The City of Sierra Madre has rescinded the Yellow Flag alert and is now at a "no flag alert" situation. The Los Angeles County of Public Works has posted a message early this morning that their debris and mudflow potential forecast is not warranted at this time. Crews are working to clean up the mud that has been deposited on city streets.
The City would like to thank everyone for their diligent preparations.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
800 block of Skyland is closed
Sent from iPhone. For more detail and additional (better) photos, visit www.SierraMudre.info
LACDPW Ends Phase I Watch for Sierra Madre
LACDPW has announced at 6:49am that “WATER RESOURCES DIVISION HAS DETERMINED THAT A DEBRIS AND MUDFLOW POTENTIAL FORECAST IS NOT WARRANTED AT THIS TIME.” In other words, Phase I alert for Sierra Madre has ended. This should also result in the City announcing shortly that Yellow Flag alert has ended.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
City goes to Yellow Flag
The City of Sierra Madre has issued a Yellow Flag Alert effective immediately. The County of Los Angeles Public Works Department has issued a Phase 1 Mudflow forecast as of 8:00 AM, Saturday, December 12, 2009.
A Phase 1 indicates that small isolated debris and mudflows are possible at specific locations. Streets may once again be flooded or blocked by debris. Woodland Drive, Skyland Drive, and other streets may be closed due to blockage and cleanup efforts throughout the day and night.
A Phase 1 indicates that small isolated debris and mudflows are possible at specific locations. Streets may once again be flooded or blocked by debris. Woodland Drive, Skyland Drive, and other streets may be closed due to blockage and cleanup efforts throughout the day and night.
Parking restrictions are in effect in the Upper and Lower Canyon during Yellow or Red Flag alerts. Vehicles may be towed at owner’s expense.
The affected streets are: Mount Wilson Trail, Churchill Rd., Skyland Dr., Fern Glen, Fern Dr., Idlehour Ln., Canyon Crest Dr., Orange Dr., Woodland Dr., Brookside Lane, Sunnyside Lane, Yucca Trail, Sturtevant Dr., Elm Ave., and Holly Trail.
Residents in the affected areas are urged to be "set" to leave at a moments notice and may choose to voluntarily evacuate.
Friday, September 11, 2009
9/11 Remembrance
I've posted on the News Net site a seven article series that I first ran in 2006, for the five-year anniversary of 9/11. It's quite long, and in places repetitive, but it tells the story of two amazing men, and a father's love for his son. You can read it here. http://www.sierramadrenews.net/napolitano.htm You may want to split it up into a few readings, it was spread out over seven weeks when it was first published in the San Gabriel Valley Weekly.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Community Meeting will Update Residents on Fire Situation
A community meeting will be conducted by the Station Fire Incident Management Team (IMT) on Thursday, September 3, at 7:00 p.m., to update residents of Pasadena, Sierra Madre and Arcadia about the Station Fire that has been burning since last Thursday. City of Sierra Madre officials will be present as well.
The meeting will be at Pasadena Church of the Nazarene’s Lee Chapel, 3700 E. Sierra Madre Blvd.
The IMT is conducting a series of meetings in San Gabriel Valley foothill communities over the next few days, on Friday, the meeting will be held at the Azusa Senior Center at 7:00 p.m.
For more information call 626.355.7135.
The meeting will be at Pasadena Church of the Nazarene’s Lee Chapel, 3700 E. Sierra Madre Blvd.
The IMT is conducting a series of meetings in San Gabriel Valley foothill communities over the next few days, on Friday, the meeting will be held at the Azusa Senior Center at 7:00 p.m.
For more information call 626.355.7135.
Station Fire Update - Includes Update from City/Fire Chief
Spoke with Chief Heydorf around 2:30, who told me that the fire is a couple ridges away, nothing imminent. I pointed out that in the last several days, I'd seen it look much closer than it does now, yet today the news keeps reporting that they ar trying to make sure it doesn't get to Sierra Madre, Monrovia and Altadena. Chief told me that at the briefing this morning, they were told that if it gets here, it will be at least 4 days before it does, and there's a big IF. Here's what the Sierra Madre emergency blog has to say on the situation:
Sierra Madre Fire Department and City Officials are closely monitoring the Station Fire. At this time, there is no imminent danger to Sierra Madre residents.
The City of Sierra Madre has begun preparations in case the Station Fire enters Sierra Madre. At this time the Station Fire continues to be a slow moving fire and if the fire continues moving toward Sierra Madre, officials do not expect it to enter the City for at least five days. This prediction is contingent on if the current weather conditions continue.
Today, fire officials began pre-treating the northern border of Sierra Madre by sending handcrews to work behind the northern-most properties in Sierra Madre creating a small fire break. This fire break is expected to extend from Altadena to Azusa.
Residents north of Carter Avenue traveling east to Mira Monte Avenue and across Alegria Avenue to Grandview Avenue are ask to begin their emergency preparations in case the City has to evacuate residents. Residents are reminded to be “Ready for 7” with 7 days worth of food, clothing, medicine, pet food and supplies should they have to leave their homes. If the City evacuates residents, an evacuation center will be set up at the Community Recreation Center at 611 E. Sierra Madre Blvd. Crated pets will be allowed.
As the fire continues to burn closer to Sierra Madre, wild animals will be leaving the forest and entering the City. Public Safety Officials warn residents to be cautious and leave them alone and to please not feed the wild animals. Residents may want to take caution and keep small children and pets indoors.
In compliance with an order from the US Forest Service and the LA County Sheriff Department, the City is closing until further notice Bailey Canyon, Mt. Wilson Trail and the road up to Chantry Flats.
For more information, please tune into SMTV3, channel 3 on Time Warner Cable, or www.sierramadrepio.blogspot.com. eBlasts will also be sent out to registered users – to register for email alerts please visit www.cityofsierramadre.com, click on AccessSierraMadre, and then click CommunicationLink to register your email address.
Other sources of information about the Station Fire can be found at InciWeb the Incident Information System http://inciweb.org/
Sierra Madre Fire Department and City Officials are closely monitoring the Station Fire. At this time, there is no imminent danger to Sierra Madre residents.
The City of Sierra Madre has begun preparations in case the Station Fire enters Sierra Madre. At this time the Station Fire continues to be a slow moving fire and if the fire continues moving toward Sierra Madre, officials do not expect it to enter the City for at least five days. This prediction is contingent on if the current weather conditions continue.
Today, fire officials began pre-treating the northern border of Sierra Madre by sending handcrews to work behind the northern-most properties in Sierra Madre creating a small fire break. This fire break is expected to extend from Altadena to Azusa.
Residents north of Carter Avenue traveling east to Mira Monte Avenue and across Alegria Avenue to Grandview Avenue are ask to begin their emergency preparations in case the City has to evacuate residents. Residents are reminded to be “Ready for 7” with 7 days worth of food, clothing, medicine, pet food and supplies should they have to leave their homes. If the City evacuates residents, an evacuation center will be set up at the Community Recreation Center at 611 E. Sierra Madre Blvd. Crated pets will be allowed.
As the fire continues to burn closer to Sierra Madre, wild animals will be leaving the forest and entering the City. Public Safety Officials warn residents to be cautious and leave them alone and to please not feed the wild animals. Residents may want to take caution and keep small children and pets indoors.
In compliance with an order from the US Forest Service and the LA County Sheriff Department, the City is closing until further notice Bailey Canyon, Mt. Wilson Trail and the road up to Chantry Flats.
For more information, please tune into SMTV3, channel 3 on Time Warner Cable, or www.sierramadrepio.blogspot.com. eBlasts will also be sent out to registered users – to register for email alerts please visit www.cityofsierramadre.com, click on AccessSierraMadre, and then click CommunicationLink to register your email address.
Other sources of information about the Station Fire can be found at InciWeb the Incident Information System http://inciweb.org/
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
DA Declines to Press Charges Against Officer Amos
In two interviews with Sierra Madre Police Chief Marilyn Diaz Thursday and Friday, the Chief informed me that approximately two weeks ago she received word from the District Attorney that in the SMPD Officer Involved Shooting on Jan. 30th, the D.A.’s office “declined to press charges, because they found no criminal intent.”
As reported on SierraMadreNews.Net on Jan. 30th, an unidentified SMPD officer was involved in a shooting at SMPD. At the time, LASD had provided the following information: According to Deputy Sheriff Oscar Butao, Sheriffs homicide detectives responded to the 200 block of W. Sierra Madre Blvd. to assist SMPD personnel in investigating the circumstances surrounding an officer involved shooting. According to the Sheriff's Dept. report, an SMPD officer recovered a Nissan Murano that had been reported stolen in Pacifica. The officer had the vehicle towed to a covered garage at the SMPD station. While the officer was in the process of opening the locked vehicle, he was confronted by the suspect who had been hiding under a blanket in the cargo area of the vehicle. At that time, an officer involved shooting occurred. The 46-year old suspect was struck in the upper torso and transported to a local hospital, where he is listed in stable condition. The officer was not injured. According to the report, and Sheriff Butao, there is no more information at this time.
Over the next several weeks, I was frustrated by the LASD’s failure to return phone calls asking for updates. Chief Diaz had repeatedly informed me that she was unable to discuss the incident with me while the investigation was ongoing. The Chief told me she would try to get the LASD to respond to my calls, but they never called back.
Fast forward to August 5th, when Alfred Lee of the Pasadena Star News ran a story stating that the Officer involved, now identified as Officer Henry (Hank) Amos, was back on duty. In Mr. Lee’s report he stated “But when police officers opened up the hatchback of the SUV, they were surprised to find the suspect in the vehicle's cargo area, where he had been sleeping under a blanket.” This was the first I’d heard that there was more than one officer involved in the incident. After receiving an e-mail from a concerned reader asking for more details, I sent an e-mail off to the Chief, requesting more details.
The Chief and I played phone tag until yesterday, when she stopped by my office to discuss another situation, and I decided to follow up on the Officer Amos incident while I had her attention. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my questions with me, so I had to work off memory. Unlike most interviews, I did not have my voice recorder, so I have done my best to report our conversation. Some things may be paraphrased, rather than quotes, and some things may be out of chronological order as questions and answers were asked.
The first thing I asked was if the Star News article was correct, that there was another officer on the scene when the shooting took place. She told me there was another officer on the scene. I asked if there had been any action taken with that officer, disciplinary, etc.. She said the other officer was a witness only. I asked her if allowing Officer Amos to return to duty before the District Attorney’s office had decided whether or not to file charges didn’t put the Department at risk, i.e., what if after returning to duty, the D.A. decided to file charges? The Chief said that she was confident, from the Sierra Madre internal investigation and the LASD investigation, that reinstating Officer Amos was the right thing to do. The Chief added that in the last two weeks (since the reinstatement), the District Attorney’s office had declined to file charges against Officer Amos, as they found no criminal intent in his actions.
I’m not sure if it was at this point or not, but the Chief at one point said that there are security cameras in the area where the shooting took place, and there is video that was reviewed as well. I asked if that wasn’t something that I might get access to through the Freedom of Information Act. The Chief stated that the Freedom of Information Act would not allow release of video that might effect an ongoing investigation. I pointed out that SMPD’s investigation was complete, the LASD investigation was complete, and the D.A. had now determined not to press charges, so it sounded like that investigation was complete. The Chief told me that the D.A.’s investigation into whether or not to file charges against the suspect was not yet complete. While published reports had indicated that no charges were filed against the suspect, that did not mean that there will not be charges filed at some point. The Chief said that the D.A.’s office had requested more information, and the SMPD was getting that information together for them.
