee shall reimburse the City for
departmental service charges incurred in connection with or due to the permittee’s public
assembly. No permittee is required to pay for the cost of law enforcement personnel to
provide for the protection of a public assembly and its attendees from hostile members
of the public or from counter-demonstrators, or to pay for the cost of general law
enforcement in the vicinity of the event.
B. Invoice. No later than 30 business days after the expiration of an assembly
permit, the City Manager shall issue the permittee an itemized invoice of departmental
service charges incurred in connection with or due to the permittee’s public assembly.
C. Payment Deadline. No later than 30 business days after issuance of the
invoice, a permittee shall remit to the City Manager payment for the departmental service
charges specified in such invoice.
D. Exception. This Section shall not apply to any person who has been
exempted from payment of the assembly permit application fee by receipt of an indigency
waiver.
§ 12.28.120 Violations.
Any person who intentionally violates any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor.”
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment
because it establishes content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations for public
assemblies on City property. It is therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality
Act review pursuant to Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations. [Note: “With certainty!” hahahahahahahaha!]
SECTION 4. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph,
sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court
action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the
remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2017.
________________________________
Glenn Parker, Mayor
ATTEST: _____________________________
Lillian Harris-Neal, City Clerk
I, Lillian Harris-Neal, City Clerk of the City of Brea, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Brea held on the 5th day of December 2017, and was finally passed at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Brea held on the 19th day of December, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
DATED: December 19, 2017
________________________________
Lillian Harris-Neal, City Clerk
(If only there were a word for the merger of corporate interests and the state!)
Look: it seems pretty clear that the City Council and City Staff is absolutely terrified of Dwight Manley — including his ability to unleash any number of critics onto NextDoor.com. But this, I suspect, is the moment where he will have gone too far — and City Council members who go this far with him will regret it in early retirement from politics.
AT A MINIMUM, ADOPTION OF THIS DRACONIAN MEASURE SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE PUBLIC REALIZES WHAT IS GOING ON! SNEAKILY SCHEDULING IT FOR VOTE DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY SEASON JUST AFTER THE SCHOOL SEMESTERS END — BECAUSE STUDENTS WILL HAVE WANTED TO SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT IT — IS EVIDENCE FOR THE BAD FAITH OF THE AUTHORS. THE BEST NEWS FROM THIS IS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE WILL BE SO OFFENDED WHEN THEY SEE IT IN ACTION THAT THEIR ANGER WILL BE USED TO ORGANIZE BREA VOTERS TO RAISE DWIGHT MANLEY’S PROPERTY TAXES TO THE MOOOOOOON!
Remember: if this sort of thing can happen in Brea, it can ALSO happen elsewhere in Orange County. You’d best stop it here, ye who look at Brea now and smirk — or don’t be surprised when the prime gathering areas are de facto privatized where you live too. Come speak to the City Council if this strikes you as a stunning suppression of our rights to speech, assembly, and to tell Ed Royce what we really think of him even though his office is in the Brea Downtown Speech Suppression Zone. If Ed Royce has any sense of self-preservation, he’ll join the pro-freedom cause!
If not — hopefully the person who will replace him will have done so Tuesday evening.
Manley does not own the property in question (Royce’s office) and the city is far from fearing Mr. Manley. The whole premise of this blog is preposterous.
It’s hard to know how to deal with a comment like this. Is it a technical quibble, based on Manley not owning something directly as an individual, but through a corporation he controls, or some other legal trick? Is there some special status regarding the second floor? Is it a flat-out brazen lie told just to minimize the damage of people challenging this policy this evening?
I do know that your assertion that politicians and staff in Brea don’t fear crossing Manley is absurd, so that’s a hint at where you’re coming from. Will they admit it? Probably not, but the record is quite clear. I didn’t tell the story of Manley’s hissy fit over the specs of the elevator in the parking structure — HE WANTED GLASS WALLS, DAMMIT! — when it happened: should we address that? How much public money did the Council spend to placate him?
But I’ll be fair and let you have your say here, if you can muster the facts: the area in question is spelled out in the ordinance. What portion of that area do YOU contend that Manley owns or controls, given your expertise?
(The commenter, by the way, indicates in his supposed email address that his first name is “Benjamin” — a nice coincidence that “Benjamin Braddock” is the name of Dustin Hoffman’s character in The Graduate. There could be someone of that name in Brea, by my guess is that this is a pseudonym, which should factor into people’s assessment of his or her credibility.)
The building housing Royce’s office is owned by Atty. David Long and there is no corporate arrangement that includes Mr. Manley. The entire building enjoys that basic entitlements typical of that zoning with the restaurant having a CUP for service of alcohol. All pretty standard and boring.
Manley’s property includes from Merely Sweets south to MacCallums plus the offices/lofts overhead; North from Cah Chas to Farrells and lofts above as well. The open space surrounding the Art In Public Places Orange Fountain is city property, all maintained by the city… and the area specifically tied into Ordinance 1201 Public Assembly Regulations.
Politicians and staff recognize and respect Mr. Manley as the largest and most consistent private philanthropist in Brea. A matter he keeps quiet and never promotes.
While everyone else was out Christmas shopping last Friday, the Senior Center received a $25,000 donation from Mr. Manley and the 240 seniors enjoying Christmas lunch hosted by Council each received five crisp new five dollar bills… also from Mr. Manley.
The glass elevator walls were an original city designed security element inadvertently omitted from later plans. Fixing their error had nothing to do with placating anyone.
Congratulations on editing your original misidentification of my pseudonym as a former LA Chief of Police… whose last name was Bratton, not Braddock. Yes, Benjamin Braddock was the Hoffman character.
I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Plastics: I think you should stop eating them.
If you’re correct about Mr. Long — and I see no reason to believe you given your lying about your identity (though good catch on my misidentifying your pseudonym, which wasn’t up there for long) — then I will retract that charge against Mr. Manley. However, this ordinance still works to the benefit of the very secluded Mr. Royce (whose office has been quite clear about hating protests) AND, for reasons you mention, towards Mr. Manley.
Speaking of him: as I read it, this ordinance does not cover solely Birch Street, but also Gateway Center. As you clearly have copious information at your fingertips — but you didn’t mention Gateway Center — can you review for us the properties there in which Mr. Manley has an interest?
This of course ignores the “camel’s nose” aspect of this ordinance, in that once approved in concept it would be very easy to apply it across Brea Boulevard as well. Care to document for us which properties on the west(sh) side of the street in which Mr. Manley has an interest?
Yes, Mr. Manley has people — you, for example, during the parking structure period — who cite his charitable giving for him. Of course, if one considers charitable giving as a percentage of ones earnings (let alone wealth) above subsistence living, my guess is that Manley ranks rather low on that score — and deeply into the negative once you factor in that he’s scammed more money out of the City than he’s contributed. What proportion of his income above subsistence do you think that that crisp $26,200 represents? What proportion of what he’ll have made next year off of higher rents given the public “investment” in the equity boosting parking garage west of Brea? What proportion of what he personally saved, even net of the money he spent against it, to defeat the school bond?
Your story about the glass elevators mischaracterizes what happened (as I understand it, it was “inadvertently” omitted only if you believe that Mr. Manley’s whims automatically become law and cannot be countermanded by the professionals paid to effectuate getting the best deal they can get without having to come back to council for more money — which they had to do due to widespread terror over Mr. Manley’s tantrums. I’ll have to go back to my notes, but was there a difference between having transparent elevator walls (were they, perhaps, “plastics”?) and the deluxe model that I’m told that Manley threateningly demanded — and got the Council to provide, rather than paying to upgrade to them HIMSELF? (Seriously, I can think of few figures who, in their need to win and subjugate and dominate, remind me more of our character-addled President. To my mind, it’s a sickness, but I’m sure you’ll just consider it a quirk.)
I wish I knew who you were so that it would be possible to discuss these things privately and less antagonistically, but — I suspect that your keeping your identity cloaked is part of your agreement with the ravenous and tantrum-prone philanthropist.
(That’s your cue to claim to be just another average guy who just happens to know a whole lot about Manley for no reason.)
Have I mentioned publicly that, when he passed me on the aisle when going to speak at the first meeting on the parking structure gifted to him, he pointed stepped on my foot? (He may have been stomping on it; hard to tell. It’s been a fun story to recount. I can see why Rodman loved him.)
[My apologies to most readers who won’t be interested in this sort of thing: but it’s useful to assess the credibility of commenters like this one. If this isn’t your cup of tea, go ahead and skip it. Personally, I love revealing the trust about these pseudonymous liars.]
Readers may wish to note that a similar ISP address was used during a past period of intensive coverage of Brea, during this the following comments were made:
This is, as often happens on local blogs, someone I’ve never heard of who seems to be very well-versed on local politics,
Note the next ISP address — if it’s a coffeeshop or something, it’s only been used to post here three times, and all in a similar register:
The third time, the author offered no pretense of being a real person:
So the interesting question is: why does someone who sounds like he was scraped off of the bottom of the comments section of The Liberal OC suddenly start messing with Brea politics? And the most likely answer seems to be: $$$. I think we’ve got a paid political operative here.
I think you are mistaken. This the result of UNITE HERE’S protest where violence was incited as well as the Jesus Freak who got hit by a car on Imperial last year.
This has NOTHING to do with Dwight Manley.
WAS “violence incited” at a UNITE HERE protest? I would imagine that people got arrested, if so. Is there a police report?
No? How about a contemporaneous news report? Anything?
If what you’re saying were true, there should be a paper trail within the City government explaining that basis and citing it. If you can find it before tonight, that’s great. Otherwise, I think that the hypothesis that the person who put together the Downtown Brea Property Owners Association (I’m doing that from memory, so the name may be slightly different) when he wanted the city to pay for a new parking garage serving some of his properties on the other side of Brea Boulevard DOES INDEED have something to do with an ordinance specifically affecting Birch Street and the Gateway Shopping Center. Your commenting colleague seems to deny that Manley has much of an interest on the northwest corner of Brea and Imperial; do you want to join him in that?
