La Femme Wonkita

Remembering 9/11

2011-09-11T13:43:00.000-07:00

This morning, at the California Air National Guard facility on Newport Boulevard, members of the Costa Mesa community met to commemorate the tragic events of September 11, 2001. In addition to the formal program, attendees were offered the opportunity to sign banners offering personnel thanks to public safety personnel in New York and to our armed forces. If you couldn’t make it this morning, you still have a chance to sign at the Target store, where the banners will be available for signing later today.

Speakers included local dignitaries Tom Hatch, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Righeimer, but for me most meaningful were the words of those in the trenches, most memorably Interim Fire Chief Kirk Dominic, who was also activated as a Reserve officer subsequent to the events of 9/11.

The ceremony concluded with the Pledge of Allegiance and the striking of the colors accompanied by the hymns and anthems for the various military corps. It was touching to see former Marines, now middle-aged suburban dads, rise to their feet in pride as the Marine hymn was played.

The event brought home the sacrifice of those who serve us so ably, at great personnel risk to themselves. If you get a chance, go over to Target and sign the banners. If you are unable to get over there, be sure to thank a soldier, a sailor or marine of your acquaintance, and next time you see them on duty, please thank our own first responders, the Costa Mesa Police, Firefighters and Paramedics.

A Lot On the City's Plate Tonight

2011-09-06T15:07:00.000-07:00

The Costa Mesa City Council will be resuming their normal meeting schedule at 6:00 pm at City Hall (77 Fair Drive). They have a pretty full agenda. I encourage people to attend. It may seem overwhelming or pointless, but it can make a difference.

Just a few weeks ago, the Planning Commission seemed poised to approve a variance for a sixty-foot-tall building on Golf Course Drive where the man-made lake currently exists. Before the public hearing, Commissioners’ comments all seemed geared to justifying approval. Then the public spoke in unanimous opposition, and the Commission changed their tune (video at about 1:14). Yeah, it may be that Colin McArthy is planning on running for City Council and saw which way the wind was blowing. Doesn’t matter to me why they rejected the thing, though, just that they rejected it.

Some highlights on tonight’s agenda:

• Update on the status of outsourcing and requests for proposals.

• Hiring not just one, but two, additional attorney firms to help them with the outsourcing (consent calendar, Nos. 12 and 13). So now we will have THREE attorney firms contracted to deal with this, PLUS consultants helping with the requests for proposals and evaluations. Did anyone count the cost before they embarked on this course of action? Golly, if they save any more with this outsourcing scheme we’ll go broke.

• Proposed restructuring to re-arrange the chain of command for certain divisions, create a whole division for PR, instead of just the one consultant spinmeister. The public affairs office will also address legislative affairs. Do any of these guys have experience in legislative analysis? They also want to hire an executive secretary whose only duty will be to serve city council members full time.

• Presentation on the current employee pension system status and funding

• Proposed transparency ordinance regarding “ex parte” communications, which would require that council members reveal by whom they had been lobbied before voting on an issue.

• Creation of a successor agency to take the place of the old redevelopment agency, which will soon be dissolved under State law.

• More dipping into the contingency fund, i.e. slush fund, for non-essentials, in this case a grant to radio station KOCI, 101.5 FM, to install an emergency alert system like the ones already operated by existing commercial radio stations—which might not be a bad idea if you are in a part of town where you can consistently get the signal clearly.

• Posting signs on City property warning of the dangers of amalgam dental fillings—requested by a council member who makes a good chunk of his income selling more-than-just-medicinal booze and who refused to support posting warning signs in City parks and playgrounds when pesticides were being used.

• Proposed helicopter landing pad at 3132 Airway Avenue considered by some to be an expansion of the JWA/Orange County Airport footprint which will likely be continued to another meeting.

The City Council cancelled the August 16 meeting claiming there just wasn’t much they needed to do, but it seems as if just maybe they could have covered some of this stuff a couple of weeks ago.

No Home Run Here

2011-08-10T15:05:00.000-07:00

Tonight, August 10 at 6:00 pm, the Parks and Recreation Commission will be addressing the following item:

Review of Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for the Upgrade,
Operation and Maintenance of the Tewinkle Park Sports Complex

Based on the staff report, it appears the City is considering operating the Tewinkle Park Sports Complex as a private concession. The City was approached about a similar concept by a private firm, Municipal Sportspark Management, in late 2009. MSM made a presentation at an October 2009 study session , but the minutes for that meeting reveal no direction by Council, and we haven’t noticed anything agendized for public discussion since.

Had the Council agendized consideration of a concession operation at the Tewinkle Park Sports Complex, isn’t it likely that baseball and soft ball players and parents would have stepped forward to comment? Wouldn’t adjacent residents have concerns? Has the City consulted any of these groups at all? When?

The staff report indicates that “At the request of Mayor Monahan, staff requested SOQ’s from a few local firms”. Does staff often circulate similar requests at the behest of a single council member?

Doesn’t Council policy require that council members get the approval of the council as a whole before pursuing any project requiring more than four hours of staff time? Wouldn’t preparation, circulation and review of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), along with preparation of a staff report take at least that long? On just that basis the Council majority recently attempted to stymie Council Member Leece’s effort to bring forth a transparency ordinance which she had already fully prepared without staff assistance.

But why worry about blowing off adopted Council policy when you’re blowing off a court order? Costa Mesa has been ordered by the Orange County Superior Court to cease private outsourcing efforts and enjoined from laying off employees for outsourcing purposes. But here we see a City Commission prepared to review SOQs—if at least they have copies—which includes the following question:

"Would your company offer employment to City employees who are laid off as a result of outsourcing the operation of this recreational facility?"

At the August 2 City Council meeting, the Council was scheduled to consider procedures for review of proposals and qualifications for outsourcing, but the item was postponed. Even if moving forward with this item were consistent with Council policy in consuming less than four hours of staff time; even if there were no injunction prohibiting private outsourcing; wouldn’t it at least make sense to wait until the council had adopted procedures?

In Memoriam Jan Vandersloot MD

2009-11-17T01:18:00.000-08:00

And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. Galatians 6:9
No one exemplified these words better than Jan Vandersloot, medical doctor, environmentalist, and family man. He was generous with his time and his money, and we are thankful to him as well as to Cheryl, Jon and Tiffany.

I first met Jan about twenty years ago, though I’d seen his numerous and eloquent letters to the editor before that. I was a city planner at Newport Beach and he called about illegal fill of a wetland. Someone in the office said “that Dr. Vandersloot” always had some complaint. Still, I arranged to meet Jan at the site along with a biologist and, lo and behold, a wetland was being illegally filled.

After that, I got many calls from Jan. Sometimes he’d be reporting habitat damage, or illegal dumping. I learned that when “that Dr. Vandersloot” called, it was something I really needed to check out. If he had a complaint it was well-founded and well-researched. Unlike some residents who called regularly, Jan was concerned about all areas of the city and beyond, not just matters within a block or two of his house.

Sometimes he was just looking for information. For Jan, there was no such thing as too much information.

Years later, after I’d left the City and was involved in various causes, many at the prodding of Jan, my house was overrun with environmental impact reports (EIRs) and other studies. Jan stopped by about some project. I was mortified at the boxes of documents spilling into the living room. Jan was delighted.

Jan had a way of pulling people into his causes. Bolsa Chica, Ocean Outfall Group, San Diego Creek, trees on the Peninsula. He put so much into so many causes, how could you not help at least a little? Almost daily there’d be e-mail from Jan with calls to action, research requests, or outlines of potential strategies for ongoing projects.

As he toiled to end the Orange Count Sanitation District’s waiver from federal clean water law, he’d ask not IF you’d attend any meetings to speak against the waiver, but WHICH meetings in which cities you’d attend. Eventually Jan, or in rare cases a surrogate, spoke before every city council and sanitary district in Orange County, usually with a few others in tow, but alone if need be.

Jan didn’t care if he was the only one to stand up and fight for something. If it was the right thing to do, he was there.

It wasn’t all just hearings and meetings. I especially appreciate the work he did at Fairview Park. Jan advocated for the park at hearings and also weeded and planted plants, sometimes with a group, sometimes with just one other person, like Gil Collins, sometimes alone.

Though I’d been involved in Fairview earlier on, soon Jan surpassed me in his knowledge and dedication to improving habitat at the park. I’d be out for a hike and there was Jan, clearing away the anise choking out native species. Seeing his hard work, I’d go back to my car for an extra bag to pick up trash along the way. How could I not?

We distributed flyers at election time. Of course, if you and Jan covered opposite sides of a street, you really had to hustle. With his long legs he’d finish the distance long before you.

Jan really loved to celebrate the big wins. And he hated to lose. After a setback, he’d be seeking other strategies. Was there a way to appeal? Another agency involved? Should we litigate? Any other options?

Jan just did not give up. If we’d finally run out of options, he’d be planning how we could handle a similar situation “next time”. Unfortunately, now there is no “next time” with Jan.

Today, we are able to reap what Jan so diligently sowed and tended: Open space at Bolsa Chica, cleaner beaches, wetlands, trees, and habitat in various areas. What a tremendous legacy!

Perhaps an even greater legacy is the army of activist that Jan has encouraged and mentored over the years. Now we must continue in well-doing, that we and others may reap in the years to come. How could we not?

Deciding to Let the People Decide

2009-11-11T13:04:00.000-08:00

Now that the Costa Mesa City Council has voted to put a proposition on the June 2010 ballot to establish planning regulations for the Orange County Fairgrounds, the real work begins. We must ensure that any ballot measure is written to provide maximum protection for the fairgrounds and Costa Mesa residents.

“Locking in the zoning” is not enough.

The existing zoning for the fairgrounds is Institutional and Recreational (I&R). That sounds pretty innocuous. But what’s permitted?

According to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code, uses permitted by right in I&R areas include things like parks, libraries, city hall, court houses and fire stations. They also include:

Churches and other places of religious assembly (Hello, TBN!)
Residential care, convalescent hospitals; and nursing homes
Day care
Country clubs and golf courses
Hospitals
Trade Schools

Oddly, a conditional use permit would be required for a nursery school, a primary or secondary school or college, even though trade schools are permitted by right.

A conditional use permit would also be required for a fairgrounds. So if the existing zoning were “locked in”, a fairgrounds would have the same status as any other activity for which a use permit is required, including:

Cemeteries, mortuaries and crematories
Senior congregate care facility (don’t ask me how this differs from a nursing home)
Work furlough facility (aka halfway house for convicted criminals)
Animal shelters, pounds, kennels, training schools
Zoos
Heliports
Medical and dental offices
Rifle, pistol, and firing ranges
Skating rinks
Transfer station for refuse, sewage treatment

I still miss the Ice Capades Chalet so kinda like the idea of a skating rink, but somehow a work furlough facility, heliport, or more offices just doesn’t do it for me.

