.
Feedback

Widower of Houlihan Rips Council for Obscuring Her Image on Banners

“It’s shameful that you would try to marginalize and detract from [her] legacy,” he tells council.

The husband of late Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan has blasted the City Council for covering up her image on the backs of banners hung on lampposts as part of the Arts Alive program, according to a report in The Coast News.

“It’s shameful that you would try to marginalize and detract from the legacy of a woman who made so many contributions in so many ways to this community, especially in death when she is no longer able to defend herself,” the paper quoted widower Ian Thompson as telling the Encinitas City Council at its Wednesday meeting.

The Coast News reported:

Organizers of the Arts Alive banner program, a decades-old tradition where local artists create works of art on banners to hang on street side lampposts and later auction off, sought to display a likeness of Houlihan, on the backs of the banners only to be denied by City Manager Gus Vina during the permitting process. The banners received the necessary permits after organizers decided to place a blue vinyl sticker over Houlihan’s image, which could be removed once the banners came down.

The Encinitas-based paper said attorneys for the Coast Law Group and ACLU warned the council that its decision amounts to ‘viewpoint’ decision-making and is a violation of the First Amendment.”

Livia Borak, an attorney at Coast Law Group, was quoted by The Coast News as saying:  “These rules cannot be made on the spot, they simply cannot.”

Houlihan, first elected to the council in 2000, died in mid-September at age 63 after a battle with endometrial cancer.

Julie Graboi March 30, 2012 at 03:11 pm
I was the 5th speaker during the Oral Communications segment of the March 28 Council meeting. After Mr. Thompson’s presentation and it was noted that the 6th speaker was Livia Borak, representing Coast Law Group, I thought it important for Mr. Thompson’s lawyer to have the opportunity to comment. I went to the City Clerk and asked if I could offer my spot to Ms. Borak, and was told that this was not allowed.
I am deeply offended that this decision deprived Mr. Thompson of an opportunity to continue the discussion about an issue that is so personal to him, and which is equally important to many others in Encinitas. Moreover, I find it disrespectful to Livia Borak, who in addition to representing Coast Law Group, is also an Encinitas citizen. Couldn’t there have been a better option than making her wait 4 ½ hours to do a 3 minute oral presentation?
Lynn Marr March 31, 2012 at 09:29 pm
How disappointing that Julie Graboi was told she could not bow out of speaking during oral communications, so that Liva Borak could speak at the beginning of the meeting. NO CODE and no policy disallows that!
I had asked, during my 3 minutes of oral communications, that one extra speaker might be heard. The new policy, which was initiated under Jerome Stocks, as I recall, to force any speakers over 5 to wait until after all agenda items are heard, was "memorialized," as far as I can understand, with the same resolution in which it was determined personal electronic devices cannot be used on the dais. However, an allowance IS MADE in the new policy, for the presiding officer to allow for additional time at the beginning of the meeting with a consensus of Council. Julie is correct, to make one person wait 4 1/2 hours to speak for 3 minutes is not about saving time, for Council. It's about demeaning the public and proving that the mayor has "absolute" control. Current Mayor Stocks is clearly a "control freak," as is evidenced by his direction to our City Manager that the banners could not be permitted with Maggie's image on the back. Stocks can no longer touch Maggie Houlihan. She is beyond his petty, vindictive treatment of her, while alive, and now, after her untimely death on 9/16/11. Russell and I attended Maggie's memorial at Cottonwood Creek. We now understand that a permit was refused for that ceremony, as well, although it was held, anyway!
Lynn Marr April 10, 2012 at 08:08 pm
This is to let everyone know who is passionate about our First Amendment Rights, that the special meeting has been scheduled at 4:30, tomorrow afternoon, 4/11/12, re significant exposure to litigation and the letters received from the city by attorneys from ACLU and Coast Law Group on behalf of Ian Thompson, and the citizens of Encinitas regarding the illegal banning of the image of Maggie Houlihan on the back of the Arts Alive Banners, as a tribute to a much beloved member of our community, now deceased. Anyone can speak, with time donations, if submitted, on this topic, before Council, the City Manager, the Clerk go into closed chambers. Many of us are hopeful this can be resolved without litigation, by simply removing, after tomorrow, the blue stickers which have temporarily been placed over Maggie's likeness, through the City Manager's office, at the direction of current mayor Jerome Stocks.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
Mary E June 19, 2013 at 04:01 pm
do you get a donation receipt for tax purposes?
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.