(11/14/10) Editorial - Attn: City Council - She's Not Always Wrong Just Because She's MaryAnn

(9/14/10) Did Council Members and Administration Withhold Water Bond Debt Information from Other Council Members?  It was reported yesterday that former City Council Member Don Watts was surprised by the City's water bonds, and that he in fact believes that facts about those water bonds were withheld from him and from other Council members.  In a letter published online to John Crawford, former Council Member Watts had this to say:  "I have been taken by surprise by this Bond issue, and I'm sure if you talk to Kurt, he would be as well. I could "feel" after Kurt and I were elected, something was not being talked about but I couldn't put my finger on it. This explains a lot about the body language of Buchanan, Joffe, and some of the administrators. They deliberately withheld this from us. If I had been told about this, I guarantee you it would have been public a long time ago. I now feel convinced the city is in need of major house cleaning. Including the role the local papers have been complicit in. They have killed the public trust." - Don Watts

I have contacted Mr. Watts to request clarification of his statement, and if/when I receive a response, I will post it. It's possible that his letter was in response to specific issues regarding the water bonds that Crawford had written about, and not the bonds in general.

I also contacted former Mayor Kurt Zimmerman, to determine if he agreed with Council Member Watts, as I don't want to allow Mr. Watts' suppositions as to whether or not Kurt was surprised, to be interpreted as representing Mr. Zimmerman's position.  If/when I receive a response from former Mayor Zimmerman, I will post it.  I have also asked for a statement regarding Mr. Watts' statement from our City Manager.  Again, if/when I receive a response I will post it. 

Asked about Mr. Watts' statement, Council member John Buchanan had this to say:  "Anybody on the City Council who claims that they were not aware of water bonds that have been a matter of public record since 1998 and 2003 was just not paying attention."

In the meantime, I did a little checking.  I visited the City website, and in the FY 2009-2011 budget, all 326 pages of which can be found here, there is a section on Debt, Section 7.  I've reproduced a much smaller file and faster download of those twelve pages here.  This section clearly states the City's bond debt and payment schedule.  This budget was approved while Council Member Watts was serving as Mayor pro tem.  Also, in the 2007 Audit of the City's finances, on pages 30 and 31, one can find information about the water bonds.  In the 2008 Audit of the City's Finances, on pages 29 and 30, one can find information about the water bonds.  In the 2009 Audit of the City's Finances, on pages 45 and 46, one can find information about the City's Finances.  Mr. Watts was in office from 2006 - 2010.  So I guess I'm not sure what was being withheld, since just those few quick file checks find information about the bonds, going back three years.  If and when Mr. Watts clarifies his position, I'll let you know.

(7/30/10) Council Gets Some Things Right, But Not All

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.

At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, the City Council did the right thing by setting the proposed water rate increase aside. Not only was it the right thing, it was actually an extraordinary thing. To respond to the will of the people of the community in this manner, when the consequences to the City for doing so could be, shall we say, problematic, even when not legally required to do so, was an extraordinary action by this Council, and one that their critics are not giving them enough credit for. Of course, part of the reason they are not being given the credit is because they then turned around and did the wrong thing.

I understand why the Council remained silent on the issue of whether or not they would allow the people to protest the next rate increase proposal. One of the first rules of business is to not close off options unless you absolutely have to. I don’t have any law training, but I’m guessing that rule is one that is pressed even harder in that profession, so with two attorneys on the Council, this was probably not the direction they wanted to go. Kind of like in sales, you should never negotiate against yourself, and never negotiate the price you will receive to a lower amount. But in this case, I think the Council made a mistake in not recognizing that closing off an option (by allowing a Prop. 218 protest on the next proposal) was something they HAD to do. They couldn’t vote on it at the meeting, because it wasn’t on the agenda, but they could have all said "that’s our intent."

As much distrust as their has been of this council, and as much anger as has been stirred up by this increase and the way it was handled, this Council should have stated collectively that they would allow the ratepayers and parcel owners of this town the opportunity to protest the proposal they come back with. It would have gone a long way toward opening up the lines of communication and toward helping to build up some trust. And after all, having already taken the extraordinary action of listening to the protestors even though they weren’t legally required to do so, this would have just been an extension of that action. And if this protest failed, which it legally did, and they trust their outreach program to explain to the people why the next proposed increase is necessary, they should expect that they will be able to get the next proposal passed, too. So on that Agenda item, I think they got one right, one wrong.

On the outreach program item, I think they got it right. Taking the time to talk to the people of this town, and more importantly to listen, is the only way they stand a chance of getting the people to approve a water hike in the future. Well, not the only way, they can send it through by using the option I think they should have given up. They can, legally, send an increase through without the approval of the people, as long as it is lower than the plan they just decided to scuttle, but they shouldn’t.

Unlike former Mayor Kurt Zimmerman, I don’t think that the outreach program is predicated on the idea that the Council thinks the residents are stupid, I think it’s predicated on the idea that the Council thinks the residents are uninformed. And they are, although nowhere nearly as uninformed as they were two months ago. I’ve heard some criticism that the issue of the bonds was brought up late, though I don’t know for sure when it was first cited as one of the reasons for the hike. If, as the City Attorney implied at the July 13th meeting, the bond company has the right to accelerate payment of the debt to pay it immediately, it may not be in the best interests of the City to send up flares saying hey, we’re not conforming to the terms of our contract. Maybe, that’s why they didn’t talk about it in the beginning. Whatever the reason, it is being perceived by some as sneakiness and conspiracy. There’s no conspiracy folks, just a bunch of people trying to do their job. But it will be easier for them to do their jobs if, as Council member MacGillivray suggested, we are told what projects need to be done, where they stand in urgency, how much they will cost, and how much the people will benefit from the projects. Projects that we end up paying only a portion of because we are able to get funding from others might be worth it in the long run. But I think the residents of this town want to learn a little bit more about what’s being proposed before giving it their blessing.

The other thing the Council got right was the General Plan item. I haven’t been following that too much, but it now has my attention. Kudos to City Attorney Levin for providing the City with a solution they didn’t really ask for, by suggesting that a list of volunteers be created to implement an outreach program created by the Steering Committee, rather than creating a Brown Act committee. Bringing in a bunch of volunteers that are not restricted by the Brown Act to work on this plan could jump start this process, and the Council will still have the option, if I understood it correctly, of having more say in the creation of the advisory committees down the road. The General Plan should have as much resident participation as possible, and this seems like a good way to go about it.

To comment on this editorial, click here.

All Valid Signatures Should Be Counted, Not Just Some
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated

The results of the verification of resident protest letters regarding the water rate increase is to be reported to the City Council at Tuesday night’s meeting. That verification was to consist of eliminating any duplicate letters, then cross-checking the names/addresses on the protest letters against the City’s water billing list. If the name listed for an address in a protest was not the name on the City’s water billing list, the name was then to be checked against the Assessor’s Parcel database to see if the name the County Assessor has listed as the parcel owner was the same as the name on the protest. If the name and address of a protestor could not be matched with either the City’s water billing list or the County Assessor database, it was to be disqualified.

The City Clerk was charged with verifying the signatures. Again, verification was to include both the City’s water list and the County Assessor’s Parcel database. Verifying against just one list or the other means that only half the job was done. Checking just the water bill would mean that a protesting property owner whose tenant pays the water bill might be wrongfully disqualified, because their name is not on the water bill. Checking just the Parcel list would mean that protesting tenants who pay for their own water might be wrongfully disqualified, because the Assessor doesn’t show their name as the property owner. So it is imperative that both lists be checked, to make sure everyone that has a legal right to protest is given their right to do so.

Last weekend, more than a week before the presentation of the report to the City Council was scheduled to take place, City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger announced in a press release that she had “tabulated and determined the validity of the written protests to the City's proposed water fee increase. I hereby find and give notice that there were 1,898 written protests. Accordingly, a majority of parcel owners, who would have been impacted by the proposed fee increase, have submitted written protests.” The press release stated that there were 1,898 written protests, plus 151 duplicates (2,049 total).

She added the following post script:
“P.S. The City Clerk did not have access to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers List/Owner's Names. If this list is made available to her, she will be happy to check the list again.”

Let’s look at this statement. Ms. Shollenberger states that a majority of parcel owners, who would have been impacted by the proposed fee increase, have submitted written protests. A) It’s not just parcel owners that are to be counted, it’s rate payers as well, hence the need to verify against both the water bill list and the Parcel Owner’s database. Why weren’t the rate payers referenced in her statement? B) How can she find and give notice that a majority of parcel owners have protested, when she, by her own admission, hasn’t accessed the database of Parcel Owners?

In addition, the first sentence of this post script is just flat out not true. Anybody that goes to the Assessor’s Office and asks for it has access to that list (our City staff did just that in order to double check signatures, see below). Also, anybody with online access to MLS has access to that list, and I’m sure there are many Sierra Madreans that have access to MLS that would have been happy to help with this task.

What Ms. Shollenberger was really trying to say was that she was denied access by the City to that list, a claim the City has denied. The City doesn’t have a parcel owner's “list,” however, it does have software that provides them access to the County Assessor's database, so that specific addresses/parcels can be looked up to verify ownership. According to City Manager Elaine Aguilar, our City Clerk, on three different occasions, was offered access to that database, and access to a staff member to make sure that if the City Clerk had problems with the software, there was someone there that was familiar enough with the software that any issues might be resolved. She declined the offer each time.

According to Ms. Aguilar, Nancy told her she intended instead to be at City Hall during the part of the City staff’s review of the protest letters when staff was using the Assessor’s database to cross-check any letters that did not match the water bill names. In fact, according to Ms. Shollenberger herself, she intended to be there. To quote the City Clerk from an e-mail I received from her on Tuesday: “I have asked her (Ms. Aguilar) to let me know when they will start and I will be there.” That was originally scheduled to begin on Tuesday. However, cross-checking the water bill names against the protest letters took longer than anticipated and so the second phase didn’t begin until Wednesday morning. According to the City Manager, verification against the Assessor’s Parcel list took place both Wednesday and Thursday. Yet for some reason, the City Clerk decided not to go. According to the City Manager, Ms. Shollenberger instead sent a “deputy” to observe on Wednesday, but just a few minutes before staff began checking the names, the deputy announced that she had to run home for a few minutes. She never came back, and so even though staff was checking names against the Assessor’s database for two full days, no one from the City Clerk’s office was on hand to take note of their findings. Part of the reason that aspect of the verification took two full days is that City staff, knowing there is the possibility of delay in updating the online database, after checking online, physically went to the Assessor’s office and double checked any names that had not matched up during their online verification attempt.

I expect that Ms. Shollenberger’s report to the City Council will differ from the report in her press release. After all, she has publicly issued two different numbers for the number of protests she has received (the figure of 1,941 that she stated at the July 13th City Council meeting was different than the 1,898/2,049 figures she provided in her press release), and in an e-mail to me on Tuesday the 20th, she stated she had 1,959, a third number. In addition, her press release clearly states that she had failed to perform the assigned task of verifying signatures against the Assessor’s Parcel list, which leaves the possibility that some qualified protestors had not, at that time, had their protests allowed. One wonders why she would even issue such a press release, since it clearly states that she hadn’t completed her job at the time it was issued.

So it is important that she now follow through with the verification against the Assessor’s database, and issue a final report in which the verification process is completed, not done half way. Ms. Shollenberger has (erroneously) claimed she doesn’t have access to the Assessor’s database, and didn’t have anybody on hand taking notes when the City was accessing the database. Since the City Clerk has chosen not to be involved when the City Staff was checking the Assessor’s Parcel database, it is critical that the City Clerk’s office now access the Assessor’s Parcel list on its own to verify the names, before issuing its report on Tuesday. It’s the only way to ensure that ALL protests that SHOULD be counted, ARE counted.

