Tonight's Special City Council Meeting On Water

.

(Mod: I am going to do something I ordinarily don't do, and that is repost an article. It is called "The Real Water Rate Disinformation," and it is by far the most viewed post we've ever published here. It has remained at #1 in The Tattler Top 10 for a very long time. This article deals with the 2010 water rate increase, and it details some of the deceptions used by the City to push through a water rate increase that nobody wanted, and strongly resisted. The reason this is relevant today is that in many ways that situation hasn't changed. The problem remains the $19 million dollars in toxic bond debt that consumes nearly $1 million dollars a year in water enterprise revenue. Money that would have gone to repair infrastructure and upgrade our wells, but now never will. The reason for our problems today isn't that you are using more water, because you aren't. Just like it wasn't the rusty old pipes they blamed in 2010. It is millions upon millions of dollars in bond debt, the consequences of which have now been made crystal clear by the drought. Hopefully tonight we will finally get to hear the truth. It has been a long wait.)

The Real Water Rate Misinformation (November 11, 2010)
Yesterday we wrote about Josh Moran's rather intemperate speech at Tuesday evening's City Council meeting, given in reaction to MaryAnn MacGillivray's call to allow Proposition 218 to once again play a roll in the water rate increase "process." After all, if the City is going to ask people for more of their dough, shouldn't those folks at least have some recourse if they decide that demand is not reasonable or fair? This is a free country, and it is the public's hard earned money.

In what was basically a rant against people he has expressed his resentments for on other occasions as well, Mr. Moran used some fairly uncivil language to describe those whose opinion on the water rate increase differs from his. I'm not going to speculate on what the root cause of this outburst was, because frankly that would just be gossip. But I can tell you that it was a rancorous and untrue fit of anger.

Now it has to be said that Josh isn't the only one who has publicly and repeatedly expressed opinions on the water rate controversy in so unpleasant a manner. We can also see similar levels of rage in the words of dedicated Moran political supporter H. Susan Henderson, as self-published in her weekly Mountain Views News. If I didn't know better I'd have thought that she could have been the real author of Josh's speech Tuesday night. Their viewpoints and the unfortunate tenor of their language is strikingly similar.

Here are some examples of Ms. Henderson's printed attacks on those fighting the water rate hike last summer:

Once again, certain citizens of Sierra Madre have gathered together to stage yet another protest about something. This time its' (sic) about the proposed water rate hikes. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in the right to free speech. However, I don't believe that anyone should use that right to deceive and mislead. And recently, in an effort to garner 50% plus 1 of the water rate payer signatures against the rate hike, deception has become the name of the game. (MVN Op-Ed: July 10)

The very organized 'protest' movement that collected signatures in an attempt to defeat the proposed water rate fee hike was nothing more than a political campaign that few people recognized. Many of those who were recruited to submit their 'protest' were not aware of anything more than the 'misinformation' that they were given. They were not aware that the 'organizers' of this 'protest' were actually a group of residents with a craving for dissent regardless of the issue. (MVN Op-Ed: August 7)

However, if we aren't careful, at the very next opportunity, there will be another such disingenuous, dishonest and deceptive attempt to gain the public's support. (MVN - Op-Ed: August 7)

Both H. Susan Henderson and Josh Moran have loudly proclaimed, and on the record, that the campaign to fend off a 37% water rate hike last summer was based on "misinformation." And that in the process of collecting over 2,000 signatures the protesters had somehow fooled about 20% of the population of Sierra Madre. Which certainly doesn't indicate that either of these individuals holds the critical abilities of property owners and rate payers in this town in very high esteem.

But today I would like to take the opportunity point out to you some examples of the real "misinformation" on the water rate hike that was being shopped around last summer. They could be seen on the front page of Sierra Madre's adjudicated newspaper of record, and heard being spoken by certain elected officials.

In a July 3rd MVN article entitled "Water Woes," H. Susan Henderson published the following claims regarding the reasons why a water rate fee hike would be necessary. Here the reasons given are the costs of electricity and maintaining aging infrastructure such as pipes:

Current revenues from water users are not sufficient to continue operating the city's aging water system properly. This is primarily due to the fact that there has been no rate increase since July 2006 to keep up with the escalating costs of,  for example, electricity that runs the pumps. There is also not sufficient revenue to replace aging parts or to match available federal funds of $10 million dollars to do major capital improvements.

The city's current water system, which dates back to the early 1900s requires constant maintenance and improvements. As recently as this week, as if a warning to the city that the system's need for maintenance is immediate, an aging water main broke in the canyons. It appeared the main had not been replaced since the 1930s.

Note that the reasons Henderson gives here for raising water rates are the repair some old pipes, and the cost of power to run the pumps.

On July 24th Henderson delivered another opus, this time entitled "Water Rate Controversy Continues." Here the reasons given are the same as before, old pipes and electricity costs.

As indicated by Councilman John Buchanan at the last meeting, the situation "isn't going to get better with age." More than 30% of the city's water mains need replacing and, especially during the next few months with hot weather and greater demand, the strain on the system will put further stress on the system. "We just can't take another two or three years to resolve this problem," said one resident who supports the increase ... In addition, at the time of the last increase, there was, and still is, no way to determine the amount and rate of electrical power increases.

So that is how the Mountain Views News and its publisher depicted the need to raise water rates in this town last summer. While water rate protesters were out gathering signatures in order to challenge the rationale for a 37% increase in cost, the drumbeat from Sierra Madre's adjudicated newspaper (and therefore the recipient of our tax money, btw), was that the cash was needed to pay for pipe repair and increased electricity costs.

But was this actually the truth? Apparently not. According to City Manager Elaine Aguilar, in a private letter written to Sierra Madre resident and real estate investor Earl Richey, the actual reason for the 37% water rate hike proposed by the City Council earlier this year was water bond debt, and not repairing pipes or paying anticipated higher electricity rates. This is what Elaine said in her letter:

Staff noted that in your presentation to the City Council, you began with an inquiry as to whether or not the 37% increase is actually enough. While not specifically asked in this letter, it is a good question that should be addressed.

The proposed rate increase is enough to meet the requirements of the City's existing debt obligations and to begin rebuilding the water fund reserve. It is not enough to fund a pay-as-you-go capital improvement program. Funding a capital improvement program to begin immediate replacement of deteriorated water mains (for example) would require a rate increase significantly higher than what was proposed earlier this year.

So there you have it. When certain members of the City Council, along with Susan Henderson, were pushing a message that a 37% water rate hike had to happen because the money was urgently needed to immediately begin the repair of water infrastructure that is in a state of near collapse, they were engaging in misinformation. Misinformation that was designed to panic residents into forking over more of their money to save the city from the collapse of its water system while at the same time blunting the effects of the water rate protest.

So why did people like Josh Moran and Susan Henderson fib to the public about how their water rate increase money would be spent once the hike became law? My assumption is bond debt just isn't as sexy as rusting pipes from the 1920s, and that rather than just telling the truth the City fathers decided they needed to go with the marketing ploy that had the best chances of success.

Besides, talking about bonds could lead to uncomfortable conversations, like why $19 million dollars in water bond debt is there in the first place. After all, these bonds were done by people allied with the Council majority, and Ms. Henderson.

Since this story on the water bond indebtedness issue first leaked to the public courtesy of The Tattler (link), the City Council has reverted to flogging the rate hike in order to pay bond maintenance. They really had little choice. And those old rusting pipes hardly get mentioned at all anymore. Obviously that blizzard of misinformation unleashed last summer is (to use a Nixon era term) no longer operative.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

A Potential Discrepancy Is Emerging From City Hall's "50% Resident Water Use Increase" Claim

.Or at least don't dive

One of the more evident unintended consequences of City Hall's opaque and mysterious approach to factual reporting on whatever matter is at hand is there are now a fair amount of people in town who no longer care to believe what they're hearing. And this is especially true when it involves the confiscation of even more money by our local government agency. The notion being that if the City wants more of our dough, and for whatever the reasons may be, it owes it to us to at least tell the truth. With the assumption of many here being that the City doesn't always do that. At least not in the past few years.

The issue du jour is the possible cash penalties people will be levied should they not adhere to the City's demands that they significantly reduce their water usage. The reduction percentage being asked is as much as 20% for some (during the summer months considerably more), with the penalties for noncompliance ranging from increasingly stiff fines to turning off peoples' water altogether. Something that would make their homes legally uninhabitable, causing some to have to set up camp at a local extended stay hotel, or even grandma's house.

Or perhaps a tent settlement in Memorial Park for water refugees would suffice. Wouldn't that be a sight? Certainly it would be a signature statement about how bad our water difficulties have become.

The predominant reason for the City's claim that they have to take such draconian measures is irresponsible water usage by we the residents. Or at least that is the suggestion. One item in particular from the City of Sierra Madre's agenda report for Tuesday evening's special City Council meeting (click here) infers that because of a careless attitude resident water use here has gone up at an extraordinary rate. And therefore that is where the blame (and the fines) must go.

If you go to the link provided above and scroll over to the second page, you will find the following statement:

Increased Consumption - Water consumption is currently up over 50% from the same period last year (April 2012 versus April 2013). There has not been a population increase in Sierra Madre.

Now I'm not sure if a month qualifies as a period, or if a 30 day population spurt could ever be considered responsible, but we'll assume that we are talking about the time specified here. That water usage could vary from one month to the next has to be expected. Perhaps the drier weather we've been having lately has caused those who take their horticulture to heart to put in a little more time watering during that particular month. Or period. But is one month's data really cause enough to turn the entire City on its head, assign blame, and then start fining residents or even shutting off their water?

We also have to consider this. Could one month really have made that big of a difference when overall water use has been decidedly down? Is that reason enough to insinuate that water usage here really is up "over 50%?"

And then there is this question. Can it be that we are merely looking at a public relations effort to blame residents for problems the City itself is responsible for? There is a precedent for that, you know.

On August 14 of 2012 our Administrative Services Director, Karin Schnaider, delivered one of her comprehensive breakdowns before the City Council on the state of the Water Company's parlous finances (click here). And if you do go to her report, turn to page two and seek out the portion titled "Revenue Variances." There you will be able to read the following:

Water fund revenues fell short of projected revenues by $146,000 in FY 2011-2012 as compared to the water rate studies. As discussed in the May 2012 mid-year analysis of the Water fund revenues, this is actually a trend of decreased revenues since 2008. At the January 11, 2011 City Council meeting, the water rate study reflected this trend by recalculating FY 2010-2011 revenues and the assumed growth rate of the first year in the rate study was projected at 5% to assume some continued consumer down trends (as compared to the rate increase of 7.54%). However, year over year comparison in actual revenues were down almost -2% from FY 2010-2011 and almost 5% short of the projected revenues.

So why have water revenues been down during this far longer period? For the simple fact that the City could not bill its customers for water they were not buying. People just weren't using as much water as they used to, and the Water Department's revenues were falling fast. Karin continues:

Factors to consider in the recent revenue trends are believed to be primarily economically driven. There is a strong correlation to consumer conservation when 1) loss of disposable income occurs and 2) rate increases occur. When considering the four years prior to the rate increase, the City utility users have been decreasing at a steady rate since the economy decline beginning (sic) in 2008. This is evident in the lower utility user tax collections, franchise fees, and water income.

This report was delivered in August of 2012, or well into the period that included April of that year. And what is described here is a long standing trend of less water usage in Sierra Madre. So how can water usage be up so radically (and suddenly) now? When Councilmember Koerber asked City Manager Elaine Aguilar that very question recently, she confessed that she just didn't know.

And frankly, neither do I. On an intuitive level this does seem fairly hard to accept, however. Sierra Madre is by and large a community of middle-aged and retired homeowners, people who are not given to any sudden radical behavioral swings. Particularly in an en masse and spontaneous residents gone wild sort of a way. A 50% increase in anything from so staid and mature a community as ours just doesn't seem very likely.

In other words, this is not a town given to going water wild. Or wild in any other way, either. And the five year period of water use decline carefully described by Karin clearly shows this.

Personally I take the view that the City is engaging in a campaign of blame assigning in order to steer the conversation away from the elephant in the room, the $19 million dollars in water bond debt. Which is, of course, the wellspring for many unfortunate consequences including neglected infrastructure maintenance and efforts to find and develop new water resources. As well as the burning need to bring in the additional revenues levying financial penalties on their water customer base would generate.

The last time water rates were about to be raised City Hall initiated a PR campaign by stating this needed to be done because our water pipes were falling apart. Later it was fortuitously discovered by residents that the real reason for the rate hike was the need to properly service all that bond debt. This time the emerging story seems to be that these problems are the result of crazed residents off on a water use binge in spite of the severe drought. The actual reason for that nonsensical claim being, once again, the City's crushing water bond debts.

Some things just never change.

Other wacky numbers from City Hall

If you go to the Community Services Commission agenda packet for tonight's meeting (link) you will be able to bear witness to some rather bizarre figures. In particular claims City Hall has made regarding the staff hours spent preparing for and running the Huck Finn Fishing Derby and the Mount Wilson Trail Race.

In a nutshell, here they are:

Huck Finn 2012
PT Hrs Part-Time Staff Event Day (88.25 hours) $ 3,530.00
Part-Time Staff Planning (96 hours) $ 3,840.00
Full time hours not shown
$4,799.99 loss

Huck Finn 2013
Part-Time Staff Event Day (45.75 hours) $ 2,037.50
Part-Time Staff Planning (20 hours) $ 1,000.00
Full-Time Staff Event Day (23 hours) $ 1,909.00
Full-Time Staff Planning (160 hours) $ 13,280.00
$15,064 loss

Mt. Wilson 2012
Part-Time Staff Event Day (35.5 hours) $ 1,420.00
PT Hours Part-Time Staff Planning (200 hours) $ 8,000.00
Full time not shown
$1,771.77 profit

Mt Wilson 2013
Part-time Staff Planning (59 hours) $ 2,950.00
Part- time Staff Event Day (22.25 hours) $ 1,112.50
Full-time Staff Planning (300 hours) $ 24,900.00
Full-Time Staff Event Day (24.5 hours) $ 2,033.50

$9,570.94 loss

If you combine the 2013 Huck Finn Fishing Derby and Mt. Wilson Trail Race full time Staff hours worked alone, we are talking a whopping 507.5 hours! When you consider that each full time staff employee puts in around 36 hours a week, we would seem to be talking about a full month's worth of work from just about every one employed at City Hall. No wonder they no longer have time for the Tree Commission or dealing with residents before 11am. They have a highly work intensive fishing derby to run!

Again, more numbers that are just not very believable. That such venerable Sierra Madre institutions as these should be used like this is wrong.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

The Tattler Sunday News Report Returns Again, But Not Without Some Doubts

.

(Mod: As you might have suspected, the traffic numbers on this blog decrease markedly on the weekends. Let's face it, The Sierra Madre Tattler is a productivity killer read mostly by people sitting in offices who should be doing what they are being paid to do, but often are not. On the weekends when people actually have some room to breathe they're away from their computers and doing other things. In an attempt to stem this audience erosion we instituted the Tattler Sunday News, but it didn't work. It's not like anyone has to go out of their way to find information these days, with the real trick being to spare yourself the sheer mind numbing bulk quantities of the easily found stuff. But despite the disappointing results we are going to try this one more time. If anything we are stubborn.)

Sierra Madre Is Hiring! (link)
Police Officer Lateral / Entry Level - Closes June 20, 2013
Location: Sierra Madre, California, United States | Department: Police Department
The Position: Under general supervision, protects life and property, prevents crime, arrests criminals, and generally enforces laws and ordinances; responsible for designated areas; works assigned shifts; may be assigned to patrol by driving or walking.

Salary & Benefits: The City’s compensation and benefits package includes:
Annual salary range $53,221 - $74,716 DOQ (payable bi-weekly)
Up to $650 per month for health, dental and vision insurance coverage for employee and family; plus 25% of the cost in excess of $650/mo
$50,000 ADD and life insurance
Flexible Spending Accounts
3/12 Work Schedule
Annual paid leave of: 88 hours of vacation (increasing after 5 years of service)
104 hours of holiday leave
Annual sick leave accrual of 96 hours
PERS Retirement - City participates in the CalPERS retirement system. Safety employees who were CalPERS members prior to January 1, 2013 are enrolled in the 3%@55 formula; City pays 4% of employee share and counts it toward final retirement compensation. Employees enrolled in CalPERS after January 1, 2013 will be enrolled in the 2.7%@57 formula; City will pay 50% of the "normal cost". No participation in social security.
The City pays all employer taxes required under Federal, State and Local laws
Uniform Allowance: $80 ever 28 days
$5,000 Signing Bonus, $2,500 payable upon appointment and $2,500 after passing probationary period

(Mod: This generous job offer went out as a "Tweet" that was picked up on the Pasadena Star News site. It apparently is also posted on the City's Facebook page. Pretty good deal, a job with a 3 day work week that offers decent pay and stellar benefits. Though it does kind of fly in the face of all we're hearing from City Hall these days about cutting back on hiring in order to reduce costs. But you know how that one goes. There is what we're supposed to hear, and then there is what is actually going on.)

