Brian,

BY THE WAY ONLY, ONLY LT. FENWICK IS AUTHORIZED TO "DEAL" WITH ME. I HAVE THIS IN WRITING FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE.

Sign me UP for City Council and School Board and Measure "C7"

It is past time for DEBATE in Ventura. Come on other candidates sign in.

Candidate Carroll Dean Williams - Retired College Professor

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "c will"
Subject: Notice: All Watch Commanders, Lt. Fenwick
To: qfenwick@ci.ventura.ca.us
Notice: All Watch Commanders at VPD, ATTN: Lt. Fenwick

Watch Commanders at VPD have used Sgt. Dickey and Sgt Weeks to obstruct justice. I have admissions.

Your immediate attention should be placed on the written
material contained in this email to you.

Carroll Dean Williams
cc: F.B.I. and U.S. Dept. of Justice

c will wrote:
TO: Anthony Ramos and Melinda Vasquez: NOTICE. Anthony Ramos and Melinda
Vasquez shall be arrested in his/her capacity as General Counel and Secretary to
the General Counsel as employees for the Ventura Unified School District.

On August 27, 2007, Carroll Dean Williams appeared at the Ventura Unified School
District Office at 255 W. Stanley Avenue, Ventura, CA 93001 to pick up an Agenda
for the School Board Meeting to be held on August 28, 2007. Melinda Vasquez was
video taped refusing to give Mr. Williams his material at 11:57 a.m., and stated that
Mr. Ramos had instructed her not to give such material until AFTER 1:00 p.m. on the
same day. The Brown Act mandates that a 72 hour NOTICE must be provided for any
member of the public prior to any meeting held by the school board. Therefore, the
criminal act under the Brown Act was committed. Mr. Williams called the District
Attorney. Where upon the August 28, 2007 school board meeting was cancelled.
The crime of not posting 72 hour NOTICE was the crime.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed and dated this 30th. day of August, 2007 at Ventura, California.

By: Carroll Dean Williams/Signature by CDL #H0382166


The Penal Code section 182. (a) If two or more persons conspire:
(1) To commit any crime.

Government Code section 1222. Every wilful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law
upon any public officer, or person holding any public trust or employment, where no special provision is made for the punishment of such delinquency, is punishable as a misdemeanor.
TO: Nancy Bradford: NOTICE. Nancy Bradford shall be arrested in her capacity as
Director/Administrative Support Services employee for the Ventura Unified School District.

On August 29, 2007, Assistant Chief of Police, Ken Corney, met with Carroll Dean Williams
at City Hall, 501 Poli Street, Ventura, CA 93002 and gave a copy of VPD Incident Number
070227-014302 which states: "Nancy Bradford at 19:21 [reported to the VPD that] Carol
Dean Williams Dist[rubing] at school board mtg[meeting][at] City Hall." Carroll Dean
Williams was identified as: "Carroll Dean Williams, 5-22-42, CDL #H0382166, Valid."

Nancy Bradford knowingly made a false report within the meaning of The Penal Code
section 148.5.(a).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed and dated this 30th. day of August, 2007 at Ventura, California.

By: Carroll Dean Williams/Signature by CDL #H0382166

834. An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person.

835. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person,.... The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.


837. A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.


839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

840. An arrest for the commission of a felony may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. An arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor or an infraction cannot be made between the hours of 10 o'clock p.m. of any day and 6 o'clock a.m. of the succeeding day, unless: (1) The arrest is made without a warrant pursuant to Section 836 or 837. (2) The arrest is made in a public place. (3) The arrest is made when the person is in custody pursuant to another lawful arrest. (4) The arrest is made pursuant to a warrant which, for good cause shown, directs that it may be served at any time of the day or night.

841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape. The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.


844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.

846. Any person making an arrest may take from the person arrested all offensive weapons which he may have about his person, and must deliver them to the magistrate before whom he is taken.

847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer.

Brian,
To be honest, your juxtaposition of the Carroll Dean Williams thread and the offer to do a YouTube debate could have scared a few off that might have considered it.

Mr. Williams: I know your "hobby" is to pester Ventura's elected officials and city and school staff. In your mind, you probably think you're doing the right thing. But your methods only alienate the people you want to reach and they won't take you seriously.

