Incumbents prevail in Lancaster election

(L to R) R. Rex Parris, Sandra Johnson, and Ken Mann.

LANCASTER – With all voting centers reporting, incumbent R. Rex Parris soundly defeated his competition, garnering more than 75 percent of the votes in the race for Lancaster mayor.

Specifically, Parris won with 76.4 percent (6,517 votes), while his closest competitor, David Paul, trailed with 10.5 percent (898 votes).

David Abber had 8 percent (684 votes), while David Grajeda had 4.9 percent (421 votes).

In the race for Lancaster City Council, Sandra Johnson was the top vote-getter with 37.8 percent (5,816 votes), while incumbent candidate Ken Mann was not far behind with 34.2 percent (5,268 votes).

Johnson and Mann received twice as many votes as their closest competitor, John Kiramis, who had 14.3 percent (2,202 votes).

Michael Rives had 6.7 percent(1,044), while Isaac Grajeda followed closely behind Rives with 1,037 votes.

View the April 10 2012 Unofficial Election Results here.


  138 comments for “Incumbents prevail in Lancaster election

  1. Yo Mama
    May 9, 2012 at 5:57 am

    David Abber. What an arrogant SOB. HE GOT A VOTE!!

  2. Ed
    April 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    What a great read. Missed all the fireworks yesterday. Congratulations to the winners of the elections and condolences to the loosers. The comments on this forum is refreshing. Now if we could just do this in the Council Chambers we might have a taste of democracy. A few more case cites and Legal Code quotations and I could almost believe I was back in school. However next time lets leave out the personal attacks and scorn.

    • S. Parker
      April 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm


  3. james stouvenel
    April 11, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Congrats to all the incumbents who won, and hopefully more progress in the city of Lancaster.

    • William
      April 13, 2012 at 2:00 am

      What progress? Landscaping the BLVD and the Avenue L on/off ramps while there are empty buildings in shopping centers around town and potholes that residents are complaining about. THAT’S called ‘putting lipstick on a pig’.

      • Yo Mama
        May 9, 2012 at 5:00 am

        Here, here… I think The BLVD is one of the most dangerous places for a pedestrian to be in this entire city. Cross a street to get to your parked car, and back into traffic. Brilliant. Whoever came up with that idea needs their head examined. I know I’m one who avoids that street, and aaalll the businesses on it. I used to love going to The Lemon Leaf. Never again as long as it is where it is.

  4. dealwithit
    April 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    To all you whiners complaining about the election, you have no one to blame but your own lazy a$$es! Maybe next time you should offer something for free, or a chance to “march” against some faux cause while they vote. That seems to be the only thing that will get your peeps out of their jammies and slippers, onto the avta bus, and over to the ballot box!

  5. Erick
    April 11, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    I have to tell you, this has to be the first time I wasn’t thrilled about an election. We all knew what the outcome was going to be. And with only a 14% voter turnout. I’m not saying that this election was flawed, I do believe that previous ones were though. But I decided for the first time to surrender my ballot at the polling place because I’m at a point where I don’t trust the city in conducting their own elections anymore.

    But to get a bit off topic, I think yesterday proved that the AV Press is in Rex Parris’ back pockets. The fact that they published an article about how outraged he was on the LA County Board of Supervisors section 8 vote on the day of the election, when they have well around a week to publish that, just said it all.

    It’s no wonder why so many people hate Rex yet he still gets elected. It’s simply because no one bothers to vote. I really don’t know what will get people to wake up and understand that.

    • Craig
      April 11, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      It’s not your fault Rex so don’t applaud yourself. You’re little more than the symptom and little else. Lancaster’s apathy is the disease for which in the end will have us all flawking to this site to argue our demise. Enjoy the years you have left saving us from ourselves.

  6. Fedeli Semper Merces
    April 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    I retired from the USMC as an 07 (brigadier genreral) in 2003 and moved to Lancaster primarely for the clen air. During my 36 years in the Corps I had both the prividge and as well as the misfortune of witnessing practically every style of leadership imaginable.

    Since I began living in Lancaster I have seen our local politicans in action and for the most part I have to agree with many of the reforms of our Mayor Parris. Like him or not, he has done a good job with what he had to deal with, which includes indecisive council members he was compelled to deal with harshly since they would otherwise flounder. Suffice it to say they would have never survived as soldiers in any military. Having said this I would like to profer Mayor Parris one piece of solid advise since I know he too has never served in the military.

    Please cease your pugilistic persona sir. It does not suit you well. You are not a warrior by nature so avoid pretending to be one. It may impress certain constituents, but then they are not the people you need to impress to begin with since they have no place to go but to your camp. Those who are inteligent and educated are not impressed with fist shaking and posturing, but only results which you have for the most part provided. Be yourself as hard as it may be. You are doing a good job, so simply drop the tough guy armor and you will just fine.

    • Yo Mama
      May 10, 2012 at 4:54 am

      Thank you for you long time service, Marine…. Love the comments, too.

  7. B.
    April 11, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    I thinks its interesting that Parris got 76% of the vote in Lancaster. He was actually slightly more popular than Ledford was in Palmdale with only 70% of the vote in that city last year. All in all I would have to say that residents of both cities are appreciative of the jobs that their Mayors are doing. Nobody seems to be able to topple either of them and I don’t think they ever will.

    • Erick
      April 11, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      All it proves is that nothing but church goers turn out and vote in the Lancaster election. That those who really despise Rex don’t bother to turn out and vote. Think about it, he is never out at any of the community events. Because he knows that he will face the truth that the vast majority of people don’t like him. And when he is out, he needs security. Ledford doesn’t need security. You can easily walk up to Ledford without a single problem.

      Plus Lancaster city hall is filled with so many back room deals. I know as a fact that Ledford thinks of his city first. Plus at Palmdale city council meeting, you get to see how a real meeting is supposed to be run.

      • TheTruth
        April 11, 2012 at 8:35 pm

        Those darn churchgoers showing up to vote!
        Great theory Eric.

      • William
        April 12, 2012 at 1:38 am

        I agree about Mayor Ledford. Although I’m a Democrat and have vowed never to vote republican due to their bad habits, I think Mayor Ledford is about the best elected official I can think of. I’ve spoken to him several times and he’s called me to reply to an email. I wouldn’t bother with most anyone else.

