Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Is Gang Chen (or his supporters) Breaking the Law with New Signs on Irvine Streets


You can’t drive down a street in Irvine without seeing a clutter of candidate signs for the coming November election.  Signs for City Council, Mayor, and State Assembly are everywhere — including these two posted above that are anti-Don Wagner and anti-Mary Ann Gaido.  There are no committee IDs on these signs so if you’re ok walking and want to destroy them, go ahead.  You won’t be breaking any laws.

I’ll slip on my Sherlock Holmes deerstalker hat and deduce these signs we put up by Gang Chen or his supporters who don’t understand how an Independent Expenditure works.  Why?  Pretty easy.

There are four main candidates running for Mayor.  State Rep. Don Wagner (R-Five Point), Katherine Daigle (a principled Republican), Gang Chen (clueless Republican desperate for slate mates) and Mary Ann Gaido (long time Democrat and Progressive community leader).

Daigle has run before and has always spend her campaign funds promoting herself instead of tearing down other candidates.  Daigle has too much integrity to attack her opponents and has never done so in several campaigns which is why these no-ID signs trashing Wagner and Gaido are out of character for her.  Daigle isn’t behind these signs.

Wagner isn’t behind these signs; he has no signs up himself and FivePoint is rumored to be spending big bucks to elect him, so the developer sure as hell won’t post signs calling Wagner too Partisan and a career politician.  Wagner tends to ignore his opponents when running.


Gaido is the only candidate to sign the City of Irvine’s CODE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES when filing papers to run for Mayor of Irvine.  She did so on August 12, 2016.

Here’s what the code reads:

“There are basic principles of decency, honesty, and fair play which every candidate for public office in the State of California has a moral obligation to observe and uphold in order that, after vigorously contested but fairly conducted campaigns, our citizens may exercise their constitutional right to a free and untrammeled choice and the will of the people may be fully expressed on the issues.

THEREFORE: I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT the use of character defamation, whispering campaigns, libel, slander or scurrilous attacks on any candidate or his or her personal or family life.”

Gaido has no signs promoting her candidacy for Mayor.  Unlike Gang Chen who has had signs up for months.  The one positive thing about all the signs posted along Irvine’s streets is the Gang Chen signs have become almost invisible.

If you head over to Gang Chen’s blog, you’ll read the top two posts echoing the signs placed around town — namely Don Wagner is a career politician and Mary Ann Gaido is some sort of radical/hypocrite.  Subtle, huh?  Chen has also billed himself as non-Partisan but also a Republican.  So surely these signs were paid for by Gang Chen or one of his supporters?  Right?

Chen has filed FPPC complaints against Gaido, this blog and the Irvine Community News & Views.  The FPPC has tossed out the complaints against both the blog and the newspaper; there is a small separate investigation pending about Gaido and an unreported payment to ICN&V where corrective action has been taken and this will likely be closed without penalty.  But for a candidate who’s filing FPPC complaints, these signs are a case study.  No committee ID number period. Chen has denied being behind last’s June’s “No Lalloway/Bad for Republican” signs during the primary attacking Jeff Lalloway’s OC GOP Central Committee race (it didn’t work; Lalloway won a seat).  Will Chen take responsibility for these new no Wagner/no Gaido signs when he’s clearly the only Mayoral candidate to benefit from them?

Want another and easier way to prove the signs are connected to Chen?  Paper stock is the same size as the Gang Chen for Mayor signs.  The Gang Chen signs as well as the No Wagner, No Lalloway and No Gaido sizes all use the same font.  Lazy printers.  Chen once asked me to be honest about his campaign; I am.  I think he paid for these illegal signs and won’t take responsibility for them.

Irvine voters want to know if he’s honest enough to admit his connection to these signs.


  80 comments for “Is Gang Chen (or his supporters) Breaking the Law with New Signs on Irvine Streets

  1. Jake
    September 22, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Yesterday afternoon I saw Gang Chen himself putting up these signs along Jeffrey. I was in a hurry so wasn’t able to take a picture but almost positive it was him. He leisurely parked his car on the side of the road, got out, put up a sign, and got back in. He didn’t sign the sign pledge or the ethical pledge, so I’m sure he isn’t trying to hide that these signs are from his campaign.

