« The Daily News on HOV Lanes, Toll Roads | Home | The Proctor Is In: Bizzibiani »
Around the Town With Sir Eric Maundry
By Eric Maundry | May 15, 2008
A lie would have no meaning if the truth was not perceived to be dangerous.” - Alfred Adler
In his recent column in both the Mountain Views Observer and Bill Coburn’s Sierra Madre News website, newbie columnist Glenn Lambdin had his usual awful things to say about MaryAnn MacGillivray. He seems absolutely obsessed with our new Mayor Pro Tem. Here is part of what he had to say:
“Flashback ten years when MaryAnn left her term infecting our community with her bigoted flawed doctrine of fundamentalist intolerance.”
Hmm. Now I’m not really all that subject to flashbacks myself, but I can grasp that this is strong talk from the big lug. Glenn then goes on to take his umbrage a banana step farther:
“Tuesday night I possibly witnessed a shameful seamless transition from ten years ago to the present where MaryAnn went from proudly spewing her faith-based fundamentalist hatred to actually implementing it today.”
Yow! So what in the name of Odin is Glenn Lambdin going on about here? Apparently the thing that has him so terribly agitated is something called Ordinance No. 1136, also mislabeled by a few as the “Sierra Madre Family Values Ordinance.” Originally approved in 1997, this misunderstood little item supposedly defined for the City of Sierra Madre what a family is. Of course, at that time this was a subject of some controversy, with a minority mistakenly interpreting it as being an attempt to limit what we here in our delightful and friendly foothill city would call a family. And that somehow this ordinance limited the legal classification of “family” to heterosexual couples exclusively. Glenn’s take on all of this is apparently that because of this Ordinance, and because of MaryAnn’s support in 1997 for this supposedly “fundamentalist” document, Joe Mosca was denied the office of Mayor of Sierra Madre. You see, and as the disingenuously crafted argument goes, MaryAnn helped create this “Family Values” ordinance, and as a further expression of her so-called intolerance, worked to deny Joe Mosca the Mayor gig because he is - gasp! - gay.
OK, I don’t buy it, and I suspect that when you get done reading this column you won’t either.
So I have a rhetorical question for Mr. Lambdin. Ordinance No. 1136 was originally passed in 1997, but it was also once again voted upon, and in the exact same form, by the Sierra Madre City Council on October 8, 2001. And at that time Glenn Lambdin was the Mayor here. And in that City Council meeting Ordinance No. 1136 passed unanimously. It even got the vote of, you got it, that notorious family values militant, the fundamentalist zealot Glenn Lambdin! Wild, eh? Along with Doug Hayes, Bart Doyle, Kris Miller Fischer, and Robert “Rob” Stockley. So here’s that question I promised:
Glenn? If you are as supposedly upset by, and so opposed to this “Family Values Ordinance” (having gone on and on about it ad nauseam these last 6 weeks or so), why did you vote for this very thing when you were a member of Sierra Madre’s City Council? And why, as Mayor, did you, and apparently without any reservation whatsoever, sign this document?
I have obtained a copy of the Ordinance in question, and it is reproduced here (PDF alert!) for your careful examination. Please note Glenn Lambdin’s signature, plus the names of the parties that voted for it.
In case you are wondering how Ordinance No. 1136 happened to get voted upon twice, that is in both 1997 and 2001, and therefore graced by Glenn’s signature, here’s the story…
Sometime in the late 1990s, and due to some City Hall oversight, approximately 20 approved city ordinances were not legally presented to the public by being advertised in a newspaper. And ordinances that are not presented to the public through legal advertising cannot be considered legally binding. That is the law. This lamentable situation was brought to the attention of then Sierra Madre City Attorney Charlie Martin, who then correctly concluded that each of these unadvertised ordinances would have to go through the approval process once again, and then be validated through legal advertising.
Here is the “Proof Of Publication” for Ordinance 1136, dated October 23, 2001. Note, if you will, the signature of then Sierra Madre Mountain Views publisher Beth Buck, who later gained such considerable fame as the hostess of the anti-Measure V blog Downtown Dirt.
