<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: City Attorney responds (a little snarkily) to homeless-property lawsuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lastblogonearth.com/2009/12/04/city-attorney-responds-a-little-snarkily-to-homeless-property-lawsuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lastblogonearth.com/2009/12/04/city-attorney-responds-a-little-snarkily-to-homeless-property-lawsuit/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:56:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Skinner</title>
		<link>http://lastblogonearth.com/2009/12/04/city-attorney-responds-a-little-snarkily-to-homeless-property-lawsuit/#comment-19427</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Skinner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lastblogonearth.com/?p=8492#comment-19427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have written Judge Goldsmith many letters.  His office has no response except to complain to my attorney.  I am being charged for sending obscene and threatening emails to my girlfriend&#039;s exhusband, who fabricated the emails after I filed for a temporary restraining order (which was granted).  The harassment from the Ex has stopped but the City Attorney is taking me to trial with only the evidence of hard-copies of fabricated emails.  My attorney subpoenaed the originals and they don&#039;t exist.  I would love to talk to the City Attorney&#039;s Office and hear there theory to prosecute.  There is nothing more to this...except the alledged victim has spit in my face, broken the tail lights of my truck and harrassed me into changing my phone number twice.  I have a voice-mail of him threatening to kill me too.  Talk to me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have written Judge Goldsmith many letters.  His office has no response except to complain to my attorney.  I am being charged for sending obscene and threatening emails to my girlfriend&#8217;s exhusband, who fabricated the emails after I filed for a temporary restraining order (which was granted).  The harassment from the Ex has stopped but the City Attorney is taking me to trial with only the evidence of hard-copies of fabricated emails.  My attorney subpoenaed the originals and they don&#8217;t exist.  I would love to talk to the City Attorney&#8217;s Office and hear there theory to prosecute.  There is nothing more to this&#8230;except the alledged victim has spit in my face, broken the tail lights of my truck and harrassed me into changing my phone number twice.  I have a voice-mail of him threatening to kill me too.  Talk to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: La Playa Heritage</title>
		<link>http://lastblogonearth.com/2009/12/04/city-attorney-responds-a-little-snarkily-to-homeless-property-lawsuit/#comment-19301</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[La Playa Heritage]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lastblogonearth.com/?p=8492#comment-19301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.flickr.com/photos/laplayaheritage/3062944212/sizes/o/in/set-72157610163724967/

We have a Code Compliance case from October 2008 that has not been resolved by the City Attorney&#039;s office. We would like the issue to be finalized before the June 8, 2010 California Elections so that everyone understands the law.

Naval Training Center NTC/Liberty Station is owned by the City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (the City Council) and is on public property. McMillin is the tenant on the $1 lease and then subleases to other business. McMillian and NTC leases are subject to the NTC Sign Plan which does not allow non-conforming signs. The photographs show large Election Campaign signs for &quot;Judge Jan Goldsmith for City Attorney&quot; on public City-owned property at North Harbor Drive and Laning Road. For the June 2008 election there were many ReElect Jerry Sanders for Mayor campaign signs around NTC. 

When this issue was brought up to Code Compliance by many Point Lomans, Code Compliance stated McMillin owned the public reclaimed tidelands and they were allowed to put up campaign signs on their private property according to First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

&quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.&quot;

In early 2009 the City Council asked the City Attorney&#039;s office to write a Legal Opinion regarding Campaign signs on public property. Instead the City Council request has been ignored and no Legal Opinion was issued by the City Attorney&#039;s office. Even without the City Attorney&#039;s Legal Opinion, we hope McMillin understand that NTC/Liberty Station is public land and Campaign signs are not allowed on our public property. 

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pcreports/07074.pdf

The Neighborhood Use Permit No. 274911 for the NTC/Liberty Station Sign Plan (Project No. 86572) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2007. At this time the Environmental Impact Report Addendum 86572 was certified which did not allow any other signs on our public property which was not specifically approved in the Sign Plan. 

McMillin agree to abide by the Lease, the NTC Reuse Plan, the Precise Plan, and Sign Plan which was presented at Public Meetings at the City of San Diego Historic Resources Board, the Peninsula Community Planning Board, the Point Loma Asssociation, and the Airport Authority and is part of the NTC Visitor and Community Emphasis Overlay (VCEO) Zone.