    • September 22, 2016 at 1:54 pm

      Jake it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But I hear Mr. Chen has a wonderful singing voice so perhaps he can favor us with his rendition of “Fight Song.”

    • Calvin C.
      September 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm

      They have really packed Jeffrey with these annoying signs.

  2. Robin H.
    September 22, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    Speaking of unfair play! Hopefully Tustin Councilman Allan Bernstein loses!

    Al Enderle, the owner of Enderle Center in Tustin and gracious donor to many charities in Tustin, died in the early morning of September 17. Al’s wife got a number of prayers and touching remarks on her Facebook page in remembrance of Al. Among them, among all the loving thoughts, is a rather grotesque self-serving post by Randi Bernstein, wife of Tustin Councilman Allan Bernstein. She posted a picture of herself, her husband, and Al, with the quote, “Thank you Al Enderle for your support of Allan and generous support for Exchange Club.”


    The memorial page is supposed to be about Al, one of Tustin’s favorite son’s.

    It’s not a campaign stop.

  3. September 23, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    I signed the Code of Fair Campaign Practices in the council race on Aug. 4.

    I too was wondering why these signs had no ID number or “paid for” statement.

    Also, my signs are pretty, quite small, few in number, and designed with pleasant blue and green to blend in better with the sky and landscaping. I listened to the voters’ concerns about “sign pollution” and started to put up my signs later than other candidates (only 51 days before the election instead of 60). It’s important to be respectful.

  4. September 30, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    Can you check the codes before you go off like this? I thought you are smarter than that.
    Yes, those signed are put out by my campaign, and everything on the signs are true. We have more detailed information at our website. We have checked with the city clerk, the city attorney, and FPPC, and they told us we are NOT legally required to put “Paid for by Gang Chen for Mayor 2016 (GangChenUSA.com), FPPC# 1379051” on the signs, so we remove the disclaimer from our original sign design.

    When other candidates have interest groups spending two hundred thousand dollars or more to create “fake” newspaper to constantly promote their selected candidates, we have the rights to stand up and use our constitution rights to fight for ordinary citizens/taxpayers. Signs are an inexpensive way for us to exercise our rights. It is that simple.

    • October 1, 2016 at 8:31 am

      I think you misunderstood the FPPC. So the No Lalloway signs were yours too then, right?

    • October 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

      The signs cost between $6 and $10 each. There are more than 200 around the city. If you spent less than $1000, you’d be fine. But economics says no, and even if someone took the signs at a loss to them, it’s an in-kind payment to you. To the heart of all of it is your inherent disrespect for Irvine voters. Campaign signs up for months in violation of a non-binding city policy against political signs until after Labor Day. A failure to be upfront with voters on identifying you’re negative advertising, a failure to understand how media works, and failing to disclose your sole reason for running — to stop the cemetery from making it to the original site. You’d swap valuable city own land for less expansive industrial land acre for acre but not dollar for dollar which tells me everything I need to know about your political ambition — all to enrich a billionaire with a gift of public land.


      • October 12, 2016 at 9:31 pm

        You have been in politics for so long, and I thought you knew the rules for signs. Apparently you do NOT. Here is a primer for you:
        1. If an independent committee put out signs, then the committee has to add the disclaimer of “Paid for by …, FPPC number…”
        2. If the total cost is less than $2,000 for the signs, then NO committee number is required. The limit has been increase from $1,000 to $2,000.
        3. If a candidate controlled committee put out signs asking voters NOT to vote for his/her opponents, no committee number or disclaimer is required.
        If you want to participate in politics, learn the rules first. Dan, you still have a lot to learn.


  5. Alan
    October 1, 2016 at 12:48 am

    Instead of name calling and bringing up people that are not even running why don’t you tell us what your plans are for the city? Traffic? 10,000 homes at the so called Great Park? Sub Station at the Spectrum?

    • October 12, 2016 at 9:32 pm

      Check my website, it covers all these.