German bank employee naps on keyboard, transfers millions (link)
An obviously tired German bank employee fell asleep on his keyboard and accidentally transformed a minor transfer into a 222 million euro ($293 million) order, a court heard Monday.

The Hessen labor court heard that the man was supposed to transfer just 62.40 euros from a bank account belonging to a retiree, but instead "fell asleep for an instant, while pushing onto the number 2 key on the keyboard" -- making it a huge 222,222,222.22 euro order.

The bank discovered the mistake shortly afterwards and corrected the error.

The case was taken to court by the man's 48-year-old colleague who was fired for letting the mistake slip through when verifying the order. The court ruled that the plaintiff should be reinstated in his job.

(Mod: I would like a bank employee to fall asleep on my account. That way I can buy a Harley Davidson and spend three months driving it to Alaska and back. Is that really a lot to ask?)

Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record - Congress ranks last on list of 16 institutions; military earns top spot again (link)
Americans' confidence in Congress as an institution is down to 10%, ranking the legislative body last on a list of 16 societal institutions for the fourth straight year. This is the lowest level of confidence Gallup has found, not only for Congress, but for any institution on record. Americans remain most confident in the military, at 76%.

Small business and the police also continue to rank highly, with 65% and 57% of Americans, respectively, expressing "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in these institutions. Joining Congress at the bottom of the list are Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and organized labor. Congress' low position is further underscored when one looks at the percentage of Americans who have little or no confidence in each institution. The slight majority of Americans, 52%, have this level of confidence in Congress, compared with 31% for HMOs.

Americans' confidence in several institutions measured in the June 1-4 Gallup poll has shifted since last year. Americans have become more confident in banks, organized religion, and public schools, and less confident in the U.S. medical system, the Supreme Court, and Congress.

(Mod: Here is the part that confuses me. People say they hate Congress, and rightfully so. But then they go and re-elect the same boobs year after year. There are plenty of fine third party candidates out there worth voting for, so why not do it? Wouldn't it be great if we threw BOTH parties out? Trust me, they'll never worry about the desires of the voters until that happens.)

Where's the Cheapest Gas in Sierra Madre? (link)
Nationwide, gas prices were predicted to be lower this summer compared to the last three years, but that won't translate into savings at the pump this Memorial Day weekend, experts said. Purdue University economist Wally Tyner expects gas prices on the West Coast to go over $4, with prices in the $3 range everywhere else in the country, according to the Associated Press.

"Motorists this year are facing rising gas prices heading into the Memorial Day holiday," said Michael Green, a AAA spokesman, adding that Memorial Day 2013 would probably be the most expensive since 2011.

(Mod: We only have two gas stations in Sierra Madre, so this is kind of an odd premise for a news article. Of course, this is one of those goofy Patch robo-stories where each and every Patch in the area is plugged in to the same article and only the name of the city is changed.)

US Sets New House Size Record In 2012 (link)
There have been numerous press reports about the expansion of micro housing, and expectations that Americans will be reducing the size of their houses. As the nation trepidatiously seeks to emerge from the deepest economic decline since the 1930s, normalcy seems to be returning to US house sizes.

According to the latest new single-family house size data from the US Census Bureau, the median house size rose to an all-time record of 2306 square feet in 2012. This is slightly above the 2277 square feet median that was reached at the height of the housing bubble in 2007 (Figure). The average new house size (2,505 square feet) remains slightly below the 2007 peak of 2,521 square feet.

There was little coverage in the media, with the notable exception of Atlantic Cities, in which Emily Badger repeated the expectation of many:

“It appeared after the housing crash that the American appetite for ever-larger homes was finally waning. And this would seem a logical lesson learned from a recession when hundreds of thousands of households found themselves stuck in cavernous houses they neither needed nor could afford.”

But she concluded “Perhaps we have not changed our minds after all.” Well stated.

(Mod: Modern families need lots of bathrooms.)

Demand Surges for Transit-Oriented Housing (link)
Speaking of the economics of mass transit … The good news is that residential property prices are surging around mass transit stations. In the clearest of possible signals, the marketplace is telling us that there is strong demand among large swaths of the American population for access to mass transit service. People are willing to pay a lot more for the convenience.

The bad news (there had to be a downside) is that affluent Americans are displacing poor and working-class residents from transit-accessible housing. Thus, the population that relies upon transit the most has less access than before, the Wall Street Journal today. Writes the Journal:

Professors at Northeastern University in Boston examined 42 neighborhoods in 12 U.S. cities in 2010 and found that housing costs near rail stops increased after light-rail service started in many markets. “A new transit station can set in motion a cycle of unintended consequences in which core transit users…are priced out in favor of higher-income, car-owning residents,” the authors wrote.

(Mod: Let me get this straight. You build low income transit oriented housing, and then magically the prices go up and these wickiups are affordable only to affluent people who drive cars? The planet is doomed.)

Assembly to weigh constitutional amendment on local taxes, bonds (link)
The budget won't be the only big issue being considered by the Assembly on Friday. Democrats have scheduled a vote on a controversial constitutional amendment that would make it easier for cities and counties to raise property taxes or issue bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements.

Under the amendment, bond issue proposals would need only 55% of the vote to pass, rather than the current two-thirds. The same reduced threshold would apply to votes on raising property taxes to cover the cost of the borrowing.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. said the decision to hold a vote on the measure on the same day as the budget was a "sneak attack on property owners" and Proposition 13, the 1978 constitutional amendment limiting property taxes.

The measure's author, Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills), noted that school districts can already pass bonds with 55% of the vote. He said in a statement that his amendment would provide cities "with new tools to invest in their prosperity."

He added, "California is in an untenable position that jeopardizes our economy, jobs and way of life. Most of our infrastructure was designed and built over 40 years ago to accommodate a much smaller population."

The amendment is, in part, a response to the failure of Measure J, a Los Angeles tax initiative that fell barely short of the two-thirds vote needed to pass.

If Blumenfield's amendment is approved by the Assembly, it could still face opposition in the upper house. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has said lawmakers should hold off on tinkering with local tax laws until at least next year.

The amendment would also need to be approved by California voters, and could wind up on the next June primary ballot unless lawmakers schedule it differently.

(Mod: Yes, let's make it easier for local governments to raise taxes and sell more bonds. It is the solution to all of our problems.)

Bear captured in Sierra Madre after pursuit through town (link)
A young black bear with police in pursuit took a meandering trip through Sierra Madre this week, past City Hall and downtown businesses and through alleys, backyards and apartment complexes before being captured and returned to the mountains.

The female bear was first spotted just after 10:30 a.m. Monday at Grandview Avenue and Lima Street by Ben Rillorta, who heard his border collie barking and saw the bear in his backyard. The bear escaped over a fence, made its way to the street and headed south, Rillorta said.

He notified Sierra Madre police, who met up with the bear at the historic Pinney House and tried to corral it and push it north toward the mountains, police Chief Larry Giannoni said. But the bear jumped through yards and continued south to busy Sierra Madre Boulevard, where it eventually traveled past the police station, City Hall, downtown businesses and surprised bystanders.

Hanh Le, a manicurist at Tropical Nail Spa, looked out the salon's glass storefront on Sierra Madre Boulevard and noticed a police car making a U-turn. Then she saw the bear running down the street and on the sidewalk in front of the salon. "I said, 'Oh my God, bear!'" Everyone ran out to look, she said.

Police pushed the bear off the main drag to keep it out of the Kersting Court dining and shopping area, and it passed behind the city's post office before crossing Baldwin Avenue, Giannoni said. Officers thought they had the animal contained in a nearby residential area, but after resting the bear escaped and continued east.

As the bear traveled through the San Gabriel Valley town, accompanied by police cars and circling helicopters, the city updated residents on Facebook and Twitter and asked people to steer clear of the frightened animal. 

(Mod: There are two ways that Sierra Madre gets the attention of the L.A. County media. One is mudslides, the other is bears.)

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

The Staff Report For Tuesday's Special City Council Meeting On Mandatory Water Use Restrictions Is Now Available On Line

/

The City's agenda report for Tuesday evening's "Special City Council Meeting on Mandatory Water Restrictions" is now available on-line. You can access this rather vast 103 page staff prepared document by clicking here. I'll warn you though, much of it is cut and pasted boilerplate taken from City documents that have been available before. That said, there are also some things you can find there that seem to contradict information given out by the City not so very long ago. The one thing we have been focusing on here in particular is the proclaimed city-wide water use increase percentage. Here is how it is introduced into the City's report:

Increased consumption - Water consumption is currently up over 50% from the same period last year (April 2012 versus April 2013). There has not been a population increase in Sierra Madre.

