Letters to the editor: End housing allowance

Since it has come to my attention that the city of Covina was employing the same city attorney as Bell, I have made an effort to scrutinize what is happening within our City Hall. Read more
tony

Duarte, CA

#1 Aug 30, 2010
Appropos "Hurting Small Business". Besides: who is the devil is going to open business in the mixed used development? Maybe those who are being forced out of business by the development? and at a vastly increased rental? And who is going to be living in the residential units? Sounds almost as good a project as our three story parking structure. Seems like redevelopment has provided our council with ample opportunity to demonstrate their abysmal ineptitude.

Since: Jun 10

Sun City, CA

#2 Aug 30, 2010
I agree with Denise Berube. I'll take the job for 75,000 dollars. No problem!

Since: Jun 10

Sun City, CA

#3 Aug 30, 2010
Don't I look like a mayor.
livinginazusa

Azusa, CA

#4 Aug 30, 2010
Even if Keith Hanks did not take Vulcan money, others obviously have.

“The Ravaged Canyon City”

Since: Feb 10

Azusa

#5 Aug 30, 2010
I am going to have to say that knowing Keith Hanks character, I am going to have to believe him that he did not take any contributions from Vulcan other than the one he admitted dealing with. Vulcan has however been very astute in doling out money in $5000.00 amounts to various organizations over the years in order to garner support for their corporate raid on our mountains. I only hope that this incorrect rumor was not spread by the strange sandaled fellow that was gathering signatures as a paid flunky.

Since: Feb 10

Azusa, CA

#6 Aug 30, 2010
I believe Keith Hanks took money from Vulcan, as much as I would believe he was up in Mountain Cove during the victory celebration party, paid by Vulcan, taking shots of Patron with other Council Memebers, while boogying and singing karaoke with Eminem.

Which is a pretty much impossible, yet entertaining thought.

“The Ravaged Canyon City”

Since: Feb 10

Azusa

#7 Aug 30, 2010
Yikes, I can't take her anywhere. I actually want to thank Mr. Hanks for his honesty and integrity in dealing with the $500. My question would be, what did everyone else do with theirs?

Since: Feb 10

Azusa, CA

#8 Aug 30, 2010
Members*(I have to correct that every time I type the word. Thankfully I usually catch it before I hit "post comment")

And no, he can't take me anywhere....

Since: Feb 10

Azusa, CA

#9 Aug 30, 2010
What's $500.00 or $5000.00 compared to the tens of thousands of dollars Vulcan just spent sending out those pretty shiny fliers from their "Canyon City Alliance"?

I do believe all of our Councilmen received a bit of free publicity on those.
David

Lancaster, CA

#10 Aug 30, 2010
I too do not believe that Keith Hanks DIRECTLY took money from Vulcan, unlike any of the other council members he has been consistent in his support of Vulcan. However, the victory parties, flyers and other "free" publicity should now be declared on his "Conflicts of Interest / Form 700" as is only right and legal.

In addition, we should check to see if Councilman Hanks listed the "free" legal advice given to him during the last election by Sonia Carvalho. Ms. Carvalho has already been accused of "stacking the deck" in Vulcan's favor by giving legal advice that hid a Claremont city council memberís conflict of interest with Vulcan. Since there is no other reason to try to hide an opinion of a person up for re-election on a matter that is so important to the city, it is obvious that that was the intent here.

Read article:ADVICE OF COUNSEL
http://claremontca.blogspot.com/2010/07/for-w...
David

Lancaster, CA

#11 Aug 30, 2010
BruceBKind wrote:
I only hope that this incorrect rumor was not spread by the strange sandaled fellow that was gathering signatures as a paid flunky.
Interesting, so it seems that the real culprit accusing Councilman Hanks of accepting money from Vulcan was ... Vulcan?

Since: Feb 10

Azusa, CA

#12 Aug 30, 2010
David wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, so it seems that the real culprit accusing Councilman Hanks of accepting money from Vulcan was ... Vulcan?
That was one of the boogers about collecting signatures for the referendum.

Vulcans cronies who were walking around with clip boards collecting signatures for Vulcans petition, could do or say what ever they felt would get a signature. They had no rules to follow and they were paid by the signature, they could get signatures from any Tom, Dick or Harry on the street.

You don't live in Azusa?.....NO PROBLEM.
You aren't a registered Voter?.... NO PROBLEM.
You don't speak English and our petition is only in English? NO PROBLEM.... we will tell you what it says. By the way, what would you like it to say in order for you to sign it?.

So the stories I heard from some of the people whom Vulcan's signature collectors spoke to, were amazing to say the least. I would not doubt they said some crazy things about the City Council members just to get a signature. That's the downside of paying people who have no investment or dedication to a cause.

In contrast, those of us collecting signatures for the referendum were all unpaid volunteers.(Which meant we actually cared about what we were doing.) Who had to carry around 5000 pages (CUP, DA, and EIR) with us, be a registered Azusa Voter and be decently versed on what the DA, CUP and FEIR had to say. Then, we could only collect signatures from registered Azusa Voters.

The people who signed our referendum asked some good, hard lined, detailed questions before signing. I was impressed the details they required before putting their signature to paper. To insinuate they "accidentally signed" the referendum because they were "mislead" , is insulting and demeaning to the citizens of Azusa, to say the very least.

Since: Feb 10

Azusa, CA

#13 Aug 30, 2010
****Richard, for short
David

Lancaster, CA

#14 Aug 31, 2010
JeriV wrote:
<quoted text>
I was impressed the details they required before putting their signature to paper.
Too bad the city does not put Vulcan through the same hoops that it puts its citizens through. If legitimacy and honesty were a requirement for Vulcan as well as the people of Azusa then Vulcan would have left for greener pastures a long time ago.
David

Lancaster, CA

#15 Aug 31, 2010
JeriV wrote:
<quoted text>
To insinuate they "accidentally signed" the referendum because they were "mislead" , is insulting and demeaning to the citizens of Azusa, to say the very least.
Yes, but Vulcan already had four Azusa people vote for them; since they don't need anyone else they can insult and demean the rest of Azusa all they want.

Since: Feb 10

Azusa, CA

#16 Aug 31, 2010
David wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but Vulcan already had four Azusa people vote for them; since they don't need anyone else they can insult and demean the rest of Azusa all they want.
Valid point.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citrus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr stewart scott 29,295
News Council rejects Kare offer (Sep '08) 1 hr Snoop Cat 268
Children briefly trapped after tree falls on ca... 6 hr Pun Down 2
Don't respond to Mr. Negative Liar Tuttle 7 hr Honest John 8
Tuttle's an internet joke 7 hr Honest John 5
Pacheco's little Car wash Buddy playing Compute... 7 hr Honest John 10
Attention All Baldwin Park Staff if Ricardo Pac... 7 hr Honest John 8

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at March 31 at 2:23AM PDT

Citrus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Citrus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]