Subscriber Comments for
The Architectural Board of Review has abstained from voting ...

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 305728	2012-08-08 09:41 AM
Wow - are we now living in Stalinist Russia? The Chick-Fil-A exec has every 1st Amendment right to speak his mind freely (except to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.) We have every right to disagree, protest and/or vote with our feet at his establishment. The local ABR, however, has no right to ignore its purpose for reasons unrelated to the topic at hand - namely architectural review. The abstaining members should be immediately removed if they fail to resign.
COMMENT 305736	2012-08-08 09:46 AM
What a bunch of wimps. When they are demanding unreasonable changes to my small remodel, they seem to have iron will...This is a cowardly way to avoid controversy.
COMMENT 305737	2012-08-08 09:47 AM
I vote that we say screw Chick-Fil-A and put in a Del Taco :)
COMMENT 305738P	2012-08-08 09:47 AM
The entire board should be replaced (unless the absent Chair and Vice Chair had good excuses.) The only one on that Board that has been fair-minded is the Vice-Chair, Zink.
COMMENT 305739	2012-08-08 09:48 AM
@728 I completely agree. If you disagree with his personal views, as I do, then don't eat there. That's the power you have as a consumer.
COMMENT 305741	2012-08-08 09:49 AM
ick. ARB, soooo SB of you all to make this kind of statement. Please re-read your job description. IMHO, the reaction to CFA is both embarrassing and heartening. We have the RIGHT in this country to freedom of religion. We have the RIGHT of freedom of speech. Both of those rights are being expressed in this public debate. It's a healthy process. We need to do this to peel back rhetoric, vitriol and ignorance. So, go have a chicken sandwich if you will, or not - it's your CHOICE. Thank your lucky stars you live in America where you can make a fool of yourself over your beliefs. SB ARB - do your darn job and stick to the facts and guidelines - your job isn't to politic this issue - it's to uphold architectural guidelines. What you do with your private time is another matter. What you do on the ARB should be strictly business, and you don't have a dog in this CFA 'fight'
COMMENT 305744P	2012-08-08 09:50 AM
Wow abstaining is like the weakest thing a public official can do, unless he or she has a direct financial conflict. They should resign. Ps i support gay marriage
COMMENT 305746	2012-08-08 09:52 AM
give us our Chick-Fil-A and preserve and uphold the Constitution! Shame on you board of review!
COMMENT 305749	2012-08-08 09:54 AM
Absolutely terrible. FIRE THE ABR.
ROGER DODGER	2012-08-08 09:57 AM
Does the board get paid? While Chic-fil-a doesn't believe in Gay marrage will they hire Gay people?
COMMENT 305753	2012-08-08 09:57 AM
The mole hill becomes a mountain. Though I can understand the emotional reasoning behind the ARB to table the vote, and I support that.
COMMENT 305754	2012-08-08 09:58 AM
Shame on the board! Support free speech! This isn't Russia!
COMMENT 305755	2012-08-08 09:59 AM
I'm a complete supporter of gay marriage, and will choose not to support Chik-fil-A, but the ABR is not there to make a political statement. They need to review the project on it's merits alone, separate from their political views of the company and/or it's CEO.
COMMENT 305758	2012-08-08 10:03 AM
Other local boards have members who act as if they have total power to do whatever they want to do. The public needs to be constantly watchful or let arrogance of individual power take over the elected mandate to play by the rules. This is the second time individual ABR members have egregiously over-stepped their limited authority. Boardsmenship is an anathema concept to those raised in the me-generation.
COMMENT 305759P	2012-08-08 10:04 AM
I don't think ABR should have responded like this either...BUT, can we not all agree that it is better for them to have abstained from voting than to have voted based on their own personal optinions? They do have the right to abstain from voting as part of the job description when their personal or political beliefs are going to affect their decisions...is this not that exact situation? I don't agree with it completely, but I agree with the basis for abstaining from voting. I would much rather have this annoyance than a corrupted, biased voting process.
COMMENT 305762P	2012-08-08 10:09 AM
ABR: what a joke. I had a small remodel not too long ago. I had to go before them 3 times with different plans before being approved. And guess what? They approved the first plan that was submitted and rejected. I'd sure like to get the time and money back that I had to waste with these yoyos. But if a fellow architect wants to build something ugly, they allow it. Just look at the ugly building on the corner of Garden and Gutierrez. This corner is a gateway to our city and the ABR allows architecture that is ugly and doesn't conform to the architectural context of this city.