  6. Monte Taylor
    October 8, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    So happy Chen states his true colors. And so unfortunate that his deceptions don’t really tell the voter what it is he really stands for. And, SHAME on you for disrespecting the Veterans of Orange County and Irvine (myself being one of those) in trying to undermine the Veterans Cemetery! You definitely will not be getting my vote and many others (especially Veterans) see right thru your guise. You do not deserve to serve in this great City whereas the ones you smear, much more do so!

    • October 12, 2016 at 9:45 pm

      From our FAQ:
      What is your position on the veterans’ cemetery in Irvine?
      Response: I support the veterans and their wish to have a great cemetery. They fight and die for us, and they absolutely deserve it. Once the cemetery is built, it will be there for thousands of years, and we want to make sure it is done right. Currently, there are two sites available; one needs to be selected. I support the landswap presented by Bill Cook, the leader for the veterans, at the 4/12/16 Irvine City Council meeting. I was there in the meeting and spoke in public to support Bill Cook and the veterans because the new site they propose is MUCH better than the old site in every way. The new location is much better than the old location for all stakeholders; veterans do not have to spend a lot of money to do the clean-up, and the new location is close to the intersection of the 5 and 405 freeway. It can be a very visible landmark for Irvine and remind all of us the great contribution of the veterans.

      • October 12, 2016 at 9:46 pm

        It is away from the new Portola High School and homes, and Irvine residents love the new location.

        The cemetery is like a great puzzle; you cannot bring out a knife and cut all the puzzle pieces square and put them together. It takes some extra time and effort to really solve the puzzle, and now all the pieces have finally come together. We have finally solved the puzzle and worked out a win-win solution for all parties involved. Supporting this win-win solution is the right thing to do.

        • October 12, 2016 at 9:50 pm

          How can Mary Ann Gaido say “NO” to Bill Cook and other veterans and refuse to give them what they want and claims the she supports the veterans? There is a word for this, it is called hypocrite.

          Gaido limits the veterans’ choice to the original proposed location. This is more for her own political gain than for veterans. Why? Because the original location will probably NOT work; it requires millions of dollars in cleaning costs and demo costs. Where is the money? I support the veterans, and I want to make sure the veterans have two choices. In fact, most veterans like the new alternate site. I support the new alternate cemetery site and support the landswap proposed by the veterans. The new site will work

          • October 12, 2016 at 9:55 pm

            It’s an acre for acre swap. Not a dollar for dollar swap. If you want the swap to happen, have FivePoint pony up cash and land. But be honest. You don’t want a cemetery near homes

            • October 13, 2016 at 12:09 am

              You are talking to the right person about land value:
              I am a licensed architect, and I know a lot more than an ordinary people about land value.
              The land for the 2nd site can be used for commercial purpose (See the Broadcom buildings right next to it?), and it is actually MORE valuable than the first site at the north end of the Great Park. A piece of land zoned for commercial buildings costs typically twice as much as the same a piece of land zone for residential uses per acres.

              The first site will cost 77 million dollars to just be cleaned up and demo the 70+ existing structures, which was built way before 1978 and contains lead-based paint and asbestos and maybe other toxic chemicals. The veterans applied for 38 million dollars for the cemetery, but VA only approved 10 million dollars. Where is the rest for the money needed to build the cemetery?

              The reason why Five Point is willing to make the landswap is NOT because they can make billions more, but just to cut their loss: they have hundreds of homes around the 1st site that is not selling well. So, the veterans only have a very short window of opportunity to make the landswap happens. Once Five Point sells the homes around the 1st site, they will NOT have incentive to make the landswap, and the veterans will be screwed because of the missed opportunity.

              If Mary Ann Gaido continues to refuse to give the veterans what thye want and reject the landswap, the veterans will be really screwed and may NOT have a cemetery at all in the end.

              • October 13, 2016 at 7:39 am

                I think I trust the opinion of real estate developers more. But thanks for admitting FivePoint wants the deal due to poor sales. Explains everything.

        • October 12, 2016 at 9:56 pm

          It’s not a win win. It enriches a billionaire with a gift of public land to make millions in profits. You’re trading a bottle of fine wine for a handful of stale raisins

  7. Calvin C.
    October 9, 2016 at 12:51 am

    Well, I must say that I completely agree with Gang Chen’s signs about a political candidate being a “career politician.”