Let’s be real here. Glenn has always known that this never was a “flawed doctrine of fundamentalist intolerance.” If it was, why would such a sensitive and caring man as himself have voted for it? And as anyone with a literacy level above the 4th grade can see by reading Ordinance No. 1136 that this is actually a very inclusive document written with lifestyle diversity in mind. While it does state a definition of what a family might be, it also defines, and at an equal stature, what a “housekeeping unit” is. That being people living together in a single unit. People who are not necessarily heterosexual, not necessarily a family as defined by California state law, and not necessarily married, either.
Would a document created as part of an attempt to force some draconian interpretation of what a family is down the throats of this community also have something like “housekeeping units” written into it as well? Of course not.
The real purpose of Ordinance No. 1136 had nothing to do with sexual orientation or enforcing a so-called “fundamentalist” view of what it means to be a family. Rather it was designed to limit the amount of unattached people living together in a dwelling. At that time there was pressure being placed on communities such as Sierra Madre to allow homes to be rented with the purpose of sheltering such groups as recently released sexual predators, mental outpatients, and drug rehab halfway house inmates. Other communities in the area had succumbed to this pressure, and much was being said in the press about the threat that such clutches of troubled folks presented to children, the elderly, and others. So Sierra Madre got its NIMBY on, took action, and this ordinance was created.
Which is probably why Glenn Lambdin voted for it on October 8, 2001, and as Mayor signed it as well.
Of course, perhaps Glenn recently took a fall, landed on his bare noggin, and woke up believing that this really is some sort of homophobic hate speech, and that anyone who voted for it must be consumed by an animus towards those living the gay lifestyle. In which case I guess that means Doug Hayes, Bart Doyle, Kris Miller Fisher, and Rob Stockley must have some problems with gays, right? Nah. That’s just a bunch of bollocks, dude. This was all nothing more than junk politics being practiced by some washed up old pol hoping to re-ignite his political career by telling absurd tales about someone whose recent elevation to city office has him pea green with a rather disturbing envy.
But really, would you have ever thought that Glenn would have actually signed the very document that he has been ranting and raving about so vociferously? Funny how things turn out sometimes.
ericmaundry@gmail.com
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
Topics: Main Page, City Council, Sierra Madre |
May 15th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Glenn Lambdin’s fallacious attack on Mayor Pro-Tem MacGillivray seems to validates his reputation ( from Sierra Madre to Hawaii) as a thug and a bully who enjoys bashing women.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:07 am
guess glenn did inhale after all
May 15th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Eric:
Great drama.
What you fail to really explain is that the only reason that ordinance went before the council when Glen was mayor was because Nancy, the city clerk, failed to publish years of ordinances. This put the city at risk of being sued from here to eternity.
The ordinance you mentioned, that ALL council members signed at that time, was approved as a “batch” approval, meaning several ordinances were approved all at one single time. It was an emergency action needed to fix nancy’s costly mistake.
Regardless of what were Glen’s personal feelings at the time about that ordinance, I believe he did what he felt was best for the city,getting the city into immediate legal compliance. He decided not to pursue his own personal agenda but instead do what was best for the city.
That’s why I vote for him. He approached his position asking, what would be best for the city.
Eric, have you obviously never even met Glen.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:20 am
#3
I have met Glenn, #3 and I stand by my comment in post #1.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Sorry “Anonymous,” nice attempt at spin, but a man of principle would not have signed a document that he believed was designed to deny gay people their rights. And as anyone can easily ascertain by reading the ordinance, this was in no way designed to do what Glenn claimed in his mean spirited attacks on MaryAnn.
Give it up, “Anonymous.” The Big Lie is dead.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The ordinances at the time were published by city staff, because they were taken away from Sholenberger by the council in its long struggle to discredit her. Get your facts straight, anonymous. Nice job, Sir Eric.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Anonymous, your explanation makes sense, but it doesn’t account for the fact that Lambdin is making a huge deal out of this ordinance now. Clearly, he didn’t think it was a battle worth fighting at the time. Why try to use it now?
Also, why were they obligated to approve the ordinance? Couldn’t they have voted it down and invalidated it, thus negating any legal obligations?
