Sunday, March 21, 2010

Picture Of The Week

So what can you do when your annoying neighbor insists on placing their Joe Mosca sign right up next to your property? With the possible consequence of casual passersby thinking it has something to do with you?

Well, you'll just to have let people know that this is definitely not the case.

The homemade sign in this picture pretty much spells out one resident's surefire strategy for escaping the taint of appearing to back the San Fernando Carpetbagger.

"This household does not endorse Joe Mosca."

Very well done!

55 comments:

  1. LOL!! Shoo Fly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That picture is WORTH a thousand words!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. No fair minded household will endorse Joe Mosca, we'll leave the endorsements up to the Downtown Investor's Club and the naive fools they have influenced. And of course the disgraceful political groups who support Sacramento type over-development, who are turning California into a third world country!

    Save Sierra Madre!
    Crawford, Watts and Alcorn will protect YOUR interests, not Sacramento's and certainly not the selfish interests of Joe Mosca or Josh Moran.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Big time fan of OKMarch 21, 2010 at 7:49 AM

    Great Sunday post! Not too cerebral, just succinct. If candidate signs are any indicator two things can be concluded: Alcorn/Crawford/Watts signs are more attractive and more numerous, almost 2.5 to one by count in the more densely packed districts.

    Take heart Tattlers! OK, are we on the backstretch now? We're working hard for Pat, John and Don, and they in turn will work hard for Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We're moving into the stretch like Zenyatta!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sign needs to be on the next Wistaria Festival tour.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TURNED OVER A ROCKMarch 21, 2010 at 8:54 AM

    https://application.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/role_of_commissioner

    Why should Larry Wilson's PSN column Pasadena's elite view to redraw map of districts be of importantance to us on the Tattler? Well copy the link to your browser and look to see who from Sierra Madre is applying to become a commish on the 14 citizens appointed to redraw the Legislature's districts:

    Richard Hansberger
    Gurdon Ransom Miller
    Gerhard Peters
    Wade J Bonds
    Ronald J Brandley
    Stephen De Sal
    Eric E Ewing
    Lucina Ortiz Krappman
    Leopoldo P Molina
    Joseph Michael Mosca
    Antonia Isabel Navarro
    Eric J Olson
    David Merritt Podley
    Robert A Stockly
    Paige J Terry
    Lawrence Arthur Torres
    Marcela C Truijillo
    Anching S Linsato

    Clearly if only 14 are going to be chosen all of these folks will not make the final cut, but it is disturing that a whole bunch of disgraced DIRTS are queing up for a task that could make all 31 cities of the San Gabriel Valley - Joe Mosca's constituents, a single district.

    I don't know about you but I'm left with ice water in my veins at the prospect of any these people rising to appointed office. Some of you Tattlers, Kurt Zimmerman, or Her Honor the Mayor, quick APPLY. WE CAN'T LET THESE SLIMEBALLS GET BY WITH THIS.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is horrifying, TOAR,

    Thank you for telling us about it!

    ReplyDelete
  9. There seems to be provision to write letters in support of applicants so there must be provision to write letters in opposition to applicants. Let's get those documents flowing! Quick! Get a boiler plate letter up and an address to e-mail, fax or snail mail what could be the most important letter you send in support of THE RESIDENTS of Sierra Madre. These DIRTS are shameless and will stop at nothing to regain control of OUR town. Really does anyone want to be a part of a district put together by Tonja Torres' husband, or that duplicitous Ron Brandley, or ugh! Joe Mosca, or moneyman to the developers Rob Stockly?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Isn't photoshop great!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not photoshopped, 9:09. Send me your email address and I will be glad to send you the original. Nice try though!

    ReplyDelete
  12. ok, I'll take your word, the grey edge on the right side of the mosca sign looked funny to me... I was hoping it wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This photo was taken by a resident in the upper canyon yesterday. The Mosca sign is on rental parking owned by a former realtor and a person firmly in support of Mosca-Moran-Walsh. I'm guessing it'll be down before too many folks have a chance to drive by. This person is out early and hates for people not to like him. Who need Photoshop?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 9:09

    Sorry, Moscateer, we ain't giving you the address.

    You dirts have an unfortunate history of vandalizing people's property.