There’s more to this story, which I’ll be publishing probably on Monday or Tuesday. I have requested more information, and when I get it, I’ll be able to do a more complete report. If it takes longer to get the info, the article may be published later. One thing I will say, though, to dispel some of the misinformation about this incident that is being spread, is that the Chief has confirmed for me that the suspect was NOT asleep at the time he was shot.
As reported on SierraMadreNews.Net on Jan. 30th, an unidentified SMPD officer was involved in a shooting at SMPD. At the time, LASD had provided the following information: According to Deputy Sheriff Oscar Butao, Sheriffs homicide detectives responded to the 200 block of W. Sierra Madre Blvd. to assist SMPD personnel in investigating the circumstances surrounding an officer involved shooting. According to the Sheriff's Dept. report, an SMPD officer recovered a Nissan Murano that had been reported stolen in Pacifica. The officer had the vehicle towed to a covered garage at the SMPD station. While the officer was in the process of opening the locked vehicle, he was confronted by the suspect who had been hiding under a blanket in the cargo area of the vehicle. At that time, an officer involved shooting occurred. The 46-year old suspect was struck in the upper torso and transported to a local hospital, where he is listed in stable condition. The officer was not injured. According to the report, and Sheriff Butao, there is no more information at this time.
Over the next several weeks, I was frustrated by the LASD’s failure to return phone calls asking for updates. Chief Diaz had repeatedly informed me that she was unable to discuss the incident with me while the investigation was ongoing. The Chief told me she would try to get the LASD to respond to my calls, but they never called back.
Fast forward to August 5th, when Alfred Lee of the Pasadena Star News ran a story stating that the Officer involved, now identified as Officer Henry (Hank) Amos, was back on duty. In Mr. Lee’s report he stated “But when police officers opened up the hatchback of the SUV, they were surprised to find the suspect in the vehicle's cargo area, where he had been sleeping under a blanket.” This was the first I’d heard that there was more than one officer involved in the incident. After receiving an e-mail from a concerned reader asking for more details, I sent an e-mail off to the Chief, requesting more details.
The Chief and I played phone tag until yesterday, when she stopped by my office to discuss another situation, and I decided to follow up on the Officer Amos incident while I had her attention. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my questions with me, so I had to work off memory. Unlike most interviews, I did not have my voice recorder, so I have done my best to report our conversation. Some things may be paraphrased, rather than quotes, and some things may be out of chronological order as questions and answers were asked.
The first thing I asked was if the Star News article was correct, that there was another officer on the scene when the shooting took place. She told me there was another officer on the scene. I asked if there had been any action taken with that officer, disciplinary, etc.. She said the other officer was a witness only. I asked her if allowing Officer Amos to return to duty before the District Attorney’s office had decided whether or not to file charges didn’t put the Department at risk, i.e., what if after returning to duty, the D.A. decided to file charges? The Chief said that she was confident, from the Sierra Madre internal investigation and the LASD investigation, that reinstating Officer Amos was the right thing to do. The Chief added that in the last two weeks (since the reinstatement), the District Attorney’s office had declined to file charges against Officer Amos, as they found no criminal intent in his actions.
I’m not sure if it was at this point or not, but the Chief at one point said that there are security cameras in the area where the shooting took place, and there is video that was reviewed as well. I asked if that wasn’t something that I might get access to through the Freedom of Information Act. The Chief stated that the Freedom of Information Act would not allow release of video that might effect an ongoing investigation. I pointed out that SMPD’s investigation was complete, the LASD investigation was complete, and the D.A. had now determined not to press charges, so it sounded like that investigation was complete. The Chief told me that the D.A.’s investigation into whether or not to file charges against the suspect was not yet complete. While published reports had indicated that no charges were filed against the suspect, that did not mean that there will not be charges filed at some point. The Chief said that the D.A.’s office had requested more information, and the SMPD was getting that information together for them.
There’s more to this story, which I’ll be publishing probably on Monday or Tuesday. I have requested more information, and when I get it, I’ll be able to do a more complete report. If it takes longer to get the info, the article may be published later. One thing I will say, though, to dispel some of the misinformation about this incident that is being spread, is that the Chief has confirmed for me that the suspect was NOT asleep at the time he was shot.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
SCAG Decision Should Not be Based on Scare Tactics and Misinformation
An item on an upcoming Sierra Madre City Council meeting agenda has caught my attention, and I suspect possibly the attention of many of the readers of this newspaper. The Council is being asked to consider whether or not Sierra Madre should continue its membership in the Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG).
According to SCAG’s website, “Over the past four decades, the Southern California Association of Governments has evolved as the largest of nearly 700 councils of government in the United States, functioning as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles.
As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Association of Governments is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the state level.”
So, assuming they’ve stated who they are accurately (and I have no reason to believe they would misstate this information in such a highly public forum), that means that as a member, Sierra Madre is able to have some say in the “research and drawing up of plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management and air quality” for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. Conversely, I would assume that if we are not members, that means that these decisions will be made without any input from Sierra Madre, and the residents of Sierra Madre will have dictated to them what SCAG has determined will be done, based on its federal mandate.
Also from the SCAG website: “The fundamental question of why SCAG was created is best answered in the words of Ventura County Supervisor John Montgomery back in 1966, who said, ‘Regional planning is not a matter of if, but rather when and who. Regional planning must come via cooperation and mutual assistance. Regional planning will (either) be accomplished through local governments working together or by big brother mandates from state and national governments.’"
Our neighbors, small and large are all members: Bradbury, Arcadia, Duarte, Monrovia, Pasadena, Azusa, El Monte, La Canada/Flintridge, Rosemead, San Marino, South Pasadena, all have joined the nearly 150 city members of SCAG. The only area city that is not a member of SCAG is Temple City.
So for a nominal membership dues fee, Sierra Madre can participate in planning its future, or it can choose to save that money, and have SCAG dictate to it what it has decided Sierra Madre is going to do (or not do). Seems kind of like a no-brainer, right? Why would we surrender our opportunity to provide input into the future of this region?
But it’s not that simple, because of SCAG’s role in implementing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) program. According to the SCAG website: “The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The current planning period is January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014. Communities use the RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region and subregion can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity, fair share housing needs. “
More on RHNA from the SCAG website: “Every city and county in California must adopt a comprehensive "general plan" to govern its land use and planning decisions. All planning and development actions must be consistent with the general plan. The general plan housing element must be periodically updated using the latest RHNA allocation plan. A housing element must first include an assessment of the locality's existing and future housing needs. This assessment must include the community's "fair share" regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for all income groups (very low, low, moderate and above moderate) as determined by the regional Council of Governments (COG).
The purpose of the Housing Element of the General Plan is to ensure that every jurisdiction establishes policies, procedures and incentives in its land use planning and redevelopment activities that will result in the maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately house households currently living and expected to live in that jurisdiction. When a local government fails to adopt an updated housing element, or adopts an element that does not comply with the law, the general plan is invalid and a local government may not proceed to make land use decisions or approve development until it has adopted a valid housing element.“
For this reason, the City recently conducted a Housing Element Workshop, to get input from the residents. Some folks seem to have the mistaken impression that RHNA requires growth, when it is in fact, just a tool to be used in planning for potential growth. Whether it is because they have a mistaken impression that growth is required, or they just don’t want to allow for the possibility of growth, or for whatever reason, a movement has sprung up that is trying to have us pull out of SCAG, so that, in theory, we will not as a City be required to plan housing per the RHNA program. But here’s the thing: RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of the Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. The enforcement of the RHNA obligation lies with the Department of Housing and Community Development. Pulling out of SCAG does nothing to eliminate the requirement to conform to RHNA as part of the Housing Element update, it just eliminates the chance to influence the allocation of numeric goals at the local level. Since SCAG does far more than just housing (transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality) by pulling out of SCAG, we’ve eliminated our ability to be part of the discussion on all these issues. The discussions about these major issues, any of which could have major impacts on Sierra Madre, will still go on, they’ll just go on without input from Sierra Madre.
Some of the folks that don’t want to see Sierra Madre remain as a member of SCAG are doing their very best to scare people into thinking that their friends and neighbors are in danger of losing their homes to the city through Eminent Domain, so that the City can conform to its RHNA numbers. Unfortunately, the facts don’t support this position. But apparently, the truth is just an inconvenience, because the same wrong information is repeated over and over again.
The following post appeared on a local website, after the recent Housing Element workshop, and had this to say in an article titled “Homes Listed as Possible Eminent Domain Seizure Targets For the Purpose of Building Multi-Family Low Income Housing in Sierra Madre.“ “Below you will find a list of those homes identified as candidates for Eminent Domain seizure should the statute be revived. Once these homes are seized by the government they would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing. The notion behind this singular act of government violence against a selected few citizens here in Sierra Madre is to jam high-density housing into what is already a very built out town.
Okay, let’s look at that. Both the headline and the first sentence of the post contain statements that are just completely inaccurate. There were no (that’s right NO) homes listed as possible Eminent Domain seizure targets. There were properties that the City identified as candidates to be zoned for higher density. That means the property owners could, should they so choose, build, or sell to someone who would build, more units on the property than it is currently zoned to allow to have built on it. In essence, they’ve possibly increased the property value for the owners, by increasing the options the owners have as to what they can do with the property. They have not targeted it for Eminent Domain, or even possible Eminent Domain.
But just to make sure, I contacted Danny Castro, Development Services Director for the City of Sierra Madre, with a series of questions I had about the workshop, and about some of the information that was now appearing on the internet. A couple of the questions dealt with this issue directly:
Coburn: Of the properties listed as potential multi-family sites, was there anywhere or any time that these sites were listed as “possible Eminent Domain seizure targets for the purposed of building multi-family low-income housing units in Sierra Madre?
Castro: No, because they are not and have not been considered as seizure targets.
Coburn: At any time, was there any discussion that “these homes (would be) seized by the government (and) would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing?”
Castro: No.
In another post, the same author, who has called for Sierra Madre to pull out of SCAG, stated “So what does this mean for us in Sierra Madre? Well, as we saw in the consultant prepared "Sierra Madre 2008-2014 Housing Element" report issued by our City planners on March 31, we too have a SCAG mandated RHNA number. And it is apparently quite a burden on this town. To the point where certain factions within City Hall actually felt they needed to identify properties as candidates for possible Eminent Domain seizure in order to meet SCAG's arbitrary demands for high density housing.” (author’s note: emphasis mine).
Again, nobody identified any properties as candidates for Eminent Domain. And SCAG has made no arbitrary demands for high density housing. What they did was set targets. The City then attempted to meet those targets. It wasn’t that “certain factions within City Hall felt they needed to identify properties as candidates…”, it was that the City is required BY STATE LAW to do so. AB2348 requires that a Housing Element Update provide an inventory and identification of adequate sites (vacant or underutilized residentially zoned land) to meet Sierra Madre’s RHNA requirements. The way they did it was to identify properties as appropriate to be zoned at a higher density. SCAG doesn’t care whether you use high or low density housing. They don’t even require you to build the housing. They just ask that you determine how your City will meet the RHNA targets. The property owners can do absolutely nothing if they so choose. Again, I asked Mr. Castro about this:
Coburn: Slides 20-28 discuss possible sites for multi-family housing. What would be the process to make them available for multi-family housing? Strictly re-zoning?
