From “Enforcement” law:

Here’s page 7.  Read the second paragraph “Authority to Inspect.”  You thought I was kidding?  (click on image to enlarge)

Enabling law on agenda tonight

There’s an odd item on the “consent” calendar at tonight meeting of the Manteca City Council called Administrative Enforcement Provisions.  (Consent Item 12 CC)

Only the introductory remarks are on the city’s website.  The PDF file doesn’t include the actual language of the new law.  But after obtaining the actual text, a couple things got my attention:

• The law involves “code enforcement” and claims to be needed to protect the “health and safety” of the people of Manteca.
• Section 1.10.040 – Authority to inspect.  Grants just about any city employee the authority to enter upon any property or premises within the city to ascertain whether … this code, … uniform codes, or … state codes are being obeyed.
• In other words, the code enforcer doesn’t even need a reason or any suspicion of any violations.  He can simply demand entry to any home or business in Manteca at any time?
• The code enforcer is permitted to set up scientific equipment and take photographs and to take “samples.”  In other words, he can enter your home, take pictures, and if he sees anything interesting, he can simply take it?
• If you refuse to permit entry, they can attempt to get an “administrative inspection warrant” and then charge you a fee for their trouble.
• The procedure for administrative hearings ends with failing to comply with the administrators decision is a misdemeanor.
• Further, a companion ordinance will establish a $100, $200, and $500 fine for every citation.  In the definitions a citation is a document issued by an enforcement officer … for violating … this code or … state code.  You don’t get a hearing, you don’t get to plead your case to a judge, the “officer” can simply look at you or look at your home, and issue you a fine. 

I don’t usually write things before the meeting but this law is so outlandish, I don’t even know what else to say about it it’s shocking.  Has the constitution been repealed and I wasn’t notified?  I’m still reading.  I urge you to find out about this regulation and tell the council what you think.

Police focus on Club Leon

The public hearing about Club Leon’s permit for operation was put off a few months ago. This week it comes back for consideration.

Since then, the courts have ruled that if you permit a bar then you have to permit live music. Live music is a right; it’s a form of expression protected by the first amendment.

Nevertheless, the police chief is still opposing the renewal of the permit. He cites “incidents” since they last met. One was a call from an unknown person about “noise.” (One noise complaint in a year? That’s fantastic!) And the police drove through the parking lot and … hold onto your hat… they found a drunk. And guess what, they did the same thing a month later, they found yet another drunk near the bar or in the parking lot. What a crime wave. In a year, that would be a dozen drunks found in the parking lot.

By the way, there’s no result of any investigations in any of these “incidents.” Maybe the noise was coming from a car stereo? It does seem like an odd claim since anyone can go there any night they are open and see if there is “noise.”

Oh, and someone “discovered” (That’s what the report says, as if they unearthed a dusty old zoning map from Joshua Cowell’s sarcophagus) that the zoning is “community commercial” and for some reason a bar and/or dance hall needs a permit. But all of “downtown” is the same “CC” zoning. Including all the bars, restaurants, and the M.R.P.S. hall where they presumably dance and sing. So the zoning is a non-issue.

I’ve previously commented on the other issues. If anything, the courts have spoken and it makes no sense to single out Club Leon for punishment. In fact, in light of the vast improvements they have made, they should be commended.

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. 

Office of behavior modification

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the phrase “we” (who’s we?) “have to get people out of their cars.” Usually it involves not funding road repairs and funding a high tech bus station (multi-modal station) instead. Or creating a subsidized bus service that travels two miles through Manteca and costs roughly $25 each trip. (The passenger pays $1, the taxpayer pays the rest.)

How many times have we heard about incorporating “smart growth” into something they call the city’s “general plan?” It’s about fighting something called “sprawl” and its evil proponents, “the developers.” Here, the “sprawl” is defined as what occurs precisely after the point in time that I move in to an area (i.e., sprawl-fighters want to move to an area and build a home for themselves, but it’s “sprawl” if anyone else does the same.)

Paradoxically, Manteca has a set of regulations outlawing building small houses and using less than a minimum amount of land while simultaneously providing taxpayer money to certain builders if they build below that minimum. It's called “high density.” Remember “density” is the inverse of “amount of land used.” So the city outlaws building on small lots, then wonders why people aren’t building on small lots, then decides to fix the problem by paying a developer to build on small lots.

Manteca also complains about traffic congestion. And at the same time it builds speed bumps, “bulb outs,” wide medians with trees in the middle of roads, and caps roads with dead ends just yards from the cross street so that road can’t be used to relieve traffic congestion. The policy is to force you to use the congested road. Then they do “studies” before giving out building permits and charge homebuyers huge extra taxes to fix the “congestion” they say they “cause.”

