Frost's residence Palo Alto Issues, posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 5:59 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Our City Attorney said the address on the envelope shown is a legitimate address - the USPS disagrees. Palo Alto could save money, instead of an attorney just buy a fortune cookie whenever a legal opinion is needed.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 12:45 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
With the exception of squirrels and birds, utility poles are not residences. But wait - that might be the loophole.
The California Housing Code lists minimum requirements for a residential unit. The City Attorney, by abetting Frost's claim, may be committing a misprision of a felony. Ask any competent lawyer to define that to you. Check Wiki for their definitions.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 4:48 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The last time I looked I was not Big Government. I am however an affected citizen who believes words have generally accepted, often clearly defined meanings. When someone says a boy is a dog is a rat or war is peace and love is hate I will hand the offender a yellow or red card.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 12:02 pm
What we have here is the apparent failure to of our lead poster to comprehend his own posting. The USPS is a long-standing branch of the US Government - the quintessential Big Government, whose opinion you claimed should trump our local government's judgement when you started this thread on Aug 1, 2009 at 5:59 pm.
I repeat: Why do you think the federal government should be dictating Palo Alto's internal affairs?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 3:57 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Palo Alto exists as a subordinate unit of the United States, not as an independent kingdom. See Appomattox Courthouse. See also any dictionary and the California Housing Code. Give it up, Paul, you are out of your league, as is the City Attorney.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 6:11 pm
"Give it up, Paul, you are out of your league"
Give it up? Whatever happened to "don't tread on me" and "live free or die" and "give me liberty or give me death"?
I remember when "States' Rights" was a cornerstone of the American democracy, and not a code phrase for "let Jim Crow be." Do you remember "local control"?
Continue your love affair with big government as you like, and I'll respectfully and enthusiastically be your principled opponent.
Posted by sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 6:32 pm
If Palo Altans just stopped giving Frost money, orinstead gave him vouchers that could only be exchanged for food products then he would stop his activities.
If he is, in fact, a resident of RWC how can he run for political office in Palo Alto?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 8:21 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Paul, you cite three slogans from the fight against non-representative government, a fight we won. I believe government should be big enough to perform those duties inherently or constitutionally within their scope. I speak only for myself, and I cannot recall having denounced "Big Government", but if you define Big Government as govern that exceeds its franchise then yes, I'm agin it. The constitution, as you know, authorizes the postal service.
Posted by Norm, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 2:37 pm
<I missed this last week -my bad.>
I am no friend of Victor Frost, but, for the sake of others and the right to vote, I can’t watch this go on and on and on. Several folks seem to be “out of their league” on this topic.
If Victor is reading any of this, he has to roaring with amusement!!! He has folks P & M-ing at each other with bad arguments over erroneous points. His ego must be really stoked by the attention.
Please----think this all the way through before responding and stepping on yourself……………..
Have any of you read a Voter Registration Form in the past decade or two??? With some of the tracks of the argument – I’m going to guess it was NOT read, only filled out and signed.
Will the USPS deliver mail to all residences? Never has happened and never will.
If you register to vote, who does the verification (if any) that the information is “true and correct” under penalty of perjury?
When you register to vote, you register with “medium government” - the County. Not with the City, who accepts the determination of the County as to validity, or the State, who directs the Counties to handle such matter on their behalf, or the Federal folks, who (and it’s a different fight) have little to do with the actual voter. Nothing in the Constitution, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, or postal regulations grant any authority to the USPS to determine voting eligibility – or what decides residency, or constitutes a residency.
You do NOT need a USPS deliverable address for where you claim residency, but you must have a mailing address. I know this is true without having to consult a lawyer – I read the form!
Line #3 says “IF NO STREET ADDRESS, describe where you live: (Cross Streets, Route, Section, Range, N, S, E, W)” Line #4 asks for a mailing address.
You don’t have to get you mail where you live – the USPS determination of where you get your mail has nothing to do with voting residence. People who live in the swamps, bayous and boonies scattered across this country, or an unhoused person sleeping where they can (or can’t, but do), are allowed their right to vote – even lacking a paved street, a number by the door, or lack of a door.
Neither the City Attorney NOR the USPS have much to say about whether Victor is allowed to vote They are both ‘out of their league” if they try to over rule the county registrar.
If you have a problem with the legitimacy of Victor’s voting residence, take it to the county registrar, it’s legal as long as they hold it as true.
If he actually does run and you have an issue, it’s best to take it to the Fair Political Practices Commission (fppc.ca.gov or 1-866-ASK-FPPC).
BTW – the housing InnVision provides in RWC, and other places, serves dozens and is funded through a federal HUD grant, which cannot be spent on anything else, only getting people off the street that the public says they want off the street. (But, that, again, is a different argument.) And the funds Jerry cite – another HUD, not a penny of general fund monies, just allocated by the city to meet public demands to do something without spending city money.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are a general grant given to cities by the Federal Government, with the aim of helping low and moderate income citizens of a given city.
Eligible Activities
CDBG funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to:
acquisition of real property;
relocation and demolition;
rehabilitation of residential and non-residential structures;
construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, streets, neighborhood centers, and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes;
public services, within certain limits;
activities relating to energy conservation and renewable energy resources; and
provision of assistance to profit-motivated businesses to carry out economic development and job creation/retention activities.