On an intuitive level this seems fairly hard to accept. Sierra Madre is by and large a community of middle-aged and retired homeowners, people who are not given to sudden radical behavioral swings. Particularly in an en masse and spontaneous lemmings gone wild sort of way. A 50% increase in anything from so staid and respectable a community as ours just doesn't seem very likely to me.

And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it not too long ago that City Hall was informing us that water revenues were down because the people of Sierra Madre had embraced water conservation maybe a little too enthusiastically? You remember that one, right? The claimed result being that because of this the City's water billing was down considerably, making our Water Department a financial victim of our virtue and concern. So how could water consumption be up 50% now?

I hope we're not looking at another one of City Hall's infamous and all too convenient midstream message adjustments. The claim that our current water crisis might actually be the fault of irresponsible resident behavior when something quite different might be in play would not only be unfortunate, but also a public relations tactic that we have seen before. Blaming the victim sadly being not as unusual here as many in town might think.

Any insight that you the reader can share on this matter will be appreciated. The research team is looking long and hard into this one, and if they come up with anything good we'll post it on either Monday or Tuesday. Along with any insights that you might want to offer.

Last Tuesday Evening's Best Speech?

(Mod: Apparently the outpouring of public unhappiness over mandatory water restrictions and fines at last Tuesday's City Council meeting had so profound an effect on our elected officials that we're going to do it all over again next Tuesday. One of the better speeches of that evening was given by Charles Hunter. I have been given a copy of his talk and I am adding it below.)

"I'm here to express my concern about the recently adopted Mandatory Water Rationing resolution. Something that was done rather hastily with minimum public awareness and input. This conservation plan is, in my opinion, very inequitable and discriminatory in application.

First there is the matter of choosing to average a customer's annual use for a base year and then imposing a target of 20% less than that average for all water billing periods beginning with the current period - instead of looking at the individual billing period's usage and setting a target of reduction from that level.

What this means is that single-family homeowners who are likely to have summer spikes for water usage because of their landscaping wind up with an unreasonable target as determined by your resolution. Thus making it likely they will be fined once we get into the hottest months of the year, a time that requires more water usage to avoid losing their investment in landscaping.

The vast majority of business users will not face such situations since they tend to use fairly consistent amounts of water from one billing cycle to the next. Thus there is discrimination in favor of businesses.

Most apartments do not have as much of their property dedicated to landscaping as a single family homeowner and will also be less likely to encounter fines for water usage in the coming months. To that we can also add condominium developments that, even if they have large landscaped areas, can share the cost of any fines amongst the many owners.

This is a case of discrimination primarily against single-family homeowners.

Next you chose not to unite the community in a common goal of conserving water, but instead divided it into three different categories of users subject to different treatment and requirements.

First you have created a group who are asked to make no effort to conserve any amount of water by totally exempting them from any usage target.

Secondly you have created a group who are told to reduce their usage by 10% from their average.

Finally you have placed the main burden for conservation on a 3rd group - some of whom are the most likely to face impossible to meet targets and fines or lose their landscaping. Those being the single family homeowners that i mentioned earlier.

I urge you to amend this Water Conservation Resolution so that it is more equitable and involves the participation of the entire community in the effort to conserve water."

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

Tony Brandenburg: The Saints Are Marching

Add caption

Countdown to Oblivion
I am in Canada right now, sunburned from a day at Echo Beach, a dirt plot that is just a good spitball away from Toronto. Toronto is a gorgeous city at night when you are staring at it from Lake Ontario. For the first day since I got to the east coast it didn’t rain, and, yes, it was a beautiful day at the beach. Tomorrow my band and I will travel to Montreal where we will be playing at a two day festival with bands that range from the Offspring to Alice Cooper, but today we played a punk rock free-for-all at the Megadome with Rancid, Transplants, Sick of it All, and Madball.

Last night I watched a set by Social Distortion in Buffalo, NY, and walked over to play a show to a handful of people who had waited a couple of hours to hear me sing twenty songs. It is a flattering, and humbling experience. See, for years press people and fans would ask me the worst kinds of questions. They would note that bands whose music sounded like a variation of mine had sold records that had gone gold and platinum (click here) and wanted me to state that the new bands were just aping the pioneers.

I guess these people wanted to hear some sort of barb; a bitter response from a faded and forgotten remnant of the twentieth century. I never complied with the request to cough up the bile because, after all, I had nothing to really complain about. I wasn’t forgotten like a child movie star all grown up, or tucked away in some old folks home, or in a trailer park somewhere in Florida, or dined on by my little beast the way Marie Prevost wasn’t (click here).

No. I did then what I do now. I worked hard to bring food to the table, to feed and clothe and provide for the people I chose to bring into and align with in this world. Sure, sometimes the food is leftover from leftovers, and some of the clothing is generously gifted to me by bands and clothing sponsors. I am grateful for all of it, and, contrary to what some people say about me, I always say, “thank you” for every gift that I am given, be it a bottle of water, or a CD by a band that works harder than I do to be heard.

Because at the end of the punk rock day, just like the end of the teaching gig, my value is not measured by what I can bring home for myself, but how I help other people fulfill their own dreams and ambitions. Sometimes I may not be the loudest voice, or the sweetest voice, or the preferred attitude in Sierra Madre, but I am OK with that. The elite in this town may have the popularity market cornered on Baldwin Avenue, but since moving to this boil on a pig’s teat in 1991, I have easily recorded thirty mini-tomes set to music about my life here.

So, congratulations to the people of Sierra Madre for the building of your little educational institution. I hope it brings you all of the joy in the world. I am sincerely proud to share with the anyone who cares to read and listen how two hundred of you rallied around the little dirt pile that couldn’t, but how not even two of you could be bothered to stand up for a little boy and his family who were bullied and railroaded by some of the very folks that chanted, “Where’s our school?”

Yes, when I share with my people in my other classroom on the outside of this little oasis - the bands and the fans about all of the love shown to my autistic child by the elite of Sierra Madre, I can only wonder how the big shots of this town think they’ll measure up in the long run. How they think that they’re fooling anyone with their anonymity.

Just like I told the bullies at Sierra Madre Elementary in electronic print for the last few years - history will be kinder to the Brandenburgs than it will be to them, and how it will reflect on them- those who will continue to hide as the leaders and the elite of the school, but who will never, ever, apologize for what they’ve done, and continue to do.

I wonder what their kids will say ten years down the road, when they figure out their parents were in the thick of it, protecting them from a seven year old who couldn’t hold a pencil correctly, and who wanted nothing more than to be their friend. And how we and our child’s support network begged them - the staff, the parents - to just give him a chance. And how their mommies and daddies wouldn’t allow them to even be in the same room with my son, let alone to talk to him. But hey, they fought hard for a school, and they got it.

Bravo (click here).

So, What Exactly is the Deal with Kim Kenne?
I can almost hear it from here, and I am cracking up. I have already read a post or two, and I can imagine the rest. Let me start by pointing out that Ms. Kenne was the lone dissenting voice on this project before the most recent vote. I was not surprised to learn she was the lone dissenting voice on this one. Well, except for Renatta Cooper, I mean. She managed to dodge this vote altogether, right? In fact, I don’t seem to remember hearing anything about this project at all in the press. She certainly had a lot to say about who should represent Sierra Madre as the at large board representative.

So. Here we go. Here comes the deluge. I am sure it is too late to, again, point out that Kim Kenne said the original set up wasn’t up to par, right.  That her current position is, if anything, consistent with the type of Board member she has been from the outset. The one who asks questions, who looks for realities in the fantastic, and who analyzes before she acts.

From the Organize Sierra Madre Schools Facebook page came a little narrative about the meeting at the district board meeting.

Prior to the meeting, Sierra Madre Supporters deluged Tyron Hampton with 1500 emails and explained in detail the current learning conditions the students were forced to study under. While he expressed concern that Measure TT is turning into Measure Y, going over budget on projects and running out of money too soon, he stated that kids should have halls they can run in as this is what he remembered about his own middle school experience.