The General Plan Is Better

The Costa Mesa General Pan requires the fairgrounds to be used as a fairgrounds. Period.

The General Plan also limits development to no more than a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.1, which allows one square foot of building for each ten square feet of land area. That would allow about 650,000 square feet of development on the fairgrounds site. The zoning code does present the limits mandated under the general plan, but then indicates that deviations from those limits may be permitted if allowed under the general plan.

For comparison purposes, Anaheim Convention Center has a total facility area of 1.6 million square feet, including 813,000 square feet of exhibit space plus meeting rooms, grand ballroom, pre-event lobbies and other spaces. The Los Angeles Convention Center contains 720,000 square feet of exhibit hall space, plus meeting rooms, theater, lobbies and food courts.

Both of these facilities are on much smaller sites than the Orange County Fairgrounds. Without the floor area limit imposed by the general plan, who knows what could happen in Costa Mesa? Even if we kept the “Institutional and Recreational” designation. Even if we kept just the “fairgrounds” designation.

The General Plan includes a “trip budget”, too. That means that activities at the fairgrounds won’t be allowed to generate more than a certain amount of traffic. This could limit everything from building size to event scheduling. Shouldn’t we lock that in place, too?

A Specific Plan Could Be Even Better

The City of Costa Mesa is currently preparing a specific plan for the fairgrounds property. The plan is expected to reflect the existing Master Plan for the Orange County Fairgrounds. Thus, the plan would designate areas for equestrian uses, the Centennial Farm, exhibit space, administrative offices, and other uses. This would assure that existing uses could continue at the fairgrounds. A requirement that any changes to the plan be subject to a vote or the people could provide added assurance. Including the trip budget is also a must.

Don’t Bypass the Planning Process

It is imperative that any initiative specify that proposed changes would not go to a public vote until AFTER all normal the planning commission, city council and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing has been completed. Through this process, the City has the authority to require specific information about a project and the property from a developer.

If we were asked to vote before the normal planning process, we would only be provided the information a developer wanted us to have. Problems with traffic, drainage, or other issues could be buried. Voters must be able to make an informed choice, based on the full information that would come forth in various hearings, staff reports, and the CEQA process, not just developer propaganda.

Similar to ordinances in Redondo Beach and Malibu, any measure to change the land use shouldn't even be placed on the ballot until and unless it has been approved by the City Council through regular channels. This would provide a double layer of protection.

Don’t Charge the Taxpayers!

The ordinance must stipulate that the developer/sponsor of any amendment to city plans for the fairgrounds would pay for any referendum, just as they are required to pay the costs for any needed environmental studies. It's only fair.

The taxpayers shouldn't be required to foot the bill to tell some developer we like our fairgrounds just the way it is, thank you.

DO NOT ENTER!

2009-11-03T16:13:00.000-08:00

Tonight’s Costa Mesa City Council agenda includes a closed session on the following item:

Conference with Real Property Negotiators – Property: 88 Fair Drive. Agency Negotiator: Allan Roeder, City Manager. Negotiating parties: State of California, Under negotiation: price, terms of payment. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8.

88 Fair Drive happens to be the Orange County Fairgrounds. I’d sure like to know how the City Council got to the point of discussing price and terms of payment before they even publicly voted whether or not to pursue the purchase. Was there a special meeting? No such meeting was noticed. Did the City Council meet privately to decide to pursue a purchase?

It would seem they have the cart before the horse here, preparing to negotiate before they have decided whether or not to pursue purchase. They must also decide whether to pursue purchase on their own or in partnership with others.

The public must be included in an open discussion as to whether the city should go it alone or join a consortium with others, such as the proposed foundation which would give unelected, self-appointed political schemers a majority vote. Whether or not to join a private foundation is certainly not a permitted exception to public discussion under open meeting laws.

Of course if they do decide to join the proposed foundation without the public, they will be joining kindred spirits. As covered by the Daily Pilot, it seems the Thirty Second Agricultural District Board/Orange County Fair Board may already be violating open meeting laws.

He Coulda Looked It Up

2009-11-03T02:40:00.000-08:00

In his Daily Pilot column on Sunday, November 1, Peter Buffa asserted that fairgrounds in Del Mar and Ventura were up for sale along with our own Orange County Fairgrounds. WRONG!

Last spring Governor Schwarzenegger suggested that numerous properties up and down the state be sold. These included the Del Mar, Ventura and Orange County Fairgrounds, the Coliseum and the Cow Palace. Legislators and local officials in every other area worked hard to save important assets in their districts. At the Del Mar Fairgrounds they passed out postcards, asking fairgoers to tell the Governor what they thought about the sale and collected over fifty thousand postcards protesting the sale.

Not so in Orange County. Local officials got out their pompoms and cheered. Heck, the Daily Pilot reports they even hired Dick Ackerman to lobby for the sale.

Sure enough, when the dust settled, and budget legislation was passed, the only properties authorized for sale were the Orange County Fairgrounds and a few office buildings. All the landmark properties in other areas of the state will remain in the public trust.

How did we get to be so special?

Halloween Massacre at China Cove

2009-11-01T03:27:00.000-08:00

Bet you thought that title was some kind of joke. Unfortunately not:

Akin to what occurred in West Newport when some reprobates decided to bulldoze the dunes, someone has hacked away a fair amount of vegetation by the beach at China Cove, including native plants.

Word has it the Newport Beach Police have apprehended the miscreant. Could it be the same guy that’s been chopping down trees elsewhere, including Costa Mesa parks? Is he just a spoiled brat who feels he has the right to alter public property to suit his convenience and/or enhance his own property value? News flash chainsaw man: You are not the center of the universe.

It’s hard to understand what this jerk was thinking. Were the plants blocking his view? One would think that any views blocked by the massacred plants would also be blocked by Kerckhoff Marine Lab.

What was next on his agenda? Was he going to dismantle Kerckhoff and burn it piece by piece in the fire rings? Oh. Wait. Council Member Gardner’s getting rid of those.

Never mind. If some predictions as to climate change are to be believed, it will all be under water in a few years.

You Could Look It Up

2009-10-31T12:23:00.000-07:00

Like Samuel Pepys, I find myself inspired to write in spurts, only to abandon the effort for periods of time. Here’s something to get the juices flowing: Went to the Costa Mesa City Council meeting instead of just watching an item or two on-line. Still shaking my head.

I love that the public takes advantage of opportunities to participate. Often speakers at the podium dispense much needed wisdom, but why do these folks feel compelled to pontificate about that of which they are ignorant? Sure, I pontificate, but try to do my research, though admittedly through the prism of my own prejudices, like most people. But some just seem to expound out of thin air.

Example: At the last City Council meeting, elimination of the City’s Park Commission as a separate body was considered as a “cost-saving” measure, though the City would have saved $3,500 a year at most and possibly generated additional costs instead. For context, bear in mind that Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners are by far the highest paid city planning commissioners in Orange County, receiving $400 a month, even if they attend only one thirty-minute meeting for the entire month, even if they don’t show up at all.

At the Council meeting it was asserted that a park commission was “fluff”, whereas a planning commission was required “by law”. No one corrected this misinformation at the time, so here goes.

Both have the same standing. Both are included under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and neither is required by any State or Federal law. State law does prescribe responsibilities of a planning commission, if there is one, for example, “When the city or county has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution … the commission shall … “ (Government Code Section 65353 (a)), but whether or not there is a planning commission is optional.

State law says “The legislative body [that’s the City Council] may create one or more planning commissions… (GC Sec. 65101(a))”. And “When there is no planning commission…” (Sec. 65861).

In fact, the City of Villa Park right here in Orange County has no planning commission.

So, if they were really serious about saving money, the city council could not just cut the more-than-generous salaries of our planning commissioners, which a majority declined to do, they could actually eliminate the planning commission.

Let me hasten to add that’s a step I don’t advocate. I believe all of our commissions and committees serve a useful function, though at least one is overpaid in the extreme.

Panic in Needle Park

2008-10-04T22:19:00.000-07:00

Bailing out reckless, greedy, and probably criminal, wheeler dealers is hideous. But it would be even more hideous to see those who’ve been hard-working and careful lose their life savings in a nationwide financial meltdown. We face, in the words of Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), “the greatest financial risk and peril this country has ever seen.” According to Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), “There is a crisis in our country … Our economy is on a precipice … and we must do what we can to move it back from that brink”.

October 3, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (HR 1424) aka the $700 billion bailout, was approved by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President. I should be relieved. My IRA and 401(k) are safe, at least for the next week or so. But somehow I feel like I just bought a boatload of cocaine for a mob of crack whores—and so did you.

The full text of HR 1424 is 451 pages long. But only about a quarter of that (112 pages) actually addresses the “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP), i.e. the mortgage meltdown, and related provisions. Despite our “financial peril”, our economy “on a precipice”, the folks in Washington found time to add over three hundred pages of special tax breaks and other programs to a bill that will already burden the taxpayers to the tune of $700,000,000,000.

Why bother to openly debate a comprehensive national energy strategy when you can just tack a 148-page “Energy Improvement and Extension Act” onto the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The bill has tax credits and/or allowances for everything from wind energy, insulation, and plug-in cars to oil refineries, coal, and tar sands.

There’s more.

There are pages and pages of special tax breaks. Some of these seem fair, such as those addressing costs generated by natural disasters. Others are shamelessly opportunistic, including provisions for the film industry, racetracks, the wool research fund, and “wooden arrows designed for use by children”.

What a generous people we are! Even in a crisis, we provide for the poor starving film industry and auto racing. And of course, whose heart doesn’t leap at the sight of children playing with their wooden arrows? Especially those who manufacture prosthetic eyeballs.

Wait! That’s not all.

There are provisions for revenue sharing with states and counties with large amounts of federally owned land and the Merchantable Timber Contracting Pilot Program. Guess the lumber lobby has a lot of pull. Lost in the middle of all this is the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which constituted the original HR 1424, before it got hijacked into the bailout bill.

To balance out this binge of spending and tax credits, there’s also all of nine pages of “spending reductions and appropriate revenue raisers for new tax relief” which primarily address taxes on deferred compensation.

What were they thinking?!?

Even if our economy is not completely broken, our system is. What were these Senators and Representatives thinking? Is the U.S. Congress so morally bereft that even a bill to address a worldwide economic crisis is just another opportunity to load up on pork?