        I’m so glad I didn’t mistakenly move to Lancaster 20 years ago not knowing the political situations in both cities. I live near the Mall and I get a rush every time I drive down 10th Street West and by the Mall and see all the welcome restaurants and stores and a really nice look to them. In the back of my mind, I credit Mayor Leford for Trader Joe’s, Macy’s, the Yard House, the medical center, the 2 big parks and his work to get the High Speed Rail station finalized in Palmdale instead of the Grapevine route. I know many people were involved in all those projects but he’s been the most visible over many years. The only complaint I might have is if he ever is elected to another office or retires.

        • j.
          April 12, 2012 at 7:45 am

          you “get a rush” looking at restaurants? Are you like 500 lbs or something? Theres nothing special about Palmdale guy! you want special then go to Topanga plaza or the Americana in glendale. Hell even Valencia town center is better than the mall in Palmdale!

          • Stinger
            April 12, 2012 at 8:35 am

            “Hell even Valencia town center is better than the mall in Palmdale!”

            Maybe. Then again, Lancaster doesn’t even have that because the power brokers who are bleeding that city dry don’t give a damn about the citizenry or their needs. What a great city – NOT!

          • John Mlynar
            April 13, 2012 at 9:09 am

            I love driving my relatives from “down below” by Trader Joes and Yard House and hearing them say, “how did you guys get those? I want one by our house!”

            Palmdale has a lot to be proud of.

          • William
            April 13, 2012 at 11:49 am

            I’ve been to some of those other places and they are very nice but what I love about Palmdale and its Mall is that it is so easy to get to and parking is a breeze. I like the wide openness of the Mall.

            Look at how low-rent the Factory Outlet looks as I don’t even know it’s new name.

            The BLVD reminds me of down below; narrow streets, parking is a pain if it’s at all busy. It just has a tight. claustrophobic feel to it and at the same time isn’t intimate. Go figure.

            The ‘rush’, such as it is, is from seeing some of the nice architecture of the newer places. They aren’t grand but fit nicely in this area. The whole area around the Mall and 10th West is very attractive for a suburban region. Most buildings look well-designed and of quality.

            As I drive 10th West toward Lancaster, the architecture gets less appealing. Those Greek buildings on the west side of 10th look ridiculous and some of the newer shopping centers look nondescript generic. I feel like I’m in Bakersfield. I’m surprised that the architecture can be so different once you cross the cactus curtain.

      • j.
        April 12, 2012 at 7:49 am

        churchgoers or just hard working people tired of Section 8 abuse and crime?

        lots of people on Section 8 are churchgoers too but they dont see any contradiction between their abusive lifestyle and what they are taught about modesty or charity.

        organized religion sucks!

        • Yo Mama
          May 9, 2012 at 5:11 am

          Here, here!! I say religion, period, sucks.

    • William
      April 13, 2012 at 2:02 am

      How much did Mayor Ledford spend in comparison to Parris?

      • Yo Mama
        May 10, 2012 at 5:10 am

        I wonder why it even matters, Willy? I think they didn’t have to spend a dime considering their opponents. I mean, David Abber? Are you kidding me? Noone would have to spend anything to beat that guy…Do tell.

  8. richie
    April 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    there was an election ? when

  9. reminder
    April 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    And the headline on the day AFTER the election in today’s AV PRESS reads, “Crime Surges in AV Cities”. Didn’t Parris and his drones just claim to have lowered it? And people really think that Parris does not control the AV PRESS.

    • April 11, 2012 at 2:25 pm

      Just as predicted, mind control is for the weak minded…

  10. James
    April 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    [Flagged for inflammatory content and removed]

  11. Sam
    April 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    I retired from the Air Force and moved to Lancaster last year because I could not afford anything down below, even in Santa Clarita valley. All I really did was want to provide a safe community and good quality of life for my family so we can enjoy what SoCal has to offer without growing broke. I was fortunate to find a job within 3 months in the AV. Lancaster is not a bad place afterall, it is how you make of it. I would like to see the city get cleaned up a little bit and more shopping centers on the West side. I don’t like going to the AV Mall and seeing thugs with their pants down to their knees. So unfortunately, I have to take my family to better and cleaner places such as Valencia’s TownCenter for shopping. Despite all the critisim, I beleive Rex is trying to do good things for the community and bring it back to what it was in the early 90s. BTW: Del Sur is a great school but it needs some renovation and resurfacing of the streets. Congratulations to Rex’s reelection.

    • Adam Chant
      April 11, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Careful what you wish for. The next WalMart is slated to be located on the west side.
      You also speak the same words as many people in the A.V. when you suggest VTC as your shopping destination. It’s close enough to bother going to even for the most basic retail needs. The complete experience from parking to shopping is some of the nicest in Southern California.
      Our mall is a far cry from that and it would be moronic at this point to even suggest the BLVD is on par with VTC.

      • Sam
        April 11, 2012 at 1:48 pm

        Let’s hope our community improves so that we don’t have to travel to VTC. You are correct, the BLVD is no match, not even close. As far as the Wal-Mart… I thought there was a court decision against it a few weeks ago. However, I think a Target is still on schedule. I don’t think we will see much movement though unless more people move and the only way people are going to move here is if there are jobs. Right now the aerospace economy is depressed due to DoD budget cuts. Let’s hope our next President can improve that.

        • Adam Chant
          April 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm

          Correct, Quartz Hill Cares was able to force the WalMart issue back to the City for a more complete EIR.
          I just hope – beyond all hope – that the Mayor and council will listen to the People (even the 10,000 QH residents like me) when it comes back up and put WalMart on Ave I instead of next to QHHS.
          I know it hurts for people to hear this, but every retailer that opens in Lancaster is another nail in the coffin for that west side walmart. It will take a LOT of businesses to match the tax revenues of a WalMart, but not shopping at those businesses will only help WalMart.

          • April 13, 2012 at 8:21 am

            Those lots were sold to Wal-Mart for 10 million dollars…some one made them a promise this deal would be done, even if the City Counsel and Planning Commission had to break the law. The report clearly states it would decrease the quality of life and property values..

    • John Mlynar
      April 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm

      How come when I go to the mall I see mostly families and very few “thugs with pants down to their knees?” Yes, I have seen some teenagers that need to pull their pants up, but they’re teenagers, not thugs. I guess I just shop during “family time.”

      • April 11, 2012 at 8:10 pm

        Zimmerman is booked and in jail.

    • Yo Mama
      May 10, 2012 at 5:14 am

      Thanks for your service to our country, Sam. Much appreciated….

  12. save lancaster
    April 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    A little surviellance never hurt anybody. The plane can even be used to spot dirty swimming pools that breed mosquitoes.