Castro: The eight sites that were identified as potentially suitable sites are currently zoned for multi-family housing (R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Medium/High Density), which allows a density of up to about 13 units/acre. The process, as required under state law, would be to amend the current zoning to allow for an increase (to) at least 20 units/acre, on enough of those sites to meet the state imposed housing numbers. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to review and approve the zoning change after conducting public hearings.
Coburn: I’ve heard that the City charter does not allow for the City to employ Eminent Domain. Is that correct?
Castro: The use of Eminent Domain is not a factor in the Housing Element Update. Under state law, the City’s update must provide for the “opportunity” for the development of assigned numbers of affordable and market rate housing units through use of it(s) zoning powers. The City is not required to and is not currently considering any proposals to acquire properties nor is it in any way requiring that these properties be developed with affordable housing. The property owner retains the right to determine if and when to develop their property.
Those last two sentences by Mr. Castro seem to me to be pretty significant.
An earlier post from the same website: “The dirty secret is this. In order to build the low income housing Sacramento and their toadies in SCAG are demanding, you're going to need somewhere to build it. And since this town is already built out to the limit, you're not going to find anywhere to do this deed without first tearing down already existing single family homes. And the only way to do that would be to seize houses through Eminent Domain and evict the families already living there. After all, isn't that what "redevelopment" is all about? Tearing down things that already exist and redeveloping the vacated properties?”
Again, SCAG isn’t demanding the building of low income housing, only that we zone so that the option of building low income housing exists. By stating that the only way to do that would be to seize houses through Eminent Domain, the author has conveniently ignored the fact that the property owner has the option of doing the building themselves, or selling to someone who might, without the City seizing the property (they also have the right to do nothing). As to the author’s suggestion about seizing houses through Eminent Domain and evicting families living there, I asked some questions point blank of Mr. Castro:
Coburn: Was there any discussion at the workshop of the City using Eminent Domain on any of those sites?
Castro: None.
Coburn: Is the City considering the use of Eminent Domain on any of the sites listed as possible sites for multi-family housing?
Castro: No.
Coburn: …does the Redevelopment Agency have the same limitation regarding Eminent Domain?
Castro: The Redevelopment Agency does not have the authority to acquire property by Eminent Domain.
I’m not going to tell anyone how they should feel about Sierra Madre‘s participation in SCAG. But I do think that those who are questioning it and trying to determine their opinions should be able to make an informed decision that is not stoked by scare tactics and misinformation.
My personal feeling is that we should remain a part of it. As I stated earlier, if there’s an organization that is making decisions that affect our City, and we have an opportunity to have representation in the organization so that our voice is a part of the decision making process, I think we want to be part of it, rather than bowing out, remaining silent during the decision making, and then just having to accept what is decided by others about our City. I also don’t think the organization is evil incarnate, as some seem to think. But if I did, I think I’d want to follow the advice of 4th century BC Chinese general & military strategist Sun-tzu, who said “Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.”
Either way, we’d stay in SCAG.
Bill Coburn is publisher of the SierraMadreNews.Net website, and a 15-year resident of Sierra Madre. He is also Executive Director of the Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce, however the opinions stated in this article are Mr. Coburn’s alone, and should not be construed in any way as representative of the views of the Chamber of Commerce, which has not taken a position on this issue.
According to SCAG’s website, “Over the past four decades, the Southern California Association of Governments has evolved as the largest of nearly 700 councils of government in the United States, functioning as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles.
As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Association of Governments is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the state level.”
So, assuming they’ve stated who they are accurately (and I have no reason to believe they would misstate this information in such a highly public forum), that means that as a member, Sierra Madre is able to have some say in the “research and drawing up of plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management and air quality” for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. Conversely, I would assume that if we are not members, that means that these decisions will be made without any input from Sierra Madre, and the residents of Sierra Madre will have dictated to them what SCAG has determined will be done, based on its federal mandate.
Also from the SCAG website: “The fundamental question of why SCAG was created is best answered in the words of Ventura County Supervisor John Montgomery back in 1966, who said, ‘Regional planning is not a matter of if, but rather when and who. Regional planning must come via cooperation and mutual assistance. Regional planning will (either) be accomplished through local governments working together or by big brother mandates from state and national governments.’"
Our neighbors, small and large are all members: Bradbury, Arcadia, Duarte, Monrovia, Pasadena, Azusa, El Monte, La Canada/Flintridge, Rosemead, San Marino, South Pasadena, all have joined the nearly 150 city members of SCAG. The only area city that is not a member of SCAG is Temple City.
So for a nominal membership dues fee, Sierra Madre can participate in planning its future, or it can choose to save that money, and have SCAG dictate to it what it has decided Sierra Madre is going to do (or not do). Seems kind of like a no-brainer, right? Why would we surrender our opportunity to provide input into the future of this region?
But it’s not that simple, because of SCAG’s role in implementing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) program. According to the SCAG website: “The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The current planning period is January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014. Communities use the RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region and subregion can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity, fair share housing needs. “
More on RHNA from the SCAG website: “Every city and county in California must adopt a comprehensive "general plan" to govern its land use and planning decisions. All planning and development actions must be consistent with the general plan. The general plan housing element must be periodically updated using the latest RHNA allocation plan. A housing element must first include an assessment of the locality's existing and future housing needs. This assessment must include the community's "fair share" regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for all income groups (very low, low, moderate and above moderate) as determined by the regional Council of Governments (COG).
The purpose of the Housing Element of the General Plan is to ensure that every jurisdiction establishes policies, procedures and incentives in its land use planning and redevelopment activities that will result in the maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately house households currently living and expected to live in that jurisdiction. When a local government fails to adopt an updated housing element, or adopts an element that does not comply with the law, the general plan is invalid and a local government may not proceed to make land use decisions or approve development until it has adopted a valid housing element.“
For this reason, the City recently conducted a Housing Element Workshop, to get input from the residents. Some folks seem to have the mistaken impression that RHNA requires growth, when it is in fact, just a tool to be used in planning for potential growth. Whether it is because they have a mistaken impression that growth is required, or they just don’t want to allow for the possibility of growth, or for whatever reason, a movement has sprung up that is trying to have us pull out of SCAG, so that, in theory, we will not as a City be required to plan housing per the RHNA program. But here’s the thing: RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of the Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. The enforcement of the RHNA obligation lies with the Department of Housing and Community Development. Pulling out of SCAG does nothing to eliminate the requirement to conform to RHNA as part of the Housing Element update, it just eliminates the chance to influence the allocation of numeric goals at the local level. Since SCAG does far more than just housing (transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality) by pulling out of SCAG, we’ve eliminated our ability to be part of the discussion on all these issues. The discussions about these major issues, any of which could have major impacts on Sierra Madre, will still go on, they’ll just go on without input from Sierra Madre.
Some of the folks that don’t want to see Sierra Madre remain as a member of SCAG are doing their very best to scare people into thinking that their friends and neighbors are in danger of losing their homes to the city through Eminent Domain, so that the City can conform to its RHNA numbers. Unfortunately, the facts don’t support this position. But apparently, the truth is just an inconvenience, because the same wrong information is repeated over and over again.
The following post appeared on a local website, after the recent Housing Element workshop, and had this to say in an article titled “Homes Listed as Possible Eminent Domain Seizure Targets For the Purpose of Building Multi-Family Low Income Housing in Sierra Madre.“ “Below you will find a list of those homes identified as candidates for Eminent Domain seizure should the statute be revived. Once these homes are seized by the government they would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing. The notion behind this singular act of government violence against a selected few citizens here in Sierra Madre is to jam high-density housing into what is already a very built out town.
Okay, let’s look at that. Both the headline and the first sentence of the post contain statements that are just completely inaccurate. There were no (that’s right NO) homes listed as possible Eminent Domain seizure targets. There were properties that the City identified as candidates to be zoned for higher density. That means the property owners could, should they so choose, build, or sell to someone who would build, more units on the property than it is currently zoned to allow to have built on it. In essence, they’ve possibly increased the property value for the owners, by increasing the options the owners have as to what they can do with the property. They have not targeted it for Eminent Domain, or even possible Eminent Domain.
But just to make sure, I contacted Danny Castro, Development Services Director for the City of Sierra Madre, with a series of questions I had about the workshop, and about some of the information that was now appearing on the internet. A couple of the questions dealt with this issue directly:
Coburn: Of the properties listed as potential multi-family sites, was there anywhere or any time that these sites were listed as “possible Eminent Domain seizure targets for the purposed of building multi-family low-income housing units in Sierra Madre?
Castro: No, because they are not and have not been considered as seizure targets.
Coburn: At any time, was there any discussion that “these homes (would be) seized by the government (and) would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing?”
Castro: No.
In another post, the same author, who has called for Sierra Madre to pull out of SCAG, stated “So what does this mean for us in Sierra Madre? Well, as we saw in the consultant prepared "Sierra Madre 2008-2014 Housing Element" report issued by our City planners on March 31, we too have a SCAG mandated RHNA number. And it is apparently quite a burden on this town. To the point where certain factions within City Hall actually felt they needed to identify properties as candidates for possible Eminent Domain seizure in order to meet SCAG's arbitrary demands for high density housing.” (author’s note: emphasis mine).
Again, nobody identified any properties as candidates for Eminent Domain. And SCAG has made no arbitrary demands for high density housing. What they did was set targets. The City then attempted to meet those targets. It wasn’t that “certain factions within City Hall felt they needed to identify properties as candidates…”, it was that the City is required BY STATE LAW to do so. AB2348 requires that a Housing Element Update provide an inventory and identification of adequate sites (vacant or underutilized residentially zoned land) to meet Sierra Madre’s RHNA requirements. The way they did it was to identify properties as appropriate to be zoned at a higher density. SCAG doesn’t care whether you use high or low density housing. They don’t even require you to build the housing. They just ask that you determine how your City will meet the RHNA targets. The property owners can do absolutely nothing if they so choose. Again, I asked Mr. Castro about this:
Coburn: Slides 20-28 discuss possible sites for multi-family housing. What would be the process to make them available for multi-family housing? Strictly re-zoning?
Castro: The eight sites that were identified as potentially suitable sites are currently zoned for multi-family housing (R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Medium/High Density), which allows a density of up to about 13 units/acre. The process, as required under state law, would be to amend the current zoning to allow for an increase (to) at least 20 units/acre, on enough of those sites to meet the state imposed housing numbers. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to review and approve the zoning change after conducting public hearings.
Coburn: I’ve heard that the City charter does not allow for the City to employ Eminent Domain. Is that correct?
Castro: The use of Eminent Domain is not a factor in the Housing Element Update. Under state law, the City’s update must provide for the “opportunity” for the development of assigned numbers of affordable and market rate housing units through use of it(s) zoning powers. The City is not required to and is not currently considering any proposals to acquire properties nor is it in any way requiring that these properties be developed with affordable housing. The property owner retains the right to determine if and when to develop their property.
