A Question Of Civic…


Or, vice versa?

Given that the City of Wildomar will be receiving in excess of $350,000  in tax increment from Measure  Z over the next year, monies which should be more than adequate to reinvigorate and regenerate the grass areas of the parks,  does it not constitute civic immorality on the part of the Parks  Subcommittee to embrace a plan to secure  unnecessary and undeserved charity through the United Methodist Church /Great Day of Service 2013?

This enterprise is the municipal and moral equivalent of driving to the local food pantry in your late model Mercedes-Benz to game the system for free groceries which should be reserved for  the truly needy.

I can understand the moral insensitivity of Bridgette Moore and Marsha Swanson as they have the keenest of instincts  for turning any tragic human event into a self-aggrandizing political opportunity.   But that is what the emotional sickness of narcissism is all about.

To get a sense of the depravity and desperation of Bridgette Moore and John Lloyd, please read her comments to the Californian, as well as Lloyd’s comments after the article, as follows:


I cannot understand, without attributing sectarian motivations,  how the United Methodist Church has lost its way seeking to serve its “missions” compulsion by diverting its efforts from more worthwhile causes, such as volunteering to clean up individual senior citizen’s  homes.

Please click on the following link for comparison and  context:


It would be far preferable, and moral, for the Wildomar City Council to thank the United Methodist Church for their offer of service and suggest that they find a wiser and more humanitarian outlet for their efforts.

Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com

For the record, since the Californian  mis-reports the  park tax increment as $325,000, even though City Manager Gary  Nordquist predicted  Measure Z revenue of $361,000, but proposes a 10% budget reserve as well as a depreciation schedule for the playground equipment.

(Note to Nordquist: For the first refurbishing year, it would be okay to delay the 10% reserve until the second year).

In addition, the Californian continues to minimize an illegal Brown Act violation as a mere “procedural” violation.

It’s readers deserve better.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: