The power of one, part II

Now we see the real power of one, finally.  Here in this video clip.

This occurred after the harassment at my seat in the back for roughly 5 minutes, the “guy” chasing me around causing a disturbance and after I asked for simple clarification “Am I allowed to film here, yes or no?”  Which no one would answer.  (Except “the guy” who had no authority to be harassing me and telling me not to film.) 

Notice after all this, now a 2nd Harmer staffer is stepping in front of me.  The original guy hasn’t given up, and now also Sara Blicharz is moving in front of me to obstruct and interfere with me.  That’s at least three “after me” not including another nondescript fellow moving around the place with some urgency.

Now, in this video we pick up as the 2nd Harmer staff, the first harassing guy and Sara Blicharz attack.  At this point, one courageous citizen has the guts to stand up and ask the obvious:

Why are you bothering this guy?  Everyone else is filming; there’s a fellow filming right there (points to the center) who’s been sitting there filming the whole time….

He didn’t get much of an answer; but the question was enough. 

And guess what, the harassment stopped.    This ended the incident for practical purposes.  Suddenly no one cared what I did or where I sat, no one bothered me.  This is after telling the harasser didn’t work; telling the Harmer team didn’t work.  Talking to Blicharz didn’t work.  The power of one man’s objection was the only thing that meant anything.

Note the calm at the end of the video.  hmm.

By the way, I’m sorry for so many “guys” in this story and so few names.   I count “guy1 thru guy4” And I think I do know the guy who stood up for me he was familiar, but I just can’t be sure the video is unclear.  But I’ll be sure to thank him when I see him next.

Oh, and just to answer one more question I’ve been asked why didn’t you simply ask if it was ok or not.  Well, I did.  Here.  Note how Blicharz carefully considers my question, fully investigates my complaint, and politely explains….  (cough)

This clip is just a minute prior to the above clip.  I’ll… just let it speak for itself.  Viewer discretion is advised, due to it’s content, this video is not suitable for viewing.  By anyone:

Previously, part I here.

Questions? What questions? What ordinance?

Just for the record.  I sent a letter to the city council with a list of questions about the new “code enforcement” ordinance.  You know, the one that turns Manteca into a giant homeowners association.  There was no response from any council member.  That was over two weeks ago.

At the meeting I asked if any had received my questions.  The City Clerk verified that “her staff sent a copy to each member.” 

I also asked if any of the council members had read the law they were voting on.  None of them, as best I recall, said anything definite about having read the text of the proposed ordinance.  In other words, they were voting on something they had not read.

After I left the podium the mayor was kind enough to acknowledge that he remembers getting my thoughtful letter but that “I didn’t read it.”  I’m sorry for wasting His Honor’s valuable time.  I’ll include pictures next time.

6 candidates vie for chance to unseat McNerny in District 11

Manteca Live attended the South San Joaquin Republican meeting January 11 to hear from the 6 candidates (so far) hoping to get the chance to unseat Democrat Jerry McNerney in Congressional District 11 this November. Usually held at Chez Shari Restaurant, this gathering was hosted by Crossroads Grace Community Church in Manteca. There was a large crowd, at least several hundred people, and the mood was a far cry from the depressing SSJR meeting a year ago after the 2008 election.

SSJR President Frank Aquila did a fine job organizing the event and the debate format was well-done. Each candidate was given 2 minutes to make an opening statement, then questions were divided into three groups with each candidate getting 1 minute to answer each question. I think the first group of questions came from the SSJR, the second group of questions came from the candidates themselves (previously submitted) and the third group came from questions previously submitted by the general public which were randomly drawn by the candidates. The topics covered a wide range of issues including the economy, the war and foreign policy, the UN, the military, health care reform, taxation, immigration and (unfortunately) abortion and gay marriage. After the debate, the candidates stayed and talked to anyone who was interested.

My first impressions:

David Harmer - A little stiff and rehearsed, maybe too removed from the issues of the Central Valley since he lives in wealthy San Ramon in Contra Costa County. Held up several books he wrote and one on Ronald Reagan written by his father, former California Lt. Governor John Harmer. Had a big colorful chart of the bureaucratic nightmare healthcare reform will create. Nice props but I wasn't real impressed with his answers, reminded me of a career politician.