The sad part in all this is how unnecessary the controversy is. Council stated at the last meeting that the water rate increase was not moving forward, and directed staff to develop an outreach program to do a better job of informing residents why it feels a water rate increase is required. So this whole verification process is a formality, albeit a necessary one. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, memory occasionally fails, but I believe Joe Mosca asked if it was even necessary to count the protests since the increase was dead, and Council Member MacGillivray (correctly) stated that it was necessary. But this should be a non-issue: a quick look for duplicates, followed by a comparison of names/addresses against the water bill, and then a cross check of parcel lot owners, culminating in a 30 second reading of the final count on Tuesday. Instead, we have three different numbers from the City Clerk, which calls everything into question. We have accusations by the City Clerk that the City has refused to provide access to the very list the City directed her to use (what sense would that make?) which only adds to the problem. And we have unsubstantiated allegations that the City Manager is trying to make her own list so she can force the water rate increase through, when all she’s trying to do is ensure that the City is protected by making sure the signature verification is done the proper way. Which, by the way, is her job, the City Council directed staff to work on these numbers, too. She’s conducting her own analysis. In theory, since she’s working from the same list the City Clerk is, and they are operating under the same guidelines, the numbers should be exactly the same in the City Manager's report as they are in the City Clerk’s.

City staff should be concentrating on trying to figure out a way to get some money to the water department in a manner that is acceptable to the rate payers, not concerning themselves with a ridiculous controversy over what should be a non-issue.

(4/18/10) Post-Election, 2010

By Bill Coburn

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident.  It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated. 

Okay, it’s been a couple days.  Frankly, I think what I posted on my blog more or less said it all:  Yes, Yes and YES!  Congratulations to our next Mayor, Joe Mosca, and to new council members Josh Moran and Nancy Walsh. The good people of Sierra Madre have spoken, and I think what they've said is: Enough is Enough!

Thirty-nine words pretty much covered it.  But I’ve had people contacting me asking when I was going to put my take on the election up on the website.  As I said, I thought I did.  But one of the people in particular who contacted me, a long-time resident (for whom I have a great deal of respect) that no longer lives in town, e-mailed me that she was “eager to see your election report.”  And the more I thought about it, I realized, if anybody can turn 39 words into 2,000, it’s me, and if that’s what people want, I’m okay with that.  Besides, in a year and a half, and then again in three and a half, as the election year campaigns pick up, I may want something a little more detailed to refer back to than the thirty-nine words I’ve already posted. 

Add to that the fact that my silence was not matched by the other guy in town that writes more than he should, and I decided to put a couple things down to say what I think about the election.

Obviously, I’m happy with the outcome, having endorsed the three candidates that will be seated on the council a week from this coming Tuesday night.  Last Tuesday, when people asked me what I predicted the outcome would be, I told them frankly that I didn’t have a clue.  I was concerned, in fact.  While I don’t think I told anybody this specifically, I kind of thought that we were going to see Mosca, Crawford and Watts seated, though I did think it possible that I might be underestimating the power of Josh’s having grown up here in town. 

But I had another underlying feeling that made me a little more hopeful.  I’ve heard the last couple of elections that there’s a silent majority in town, folks who don’t necessarily get out and beat the drums, but a majority that includes people whose opinions are respected and who have some influence with their fellow residents.  It was my feeling that those folks had been a little complacent the last couple elections, and I kind of had a feeling that the tone of this campaign had been such that these folks might just have been roused out of their  complacency, and that we might just see their influence in the outcome.  I think I mentioned this to a couple of people.  But I think most people that I talked about it with, I expressed concern, because I really thought there was a good possibility that Maryann, Don and John were going to have a majority for the next two, if not four years, and I frankly thought we’d be better off if that didn’t happen.  And even though I had the underlying hope I discussed earlier, I was afraid I’d jinx it by actually expecting it.

In 1974, Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury were at the height of their popularity.  During this time frame, there were a series of cartoons in which blocks were being added to a wall in front of the White House, with the block wall eventually completely obscuring the White House.  After Nixon resigned, if I remember correctly, the cartoon showed the White House, wall removed, with birds flying by, a rainbow, sun shining, a brand new day.  I feel like that’s how many Sierra Madreans felt Wednesday, based on my conversations with people.  And before the critics start posting, no, I’m not saying a City Council election was comparable to the President of the most powerful country in the world resigning, I’m saying the feelings some people had Wednesday reminded me of feelings people might have had in 1974, as represented in a comic strip. See the difference?

Why did the election go the way it went? 

I think there were a few reasons.  First of all, I think the winners deserved to win.  I think there are a lot of people in town who have respect for Mosca, Moran and Walsh.  Even though Joe pissed some people off in town right after he was elected, there ARE some people in town who have actually gotten over it.  They recognize Joe for who he is, a hard working, good guy, who really likes this town and wants to give back.  Josh grew up here, and has a lot of family, and that familiarity coupled with the support group that is his family and friends, had a substantial influence. He also has worked for the City, and volunteered for several years on commissions and committees.  Nancy is not as well known, but she has been a volunteer in this town for a few years, sitting on and chairing the Senior Community Commission.  And while I don’t know if she would have won the seat running individually, she was aligned with a slate that, it turns out, had the most support.

Secondly, I think that people didn’t like seeing people they perceive as good people, as givers, people who volunteer and work hard for the community, being maligned in the manner that they were.  The derisive comments on Crawford’s blog were a little too much for some people.  Calling Nancy “What’s her name”, turning Josh’s surname into moron instead of Moran, and the out and out verbal attacks on Joe, just weren’t smart moves when you’re trying to get people to support you.  And I’m not saying that John Crawford did those things, for the most part it was his supporters that did it.  As I said in one of my editorials, you’re judged by the company you keep, and I think (actually I know) people judged John by the things his supporters said.  But it wasn’t just people judging John by the company he keeps.  I think a lot of people didn’t want to align THEMSELVES with the people that were supporting John in that manner, they didn’t want people judging THEM as people that were willing to act in the manner that some (not all) of John’s supporters were acting.

Which brings me to a tactical mistake that I think was a major contributor to the Crawford/Alcorn/Watts slate losing the election.  John should not have campaigned as a blog.  I know that if he hadn’t, I wouldn’t have been able to editorialize in the way that I did.  First of all, much of the opinion on his site, even in the articles he posts, are actually other people’s opinions, supplemented by his own.  A lot of John’s articles cite other blogs, paragraphs at a time of his articles are pulled directly from other websites, blogs or print media, and then he throws in a few lines of why he thinks the people are right (or wrong).  Secondly, John’s careful to use implication and conjecture as tools, and that leads to much of what he is criticized for.  He doesn’t come out and attack people anywhere near as much as he is accused of doing it.  He’ll frequently say things that will incite others to post things.  He’s kind of like a shock jock, to a degree.  He says things for a reaction, and his supporters are generally willing to oblige.  And it was those posts by his supporters, sometimes in reaction to John’s articles, sometimes not, that I think really hurt John with voters.

Another thing that hurt the C/A/W camp was unsubstantiated allegations.  To hear that Mosca was in the back pocket of the developers and just dancing at the ends of the strings of Sacramento’s marionettists, that Josh was a puppet of the real estate industry out to enrich his real estate industry family members, that Nancy was handpicked by John Buchanan to further his pro-development agenda, and that all three candidates, were, along with Buchanan, pro-development fiends, without anything anywhere to back it up, I think, left a sour taste in some folks mouth.  It just didn’t ring true.  All of the candidates made it quite clear that they were against four-story buildings downtown, yet we still kept hearing that that’s what we were going to get if we elected them into office. 

I think that the Mayor’s letter asking residents to elect the C/A/W slate to help her stay the course and move forward her agenda, backfired.  And while there were some who perceived it as problematic on its own merits, it became a bigger problem after the City Council meeting of March 23^rd.  There were many people who felt the Mayor bullied Joe to further her own political agenda at that meeting, and who felt that if this was the course that was going to be stayed, it might be better to set sail in another direction.  I sent a letter to the editor of the Mountain Views News about that meeting, but never discussed that meeting on my site, I don’t think.  So for those who didn’t read my letter, here’s my take:  The Mayor has to walk a fine line between allowing people their right to free speech, and ensuring that meetings don’t get out of hand due to personal attacks.  It’s a difficult task, and in this case, I think only one person really crossed that line.  And I think she REALLY crossed that line.  I think Mr. Mosca should have yielded the floor when asked to do so, and the Mayor was right to gavel him down and warn him that he might be removed if he didn’t respond to her requests for order.  That said, I think that if I were Mr. Mosca, I’d have done the same thing he did, as I think the Mayor should have been more pro-active in limiting that speaker’s attack, and I think she also should have allowed Mosca to speak with the City Attorney to determine if he had the right to respond, even though Public Comment is generally a one way conversation. If I felt I had a legal right to respond to someone I felt was personally attacking me verbally, and that right was being taken from me, I’d have been vocal about it too. 

But that’s just my take.  Even though I think the Mayor was within her rights to gavel over Mr. Mosca and to threaten him with removal from the Chambers, there were many people who didn’t feel that way.  And I think it’s highly ironic that after numerous calls on the Tattler and at City Council meetings by people that supported Crawford’s candidacy for more regular replays of the Council meetings on Channel 3, it was, to a degree, repeated replays of the Mayor’s actions that contributed to some folks choosing to vote against his slate.  And I know that it happened, I’ve had people tell me that it changed their vote.  I had one person, a senior, tell me that she would NEVER vote for anyone that Mayor MacGillivray told her she should vote for.

How did John Crawford get 1,000 votes?  Well, actually, it’s probably not surprising.  I was of the opinion that Crawford “won” the candidate forum sponsored by the Chamber.  Why?  Because for a lot of people, that was their first exposure to him, and the people who’d heard from his critics how awful he was were most likely favorably impressed when he came off as quite reasonable at that forum.  And I think that many of the people that voted for him were people who’s homes he visited during the campaign, and who heard him say that he was responsible for the eminent domain being on the ballot, and who were told that thanks to him, there was an ordinance in place that was going to bring the Skilled Nursing Facility folks to justice for allowing their property to go downhill while it sits empty.  Both of these are issues that resonated with folks in town, but many of these people had no idea what was happening on his blog.  I think Crawford’s vote tally would have been significantly lower if more people perceived him as the blogger, and fewer as the guy who helped make SNF and ED issues in this campaign.  Credit where credit is due, though, he was instrumental on both these issues.

I was glad to see that Pat Alcorn fared well, even though she didn’t win a seat on the Council.  She conducted herself with class, was knowledgeable on the issues, and frankly, might have done even better had she not been part of a slate which I believe dragged her down.  Of the non-winning candidates, she was behind only Don Watts, the incumbent, and by fewer than 150 votes.  Incumbents generally have a distinct advantage due to name recognition, and Pat was right there with him.  And I think she did a great job on that mailer we received days before the election.  It would be nice to see something like that come out from sitting Council members a couple times a year, as Pat told me she planned to do if she had been elected.

Where do we go from here?

Well, I think Joe’s going to be mayor.  I’m curious as to whether the Mayor will nominate him.  It would be a good political move for her to say, since she will still have the gavel, that she recognizes the will of the people, that in the spirit of reconciliation, she congratulates him and the new council members on their win, and that in that spirit, she hereby nominates him.  Some people with whom I’ve spoken about this just can’t see her doing that, saying they think it would be too much of a backpedal for her.  I really don’t know.  This would be a smart thing to do politically.  She’d be perceived as doing the right thing, even if she actually isn’t doing the right thing because it’s the right thing (who knows her motivation but her?)  But she’s a woman of convictions, and it will be interesting to see if she chooses to do the politically smart thing, or if she stands by her convictions.  I personally would like to see John Buchanan have the opportunity to nominate his friend.  But we’ll find that out in a couple weeks.

Crawford has, after a one day hiatus, brought the Tattler back, and has a “seriously, is there anything left to lose” attitude.  He’s continuing to see things in his own unique way.  For instance, his first day back, an article that said: “But when it came to the City Council, Sierra Madre voters soundly rejected the Tattler style - snarky, funny, eloquent, nasty - by giving the Tattler's author, John Crawford, the least votes of any major candidate.” generated this headline: “The Pasadena Star News Praises the Tattler.”  Not how I think most people would have interpreted those words.

On election night, I heard one of the folks who will be sitting on the Council for the next four years telling someone that the Council’s job now is to bring Mayor MacGillivray back into the fold.  In essence, this person said that rather than ostracize or criticize her, the Council needs to be inclusive, because if they can get her working WITH them, the council can only get even more accomplished.  Of course, the other side of the coin on that is that if Ms. MacGillivray chooses not to work collaboratively with the other members of the Council when they have attempted to work with her, it will reflect poorly on her.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that four years from now, we’re not going to see 4-story buildings on Sierra Madre Blvd., or Baldwin.  There won’t be a Walmart where the Skilled Nursing Facility is, we won’t have a MacDonald’s or a Jack in the Box, and we won’t have a stoplight either, barring a tragic accident that makes the City (and its residents) look at things with a different perspective.  In short, I don’t think that the catastrophes predicted to happen if Mosca, Moran and Walsh get elected are going to happen.  I think Sierra Madre will be pretty much the same as it is now.