COMMENT 305764	2012-08-08 10:10 AM
ABR is a group of arrogant tyrants.
COMMENT 305765	2012-08-08 10:10 AM
It would be interesting if all these government agencies were to subject all businesses, non profits, and churches to the same kind of test of beliefs.
COMMENT 305767	2012-08-08 10:12 AM
Is abstaining not an aspect of protest or free speech as well? As long as they understand that they can potentially lose their position on the board, they have every right to do so. As I see it, this is no different than when, years ago, the mayor of SF signed marriage licenses for gay couples when it was not legal. As mayor, he had the duty to uphold the law, but he essentially did a political protest by signing them based on his beliefs. He endagered his position as a public official by doing so, but he had every right to stand up for a belief in a manner that doesn't hurt others. PS I am pro Gay Marriage, Free Speech, and Free market.
COMMENT 305770	2012-08-08 10:19 AM
Ridiculous!! This is state interference with religion, and this is discrimination by the government based on religion! Something has to be done!!!
COMMENT 305772	2012-08-08 10:21 AM
ABR is the architectural review board is for architecture that's all- not holding a building project hostage because they don't agree with the CEO's right to Freedom of Speech. I smell lawsuit--better be careful.
COMMENT 305775	2012-08-08 10:29 AM
Table the matter for two weeks, then BURY the project with all sorts of new modifications and restrictions.
COMMENT 305776P	2012-08-08 10:30 AM
I am straight and have been married for 52 years. My adult children are straight - some married, some not. I support gay marriage. All of that being said, what the ARB did is disgraceful. The owners of Chick-Fill-A have every right to their point of view no matter how obnoxious we think it is. They do not refuse to serve, nor do they refuse to hire gays and they do not refuse franchises to gays, which would be against the law. They do demand that their franchises not be opened on Sunday, but that is not against the law. The option we have is to abstain from purchasing what they sell. This is America people. We all have the right to do that which does not offend our ethics as long as it is within the law.
COMMENT 305780	2012-08-08 10:40 AM
I expect any public official to put their personal/religious beliefs aside anytime they are making decisions for the public good. They have a job to do, and part of that job is to remain objective. All the ARB is there to do is to be sure that the plans submitted comply with local ordinances. That's as objective as it gets. There is no place for political posturing here. All the abstaining members did was make themselves look like ninnies. I'm super liberal, pro-gay marriage, and I believe the constitution should be defended at all times, not just when it suits one movement or ideology or another. If you don't support CFA, don't give them your business. Stop fueling the right by denying them their constitutional right to conduct their business and to exercise their rights to free speech and religion.
COMMENT 305728	2012-08-08 10:42 AM
@775 - I'm presuming that you are not simply trying to be cute and witty, but that you advocate discriminating against the business because of the disagreeable opinion of the executive. If true, would you want your own business to be "buried" because bureaucrats waged guerrilla warfare against you due to different political/religious opinions from your own? If yes, as I said in the first post on this thread, "Welcome to Stalinist Russia."
COMMENT 305782P	2012-08-08 10:42 AM
Disgraceful indeed. Shame on the ARB for not being able to set aside their feelings from their duties.
COMMENT 305783	2012-08-08 10:45 AM
I agree - the ABR failed. I do support gay marriage and will never eat at that restaurant.
REXOFSB	2012-08-08 10:45 AM
@775 proposes the best solution possible. And based on past performance by city boards, that type of bureaucracy would go completely unnoticed.
COMMENT 305786	2012-08-08 10:48 AM
I am gay. My partner and I have been together 9 years. While I disagree with Dan Cathy's positions, I feel more strongly that Freedom of Speech should continue to be the law of the land. What the ABR did was cowardly, and potentially opens up the city to litigation. If you disagree with Chick Fil A and their founder, simply do not patronize their establishment. But never, ever use an entity like the ABR to stifle freedom of speech.
COMMENT 305787	2012-08-08 10:49 AM
If I was head of Chick-Fil-A I would immediately sue the ABR. And I would win. Shame on the ABR.
COMMENT 305788	2012-08-08 10:50 AM
Roger: Here is a statement from their careers web page - looks like they hire just about anybody: *** Chick-fil-A, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in employment decisions based on any factor protected by federal, state or local law. *** ABR: What are you going to do next - screw a church, or non-profit you don't agree with? Deny Spearmint Rhino a remodel permit 'cause you don't like them, either? This is a sad day. Please all resign in discrace, or run for council if you wish to be political.