    The picture is real. I took it yesterday and sent it to The Tattler. It's on my street and we all know it is real.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nah, it's the real deal 9:29. Given the abuse of photoshop on sites like The Cumquat, we will never use that here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't think is matters much who has what sign, It's going to be a landslide for Watts, Alcorn and Crawford.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear 9:32, my Mosca sign has been stolen!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Introducing partisan politics into Sierra Madre will destroy the unity of this town, something Joe Mosca seems intent on doing with his SGYD, and when he brings them in to town to campaign for him, they should be met with a slammed door in the face, or complaints to the police.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mikey Mosca, IS an officer in the local Dem party, and was not truthful in his Application response, question 9b

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous @ 9:32: Call the Mosca campaign committee (of one) and ask for a replacement. Has any one wondered why Mosca's signs do not state "reelect" because he left off an important, usually that is, opportunity to run as an encumbent. Maybe down deep he is embarassed to run on his record, naw! Pad, pad, pad is the name of his game. Term Alcorn, Crawford and Watts have put the signs out beautifully and totally in keeping with the election code of not putting them on city property and with property ower's permission and never touched another candidates signs. City has probably been called on the illegally placed signs, but may not have the police time to go take them off. That is why you still see so many in the parkway. If you EVER see an Alcorn, Crawford or Watts sign on city property, call Diane immediately and it will be replaced property: 355-4776.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Totally Photoshopped, this is a pretty low down sophomoric trick, did somebody get their 12 year old to do this for them,of course they won't disclose the address, because it never existed, disgusting!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not. Just an annoyed resident exerting his First Amendment rights. You wish Photoshopped 10:40 am, because you got caught out and people might not like you after you've been outted!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rod Brandley resigned because of Conflict of Interest while on the Sierra Madre Planning Commission. There is an entire file on him that has waiting to be given to the right people. I guess the right time has finally come. The same for Stockely.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why are all of those signs still up on the public-right-of-ways?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Has anyone noticed that the Moran campaign has been going around and placing their signs next to Watts-Alcorn-Crawford signs? I'm not sure if the property owners even know about it, but it is clear that Moran is running on our, slow-growth coat tails, and confusing voters at the same time.

    If people vote for more than 3 candidates, their ballots will be thrown out and NOT counted.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 11:57

    You'll have to ask Maryann. Apparently, she is responsible for the Dirt signs in the public right-of-way.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not photoshopped--so just stop your crabbing. I drove by it late this morning on my way out of the canyon. And since privacy is important, no one will direct you out of curtesy to the homeowner. So, go for a drive. The streets are free to all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey! Wasn't someone supposed to put out a newspaper yesterday?

    Late again, ey?!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dirts will never stop. You can be sure they are planning more disgusting ways to S***W SIERRA MADRE with their crass dirty politics. They know Watts, Crawford and Alcorn will win, so they are placing their darling Joe and his dirty brainless puppets Bradley, Stockley and Torres.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 12:35 - I don't understand?? Why would Maryann be responsible for their signs??

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well, if you were Moran would you want your sign next to Mosca and Walsh? Maybe Josh thinks credibility is dependent on who you are associated with.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Redistricting: say it ain't so... Not Gurdy! my intellectual power house. The others I can see but not Gurdy!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Let us reveal these disgusting people to everyone and hope that our through our CC we can learn more. Thank you for bringing this information to us. The dust never settles.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dirts always create dust.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Never knew about this until the blog today. In and of itself it is not a bad thing. You think some of our self-promoting citizens are in it for ulterior motives? The 14 commissioner have to represent the whole state. We should have a cross section of Sierra Madre represented on the application list so that iIf anyone from Sierra Madre is selected at least it will be from a broader pool. Got the following off the website:

    The Role of the Commissioner

    The Citizens Redistricting Commission (commission) is a new, 14-person commission that Californians created by passing the Voters FIRST Act at the November 2008 general election. The 14 commissioners are required to define the geographic boundaries for 80 Assembly districts, 40 Senate districts, and four State Board of Equalization districts so that they contain reasonably equal populations.

