Escondeeter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:28 PM:Not a problem, just don't give anybody a break on the rental costs. A hundred bucks an hour, first come, first served. If nobody wants to pay it, also no problem, it'll just save the city the custodial costs that run more than the current rent anyway.

Of course, this won't make the "we want taxpayer owned stuff to be given to us for free" lobby happy, but, hey, they created the problem so they can live with the solution.

And, by the way, it's kind of interesting that Olga's supporters were blogging about this story long before it was published. Now why do you suppose that might be??

Surely You Jest wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:33 PM:"His AGENCY????" I'd hardly call the ACLU an "agency", a term that implies some official standing. "Left wing extremist political action group" would be more accurate.

Real Agenda wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:38 PM:The ACLU should come clean. They want Gallo, Abed, and Waldron out of office!

WOW wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:39 PM:Blair defending religious groups from discrimination! I will pray for you Mr. Blair, I believe you may have finally found Jesus. God Bless your little heart. Seriously!

question wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:45 PM:What's so hard about just setting one fee for everyone?

Escondeder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:11 PM:Escondido City Council have two seats up this November (Sam & Ed). Now is the time for the residents of mobile home parks to stay united (we beat Prop. 98 together) and show these City Council Members that we're tired of being kicked around. EMPAC is working hard to make your voices heard and we need your help. Stay involved and informed, we are on a roll and we're not slowing down!

We need help wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:19 PM:Now that the ACLU is involved, maybe they can look into why the Escondido City Council discriminates against mobile park residents when they won't enforce civil laws. The deep pocket park owners (political contributors) have their way with their tenants and the city won't do a darn thing about it.

On the job training wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:33 PM:Epp said Thursday that he'll analyze the letter and the city's meeting room policy to see if Blair-Loy's position "has any merit." - Just another city employee earning big bucks while he learns his job. How long has he worked at City Hall anyway?

Otto wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:43 PM:Funny how 'Real Agenda' names the three 'rocket scientists' who CONTINUALLY think, act and prove that they're not. Anyway, as usual, the real message is lost in the rhetoric. For all you other 'rocket scientists', the one SINGLE best reform we could EVER place on ANY publicly elected entity is TERM LIMITS. Elected leaders should never be able to get 'comfortable'. Human nature dictates, and thousands of examples prove, even the slightest degree of 'comfort' in such positions breeds contempt, entitlement, arrogance, disconnectedness and...laziness. In any one 10 year period, there should be a complete 'changing of the guard' in a city council. Where we 'rocket scientists' got the notion that it's a 'good idea' for someone to be a city council member (for instance) for 16-20+ years baffles my tiny non-rocket scientist brain. The idea is to never allow the elected to think they're doing the job for anyone but their electors.

To question wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:59 PM:Really nothing. It was just thought originally that it might be kind to offer discounts to legitimate charities so that their funds could be spend doing good deeds instead of paying rent. But, if EMPAC doesn't want charities to keep getting a break, no problem. Maybe they can use the funds from that massive membership base of theirs to help the legitimate charities cope with the added cost.

whats your problem.. wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:16 PM:what's your problem with free speech? Can't see how this would rile anyone who values the right to speak and assemble...or is the whole free speech thing too "threatening" a concept for you to grasp?

EscoWatchDog wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:45 PM:Meeting rooms should be free or low cost to Escondido residents regardless of what type of meeting they want to have. There is no place to meet if you are a nonprofit and even the city charges them too much!

is time for a new Escondido Council wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:05 PM:it's time to make things right, the stooges keep attacking Escondido residents, just because they don't provide money to their campaigns. they serve only rich people. let's vote Abed and Gallo off office and recall Waldron and Daniels!

Wanta Be wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:18 PM:Its time for the "want-a-be" coffee Queen to quit bashing elected officials
in this blog and show some respect. They would not be in office if the residents of Escondido did not vote them in because they agreed with their actions.

gredo wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:41 PM:The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a “morally straight” life.