The lone dissenter was Board Member Kim Kenne who could not see past the fiscal aspect and building of a school during declining enrollment in the District, using inaccurate numbers and grossly underestimating the number of middle school attendees for next year. However, Mikala Rahn gave the Board a brief history lesson, going all the way back to 2002-2003 when the Board had voted to open a middle school in Sierra Madre. Despite Mikala's impassioned plea to the Board for a unanimous vote in favor, Kim Kenne voted against (her email is kenne.kimberly@pusd.us).

So. Am I to understand that we needed every board member supporting this specific plan for the school? Am I also to understand that we are supposed to write Ms. Kenne at her email and share our displeasure because she didn’t get behind it? Maybe she should get 1500 emails saying so? Just where did the 1500 emails that Tyron supposedly got actually come from? From the 300 families that attend the school? From the grannies and grampies? Who is this mighty army of whom they speak?

I don’t agree that 100% approval is needed on anything. Ever. In fact, it is my belief that dissent is a necessary good in any democratic process. With total agreement comes total control. That sounds forced, totalitarian, and impossible at the root. Dissention is healthy. In this environment of total agreement comes a little price tag, and that price tag is freedom of thought. In fact, when I read crap like that I can’t help but wonder if this town has any concept of individuality, or if what has been said about this place for years - that it is Stepford (click here) or that it is inhabited by pod people (click here) - is more than just a little inside joke.

I would venture as far to say that it is a sardonic reality, and that many of the people in Sierra Madre know it. Even with that knowledge, they may never, ever own it aloud. But I have seen it, and my family has lived with it. This place can be about as cold as the Cold War, and as American as High Noon and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (click here).

Over the last few years I have spoken to Ms. Kenne a few times, but I have listened to her speak closer to a hundred times. I have learned these things about her. She is is knowledgeable about numbers, she asks lots of questions, and she clarifies things to (I believe) beyond the point that is necessary. Having said all of that, she is an Altadena, not a Pasadena resident and parent (click here) which puts her into the outsider community that we in Sierra Madre belong to. I can say that people who have shared with me what they know about Ms. Kenne all say that she is brilliant, that she was one of the best parent volunteers that PUSD ever had, and that she is brilliant with Information Technology. She won the election she ran this year by a whopping 40% (click here), an election that she technically did not need to run, but which also made it possible for Sierra Madre to have representation on the Board of Education. I also know, from a couple of pretty reliable sources that she has been a better behind the scenes ally to PUSD schools than most people know. That is the irony. She chooses to do this. There is very little, if anything for her to gain. It’s a selfless choice, with little to no gain on any front for her personally or professionally.

Believe me folks, it would be a foolish choice to isolate her from your little ice cream socials like you did to my family, or to bombard her in a feeble attempt to turn her into a pod person. You will cause more harm than good.

Best idea is to shrug, like I do whenever she makes a choice that I personally disagree with, and celebrate that she is a  person capable of making such a choice. Her reasons for voting no on the Sierra Madre project weren’t steeped in a promise made by someone else, but in financial responsibility and the needs of all of the children, not just the children at the upper Sierra Madre campus. A little reminder, she ran on a platform (click here) in which she stated in her own words, that:

Pasadena Unified needs to improve in three areas: Budget transparency. All stakeholders need to understand where our money goes. Robust accountability system. We need to hold staff accountable for results and evaluate our programs on a regular basis. Parent Engagement. Every parent needs the knowledge and skills to be able to advocate for their child's education.

Keeping this in mind, then, consider what  James Figueroa noted in the Pasadena Star News (click here):

... the sole vote against the construction bid was from Kim Kenne, who advocated caution because Sierra Madre is the latest Measure TT project to go over budget. That brings up questions about whether there will be enough funds for construction plans at other schools. "I'd hate for Washington Middle School to not be built because we've used up our contingency funds," Kenne said. 

Then ask yourself if the best that you can do for the kids in the district - and I am talking about the other kids who should also have decent schools - are going to benefit from emails to Kim Kenne trying to force her to think like Sierra Madre parents. Maybe that energy would be better used trying to help out the other families - like the families at Washington, and Wilson, for example, to get the things that they, too, need.

Oh, By the Way (Intermission)
When you are in Canada, as I am, and you would like to do your laundry, as my friend Dan has recently explained to me, you will need to have the correct currency. When you are asked, “Do you want loonies, or toonies?” the correct response is not to laugh (click here) because in doing so, they will consider you bonkers. That is because a loonie is the dollar coin, and a toonie is a two dollar coin. Welcome to Canada (click here), dummies.

All Saints, All the Time
I believe in strict adherence to the ideal of the separation of church and state. So much so that I believe the word God should be removed from all publicly funded government buildings and currency.

Don’t freak out. It’s really not that big a deal. I just don’t think my understanding of God should trump your understanding of God, nor should yours trump mine.

I am not saying that private groups and people should be denied the opportunity to represent their beliefs in public displays of faith. I just don’t think our common civil agreement should be distracted by it (click here).

I don’t believe it belongs on our shared buildings, on our currency, or on our institutions. I know that bothers a lot of you on a number of levels. For some, it just reinforces some misconception you’ve always had about me. Pick a finger.

For others it makes you worry about my soul, and though I am flattered by your genuine concern, I can assure you that I don’t have one. I pawned it thirty years ago.

But back to the task at hand.

I firmly believe that religions and belief systems should be better infused into textbooks to teach kids the context in which these beliefs were strongest, and to show the idealism that average people had in their faiths outside of the power of governments and religious hierarchies that utilized and manipulated the faith of the believers to promote  political agendas.

It is appalling to promote the idea that there was somehow this great brotherhood of religious freedom in the colonies, and that it lent itself quickly and easily into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

I find it much more engaging to teach children the historical truths about the founding of this country (click here) than to promote a slick, fairy tale version. How much more powerful an understanding of our civic duty to promote the concept of  separation of church and state than to examine the historical context of Patrick “Give me liberty or give me death” Henry’s bill for a Christian leadership on one hand, versus the beliefs of great thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

There is nothing more revealing and intellectually stimulating (easy now, pardner) than to challenge the idea that the colonies were these great pockets of religious freedom that easily lent themselves to a democratic rule free from the yoke of an established church, when many of them were little more than theocracies which often promoted discrimination against other faiths. How on earth can the history of the colonists - in fact of the United States -  be told without a conceptual understanding of the intense rivalry between Catholicism and Protestantism, and the powerful basis of the Reformation of Martin Luther?

Shouldn’t our goal as a country, really, center on the promotion of core historic ideals and values that are woven into the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution? Isn’t that really the basic foundation that this country was built on? The idea that without freedom of speech, there can be no other freedoms, and the importance of each of us to protect the individual’s access to those freedoms that are laid out in the Bill of Rights?

Tax Exempt Contempt
The idea that churches should be granted non-profit tax exempt status is an area that I believe needs a serious overhaul. Churches get tax exemptions, we all know that, right? They are non-profit do gooders of society, and by design they are the pillars that hold up our society, and the cement that holds us together, right? I’m not so sure.

I read a recent headline that made me laugh. I think it is hilarious that I agree with Mike Huckabee on this idea (click here) and that is that individuals shouldn’t consider the tax exemption as a cornerstone of their church offering donations. Now don’t take that to mean I support Huckabee. I think he’s an idiot, but even an idiot can say something that is brilliant.

Please don’t apply that to me. I wasn’t reflecting.

I am convinced that Huckabee is right, but from a completely polar opposite point of view. I think we should bump that up a few notches.

I believe that no church, let alone individual should ever be given tax exemptions in the first place.

By its very core this runs contrary to the separation of church and state. Tax exemptions of this nature are simply favoritism by the government to an organized religious individual as part of a larger organized religious group- one  which is not granted to disorganized religious groups, unorganized religious groups, autonomous religious individuals, or to agnostics and atheists.  I fully support Huckabees thinking on this one. Religious fundamentalists should not kowtow to the state in order to get a tax break. But that’s because  they shouldn’t get it in the first place.

Churches should be held accountable as political businesses, which is precisely what they are. If you or I take these exemptions, then, we are essentially getting a break or a favor from our government that isn’t available to everyone else, and it not only makes us beholden to the state, it strips us of one of our core protections from the state, and that is the freedom to disagree with the state in the manner of, intentions of, and interpretations of, this being called God. After all, if you don’t agree with the government’s belief in God, then, essentially, you are at odds with the government.

If you are at odds with the government on the interpretation of God, it is because  there is a breakdown in the separation of church and state. It shouldn’t even enter the conversation. Where exactly does a humanist sit on this? Where does the atheist fit in here? How about the agnostic? Are they less American because of this?

Well let me put it another way. Would you be cool with a new tax? I know you all love to pay them. I would like to propose the Huckabee Believer Tax, or the God tax. Anyone who believes in God has to pay it. Atheists get an exemption.