Maybe if McMillin paid the going rate to taxpayers (instead of $1) to lease the public tidelands area and the approved Sign Plan and Permit did not exist. Instead of resolving the outstanding Code Violation by issuing a Legal Opinion based on the law, the City Attorney just ignored the issue and the request by the City Council. No one knows what will happen at the next election cycle in June 2010 when McMilin puts up Political signs for the Republican party.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laplayaheritage/3062944212/sizes/o/in/set-72157610163724967/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/laplayaheritage/3062944212/sizes/o/in/set-72157610163724967/</a></p>
<p>We have a Code Compliance case from October 2008 that has not been resolved by the City Attorney&#8217;s office. We would like the issue to be finalized before the June 8, 2010 California Elections so that everyone understands the law.</p>
<p>Naval Training Center NTC/Liberty Station is owned by the City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (the City Council) and is on public property. McMillin is the tenant on the $1 lease and then subleases to other business. McMillian and NTC leases are subject to the NTC Sign Plan which does not allow non-conforming signs. The photographs show large Election Campaign signs for &#8220;Judge Jan Goldsmith for City Attorney&#8221; on public City-owned property at North Harbor Drive and Laning Road. For the June 2008 election there were many ReElect Jerry Sanders for Mayor campaign signs around NTC. </p>
<p>When this issue was brought up to Code Compliance by many Point Lomans, Code Compliance stated McMillin owned the public reclaimed tidelands and they were allowed to put up campaign signs on their private property according to First Amendment of the United States Constitution:</p>
<p>&#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.&#8221;</p>
<p>In early 2009 the City Council asked the City Attorney&#8217;s office to write a Legal Opinion regarding Campaign signs on public property. Instead the City Council request has been ignored and no Legal Opinion was issued by the City Attorney&#8217;s office. Even without the City Attorney&#8217;s Legal Opinion, we hope McMillin understand that NTC/Liberty Station is public land and Campaign signs are not allowed on our public property. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pcreports/07074.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pcreports/07074.pdf</a></p>
<p>The Neighborhood Use Permit No. 274911 for the NTC/Liberty Station Sign Plan (Project No. 86572) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2007. At this time the Environmental Impact Report Addendum 86572 was certified which did not allow any other signs on our public property which was not specifically approved in the Sign Plan. </p>
<p>McMillin agree to abide by the Lease, the NTC Reuse Plan, the Precise Plan, and Sign Plan which was presented at Public Meetings at the City of San Diego Historic Resources Board, the Peninsula Community Planning Board, the Point Loma Asssociation, and the Airport Authority and is part of the NTC Visitor and Community Emphasis Overlay (VCEO) Zone.</p>
<p>Maybe if McMillin paid the going rate to taxpayers (instead of $1) to lease the public tidelands area and the approved Sign Plan and Permit did not exist. Instead of resolving the outstanding Code Violation by issuing a Legal Opinion based on the law, the City Attorney just ignored the issue and the request by the City Council. No one knows what will happen at the next election cycle in June 2010 when McMilin puts up Political signs for the Republican party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Maass</title>
		<link>http://lastblogonearth.com/2009/12/04/city-attorney-responds-a-little-snarkily-to-homeless-property-lawsuit/#comment-19299</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Maass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lastblogonearth.com/?p=8492#comment-19299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A little snarkily?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A little snarkily?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judicial Constraints?</title>
		<link>http://lastblogonearth.com/2009/12/04/city-attorney-responds-a-little-snarkily-to-homeless-property-lawsuit/#comment-19298</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Judicial Constraints?]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lastblogonearth.com/?p=8492#comment-19298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Concerning Mr. G-smith&#039;s statement about &quot;failure to talk first... clearly indicate...motivation&quot;: Would a judge truly reject an otherwise legit  suit on that basis?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Concerning Mr. G-smith&#8217;s statement about &#8220;failure to talk first&#8230; clearly indicate&#8230;motivation&#8221;: Would a judge truly reject an otherwise legit  suit on that basis?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