Hmmm.... wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:03 PM:This is probably one of the worst decisions made by the EMPAC. The end result may be that the city will review the current policy and determine that a flat rate structure will need to be established that effectively reflects the costs of using those facilities. That would mean Boy Scouts, Little League, and charities that look to serve the entire community will pay more as a result. Not the best way to foster friends in the community.

esco wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:13 PM:keep the aclu out of escondido.talk about an anti-american organization.coffee queen,stick to selling your swill,we don't want your opinion on anything.keep up the good work escondido city council(landslide victory again)

Observer One wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:40 AM:This is remarkable! Escondido, Carlsbad, and Vista still think they can get by with charging higher rates to Religious and Political Groups than other groups. When our country was young the meeting halls of congress were made available and used for regular Christian Church Services for over 60 years, including while Thomas Jefferson was president up into the 1860‘s. Somehow in more recent years, due to the increasingly secular education of persons who are now grownup. They mistakenly think they have to deny the use of public facilities for religious meetings because of the so called separation of church and state.
In some cases they would allow them, but at a higher charge, sometimes a very much higher rate..
Congress passed the Equal Access Act in 1984 and it was upheld by a Supreme Court Decision in 1990.
Even without Act the right to use public facilities, including public school facilities was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lambs Chapel Case in 1993 where any public facility that is open to the general public for social, civic, or recreational uses must be made available for religious meetings too on the constitutional basis. There have been several more Supreme Court cases where public bodies have tried various dodges like to deny use to religious groups, but the public bodies must allow and may not charge religious groups more under the constitution. There are hundreds of local jurisdictions that still have not got the word yet. Often if a religious group is denied use or charge a higher amount they can contact a legal group like American Center for Law and Justice, Alliance Defense Fund, or others, which sends them and their lawyer a list of court decisions which is usually enough to resolve the matter. Sometimes it is necessary to actually file a lawsuit. One can wonder why Escondido made a tier group called political and religious groups. Was this an attempted dodge to discourage use by religious groups?

Local wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:37 AM:EMPAC wins their case and loses public respect all in one fell swoop. I get their message loud and clear. They've lost any sympathy from this voter.

Groups cannot wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:58 AM:say we are renting city property for our meeting so John Q. Public, you can't enter, even though the city property was paid with your tax dollars. LAW SUIT!

I agree wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:07 AM:this is City policy that has to be reviewed, it is not the time for a certain Coffe Queen to put in her two cents.

Big Case wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 AM:The ACLU should be proud! Why not something worthwhile like fighting for us taxpayers against open borders, free medical for illegals, illegals not paying taxes yet attending our school system, etc. Oops forgot, they represent anything that harms this country, not protects it.

Dissenters wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:07 AM:My guess is that this policy was drafted long before the current city council took office- therefore, why are the taking all the blame now? Besides, they're doing the right thing by getting a legal opinion first.

ACLU is a smoke screen wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:39 AM:that fools those who just go with the flow without thinking. It all sounds good on the surface, but it will be too late when the masses realize the ACLU organization is truly destructive to the American Culture.

And to the mobil-homers: Just because some of us earn enough to actually pay taxes & expect a higher standard from our public services, doesn't mean we're rich. It's simple, some taxpayers care where their money goes.

Maybe Its Time wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:03 AM:Since EMPAC pushed through its mobile home rent control initiative, the city has been forced to spend millions of dollars in taxpayer money to help EMPAC in its goal of transferring wealth from the park owner's pockets to its members' pockets. Every expenditure from the taxpayer, every lawsuit in which EMPAC's point of view didn't prevail, has produced demands that more taxpayer money be spent on their behalf. The rent control ordinance is an entitlement, and like all entitlements, it has produced a constituency that knows only one word, "more". That mentality is exhibited at its finest in the form of this threatened lawsuit over twenty dollars.

In this time of tight budgets, we can't afford to have EMPAC wasting any more public funds forwarding its marxist agenda. Ordinances created by initiative can be repealed by initiative. Maybe it's time for the taxpayers to put an end to this silliness by repealing the rent control ordinance and restoring fairness and fiscal sanity to this city.

EMPAC will regret this. wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:03 AM:EMPAC is stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime. Your actions ultimately will place a financial burden on charitable and/or youth organizations and will create more harm that good for your group. This is a big mistake, and you will lose a lot of support.

Chilly Willy wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:19 AM:Why are we paying attention to a subversive group? ACLU is dangerous and detrimental to our society. Throw them out of our city.

Oh Please Big Case wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:32 AM:The ACLU in this case is fighting to make it easy and fair for people (conservatives and liberals) to have political meetings, to reduce barriers to the political process for everyone. They also are fighting for this same ease and fairness for RELIGIOUS groups (you know, the groups that yahoos are always saying the ACLU despises!). Surely even you can see that this is not some leftist cause. Have you been so well trained to bark "leftist" when you hear "ACLU" that you bypass your own ability to read and think? Good grief!