We could, as easily, decide to use those funds for paving a street, or redeveloping a derelict shopping center.
If InnVision is going to pay for local bums to live in Redwood City, then I suggest that Palo Alto refuse to fund InnVision. Maybe we can get the "Opportunity Center" shut down. That would remove a magnet for even more bums. The best thing that CPA can do for all of us, including our low and moderate income citizens would be to clean up Downtown, which is losing business, becasue InnVision is providing the magnet that attracts those who diminish it.
Posted by Norm, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Jerry -
As I said about InnVision and HUD grants - "(But, that, again, is a different argument.)." If you believe in pursuing that as a worth thread, get your fact stgaight and post something on that subject.
Back to the original -
Any disagreement regarding the USPS deciding voter eligibility?
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Norm.
My post stands on its own merits. I have not been arguing about official addresses, USPS or not. I have been arguing that CPA funds, including those that we get from the Federal government, are being wasted on bums. It is even worse than that, because the funds that we do spend are making things worse for our low and moderate income citizens. The best thing we can do is to prevent a futher deterioartion of Downtown. We can also use CDBG grants to redevelop our derelict shopping centers, of which we now have two. Actually, there are a variety of things we could do with CDBG funds, if we cut out InnVision. InnVision is not a good thing for Palo Alto. It just serves as a magent to dig us deeper into the pit of desolation.
I think we should have a public vote on several items on one ballot, in Palo Alto:
1. Do you support CPA spending money on InnVision?
2. Do you support ABAG housing demands, that require our city to rezone to build over 2000 units of high density housing?
3. Do you support below market rate housing, if essential city workers will not buy them?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 4:57 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Frost is what he is, a scallywag; My comment was aimed at the city attorney's endorsing a utility pole as an address. Someone can live at a place without mail service or a designated address, my friend Seldom Seen Slim did that for years, but it stretches credibility to define what someone does at a utility pole as living. Frost was not registering to vote, a precious right to be defended, he was running for public office against a clear question of eligibility. Why, next thing you know, let Frost get away with this mockery and we might see residents of Massachusetts or Illinois running for a Senate seat in New York.
Posted by Norm, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm Norm is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
So I guess the city attorney's office is being asked to take of voter registration duties because the registrar doesn't agree with public opinion.
BTW- Frost must be registered legally - as determined by the county registrar - to run. As as been mentioned before, if you have a problem with the decision, go to the decision-maker.
Jerry-
Personally, I think it’s a bit rude to hijack a topic to satisfy you own agenda, however, such behavior doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about you. But that is also another topic.
I look forward to your post of a focused argument on any of the issues which are a burr in your britches (InnVision, Opportunity Center, ABAG numbers v. density, affordable housing & BMR’s, CDBG allocation, redevelopment using public funds & authority [eminent domain?], how no/low-income residents impact the community, etc.); some stated, some implied.
I await your cogent, fact backed presentation.
{Query – does all the development near/pending the Monroe Park neighborhood have anything to do with your feeling on density?}
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Norm,
I responded on this thread when it was claimed that InnVision paid for Mr. Frost, in RWC, not the city of Paly Alto. I think I have made my arguments against that claim.
I don't think most Palo Alto citizens want a huge ABAG imperialist command. Add BMR and density and InnVision to the above.
Put it to a vote of the people. Do you have a problem with that, Norm?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2009 at 3:08 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The city attorney is being chided for having rendered an opinion that seems inconsistent with the law. There is a difference between a dedicated right of way and an outright gift.
Posted by Norm, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Walter-
City Attorney opinion somewhat moot seeing that if statement is false, it was to the COUNTY registrar, not the city clerk or attorney. The conuty DA is the appropriate investigative authority for the alleged crime (I believe it has been commited, but the Constitution demands due process - hence government/judicial involvement in determining guilt).
Jerry-
I don't quite follow your last...
"I responded on this thread when it was claimed that InnVision paid for Mr. Frost, in RWC, not the city of Paly Alto. I think I have made my arguments against that claim."
You confirmed InnVision got CDBG funds, but NOT that those funds paid for any housing anywhere.
Should CDBG funding be put up for vote?
Well, point in the process do you propose that?.........Or do you even know that there is a process for the dozen or so reciepients, or the hopps they all must jump.
Posted by Lady Mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2009 at 11:21 am
Whoa!
While here & there have been some actual dialogue, & exchange of points of view, I agree with the previous post that Mr. Frost is certainly enjoying the attention.
Divide & conquer?
My personal opinion is that the man is a slimy con artist & a public nuisance.
He should not be allowed to run for any position/office in the city. Whether or not it is worth any city dollars to investigate further - at this point in time - is obviously debatable.
Primarily, I am more concerned that the local court will prevail on enforcement of the sit-lie ordinance. I'd rather see our city dollars go there.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Our City Attorney said the address on the envelope shown is a legitimate address - the USPS disagrees. Palo Alto could save money, instead of an attorney just buy a fortune cookie whenever a legal opinion is needed.