    • Stinger
      April 11, 2012 at 6:52 pm

      “A little surviellance never hurt anybody.”(sic)

      Are you nuts!?!

      • Facts
        April 11, 2012 at 7:30 pm

        I bet the family and friends of the USC students murdered today wish there was an “Eye In The Sky” in their neck of the woods to help in catching a cold blooded killer who is still on the loose!

      • AB
        April 11, 2012 at 7:44 pm

        Are you worried about your mary jane grow being spotted? They can fly over my place anytime. Nothing to hide.

        • James
          April 11, 2012 at 11:32 pm

          I like to tan naked in the privacy of my backyard.. Pervs in the Sky!

        • Stinger
          April 12, 2012 at 6:00 am

          Typical parrisite BS: I don’t agree with everything that Parris does so I simply MUST be doing something criminal. The fact that Parris is ramrodding through one of the biggest violations of the US Constitution to line the pockets of his pals wouldn’t have anything to do with my objections, right?

          Parrisites… Parris’ own personal propaganda stooges.

          • H8 Section8
            April 12, 2012 at 7:45 am

            Stinger where in the US Constitution does it violate? You don’t own the sky or air around your home so please enlighten me. And if this was in fact violating your Constitutional rights and it bothers you so much why don’t you sue? Call me and others names like Parrisite all you want….sticks and stones dude….sticks and stones. Now go crawl back into that cesspool of H8 you came out of!

          • Stinger
            April 12, 2012 at 8:09 am

            Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

            Whether I own the sky or air is irrelevent. The use of this device to spy on citizens without warrant or direct cause is a violation of the US Constitution as it represents a search of private property. Period. Plain view doctrine only applies when the observer is in a location of view that is lawful for them to be at in the first place. The SCOTUS has determined that the use of invasive technology does NOT meet the requirements of the Plain view doctrine. Since the ‘eye in the sky’ would be using said technology, without a direct warrant (per the requirements of the 4th Amendment), it is an unconstitutional violation of citizen rights.

            So, parrisite, as you said: “Now go crawl back into that cesspool of H8 you came out of!”

          • ..
            April 12, 2012 at 8:34 am


            *IN* your home, as you quoted, is correct. I absolutely guarantee you that you are wrong about the “in the air” part of your post. Just because you claim something to be a violation, doesn’t make it so.

            You said: “Plain view doctrine only applies when the observer is in a location of view that is lawful for them to be at in the first place”

            That’s exactly the whole point. The sky above your house is public airspace. You don’t own, or control it.

            You are correct that even in public airspace, “invasive technology” has already been decided in courts, that this kind of surveilance not be normally done without a warrant. One again, you are wrong in saying that this plane has “invasive” technology. You don’t get to define that term, either.

            Just as the courts have already ruled against “invasive” technology, they have already ruled on the whole eye-in-sky concept.. And guess what? It’s perfectly legal, and not a violation of anything.

          • Stinger
            April 12, 2012 at 8:48 am

            The courts have determined that your property is considered ‘in’ your home for the purposes of search and seizure.

            Your ‘guarantee’ that the interpretation is wrong means little to me as your advice is coming from an attorney who doesn’t know the Constitution from a hole in the ground.

            Now, we could reasonably debate the constitutionality of the use of this technology in this forum, but I would also point out that the very fact that said use is so debatable is prima facie evidence that it should not be used until sufficient stare decisis has been collated and properly debated by the citizenry in OPEN hearings PRIOR to the city taking on such a controversial project that will likely cause significant legal expenses in taking at least one test case all the way through the court system to SCOTUS on the taxpayers’ dime.

            In short, you and Parris are trying to waste MY tax money on a constitutionally questionable project that will only make Parris and his cronies money at our expense without verifiable returns on the public’s investment. Are you sure that you’re not a ‘tax and spend’ type? ‘Cause your willingness to spend so much tax money to support so few people with such questionable returns for the public doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

          • ..
            April 12, 2012 at 8:56 am


            If I am not on YOUR property, your argument of “it’s considered to be in your home” fails.

            My “guarantee” comes from being able to cite the actual precendents from various courts. Why don’t you spend a little time and search for them yourself.

            What amazes me about you whiners, is that you never complain about the EXISTING sheriff camera platforms (both helicopter and fixed wing). You never complain about the gov’t’s use of satelites or spy drones. Why is that?

            Sure, this is new and radical for Lancaster, which causes some whiners to rise up yapping about 4th ammendments, but it’s already been proven to be legal.

          • Stinger
            April 12, 2012 at 9:21 am

            “My “guarantee” comes from being able to cite the actual precendents from various courts..” – Really? Cite 3 of them, if you can.

            “What amazes me about you whiners, is that you never complain about the EXISTING sheriff camera platforms (both helicopter and fixed wing). You never complain about the gov’t’s use of satelites or spy drones. Why is that?” – Irrelevent. The discussion is on a NEW project, not other issues.

            “Sure, this is new and radical for Lancaster, which causes some whiners to rise up yapping about 4th ammendments, but it’s already been proven to be legal.” – You admit its radical, yet claim it to be legally tested. BS. Let’s see your citations.

          • ..
            April 12, 2012 at 9:25 am

            “Really? Cite 3 of them, if you can.”

            No.. get off your lazy butt and look them up yourself. Don’t sit there whining about everything, and then stick your head in the sand. Do you own research. Get educated. Here… I’ll make it easy for you. Click on this:


            “Irrelevent. The discussion is on a NEW project, not other issues”

            WHY?? Why are the existing surveillance plaforms OK in your mind, yet this “new” one isn’t, when its just another version of the same ones cited?

            See what I mean? You whine, with nothing to back up the claims.

          • Stinger
            April 12, 2012 at 9:38 am

            Can’t cite any precedent, but claim it to be a decided issue. Typical parrisite smoke up the posterior BS.

            You have no interest in furthering the discussion, just parroting your fuhrer’s crap.

            You’re done.

          • ..
            April 12, 2012 at 9:43 am

            Stinger, you are indeed an idiot. I don’t know how else to say it.

            I never said “Can’t cite any precedent”… I said I WONT. get off your lazy ass and look them up yourself. Hint: You will find 3 cites, on the first page of the google search I sent you to.

            If you are SOOO lazy that you won’t even take the time to quote the cites by spending 2 minutes searching, then I will, which should prove to the rest of the readers what a naive whiner you really are.

            Now its my turn: You find ONE single cite anywhere, that says it’s illegal.

            I’ve answered your questions… the “3 cites” are in the search link I posted. You can try turning it around on me all you want, but it is clear that YOU are the uninformed one, who won’t post any substance.