To Maybe its time wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:55 AM:In case you are unaware, their are civil laws that govern mobile home residency (aka MRL - Mobile Home Residency Laws). Considering most local laws are mirrored after state law then it only goes to reason that these MRL's should be enforced with the same vilgilance as any civil law, problem is they are not. As for the rent control ordinance, it is the park owners fault that this was adopted because of their greed. As for the community center issue, speak with City Hall, this should have never happened in the first place.

Mike S. wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:00 AM:The ACLU has fought for the rights of religious assembly and speech in the past. They are fighting for the first amendment here and now. How such actions can be characterized as "subversive" and "destructive of the American culture" is a mystery to me--no, wait, it's not: people have been brainwashed by the hate radio and TV of the right into ignoring the facts about the ACLU and their alignment with traditional American ideals. Such propaganda is funded by corporations who wish to keep the populace distracted from the real economic crimes being committed against them.

To EMPAC will regret this wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:07 AM:Take note that the city went after EMPAC and the ACLU picked it up because of the cities inepptness.

Boat wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:22 AM:Can anyone tell me why a city with a population in excess of 140,000 people has a city council made up of part-time amateurs? Maybe that explains the glacial pace of decison making and action towards addressing problems.

Geez, Green Bay, Wisconsin is half our size and they have an NFL team!

Hey while wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:30 PM:the ACLU is here, tell them the voters want to know who the 4,000 extra unaccounted people in Escondido are! And ask ACLU why we have to pay for their services with our taxes!! We are having our money stolen from us.

To Boat wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:51 PM:Doesn't sound like you have been in Cailornia very long. Out here when elected officials try to do the right thing the only people that show up are the activists against what they are trying to do. The people who support the ideas sit at home and blog and think the other guy will show up. Unfortunately, nothing or the wrong thing gets done. Look at the financial mess the state is in because of the ruling party. Everyone complains but won't vote them out.

to Hey While wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:30 PM:If the President of the US, both presidential candidates, and the Governor won't answer your question, can you explain to me what in the world this has to do with the ACLU?

to Mike S wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:35 PM:I think you're right about right wing misrepresentation being responsible for some of the anti-ACLU sentiments. But I fear that even more than this, many Americans really dislike our Constitution when it comes right down to it. They love their own free speech, right of assembly, and all the rest. But when people they don't like (because of their color, their beliefs, or anything else) also get the same protections and guarantees, it really angers these folks. They'd be much happier in a more dictatorially run country, where, as the "good citizens", they'd get the benefits and be perfectly obedient. While they and their leaders could trample the folks that neither like. We forget that the Constitution's ideals and implementation are hard work, and are a constant fight against human's more base natures. This is why the ACLU and similar groups are so important. IMHO

Hatch in Escondido wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:04 PM:Strangly enough, I agree with the ACLU on this one. We all paid taxes and voted in bond issues to have our new city hall built. It is our house, so to speak.

An empty house is useless. I have no problem with private groups renting it. I think someone already said it should be free to city residents and make outsiders pay. That's not a bad idea. Maybe better, just make the rental rates minimal for residents and a fair sized whopper for outsiders.

But, it is discrimination to make a particular kind of group pay more than another if it is their house, too.

oops should I be paying more wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:15 PM:for groceries or education because I'm a white, sexually responsible girl? Oh yeah.

Boat wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:17 PM:To Boat: Actually I first came here in the Navy in 1971. Came back in 1973. Been here ever since. The politics never fail to amuse me. I went to an Escondido City Council meeting as an assignment from Palomar College Poly Sci. Almost died from boredom. They debated ad nauseum about a Fotomat in a parking lot - this was back when Alan Skuba was mayor (that dates me.) They were an amateur lot back then. Some things never change. I have voted in every election since I was able to - in 1972. Sometimes I have been pleased - most of the time I have beaten my head against the wall in frustration. And, yes, I have considered running myself. And, then I just as quickly came to my senses.

But, I will reiterate my question, why does a city of this size have a part-time, amateur city council? This seems beyond ridiculous considering the problems facing all of us.

Sickofit wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:25 PM:I think we should have more mobilehome parks. They are such an asset to any thriving city.

LisaP wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:31 PM:I like the ACLU. They do a great service to us all.

Bubbles wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:16 PM:The East Valley Community Center and City Hall were both brought in to existence during the Jerry Harmon years. If you are looking for culprits responsible for these silly rules that is who to blame not todays council. These are not new rules.

Hilarious wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:42 PM:Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU is there when you need them. All the hateful talk is a waste of time here folks. All groups should get a break on rentals no matter who they are, political, religious or charitable.