COMMENT 305796	2012-08-08 11:10 AM
I think the CEO of Chick Fil A is a complete moron, and would be happiest if his business went down in flames. That being said, what the ABR did is NOT the correct way to address the situation. You address it like an adult and protest it like General Mills cereal.
SHOREBIRD	2012-08-08 11:11 AM
I am glad that Chick-fil-hate is coming to Santa Barbara. That way I can boycott it locally and spread the word to other people who respect humanity.
COMMENT 305799	2012-08-08 11:14 AM
@788 If you were going to rob a bank, would you put a sign in your car window saying "Hello, officers! I'm a bank robber!"? Of course not--nobody advertises when they're breaking the law. So...why do you think Chick-fil-A would post the truth on their website: "We are a Christian corporation, and as such, we do not hire those whom we define as infidels, degenerates, sub-humans, etc..."
COMMENT 305805	2012-08-08 11:18 AM
WHAT A BUNCH OF JERKS! Isn't nice that any governmental agency can decide they can legally step outside of their mandated scope and screw with anyone just because they don't agree with their politics?? I hope they get their arses sued. They deserve a good trouncing. Your tax dollars hardly at work.
COMMENT 305762P	2012-08-08 11:24 AM
Here's what I am going to do: I won't go to Chick Fil A because of their owner's beliefs and I won't use the architects on the ABR because of their lack of belief in the First Amendment.
COMMENT 305737	2012-08-08 11:30 AM
Our constitutional rights are tested and broken on a daily basis and we say nothing.. But our city is doing what they can to show that we wont put up with the intolerant, and we cry foul. Am I missing something here??
COMMENT 305810	2012-08-08 11:31 AM
I will take my family there and recommend it to all of our friends - If the lines in LA & Santa Ana are any indication this place will do really well at that location......New jobs, local tax's - Its all good - as is the Chicken
COMMENT 305813	2012-08-08 11:33 AM
This will result in more of our tax dollars wasted defending the ABR from a (justified) lawsuit. Does anyone know if litigation can be directed at the ABR members themselves? Or is the city obligated to defend them even if they're sued directly for actions taken as an ABR member?
COMMENT 305823	2012-08-08 11:46 AM
Hiding your ignorance and hate behind the veil of the Bible is not virtuous or righteous, its emblematic of ignorance and hate and shows the world that you have a weak mind and spirit. The ARB are the most self aggrandizing people in the land.
COMMENT 305828P	2012-08-08 11:55 AM
305737 Actually I think most people here are saying something about constitutional rights. I support marriage equality but don't support a city government board acting to punish persons for exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech. We as residents have a right to boycott Chick Fil A if we disagree with them, government doesn't have the right to punish them for that. Its odd how you can decry rights being eroded yet support this attack on a fundamental right.
COMMENT 305834	2012-08-08 12:06 PM
The people lining up at Chick-Fil-A restaurants to support them reminds me of The Simpsons. Crusty the Clown and Cletus Spuckley and Ralph Wiggum all worked up. What is next, Annual "Snake Whacking Day"?
COMMENT 305728	2012-08-08 12:19 PM
If they do not resign or get fired, the newly-politicized ABR members can wreak havoc on the 1st Amendment until: 1. Chris Gilliland Term Ends 12/31/2012 2. Kirk B. Gradin Term Ends 12/31/2015 3. Gary Mosel Term Ends 12/31/2013 4. Stephanie Poole Term Ends 12/31/2015 5. Keith Rivera Term Ends 12/31/2012 6. Dawn Sherry Term Ends 12/31/2012 7. Paul Zink Term Ends 12/31/2014
COMMENT 305796	2012-08-08 12:32 PM
834: Agreed.
COMMENT 305861	2012-08-08 01:08 PM
The mistake Cathy made was saying how he feels in national media. Plenty of business people and employees have feelings about a variety of subjects we might find offensive. You just don't know what they are, whereas you do with Chick-Fil-A. If you know someone's views and they offend you, then don't spend any money there. But very few of us knows how anyone we do business with feels about anything. The second mistake was the ABR, drunk on their power as usual, made their views known too, in blocking this project. That is not their charter, to determine whose views are 'acceptable enough' to get approval for a building. Santa Barbara looks mean and small today, when it's Chick-Fil-A we all thought was mean and small.