Those last two sentences by Mr. Castro seem to me to be pretty significant.
An earlier post from the same website: “The dirty secret is this. In order to build the low income housing Sacramento and their toadies in SCAG are demanding, you're going to need somewhere to build it. And since this town is already built out to the limit, you're not going to find anywhere to do this deed without first tearing down already existing single family homes. And the only way to do that would be to seize houses through Eminent Domain and evict the families already living there. After all, isn't that what "redevelopment" is all about? Tearing down things that already exist and redeveloping the vacated properties?”
Again, SCAG isn’t demanding the building of low income housing, only that we zone so that the option of building low income housing exists. By stating that the only way to do that would be to seize houses through Eminent Domain, the author has conveniently ignored the fact that the property owner has the option of doing the building themselves, or selling to someone who might, without the City seizing the property (they also have the right to do nothing). As to the author’s suggestion about seizing houses through Eminent Domain and evicting families living there, I asked some questions point blank of Mr. Castro:
Coburn: Was there any discussion at the workshop of the City using Eminent Domain on any of those sites?
Castro: None.
Coburn: Is the City considering the use of Eminent Domain on any of the sites listed as possible sites for multi-family housing?
Castro: No.
Coburn: …does the Redevelopment Agency have the same limitation regarding Eminent Domain?
Castro: The Redevelopment Agency does not have the authority to acquire property by Eminent Domain.
I’m not going to tell anyone how they should feel about Sierra Madre‘s participation in SCAG. But I do think that those who are questioning it and trying to determine their opinions should be able to make an informed decision that is not stoked by scare tactics and misinformation.
My personal feeling is that we should remain a part of it. As I stated earlier, if there’s an organization that is making decisions that affect our City, and we have an opportunity to have representation in the organization so that our voice is a part of the decision making process, I think we want to be part of it, rather than bowing out, remaining silent during the decision making, and then just having to accept what is decided by others about our City. I also don’t think the organization is evil incarnate, as some seem to think. But if I did, I think I’d want to follow the advice of 4th century BC Chinese general & military strategist Sun-tzu, who said “Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.”
Either way, we’d stay in SCAG.
Bill Coburn is publisher of the SierraMadreNews.Net website, and a 15-year resident of Sierra Madre. He is also Executive Director of the Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce, however the opinions stated in this article are Mr. Coburn’s alone, and should not be construed in any way as representative of the views of the Chamber of Commerce, which has not taken a position on this issue.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Declaration of Independence - Amazing piece of writing
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
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, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
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:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
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, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
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:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Prop 8 Ruling
Reactions of some of the Gubernatorial candidates to the State Supreme Court's ruling upholding Prop. 8.
Democratic Candidates
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom -- "California at its best is a beacon of equal rights and equal opportunities. If we want to prosper together, we must respect each other. That's why we must resolve to overturn this decision. Let this work start today." Source: San Jose Mercury News
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- “We’re going into every neighborhood, every city. We’re going into every institution to have this conversation about the right of my first cousin John to have a family. The right of men and women who only want one thing — the right to love, the right to a family — something so basic to all of us.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com
I did not find a quote by Atty. General Jerry Brown, however according to George Will's Jan. 15th, 2009 column in the Washington Post, Brown's office filed a 111-page brief asking the state Supreme Court to declare the constitutional amendment unconstitutional. He favors same-sex marriages and says the amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.
Republican Candidates
Steve Poizner, state insurance commissioner and Republican gubernatorial candidate:“The California Supreme Court took the appropriate action today in upholding the will of the people by affirming Proposition 8. The people of California have spoken. They voted decisively that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That is also my personal view.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com
Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate:“I believe the California State Supreme Court made the right decision. Last November, the people of California passed Proposition 8, and today the court upheld their decision. This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com
Republican candidate Tom Campbell was also missing from the search results when I looked for quotes on the ruling, and there is no mention of the ruling on Campbell's website, but I did find the following pre-election discussion as to why he felt Republicans should oppose Prop. 8: "...I will be voting No on Proposition 8. Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.
We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law...... Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party's and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8." Source: Reason.com
Do you agree with your candidate's take?
Democratic Candidates
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom -- "California at its best is a beacon of equal rights and equal opportunities. If we want to prosper together, we must respect each other. That's why we must resolve to overturn this decision. Let this work start today." Source: San Jose Mercury News
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- “We’re going into every neighborhood, every city. We’re going into every institution to have this conversation about the right of my first cousin John to have a family. The right of men and women who only want one thing — the right to love, the right to a family — something so basic to all of us.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com
I did not find a quote by Atty. General Jerry Brown, however according to George Will's Jan. 15th, 2009 column in the Washington Post, Brown's office filed a 111-page brief asking the state Supreme Court to declare the constitutional amendment unconstitutional. He favors same-sex marriages and says the amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.
Republican Candidates
Steve Poizner, state insurance commissioner and Republican gubernatorial candidate:“The California Supreme Court took the appropriate action today in upholding the will of the people by affirming Proposition 8. The people of California have spoken. They voted decisively that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That is also my personal view.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com
Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate:“I believe the California State Supreme Court made the right decision. Last November, the people of California passed Proposition 8, and today the court upheld their decision. This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com
Republican candidate Tom Campbell was also missing from the search results when I looked for quotes on the ruling, and there is no mention of the ruling on Campbell's website, but I did find the following pre-election discussion as to why he felt Republicans should oppose Prop. 8: "...I will be voting No on Proposition 8. Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.
We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law...
Do you agree with your candidate's take?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Heads - You Lose!
After about an hour or so of listening to the residents of Sierra Madre who had come down to participate in the democratic process, making often impassioned speeches stating the reasons why they thought our next mayor should be Council Member Joe Mosca or Mayor Pro Tem Maryann MacGillivray, Council Member Don Watts ultimately decided that neither the opinions of the electorate nor the democratic process would have the final say in selecting the mayor. Watts, the self-acknowledged swing vote on the decision, told the people of Sierra Madre that he had made his choice based on the flip of a lucky nickel that he has had for 42 years, since he found it under the bed he slept on above a torpedo while serving in the Navy. The coin toss came up heads, and Watts said that in a previous conversation he had asked Mosca whether he wanted to be heads or tails. Mosca had replied tails. So Watts voted for MacGillivray as Mayor, along with MacGillivray and outgoing Mayor Kurt Zimmerman. Mayor MacGillivray then nominated the coin-tossing Councilman to be our Mayor Pro Tem, and the Council voted unanimously to make Watts the City's second in command elected official. No, this is not April fools. It's the current state of Sierra Madre politics.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Santa Anita Park to Host Chamber Breakfast Mixer, Facility Tour
The Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce April Mixer will be held at Santa Anita Park in the Baldwin Conference room on Thursday, April 9th at 7:30am. The Baldwin Conference room includes views of morning workouts which will be taking place at the same time. Attendees will have a chance to observe some of the horses at the track being put through their paces as they enjoy the continental breakfast provided by Santa Anita Park.
Guests should enter off Baldwin Ave. at Gate 8, and follow the signs that will lead the way to the mixer. Gate 8 will be the only accessible entry into the park at that hour of the morning, so it is critical that guests use that entrance.
Sierra Madre’s 2007 Citizen of the Year Pete Siberell is the invited guest speaker. Siberell also sits on the Sierra Madre Library Board of Trustees, is Chairman of the Mt. Wilson Trail Race Committee, and serves as president of the Sierra Madre Little League. Outside Sierra Madre, Siberell is on the Board of Directors for the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce, and is involved with the Methodist Hospital Foundation and the Arcadia Chapter of the Red Cross.
In addition to Siberell, if work schedules allow, Santa Anita horsemen may also stop by. Following the breakfast, Santa Anita Special Event Coordinator Elizabeth Booth will lead interested mixer attendees on a tour of the facility that will last about half an hour. The mixer will end at 9pm, with the facility tour to begin at that time.
Cost to attend the mixer is $10 for Chamber members, $15 for non-members. A business card drawing will be held featuring prizes donated by Chamber members.
Guests should enter off Baldwin Ave. at Gate 8, and follow the signs that will lead the way to the mixer. Gate 8 will be the only accessible entry into the park at that hour of the morning, so it is critical that guests use that entrance.
Sierra Madre’s 2007 Citizen of the Year Pete Siberell is the invited guest speaker. Siberell also sits on the Sierra Madre Library Board of Trustees, is Chairman of the Mt. Wilson Trail Race Committee, and serves as president of the Sierra Madre Little League. Outside Sierra Madre, Siberell is on the Board of Directors for the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce, and is involved with the Methodist Hospital Foundation and the Arcadia Chapter of the Red Cross.
In addition to Siberell, if work schedules allow, Santa Anita horsemen may also stop by. Following the breakfast, Santa Anita Special Event Coordinator Elizabeth Booth will lead interested mixer attendees on a tour of the facility that will last about half an hour. The mixer will end at 9pm, with the facility tour to begin at that time.
Cost to attend the mixer is $10 for Chamber members, $15 for non-members. A business card drawing will be held featuring prizes donated by Chamber members.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
City Council Passes Amendment to Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking in Certain Places
After nearly three hours of discussion, most of it by proponents and opponents during the community comment portion of the decision making process, City Council added the following words to the City's ordinance that prohibits smoking in certain places: "No person shall smoke in any part of any restaurant, bar, cafe, deli or other public place where food or beverage is sold, served or offered for sale, or in any outdoor dining area or patios serving said establishment."
More than three dozen people stepped to the microphone to voice their opinion, the majority of them asking Council to pass the ordinance. In the end, the Council voted to pass the amendment, calling for a ninety-day education/outreach period during which no penalties will be imposed. At the end of the ninety-day period, staff will come back to Council with their recommendations as to whether they need more time for the outreach program, or changes to the amendment (i.e., is a buffer zone needed around the dining areas, etc.).
Interesting to note that not one of the owners of the restaurants that will be most affected by the amendment spoke on the issue, and from my vantage point in the Council Chambers, there appeared to be only one restaurant owner in attendance. There was an overflow crowd spilling into the foyer of the Chambers, much of which I could not see, so there may have been others in attendance.
More than three dozen people stepped to the microphone to voice their opinion, the majority of them asking Council to pass the ordinance. In the end, the Council voted to pass the amendment, calling for a ninety-day education/outreach period during which no penalties will be imposed. At the end of the ninety-day period, staff will come back to Council with their recommendations as to whether they need more time for the outreach program, or changes to the amendment (i.e., is a buffer zone needed around the dining areas, etc.).
Interesting to note that not one of the owners of the restaurants that will be most affected by the amendment spoke on the issue, and from my vantage point in the Council Chambers, there appeared to be only one restaurant owner in attendance. There was an overflow crowd spilling into the foyer of the Chambers, much of which I could not see, so there may have been others in attendance.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Letter to the Editor
I received a letter to the editor today in regards to the smoking restriction on tonight's City Council Agenda. The letter writer is unable to access my blog for some reason, and asked that I post her letter on the blog for her while she tries to figure out what is stopping her from posting herself. Unfortunately, this means that unless she figures out what the issue is, she may not be able to respond to any comments you have, but who knows, maybe she'll figure it out. Here's her (rather provocative) letter:
Re: Proposed Sierra Madre Outdoor Patio Smoking Ban
The proposed outdoor patio smoking ban is not a grassroots effort by Sierra Madre stroller moms: it is part of a statewide step by step progressive ban program funded by taxpayer money disbursed by the California Tobacco Control Program and organized by the California Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing (www.center4tobaccopolicy.org), a political branch of the American Lung Association. Go to that website, click on "Community Organizing" and you will see how they manipulate your stroller moms, your community, and your city council.