    Which is why when I go to a doctor I make sure they are anything but a “career doctor.” I demand amateurs or at least part time doctors.

    • October 12, 2016 at 10:04 pm

      Our government is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, NOT a government of the career politicians, by the career politicians, and for the career politicians.

      • October 12, 2016 at 10:20 pm

        So when you lose, you’ll accept the will of the voters? Or will you launch a recall?

  8. Monte Taylor
    October 9, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Yep, “amateur” politicians can’t stand on their own merit, they put up signs saying that others are “radicals” and “career politician”s! Intelligent people see right thru this and those not so put up such signs and vote for such candidates.

    • October 12, 2016 at 9:57 pm

      Your analogy is NOT proper. This country is great, NOT because of the career politicians, but because of ordinary people, the “amateur” politicians. Career politicians turned the Great Park into the biggest scandal in Irvine history: 251 million dollars was mishandled, less than half of the money was actually spent on the design and construction of the Great Park, 43 million dollars were un-accounted for, and many contracts were handed out without bidding. You can see all the details of the Great Park disaster at the OC Grand Jury’s report at this link (pay special attention to the findings on pages 24 to 26 of the pdf):

      Why do we want another career politician like Gaido and wagner? Enough is enough.

      Irvine voters voted Larry Agran out of office in 2014. Mary Ann Gaido has been very close to Larry Agran for over 40 years. She is a part of Larry Agran’s team. Mary Ann Gaido is a part of the problem and not a solution for Irvine.

      • October 12, 2016 at 10:23 pm

        Gaido is Larry’s friend. She has lived in Irvine longer than he has. She’s held office before, but to brand her a career politician is wrong. Look to Christina Shea to be the career politician running this cycle.

  9. Alan
    October 10, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    I don’t mind signs put up for the purpose of getting elected. I resent signs telling me who not to vote for. I guess Gang knows what’s best for me and everyone else. NOT!!!!

  10. October 12, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    My “No Gaido” and “No Wagner” signs are an effective way to fight the big money and interest group that supported Gaido and Wagner, and to really protect the interest of taxpayers. When Agran’s team spent $200,000 to create a fake newspaper. “Irvine Community News & Views”, and constantly promote Gaido, and put her in the Emperor’s new dress, our signs tell people the truth, and point out to them what the Emperor’s new dress really is. I am NOT afraid to tell the truth.

    I have to agree with some of you that Wagner is also supported by big money and interest groups too. So, “No Gaido” and “No Wagner” because they both represent big money and interest groups, NOT the people of Irvine.

    • October 12, 2016 at 9:56 pm

      Spoiler alert. The signs are not effective

    • Alan
      October 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm

      You are also not afraid to just make stuff up and out right lie. You said there was 43 million unaccounted for at the great park. That is a lie. Every penny was accounted for.

      • October 13, 2016 at 4:38 pm

        That’s true. Every penny is accounted for

        • October 13, 2016 at 9:02 pm

          Did you even read the OC grand jury report? It is from the OC grand jury report, NOT from me.

          You can see all the details of the Great Park disaster at the OC Grand Jury’s report at this link (pay special attention to the findings on pages 24 to 26 of the pdf):

          • October 13, 2016 at 9:08 pm

            On page 25 of the OC grand jury report, Item “F.13. There was no explanation by the City Council as to where the tax increment of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized.”

            On page 26, Item “R.8. The City of Irvine needs to provide an explanation as to where the tax increment of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized. (F13).”

            • October 13, 2016 at 9:10 pm

              The worst days of the Great Park disaster occurred between 2002 and 2012, when Agran was in charge. Mary Ann Gaido is part of the Agran team. Mary Ann Gaido is a part of the problem and not a solution for Irvine.

              • October 13, 2016 at 9:21 pm

                How can Mary Ann Gaido represent the Irvine people when her entire campaign is supported and funded by Agran’s team and Agran’s friends, including the fake newspaper, “Irvine Community News & Views”?

                • October 13, 2016 at 10:46 pm

                  Democrats have a majority of voters in Irvine. MaryAnn has been here for 40 years. She knows everyone. She will be a great mayor

              • October 13, 2016 at 10:47 pm

                She had nothing to do with the Great Park.