    The process for determining the districts and coming to a final agreement must occur in an 8 ½ month period that starts January 1, 2011, and ends September 15, 2011, with the presentation of the final maps to the Secretary of State for certification. During those 8 ½ months, the duties of the commissioners will be complex and time-consuming. The commissioners will likely hire staff and consultants that will assist in the coordination of the activities of the commission. However, there will be tasks that can only be performed by the commissioners. These tasks include, but are not limited to:

    Holding numerous public hearings at locations throughout the state to determine which communities share common interests and should share common representation. During the hearings, testimony and presentations can be expected to be lengthy. Each hearing will require multiple members of the redistricting commission to be in attendance and most meetings will likely be conducted in the evenings and on weekends to accommodate the public's schedules.
    Reviewing and discussing data that is pertinent to the setting of geographic boundaries for the different districts. This includes the census data from which the districts will be drawn, computer modeling of the census data to create potential districts, and the discussion and compromise that must accompany a process where the state's political future will be decided for a ten-year period.
    Hiring and directing the commission's staff in the many tasks that will be required for the commission to function effectively and efficiently. This may include: drafting and promulgating regulations; appointing a staff director; scheduling meetings and hearings including the advanced notification of interested parties; maintaining records of the commission's deliberations; overseeing payroll, travel reimbursements, equipment purchases and maintenance; and communicating with the entities that will request information regarding the commission's progress.
    Voting for the approval of the final maps developed in the redistricting process after an extended period of public debate and compromise through different iterations of proposed district maps.
    How much time each commissioner will devote to the process and which tasks will be assigned to each individual commissioner will be up to the commission. However, carrying out the duties of the commission should be first and foremost for each commissioner during the 8 ½ month period the commission has to define the state's political districts.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm with you Anon 9:47 AM: "I don't think is matters much who has what sign, It's going to be a landslide for Watts, Alcorn and Crawford"

    Tain't nothin' the dirts can do, nothing Larry can do, nothing Susan can do, nothing re-zoning can do, no dirty trick or yard sign can do, no troll comment can do...

    Nothing is going to stop the (thank goodness) forward progress of Sierra Madre politics. A new era has begun, and yep, its gonna be a landslide!

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ Anonymous 12:35

    I hadn't understood the depth of depravity in Sierra Madre until some knuckledragger Dirt says that Maryann is responsible for the signs in the public-right-of-way. Now I get it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon @ 3:59

    It's that type of hubris that gets people in trouble all the time. Even though exuding confidence is good, taking one's adversary for granted is not.

    Never under-estimate the Dirts, and never over-estimate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Maryann was the one that that determined that it was legal for the Dirts to place their signs in the public right-of-way. If you don't believe it, ask the City Manager or the Chief of Police.


    Welcome to the fascinating world of Politics! Where duplicity runs amuck.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, the City Manager, the Police Chief and the Mayor read the City Ordinances and determined that signs placed in parkways were legal; signs placed on City property are not legal. It's not as if MaryAnn singlehandedly determined legality - rather that three intelligent women responded to resident's complaints and determined what was legal under the law. So there knuckledragger! The Police Department continues to apply the law as it is written.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's not duplicity, that's having to make findings according to law. Been there myself as a planning commissioner. So who's actually putting the signs there?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Maryann and the City Manager read the Municipal Code. Campaign signs can be in the public right of way. Political sighns can not. Go figure!

    City Code 17.72.030
    K. Election Sign Regulations. Election signs are permitted without a permit in all zones, however, the following regulations apply to candidates, their campaign committee(s) and their respective signs.
    1. A one hundred dollar cash bond shall be posted with the city to guarantee removal of election signs by candidates or their campaign committee(s) for all signs related to the campaign;
    2. Signs shall not exceed six square feet in area with the aggregate signage for each lot not exceeding eighteen square feet and signs shall not exceed six feet in height above the adjacent grade;
    3. Signs shall not be illuminated in residential zones;
    4. Signs shall not be nailed to trees, fences, public utility poles and shall not be located on city facilities;
    5. Signs shall be designed and placed in a manner that does not create a vehicular or pedestrian traffic safety hazard as determined by the city engineer.
    6. Signs shall be removed within ten days after the election or bond posted shall be forfeited and the city shall use whatever part of the bond money as is necessary for removal. Any amount of the bond remaining shall be refunded upon request made within ninety days after the election; and
    7. The one hundred dollar bond requirement shall also apply to signs located at campaign or party headquarters.


