Thursday, June 15, 2017

• Various and Sundry Things Vol 2

Here are a couple of things that caught my attention recently, some much more important than the others.

Condolences to the family and friends of Eric Whitcomb

On June 14th, officers responded to the Circle K on Lakeshore Drive in Lake Elsinore, about 5:20 a.m. to a report of an assault with a deadly weapon and found Wildomar resident, 49-year-old Eric Whitcomb the victim of a gunshot wound.
Whitcomb worked as a Circle K cashier for 12 years.
In a released statement, Heather Bailey, spokesperson for Circle K said, "We are saddened by the passing of our longtime cashier and member of our team who was involved in a fatal incident this morning during a senseless act of violence at our Lake Elsinore store. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends, as we fully cooperate with authorities to bring this crime to justice."

There is a GoFundMe page set up to help

Click this image to donate.


This week there was a tempest in a Facebook teapot, as many people were angry at the "ugly purple building" that was going in at the long anticipated Wildomar Square, on the southwest side of Clinton Keith and the 15.

It's a Taco Bell, and Purple is one of their colors
A look at the coming Taco Bell as of June 15th, 2017. I've included an inset of what newer designed Taco Bells are supposed to look like. Can you see the bird of prey that found its way into the upper part of the picture?

My favorite quote that someone left went something like this, "I can't believe the city is allowing them to have an ugly purple building when they won't let me paint my house the color I want."

Umm... you live in an HOA, and they're the ones controlling your house color. The city doesn't care what color you paint your house.

Not sure when the new T-Mobile store is going to open, but I saw the sign. It's going to be next to Great Clips in the Stater Brother's center.
"Coming Soon" can mean anything from a couple of weeks, to a couple of months... and sometimes longer.


Illegal signage

It's basically all over town, and not just from Bridal Expos being held in another county. I've seen well respected businesses, like Yellow Basket, just planting their signs wherever they feel like it.
These signs are in many different places throughout the city.
This one is at the northeast corner of Central and Palomar.

Who's to blame them when code enforcement doesn't remove the signs, and there is no fining mechanism in place to deter repeat offenders either. 

Seriously, if the city isn't going to police this, then why wouldn't every business owner go get some cheap signs made and splash them up all over town? If and when they get removed, it's just part of the cost of doing business... and a lot cheaper than traditional advertising options too.

My favorite in your face illegal sign has to go to the one in front of Starbucks in the Albertson's parking lot. Talk about chutzpah. They're willing to make and put the signs up for you at what appears to be a smokin' hot price.
Until the city acts like they care about such things, if you need to get the word out, you might as well give this guy a call... though he's not even from Riverside County (based on the area code). Come on, let's at least keep the dollars local. ☺
This guy just goes around attaching mini posters to stop signs, and there they hang. I guess they are nicer looking than hand made garage sale signs.
At least these gems are usually gone by the end of the weekend.
This would include the signs for Wildomar Soccer that seem to be a permanent thing in more than one location. Seriously coach, don't you understand the law of diminishing returns?
Is there ever a time that these aren't up?
Put your youth sports banners up periodically, not perpetually. 

Last on my list of things you might be interested in knowing is about wasted city money. 

I found out the amount of money the city has had to pay out defending ONE of Martha Bridges' lawsuits against Wildomar.

I put in a request for information asking how much it's cost us to defend against all her lawsuits versus the city. 

I only got a partial answer, for just one case. 

The one involving the General Plan, that was recently ruled in the favor of Wildomar at the appellate level. The total fees, over a 4½ year period, are $118,343.00!

Remember, if you ever hear the claim that she doesn't cost the city money, even when she loses (like above) the city still has to pay the attorneys that represent us. 

Hey, the story is that she still has until mid July to file an appeal to the California Supreme Court. The difference is that the appellate courts must hear the case (then laugh under their breath when it's argued). 

Whereas a person can file an appeal to the Supreme Court, but they aren't obligated to take it, and can simply laugh in the person's face as they tell them to scram. Let's hope she wastes her time and effort in such a feckless endeavor.

•          •          •

What is darkness? it is the state from which we emerge, and it's the condition to which we return. We come from the darkness of the womb, we leave for the darkness of the tomb. In between is the light and life.
– E.G. Marshall, CBSRMT (1974)

If you haven't figured it out yet, Wildomar Rap is a big fan of E.G. Marshall's work on CBSRMT.


  1. This was enjoyable. Like the update on the cost of lawsuits. Such a shame although I might have joined her on the lawsuit regarding the General Plan Map as I don't see the point in having a zoning map if our officials are going to ignore it.

    1. I don't know enough about how the two maps work, but there is a general plan map, and a zoning map. From first blush, where conflicts are apparent, one of the two maps must reign supreme. If you actually want a an explanation of the two, and which one holds more weight than the other, I'm sure that city staff or city council would be happy to fill in the details.

      As for joining the lawsuit listed above, it probably would have still lost even if had it not been filed FIVE YEARS after the statute of limitations had expired... but since it was, we'll never know.

  2. Why not enact a frivolous lawsuit law--whoever looses in court has to pay the winners legal and court costs.

    1. I generally agree with that sentiment, and I'd like to see more judges use better discretion and not allow such patently inane suits to go forward. Thing is, the definition of "frivolous lawsuit" in legal terms is a lot less easy clear than the rest of us would think it should be.

      The last thing we'd want is for a city with bad leaders (like Bell from several years ago, or Beaumont of a couple of years ago) to try and keep legitimate law suits from being brought. It can be walking a tight rope at times, and in general, I appreciate having the courts as accessible to "the public v. city hall" as it is... even when that means we have to tolerate people that are going beyond the original intent.

  3. I remember when the McDonald's on Clinton Keith had to mute their color scheme because it was too bright and it offended someone.

    1. I think "being offended" has long surpassed baseball as the national pastime.


Let's hear what you have to say... for other inquiries try the email listed under "view my complete profile" but if you want to discuss a blog topic, I'll only do it in this comment section, not by email.

Subscribe by Email