          • October 13, 2016 at 10:48 pm

            Yeah, it’s apparant you didn’t understand it’s a report that got information wrong

            • October 14, 2016 at 5:46 pm

              Apparently you think you are above the laws, and even ask your readers to break the laws by removing signs that do not belong to them.

              If the Grand Jury report does not fit your purpose, you start to call it wrong. Well, if it is wrong, you should contact the Grand Jury and ask them to correct the report. Apparently you did not. I think people trust the OC Grand Jury more than you.

              • Dan Chmielewski
                October 14, 2016 at 6:07 pm

                Please produce invoices and quantities on the signs that show you spent less than $2k on them. In the meantime, I’ll happily pull any sign in my neighborhood that doesn’t have a committee ID. You’ll have to catch me in the act, won’t you?

                • October 14, 2016 at 6:28 pm

                  You need to improve your reading skills. I clearly stated:
                  Stop teaching people to do illegal things. If they take down my “No Gaido” and “No Wagner” signs, they ARE breaking the laws, and IPD will go after them.

                  You have been in politics for so long, and I thought you knew the rules for signs. Apparently you do NOT. Here is a primer for you:
                  1. If an independent committee put out signs, then the committee has to add the disclaimer of “Paid for by …, FPPC number…”
                  2. If the total cost is less than $2,000 for the signs, then NO committee number is required. The limit has been increase from $1,000 to $2,000.
                  3. If a candidate controlled committee put out signs asking voters NOT to vote for his/her opponents, no committee number or disclaimer is required.
                  If you want to participate in politics, learn the rules first. Dan, you still have a lot to learn.”

                  My “No Gaido” and “No Wagner” signs belong to the 3rd category above. No need for invoices or anything. Get it?

                • October 14, 2016 at 6:30 pm

                  It can be MORE than $2,000 in my case. Get it?

                • Dan Chmielewski
                  October 14, 2016 at 11:28 pm

                  I think you need the reading lesson. Read 2in the rules you posted and then you say you can spend more than $2k without putting a committee ID on this? Right.

                  If you don’t have the stones to identify your campaign IDs on the signs, don’t blame me if they get torn down or stolen.

      • October 13, 2016 at 9:03 pm

        Did you even read the OC grand jury report? It is from the OC grand jury report, NOT from me.

        You can see all the details of the Great Park disaster at the OC Grand Jury’s report at this link (pay special attention to the findings on pages 24 to 26 of the pdf):

  11. October 13, 2016 at 7:39 am

    The whole point of nonpartisan city council elections is to ensure that voters have at least a chance to elect neighbors rather than career politicians supported by big business and developers. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pointing out that Wagner is a career politician. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out that Gaido has a long association with Larry Agran. That’s why the ICNV will persistently quote her, and no matter how many times I contact them, never me. I don’t exist in the eyes of the ICNV. I definitely believe our elections are too partisan and have been pleased to see Gang Chen reaching across the aisle when no one else is brave or neighborly enough to do so. He is running on a multi-party slate, if no one has noticed.

    The OC Register just published a story on all the dark money from SuperPACs in Irvine elections; it’s a must-read.

    • Dan Chmielewski
      October 14, 2016 at 6:08 pm

      Courtney, Irvine elections are non-partisan in name only

      • October 23, 2016 at 12:37 pm

        That’s sad. I don’t think it does a service to our city to approach our community with partisanship. We’re not on separate teams; we’re all neighbors.

        • October 23, 2016 at 2:00 pm

          You are blissfully unaware of the track record of partisanship conducted by our neighbors on the right wing side.

        • Scott
          October 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm

          I agree with Courtney. I feel it would be best for the city if candidates didn’t group together by party. Is there really a “Democrat” way to fix potholes, or a “Republican” way? Not really. But the party system has a strong tradition. Some candidates pick up support (& needed money) from county party organizations and/or from non-party groups that traditionally back candidates from a party. There’s at least a perception that real estate developers & their heavy funding lean Republican. A sign of hope: At least one Council candidate has support from Democrats & at least one prominent Republican. I would like to see more of that in the future.