Tony Amador - Former LAPD patrol officer and US Marshal, currently resides in Lodi. Seems like a nice enough guy but in my opinion, he has too much union involvement for him to be a good representative so I won't make any other comments.

Elizabeth Emken - The only woman in the group, sort of Sarah Palin-like, well-spoken, has a degree in economics (a big plus). Lives in wealthy Danville in Contra Costa County, but seemed well-informed on most issues. Left out Representative Michele Bachmann when listing Republican women in congress that she admires and that disappointed me.

Brad Goehring - Cocky and sure of himself, told the audience several times that he was wealthy enough that he didn't need the job of congressman for the money. He also boasted that he has the endorsement of many in local government (including Manteca mayor Willie Weatherford), which is reason enough not to vote for him. Couldn't name any Republican members of Congress. Born and raised in Lodi, currently resides in Clements.

Robert Beadles - Young and a little rough around the edges, seems earnest, resides in Lodi. He was distracted by recent troubles with the law when the police searched his home and business and arrested him for possession of stolen property on January 4. There is some evidence that a competitor reported him to the police to damage his business and his political campaign. He was subsequently released, not charged and his property returned. Wants to make a difference and probably should start off running for local office instead of aspiring to national office on his first try.

Jeff Takada - Takada, a graduate of East Union High School, is the only Mantecan running for congress. Young, intelligent and well-spoken, he garnered the most response from the audience out of all the candidates. People responded to his humor and spontaneous applause interrupted several of his answers. He named former presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul as someone he admired and, being a Ron Paul fan myself, this is a definite plus. Down-to-earth with good ideas, he could be a dark horse in the race.

There was some drama towards the end of the debate when Robert Beadles gave his closing comments and recounted the raid by police on his business. A collective gasp arose from the audience when he turned to Brad Goehring and asked him to "do something about this" implying that Goehring was behind the accusations that he had stolen property.

You can visit each candidate's official website by clicking on their names.

Plunder!: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation - Book TV

Don’t miss this talk about government unions.  The author is from California.  Note how many things sound familiar: from issuing edicts on Friday afternoon and voting then into law on Tuesday night to how we are getting less and less government “services” for more and more taxes we pay.  And how the union’s plan is to simply keep raising taxes – forever.   From the website:

Steven Greenhut takes a critical look at government workers and the unions that represent them.  Mr. Greenhut argues that government employees, who receive salaries, benefits, and a level of job security that far outpace workers in the private sector, have become a huge drain on state and federal coffers.  He spoke at Barnes & Noble Booksellers in Orange, California. 

Economics - Plunder!: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation - Book TV

Click on the “watch” link on the right side of the page to view the video of the presentation.  It’s about an hour.

Thanksgiving in Manteca

 
Man, Manteca, Calif. Nov 2009.

The trick to “hide the decline.”

I thought this was an interesting development.  Some “hackers” (or more likely some insider) exposed the files and emails from some preeminent scientific institution being funded to “find evidence of Global Warming®.”

I wonder if the whole thing could be the greatest scandal of modern science. 

I note that in a Manteca city council meeting the state forced us to comply with some sort of measures in our “housing element” that would “reduce greenhouse gases.”  Whatever they are.

But you know, the great minds in the State of California often want to be “the first” – to lead the world.  And in the process they tell us what kind of houses we can build and where and what sort of roads to have and were the bus routes should go.  No matter what this does to our economy. 

So while the rest of the world cancels the Copenhagen summit and is glad they didn’t fall for this Global Warming® thing, we in California rushed to saddle ourselves with regulation that will help make us poor poorer and won’t do a thing for “the earth.”  But we’re leading the way!

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

Pumpkins

That last thing from the city manager was kinda depressing, so let’s just look at some pictures from last week’s Pumpkin Fair.

 

      

Pointless bickering tests endurance

Amid the heat and mental pressure of a council chamber packed with angry policemen, a woman fainted, briefly causing a break in the pointless, childish, hyperbolic emotional “debate” over pay adjustments for city workers.

I guess technically this was before the pointless debate, as the meeting was still an agenda item at the time, a plan to upgrade the public works garage.  This presentation was so searing-ly boring that it’s a wonder someone doesn’t drop every meeting. 

(The young woman had, it appeared, simply fainted and walked out with assistance.  It was very warm in there, and it was packed with people.)

Below, Manteca citizen does a pretty respectable Norma Rae

Teacher attacks citizen at board meeting

In this video, Ken Johnson, the head of the teacher’s union is speaking.  I follow (with the camera) Mr. Johnson back to his seat to film the audience and applause.  A woman sitting next to Mr. Johnson yells something at me.  I got the idea she didn’t like the video when she hid her face behind some papers.  Next,  I’m trying to film the events (the union leader) without getting the woman who doesn’t like being filmed in the frame.   Then Mr. Johnson comes over where I’m sitting and goes back to his seat, next the woman comes over from across the room and starts yelling at me some more and smacking me with her papers/book and her hand!

I apologize for my impolite words, I tend to be a little short when someone chases me across the room to hit me with their papers.  Although you’d think by now I’d be used to that.

Manteca Fire to charge a fee?

This week the Manteca Fire Department is proposing they be permitted to charge (actually, bill) people from “out of town” who get in car accidents in Manteca!

The proposal is riddled with problems:

1. The department notes that California law permits charges for certain services but it’s a bit more nuanced. The accident has to be caused by negligence. And while I’m sure most accidents are caused by someone’s negligence it’s often hard to figure out who. Now the fire department claims to have some method of determining fault?

2. There’s no provision in the law for provincial discrimination. In other words, there’s nothing that lets them charge one guy and not charge another guy depending on where they live.

The rationale they glibly suggest is that people in Manteca already pay taxes for the fire services and presumably “outsiders” don’t. But that is not so. Actually, anyone who stays at a hotel, fills up with gasoline or stops for a meal in a restaurant or buys a stick of gum in Manteca pays some taxes.

Is that enough to pay for fire services? Probably. Consider the entire public safety budget, and consider how long it takes a car to pass through Manteca’s jurisdiction on Hwy 99 or 120. Something like 90 seconds to 180 seconds. And when you figure it all out and divide the public safety budget by the number of minutes in a year, it comes to about a dollar a day, or a fraction of a penny for a passing through. If someone stays at a hotel, they pay about $10 in tax, enough for more than a week of public safety. I don’t want to get bogged down in numbers too much; but it’s obvious that many visitors do pay enough in Manteca taxes. And maybe everyone does.

Because, one could argue that for the small amount of time one passing through Manteca uses, (a minute or two of fire and police protection) they have already paid that in taxes paid to California and to the federal government. Based on my back of the envelope calculation, if Manteca takes in $1.8 million in federal or state aid or grants, then everyone in the United States has paid enough to the City of Manteca to cover the cost of providing life saving services for those who pass through.

3. What kind of a public relations disaster this would be! The city is trying hard to promote itself and encourage people to visit. How will it help our reputation once it gets known if some crazy Manteca driver causes an accident not only might you be hurt but the city will send you a bill! Our new slogan will have to be “Come to Manteca so we can bill you if we have to save your sorry ass.”

4. Maybe we should only charge people who reside in a city that would charge us if we were in their city and got in an accident! Fortunately, there are few cities that do this. Most cities save the lives of Manteca residents when they are visiting or passing through. Our way of thanking them for that is by charging their residents?

5. The charges are outrageous and arbitrary. Anything from about $500 to go out to the scene of the accident and do nothing, to over $2000 to essentially do nothing but watch a helicopter land and med-evac someone. Granted there’s an in-between charge of about $1800 if they have to use the "jaws of life” to pry open a door to get you out of a wreck. Now I have one more thing to worry about if I’m trapped in a wrecked car; if I’m still conscious I’ll be thinking “what is that thing costing me?… Maybe I can just crawl out the back window, just give me a boost….”

6. I saved the best for last. This company they are thinking of hiring brags on their web site how they collect at such a high rate, much more than anyone else. How do they do it? They won’t say. It’s a secret method, we’re just supposed to authorize that.

God only knows what they do! Do they call up and demand money? Do they threaten? Do they “forget” to mention that you have a right to contest the charge? Do they say they will sue? (They aren’t authorized to bring lawsuits.) Do they send out the goon squad who remarks what a shame it would be if your kneecaps were to “get in an accident like your car?” Who knows!

But one thing we do know. The City Council should not authorize a third party to do some secret thing they won’t tell us. Do I need to say it again? A public relations nightmare!

One stop permit center opens

The long awaited “one stop” permit center has opened in Manteca.  Included in this video is the wild opening gala and interviews with customers about their experience and comments from various city officials.

In addition, in this video I ask the chief of Manteca Transit (bus service) about how the new bus route is working out. 

BLD isn’t a drag on budget??????????????

Manteca Bulletin's editor asserts Big League Dreams “pays” the city $380,000 a year! Saves $500,000 in “maintenance.” And the money given to BLD, about $31,000,000, came from a magical pre-existing “pool of money” that’s “not being paid back.” (Yet in the next sentence he says all RDA funds are “borrowed.”)

I want to hear more about this magical pool filled with money that has been discovered in Manteca. I’d like to go for a swim. Especially if it’s money you don’t have to pay back.

How can the city officials make such an outlandish claim, you ask? What they mean is that there’s not a budget line item called “pay back the loan for BLD.” Therefore, that particular money isn’t actually being paid back out of some fund that they decide “counts.” But make no mistake, when you borrow $31 million, it has to be paid back. That “paying back” may occur at some stage and under some convoluted structure before the money reaches the city general fund, but it still costs just as much no matter what word games are used to snow the council and the public.

By the way, about how much is this loan pay back every year? Just estimating with a financial calculator and the current bond rates, the loan payments (debt service) for BLD is somewhere in the range of $1.7 to $1.9 million each year.

The city officials, with the help of the Bulletin, hope you’ll be bamboozled with large numbers. So let me break it down for you:

Let's say you open a pizza shop. You rent the store front and pay employees. The rent and employees costs $1,900 a month. You sell $380 worth of pizzas. Have you made money? Well, you could say you took in $380 or use some other evasive language. But, in fact, you would be losing money, you wouldn’t even be able to pay the rent with the amount of pizzas you sold.

The editor would have us believe that only “critics” of the project count the loan payment, and proponents of the project count the “income.” As if the numbers depend on your feelings. The BLD costs $1,900,000 a year and “brings in” $380,000. Those numbers add up to a loss of over $1.5 million each year and it doesn’t matter if you “like” the BLD or if you’re a “critic.”

I haven’t even gotten to the crazy claim that it saves the city $500K in “maintenance.” First of all, look at how much BLD budgets each year for maintenance. The last time I saw their budget, which was a few years ago, it was just a little over $100K. That’s like your boss asks you how much you spent on gas to go on a business trip, you spent $100 but you tell the boss you spent $500.

But more importantly, the “savings” isn’t a savings at all. Building the thing incurred the cost of maintenance (i.e., if they didn’t build it there wouldn’t be any maintenance costs!). In addition, the logic is wrong, it’s simply a mental construct….

I would explain more but I have to go out and mow the lawn. In fact, I’m saving the city $100/month by mowing my lawn. After all, that’s what it would cost the city to mow my lawn, so I’m “saving” the city that money. hehehe

BLD isn’t a drag on budget

Citizens’ advisory committee

Meeting of the "citizens advisory committee" on 16 Jul 09. Briefing on current state of the economy, city government. One citizen pronounces judgment on presentation (near end of video) hehehe.

Manteca 3rd of July parade

Enjoy highlights of the Independence Day - eve parade!

The government will "cease to exist?"

The editor of the Manteca Bulletin has a good idea recommending "no" on all the May 19 special election ballot measures. But I don't know what to make of his statement that if they don't pass "California government as we now know it will cease to exist." There's nothing in the measures that would cause the government to "cease to exist." At most, if you vote "no" it would cause the legislators to have to rethink things and start paying reasonable prices for government "services."

The real clue in in the first measure which couples a promise to spend less with extending the new tax increases beyond two years. Think about it, they are saying "we promise to spend less, so please give us more money; trust us, just give us more money and this time we'll spend less." Nonsense! If they are going to spend less, then they don't need more tax money!