COMMENT 305864	2012-08-08 01:10 PM
ARB-FTL - really? I can just feel the gear oil burning. And a simple note for the pending restaurant - never, ever put your political views on front street. People go there to eat and develop diabetes. Don't get in the way of that.
COMMENT 305810	2012-08-08 01:16 PM
834 - This thread reminds me of south parks - Smug Alert -
COMMENT 305775	2012-08-08 01:19 PM
I can't wait for South Park to come with a parody of Chick-fil-a!
COMMENT 305879P	2012-08-08 01:21 PM
Am a gay, liberal and agree with mayor Helene's comments totally.
COMMENT 305737	2012-08-08 01:57 PM
@861 & All of you... You do know that the Chick-Fil-A company also donated more then $2 million dollars to anti-gay campaigns. I think this is a little more then the action of Dan Cathy.. This is the thought and action of the entire company or at least the board that approves such donations. I would be happy if Chick-Fil-A did not come to my city...
COMMENT 305905	2012-08-08 02:02 PM
@737- Then you are just as discrimantory as you think Chick-Fil-A is.
COMMENT 305772	2012-08-08 02:06 PM
Kudos to the Mayor for her statement about the ARB acting inappropriately.
COMMENT 305738P	2012-08-08 02:07 PM
305759P --- No, they should not have abstained; as another commenter pointed out, it is the weakest move of a board member, unwilling to decide between yes or no. Instead, if they had conflicts, they should have recused themselves from making a decision. It would have presented an interesting situation, an entire board recusing with conflicts, but better than this idiocy. Instead, they made fools of themselves and and of the ABR and of Santa Barbara; they should be asked to resign or be removed, as the prior ABR member, Clay Aurell, resigned before being fined by the FPPC.
COMMENT 305728	2012-08-08 02:09 PM
What happened to the Helene Schneider thread? Looks like it was pulled. Why?
COMMENT 305810	2012-08-08 02:17 PM
What would be great is if we could get S. Palin to help out with the grand opening - OMG - there would be wide spread panic in the streets of ol SB -
COMMENT 305775	2012-08-08 02:20 PM
Agree with 728. Where did the Helene Schneider thread go?
COMMENT 305754	2012-08-08 02:29 PM
What happened to the Helene Schneider thread?
CHERPLAN	2012-08-08 02:31 PM
I don't believe that it is possible to ascertain why an appointed or elected official decides to abstain on a particular vote. They have that right, and don't have to say why. However, perhaps the ABR should reconsider the case when they have a majority of members in attendance.
COMMENT 305941P	2012-08-08 02:52 PM
Cherplan - It was always my understanding that abstentions are only proper if 1)there is conflict of interest or 2)if there is insufficent information to make a decision. Abstaining is a power not a right. There is no "right" to abstain for other reasons, such as political differences, can't decide how to vote, etc. The five abstainers in this case should have disclosed to the City Council when they applied for appointments that they planned to abstain when they had a different political viewpoint than the applicant. If they had, they probably would never have been appointed in the first place.
SHOREBIRD	2012-08-08 02:54 PM
- 775 I'd bet that the South Park writers are already on it. They have a special way of showcasing hateful people.
COMMENT 305950	2012-08-08 03:00 PM
ALL VOLUNTEER BOARD being the important part you all seem to have missed, can you guys read the article at least before condemning the ABR. They have every right to abstain from a vote in fact it would be wrong for them to vote if they for personal reasons felt they could not vote objectively. Not cowardly not politicizing just the correct action if they felt unable to be objective. There will be no lawsuit because there is no one to sue. They are acting within the same rights as the Chik-fil-a ceo. Those rights are not necessarily free from repercussion for either of these groups. If you so strongly feel that these volunteers should be replaced perhaps YOU can volunteer your time and experience as an ABR member. For the record, I have appeared before the board and would not normally have much good to say about them other than that they give of their time generously.
COMMENT 305758	2012-08-08 03:17 PM
I believe a certain gentleman was elected to the highest office in our land after a string of voting "present" while in the state legislature. The benefits of voting "present" (aka abstaining but making sure you still get paid for showing up) is there is no public record to criticize when one has later aspirations for higher office. Neat, and the majority of American voters thought voting "present" was just fine a few years ago. If one does abstain, it is better to form their reasons according to their powers and duties and not use it as an opportunity to grandstand on some totally irrelevant matter. That is what was so offensive about this action. Abstaining on appropriate grounds is appropriate.