    • October 25, 2016 at 12:09 am

      Can you post a link to the OC Register’s story on all the dark money from SuperPACs in Irvine elections? Thanks!

      • Scott
        October 25, 2016 at 2:13 am

        Hi, I was not able to find that article online.

        But there are some other ones: First, this article has 1 sentence about Don Wagner receiving about $350,000 in PAC money, if I understand it right. It’s under the section about Irvine mayor candidates: http://blog.tim-smith.us/2016/10/how-tims-voting/

        An OC Register article from 2014 talks about both Irvine and Anaheim. Discusses some ways money flows in Irvine elections. The editorial board wrote then : “Voters in Anaheim and Irvine should pay particular attention to the campaign ads, claims and attacks this election cycle. The vitriol and deceit has hit a new low…” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-640491-agran-anaheim.html

        Another article talks about how some dark money flowed in one instance. Big California donors contributed to organizations out-of-state, so that nobody could tell what they were contributing to. Then those out-of-state organizations sent the money back to California to be used in California campaigns, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/political-535239-money-donors.html

    • October 25, 2016 at 9:59 am

      Can you post the link of the OC Register article on dark money?

      • SignStealer
        October 25, 2016 at 2:23 pm

        Why don’t you compare your platform with the mayor’s responsibilities?

      • Dan Chmielewski
        October 25, 2016 at 5:37 pm

        Do you know how to use Google?

  12. Awake Irvine Voter
    October 14, 2016 at 1:23 am

    The person in Irvine who has most effectively and strikingly reached across the aisle is Democratic City Council candidate Melissa Fox, who has received an impressive endorsement from Republican City Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Schott. Melissa Fox has also been endorsed by Republican Mayor candidate Katherine Daigle. She’s even gotten a thumbs up from LiberalOC’s resident conservative, Junior. I’d say that is pretty brave and neighborly, on all their parts!

  13. Monte Taylor
    October 21, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    Wondering, since Gang Chen, BY FAR, has the greatest amount of political signage here in Irvine, put up months ago as well, why he doesn’t follow the Irvine Political Sign Ordinance which states:

    “Maximum of one sign per intersection per candidate or ballot measure.”

    Wondering too, if his response will be something like “all the other candidates have more than one sign up”? If that is the response, is that what you teach your children, if others do it, even though it’s against the law, it’s ok to do it?

    If you are a TRUE Leader then I expect to see you Show that to the citizens of Irvine, take the lead, and remove all but one sign per intersection.

    For the rest of the citizens of Irvine, let’s see what the candidates do knowing full well what the ordinance is for the number of signs per intersection here in Irvine. Will tell us a lot about the character, integrity, and law abiding attributes of these candidates!! And what type of politician they are and how they will (NOT) serve the citizens of this fine city if elected!

    • October 22, 2016 at 9:43 pm

      One sign per intersection was the old Irvine sign codes. The Irvine sign codes have been changed this year to one sign per corner of each intersection, i.e., 4 signs for 4 corners of each intersection. There is NO number limit if the signs are not at the intersection. The size of the signs has its limit too. We have checked with the city for the latest sign codes BEFORE we do anything, and we always try our best comply with the city’s codes. On the contrary, some people here internationally ask the readers to illegally remove candidates’ signs.

      There is also NO restriction on how early you can put the signs out, but you do need to remove the signs within 7 days after the election (The old codes was 10 days).

      When we have the interest groups that spent up to one million dollars to support Wager and Gaido and run their campaign for them, signs are effective tools to get the messages to the voters. It is like David vs. Goliath, the signs are like the sling that David used against the giant. In this case, the giant is the interest groups behind Wagner and Gaido’s campaign.

      • October 23, 2016 at 8:27 am

        Gang, your answer is telling in that while you duly note that there is no formal restriction on how early you can put your signs out, Irvine voters don’t like to see political signs out until after Labor Day before an election or about 2 months before a primary. I believe you will pay a price for this at the polls in 2 weeks. That is what you do not understand

    • October 22, 2016 at 9:57 pm

      All the people that work with me know me very well. I am very detail-oriented, so it is unlikely for me to make silly mistakes to be catch by my opponents. I even corrected some people at the city’s errors too. So, do NOT waste your time try to catch this kind of silly errors, you are unlikely to find any. Focus on the messages, and let us compete on the substance.