          • H8 Section8
            April 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm

            I think Stinger just got stung……OUCH! And Stinger look up Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials DO NOT need a warrant to observe an individual’s property from public airspace. Boo Hoo!

          • Stinger
            April 12, 2012 at 1:07 pm

            Thank you H8. I appreciate that you took the time to actually cite a reference for discussion. Unfortunately for your argument, however, I already did look up that particular case and, although you are correct about the low airspace issue (they were at 400 feet – far lower than where Parris’ spy plane would be), they were not using the same type of technology as the ‘eye in the sky’ would be using, nor did this case cover mass surveillance, such as planned with Parris’ folly.

          • ..
            April 12, 2012 at 1:30 pm

            Well there goes Stinger again… trying to re-write the laws.

            Stinger was STILL too lazy to post a precedent! And still hasn’t posted one that says this is illegal. He/She needed someone else (H8) to actually lift a finger.

            Stinger said: “not using the same type of technology as the ‘eye in the sky’ would be using, nor did this case cover mass surveillance”

            So Stinger, tell us with all your knowledge.. just what kind of “technology” does this thing have that you’re now going to insinuate makes it illegal? (I’ll save you the time. IR doesn’t make it illegal either)

            And now you also want to start the “This doesn’t cover ‘mass surveillance'” argument, whatever the heck that is?

            Stinger, do you make this stuff up as you go?

            A lesson to everyone else reading this thread… don’t be ignorant like Stinger. Just because you proclaim something to be a “violation of my 4th” or whatever the argument, fine.. just be able to back it up. You may not like this thing coming to a neighborhood near you, but all your whining won’t stop it. Do your research, and get the facts, first.

            Stinger, if you continue to feel everyone else is wrong, and you’re right about this, then please file a big fat lawsuit. Heck, get the ACLU involved. They love this kind of thing.

          • H8 Section8
            April 12, 2012 at 2:32 pm

            Just one more thing Stinger. Lookup (if you dare) H.R. 658, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Your good friend Obama signed it into law last month.

          • Denise Latanzi
            April 13, 2012 at 12:14 am

            Florida V. Riley isn’t a great citation because all it is is an extension of the plain view doctrine, because we’re talking about a case where something was visible with the naked eye.
            H.R 658 is also a red herring, this is not a drone, nor is it operated by the federal government, but for the record, those permissions also suck.

            It’s sad to see so many people willing to just hand over their rights. They mean nothing if people aren’t willing to fight to keep them.

          • H8 Section8
            April 13, 2012 at 7:15 am

            Do you own a cell phone? Because if you do your willing to give up your privacy. How about cameras in public places? Don’t like them either? It’s a choice between rights and safety. I don’t have anything to hide so I don’t have a problem with cameras in public places or drones flying around.

          • ..
            April 13, 2012 at 7:24 am

            Denise, Florida V. Riley *is* a good citation, because we’re still talking about something visible to the naked eye. There is no difference. And the use of telescopic lenses to enhance that view, is also quite legal.

            (I guess Stinger has been owned, and doesn’t want to play any more)

          • Stinger
            April 13, 2012 at 9:03 am

            No, H8, your argument of comparison does not hold water. The use of a cell phone does not immediately cause a loss of privacy – warrants are still necessary for call records and/or tapping of the line. Cameras in public places are just that: in PUBLIC places, where no privacy is reasonably expected.
            You claim that, “It’s a choice between rights and safety.” This is the same argument that has been used by despots historically to weaken citizen rights and is not an accurate picture to paint. You could reasonably argue that the question is where to place the balance between rights and safety, but it is not necessarily an ‘either/or’ choice.
            Your argument of, “I don’t have anything to hide so I don’t have a problem with cameras in public places or drones flying around,” is irrelevent. You do not have the right to take away MY rights along with your own because YOU are afraid. Which, by the way, is really the crux of the argument for those who want this abomination of rights: Fear. Those persons who are so afraid of the possibility of crime that they are willing to sign away everybody’s rights so that they can FEEL less fear. In the end, though, this device is more likely to be abused against political foes than it is likely to be effective against any criminal activity.

        • William
          April 13, 2012 at 2:05 am

          Hmmm. You got indoor grow lights? Maybe they’ll be checking your electric bill.

        • Yo Mama
          May 10, 2012 at 5:27 am

          Is that right? It’s people like you that allow our rights as natural born citizens of this country to be trampled upon just because you don’t care. Brilliant…

  13. April 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    I do not have a problem with R Rex Parris with what he is trying to accomplish. The biggest problem is that it’s his demeanor towards other people. David Paul would have been a better choice in this regard.

    What I would like to see from this new term is a larger emphasis of working with the other people in a cordial manner.

    As for Section 8 – I am Caucasian – on section 8, I wouldn’t be able to survive without it. Although I am disabled – and cannot work. I would like to be able to someday in the future. The funny thing about it is, my son and I keep to ourselves.

    When I first moved up here the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment was around 450-500 dollars a month. In the last 10 years it went up to 850-950 a month on the same units. This can be contributed towards Section 8 owners wanting to get the most out of the program. I can see that.

    My voucher could *never* put us into a house. The program specifically checks income to make sure that you can pay your bills AND your portion of the rent or you cannot get into the place. It also checks for felony’s and probation/parole, if I ever get in trouble for any reason I would lose my section 8, heck I would lose it if I had a dirty house – and I get checked every 6 months. Fortunately I am one of those clean living people, I don’t drink or do drugs – and never been in trouble, I just want to raise my son to be a good person. Weirdly enough from what I see, that is primarily what most section 8 people want. The ability to survive.

    What I have read – most complaints about people having bad section 8 neighbors; a majority of those neighbors are not even on section 8. When there is one and they were reported the system worked to clean up the situation.

    For the most part, it’s all hearsay and bloated imagination towards the program. It’s a solid working program that helps those that are less fortunate.

    With Section 8, income has to be reported consistently or you lose it. The larger the income the more the recipient of the program has to pay as his share. Quite a large number of recipients pay a majority of the rent and are only subsidized by section 8 by a small portion. They are *not* getting their entire rent free; which is a huge misconception on what people think is happening.

    Problems with – the election for Mayor.

    The signs all around town that littered everywhere did *not* have a date on it for people to acknowledge there was an election. This should be mandatory for all signs.

    The ballot itself was written with notations under each persons name in a way that made it psychologically geared towards voting for R Rex Parris. The ‘volunteer’ portion of word usage under David Paul made it read like he was only going to volunteer to be mayor. The other two candidates had nothing, while R Rex Parris had an outstanding blurb about him being current mayor et al. etc.