Does the separation of church and state matter now?

Home Depot
We thought we had a blown a speaker in the bass cabinet that we had borrowed from brother CJ Ramone (click here) so we thought we’d need to get a screwdriver from the one hundred billion Home Depots in Canada. Of course, to do so would mean to have to navigate through the builder’s superstore amid the grumblings of locals complaining about the influx of illegals from America drifting north to steal all of the low paying hard labor jobs from unemployed Canucks. We decided against buying a screwdriver and used the side of a loonie instead.

Dear God, Please Build a Holding Tank for Grandma
If you want to build a monument to God in the form of a housing project, or a playground, or an old folks home, you should be able to do that with your own money. No tax breaks, no favoritism, and no preferential treatment. None. By that same understanding, if I want to build a charitable monument of the same nature in the name of Velveeta or Spam, I too, can spend my money on it. Same rules apply.

See, that’s what charity is. It is the giving of something to another. There are no strings attached, and nothing is expected in return. Nothing. Not even a thank you. Let me say it again. Nothing is expected in return. That. is. charity.

There was an amazing write-up on this very topic last May on a little blog called the Altadena Iconocast (click here). In one of a couple of great articles on the nature of charity as it applies to local houses of worship in the Altadena area. The author has a copyright warning that states I need permission to reproduce any part of it. Usually I will  just laugh and do whatever I want, but I actually asked for an OK through Mary, which I received. Before I get too further into this, I should point out that Mary has corresponded periodically with the author, and it is through those correspondences that I determined I would ask. That is called respect, a value many people believe I lack.

Having said that, I assume that this is a spiritual person, and that I wouldn’t know if this person were from the stiff up-tight bible thumper school of theological thought or from the frothing at the mouth and speaking in tongues school. It just isn’t that important to me. Certainly not as important as the value of the stream of thought.

In their exchanges a few things are clearly expressed, and one is the designs and activities of an Episcopalian Church.  The Altadena Iconoclast author wrote Mary sharing that the Episcopal Diocese is replacing the local affordable senior care with 320 luxury retirement condos at what once was Scripps and now will be Monte Cedro.  The church group have started a front group to get Altadenans to fight to gentrify the town in order to benefit from the gentrification.

From what I could gather, the bottom line is to make more money off their retirement village while promoting a left wing ideology that neither serves the people it purports to serve, but also inhibits the organization by other local advocacy groups. It is politics plain and simple, in this arena used to thwart the efforts of more conservative right wing Christian groups through agencies such as the IRS. Recent Altadena town council elections were really just set ups and manipulation for out of state millionaire clients.

It would sound ridiculous if it didn’t sound vaguely familiar. Here in Sierra Madre we have a brand new Assisted Living Facility being built, while a couple of blocks away on Ramona Avenue there is a retirement home looking to expand as well.

In the words of the Altadena Iconoclast in a write up titled Who would Jesus dispossess for a lousy buck? The author lays it all down there.

One Pasadena Church is so dominant in political issues that last year when several Altadenan's called Unions asking for help in fighting the opening of a local Walmart, they were told that the Union organized ALL of their political efforts in the San Gabriel Valley though one Pasadena Church. Several Unions claimed they would not work with any activists who were not under the direction, influence, supervision and control of this particular Pasadena Church.

This particular Pasadena Church recently purchased a Altadena not for profit facility that had for 100 years provided housing and healthcare for old indigent people from the Altadena area. That Altadena Not for Profit, run by godless humanist had adhered to the tenants of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, until the Pasadena Church took it over.

The particular Pasadena Church tore down the buildings, left the land fallow for five years, and is about to build over 300 luxury retirement villas for wealthy people from all over America. Because ownership will be retained by the Church, no property tax will be paid. There will be no services provided for Pasadena's or Altadena's indigent poor people......

We need a change. Tax breaks for Churches and Not for Profits must be DEEDS tested. The majority of funds raised must be expended directly on the mission of feeding, housing, clothing the poor, drug rehabilitation, real job training, re entering prisoners to society, tending the sick, ill and dying and relieving the conditions of poverty. Every Citizen and for profit corporation is being taxed more than they would be, more than their fair share, because religious institutions and Not for Profits are getting a free ride........

The Not for Profit industry needs to become accountable and brought to heel. The gravy train of high salaries, and questionable, if any deeds, must come to an end.

The Saints Are Coming
While never actually naming the church outright, the Altadena Iconoclast points us in the general direction. It doesn’t take a compass to get this navigator from Toronto, Canada, to the All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA (click here).

Last year the Huffington Post reported that All Saints Church received threats for hosting a Muslim Public Affairs Council Convention (click here) something almost immediately attributed to an article written by a conservative religious group, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) (click here). Congressman Adam Schiff, who represents Pasadena, sent the following statement to HuffPost about the convention and hateful emails.

“I commend All Saints Episcopal Church for hosting the Muslim Public Affairs Council convention as part of its efforts to build an interfaith understanding based on shared values," Schiff said. "I was deeply distressed to learn of the hateful and vitriolic messages that the church has received. Yet, these odious emails will only increase our determination to fight bigotry and increase understanding."

Messages of hate like the ones described by Schiff are, of course, unacceptable acts of hatred. Having said that, I should point out that the good reverend was a contributor, and that may have been, uh, part of that investigation back in 2006 (click here):

... a Federal Elections Commission Disclosure Report records search revealed that Regas, listing his affiliation as “Regas Institute/Priest,” contributed $1,000 to John Kerry's presidential campaign on March 31, 2004......Regas' wife, Mary, donated $2,000 to the Kerry campaign.   It was just one of many donations Regas has made over the years to a broad array of candidates at the local, state and federal levels — candidates who were almost invariably Democrats, including Congressman Adam Schiff.

In any event, it appears the good Congressman remembers who his friends are. That particular investigation by the IRS is getting new media boosts these days as the Dems response to the IRS targeting Tea Partiers and other conservatives. That the investigations were led by a Republican Hangover IRS Appointee aren’t nearly as interesting to me as the tidbit at the end of a recent Gawker write up (click here):

During the 2006 scrutiny of liberal churches, it was a Democrat congressman who demanded investigations into the IRS practice of targeting non-profits with Democratic leanings:

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who unsuccessfully tried to launch a Government Accountability Office investigation into the IRS' probes of churches nationwide last year, called the summons "a very disturbing escalation" of the agency's scrutiny of All Saints. "I don't want religious organizations to become arms of campaigns," he said. "But they should be able to talk about issues of war and peace without fear of losing tax-exempt status. If they can't, they'll have little to say from the pulpit."

Funny thing is, I had always considered all religious groups to be conservative. I guess that says more about me than about them. I see the bulk of these groups the same as I view most non-profit groups: as opportunists who use tax exempt status to muscle in on political puppets while encroaching on the rest of us at our expense.

Anyway. All Saints have been very, very busy working on a little project known as the All Saints Church Master Development Plan (click here). This monster expansion, which was approved by Pasadena City Council about a year ago (click here) includes a two-story, 14,000-square foot social hall along Euclid Avenue, a 12,000-square-foot youth center and coffee shop at the corner of Euclid and Walnut Street, plus two other buildings abutting the Westin Hotel and underground parking.

The church continues its vision of itself as a social justice machine, and this expansion, which firmly assigns itself as the arm of Pasadena City Hall is as symbolic as it is obvious. Say what you will, as far as I am concerned they are the same thing at this point in time.

All Saints Church has had a history of political activity, and it goes back many years, but the most recent activity aside from its interest in the building of a Walmart and its active discussion and workshops in the labor practices of Walmart, were the challenges came back around 2006 when the Internal Revenue Service served a summons on All Saints Church (click here) as it examined the tax exemption status of the church.

See, it all branched out of a sermon back in 2004  which was outlined in an article in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics. According to news reports, the Internal Revenue Service has threatened All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, CA) with revocation of its tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. section 501(c)(3) because of a sermon preached by the church's former rector, Rev. George F. Regas, on October 31, 2004, just before the Bush-Kerry presidential election. 

Naturally, Reverend Regas and Reverend Bacon both denied any wrongdoing on the church’s part.

Well, of course they said that. Duh. See, they flex their political muscle all of the time, but they don’t believe this should strip them of their tax exemption status because, after all, it’s all in God’s plan, right? It’s not really political if it’s God’s will, right? They must have a hotline to the big guy in the sky, because that episode was hardly a unique chapter in their history (click here).