Go to talc.phi.org, click on "Secondhand Smoke", click on "Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Ordinance" and you will find your city's smoking ordinance already written and ready to stick under your councilmen's noses for their automatic signature. TALC is funded by taxpayer money disbursed by the California Tobacco Control Program.
If people are taught to hate a minority, any lie about that minority will be believed and any law can be enacted against that minority. In "California Tobacco Control Update 2006", the California Tobacco Control Program states that their goal is "A Tobacco Free California". It states that "California's strategy is to create a social milieu and legal climate in which tobacco use is regarded as unacceptable -- to denormalize smoking and other tobacco use." In plain speech this means that the California Tobacco Program proposes to teach the people of California to regard the smoker a threat to society and to make him a despised pariah. This was the strategy used by the German National Socialist Party against the Jews in the 1930's: it is the strategy the California Tobacco Control Program uses today against California citizens.
Their lies are too numerous for me to list and quote refuting experts here. Take only one "There is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke".
Smoke is smoke. Tobacco isn't magic. It is just another organic material. All organic combustion, like that from cigarettes, campfires, charcoal braziers and fireplaces, generates over 4,000 chemicals, including toxic compounds and carcinogens. The smoke from your picnic area fireplaces contains carbon monoxide, methane, acrolein, benzene, tolulene, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, lead ... the whole scare mongering list you have been given for tobacco smoke. In addition, the EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke (I assume because wood is a dense solid) is twelve times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke (www.burningissues.org).
If there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke, then there is likewise no safe level of smoke from your fireplaces, your campfires, your candles, your incense burners, because it is all organic smoke and contains the same array of toxic compounds and carcinogens. Do your little girls keel over dead from toasting marshmallows?
Why do you love the scent of smoke from a neighbor's fireplace in winter, yet complain that aromatic tobacco smoke stinks? Because you have been carefully taught. With tax funded propaganda, Californians could be taught to hate butterflies.
J. Sidney Sullivan
La Mesa, CA
Re: Proposed Sierra Madre Outdoor Patio Smoking Ban
The proposed outdoor patio smoking ban is not a grassroots effort by Sierra Madre stroller moms: it is part of a statewide step by step progressive ban program funded by taxpayer money disbursed by the California Tobacco Control Program and organized by the California Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing (www.center4tobaccopolicy.org), a political branch of the American Lung Association. Go to that website, click on "Community Organizing" and you will see how they manipulate your stroller moms, your community, and your city council.
Go to talc.phi.org, click on "Secondhand Smoke", click on "Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Ordinance" and you will find your city's smoking ordinance already written and ready to stick under your councilmen's noses for their automatic signature. TALC is funded by taxpayer money disbursed by the California Tobacco Control Program.
If people are taught to hate a minority, any lie about that minority will be believed and any law can be enacted against that minority. In "California Tobacco Control Update 2006", the California Tobacco Control Program states that their goal is "A Tobacco Free California". It states that "California's strategy is to create a social milieu and legal climate in which tobacco use is regarded as unacceptable -- to denormalize smoking and other tobacco use." In plain speech this means that the California Tobacco Program proposes to teach the people of California to regard the smoker a threat to society and to make him a despised pariah. This was the strategy used by the German National Socialist Party against the Jews in the 1930's: it is the strategy the California Tobacco Control Program uses today against California citizens.
Their lies are too numerous for me to list and quote refuting experts here. Take only one "There is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke".
Smoke is smoke. Tobacco isn't magic. It is just another organic material. All organic combustion, like that from cigarettes, campfires, charcoal braziers and fireplaces, generates over 4,000 chemicals, including toxic compounds and carcinogens. The smoke from your picnic area fireplaces contains carbon monoxide, methane, acrolein, benzene, tolulene, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, lead ... the whole scare mongering list you have been given for tobacco smoke. In addition, the EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke (I assume because wood is a dense solid) is twelve times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke (www.burningissues.org).
If there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke, then there is likewise no safe level of smoke from your fireplaces, your campfires, your candles, your incense burners, because it is all organic smoke and contains the same array of toxic compounds and carcinogens. Do your little girls keel over dead from toasting marshmallows?
Why do you love the scent of smoke from a neighbor's fireplace in winter, yet complain that aromatic tobacco smoke stinks? Because you have been carefully taught. With tax funded propaganda, Californians could be taught to hate butterflies.
J. Sidney Sullivan
La Mesa, CA
Friday, March 6, 2009
Sierra Madre Can Handle This Smoking Issue Without Having to Legislate It
With a Little Consideration and Civility Toward Each Other and Respect for Each Other's Rights, Sierra Madre Can Handle This Smoking Issue Without Having to Legislate It
First, let me say that I’m writing this editorial as a 15-year resident of Sierra Madre and publisher of SierraMadreNews.Net. The opinions you will read here are my opinions, and they are not intended to be representative of the Chamber of Commerce, its Board of Directors, or its members. Obviously, as president of the Chamber, I am going to be in contact with Chamber members and the Board, and their comments and opinions and my discussions with them may shape my opinions. But what you are reading here is not written on behalf of the Chamber, nor does it represent a position being taken by the Chamber. The Chamber has not taken a position on this issue, despite what you may read elsewhere. The Chamber has polled downtown businesses that would be affected, and will present a report to the City with its findings. Let me also state here that I am a non-smoker, though a couple times a year on a special occasion I may enjoy a cigar in the evening, always outside.
When I first heard about the proposed smoking restrictions for outside dining areas in Sierra Madre, my first reaction was that as President of the Chamber, it is my job to bring customers into Sierra Madre businesses, not restrict them. I was flat out against it. However, I’m only one person in an organization with well over one hundred members, and I recognized that my opinion was my opinion only, and that more input was needed. I did, however, join the Facebook group “Stop the Sierra Madre Smoking Ban.”
I was contacted by City Manager Elaine Aguilar to see if the Chamber could help facilitate a meeting with restaurant owners that would be affected by the restrictions so that their input could be solicited and made a part of the staff report to the City Council. I contacted every restaurant business, most by e-mail, and some by phone, leaving messages for a couple of them that weren’t in when I called.
Over the next couple days, I did a little research, and discovered there are reports out there that state that some city’s that had enacted bans had not reflected a decrease in business due to the ban. There are, I believe, obvious health issues involved here, as well, though I’ll discuss that a little later. And I also was considering the possibility that businesses might see an increase in non-smoking customers that have stayed away when smoking was allowed, maybe enough to offset the smoking customers they might lose. So as I went into the meeting with the restaurant owners, I was definitely re-thinking my original reaction, and was not really sure as I entered the meeting whether I was for or against the restriction.
First of all, let’s agree on something, this is not a ban. It’s a restriction. It restricts the rights of smokers to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar when they are in an outdoor dining area. Their right to smoke at indoor dining areas was taken away in the 1990s, I believe in 1994, by statewide legislation that left every restaurant business in the state on a level playing field. You couldn't go to any restaurant in the state and smoke indoors. This local ordinance, however, puts the Sierra Madre restaurant industry in a position where it could lose customers to other local cities that don't have similar restrictions. I have to wonder if the restaurant owners wouldn't be within their rights, if the ordinance is approved, to file a class action lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against their particular industry. They might find support from restaurant associations with deeper pockets, and then the City would find itself in the position of defending itself in an expensive lawsuit. Don't think the City can really afford that, so I'm not sure if Council members vote for this that they are truly considering what's in the best interests of the City.
The proposed city ordinance also, however, and I think this is somewhat overlooked, restricts the rights of a business/property owner to determine what he/she will and will not allow to happen on their own property, in their own business. And in some cases, that is done without representation. Some business/property owners that will be affected by this ordinance do not live in town, so they do not even have the option of voting for or against the Council representatives that are proposing to enact this law.
According to City Manager Aguilar, members of the City Council received about a dozen complaints during the holidays regarding smoking in the downtown dining areas. Most of the complaints were from parents that didn’t like exposing their children to the smoke in the dining areas. Mayor Zimmerman took the complaints to heart, and agendized the issue for the City Council to consider. It is my understanding that at that Council meeting, about a dozen people spoke on the issue, with a ratio of about three to one opposing the restriction. One thing that amazes me about this whole thing, is that it all started because of about a dozen letters. We are a town with a population of around eleven thousand people. We have thousands of people that visit our downtown district on a monthly basis. All of these thousands of people are going to have to have their behavior legislated because of a dozen complaints? And, the City possibly becoming involved in expensive litigation over a dozen complaints? And it’s quite possible that some of those complaints came from the same people complaining more than once.
Despite the public comment opposing the restrictions, Council voted 4 – 0 to continue the discussion, and requested a draft ordinance be brought back at the March 10th meeting (since postponed till the meeting of the 24th of March), with instructions to solicit input from the business owners that would be affected. Thus, the Chamber was contacted and the meeting with restaurant owners was arranged.
But the fact of the matter is that it is not just the restaurant owners that will be affected by the restrictions, all the downtown businesses will be. If smokers are prohibited from lighting up in the outside dining areas, it’s not going to stop them from smoking. It’s just going to change where they can do it. We’re not eliminating the health issue, just moving it next door. Dining areas that now have ashtrays will no longer have them. So a smoker will get up from the dining area, move next door or down the street, in front of a retail establishment, enjoy their cigarette, and then have no place to put it out, except the sidewalk or the street. So now, the non-restaurant businesses, particularly those closest to restaurants with outside dining, are going to find that their customers are going to have to walk through the smokers to get into their establishments (which already happens, to some extent, as business employees that smoke are required to go outside to light up). And if you figure that some smokers will go to the left of the dining area, and some will go the right, you now have two businesses with folks standing and smoking on the sidewalk that are being effected, not just the one dining establishment. And as I said, our sidewalks and streets will now be littered with all the cigarette butts that are now being put out in ashtrays. I have been told by City staff that the cost of cleaning up this litter can be quite prohibitive, so that’s another thing to consider. The City is broke, and now we are going to increase its maintenance expenses during an economic downturn?
Arcadia and Monrovia do not have smoking bans, despite, due to higher populations and busier business districts, far more smokers than Sierra Madre has. Is our business district, in this poor economy, healthy enough to take the financial hit it will almost undoubtedly take if a significant portion of its already limited customer base decides that we’ve legislated them to a point where they’d rather do business in other cities?