COMMENT 305970	2012-08-08 03:33 PM
Volunteer 758, volunteers! No one was abstaining to get paid here. They acted as they would if their neighbors house was up for review, abstain on the grounds that they would be unable to vote objectively. Now if they had voted no and done so on political grounds you would have a right to complain but abstaining ones self on an inability to vote impartially, that is the correct response of any board member. Just to be clear here as you seemed to have missed this point. ALL VOLUNTEER BOARD.
COMMENT 305975P	2012-08-08 03:40 PM
Proof that the ABR and the SFDB are a waste of time and money. The SFDB runs their own agenda too. The jobs for both of these boards are to follow the guidelines and get the job done. Too many times they allow outside comments to cloud their judgment. Whether it's from complaining neighbors or the local press it should have nothing to do with the out come for the applicant. No wonder so many businesses leave SB for Texas.
COMMENT 305976	2012-08-08 03:42 PM
Chick-Fil-A is not the only local vendor with a public pov ... Forever 21 has received attention in the media for printing "John 3:16" on the bottom of their trademark yellow bags. A Spokeswoman from Forever 21's LA headquarters said the Biblical quote is a "demonstration of the owners' Christian faith." (A similar practice has been maintained by the In-N-Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A chains, which prints the quote "John 3:16" on the bottom of some of its cups.) ... freedom of speech, y'all! If it offends, do not partake ... freedom of choice, y'all! ... it's the beauty of our country.
COMMENT 305767	2012-08-08 04:13 PM
@305976 - That's like saying "I love God" and "I hate Gay People" are the same thing. They are in fact opposites. While the COO had every right to express his feelings towards gay marriage, everyone else has the right to be offended by a message of hate. That being said, #305758 is on the money. Regardless of what you think of the board, their actions don't deserve such a level of condemnation. You can disagree with it, but why does there have to be so much hatred (especially from a community that is known to support Gay rights). It was simple political protest, it didn't hurt anyone, just wasted some people's time one afternoon. It's going to get approved, we all know that, they were just making a point (no different than any number of non-violent protests made around the world)
COMMENT 305823	2012-08-08 04:17 PM
What we really need is to have civics taught to every single American - most of you havent a clue what the constitution actually states let alone how our local govt. functions... and that's almost as sad as the ignorant fueled hate spewed forth by those who call themselves Christians...
COMMENT 305990	2012-08-08 04:18 PM
As a non supporter of gay mariage, and lover of hamburgers..... This aint getting me into your chicken shack! But Kudos to the cause!
COMMENT 305796	2012-08-08 04:28 PM
The fact that the company engulfs itself in religion THAT much really makes me question how impartial they are during the hiring process. To think corporate has that much control over the franchise makes me wonder how easy it would be to get a job while openly professing an alternate god. As law abiding as they say they are, I don't believe they are as impartial as claim. Cult is right, just don't drink the kool aid corporate provides at the outings.
COMMENT 306004P	2012-08-08 04:44 PM
if you're going to cite the first amendment to the constitution in defense of cfa, wouldn't denying gays the right to marriage (which can be interpreted as a "public trust") in the name of religious ideology also be in direct violation of article IV paragraph 3 of the first amendment? i find the cries of free speech violation hypocritical and ironic. from the constitution: "....but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." i'm pretty clueless when it comes to legal matters but to me it seems that denying gays the right to marriage because of religious ideologies is unconstitutional...
COMMENT 305788	2012-08-08 05:02 PM
I notice a lot of comments here refer to Mr. Cathy's remarks to the Baptist Press as "hate" speech. Gets me to wondering... how do we define "hate" speech. If someone quotes Romans Ch. 1 is that hate speech? If someone says we should electrify the border fence with Mexico, is that hate? If someone says members of a certain religion (Christianity, perhaps) should not be allowed to publicly hold certain politically incorrect viewpoints, is that "hate"? Seems like the words "hate" and its friend "bigot" are thrown around a lot by the intolerant these days.
COMMENT 305810	2012-08-08 05:11 PM
Just read an article that says Chik is setting sales records in all 37 states they have restaurants..... Company says they welcome protests and all boycotts / McDonald's is giving protesters free coupons for their chicken sandwich - getting in on the 15 minutes of POP USA ..... How many major religions denounce gay marriage.... all I see here is anti christian .....
COMMENT 306027	2012-08-08 05:12 PM
Does believing that marriage is only between a man and a woman automatically mean you HATE gay people?
