Caltrans meeting

Here is the video of the meeting with Caltrans. The subject of the meeting was to present several options for how to improve the highway off ramps (interchanges) on I-99. Now, this may seem like a meeting on how to watch paint dry, but apparently there is great public interest.

The issue came up briefly the night before at the City Council meeting and I was surprised to find the meeting room was packed with people. There is a a lot of interest because it directly involves moving some homes (takings of property) for the right of way and various other issues (the officials use the dramatic sounding term "impacts").

Curiously, the council members seem to side with those who wanted option 1 or 2 and opposed option 3 and encouraged the people to speak out and make their voices heard to "protect their interests." What is curious to me is that, as you can see from the question and answer interview toward the end of the video, the engineers seem to say that option 3 was the best for 1) movement of traffic, 2) traffic safety and 3) the least "taking" of homes or land by eminent domain. (The terms condemnation, taking, and eminent domain are used interchangeably in the video).

The third option obviously seemed best. But the public seemed to oppose that because it would destroy or "impact" the "character" of the road. As for if this is the serious concern for the preservation of a way or life or if it's narrow minded standing in the way of progress I don't claim to have an answer.

I asked those three questions directly at the end of the video. In addition to some other questions... you'll have to watch. hehe. I didn't really mean make light of the issues it's just that the poor guy was getting pummelled with serious questions and complaints. And I'm sorry for the bad camera work, it was just me filming and it's the "gut cam" some of the time and the acoustics in there were terrible.

In the first part you don't need to really hear anything you can see people pointing to charts and things. Notice there was a stenographer taking public commentary. The video is highly edited but I tried not to alter the meaning of anything. The guy in the middle of the film did want them to condemn his house and he favored that options so he could move, maybe not surprisingly if the other option is to live by the highway off ramp. And at the end, I hope you will watch that, the engineer makes an impassioned plea about how seriously he views the taking of homes. Then I asked the ratings questions... you'll have to watch... it's odd though how the silliest question gets the best and most direct and to the point response...

And thanks for tuning in!

permit me

Here I explain some of the issues surrounding the issuance of a permit to sell booze at a local store. Yes, this should be a routine matter. But for the viewers and for the council I examine the issues in a little more depth and show the area in question.

It's suddenly become controversial to issue a permit in Manteca! One was denied last month and now the neighbors are pressuring the council to deny the permit here also. The neighbors had complained of annoying people with car stereos and the like.

I did note with some surprise and annoyance that when I first arrived, there was a guy playing a loud car stereo there! (Edit: I had previously thought the street vendor was just outside the city's border. However, the street vendor is within the city limits according to Google Maps. That raises a whole other set of questions such as why aren't they enforcing the noise ordinance?)

As you know, I have always advocated in favor of the hard working street vendor -- but not one that annoys the neighborhood with blasting "music" all day! And it was blasting even though it may not sound like it on the video. (An old VHS tape camcorder with poor audio and it was noisy there. And you can still clearly hear the car stereo over the noisy traffic!)

Not shown on the tape, the guy turned down the stereo when customers came by -- so he could conduct commerce -- but he didn't seem to care much about others in the neighborhood trying to conduct commerce or anything else! And also, when the guy noticed me filming, the music mysteriously disappeared. hmmm.

The real anoyance in that area is the poorly behaved street peddler. I support the granting of the permit because it's not fair to punish the merchant for what is by all appearances a perfectly ordinary convenience store /gas station just like every other gas station in Manteca. He's just asking for the same permit to sell liquor everyone else has and he is not the real problem at that corner.

Soldiers "blown away" by Manteca welcome

This is from the "welcome home" party Manteca threw for the 118 Maintenance Support Group returning from "the war zone."

I'm a little cynical about these type of things usually. But I have to admit the appreciation to the people of Manteca seemed sincere. About 2/3 of the way through the video clip, Sgt Murile tells us how the soldiers were really impressed by the turn-out and the welcome Manteca gave them. "The whole town turned out!" said and she mentioned the "bikini girls" that lined the parade route. Sorry no video of that.