As to the health issue, when the state law was passed banning indoor smoking, it was done to protect folks (restaurant workers in particular) who worked indoors where a procession of people smoked and the workers were exposed to constant inhalation of carcinogens. I am not aware of any studies that state that people sitting at tables that are usually several feet from each other at occasional visits to places where smoking is allowed outdoors have suffered health-wise for having done so. Doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, just means I haven’t seen them. But the fact of the matter is, people smoke in front of other businesses, too, and that will happen even more so if a dining area restriction goes into effect. So what’s next, in a year, people unhappy about the increased smoking outside non-dining areas complain, and a new ordinance is proposed to ban smoking inside or out in the entire downtown area? And why stop there? Parents strolling their children through their neighborhood certainly pass neighbors in their yard enjoying a cigarette, or working in their garden, the smoke wafting onto the sidewalk, right at stroller level. I spoke a couple days ago with a woman who told me that her neighbor exits his house when he wants a smoke, and goes into his driveway. Very considerate of his family. Unfortunately, his driveway is right next to her bedroom window, and she is very sensitive to smoke. Will we ban smoking outdoors in residential neighborhoods? If we do, parents that currently go outside to smoke to protect their children’s lungs will be forced back inside to conform to the law.
I saw somewhere that 700 U.S. communities have enacted outdoor smoking bans or restrictions, most of them cities with much higher populations. How many tens of thousands of cities are there in this country? Seven hundred is a very small percentage. Why does Sierra Madre, a “friendly” little village, need to follow the path of the big cities? Do we want to be Pasadena? Aren’t we proud of our unique small-town status? Aren’t we “friendly” enough to be considerate of others without actually enacting a law to legislate this?
Who’s going to enforce this law? What if someone lights up downtown, and the police are called? They hurry on down to the place where it’s happening, but by then the cigarette has been put out. What if four people do it at the same time, in different establishments? Are our police going to be run ragged trying to enforce the smoking law, most times a futile effort?
While I am sensitive to the concerns of those with health issues, and parents who are trying to protect their children, I just can’t get behind the proposed restrictions. People complained about shock jocks and their crass behavior on the radio, and the argument was, well, change the station, or you have an on/off switch. Non-smokers can change the station or on/off switches (eat indoors, or go to restaurants that have non-smoking sections in their outdoor dining area). Most, though admittedly not all, smokers are considerate of non-smokers and will be happy to move away while smoking, or put it out until you’ve left, if they are asked politely.
Now that the issue has been raised, I think restaurant owners are more sensitive about it, and some will most likely, if their outdoor dining area is large enough, offer non-smoking sections. Some that have smaller outdoor dining areas may ban smoking voluntarily, though since their dining areas are often not on their property (they are on public right of way sidewalks) they can’t always enforce it. But I think that with a little voluntary effort on the part of restaurant owners, and some consideration and civility toward one another, by both smokers and non-smokers, of the other’s rights (they both have them, after all), it should be possible to live and let live, as has been Sierra Madre’s behavior for more than one hundred years, without legislating our neighbors’ and friends’ behavior.
First, let me say that I’m writing this editorial as a 15-year resident of Sierra Madre and publisher of SierraMadreNews.Net. The opinions you will read here are my opinions, and they are not intended to be representative of the Chamber of Commerce, its Board of Directors, or its members. Obviously, as president of the Chamber, I am going to be in contact with Chamber members and the Board, and their comments and opinions and my discussions with them may shape my opinions. But what you are reading here is not written on behalf of the Chamber, nor does it represent a position being taken by the Chamber. The Chamber has not taken a position on this issue, despite what you may read elsewhere. The Chamber has polled downtown businesses that would be affected, and will present a report to the City with its findings. Let me also state here that I am a non-smoker, though a couple times a year on a special occasion I may enjoy a cigar in the evening, always outside.
When I first heard about the proposed smoking restrictions for outside dining areas in Sierra Madre, my first reaction was that as President of the Chamber, it is my job to bring customers into Sierra Madre businesses, not restrict them. I was flat out against it. However, I’m only one person in an organization with well over one hundred members, and I recognized that my opinion was my opinion only, and that more input was needed. I did, however, join the Facebook group “Stop the Sierra Madre Smoking Ban.”
I was contacted by City Manager Elaine Aguilar to see if the Chamber could help facilitate a meeting with restaurant owners that would be affected by the restrictions so that their input could be solicited and made a part of the staff report to the City Council. I contacted every restaurant business, most by e-mail, and some by phone, leaving messages for a couple of them that weren’t in when I called.
Over the next couple days, I did a little research, and discovered there are reports out there that state that some city’s that had enacted bans had not reflected a decrease in business due to the ban. There are, I believe, obvious health issues involved here, as well, though I’ll discuss that a little later. And I also was considering the possibility that businesses might see an increase in non-smoking customers that have stayed away when smoking was allowed, maybe enough to offset the smoking customers they might lose. So as I went into the meeting with the restaurant owners, I was definitely re-thinking my original reaction, and was not really sure as I entered the meeting whether I was for or against the restriction.
First of all, let’s agree on something, this is not a ban. It’s a restriction. It restricts the rights of smokers to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar when they are in an outdoor dining area. Their right to smoke at indoor dining areas was taken away in the 1990s, I believe in 1994, by statewide legislation that left every restaurant business in the state on a level playing field. You couldn't go to any restaurant in the state and smoke indoors. This local ordinance, however, puts the Sierra Madre restaurant industry in a position where it could lose customers to other local cities that don't have similar restrictions. I have to wonder if the restaurant owners wouldn't be within their rights, if the ordinance is approved, to file a class action lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against their particular industry. They might find support from restaurant associations with deeper pockets, and then the City would find itself in the position of defending itself in an expensive lawsuit. Don't think the City can really afford that, so I'm not sure if Council members vote for this that they are truly considering what's in the best interests of the City.
The proposed city ordinance also, however, and I think this is somewhat overlooked, restricts the rights of a business/property owner to determine what he/she will and will not allow to happen on their own property, in their own business. And in some cases, that is done without representation. Some business/property owners that will be affected by this ordinance do not live in town, so they do not even have the option of voting for or against the Council representatives that are proposing to enact this law.
According to City Manager Aguilar, members of the City Council received about a dozen complaints during the holidays regarding smoking in the downtown dining areas. Most of the complaints were from parents that didn’t like exposing their children to the smoke in the dining areas. Mayor Zimmerman took the complaints to heart, and agendized the issue for the City Council to consider. It is my understanding that at that Council meeting, about a dozen people spoke on the issue, with a ratio of about three to one opposing the restriction. One thing that amazes me about this whole thing, is that it all started because of about a dozen letters. We are a town with a population of around eleven thousand people. We have thousands of people that visit our downtown district on a monthly basis. All of these thousands of people are going to have to have their behavior legislated because of a dozen complaints? And, the City possibly becoming involved in expensive litigation over a dozen complaints? And it’s quite possible that some of those complaints came from the same people complaining more than once.
Despite the public comment opposing the restrictions, Council voted 4 – 0 to continue the discussion, and requested a draft ordinance be brought back at the March 10th meeting (since postponed till the meeting of the 24th of March), with instructions to solicit input from the business owners that would be affected. Thus, the Chamber was contacted and the meeting with restaurant owners was arranged.
But the fact of the matter is that it is not just the restaurant owners that will be affected by the restrictions, all the downtown businesses will be. If smokers are prohibited from lighting up in the outside dining areas, it’s not going to stop them from smoking. It’s just going to change where they can do it. We’re not eliminating the health issue, just moving it next door. Dining areas that now have ashtrays will no longer have them. So a smoker will get up from the dining area, move next door or down the street, in front of a retail establishment, enjoy their cigarette, and then have no place to put it out, except the sidewalk or the street. So now, the non-restaurant businesses, particularly those closest to restaurants with outside dining, are going to find that their customers are going to have to walk through the smokers to get into their establishments (which already happens, to some extent, as business employees that smoke are required to go outside to light up). And if you figure that some smokers will go to the left of the dining area, and some will go the right, you now have two businesses with folks standing and smoking on the sidewalk that are being effected, not just the one dining establishment. And as I said, our sidewalks and streets will now be littered with all the cigarette butts that are now being put out in ashtrays. I have been told by City staff that the cost of cleaning up this litter can be quite prohibitive, so that’s another thing to consider. The City is broke, and now we are going to increase its maintenance expenses during an economic downturn?
Arcadia and Monrovia do not have smoking bans, despite, due to higher populations and busier business districts, far more smokers than Sierra Madre has. Is our business district, in this poor economy, healthy enough to take the financial hit it will almost undoubtedly take if a significant portion of its already limited customer base decides that we’ve legislated them to a point where they’d rather do business in other cities?
As to the health issue, when the state law was passed banning indoor smoking, it was done to protect folks (restaurant workers in particular) who worked indoors where a procession of people smoked and the workers were exposed to constant inhalation of carcinogens. I am not aware of any studies that state that people sitting at tables that are usually several feet from each other at occasional visits to places where smoking is allowed outdoors have suffered health-wise for having done so. Doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, just means I haven’t seen them. But the fact of the matter is, people smoke in front of other businesses, too, and that will happen even more so if a dining area restriction goes into effect. So what’s next, in a year, people unhappy about the increased smoking outside non-dining areas complain, and a new ordinance is proposed to ban smoking inside or out in the entire downtown area? And why stop there? Parents strolling their children through their neighborhood certainly pass neighbors in their yard enjoying a cigarette, or working in their garden, the smoke wafting onto the sidewalk, right at stroller level. I spoke a couple days ago with a woman who told me that her neighbor exits his house when he wants a smoke, and goes into his driveway. Very considerate of his family. Unfortunately, his driveway is right next to her bedroom window, and she is very sensitive to smoke. Will we ban smoking outdoors in residential neighborhoods? If we do, parents that currently go outside to smoke to protect their children’s lungs will be forced back inside to conform to the law.
I saw somewhere that 700 U.S. communities have enacted outdoor smoking bans or restrictions, most of them cities with much higher populations. How many tens of thousands of cities are there in this country? Seven hundred is a very small percentage. Why does Sierra Madre, a “friendly” little village, need to follow the path of the big cities? Do we want to be Pasadena? Aren’t we proud of our unique small-town status? Aren’t we “friendly” enough to be considerate of others without actually enacting a law to legislate this?
Who’s going to enforce this law? What if someone lights up downtown, and the police are called? They hurry on down to the place where it’s happening, but by then the cigarette has been put out. What if four people do it at the same time, in different establishments? Are our police going to be run ragged trying to enforce the smoking law, most times a futile effort?
While I am sensitive to the concerns of those with health issues, and parents who are trying to protect their children, I just can’t get behind the proposed restrictions. People complained about shock jocks and their crass behavior on the radio, and the argument was, well, change the station, or you have an on/off switch. Non-smokers can change the station or on/off switches (eat indoors, or go to restaurants that have non-smoking sections in their outdoor dining area). Most, though admittedly not all, smokers are considerate of non-smokers and will be happy to move away while smoking, or put it out until you’ve left, if they are asked politely.
