UPDATE July 3, 2012: Romney and Obama refuse to call the mandate a Tax, and BOTH presidential candidates insist that it is a penalty, thus illustrating how desperately Justice Roberts needed to preserve the Commerce Clause of the Constitution AND uphold ObamaCare. For me, the Supremes are the law of the land, and if the Court rules it a tax, then the powers-that-be have spoken, and it should be called a tax (even though it isn't!).
There are plenty of articles out there explaining the recent victory on Thursday 6/20/2012 of ObamaCare at the Supreme Court. The massive 2,500+ page legislation is way too complicated for ANYBODY, not to mention me and my puny brain, to comprehend. This link to an article is as good as anything at explaining the result of the Supremes decision: Supreme Court Upholds Obama's Health Care Law.
Rather than try to tackle the complexity, I'll just make a few key points that are seldom made re: ObamaCare.
1) I always wondered, if fixing the health system in this country was so urgent, why did we have to wait 4 years for it to kick in? After the Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, if we took 4 years to build up our military (a vastly larger job), we'd all be speaking Japanese now and bowing instead of waving. There's a reason that our smart President decided ObamaCare should kick in AFTER his second inauguration - I'll leave you to guess what that might be? (Hint: ObamaCare goes into effect AFTER a certain President has been re-elected).
2) The Supremes essentially told us that the government cannot compel us to do anything it wishes, but it can tax us incessantly until we have no rational alternative but to acquiesce to their demands. To wit: the government cannot make us eat broccoli (which, BTW, I love and eat all the time), but it may levy a no-broccoli-eating tax on me until we do.
3) Clearly, ObamaCare is a tax program that throws more dollars at healthcare while fixing few of the underlying problems. The last thing a country staggering under a massive soon-to-be $17,000,000,000,000 debt and a sluggish economy (and that's generous) is a new Rube Goldberg-styled health care entitlement.
4) Chief Justice Roberts was apparently desperate to uphold ObamaCare and found a most convoluted way to do so. Though rejecting that it met the requirements of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, it passed the test by being seen as both being a Tax and Not-a-Tax (aka Penalty) concurrently! Amazing sleight-of-hand for Justice Roberts- Bravo. As a Tax, the Mandate is clearly constitutional. As a Not-a-Tax Mandate, the Court did NOT have to wait until the tax was levied (i.e., not until 2014) to make a ruling on it (try googling "Anti-Injunction Act"). Roberts treated the mandate as a tax when a tax was favored constitutionality, and as a penalty when a penalty was similarly favored. Wow - didn't know you could do that. Roberts created a Tax/Penalty hybrid that's never been seen before - does that mean we'll be seeing such a creation again?
5) I'm actually somewhat relieved that ObamaCare passed Supreme Court jurisprudence largely unscathed: I just couldn't stand the idea of dealing with the near-term chaos that would ensue, had it been struck down in its entirety. Now, as our leader Pelosi pointed out so clearly to us: "we're gonna get to find out what's in the new Health Care Law". I know, she didn't say that. What she said was basically that Congress would have to pass ObamaCare before anyone could find out what was actually in it (it makes me ill every time I hear her utter her famous remarks).
6) So far, the things that personally benefit me about Obamacare: My kids can stay on my insurance until they are 26 years old (allowing them to take jobs that do NOT offer healthcare for a few extra years); preventative health care is provided through insurance companies at little or not cost to me (but don't think you do not pay: whatever is saved through bypassing the deductible is passed on as part of the rising medical expenses). These things could have been passed by themselves WITHOUT the massive ObamaCare package.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
LOCAL: Cuesta JC Waste of Money Predicted
As soon as I saw the article in San Luis Obispo's local paper, front page on June 28, 2012, entitled "Cuesta Removes Underperforming Official", I knew that we'd be paying full salary and benefits for a long time to a person who simply could not do their job. Turns out that my entirely too predictable conclusion was true. Let's look at a few of the details, shall we? [Read the article for the full story, if you can stomach it].
The employee in question has the initials of CG. Well, CG was relieved of her duties 4 months ago, with FULL PAY and FULL BENEFITS. Seems she is on PAID administrative leave for another 3 months, until September 2012 - 7 months of full pay and benefits, without one minute of work towards the good of Cuesta Junior College in SLO and the good taxpayers that support this pay and benefits giveaway. Just for the record, according to the Trib article, CG makes a grand $156,921 per year, plus full bennies. Another person, DW, was appointed to take CG's duties starting July 1, 2012.