I’ll look forward to meeting you tonight at City Hall. Bring your driver’s license, if you don’t mind, so I know that there really is a “Jim Clayton” out there who knows so much about UNITE HERE, “Jesus Freaks,” and what Dwight Manley isn’t involve in. Otherwise, I’ll have to chalk you up as another guy who mysteriously shows up here to cast uncertainty and doubt about any stories regarding Dwight Manley. We’re lucky that campaign finance records show his influence within the City. (Do you want to deny his involvement in fighting the school bond too?)
Yes. Violence incited by the union led by NON BREA RESIDENT Ada Bricineo.
You can read about it here:
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/liberal-groups-denounce-ordinance-regulating-protests-in-downtown-brea-8648546
I think that might explain some of what I am talking about. Also, your petchulant fued with Manley not withstanding….WHO ARE YOU?
I have attended nearly every council meeting and never heard of you.
It was a city official who directed me to you here and at a defunct website.
I am going to eat at Kabuki right now if you want to join me for a Saki or Sapporro. Several other Brea “Neighbors” will be joining me. We are not ghosts, not political operatives, just well informed, community minded people.
You should try and participate. You might learn something.
I haven’t been to a meeting since the parking structure was approved. If you missed me then, you probably weren’t paying attention.
“Unite Here helped organize 200 people, including Service Employee International Union-United Service Workers West (SEIU-USWW) members, outside Royce’s office in late October for a national day of action in defense of Temporary Protected Status immigrants. During the demonstration, Daniel Wenzek became agitated and drove his car through an intersection, pinning protesters on his hood.”
Some guy flipped out and attacked protesters with his car and you say that the protesters “incited” that violence. You are one sick puppy.
It’s a great example, though, of how under the ordinance protesters might be CHARGED THE COST OF DEALING WITH SUCH CONSEQUENCES of their having had the temerity to protest, under the indemnification provision. This sets up what’s called a “heckler’s veto” — where by opposing a speaker one makes it impossible for them to speak — and that is massively unconstitutional. Most cities are bright enough not to lay the cost of their having to deal with hecklers upon those engaging in protected speech; if Brea really is going to seek such indemnification (and thereby chill speech), that’s truly amazing. It’ll also be expensive for us taxpayers.
Right back at YA Greg.
Listen to the city attorney. This was NOT a Dwight Manley issue. That was your DELLUSION.
BTW. Buy a clothes Iron.
I did listen to the City Attorney. I’ll deal with his comments (and those of others, including Manley), after the video comes out and I have a chance to view it (and ideally succeed in getting one of the Indivisible people to transcribe it. It was worth transcribing.)
For now, aside from noting that you’ve set a new standard here for cattiness — my shirt was ironed, you yutz — I’ll note simply that the City Attorney’s statement was not definitive. Lawyers sometimes have to take the fall for clients — which of course raises the question of whether any how much Manley can be considered to be the City Attorney’s de facto client, something on which I offer no opinion.
I will say that if the City Attorney on his own decided that the right to prevent shoppers from being made uncomfortable enough that they might choose to shop in another downtown is constitutionally equal to that of freedom of speech — which I think is an exaggeration of his position, but without viewing the video I can’t tell by how much — then I would think that he should be relieved of duty. But I suspect that he did not reach that conclusion on his own. although I don’t know the guy well enough to venture a strong opinion.
Stay tuned in, pussycat! MrrrrOWr!
By the way, Pussycat, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually exist as such, so I searched both “Jim Clayton” and “James Clayton” along with “Brea” and found nothing suggesting it referred to you. Can we just agree that either you’re using a fake name or are not from Brea? I’m at peace with your being either a coward or a paid operative (or both), but it’s aggravating to treat you like a person who’s actually willing to out their identity out there when you should be using some obvious pseudonym like “Pussycat” so everyone knows not to take you seriously.
Oh, and one insider associated with the City told me after the meeting “of course it was a Dwight Manley issue!”, but I don’t know how they’d know and I don’t consider their statement definitive either.
I do think that we actually made some progress towards figuring out how to solve the problem tonight, but you’ll have to wait until I write that up to see why I think so. Or you can go away and never check in again if you prefer; except arguably in Downtown Brea, it’s a free country.
I learned a long time ago, that when someone has a weak or non existent arguement they resort to name calling. Hence, your “pussycat” coment puts you in the same intellectual class as President Trump with his “Little Marco” quip.
It’s worth noting that an hour before the CA spoke almost verbatim as to my claim. Why is it so hard for you to believe? Clearly you have some kind of grudge or unhealthy obsession with Manley, which is weird. I will give you this. You appear to live on Brea but for a guy concerned about other peoples identity, your silly game playing last night makes you look even more foolish.
Don’t be catty by telling me that I need to buy an iron (my shirt was ironed) and you won’t be called “Pussycat.” You’re in a fine position to lecture about etiquette. What was your real name again?
I’m “concerned about identity” because I consider people who attack others from a cloak of anonymity, sheltering their own reputations from the consequences of their actions, to be contemptible chickenshits who foul an otherwise suitable environment for useful conversation, Pussycat.
I’ll accept your apology if you offer one — and start calling you by your own preferred fake name.