But I hope there’s one change, and it’s going to take a lot of effort from both sides, which frankly, I don’t see happening.  But I’ll hope for it anyway.  Let’s tone down the rhetoric.  Let’s try to stick to the facts.  Let’s try to treat each other like we’re ALL worthy of respect (even if you don’t think so, TRY).  Let’s be a village. 

While there’s a lot of talk about the Tattler and the fact that even after being more or less rebuked by the residents of this town it’s come back out swinging, I’m also a little disappointed in the Weekly.  In my opinion, the Sierra Madre Weekly has, in its election coverage, taken some unnecessary potshots.  I think some of their election news coverage read like Opinion pieces.  News coverage should be fact based coverage, Opinion should be clearly marked as Editorial.  It’s one thing if opinion is offered in a columnist’s column, an editorial (marked editorial), or an Op-ed commentary (marked Op-ed).  But when it is written into what should be “Just the Facts” news coverage, you’re crossing a line.  And much of what I read in the paper this week wasn’t categorized as Opinion or Editorial, and could easily have been perceived as being news reporting, yet it was full of opinion.  And frankly, some of the opinions in this week’s paper, to my mind, lacked the civility and respect that the candidates (and the paper itself) have been calling for as we approached the election.  So here’s hoping that the Weekly will swing its pendulum back to its pre-election news approach.

Now I know I’m going to take some hits from people who will say that they feel it’s hypocritical for me to call for toning down the rhetoric and treating people with more respect, when, they will say, I was one of the people that was smearing their candidate.  All I can say is go back and read my editorials again.  The harshest thing I said was that statements that were being made were inaccurate, and that two of the candidates had, in my opinion misled voters.  I don’t consider that smearing.  You may, but I don’t.

And if you do, you’re entitled to your opinion.  But in this case, and I’m not saying I agree with you, your opinion is about something that you perceived to have happened in the past.  It’s okay if we disagree, different people perceive things in different ways, that’s life.  I’m hoping that, as we move forward, we can try to be a little nicer to each other, even as we disagree.  I will try.  Will you?

Okay, I was wrong.  I can turn thirty-nine words into thirty-two hundred, not two thousand…

Comment on this editorial

(4/7/10, 5:56am) Crawford Turns Back on Supporters, Leaves FD Out in the Cold

Editorial by Bill Coburn

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident.  It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.

In a move that is being seen by many as an attempt at damage control, John Crawford yesterday announced that he is considering eliminating the comments section of his blog.  He also changed the fundraising statement on his blog, removing the exhortation to “Send this blog to City Council” and replacing it with “Send John Crawford to City Council.”

Crawford posted the following  statement on his site:  ”Bill Coburn pointed out some comments left on this site regarding certain members of our Fire Department. He was right to do so as they were wrong. With over 12,000 comments having been left on this site, I am sure other unfortunate statements can be found as well. Recently the Pasadena Star News published an editorial lamenting some of the awful statements that get left in their public comments section. As has the Washington Post. Both are now considering doing away with the function altogether. I have always taken a very libertarian position on commenting to The Tattler. I never got into this to be anybody's net nanny, and I have only removed posts for obscenity or trolling. On the other hand, I might now be in a position where I might have to shut commenting down altogether. If you have a personal axe to grind with somebody, that is fine. But please, start a blog of your own and do it there. “

This statement was posted in direct response to an editorial that I wrote which I posted on my site last week and which was published in the Mountain Views News in last week’s edition, in which I posted statements that had appeared on Crawford’s blog that attacked the Sierra Madre Fire Department and the men and women that volunteer to staff the department.  This was the second editorial I had written in which I pointed out that Crawford was requesting that voters send his blog to the City Council, which, in my mind, made the entire blog, not just Crawford, part of the election. In the article, I noted that Crawford had failed to say one word to defend our volunteers, and I questioned whether the election of the Crawford, Watts, Alcorn slate might lead to the end of our ninety-year old fire department.

Now Mr. Crawford has taken the unusual step of distancing himself from his supporters. Notable for me in Mr. Crawford’s statement are two things.  One, the bulk of the statement deflects all blame for the issue as being standard operating procedure on blogs, by stating that the Tattler is no different than the Pasadena Star News (who Crawford has frequently berated on his site in the past, but with whom he now apparently feels a certain kinship), and the Washington Post, which have both expressed concern about the level of discourse in their comment section.  It’s interesting to me that Mr. Crawford has not in the past, to my knowledge, expressed concern about the level of conversation on his blog.  But as the election draws near, it appears he is concerned enough that his association with the comments on his site might impact the number of votes he receives, that he is willing to state that he “may” need to remove the comments, essentially turning his back on the views of the people that have supported him thus far in the race. 

Of greater concern to me is the almost complete failure by Crawford to address the Fire Dept. issue.  He said I was right to point out the comments “as they were wrong.”  That’s it.

No apology to our volunteers for the statements that he allowed on his blog.  No apology for failing to respond in the department’s/volunteer’s defense.  No mention of whether or not he supports our Department, or wants to outsource Fire Suppression, an issue which will be taken up by the new Council within weeks of their being seated.  We are still left to wonder whether Mr. Crawford supports our Department or wishes to see it end, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) in budget expenses so that we will have a “professional” fire department, rather than volunteers.

Candidates Nancy Walsh, Josh Moran and incumbent Council member Joe Mosca have all assured me that A) they support our Fire Dept. in its current model; B) they wish to see the Dept. continue to maintain and improve upon its current level of expertise and professionalism, C) they are in support of doing whatever is necessary to make sure the Fire Department has the necessary equipment to maintain the standard of care now enjoyed by Sierra Madre residents, and D) short of the release of some unanticipated report that the Department is not living up to the public safety needs of the residents of Sierra Madre, they are against outsourcing Fire Suppression.

That (among other things) is why I will be voting for them. 

To comment on this editorial, click here

(4/12/10) 2010 Election - Can We Please Get a Little More Accuracy?

“John Crawford’s Final Campaign Whopper: Susan Henderson Said LA Sheriffs are Taking Over Sierra Madre”

By Bill Coburn

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident.  It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.

Candidate John Crawford has had on his website, for some time now, a photo of what are at least six-story buildings, with a header that says “Is this what you want to see in Sierra Madre?” and a caption that says “Then vote Joe Mosca, 2010.”  By his use of this photo with these statements, Crawford is telling readers (voters) that Mosca is in favor of mid-rise buildings in Sierra Madre, when Mosca has repeatedly stated that he is not. 

Candidate Crawford has repeatedly stated on his website that the DSP called for more than 300 condo units to be built downtown.  The fact of the matter is that the DSP didn’t call for anything to be built.  The DSP was actually designed to restrict building.  It was a set of guidelines to put in place limits as to what could or could not be built downtown.  Nowhere did it state that once the plan was in effect, the City needed to build those units, i.e., call for the construction of these units.  The problem is that the limits being proposed in the DSP exceeded what Mr. Crawford and others wanted to see built downtown.  But it is definitely not accurate to say that the Plan called for things that it didn’t call for. 

At the Candidate Forum at City Hall, Mr. Crawford informed us that the old fire station in the canyon had been sold to help pay for the DSP.  The money generated from the sale of the fire station was actually used to pay for the start-up of paramedic service in this town. 

After the Housing Element Workshop about a year ago, Candidate Crawford posted an article on his website with a misleading headline:  “Homes Listed as Possible Eminent Domain Seizure Targets For the Purpose of Building Multi-Family Low Income Housing in Sierra Madre.“ The article continued the inaccurate information:  “Below you will find a list of those homes identified as candidates for Eminent Domain seizure should the statute be revived. Once these homes are seized by the government they would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing. The notion behind this singular act of government violence against a selected few citizens here in Sierra Madre is to jam high-density housing into what is already a very built out town.”
 
Both the headline and the first sentence of the post contain statements that are just completely inaccurate. There were no (that’s right NO) homes listed as possible Eminent Domain seizure targets. There WERE properties that the City identified as candidates to be zoned for higher density. That means the property owners could, should they so choose, build, or sell to someone who would build, more units on the property than it is currently zoned to allow to have built on it. In essence, the move by the City would probably increase the property value for the owners, by increasing the options the owners have as to what they can do with the property. The City has not targeted these properties for Eminent Domain, or even possible Eminent Domain.  But Mr. Crawford uses words like seized, razed and act of government violence to whip up a little frenzy among his readers, the fact that it’s not true notwithstanding.

Now, in Sunday's Tattler column, John is telling his readers that Susan lied to them in a front page article by claiming that LASD is taking over the SMPD.  Anybody who read the article knows this isn’t true.  Even John’s first quote from that article specifically quotes Susan saying just the opposite:  “Despite the fact that there is currently no executed contract between the city and the Sheriff's Department…”  In her article, Ms. Henderson quotes Police Chief Marilyn Diaz denying that the Sheriff’s Dept. is taking over, she quotes SMPD Capt. Larry Giannone denying it, and she states that Supervisor Antonovich office has not received the necessary request for the supervisors to approve a contract for LASD to begin contracting with Sierra Madre.  Yet Crawford’s headline, in big red letters, is “Susan Henderson’s Final Campaign Whopper: L.A. Sheriff’s Dept. is taking over Sierra Madre.” 

Susan did say that she has been informed LASD officers are discussing the idea that LASD will take over SMPD, and that the deputies are positioning themselves for that possibility.  But as shown above, she made it very clear that that is not the current status.

I don’t know if Mr. Crawford is confused, if he was given bad information, if he has misinterpreted information, if he really believes the things he is saying, or if, and I hope this isn’t the case, he is purposely misstating the facts.  One would hope that a candidate for City Council wouldn’t purposely mislead the people that he’s asking to elect him to office.  One would think that he would have enough respect for the voters that he would check his information before he starts stating things as facts.  Yet time and again, Mr. Crawford has made statements that are just not accurate.

Mayor Maryann MacGillivray, in a letter sent to Sierra Madre voters, describes Mr. Crawford’s website as reliable, accurate and (a) valuable source of information.  Uh-oh, looks like it may be catching.

I want my Council members to be people that I trust will be giving me accurate information about what’s happening in the City.  That’s why I’ll be voting Moran, Mosca, Walsh on Tuesday, April 13^th.

(4/2/10) SMFD Volunteers – Heroes or Hosers?  Where Does Your Candidate Stand?

Editorial by Bill Coburn

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident.  It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.

In the days following the Santa Anita Fire in April and May of 2008, the grateful residents of this town made no secret of their gratitude to the heroes who stood along the fire lines and fought back the flames that were destroying much of the hillside behind our village, manning fronts along the fire line, protecting their neighbors, and preventing the loss of even a single home, though the flames came within striking distance at multiple locations.  Home made signs sprung up, letters to the editor were written, and Sierra Madreans stood up at local public meetings to express their undying gratitude to the volunteers of the Sierra Madre Fire Department.

Now, just two years later, some members of the community seem to have forgotten that it was these firefighting heroes, along with fire departments from all over California, that saved this town from destruction.  Apparently for some, “gratitude” doesn’t have the shelf life it once did.

A few nights ago, bloggers posted comments on Sierra Madre Tattler, the blog operated by City Council candidate John Crawford, calling the Department “the laughing stock of the state.”  Naturally, as often happens, the Department’s leader was the lightning rod.  One blogger stated that SMFD Chief “Steve Heydorf (sic), who is currently getting paid over $120,000 a year to be our "volunteer" fire Chief does nothing except either sit on his fat butt all day in the Development Services department, or drive around in the shiny, brand new, command vehicle doing his personal errands.”  Another poster said the department is “…just an 'elite' club of self-important windbags now, with questionable ability to battle a wastebasket fire.”  Apparently, their ability to fight fires has undergone a rapid decline, having gone from a successful defense against walls of flame racing down hillsides toward our homes, to, according to this poster, an inability to extinguish a few burning pieces of paper.