DRAFTING EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 101: Looking at CG's employment situation a little closer, we find that she is 1 year into a 3 year contract. That contract specifies that she be given 90 days notice (that's 3 months to the math-impaired) if she is to be terminated, and after that 3 months, she gets a guaranteed 18 months of full pay and benefits, for a total of 21 months of pay AFTER she has been fired! Who drafted and approved this woeful contract? It basically guarantees 3 years of pay and benefits, regardless of performance. Nobody with a HINT of competence gets fired upon the start-up of their new job, as it usually takes about a year to determine if a person really can do their job. By then, the employee gets fired, but would receive 21 months pay of the 24 months left on the contract - brilliant! Or maybe that was just the intention of the contract in the first place - to reward one of your own with a big, juicy, don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract?
Predictably, CG needs to be replaced, and pronto, as she has been working on re-accrediation for Cuesta College - a high priority task, one would assume. In walks Cuesta Dean DW, with another immodest salary of $111,516, to take over the VP role from which CG was fired. Do we see if DW can do the job first before pumping up the already generous salary of hers? Nope (as far as we can tell from the article). Her new VP salary will be in the range of $129k to $157k (rounded numbers). Hmmmmm, wonder if DW will get the same don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract as CG? Well, the article doesn't indicate one way or the other, but gee, let me predict again: that's sure what I would be asking for if I was in DW's place (hey, the last guy got the don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract - how about me too! I might actually be able to do the job, so maybe I should get EVEN MORE than CG?).
BORING STUFF, I KNOW - MAY EVEN SOUND BITTER?: I believe that its the taxpayer's money, and it should be carefully spent. In this situation, what we now have for the next 21 months is that we will be paying approximately $300k to pay 1 administrator NOT to work (CG) while we wonder if the new administrator (DW) can do the job and keep the College from losing accreditation? To some of us, $300k is a lot of money. I looked up the MEDIAN household income in SLO (that's the total income of EVERYONE who lives in a single family unit - not just one person), and it is $42,526. So let's see: CG is basically getting 3 years of pay at $157k per year (total $471k), which is approx. equal to 11 years of the average families income in the city of SLO. For that, CG worked for 1 year and failed at the job, then gets almost 2 years without working. The taxpayer deserves more than this for our money.
Yeah, I know: CG could get re-assigned at Cuesta and have to work for the contracted rate. We in the private sector know how well that works: once demoted, the demoted employee feels negatively emotional about the new position, and most often performs negatively in the new (lesser) position. Wonder how many open full-time positions that Cuesta has for someone as highly paid at $157k as CG? I hope that there aren't any, which means she'll be getting paid a princely sum to do a commoner's work? Who knows - that public sure doesn't. Even if CG does take another job, she's on unpaid leave until September, 2012.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE between this situation and say, the Fat Cat Wall Street Banker in a similar scenario? Well, for the Banker, its just not my money. Its a loss to the stockholders, but not directly to me. If I own stock in the bank, well then, the bank is less profitable and the stock price goes down and I lose out. I don't have to buy the stock, or if I already hold it, I am free to sell it and buy a different banking stock that has more rational pay policies. However, I don't have the choice to not pay taxes into a system that just throws the money away, as they have a knack for doing at Cuesta College.
This ended up being much longer than expected - sorry. Thanks to the Tribune for printing this poor use of taxpayer dollars on the front page of the newpaper. Wonder if anybody else will make the observations that I did in this article?
The employee in question has the initials of CG. Well, CG was relieved of her duties 4 months ago, with FULL PAY and FULL BENEFITS. Seems she is on PAID administrative leave for another 3 months, until September 2012 - 7 months of full pay and benefits, without one minute of work towards the good of Cuesta Junior College in SLO and the good taxpayers that support this pay and benefits giveaway. Just for the record, according to the Trib article, CG makes a grand $156,921 per year, plus full bennies. Another person, DW, was appointed to take CG's duties starting July 1, 2012.