Is the crisis really real? Could our economy be so close to collapse that lobbyists and Congressmen saw HR 1424 as their last chance to pick the carcass clean? Have we elected the sort of people who would rifle through the pockets of accident victims looking for cash and credit cards?

Maybe they’re so addicted to pork, they just can’t help themselves, like junkies who really intend to use that welfare check to pay the rent, really intend to buy food for the kids, but always end up in the shooting gallery.

Is this the best America has to offer?

Last Chance!

2008-10-02T16:58:00.000-07:00

Today, October 2, is your last chance to submit comments regarding the southerly extension of the Foothill Tollway (Route 241). Comments by snail mail must be postmarked as of today and addressed to:

Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor
NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services
1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111
Silver Spring, MD 20910 .

Comments may also be e-mailed to gcos.comments@noaa.gov.

Let’s hope the Secretary of Commerce has a better sense of geography than the numerous members of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency board who testified at the public hearing. For some reason, numerous elected officials from cities like Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, and Laguna Niguel seemed to believe that they had no means of evacuation in case of emergencies except the Highway 5. Did Coast Highway/El Camino disappear? Do folks in San Juan Capistrano not have access to the Ortega Highway of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor—built by the very people who now seem to have forgotten its existence?

Also failing Geography 101 were elected officials from cities like Anaheim who said the corridor extension was necessary to provide access to Riverside County if the 91 became inaccessible. Pretty strange, since the 241 would connect to the 91 within Orange County, where parallel routes are provided by La Palma and Santa Ana Canyon Road, doing nothing to eliminate the bottleneck through Santa Ana Canyon west of the 71 and, further east, Highway 15, which are also conveniently forgotten.

Even more strange was a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors who maintained that San Diego would be cutoff from goods and services from the rest of the United States, if something happened along the 5.

WOW! Somebody buy these folks an atlas.

And get your letters in. NOW.

When told that the peasants were revolting, the king sniffed and replied, “They most certainly are!”

2008-09-21T23:43:00.000-07:00

Why do so many “public” officials seem so uncomfortable with the public in general? Locally, some council members merely go through the motions during public hearings, alternately acting bored, impatient, and contemptuous. But at least all members of the public have an equal chance to speak—even if council members aren’t all that interested.

That isn’t the case in all “public” hearings these days. For example, at California Coastal Commission hearings, anyone holding an elective office may speak before us mere mortals, giving the term “first among equals” a whole new meaning. But it’s not equal either. Elected officials get extra time.

It doesn’t matter what office you hold. If you manage to get elected to the Happy Camp Community Services District Board in Siskiyou County, your testimony on endangered birds in San Diego is way more important than that of any local resident or even renowned ornithologists. Who cares if you’ve never been south of Los Angeles?

Some Are More Equal Than Others

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has taken this to a whole new level. After receiving masses of requests to hold a public hearing before making a decision on the southern extension of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor/State Route 241, NOAA scheduled a hearing for Monday, September 22, at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. This was over the protests of the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) who wanted to exclude the public.

As stated in NOAA’s published guidelines: "… no testimony or presentation by either TCA or the Commission is anticipated or requested, as the purpose of the hearing is to solicit public comments. If, however, either party chooses to appear, it will be allowed three minutes to give testimony. "

Now that NOAA has issued their speaker schedule, we see find that 134 elected officials and representatives of organizations will be afforded four minutes each to speak with an estimated twenty (20!!!) members of the general public allowed up to three minutes each, though over five hundred members of the general public submitted requests to speak. So much for soliciting public comments.

Who are the priority speakers? Well, there are fourteen members of the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) boards, plus TCA chief executive Tom Margro, for about an hour of TCA testimony, assuming four minutes each.

What organizations are represented? There are many recognized groups, such as environmental groups, Native-American tribes, labor unions, and business associations.

A Parody of Public Participation

In addition, NOAA is also considering private businesses to be “organizations”. Thus CH2M Hill, design manager for the proposed tollroad, gets priority speaking privileges as an organization. Wonder if they’ll be billing for their time at the hearing.

Other “organizations” include Rancho Mission Viejo/Tony Moiso, a cable television company, a magazine publisher, and an attorney whose “organization” consists of his own small firm.

Boy do I feel silly. I could have slapped my speaker request on business letterhead and had a priority speaking spot. But it wouldn’t have been right.

It wouldn’t be been the only thing not right, though. NOAA seems to have sought a way to satisfy both the TCA, who wanted to stop any hearing, and the thousands of California residents who wanted a hearing. NOAA will hold a “public” hearing while denying meaningful participation by the public in general through a system of speaker priorities.

But I’m still going.

Got Rats?

2008-08-20T19:05:00.001-07:00

This Saturday, August 23, the Orange County Animal Shelter will be having a special cat adoption day they are calling Catopia . Between 10 am and 3 pm they will be giving a free cat carrier, free spay/neuter and other special incentives to anyone who adopts a cat from the shelter.

The shelter is located at 561 The City Drive in Orange. They have a variety of cats, not just the proverbial alley cats, but some pretty fancy ones, too. There will also be special children's activities.

You may find the purrfect addition to your household.

Nonpartisan My Aunt Fanny

2008-08-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

Nearly one hundred years ago California voters, sick of government corruption and ineptitude at all levels, enacted a series of reforms intended to make government more responsive and less corrupt. These included provisions for intiative, referenda, and recall, as well as nonpartisan election of judicial, school, county, and municipal offices, a provision still in the California Elections Code .

But that doesn’t matter to powers that be in the local GOP. Monday night, August 18, the Orange County Republican Central Committee voted on their first round of endorsements for local races in the county.

They endorsed all Republican incumbents seeking re-election, something they have done pretty routinely in the past. Hey, weren’t the Republicans the ones who were so hot on term limits a few years back?

But that was different. That was to get rid of Democrat Willie Brown. No sauce for the gander here.

“Early endorsements” were also bestowed on a few anointed non-incumbent candidates: Gary Monahan and Jim Righeimer in Costa Mesa, Don Hansen protégée Devin Dwyer in Huntington Beach, and John Campbell staffer Lou Penrose nee Luigi Rossetti, Jr. in Dana Point.

This was outside the normal vetting process, basically rubber stamping the directive of county chair Scott Baugh and the big boys with the big bucks via the endorsing committee. Presumably qualifications include close alliances developed with Mr. Baugh over drinks and cigars at Gulfstream.

Look for the Orange County party and Lincoln Club to pony up for the Chosen Ones. Be aware that funds you may contribute to the GOP at large may or may not go to electing a Republican president, governor, or senator, but may be spent right in your own back yard on a candidate you may or may not support. If you like the candidates that’s fine; if not, give directly to the candidates of your choice.

Fields On Mesa Council

2008-08-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

Tuesday evening, August 19, the Costa Mesa City Council will vote on a new animal control ordinance imposing penalties on dog owners whose pets make any sound audible at the property line. At the last Council meeting, city staff indicated that they received pretty many calls regarding barking dogs, over seven hundred last year. Of those, ten escalated to formal complaints, three went to mediation and three citations were issued. Guess we need a new ordinance for those three.

While some council members suggested that the ordinance be worded to clearly address sounds normally associated with nuisance animals, such as barking or howling for long periods, Mayor Bever disagreed. He was adamant that the ordinance address any noise made by a dog, including knocking around toys, digging, or pushing his bowl around since those could also “drive you nuts”.

Make Your List

Now that the city is in the business of eliminating anything that could irritate anyone, they can start on my list: People driving 25 miles per hour in the 35 mph zone, and 35 in the 45 zone; people who walk two or three abreast at a snail’s pace down a sidewalk or store aisle; people who park across two parking spaces; power mowers; power edgers grinding and screeching against the pavement; fluorescent lights that flicker or hum; anyone playing Marco Polo for more than six and a half minutes; squealing roof turbines; kids kicking the back of the seat in front of them on an airplane or at the movies; their parents…

I’m just getting warmed up. The problem is, I’m sure I do lots of things that annoy other people. Heck, I even do things that annoy me when I realize I’m doing them.

Is the city going to regulate anything that irritates anyone? Will they make rules limiting how many minutes a day kids can bounce around a basketball in the front yard? Or play ping pong on the patio? What about constant gurgling from backyard fountains? Or pool cleaners? Or noisy skateboard wheels?

Next thing you know, they’ll be making rules against ball games in public parks. Oh, wait. They’re already doing that.

Maybe it depends on who finds what annoying.

Better be careful

If you live near Mr. Bever, be really careful. Don’t let your dog have any squeaky toys, any clunky toys, or anything that might possibly make any audible sound while playing. Stick moleskin on the dog tags so they don’t jingle, though if the city’s so concerned about eliminating any audible sound, they shouldn’t issue metal tags. Eliminate potential crunching noises by feeding only soft food--no Nylabones for your buddy. Get Fido a set of Ugg boots so his toenails won’t click on the pavement, wrap his tail in foam, and don't forget to glue bubble wrap to the sides and bottom of the dog dishes.

Still, just to be on the safe side, get a half a dozen sets of wind chimes in various pitches and timbers to drown out the sound of your dog’s breathing, lest anyone hear it at the property line. Better yet, just leave the leaf blower running.

Set free????

2008-08-14T17:38:00.000-07:00

Reading recent headlines about self-identified Christian bikers arrested after a brawl at Blackie’s which culminated in a fatal stabbing, my reaction was probably not atypical: “Christian? I don’t think so.”

It’s easy to dismiss the individuals involved as “not real Christians”. Bar brawls, gang rivalry, weapons caches. Now those are “real” sins. You or I would never be involved in that.

But then, what is the standard for “real Christians”? Do real Christians fudge on their taxes? Indulge in predatory business practices? Disguise defects in a house or car for sale? Ignore the hungry and hurting? Surf the web all day when they're being paid to work? What about the demolition derbies taking place in many a church parking lot every Sunday?

As a reminder, Paul made a list of things he labels “wicked” There’s murder and depravity. So far so good, but there’s more, including envy, greed, malice, gossip, strife, insolence, arrogance, heartlessness, ruthlessness, and disobedience to parents.

Some of these are even valued in Orange County's culture of success. But they’re a far cry from the perfection to which we should aspire.

The economy has gone south, and times are hard. Temptations are many. We’re entering the active political campaign season, when questionable means may be justified in light of a hoped for end. Let our behavior be such that no one would be prompted to think “Christian? I don’t think so.”