There must be something else you can do for your community. Find a great volunteer position elsewhere and make a difference. It's not too late. Consider how the stress of what you're doing is affecting your health.

In peace,
Marie

Marie, Then I expect for the same reasons the candidates will not attend an event to debate if Carroll Dean Williams is there, correct?

Again, users submit videos that all candidates answer. They are not directed at any one candidate. Then candidates respond to them. There isn't a direct debate between candidates.

Explain how that is off putting.

Poor Lt. Fenwick.

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: "c will"

Subject: Request Dates and Times and Courtrooms to bring Private Arrestees before a Magistrate?

To: michael.planet@ventura.courts.ca.gov
Notice: TO Michael Planet

I am requesting the dates and times and courtrooms to present
Private Arrestees under The Penal Code section
847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate,...

I await your immediate response to me.

Regards,

Carroll Dean Williams - 805-649-2142

Hi Brian,

First of all, I commend you for your attempt here. Maybe they will go for it. Who knows?

But I don't think many of the candidates are regular readers of this blog. It just wouldn't have been my recommendation to ask candidates to answer questions here and also give them a link to the Williams thread. It's hardly representative of the good debate that goes on here. The Dantona post has some good stuff. Maybe they will look there first.

They are not being asked to answer questions about their platforms here.

The youtube debate would be held on another entry and answers could only be made by candidates.

Dude, your long-winded attacks are boring and no one is listening!!! Are you debating anything other than the campaign contributions and other so-called illegalities of prominent people in the city of Ventura? Uhh, this makes me sick!

Why won't candidates ever talk about the issues?!

In re the youtube debate, I just don't think that most of the candidates and incumbents even know this blog exists...seriously. A lot of locals read this, but I know most of the candidates in Ventura and at this point in time they all seem to be focused on community meetings, no doubt because the 23% of Venturans that come out in this election don't have computers and care mostly about their view sheds and trash pick-up.

Oh, and Carol Dean...those 23% are also very moderate and don't like change, so the long attacks about their beloved city officials probably won't go far.

Dear Heather,

Awake you sleeping voters, arise and see the waste of our elected officials.

Is he still around here? Is he wiling to debate if at least 4 candidates sign on?

Dear Heather,

And who are you the mouthpiece for? Come on, Heather, full disclosure.

A reminder. Go to city hall and look at the wall. The wall of hanging PAST mayors, city councilmembers. Has been's.

Heather,

Thank you for the gross generalization about Ventura's voters. I am from Ventura, vote in every election, obviously own a computer, and am not too worried about view sheds or trash pickup.

All the Ventura candidates prefer to talk about issues and don't care to dwell on politics. I like to talk about issues, too. Many of us do here in this "moderate" beach city. We're not all out here working on our tans.

The candidates and incumbents are aware of this blog. It's up to them whether or not they want to participate.

A bit of advice for you my dear: If you're out there representing the young Democrats, tone down your rhetoric. You can make your point without being insulting.

To be clear when i said:

I am not contesting if it is legal to post a candidates home address and the names of his family members. I am arguing that you can make the same point without that information.

I did not mean to imply CW posted anything more than the address of a candidate and the names of his family members ( but not any other address) and their party affiliation.

Posted by: Brian at September 7, 2007 07:33 AM
Dear Brian,

The law makes YOU an adult at age 18. Your parents can NOT answer for you when you are of legal age.

Since the adults of the Gibson Family were posted without their address, YOU had to do something, even guess, to make your determination as you did. That was wrong as wrong can be.

Posted by: Carroll Dean Williams at September 7, 2007 08:45 AM

It doesn't matter to me if they are 19, 29, or 99. Their names and party affiliation doesn't have to be here to support a point.

You could easily make your point without their names.

And you could do the same without posting Gibson's address unless you relate it to the campaign.

I don't think Gibson will find this blog debate offer that attractive. Word on the street is he's going to be pumping big bucks into his City Council campaign, win this seat, gain some name recognition, and then try to move on to higher office. As long as those guitars keep selling, the money supply is endless.

Hi, Marie...maybe you should ask the city council people that gave me those generalizations...or how about the people that actually do this for a living. Like me.

My intention is not to be insulting, it is to merely point out that the citizens that VOTE in off-year elections -- 23% in Ventura -- are more concerned with talking about issues at community meetings, rallies, etc than to sit and post on this blog. I see more people from East county on this blog than West, especially Ventura.