It wasn’t just the Fire Department that took the hits, nearly half of your non-firefighting neighbors were accused of wanting their neighbors’ homes to burn:  “I've heard the DIRTS say before, that they wish a huge fire would burn down every house in the canyon. No wonder why they had no problem with Lowe/Heydorf (sic)/Bamberger/Burnett taking Fire Dept. vehicles out of the city for personal use. Who needs a Fire Department when you're waiting for the whole city to burn up in flames.”  For the unaware, DIRTS is the term used on Crawford’s blog to describe opponents of Measure V, the controversial ordinance limiting downtown development which in 2007 eked out a victory of fewer than 100 votes out of 3,500 votes cast. I’m not sure how disagreeing with someone over the methods used to limit growth downtown translates to a desire to see our historic canyon burn, but apparently, if this poster is to be believed, that’s what “the dirts” want.

But most of the negativity was directed at the Dept. itself:  “For a long, long time they protected the city with a pair of 1950's era Crown fire engines just fine. There were a couple of 2nd or 3rd hand support vehicles. Now they have several late model engines, a ladder truck, ambulances, water tankers, suburbans, Tahoe, etc. etc. etc. All that's missing is a helicopter but I have a hunch they have tried to figure out how to get one!...Why do we give these guys any toy they want, whenever they want???”  “The people in charge of the fire department are DIRTS, just like everyone in city Hall. They don't have a problem wasting our money because they would love to see Sierra Madre go bankrupt… If you're wondering why they're able to get away with it, it's because their boss, the city manager, is a died in the wool dirt, just like them.”  The logic of that statement escapes me.  Does this person really think it’s Elaine Aguilar’s goal to drive the city bankrupt, which would, of course, leave her without a job?  But I digress.  “Considering the sums of money that have been and are being wasted on that club, I would support contracting out fire services as well. For a few hundred thousand dollars more a year, we can get professional fire fighters, that can actually save lives and property, instead of a bunch of pictures of a burned out building and a death certificate.”  Ouch.

The men and women of the Sierra Madre Fire Department spend long hours training WITH NO PAY so that they will be prepared to, WITH NO PAY, get up in the middle of the night to, WITH NO PAY, leave the warmth of their homes and the loving arms of their family and WITH NO PAY rush to your home and WITH NO PAY save our pets, our possessions, our property or in some cases, our lives.  And they do this for false alarms and non-emergencies, as well.  Did I mention that they do this, without pay?  According to Salary.com, the median salary for a firefighter in the U.S. is in excess of $40,000/yr., significantly more than the $0 paid to all but three Sierra Madre firefighters.

One would expect that a City Council candidate in a town that has traditionally taken great pride in its fire department, which is now more than ninety years old, would say a few words in support of these brave men and women, if only to safeguard the votes of the members of the department and the residents who appreciate and support the department.  Yet Crawford remained silent, allowing his supporters to denigrate the firefighters without a single word in their defense.  Should his silence be interpreted as tacit agreement with the folks who would so willingly dishonor our hometown heroes?  And by extension, the other members of the Crawford/Alcorn/Watts slate, since they “have like beliefs and ideas?” 

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t feel that a person is responsible for things that other people say.  However, in this election, Candidate John Crawford has asked voters to “Send this blog to the City Council” in his request for donations to fund his campaign.  As such, I think it’s fair to consider the content of the entire blog, and not just Mr. Crawford’s personal observations on the blog, when considering whether or not to vote for Mr. Crawford, thereby sending “this blog to the City Council.” 

Since Mr. Crawford chose to remain silent in the face of this criticism of one of Sierra Madre’s most revered institutions, I can’t say if that silence is agreement with his supporters, but it makes me wonder -  should this slate become the majority on the City Council, will the Department survive to celebrate a centennial?  A thought I hope Sierra Madre voters will consider when they cast their votes on April 13^th.  After all, the Council was considering proposals to possibly outsource fire suppression, but it was delayed until after the election, and while I didn’t see the meeting, I’m told that it was at the suggestion of one of the members of the slate, Council Member Don Watts.

In full disclosure, I have a personal stake in this discussion.  My brother-in-law, Battalion Chief Bob Burnett, has been on the Department nearly twenty-five years.  I also have a brother that is a paramedic and firefighter in another department.  So maybe I’m a little overly-sensitive to unwarranted criticism of the people who invest so much of their lives in protecting ours.

I thought that in closing, it might be beneficial to talk a little about the Department.  Perhaps the people who were so willing to berate our VOLUNTEERS just don’t know enough about the department, and would not have taken it to task if they knew a little more about it.  So here’s a little history, and a few facts about our department.

According to an article written by then Fire Dept. Chief Jim Heasley in the June 9th, 1949 edition of the Sierra Madre News, SMFD was started after a disastrous fire in 1919, in which a bakery burned and “the fire could not be controlled by the local untrained men without proper equipment.  Only a hand hose cart was then in use.”  Monrovia Fire Dept. was called in, but the local business owners felt that more and better fire protection was needed.  At its next meeting, the Board of Trade (precursor to the Chamber of Commerce), appointed two men to investigate the costs of Sierra Madre obtaining a fire engine and other equipment.  During a demonstration of an engine, a local boy was “badly crippled by having his leg broken when the high pressure hose escaped the hands of the amateur fire fighters.  This proved more than ever the necessity of a trained fire fighting force.”   Shortly thereafter, the Sierra Madre Volunteer Fire Department was organized.  According to Heasley, “There were so many men who wanted to join the fire department that it was necessary to organize a “Firemen’s Club” made up of men of all trades and businesses of the City.”  Today, ninety years later, that tradition continues, with the addition of women to the ranks, and, in 2007, paramedics.

A few facts about Sierra Madre’s Volunteer Fire Department:

The Department currently is fully staffed, with 54 volunteers, three paid personnel and 27 paramedics.  The Fire Chief oversees the administrative functions, daily operations, and response capabilities of the Sierra Madre Fire Department. The three Battalion Chiefs oversee fire prevention, training, personnel, and EMS training and quality assurance, as well as rotating the on duty battalion chief responsibilities. The six Fire Captains oversee crew training, station maintenance and equipment, and first in district pre-plans.

The Department currently has an ISO rating of 4, on a scale of 1 through 10.  Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire-suppression program doesn't meet ISO's minimum criteria.  In my opinion, a Class four rating is hardly in the category of a “laughing stock of the state.” This rating is developed according to ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS).  The schedule measures the major elements of a community's fire-suppression system. Ten percent of the overall grading is based on how well the fire department receives fire alarms and dispatches its fire-fighting resources, i.e., communication center, dispatch, etc.  Fifty percent of the overall grading is based on the number of engine companies and the amount of water a community needs to fight a fire. ISO reviews the distribution of fire companies throughout the area and checks that the fire department tests its pumps regularly and inventories each engine company's nozzles, hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment.  Forty percent of the grading is based on the community's water supply. This part of the survey focuses on whether the community has sufficient water supply for fire suppression beyond daily maximum consumption. ISO surveys all components of the water supply system, including pumps, storage, and filtration.

The Sierra Madre Fire Department has a 1989 Mack Type 1 Engine, soon to be replaced, and a 2000 E-ONE; a 2,800 gallon Water Tender; one Chief’s vehicle; one Command Vehicle; an Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) trailer; a Utility truck; a Brush Patrol Truck; and two Rescue Ambulances.  It should be noted that contrary to the blogger’s impression that we “give these guys any toy they want, whenever they want,” our newest engine is ten years old.  The Water Tender truck is nearly 35 years old.  We are all aware of the explosion that has taken place in technology in the last thirty years, fire suppression technology, too, has changed dramatically since much of the equipment that Sierra Madre’s Fire Department uses was manufactured.  Public safety should be a top priority for our City officials – THAT’S why we should give these guys new toys.

Thanks to a generous gift from the Rotary Club last year, the trucks are now outfitted with state of the art radio communication systems.  Prior to Rotary’s gift, some of the engines were operating with outdated equipment that did not adhere to the Homeland Security communication standards established after 9/11.  Thank you Rotary!

During 2009, the Department responded to 28 fire calls, 590 medical calls (about 480 of which were Advanced Life Support Calls) and 200 service calls.  2009 was the third consecutive year in which the Department responded to more than 800 calls. The Department responds to all first alarm brush responses in the San Gabriel Mountains above the City of Sierra Madre with the Cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Pasadena, the County of Los Angeles, and the United States Forest Service.  The Department also participates in the California State-wide Mutual Aid Program by providing resources for the State of California Office of Emergency Services with the OES Engine.

Property damage in 2009 was less than $160,000, with structure fires at $130,000, vehicle fires at about $24,000, and miscellaneous fires just under $2000.  There were 4 major OES calls, including the Station Fire, which totaled about 2,700 man hours.  Personnel costs for those responses were just under $100,000, but the Department received more than $215,000 in state reimbursement, so revenue from OES was nearly $120,000.  Additionally, the Emergency Medical Service calls generated $285,000.  Total revenue from the department was nearly $400,000.  Additionally, the department received a FEMA grant of $178,000.

Members of the Department accrued more than 11,000 hours of training in 2009, with more than 7,300 of that being standard training, and 4,200 hours of Academy training (14 shift firefighters undergoing more than 300 hours of Academy training).  The average number of training hours per month per firefighter was eighteen.  The training undertaken by our Fire Dept. was about a 110% increase from five years ago.

Nearly twenty-five hundred years ago, Euripedes said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps.  This timeless axiom holds true today.  If the John Crawford supporters who were so quick to disparage the men and women of our fire department are indicative of the kind of company he keeps, I think we’d be better off if he wasn’t on our City Council.  That’s why I will show my support of the Fire Department by voting for Mosca, Moran and Walsh, and I urge all Sierra Madre voters to do the same. 

To comment on this editorial, click here

(3/30/10) 2010 Election Candidate Endorsements - Joe Mosca for Mayor!

I doubt anyone is going to be particularly surprised by my endorsements, but you might be surprised to learn that I was inches away from endorsing four candidates for the three spots, or endorsing three with an honorable mention.  But then the candidate in question, Pat Alcorn, sent me an e-mail that actually made me realize that the reasoning she was providing to me for endorsing the other members of her slate should actually be the reasoning I used in making my decision, and that cost her my endorsement.  More on that a little later.

Okay, no surprise, Mosca, Moran and Walsh.

Joe Mosca should be the highest vote getter in this election, as he was in 2006, and should, based on his record, receive the support of the town’s residents.  Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation has been spread, and there have been some very visible personal attacks by his opponents, which will mean Joe won’t generate as many votes this time around.  The fact that Joe has chosen to de-emphasize defending himself but instead put the emphasis on the positive that has been done during his time on the Council is evidence of the kind of candidate he is (though he did screw up big time on his postcard mailer, which made it appear he was personally responsible for accomplishments when it was the entire council that accomplished things).  You may have noticed at the Candidate Forum that he tried to correct that, by his repeated use (almost overuse) of the word “we” when discussing the council’s accomplishments.  Hopefully, if he sends out another mailer, it will also correct that error.

Joe is the hardest working Council member I’ve seen in my 15 years in town.  He also is the most knowledgeable candidate, though there have been a couple others that were close, including one current council member, John Buchanan.  I’ve asked Joe about a whole bunch of different things relating to City business over the last four years, and he always knew the answer.  And if he doesn’t know or understand something, he’s not afraid to ask about it.  For example, I was watching the budget meeting from June of 2009 the other night.  One PD position had been frozen, and Joe wanted to know whether/where in the budget the funding for that position had been allocated.  None of the other council members thought to ask that question.

One more time – Joe didn’t decide not to put the DSP to a vote of the people, he in fact prepared a resolution that called for greater community input in the DSP process, and put in place a timeline for completion of the DSP, eventually putting it on the ballot for voter approval.  That resolution was passed by the City Council.  But his detractors conveniently forget that, because he didn’t vote to put the issue on the ballot per the time schedule they wanted, in the manner they wanted it on the ballot.  Kind of reminds me of the kid in the neighborhood that takes the ball home, ending the game, if the rest of the team doesn’t play the game by his rules.  And after all, why let the truth get in the way?

I spend a lot of time attending meetings with various regional organizations, and when Joe’s name has come up, the people that I have spoken with at these meetings all hold Joe in high regard.  The same can’t be said for all the candidates, and I think we might be taking a step backwards in relationship building with other cities and other regional organizations if we elect the wrong people and they end up representing us poorly to other communities and regional organizations.

As to the complaint that Joe has brought partisan politics into a local election – it wasn’t Joe that brought up the fact that he received these endorsements, it was his opponents.  Yes, he was endorsed, but find me some Mosca campaign literature somewhere that says that, or video from the forums where Joe discussed it.  You can’t.  The fact is that many of Joe’s biggest supporters are from the other party, and it would be counterproductive for Joe to brag about the endorsement locally.  While it makes sense to seek the endorsement, so that the locals that are members of the organizations and who value that endorsement are aware he has received it, Joe never, to my knowledge, brought the endorsements into the campaign.  Had his opponents kept their mouths shut, I don’t think there would have been any interjection of partisan politics into this campaign.  I find it fascinating that his opponents complain so loudly that he brought partisan politics into the campaign, when in fact it was their complaints that did it.

The truly sad part is, that I’m spending so much time defending Joe, when his record as Council member should make him a lock, when what I should be doing is promoting the other candidates I’m endorsing.  So the tactics of his opponents paid off, by drawing attention away from where it deserves to be.

Nancy Walsh worked in County government for nearly thirty years.  Thanks to all that experience, she knows how local government works, and she also knows how regional government works.  That’s how she managed to obtain some thirty thousand dollars through a donation recycling program that has benefited the City.  She has also served this City well for several years, working on the Senior Master Plan, sitting on the Senior Community Commission, including serving as its Chair.  I didn’t know Nancy well before this election, though we’d met a time or two.  But I thought she acquitted herself well, for the most part, at the City Hall Candidate Forum, and though I was only at the Kiwanis forum for a short time, I thought she did well there, too (though I wasn’t impressed by the “I must be awesome” comment when she was asked about the Tattler’s article about her, seemed a little silly to me).

Anyway, I sat down and talked with Nancy to get to know her a little better, and to ask her about the things that concerned me.  After talking with her for about an hour and a half, I came away more impressed than I thought I would.  She has an open mind, she has experience, she is pretty sharp at analyzing things, and I trust her.  Again, I can’t say that about all the candidates.

Josh Moran has lived in Sierra Madre most of his life.  Don’t let his opponents mislead you, Josh didn’t move here two days before the filing deadline.  Josh made it pretty clear at the Kiwanis meeting that he had moved back to town a year and a half ago, he just hadn’t updated his voter registration.  But they won’t let a little thing like the truth get in the way of them telling you what they want you to believe.

Josh and I were part of the All-America City team that went down and made a presentation in 2007 when Sierra Madre won the award.  Josh was enthusiastic, and it was very clear that he both loved and took pride in his home town.  So much so, that he spent a lot of time practicing the program and then traveling to Anaheim to be there for the presentation to help this city win the prestigious award, and at the time, he didn’t even live here!

In addition to his time spent on the All-America City delegation, he was on the Mt. Wilson Trail Race committee, and Josh has a lot of experience working with the Community and Personnel Services Commission (though I think it was called the Parks and Rec. Commission most of the time that he was volunteering).  He worked on the City’s Youth Master Plan (so by electing Walsh and Moran, we have experience with age groups at each end of the spectrum, with two of the people who created the Master Plan for youth and seniors on the Council, which to me seems like a good thing).

What this election seems to be boiling down to, in my opinion, is planning.  The candidates above, whom I endorse, all seem to respect the existing planning processes, even when they disagree with individual aspects of those processes.  They trust the system, and are prepared to work both locally and regionally to make sure Sierra Madre residents and Sierra Madre as a City are engaged in the planning process, and that the rights of the people and the City are properly protected.

The candidates below (with the possible exception of Mr. Tice), all seem to have a mistrust of the planning process and/or the regional organizations that are part of or in charge of the processes.  While Pat Alcorn has told me that she believes we need to be involved, she also made it clear she is wary of the regional organizations, and both John Crawford and Don Watts have made it quite clear that they do not trust the processes and/or the organizations.  Both seem to favor an adversarial approach, rather than a collaborative one.  I think it’s in Sierra Madre’s best interests to collaborate, rather than butt heads.

For reasons I have begun spelling out in other editorials (see article immediately below this one), and will spell out in further detail in upcoming editorials, I cannot endorse Watts or Crawford. Suffice to say for now that I don’t think it’s in the town’s best interests to be represented by people who I believe have misled voters, and who only represent their supporters, ignoring the rest of the residents of the town. I also want to endorse people that more closely reflect my positions/opinions, and there are many things on which I disagree with Mr. Watts and Mr. Crawford.  Please be sure to check back in the next few days to see those editorials. 

Because I don’t think he takes his candidacy seriously, and wouldn’t know what to do if he won, I can’t endorse Bill Tice, though I thank him for running.  He does make a boring election a little more enjoyable.

I almost endorsed Pat Alcorn.  She has attended most of the Commission meetings in the last couple years, and currently serves on two ad hoc committees.  As such, she’s heard both sides of the arguments that have taken place at those meetings, and that awareness, in my opinion, would benefit the City.  Unfortunately, there are many issues on which we disagree.  I was prepared to overlook that based on my belief that Pat has the best interests of the City at heart.  Pat and I sat down and had an extensive talk about my concerns, and I came away from our meeting feeling very conflicted, and not sure how I was going to handle her candidacy, endorsement-wise. 

One of the issues we discussed was her desire to be independent of a slate, which she had expressed at the Kiwanis meeting.  I appreciated that, and it was another reason I was giving her serious consideration.  But after our meeting, I received an e-mail from Pat telling me that after consulting with her campaign manager, and after looking up the word “slate” in the dictionary, “in the strict sense of the word, I am on a "slate" or list of nominees running for an office.  I don't want to mislead you, nor do I want to give the impression that I have separated myself from the other two.” She added that she was “endorsing Watts and Crawford because I want to see a majority remain on the council, and we have like beliefs and ideas.”  She then stated that though she had enjoyed our meeting, she believed “people would be misled by an endorsement since I do need a majority with MaryAnn to "stay the course".”  And so, in accordance with Ms. Alcorn’s reasoning, because I want to change the majority on the council, and because we have like beliefs and ideas, I’m endorsing Mosca, Moran and Walsh.

One last thing.  Joe Mosca deserves to be Mayor.  He was bypassed the last two times when he should have been elevated to Mayor, and it’s time to right that wrong.  I urge Sierra Madre voters to elect Mosca, Moran and Walsh to City Council, so that we can have the best people that have stepped up to sit on the Council serving us.  In doing so, we’ll ensure that we have a Mayor that we can respect and be proud of.

(3/28/10) Editorial - These People Walk Among You

By Bill Coburn

This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident.  It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t feel that a person is responsible for things that other people say.  However, in this election, Candidate John Crawford has asked voters to “Send this blog to the City Council” in his request for donations to fund his campaign.  As such, I think it’s fair to consider the content of the entire blog, and not just Mr. Crawford’s personal observations on the blog, when considering whether or not to vote for Mr. Crawford, thereby sending “this blog to the City Council.”

At the Kiwanis candidate forum, Mr. Crawford stated that he removes posts from the blog if they contain profanity, or personal attacks.  I think perhaps it’s time for him to start paying a little closer attention to the things his readers are posting.  Some of the things they write can only be described as personal attacks, yet they remain on the site.  Coincidentally (?), these attacks are made against people whom Mr. Crawford has written pieces in opposition to.  Perhaps Mr. Crawford should have described the blog’s policy as removing posts that are personal attacks against him or his supporters, because those whom he opposes seem to be fair game.  This is just a very small, but representative, sampling of some of the thoughts posted on the blog Mr. Crawford is asking voters to consider sending to the City Council:

I don't know who is worse, (name withheld) or (name withheld).  Both are diseases in this town, actually, any town. Bad people. – Anonymous, 1/25/10, 9:24am

(Name withheld) isn’t a disease to this town, she’s a plague. – Jerome Horwitz, 1:25/10, 1:43pm

(Name withheld) is a con artist. She falsifed (sic) expense reports with a previous employer and claims law degrees that she does not posess (sic). She is a brat. If anybody is a "liar" it's (Name withheld).  (Different name withheld) is a con artist. He claims actions that are not his and then attacks those who has (sic) the audacity to question his own statements. He has been a fraud since he moved into town.  (Third name withheld) is a joke. He's a (second name withheld) clone.  Anonymous, 2/24/10, 10:48am

(Name withheld) is a grifter, a dishonest con artist who preys on the elderly in this town.  She is pure trash. – Anonymous, 3/10/10, 10:51am

To paraphrase a favorite play, there is an unmistakable odor of mendacity in the room: coming from lies and liars, namely council candidates Joe Mosca, Nancy Walsh, Josh Moran and all of their downtown dirt supporters. We lived through and fell for the blatant obfuscation of political leanings during Mosca's original candidacy; I personally am not willing to do it again. Let's call a spade a spade; Walsh, Moran and Mosca are all toadies for the development industry and they should be exposed for what they are often and mercilessly right up to voting date. What a bunch of pricks. – Anonymous, 3/15/10, 12:31pm

Joe Mosca- lobbyist/liar/sociopath.  John (sic) Moron (sic) - moral and intellectual deviant.  Nancy Walsh-tap dancer puppet of Bart Doyle. – Anonymous, 3/24/10, 8:39am  Ironically, this post was just 16 minutes after a post from someone calling themselves Panelist (presumably a blog moderator?) that said: Posts are removed for vulgar language and offensive content, of which there have been many lately. Slanderous attacks and accusations of a felonious nature are also removed. Slurs against family members and children are not tolerated. (emphasis mine).

And while all of the above posts are directed at specific individuals, some of the bloggers are happy to be more general when disparaging their neighbors, intimating that all those who oppose them have a drinking problem:  I guess it's true that alcoholics are delusional. And considering their posts recently, also wake up in a bad mood every morning.  Maybe they should have a little "hair of the dog" before they get on the internet. – Keep the Punch Lines Coming, 3/24/10, 4:03pm.  But the willingness to make unfounded accusation of alcoholism isn’t limited to generalizations.  Here’s one that’s specific from regular poster Old Kentucky: News flash.....11:23 dirt.....we don't need YOUR vote. We will win anyway.  Go have some coffee, you're probably hungover....hope you feel better, have a great day

And let’s not forget, that there is a derisive term used at the blog to describe anyone with opposing viewpoints, all of whom are called dirts.  There is also a second term used, describing people with opposing viewpoints as members of the Downtown Investors Club (which creates what some would consider an offensive acronym). 

I defend the right of everyone quoted above to say the things they said.  But I personally don’t think it’s right to treat your neighbors in such a negative manner, nor do I think this is the kind of attitude we want our City Council to reflect. While a couple candidates have said they want to see a return of civility to the council, I have a somewhat less grandiose wish.  I’d just be happy to see that the Council’s treatment of each other and others doesn’t spiral downward to the level displayed by Mr. Crawford’s supporters.  To do that, I suggest that we encourage our friends and neighbors NOT to “send this blog to City Council.”

(8/5/09) SCAG Decision Should Not be Based on Scare Tactics and Misinformation

An item on an upcoming Sierra Madre City Council meeting agenda has caught my attention, and I suspect possibly the attention of many of the readers of this newspaper.  The Council is being asked to consider whether or not Sierra Madre should continue its membership in the Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG). 

According to SCAG’s website, “Over the past four decades, the Southern California Association of Governments has evolved as the largest of nearly 700 councils of government in the United States, functioning as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles.

As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Association of Governments is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the state level.”

So, assuming they’ve stated who they are accurately (and I have no reason to believe they would misstate this information in such a highly public forum), that means that as a member, Sierra Madre is able to have some say in the “research and drawing up of plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management and air quality” for the Los Angeles metropolitan region.  Conversely, I would assume that if we are not members, that means that these decisions will be made without any input from Sierra Madre, and the residents of Sierra Madre will have dictated to them what SCAG has determined will be done, based on its federal mandate.

Also from the SCAG website: “The fundamental question of why SCAG was created is best answered in the words of Ventura County Supervisor John Montgomery back in 1966, who said, ‘Regional planning is not a matter of if, but rather when and who. Regional planning must come via cooperation and mutual assistance. Regional planning will (either) be accomplished through local governments working together or by big brother mandates from state and national governments.’