Off and Running--Sort of

2008-08-09T17:09:00.000-07:00

As of 5 pm Friday, August 8, 2008 Eric Bever, Chris Bunyan, Katrina Foley, Gary Monahan Nick Moss, Lisa Reedy, Jim Righeimer, and Bill Sneen had filed papers to fun for the Costa Mesa City Council this fall. Because incumbent Linda Dixon did not file, the deadline to file has been extended to August 13.

Look for Bever, Monahan, and Righeimer to share resources, if they don’t run as a formal slate. Look for a sizeable chunk of those resources to come from the ostensibly conservative Orange County GOP establishment.

Mesa Verde Homeowners will be sponsoring a forum at the Neighborhood Community Center on Thursday August 21, 2008. This will one of our earliest chances to see the candidates together responding to residents’ questions.

See you there.

Creative Financing in Costa Mesa

2008-08-05T15:23:00.000-07:00

Recently, spending by the City of Costa has been outstripping revenues, but on July 15, the City Council declined to place any measure on the ballot to increase either the hotel tax or business licenses fees, both among the lowest in Orange County.

But don’t worry. They’ve thought of a new way to raise revenue.

Tonight August 5, the City Council will consider a new animal control ordinance which would result in a first time fine of $250 for a dog that barks for more than a half hour. Fines would escalate for subsequent offenses.

Of course no one wants to listen to a dog that barks for hours on end. Just as no one wants to listen to yowling cats, squawking parrots, or power tools for an extended period either.

But how do they define “barking dog”? Any dog that “barks, bays, howls or makes any noise audible beyond the boundaries of the property on which the dog is situated.” Any noise audible? That could include panting, slurping from the water dish, or even thumping a happy tail against a wall or flower pot.

And why just dogs? The City would retain a part of the existing Code regarding animal noise “to ensure that any noisy animal which creates a nuisance can be addressed”. How is it that the existing code can “ensure” that “any noisy animal…can be addressed”, but cannot adequately address noisy dogs?

In eight years on the City Council I received complaints about noise from boom boxes, dive bars, dance clubs, party houses, leaf blowers, garage bands, the police helicopter, squawking birds, and even kids bouncing a basketball, but I don’t recall barking dogs as an issue. Watching council meetings, this does not seem to have changed much. Apparently our Animal Control officers are doing a good job using the existing ordinance.

It’s Not the Noise

Where noise is an issue, the City’s existing Codes address noise in terms of decibel (dB) levels and time of day. Under the existing Codes, noise over an extended time is limited to 55 dB during the day and 50 dB at night, a level 100,000 times the lowest level audible for people with good hearing. Leaf blowers may only be used during the day and are restricted to a maximum of 65 dB (incidentally a level normally exceeded by all but electric or battery powered leaf blowers).

The proposed ordnance makes no distinctions when the noise is created by dogs. Whether 2 pm or 2 am; 1 dB or 100 dB; it would all be the same. It wouldn’t matter if you kept your dogs inside or even had them de-barked (please don’t), since noise could still be audible.

And let’s face it, if this City Council were really concerned about noise, would we have at least six hours of whistles, pops and house-rattling booms every Fourth of July?

It’s the Economy

On the other hand, assuming that Costa Mesa follows national trends, there are at least 20,000 to 25,000 dogs in town. If even ten percent make “audible noise” for a half hour, that’s at least a half million bucks into city coffers. You’ve gotta admire their creativity, if not their common sense

Disputes between neighbors often play out at City Hall, usually through the venues of Code Enforcement and Animal Control. Often complaints regarding pets have little or nothing to do with the animals themselves and everything to do with problems between neighbors over some other issue. Would this become another hammer with which to beat up a neighbor?

Who Cares

But hey, who cares if the City makes money off the deal? I do. My current canine buddy is pretty quiet, but one can’t predict the future. My greater concern, though, is dog owners subject to draconian fines for even minimal noise, several orders of magnitude lower than noise levels acceptable for any other source.

We already have too many dogs at the shelters, a problem exacerbated by a rise in home foreclosures. It would be tragic if any dog owner felt forced to surrender a dog to the shelter as a result of this ordinance.

That’s sad. I think I’ll go pet my dog. Not too much, though. The thumping of that waggly tail might be audible.

Just Stamp It Out

2008-08-05T01:43:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, August 5, the Costa Mesa City Council will consider whether to initiate a general plan amendment to allow L.A. Fitness to build a 45,000 square foot health club in an area designated for industrial use along Harbor Boulevard north of the 405. Under the city’s general plan, the area should be developed with large site research, manufacturing, office, and industrial development. Commercial uses are to be ancillary and supportive of the industrial use. Commercial recreation is permitted, but only if complementary to the industrial area.

When allowed, commercial uses in the industrial park are limited to a lower floor area ratio, which is the amount of building allowed per lot area. The floor area is restricted because commercial uses generate more traffic. L.A. Fitness wants a general plan amendment to allow a higher floor area ratio, i.e. a larger building and additional traffic.

It’s not as if there are no vacant commercial sites in the area. Along just the short stretch of Harbor between Gisler and Merrimac, there’s a fenced-off former motel site, the old La-Z-Boy site, the fenced-off (see a trend here?) Kona Lanes site, and the abandoned auto dealer next to Ace. Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage commercial developers to use one of these vacant locations, instead of amending our general plan to accommodate conversion of our industrial base to commercial use on demand?

Why does L.A. Fitness need to build in the industrial park? Why do they need the extra large building? Costa Mesa already has more than a dozen health clubs. Is there some enormous demand for another in the northwest industrial area?

According to the L.A. Fitness representative, “the reason is that L.A. Fitness has a model that they stamp out.” Golly, can’t have some local yahoos and their silly general plan get in the way of the model they “stamp out”, not even if the general plan was developed with input from hundreds of residents.

As detailed in the City’s staff report the project fails to meet any of the City’s criteria for amending the general plan. Staff recommends denial of the request, and they’re making the right call.

Let’s hope the City Council agrees. Contrary to the assertion of a Council Member who appears to be living in some strange parallel universe, peak hour traffic on Harbor Boulevard does NOT “move pretty quickly”. We do not need the additional traffic on Harbor Boulevard.

And Costa Mesa deserves better than a “model they stamp out”.

Earmarks for Gas Guzzlers

2008-08-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

Tired of spending a fortune for gas every week? Thinking maybe you don’t really need a full size Subcontinent or Exhibition to commute by yourself every day? Considering downsizing or carpooling?

Wait a minute! Hold that Hummer! July 30, Congressman John “Don’t-Expect-Me-To-Help-My-District-It-Would-Be-Fiscally-Irresponsible” Campbell introduced HR 6667 which would provide a tax deduction for the cost of fuel utilized to commute to work, whether or not you otherwise itemize deductions.

Other work-related expenses, such as the cost of tools, uniforms, or professional licenses, must still add up to at least two percent of your income before you can take a tax deduction. But fossil fuel is special.

On his web page Campbell states, “I will be working hard to encourage greater energy efficiency by offering conservation tax incentives to Americans who make their home, car, and business more energy efficient.” And what better tax incentive for Americans to make their cars more energy efficient than increased tax deductions for gas guzzlers? Instead of the carbon tax proposed by some, Campbell’s proposing a carbon tax deduction.

Sure, you may have chosen to live forty miles from your job, opting for an Inland Empire McMansion over a smaller house and shorter commute. You chose that 4WD Grand Cherokee as an essential accessory for your never-get-off-the-pavement suburban lifestyle.

Keep driving that pollution spewing dually for the sixty mile commute to your office job. And don’t even think of buying a bus pass. No tax deduction there.

Thanks to the panderers in Congress, you won’t have to bear the cost of unwise personal choices by yourself. Whether it’s a lone commute in a ten passenger cargo van or a re-fied mortgage for a trip to Tahiti and a plasma TV, Congress is there to help, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Don't Touch That Sparkler

2008-07-03T15:44:00.000-07:00

It seems that each year in Costa Mesa, we face the perennial fireworks controversy. Opponents of fireworks sales cite safety hazards and effects on infants and pets. Proponents cite revenue generated and the American tradition.

The city does have rules regarding sales and discharge of fireworks, enforced with variable success. Under Costa Mesa Municipal Codes Section 12-20 fireworks may not be discharged in any park. Under Section 9-190, fireworks may not be sold to anyone under the age of eighteen or discharged by anyone under eighteen; fireworks may not be thrown and may be discharged only between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the 4^th of July. It is illegal to discharge fireworks on any other day or any other time in Costa Mesa.

Those who don’t like fireworks are asked to tolerate them for the limited period that discharge is permitted. Maybe it is reasonable, even patriotic, to celebrate the 4^th of July with fireworks, but sometimes I wonder if some of the biggest fireworks aficionados may see the 4^th as nothing more than a chance to take off work, drink beer, and blow stuff up.

To allow those truly observing this important day in our nation’s history to celebrate with fireworks if they so desire, I propose the following quiz. To purchase or discharge fireworks, one would have to score at least 8 points on the following quiz. To sell fireworks, one would need a score of at least 10.

Test yourself

1. What do we celebrate on July 4?

a. Right to vote
b. Freeing the slaves
c. United States independence
d. Right to form labor unions
e. End of Prohibition

Answer: c. The 4^th of July is officially called “Independence Day”. It marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Score one point if correct. Minus 10 points for any other answer.

2. From whom did we become independent?

a. Great Britain
b.Spain
c.France
d.Multi-national corporations
e.Parents

Answer: a. Great Britain/England.

Score one point if correct.

3. Who was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence?

a. Benjamin Franklin
b. Thomas Jefferson
c. George Washington
d. John Hancock

Answer: b. Thomas Jefferson.

Score one point if correct.

4. Who was the first person to sign the Declaration of Independence?

a. Benjamin Franklin
b. Thomas Jefferson
c. George Washington
d. John Hancock

Answer: d. John Hancock

Score one point if correct.

5. The Constitution gives us the right to “life, liberty, and happiness”. True or false.

False on several counts. The correct expression is “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” and the Constitution never uses this phrase, which is from the Declaration of Independence.

Score one point if correct. Score an extra half point if you knew the source of the phrase.

6. From where do we get our inalienable rights?

a. Constitution
b. Declaration of Independence
c. Congress
d. President
e. Our Creator

Answer: e. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Score one point if correct. Deduct a point if you answered c or d.

7. Why do we create governments?

a. Keep us safe from enemies foreign and domestic
b. Provide roads, schools and other necessary infrastructure
c. Preserve our rights
d. Entertain us

Answer: c. Preserve our rights. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. That last bit still gives me a thrill. Remember it next time any elected official gets arrogant.

Score one point if correct.