Come to think of it I think I just answered my own question. It’s the “cycle of money/laws/favors” in Manteca. But that really wasn’t the point of this entry, I just found the following article by George Will interesting:

Why Ray LaHood Is Wrong Newsweek George F. Will Newsweek.com

Words from the commissar

If you want to see the most elitist, arrogant argument ever made by a public official, check out the video of the Stockton City Council meeting. They voted to start the process to "keep Wal-Mart out of Stockton." View the video here. And also, this argument is the next runner up for "most ignorant commentary."

We bring you ... order!

One phrase that keeps coming up at planning meetings and council meetings and board of supervisor meetings, and in propaganda from the various ministries is "orderly growth." The way it's usually used is "the purpose of the ordinance (or zoning or the commission) is to encourage 'orderly growth' in the community." Every time I hear that, I want to jump up and ask them what in the hell that is.

Well, now at least we have a clue. Here's a story about "orderly growth's" evil and opposite twin, "haphazard growth!"

In fact, the reporter tells us this is an "object lesson" in haphazard growth. Theme alert: notice the words 20th century and growth patterns mentioned? The narrative of that theme goes something like this: All these GI's came home from WWII and they "needed a place to live" so crafty fellows like Levitt built these terrible little cheap boxes scattered hither and yon and thus condemned a generation to an existence in suburban banality and sprawling isolation. A lot of newspaper editors repeat this tale a lot. Perhaps to convince us of something. Personally, I don't buy it but that's another story. For more reading about 'the burbs' and how "sprawl" might actually improve our lives, read David Brook's On Paradise Drive.

Far from condemning past haphazard "building out" of Sacramento, this story is an object lesson in how poorly these planning commission make decisions. Or, at least how much worse the decisions made by commissions is than the choices freely made by individuals.

Notice another theme: Sacramento "build out?" Does Sacramento build things? Or do people build things?

We're being told that this little strip of land has been "blighted" and unused because "no one ever bothered to change the zoning..." Well, who exactly was responsible to decide what should be there? Doesn't someone own this land? Is the owner happy with it? Does the owner want to sell it? We'll get back to that.

The rest of this article is the same song and dance about "housing prices" and some ad copy from the house builder. (1,350 to 1,765 square feet!... priced from the low $200,000s to the mid-$300,000s!)

We are told, eleven of the "units" will be "sold below market rates?" Doesn't anyone notice that's technically impossible? Whatever you sell something for is the market. What they mean, but don't want to say is they are going to use money taken from you (taxes) to purchase the "units." It makes the developer sound a lot nicer, like they are giving something away to the poor -- like a charity, to phrase it they way they did. But what they are really doing is taking from you to enrich themselves. In other words, they sell the house for full market price except that the poor person pays some of it, and you the taxpayer pays the rest of the cost. Either way, the developer gets his full profit. That sounds a lot different than the way it's presented in The Bee story, doesn't it? The Bee reporter makes it sound like the developer is some kind of humanitarian who's giving away houses to the poor at lower cost. Interesting how propaganda works, isn't it?

Let me get back to the main idea here, and I don't think I've explained it too well. What is wrong with this idea of "haphazard growth" vs. "orderly growth." The Bee article implies the assumed party line, that "haphazard growth" is bad and what causes "haphazard growth" is that old post-war idea that you should just be free to build where you want. In other words, see how bad things were before there was a planning commission to tell you where to build a house and what you can do with your own land? You see, we are told, back in the olden days, evil or dumb people would just selfishly build things on their land where they wanted. And see what problems this causes?

Except that all this "haphazardness" was caused by government regulation, not choices in the free market. The article admits it's the "zoning regulation" that was the problem. But they never ask the obvious question, why do we even need a zoning regulation? What would happen if there was no such thing? Heresy you say? Do you know there are places, including some major cities in the U.S. that don't have any "zoning?" And, surprisingly, the "patterns of build out" turn out to be just about the same, or better than the "planned and orderly" growth dictated by a commission. (Example, Dallas/Ft. Worth Texas). Still don't believe it? Then how was just about the entire nation built without zoning boards? The first zoning laws didn't appear until the early 20th century and weren't widespread till just a few decades ago.

The answer is that the free market, i.e. choices made by individual people looking out for their best interests results paradoxically in what is best for the entire community. (See "Adam Smith")

I'll just leave you with this to think about. In all the words in that article, why isn't one simple question answered? Who owns this land?

Why isn't that even worth mentioning? You'd think that was the single most important fact of the entire story. What does this tell us about land use policy and political influence for fun and profit?