NATION: Government Turns to Excessive Fines for Funding

Finally got around to making a post about this subject, which has bothered me for years. Our government, on all levels (local, state, federal), has turned to excessive fines, not just to deter unwanted behavior, but to fund their operations. This is plain wrong.

In his last years at UC Santa Barbara, my son James was ticketed for running a red light on his bicycle. The fine? $500! We fought it in court and won, since he believed he had not run the red light.  But how many people have the legal skills and the time and money to fight and win? Answer: not many (it helps to have a lawyer in the family!).

Having spent much time at UCSB during my son's tenure there, I observed students running red lights on bikes "right and left". Clearly, a smaller fine would deter such behavior. Given the unlimited opportunities to fine students for this offense, UCSB is clearly raking in a fortune citing students.

Above (click to enlarge): Posts are boring without photos. Here's an image that is unrelated to this web page: Ken spontaneously lifts his arms in awe at the viewpoint overlooking Panamint Valley in Death Valley National Park. Photo by Tim - January 2016.

Which leads me to this most recent "letter to the editor" in the Tribune, which you can read by clicking here. I include the letter below, because the Tribune has so many annoying advertisements on their web site: 

JANUARY 30, 2016 8:35 PM. SLO Laguna Lake Park dog leash ticket is exorbitant, appalling. I am not a resident of San Luis Obispo but was visiting to celebrate my son’s graduation from Cal Poly. I took my dog for a run at Laguna Lake Park, as I have done on previous visits. I was under the impression that SLO was considered dog friendly, and Laguna Lake Park has an off-leash dog area.

However, I was given a ticket for having my dog off leash on the trail. The fee was $561 plus a processing fee. I am outraged at the absurdity and exorbitant cost of this ticket. There is not clear signage that fees will be imposed if your dog is off leash.

How can you call San Luis Obispo the “happiest city in America” when this is how you treat people who come to visit? I have only heard positive things about SLO, but this experience has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and I would not recommend it as a place to visit and certainly do not consider it a happy, dog-friendly community.

I am appalled that this is how you treat first-time offenders of a ridiculous city policy.
-- CAREY WEBSTER, GRASS VALLEY

There were several comments on the Tribune web site regarding this "letter to the editor". Here are 2 of my favorites from the same person, "Chett Myers":

Chett Myers: Denver just "Cracked down" on leash law violation and increased its fine to $80, Seattle $54, Los Angles $25. Not all dogs are uncontrollable without a leash. Dogs are a reflection of their owner and of their training. The real crime is the disproportionate penalty inflected by a over zealous government that can not otherwise balance their budget.

Chett Myers: A Fee is what the government collects when you ask it for permission to do something. A Fine is what it collects if you did not ask first. Many governmental agencies are trying to balance their budget using Fines. Sorry you had to learn the hard way that San Luis Obispo is one of such govern mental agencies.

Click Here to go back to "Tim Waag Blog" Home Page! 

GROVER BEACH: Police Clear Out the Homeless, but You Can Help!

*****************************************
Update 2/1/2016:
Today I spoke with Police Chief Peters of the Grover Beach Police Department. He had previously sent me an email about the situation with the homeless camp at the Grover Beach Train Station site. Chief Peters and I spoke for about 20 minutes. Chief Peters is keenly aware of the fact that the homeless are not just going to "go away", and that it is futile to needlessly cite them for "living in the bushes". However, there is a public nuisance aspect of this that is not going away either.

One thing Police Chief Peters told me really struck home: the lack of cohesiveness he observed between all the parties involved with homelessness and affordable housing issues (note: I am paraphrasing what he said). And I agree. That’s one of the reasons I largely eschew involvement in any group, and do my own homeless outreach - it’s the only way I know, with my limited time and money, that I can be sure I am “doing some good”. 

Also, I have changed my point of view to support all organizations, groups, movements and projects that even “attempt” to move the ball forward on homelessness and affordable housing issues, whether I agree with them (or like them) or not. That means sometimes holding my nose and support people and causes that I have a hard time accepting. An example would be my support of the new Homeless Services Center in SLO, an approach that I do not really like, but I support anyways. I support the “full court press” on homeless issues, so that also includes tangential issues, such as supporting the new private Templeton Mental Health facility. With limited resources, we need to work together to do the most good. 

I left the Chief with this final thought: when a homeless camp is dispersed, we need an answer to the homeless person's question: Where can I legally go to exist?

WAAG'S WORLD: Thunderbird Petroglyph Project

November 30, 2018: 

I really do NOT like meetings, yet I go to them ALL THE TIME. To pass the time, I have learned to re-draw American Indian petroglyphs (rock art chiseled into a volcanic rock surface, revealing a much lighter color below the "patina" on the surface) that I have photographed. (I can concentrate better on the meeting discussion while I am drawing).

I feel that I can bring out some of the beauty that is often obscured due to deterioration of the rock surface. I hope you enjoy them in the spirit for which they were intended - reflection of beauty and thought from another time. Peace.

NATION: Why does Our Government Exempt Itself from It's Own Laws?

I've wanted to write on this topic for years. I have worked for an employment law firm since 1998, and am amazed at how often our wonderful new employment laws were directed exclusively at private employers and not at the government itself. 

Most often, the reason those who enacted the laws (i.e., our elected representatives) gave for NOT applying it to their own employees was because the laws would be "too burdensome" for them, yet somehow, would not be too burdensome for private employers.  

The second most common reason the laws did not apply to them was simply because they would NEVER behave in the manner that the law was designed to prevent. Frankly, I'm amazed that the media never picks up on this completely hypocritical "let them eat cake" approach taken by those who write our laws.

This post will simply compile a list of recently enacted laws that apply to us (private employers) and not to them (the government). Let the fun begin. We will see if anyone cares, or is it just "business as usual".

Above: Blog posts are boring without a photo. Above is my son catching his first albacore. Bravo! (click to enlarge).

NATION: Homeless vs. Transient / Vagrant / Bum - What's the Difference?

****Update 3/1/2016: Merriam-Webster defines a vagrant as a person who has no place to live and no job and who asks people for money (in other words, a homeless begger).  The word "vagrant" joins "transient" as a clue to the point of view of the communicator. Unless you know that the person is homeless, does not have a job, and begs for a living, calling them a "vagrant" demonstrates a lack of empathy for the plight of the homeless.

It is interesting to note that I recently read that it is not "politically correct" to say anything negative about a homeless person. This is a "new one" to me, but okay, I'll play: there are "good" homeless people and "bad" homeless people, just like everything else (good Catholic Priests vs. bad Catholic Priests; good lawyers vs. bad lawyers, etc.). I see no problem with factual statements about homeless people that are negative. However, generalizing about the homeless as bums, transients and vagrants without knowing anything about them is prejudicial and just wrong.

*****Original Article 12/25/2015: You can read more about the difference between a Homeless Person and a Transient person by clicking here. The article was written by a transient who does not consider himself to be homeless.

Let's make a few distinctions here: HOMELESS vs. TRANSIENT. A homeless person is someone who was previously housed, and through undesirable circumstances, they have become homeless. A homeless person may have their issues, like everybody else, but they want to get back into housing. Note that many homeless people in SLO county work full or part time, and still cannot afford our expensive local housing. 

The HOMELESS most often feel shame for being homeless, and certainly do not advertise their state of affairs by panhandling or standing on a street corner waving one of those cardboard signs. They would sooner die of shame than work a corner asking for a handout, or aggressively panhandle spare change. 

On the other hand, a TRANSIENT is someone who has chosen the homeless lifestyle. More often than not, when you meet them, they tell you they are just passing through, although it is also true that many have chosen to stay in one place for an extended period of time. Though it is true that a TRANSIENT may technically be HOMELESS, they themselves do not consider themselves to be homeless, but simply don't have a permanent address. 

In general, TRANSIENT and VAGRANT terms are more pejorative term when compared with HOMELESS PERSON. In fact, one of the signs that a person or group has a negative point of view towards the homeless is when they refer to ALL homeless people as TRANSIENTS, or my other favorite, VAGRANTS. Another favorite of the "hate the homeless crowd" is simply BUMS. Our San Luis Obispo Police Department loves to refer to our homeless population as TRANSIENTS, thus tipping their hand to how they feel about them. Check out this link to this youtube video of SLO Police Chief Gessell where he talks about how they are dealing with the TRANSIENTS. The commentator in the youtube video interview uses the term TRANSIENT as well. Police are considered community leaders, and when they use the pejorative term TRANSIENT then others feel they can use them as well.

Click Here to go back to "Tim Waag Blog" Home Page! 

LOCAL: Yes, We Are Criminalizing Homelessness

Sitting on a Park Bench for more than an hour is a Crime? Really?
Chapter 9.40
PUBLIC BENCHES
Sections:
9.40.010 Infraction established.
9.40.010 Infraction established.
It shall be an infraction for any person to sit, lay, or remain upon any public bench for any continuous period of time in excess of one hour, or for any period of time in excess of three hours in any twenty-four-hour period; or to arrange one’s personal property on or in front of any portion of any public bench in a manner that obstructs or precludes the use of the bench by another person. (Ord. 1491 § 2, 2006)

Above (click to enlarge): Photo of the actual ticket received, with the name of the person covered up. Note the address as "General Delivery", meaning a homeless person with no address. This is not right!

Yes, we are criminalizing homelessness. A group of homeless each got a ticket like this one because he and others were sitting at the picnic table at Meadow Park in SLO during broad daylight, apparently for "more than an hour". I have attended picnics at that very same table (for more than an hour) and never got ticketed. Gee, are they discriminating against the homeless?

Was this written with the homeless in mind? "or to arrange one’s personal property on or in front of any portion of any public bench in a manner that obstructs or precludes the use of the bench by another person."

NATION: US Government Subjugation of Indian Tribes Must Stop!

Casinos have brought some positive financial results to a small number of Indian tribes. However, most tribes remain poor - indeed, the poorest by far of all the ethnic groups in America. For more information on this subject, click on this US News and World Report article from November 2014. Here is a quote from this article:

“American Indians suffer from a variety of problems somewhat similar to African Americans,” says Algernon Austin, author of a 2013 Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report on Native American unemployment. “You have lower levels of education [and] continued racial discrimination in the labor market. Some of my work for EPI showed that … improving education attainment of American Indians would likely produce a significant increase in their employment rates.”

Many of us remain convinced that it is the intention of U. S. Government policy to weaken tribal sovereignty and diminish their economic independence. Here's more proof of that belief: In 2004, in a case involving the San Manual Band of Mission Indians, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed 70 years of prior rulings and held that tribal governments - UNLIKE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS - were subject to the NLRB. This ruling meant that tribal businesses would be regulated like private businesses - a clear blow to tribal sovereignty.

Above: Blog posts are boring without photos! Above is Mark and I with one of our Supai Tribe member friends, during a recent visit. The Supai Tribe has managed to preserve it's tribal language and runs a wonderful tourist business at their Grand Canyon National Park tribal reservation location. They still have their challenges, but have a history for fighting for control of their native tribal lands. You can read more about visiting by clicking here.