Now that the issue has been raised, I think restaurant owners are more sensitive about it, and some will most likely, if their outdoor dining area is large enough, offer non-smoking sections. Some that have smaller outdoor dining areas may ban smoking voluntarily, though since their dining areas are often not on their property (they are on public right of way sidewalks) they can’t always enforce it. But I think that with a little voluntary effort on the part of restaurant owners, and some consideration and civility toward one another, by both smokers and non-smokers, of the other’s rights (they both have them, after all), it should be possible to live and let live, as has been Sierra Madre’s behavior for more than one hundred years, without legislating our neighbors’ and friends’ behavior.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Update on Officer Involved Shooting
I spoke this morning with the press department of the LA Sheriff's Dept. regarding the Officer Involved Shooting of Jan. 30th. They again read me the same press release that was issued the day of the shooting. I pointed out that this is five weeks later, and I'm still hearing the same thing I heard the day of the shooting. I was again told that maybe I could get more information from the investigating officers in the homicide division. For clarification, there was no homicide, nobody died, but apparently the homicide division is doing the investigation. The person that answered the phone told me that Det. Aguilera (one of the three officers whose name is listed on the press release as investigating the case) was in, and transferred me. I left a voice mail, about 8:30am. I think it was probably obvious I wasn't happy about having left four voice mail messages over the course of a month without a single return call.
I left a message for Chief Diaz, who I am sure is still not allowed to speak about it until the investigation is closed, but I asked her to please try and get the Sheriff's Dept. to return my call.
I also spoke with City Manager Elaine Aguilar, who told me that she understands the investigation is not complete, and she told me she would contact the Sheriff's Dept. herself to get, at the very least, an estimate of how long until the investigation is complete, and a report issued. I will say this: The day of the shooting, I spoke with a person who seemed to have some knowledge of the situation. This person told me the name of the officer involved. That name has not been released publicly, and I have no official confirmation on the officer's identity, so I'm not publishing it, but I do know that I saw that officer, in uniform, a couple days after the incident. He was walking on the sidewalk in front of the PD, so I have no way of knowing if he was on duty or not.
Also, for the reader who expressed concern about the City's financial status if the investigation reveals that the officer was in the wrong and the City loses a lawsuit with damages (in light of the City being self-insured). In discussing this with City Manager Aguilar, she said that the City is not self-insured, it's part of a pooled insurance program where Cities try to save money by working together. "The city gets their liability protection coverage through the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority... The equivalent of a deductible would be $30,000, so the City would pay the first $30,000 on a claim, and then everything above that amount, there's a combination of pooling the losses with other cities so the losses are spread out among everyone in the Insurance Authority, and then there's also insurance, but the City's total liability coverage for a claim, we have $50 million in coverage, so we don't have to worry about going bankrupt if we're hit with a large liability claim." Bear in mind that neither I nor the City Manager have any information that would indicate the Police Officer in question did anything wrong, we're just attempting to answer a reader's "what if" question.
UPDATE MARCH 6TH
Since posting the above, I have received a voice mail message from the Chief informing me that she has contacted the Sheriff''s Dept. and asked them to contact me, and she left me the name of an investigator that I can attempt to contact. Chief Diaz has also confirmed that "The officer involved is on administrative leave pending the outcome of the internal investigation."
I left a message for Chief Diaz, who I am sure is still not allowed to speak about it until the investigation is closed, but I asked her to please try and get the Sheriff's Dept. to return my call.
I also spoke with City Manager Elaine Aguilar, who told me that she understands the investigation is not complete, and she told me she would contact the Sheriff's Dept. herself to get, at the very least, an estimate of how long until the investigation is complete, and a report issued. I will say this: The day of the shooting, I spoke with a person who seemed to have some knowledge of the situation. This person told me the name of the officer involved. That name has not been released publicly, and I have no official confirmation on the officer's identity, so I'm not publishing it, but I do know that I saw that officer, in uniform, a couple days after the incident. He was walking on the sidewalk in front of the PD, so I have no way of knowing if he was on duty or not.
Also, for the reader who expressed concern about the City's financial status if the investigation reveals that the officer was in the wrong and the City loses a lawsuit with damages (in light of the City being self-insured). In discussing this with City Manager Aguilar, she said that the City is not self-insured, it's part of a pooled insurance program where Cities try to save money by working together. "The city gets their liability protection coverage through the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority... The equivalent of a deductible would be $30,000, so the City would pay the first $30,000 on a claim, and then everything above that amount, there's a combination of pooling the losses with other cities so the losses are spread out among everyone in the Insurance Authority, and then there's also insurance, but the City's total liability coverage for a claim, we have $50 million in coverage, so we don't have to worry about going bankrupt if we're hit with a large liability claim." Bear in mind that neither I nor the City Manager have any information that would indicate the Police Officer in question did anything wrong, we're just attempting to answer a reader's "what if" question.
UPDATE MARCH 6TH
Since posting the above, I have received a voice mail message from the Chief informing me that she has contacted the Sheriff''s Dept. and asked them to contact me, and she left me the name of an investigator that I can attempt to contact. Chief Diaz has also confirmed that "The officer involved is on administrative leave pending the outcome of the internal investigation."
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
City Downgrades to Green Flag Alert
The City of Sierra Madre has downgraded to a Green Flag Mud Alert for Sierra Madre residences in potential mud flow areas. The County of Los Angeles Public Works Department has declared a no phase mudflow forecast from the Santa Anita Fire burn area.
The City would like to thank the residents for their continued preparation and due diligence during this rainstorm.
Additional information on how to protect your home can be found on the City’s website, www.cityofsierramadre.com. Mud incident updates can be found at www.sierramadrepio.blogspot.com.
The City would like to thank the residents for their continued preparation and due diligence during this rainstorm.
Additional information on how to protect your home can be found on the City’s website, www.cityofsierramadre.com. Mud incident updates can be found at www.sierramadrepio.blogspot.com.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Status Change Early Sunday Evening
LACDPW has issued a Phase II watch for Sierra Madre, and the City has upgraded to Red Flag Alert Status. Both notices are posted at www.SierraMudre.Info. The City's emergency blog address is http://sierramadrepio.blogspot.com
Friday, February 13, 2009
National Weather Service Predicts Storm Delay, Says We Could Receive Up To 7 Inches of Rain
2/13/09 10:45AM - Pulled from National Weather Service website, emphasis mine Latest models have slowed down the next significant storm system that was due to affect the forecast by Sunday. However...the progression has slowed nearly 8 to 12 hours. Therefore the much stronger...storm system will begin to move across the area by Sunday afternoon to the north and through Ventura and Los Angeles counties by Sunday night and persist through Monday night. The threat of precipitation will continue through Tuesday. At this time...rain should begin across San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties late Sunday afternoon...then spread into Ventura and Los Angeles counties Sunday night and Monday. Periods of moderate to locally heavy rainfall can be expected Sunday night and Monday...with the rain turning to showers Monday night and Tuesday. Initial rainfall estimates for this system range from 1 to 3 inches for coast and valley locations...with between 2 and 5 inches in the foothills and mountains. Due to strong southerly flow ahead of the frontal system...south-facing slopes could receive locally higher amounts to 7 inches.
This is me here...didn't I read recently that we should expect La Nina conditions, i.e., a dry winter? How does up to 7 inches in one storm get defined as part of a dry winter?
This is me here...didn't I read recently that we should expect La Nina conditions, i.e., a dry winter? How does up to 7 inches in one storm get defined as part of a dry winter?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
National Weather Service Predicts Heavy Rain This Weekend
Pulled from the National Weather Service website, late Saturday and Sunday are of particular concern:
ON FRIDAY...The first storm will move into the area with rain tapering off Friday night. Forecast mdls have begun to trend up the precip amounts with this storm as the front is forecast to hold together fairly well as it moves across the area. Current rainfall forecasts call for a half inch to an inch across the coasts and valleys with 1 TO 2 INCHES IN THE MOUNTAINS. There is a little burst of south winds with the front and this could cause locally higher amounts over the Santa Ynez mtns and the western coastal slopes of Ventura County. Snow levels will be quite low between 4000 and 5000 feet.
SATURDAY will be a transition day with SCATTERED SHOWERS but little in the way of additional rain or snow.
A second and stronger storm is expected for LATE SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY. This storm has the potential to bring significant rain to the area, especially south of Pt. Conception. Early estimates call for 1 to 3 inches of rain coast and valleys and 2 TO 5 INCHES MOUNTAINS, WITH LOCALLY HIGHER AMOUNTS ON THE USUAL FAVORED SOUTH FACING SLOPES. Snow levels will range from 4000 to 5000 feet.
Beyond Sunday the models diverge quickly. Both show a chance of rain Monday and Tuesday but with not a great deal of rainfall. The gfs mdl continues to show another significant storm either Wed or Thursday...but the European mdl now is forecasting a dry high pressure system. Will have to take a wait and see attitude with this extended time period.
ON FRIDAY...The first storm will move into the area with rain tapering off Friday night. Forecast mdls have begun to trend up the precip amounts with this storm as the front is forecast to hold together fairly well as it moves across the area. Current rainfall forecasts call for a half inch to an inch across the coasts and valleys with 1 TO 2 INCHES IN THE MOUNTAINS. There is a little burst of south winds with the front and this could cause locally higher amounts over the Santa Ynez mtns and the western coastal slopes of Ventura County. Snow levels will be quite low between 4000 and 5000 feet.
SATURDAY will be a transition day with SCATTERED SHOWERS but little in the way of additional rain or snow.
A second and stronger storm is expected for LATE SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY. This storm has the potential to bring significant rain to the area, especially south of Pt. Conception. Early estimates call for 1 to 3 inches of rain coast and valleys and 2 TO 5 INCHES MOUNTAINS, WITH LOCALLY HIGHER AMOUNTS ON THE USUAL FAVORED SOUTH FACING SLOPES. Snow levels will range from 4000 to 5000 feet.
Beyond Sunday the models diverge quickly. Both show a chance of rain Monday and Tuesday but with not a great deal of rainfall. The gfs mdl continues to show another significant storm either Wed or Thursday...but the European mdl now is forecasting a dry high pressure system. Will have to take a wait and see attitude with this extended time period.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Wistaria Festival Page Updated, Tickets Now Available Online
Sierra Madre News Net's Wistaria Festival page has now been updated with a video that features nearly 100 photos from the 2007 Festival (I was working in the park all day in 2008, so I have very few photos from last year. But that's okay, the vine was in better shape in 2007 than it was last year, so the pictures are better). The video soundtrack is audio I pulled from a video I shot of Horses on Astroturf performing "Love Me, Love Me, Not Fade Away/Magic Bus" in the park in 2008 (don't have many pictures, but since I was in the park by the bandshell, I shot more music videos than usual). Coincidentally, (okay, it was planned, not coincidental) the Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce website has also been updated with an ordering system for shuttle tickets, using PayPal/Major Credit Cards.This year's event is scheduled for March 15, 2009. This year's Wistaria Committee (yes, it's all volunteer, nobody hired except the bus drivers) encourages you to get your tickets early, because there's going to be a bunch of radio advertising starting up soon that will (hopefully) lead to beaucoup ticket sales to the targeted audience in the Inland Empire/San Gabriel Valley. KOLA 99 will be doing a remote broadcast from the Wistaria Festival for two hours that day, and nearly five dozen commercials will be broadcast beginning later this month.