Our neighbors, small and large are all members: Bradbury, Arcadia, Duarte, Monrovia, Pasadena, Azusa, El Monte, La Canada/Flintridge, Rosemead, San Marino, South Pasadena, all have joined the nearly 150 city members of SCAG. The only area city that is not a member of SCAG is Temple City.

So for a nominal membership dues fee, Sierra Madre can participate in planning its future, or it can choose to save that money, and have SCAG dictate to it what it has decided Sierra Madre is going to do (or not do). Seems kind of like a no-brainer, right? Why would we surrender our opportunity to provide input into the future of this region?

But it’s not that simple, because of SCAG’s role in implementing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) program. According to the SCAG website: “The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The current planning period is January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014. Communities use the RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region and subregion can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity, fair share housing needs. “

More on RHNA from the SCAG website: “Every city and county in California must adopt a comprehensive "general plan" to govern its land use and planning decisions. All planning and development actions must be consistent with the general plan. The general plan housing element must be periodically updated using the latest RHNA allocation plan. A housing element must first include an assessment of the locality's existing and future housing needs. This assessment must include the community's "fair share" regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for all income groups (very low, low, moderate and above moderate) as determined by the regional Council of Governments (COG).

The purpose of the Housing Element of the General Plan is to ensure that every jurisdiction establishes policies, procedures and incentives in its land use planning and redevelopment activities that will result in the maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately house households currently living and expected to live in that jurisdiction. When a local government fails to adopt an updated housing element, or adopts an element that does not comply with the law, the general plan is invalid and a local government may not proceed to make land use decisions or approve development until it has adopted a valid housing element.“

For this reason, the City recently conducted a Housing Element Workshop, to get input from the residents. Some folks seem to have the mistaken impression that RHNA requires growth, when it is in fact, just a tool to be used in planning for potential growth. Whether it is because they have a mistaken impression that growth is required, or they just don’t want to allow for the possibility of growth, or for whatever reason, a movement has sprung up that is trying to have us pull out of SCAG, so that, in theory, we will not as a City be required to plan housing per the RHNA program. But here’s the thing: RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of the Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. The enforcement of the RHNA obligation lies with the Department of Housing and Community Development. Pulling out of SCAG does nothing to eliminate the requirement to conform to RHNA as part of the Housing Element update, it just eliminates the chance to influence the allocation of numeric goals at the local level. Since SCAG does far more than just housing (transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality) by pulling out of SCAG, we’ve eliminated our ability to be part of the discussion on all these issues. The discussions about these major issues, any of which could have major impacts on Sierra Madre, will still go on, they’ll just go on without input from Sierra Madre.

Some of the folks that don’t want to see Sierra Madre remain as a member of SCAG are doing their very best to scare people into thinking that their friends and neighbors are in danger of losing their homes to the city through Eminent Domain, so that the City can conform to its RHNA numbers. Unfortunately, the facts don’t support this position. But apparently, the truth is just an inconvenience, because the same wrong information is repeated over and over again.
The following post appeared on a local website, after the recent Housing Element workshop, and had this to say in an article titled “Homes Listed as Possible Eminent Domain Seizure Targets For the Purpose of Building Multi-Family Low Income Housing in Sierra Madre.“ “Below you will find a list of those homes identified as candidates for Eminent Domain seizure should the statute be revived. Once these homes are seized by the government they would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing. The notion behind this singular act of government violence against a selected few citizens here in Sierra Madre is to jam high-density housing into what is already a very built out town.

Okay, let’s look at that. Both the headline and the first sentence of the post contain statements that are just completely inaccurate. There were no (that’s right NO) homes listed as possible Eminent Domain seizure targets. There were properties that the City identified as candidates to be zoned for higher density. That means the property owners could, should they so choose, build, or sell to someone who would build, more units on the property than it is currently zoned to allow to have built on it. In essence, they’ve possibly increased the property value for the owners, by increasing the options the owners have as to what they can do with the property. They have not targeted it for Eminent Domain, or even possible Eminent Domain.

But just to make sure, I contacted Danny Castro, Development Services Director for the City of Sierra Madre, with a series of questions I had about the workshop, and about some of the information that was now appearing on the internet. A couple of the questions dealt with this issue directly:
Coburn: Of the properties listed as potential multi-family sites, was there anywhere or any time that these sites were listed as “possible Eminent Domain seizure targets for the purposed of building multi-family low-income housing units in Sierra Madre?
Castro: No, because they are not and have not been considered as seizure targets.
Coburn: At any time, was there any discussion that “these homes (would be) seized by the government (and) would then be razed and the property used for the construction of multi-unit low income housing?”
Castro: No.

In another post, the same author, who has called for Sierra Madre to pull out of SCAG, stated “So what does this mean for us in Sierra Madre? Well, as we saw in the consultant prepared "Sierra Madre 2008-2014 Housing Element" report issued by our City planners on March 31, we too have a SCAG mandated RHNA number. And it is apparently quite a burden on this town. To the point where certain factions within City Hall actually felt they needed to identify properties as candidates for possible Eminent Domain seizure in order to meet SCAG's arbitrary demands for high density housing.” (author’s note: emphasis mine).

Again, nobody identified any properties as candidates for Eminent Domain. And SCAG has made no arbitrary demands for high density housing. What they did was set targets. The City then attempted to meet those targets. It wasn’t that “certain factions within City Hall felt they needed to identify properties as candidates…”, it was that the City is required BY STATE LAW to do so. AB2348 requires that a Housing Element Update provide an inventory and identification of adequate sites (vacant or underutilized residentially zoned land) to meet Sierra Madre’s RHNA requirements. The way they did it was to identify properties as appropriate to be zoned at a higher density. SCAG doesn’t care whether you use high or low density housing. They don’t even require you to build the housing. They just ask that you determine how your City will meet the RHNA targets. The property owners can do absolutely nothing if they so choose. Again, I asked Mr. Castro about this:
Coburn: Slides 20-28 discuss possible sites for multi-family housing. What would be the process to make them available for multi-family housing? Strictly re-zoning?
Castro: The eight sites that were identified as potentially suitable sites are currently zoned for multi-family housing (R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Medium/High Density), which allows a density of up to about 13 units/acre. The process, as required under state law, would be to amend the current zoning to allow for an increase (to) at least 20 units/acre, on enough of those sites to meet the state imposed housing numbers. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to review and approve the zoning change after conducting public hearings.
Coburn: I’ve heard that the City charter does not allow for the City to employ Eminent Domain. Is that correct?
Castro: The use of Eminent Domain is not a factor in the Housing Element Update. Under state law, the City’s update must provide for the “opportunity” for the development of assigned numbers of affordable and market rate housing units through use of it(s) zoning powers. The City is not required to and is not currently considering any proposals to acquire properties nor is it in any way requiring that these properties be developed with affordable housing. The property owner retains the right to determine if and when to develop their property.

Those last two sentences by Mr. Castro seem to me to be pretty significant.

An earlier post from the same website: “The dirty secret is this. In order to build the low income housing Sacramento and their toadies in SCAG are demanding, you're going to need somewhere to build it. And since this town is already built out to the limit, you're not going to find anywhere to do this deed without first tearing down already existing single family homes. And the only way to do that would be to seize houses through Eminent Domain and evict the families already living there. After all, isn't that what "redevelopment" is all about? Tearing down things that already exist and redeveloping the vacated properties?”

Again, SCAG isn’t demanding the building of low income housing, only that we zone so that the option of building low income housing exists. By stating that the only way to do that would be to seize houses through Eminent Domain, the author has conveniently ignored the fact that the property owner has the option of doing the building themselves, or selling to someone who might, without the City seizing the property (they also have the right to do nothing). As to the author’s suggestion about seizing houses through Eminent Domain and evicting families living there, I asked some questions point blank of Mr. Castro:
Coburn: Was there any discussion at the workshop of the City using Eminent Domain on any of those sites?
Castro: None.
Coburn: Is the City considering the use of Eminent Domain on any of the sites listed as possible sites for multi-family housing?
Castro: No.
Coburn: …does the Redevelopment Agency have the same limitation regarding Eminent Domain?
Castro: The Redevelopment Agency does not have the authority to acquire property by Eminent Domain.

I’m not going to tell anyone how they should feel about Sierra Madre‘s participation in SCAG. But I do think that those who are questioning it and trying to determine their opinions should be able to make an informed decision that is not stoked by scare tactics and misinformation.

My personal feeling is that we should remain a part of it. As I stated earlier, if there’s an organization that is making decisions that affect our City, and we have an opportunity to have representation in the organization so that our voice is a part of the decision making process, I think we want to be part of it, rather than bowing out, remaining silent during the decision making, and then just having to accept what is decided by others about our City. I also don’t think the organization is evil incarnate, as some seem to think. But if I did, I think I’d want to follow the advice of 4th century BC Chinese general & military strategist Sun-tzu, who said “Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.”

Either way, we’d stay in SCAG.
Bill Coburn is publisher of the SierraMadreNews.Net website, and a 15-year resident of Sierra Madre. He is also Executive Director of the Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce, however the opinions stated in this article are Mr. Coburn’s alone, and should not be construed in any way as representative of the views of the Chamber of Commerce, which has not taken a position on this issue.

Click here to make a comment

(3/6/09)  With a Little Consideration and Civility Toward Each Other and Respect for Each Other's Rights, Sierra Madre Can Handle This Smoking Issue Without Having to Legislate It

First, let me say that I’m writing this editorial as a 15-year resident of Sierra Madre and publisher of SierraMadreNews.Net. The opinions you will read here are my opinions, and they are not intended to be representative of the Chamber of Commerce, its Board of Directors, or its members. Obviously, as president of the Chamber, I am going to be in contact with Chamber members and the Board, and their comments and opinions and my discussions with them may shape my opinions. But what you are reading here is not written on behalf of the Chamber, nor does it represent a position being taken by the Chamber. The Chamber has not taken a position on this issue, despite what you may read elsewhere. The Chamber has polled downtown businesses that would be affected, and will present a report to the City with its findings. Let me also state here that I am a non-smoker, though a couple times a year on a special occasion I may enjoy a cigar in the evening, always outside.

When I first heard about the proposed smoking restrictions for outside dining areas in Sierra Madre, my first reaction was that as President of the Chamber, it is my job to bring customers into Sierra Madre businesses, not restrict them. I was flat out against it. However, I’m only one person in an organization with well over one hundred members, and I recognized that my opinion was my opinion only, and that more input was needed. I did, however, join the Facebook group “Stop the Sierra Madre Smoking Ban.”

I was contacted by City Manager Elaine Aguilar to see if the Chamber could help facilitate a meeting with restaurant owners that would be affected by the restrictions so that their input could be solicited and made a part of the staff report to the City Council. I contacted every restaurant business, most by e-mail, and some by phone, leaving messages for a couple of them that weren’t in when I called.

Over the next couple days, I did a little research, and discovered there are reports out there that state that some cities that had enacted bans had not reflected a decrease in business due to the ban. There are, I believe, obvious health issues involved here, as well, though I’ll discuss that a little later. And I also was considering the possibility that businesses might see an increase in non-smoking customers that have stayed away when smoking was allowed, maybe enough to offset the smoking customers they might lose. So as I went into the meeting with the restaurant owners, I was definitely re-thinking my original reaction, and was not really sure as I entered the meeting whether I was for or against the restriction.

First of all, let’s agree on something, this is not a ban. It’s a restriction. It restricts the rights of smokers to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar when they are in an outdoor dining area. Their right to smoke at indoor dining areas was taken away in the 1990s, I believe in 1994, by statewide legislation that left every restaurant business in the state on a level playing field. You couldn't go to any restaurant in the state and smoke indoors. This local ordinance, however, puts the Sierra Madre restaurant industry in a position where it could lose customers to other local cities that don't have similar restrictions. I have to wonder if the restaurant owners wouldn't be within their rights, if the ordinance is approved, to file a class action lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against their particular industry. They might find support from restaurant associations with deeper pockets, and then the City would find itself in the position of defending itself in an expensive lawsuit. Don't think the City can really afford that, so I'm not sure if Council members vote for this that they are truly considering what's in the best interests of the City.

The proposed city ordinance also, however, and I think this is somewhat overlooked, restricts the rights of a business/property owner to determine what he/she will and will not allow to happen on their own property, in their own business. And in some cases, that is done without representation. Some business/property owners that will be affected by this ordinance do not live in town, so they do not even have the option of voting for or against the Council representatives that are proposing to enact this law.