Also I hope the Manteca City Council notes she mentioned a that some soldiers didn't hang around in the evening but instead went out on the town to have a drink -- which she said was well deserved "after all they've been through." I couldn't agree more and I wish the Manteca City Council would bear that in mind when they are considering granting the liquor license at tonight's meeting. After all we just welcomed home these soldiers who fought in a place where all booze is outlawed. Has that made that country a nice peaceful place? No! And do we in America want to live under islamofacism or any other kind of religious dictates? No! Do we want the Manteca City Council to tell us if we can have a drink or not? I would say no!

Honk for communism!

They called it an "informational picket." Members of the teachers' union were out there protesting "the budget cuts." Or what they say are "budget cuts." By the way, how many times in your life have you heard the phrase "budget cuts?" Isn't there always a budget being "cut?" And yet government never seems to spend less or collect less in taxes. For once, I'd like to see some savings from these so called "budget cuts."

Usually, when some group protests the "budget cuts" it means "we want more money." It just sounds better if they are protesting the cuts rather than being out there yelling at passing motorists "You should suffer! You should sacrifice! But not us!" Thank you for that horn of approval, now pull out your wallet. Thank you.



About halfway through the video, check out the guy on the motorcycle. Right after this picture, a car pulled out onto the street right in front of him....

$25,000 "Wheel of Fish"

I gave my comments to the city leaders about their plans to give $25,000 of tax money to some hair-brained scheme to "bring in" an airline. Yes, you read that right - an airline! I guess the plans for the monorail weren't ready yet. Here, for the first time in "mental-vision" is a video that not only shows what I said, but also what I was thinking!

Sorry the quality is poor in parts. Darn Comcast.

For those of you who were wondering what that movie was I was rambling about and what the Wheel of Fish is, here's your chance.

Congressman McNerney hits the Manteca street.

Congressman Jerry McNerney surfaced at the "street faire" in central Manteca and met with and spoke to people on the street. He didn't stray too far from the booth being run by the Democratic Party and I got to ask a few questions!

First, despite having political differences, mainly caused by the fact that he's a democrat, I have to respect that he has the courage to just meet people on the public street and discuss political issues. That's got to be tough! You never know which type of crackpot you might meet next.

I think he was well briefed for my questions, with one exception. I'll get to that.

There are some photos of the congressman at the event here. I wish I'd gotten a picture with the congressman. Maybe I was afraid to let anyone hold my camera although most of the people there seemed friendly even though they were democrats.


I was introduced to the congressman as "the guy who gives the school board hell." I guess that's a nice intro. (I'm thinking "ya heard a me?") So then the congressman launched into the party line about how we don't value education enough (meaning we don't spend enough) yada yada... I had to interject that education is so important that we have to stop wasting money on and forcing everyone to attend failing government run schools. When I mentioned I'm in favor of "school choice" the congressman chuckled at that and we agreed that was a discussion for another day.

This is a good reason to always keep with you a list of "the questions you want to ask a politician should you ever meet one." Like, if you met President Bush today, or this minute, what would you ask? Or the governor? A city councilman? Whoever.

So, working from the list, I hit him with the #1 question I've been meaning to ask a democratic congressman: "We (well, not me, but that's beside the point) voted for you (the democrats) to end a war, and all we got was an increase in the minimum wage!?"

He picked up on the minimum wage comment first. He asked if I'm an "employer" or a business owner? This is typical in California -- no one wants to give their viewpoint until they figure out what you probably want to hear. So I just said "well lets just say I'm some guy" (probably a safe bet). And I asked "Why don't I have the right to my own labor? Like, if I want to work or do a thing for five dollars an hour, why shouldn't that be my right?"

He went on to the classic defense of the "minimum wage" which I don't have to repeat here except I think it involved "helping" some mysterious "little guy" by some vague means. This is the mistake of confusing the intention of a law with what it actually does. There's not a single economist who will say the minimum wage helps anyone more than it harms.