So get your tickets while you can. There's a link to the Chamber's website and the ticket sales page on the News Net's Wistaria page, www.SierraMadreWistariaFestival.com. Be sure to watch the video, you never know - your picture might be in it!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
LACDPW Issues Phase I Watch, City Goes on Yellow Alert
At 4:52pm, I received notice that LACDPW had issued a Phase 1 watch, and at 5:34pm, I was notified that the City has upgraded to a Yellow Flag Alert status. Both notices have now been posted at www.SierraMudre.Info.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
City Upgrades to Green Flag Alert Status
Posted at SierraMudre.Info:
The National Weather Service has posted an 80% chance of rain for Wednesday, with enough precipitation to produce debris flows. Thus, the City of Sierra Madre has issued a Green Flag Alert. For more information please visit www.cityofsierramadre.com.
The National Weather Service has posted an 80% chance of rain for Wednesday, with enough precipitation to produce debris flows. Thus, the City of Sierra Madre has issued a Green Flag Alert. For more information please visit www.cityofsierramadre.com.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Reaction from local legislators re: State of the State
From Assemblyman Anthony Adams: Assemblyman Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia) offered the following comments in response to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's annual State of the State address, which he delivered to a joint session of the Legislature on January 15, 2009.
''There is no doubt the challenges before us are great. But great challenges provide the opportunity for great success. Now is the time for us to invoke the spirit of America's ''Greatest Generation'' and unite behind the call of individual sacrifice for the good of the whole,'' said Adams.
Adams said that he shared the Governor's commitment to working across party lines to craft honest and realistic solutions to avert California's looming cash crisis and get the state back on track. He said he agreed with the Governor that everyone - including the Legislature - should be prepared to make the sacrifices required to solving our growing budget crisis.
From State Senator Bob Huff: Senator Bob Huff (R - Diamond Bar) released the following statement after hearing Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2009 State of the State address which was delivered to a joint session of the Senate and Assembly earlier today.
“I applaud the Governor’s petition to the legislature to produce a sound and balanced budget before addressing the many other issues that plague California,” stated Senator Huff. “Vital infrastructure projects have already been brought to a halt, and people up and down the state are concerned about whether or not they will be paid. California’s finances must be brought under control or the consequences will be devastating.”
Senator Huff continued, “2008 was a tough year. A weakened economy, a decline in the housing market, and a lack of the Legislature’s will to rein in government spending has wreaked havoc on the hardworking taxpayers of California. As we look to 2009, I am encouraged that the Governor’s top priority will be to restore the foundation of our state’s fiscal house, for we are hamstrung by a budget crisis that dwarfs all other issues.”
“I remain committed to working with the Governor and my colleagues across the aisle to produce a fiscally responsible budget. We must strive to keep more money in the pockets of hard-working Californians and enact real budget reforms to keep this boom/bust cycle from happening again,” said Senator Huff.
“Looking beyond 2009, California lawmakers must prioritize spending and make each taxpayer dollar work to benefit California – that is how government continues to meet the needs of its citizens during an economic downturn. For this reason, I have authored Senate Bill 8, which requires state departments to utilize a performance-based budgeting program. California must institute long-term budget reform. We must ensure that every taxpayer dollar is being used resourcefully and efficiently,” concluded Senator Huff. “There is no alternative.”
From Supervisor Michael Antonovich: Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich issued the following response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s State of the State speech today:
“The crisis our state faces in Sacramento highlights the need for structural reform that includes a 2-year budget, a part-time legislature, an end to legislation that costs more to pass than the recipient receives – as well as an end to term limits.
A 2-year budget provides local government a consistent funding stream for it to prepare its own financial agenda for public safety, schools, libraries and parks. In addition, a part-time legislature would enable citizen lawmakers to bring valuable professional experience to the legislative process. Term limits have created instability to the process and an inexperienced legislature that is unable to govern effectively.
Also, it makes no sense for the State Legislature to spend $500,000 just to pass a bill allocating $100,000 for a library or municipal program when local government could use the entire $500,000 and pay directly for these types of services.”
''There is no doubt the challenges before us are great. But great challenges provide the opportunity for great success. Now is the time for us to invoke the spirit of America's ''Greatest Generation'' and unite behind the call of individual sacrifice for the good of the whole,'' said Adams.
Adams said that he shared the Governor's commitment to working across party lines to craft honest and realistic solutions to avert California's looming cash crisis and get the state back on track. He said he agreed with the Governor that everyone - including the Legislature - should be prepared to make the sacrifices required to solving our growing budget crisis.
From State Senator Bob Huff: Senator Bob Huff (R - Diamond Bar) released the following statement after hearing Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2009 State of the State address which was delivered to a joint session of the Senate and Assembly earlier today.
“I applaud the Governor’s petition to the legislature to produce a sound and balanced budget before addressing the many other issues that plague California,” stated Senator Huff. “Vital infrastructure projects have already been brought to a halt, and people up and down the state are concerned about whether or not they will be paid. California’s finances must be brought under control or the consequences will be devastating.”
Senator Huff continued, “2008 was a tough year. A weakened economy, a decline in the housing market, and a lack of the Legislature’s will to rein in government spending has wreaked havoc on the hardworking taxpayers of California. As we look to 2009, I am encouraged that the Governor’s top priority will be to restore the foundation of our state’s fiscal house, for we are hamstrung by a budget crisis that dwarfs all other issues.”
“I remain committed to working with the Governor and my colleagues across the aisle to produce a fiscally responsible budget. We must strive to keep more money in the pockets of hard-working Californians and enact real budget reforms to keep this boom/bust cycle from happening again,” said Senator Huff.
“Looking beyond 2009, California lawmakers must prioritize spending and make each taxpayer dollar work to benefit California – that is how government continues to meet the needs of its citizens during an economic downturn. For this reason, I have authored Senate Bill 8, which requires state departments to utilize a performance-based budgeting program. California must institute long-term budget reform. We must ensure that every taxpayer dollar is being used resourcefully and efficiently,” concluded Senator Huff. “There is no alternative.”
From Supervisor Michael Antonovich: Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich issued the following response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s State of the State speech today:
“The crisis our state faces in Sacramento highlights the need for structural reform that includes a 2-year budget, a part-time legislature, an end to legislation that costs more to pass than the recipient receives – as well as an end to term limits.
A 2-year budget provides local government a consistent funding stream for it to prepare its own financial agenda for public safety, schools, libraries and parks. In addition, a part-time legislature would enable citizen lawmakers to bring valuable professional experience to the legislative process. Term limits have created instability to the process and an inexperienced legislature that is unable to govern effectively.
Also, it makes no sense for the State Legislature to spend $500,000 just to pass a bill allocating $100,000 for a library or municipal program when local government could use the entire $500,000 and pay directly for these types of services.”
DREAD ZEPPELIN to Perform to Raise Money for Sierra Madre School
Dread Zeppelin will appear at the Sierra Madre School Auditorium in the First Annual Family Concert on Friday, Feb. 6th at 7pm. There will also be special appearances by The Late Bloomers and DC3. Funds generated will benefit the Sierra Madre School Annual Fund. For more complete information, click here to view the flyer.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Thomas Friedman Suggests Educator Tax Cuts
In Sunday's NY Times, columnist Thomas Friedman discusses the need for America to use part of the economic stimulus to change the current education system. Unlike California, where the latest plan is to cut five days out of the school year to save money, Friedman argues that money should be invested in education, so that more Americans will be prepared to create the innovations that will lead to a re-birth of American leadership. He also suggests that we should try to keep some of the foreign born students here in America, rather than educating them and then sending them home with their creative ideas.
"Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
So here’s hoping that our new administration and Congress will be guided in shaping the stimulus by reading John Maynard Keynes in one hand — to get as much money injected as quickly as possible — and by reading “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” with the other.
“Gathering Storm” was the outstanding 2005 report produced by our National Academies on how to keep America competitive by vastly improving math and science education, investing in long-term research, recruiting top students from abroad and making U.S. laws the most conducive in the world for innovation.
You see, even before the current financial crisis, we were already in a deep competitive hole — a long period in which too many people were making money from money, or money from flipping houses or hamburgers, and too few people were making money by making new stuff, with hard-earned science, math, biology and engineering skills.
Snip.
One of the smartest stimulus moves we could make would be to eliminate federal income taxes on all public schoolteachers so more talented people would choose these careers. I’d also double the salaries of all highly qualified math and science teachers, staple green cards to the diplomas of foreign students who graduate from any U.S. university in math or science — instead of subsidizing their educations and then sending them home — and offer full scholarships to needy students who want to go to a public university or community college for the next four years."
Right now I'm about halfway through Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded." Frankly, I think the man has some darn good ideas....
"Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
So here’s hoping that our new administration and Congress will be guided in shaping the stimulus by reading John Maynard Keynes in one hand — to get as much money injected as quickly as possible — and by reading “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” with the other.
“Gathering Storm” was the outstanding 2005 report produced by our National Academies on how to keep America competitive by vastly improving math and science education, investing in long-term research, recruiting top students from abroad and making U.S. laws the most conducive in the world for innovation.
You see, even before the current financial crisis, we were already in a deep competitive hole — a long period in which too many people were making money from money, or money from flipping houses or hamburgers, and too few people were making money by making new stuff, with hard-earned science, math, biology and engineering skills.
Snip.
One of the smartest stimulus moves we could make would be to eliminate federal income taxes on all public schoolteachers so more talented people would choose these careers. I’d also double the salaries of all highly qualified math and science teachers, staple green cards to the diplomas of foreign students who graduate from any U.S. university in math or science — instead of subsidizing their educations and then sending them home — and offer full scholarships to needy students who want to go to a public university or community college for the next four years."
Right now I'm about halfway through Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded." Frankly, I think the man has some darn good ideas....
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Congratulations to SMRFA and Float Designer Charles Meier on Four Award Winning Years!!
The Sierra Madre Rose Float Association and float designer Charles Meier were again awarded the Lathrop K. Leishman Award for Most Beautiful Non-Commercial Float. This is the fourth year in a row that the Sierra Madre float has been a winner. In 2008, "Valentine's Day" won the Princess' Trophy. In 2007, "Our Wonderful Wistaria" also won the Lathrop K. Leishman Award. In 2006, "Wonder of Reading" took home the Founder's Banner Trophy. All four floats were designed by Charles Meier. I interviewed Meier last January shortly after the third award, you can read that interview here. In January 2008, we ran the image above left as the front page on the now deceased SGV Weekly newspaper. If you click on that picture, you'll see a much larger version, with lots more detail. It is a 4mb image though, so it will take a minute to download. The image on the right is this year's float during its stopover at Kersting Court, click on it for a larger view, also. I'm heading down to the parade route to get some photos of the flo
at during the parade, but I have more photos of last night's stopover already posted at www.SierraMadreNews.Net with more still to come. In the third comment, a reader made a suggestoin that I'm sorry I didn't think of to post earlier, so I'll correct that now. SMRFA is always in need of donations, and if you are proud of the work they've done, and enjoyed seeing the float in the parade, become a part of it. Here's their application form and an address where you can send your donation:
Sierra Madre Rose Float Association
P.O. Box 603
Sierra Madre, CA 91025
Download the application form, and become a member
Please feel free to post your congratulatory messages for the SMRFA by clicking on the number of comments below this post. You do not need to sign up or register to post a comment.... A very big THANK YOU to all the donors, sponsors and volunteers who made Bollywood Dreams Sierra Madre's fourth winner in a row. Congratulations SMRFA, you've made us all very proud!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