According to City Manager Aguilar, members of the City Council received about a dozen complaints during the holidays regarding smoking in the downtown dining areas. Most of the complaints were from parents that didn’t like exposing their children to the smoke in the dining areas. Mayor Zimmerman took the complaints to heart, and agendized the issue for the City Council to consider. It is my understanding that at that Council meeting, about a dozen people spoke on the issue, with a ratio of about three to one opposing the restriction. One thing that amazes me about this whole thing, is that it all started because of about a dozen letters. We are a town with a population of around eleven thousand people. We have thousands of people that visit our downtown district on a monthly basis. All of these thousands of people are going to have to have their behavior legislated because of a dozen complaints? And, the City possibly becoming involved in expensive litigation over a dozen complaints? And it’s quite possible that some of those complaints came from the same people complaining more than once.

Despite the public comment opposing the restrictions, Council voted 4 – 0 to continue the discussion, and requested a draft ordinance be brought back at the March 10th meeting (since postponed till the meeting of the 24th of March), with instructions to solicit input from the business owners that would be affected. Thus, the Chamber was contacted and the meeting with restaurant owners was arranged.

But the fact of the matter is that it is not just the restaurant owners that will be affected by the restrictions, all the downtown businesses will be. If smokers are prohibited from lighting up in the outside dining areas, it’s not going to stop them from smoking. It’s just going to change where they can do it. We’re not eliminating the health issue, just moving it next door. Dining areas that now have ashtrays will no longer have them. So a smoker will get up from the dining area, move next door or down the street, in front of a retail establishment, enjoy their cigarette, and then have no place to put it out, except the sidewalk or the street. So now, the non-restaurant businesses, particularly those closest to restaurants with outside dining, are going to find that their customers are going to have to walk through the smokers to get into their establishments (which already happens, to some extent, as business employees that smoke are required to go outside to light up). And if you figure that some smokers will go to the left of the dining area, and some will go the right, you now have two businesses with folks standing and smoking on the sidewalk that are being effected, not just the one dining establishment. And as I said, our sidewalks and streets will now be littered with all the cigarette butts that are now being put out in ashtrays. I have been told by City staff that the cost of cleaning up this litter can be quite prohibitive, so that’s another thing to consider. The City is broke, and now we are going to increase its maintenance expenses during an economic downturn?

Arcadia and Monrovia do not have smoking bans, despite, due to higher populations and busier business districts, far more smokers than Sierra Madre has. Is our business district, in this poor economy, healthy enough to take the financial hit it will almost undoubtedly take if a significant portion of its already limited customer base decides that we’ve legislated them to a point where they’d rather do business in other cities?

As to the health issue, when the state law was passed banning indoor smoking, it was done to protect folks (restaurant workers in particular) who worked indoors where a procession of people smoked and the workers were exposed to constant inhalation of carcinogens. I am not aware of any studies that state that people sitting at tables that are usually several feet from each other at occasional visits to places where smoking is allowed outdoors have suffered health-wise for having done so. Doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, just means I haven’t seen them. But the fact of the matter is, people smoke in front of other businesses, too, and that will happen even more so if a dining area restriction goes into effect. So what’s next, in a year, people unhappy about the increased smoking outside non-dining areas complain, and a new ordinance is proposed to ban smoking inside or out in the entire downtown area? And why stop there? Parents strolling their children through their neighborhood certainly pass neighbors in their yard enjoying a cigarette, or working in their garden, the smoke wafting onto the sidewalk, right at stroller level. I spoke a couple days ago with a woman who told me that her neighbor exits his house when he wants a smoke, and goes into his driveway. Very considerate of his family. Unfortunately, his driveway is right next to her bedroom window, and she is very sensitive to smoke. Will we ban smoking outdoors in residential neighborhoods? If we do, parents that currently go outside to smoke to protect their children’s lungs will be forced back inside to conform to the law.

I saw somewhere that 700 U.S. communities have enacted outdoor smoking bans or restrictions, most of them cities with much higher populations. How many tens of thousands of cities are there in this country? Seven hundred is a very small percentage. Why does Sierra Madre, a “friendly” little village, need to follow the path of the big cities? Do we want to be Pasadena? Aren’t we proud of our unique small-town status? Aren’t we “friendly” enough to be considerate of others without actually enacting a law to legislate this?

Who’s going to enforce this law? What if someone lights up downtown, and the police are called? They hurry on down to the place where it’s happening, but by then the cigarette has been put out. What if four people do it at the same time, in different establishments? Are our police going to be run ragged trying to enforce the smoking law, most times a futile effort?

While I am sensitive to the concerns of those with health issues, and parents who are trying to protect their children, I just can’t get behind the proposed restrictions. People complained about shock jocks and their crass behavior on the radio, and the argument was, well, change the station, or you have an on/off switch. Non-smokers can change the station or on/off switches (eat indoors, or go to restaurants that have non-smoking sections in their outdoor dining area). Most, though admittedly not all, smokers are considerate of non-smokers and will be happy to move away while smoking, or put it out until you’ve left, if they are asked politely.

Now that the issue has been raised, I think restaurant owners are more sensitive about it, and some will most likely, if their outdoor dining area is large enough, offer non-smoking sections. Some that have smaller outdoor dining areas may ban smoking voluntarily, though since their dining areas are often not on their property (they are on public right of way sidewalks) they can’t always enforce it. But I think that with a little voluntary effort on the part of restaurant owners, and some consideration and civility toward one another, by both smokers and non-smokers, of the other’s rights (they both have them, after all), it should be possible to live and let live, as has been Sierra Madre’s behavior for more than one hundred years, without legislating our neighbors’ and friends’ behavior.

Comment or read comments on this post

(10/26/08) Op-Ed re: Prop 8

Recently, I asked someone I know and respect about his position on Prop. 8.  The reason I did is that I know he is very active in the Catholic church, and I was curious as to whether he was toeing the Church line, or if he was taking a position in opposition to the Church.  The man is married and has three kids.  Here is his response.  He did ask that I credit him by initials only, as the issue is quite volatile with some people, plus the fact that this was originally written as a private communication between two individuals, and was not intended to be published.  However, after I read it, I thought it was so well thought out and reasoned that I asked him to allow me to share it with my readers.  Hey there, Bill.
Thanks for asking my opinion - you are definitely in the vast minority who knock on the door of the "fool on the hill!"
 I happen to oppose Prop. 8. In all honesty, I don't know who is "authorized" to determine the definition of marriage. What we see today is a tradition handed down from probably the earliest societies to populate the earth. These folks, our forebears, certainly had nothing to fall back on to determine the rudimentary bases of society. The "usual" sex drive in human beings has lead to heterosexuality, and that to procreation, and that to the establishment of societies. And if one follows the Judeo-Christian bible (and perhaps the tenets of other faith systems), the heterosexuality concept continues. But then, not all human beings subscribe to the bible.
I don't see homosexuality as merely a choice. I think it is way more complex than that, and that everything we know about it at this moment in the history of mankind isn't even the snowflake that has fallen onto the tip of the iceberg.  I know there are some species in nature that begin their lives as one gender, and end their lives as another gender. I don't see "choice" being a part in that transformation. I've also heard it said by people (whose thought processes I trust) that there are some bi-sexual species in existence as well. Those species can continue to ensure the continued existence of their species without the need of a partner of the opposite gender. So if God created those species, and armed with the knowledge that God doesn't make junk, then it must be a good thing.
 So, continuing along that line, it seems logical to me that the human race could possibly have similarities with those other "unorthodox" species, with "different" types of genetic composition within one species. All this leads me back to my first statement: who is the authority to dictate how it is to be?
The single fact that I do know is that I personally, am not that authority, that I and the vast majority of the electorate are woefully and absurdly un-qualified to speak to the subject, and I also have no reason to believe any leader of any religious or philosophical group or movement has been given such authority or specific subject knowledge either. I'm left to believe the "Yes on 8 folks" are speaking solely from their guts.
 So, if homosexual couples wish to marry, not only is it fine by me, but I further believe they have the right (as in bill of rights) to do so. I really don't believe society, as we know it, will vanish from the face of the earth without the likes of Prop 8. Ergo, I oppose Prop 8, and will be voting accordingly, even as an active member of a religious or philosophical group or movement which in fact strongly supports Prop. 8.   

J.N., Upland

J.N. has promised me a second installment, in which he promised to explain "how I can take a position in direct opposition to the church in which I profess my faith and still continue to be a full fledged member and fully intend to remain a full fledged member...without my being a hypocrite."  I'm really looking forward to that, and plan to post it upon receipt.

News Net 11/4/08 Election Endorsements

I don't have confirmed opinions on all the issues done yet, but I'm posting some of the ones that I've already made up my mind on.  As I learn more, I'll post more.

President/Vice-president - Obama and Biden (I prefer Obama, but could live with it if McCain should win - heck, I've lived with worse for 8 years.  But I can't be okay with Palin.  That's the deciding factor for me.)

28th District US Congress - David Dreier (I don't agree with many of his votes, but he's only 1 vote of 535, and he DOES have that important rules committee position.  He'd have to really do something egregious for me to vote that position out of the San Gabriel Valley.)

CA 59th Assembly District - Anthony Adams (first time I met Mr. Adams, I wasn't impressed, but I've been very impressed in my last two meetings with him.  He's a straight shooter, you can believe he's telling you what he feels/believes, and not just what he thinks you want to hear.  Was impressed with his analysis of the budget crisis.)

Prop 1A, High Speed Rail Line - Yes (It's expensive, but waiting will only lead to increased costs.  And it's time California became a leader in transit, instead of our current way behind position. This is an investment I think will more than pay for itself in the long run.

Prop 3, Children's Hospital Funding - No (Even though they endorsed it, the LA Times said this in their endorsement: "Many of these institutions have large endowments and prodigious fundraising capabilities. And yet, only four years after persuading voters to support a $750-million bond issue, almost $350 million of which remains unspent, they've come back to voters for an additional $980 million."  That says to me that there's already $350 million available, and right now the state's broke.  Let's take a look at it when the $350mil is gone, at the rate its been spent so far, that's more than three years from now.)

Prop 4, Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative - No  (There are some situations where children shouldn't have to notify their parents.  If this bill passes, the only way to not notify them legally, is to put in writing that the parents are repeat abusers.  That doesn't sit well with me.)

Proposition 7, Renewable Energy Generation - No  (I'm for finding alternative energy solutions, but this poorly written bill isn't a solution, it's a problem in its own right.  It gives power to one agency, without taking it away from another.  It can only be rescinded by a two thirds vote, though it's only a majority needed to pass it, so if there are problems with the bill as it's written, they'll be hard to fix.  The way it's written it will actually (most likely) slow down the solar energy growth by eliminating credits for solar power generated by smaller companies.)

Prop 8, Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act - No (I don't have a problem with the CA Supreme Court approved status quo, and see no reason to change things to something I consider discriminatory, which is what a Yes vote would do.  Really don't like the lies and/or purposefully deceptive tactics I see from the Yes campaign.)

Prop 10, The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Initiative - No (I'm all for clean alternative fuels and jumpstarting an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but I don't think this is the initiative to do it.  As I understand it, companies could license a clean air vehicle in CA, get up to $50,000 bonus  per vehicle for doing so, and then move the vehicle(s) out of state the next day.  Doesn't seem like a good use of the $2.875 billion allocated for these rebates)

Prop 12, Veterans Home Loan Funding - Yes (We need to do whatever we can, within reason, to provide assistance to our veterans.  this is within reason)

Measure R, Traffic Relief - Yes (Here's the Ballot language: "Traffic Relief. Rail Extensions. Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence.  To synchronize traffic signals; repair potholes; extend light rail with airport connections; improve freeway traffic flow (5, 10, 14, 60, 101, 110, 138, 210, 405, 605, 710); keep senior / student / disabled fares low; provide clean-fuel buses; expand subway/Metrolink/bus service; dedicate millions for community traffic relief; shall Los Angeles County’s sales tax increase one-half cent for 30 years with independent audits, public review of expenditures, all locally controlled?"  My response - all that for $25/year?  Certainly.