DRAFTING EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 101: Looking at CG's employment situation a little closer, we find that she is 1 year into a 3 year contract. That contract specifies that she be given 90 days notice (that's 3 months to the math-impaired) if she is to be terminated, and after that 3 months, she gets a guaranteed 18 months of full pay and benefits, for a total of 21 months of pay AFTER she has been fired! Who drafted and approved this woeful contract? It basically guarantees 3 years of pay and benefits, regardless of performance. Nobody with a HINT of competence gets fired upon the start-up of their new job, as it usually takes about a year to determine if a person really can do their job. By then, the employee gets fired, but would receive 21 months pay of the 24 months left on the contract - brilliant! Or maybe that was just the intention of the contract in the first place - to reward one of your own with a big, juicy, don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract?
Predictably, CG needs to be replaced, and pronto, as she has been working on re-accrediation for Cuesta College - a high priority task, one would assume. In walks Cuesta Dean DW, with another immodest salary of $111,516, to take over the VP role from which CG was fired. Do we see if DW can do the job first before pumping up the already generous salary of hers? Nope (as far as we can tell from the article). Her new VP salary will be in the range of $129k to $157k (rounded numbers). Hmmmmm, wonder if DW will get the same don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract as CG? Well, the article doesn't indicate one way or the other, but gee, let me predict again: that's sure what I would be asking for if I was in DW's place (hey, the last guy got the don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract - how about me too! I might actually be able to do the job, so maybe I should get EVEN MORE than CG?).
BORING STUFF, I KNOW - MAY EVEN SOUND BITTER?: I believe that its the taxpayer's money, and it should be carefully spent. In this situation, what we now have for the next 21 months is that we will be paying approximately $300k to pay 1 administrator NOT to work (CG) while we wonder if the new administrator (DW) can do the job and keep the College from losing accreditation? To some of us, $300k is a lot of money. I looked up the MEDIAN household income in SLO (that's the total income of EVERYONE who lives in a single family unit - not just one person), and it is $42,526. So let's see: CG is basically getting 3 years of pay at $157k per year (total $471k), which is approx. equal to 11 years of the average families income in the city of SLO. For that, CG worked for 1 year and failed at the job, then gets almost 2 years without working. The taxpayer deserves more than this for our money.
Yeah, I know: CG could get re-assigned at Cuesta and have to work for the contracted rate. We in the private sector know how well that works: once demoted, the demoted employee feels negatively emotional about the new position, and most often performs negatively in the new (lesser) position. Wonder how many open full-time positions that Cuesta has for someone as highly paid at $157k as CG? I hope that there aren't any, which means she'll be getting paid a princely sum to do a commoner's work? Who knows - that public sure doesn't. Even if CG does take another job, she's on unpaid leave until September, 2012.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE between this situation and say, the Fat Cat Wall Street Banker in a similar scenario? Well, for the Banker, its just not my money. Its a loss to the stockholders, but not directly to me. If I own stock in the bank, well then, the bank is less profitable and the stock price goes down and I lose out. I don't have to buy the stock, or if I already hold it, I am free to sell it and buy a different banking stock that has more rational pay policies. However, I don't have the choice to not pay taxes into a system that just throws the money away, as they have a knack for doing at Cuesta College.
This ended up being much longer than expected - sorry. Thanks to the Tribune for printing this poor use of taxpayer dollars on the front page of the newpaper. Wonder if anybody else will make the observations that I did in this article?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
NATIONAL: Science Fiction Great Ray Bradury Dies June 5, 2012
Prolific Sci-Fi writer Ray Bradbury died recently at the age of 91. Author of many science fiction classics, the recent article in The Tribune newspaper provided some inspiration for me as a potential writer, so I'll start with that angle. A sign next to his typewriter says "Don't Think". He said "We are ideas bursting to be born". He advocated writing fast and furiously; second-guessing or editing was NOT part of the his creative process; the important thing is to explode; thinking is a way or preventing disasters but not preparing for the future. As an aspiring writer, I find myself thinking WAY too much, and not EXPLODING enough! In fact, this article yesterday in the Tribune on Bradbury inspired me to get back to writing, including this blog entry!
Bradbury goes on in the Tribune article to describe his early days of writing, which I will summarize here. He never made it to college, but spent 3 days a week in the downtown Los Angeles library reading everything he could get his hands on. It was in those days that he decided he wanted to fill a shelf with books written by him, after he decided that he had graduated from the library at the age of 27. Later, when he wrote one of his best known and read books - Fahrenheit 451 - he was married with 2 toddlers of his own. Looking for a place to write, he discovered the basement of the Library at UCLA, which had a herd of typewriters waiting to be rented at a mere 10 cents an hour. With only $9.80 worth of dimes, he went on to write Fahrenheit 451 in that UCLA basement in an astounding 9 day explosion!
BRADBURY'S FAVORITE BOOK: The Complete Prefaces of George Bernard Shaw. I've never heard of this book, but I'm gonna go out and get it and read it, for sure. How about you? [NOTE: google is not helping me out here, but apparently Bradbury's reference to Shaw's Prefaces needs an explanation. Shaw wrote a preface to each of his many plays. These prefaces provided background viewpoints on the subject matter of the play, often revealing personal biographical details about himself, and often did NOT reference the plays directly. Apparently, these prefaces, often longer than the play themselves, were of such literary quality that Bradbury found their appeal persuading. These prefaces have been pulled together into several different volumes, the most readily available being the one containing prefaces Volume III from 1930 - 1950]. Bradbury's reference to "The Complete Prefaces..." was referring to multiple volumes of prefaces to Shaw's many plays. So I don't have one book to read, but many! Cool.
LESSON TO YOUTH: Don't be discouraged by lack of direction; famous author Bradbury was jobless and poor at age 27 and hanging out in the library! Bet that didn't exactly get the girl! Look where he ended up at 91. Pursue your dreams, and don't be discouraged. Though you don't have forever, you do have a lifetime to explode, as Bradbury's life (and many others) demonstrated.
Bradbury goes on in the Tribune article to describe his early days of writing, which I will summarize here. He never made it to college, but spent 3 days a week in the downtown Los Angeles library reading everything he could get his hands on. It was in those days that he decided he wanted to fill a shelf with books written by him, after he decided that he had graduated from the library at the age of 27. Later, when he wrote one of his best known and read books - Fahrenheit 451 - he was married with 2 toddlers of his own. Looking for a place to write, he discovered the basement of the Library at UCLA, which had a herd of typewriters waiting to be rented at a mere 10 cents an hour. With only $9.80 worth of dimes, he went on to write Fahrenheit 451 in that UCLA basement in an astounding 9 day explosion!
BRADBURY'S FAVORITE BOOK: The Complete Prefaces of George Bernard Shaw. I've never heard of this book, but I'm gonna go out and get it and read it, for sure. How about you? [NOTE: google is not helping me out here, but apparently Bradbury's reference to Shaw's Prefaces needs an explanation. Shaw wrote a preface to each of his many plays. These prefaces provided background viewpoints on the subject matter of the play, often revealing personal biographical details about himself, and often did NOT reference the plays directly. Apparently, these prefaces, often longer than the play themselves, were of such literary quality that Bradbury found their appeal persuading. These prefaces have been pulled together into several different volumes, the most readily available being the one containing prefaces Volume III from 1930 - 1950]. Bradbury's reference to "The Complete Prefaces..." was referring to multiple volumes of prefaces to Shaw's many plays. So I don't have one book to read, but many! Cool.
LESSON TO YOUTH: Don't be discouraged by lack of direction; famous author Bradbury was jobless and poor at age 27 and hanging out in the library! Bet that didn't exactly get the girl! Look where he ended up at 91. Pursue your dreams, and don't be discouraged. Though you don't have forever, you do have a lifetime to explode, as Bradbury's life (and many others) demonstrated.
STATE: Current California Budget Deficit at $15.7 Billion
My liberal buddies may get the impression that I'm a hard core conservative Republican, but that's not accurate: like many folks, I consider myself a problem solver. I look at each issue and try to figure out what would best solve the problem to the benefit of everyone, not just (or even) me.
The bottom line is that our California state government is in the hole every year in recent memory, and our leaders have more or less "kick the can down the road" each year. Budget problems are not solved, but the deck is merely re-shuffled. The losers are those truly in need. Those that don't have a union or a lobbyist to protect them get the shaft. I'm talking about the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill. They lose every time.
You would think that our soft-hearted left-leaning leaders would be the champions of the downtrodden, but ... not really. Read this in our local paper from June 8, 2012: Democrats and Governor Brown Discuss $2 Billion Budget Cuts.
In the article above, Democrats are in disagreement with Gov. Brown over a proposed $2 Billion cut by Brown, hurting "the most unfortunate" amongst us. Though the dems would rather not make those cuts because they hurt the most vulnerable, they have not said where the cuts should be made.
WE CAN START CUTTING HERE: I can provide a place for them to begin. Start with continuing to tax the California rich at one of the highest state income and capital gains taxes in the country - just don't increase those taxes or they'll just leave the state. Next, cut back on pay and perks to the statewide unions - particularly the powerful prison unions - then reduce the number of folks in prison for victimless crimes, abolish the Death Penalty (too expensive and nobody gets executed), cut out the boondoggles and senseless projects (start with the $100 Billion bullet train to nowhere), and then see where those cuts take us.
The bottom line is that our California state government is in the hole every year in recent memory, and our leaders have more or less "kick the can down the road" each year. Budget problems are not solved, but the deck is merely re-shuffled. The losers are those truly in need. Those that don't have a union or a lobbyist to protect them get the shaft. I'm talking about the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill. They lose every time.
You would think that our soft-hearted left-leaning leaders would be the champions of the downtrodden, but ... not really. Read this in our local paper from June 8, 2012: Democrats and Governor Brown Discuss $2 Billion Budget Cuts.
In the article above, Democrats are in disagreement with Gov. Brown over a proposed $2 Billion cut by Brown, hurting "the most unfortunate" amongst us. Though the dems would rather not make those cuts because they hurt the most vulnerable, they have not said where the cuts should be made.
WE CAN START CUTTING HERE: I can provide a place for them to begin. Start with continuing to tax the California rich at one of the highest state income and capital gains taxes in the country - just don't increase those taxes or they'll just leave the state. Next, cut back on pay and perks to the statewide unions - particularly the powerful prison unions - then reduce the number of folks in prison for victimless crimes, abolish the Death Penalty (too expensive and nobody gets executed), cut out the boondoggles and senseless projects (start with the $100 Billion bullet train to nowhere), and then see where those cuts take us.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
STATE: Dancing Star Foundation hosts William Shatner
While attending to my Dad’s medical needs in Los Angeles this month (May 2012),
Sue and I were able to attend a fund raiser for one of our favorite non-profits,
the Dancing Star Foundation (helping humankind protect the natural world: http://www.dancingstarfoundation.org/). While there, I was able to spend some quality
time with William Shatner, one of my favorite entertainment personalities. We
were able to discuss a variety of topics, including Scuba Diving, clearing your
ears, lung capacity, Catalina’s West End dive site, lobster diving, Bill’s most
memorable Star Trek Movie moment (filming on El Capitan – “I was very
professional and very scared”). It was great. I wanted to ask him to say “Denny
Crane” but just couldn’t get up the nerve! Thank-you, Dancing Star Foundation (photos by Jane Morrison of Dancing Star Foundation)! I was fortunate that a few folks in attendance snapped a few photos and sent them to me:
I also wanted to introduce Mr. Shatner to the concept of Hand-Me-Ups, the lightly used clothing that I get from brother Brian before he can send them on to Goodwill Industries. I would have loved to tell Bill that I was wearing a Hand-Me-Up shirt, as he seemed the type of person that would find that amusing, but I just didn't get the chance. Anyways, thanks Bro for the great looking shirt that appears in these historic photos with "The Shat". Captain James T. Kirk Biography CLICK
I also wanted to introduce Mr. Shatner to the concept of Hand-Me-Ups, the lightly used clothing that I get from brother Brian before he can send them on to Goodwill Industries. I would have loved to tell Bill that I was wearing a Hand-Me-Up shirt, as he seemed the type of person that would find that amusing, but I just didn't get the chance. Anyways, thanks Bro for the great looking shirt that appears in these historic photos with "The Shat". Captain James T. Kirk Biography CLICK
Thursday, May 3, 2012
LOCAL: Bad Trash Can Law about to be Enforced
NOTICE SAN LUIS GARBAGE INVOICE:
I received a notice that reads (in part):
To: SLO City Council
Cc: The Tribune Newspaper
I'm sure you've heard about it by now, but just in case you haven't,
Beginning in May 2012, City Staff will be proactively enforcing violations
of the Municipal Code. Compliance is mandatory and violations will result
in a fine.
I was told specifically by one or more of the current city council that enforcement
would be on a COMPLAINT basis only, and that it would NOT NECESSARILY
result in a fine. I read the law, and complained that it was not what the law said.
Gee, I guess what the law says matters, after all.
Bad law in the first place. Big brother and the slippery slope of controlling
EVER aspect of our lives. How much is the fine?
Does this mean that the city council members in violation (IIRC, 4 out of 5
according to the Tribune) will now put away your cans as per the law, or
are you exempt from the violations (mandatory is a fuzzy word for
polititicans).
Is there anything more to tell about this newfound budget money for
enforcing the trash can ordinance on the ENTIRE CITY?
Tell me that this was a misprint, please!
Thanks as always.
--Tim
Friday, March 23, 2012
LOCAL: 3/20/2012 SLO City Council Report (Safe Parking Program)
Hey Folks, I wanted to do a quick write up on the Tuesday 3/20/2012 San Luis Obispo City Council meeting. I attended and spoke for my 2 of 3 alloted minutes, pretty much reading the speech attached below. I modified it during my time at the dais to comment in more detail about the onerous new restrictions on parking that was being proposed. I alluded to the fact that when my Aunt and Uncle pull up to our house in SLO in their RV for a few days visit that they would have to go downtown to apply for an oversized vehicle permit. They would fill out an application, which would be evaluated (on the spot - by next Tuesday? etc.) and if they were qualified to receive one of the limited number of permits being allocated (that day, that week, etc.?). If they couldn’t get a permit (hey, they probably would have to borrow a car or take the bus to go downtown, as their RV is a Dodge Ram pickup with a 32 foot 5th wheel - no idea where they’d park THAT downtown).
Anyways, a few other comments on the meeting itself. Many of the speakers were inspring to me. I’ll start with those first. There was a homeless Cal Poly student who had a job, was working towards a degree, but was homeless. He was well-spoken and emphasized the hard times faced by homeless people like him who were doing everything possible to become a viable productive member of society. Another person, older, was a lifetime homeless person, who grew up homeless. He too was working but could not afford the home lifestyle yet. He too was an articulate member of the homeless class and represented them well. Several commented about tearing up over his testimony. These are the type of folks, for lack of a better shorter term - the *good* homeless, whom Police Chief Gesell wants to throw under the bus along with the homeless that I call the *bad* homeless (the sex offenders, criminals, litterbugs, the hopeless, those who have made bad decisions, etc.). Now, of course, I do NOT consider them to be *bad*, but I use that good and bad distinction for conversational purposes. In the course of wanting to curb the criminal behavior of the bad homeless, Chief Gesell wants a club to bash all the homeless, both the good and the bad. I want him to do his police work and catch and prosecute the homeless lawbreakers - the hard job of police work.
He claims he has limited resources, but what he has is overpaid law enforcers who aren’t willing to get their hands dirty in the complex world of the homeless, and due to union privilege, aren’t free to just go out and do their jobs, no matter what it takes. In another lifetime, I worked in the defense industry (where we didn’t have overtime) for 15 years in Southern California. We worked 90 hours weeks for months on end, trying to get the birds to fly (i.e., the Satellites launched and in orbit, processing and transmitting date, and not falling out of the sky); there was no overtime and nobody felt sympathy for you and your crummy 18 hour days, coffee and donut food regimen - you did what you had to do. With unions, you couldn’t, even if you wanted to *just get the job done*. Union rules, doncha see? I’m in favor of union rights, just not for public workers who are NOT oppressed by their government overseers. Okay, major tangent - time to get back on track. Oh yeah, one of the speakers also mentioned the irony that we throw pennies at the homeless problem, yet find a way to spend $308,048 on SLO City Manager Katie Lichtig. I don’t believe for a minute that a competent manager could be had for maybe $100k or so. $308k salary to one person on the government payroll makes me ashamed of our local government for being so callous to the plight of the common man.
Okay, this is turning into a major diatribe - again! Sorry! A few more tidbits. A statistic was put out that was NOT in the 42 page staff report on the Prado Safe Parking Program: a tour of the city revealed 69 RV and cars housing the homeless on the streets (wonder how they got that number - did they count the RV at my house?). SLO City Council announced a cost of $80k to set up the Safe Parking Program (ouch! assuming a discounted hotel voucher program of $40 per night, that would be 5.5 years of a single hotel room for a homeless family - ok, breath - $80k is a onetime cost). Not clear how much was already spent with the staff time for the 42 page staff report. Another idea floated was campground vouchers for homeless RVers at local campgrounds - no opinion on that one, other than I agree that it should be explored. Chief Gesell emphasized the large volume of complaints about the homeless and their crimes, assaults, trespassing, and unruly environment in general. I wonder how many were arrested, prosecuted, cited, fined, etc. - he didn’t say. To me, that would be doing his job - catching the bad guys - maybe I don’t understand the function of police in SLO society. I also wanted to ask the Chief what the difference was between using the word TRANSIENT and the word HOMELESS to describe those who are unable to find housing. Transient has a negative and innacurate connotation, IMO. Transients (root “trans” which to “go across” or travel) are folks who are traveling, whereas, IN MY EXPERIENCE, our homeless have strong ties to this community and have not and are not leaving their roots - they are staying in SLO. Granted, it is anecdotal evidence on my part.
Given that the SLO Police Department categorizes calls by transient or nontransient (28% of all SLO PD calls were transient related, according to Gesell), I was wondering if they could start logging calls by TRANSIENT, RENTER or HOMEOWNER? (since we’ve already started to categorize them by method of housing - why stop with homeless or with home?) I suspect that more calls are generated by those pesky renters, and especially those Cal Poly students, so maybe we could pass more onerous laws to crack down on renters and Cal Poly students, along with the transients? Yes, I am being facetious, but I do object to classifying calls as transient or non-transient. Its as if transients aren’t full humans, or at least not citizens of our state, county, city and country? Chief Gesell also noted that between 3/1/2012 and 3/20/2012, only 18% of SLO PD calls were related to transients, representing a drop of 10%, or in statistical parlance that makes it look distorted, during the 3/1 - 3/20 timeframe (when transient calls surged), the actual transient call numbers dropped 64% Huh? Something is fishy here, and I’m guessing its the way the SLO PD counts transient calls (over the last 5 years). I’m guessing that if a transient witnessed a crime, the call became a transient-related call, and added to the 28% transient related call statistic.
Another speaker, Robert W., lives in fear in his vehicle. He has lived in homeless shelters all his life. His testimony served to alert the SLO PD to the level of fear created by pounding on RV and car doors in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. Chief Gesell continues to justify this practice, and appears that it will be continued. He did not back down from his view when teachers reported children in these cars coming to school the next day and being very upset - making it difficult for them to concentrate on their studies and no doubt causing ongoing emotional problems for them.
Some speakers alluded to the possibly unconstitutional nature of outlawing sleeping in cars; several expressed the desire to remove the prohibition on sleeping cars. I was always taught that if you were too tired to drive, to pull over and take a nap. If that happened in SLO and Chief Gesell or his officers came by, I would have a problem - I would now be breaking the law, plain and simple (I’d still take that over falling asleep, crashing and dieing). I have no constitutional view on this, but do believe that the framers of our constitution would be shocked to find out that a person without living quarters could not legally bed down in a tent on a ranch outside of town - legally. Again, I need to make the point that outlawing sleeping in RVs, cars or creekbeds is de facto outlawing homelessness. Humans need to sleep to live. Outlawing sleeping is akin to outlawing breathing - stopping breathing just makes you die faster, but never sleeping will kill you eventually. There’s much evidence out there - just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation to read more. I’m sorry if the Police Chief disagrees with this, too. Basically, the Chief views sleeping in cars as breaking the law and “they came from somewhere [else]”, meaning they should go back to wherever they came from (even if SLO is where they were raised, worked or went to school).
The bottom line is that the SLO City Council did the right thing: they went ahead with the Prado Safe Parking Pilot Program, and tabled the onerous parking restrictions for another day - stay tuned. Sorry so long. Wanted to give an update on the meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)