How badly does Team Pulido want to win? They have jeopardized the tax exempt status of a church – the Vietnamese American Buddhist Center (Temple) over on Newhope. Take a look at the picture above and the pictures below. By allowing these signs to be posted, this Temple is risking its tax-exempt status. No bueno!
In the picture above you can see that Santa Ana Councilman Vince Sarmiento is also in on this arrangement, along with a couple of Republican followers of Assemblyman Van Tran.
The whole gang;s here! Sarmiento, Pulido, Alvarez…and Republican Garden Grove Council Candidate Trung Nguyen. Obviously these candidates don’t care if this Temple loses its tax exempt status…
This is worth sending a letter or e-letter, with photos and address of this temple, to the appropriate IRS director inquiring whether or not churches, temples, and synagogues may now display such signs, and still retain tax exempt status. A courtesy copy should be sent to the Buddhist temple. This letter should note that there are many, if not a majority of churches, who would appreciate the go-ahead to weigh-in with a perspective on the perceived moral issues (Prop 8, etc.) coming up in a few days. Taking no action here could constitute such a go-ahead.
In any case, this challenge to current interpretations of the tax code shouldn’t go ignored.
No surprise! This one more evidence that “how ethical this experiece team is”.
In this coming election vote ALL of them OUT!!!!!!!!.
Vote for Responsable change!. Collins,Pedroza Lisann Martinez and walker.
If they so blatantly allow or direct this to happen, imagine what the current Pulido Team is capable of when in private. This Action harms this church and they don’t care as long as they get a benefit.
What about their self imposed code of ethics. Does it not apply to Team Pulido?
This shows their real character and it stinks.
How dare they behave in this manner and then have the hipocrisy to attack a colleague about a childhood transgression.
The result of “whatever it takes” to stay/be in power is a 28 million dollar deficit, crumbling infrastructure, high crime, high gang homicides, underachieving school system, lack of economic development in line with our neighbor cities and future bankruptcy of the city due to high expenses on unions that fund and support their campaigns directly.
Elect Michele Martinez Mayor of Santa Ana and council members other than Team Pulido.
Claudia and Sarmiento are supposed to be attorney’s? They should know about campaign laws!
Carlito has his political signs littered on the “parkway” at Broadway & Buffalo.
Carlito is in violation of city ordinance by posting political signs on the parkway. His disregard for complying with the laws of the city exemplifies his disdain for the rules that govern our community.
Vote Art Pedroza on Nov. 4
c’mon, give them a break maybe they had gangsters putting up signs.
That’s pretty funny. These bloggers and their “team” are whining about illegal signs?
In Santa Ana, every single one of theses candidates, Pedroza, Martinez, Walker, the other Martinez, Ibarra, Reyna, Gonzalez, and even the incumbents have been sneaking around like taggers in the night, tresspassing and posting their signs on every unattended property they can find.
Just because there is a chain link fence around a property doesn’t mean it’s open season to go post signs. The same applies to every light pole in a parking lot in the city. Business setbacks and landscaping are also supposed to be excluded from posting signs. BUsinesses can’t do it, so why should political taggers? It’s tresspassing and vandalism to post these signs without permission. The tape many of the signs have can damage the painted finish on the light poles. The tie wraps, sticks, and other residue are often left behind for the property owner to deal with.
Do each of the candidates have written permission to post their signs on private property? They should. Otherwise it shows a callous disregard for the rights of the business and property owners they have infringed upon, and demonstrates the disregard they have for the community at large.
It used to be that these were called “yard signs” and could be found posted on the property of those supporting a candidate. It meant something to show support that way. Now the signs usually don’t indicate any level of support, just that a property was viewed by the candidates team as convenient to them, and they don’t even bother to get the owner’s permission. More signs doesn’t mean any more support. Try counting signs in yards, and you might get an idea of who the community really supports.
I’m looking forward to the election being over and all this visual blight removed.
‘I’m looking forward to the election being over and all this visual blight removed.‘
If property owners were taking the signs down, you’d have a point. They’re not – so you don’t. The fact is that business owners leave the signs up until after the election because they want to be part of the political process in general, not because they back any particular candidate, as you rightfully pointed out.