    L. Political Sign Regulations. Political signs are permitted without a permit in all zones subject to the following regulations:
    1. Signs shall not exceed six square feet in area with no side greater than three feet and the aggregate signage for each lot not exceeding twelve square feet and signs shall not exceed six feet in height above the adjacent grade;
    2. Signs shall not be illuminated in residential zones;
    3. Signs shall not be nailed to trees, fences, public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-way; and
    4. Signs shall be designed and placed in a manner that does not create a vehicular or pedestrian traffic safety hazard as determined by the city engineer.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Just offering an opinion here, but would it be outside the realm of possibility that Joe Mosca's political allies might see their role in this redistricting commission as helping to carve out a Democratic leaning Assembly District for the ambitious young man? Certainly given the make up of AD 59, his chances of winning would be about as lousy as they are in Sierra Madre this go around.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Now here is another wonder. Over the years the campaign signs were understood to never be in the parkway--the city property between the curb and the sidewalk. There is parkway/city owned property area also where there is no sidewalk--close to the edge of the street--but that was never of concern--just the obvious parkway. Now we know a differentiation between Political signs--not allowed in the parkway--Campaign signs o.k.--is in the city elections code. Alcorn, Crawford and Watts will stay on private property as then you will know that the property owner/renter citizen/voter is supporting them not the non-voting parkway space.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Is this the issue we're going to the polls with? Where to place the campaign signs? Tattlers, get a grip! We were successful in removing DIRT signs from the City's property. We carefully place Alcorn/Crawford/Watts signs with residents who have requested that the signs be displayed in their yards.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mayor MacGillivray is going to send me the email she recieved from Elaine, telling MaryAnn is was legal for them to put their signs on the median and city property.
    MaryAnn was the one who complained about it in the first place.
    This has never been allowed before, why now?
    If MaryAnn can find the email, she'll send it to me and I will post it, putting an end to this.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So let me see if I understand this. The DIRTS were trying to provoke a situation with the city in which their signs were being removed illegally and MaryAnn was successful is arbitrating what was legal versus what had been common practice in the past. I don't see ANY issue here, just Elaine and MaryAnn doing their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The thing I fear the most are the Josh Moran signs in front of houses where nobody lives. Can it be he's locked up the all important ghost
    vote?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Have you noticed how much Josh Moron's signs resemble Dickson-Podley Realty signs? Same, the very same, green and white, similar layout! Looks to me like Dickson-Podley contributed a graphic artist and a printer.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I have the email with an attachment.
    I don't know how to post the attachment, so I sent it to the moderator.
    Hopefully, it will be up for all of you to read.

    Here is the email Elaine sent the Mayor.

    From: Elaine Aguilar
    To: macgone@aol.com
    Sent: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 6:14 pm
    Subject: "Election" verses "Political" Signs


    Hi MaryAnn,
    Here's the applicable Municipal Code Sections.

    Section K pertains to Election signs (defined as signs for candidates
    for elective office) and there is no "must be located outside of the
    public right-of-way" language.

    Section L pertains to Political signs (defined as signs expressing a
    political, religious or other ideological sentiment not involving an
    election) and there is specific "must be located outside of the public
    right-of-way" language.

    Elaine


    -----Original Message-----

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm really concerned about the names of dirts on the redistricting list. Not that they don't have a right to submit their names -- but how can such dim bulbs all coalesce around a single opportunity that hasn't received much publicity?

    Several of these individuals are biggies in a well known church on the boulevard. Is this cabal attempting a comeback? Stockly is a deacon or something at the Church of the Ascencion.

    I'm thinking a service club is the hatchery for these bad eggs. Perfect place to meet and strategize without causing too much suspicion.

    They're not gone I'm telling you! Just waiting for the right set of circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Their evil plans will come to light on Easter Sunday, the plan to destroy SM will come to light as if it was the ressurection itself, if you happen by a cave on that day and a stone of certain roundness happens across the entrance, please remove it from the entrance, for God Almighty his self will bound out and strike down with vengeance ALL that wish SM harm. And on that day all men of the Biblical names Joseph, John and Joshua shall be taken from this town and all shall breath new air free from the destructive ideology of the taken. FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE'RE FREE AT LAST!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  53. 7:14, don't know if this is true, but somebody said that the Dirts & D.I.C.s are heavily invested in the land game around here.......and that loans will fall due, 'investment associations' will have to reconfigure, lots will need to be sold. In that way of thinking, this election is the most important for them, because if they lose again they'll have to cash in their chips.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I know Kathy Childs is trying to sell her property on East Montecitoin spite of being Moscas Treasurer. It doesn't seem she has too much faith in Joey this time.

    ReplyDelete
  55. For the DICs and DIRTS it's time to pay the piper.

    ReplyDelete