Please don't be patronizing and give me advise...I am aware that the council people are aware of this blog and I never said otherwise. I am the one that has pushed them to get more involved on it! But, again, the people that do politics, community work, organizing, and strategy for a living (like the incumbents) know that right now Ventura's debate is controlled elsewhere.

Oh, and realistically the issues in this debate are: view sheds, development, Wal-mart, sales tax revenue, public safety.

Carrol Dean,

Full disclosure is included in the link when you click on my name. I do not work for any of the candidates while I know most of them. Except for you.

I do know that personally I am a young woman that is extremely turned off of politics -- local and otherwise -- every time you post more attacks on people that the general electorate has chosen to represent them.

Can you please talk about things that do not make people want to stay away from voting?

Heather,

I am well aware of the issues in Ventura and if you have read elsewhere on this blog you will notice that it is mostly me out there explaining them. I am extremely involved in my community, sit on a city commission and numerous boards and am active in campaigns. I care very much about Ventura's future. I have also told some of the candidates about Brian's blog.

Sorry if I sounded patronizing. It's the mom in me. I have a daughter about your age, I am guessing, and she thinks she knows everything, too.

But yes, your tone came off as rather insulting. Maybe it was not your intention. But to say the voters here don't own computers is sort of reinforcing our "Bakersfield by the Sea" image. The "view shed" issue is just one of many, but is mostly confined to the Midtown folks.

My point was and continues to be, if you, as a "Young Progressive," want to win over voters, the harsh rhetoric that I have seen here and on other posts needs to be cranked down a notch. I am not the first one on the blog to tell you this. If it turns me off (a fellow Democrat), then likely it has the same effect on other people.

You know the old saying, "You can catch more flies with honey..." It's true.

Peace,
Marie

So, is it true Christy Weir is campaigning hard to keep Wal-Mart out of Ventura? What kind of position is that to take? I thought we lived in a free enterprise system. Let's face it folks, whether it's Wal-Mart, or someone else, we need to revitalize that shopping center and Christy Weir's posturing to get votes from "Livable Ventura", CAUSE, the retail workers unions, and any other special interest group that comes along flies in the face of trying to improve our local economy, which the current City Council loves to preach, but never practices. New faces, please...................

Hi Pro Voter,

I will repeat my post from an earlier thread:

I believe the current council's stance - and the city's stance - on Wal-mart is that the city can't keep a particular business out.

They can control what the building looks like and insist on the very best design (size, layout, architecture, parking, landscaping, street frontage, etc), but they won't get overwrought because it's a Wal-mart. Any new business at that site is going to increase traffic, so they need to make sure to mitigate the traffic impacts.

Both sides of this issue are upset with the Council. Some want the city to allow Wal-mart to come without any restrictions and the Livable Ventura people want a new ordinance that would disallow big boxes.

If they created a big box ordinance for the whole city, it would not allow Costco, Ikea, Bass Pro (some of the stores we're hoping to get some day). Nobody on the council wants that!

Marie, I agree with most of your comments. However, the thing that Christy Weir and the rest of the City Council did that was very politically underhanded was to impose the one-year moratorium on commercial development along the Victoria corridor that would, by default, postpone the whole Wal-Mart issue until after the November election. This was done under the guise of "a good planning decision" to look at where we should be going with development on Victoria, but you know, as well as I, it was done to provide political cover for the Council.

Hi again, Pro Voter, and then I have to go..

It is my understanding that the move to revise Victoria's old zoning rules came about because of the community effort in 2005 to develop a 20-year vision for the city. This vision was agreed upon through numerous community meetings, taking in a wide variety of input. I doubt anybody at that time was thinking about the 2007 council elections, certainly not the many citizens who participated.

This vision specifically discouraged Victoria as a site for "big box, mega-block, auto-oriented strip development and the traffic patterns it generates" and instead supported "healthy economic investment in walkable blocks, connected to better serve the surrounding neighborhoods."

So when Wal-mart came around to test the waters, it was time to take a good look at how that particular store would fit in with the community's adopted vision.

I don't know what Christy's plans are yet for this particular blog. She did answer questions on another thread awhile back. My advice to you would be to talk to her at the numerous community forums that are coming up. You may just find that you have lots of common ground.