I still can’t get over your “by protesting, Briceño and UNITE-HERE ‘incited violence’ by making some mentally ill guy want to hit them with his car” argument.
Tell me: applying the same logic, do you accuse women of “inciting rape” by appearing to attractive and vulnerable?
Even if you do, I’ll bet that you don’t accuse wealthy homeowners of “inciting burglary” — right?
Yeah, I think I’ll skip drinking with you.
As I recall, when Democrats were pissing on the 1st Amendment and the definition of a public forum to illegally harass petition gatherers a few months ago, that was perfectly appropriate as a proportionate response to rabid Republicans.
I have a real hard time understanding why petitioning government concerning Josh Newman is bad, but petitioning government concerning Ed Royce is good.
Fullerton is the next logical stepping stone for an ordinance like this, Ryan, so perhaps you could help us focus on how to respond to this tonight rather than trying to divert us into goosing the flailing attempt at recalling Josh Newman. You call yourself a libertarian — so what do you think of this ordinance and its impact?
I do not call myself a libertarian.
The recall is hardly flailing. I believe it’s passed each and every ridiculously stupid hurdle placed in front of it by Governor Brown.
The issue is consistency, specifically consistency on content neutral policy.
I have seen nothing recently from North OC Dems that’s content neutral concerning the 1st Amendment. Until they prove capable of controlling themselves and their bias, perhaps they should keep their whining to themselves.
I’m really quite tired of groups who seem so keen on using the Constitution as a tool to achieve an political objective. That’s not what it’s for. It’s to keep idiots separate from their tools of oppression.
Brea’s ordinance may very well suck, but it’s EXACTLY what your side of the fence just did to my guaranteed right to recall. Repeatedly.
So I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy.
“Brea’s ordinance may very well suck, but it’s EXACTLY what your side of the fence just did to my guaranteed right to recall. Repeatedly.”
Putting “EXACTLY” in all-caps doesn’t make it true, it just calls attention to it. So now I can ask you, point for point, what is “EXACTLY” the same about the proposed Brea ordinance and what you contend was done to anti-Newman signature gatherers?
As I recall, you’re upset that the legislature changed some of the rules for recall given what they believed were misrepresenations your side was making about the recall, to (to take one instance) allow people to remove their names from the petition if they believed that they had been misled.
I understand that you may contend that that is GENERALLY, at SOME LEVEL, in the same spirit as what Brea is trying to do here. I don’t believe that an intelligent guy like you thinks that it is EXACTLY what is proposed here — even within permissible bounds of hyperbole.
But hey — if you want Democrats to get all the glory in opposing this offensive legislation, I suppose that that’s up to you. Is there any reason you can’t pound that drum after we’re done organizing for tonight, or is getting in the way part of what you want to accomplish here?
It’s changing the rules to bias the system to a predetermined political outcome.
Exactly the same.
OK, “the same” at a pretty high level, then. You mean at a level that includes defining ketchup as a vegetable (as the Reagan Administration did with school lunches) and Trump’s tax plan due to be passed today. All of them, “exactly the same.”
Well, come to think of it, I CAN think of ONE difference here. It establishes free speech as a misdemeanor and people will go to jail over it. That doesn’t seem EXACTLY the same.
But we’ve both said our piece, and I hope that — sympathetic or not — you don’t mind our now focusing on the issue at hand tonight.
No, I mean the same as in the same.
Attempting to carve a turkey with semantics won’t end well.
I suggest you stop.
“Semantics” are how we interpret “meaning.”
I think that you mean to say something like that I’m splitting hairs. The change in the law in the Newman recall was because signatures were being secured through fraud — gain through fraud not being a protected right, by the way — and corrective action was appropriate. Yet, so far as I know, no one was charged with a crime over it.
Here, by contrast, people will be charged with misdemeanors — or felonies, in some cases, if say on parole — for the free speech of carrying a protest message written on paper that is not sufficiently flimsy enough to go through a cheap printer.
I am not splitting hairs in saying that those are not simply not “exactly the same,” but that they are closer to “almost completely different.”
OC Young Democrats has put out a call — unfortunately, in my opinion as someone who would rather see the ordinance not pass than see it pass and gain a potent campaign issue, it’s a somewhat partisan one, alleging a specific intent to quash protests by “Indivisible 39” — for people to attend tonight’s Brea Council meeting:
There’s only one piece of the above that I think requires a little correction: in some circumstances, banning the use of sound amplification systems altogether might be OK as a “time, place, and manner” restriction, and regulating them short of banning them (which is what I read the ordinance to do) is even more defensible than that. In general, the standard will reduce to some flavor of whether such regulation is truly reasonable under the circumstances.
What is striking about this ordinance is that it is begging to be shot down on these grounds. It systematically tries to eliminate ANY FORM of effective protest in this area — a PUBLIC STREET, mind you! — where many people gather.
At some point, and that point is far in the rear-view mirror of this ordinance, it becomes clear that they simply don’t want to allow political protest AT ALL in this especially well-populated area of the city. And THAT is what will kill this version of the ordinance. In fact, it will probably kill any amended version of the ordinance that leave much of it in place, as the city’s objective in passing it on first reading is already clear.