LisaP wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:05 PM:I also like pie

To Hilarious wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:13 AM:No problem. Please send your information to the city finance department so they know who to bill for the money we lose from those 'breaks' you want to give everyone. Thanks.

trey wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:17 PM:In 1935 ACLU founder, “wrote Communism is the goal. I seek the social ownership of property the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. We want to get a good lot of flags, to talk a great deal about the constitution.”
The California Senate Fact Finding Committee on UnAmerican Activities in 1948 found:” The ACLU may be definitely classified as a communist front or transmission belt organization. At least 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communist who come in conflict with the law.”

just the facts wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:21 PM:The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

ACLU --- st century wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:49 AM:trey & just the facts are not current with 21st century info.

This is the updated current 21st century ACLU information.

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

info dated st century wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:06 PM:Thank you for living in the 21st century:

July 18 9:32 am Oh please

July 18 11:00 am Mike S

July 18 2:35 pm to Mike S

Sorry to trey and just facts that you mislead yourself and others; that you are snoozing and a century behind reality; you are unable to tell the truth about current ACLU activities.

Wake up and realize ACLU helps protect ALL our rights.

To trey as of July 2008 (and much before) July 19 10:17 pm is not true.
To just the facts as of July 2008 (and much before) July 19 10:21 pm is not true.

devil wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:52 PM:ACLU is fighting to remove all religious symbols from our society. For 150 years after the constitution was written the first amendment was defended as written, that the morale basis of our society is based on christian religion. First amendement states, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion". Simply put there should not be national church, they wanted to protect the people/states from national goverment. They wanted it left up to states/local government to select a religion. But not until 1960s did the courts reject 150 years of legal precident on the interpretation of the first amendment. They twisted it to now mean freedom FROM religion and all public dislay of religion is to be banned. The ACLU wants to replace GOD with GOVERNMENT. There is no higher power than the government. ACLU is systematically destroying this country. They will not be happy until we are turned into a third world country.

Defenders of what wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:59 PM:In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God, not government. When God's presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights but to government.

Therefore, the ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion.

The ACLU has been so successful that even the Declaration of Independence can be interpreted as unconstitutional, if the argument is framed properly.

not familiar wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:22 PM:I am not familiar with ACLU, but if they were founded by a communist I dont think this group can really rid itself of communistic ideas. I think looking at the history of such an organization could be very telling. I laugh that the ACLU apologists say we should ignore their past.

More ACLU wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:31 PM:In 2000, 70% of Nebraska voters approved an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution definig marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The ACLU challenged the law. To add insult to injury, the judge ordered Nebraska taxpayers to refund the ACLU's legal costs of 156,000.

rep or dem wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:51 PM:Over half the House Democrats in the 108th Congress voted with the ACLU at least 80% of the time. 30 Democrats disagreed with the ACLU on only one issue (usually on the ban on the date rape drug Raves which the ACLU opposes) and 17 were 100% in agreement with the ACLU. The highest score a Republican achieved with the ACLU was 64%.

In the 109th Congress, a whopping 63 House Democrats had a 100% score while 39 Democrats disagreed with the ACLU only once, giving a total of half the members in Washington in line with them.

bryan wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:52 PM:The ACLU of Texas expressed its dismay of America’s immigration laws by once again going to the UN instead of our elected officials. The ACLU does not believe in the greatness and sovereignty of America.

Payback to Escondido wrote on Jul 22, 2008 6:56 PM:This is nothing more than the legal/financial bullying that the ACLU is now known for. They don't like Escondido's city council's stance on immigration, so they'll keep coming at our community from every direction until they cost us so much money in legal defense fees that our own city council will be paralyzed to enact any laws that the ACLU's henchmen attorneys can possibly challenge, and subsequently cost us more. Their tactics are both reprehensible and effective. There are far more egregious issues throughout the country that they AREN'T fighting. Don't think for a moment that they're out to protect the right for religious groups to assemble in a public place for equal fees as others. They're nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing. I cut my ACLU card in half years ago, and they
won't ever see another dime from me.

bryan wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:04 PM:In the news today; Illegal alien sanctuary city capital, san fransicko, an illegal alien murders 3 people. The illegal alien hand numerous run-ins with SFPD, but every time was let go without notifying the ICE. These 3 people are dead because of sanctuary cities, which the ACLU is fighting for. They are for open borders and sanctuary cities. Is this current enough for you.