Boo, Bruce! Boohoo! 

Some people sure have a bee in their bonnet over 2nd District Supervisor Bruce Gibson. To hear them describe him, he's practically got pointy horns, a forked tail, and cloven hooves. According to the pithily monikered Committee to Support the Recall of Supervisor Bruce Gibson (CTSTROSBG), the liberal-minded politician is guilty of all manner of travesties, chief among them his desire to repeal Proposition 13, which caps California property taxes. Except, according to Gibson, he supports Prop. 13. Who to believe?

click to enlarge

"He will lie and tell you that this is not the case," the CTSTROSBG claimed in a recent press release, which they issued to announce that their recent attempt to gather signatures to recall Gibson was successful in every way except one: The recall won't make the ballot because they didn't gather enough signatures. But that's beside the point!

"We were successful in educating the public about what a county supervisor is, what they do, and how their decisions affect all of us," the CTSTROSBG crowed. "We succeeded in pointing out all the progressive actions that Supervisor Gibson has taken since gaining a majority on the Board of Supervisors and how this will change the way SLO County looks heading into the future. Supervisor Gibson has continually berated those whose ideologies are different from his. He calls people names such as: Election-Denying Activists, conspiracy theorists, and MAGA fanatics. Very unbecoming behavior for a sitting supervisor. 13 votes, Gibson. 13 votes."

Yikes! So much to unpack. The 13 votes referred to the 2022 election tally when Gibson bested his opponent Bruce Jones by 13 votes. Remember Darcia Stebbens? She requested and (mostly) paid for a recount of the results, which—insert drumroll, please—proved the original count was correct.

Keep in mind, that vote was in the gerrymandered Patten map, designed to give the conservative candidate the advantage. The county was sued over the Patten Map, forced to repeal it and install a map that compiled with state and federal laws, and directed to award $300,000 in county funds to plaintiff groups to cover attorney costs ... which the CTSTROSBG also blames Gibson for, as if it was his fault the then-conservative majority pushed through a gerrymandered map that was deemed illegal.

You can't make this stuff up, folks, though apparently the CTSTROSBG can.

As for calling election deniers "Election-Denying Activists, conspiracy theorists, and MAGA fanatics," how would they like to be described? "Shrill illiberal voting skeptics, citizens who do their own research and post internet memes about tracking chips in vaccines and rigged Dominion voting machines, and exuberant cheerleaders calling to Make America Great Again like before when women didn't have control over their reproductive systems and we didn't let in immigrants who bring drugs, crime, rape, and some, they won't assume, are good people"?

Dear members of the CTSTROSBG, when you point out "all the progressive actions that Supervisor Gibson has taken since gaining a majority on the Board of Supervisors and how this will change the way SLO County looks heading into the future," an apparent majority of us think, "Good. We like progress, which is the root of 'progressive.'"

According to the CTSTROSBG, they would have gathered enough signatures if the state wasn't such a cheater-cheater-pumpkin-eater: "The requirements for recalling an elected official were changed after the Newsom recall, which put the requirement of signatures needed at 20 percent, unlike previous recalls that only required 10 percent. Initiatives only require 10 percent of signatures to be put on the ballot."

Um, except according to SLO County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano, that's false: "No, the signature threshold for recalling a local office has been the same since Jan. 1, 2003."

Well, somebody's lying. Is it Cano and Gibson or a group of disgruntled malcontents who didn't like elections results and don't like liberalism?

This was the second attempt to recall Gibson after first recall petitioner John Whitworth attempted it, and failed, in 2023. I know this is hard to believe for conservatives, but a lot of SLO County citizens like Gibson and believe he represents their political views and priorities, like, for instance, prioritizing homeless services, closing the Oceano Dunes State Park to off-road vehicles, and finding ways to mitigate climate change. We get that you don't agree with this stuff, but you're in the minority, which is why your candidate lost and why you can't get enough signatures to recall Gibson. Maybe get over it, eh?

Speaking of homelessness, the contentious and arguably abysmal failure that was the Oklahoma Avenue Safe Parking site is now officially closed. According to the Department of Social Services, "The remaining 10 individuals voluntarily left the site by the end of the day on Monday, May 6."

The county wanted to close the site months ago, but the SLO County Homeless Union sued the county to keep it open. The case has now been settled.

"The county agreed to pay the union a total sum of $60,000 to fund temporary lodging and related relocation assistance for those 10 individuals during their transition to an alternative location," the county announced.

Hm, $6K each. "Alternative location"? Where? The recent Point-in-Time Count identified 1,171 homeless individuals currently living in SLO County. If we could come up with $7 million, we could give them all $6K each. Δ

The Shredder lives under a desk. Tell it how you're doing at [email protected].