By the way: is it clear to you what the undefined term — which can apparently apply to a protest of ANY size, down to even one or two people! — “applicable traffic laws, regulations, or controls” in the phrase “the activity does not comply with applicable traffic laws, regulations, or controls” means? As I understand it, it a police officer tells you to leave a certain area — perhaps because you may distract drivers — then it is a “traffic control” that requires you to leave. If so — and we’ll see if the Council clarifies this tonight — then the government can stop whichever protests it wishes just by allowing police officers on the spot to declare them in violation of traffic laws. This not only opens the ordinance up to not being “viewpoint-neutral” anymore, but it then suffers from the fatal diseases of vagueness and overbreadth, which routinely kill such regulations of free speech.
As a plaintiff’s attorney, I have to admit that this whets my appetite. As a citizen of Brea, though, I hope that we don’t decide to spend our city budget on needlessly paying plaintiff’s attorneys.
Manley’s giving a pretty good speech and disavowing involvement with the ordinance. Credit where it’s due.
City attorney says due to violence in Anaheim, Charlottesville, and Brea. His partner Terrence Boga was main drafter.
“Harmonize” right to speak, can’t shop if intimidated. Violence of taking over intersection.
Weapons issue — PVC pipe and cardboard came directly from Los Angeles ordinance that was upheld by courts.
Everything is based in existing case law.
A seminal and unprecedented moment in the history of governance in Brea. We may have witnessed a turning point. Time will tell.
It’s Terrence Boga, a Constitutional and Ethics specialist with an enviable record of publishing in legal journals.
To PlasticMan: I saw some grounds for optimism tonight, but I don’t actually even understand the basis for your first two sentences.
I’m glad that his position is out there now, but the fact that one can find support (a single trial court? or an appellate panel?) for a given questionable practice does not mean that the city should be satisfied with that practice. The blanket banning of anything that could be used to convey a political message successfully in particular strikes me as being extremely constitutionally suspect. I don’t know what case about the LA policy he’s talking about — do you? — but my suspicion is that (1) the acceptance of such a policy is highly fact-dependant and (2) the facts won’t map onto this situation. But that’s what makes a ballgame.
By the way — and this may surprise some people, but I’ve been openly consistent on this point since Occupy OC — I don’t favor blocking traffic in all but the most extreme situations. I think that it’s self-indulgent bullying — giving the person using it the feeling of scoring a political victory when they really didn’t —
that hurts people who don’t deserve it and turns them into enemies. Particularly in OC, I think that it’s a self-defeating tactic.
But does preventing blocking traffic it rank up there with protecting free speech? Not in this case: the police already have all of the authority they need to haul people away from the intersection without this ordinance. I’d have been fine with their using that authority, after giving fair warning (a la “reading the riot act.” to clear the intersection. I’m against the abuse of authority, not its proper use.
*Since this issue has been debated into the ground….the least we can do is add our pile of dirt. Open Community Comments are required City Council Meetings even for Non Agenda Items. They can limit the comment period for each speaker….sometimes 3 minutes and sometimes 5. We have always believed that when the Community Organizers get together their standard 20 folks to make comments on any issue…..usually, the City Council either closes off the meeting or makes the Speakers wait until the end of the Council Meeting before Adjourning. Life is fountain….right? No, Life is NOT a fountain?
So, what the heck……Josh Newman…..will prevail. Scott Peotter will not. The World is presently based on Pension Debt, Hedge Funds, Derivatives, DNA Breakthroughs, Wi-Fi re-charge on the fly of all electrical devices…including autos and trucks, the Fed continuing to print Billions of dollars of Bitcoin back currencies. Ya gotta love it…..and the 2018 Elections will change all the deck chairs on the Titanic. All jobs will become AI Robotic by 2025…..not long. Merry Christmas and “So God Bless us all – everyone!”…..said Tiny Tim!
Is there a version of this in English?
*Yes, of course – The children’s translation is available on Tuesdays at the Corona del Mar Library. You can sit around with various toys and explore the human condition to the best of your ability. Everyone gets a Star for attending.
Sorry, but your rant is completely disconnected, unrelated to the heart of this thread and ranks high on the egregious non sequitur list. Your facetious response is equally incoherent.
Have a nice day… and Merry Christmas.
The ‘Ships have been here on this blog since time began; having been grandfathered, in they get to do pretty much whatever they want. I enjoy reading them (or sometimes only skimming them) because of their vast historical perspective on county politics, which rewards close attention more often than you might think. (I’ll even venture: more often than you do think.) Anyway, glad to see you getting into the spirit of the blog.
It’s your own fault for saying “a seminal and unprecedented moment in the history of governance,” which always gets their blood churning. Having slept on it, I still don’t know your precise referent there and am not sure whether you yourself were being facetious. If you were, you may learn from the masters.
When have you known Markman to back off or the Brea Council to take a deep breath and give an important matter the time it deserves?
BTW – your performance last night was a bit over the top… even for you.
Markman did not exactly “back off” — except to say that he’d consult with the ACLU, which under the circumstances is a pretty easy call. I’ll post the transcript when I have it so as to afford more informed discussion on that point.