COMMENT 306031	2012-08-08 05:16 PM
I don't think it means you hate LGBT people, 027. Hate's a strong word. Personally? I would say it makes you kind of intolerant, but there's a lot of people in the world who are intolerant about a lot of different things, so.
COMMENT 305950	2012-08-08 05:22 PM
No 027 Believing that doesn't mean you hate gay people but actively seeking to stop it happening because of those beliefs does. Donating to anti gay marriage campaigns does, Speaking that belief in the hope of turning someone else towards that way of thinking does. Hold your beliefs and answer to your god but leave everyone else alone. Christians could learn a few things from Christ if they stopped holding on so hard to old testament ideas
COMMENT 305976	2012-08-08 05:46 PM
The point i take away from all of this is the freedom to have an opinion and not be afraid to speak your mind and be true to yourself. I personally am a vegetarian, but I don't criticize others for eating meat. And if I am criticized or misunderstood for choosing my particular eating habits, I shrug it off and chalk it up to differences of opinion and diversity. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am an independent and grounded person and it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks of me, as long as I'm secure in my own skin. I mean seriously this whole debacle is like if I were on the board and vetoed chik-fil-a because I don't believe in eating animals. Can't we all just get along?!
COMMENT 305749	2012-08-08 05:49 PM
Chik aside, its notable I actually agree with SY on two recent posts (this + immunizations) after a long long string otherwise.
COMMENT 306056	2012-08-08 06:26 PM
See, 749. There's always consensus to be found! :)
COMMENT 306177	2012-08-09 08:14 AM
Our government officials continue to fail us.
COMMENT 305758	2012-08-09 08:56 AM
"Hate speech" is the new race card. McCarthyism continues to thrive in new clothes.
COMMENT 306217	2012-08-09 08:57 AM
They should all be terminated immediately. Their job is to impartially evaluate aesthetic and related features of projects which they are reviewing. Two of the members revealed that they were using political criteria and attempting to stall a simple design feature in an approved plan for political motives, which is absolutely forbidden. The other three are playing the same game but now trying to find other excuses for their improper abstentions, when it is clear they were doing the same thing. They all need to be FIRED IMMEDIATELY!
COMMENT 306261	2012-08-09 10:09 AM
BOYCOTT Chick-Fil-A. And any company that promotes discrimination against any group of persons. Shame on Chick-Fil-A. I will NEVER eat there.
COMMENT 306027	2012-08-09 10:35 AM
Any restaurant that serves meat dishes discriminates against vegetarians and their beliefs. Lets boycott all restaurants!!! yay!
COMMENT 306424	2012-08-09 02:21 PM
So will the people who habitually deride Mayor Schneider display the intellectual honesty of applauding her stance here that they certainly agree with? I won't hold my breath.
COMMENT 306514P	2012-08-09 04:48 PM
Yes -fire them all and sooner rather than later. The citizens of SB have suffered their arrogance and corruption way too long. In appointing a new board the City Council and Mayor should seriously consider having a board consisting of two architects and the rest should be citizens of the city. The cronyism that is the inevitable end result of having an all-architect board is archaic and detrimental. Pearl Chase was not an architect but she sure had a damn good eye and knew how to get the job done. There are many amongst us who would take the responsibility setiously and not use it for personal promotion or a platform.
COMMENT 306514P	2012-08-09 05:07 PM
Q: Has it occurred to anyone else that the only way the board could have come to the unanimous decision to abstain was because they somehow conferred on the issue in advance of the meeting and discussed their positions an stratagy? Does anyone believe the cohesiveness of the board's actions was mere coincidence? I don't. Instead I suspect a violation of the Brown Act. Makes me wonder what other violations of the public trust they have committed. They are public servants and owe a duty to every citizen of SB. Toss 'em - they don't deserve the appointments. Shame on each and every one of them, Brown Act violation or not!
COMMENT 306923	2012-08-10 01:55 PM
To those who say the company has done nothing except have anti-gay views...check this out. http://www.joshuakennon.com/chick-fil-a-anti-gay/ the company actively give money, publicity, and verbalizes bigotry and hate towards the LGBTQ community. It is well documented, and factual. Please done minimize it or justify it. Just call them bigots.

23% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

*** 2 comments were deleted from this thread by the Edhat Board Nanny for violating Edhat Comments Board policy. Click Here to see them.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY