PPIC Poll: Support For AB 32 Declines For The 2nd Straight Year

Now this poll doesn't deal with SB 375, which, for lack of a better term, should probably be referred to as the "BIA Bill." BIA in that the lobbying organization for the construction and redevelopment industries probably scored the greatest victory of its storied existence when it convinced our post-evolutionary representatives in Sacramento that erecting huge amounts of high-density housing in already built-out communities would somehow save the planet from Global Warming.

What was discussed with the citizens by the friendly pollsters at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) was AB 32, also known as the Greenhouse Gas Law. AB 32 advocates such things as the production of low emission automobiles and controlling what comes out of smokestacks. A far more reasonable appoach than what its prodigal son, SB 375, threatens us with. And while it is unfortunate that the now overshadowed AB 32 is the focus of this survey, we'll take whatever information we can get. Here's how the PPIC reports it:

Solid majorities of Californians favor state policies to curb global warming, according to a survey released today ... But in a year that has seen both a worsening recession and state budget crisis, residents' support for urgent action on climate change has slipped and a partisan divide on the issue has widened.

Most residents (66%) support the 2006 California law (AB 32) that requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Support has declined 7 points from July 2008 (73%) and 12 points from 2007 (78%). The decline is sharpest among Republicans (57% 2008, 43% today).

Now AB 32, at least on the surface, is obviously something that does not seem threatening to your average voter. It deals mainly with automobile and smokestack emissions as the source of greenhouse gases, with the solution being the reduction of just that through the creation of cleaner and more efficient technologies. But even with a law that puts the burden mostly on the industrial creators of greenhouse gases and not the consumers of their products, enthusiasm on the topic has begun to wane a bit.

While most see global warming as a threat (47% very serious, 28% somewhat serious) to the economy and quality of life in the state, the percentage of residents who categorize the threat as very serious has declined over the past two years (54% 2007, 52% 2008, 47% today.) Residents are divided over whether the state government should take action to reduce emissions right away (48%) or wait until the economy and state budget situation improve (46%). In July 2008, when the plan to implement AB 32 was being discussed, a majority (57%) said the government should adopt it right away rather than wait (36%).

But as I said above, this really is an out-of-date consideration. Most of the people questioned for this poll probably felt that they were being asked about things such as automakers being required to sell them cars that emit lower levels of greenhouse gases. A quaint concept that really is far less relevant today than it was a couple years back. Because the boys in Sacramento apparently aren't all that concerned about improving the energy efficiency of cars anymore. They have much bigger fish to fry.

What those polled were not asked about is the far more draconian SB 375. I can only wonder how people would react upon being informed that redevelopers sanctioned by the state and backed by the courts might be seizing entire neighborhoods of their cities in order to build massive amounts of high-density multiple-use structures designed in part to house the economically disadvantaged. And I'd really like to see a poll that would get the reaction of these same people upon being informed that packing thousands of new residents into their towns (with all the resulting problems that go with such radically engineered social change) is being done to somehow reduce greenhouse gases.

Somehow I think their support for such an initiative would fade a bit.

A related Los Angeles Times article about this poll can he found here.

Three Story Thursday

The news is starting to pile up again, so today we're going to cover three items in one shot. Have to do that once in a while because, let's face it, if we're going to try and cover a lot of issues on this site we really need to take them on as they arrive. And some days they just all come at once. So here goes everything.

The Pasadena Star News is running with a story today that I think is pretty important. The City Council in Glendale has now put their City on record as opposing the 710 Tunnel. This in the face of considerable pressure from Caltrans, various Sacramento lobbyists, and the omnipresent SCAG. Here's the story:

Glendale officials vote to oppose 710 tunnel: City officials voted to oppose a proposed tunnel project that would connect the end of the 710 Freeway to the 210 Freeway at Tuesday night's meeting ... Glendale's vote puts it with La Canada Flintridge and South Pasadena as opposing the project ... In the resolution, which passed by a vote of 4-1, city officials cite increased traffic along the 210 Freeway north of the 134 Freeway as the main reason to oppose the project.

Since Sierra Madre is as much affected by traffic on the 210 Freeway as our 3 sister cities in the beautiful San Gabriel Valley, maybe we need to get this agendized during Public Comments at our next City Council meeting? Filling this already murky valley with increased airborne toxins from the huge potential increase in truck traffic coming out of the ports of Long Beach and San Pedro will do irreparable harm to both seniors and young children. Our stake is no less than any other city in the San Gabriel Valley. We need to make our voices heard.

And there is more to this Glendale story. The leading opposition voice there is a City Councilman by the name of Ara Najarian. And Najarian is also the new chairman of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the very organization that will eventually vote on the project. This is a guy who is speaking out strongly on the issue, and his leadership is making a big difference. The Glendale News Press ran a story recently about a bogus poll run by Caltrans lobbyist Nat "The Police Poet" Read and his so-called 710 Freeway Coalition in an attempt to derail growing opposition to tunnel. This is how Mr. Najarian responded to the situation:

"I think his poll and his survey is a joke," said Councilman Ara Najarian ... "And to infer that the 710 Coalition needs to do a poll to tell us what our residents are concerned about is really kind of a desperate attempt for them to sell the tunnel to Glendale" ... "If the 710 tunnel people think that South Pasadena was the fly in their soup, they are going to be dealing with the residents of Glendale and its surrounding areas," he said. "We are going to be a force to be reckoned with on this matter."

You really have to respect a guy willing to speak out like that. Maybe we can get him to stop by a week from Tuesday to add his voice to an effort to get this issue before our City Council?

Meanwhile in Santa Barbara there is quite a debate on the issue of, you got it, high-density housing in mixed-use developments. Seems to be going around these days. The specific problem there seems to be something known by the acronym MODA, which stands for Mobility Oriented Development Area. The idea being that if you house citizens in MODA units they will also work close by and therefore not require automobiles. Automobiles, of course, being the only culprit in the global warming pantheon that high-density addicted city planners seem to want to consider. And so confident are these planners that new residents will happily sit in their boxes automobile-free that MODA units will come with no parking of any kind attached. This from the Santa Barbara Independent article Can't Get There From Here:

As part of the MODA concept, City Hall would have to seriously relax - "decouple" is the term favored by city planners - its current parking requirements. By eliminating the space developers must set aside for parking - roughly 300 square feet per parking space - the cost of land would presumably be reduced. And with a decent public transit system in place, cars would become optional and not necessities. That, at least, is the theory.

Seems to be the assumption of most planners attempting to convince our fine California cities to introduce vast new lower income high-density housing into the middle of their quaint boutique neighborhoods. And that all this disfigurement of their city will be worth it because these new people won't drive cars, thus saving the world from Global Warming. Here's an example of the resulting skepticism:

Critics of the MODA approach also worry that if the new "de-coupled" units are not required to provide adequate parking as part of a strategy to bring the cost of development down, then MODA residents and their visitors will park on public streets, thus creating a whole new planning nightmare.

One man's Mobility Oriented Development Area is another man's Transit Village I suppose. My personal take is that people fortunate enough to be housed in low-cost housing will begin to experience the happy sensation that comes with having some discretionary cash to spend. And like any other red-blooded Americans the first thing they will want to do with it is get themselves a fine new automobile. Just because they live near a bus stop is no reason to assume that they're going to fall in love with the idea of taking one to work everyday. This being is the cognitive flaw at the heart of all these kinds of projects.

Take it from someone who rode New York City public transportation for 10 years, cars are much nicer. And people will not give them up that easily. If more planner advocates of high-density development actually took the public transportation that they see as being the panacea for the world's ills, they might understand that.

And then there is this:

The debate over density has roiled Santa Barbara's once solid coalition of slow-growthers and environmentalists for more than ten years now, with both sides casting aspersions on the other's motivations. Critics of high density development have been derided as racists, while affordable housing and "smart growth" advocates have been dismissed as developer stooges, whether wittingly or otherwise.

My my. Makes you wonder if the sudden resurgence of "Green issues" in our little town has more to do with a divide and conquer political strategy than anything else. Considering the two developer stooges pushing it here, I'd be inclined to say yes.

Now in the past few weeks we have discussed the greenhouse gas producing potential of both automobiles and high-density development. With both producing quite a bit of the stuff. But apparently there is something else that is also contributing to Global Warming. And I can't for the life of me figure how I missed it. This from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:

Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars? Surprise! According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent - 18 percent - than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

So there you have it. And as far as we here at The Tattler can tell, the world's worst greenhouse gas producing polluter could very well live within shouting distance of here. Yep, and we think we now know who the guy is. Because he has been spotted coming out of his condo at Monrovia Commons, getting into his 8 cylinder Honda Ridgeline pickup truck, and then heading over to T-Burger for two big all beef half pound cheeseburgers.

The veritable triple play of world ending behaviors.

The City Council Met, And Some Important Things Were Decided

Well, there was one big disappointment for me. The $300,000 General Plan consultant was neither proposed or debated last night. I was so looking forward to that one. If there is one topic that I really enjoy writing about, it's how the Old Guard members of the City Council love to propose spending mad money on consultants, and for just about anything imaginable. And this consultant, as far as I can tell, could possibly have even exceeded the cost of that once upon a time Top Secret document known as the DSP. To put it acronymically. Which isn't a real word, but it should be.

Of course, now that we know the names of the new members of the General Plan Committee, there will be a renewed urgency on the part of the O.G. to get a consultant in there pronto. Because as we all know, neither one of these esteemed gents will go a single step further in politics here in the uni-party State of California should a new General Plan emerge from Sierra Madre that does not meet the goals set by their patrons in the BIA, CAR, SCAG, SGVCOG, LCC, LAMSGVGC, and the rest of the alphabet soup of deranged city wreckers.

Just the way things go around in these parts. Produce or perish.

Now it is the theory of many here that the reason Joe Mosca made his quixotic quest for the Mayor's seat several months back is because of the General Plan Committee. And that the prospect of a committee staffed by people who would not be happily pushing the agenda that Joe subscribes to (can we say BIACARSCAGSGVCOGLCCLAMSGVGC?) was something not only horrifying to the tad, but also equally distressing to those whose favor he so desperately desires. You see, it's not just that Joe wants to see lots of condos built here. It is also that Sierra Madre was supposed to be an early stepping stone on the path to bigger and better things for him. And if you watch closely enough, you will see in Joe's face a man whose dreams are dying. One City Council meeting at a time. And now the only thing standing between Joe Mosca and career disaster is next April's election. Because if the Old Guard fails to recapture the City Council in 2010, Joe is politically a dead issue. Those people will drop him like a bad habit.

So congratulations to Ken Anholt, Denise Delmar, Leslee Hinton, Debbie Sheridan, and Teryl Willis on being selected for the General Plan Committee! Can we say Dream Team?

Couple of other things happened that caught my eye. The White Elephant known as One Crater was trotted out for yet another shampooing. What is this, the 28th time? The project that just keeps on taking apparently has more lives than all the cats in the valley. This ecological disaster zone obviously is in desperate need of work, so what else can we do but allow the current dirt pushers their chance at making it into something more than a latent mudslide? Particularly with the rainy season not all that far away? And while it is good that CS One Carter was put under what appears to be a tight 5 (or was it 6) month schedule, who is to say they won't come back and ask for yet more time in January? After all, our other bad dates did.

Nice to see that original Gang of Four member John Buchanan has grown weary of all the One Carter delays. And watching him attempt to ham up some indignation over the whole sad affair was the source of some comedy here at the Maundry Compound last night. But wouldn't it have been nice if perhaps he hadn't voted to turn the entire mountain over to the vastly inept Dorn Platz in the first place? It was all kind of like listening to Mrs. O'Leary and her cow complaining about the poor quality of Chicago's Fire Department.

One other observation on One Carter. Let's say the current owners get all that infrastructure work done, put the storm sewers in place, and meet all the requirements that they are obliged to fulfill. And sitting there a-shining in the beautiful Sierra Madre sun would be perfectly laid out lots with nicely paved roads connecting them. Is anybody really going to plunk down the $800,000 needed to buy one? Maybe I'm just out of touch with the whole McMansion thing, but doesn't that seem just a little bit pricey to you? Usually when you drop that kind of money you get a house with that lot.

Who knows, after this whole thing finally collapses under the weight of its own absurdity, perhaps One Carter will finally find some peace as something useful. Maybe as a vineyard?

Chateau Buchanan they could call it. Home of the world famous Two Buch Chuck.

Oh, and on that Hart Park House/Sierra Madre Room tip. Maybe it's because I work in an entirely different kind of business, but couldn't we just go to a bunch of contractors and see if any of them might want to take on the whole project for, let's say, $300,000? Times are tough out there right now, particularly for contractors. And that really is a serious sum. Just ask the question. Can't hurt, and right now you just never know what people might be willing to do.

If I was the Mayor I'd make Donald Trump's "The Art of the Deal" required reading for all City staff. From my perspective they really could use a little toughening up. Seriously. Not going back to the same contractors for a second bid after your boss decided the first one stunk? Because they might not like it?

You wouldn't last very long on The Apprentice saying stuff like that. No-Sir-Ree-Bob.

Sacramento's Not So Funny Money

So if it was late 1864 and you happened to be a resident of one of the remaining few regions left to the Confederate States of America, you might very well have gotten something very similar to what we've reproduced here. (Click on the document to enlarge.) It probably would have been a little more 19th century retro in appearance, with maybe a picture of Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee to dress it up a bit. But the purpose behind it would have been basically the same. Because what you are looking at is scrip issued by a failed government that cannot pay its debts.

Of course, this is California, and it is still very much 2009. And what we see here is the tax refund "check" issued by Sacramento and mailed to someone I know. Schoolteachers, such as my friend, are paid 10 months out of the year. And during those 2 months they have off they're pretty much on their own. But, and as many of them have learned, if you get an extension on paying your State income taxes, your refund check will arrive during the off season when you really need the scratch. And you use that money to live on until school is back in session. So imagine the surprise you would have experienced when you received this little beauty. Because, and as it says right on this document, you won't be cashing it until October. Summer job here we come. That is, if you can find one.

Now the official term for this item is not scrip, or funny money, or Confederate money, or even a "bag full of lottery tickets." Sacramento would never use terminology as crass as that. No, and as is usual when government screws up badly, neutral language must be crafted to make it seem like things aren't as bad as they really are. And in this case that neutral language is Registered Warrant. Here is how our State Controller defines it:

A registered warrant is a "promise to pay," with interest, that is issued by the State when there is not enough cash to meet all the State's payment obligations. Registered warrants are legally negotiable instruments that bear a maturity date of October 2, 2009. IOUs may be redeemed, with interest, by the State Treasurer on or after October 2, 2009 ... These IOUs are issued in the place of regular warrants, or checks. The interest rate, set by the State Pooled Money investment Board on July 2, 2009, is 3.75% per year.

3.75% per year? Talk about your sub-prime interest rate.

Of course, having money garnished from your paycheck because the State does not trust you to save up enough on your own to pay your income tax bill is bad enough. But to have it turn out that it is those who are taking that money who can't cover their debts, well, that might seem galling to some. Especially those stuck with temporarily useless paper like my friend. But our State government does not believe in equally shared obligation. These are people that, while paid by us, do not actually work for us anymore. They've taken on a life of their own.

So when Sacramento comes around to places like Sierra Madre to take away $300,000 in our property tax money, or our CRA money, or remove our rights to CEQA reviews of any potential toxic impact caused by State imposed redevelopment projects, or to tell us what we can and cannot include in our General Plan anymore, just remember one thing. They are the exact same people that couldn't find it in themselves to cover a schoolteacher's income tax refund check.

And as such are persons completely without honor.

A Candidate For California Assembly That Actually Gets It?

I was checking out some of the articles on the City Watch site last night. City Watch deals with California politics from a City of Los Angeles perspective. And a lot of what is covered there affects us whether we like it or not. Act locally, think regionally might be one way of putting it.

I came across a piece written by a guy named David Coffin. David, as his City Watch article points out, is running in the 51st California Assembly District special election on September 1st. Something that really didn't excite me all that much, I must admit. But I plowed on, and I'm glad I did.

Turns out David Coffin isn't just another paid for Donklephant mouthing whatever meaningless platitudes you usually get from the major parties. He is a successful business owner and aeronautics engineer (he's worked on the B-2, F-18, C-17 and F-22 projects) who is running for Assembly as an Independent. And he is doing this because he is authentically concerned about what is going on in our crazy state. One of the big issues of concern for him is the insanity of pushing high-density development when there are not the natural resources in place to sustain it. With the resource of biggest concern being water.

I'm going to post a portion of the article here. David isn't running in our Assembly District, so I'm not sure how much we can do from here. The 51st A.D. covers the area from LAX and through Gardena. However, the guy certainly is a kindred spirit. And as we discover more and more people standing up and questioning the kinds of madness that pass for governance in this state, I think we have a duty to honor their courage. Because taking on the powerful folks who have a big economic stake in runaway development takes some guts. And it is nice to know we aren't alone.

Drought Cause: Poor Planning, Over-Development: Drought has many forms, but Mother Nature is only a bit player in today's water crisis. Our drought is caused primarily by poor planning and over-development. State Senate bill SB 610 was supposed to protect water supply but it contains a huge loophole that allows planners and developers to use outdated water management plans that promise sufficient water supplies for growth but never deliver.

So how does this happen? It happens because we ignore our resources when we set housing goals. Every seven years a Regional Housing Needs Assessment is handed down by the State that sets housing targets for Southern California cities to meet. Even when those cities don't have the jobs or the infrastructure to support it.

The California Department of Finance recently 'projected' that Southern California's population will double between 2000 and 2050 from 18.7 million people to 30.3 million! With those numbers in hand and without any real regard to water availability, the Southern California Associations ('SCAG') cited the need for 699,368 new housing units.

Pretty much sounds like what is going on around here, right? Sacramento's current push for huge new development in Southern California is based on population growth projections that have yet to pan out. Currently an awful lot of people are leaving the state, and far fewer coming in. This has led to the very real possibility that California will lose a seat in Congress for the first time in state history. Something which calls into question SCAG's suspect and probably BIA-driven projections.

Here is how these issues are spelled out on the David Coffin for California Assembly website:

Infrastructure & Our Water Supply: We have a water shortage because of California's insistence to meet population projections that they predict will double by 2050. State and local planning is out of sync with the realities of our regions resources and infrastructure. Southern California cannot be allowed to continue to grow unchecked to the point where growth strangles our quality of life. Nature has imposed limitations on our region that needs to be recognized by the State of California and its local government the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG").

Planning: STOP RUBBER STAMPING DEVELOPMENTS THAT DON'T FIT. No more accepting Sacramento's gospel that we need housing for another 15 million people that would double our population in Southern California and 30 million in the state when we KNOW that we do not have the infrastructure (water, streets, electricity) or services to sustain that kind of growth. California's planning policy needs to be based first of the availability of resources, not faith in projections.

Environment: Planning policies developed by the state and policed by SCAG that encourage doubling the region's population can only hurt the environment and our residents. More people, more cars, more solid waste, more sewage all challenge the efforts to create a green environment.

Here in Sierra Madre we have two City Councilmen who await the day when they would be put back into power and allowed to unleash things like SB 375 on this town. Something that would result in massive over-development, degrading both the beauty of this town and the quality of life we now enjoy. And while they cynically mouth nonsense about high-density development being a "Green" initiative, their true concerns are little more than creating an opportunity for their patrons in the redevelopment and realty industries to make money. After all, if these two characters were as Green as they claimed to be, wouldn't they have connected the dots between our limited water resources and the increased demand new development would bring?

As always, those apples never fall far from the Sacramento tree.

From today's L.A. Times: San Diego high-rise condo market goes from frenzy to fizzle

THE Magazine's Steve Tobia Wants To Save The World With Style

I don't know if you receive THE Magazine in THE Mail, but I do. THE Magazine, as it describes itself, "is a luxury lifestyle publication for the affluent and educated residents in the Pasadena Foothills Region, Southern California's new urban region of economic social power." And for the life of me I can't figure out why I've been included on their mailing list. Because if I match the economic criteria THE Magazine has set to qualify for inclusion on their register of the chosen, then the claims being made for this publication on their website could be about as full of malarkey as Paddy's pig.

Which, being something of an expert on malarkey, I suspect is the case. After all, there are products advertised in this publication that (should I be given one), would raise enough money to pay off my mortgage when properly pawned. Which leads me to believe that this magazine really isn't completely for the authentically moneyed, or for people who are all that sophisticated, either. Rather a lot of it is for those who are impressed by that sort of stuff, and dream of a time when they too can participate in the ostentatious consumerism flogged there.

THE Magazine strikes me as being very much a child of its time. Which by my calculation was around 2007. You might recall that was the celebrated moment when the more foolhardy among us were refinancing their vastly overvalued homes with uncapped interest-only subprime loans, then taking the acquired booty and buying the kinds of products one finds in THE Magazine. And let's face it, nobody is more susceptible to naive consumerism than the temporarily affluent. But now it is mid-2009, the house is in receivership, the golden doorknobs, platinum johns and fussy statuary are up for bids on eBay, and the banks holding the paper on these parvenu palaces of pretension are whining to Uncle Sam for big chunks of our tax money to help them stave off bankruptcy.

In other words, it truly is a time of economic crisis when Americans are no longer capable or willing to plunk down some large coin for expensive automobiles, accessories, or designer clothing. After all, the fiscal health of the world depends upon us to doing just that. And since so few of us are committed to that sort of consumer behavior these days, we truly must be in a time of economic crisis.

And this is where Steve Tobia and his Sierra Madre-based THE Magazine have boldly stepped forward. In the September edition Steve deals out a challenge to his readership. That is to save America by purchasing fashion at local boutique clothing stores. And no big box fashion, please! Here is how he lays it all out:

THE Magazine's Local Economic Stimulus Package

Imagine: If Each of the 20,000 affluent households that receive THE Magazine committed to spending just $1,000 in New Fall Fashion at LOCALLY OWNED boutiques from September 10th though October 10th - WE CAN GENERATE $20 MILLION IN SALES FOR LOCAL BOUTIQUES.

If Each Local Family brought their old clothes to these participating LOCALLY OWNED boutiques throughout the month of September and October (and) placed them in "GOODWILL Career Closet" Donation Boxes WE CAN HELP 20,000 PEOPLE WHO NEED NEW CLOTHES.

If Each Local Boutique Donated 10% new sales from September 10th through October 10th when old clothes are donated WE CAN RAISE $2 MILLION FOR THESE CHARITIES IN ONE MONTH.

The Math: 20,000 affluent households x $1,000 each in new clothes = $20 million. 10% of $20 million in gross sales = $2 million for charity in one month.

Now far be it from me to gainsay the work of Steve and what I am sure is an honorable attempt at doing something positive about the economic crisis and the effect that it has had on many living in the San Gabriel Valley. But honestly, even if I had a spare grand to spend on clothes, I'm not sure I'd even know how to wear the kind of stuff you get at a boutique. And if you did sport that kind of stuff where I work they'd assume you have to be at court that day. And not in a lawyerly capacity.

Now we here at the Maundry Compound do fill up bags with old clothes every once in a while. And usually we give them to the Vietnam Veterans of America. Who, by the way, have a very good used clothing store over in Duarte, not too far from Costco. Not exactly a boutique per se, but they do have lots of good deals, especially in children's clothing. Believe me, when you shop there your kids'll be wearing some highly unique and idiosyncratic t-shirts from places nobody has even heard of.

I suppose I could drop my stuff off at a clothing boutique. But I am going to have to warn those concerned about what exactly it is they'll be getting.

1) Wrangler blue jeans from Wal*Mart. These I buy for around $15 a pair. They're very comfortable, and last for a surprisingly long time. I have several pair now that started out as dark blue and, though repeated washings, have faded to a very appealing cornflower color.

2) Arrow shirts from Sears. I'm not sure if this qualifies as "big box fashion" or not, but I do know that most clothing boutiques do not carry Arrow shirts. And I love the things. Retro as all get out. You can't beat anything made of cotton, and Arrow has the good sense to cut their shirts long so that you can actually tuck them in deep enough to ensure they'll stay that way. And that's important for us taller gentlemen. And cool? I think so.

3) Tube socks and sneakers from Costco. You can't beat their tube socks. White with gray heels and toes, plus a generous padding for the sole that guarantees you'll glide through the day. And you just never know what kind of sneakers you'll find there. Right now I'm sporting a pair of Filas that have got to be the homeliest shoes in town. They look a little like the boots people recovering from foot surgery might wear, though not quite so large. Simply glorious.

4) Ariat work boots from The Boot Barn. Now here is the one luxury I do afford myself. They look like cowboy boots, but they don't have the high heel or pointy toe thing going on. Which are useful if you ride horses, but why would I want to pretend I do? Ariats are incredibly comfortable with heels hard enough to give you some serious attitudinal presence if you drag them across the floor properly. They usually last about 3 years, so I'm figuring I could cough up my present pair by early 2011.

I'm not sure that I qualify for THE Magazine's Local Economic Stimulus Package effort. So I'm guessing they'll need to drop that number of affluent households participating to 19,999. Which is still a pretty decent effort, I must say.

I wish them the best of luck.

Mommy? Why Did That Man Say They're Taking Away My Library?

I was looking through various websites at some of the pictures from our 4th of July parade, and came across a couple of shots depicting some young children standing in front of our city library waving their cards while their parents held signs begging the place be saved. I stared at these images for a couple of minutes, and just couldn't help wondering why someone would lie to their kids like that. It was all just so cheap a political stunt.

At our last City Council meeting some obviously perplexed residents stepped up to the podium to ask questions about this odd situation. I believe it was Fay Angus, a renowned writer and long time champion of our library, who expressed it best. "Why would anyone claim that our library is in danger of being taken away when it so obviously isn't?" Nobody really had an answer. Then the same question was directed at John Buchanan, an individual many suspect played a role in this canard. John, knowing a lost cause when he saw one, did the lawyerly thing and dummied up. It was then that Mayor MacGillivray spoke the words that were obvious to all. "This is a non-issue."

You might recall a few days back we discussed the East Montecito Specific Plan. And one of the points made was that if you want to tear down a neighborhood and replace it, you're going to have to work real hard to convince people that the place deserves destruction. And a way you might attempt to do this is launch a public relations campaign running the place down. And in the case of East Montecito, the language used to attempt the deed went like this:

"This customary type of single-use planning has yielded sprawl-type development, characterized by homogenous and monotonous buildings that ignore the street and have large curb-cuts, little interconnectivity with surrounding neighborhoods or urban fabric, and the kind of segregation of uses that would otherwise fit well together. This kind of undistinguished development is easily recognizable all over Southern California and, to some degree, in certain areas of Sierra Madre."

A rather cold and technocratic way of describing what is basically a pleasant tree-lined residential street, right? Of course, some of the jargon is funny. "Curb-cuts" being planner jabber for a driveway that leads to the front yard. And then there is: "... little interconnectivity with surrounding neighborhoods or urban fabric." I think that is what most of us would refer to as a community that offers privacy.

Now a few years back there was a move afoot to tear down our existing library and replace it with something far larger. It would have been very expensive, and it probably would have resulted in the razing of an existing structure or two to free up the necessary space. And there were some other problems as well. The biggest being that not a lot of people in Sierra Madre really saw any point in going to all that trouble.

A poll was conducted to see just how much support there would be for a new library facility. And the results were not very positive for those hoping to tear down our library and build a new one. You see, some people actually liked things the way they were.

- Asked if the were generally satisfied with the City's library services, 78% said yes, and 7% said no.

- When respondents were asked if they would support an assessment of $75 per household per year for 30 years (for a new library), 48% said they would support the assessment, 38% said they would not, and 14% did not know ... Clearly there is work to be done. In order to be successful, a local library bond must receive at least 66 2/3s% of the total votes cast.

So what did the advocates of a new library set out to do in order to freshen those polling numbers a bit? They used pretty much the same method as those who desired to plow under East Montecito, and started bad mouth the library. Here is some of the language they used in their attempt to accomplish that end:

- Rodent infestation.

- Nonexistent building sprinkler system/fire suppression system

- Access to restrooms is too steep

- Hallways to restrooms are too narrow

- Parking area and walkway entrances are too steep

- Solid walls are inadequate to withstand an earthquake

- Inefficient indoor lighting

- Noise levels are too high

- Acoustics are very poor, no buffers between any rooms so noise travels uninterrupted

- Restrooms: limited number

- No dedicated Young Adult area

- Trip & Fall exposure great due to crowding

- Earthquake could be severe (large retention falls upon City; EQ insurance not purchased)

- Fire, no fire suppression system could result in great loss to collection (a large city asset)

Sounds like you'd be taking your life into your hands just walking into a building like that, you know? If the earthquakes don't get you, the rats surely will. But did it occur to them that you don't put sprinklers in a library because of the unfortunate effect it could have on the books?

You know what the irony here is, right? The gentlefolk who organized the "Save the Library" demonstration a few weeks ago are pretty much the same people responsible for advocating its destruction back then.

Funny how things go around.

The Pasadena Star News Doesn't Read Itself

A month or two back I called the Pasadena Star News because I was trying to figure out who wrote one of their editorials. They had written something or other about Sierra Madre, and I figured if I spoke to enough people there someone would spill the beans. But it turns out that is a big secret for the inner sanctums of our local newspaper of record, and no matter what kind of routine I ran on them (pleased citizen wanting to send a cookie bouquet, angry reader, the guy who is about to cancel his subscription for any one of a million reasons, or, my favorite, the guy who has a lot of great ideas and thinks they should use some of them), none of my usual tricks worked. These guys held on to their big secret like they were CIA agents or something.

And now I think I know why. It's in case they make a mistake. Because if you're going to share an opinion about how the world should be run, and within that opinion is included a big old throbbing blunder, well, at least you have that veil of secrecy to hide behind. I can only imagine that Larry Wilson has wished for such a luxury from time to time.

Now I have to admit to something. I have grown fond of the Pasadena Star News. They have some pretty decent reporters, and the paper has an earnest and unpretentious way of going after the news. Their on-line features such as Topix, while certainly a bit rough at times, can also be an interesting workout for those of us who enjoy arguing politics with fabulously agitated people. And the PSN certainly does a much better job reporting on the affairs of our favorite town than that pair of junk weeklies we're cursed with.

So I have to tell you that I take no real pleasure in relating the following. Well, not too much, anyway. But it is kind of funny. And apparently I read their paper way more than they do.

Today's PSN editorial is entitled Our View: Cities should take the deal. And it contains an opinion that should be of keen interest to Sierra Madre, along with the many fine readers of this blog. That being cities such as ours should give some real consideration to dumping their costly police departments and bringing in the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. Very topical stuff. But then they go and ruin it all with the following:

"In tiny Sierra Madre, as in other small cities in these tight economic times, having its own police department is like having a millstone tied around its neck. It has nearly drowned them in a sea of red ink. That's why the City Council is looking at contracting out its police services with the Sheriff's Department or the Pasadena or Arcadia police departments."

I can only hope and pray Elaine Aguilar doesn't see that. She takes this sort of thing very seriously.

Now on June 24 (not all that long ago), the Pasadena Star News ran an article called Sierra Madre in better financial shape than many of its neighbors. And in it was the following paragraph:

"(Sierra Madre) projects $7.2 million in general fund revenues and $6.4 million in general fund expenditures in the 2009-2010 fiscal year starting July 1, followed by $7.9 million in general fund revenues and $6.8 million in expenditures in 2010-2011."

Now does THAT sound like a city drowning in red ink? I should say not. And while those figures are a little bit on the rich side, we really are running some rather nice surpluses these days, thank you. Mostly due to that 100% UUT increase we somehow got conned into voting ourselves.

But what makes this all a little exasperating is that the PSN's editorial department actually published a viewpoint recently (June 5) that talked not only about Sierra Madre's budgetary surpluses, but also how we need to get the UUT hike back on the ballot and voted out of existence.

Here is a telling excerpt from Our View: Sierra Madre should reconsider tax:

"As we noted in this space last March, whoops! An outside audit found an extra $1 million that hadn't been properly accounted for ... In little Sierra Madre, population 11,000 souls, that's real money. As we noted previously, it makes the difference between what would have been an operating deficit at the end of this month, the close of this city's fiscal year, of $315,000; instead, the city will be in the black with a surplus of approximately $46,000."

Drowning in a sea of red ink my foot.

Now, my dear Pasadena Star News friends, here's the real reasons why we're considering sending our Police Department packing. The first being they sue us a lot. We spend a ton of loot on lawyers to defend ourselves from junk lawsuits over nonsense like PD locker searches. It is both expensive and offensive to have these ingrates going after us this way. Especially after we voluntarily raised our own taxes to give them their damned raise. And secondly, we want to take YOUR advice and get rid of the UUT increase. And the best way of doing that is cutting the costs of law enforcement in this town, something that accounts for 52% of our General Fund expenditures. And if these studies the City Council is working on pan out, and the numbers look right, we might actually be able to do that by bringing in Lee Baca's outfit. Who knows?

Maybe I should call the Pasadena Star News today and pretend to be the guy that wants to help them out by editing the editorials covering Sierra Madre. And then again, maybe not. I do have a day job, and we all know that if you don't focus, you can make mistakes.

The LA Weekly Takes On The Great Los Angeles Greenwashing Craze

In case you might have thought that we here at The Tattler were just about the only people going on about this stuff, the alternative paper of record the LA Weekly recently printed a rather amazing expose of just exactly how the language and images of the Green concern have been hijacked by such disinterested parties as redevelopers, real estate peddlers, and the so-called Green Politicians that serve them. Even the oil companies are in on it. People who are to the environment what fur trappers are to baby seals. It isn't a pretty picture.

The article is entitled Envirowimps: LA's Big Green Groups Get Comfy. And while you really should click on the link I've provided and read the whole thing, I will reprise a couple of passages because of their relevance to what we are seeing here in Sierra Madre. Watching the likes of Joe Mosca and John Buchanan cynically pushing their BIA high-density redevelopment agenda as somehow being "green" in city council meeting after meeting as if it was received wisdom from some almighty source kind of demands at least a bit of discussion. And if you put these two gents into the context of this LA Weekly piece you will see that they are just a couple of garden variety LA County pols pushing the same tainted nonsense as the rest of the rotten bunch. And apparently there are a lot of these characters out there.

The first of two topics that we have raised here recently are SB 375, the Sacramento enacted law (thanks Anthony Adams!) that, while claiming to be a measure that will cut greenhouse gases and the global warming they cause, is actually little more than a license for redevelopers to push high-density development upon unwilling communities now stripped of the legal protections to resist them. The other one being transit villages like The Stuart in Pasadena, or the now apparently endangered El Monte Transit Village. An equally cynical concept, and one that can cause considerable health damage to the small children living in them.

First let's deal with the Orwellian concept that building huge generic condo complexes in LA County will save the world:

Under the current crop of politicians, developers have marketed, or "green-washed," huge buildings to the Los Angeles public as "sustainable" - meaning healthy for the environment over the long term - when critics say they actually create more traffic congestion, more pollution and a plainly lower quality of life ... In Hollywood, the political turf of green-friendly City Council President Eric Garcetti and 4th District City Councilman Tom LaBonge, Bob Blue saw one proposed skyscraper or giant condo complex after another come before the community group he chaired, the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council. Outsize projects that ignore local zoning restrictions are now peddled by developers as good because they are "LEED" buildings, meaning they offer such features as low-flush toilets, on-site renewable energy and improved indoor-air-quality standards ... lost in the push for LEED certification has been the pressing question of whether the environmental benefits of these buildings outweigh the negatives. Do these big structures cause more emissions by attracting increased traffic and encouraging congested streets filled with idling cars, for example, than they claim to reduce? In truth, nobody knows - including the many cities such as L.A. whose development approvals now require LEED standards. "But if you have a project that would normally be four stories high and now has 20 stories," says Blue, who supports the concept of LEED design, "it still adds enormous weight to the infrastructure." There is a "net increase in power, water, sewer, traffic, pollution and impact to the immediate surrounding area." The community activist adds, "I think that this is being missed by everybody."

We have seen similar pro-development sentiments pushed by the two Sierra Madre Councilman whose names I mentioned above. One of them, Joe Mosca, actually heads the SCAG/SGVCOG associated committee tasked with enforcing the high-density housing edicts demanded by SB 375 here in the San Gabriel Valley. That this would be dressed up as somehow being Green because the toilets are low-flow and some of the power produced by solar panels can be seen as representative of the general hype. The devastating traffic increases and demands on such fragile resources as water, power, plus the overall negative impact on the quality of life here, makes all of this a fool's bargain.

The LA Weekly continues:

Blue's hardly alone in his criticism. Rex Frankel, a widely respected independent voice in L.A.'s environmental movement and director of the think tank ConnectingCalifornia.org, says, "If you're using LEED to justify greater density, it's a false tradeoff ... we'll still face more time in traffic, increased smog and other impacts. It's just another example of green-washing."

The other issue that concerns this typer is that of so-called Transit Villages. Sold to many cities across the country as being somehow environmentally helpful, in practice they have become something quite different. And this article covers those concerns as well.

One example can be seen in the new trend of land speculators and developers proposing apartment and condo complexes near freeways,in many cases arguing that the buildings are "sustainable" because they bring workers closer to jobs. The developments often get the blessing of L.A. City council- to the horror of health experts. The University of Southern California and other research institutions now know for certain that children living in these projects are burdened with serious, often lifelong lung and respiratory illnesses caused by a relentless stream of traffic nearby. "They are putting individuals at risk," says USC professor of preventive medicine Jim Gauderman, of the politicians, developers and greens. His 2007 study made that clear.

Friends of ours took up temporary quarters at The Stuart while the house they just bought was being refurbished. They described the experience as being horrible. Most notable to them was the steady roar of the traffic on the 210. And as the parents of young children they understood the dangers and couldn't wait for their month there to end. And as I saw when we visited, this complex is in no way permanent housing for anyone. Most of those living there are only in place for a short period of time, and the management is constantly not only in search of new tenants, but also trying to keep the ones they already have.

The perspective that we need to take here in Sierra Madre is that none of this really has very much to do with creating "sustainable" buildings designed to save the world from global warming. Instead it is just the latest con ginned up by a development industry hungry for building space in places such as the highly profitable LA County market. 

Previously we were told that high-density housing was something we were obliged to accept in our community because it would create affordable living quarters for the less provident among us. And when that didn't work, the BIA and CAR types concocted an entirely new sales pitch, that building big condos complexes will some how save the world from global warming.

It's time some folks grew up a little and recognized this for what it really is, marketing designed by powerful interests to sucker in the gullible.

A Tale Of Two Planets

It's funny, but every once in a while you can read something out there that actually smacks of the truth. It doesn't happen too much, and more often than not it's because somebody either made a mistake or just blabbed too much. Sometimes it even takes the comparison of two or more articles to tease out the real meaning of things. And that is what we plan on doing today. Because the contrast is truly revealing of the kind of cant and propaganda that often passes for legitimate debate in this town.

The cause of the situation we are about to explore today is the recent initiative presented by our City Council to find a way to cut the General Fund budget through out-sourcing some of our city services. And since the Sierra Madre Police Department will soon account for 52% of that General Fund, it is only natural that other law enforcement options be at least explored.

The first nugget of half-truth comes from the article on our possibly "contracting out for police services" that ran last Friday in the Pasadena Star News. In this piece Sierra Madre City Councilman Joe Mosca attempts to make a case for maintaining our Police Force exactly as it is today. His reason for this being the wonderful sense of community and shared responsibility they enjoy with the residents of this town.

"Having your own police department, from a community perspective, allows for the type of policing that Sierra Madreans have become accustomed to," Mosca said. "The police know the residents' names, know the folks in the community, and work with residents to make sure the streets of Sierra Madre are as safe as possible."

(Where I grew up you actually didn't want the Police to know your name. And if they did it was for reasons you wished had never happened. But that's something we can talk about another time.)

Now Joe's description here makes the current condition sound down right paradisiacal. A community working together with its Police to keep the town not just free of criminals and crime, but also to build a society based on trust and caring. The kind of synergy that most people hope for in a community, but so rarely exists out there in the real world.

And here's the comparison. Over on the Sierra Madre Weekly site there is a rather rambling letter from someone identifying themself as being a "Local law enforcement employee." And the viewpoint that "Llee" shares with us certainly does not mesh with what we're hearing from Joe. It is a rather long piece of writing, so we're going to pull out a single salient portion of this interesting and revealing post and trust you the reader to check out the whole thing on your own later. Believe me, it's worth it.

If you want officers to treat SMPD and your city as more than a door mat they use to get their foot in the law enforcement door, then pay them fairly and treat them with respect. Their equipment is substandard compared to other agencies because they do penny-pinch whether you know it or not. If you want officers to act professionally, then give them a decent wage. If you do not, don't expect them to stick around long enough to really care about your city and your problems. The citizens overwhelmingly ooze a disrespectful attitude towards police employees. I for one could not tolerate serving people like those that live in this city. High maintenance residents and business owners forcing officers to be at their beck and call is worth much more than what they're paid. Officers are required to swallow their pride, and be YES-men and women and basically do whatever the residents want. What six figure would SM residents demand in pay to roll over and put up with the BS like the SMPD employees have to?

Now I might be reading a little too much into this, but don't the accounts of Joe Mosca and "Llee" strike you as being a bit distant from one another? The first would have us think that everything is just as good as it could possibly be, while the other speaks of an oppressed force crushed under the boot of an ungrateful and self-indulgent community of privileged career adolescents.

One question that I would have for "Llee" is exactly how is this oozing disrespect shown to the officers of the SMPD? Do the "high maintenance" taxpayers here habitually stick out their tongues at our men in blue? Do they regularly assault them with haughty looks and high hat attitudes? Have there been cruel and insensitive instances of mooning? Obviously I am not clear on this point.

So is there any real truth to be found in either of these two accounts? Probably not. One is the voice of a disingenuous politician fighting to keep a 100% tax hike in place for reasons that I doubt have much to do with cops. The other an unidentified individual regurgitating a technique straight out of the Lackie & Dammeier "Police Officers' Association" handbook on how to deal with situations like the one I described earlier.

Most of the cops in this part of the world are represented by something called the Police Officers' Association, or POA. And this POA is an organization put together by a law firm called Lackie & Dammeier. These two gents, former police officers themselves, have made quite a lucrative career for themselves representing officers from towns such as ours. And they've done it by using some extremely aggressive techniques. And a few of these aggressive techniques are alluded to in "Llee's" post on the SMW website.

Here are a couple of pithy pieces of advice offered by Lackie & Dammeier:

Public Message - Always keep this in mind. The public could care less about your pay, medical coverage and pension plan. All they want to know is "what is in it for them." Any public positions or statements by the association should always keep that in focus. 

Isn't that pretty much the gist of what "Llee" says in the post made on the SMW site? That we, the civilian population of Sierra Madre, only care about ourselves? And that the needs of the Police are really of no concern to us?

Here's another nugget:

Public Ridicule - Blunders by the City Manager, Mayor, or City Council members ... should be highlighted and pointed out to the public at every opportunity.

From the perspective of "Llee" the blunder here is the City Council not paying the SMPD as much as he/she thinks they should. The consequence being the endangerment of the residents of Sierra Madre by causing experienced officers to leave for better paying cities, among other things.

So there you go, the tale of two planets. Both with their own distinct agendas, and neither willing to share their thoughts in an upfront and honest way. Obviously we need to turn our backs on both and chart a course that best serves the needs of the people actually paying the bills around here. Because if we don't this nonsense will just go on and on.

The El Monte Transit Village: Sacramento Decides To Hang On To Its Money

It looks like Titan Development could very well lose a big reason for its existence. Along with a project that SCAG showered a lot of its waning prestige upon. And the City of El Monte is not very happy about it, either. The reason? It looks like Sacramento doesn't want to fork over about $40 million in state grant money because the project's developers were arrested last month for fraud, embezzlement and theft. And then there is that money already allocated.

Imagine. So when did that ever stop them before?

The Mercury News published a story on this topic last Friday called Developer arrests could halt $1 billion El Monte transit project. And for those among us who might have despaired that

we weren't going to be hearing anything more on this affair, well, read on! It's Monday, and what better day to have your faith renewed?

EL MONTE - The $1.2 billion Transit Village project failed to get two state grants totaling $40 million because of the recent arrests of the project's developers ... John Leung, president of the El Monte-based Titan Development, and Jean Lang, another Titan executive, were arrested last month on felony charges ... "We lost the grant funding because John and Jean were arrested," Councilwoman Emily Ishigaki said.

The consequences of the loss of this money and a previous grant could include the demise of the Transit Village project.

City Manager James Mussenden said now he wants to protect what money the city has secured - a $26.5 million grant awarded last year by the state. "If this money ends up being taken away, we will have just walked 10 years backwards." (and) The state told El Monte officials on June 25 that despite having a strong grant application, that it would not be awarded the grant because of the recent arrests of Leung and Lang, Mussenden said.

Now we here at The Tattler had cynically assumed that we'd heard the last of John Leung's travails, and that because of the nature of the relationship between big redevelopment concerns, Sacramento, and the other concerned parties, this matter would simply disappear into the governmental void that devours all such things. But according to this article that is not necessarily the case, and there really is some hope for future excitement.

While Leung and Lang were previously considered flight risks, El Monte Police Capt. Marcy Vail said she doesn't think that is a problem now because the pair surrendered their passports to the District Attorney ... Three weeks ago Vail said it would only require an additional couple of days to investigate a last minute tip that surfaced while detectives were filing their case with the District Attorney's office ... But with the investigation stalled and funding apparently drying up, police are refusing to release the victim's names, and detectives continue to investigate ... "It is a paper intensive case," Vail said on Thursday. "I expect them to file again by the end of next week ..."

Now there is something here that begs for speculation. If El Monte needs this project as much as certain members of its city apparatus claim, why did their Police Department put this project in danger of fiscal strangulation by arresting John Leung? Can it be that the police there operate entirely independent of such concerns, and just go about the business of law enforcement with little regards to any of the more political concerns? Can there be something else at work here?

Remember, a large amount of cops were recently laid off in El Monte due to the City's precarious financial condition, and by taking out Laing they would have gone straight at the very core of the city and business establishments there. Very much a devastating surgical strike if that is what they're about these days.

The enquiring minds here at The Tattler will be looking for more breaking news on this matter as the week goes on.

Joe Mosca Weasels Wildly

You have to wonder if perhaps the mental health professionals might have a term for it. Reality Aversion Condition? Acute Nixonophilia? Eddie Haskell Syndrome? Weaselosis Prognosis? I should hope that there would be some form of recognizable diagnosis here, because the suffering of the afflicted is real, even if they aren't completely aware of it themselves.

Now I was seated before my computer this evening enjoying some of the usual first class reportage by Alfred Lee in the Pasadena Star News on-line, when I came across some very distressing information. Apparently Joe Mosca was once again suffering from an outbreak of whatever the condition is that I was trying to explain above. Joe's afflictions are of great concern to us here at The Tattler, and I was thoroughly disheartened to see his miseries flaring up anew.

Joe Mosca's problem is that no matter what the issue, he always attempts to take each and every side of it. And this can't be an easy thing to live with. An example would be his struggles with the issue of over-development in this town. You see, he was against it before he was for it, but he's also not for it while at the same time working to make it happen. I mean, how painful can that be? If you repeatedly tell the entire town you're opposed to over-development, yet at the same exact time you're working long and hard as the head of the very SGVCOG committee tasked by Sacramento to locally implement SB 375 (the Great Satan of high density uber-development laws), well, that really is quite a predicament. And I am certain Joe feels positively split right up the middle about it.

Another example can be found in the Pasadena Star News piece that caused me so much concern. The article, Sierra Madre eyes contracting out for police services, points right to the veritable heart of Joe's anguish. You see, what is discussed is the possibility of Sierra Madre contracting out certain city services as a way of saving costs. The driving force here, the 100% Utility User Tax increase initiated to pay for some of those services, has become unpopular as of late due to certain irregularities in how it was hyped to the voters. And Joe, keenly aware of this situation as are all Tattler readers, felt the need to leap to both sides of the issue.

If we were able to realize some savings, and we did take that step, of course that would mean the utility users' tax, which was put in place for public safety, would obviously go down," he said.

As anyone who has followed the controversies surrounding this much unbeloved tax can tell you, there has been no greater champion of holding the line on the UUT hike than Joe Mosca. So for Joe to now consider the other side of this issue as well is, if not completely unexpected, at least a bit abrupt. You can only wonder what caused it.

But hold on, because when you're dealing with Joe, there is always the fine print. And if we don't read into it carefully we could very well miss the actual meaning of what he's laying down.

Mosca added that he was against contracting out fire services, saying it was "off the table" as far as he was concerned.

Now as heroic as his standing up for our Fire Fighters may be, I detect something of a swerve here. Isn't the purpose to farm out some of the costs of running City services so that we can get some relief from the UUT hike? So wouldn't contracting out fire services actually cost us more since ours is a Volunteer Fire Department? I mean, volunteers don't really get paid all that much. Just ask the staff here at The Tattler.

Red herrings aside, the real problem is that big fat raise given by the City in 2007 to our Police and their frisky union by the floundering administration of then Mayor Enid Joffe. A singularly unfortunate and poorly executed event that would have driven Sierra Madre into bankruptcy without the UUT hike. And, as Alfred Lee pointed out, the resulting numbers are not very pretty.

Sierra Madre's recently adopted budget allocates $3.4 million out of the city's $19.8 million budget toward its Police Department in 2009-10. That would account for 52 percent of the city's $6.4 million in general fund expenditures.

So, since most of the increased costs that drove the UUT hike are due to the Police Department raise, obviously what Joe must be considering in his newly found desire to get us some UUT relief is contracting out for police services, right? After all, other cities have done it, and with some success.

Well, maybe not.

"Having your own police department, from a community perspective, allows for the type of policing that Sierra Madreans have become accustomed to," Mosca said. "The police know the residents' names, know the folks in the community, and work with residents to make sure the streets of Sierra Madre are as safe as possible."

Well there you go. Pure Joe Mosca. The only player in the game today who can stand on all 4 bases at once.

What's in it for Me?

Here at Tattler World Headquarters we pay close attention to the many thoughtful comments our readers post, and we could not help but notice a flurry of responses around the idea of volunteering.

From the always perceptive and blessedly succinct Curly:

Volunteerism is important for this community, and such service needs to be honored. But giving without grace only diminishes the effect, and no matter how hard the work becomes the thing people remember most.

From our faithful friend Anonymous, who obviously has a taste for historical accuracy (as well as parenthetical remarks):

Do any of you remember the accusatory tone taken by those who volunteer excessively in town against those who don't (I believe this was in the aftermath of the DSP workshops and during the subsequent Measure V campaign)? That somehow, by virtue of their volunteer status, their opinions should carry more weight in city decisions than those of people who are not so intimately involved in the convoluted city processes (regardless of how the rest of the city residents felt about something)? Most of those "volunteers" behave like they belong to an exclusive club - not one, by the way, I would wish to join.

From the always welcome good Doctor:

...I can think of a few volunteers who were "uninvited" to volunteer. Some committees were disbanded and some of the efforts halted because the Powers did not like the outcome of the volunteer efforts and also, in some cases, did not like some of the volunteers. So it's a badge that's really a misnomer. It's not about volunteering, it's about being included in the Power structure.

Thus in the hands of the Downtown Investors Club, in the clutches of the development realty consortium, volunteering loses it's most salient characteristic: to give without expectation of any return. It is not a quid pro quo kind of deal, unless the something you get back is deeper peace and well being because you're a part of the common good. Volunteering is not intended to be used for networking, advertising, pumping up the good old meet and greets, or forwarding any agendas other than helping to answer a need. To volunteer as a infiltration strategy, to keep an eye on the potential gain rather than on the service, is to corrupt a beautiful thing.

In addition, let's consider the irony of the Downtown Investors Club claiming exclusive volunteer street cred, while in actuality there were people who have volunteered for decades supporting Measure V, circulating petitions, and speaking up at public forums. Because they didn't pound their chests and boast about their good deeds, perhaps the D.I.C. missed them. It's flat out wrong to say that Measure V supporters, slow growth advocates, did not and do not volunteer. The pro-development movers and shakers value volunteers? What better refutation of that manipulative sentiment could there than the infamous moment when Joe Mosca told one of the preeminent volunteers of Sierra Madre to "Get a Life?"

By all means, let's all volunteer whenever we can - give freely, and with grace, as Curly put it. Our city needs us, and it is good for the soul.

But for Heaven's sake, don't brag about it.

The Debut of Mr. Maundry

A Tattler Celebration - Hip Hip Hooray

This is the 207th post of the Sierra Madre Tattler, and as such it seems fitting to mark the occasion with a retrospective. What follows are excerpts from the very first appearance of Mr. Maundry, fighting the good fight, on the "Speakout!! Forum" of the Downtown Dirt website, March 10, 11 and 12, 2007:

..........

I understand that there is a lot of passion over Measure V. And I get it that those opposed to the initiative have a tough hill to climb given the overwhelming rejection of pro-development candidates in the previous council election. And it is heartening to see people so intimately involved in the politics and governance of their town.

But I do have to say, I am becoming increasingly turned off by a lot of the name calling and smear I see coming from the anti-Measure V right. Can it be that recent election setbacks have so set you people back and hardened your hearts that you feel the need to resort to the tactics of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?

What's next, if you support Measure V you hate Sierra Madre?

Please, for the sake of some sort of comity in this town: stop the name calling. Because if all you people have is attack politics and smear, then you really have nothing at all.

..........

My vision for this town does not involve endless downtown construction, an army of guys with arrow signs touting the wonders of entire blocks of new overpriced condos (can you imagine what they'll be called? Sierra Madre Mountain View Villas? Happy Hills Homes? Wisteria Wonderful Wikiups? Gag!), Quiznos, Smart N' Final, and all the other dreary things that would slither into our lovely little town under the rubric of "trusting our city fathers."

In other words, I like things just as they are, thank you.

..........

That is at the very heart of the deception here. Allow developers to build the kind of generic LA County shopping and condo glut that we see in so many other towns and then we will see interest from all the usual suspects. And who will stop them from coming in?

After all, those new store fronts will have to be filled, right? Heavily invested landlords abhorring a vacuum and all.

Question for you: Who are the folks currently owning property in the "development zone?" Who are the folks currently in some kind of business partnerships with them? And how many of them financially contribute to this site and the "No on V" campaign?

..........

This next one is my personal favorite.

Wow, hasn't anyone told you they are already here. A developer now owns the Howie's site and another owns the skilled nursing facility. They will be developed. The issue is controlling the developers enough so they create a project that the people of Sierra Madre want. But stopping them from building even a reasonable project and forcing them to sell to someone who will build a quick profitable Quiznos or Smart n' Final. Your bumper sticker should say THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

Pete? You are aware of the rather gross contradiction in this statement, right? Saying that the developers are here and going to do whatever it is they want to do, and then saying that they should be able to do just that or they will sell out and other developers will do whatever they want to do, is a little bit too much for one poor suffering paragraph.

..........

...let me leave you all with a happy song, Certainly it is my hope that this will comfort the bruised feelings of those who were so cruelly tossed and gored by Mr. Maundry this fine Monday evening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEOeTX1LqM&feature=related

Breaking News: Cheerful Cooperation at City Council!

It was an interesting night at the Sierra Madre City Council marked by a positive air of successful negotiation - well, for the most part anyway. Following are the highlights for your obedient observer.

The council member and mayor reports were actually kept brief and to the point - a good omen, especially for those of us who remember councils past, and the confusion some members had between loquaciousness and intellectual depth. There was a call to volunteer for the Fourth of July Committee - so anyone who wants to see things done differently, there's a chance.

Mayor Pro Tem Watts made an observation about seeing some of the puzzling "Save the Library" signs in the parade. He said, "The library is not in jeopardy." Tattler regulars will recall the article Rob Stockly Fights to Save Something That Isn't Exactly Under Attack and the vigorous comments it generated. The peculiar phantom crusade was mentioned again in public comment. One resident reported receiving Stockly's perplexing email, and expressed gladness at hearing Mayor Pro Tem Watts' assurance. The always eloquent Fay Angus asked Councilman Buchanan to explain, to answer the question, "Save the library from what?" She elaborated that as Mr. Buchanan was "in the library loop" perhaps he could provide some information that would make sense. Mr. Buchanan declined to comment at that point. Ms. Angus continued to say that it was disturbing to have seen children used in this odd exercise, holding their library cards, and she was worried that they were made to feel at risk. The Mayor summed it up by saying that the manufactured controversy was "much ado about nothing."

Business owners in town will sleep easier tonight because the Downtown Overlay Zone was amended and repealed. There was a consensus that the restrictions it brought no longer served their original purpose. You'll recall that the overlay zone was put in place in July of 2005 and was intended to be in effect until the Dreadful Deceased Downtown Specific Plan was implemented (The DSP is dead, long live Measure V.) This amendment/repeal is good news for a number of business owners and so for their customers, too. There was harmony between the Council and the Planning Commission, with Councilmembers extending thanks to the PC for the great work. There was something like collegiality in the air.

A hefty portion of the meeting went to the discussion of whether or not to waive or reduce new development fees to a home builder at 679 Brookside, represented by the attorney Scott Carlson and builder Tim Hayden. Led by Mayor Pro Tem Watts, the council debated the validity of the fee study, the cumulative effects of new development on a 20 year horizon, methodologies to establish fees, fees being delegated to restricted funds - until the city attorney clarified that this agenda item was not about the fee ordinance, but rather whether or not this one project qualified for a fee reduction. The vote was 4 to 1 that it did not.

The greatest surprise of the evening came when the letters to neighboring agencies requesting information regarding the contracting of certain public safety services was discussed. These letters were written only to address some police services and paramedic services, gathering information in the effort to perform due diligence. The Fire Chief got up and asked that fire services be included in the request. Those who saw the meeting two weeks ago were shaking their heads in wonder. Wasn't the first response of some of the volunteer firemen along the lines of, "So you're kicking the fire department to the curb?" What the heck happened? It was a veritable love fest. From "fury in their eyes," as Councilmember Zimmerman put it, to this pleasant cooperation, was quite a reversal. And good for them - good for us when the council makes clear the desire to help the Fire department meet their needs, and the Fire Department works with the council. Could this be a win-win? The money sounded good - the better shape the FD is in, the more revenue it can generate, and we all want to be in on the automatic aid agreements. I must give a shout out to the skill of our Mayor. Mayor MacGillivray has keen intelligence, sure authority, and treats one and all with respect. I suspect it made a difference.

Lastly, it was great to have Fay back at the podium. She praised the firefighters, and she praised the paramedics, in that heartfelt way she has.

Yeah, it wasn't a bad meeting. It was kind of cheerful.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown Goes After A "Measure V" Style Law

Apparently the State of California is now at war with its small cities. They want to take away our property tax money to make up for shortages caused by their out of control spending, strip us of our CEQA review rights so their patrons can cram as much new development into our cities as they please without any regard to the environmental impact, while demanding to tell us how we need to do our General Plans and blueprint for new development.

It is getting to the point where the only reason for having towns any more is so that there is a name to put on the outside of Post Offices.

And now the highest legal authority in Sacramento (outside of the Adonis of the Alps, of course), has picked up the governmental axe and is personally going after a small city that has dared to trifle with the central planning authority of the all-mighty state. You can only wonder if the tanks are not all that far behind.

This from a "CBS News 5"website article from somewhere up North:

State Attorney General Brown Sues Pleasanton Over Housing Cap

Pleasanton - State Attorney General Jerry Brown announced Wednesday he is joining a lawsuit that contends the city of Pleasanton should remove a limit on new housing in the city that he called "draconian and illegal." ... The motion, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, would force Pleasanton to life Measure GG, a 1996 measure approved by voters that limits the number of total housing units in the city at 29,000 ... The state's regional housing needs assessment (Ed: RHNA #s) requires Pleasanton to provide 3,277 additional houses, apartments or condominiums by 2014, but the cap only allows for 2,000 more to be built, according to the attorney general's office."

Now far be it from me to suggest that Jerry Brown is not among the most brilliant of men to ever grace the political firmament of this benighted state, but tell me if you don't detect a bit of a crises of logic in these next two statements from our esteemed Attorney General:

"Pleasanton's draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to bumper to bumper traffic along highways 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution."

And now this:

"It's time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART."

So the people who commute to their jobs in Pleasanton have the option of using their automobiles or taking the BART commuter train. And despite the fact that the freeway trip can take up to two hours in some pretty awful traffic, those working in Pleasanton prefer their car to the train. And because Sacramento cannot convince people to leave their cars home and take that train, Pleasonton is now is to be sued into submission and plan for more housing than the people living there feel is appropriate to their town?

Of course, the chop logic being applied here is that if people can find cheap places to live in Pleasanton, they will work in Pleasanton and not commute somewhere else. And, of course, do that commuting in their cars since they hate that train the taxpayers pay so much to keep rolling.

Now if I lived and worked in Oakland, and realized that I could now afford to live in Pleasanton, wouldn't I want to raise my kids there and just commute back to Oakland every day? I would, and in a heartbeat. Can't Pleasanton be a place to commute from as it is a place to commute to? Of course it can. There is no guarantee that cramming more buildings into a city will diminish traffic. Just like there is no guarantee that building high density housing will cut greenhouse gas emissions. Quite the contrary according to some experts.

And besides, who is to say that once developers are given the opportunity to build in Pleasanton they won't charge the going market rate for their creations, thus pricing them beyond the reach of the very people used to justify the scrapping of Measure GG? Certainly wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.

I'm not sure Jerry has quite reasoned these particular koans out yet. Then again, by the time the effects of his efforts are felt in Pleasanton, the peripatetic Attorney General Moonbeam will be off exploring some new interests. If so, hopefully on a cosmic plane far and away from Sacramento.

The more Sacramento attempts to micromanage the affairs of every town and village in the state, the worse things become. And considering the wretched mess they've made of just about everything they've touched, who are they to be telling us how to conduct our business in the first place? 

After all, we're not the ones driving California off a cliff. 

The East Montecito Specific Plan

We've spent so much time has discussing the Downtown Specific Plan that we have badly neglected its more Utopian sibling, the East Montecito Specific Plan. And to continue doing so would be unfortunate because in many ways it was the more radical of the two schemes. The first was basically a dense store and condo mishmash typical of many poorly designed downtown areas. But the East Montecito ploy was different, a plan that was an attempt at social engineering designed to alter the way people live here. Concocted under the regime of Bart Doyle, and frantically pushed under its doppelganger, the Rob Stockly run City Council (the same folks that blessed us with the One Carter debacle), this would have been a complete reworking of the neighborhood, with 3 story mixed use structures being listed high among the "Encouraged Building Types."

There is an incomplete ("draft") document from 2004 on the City of Sierra Madre site that lays out the overall vision of this project. That it calls for the tearing down of the current buildings in the area is a given, with property seizures under eminent domain included in the scheme. Apparently displacing the current residents being part of the "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" philosophy of governance popular at the time. And while this draft is incomplete, what is there affords us a glimpse into how the Gang of Four (Stockly, Buchanan, Joffe, and Torres) viewed Sierra Madre at that time.

"The Plan for East Montecito is a dramatic departure from normally accepted zoning codes which seek to regulate what is NOT allowed in a certain area. This customary type of single-use planning has yielded sprawl-type development, characterized by homogenous and monotonous buildings that ignore the street and have large curb-cuts (Ed : planner-speak for front yards), little interconnectivity with surrounding neighborhoods or urban fabric, and the segregation of uses that would otherwise fit well together. This kind of undistinguished development is easily recognizable all over Southern California, and, to some degree, in certain areas of Sierra Madre.

Now most people who live in this town find it to be quite a charming place. And Sierra Madre engenders a certain pride in those who call it home. That the 2004 administration of Rob Stockly should have believed that Sierra Madre contains "undistinguished development ... characterized by homogeneous and monotonous buildings" is not only out of touch with what the citizens of this town feel, it also shows in what low regard the Gang of Four held the place. Not exactly the kind of perspective one would want from the stewards of a much beloved traditional Southern California community.

I have posted here a picture of the kind of structures the planners of the East Montecito denouement could have had in mind for that area. Similar redevelopment projects have favored designs of this kind. So how is what we see here in any way superior to what we find in Sierra

Madre now? Unless your name is Imelda and you're really into eclectically stacked shoe boxes, I think you'll agree we're far better off with what we have now.

The draft continued with its negative appraisal of Sierra Madre:

"The City developed in a fairly traditional pattern with streets, blocks, neighborhoods, and a town center gradually focused around the intersection of Sierra Madre Boulevard and Baldwin Avenue. However, some of the blocks are extremely long, double the desirable length of not more than 600 feet. One such street is East Montecito, a historically mixed-use street. Ultimately, East Montecito was zones for industrial use, leading to a current mix of housing, manufacturing, commercial uses, and empty (?) lots. The street does not currently address the surrounding neighborhood, its intersection with Baldwin Avenue ... or provide a pleasant public realm for pedestrians."

The alliterative jargon is a bit thick here ("provide a pleasant public realm for pedestrians"), but I guess if you're planning on radically restructuring a city through a centralized planning scheme as draconian as this one, the first thing you'll need to do is tell everybody just how bad the place is. And in a town as treasured by its residents as Sierra Madre, that turned out to be a difficult task.

And there is an ideological element to what they had in mind for East Montecito. The design philosophy was to be something called New Urbanism, a concept that dictates that people will enjoy living in a more communal setting than they do now, with many of the amenities of urban life giving the appearance of being shared rather than privately owned.

"The Plan embodies the principles of New Urbanism, emphasizing a pedestrian-friendly street and a diversity of building types to generate a district sense of neighborhood identity. The Plan is presented in this document through a series of chapters that describe both the urban structure and the architectural character of the street."

New Urbanism, a concept created in the later 20th Century as a way of dealing with increasingly unfashionable suburban designs, man, has had its critics of late. This from a PBS "News Hour"piece called "New Urbanism Under Fire."

"Critics argue residents care more about privacy and security than community, and that most people want detached homes with yards and multi-car garages at arm's length from the folks next door. The idea of sharing a block with neighbors who make far lower incomes also frightens some people. Critics, in short, say New Urbanism simply won't sell."

A great example of "New Urbanism" that didn't sell would be The Commons in Monrovia. This dark and forbidding pile of bricks has been forced to abandon any hope of selling the condos created there, instead having to rent the properties. And even now many of those units remain empty, along with the obligatory shops that peek out from the basements. Only Measure V prevented that from happening here.

Chris DeWolf, writing for my favorite news source for all things urban planning these days, "Planetizen," sums it up in his article "Why New Urbanism Fails"

"Unfortunately, as popular and seemingly positive as these developments are, they fail in their objective and ultimately reinforce the strength of the auto-oriented suburban environment. They are feel-good faux-towns, cosy and nostalgic developments which feign urbanity without making the effort to actually be urban ... New Urbanist towns too often commit the most heinous of urban sins: they segregate zones ... This zone segregation keeps New Urbanist communities from resembling the small towns and urban neighborhoods they strive to become. They lack organic growth and fluid blend of multiple uses that make urban neighborhoods so successful."

Perhaps it might seem a bit outre' to view it this way, but in Rob Stockly et al we apparently had fallen into the hands of some fairly freethinking and reckless people, folks willing to turn this city over to sonderbare leute with some pretty wild and crazy redevelopment ideas. Maybe the term Gang of Four really does apply here.

On the Sierra Madre attachment there really isn't a whole lot more to be found. This plan was strangled in its crib by Measure V, and any reason for completing the document became moot. We have, however, obtained some of the East Montecito plans, and will be discussing them at a future date. And there is a lot that needs discussing.

One other thing. This from the file of 2004 documents we've recently obtained regarding the Downtown Specific Plan:

"The proposed project would provide the Sierra Madre Community Redevelopment Agency the authority to use the power of Eminent Domain on properties within the 140-acre Sierra Madre Boulevard Redevelopment Project, as amended, that are designated in the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance for commercial or industrial uses. (LAC040406-01CB - Amendment No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Sierra Madre Boulevard Redevelopment Project.)

Remember how many times we were assured that Eminent Domain was not going to play a role in any Sierra Madre redevelopment projects? Apparently behind the scenes other things were happening.

Anybody surprised?

The Sierra Madre Weekly Doesn't Seem To Know Very Much About Sierra Madre

Maybe it's because few of the folks who write for it actually live here, or possibly it is just a native lack of curiosity on their part. But the Sierra Madre Weekly's grasp of what is going on in the town it is named after seems, well, tenuous at best. But then again, if you were publishing basically the same paper in 6 different towns from an office in Monrovia, and doing little more than just changing mastheads in the process, I guess you'd be a bit hard pressed in the authenticity category as well.

Here is a case in point. In the Grand Marshall selection process leading up to the 4th of July parade, there was a bit of controversy (well, a difference of opinion) on who exactly should be selected for the honor. And there really were two camps with decidedly different viewpoints on the matter. Which is fine. Sierra Madre is a town where folks care about such things. And people here understand that.

But this is how the Sierra Madre Weekly saw it:

"Despite some Bloggo-blabbermouth's claim to the contrary, there was no 'controversy' over the selection of the July 4th Parade Grand Marshall in Sierra Madre this year. In fact, the 'controversy' was only blog propelled and perceived."

Of course, what the authors of this article (most likely in part Terry Miller, the long time SMW mainstay who apparently outed himself recently as having once been a photographer for the lascivious website The Cumquat) are referring to here is something that appeared on this very blog. Though I can't for the life of me figure out who he is referring to as a "Bloggo-blabbermouth." The people who write for The Tattler are highly sophisticated artisans of the written word who deal in great ideas expressed with stunning clarity. If they didn't they'd be writing for The Weekly.

(Personally, I think Terry's umbrage here is due to his being a tad upset that we made fun of noted environmental advocate Joe Mosca and the "Green Thunder V-8 GTO" he rode in our 4th of July parade. Terry does seem to be a dedicated fan of the Councilman, and can become distraught when others don't share his enthusiasm.)

And so, as volunteers dedicated to bringing truth to the fore, we here at the Sierra Madre Tattler are going tell this as it really happened. This is a Sierra Madre story, and one that needs to be heard.

At this year's Memorial Day ceremonies at the Pioneer Cemetery, Mayor MaryAnn MacGillivray gave a speech that many who attended agreed was a first class remembrance for the service and sacrifice of the men and women who served. And there was one paragraph in particular that made a lasting impression on those listening.

"In 48 months of World War II there were 1,078,162 casualties, with 407,316 deaths, or about 6,639 Americans dying in combat during each month of the war. These are staggering numbers. And the recriminations even during the war at home from the politicians and the press were as relentless as they are today. But Americans in the field never faltered. Even after 19,000 Americans died in the Battle of the Bulge in December of 1944, and 13,000 died in hand-to-hand combat taking Okinawa, our troops persevered. Their courage and sacrifice knew no bounds. And as we all know, as does the world, without our contribution to the war civilization as we know it would not have survived - aggressive tyrannies would have controlled continents to the East and West. This is what it means to say that the dead shall not have died in vain. And, thank God, not all of our soldiers died - millions who wore a uniform survived, and some of them are here with us today."

And as she said these words the eyes of all present turned to observe the men of our Veterans of Foreign Wars post, some of whom are our last surviving veterans of the war that MaryAnn had just so vividly described. They seized their rifles, stepped up and as they have done throughout long decades now past, fired a salute in honor of the those who died in this greatest of causes.

It was then that some of the people who attended this memorial began to realize that we needed to do something to honor these men. Because if we didn't do it now, when would we ever have that opportunity again?

So a campaign was organized, and people began sending letters and e-mails to the 4th of July Parade Committee, asking them to honor the service of these men though their selection as this year's collective Grand Marshal. And it seemed inevitable to many that this would happen. How could it not?

But then no decision was made, at least for a while, nor was there any indication from "The Committee" (as they styled themselves) that this idea was in any way acceptable to them. Some of those advocating the VFW selection began to worry, and asked Mayor MacGillivray if perhaps she might intercede and move things along a little bit. MaryAnn agreed to do this, and initiated an exchange of e-mails with Matt Bosse, the head of The Committee.

Dear Matt,

I would like to nominate the VFW as Grand Marshals for this year's parade. No group could be more deserving to be honored on Independence Day than those who fought for our freedom and independence. Many of the members in Sierra Madre are going into care-giving situations and we may not have the opportunity again.

Sincerely,

MaryAnn MacGillivray

This is the e-mail Mayor MacGillivray received in return from Matt:

Hello,

Thank you for your nomination. I will bring this before the committee for consideration.

Matt

Sensing in the brevity of this reply that perhaps Matt wasn't aware of the importance of this request to many in our community, or the exact meaning such an honor would bring to our parade, MaryAnn made another attempt.

Dear Matt,

I know that quite a few people have forwarded nominations for the VFW for this year's parade. I have also learned that if they are Grand Marshals, the various branches of the Armed Forces will send a band contingent -- that would be a first, I think, for Sierra Madre. I'm sure that the committee will agree that within our community there is a no group or person more deserving of the recognition than the VFW and so in anticipation I will make the initial contact for the bands. Please let me know who the other members of the committee are so that I can share this information with them. We will not have this opportunity again.

Sincerely,

MaryAnn MacGillivray

Now you would think that the identities of the members of a committee chosen to select a Grand Marshall for a village 4th of July parade would not be a state secret, and it could be shared at least with a Mayor. But apparently this was no run-of-the-mill parade selection committee. It needed to be hidden away. Like Dick Cheney in his bunker.

Hello MaryAnn,

Thank you for your third (sic) email nominating VFW for Grand Marshals; they are a very worthy candidate for the honor of Grand Marshal, as are our 12 nominations so far. As per tradition, I will bring this nomination (along with your emails) to the committee for consideration, as has been done for the past 20+ years ... We have received 13 nominations so far, and the committee has asked me to put the nominations together for them to decide upon at the end of May. Each nominator feels very strongly and passionately about their nominee, so in order to avoid a deluge of phone calls, emails, and lobbying to each member, I am going to ask you to trust me to bring each nomination forward to the committee.

Hope you have a nice Memorial Day Weekend,

Matt

Obviously Matt took this responsibility very seriously. And committee security certainly did hold. Not only did nobody surmise the identities of this secret committee before the parade, as far as I can tell their identities are still a secret. Hopefully they have been able to return to Sierra Madre and resume normal lives here.

As we all know, The Committee, whoever they may be, did not select the VFW to serve as this year's Grand Marshal to the Sierra Madre 4th of July Parade. Instead that honor went to a very distinguished citizen of our town, Midge Morash. Midge, known to many here as Mother Nature, is credited with creating some of the wooded preserves in town, saving them from the developers' bulldozers. Bailey Canyon Park in particular serves as a monument to her caring and dedication. It is a place that I know well as it is about 100 yards from where I'm sitting now. We've hosted many birthday parties for our children there.

So that was the controversy. Some were disappointed, others apparently not. But we all got past it, and had a wonderful parade. As we have for the past 20+ years. And beyond.

The 710 Tunnel Is Feeling Some California Legislative Love

They helped give us SB 375 and a public education system teetering on the edge of collapse. They also gave us 10's of billions in dollars in debt, so large an amount that they have been forced to issue Confederate-style scrip to keep up the lights on. And who knows, the way things are going in Sacramento maybe instead of a tax refund next year they'll just send you a manilla envelope stuffed with California Lottery "Scratchers." You know, where you can win the big jackpots?

But now, just to show you that Napoleon the XIV wasn't the most insane make-believe ruler of all time, they're about to top all of their own already considerable accomplishments. The California State Legislature looks to be in the process of making the 710 Tunnel a reality. People don't want it, we can't afford it, environmentalists shudder, and some engineers think it will shatter with the first decent earthquake to come along, but hey! What's the problem with all that stuff when there's business to be done?

LA Curbed.com has now posted a story reporting that the 710 Tunnel is just sailing along in Sacramento. And the Assembly that just can't spend enough, or bend over far enough to please the construction trades lobbies (among many others), is about to maximize their madness one more time.

"A bill that would ensure any connection made between the 710 and 210 freeways is underground just passed a 10-0 vote in the Assembly's transportation committee - the third unanimous vote by a policy committee according to the office of state senator Gilbert Cedillo. The LA politician is a sponsor of AB 545, which if passed, could resolve a 50-year dispute over how to plug up the hole in the two freeways ..."

Now if we were dealing with a real government here, perhaps the cost - which apparently is staggering - would be at least considered. Particularly in the face of California's ballooning debt. But we are talking about Sacramento, so any consideration of the rational is probably inappropriate. And apparently an unidentified writer over at LA Weekly's LA DAILY blog is suffering from just such an unfortunate addiction to reality:

"An underground passage, which would involve twin, 4.5 mile long tunnels, has increasingly seemed to be a somewhat acceptable workaround to a project that has been suspended but never killed. The problem is that tunneling underground is so expensive that one wonders if the action by the Assembly's Transportation Committee was a serious gesture or, even, a maneuver intended to kill the project by making it too expensive to undertake."

Far from it for me to be droll, but I would not in any way ever think that a fear of over-spending on the Assembly's part would somehow prevent this tunnel from being built. And the next time the LA Weekly hires a writer to cover Sacramento they really need to consider someone with a stronger background in Science Fiction. 

With Caltrans, SCAG, and the usual development lobbies all lining up behind this project, my guess is passage of a bill that would push this 710 Tunnel to fruition seems assured. The real purpose behind this tunnel is to speed the delivery of products landing at the ports of Long Beach and San Pedro inland to market. And the way things are today is not at all pleasing to trucking companies, big box retailers, and the powerful foreign manufacturing countries that so generously lend this country their money. I mean, you didn't think that our being the greatest debtor nation this world has ever seen wouldn't have at least a few consequences now, did you?

The next time you are in Wal*Mart checking out the many bargains to be found there, think of it this way. If the 710 tunnel was in existence now, most of the stuff there would have traveled through it.

And the consequences of this tunnel's completion will be devastating to the San Gabriel Valley. La Canada's Valley Sun spells this out clearly:

* An increase of 25% or more daily traffic on the 210 Freeway

* An additional 30,000 vehicles per day on the 210

* Some 850 more trucks per hour (8,500 trucks per day) on the 210 than we already see today

* Gridlock on the 210 where it passes through our cities, forcing traffic onto local streets and boulevards.

And where does this information come from?

All of this (and more) is a scenario as seen by Erik Zandvliet, traffic engineer for the city of La Canada Flintridge, after he reviewed the draft "I-710 Missing Link truck Study" presented recently by the Southern California Association of Governments.

Knowing that these figures were prepared by SCAG makes me wonder if perhaps the real consequences (noise levels, air pollution, environmental impacts, traffic congestion) won't be far worse.

In a commentary piece published on the Glendale News Press's website, Bill Weisman had a lot to say about how the State Senate is working this one. I'll cite a passage, but you really should follow the link and read the entire article.

Such legislation has been introduced by State Sen. Gil Cedillo in the form of Senate Bill 1350. Among other comments, the nonpartisan legislative analyst has said "this bill provides little or no opportunity for public or legislative scrutiny prior to the award of what would be a very large, very complex, very innovative contract," and, "Given that this project has been on the books for decades, the committee may wish to consider whether a hasty review of this bill is prudent and necessary." 

With CEQA review having been removed from redevelopment considerations in SB 375, and SB 1350 informing us that as far as the 710 Tunnel goes we can just butt out, it is becoming quite obvious that Sacramento has gotten a little tired of the democracy thing getting in the way of business.

Bill Weisman also goes on to note that this bill is opposed by the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (they think it might be unconstitutional), the cities of La Canada Flintridge, and South Pasadena, and the Planning and Conservation League. The only registered supporter? A paid lobbyist named Nat Read and his 710 Freeway Coalition. In case you are blissfully unaware, Nat is a former cop who became known for writing poetry about the rigors of life in law enforcement.

So if just about everyone impacted and involved is against the 710 Tunnel, why is it in the process of being made the law in Sacramento? There is just one answer that I can think of. Only money makes their world go around. Your concerns are of little importance.

The Shmoos of Arcadia

"The Shmoo, as every literate person must know, was one of history's most brilliant Utopian satires." - The Baltimore Sun, 2002

The Shmoo, in case you are not aware, is a cartoon character Al Capp created way back there a ways for his comic strip Lil' Abner. They are the ultimate in selfless creatures, willing to do anything (and I mean anything) to bring happiness to their human masters. Here is a handy description from the always useful Wikipedia: 

"Shmoos are delicious to eat, and are eager to be eaten. If a human looks at one hungrily, it will happily immolate itself, either by jumping into a frying pan, after which they taste like chicken, or into a broiling pan, after which they taste like steak. When roasted they taste like pork, and when baked they taste like catfish. Raw, they taste like oysters on the half-shell ... They also produce eggs (neatly packaged), milk (bottled Grade A), and butter - no churning required."

Speaking of Shmoo-like behavior, we need to talk a little bit about what is going down in Arcadia these days.

There was a highly informative piece from the seemingly agenda-free Alfred Lee in yesterday's Pasadena Star News, a paper I am beginning to like more and more these days. The coverage offered is light years ahead of the crudely slanted rubbish we see in the two street rags that claim to cover events here in Sierra Madre. Here are a couple of paragraphs that will help set up where I'm going with this:

New land-use revisions call for increasing housing density: ARCADIA - Deep into the process of updating the city's General Plan, officials are trying to create land use concepts that meet new statewide density requirements and still preserve Arcadia as a "Community of Homes" ... Officials are making sure that the new land use guidelines meet the requirements of SB 375, the "anti-sprawl" legislation last year that aims to cut down on carbon emissions by requiring local agencies to minimize vehicle travel time through city planning ... "I think the update is just something that needed to be done to reflect the current conditions and goals and how we see ourselves grow, and it kind of dovetailed into SB 375," City Manager Don Penman said. "Cities are going to have to come up with plans to address that, but we're already in that process."

So I wonder what Arcadia will taste like after it has happily cooked itself Shmoo-style for the folks in Sacramento? My guess would be baloney.

One of the truly great things about the Pasadena Star News website is something called Topix. It is where you can go to talk about the article you have just read, and mix it up with other local news fanatics. I have been known to go there myself from time to time. 

Now there was a guy discussing this Arthur Lee article yesterday who just flat out kicked some major booty. He calls himself True Freedom, and he is one well-informed dude. I'm going to let his own words speak for him.

Post #4: Wiseman, you are not so wise. These policies are mandated by Sacramento. Here's how it works:

a) There is a govt group called SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments http://www.scag.ca.gov) that magically comes up with population growth estimates for the region.

b) SCAG then divvies up the growth so that each city has their "fair share," called RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers .. pronounced "reena.")

c) The city must provide in it's General Plan, submitted to Sacramento, a land Use and Housing Element that shows how the city will accommodate all this growth that is being mandated by the state.

d) The city also must provide a plan for an adequate number of Very Low Income and Very Very Low Income (these are official terms: see http://www.hcd.ca.gov for Sacko's stance on affordable housing.

e) If the city does not have a good enough plan to increase density and low income housing, the state will withhold some funds to the city as punishment. 

f) It gets worse with the newly enacted SB 375, which mandates more high density housing around transit hubs (bus stations, trains, etc) and has language that seems to suggest the state can actually sue a city if they don't comply.

Post #6: Arcadia, you must write or call your City Council members immediately to stop this. Your SCAG numbers show Arcadia has to grow from 55,000 residents to 65,000 residents. You will be stuffing 10,000 more people into your tiny city ... many of which will be very very low income as mandated by the state.

Affordable housing advocates and builders are pushing most of this growth. They are well organized powerful lobbies in Sacramento.

Single family residents are a disorganized, unrepresented group and WE ARE GETTING STEAMROLLED by the lobbies.

Arcadia has a great school system. Will it be the same after you add this new group of people?

Will your traffic be worse? Will pollution be worse? Will water usage, electricity usage, waste/trash generation be worse? Will parking be worse?

Post #8: No conspiracy theories here. This is all fact. You may want to visit the State of California's website and educate yourself.

First, try the Housing and Community Development website. They have an entire section on Affordable Housing and counteracting NIMBY (not in my backyard): http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/nimby.htm (Tattler: if you thought the CAR book was bad, look at what our very own tax dollars have bought us here! It is ugly.)

Look at the rest of the State's HCD site: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/

Look at the SCAG estimate estimate RHNA numbers for yourself to check if my assertion that arcadia will have to grow from 55,000 to 65,000 people is true. http://www.scag.ca.gov

Google "SB375" and read up on what this bill passed last September is FORCING cities to do...

Post #13: Bills like SB 375 are simply a "greenwashing" tactic to build higher density housing in the name of the environment.

Now, in completely undeveloped areas of California, if you have a choice to preserve more open/green space by clumping people in higher density housing ... this bill makes a little sense.

But, this is not our situation in LA. We will not be preserving any green space ... we will only be adding more residents.

Any idiot can see that more people crammed into our cities will increase traffic, increase pollution, increase trash generation, increase water usage, increase daily frustration, increase school crowding, and decrease property values and decrease our quality of life. And hurt the environment.

    

 *   *     *     *         *            *                    *                            *

Man, I tell you, I got to get this guy over here and writing for The Tattler. Dude has definitely got the Holy Spirit. He is wrong about one thing, though. I am not sure that "any idiot can see" all of this. I mean, there are those two Shmoos on our City Council that I don't think will ever get it.  

Is One Crater An Out Of Date Business Model?

$800,000 hillside lots in a major forest fire area might seem excessive to some, but it wasn't all that long ago when such prices wouldn't have turned anyone's head. But fashions have changed along with the economy, and now all most people can do is look up and wonder what it was these people were thinking about when they dreamed up One Crater.

The American Institute of Architects have issued a study that backs up what quite a few people have been thinking as of late. This from an article in the Wall Street Journal:

"A new study out Monday by the American Institute of Architects shows that Americans have fallen out of love with McMansions. The 500 residential architects surveyed said that only 4% of their clients wanted more square footage in their homes this year, compared to 16% last year ... This desire isn't surprising, given both the recession and the fact that the most recent U.S. Census shows that there are 77 million people in the 'empty nester' phase of life, from ages 45 to 64, and 61 million in the first time buyer category, from 20 to 34."

Of course, somebody may wish to build a 1,700 square foot home on a lot costing the better part of a million dollars, but that probably isn't likely. No, One Crater literally screams out "McMansion!" And judging by the way those babies are moving these days, it would appear that nobody is listening. Who knows, maybe the place really is cursed.

Living Near A Freeway Isn't Good For You

Friends of ours have been staying at The Stuart, the often lampooned "Transit Village" that appears to lean against the parking structure attached to the Sierra Madre Vista Metro Station. They're only staying there for 8 or so weeks while their home is refurbished, but it has been quite an education for them. Needless to say, they can't wait to escape.

One of the truly awful aspects of the place is the noise. In true transit village style, The Stuart is located right next to our local manifestation of "light rail," the Gold Line. And since the masters of our somewhat diminished destiny have deemed that things like the 210 Trolly more often than not need to be located near busy roadways, the mighty 210 is part of that ambiance. Which for those living the less than fabulous transit village lifestyle means the endless roar of speeding vehicular traffic. But apparently there is an even more terrifying aspect to living in such places. This from Discovery.com:

"As famous for its traffic jams as it is for Hollywood star power, the Los Angeles, Calif. area has another dirty secret; Air pollution is sickening pregnant women who live near roadways, more than doubling their risk of premature birth, according to a new study."

I wonder if it has ever occurred to the urban planning community that the reason people flock to neighborhoods now referred to as "urban sprawl" do so because they know that living there is healthier? And that any efforts to move people back into the befouled urban core ala SB 375 will be resisted at least in part for that very reason?

Good News For Redevelopers! Sonia Sotomayor Is An Eminent Domain Fan

Apparently Barack Obama's very first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is a property snatcher. This from reasononline:

"Property rights were probably the last thing on President Barack Obama's mind when he selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.But that hasn't stopped Sotomayor's nomination from reigniting the long-simmering national debate over the use and abuse of eminent domain ... The controversy centers on Sotomayor's voye in a 2006 eminent domain case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester. New York entrepreneur  Bart Didden says Port Chester condemned his land after he refused to pay $800,000 (or grant a 50 percent stake in his business) to a developer hired by the village. One day after Didden refused to pay those bribes, Port Chester began eminent domain proceedings against him ... As University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein put it, 'The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined.' But that didn't stop Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals from upholding the district court decision that ruled in favor of the village."

Welcome to the brave new world.

4th of July Parade Update: Joe Mosca's Green Car

Parade Update: As you may recall, there was some controversy over the choice of Midge Morash as the 4th of July Grand Marshal. Many in town thought it would be better to select our World War II Veterans, and judging by the response they got from the crowd today that would have been a very good choice. 

However, Matt Bosse's 4th of July Committee wanted someone with Green Credentials to serve in this honorary position, and Midge was chosen. Which is fine, she certainly has made some great contributions to the community and deserves to have been honored.

So after all that, what do Joe Mosca and Matt Bosse show up in for the parade? A full blown V8 Pontiac GTO "Judge." A fine automobile to be sure (dig the spoiler!), but about as far from Green as you can get without walking into the radioactive core of a nuclear power plant. 

But if the car was Green Inappropriate, at least the license plate got it right. And honestly, I couldn't have picked a better one if I'd had a week to think about it. "U Guilty." If that doesn't suit this guy perfectly, what does?

---------------------- --------  ----     --    -

I remember thinking as a kid that my favorite holiday of all was the 4th of July. Christmas was great with presents and the tree and all. Easter meant having to wear uncomfortable clothes, though I did enjoy the chocolate rabbits. Of course, birthdays are a big occasion for kids. Any event where you get that much stuff just for making it though another year is a pretty good deal.

But the 4th of July was different. It was ... relaxed. The parental units acted like us kids, as if the great weight of adulthood had been lifted from them for a moment or two. There was nothing too formal about the day, either. And for kids formal always meant trouble. Like having to sit with your hands folded in your laps listening as your elders spoke to you about the most uninteresting topics imaginable. 

But the 4th of July! Now THAT was a whole different ballgame. There was a military parade, there was the village get-together, and then there was fireworks! And ALL the family would show up. It wasn't just the individual clans parked in their houses awaiting seasonal homage, nothing like that. This was about bar-b-que, aunts and uncles, baseball games, and a million kids running amuck, screaming at the tops of their lungs. And having a world of fun because of it. Fire crackers, water pistols, watermelons, and anything else that seemed like a good idea at the time. For kids it really was all about freedom.

The 4th of July was just always so much more fun. See you at the parade!

----------------------- -------------  ---------    ---   -       -

One other thing. In the 4th of July special issue of the Loony Views News (distributed downtown just this morning so that all can appreciative its jovial and sincere brand of journalism), Susan Henderson has this heartwarming anecdote to add the the festivities:

"A year or two ago, an elderly woman (85+) with whom I became acquainted, as editor of this newspaper, angrily confronted me in the most violent and hateful manner, yelling and screaming at the top of her lungs because she did not agree with something I wrote or said ... It was frightening to hear this woman, of Jewish descent I must add ..."

Sad to think that our city's adjudicated newspaper is going down that route. 

Anyway, Happy 4th of July!

Oh, and in case you can't make it to the fireworks this year, click here. 

One Carter: Sierra Madre's Luxury Death Trap?

That One Carter remains on the wild frontier of development here in the San Gabriel Valley is a matter of little doubt to those of us who have lived in Sierra Madre for a while. We've seen the floods, and the fires, and know what the potential is for earthquake damage when one of those inevitably shows up as well. And all of these things will happen again, and much sooner than any of us might wish.

But now because of the failed nature of the development projects there, a concerted effort seems to be in the process to move the 29 so-called "luxury lots" to unsuspecting out of town customers. One reason for this being the prices are so absurdly high and we know the real value of these things. But also because the potential for natural disaster up on the hillside seems so obvious to those who have witnessed and understand the dangers. 

So in the spirit of making sure that all are aware of what the potential hazards are here, plus taking into account all the usual legal requirements the developers need to fulfill, here is the draft of a letter being prepared for the benefit of the party now in the process of attempting to sell the lots at One Carter Luxury Estates.

To: (*** involved parties ***)

Fr: Concerned Sierra Madre Residents

Re: 1 Carter Ave. lot sales / California State Disclosure Statements

 

Mr./Ms. xxxxx,

Regarding the lots that you have listed for sale, you will be required to make the following disclosures:

1 - This property has been designated by FEMA a Special Flooding Hazard Area.

2 - This property has been designated, Pursuant to Sections 51178/51179 Govt. Code: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

3 - This property is designated,Pursuant to Section 4125 - Public Resources Code - Section 4291: A Wildland Area That May Contain Substantial Forest Fire Risks and Hazards. 

4 - This property is designated, Pursuant to section 2622 of the Public Resources Code as An Earthquake Fault Zone.

5 - This property is designated, Pursuant to section 2696 of the Public Resources Code as a Seismic Hazard Zone.

6 - Et cetera: 

A) there was a murder on this property with the victim having been shot multiple times and left for dead on the site. 

B) The One Carter area is also believed by some to be an ancient burial ground of the Tongva/Gabrielino Indian Tribe. Representatives of the Tribe attended the One Carter hearings to protest development of this site. 

C) Also the upper reaches of the west and east ridge of the central canyon west of the barn/cottage were burned over in the April 2008 wildfire.

One other thing: Lest we forget, it was this City Council (see link) that enabled what would eventually become the One Carter we see today. That they did not take into account that those eventually buying properties up there would find themselves in harm's way seems both inconceivable and highly irresponsible to many living in Sierra Madre today.

It's our duty to make sure everybody knows all there is to know about the One Carter Estates properties. After all, we are The Tattler!

The Sierra Madre Tattler Endorses Betty Chu For Congress

We here at the Sierra Madre Tattler are proud today to give our endorsement to Betty Chu for the United States Congress. Betty is a graduate of USC Law School, was a founder of the East West Savings Bank, and has served as both a Councilmember and Mayor of the City of Monterey Park. This is a special election, and it takes place in less than two weeks.

Of course, as Betty Chu is running in the 32nd Congressional District, none of us living in Sierra Madre can vote for her. Which is unfortunate, because in some ways she is fighting for the same things that we are fighting for here. The rights of cities to defend themselves against the unchecked depredations of runaway redevelopment and its enablers in Sacramento and Washington DC being very much at the top of her list. This is now the sleeping giant of California politics, and Betty Chu knows that. If she can pull off an upset and win this race, it will be a tremendous victory for all of us.

Yesterday Betty held a press conference because she needed to draw a very careful distinction between herself and her opponent. This is how the Pasadena Star News reported it:

"Thirty-second Congressional District candidate Betty Chu at a press conference on Wednesday attempted to distance herself from an opponent who shares the last name ... Betty Chu sought to reassure voters she is not the same Chu who took money from a developer who was arrested on embezzlement charges ... Board of Equalization member Judy Chu accepted $1,000 from developers Jean Lang and John Leung, who were arrested two weeks ago on allegations that they embezzled $1 million from private investors."

Now where this PSN report lets us down is that it limits the Judy Chu/John Leung /Titan connection to that mere $1,000. Because, and as Betty pointed out to me in a phone call after the event, there is a whole lot more to it than that. Follow along.

Judy Chu is a former member of the California Assembly. And while she was a member there she sponsored two bills that had a direct bearing on the financing of the El Monte Transit Village project that has quickly become the reigning metaphor here for tainted redevelopment.

The first document we will examine comes from the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership. An organization that, as you will see if you follow the link, lists Bart Doyle as a member of its Board of Directors. The bill discussed here is AB 1167, which was sponsored by Judy Chu. This is how the SGVEP document summarizes it:

AB 1167 - Redevelopment: El Monte SUPPORT - "AB 1167 amends a portion of California redevelopment Law to enable the financing and development of the El Monte Transit Village, a very progressive transit-oriented mixed commercial and residential development project in the Downtown El Monte Area ... This bill would eliminate the July 2007 debt incurrence (sic) deadline, and allow flexibility for the City to carefully plan the project, and flexibility to issue and pay off debt as needed with a specific debt ceiling within the transit Village site, without altering existing pass-through obligations in the rest of the Downtown El Monte Project Area."

This blatant call for special privileges in the area of bond financing for an individual project was wisely shot down in Sacramento. But this didn't stop Judy Chu from taking a second run at seeing to John Leung's needs in this sensitive matter. A second bill, AB 2157, came to the attention of the State Assembly in February of 2006:

Summary: Allows the El Monte Redevelopment Agency to amend its redevelopment plan for the purposes of a transit oriented redevelopment project without making a finding of blight and without complying with any existing law provisions (except public notice requirements) with respect to amendments and time extensions. Specifically, this bill ... allows the City of El Monte Redevelopment Agency (RA), for the purposes of transit oriented redevelopment, to amend its redevelopment plan according to the following:

a) Without a finding of blight;

b) Extend the life of the project area indefinitely;

c) Remove the time limit on incurring debt.

d) Increase from $44 million to $65 million the amount of allowable bonded indebtedness for one or more transit oriented redevelopment projects.

e) Increases to $150 million the amount of tax increment allocated to the RA.

And this project specific funding boondoggle was shot down as well. And Judy Chu, after carrying an awful lot of water for John Leung and Titan's "Transit Village," then left the State Assembly and went on to her current position on the Board of Equalization. But that is not where this surreal story ends.

Another FOJL (Friend of John Leung) took Judy's place in the Assembly. His name is Mike Eng. Or, if you are among the better acquainted with the affairs of that side of the Valley, Judy Chu's husband. This from an article that appeared in The Mercury News:

"Though no charges have been filed against Leung and Lang, Board of Equalization Vice Chairwoman Judy Chu and Assemblyman Mike Eng - D - El Monte, are trying to keep their distance by returning campaign donations ... 'We do intend to give all of the funds back,' Eng said of his campaign committee."

Of course, it wasn't that long ago that Mike Eng, along with Judy Chu, were proud to call John Leung their very special friend. So special that Mike Eng, after he took his over wife's position in the California Assembly, reintroduced almost the exact same bill. The one that had already been shot down twice! This time it was called AB 20, and Eng boasts about it on his own website. Why? Because this time it passed.

Transit Oriented Development: This bill allows redevelopment agencies to amend a redevelopment plan to extend redevelopment financing time limits and debt limits to support infrastructure improvements of a transit oriented development in a redevelopment area.

(On edit: Apparently the information on Eng's site is dated, or he just doesn't give a damn. The redevelopment language was stripped from AB 20 at a later date, and it morphed into something called AB 1221, sponsored by Assemblyman Ma. And while it did pass, it was later vetoed by Arnold Schwartzenegger. So Titan never did get their pound of flesh.)

So why did this version make it through the Assembly and Senate? Eng - later Ma - took out the specific reference to the El Monte Transit Village and made this fast and loose method of redevelopment boondoggle financing available to all. And if it wasn't for Governor Schwartzenegger, it would actually have become law.

It would be great if the good citizens of Congressional District 32 were to recognize this for what it really is, unmistakable cronyism and the twisting of state law to suit the needs of a privileged special interest. And the very best way to do that would be to send Betty Chu to represent them in Washington DC. It would be an electoral upset that would galvanize this entire state and put venal politicians everywhere on notice that the voters will no longer stand for this kind of blatant disregard for the true wishes and needs of the taxpayers. And as bad as things are in California, we the people could really use a victory right now.

A victory for Betty Chu would be a victory for all of us living in the San Gabriel Valley. We need to do whatever we can to make this happen. It's our fight, too.

UPDATE: "Race for 32nd District not over yet" ... PSN article now up on their site. Judy Chu is hearing footsteps.

Add-ons vs. Scrape-offs

Came across a nice article tonight courtesy of the Planetizen Newswire. This is a news service that gathers together articles of interest to people concerned about ecological issues. But not the phony greenwash you hear from the minority faction of our City Council. No, we're talking about carefully conceived and thought-out presentations that are so much more than what the factotums of Sacramento lobby-think have to offer. Lobby-think that always seems to somehow end up with big development as the solution, no matter what the problem.

Now you might remember a few weeks back some of the controversy over Granny Houses, two words that had thrown the Downtown Investors Club into a dangerous fit of St. Vitus Syndrome. These humble buildings were being put forward by some of the more thoughtful persons in town as a solution to the low income housing problem our friends at SCAG had so thoughtfully hung around our necks. With Sacramento enforced RHNA numbers to make the gift just that much sweeter and endearing.

Now, of course, those who had planned to use our RHNA predicament as a way of squeezing high-density development into our quaint little burgh were aghast at the suggestion. And, with their hired cutout Karen Warner leading the way, proclaimed that Granny Houses would never be acceptable to the uber diktatoren in Sacramento, and therefore we must bow to their will and obey lest they send in the tanks.

But would you believe that Granny Housing is fast becoming a solution to similar problems all over the country? And as people wake up to the notion that high-density multi-unit SCAG monstrosities are just not the way to go in more traditional villages such as ours, they are turning more and more to, you got it, Granny Housing. And if you go to Google and type in those two little words, you'll see pages and pages of articles on just how great a solution they are to some of the problems people and cities are now facing.

In other words, Granny Houses have now become cool.

The article the Planetizin Newswire pointed me to (which led me to all those other articles on Google) is entitled "Add-ons vs. Scrapeoffs." And since it spells out the case so nicely, I thought I'd post a few paragraphs for you to check out. Please note that "carriage houses" and "granny houses" are meant to be taken as being the same thing.

"A group of Denver residents believe the city's new zoning code should allow for the building of so-called carriage houses. Following implementation of the old code 53 years ago, city officials did away with residents' ability to build what are known as accessory dwelling units. The structures carry several different names, including carriage houses and granny flats, named so because many families build them to house their aging relatives ... But as city officials are preparing to finalize the new zoning code - a draft was released at the beginning of June - a group called Friends of Granny are pushing for the right to once again build carriage houses ... Bob Sperling, leader of the Friends of Granny group, says the issue is about choice. As he watches duplexes built around him in Platt Park, he wonders if accessory dwelling units are a way to preserve single-family houses, either connected or detached from their homes, he says ... 'I believe in preserving Denver's single-family housing,' said Sperling.'One of the ways of doing that, and to cut down on slash and burn by outside speculators buying up property, bulldozing it and putting up duplexes, is to build accessory dwelling units.' ... The group acknowledges that there is some resistance from homeowners in the community who might not like the side effect of carriage houses: the possibility of an influx of renters in their neighborhoods as carriage-house owners rent out the accessory units ... But after more than three years of pushing city officials and being out in the public eye, Sperling says only a handful of opponents have raised the caution flag. He also points out that there are already at least 3,000 carriage houses in the city, grandfathered in following implementation of the old code."

The article goes on to discuss more specifics, and I recommend you punch the link and check it all out. But you see? We are not the only community that is pushing the concept, and try as they might to shoot this down, it is really the D.I.C. and their greenhouse gas emitting big ugly box building preferences that have fallen behind the times.

At the end of this article they reprinted some of the comments that had been left on the web version. One in particular, written by someone calling herself Granny, warmed my heart.

"Charlie Busch of the West Wash Park Neighborhood Association has been the only outspoken critic of carriage houses. In the June INC newsletter, she writes, 'It is hard to dispute that individuals enjoying their college years and young adulthood frequently have lifestyles that can be out of synch with those valued by many in our predominantly single-family areas.' That sounds like Ms. Busch would like to somehow prevent the renting of homes to young people in her neighborhood. Granny, however, believes that age and cultural diversity are qualities that help make neighborhoods great, and finds Ms. Busch's views offensive."

Granny? You can write for The Tattler any time you like.