As an outside observer who doesn’t know Lambdin personally, I can honestly say I found his recent column to be more than a little off-kilter. He appears to praise MaryAnn, but that does a complete 180. I mean, does this rhetoric sound reasonable to you?
That just seems unnecessary and over-the-top to me. Maybe I’m wrong and MaryAnn really is as much of a demented fundamentalist as he makes her out to be. Even so, his column just seems to be another entry in the SM ledger of screeds.
Sir Eric may be overemphasizing a technicality here, but that’s something we can debate and discuss. It’s difficult to “discuss” the fact that Glenn Lambdin appears to hate MaryAnn. That just is what it is.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
“Appearing to praise” and then going in for the kill is an old rhetorical trick designed to make the author seem reasonable and fair.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
#5
Maryanne never tried to deny anyone their rights. She just tried to emotionally hurt a class of people. She was very sucessful.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
There you go again, #9.
MaryAnn has never hurt anyone,she probably even likes you!
May 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Right. The extremes to which Glenn praises MaryAnn and then the complete reversal is completely unreasonable and doesn’t make sense.
For the record, I do think it was a mistake to raise the issue of the definition of marriage in the first place and if the ordinance was really about a technical definition of whether or not houses full of sex offenders could exist in SM or similar ideas that have been floated, the language in the ordinance should have made that more clear and shied away from the tone that it took.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Bill Coburn has a decent online newspaper, that I read everyday and really liked….until he decided to run Lambdin’s “column”.
Bill, if you are reading this……you need to delete that awful rant of Lambdin’s and refuse to publish such trash in your otherwise good read. Lambdin’s comments about MaryAnn are reminiscent of the old Cumquat/Qunt website and defame a very respected citizen in this town, MaryAnn.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
For the love of God, no one start the Cumquat crap again.
Look, it’s a poorly written piece that got called out for being petty and not making sense. That being said, it’s more to be pitied than censured.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Sir Eric
Your usual excellent expose of the Lambdin end runs to keep alive his campaign against the citizens of Sierra Madre who recognize and speak out against his poisonious tirades is much apreciated.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Centinel #11: I think you need to read the attached ordinance once again. The language used looks to me to be court mandated. The definition of “family” referred to here predates Ordinance No. 1136. And that language was updated here per court mandate.
“The City Council recognizes that an additional definition of ‘family’ has been mandated by law and court decision; and therefore includes any alternative style living arrangements in its definition of ‘housekeeping unit,’ as set forth in this Chapter.”
That additional definition was recognized in 1997, and again in 2001.
The issue looks to be dead to me, dude.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
It’s hard to give up when you’ve been an integral part of a power construct, as Mr. Lambdin has, seemingly focused on the destruction for profit of this little town, Sierra Madre - a force that terrorized this community for many years with its threats of (over)development (anyone remember the ill-fated strong-arm attempt by Bart Doyle to approve a drive-through bagel shop on Sierra Madre Blvd. over ten years ago? Tip of the iceberg, if you get my drift). What’s appropriate for the community and what’s good for the greedy rarely, if ever, coincide. Maybe now, for once in the past 30 years, we have an opportunity as a community to make some reasonable forward progress without sacrificing what most of us in town consider invaluable - the comfort and joy of this small-town way of life. One can’t really put a price on this, so how does one put it up for sale, as Glenn Lambdin and others in this town have attempted to do? We should not allow Mr. Lambdin’s political tactics to shift our focus from the most pressing issues facing this town - development and adequate revenue to pay for the city’s basic operational costs. Money’s a mighty powerful aphrodisiac and Mr. Lambdin is probably not taking very kindly to the idea that he may have lost the golden idol in which he is so vested; his impotent attacks on Ms. MacGillivray appear to be nothing more than a strident reaction to the loss of potential profit through development schemes in which he was and likely still is an active player in Sierra Madre. If there’s shame to be attributed, it should fall on his own bald pate.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I’m with you there. No reason to bring it up, except as an excuse to get back into bitter personal warfare.