      As annoying as Dan is, I think he is a necessary evil to balance the political scene, but he can be a much better opponent and contribute a lot more to our community if he gets the essence of politics. If he can improve, the politics can be so much better and fun in Irvine.

      I think this country needs both GOP and Democrat and also people in m any other parties and people with no party-affiliations to work well. Imaging if this country only has GOP, or only has Democrat, that will be a nightmare.

      Putting the signs out comply with ALL codes, and is our rights of freedom of speech. I know putting the signs out early offended some fold, but for an underdog candidate, that is one way for us to fight the big interest groups with the limited funds that we raised from ordinary people.

      • October 23, 2016 at 8:28 am

        I’m not running for office and I have done a considerable amount of hands on community service in that time.

      • Monte Taylor
        October 23, 2016 at 3:23 pm

        Wow Gang, you really just don’t get it do you? The code does say one / corner of an intersection. That’s NOT the point but you don’t get it? It doesn’t mean you can place all your signs up and down the street!!!!!!!!!!!! Or is that not clear to you? At the intersection!!!!! Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

        If you are that ignorant and you really believe that you can limit it to one at the intersection corners and it’s ok to strew them up and down all the streets you are truly incapable of handling any issue that would come before our city. You don’t deserve a single vote from anyone as you aren’t competent enough to perform in any political office at any level with that inability to understand a simple ordinance! As many have said, you just write your own rules as if it’s all about you and totally disrespect the citizens of Irvine.

        Your excuses about competing with others justifies your breaking rules and dissing the citizens of Irvine is just one more example that it’s only about you and not at all about us, the citizens, whom don’t want their city trashed as you have done.

        AND, you are no David for sure!! David had and understood respect. The voters see right thru you, along with your disrespect for the VETERANS, who I’d like to point out, fought for and gave you and every breathing human being in this city the privilege (NOT RIGHT) to speak your mind, run for office, say what you wish, and if I have to remind you, VOTE for whom we want. Otherwise you’d be in a communist country that does not allow such.

        Remember that, as we Veterans will definitely remember, those who disrespected us and our chance at a cemetery here in our county vs. driving nearly 3 hours round trip just to visit loved ones who have passed – BUT DIED FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOMS!

        You definitely are not getting mine, nor anyone I know, vote! You are totally undeserving and you do not respect Veterans nor any of the citizens of Irvine.

        • October 25, 2016 at 12:04 am

          No need to argue. You understanding of the sign codes is not correct. You need to get a copy of the sign codes before you go off like this. Call or e-mail the city and they will send you a copy.

          Regarding the veteran’s cemetery, you need to read this:

          Why didn’t Gaido have the courage to accept my challenge?

          In a candidates’ forum, I challenge Gaido: You say you support the veterans, and you think site #1 is better for the veterans, and I definitely support the veterans, and I think site #2 is better, and I know most veterans like site #2 too. So, why don’t we offer both sites and let the veterans choose the one that they like?
          Any reasonable person who truly support the veterans will accept this challenge.

          Gaido did not have the courage to accept my challenge, probably because she has not got approval to do so from her real boss, Larry Agran.

          The real question to Gaido is: how can she say NO to Agran, and make sure the people of Irvine will not suffer another scandal like the Great Park if she is elected? How can she prevent the lobbyists and political consultants from having another fiesta and waste our tax payers’ money again? Just look at the OC Grand Jury’s report:

          The worst time for the Great Park was from 2002 to 2012 when Agran’s team was in charge. Career politicians have already let us down once in the Great Park. Why do we want to elect Gaido, who is so closely tied to Agran, as our Mayor? Gaido is a sidekick for Agran, and the way Agran used to try to regain the control of our City Hall.

          NO Gaido, NO come back for Agran, and NO special interest groups.

          Haven’t we had enough of career politicians’ failed policies? Enough is enough: Do NOT vote for another career politician such as Mary Ann Gaido or Donald Wagner.

          On November 8, please vote for me, Gang Chen, for a real change. Together, we can make Irvine better. I’ll be honored to have your vote.