And who am I to comment, right? I mean, never mind that the homeless and the poor could be better served with actual help than a new shiny building, but this isn’t really about providing things for people, is it? It’s about power and expansion and land acquisition, this time right into the living room of the Pasadena City Council. The investigation by the IRS was most likely just posturing by a new branch (click here) and, obviously, the Church did not lose its tax exempt status.

I know, I know. The progressive church did reach out to the Gay and Lesbian community and recognized the needs of everyone in our community to have the opportunity to dine on spiritual food. That is a great thing, I agree. No one should be turned away by groups who claim to serve the community. Why other churches have continued to oppress these members of society instead of exploiting them is beyond me, too. After all, this is a whole subgroup in our society that can be mined for talent, money, and political influence, and taken advantage of just like you and I can be. Makes perfect sense (click here).

Another thing makes perfect sense. The time has come to revoke the tax exempt status from all religious groups. There shouldn’t be a need for the IRS to investigate churches as tax exempt because they are politically active because, after all, they are politically active. It is silly to debate the point because it is moot. The IRS shouldn’t need to investigate something so obvious because these groups should file and be held responsible just like the rest of us.

If they choose to use their money to build, donate, or whatever, they should be held accountable just like you and I are held accountable. We pay, and so should they. All of them.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

Sierra Madre: News You Need, When You Need It

Society for the Prevention of Bear Stories

There has been a lot going on in Sierra Madre lately, and it is now making the newspapers. Which is a good thing, this is all important stuff for people to know.

It is also just as important to note that it is possible for Sierra Madre to make news with stories that don't necessarily involve the presence of a bear. The most recent bear event here in town having attracted a vast fleet of very noisy Eyewitless News helicopters and enough TV news vans to fill a parking lot at Dodger Stadium. If you didn't know any better you'd have though the town was under some sort of a hostile invasion. Like it was our very own Red Dawn or something.

Sierra Madre is so much more than just bear stories. Here is our message. Local Los Angeles television news, it is time to stop the madness.

Over at the Pasadena Star News we have a new reporter covering the prestigious Sierra Madre beat. As you know, reporting about our somewhat complicated town is a kind of launching pad to journalistic greatness, with both Brian Charles and now James Figueroa having moved on to some of the bigger city news arenas of the vast newspaper empire that includes the Star News. Which is fine, we're hardly here to stand in the way of anybody's career advancement.

Our new reporter is Libby Rainey, who I had the pleasure of speaking with on the phone yesterday. She has now filed this Sierra Madre news story, and it is a good one. Her article covers Tuesday evening's City Council meeting and the big resident turn out to discuss our water debacle.

Here is what Libby reports:

Sierra Madre residents angered by strict water rules

By Libby Rainey
elizabeth.rainey@sgvn.com
@rainey_l on Twitter.com

SIERRA MADRE - Tempers flared at the City Council meeting Tuesday and came to a boil on one issue: water. It got so heated the City Council decided to schedule a special meeting to reconsider restrictions on water use it imposed in May. Those restrictions require cutbacks and impose fines on residents for overuse.

The date of the special meeting has yet to be determined. Residents say the measures are unfair and unreasonable. "The city is a primary user of water," Katrelya Angus said. "If residents are being mandated to cut back, then the city should be mandated to cut back as well."

A resident's average water consumption dictates that resident's conservation goal. Water users are billed every other month in Sierra Madre. Some at the meeting complained that the council did not consider that water consumption spikes in summer for many.

"I wish you had taken the time to reach out to the community, then you wouldn't have as many people as are here upset about what you've done," said Charles Hunter, a Sierra Madre resident, at the meeting. "Single family homeowners wind up with an unreasonable target ... making it likely that they will be fined."

According to a paper released by the city, water consumption in Sierra Madre is up more than 50 percent from last year -- comparing April 2012 to April 2013 -- despite a stable population. "While rainfall is down, and recharge of the aquifer is down, overall water consumption is up from last year," reads a letter to Sierra Madre residents available at the council meeting.

Some residents suggested there were other solutions to water conservation. Resident Shirley Moore demanded that the city implement a moratorium on construction in town, an idea that circulated many times in the meeting's public comment period.

To read the rest of this article please click here.

Libby's article captures a lot of the emotion that was clearly evident at this packed confab, plus reports on some of the great points being made there. But for me it also raises a very big question. How can the City's claim that water consumption here is actually up 50% in one single year be true? Is there any way to verify this? Outside of the mother of all water main leaks, on an intuitive level at least this just doesn't make much sense.

James Figueroa, covering the PUSD beat, has now filed a Star News story about our Sierra Madre Middle School triumph, which also came down on Tuesday evening. To my way of thinking this is some of the best news to come our way in quite some time.

Construction of Sierra Madre Middle School approved

By James Figueroa, SGVN
twitter.com/jfigscribe

PASADENA-The long-awaited construction of Sierra Madre Middle School will begin next month, after the Pasadena Unified School District board approved a $27.89 million contract -- $5 million over budget for the project.

Tuesday night's decision elicited cheers and applause from a packed audience of parents, students and teachers who have waited three years for the school to be built. The previous campus was torn down in 2010, but budget shortfalls forced construction delays that left students using temporary classrooms on the site, next to a weed-filled empty lot.

"It was a good night for our town," said Gretchen Vance, one of the parents who coordinated a lobbying effort to push the board into accepting the low bid for the project, submitted by Sinanian Development. Parents were worried it would be the last chance to get the school built, Vance added.

The tentative schedule calls for construction to begin the first week of July. The project includes 22 new classrooms, a science lab, library, gymnasium and cafeteria. The board approved the bid on a 5-1 vote, with the majority acknowledging that mistrust had spread through the Sierra Madre community after previous delays.

"I feel it is not good to be breaking promises," said board member Mikala Rahn, a Sierra Madre resident who was sworn in earlier in the day after winning appointment to a vacant seat. "To me, this is an issue of how the board operates in policy and districts operate in practice at the local level."

The rest of this story can be found by clicking here.

A remarkable turn of events if you think about it. We've gone from having our Board of Ed election vote in March stolen to the first Sierra Madre resident BOE member in years, and now we are finally getting the Middle School rebuilt after years of delays that showed all the signs of becoming permanent.

Plus it was good to see the note about the sense of mistrust here. Mistrust being something we do very well in this town. In some ways we lead the county in it.

The Pasadena Sun, which covers non-bear Sierra Madre stories about as often as I play the violin, has also filed something about our Middle School triumph. Here is what they have to say:

Pasadena Unified approves long-awaited Sierrra Madre campus rebuild 

Plans to rebuild Sierra Madre Middle School got a long-awaited thumbs up from Pasadena Unified school board members on Tuesday, prompting cheers from some 200 supporters who packed the meeting room and hallway outside.

Construction will start next month at the site of the former campus and is set to wrap up in March 2015, school district Chief Finance Officer John Pappalardo said. The project comes after being stuck in limbo for three years due to budget concerns and bureaucratic snafus.

Sierra Madre Middle School was bulldozed in July 2010 after officials moved students into portable temporary classrooms on the expectation that California’s Division of the State Architect would approve construction plans within a few months.

You can catch the rest of their drift by clicking here.

That's what I have for you today. There will be more tomorrow.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

Mayor Nancy Walsh Has A Situation Going On

Our Nancy

You know what Nancy Walsh loves? Things she can control. Nancy loves City Staff because they do all the things that she wants with big happy smiles on their faces, and even help her find new things that she didn't even know she wanted yet. No questions asked. Nancy also loves consultants because they will do what she tells them to do as well. It might takes hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to please her in the way she prefers the most, but why should it matter? As long as they let Nancy believe she is calling the shots and making some really big and important things happen around here, all is right with her world.

Do you know what Nancy Walsh does not love? People and events that she cannot control. Especially when those involved are not only smarter and more accomplished at what they do than she is, but also do things the way they want to without caring one whit about what Nancy might think. And in ways the poor dear often finds to be most complicated.

And there is no group of people that she cannot abide more than the General Plan Update Steering Committee. Their independence, integrity, hard work, clearly established abilities and, most of all, their lack of willingness to do what she wants when she wants it, makes her very very mad.

Last night Nancy Walsh launched another of her somewhat bizarre attacks on the volunteers of the General Plan Update Steering Committee. A group of people who for four long years have given their time and professional energy to work very hard on mastering and bringing to life the intricacies of this City's General Plan. People far more concerned about what those living here want for their city than the outside special interests that Nancy cares about.

But it certainly wasn't anything we hadn't seen from her before. Demeaning the good works of caring volunteers is not something Nancy Walsh is at all shy about.