Of course, if some SM readers think that it’s necessary and appropriate to continue to discuss it, I’m willing to be convinced. I’ll just need some real evidence that it actually has a bearing on events in town.
@ Mrs. Muir:
I’m not entirely sure where you’re coming from, so I don’t know how to take your statement. Do you really believe that there is a cabal of money-worshipping developers who are just waiting to destroy Sierra Madre? If so, I’ve got two syllables for you:
Cra-zy.
The fact is there aren’t secret forces at work trying to destroy the town. Some people want to use the property that they own to make money. That’s not evil, nor is it being greedy. There is nothing wrong with that.
When people talk about “preserving Sierra Madre,” I wonder if they spend much time in their own city. It’s a wonderful little town in much of the residential area, but the downtown simply is not. I no longer eat there because the quality of service has declined or the restaurants I liked are gone. I’ve never actually gone into any of the stores because I never saw anything I need or wanted. The grocery store was the one place I’d regularly visit and that’s gone. So, drop the pablum about “overdevelopment.” The town needs a smart developer to add couple stores that people actually want to buy things from and help revitalize the center of town. I’d like to shake the hand of the person willing to try, though.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
#16 oh pleeeeeeeeeeeze
….Glen’s “development schemes”, or glen being part of some “power construct” or glen “putting the town up for sale” or glen’s “lost golden idol”, “strong arm attempt by Bart Doyle”.
now thats laughable.
Mrs Muir, you are a bigger drama queen than Sir Eric.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Yes, the downtown needs much TLC and SM is nowhere near the destination for “foodies” that Alhambra, Monrovia, Pasadena and other cities are. That being said, there is a difference between development and overdevelopment. The little shops drawn in plans for Howie’s and Skilled Nursing sites don’t leave room for a real restaurant. One development salesperson pointed out there could be a Panda Express. Also, a Verizon shop. And, those two projects were really about the condos - 127 total.
Many unique shops had to leave Monrovia after redevlopment because the rents became too high. I saw three leave, and was told there were about a dozen who vacated.
As far as I can tell, Monrovia’s condos are less dense than those planned in SM, and it is a much bigger city. Maybe they did it right?
If past SM city councils hadn’t done so many shadowy actions, such as increasing density on a consent calendar with no public discussion years ago, there might be more trust. There was also a concerted effort to keep people from voting on the downtown plan, and here the cumquat, and another website, the Downtown Dirt, was used to silence any public participation they didn’t agree with. They had too much fun slamming around the opposition. One resident told me “They beat you up and then stick you into a corner.”
Reasonable as you are, Centinel, you had to be here to witness the onslaught, or even, as a journalist, experience it. Since your website offers different points of view, as per another blog item, the media is now 8 to 1 in the area with FCB being the 1 and the other 8 in concert without offering alternative viewpoints in editorials. That says something.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
6 to 1.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Canyon Ilk you are an inspiring little pip. Either Howie’s or the Skilled Nursing pileup would be a delightful location for a real earthy Sierra Madre restaurant/farmer’s market/drug store type thing.
A place where you could get a pound of local avocados & radish sprouts with a box of tampons in the middle of the night.
I like it.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The funny thing about Howie’s or the SNC, Miss Haversham, is that while we keep waiting for the owners to submit plans that fall within city building codes, they never seem to arrive.
The sense of entitlement is very evident. It is like someone has led them believe that they are not subject to the same codes and laws as everybody else here.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
no matter how you dice it, slice it or fry it - Sierra Madre will never be a destination base for retail shops, it’s a nice dream but that’s all it is - a dream.
the city is out of the way and it would take tons of $$ advertising to attempt to induce shoppers and there are too many stops along the way before you get to Sierra Madre
just because a couple of inept morons bought the Howies and Skilled Nursing lots as investments and thought they had the approval of the Dastardly Bart Doyle Gang, it doesn’t mean we need to give them the city - it’s their problem they invested poorly and why in the world would anybody outside of realtors care about 500 or so new residents into the city, like I give a rat’s booty about somebody who hasn’t even moved into the city
Mary Ann had the right idea about attracting tech companies for office space - not overload the city with condos
ask anybody in retail location management, they’ll tell you that Sierra Madre isn’t a wise location for a high volume business
May 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Before my time, I hear there used to be useful shops in SM, that catered to the community. If you have a great shop, people will come. I’d drive to Poobah records. You don’t have to be high volume. As for office space, plenty of vacancies in Pasadena.