          Please see our campaign website (GangChenUSA.com) for my platform and solutions for Irvine.

          Paid for by Gang Chen for Mayor 2016 (GangChenUSA.com), FPPC# 1379051

  14. Ron
    October 22, 2016 at 9:24 am

    FYI, I drove past a lady in a red baseball cap pulling up all the signs from one side of Turtle Rock Drive this morning. Almost all the signs on one side of that 3+ mile stretch are gone (equal opportunity sign puller). She put the signs in the bushes.

    • October 22, 2016 at 1:16 pm

      All the signs northbound on Culver before Meadowood are gone too. No idea what happened to them

  15. October 23, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    On Nextdoor residents are really angry about the signs and threatening to pull them out themselves. I think people are taking the law into their own hands, 1st Amendment or no. A lot of people are advocating a total ban. I guess I should just be thankful I only have 50 signs and didn’t spend much on them!

    Gang Chen, if I remember correctly, those new sign regulations don’t take effect until January 2017–for this year, it’s one sign per intersection and 60 days before the election. There’s no real enforcement, but that’s the code that was distributed to us in August. We could sign a voluntary pledge to observe them.

    • Alan
      October 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      Check out the huge sign northbound on Culver between the 405 fwy and Alton. It is obnoxious to say the least. It does not meet the code for size. It’s for Shea, Wagner and Kuo. I will vote for none of these arrogant and selfish people.

      • October 23, 2016 at 2:05 pm

        The rules don’t apply to these people

        • October 24, 2016 at 9:33 pm

          That plywood sign is something else. I can’t stop laughing at it. Somehow it reminds me of the stocks that were used for punishment in colonial times. I doubt it’s an effective campaign tool.

    • October 23, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      The rules don’t apply to Gang Chen

      • October 25, 2016 at 12:11 am

        We try our best to follow the rules, you are the one to ask people the break the laws and illegally remove people’s signs.

    • October 25, 2016 at 12:05 am

      Check with Molly, I believe the new sign codes are in effect now.

  16. Scott
    October 24, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    Hi, the Campaign Financing page of the City of Irvine website has a link to political sign regulations. Some highlights: There aren’t many rules. Only 1 sign per corner at an intersection. Small signs only at intersections, but bigger signs can be placed more than 50 yds from an intersection. No signs on medians. Signs must be taken down by 10 days after an election. And a few others: http://bit.ly/2dDHlcX As of July, at least, the City Council was trying to figure out how to regulate the signs more, without violating a US Supreme Court decision. http://bit.ly/2dDHlcX

    • October 24, 2016 at 9:25 pm

      Thanks, Scott! Very helpful.

    • October 25, 2016 at 12:17 am

      Those may NOT be the latest codes. E-mail or call Molly to ask for the latest version. Molly was very helpful.

    • October 25, 2016 at 12:20 am

      I believe the city was trying to pass a codes of limiting the signs to 60 days before the election, but the city attorney advised against it because of the supreme court ruling.

      • October 25, 2016 at 9:32 am

        Gang, I don’t know what to say other than Irvine residents do not appreciate campaign signs up several months prior to the election. What you did might be legal, but it doesn’t reasonate with voters who will most certainly punish you for it at the polls.

        I’m taking bets folks; does Gang Chen finished third or forth in the mayor’s race?

        • Alan
          October 26, 2016 at 12:20 am

          Gang has exactly two chances of winning, slim and none and slim just died.

  17. Scott
    October 24, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Hi, the second link (to an article about City Council trying regulate signs more) didn’t post properly. Corrected link: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/signs-723770-campaign-city.html

  18. October 24, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Noticed this morning that somebody removed all the signs on Harvard between Michelson and University except anti-Gaido/Wagner, Gang Chen and Daelucian signs. Hmm.

    • October 25, 2016 at 12:13 am

      I have many of my signs stolen too along that road back in July. The Irvine police need to do a better job in catching the sign thieves.

    • October 25, 2016 at 12:16 am

      The other people’s signs must have been removed before we put our signs out. I had many of my signs stolen there, and then I replaced them When I replaced my signs, I did not see any other signs there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *