It's so

I appreciate the comments from my fans (See Say it ain't so, Joe, Manteca Bulletin, 7 Oct 08 ).

I complained about the new "shopping cart law" because it punishes the victim. If a store has their property stolen, the city will fine the store and not the guy who stole the stuff. Sure, they "may" eventually find or cite the guy who stole the shopping cart but it's hit or miss. But if you're the store, then the city will punish you for "letting" your stuff get stolen. (Thank you sir, may I have another?)

A nitpicker might say the store isn't punished until they have three shopping carts stolen. True enough, but there's no time limit and really, how hard is it for a store to "lose" three shopping carts? Ever? Not very! (And to be clear -- stores don't "lose" the carts -- a thief steals them.) And the penalty would be so severe that it could bankrupt a store. Maybe tens of thousands of dollars in the form of a requirement to install all sorts of high tech gear that "might" help prevent thefts.

Pictured below, one of the "un-steal-able" shopping carts from Target, the store lauded by public officials as being the example of forward thinking. They installed the electronic high tech gadgetry that "makes it impossible to remove shopping carts from the store." As you can see, even the most humble street bum knows how to by-pass the "electronic fence." (Photo was taken yesterday -- 7 Oct 08 in Lathrop, Calif.)

I wonder who's writing this law? Maybe the people who sell those high tech expensive shopping cart theft "prevention" systems?

Wyatt compared this to the "successful" anti-graffiti law. The law is neither "successful" nor would Manteca, as Wyatt claims, "have a severe graffiti problem" without it. (This is a logical argument I like to call "my lucky keychain keeps wild grizzly bears away." Don't believe me? Here's the proof: Do you see any grizzly bears in town?)

The graffiti law threatens to fine a homeowner or business owner for the crime of someone vandalizing his property! Talk about using a bad example to prove another bad example!

(Let's just set one thing aside: I'm no fan of graffiti. I'm from a place where your forehead would be graffiti'd if you fell asleep on the subway. And removing graffiti right away is the wise thing to do. There's a psychological theory behind that but we don't need to get into that here.)

Where graffiti is prevalent, where does most graffiti appear? On homes? Businesses? Privately owned apartments? Not really. Most graffiti occurs on government structures such as schools, sound walls, highway overpasses, "housing projects," etc. Why is this? Private owners of buildings and homes don't typically tolerate the vandalism. In fact you can go down the "inner city" street and tell just by looking which business is open or which home is occupied and which are vacant just by the graffiti.

There really is no need for a law telling private people to remove graffiti and that kind of law can make things worse.

The problem with such a law comes in when things get really bad. You do occasionally see some home or business graffiti. Sometimes the level of marking and painting can be overwhelming. And if it's not being removed immediately it means the expense in time and money is overwhelming the resources of the business or home. In that case, the business or homeowner is at the end of his rope, down to his last dime, is defeated and can do no more. That is when the Manteca law springs into effect and adds fines and legal fees and threats of jail to the homeowner or business owner struggling to survive. If graffiti gets so severe that private homes and businesses aren't able to keep up, the police need to be "doing something" in a big way stop the vandalism. That is not the time to blame the home owner or business!

If such a law could prevent graffiti from being severe, Mr. Wyatt, just walk down the streets in Newark, New Jersey or North Philadelphia or "south-central" L.A. and tell those people if they would only be wise like Manteca and jail the people who let graffiti appear on their property, that would "fix the problem!"

The Manteca system only comes into effect at exactly the wrong time, after a long protracted battle with persistent vandals -- and after this battle, the government steps in and helps the vandals by putting the victim out of business or causing such financial hardship to a home owner that he can't battle the vandals. In today's economy, their home may be lost. Then you'll see some graffiti!

This is the same for all these "blame the victim" laws -- they lie dormant for a long time, usually no one is affected by them. So they seem like no big deal.

While we're at it, lets look at a few other Manteca's "Blame the Victim" laws:

Example: The Bank of Wyatt lends money to Joe Citizen, and Joe buys a house. Joe doesn't pay the money back to the Bank of Wyatt like Joe promised. Who does Manteca punish? The Bank of Wyatt! It's somehow your fault for lending him money and now you can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is the Manteca way of fixing the "foreclosure problem."

Another Example: Dennis Responsible is a law abiding citizen who drives carefully, has a valid drivers license, registration, insurance. Joe Criminal drives carelessly, doesn't have even have a license and never heard of insurance. Which one does Manteca punish? Mr. Responsible (of course!) if one day he is distracted and makes a right turn without genuflecting properly. But not Joe Criminal, he's exempt! (That's right, the Manteca Red Light cameras ignore any violations if the computer can't find valid DMV data -- the police and the system makers admitted that in the public record.)

Need another example? Mr. Smith has a bad neighbor. His neighbor is always having fights and calling the police. Smith applies for a business license and is denied. His crime? There's someone near him who's poorly behaved. This is how the Manteca method of approving business licenses works, especially if it involves the sale of beer or wine. The police actually give a report about how many police calls there have been "in the area" and if there's too many, they call it a "high crime area" and take away Mr. Smith's right to have his business. They don't blame the people who actually do the crime, they punish the guy who tries to make life better by opening a business.

I guess I could go on about how it's become popular to "blame the victim" and Manteca is not alone, this is the new way of "fixing things." The definition of "fixing things" to the government is making life easier for a government unable to actually fix anything, not making life easier for you!

p.s. By the way, what's this about getting too much camera time? Well! Coming from a guy who prints a photograph of himself on the front page of every issue of the newspaper that's quite a compliment. Although it is a really nice picture.

p.p.s And I didn't even comment on Councilman Harris saying he wishes the trash trucks would just roll around town and pick up the carts and crush them! Thank you, government of hot heads, for caring more about your own image and the "image" of the city over the protection of property --one of government's three primary functions. After all the Constitution doesn't say government is to protect "life, liberty and a nice looking street..."