Fritz has a nice shop on Montecito for kitchen design that should draw from everywhere. Passion, uniqueness and specialties would be good to nurture in SM future shop owners. Savor the Flavor is another local example; Cafe 322, these are originals.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I’d love to love SM if I could ever find PARKING.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
i linked to the above ordinance in the column which has Glenn listed as Mayor
how is this ordinance in 01 any different from what was subsequently approved by a following council?
if there isn’t any difference, is Glenn actually calling himself homophobic and anti-gay????
is Glenn actually closet fundamentalist Bible touting guitar playing Canyonite?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
# 24 makes sense, a kitchen design company would fit in well, but there is already one on Montecito but similar industries that produce sales tax reveune would be helpful
# 25 - how much parking do you need? there are a hundred or more behind The Bottle Shop
Poobah Records needs the drive traffic of Colorado Blvd which drives by the store everyday, that wouldn’t work in Sierra Madre
May 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Sir Eric, you’re stating that a man of principle SHOULD fight a law he didn’t agree with, regardless of his position and what he was required to do?
Hmm… I bet if I started telling developers they could ignore Measure V because I don’t agree with it, the Smrrdies would have my head on a platter.
Hypocrisy reigns supreme in Sierra Madre.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
BUT is a kitchen design store on the APPROVED downtown overlay zone list( you realize only 20 different types of business’ are “approved” to be downtown) if you are not on the LIST than you can apply for TUP or a CUP, maybe even a variance, then good luck if it gets approved
May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Jae: It wasn’t a valid ordinance until Glenn signed it and the legal notice was published.
Sorry.
If you think I take pleasure in correcting people as logically deficient as yourself, you’re wrong. It actually makes me feel kind of sad.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
#27 - Poobah rocks. Really interesting vinyl selection. And the folks they have in the place playing their records most evenings really makes the place. Some of the most knowledgeable music people you’ll find anywhere.
Support your local independent record store.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Surly clerks were invented at Poobah. Their favorite retort: Go to Canterbury!
May 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
They’re always quite kind to me, Miss Haversham. But then they know I usually drop way too much coin in the place.
I must say I do like Canterbury, though. Rusty does a great job. He particularly has a good eye (or should I say ear) for jazz and blues. Outside of Amoeba probably the best genre selection around.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
The death of an idea or concept, is identical to the heartbreak and loss of a human life. One goes through the same stages of grief, in the exact manner, as if they have lost a loved one. Some concepts or ideas become so alive they are difficult to leave behind, because there is nothing of the same life changing weight, in view, to replace them. The Catch 22 is, there is loss then rebirth. It’s just harder for some people to move on than others. They may have nothing else and even a negative idea is better than emptiness of loss. I feel as though the City Sierra Madre will move on in a positive light, but it will take some time for some.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
# 34 Joan…must have been hitting the bottle before posting…
May 17th, 2008 at 5:15 am
And that would make you in the “anger” stage.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:54 am
I thought Joan’s analysis here was spot on. Once a “big lie” has been exposed for what it is, where do those who invested so much time in it go? Especially when almost the entire town is laughing at those who told it?
May 17th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Glenn Lambdin should just go back to Hawaii, he needs to just spend his time swimming with the other sharks there.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:29 am
And here’s Lambdin on Sierra Madre News about what he tells petitioners:
“… a self-amusing lie that rolls off my tongue with the greatest of ease…”
May 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Why we fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUVaflDs3GU&feature=related
May 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Huh? I took Latin, can anyone translate?
May 18th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Montel, perhaps Heino can help you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvHgVTVS18M&feature=related
May 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Why is Glenn barking at a dead dog, when there are really more important issues surrounding our village? Perhaps he has nothing better to do with his time. Poor dear…………………..go check out book at the library and sit down with all of your friends and discuss a new book for some enlightment!!