    The good things about the voting process.

    The people working the stations were absolutely fantastically wonderful. Some incredibly good, nice and cordial people all around – who were willing to do whatever they could to help you out.

    Next election though, I would like to see a requirement on those signs and more information given to the general populace on voting locations – dates. Make a requirement to have date/URL to website address that had the polling information on it on those little vote for me signs. I believe – and in my own opinion that would bring a larger draw of the cities people to vote.

    I would also like the removal of any “additional” information under the names on the ballot. It seemed a bit ‘unfair’ to all candidates.

  14. Craig
    April 11, 2012 at 11:46 am

    I’ll bet no one can tell by looking at you.

  15. Craig
    April 11, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Looks like Don’t Dump on Me had a little accident and took a dump on himself. What a moron.

    • Don't dump on me L.A.
      April 11, 2012 at 11:44 am

      I’m a SHE! Now who’s the moron?!

      • William
        April 13, 2012 at 2:06 am

        When did you have that done?

  16. save lancaster
    April 11, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Come on Ben, what’s wrong with our mayor ridding the community of the vermin that do little else than commit heinous crimes and proliferate. Once the crooks and the indolent bums are gone, The AV Press will have pleasant headlines and all will be well again. Don’t you want all to be well?

    • Ben K
      April 11, 2012 at 11:36 am

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, as I said, I applaud his aggressive prosecution of violators. What I have a problem with is anyone who is willing to shred the US Constitution for ANY reason. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when I enlisted and though I’m a veteran now, I will do so until my dying breathe. Had it not been for this spy plane business, he would have had my vote even though he is unethically stonewalling the public at council meetings. That is wrong, but I trust he will be remedying that soon.

  17. ....
    April 11, 2012 at 11:03 am

    I hope that Sandra Johnson’s win without ever having said a word during the campaign is something we could look forward to in the future.

  18. save lancaster
    April 11, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Now back to the business of getting rid of all that ails Lancaster. The losers in the election are just that.

  19. trash collector
    April 11, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Hey Tricks Trash, go turn on the red poarch light in front of your trash bin, your customers can’t tell if your working today.

  20. MB
    April 11, 2012 at 7:58 am

    you should save it until HUD and other various agencies are done their investigations, remmeber Alcapone, we all new he was going to win, there is no big suprise there.

  21. Don't dump on me L.A.
    April 11, 2012 at 7:05 am

    Right on Rex and Company! So sorry to ALL you haters it looks like R Rex will be around for a looooooooooong time to make you all miserable….so keep on hating! Now excuse me while I go pop open some champagne! POP!

    • Kate
      April 11, 2012 at 9:00 am

      Dear Don’t dump on me L.A.,

      I sincerely hope that the way you write is not the way you live your life. I have sat by quietly during this farce of an election, much like I sit by and watch the farce that passes for government in the City of Lancaster.

      Several people have posted in this venue within the terms of a polite dialogue, which it seems is something that you, much like our current slate on the city council, are not cognizant of or aware of how to engage in. You call the people who post an opinion contrary to yours haters, try reading what you write sometime.

      I have never lived any where like this before, the hate emanates from the seat of government and washes over the unclean masses, who are willing to be lead around like the lemmings they are and jump off the next bridge that Rex (your adored) tells them to.

      Perhaps the people who do not agree with Rex do so because our form of government allows people to voice their opinion within the public domain, and they choose to do so. Just because the mayor and the council muffle any voice that has the audacity to question their self motivating profit making schemes does not mean that the rest of the population that has chosen to make this their home does not have a right to indignation and embarassment that this pathetic excuse that passes for government “represents” our “best” interests.

      As far as their claims of “Leadership” perhaps we can glean an expectation of “hope not fear” for the future of Lancaster in that some of the ideas as expressed by that inexperienced “fool” John Kiramis will be acted upon by these buffoons and maybe we will get some jobs that allow people to live like human beings instead of like animals scrounging for the next morsel that the city council sees fit to dole out.

      I was extremely disappointed by the number of people who voted yesterday because it seems that only the individuals who are threatened by change and live to hate showed up in droves, otherwise we would not be left with the same hand of cards – a losing one. If you think running a city is all about going after the bad guys, well Don’t dump on me L.A. – you got it half right. The other half is making it a decent place to live, WORK (of which there is none), and have a productive and happy social life. With the amount of hate generated in this town it is no wonder the boulevard to nowhere is failing – why would anyone want to go there -unless they represent the minority that vote and that is to insure that hate is perpetuated.

      Congratulations to all of those who need to have this animosity to maintain their lives, you should be able to thrive as you will get a lot more. As for the rest of us the apathy needs to dissipate and we need to reclaim the right to live someplace decent, someplace we are proud to call home.

      • Don't dump on me L.A.
        April 11, 2012 at 10:18 am

        My darling Kate, you sound like a sore loser. I’m sorry to tell ya but R Rex is trying to bring this city back to where we were before ex-mayor Henry Hearns let Section 8 explode on his watch. You contradict yourself while bloviating. You say that going after bad guys is half right and making this a decent place to live is the other half. Don’t you think by going after the bad guys it will in essence make this a decent place to live? Hmmm

        • Kate
          April 11, 2012 at 11:01 am

          Only if our government lets some more released prisoners loose on our streets. I guess that is what they call leadership – and obviously you agree. Or maybe leadership is the rampant killings and immature name calling that is pursued by our illustrious mayor because government regulations don’t allow him to do what he wants when he wants. Oh wait, that sounds more like a tantrum . . .

          R Rex couldn’t land a wet dream if he wanted to, it would take intelligence, planning, and a desire to see this city become something other than the hole that he maintains it as and that people like you want to see perpetuated.

          I know that it is frightening to imagine another type of life, but it is out there. Losing is not a bad thing and it does not make me sore – it make me nauseated however to think that there will be another two years of non-leadership while Crusader Rex goes about pursuing his personal vendettas. That is our tax dollars the city council is spending and I, just like the many others that you hate for disagreeing with you don’t approve. AND that is my right – We are not in the United Kingdom of Parris yet.

          And, please do not attempt to approach this dialogue on anything but a formal platform, you are not equipped to do so.

          • Don't dump on me L.A.
            April 11, 2012 at 11:33 am

            Sorry to burst your hatin’ bubble….again Kate but R Rex gets FOUR more years! Whoo Hoo! Are ya ready to pack up and leave yet? See ya!