I appreciate Markman’s honesty in what he sees as the interests to balance (though I suspect that he was less candid regarding it being his initiative to introduce an ordinance at all, let alone one impose his own view of the proper balance of these factors, the former of which is not typically a “City Attorney” function), But substantively, I find his apparent view that Brea should happily expand its suppression of free speech all the way to the maximum limit that the law might allow — and if I’m exaggerating there at all, I don’t think it’s by much — to be both unnecessary and noxious.
As for the Council backing off: they would have been idiots to go ahead and approve it last night in light of the material Parker mentioned having received. (I look forward to reading that material in due time and, there too, plan to post it here.) So the options were to vote last night or postpone it. Unlike many of my reformist colleagues, I think that they did the right thing by postponement; I’m quite interested in seeing what they come up with next — and how they do so. I hope that they will not assert privilege as to their legal advice on this point.
“A bit over the top”? Do you mean the sign on my cardboard box? I just wanted them to understand what would be on The Daily Show if they had approved it in its present form. I will pretend to be flattered at your claimed familiarity with my oeurvre as a public orator; I prefer to think of it as being both effective and entertaining.
I told Manley before I left that I thought that he had given a good speech — although the “he never blows his own horn” crowd took a definite hit last night — and he maintained resolutely stone-faced in not acknowledging my presence. I don’t think he grasps that that doesn’t have the presumably desired effect, unless he wants to give me the giggles.
I found his exposition on the real problem underlying the ordinance, which no one else would say (he got that right!) being how the cost of police enforcement adding to the desperation of Brea’s pension situation. (Honestly, for a moment there I thought that I was listening to Brett Murdock!) That may or not be the motivation, but it’s a valid point — and if makes me wonder against why he was insistent that the City of Brea shell out so many millions for a parking structure that he could have afforded on his own. That’s always been the issue for me: and as with Arte Moreno and the parking structure HE wanted a few years back in an even more precariously situated city, the path to a win-win situation was present if he’d wanted to explore it. (A joint venture, or a loan that could be paid off in increased tax receipts if his rosy projections about the economic impact of the decision came true, were two such possibilities.)
THAT is the sort of move that would have entitled him to the deep and authentic gratitude of the city, rather than his celebration having to be manufactured by sycophants who appreciate his dropping a piddling portion of his wealth on charity. He could be the great civic leader he wants to be seen as if he didn’t demand that the city pay him tribute for being a great civic leader.
But that is a topic for another day. (Or, perhaps, hour.)
Someone wake me when Mr. Diamond’s battery runs down or if he comes even remotely close to the truth. Thanks.
Merry Christmas to all… and to all a good night.
*BB….dudert…..(that means we can’t tell whether you are a male or a female!) Not that it matter much…..we just love knowledge. Our mantra is simply to bring a bit of fresh air to burgeoning array of hapless comments which could not and will not grant anyone reading them a tad of insight. So here goes one more time for Momma…..Since this is Christmas we will refrain from our normal nail biting response… Personal attacks on character? Always, a method known to discourage a good ongoing dialogue which may actually bring enlightenment and further the discussion. Extraneous Commentary not related to the subject at hand always require what we call “a heads up”…….. Since we have seen none of these basic tenants of argument and discussion and debate from you …..you get an F or perhaps a forgiving D minus. We invite you to come back once you understand the ground rules a little better and join right in…..with some cogent and intelligent insight to the issues at hand. As Washington Irving wrote: “Christmas is the season for kindling the fire of hospitality!”
And that right there — gratuitous insults from cover of anonymity — is why I discourage anonymous attacks on this blog.
Your apparent inability to mount a counterargument is duly noted. Merry Christmas to you too. But first, Festivus.
Somewhere above in his senseless drivel Greg mentions measure K. The school districts failed attempt to fleece taxpayers.
People in the know called this Manley vs. Manley for good reason: Dwight was protecting homeowners against lawyers like John Manley.
You are clueless.
If Dwight gave a damn about the financial status of homeowners generally he would not have burdened Brea with the cost of the gift of a parking structure to him. The greedhead doesn’t want to pay property taxes because he knows that that’s where he loses disproportionate money.
Paying for decent schools is only “fleecing” the public if you want citizens who lack the ability to read critically and reason effectively. No wonder you opposed K.
I opposed it alright. I did not think it was right to reward the finacial malfeasance of a district who has paid MILLIONS of dollars to settle abuse claims (almost exclusively out of public sight). Further, BOUSD set to recieve it’s largest tax benefit ever with the construction of Blackstone, where homes average well over a million dollars. The math did NOT add up. Thats why it lost. Lastly, it was out of town interests (lobbyist, construction companies and the BOTA) who started it, promoted it and eventually doomed it.
You may be OK with paying off sex offenders. I am not.
It’s been quite a while since I checked the figures, but I recall my sense at the time being that it lost because of the disproportionate amount of money spent to defeat it. I don’t recall a “we won’t fund public schools unless we can be assured of no employee misbehavior” argument even being made at the time — not many organizations, public or private, could survive such a stance — but that was a nice try at trying to get your grappling hook into the current zeitgeist.
So tell me: do you also favor starving police, fire, paramedic, hospital, and military organizations if a portion of *their* money goes to legal settlements? With logic like that, no wonder you write under a pseudonym.
Damn… I’m actually agreeing (in a limited way of course) with Mr. Diamond’s recollection of the Measure K campaigns.
Big outside money tried their very best to persuade Brea voters to indenture themselves, their children and grandchildren with a ridiculously overstated and unsubstantiated bid for subsidy.
A grassroots coalition, funded in large measure by Mr. Manley and spearheaded by Connie Lanzisera, Jason Kraft, Paul Ruiz (now a BOUSD board member) and other long standing local activists, prevailed.
Sorry about the pseudonym but it’s common practice across most public forums and in no way masks a malicious agenda or misinformation.
“Starving?” Now it’s a comedy program.
Educrats have cynically created a voting threshold where almost any bond can pass once the “children” (i.e. students of any age) are trotted out for general sympathy. Why do they pass? It’s because of the oceans of money poured in by the teachers, the trade unions and the contractors (yes, shocking that administrators and trustees would shake down contractors, isn’t it?).
School districts are awash in funds and always will be – thanks to Prop 98, no matter how badly they waste money or are mismanaged, or are top heavy with grossly overpaid administrators.
Property owners are wising up; maybe they’re finally taking time to look at their property tax bills trying to figure out what all those bond references mean and what they’re supposed to accomplish.
Congratulations to Brea for saying no. It’s a good trend.
I pay more for Junior College bonds than I do for either elementary schools or high schools.
Seriously. Junior college.
The last NOCCCD bond was completely unnecessary, and was put on the ballot by a lackey board that was wined and dined by De la Rosa. But don’t you feel so much happier knowing that the bond is going to specifically help veterans? That’s what they said, and those people would never mislead us, would they?
Nobody knows (and the ones in charge couldn’t care less) how much was squandered out of the prior facilities bond.
The haystack is on fire! Quick! Throw on more hay!
P.S. Please don’t use the term “Junior College” as that phrase has found disfavor among the educracy.
A couple of things:
First to Greg Diamond, I was Downtown today, where I learned “Self Serving” “Greedy” Developer Dwight Manely provided a VERY generous lunch to tjose serving (including BREA RECRUITS) to a great lunch at the Yard House. I don’t know what you did. My guess is nothing.
Secondly, I saw you fellow colleague Jeff LeTouneu (He actually had the courage to USE his name) having an epic meltdown at Sav-on Pharmacy today. All I can say is what the guy next to me said: “What a Dick”! I concur. What a rude dude.
As for the previous commenters. They are smarter than you are. The whole bond (Measure K) was put together by lobbyists and law firms and funded by a Yucapia construction firm. This was a MONEY GRAB. It had nothing to do with Kids (with the K spelled backwards or forwards). You have to be either DUMB or a LIAR. To not see this. Yes. Mom’s in Brea are easily fooled.
Jim, David and Ryan… voices of reason, thank you.
Starving? Yes, for facts, truth, well meant intent and an inclination to be part of the solution… and the one starving is Greg Diamond.
Feliz Navidad, mis buenos amigos … y un nuevo año en el que la verdad domina la mentira.
David and Ryan are real, so they get to stay.
You’re probably lying about Jeff — that, or someone made a homophobic remark, in which he was entitled.
Manley may enjoy meeting the recipients of his charity face to face because their appreciation helps to prove to himself that he is not a greedhead. But how often would he have to do that sort of thing before he had redistributed the wealth he will have amassed from the appreciation on his business property from Brea reaching down into the reserves and gifting him (in effect) the money for the parking structure? I give people credit for charity occurs when you put yourself out, when you give until it it inconvenient — which lots of people do. I doubt that Manley is capable of giving to the point of inconvenience. Taking to the point of someone else’s inconvenience, he obviously is.
Go ahead and make the argument that, because of the way Manley had (unwittingly, surely!) set up the contracts in Downtown Brea, the absence of a parking structure — for which Manley could have borrowed from the city and 0.1% interest, most likely, to pay for — would have meant the destruction of downtown. No, it wouldn’t — Capital is SCREAMING for good places to invest these days. What it might have meant is that Brea’s downtown would have been bought by Korean or Chinese interests with renters shifting to serve those ethnic clienteles. The city would have probably gotten MORE taxes, in that case — and we wouldn’t have to see anonymous hired hands on local blogs and listservs trumpeting Manley’s great good deeds. Downtown Brea’s turning Asian would just be capitalism at work; conservative Economically Orange Countians should be celebrating it if it happened. (Racist conservatives, not so much.)
I am real, though unnamed, I get to play for a while longer anyway…. until censored or blocked or both.
You, Mr. Diamond, have exposed your visicious, wildly speculative and prolonged bitter campaign against Mr. Manley countless times in the past. It would be a feud were you not the only one lashing out like a petulant child.
Now you also expose your racist predisposition. You are without redemptive attribute and this truth is in the light for all to see.
Of course you’re “real” as opposed to a computer program; you’re a real coward.
Speculative? The campaign finance reports are public. The election results are public. The meetings of videos are public. His role in political elections and lobbying are public. That he would benefit from this ordinance based on his property holdings — and while to his credit he distanced himself from it he hasn’t yet put his weight into opposing it — is public.
I’m not sure what you mean by racist predisposition. Do you mean racist against whites because I noted that if Manley had taken his ball and gone home Downtown Brea would still be thriving, although probably filling a gap on this side of the Puente Hills and 605 regarding being a burgeoning Asian commercial center, which I suspect that many longtime white Breans would not prefer? You need a better understanding of racism, Plasticman.
There was been only one act of petulance between me an Manley, and it involved our first real-life encounter. That was when, after I exposed his scheme and prepared to speak out against his parking proposal without realizing that he was sitting in the same row as me and on his way to the podium he seemed to intentionally step on my foot. I wonder: did Dennis Rodman taught him cheap shots, or vice versa?
I do think that it’s amazing how someone with such voluminous knowledge about Dwight Manley won’t use his own name. Is it something about Manley himself that means that he can’t hire people who will put their reputations on the line to defend him? Is it that much of a seller’s market?
Greg Diamond has not a clue of BREA POLITICS. He is a rabble rouser. He has not once worked for our community.
Coaching= Negative
Scouting= Negative
Senior Center= Negative
Volunteerism= Negative
This is a big mouth internet coward. With ZERO understanding of Brea, it’s people or its politics. He does not have any “skin in the game”.
Bad News travels fast Drunkard.
Thank you for commenting under what appears to be your real name, Dave. (Of course I haven’t emailed you yet. Anyone know this guy?)
To review: you make three allegations up front: that I’m clueless about Brea politics, that I’m a rabble rouser, and that I’ve never worked for our community. Then, based on God-knows-what checking of what evidence, you tell me that I’ve never done certain things. And it degenerates from there.
I’ll start with the rabble rousing: both professionally as an attorney and as an amateur journalist, I tend to stand up for the weak against the powerful. In law, that means fighting against harassment, retaliation, fraud, and corruption. In politics, it also means exposing and opposing fraud and corruption, but also trying to make sure that those with power — position, money, and physical force — don’t trample on the rights of interest of those without it. (I’ve also volunteered literally hundreds of hours, as well as my professional and political skill, in helping to get the OC Veterans Cemetery built, from the absolute moment of inception of the current drive. That also counts as “working for our community”; ask a vet.) I absolutely do try to “rouse” people — in a democracy, that’s what one is supposed to do to get things done — but I reject the implication that the people I’m trying to rouse are “rabble” — and if you think they are, then to hell with you.
I haven’t coached (if you don’t count tutoring and mentoring) or been involved in scouting or the Senior Center. I have volunteered in areas related to my kids schools. Most of the volunteering I’ve done has in journalism and politics, standing up for the common people’s interest, by for example doing what I could to expose successful and attempted corruption. This has led me to be subject to all sorts of cowardly anonymous attacks, primarily on NextDoor.com (where I can only see a fraction of it), but also here and on other local county blogs — now including you! — work that other people have been afraid to do because of that sort of retaliation. You think that’s worthless? Well, you’re probably fighting for the powerful — who themselves know better.
I have a pretty good grasp of “Brea Politics” — including especially who funds candidates for election and what they have tried to get in return. I know how terrified people are of the power structure here — not so much basically good people whose positions I happen to oppose (Bev Perry comes to mind) but people who use their money and influence for special favors and protection at the expense of the many. As a journalist, this has involved not only taking on this crazy attack on the First Amendment (both of them, actually: the state’s also), and not only Dwight Manley’s shakedown of the City for his personal vanity and wealth, but also the ripoff of the Brea Vet’s Club by Councilman Steve Vargas and the Drunk Driving by the many Vargas got appointed as Brea’s City Treasurer. Each of them has brought abuse — although to his credit Vargas himself has always been polite to my face — because unlike most of my critics I DO use my real name when I take people on.
I have a pretty good understanding of Brea — from its history as a “sundown town” and its domination by the oil industry to the great strides that it’s made since them. Now when you say “its people,” I have to wonder what you mean. Until a year ago I lived in an area that was largely Latino and Asian, and I’ll bet I have a better grasp of their lives than you do. Do you mean just affluent white people? As for “skin in the game” — I have lived here for over ten years and two of my kids have graduated from BOHS. I do rent rather than own a home — is that what you mean by “skin in the game”? If so, then, once again, to hell with you. I’ve invested a big chunk of my adult life in living here and taken more vicious abuse (and gotten more secret thanks) for what I’ve done than by far most residents. I’ve not only got skin in the game, I’ve left skin (and blood) on the ground fighting for the people of Brea.
So who are you calling a “coward,” you stupid asshole?
I don’t know who you’re calling a drunkard, you ignorant toad, but I think that you may be mixing me up with this blog’s owner — who, by the way, I hope by this point in his rehab no longer deserves that term and never will again (except in the “once a … always a … sp take it one day at a time” sense.) In terms of “bad news” traveling fast — well, lies certainly do, as you’ve amply shown here.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight, Dave.