One more thing Pro Voter,

It just occured to me that perhaps you don't know that the one-year moratorium was lifted in January. The city planners are working on the code for that area and it may or may not come before the council elections. Nobody over there thinks about how the city's work will fit in with council elections. The council members don't have that kind of control and wouldn't exercise it if they did.

Wow, I have no idea where you get your information.

Actually, I spoke to 2 current City Council members about this as well as six current members of the Chamber of Commerce, all of whom validated what I said above. The Chamber, by the way, was extremely concerned about the impact of the politically-motivated moratorium on projects already in the pipeline to be construcetd on Victoria. Perhaps you should do a little fact finding yourself. Sounds like you've been drinking a little too much of Rick Cole's Kool-Aid.

I guess we aren't talking to the same people then. I have also spoken to several members of the current council who believe otherwise. The Chamber has an agenda; we both know that. There are really good people over there, though, and I support a lot of what they say. I wasn't with their PAC on P6, though.

I like Rick Cole, too. I think he has really made an effort to stay in touch with the community and figure out what the citizens want.

I believe good, informed people can agree to disagree over the issues. Obviously you and I do.

Hey Pro Voter, you still out there?

I've thought about this a bit. I'm usually not this confrontational, but what I want you to do is name those two council members who you talked to who said, on the record, that they voted for the Victoria moratorium 18 months ago for political reasons. We all know with absolute certainty that nobody told you that.

And please don't insult our intelligence and make up names.

So then, what you are left with is either your story which was invented for "political purposes" or pure speculation from people who did not agree with the decision. Either way, you have no facts.

While you're at it, why don't you let me know your name, too? I use my own name here, why don't you?

I don't mind debating the issues. I'm happy to do that. As I said before, good people can agree to disagree. But I don't care for mudslinging and fiction.

Marie,

The two Council members were Neal Andrews and Jim Monahan. If you look on Neal's web site, I think he specifically discusses the Wal-Mart/moratorium issue in his 2006 year end report under the heading of "Mistakes Made." I spoke to Jim about it on the side, so I'm not sure how open he will be about it. Of course, they didn't say it on the public record, Marie. It's a politically charged issue and they are, after all, politicians. I'm sure they are supporting some or all of the 3 candidates running for reelection, so it wouldn't be good politics to put this out there. But, it's true, I assure you. I had additional confirmation from my Chamber contacts who are pretty plugged into the process.

As far as revealing my name, I'd really prefer not to do that. I work in the political consulting arena, so you can probably understand why. BTW, you say you've revealed you name, but only your first name. I'm sure there is more than one "Marie" in Ventura.

So, what are the predictions for the Ventura City Council election? Here are my assesssments:

Mayor Carl Morehouse - has a core group of supporters out there. Going to be hard to unseat.

Councilman Bill Fulton - also has a pretty solid constituency. Will be tough to beat, I'm sure.

Deputy Mayor Christy Weir - somewhat vulnerable. No more crosses to save and she's ticked off the Chamber and others in the business community with her Wal-Mart position and other anti-business votes.

Doug Halter - very credible candidate. Extremely active, passionate, and well connected. Will have the support of the Chamber and others in the business community, as well as broader support throughout the community. Who doesn't know this guy?

Mike Gibson - may be the dark horse in this race. Not a tremendous amount of name recognition, but some very well thought out and popular ideas that will resonate with the business community. Probably too conservative for the Chamber to support 100%, but has a lot of support in the real estate community. Plus, he really wants to win and has the $$ to put into his campaign.

Lou Cunningham - probably will pick up Chamber endorsement because he's slightly better known and less conservative than Gibson. Not big enough on ideas or new approaches to really catch on with the broader community. Will probably run sixth.

Brian Lee Rencher - what can I say? He'll get his usually 3,000 - 4,000 votes from his core supporters, but will end up as an also-ran once again.

Carroll Dean Williams - need I say more?

Oops! Forgot about Jerry Martin. He will get all the union endorsements as usual. Will probably finish respectably enough.

Well, good for you. You've renewed my faith in you after your bad poetry on the Williams thread.

But what I asked was for you to name the council members who voted FOR the moratorium who said they did it for political reasons. Without that, as I said, it is pure speculation from people who did not agree with the decision. Folks often talk amongst themselves and assign motives to others' actions without really knowing. But the Brown Act discourages council members from discussing their votes with each other.