          • Ben K
            April 11, 2012 at 11:42 am

            That’s all you’ve got Dump? Don’t like it, pack your bags? Someone disagrees with you and takes the time to thoughtfully explain and your only response is, don’t like it, leave? Pathetic. This is still America last time I checked where people have the right to an opinion. If you don’t like it, I’ve been to a lot of other countries you might enjoy. Perhaps you should pack your own bag. If you can’t engage someone in a civil debate, don’t post.

          • AV resident
            April 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm

            Kate is right on. Don’t Dump on me LA had nothing thoughtful to share in this dialogue. Critical thinking skills are clearly not a priority for many. You can only change things when you can have an intelligent dialogue like Kate tried to have. Too many people are proud of themselves for slinging mud and zingers but that does NOTHING to improve anything. That kind of behavior is immature, hurtful and a dead-ead. I have friends who love Parris and those who loathe him. Guess what, I can have an intelligent debate with all of them because they use critical thinking skills and respect for others when they dialogue. Too many people here seem unable to to that and I have to wonder why this news organization even is allowing these forums anymore. And let’s not forget the mayor used to only get two year terms, so that seems like a petty thing to focus on when criticizing Kate. Oh, and did anyone besides me see the AV press and notice crime is up in Lancaster–much more than even Palmdale? It is not from Section 8 people either as Rex alluded in the paper. Someone needs to fact check the stats before making such claims…unless they simply was to inflame people against those on section 8 for their own agenda. Yes, some on section 8 committ crime but the numbers DO NOT support the mayors claims. (My neighborhood has a higher crime rate than even and NO known section 8 homes or apartments) Just check the numbers nationally to see exactly how section 8 does or doesn’t increase crime. and if the numbers raise the crime as high as our crime rate has risen. Also, not too long ago. the country released the AV has the largest number of people depressed and suicidal. That is nothing to be proud of.

  22. April 11, 2012 at 5:12 am

    Not surprised they won, but change is coming. His demise will be in court. He will also have to answer to the man above..

    Anybody know where Zimmerman is? His Lawyers quit? They said they are concerned about his mental state, maybe PTSD. I think he was suffering with PTSD before the shooting. It’s obvious this man is mentally disturbed and needs help. Think maybe he needs to be on the Most Wanted list as armed and dangerous.

    • Or...
      April 11, 2012 at 7:39 am

      WTF does that have to do with this????????????????????

    • j.
      April 11, 2012 at 7:40 am

      wtf does that have to do with this????????????

      • Yo Mama
        May 9, 2012 at 5:28 am

        WTF does that have to do with this??????????????????

  23. david G
    April 11, 2012 at 2:54 am

    thank god this election is over!!! now i dont have to see myself in the paper anymore. not to mention answer so many random bull[removed] questions people have when they bump into me.

    • AV Town Crier
      April 11, 2012 at 10:10 am

      Hang in there Dave. You still have a voice and can do something positive with it. Keep on with the good fight.

    • Gladdis
      April 12, 2012 at 12:11 am

      Yes Dave G. Hopefully the next few years will be better for you. Run again, I think you will have more supporters than you think!

  24. William
    April 10, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    If you thought Parris was an arrogant and obnoxious jerk before, just wait and see.

    • Scott Pelka
      April 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm

      I agree.

      • TruthsAvenger
        April 10, 2012 at 11:55 pm

        Says the two biggest losers in the Antelope Valley – well aside from the Grajedas that is.

        • MB
          April 11, 2012 at 8:04 am

          The Grajeda’s knew they were not going to win, you are missing the point.

          • TruthsAvenger
            April 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm

            Pray tell, what was the “point” then?

        • William
          April 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm

          You mean to tell us that Parris is NOT an arrogant and obnoxious jerk???? From your lips to Parris’s rear.

      • Gladdis
        April 12, 2012 at 12:12 am

        I agree too.

  25. Stinger
    April 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Congratulations to the election winners.

  26. ImTrixKat
    April 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    with only a 13.9% turnout, that’s not saying much, TruthsAvenger. However, now we get to “enjoy” the Eye in the Sky waste of our money. Many, many people in Lancaster don’t even know they have the right to vote. I just moved here in August. Just wait till next time. Between now and then, we are going to educate those that think they are disenfranchised.
    I just can’t believe that people approve of the way the city council are doing things. No citizens comments being televised. No budget hearings. Money spent on spy planes. None of this makes any sense to me. Those that sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    • TrixIsTrash!
      April 10, 2012 at 11:11 pm

      If it doesnt make any sense then you can leave and get the hell out of here! The people of this city have spoken! shut up and deal with it!

      • William
        April 10, 2012 at 11:22 pm

        With people like you infesting Lancaster, it’s one more reason not to do business there. Keep it up.

      • Don't dump on me L.A.
        April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am

        I’ll even help you pack!

      • Kate
        April 11, 2012 at 9:19 am

        Dear TrixIsTrash!,

        What it is about the drones that buzz around Parris that makes you so angry all the time? Is it because you live on hate?

        In an arena, which not only the state constitution allows for but also the U.S. constitution states emphatically, WE are all entitled to an opinion in this country. AND until Lancaster, which I am certain Parris would like to see excised from the United States so he would not have to obey any of those pesky laws set up to allow for transparency in our government (for those of you who don’t understand it means the council would have to hold public forums of debate prior to just shoveling things down the constituents throats), any person has the right to say they are not happy living some place where the foul stench of corruption permeates the lives of the inhabitants. I moved to this city, probably much like the person you want to leave, for reasons other than it is a great place to live. IT IS NOT! And let me guess, you and Don’t dump on me L.A. will help me pack my bags. I bet you will. Why would you want any voice of dissension wreaking havoc within the realms of Rexdom? Until things change this is a free country, and until Rex does something to help this place pull itself up by the boot heels and get back on it’s feet the unhappy literate will be here like a thorn in your side. Perhaps you should tell Rex to find a way to get some industry here with some real jobs so our property values would go up and I could get the hell out of here as well.

        People who post contrary comments do so because they want to try to enlighten people who may be incapable of seeing the forrest for the trees. I guess sometimes even with a chain saw it is impossible to accomplish this task.

        So sorry those of us who do not agree with you anger you so. You have a terrific day.

        • Don't dump on me L.A.
          April 11, 2012 at 10:35 am

          Dear Kate,
          I’m not angry, in fact your bloviating makes me laugh! I’ll let you in on a little secret. I have lived in Lancaster for 35 years. This town NEVER has and NEVER will have any industry. Property values NEVER have and NEVER will go up. So why did you move here Kate? Didn’t you know that there wasn’t any industry? Or maybe you moved here because your Section 8 voucher gets stretched further than in L.A. Hmmmm

          • Kate
            April 11, 2012 at 10:51 am

            Unlike you, I do not live anywhere near section 8 housing, so maybe that is why I am such a happy person and don’t feel the need to denigrate anyone who disagrees with me. I’m sorry you did not understand most of what I wrote – however that does not surprise me.

            And I came out to this place 35 years ago and saw what it was, so as to your allegations that there is no industry and never will be, maybe you are too blind to see what is here. And as for property values, if you lived anywhere but in section 8 land you would know that 4 years ago the house that I currently live in sold for twice what we bought it for since Rex took office. I will let that lie where it is because speaks it for itself.

            The only reason the town is not growing any longer or has the capacity to grow is because of lack of vision and LEADERSHIP which the incumbents purported to have according to their election advertising. Well if they have it, I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

            Try not to be so angry all the time. Perhaps if you got up off of your probably quite large behind and got out in the world you might find it’s a pretty nice place where freedom of thought, speech, and transparent governments reign.

            Trying to insinuate your hate and anger upon my placid thoughts is not possible. Unlike you I have had the courage to go someplace else, like any place and find out that Rex is not the answer to anything at all he is just a placebo for the weak minded.

            Have a great day!

          • Don't dump on me L.A.
            April 11, 2012 at 11:11 am

            Kate I think you hit the nail on the head. Maybe If you did live next door to Section 8 you might have a better understanding of why I back R Rex and his fight against fraud. You might want to come out of your gated community and try living next to a Section 8 tenant sometime. I think you would change your little mind a bit. So if you had the courage to go someplace else…why did you return? Guess
            Lancaster ain’t so bad after all. And also Kate….pot meet kettle. Let me explain so your little mind and my large behind understand each other. You criticize my comments and hope that I don’t live my life like I write… maybe YOU need to
            look in the mirror at yourself…..if you dare!

          • William
            April 13, 2012 at 2:10 am

            Loosen the bone, Wilma.

        • Ben K
          April 11, 2012 at 10:54 am

          Well said Kate. I’m thinking I should have chosen to buy a house in Rosamond but I didn’t. I bought a house here and I’ll be damned if anyone’s gonna come try and help me pack. I pay taxes in this city and I have a right to say where those taxes are going. I can’t believe anyone would so blatantly ignore the US Constitution with this spy plane business. I applaud Parris’ aggressive enforcement on section 8 violators but I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit quietly while someone infringes on my constitutional right to privacy. He’s going too far.

          Furthermore, it is only a matter of time before that thing is abused for minor infractions to defray the astronomical cost. 90 grand a month … Wow. And no right to fight it according to them! Police state!!

          If anyone has started organizing for picketing, please post something up so we can get involved.

          • save lancaster
            April 11, 2012 at 10:57 am

            What’s wrong with our police state? You both knew what it was when you moved here.

          • Ben K
            April 11, 2012 at 11:12 am

            That train of thought makes me weep for our future. Those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

            The biggest threat to the American way of life is not a terrorist, it’s a politician.

          • Ben K
            April 11, 2012 at 11:18 am

            Read the book Three Felonies a Day then come comment how Mr Parris’ spy plane isn’t going to affect you. There isn’t anyone in this Country who couldn’t be targeted as a criminal with its quagmire of laws. Go read the story about the home owners who were kicked off their owned land in the AV to make way for the solar plants. Wake up.

          • Ben K
            April 11, 2012 at 11:19 am

            Save Lancaster … Your chosen username is a contradiction of your statements …

          • Nikki
            April 11, 2012 at 11:48 am

            people in Lancaster have to live in a police state because of all of the thugs with Section8 vouchers that have moved here and brought all of their problems with them.

          • Ben K
            April 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm

            And you think the solution is blanket surveillance? Seems to me the solution would be to vote out all the people who implement and oversee the program, not sacrifice more of our own civil liberties. This spy plane is reactive and is not a viable solution to the problem. It might slightly increase the likelihood of catching a criminal but it will always be after someone has already become a victim. The only person who can protect you is yourself. Not the Police, not the government, yourself. Always will be. The ratio of police to citizens in this city is 750:1. Think about it.

    • TruthsAvenger
      April 10, 2012 at 11:58 pm

      ImTrixKat, you can thank Pelka, Abber and the Grajeda boys for the lost TV coverage of citizens comments. They abused the privilege and ruined it for all of us.

      And if you have only been here for barely half a year, how can you say you have gotten all of the facts? Or are you relying on the opinions of several haters?

      Is Parris and the council perfect? Not at all. But do you really want to see convicted criminals like Abber and the Grajedas running things?

      • Marissa
        April 11, 2012 at 3:56 am

        You’ve got to be kidding? You mean, people speaking out at council meetings ruined it for everyone? Isn’t that what public comment is for?
        I’ve lived here my entire life, and its embarrassing. This whole election sucked. Rex won because no one serious ran against him, and they didn’t because of the crap that serious candidates have to put up with when they run. You know, like private investigators bullying your family, sheriffs cars blocking your driveway, City workers harassing your business tenants.
        This city has become a complete joke. It’s turned into a Dr. Suess caricature. We need the Lorax to come put a stop to Rexville.

        • Don't dump on me L.A.
          April 11, 2012 at 6:55 am

          I never had a Sheriff block my driveway or private investigators bullying my family. I have however lived next door to a Section 8 tenant and had to deal with them harassing me and my family! So if this is happening to you than I really don’t think it’s random. I am fully behind R Rex and council! GOOOOOO R REX!

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 11, 2012 at 4:10 pm

          Big difference between speaking out on an issue and hamming it up so you can go home and watch yourself be an ass on TV. Several people have gone down there after publicly stating they were only there to be disruptive, not constructive.

          Grejeda and Pelka’s abusive conduct left the council no choice but to cutoff the comments from being televised.


          So no one’s rights are being infringed upon.

          Drama queen much?

      • MB
        April 11, 2012 at 6:59 am

        You seem to forget that the Mayor is a drug addict and for what I hear he as a criminal past as well.

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm

          And I hear you have sex with your mother on a nightly basis and twice on weekends.

          Good thing hearsay isn’t taken as fact by those of us who live in the real world.

          • Stinger
            April 11, 2012 at 6:42 pm

            Another cover-up attempt by a revisionist parrisite. Parris has admitted his prior drug use and criminal history. In fact, if he had actually learned something of humility, I might be willing to believe that he no longer was engaged in such activities. The fact that he still acts like a drug addict causes me to believe that he is still active in his abuses (including the drugs).

      • AV Town Crier
        April 11, 2012 at 10:19 am

        How did the above mentioned ruin it b speaking (or attempting to) for their 3 minutes. If Rex would have just shut his yapper and let them speak, 3 minutes would have been all they would have gotten.

        Go to Palmdale, you don’t see Mayor Ledford interrupt speakers and argue with those that dissent. Instead, he actually tries to help them resolve their issues.

        All Rex is doing is censorship. You might just as well live in Vernon for you have the same type of government. They run and control their own elections. Gee, what can go wrong there?

        On the same token, nobody with any real chance ran against Rex. That was unfortunate. Nobody with any integrity and the ability to attempt to run a real campaign against Rex ran. Rodio was the last person to attempt it. It’s too bad he didn’t give it another run.

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 11, 2012 at 4:14 pm

          That would be because Ledford is an idiot who is afraid of his own shadow and won’t stand up to these thugs.

          And TC, when you tell everyone you are only going up to be as disruptive as possible then you really have no business going up there in the first place.

          Pelka, Grajeda, Abber and the rest of those waste of skin idiots need to climb back into the trash heap they came from so that people with real issue, concerns and comments can try to get something done in Lancaster.

          • Stinger
            April 11, 2012 at 6:32 pm

            Ledford is afraid of his own shadow? Then how come Ledford doesn’t need a whole cadre of personal bodyguards like Parris thinks that he needs?

            Seems to me that Parris is the coward here.

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 11, 2012 at 4:16 pm

          And no one is being censored. You can still have your three minutes at the meeting, you just don’t get to be on TV.

          So what’s the real issue? You want your 15 minutes of fame and you can’t have it? Awwww, poor baby…….

          • Stinger
            April 11, 2012 at 6:38 pm

            By keeping any public comment away from the public, Parris IS engaging in censorship, by definition.

            All he is trying to do is keep the public who could not be directly present at the meeting from hearing just how the public that shows up really doesn’t like how he is handling the city’s business. This way his paid propaganda can take better hold with the public.

          • TheTruth
            April 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm

            Great point TA. Didn’t the televising thing just start a few years ago? If so, how is it stinker and others somehow think their rights are now being violated? HELLLLLLOOOOO! You still have the right to speak (Not throw tantrums like G), but nobody has the “right” to be on TV!

          • Stinger
            April 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm

            Sorry, TheLie, it is still censorship of a portion of a public meeting.

      • Stinger
        April 11, 2012 at 6:47 pm

        Redress against the government by speaking at public meetings is not a ‘privilege’ parrisite, it is a Constitutional RIGHT.

        Yet more evidence of the lying parrisite koolaid drinkers’ refusal to respect what America stands for.

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 11, 2012 at 7:54 pm

          Sorry Stinger, but no one is being denied the right to redress the government by not having their comments televised.

          They are still able to comment, on the record, at the meeting.

          What they are being denied is the ability to post on YouTube their latest diatribe against “Da Man”.

          When you can show me where in the Constitution it states you have the right to be on TV, then come see me about getting the no televised comments rule reversed.

          • Stinger
            April 11, 2012 at 8:20 pm

            Ahhh, but it is still censorship, by definition.

    • Don't dump on me L.A.
      April 11, 2012 at 7:18 am

      Sorry to burst your hatin’ bubble ImTrixCat but R Rex is gonna be around for awhile so get used to it! As far as your comment that many many people don’t even know they have the right to vote…..ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! The ones that are “disenfranchised” are the hard working, paying their taxes, law abiding citizens of Lancaster that have to deal with Section 8 fraudsters, gang banging punks, EFT using, stinky, ghetto trash, white trash, parolees, sex offenders scumbags!!

      • trash collector
        April 11, 2012 at 9:37 am

        Don’t dump on me L.A. I’m sorry to burst your bubble – I feel extremely disenfranchised by the outright deceipt of the local government and their blatant disrespect for my civil rights and I pay taxes and abide by the law. Don’t include me in your hate epithets! Just because you think like you do it does not mean the rest of us agree.

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm

          TC, what civil rights have been violated?

          You can still comment at the Council meeting, it just won’t be televised.

          Pray tell, which right have you been denied?

          Certainly not the right to be an ass I see.

    • ..
      April 11, 2012 at 5:34 pm

      Trix said.. “Many, many people in Lancaster don’t even know they have the right to vote”

      If that’s true, then those people who “dont know they have the right to vote” are just too stupid to be allowed to vote.

  27. S. Parker
    April 10, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    4% precinct turnout?!?! This is beyond apathy… It’s downright TRAGIC!!

    I don’t expect to hear anymore complaints about Rex Parris then, especially from those who didn’t even bother to show up and vote.

  28. TruthsAvenger
    April 10, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    Those popping sounds we are hearing tonight are the heads of all the Rex-Haters exploding as they can’t come to terms with being soundly rejected by the voters of Lancaster for yet another election cycle.

    • Scott Pelka
      April 10, 2012 at 11:18 pm

      Sorry to disappoint you. I am still here.

      • Scott Pelka
        April 10, 2012 at 11:20 pm

        Soundly… first time by more than 50% and that’s because he flooded the mail and outdoor with his propaganda. Lets see how long it takes him to remove all his trash.

        • TruthsAvenger
          April 10, 2012 at 11:54 pm

          Keep drinking that hater-aid Scotty. Going to love the next council meeting watching your face turning beet-red when the mayor is congratulated on yet another victory over the luckless losers – Pelka, Grajeda, Burdette and Abber, et al.

          • Marissa
            April 11, 2012 at 3:59 am

            Looks like Rex himself has come here to gloat in the form of “truths avenger”.
            Can’t wait to see him turn purple when he gets spanked again for violating the Brown Act.
            Sooner or later it’ll be Federal Prison for you Rexie.. It’s just Karma, it’ll catch up to you sooner or later.. or maybe it already did, prostate cancer is amazingly appropriate for a guy like you.

          • TruthsAvenger
            April 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm

            Karma goes both ways Marissa. When you gloat over the misfortune of another person, you usually are visited with an equal amount of misfortune upon yourself.

          • B.
            April 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm

            You are very spiteful, Marissa. Wishing cancer on someone is serious business whether it is typed or not. Ever hear of the threefold rule? Be careful what you put out into the Universe because it will come back times three!

Comments are closed.