8. Which of the following was/were not included in the Declaration of Independence among the “injuries and usurpations” committed by the King of Great Britain:

a. Dissolving elected legislative bodies
b. Failure to approve appropriate immigration laws
c. Appointing too many bureaucrats
d. Giving the military authority over civil authorities
e. Taxation without representation
f. Interference with international trade
g. Deprivation of trial by jury
h. Overseas trials
i. Working with others to allow foreign jurisdiction to supersede American laws.

None of the above.

a. “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly… He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected… suspending our own Legislatures”
b. “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither…”
c. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
d. “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”
e. “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”.
f. “cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”
g. “depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”
h. “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried”
i. “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”

Score one point if correct. Deduct a point if you said e.

9. Which of the following is/are not protected from government interference under the Bill of Rights?

a. Freedom of religion
b. Right to tell stupid jokes
c. Right to an education
d. Right to a jury trial
e. Right to invite whoever I want to a party
f. Right not to be offended by hate speech
g. Right to a writ of habeas corpus

Answer: c, f, and g. Habeas corpus(g), which prohibits holding you in jail or prison without charges, is so important it is included in the main body of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9), so that is a bit of a trick question. The writ of habeas corpus forces those holding you to identify the charges against you.

Freedom of religion (a) is protected under the First Amendment, as is freedom of speech (b) and freedom of assembly (e), just so you keep it peaceful—no right to LOUD parties. Right to trial by jury is protected under the Sixth Amendment.

Score one point if you said c and f, or c,f, and g. Score a half a point if you said c or f. Score an extra point if you knew that the right to a writ of habeas corpus was included in the Constitution elsewhere. Deduct a half point each if you said a, b, d, or e.

10. Under the Constitution, what powers does the President have?

a. Set tax rates
b. Borrow money/increase national debt
c. Adopt laws
d. Run the military
e. Declare war
f. Negotiate treaties
g. Set immigration policy

Answer: d and f. The President runs the military, though only Congress can actually declare war; and negotiates treaties, though treaties must still be approved by the Senate. All of the rest are duties of Congress. The President has does have veto power, but vetoes can be overridden by a two thirds vote of the Congress. The Constitution was carefully designed not too place too much power in the hands of any one individual.

Score one point for a correct answer. Score a half point if d or f were selected alone, none if combined with any other answer.

Bonus round

1. Did you vote in the June 2008 statewide election?

a. Yes
b. Yes, and I campaigned for a candidate/ballot issue
c. Yes, and I worked at the polls
d. No
e. I am not registered to vote
f. Was there an election?

Score one point for a, two points for b or c. Deduct one point for e or f.

2. Did you serve in the United States military?

Score four points for yes, unless dishonorably discharged. Score two points if you have a child or spouse currently serving in the military.

3. Did you serve in the U.S. military in a combat area? (applies to anyone from infantrymen and fighter pilots to medics and translators to cooks and mechanics. If there were bullets or bombs flying around you, it counts in my book.)

Score ten points for yes. Thank you, and enjoy your 4^th of July!

Don't Touch That Phone

2008-06-29T22:20:00.000-07:00

Get your Bluetooth ready. Starting Tuesday, July 1, it will be illegal to operate a vehicle in California and use a cell phone unless you have a hands-free device. Under the new law, you'll be hit witha $20 fine for a first offense and a $50 fine for each additional offense. Not a fortune, but a night at the movies.

Just in case you're wondering what to do with your hands while driving—well, other than eating, flossing your teeth, shaving, putting on makeup, and playing the clarinet—Chrysler’s got just the thing.

Starting in August, Chrysler will offer UConnect, which makes a vehicle a mobile Wi-Fi hot spot. As quoted in USA Today, Chrysler Mopar director Rob Richards said drivers will be able to “make dinner reservations, check directions or weather, make online purchases (or) surf Facebook".

Nothing in the UConnect system will keep motorists from doing these things while driving, though Chrysler says they will discourage it. In response to concerns raised by safety advocates, Chrysler connectivity manager Keefe Leung indicated behavior behind the wheel was up to the driver. Leung said, “We’re relying on the responsibility of the consumer.”

In a further effort to broaden Chrysler’s appeal, Chrysler will also begin offering an optional roof-mounted gun turret on selected models. The turret will be available as an individual option, or included in the PT P Diddy Package or Ludacris Town and Country Package, including gun turret, 14 K gold electroplated rims, satellite radio and Bose sound system. The Ludacris package will also include extra cup holders.

Spokesman Moe Rawn said “This package will allow Chrysler models to better serve the urban market”, suggesting an intent to go head to head with Escalade. In response to concerns raised by safety advocates and law enforcement, Rawn said “We’re relying on the responsibility of the consumer”.

Just Don't Call Her Sweetie

2008-06-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

This week Sandra Hutchens was publicly sworn in as Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. By all accounts, Hutchens is bright, tough, and highly experienced. An added plus, she comes in as an outsider not obviously allied with any political faction in Orange County, but has the political savvy to have risen high in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. She seems a great choice for our troubled Sheriff’s Department.

Still, shouldn’t we have an elected Sheriff? Under Article 11 (Section 3) of the California Constitution, counties are supposed to have an elected sheriff. Even charter counties must have an elected sheriff (Article 11, Section 4).

Why don't we get to vote?

How can we have an appointed sheriff? Under California’s Government Code, all elective county officers, except supervisors on a split cycle, are to be selected at the same election as state governor. Just in case there were any question, the Code specifically says that sheriff is to be elected on the same gubernatorial cycle and that vacancies are to be filled “as provided by law”.

The Supreme Court established the precedent that the above Code means county officers can't be elected at any other time in 1901 in People ex rel. Owen D. Richardson v. Cobb (S. F. No. 2684, Supreme Court of California, Department Two, 133 Cal. 74; 65 P. 325; 1901 Cal. LEXIS 865, 1901), a case about a local justice; and People ex rel. Martin Murphy, Respondent, v. Al. G. Col (S. F. No. 2657, Supreme Court of California, 132 Cal. 334; 64 P. 477; 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1060, 1901), a case about county auditor. This has been cited as a precedent for appointment of sheriff in Orange County and elsewhere.

But what about the California Constitution? It says we’re to have an elected sheriff. The precedent setting cases above don’t address offices that, under the Constitution, must be elected.

Does the California Constitution even allow an unelected sheriff? State law says that if the office of sheriff becomes vacant, the undersheriff is to assume the sheriff’s duties.

Should we have to make do with an undersheriff until 2010? That seems unsatisfactory. Would an undersheriff be able to authoritatively undertake the reforms the Orange County Sheriff’s Department so clearly needs?

We can vote in the future.

Do we really only have three choices? Violate the California Constitution, violate State law and judicial precedent, or muddle through with an undersheriff?

The Orange County Charter requires that vacancies on the Board of Supervisors occurring in the first three years of a term be filled by election. Vacancies in the final year of a supervisor’s term are to be filled by the top vote getter in the March primary.

Why not change the charter to apply this provision to any elected county office, or at least those the State Constitution specifies as elected offices? There’s an election this November. It’s not too late to place a charter amendment on the ballot.

Then again....

On the other hand, maybe the system has worked pretty well as is. A local councilman seems unable to believe that a Y chromosome is not essential equipment for the job. He’s not alone, either. Even the Democrat’s presumptive nominee for president , for cryin’ out loud, puts down a respected female reporter as “sweetie” and blows off her question with barely a ripple in the media. Are the voters of Jurassic Park numerous enough to sway an election to a lesser candidate purely on the basis of sex?

Maybe the OC Supes are doing OK the way it is. After all, the voters picked Carona in the first place.

Love for Sale, Cheap

2008-06-26T15:58:00.000-07:00

If you’re considering an addition to your household, try a visit to the Orange County Animal Shelter , at 561 The City Drive South, across the street from The Block in Orange.

This Saturday, June 28, the shelter will be holding a pet fair. In addition to dogs, cats, bunnies (lots of bunnies, bunnies doing what bunnies do), and other animals up for adoption, there will be demonstrations and even free stuff.

The shelter has some very nice animals in a range of sizes and types. The shelter is required to accept all comers and therefore cannot be a no-kill shelter. Any animal you adopt will enrich your life immeasurably and will make room for the other guys, letting them stay around until their owners can find them or they find good homes, too.

Summer can be especially bad. Housesitters accidentally leave gates open, and pets get out. Pets panic on the 4th of July and take off. People move, and barbaric as it may seem, leave their pets behind to fend for themselves.

Go to the shelter and do somebody a favor--maybe yourself.

OOPS!

2008-06-26T15:27:00.001-07:00

After having been voluntarily incommunicado for some time, what was voluntary has been forced in recent weeks, thanks to AT&T and Caltrans.

On May 27, Caltrans contractors working on the 405 Freeway near Fairview hit seven major telephone cables serving hundreds of us in the Killybrooke and Mesa Verde areas of Costa Mesa. So, if you had no land line or DSL, you can thank Caltrans.

I learned this not from the phone company, who merely promised to send a repair rep, not from the newspaper, but while out for a walk. Gracie and I have continued our long rambles-- previously in the company of our late buddy Harley--into odd pockets of Costa Mesa and beyond. What should we come upon but an AT&T truck convention in Gisler Park! The repair guys were hard at work, but took a few minutes to explain what had happened.

We couldn’t phone out, and calls to any of the affected phones resulted in a continuous busy signal. Our service was restored after a few days, though not without some strange effects on the answering machine. Others weren’t so lucky. When we next visited Gisler Park, on June 7 over ten days after phones first went down, AT&T crews were still working to restore remaining outages.

As if that weren’t enough, AT&T has also been putting new equipment on the lines to provide telephone, high speed internet, and TV from their boxes, so next time Caltrans hits something we can lose the TV, too. The work on the lines caused additional, intermittent outages—and an even more goofed up answer machine. A subtle means of recruiting subscribers for their message service, perhaps?

AT&T says they will adjust our bills for downtime, but will not reimburse us for extra minutes on our cell phones. For that, maybe Caltrans should take responsibility. District 12 offices serving Orange County are at 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine CA 92612-0611, phone 949-724-2000

A Lotta Dog

2007-10-04T23:46:00.000-07:00

“You’ve got a lotta dog there,” people said. Harley was not small, but not really large either, at just under sixty pounds. He had incredible speed and stamina, too. But more than anything it was his heart and his mind than made him “a lotta dog”.

My friend and mentor, the late Tom Rogers, brought Harley to me from his ranch. “You’ll have to out think this dog,” Tom said more than once. Little did I know.