If you talk to the council members who did vote for it, they are genuinely surprised that anyone would consider this, as it was voted upon shortly after the last council election almost two years ago and nobody was thinking that far ahead nor were any of the three incumbents up for re-election this fall certain they were going to run again. And, the moratorium was lifted last January, well before this fall's election.

Sorry, it doesn't add up.

And you're right. Those two gentlemen are supporting some or all of the incumbents. Like I said, good informed people can disagree. Our current council has a good balance of folks right now who I think are truly representative of our city.

Since you're a political consultant, who's obviously being paid to shovel dirt around, I will take all this with a grain of salt.

But do us all a favor and refrain from poetry.

Just to clarify, my comments were for Pro Voter, not Pick Axe, whose comments slipped in there, between.

And Pick Axe, a commment for you: I think you're seriously underestimating Christy Weir. She has absolutely stellar bipartisan endorsements from a wide range of supporters from all over the city and county. She has many, many endorsements from the business community, especially from the Downtown, where she's been a leader in the Downtown Ventura Organization.

One of her fellow council members said she was the most responsive to constituents of all of them. She's really working hard for our citizens and they know it.

There was a young lady named Marie (just kiddding)

Sorry I misunderstood your question on the moratorium issue. The 2 Council members I was referring to were, in fact, opposed to the vote on the moratorium. But, there's no way in the world the others would have admitted to voting for it for this express purpose, as you well know.

BTW, I was quite impressed with Pick Axe's assessments on the candidates and I do this for a living. Overall, I think he was on right on the mark. I kind of agree with you on Christy Weir, although I think her support is strongest with her grassroots folks (the cross people). I think she's lost some serious ground with the business community though because she's too strongly identified with the Council majority who the Chamber is very upset with right now.

There was a young lady named Marie (just kiddding)

Sorry I misunderstood your question on the moratorium issue. The 2 Council members I was referring to were, in fact, opposed to the vote on the moratorium. But, there's no way in the world the others would have admitted to voting for it for this express purpose, as you well know.

BTW, I was quite impressed with Pick Axe's assessments on the candidates and I do this for a living. Overall, I think he was on right on the mark. I kind of agree with you on Christy Weir, although I think her support is strongest with her grassroots folks (the cross people). I think she's lost some serious ground with the business community though because she's too strongly identified with the Council majority who the Chamber is very upset with right now.

Pro Voter,

I will give you points for calling me young.

I can tell you for sure that Christy has not lost ground with the Downtown business community. And I know plenty of other business owners around town who support her.

You keep asking me questions. I have one for you: why does Mike Gibson, who has only lived here two years and works in Santa Barbara, want a council seat? Why should voters support him and not one of the other challengers who has lived here longer and paid their dues in the community?

I am not being confrontational. I just want to know. Here's your chance to dispel the rumors that he only wants it to jump to higher office.

Marie,

I can't confirm or deny that he wants the Council seat to position himself for higher office, although logic might lead you to that conclusion. Maybe that would be a good question for him at one of the candidate forums. From what I've heard and read, I know he's genuinely interested in trying to better the community, especially changing the current non-business friendly image.

As far as longevity in the community, that can be a plus and a minus. He doesn't carry the baggage, for example, that a lot of the candidates do and may actually offer a fresh perspective. "Paying your dues" doesn't automatically entitle you to anything, especially if you're not working for the best interests of the community.

Speaking of which (a bit of an inside scoop here), the Ventura Chamber will be announcing today who it is supporting in the election and none of them are Council incumbents. I don't think Gibson will be one of them because he has some alliances that are too far right for many on the Chamber PAC.

Why do I have the feeling it will just be one candidate they will endorse?

Thanks for the head's up, Pro Voter. I've decided you're a good person after all, despite some of the posts I have seen you make.

But stay off the Williams thread, will you? I know you have better things to do with your time.

Marie, my prediction is they'll endorse 2 candidates - Doug Halter and Lou Cunningham. Halter's a given, but I think Cunningham will squeak out Gibson because he has slightly more name recognition in the community (LAFCO Board & Rent Mediation Board). So, you don't like my poetry, huh? Ahh well, I can stick to my day job, I guess.

Pro Voter,

Thanks for continuing to play here.

I have one more thing for you to think about: You and others keep using Wal-Mart as a rallying point. You say the business community is upset that the Wal-Mart decision was delayed while the city rewrote its code. But, as I understand it from reading about other communities, it is often the local business owners who are fighting to keep Wal-Mart out. Wal-Mart's low prices effectively cut out the smaller stores.

I'll bet you anything if you go down the road a bit and have a chat with Jim Salzer, the long-time owner of both a record store and a video store on Victoria, he won't be happy about the prospect of Wal-Mart opening down the street.

My own buying habits are such that I always buy local if I can and give my fellow Venturans a boost. I'm also not a fan of Wal-mart's low-end merchandise. I'd rather see something else go in the K-Mart building that offers a more unique shopping experience for this town.

I tend to think my views are very similar to those Venturans who were surveyed in a recent poll. 62 percent said they didn't want Wal-Mart in there.

I have a question for Pro Voter to answer. You said that Gibson was too far right for the chamber of commerce. On what issues is he too far right on? Guns? Dismantling environmental protections? Gay rights? No zoning? What could a candidate be too far right for the chamber when the chamber is usually a pro-business, conservative group?

Here is your quote.

"I don't think Gibson will be one of them because he has some alliances that are too far right for many on the Chamber PAC."

If it isn't issues what are his alliances? John Birch Society? PNAC? Howard Jarvis? American Independent Party? Who is he connected to exactly?

Ergo Faux Diem,

I will leave it up to Pro Voter to answer this definitively, but my guess is he's talking about the far-right contingent of the VCRCC. How about you?

I think Pro Voter's been pretty open and fair here. I commend him/her for that. Hope it continues.

Marie, whether it's Wal-Mart, or another store, this should be decided by the free market system, not "Livable Ventura", CAUSE, the retail workers' association, or any other number of special interest groups. Do you agree?

My take on Gibson is that he is, in fact, affiliated with the VCRCC, which would put him at odds with some of the more middle of the roaders on the Chamber and, trust me, there are plenty of them. Not to say that the VCRCC is an evil organization, any more than the VCDCC is bad, but it does align him with a certain ideology.

The city really can't legally prevent Wal-mart from settling into that existing space. But, under the proposed Victoria code, they can't go any bigger than it is now. Bigger would mean a superstore with groceries. Groceries are exempt from sales tax, so it wouldn't generate any more revenue for the city anyway.

I honestly don't think those organizations you noted have much sway under these circumstances.

My point was that you said the business community was hopping mad about decisions that would impact Wal-mart. But I don't think that's true across the board and I pointed out why.

I just got done watching the council meeting. There was an endless procession of folks objecting to multiple developments all over the city. That's just how they are here. If you're on the council and planning commission, you absolutely have to listen to them. And then you do what is best for the city and the majority of the citizens, taking into consideration the codes you have to work with.

Honestly, I think being a council person here is just a really difficult job -- and for almost no pay. It is ironic that we are all here arguing about who is best to do it. I sure wouldn't want to.

Pro Voter:

I have one more question for you. I don't think you live in Ventura. Are you talking to anybody besides a few disgruntled council members and Chamber folks? That is most certainly not a way to form an accurate opinion of what goes on here.

Why don't you talk to the Downtown Ventura Organization business owners? Christy is universally beloved there. Why don't you talk to the neighborhood councils and the average citizen?

Since you are keen on the business end of things, talk to Mark Hartley, who is a Downtown property owner and doing amazing things for the city of Ventura. Or Dan Frederickson, former CEO of Kinkos. He's building a 4-story office complex downtown.

Christy is out there working hard to listen to everyone. The other day a nice older man called her up and asked her to look at some bushes that were planted by the city and abutted his property. She went over there. That's what she does.

She is doing her job. And all cities should be so lucky to have somebody like that representing them.

Pro Voter lives under a rock at the VCRCC hq.

Marie, actually, I live in T.O., but I get to talk to a lot of the business people in my occupation. Don't get me wrong, please. I'm not discrediting Christy Weir at all for the good work she's done with the City or her good relationship with the Downtown Ventura Organization. Those things will all work in her favor in the election, I'm sure. I'm just saying that politics, being what it is, sometimes means that the good people don't always win. There's a lot of underhanded crap that goes on out there and this election will be no exception.