So when he finished explaining how he's trying to help the little guy with the minimum wage, I then asked "but those policies hurt the little guy..." and he asked "how so" and looked at me like he'd never heard such blasphemy before. I launched into a short explanation that if someone doesn't have the skills to produce above some arbritrary minimum level the law says you may not hire that person. And that doesn't "help" the little guy. He suggested that any job should be able to pay a certain minimum amount. This of course is nonsense, but it was time to get back to the main point.

What about that "war" going on? He explained how "we just don't have the votes" to end the war. He did say something about how terrible the war was and how much it was costing, the American lives lost, etc. (the party line again.) I asked him, "apart from the cost in American dollars and American lives, what about the cost in human life?" He looked around, wary that anyone would see him express sympathy for non-American human life, but he did nod and say yes. I got the feeling this was the only unscripted part of our whole talk. It's pretty sad when you can't even express the view that we shouldn't be making war on peoples who've never done any harm to us and not be afraid of criticism from someone who will call you "soft on terrorists" or whatever the concern was.

Quickly going through that list, I brought up issues of "home mortgages" and foreclosures and "bailing out" huge multi-billion dollar investment banks. I told him I didn't think it was fair to take money from ordinary careful people to give it to either people who entered into a home mortgage unwisely or to bail out multi-billionaires. He said we had to prevent "the larger collapse of the economy!" I would have challenged that crazy notion but that was about enough grilling for one day.

At this point, his assistant looked a little antsy so I decided skip over immigration, "energy policy," and medicine and finish with the election. He mentioned he's a "super delegate" for the Democratic Party and when I asked who he was favoring for president, he made a zipper to the lips type motion and said he wasn't saying.


Later, the congressman spoke to City Councilman Jack Snyder, about what I'm not sure because I was reluctant to get close enough to hear for fear some political critical mass may occur at any minute.


Next former mayor and now newspaper publisher Carlon Perry raked the congressman for not doing anything to help the people, going back to Washington DC and "forgetting all about the people you represent." The congressman did say something about how it's amazing that DC is all about some kind of quest for power and said it was astounding what happens to people there. And somehow this was related to the republicans I think. Another little lesson here is that I wish I'd spent more time carefully listening.

My general impression? Congressman McNerney reminded me of historical accounts I've read of how members of congress would have barbecues and meet with and speak with people at home gatherings and such. Democracy in action! It's unfortunate he's ignorant of economics and how certain policies hurt "little people" but so far as representation in Washington goes we could do worse. I guess.

Lathrop mayor not so hot on criticism

Lathrop, CA -- Mayor Sayles threw G.R. out of the Lathrop City Council meeting last night.

(I wasn't at the meeting -- photos are from my file of "pictures of officials scowling at someone at meetings")

G.R. evidently didn't like that some guy who was trying to sell his "development" to the city was allowed to ramble on for about 20 minutes. Normally comments (from everyone) are limited to three or five minutes depending on if it's an agenda item or not.

G.R. asked to speak and then accused the council of giving favor to "the developer" and suggested that maybe it was because "developers" had contributed in a big way to Mayor Sayles' campaign. The mayor declared/ruled/decreed that wasn't the kind of thing anyone should be allowed to say and not only told her to cease but also had law enforcement remove her from the meeting! (I don't know if she yelled "Seize her!" or not)

According to press reports and public election records, firms that build home and office buildings (or "developers") had given money to the mayor's campaign (and "developers" have given money to nearly every elected official.) The part that apparently didn't sit well with Her Honor was the suggestion / opinion / criticism that these campaign contributions somehow shaded her fairness or objectivity. A mere plebe dares utter such words? Silence!!

Under California open meeting law any person is permitted to criticize public officials. Even in public. The Lathrop City Council has a "no personal attacks" rule printed on the "request to speak form," as do a lot of these councils and school boards. As for when and how the council adopted this rule and how they interpret it is a bit of a mystery. There are a few court cases interpreting this law too, and they make it pretty clear that just because something may be "not what the official likes to hear" that doesn't make it a "personal attack."

Those cases are here: Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719 (C.D. Cal. 1996); and Leventhal v. Vista Unified School Dist., 973 F. Supp. 951 (S.D. Cal. 1997).