Harley wanted to be good, partly to please me, but from personal pride, too. The first time he was really scolded (for chewing on an electrical cord), he sat and hung his little head. He really felt bad.

From the start, Harley had a strong sense of order. He waited politely while his bowl was filled, not grabbing at the food as it was dispensed like some dogs. Going in and outside, he waited at the door for me to go first. He did it without being told, not even once.

His sense of order extended to what I should do. He didn’t approve of me re-arranging the furniture. Things belonged where they were. Harley didn’t appreciate humans getting down on the floor with him, either. If I sat on the floor, he went to the Lazy Boy recliner, giving me a look that said “you belong here”. Or maybe he just wanted to climb onto the Lazy Boy, something forbidden unless a human was already there.

He wouldn’t just jump into my lap. He invented a ceremony to ask permission. He’d bring me a toy. If I tossed the toy and cheered as he retrieved it, he’d spring into my lap. If I ignored the toy, he’d settle down on the floor next to me. I, in turn, could initiate the process by singing his favorite Motown.

He had definite preferences in music, sitting under the piano as I played. Favorite pieces brought him in from the yard, just to sit and listen. Sometimes he’d sing along. He wasn’t a shy critic. If I stumbled on a Chopin etude I hadn’t played in a while, he’d get up, sigh loudly and stomp off. Oddly he didn’t seem to care if visitors’ playing was much more fractured. Guess he expected more from me.

You’re Not the Boss of Me

Harley really wanted to do what was right. Unfortunately, once he hit adolescence, we didn’t always agree on what that was. If I wanted to go left, he wanted to go right. If I wanted him indoors, he wanted to be out. Like living with a teen ager.

Walks were a challenge. I tried conventional strategies, changing directions without warning to get Harley’s attention. He returned the favor. What a fun game! My shoulders ached from pulling on the leash, and I had my share of scrapes and bruises from being yanked off my feet or slammed into posts.

Gradually, with firmness and patience things improved. A big part of that was herding class. Unfortunately, there were times it was pretty hard on the sheep, mostly due to my ineptitude. But it helped me see things from Harley’s perspective and establish my authority.

The hardest part was getting him to quit working after he was told “that’ll do”. He loved working the sheep, so much so he ran his pads off more than once, oblivious to pain until he stopped.

If Harley was to obey me and accept me as boss, he had to respect me. He was smart and tough, so I had to be smart and tough, too. He had a commanding presence, so I had to develop my own presence. And if I wanted his respect, I had to respect him.

Harley pushed me to step up, not only to be consistent and firm with him, but to demonstrate I could take care of us both. That could mean just standing my ground as someone careened down the sidewalk with a get-out-of-my-way attitude, triggering an impulse to step aside. Or demanding that a dog owner come get his unleashed, aggressive dog as I stepped between the threatening dog and Harley, clutching my pepper spray, hoping not to need it. I’d think “did I really do that?”, then see Harley’s face, more proud than if he’d defended us: “I’m with her!”

That Fabulous Face

If you’d met Harley, you’d remember that face, showing a dozen different expressions in as many minutes. A face that could make you laugh or break your heart. A face that could make a large, aggressive dog back up and whimper, or calm and draw close a terrified stray, or agitate another dog thirty feet away at the dog cafe. In the blink of an eye, he could go from imperious, to absolutely cow-eyed, usually toward a cute female border collie or German shepherd.

With females, there were times Harley was outright rude, skipping the preliminaries and attempting liberties within seconds of meeting, despite being neutered. But there were times he was positively courtly, starting with a smitten look, changing to flirty as she approached, followed by a gentle nuzzle, maybe a little dancing. There are humans who could have taken lessons from Harley.

Perhaps Harley’s face was so expressive because he had such an active mind. His face could betray him arguing with himself—or the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. The angel didn’t always win, either, like the time Harley stole the New Year’s ham. In later years, the angel won more often. Even then, he’d sometimes slip up; as I corrected him, he’d get an embarrassed “oh, gee, I knew better” look.

Earning It

Harley liked praise, but he had to feel he’d accomplished something special, too. As a pup he quickly learned to sit on command. I praised him abundantly. About the twentieth time, his face made it clear that I was overdoing it. You don’t praise a twelve year old for tying his shoes.

There’s an alley near our house, where dogs on either side would slam into the fence and bark when anyone passed. As Harley neared adulthood, it was hard for him to stay calm and not respond. The first time we made it through the alley with Harley walking quietly at my side the whole time, he gave me a look of triumph and did a little dance. I praised him lavishly. The next time, we also celebrated his success. By about the fifth or sixth time, his face let me know my effusive praise was a bit much for what had become routine for him. Harley liked praise, but not cheap praise.

Out Thunk

When Harley couldn’t get what he wanted by demanding, flirting, or begging, he tried other strategies. The paw, the down. He noisily feigned choking to get my attention. He tried barter. If a happy, hopeful approach or sad, longing looks didn’t get Harley some of my salad or chips, he tried making a trade, bringing successively more favored toys. Sometimes it worked.

Harley loved a good joke. One day we were visiting my Mom, and the dog in the adjacent yard was barking and jumping on the fence. I kept reminding Harley not to respond—or stir things up himself. I tried distracting him, pointing at a tree, exclaiming “Squirrel!” Harley bounded to the tree, but quickly returned, giving me a doubtful look. A half hour later, the same thing, Amber barking next door, me pointing and calling “Squirrel!” Harley went to the tree but less avidly, with a “we’ll just see about that” attitude. He came back and gave me a look that showed he thought he’d been had. Stupidly, I tried the same thing an hour later, whereupon Harley acted very excited, jumping around and looking at the roof behind me. As I stepped away from the house, looking up at the roof, Harley jumped up and poked me in the ribs. He then sat gleefully, “Gotcha!!!”

Can We Keep Her, Mom?

Gracie showed up as a “temporary” foster dog. Harley was almost nine and used to being an “only dog”, though we occasionally had canine visitors stay a few days. He could be a magnanimous host, as long as visitors treated him as the superior being he knew himself to be. The first few days with Gracie ran true to form. She could share his toys, and even share me, since she was properly obsequious. After about a week he looked at me, “Isn’t she going home?”

While we were still trying to find her a home elsewhere, Harley eventually decided otherwise. One day, Gracie was unruly, and I put her out in the yard. Harley and I stayed inside. A few minutes later, Harley went to the door and whined. Thinking he wanted to go out, I opened the door. He stepped back from the door. He looked at me, looked at Gracie, looked at me, looked back and forth again, “Can’t she come in? Please?” Gracie was ours.

Harley was a big help training her. He set an example, being extra careful to maintain good manners himself: “This is what we do here”. He intervened directly, too, nudging her back up the curb if she stepped into the street. If she was not properly respectful he’d discipline her in that time-honored, humiliating doggie way.

Harley was delighted to have Gracie play Sancho Panza to his brave knight. He was very protective of her. Woe betide anyone, dog or human, who might hurt Gracie.

And they played. Chase, keep-away, tug, king of the mountain. So fun to watch, I almost felt left out at times.

Out of Time

I’ve already written too much, but at the same time not enough. How can one sum up a lotta dog in a few hundred or even a few thousand words?

There’s so much more: So many joys, trials, too. Harley hated fireworks and adored children. He could be territorial and overprotective but gentle and friendly with the homeless people everyone else shunned; sometimes reserved and aloof, but tender and comforting with someone in pain. He tolerated indignities from puppies but piddled on adult dogs who crossed the line. He invented games and played jokes. He brought me my shoes and sometimes even socks, an embellishment he figured out himself. He slept at the foot of the bed, always with his head or a paw touching my leg, ready for hugs first thing in the morning.

Our adventures: long hikes; trips to the beach. Harley fending off a pit bull that jumped us from behind. Harley teetering on a piece of plywood when the ground gave way near a construction site. He wouldn’t step over a snake, even a dead one, but happily jumped back and forth across deep gullies. He loved rolling in stinky stuff. Harley climbed trees. He helped himself to fruits and vegetables from the garden, and conned me into knocking apples out of the tree. He jumped into fountains at Fashion Island and Target and loved his play pool, but hated baths, though went into the shower on his own when I got his towels and shampoo, the last time so heartrendingly.

Out of Dog

It took two kinds of unrelated cancers attacking Harley’s body to bring him down. The last day, he was so weak I brought a bath towel to use as a sling to help him up and outdoors. He saw me with the towel and, mistaking my intention, struggled to his feet and into the shower. He tried so hard, right until the very end. But the cancer was stronger than even a lotta dog and it was time to let him go to his rest.

That’ll do, Harley.

That’ll do.

The Grift That Keeps on Grifting

2007-06-29T13:02:00.000-07:00

Last weekend marked the second anniversary of the Kelo decision. In Kelo, the US Supreme Court found that economic development was a legitimate government activity which justified the taking of property from one private party by eminent domain to sell or give to another private party. Ludicrously, the so-called conservative court seemed to agree that somehow “the economy” actually could be “developed” through such misadventures.

The entire premise behind the creation of a redevelopment agency is that the market does not work, and that a bunch of amateurs on city commissions, with little or no training in land use or economics, can do better than the market. That’s what happened in Costa Mesa. The existing small businesses were not thriving enough, in the eyes of some, so they were forced out, the buildings demolished, and the land sold at a discount to a developer who created that great success of a vacant white elephant, Triangle Square a.k.a. The Palace of Eminent Domain.

Where do the redevelopment agencies get the money to indulge in such folly? From the “tax increment” -- basically a shell game that reallocates property tax revenues from other agencies.

Property taxes are divvied up by several local agencies including city government, county government, school districts and other special districts. Typically, schools get at least half, the city and county each get around fifteen to twenty percent and other agencies get smaller portions. When a redevelopment area is established, revenues to all of those agencies are frozen, and any increase in property taxes goes to the redevelopment agency, whether or not the agency actually does anything productive.

In Costa Mesa, that means that the city general fund and other public agencies are getting just what they got from property in the redevelopment area in the early 1970s. Not a penny more. In Santa Ana it’s the same, while Huntington Beach established most of its redevelopment areas a few years later, in 1982. As property values and property taxes increase, all tax revenue above the decades-old baseline amount goes to the Redevelopment Agency.

Thus, these cities must pay 2007 salaries to police and fire personnel out of 1975 or 1982 revenues. They have to pay for utilities, fuel, and office supplies at 2007 prices out of revenues fixed at thirty-year-old levels. Non-redevelopment portions of these cities must make do with less.