What set Nancy off last night was a letter from the Chair of the GPUSC, Denise Delmar. Chair Delmar felt that the City was on its way to spending a lot of money for General Plan consultants that was completely unnecessary. $30,000 for editing and typing documents to be exact. The GPUSC had done their job, and now it was time for City Staff to do what they get paid to do. But instead they would have rather spent a lot of taxpayer money.

Denise wrote a letter to Councilmembers Koerber and Capoccia about this irresponsible squandering of taxpayer dough, along with a few other things. Councilmember Koerber read it out loud to all who were gathered there last night,  and this is what she said:

Dear Chris and John,
          
I hope this finds you both well. I'm writing to you regarding an agenda item on the Tuesday, June 11th City Council agenda.  I am unable to address the City Council due to a business obligation in San Jose, and quite frankly my experience as GPUSC Chair has made me very leery of addressing  the City Council.
           
I am concerned about staff's request to increase the consultant's fees to "finish" the General Plan Update. The GPU is complete, all policies have been vetted and updated where needed, this was done with the community's  input and the development of the Guiding Principles.  In August of 2012, a list was developed on all open items that needed to be completed before the GPU Draft could go to the Planning Commission, and the items on this list were completed in October.  Planning Commission members and GPU members were told to expect this to be on the November Planning Commission agenda.  In January 2013, committee members were given differing explanations for the delay, and then a March meeting was called. 
          
The March meeting was with our consultant who gave the committee feedback, such as word usage, the matrix format, etc.  I was shocked to get this feedback in March, when much of the text had been completed months, and even the year, before. The consultant had not seen any of it, until January 2013.    I asked the consultant in March if the introduction, appendix, glossary and implementation plan have to be included to move to the review process.  She said they do not need to be included. 

So, the committee once again pulled it together went through and indicated where the staff needs to insert the graphs, change the "questionable words"  and even did the staff's work of preparing a non-matrix document, in order for the GPU to move through the review process. 
        
We met again in May, and decided that the implementation plan committee would continue working and have something by Labor Day.  The Appendix committee would continue working and have something by Labor Day as well.  We also suggested asking the consultant if they have a general glossary at their disposal to send to the Appendix committee, who could then modify it for Sierra Madre.  We suggested a City Council Member, Planning Commission Member, and GPU Committee Member update the introduction once it has gone through the Planning Commission and City Council review process.  In the meantime, the first page should just be the Guiding Principles.
        
 As you probably know by now, I "calls 'em like I sees 'em", and I see more stalling on the part of city staff.  This document could have gone to the Planning Commission in November; it is a draft, not the final product. When I interviewed the consultants I was told by this firm that they would help with the formatting for the end product, in order to submit it for a public hearing and the state review. It is baffling why we are being charged now.  The implementation plan is not a requirement, so why would we pay a consultant to do work that is not a requirement?  We don't even know if the City Council wants an implementation plan in the General Plan.  

Staff is more than capable of correcting the very few typos , and sentence flow problems, since they are the ones who initially pointed them out. If staff is not capable of such minor clerical tasks, then we have a much bigger problem.  Further, the introduction is not a requirement, and therefore it should not be written by a consultant.  Staff has the  graphs, we have indicated which graph goes where, and all they have to do is insert them.  This does not have to be done by someone who has  General Plan experience, or even Planning & Development experience. This is basic word processing.  Why would we pay expert rates to do word processing?
           
This is the people's document, and the people have written the document, but at this point staff has to own it, and actually do some work.  Through this whole process, it has been the committee members who have put together the work plan, the timelines, the deadlines, the sub-committees, and we did not get direction from staff at all. 
            
Four years ago, when I started on this committee I had no idea of the amount of hours that would be put into  managing this project. I thought that job would have been done by the paid staff.   Now that we aren't managing the project anymore for free, the city staff  is ready to pay almost $30,000 to someone instead of doing it themselves.  Remember, a part time planner was hired to help with the work load of that department because of all the work the GPU would generate. 

Thank you for your attention,
Denise Delmar

It was at this point that Nancy Walsh blew up and launched her attack. Here is how someone commenting on this blog last night described it:

How dare Nancy Walsh spew her uninformed nonsense regarding the qualifications of the General Plan Update Committee. She stated that it was the city that got the meetings televised so it would be transparent. The committee asked for that so the community could follow along better. The committee asked for additional meetings so they could proceed more rapidly and that was met by a NO as it would take up too much staff time yet there is staff all over the place at meetings where they are not needed as Elaine is such a micromanager she cannot let an underling answer a question without her interference. 

Where was Walsh when the 1996 General Plan was created? All she has to do is look at the credits given for the participants and she will see that it was the work of the citizens of the city of Sierra Madre, then, as it should be now. This consultant firm at the cost of $200,000.00 (the exact amount was quoted by Capoccia) could not do the work without the imput of the volunteers. Much of the data procured by the consultant had to be reworked as it was boiler plate and did not match the facts on the ground.

Denise was right, of course, and despite Nancy's unfortunate and uncalled for attacks on goodhearted volunteers who have worked so hard for the people of this community, the City Council agreed that City Staff could do some honest clerical work and save the taxpayers $30,000.

Danny Castro, under whose purview the City Manager stated this all falls (welcome to the undercarriage of the bus, Danny), stood up to say that he and those he works with have a lot to do, and while they can do this kind of work, questioned whether it would be a good use of their time.

Which to me is yet another good argument (along with the water shortage) for establishing a building moratorium in this City. It would free Danny up to do the editing and typing necessary to help complete the General Plan.

How out of touch is our City government?

If you had attended the meeting last night you would have seen that Council Chambers were packed. There were two distinct groups in attendance, one was there to protest the recent peculiar City Council decision to inappropriately fine water customers for what they believe is rampant over-usage, the other to protest the remarkably unfair treatment of a much beloved Sierra Madre physical therapist named Yvette Natalia del Corazon.

I am not going to spend too much time describing what was said last night by either group. A lot has been written here about the water situation lately, and I am sure you are all up on this situation. And the wrong that was done to Yvette is clearly obvious. Both of these groups of folks featured many highly articulate and well-informed speakers who delivered strong arguments that in the end had a profound impact on the City Council.

Yvette was "grandfathered" back into good legal graces with the City, and the City Council made some serious noises that sounded like they were going to try and fix many of the problems associated with their ham-handed decision to financially penalize water users no matter what their individual situations.

But what needs to be asked is how is it our City government has become so out of touch with the residents of Sierra Madre that this large outpouring of resident anger became necessary in the first place? I was there, the place was packed for both portions of the meeting, with the concern being genuine and at times even intense.

So how did it get to this point? And why didn't our city government understand that their unfortunate actions could evoke this level of concern from the residents?

Can it be they are really that out of touch?

"We are only obeying orders"

This is my favorite example of how badly out of synch City Hall has become with the folks they supposedly are working for. On the Consent Calendar last night was an item identified on the meeting agenda this way:

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1337: ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 ENTITLED “R-3 H MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY” TO THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP

What this bright and shining example of city-speak indicates is that those who supposedly carry out the will of the people of Sierra Madre were in the process of legally enabling the building of 20 unit high density "stack and pack" single acre condo complexes at a time when the city is also fining residents over their water usage.

This is an incredible disconnect on two levels. The first being that very few people in this town want that kind of development here, and haven't for decades. The other is how can you possibly allow that high level of development in a town when our water situation has gotten so bad that people are not only about to be fined wholesale, but also threatened with having their water actually turned off?

The City Manager defended all this by stating that the City had no choice but to do it because Sacramento mandates such planning be allowed to happen.

So since when did obvious wrong become an acceptable solution in Sierra Madre? Don't we have the will to fight for the right things anymore? Do we merely take and obey central government orders these days?

I thought that kind of thinking ended badly about 70 years ago.

Can you handle some good news?

By a 5 to 1 vote last night the Pasadena Unified School District's Board of Education voted to approve a contract for the building of Sierra Madre's soon to be brand new Middle School. The long frustrating wait is finally over, and starting in the first week of July we are going to see the construction of something that will not only be a great addition to our community, but also something we can all feel a lot of pride in.

Think about it. How ridiculous would it have been just two months ago to think that not only would this school would ever get built, but we would also have a Sierra Madre representative on the Board of Education to vote for it as well?

Thanks to Councilmembers Chris Koerber and John Capoccia for all their hard work to help make these two important events happen. Plus the efforts of many other equally effective people as well.

Sometimes we win one. Or even two. But we always have to fight like hell to do it.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com