It’s the same idea as a non-partisan voter registration drive, but then, we all know how ‘non-partisan’ those things can be, don’t we OCEA?
SMS
“If property owners were taking the signs down, you’d have a point. They’re not”
You are simply wrong here. I am a business owner. Like many of my neighbors, we do feel violated by this process. The signs are regularly taken down, and then the next night some jacka$$ will come and put up more. It’s a no win situation for us. I also don’t want to put my employees at risk going up a tall ladder to remove signs high up on the poles that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
The city is no help. We call and they tell us it is on private property so they can’t do anything. The police department won’t do anything unless we saw who did it. (The person ultimately reponsible is named right on the sign!) Last election, some fat fool leaned a ladder against one of our light poles and when he climbed up, broke the concrete anchors and knocked the whole pole over. It cost over $600 for each of the sodium arc lamps, plus the cost of a new footing and labor to put the pole back up. Did the trespassing candidate pay for that? Hell no.
The business are victimized by the candidates. We don’t take the signs down because it’s hazardous, and it doesn’t stop anyone else from doing it. We should be allowed to choose which candidate we support, and have them come put their signs up in the light of day, but it doesn’t happen like that. Our voice is stolen and we are disrepected by candidates that don’t give a damn about us, including the bloggers on this site and their buddies.
Maybe the new elected officials can frame an ordinance that requires written permission before posting signs on private business properties.
I won’t hold my breath.
‘Our voice is stolen and we are disrepected by candidates that don’t give a damn about us, including the bloggers on this site and their buddies.‘
Faux outrage? Really? That’s where we are now? You must be a Pulido hack as only the incumbents stand to gain from the lack of free speech. Most people don’t believe in 20 year terms, many don’t even know Pulido’s been in there that long at all, and for many candidates, the signs are their best or only advertising for their message, so in a typical election year you’d be right, but this tirade against political speech is suspicious considering the circumstances. I mean, if you weren’t civic minded, you wouldn’t be here on OJ, right?
Your argument seems contrived for political purposes. You’re not really advocating the prosecution of political volunteers, are you? That’s ludicrous! Most just want to post their message on public property (thanks again Miguel for that thankfully unheeded ban intended to bolster your chances) or on fences around vacant lots and on other blights that will need to be looked at when the new team takes office. This nonsense about ‘political taggers’ is just that. Nobody’s advocating violence, we are however, advocating candidates who are truly against it, not just talking the talk like the cabal.
Pity, I guess the best strategy Pulido has to fight the sign war is to suddenly declare it illegal. Funny though, I could have sworn this post was about his illegal signs. Because yeah, who cares about all that church and state malarky? I guess we really do live in a theocracy now.
Just can it, will you? Pot. Meet kettle.
SMS
PS: It took you a whole DAY to come up with that excrement? For real? You guys over there sure are slow in getting out your ‘anti-message message!’ Is that Dennis DeSnoo’s lack of intellectual dexterity I detect? 😉
Oh, and I’m sure if a property owner wanted to have a sign removed from one of those high light posts, the campaigns in question would send someone to do so. I think they’d kind of have to at that point.
SMS
Sarah,
You nailed it right on. The usual strategy of Team Pulido is to divert the focus of a blog critical of Team Pulido.
The issue here is the harming a church by jeopordizing their non profit status. It is not about signs on private or public property.
In this case the signs were intended to attract the Vietnamese vote.
To Attract the Vietnamese vote Team Pulido does so without concern in harming that community’s place of worship.
The Vietnamese community should take note of this disregard for their best interest by Team Pulido.
Team Pulido wants their vote and does not care of the harm they produce in the process.
This should be an indication of what that community should expect from Team Pulido, if they help them get elected. That is, manipulation for the best interest of Team Pulido and not in the best interest of the Vietnamese community.
VIETNAMESE COMMUNITY DO NOT BE FOOLED!
VOTE MICHELE MARTINEZ FOR MAYOR OF SANTA ANA.
VOTE FOR COUNCILMEMEBERS NOT ON TEAM PULIDO.
VOTE FOR THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR BEST INTEREST.
VOTE TO HAVE A PIECE OF THE PIE LIKE EVRYONE SHOULD.