Adding insult to injury, when property is taken by eminent domain, the property owner quite reasonably is permitted to transfer his or her Prop 13 tax limit to a new, similar property. This takes a bite out of local property tax revenues in the relocation area.

This is not chump change, either. In Costa Mesa , “tax increment” will amount to over $3 million this year. In Huntington , it will be a little under $14 million (which would go a long way toward paying for that levee in the Parkside/Wintersburg Channel area), while Santa Ana is anticipating $50 million in tax increment this year, still small potatoes compared to Los Angeles which will divert a whopping $215 million in tax increment to the city redevelopment agency. Statewide it adds up to BILLIONS every year, dwarfing the state infrastructure bonds passed by the voters last November.

That’s billions that could be going to schools, libraries, parks, police, paramedics, flood control and street maintenance -- every year. Instead, by law twenty percent must go for low and moderate income housing, which is a recognized need, and the rest goes for administration, consultant studies, handouts to developers, attorneys, tearing up streets to put in decorative pavement, consultant studies, more handouts to billionaires, attorneys, consultant studies, decorative lighting, and oh, did I mention attorneys and consultant studies?

Meanwhile, we are asked to pass bond issue after bond issue to raise funds for basic infrastructure, to raise taxes to pay for local roadways, while we scrimp by with less and less in non-redevelopment areas. But don’t you just love that decorative pavement?

We Just Haven’t Suffered Enough

2007-06-06T19:35:00.000-07:00

Lately, it seems every time someone wants to add more development, usually over and above levels already allowed in the general plan, they label it “smart growth”. The term was originally coined to mean a specific type of balanced development meeting certain criteria, but has evolved to mean just about whatever a developer or compliant city council wants it to mean. High-rise development in Town Center? Smart growth. More development along already congested Mariners’ Mile? Smart growth. High density housing/instant tenements on Costa Mesa’s West side? Smart growth.

If there’s a buck in it, it’s “smart”. Never mind that traffic is close to a standstill at rush hour. If we build more stuff, it’ll get better. Don’t agree? Well, you’re just not smart!

The May 30, 2007 issue of LA Weekly has a fascinating article about “smart growth” in Los Angeles. Writer David Zahniser recounts how LA planners intend to change people’s commuting behavior by increasing density to the point that residents will be so miserable in traffic they will not only willingly abandon their cars and accept mass transit, they will demand it.

Zahniser quotes Gloria Ohland, vice president for communications with Reconnecting America, a group promoting rail and transit, “Traffic, which is the problem, is also the solution… So I would argue, boost the density in Century City. Build it out to the max. And then, there will be the constituency to build a subway down Wilshire Boulevard.”

The solution is to make people more miserable. Isn’t that smart? Now read the article and substitute Bristol Street for Wilshire Boulevard, South Coast Metro/JWA for Century City, and Center Line for “a subway”.

“Smart” planners like this scenario. Not only do they get to process more development, thereby ensuring job security, they can get outside funds for planning transit oriented development. “Smart” politicians like it, too, ‘cause they never have to say “No’ to their developer clients… er… campaign contributors.

“Smart” developers absolutely adore this latest fad in land development. Not only do they get to build, build, build, in anticipation of some future, not-yet-funded transit, if the transit actually were to occur, under state law they can get a density bonus of twenty five percent or more for development within a quarter mile of a transit station or location where bus lines meet. Even better, their new, “smart” development is exempt from growth limits imposed under local congestion management plans. . Then they’ll get to build even more. It's called taking advantage of "infill opportunities". We’ll build ourselves out of congestion!

And how’s that working been working? Not real well in Los Angeles or Orange County which, according to a 2005 Federal Highway Administration study, have five of the most congested bottle necks in the nation. But the “smart” developers and politicians tell us it’s because we don’t have the mass transit which will come naturally if we just grow more.

How about a city known for its mass transit, like Chicago with its L train, subway, and bus system? They’ve got three of the top twenty four. Or Washington, D.C., with it’s Metro Rail. They only have two of the top twenty four, while Time Magazine reports that the average speed on the DC Beltway is all of 23 miles per hour.

Maybe they just don’t have “smart” growth. Maybe we need to look at a place like Portland, Oregon, known for its commitment to creating a “livable community” (a catch phrase preceding “smart growth”). Well, the Portland Tribune reported that local peak hour speeds on the I-5 were 22 mph, while peak hour speed on Highway 26 had fallen to 18 mph, though this subsequently increased after the highway was widened. No “smart” solutions there. Just plain old highway construction.

Still, our leaders in southern California apparently keep hoping that soon people will dump their cars and jump into mass transit. Either that, or people will move to within walking distance to work—if not out of state in frustration. Congestion will just melt away if they build enough.

Isn't insanity said to be expecting a different outcome while repeating the same thing over and over again?

Let It Not Be in Vain

2007-05-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

Today is a day to pause and remember those gave their lives to preserve our freedom and those who continue to offer up that ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately, there are some who are ready to trade our freedom for imagined security or even physical comfort. When I read or hear of that, I think what did those brave souls fight for? What did they die for?

I think of my dad, John Genis, who fought in the 180th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division in World War II. He was wounded at Anzio, May 25, 1944; France, Nov. 3, 1944; Germany, Dec. 26, 1944; and in France again, February 5, 1945; and was highly decorated. He was an ardent patriot who did not believe in compromise.

When going through his papers after he passed away in 2001, we came across some reminiscenses of his experience in World War II. Here is an excerpt:

Sailed from Newport News June 18, 1943 on the Mariposa. Arrived in Casablanca June 25, 1943. The Mariposa was a converted luxury liner that could outrun the submarines.

The worst part of the trip was the zigzagging. With the waves as high as twenty seven feet, you were bounced from wall to wall. One night a knucklehead lit a match and got put in the brig. Somehow, I was put in charge. The brig was in the front of the ship. I dreaded going out on deck at night to the brig with the ship changing course constantly.

We arrived at Casablanca in the afternoon. You could smell Africa before you could see it. From a distance, Casablanca, glistening white, looked picturesque. As we glided into the harbor, we could see some of the French ships that were sunk.

It was evening by the time we got off the ship. I was surprised to see the beggars with nothing but burlap sacks for clothes. The French did not allow the native Moroccans into their stores to shop.

We marched inland to the outskirts of Casablanca and bedded down for the night. We could hear the barking dogs, the beat of drums, and Arabian music coming from old Medina. [Remember this was an ordinary American from the Midwest.] With the light of dawn, we discovered scorpions crawling all around us.

We were loaded into 40 & 8 cars (forty men or eight horses), and taken to Oran. July 8 we boarded the LCIs and July 10 we landed in Sicily. Our LCI came in about six miles from where we were supposed to land. The LCI hit a sandbar, dumped us, and got out.

The sandbar was not the beach. The water was about twenty feet deep between the beach and the sandbar. What a mess!

We lost some equipment, but in a way, we were lucky. The Germans were ready and waiting at the landing. Colonel was captured. Before the invasion of Sicily, he told us that anyone captured was a ”knot head”. We managed to capture the airport.

The casualties were pretty heavy. Our Company “A” mess was able to feed the whole battalion. I can’t forget the horror of humans inflicting pain on other humans, the horror of phosphorus shells, the horror of Bloody Ridge.

There’ll never be another Old Yeller

2007-05-22T10:53:00.000-07:00

Or Shep, or Fido, or Spot, or Puff, or, or Mehitabel. At least if Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has his way. Levine is sponsoring Assembly Bill 1634, the oxymoronically named “California Healthy Pets Act”, more accurately the California Unhealthy Pets Act or Hardly Any Pets Act. http://saveourdogs.net/ or http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update

AB 1634 would require nearly all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered by the age of four (4!) months. In certain limited circumstances, an “intact permit” could be obtained. And doesn’t that just make you want to cross your legs real tight?

The rationale is that our shelters are so full of unwanted cats and dogs, we must stop making any more. Oddly, this bill is proposed at a time when we seem to be making good progress on this front. Data maintained by the California Department of Health Services indicate that total dog and cat impoundments have been dropping for the last few decades, while the rate of adoption has increased and euthanasia has dropped significantly. In recent years this trend has accelerated. Why propose this draconian measure now?

The bill will force law-abiding citizens with nice family pets to spay or neuter their cats and dogs. Meanwhile feral animals and animals in the underground dog world of fighting rings and drug dealers will continue to breed. Not animals you’d want to take home to the kids.

Local communities may already enact spay/neuter ordinances reflecting local conditions and values. This bill would pre-empt local control. Will cities be forced to create squads of pet police?

AB 1634 is bad for public safety

Speaking of the police, dogs used in law enforcement are typically intact males. AB 1634 exempts dogs used for law enforcement or rescue activities from spay/neuter, but at four months it’s impossible to know which animals will enter law enforcement. They don’t even enter formal training ‘til they’re one, and not all make it onto the force. Breeding programs just for law enforcement would be impractical, since maybe five percent of dogs specifically bred and raised for police work actually make it. Law enforcement dogs usually spend the first part of their lives as pets.

A significant majority of law enforcement and search-and-rescue dogs serving in California are bred in California. The dogs search out missing persons, criminals, narcotics, and explosives. A dog may save an officer’s life at the cost of his own. http://www.vet.upenn.edu/schoolresources/communications/publications/bellwether/49/canine_hero.html Without dedicated, working-dog hobby breeders, the supply of these dogs would dry up. The California Organization of Police and Sheriffs estimates an additional cost to state and local law enforcement of $43 million per year.

And remember, once intact pets were outlawed, only outlaws would have intact pets. Would owners of unaltered dogs and cats be less willing to report crime or come forward as witnesses?

AB 1634 is bad for public health.

If AB 1534 passed, expect fewer people to license and vaccinate their pets. After all, if your pet is unaltered, you can’t get a license. Plus, if your animal’s intact, the vet is pretty much the first person who’d notice. And you wouldn’t dare go the one of those low cost vaccination clinics run by a government agency.

People may even become reluctant to get Tabby to the vet at the first signs of illness—many of which can be passed on to people. It’s not just rabies, either. There are parasites and diseases like leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis which can cause miscarriage and birth defects in people. Problems would be exacerbated if, as was proposed in Sacramento, veterinarians were forced to become the pet police.

Don’t forget about the role of cats and dogs in rodent control, either. While there is an exemption for pure-bred cats which are on the pet show circuit, I doubt if these cats would be out for an evening killing rats

AB 1634 is bad for pet health

There are pros and cons to sterilization of pets. However, when performed at a very young age, problems far outweigh the benefits including urinary incontinence, various cancers, obesity, orthopedic problems, and behavioral problems such as environmental fear and dog on dog aggression. As noted above, AB 1634 could cause owners of intact pets to avoid veterinary clinics.

As time went on, and people could no longer get dogs from small hobby breeders, the void would be filled by puppy mills. Even the best of these are essentially “dog factories” where, even if clean and sanitary which is by no means guaranteed, dogs are kenneled for life, perpetually pregnant or nursing, without play or other stimulation. http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/Commercial-kennel-facts.html

Often, the mills are an absolute abomination http://www.anewstartonlife.com/puppymill.htm. ( You may want to get the kleenex before going to this site.) There is one goal: Produce as many puppies as possible, as cheaply as possible. Three quarters of these are in Kansas and Missouri, with the rest predominantly in the Midwest and east. The U.S. Border Patrol estimates that about 10,000 puppies per year are brought into San Diego from Mexico. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml

Nationally, less than one percent of puppy mill dogs are currently bred in California. Look for this to increase, since breeders with an expensive breeder’s license, and business license or state tax number would be exempt. Obviously they would have to sell more pups to pay for the breeder’s license.

But doesn’t California have rules guaranteeing humane treatment? Under the State law, kennels must be kept sanitary, and animals must have “adequate space”. So what’s “adequate space”? As stated in Health and Safety Code Sec. 122065:

"adequate space"means sufficient space for the dog to stand up, sit down, and turn about freely using normal body movements, without the head touching the top of the cage, and to lie in a natural position.

Plenty of room, like spending your life in a cell the size of a twin bed with a ceiling no higher than a typical door frame—if you’re lucky. You would be performing your bodily functions there, too.

California breeders are required by law to take back pets if health problems arise within a given time, but often problems don’t show up until later. Animals taken back will be unloaded on someone else or disposed of—and it’s not always a “good death”, as implied by the Greek roots of the word “euthanasia”.

Even if the commercial breeders provided heaven on earth, it would still be bad for the pet population. Less than one percent of privately owned dogs meet the intact criteria of AB 1634. Genetic diversity is important to maintaining healthy populations, whether cat, dog, bird, or human. Genetic diversity is important in adapting to changing conditions and fending off disease. The more limited the gene pool, the more likely that a given genetic mutation will proliferate. Do we want our pets to resemble the royal houses of Europe?

AB 1634 is bad for California business

AB 1634 would adversely affect a range of economic sectors. California's $1.5 billion cattle industry and $54 million sheep industry depend on working dogs. The dogs have been carefully bred for generations for their ability. They are not show dogs, and are often not registered “pure bred”. If AB 1634 passed, these lines would be destroyed. Some breeds such as our very own California breed, the McNab http://www.flyballdogs.com/personal/mcnab.html , or http://www.legacyconnemaras.com/McNabHistory.html could be nearly eliminated. Perhaps hardest hit would be small, independent cattlemen producing range- fed beef. A ranching friend told me more than once that a good herding dog is worth four hired hands. Consider the difference in cost. We’ll be stuck with factory feedlot beef and factory dogs. Lovely. And that factory steak will cost more, too.

Hunters too, would face a limited supply of working stock, resulting in a hit to California’s $16 million hunting license revenue, not to mention loss of at least a portion of the $315 million hunters spend in California annually.

AB 1634 is elitist

AB 1634 will not affect the factory breeder who will be able to charge more for inferior dogs, only the small hobby breeder that produces one litter every few years from a high quality animal. AB 1634 won’t affect the wealthy and careless who can afford to plunk down a couple thousand for the flavor of the month in accessory canines and felines, be they dalmations, chihuahuas, or teacup Persians, without regard to the origin of the animal. AB 1634 will affect moderate income families who just want a nice dog or cat to love.

Why do I care? Why should you?

By way of full disclosure, I do not have an unaltered dog, and have no interest in breeding pups, but I’ve been the ownee of a long line of shelter dogs, rescue dogs, and a couple straight from the on-premises mom. They have enriched my life immeasurably.

I also have friends on working ranches and know how indispensable a good working dog can be. I fear that should AB 1634 pass, the only dogs and cats available would be through means that I could not in good conscience utilize or problem animals, whether due to health or disposition.

Dogs in particular have adapted over millennia to live and work with man, as man has adapted in return, creating unique bonds between the species. Let’s not break that bond.

Please contact your assembly member, your state senator, and Governor Schwarzenegger now.

And they said midnight basketball was dead.

2007-05-17T15:55:00.000-07:00

Up for a game of midnight baseball?

What about a picnic in the park? How’s 4 am grab you?

Our parks in Costa Mesa are under ever more pressure for ever more activities by our growing population. People who prefer a quiet afternoon enjoying open space are at odds with those who prefer active sports. Those in organized leagues compete with others interested in pick-up games. Softball players compete with soccer players for space. And residents living adjacent to parks are tired of what seems like 24/7 activity.

We simply need more park land. As our population expands, we’ll need still more.

How has our city council responded? By blowing opportunity after opportunity.

Town Center--Blowing an Opportunity

In January 2007, the council approved a general plan amendment allowing 1,269 new, high- rise dwelling units in Town Center. The project’s environmental impact report (EIR) says this will bring 3,173 new residents to Costa Mesa. Based on the city standard of 4.26 acres of park land for each 1,000 residents (CM Municipal Code Sec. 13-255), the project will generate a need for 13.5 more acres of city park land.

Under State and local law, the City Council could have required the developers to dedicate 13.5 acres of land for parks.

They could have required land to be dedicated within the Town Center area, near where the new demand would be generated, an area where night time lighting and high activity levels in the late evening are the norm. This would have also provided open space relief amidst the concrete and glass.

Or, they could have accepted land elsewhere in the city already owned by the project applicants or purchased by the applicants for that purpose. This could have been a real win for residents, since one of the applicants owns the now-vacant Kona Lanes site at Harbor and Mesa Verde East. Lots of people have suggested it as a site for ball fields.

So, what did the Costa Mesa City Council do with this golden opportunity? They decided to accept “in-lieu” fees, fees that they know full well will be less than the cost of providing the much-needed parkland.

The fees would be used, they said, to “to improve the versatility of the existing parks in order to serve the community”. Huh??? Is that another way of saying “put in more lights”?

Well, okay, the sports capacity of some parks could be increased by reconfiguring fields, but that only goes so far. Besides, do we need every last square inch or our parks to be programmed?

Harbor & Fair--Blowing Another Opportunity

Remember the formerly vacant land at Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard?

Starting in the 1990s, Costa Mesa officials had talked with the state on and off about acquiring the 5.5 acre parcel. At one point it looked like we might even get it deeded over without cost to the city, but state budget woes intervened. In August 2004, the City Council unanimously started a process to rezone the property from residential to “institutional and recreational” use--a prelude to acquisition for park purposes.

Around the same time the City of Newport Beach was trying to acquire land at the corner of Superior and West Coast Highway, land also zoned for residential use, which included some pretty great views.

As time went on, each potential transfer was on again, off again. In January 2005, the Costa Mesa City Council chose to drop further efforts toward local acquisition (voting 3-1, Dixon no, Foley absent), because in the words of Mayor Mansoor, attempting to justify his flip-flop, the land was “extremely [emphasis NOT added] expensive property, sigh, I don’t think we would have been able to go there,” implying the land would be unusually expensive.

An odd assertion. Can’t say I know anyone willing to pay a premium to live next to a highway. Maybe Mr. Mansoor does.

Later, at the height of the real estate boom, the property was sold to a developer for $11.1 million, or about $2,000,000 an acre. That is pretty expensive.

On the other hand, the State sometimes sells land for less than market price if some other public good will result, like more parks or housing for poor families. That’s what happened in Newport Beach. Usually they also require some type of deed restriction or profit sharing agreement, so local agencies don’t simply get cheap land from the State, then turn around and sell it at a profit

In late 2005, Newport Beach bought a 1.88 acre portion of what’s now Sunset Ridge Park for just $175,000. Last summer the Newport Beach City Council eliminated the residential designation for the 15.05 acre Caltrans West/Sunset Ridge parcel and redesignated it for park use, similar to the process commenced, but later abandoned, by the Costa Mesa City Council. The upper portion of the site was designated a public view point under Newport’s general plan.

So how much did Newport Beach pay the state? In late 2006, Newport Beach bought the remaining15.05 acre parcel to complete the park for $5 million, a little over three hundred thousand dollars an acre. Applying that land value, the Harbor and Fair site would have cost the City of Costa Mesa about $1.83 million.

The state also required that an open space deed restriction be placed over a portion of the Sunset Ridge land. No problem if you want a park. And the state financed the sale at 4.75 % interest.

Blowing Through the Cash

Isn’t Costa Mesa doing anything? Oh yes, as we know, they're putting in more lights at the old Mesa High farm site, increasing its "versatility". Hey, maybe they can double deck it. How’s that for "versatility"?

They also voted to buy a 1.19 acre site next to Brentwood Park on the east side for $3,542,000, or almost $3 million an acre. Of course that land on Harbor, at $2 million an acre was “extremely expensive. sigh…”. We just couldn’t “go there.”

And what else are they doing? Well, they budgeted $1,000,000 plus in state bond funds to redo fields at Tewinkle Park, $650,000 in general funds to renovate the Tewinkle Park lake, and $75,000 in park dedication funds to redo irrigation at Tewinkle. Wow! Tewinkle Park must be really versatile now.

Let’s focus on those in-lieu/park dedication funds: They budgeted $75,000 for a park study, $45,000 for signs at FOUR parks and another $25,000 for signs at four more parks. Bet those signs really increased versatility.

What else did they budget with the in-lieu money? $127,000 for two picnic shelters and $150,000 for a “shade structure” at the “Volcom Skate Park” and another $100,000 for parking lot lighting outside the skate park. (And what’s Volcom paying for anyway?) $60,000 to repair a slope at one park and $35,000 to re-landscape a slope at another.

And don’t forget $85,000 to lease land. For one year. Heaven forfend we should have anything permanent to show for our money at the end of a few years.

Some of this sounds like good stuff, but how’s it going to stretch park capacity to accommodate thousands more people? And as for some of the rest, I don’t know how one could blow through as much money as quickly if one were actually trying.

Consider:

Small parcel at Sunset Ridge purchased by Newport Beach:
$93,085 per acre

Large parcel at Sunset Ridge purchased by Newport Beach:
$332,226 per acre

Parcel at Harbor and Fair purchased by private developer:
$2,029,250 per acre

Brentwood park parcel purchased by Costa Mesa:
$2,976,471 per acre

City council truly dedicated to providing adequate recreation facilities:
We can’t go there.