The only measure I'm still thinking about is it might be an idea to re-purpose the special "mental health tax." I'll get back to you on that....

nice tree in the middle of the road.

By my reckoning, the residents of the "Union Ranch" development voted 178 NO and 38 YES, thus approving the special tax to pay for the trees in the street. (I observed the back room counting at last night's city council meeting.)

You read that right. The large majority of residents voted NO. Yet it was approved. Why? The answer is that one person had the power of 1,018 votes because he was much wealthier than anyone else. You see, in the formation of special districts, one man doesn't have one vote. Under edicts of the People's Republic of California the number of votes you have is determined by the value of the property you own.

The "rationale," if you want to call it that, is that the rich man pays more in taxes, so he should have more say. And, in fact, the tax is based on the value of the property. But it still seems downright un-American. And it is, especially the way these districts usually work in the real world of land development.

It was only because of a bureaucratic snafu that the election made news with residents attending the council meeting complaining. Normally, the way the city likes to do things is that they hold the "vote" before a single house is sold. That way, all the parcels are owned by one person (the developer) who votes yes and it's recorded at "100 percent in favor of the special tax" for that area.

Then, we are told, people moving in are "fully disclosed" about the fact that the developer voted for a new tax that you, the new home owner, are obligated to pay. I don't know why I didn't think of this convenience sooner, I think I'll ask the local rich guy to vote for me all the time and save me the trouble of actually deciding anything.

We didn't even get into the issue of how the developer is "forced" to cast his single powerful vote under threat by the city. They usually include language in the "development agreement" that lets them revoke or deny building permits unless the developer exercises his free will in this free and fair election and votes the correct way.

Welcome to democracy California style.

---
By the way, there's a story on this issue in the state run news service. Also I've visited Union Ranch and it looks like Disneyland on acid or the planet that shot spores at Spock and turned him emotional.

School district pay chart

(Courtesy Manteca-Lathrop Sun-Post, 6 Feb 2009, pgs 12-15)

The chart is readable if you click on the image to show it full resolution.

This chart is distributed on a need-to-know basis*.

*Those who have a desire to remain ignorant of how your government works do not have a "need to know."

Handy city pay chart

Here's a handy email-able version of the city pay chart for those who may have missed it.

(courtesy of the Manteca-Lathrop Sun-Post, 30 Jan 2009, pgs 12-13)

The chart is readable if you click on the image to show it full resolution.

Main screen turn on.

This is a view inside the school district's new office building. I was just joking earlier about there being a penthouse control room -- but now I actually got to see this!

Top picture is the foyer outside the superintendent's office. I was expecting Mr. Messer to bark out for Dee to "open a hailing frequency to Lathrop High" and put them "on screen!"

If you notice, the display is colorful and on the left depicts some kind of schedule of meetings, with a news crawl below that (general news, like you see on CNN or Fox news); the right side has video of some local event, below that is a map of the building and an animated "you are here" symbol; below that is the weather report and clock and calendar. All electronic. All those feeds aren't cheap either!

Pictured below is the first floor common area. Shown is school board trustee Nancy Teicheira(L) getting some guidance from the screen. I did ask about the cost of this boondoggle and how the district could afford such a thing and yet couldn't videotape the meetings and she just "shrugged" and nodded I think in some agreement.



(Darn I had the shutter on 1/1000th from outdoors that's why the screen looks a little odd but it's identical to the one on the 3rd floor)

Don't blame us

Here's an excerpt from the Manteca City Council candidates forum. Councilman Snyder outlines a narrative where whatever problems we have they are caused by outside forces, "the economy" or things over which "we have absolutely no control."



(And I don't mean to pick on Councilman Snyder because I think he's one of the more wise members of the council -- and this idea that "the problems are not our doing" has been expressed more or less by all the local politicians.)

But is this really true? Here are some graphs for you:

First, Millville, New Jersey:

Next, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Notice the similar graph:

And finally, Manteca, California:

Who says economic policy and the damage done by "planning departments" don't have a negative effect on people's lives? It's not "the outside forces" -- that's just an excuse. We are responsible for the world we create.

p.s. The candidates forum will be re-broadcast on comcast channel 97 at 6pm tomorrow (Monday, 27 Oct 08)