Measure TT - Yes (It helps the schools, and the shortcomings of Measure Y have been addressed. Requires oversight. Sierra Madre Upper Campus needs serious help, even just to ensure the safety of the students, this is a start)

(9/28/08)  Biden for Vice-President

(3/23/08) Editorial by Bill Coburn 

City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger responded to my e-mail asking if she would reimburse the City for expenses incurred due to her error on the Sample Ballot by saying that she would be making a public announcement at the Kiwanis candidate forum and the City Council meeting this Tuesday.  The implication is that Ms. Shollenberger will be announcing that she will reimburse the City for costs associated with the mistake she made on the sample ballot.  We'll have to wait and see.  But it is appropriate that Ms. Shollenberger reimburse the City for the cost of fixing her mistake.  Other City Clerks have lost their jobs over similar issues.  But the costs as they stand today are a small part of what the City will have to pay if the loser of this election chooses to challenge it, which would be a very reasonable course of action in a situation like this.  So Ms. Shollenberger’s error has again exposed the City to potentially major expense, just as her error from 1993 to 2001 did, when she failed to make sure City ordinances had been published.  Two such major errors, along with other smaller ones through the years, indicate that the exemplary record Ms. Shollenberger claims, isn’t quite what it’s made out to be.  Ms. Shollenberger has worked long and hard for this City, but as the Pasadena Star News said in their City Clerk endorsement of Karma Bell, it’s time for a change. 

(3/19/08) City Clerk No Stranger to Controversy – Ballot Error Just the Latest in String of Issues Involving City Clerk

An Editorial By Bill Coburn 

The error on the sample ballot under City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger’s stewardship is just the latest in a series of issues that have occurred

through the years, ranging from outdated handbooks being given to candidates, concerns over judgment regarding partiality, to an eight-year period in which no ordinances

were published, and thus did not officially become law.

Ordinances Not Published for Eight Years

In 2001, it was discovered that none of the ordinances passed by the City since 1993 had been published, one of the steps that is required to make them law.  More than 

80 laws had not officially become law, because they had not been published, leaving the City exposed to significant liability.  Had someone sued the City over its failure to 

enact a law, there could have been severe monetary penalties awarded.  The City Council had to re-pass the ordinances so that they could be published.  Government Code 

40806 states that it is the City Clerk’s responsibility to: Keep a book marked "ordinances" and record in it all city ordinances with his certificate annexed to 

each, stating: (a) It is a true and correct copy of a city ordinance; (b) The ordinance number;  (c) It has been published or posted pursuant to law.   Government Code

36933 concerning City Clerk responsibility states -  Publishes ordinances.

Residents Concerned About “Impartial” Election Officer Taking Positions on Candidates/Measures

City Clerk and Election Officer Shollenberger has worked from her home, without keeping any office hours at City Hall, for years.  Effective Feb. 1st, when the new resolution 

detailing the description of her duties went into effect, she began working from City Hall for 1 hour each week.  But much City business is still conducted at her home, and 

residents travel to her home to pick up documents.  Through the years, Shollenberger has chosen to put up lawn signs endorsing candidates and/or ballot measures, to the 

consternation of many residents who feel that as Election Officer, she should present an appearance of impartiality.  At a recent Candidate forum sponsored by the Rotary 

Club, Shollenberger was asked about whether it was appropriate to have lawn signs endorsing candidates in her yard, which is, effectively, the office of the City Clerk.  Ms. 

Shollenberger acknowledged that this is an issue that has been coming up for years, and that she has freedom of speech, and if City Council Members can put up lawn 

signs, why shouldn't she?  She added that she had consulted an attorney and he had informed her that it was perfectly legal to do it.  Many of her critics feel that whether 

she has a legal right to put up the signs or not, her role as Election Officer makes it inappropriate to do so.  Residents look to their Council Members to take a stand, to 

have opinions, to make endorsements, to, in some cases, lead us by helping us in our own decision making process.  But we look to our City Clerk, our Election Officer, 

to ensure a fair election, free of bias.  And if I'm a voter driving up to Ms. Shollenberger's house to pick up a document, and I see lawn signs endorsing candidates, I'm going 

to have to wonder about that.  If I’m a candidate, and I see that the Election Officer is endorsing my opponent, this too, would cause me to have to wonder.  This wouldn't 

be such a big issue for me if the City Clerk business was all done at City Hall, and it was merely her private residence that had signs up.  I still think it would be wrong to 

do that, but it wouldn't be as big an issue.  But she does much of her City Clerk work from her home.  People go to her home on official city business.  In essence, her 

home is the office of the City Clerk, an extension of City Hall.  And as such, I think it should be free of even the appearance of potential bias for or against candidates.  I 

wouldn’t want to see lawn signs out in front of City Hall.  I also take issue with the fact that she admits that members of her constituency have had a problem with this 

for years, but she ignores them and just does what she wants.

Council Refusal to Increase Compensation Leads to Shollenberger “Giving Up Duties”

The subject of additional compensation for taking minutes has also been controversial in town, on three separate occasions over the last twelve years.  Government Code 

40801 states that the City Clerk shall - Keep an accurate record of the proceeding of the legislative body in books bearing appropriate titles and devoted exclusively to such 

purposes, respectively.  The books shall have a comprehensive general index.  Government Code 36814 regarding a City Clerk’s duties states that the City Clerk – Keeps 

a correct record of the Council’s proceedings.  In November of 1996, City Attorney Charlie Martin recommended to the Council that they set the City Clerk’s pay to be a 

stipend of $250/mo, plus a fixed fee of $650/mo for secretarial services.  Council Member Maryann MacGillavray was opposed to the idea, and moved that the pay be set 

at $250, without the additional pay for secretarial services, but the motion died for lack of a second.  After much discussion, the Council voted 4 to 1 to continue the City 

Clerk’s payment as proposed by Attorney Martin.

In 2003, Shollenberger billed the City $650 for August, when there had been no City Council meetings, and therefore no minutes, and then City Manager Tammy Gates 

refused to pay Shollenberger.  Shollenberger asked to have the matter agendized.  At the October 13, 2003 City Council meeting, Gates described the current duties of the 

City Clerk: for the $250 stipend, the City Clerk was to sign resolutions and ordinances, sign agreements, act as Notary, administer Oath of Office, and handle Litigation

Requests.  For an additional $650/mo, she took minutes of the City Council meetings, ensured that Fair Political Practice Committee forms were complete and forwarded 

to the FPPC, published ordinances in the newspaper and sent copies to the publisher of the code, and did general filing of resolutions, ordinances and minutes.  An 

additional $5,500 was allocated for conducting the election.  Shollenberger was requesting additional compensation, increasing the $650 minutes fee by more than half 

to $1000, and raising the fee for conducting the election by more than one third, to $7500.  Shollenberger said that if the Council does not agree to the revised fee structure, 

she would be willing to give up the duties described for the election and the additional $650/mo. Shollenberger added that she now felt that the issue of her compensation 

needed to be addressed.  “This has been a growing problem for me, and I can no longer tender to the City competent services for a fee that is not financially worthy of 

my doing.”  Ten members of the community stepped to the microphone to show their support for Shollenberger.  Then Mayor Bart Doyle then closed the public portion of 

the proceedings.

Council Members Doug Hayes and Tonya Torres noted that as far as they were concerned, Nancy had refused to do the work she was elected to do unless she got a 

raise, with Hayes adding that if Shollenberger was willing to continue at the same rate, he would like her to continue. Torres noted that the City was in the middle of a 

serious budget problem and they were trying to make this work for everybody, but the Council had been presented with an ultimatum.  Council Member Rob Stockly 

stated that before the next election, the duties and compensation of the City Clerk needed to be clarified.  Council Member George Maurer showed strong support for 

the City Clerk.  “Nancy put her foot down and she was right to do it.”  Mayor Doyle stated that the problem needed to be resolved, and that if money is more important 

than public service, maybe it is time to step down.  

Doyle moved that the pay remain as it was, but the motion died.  Council Member Hayes moved that the election amount be increased to $7500 for the next election.  

That motion died, too.  Ultimately, the meeting ended with the status quo, with a call for a resolution at the next meeting or the first meeting of November.  At the October 

27th meeting, it was decided to re-define the City Clerk’s allocation of duties, following the April 2004 election.  The City Clerk would have specific responsibilities associated

with the stipend pay, and oversight of the remaining duties, with clerical functions delegated to a staff member.  That staff member was paid $500/mo.  

When staff member Debbie Humphrey recently left to take a new job, there was a void at the minutes taking position.  City Clerk Shollenberger was contacted to obtain 

information regarding duties and compensation she would be requesting for said duties.  Shollenberger said that she would continue to do the $250/mo. duties for that 

stipend, and would be willing to keep the election rate, now at $6500, the same.  However, in a letter dated Dec. 14, 2007, she requested an increase in pay for the 

clerical duties to $1000/mo.  On Jan. 2, 2008, correspondence was received from the City Clerk stating that she would leave the matter of her compensation to the Council’s discretion.  

Ultimately, the decision was made to continue with the pay scale of $250/mo stipend, $650 for clerical duties such as minutes and FPPC forms, and $6500 for elections. 

Effective Feb. 1, Shollenberger again became responsible for these duties, at the same rate she had rejected four years earlier.  As a condition of the new resolution, she 

is required to keep regular “office hours” at City Hall, particularly during election season.

Candidate Statement Tells Only Part of the Story

Although Shollenberger decided to stop taking minutes when the Council decided not to increase her compensation, her campaign statement reflects an abbreviated

version of events.  The statement says that “A select few City Council Members decided to change the Minute Taking process.”  It does not reflect the fact that the

decision to change the process was made after her decision to give up the minute taking responsibilities because the Council would not agree to her request for increased compensation.

Candidates Given Outdated Candidate Handbook

Candidates in this year’s election were given a 1995 Candidate handbook by the City Clerk.  The problem with that is that at least one ordinance has changed since 1995,

 in 2003.  This means that candidates in the last 3 elections have received handbooks which inaccurately reflect the current Sierra Madre election ordinances.

Lack of Attention to Detail Nearly Misinforms Voters About Vote By Mail System

I recently decided to do an article on absentee ballots, because this year's election falls during spring break for Sierra Madre schools.  I informed our City Clerk of this,

and asked her about the process so that I could provide the information in my newspaper article.  She sent me two sentences.  And one of those had an error in it.  Her

response was "Sample Ballots will be out between March 10-13 and the request for vote-by-mail ballots is on the back.  You can request from March 13-April 1st." 

No mention of Permanent Vote By Mail ballots or how to initiate that process.  No mention of emergency absentee ballots, which can be gotten between April 1st and

election day.  And her statement that you can request from March 13 was off by 3 days, as you can actually request beginning March 10th, per the Election calendar

posted on the website of Martin and Chapman.  Martin and Chapman is the large Orange County consulting firm Shollenberger uses and the City pays to conduct the

election, above and beyond the $6500 Shollenberger receives for conducting the election.

I then asked for more information, about a couple dozen questions.  She responded to many of them, but not all.  There were about half a dozen questions that didn't

get answered.  But her failure to answer questions is not as big a deal as the whopper of an error that was included in her e-mail to me.  I quote: "As long as a Vote By

Mail ballot is postmarked by April 1 we will count it or the resident can take it to the polling place."  This seemed a little strange to me, and since I was going to be

attempting to inform readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, I wanted to double check the info, so I called her at home.  She was very gracious, accepting my call

a little before 9 in the evening, which she really didn't have to do.  I asked her, "...if a voter sends you their ballot and it's postmarked April 2nd, and you receive it April

5th, 3 days before the election, you're still going to discard it because it's postmarked after April 1st?"  She said that was the case, that they had to be postmarked by

April 1st or brought to the polling place.  As the conversation continued, though, she realized her error, and acknowledged that she had made an error, that she must

have been thinking about the application for an absentee ballot, which have to be postmarked by the first, that she could in fact accept absentee ballots right up until

election day.  Had I not questioned the date, I would have misled readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, based on Ms. Shollenberger's misinformation.

Thank goodness this year we have an alternative candidate to vote for.  As a friend of mine, a true old time Sierra Madrean that has lived here for decades, said to me

recently, “Karma Bell looks very good.”

(3/15/08, modified 3/16/08) Why Sierra Madre Needs Karma Bell

Editorial by Bill Coburn

Karma Bell wants to establish regular office hours for the City Clerk.  And Karma Bell wants to spend those City Clerk hours actually in the place where much City Government business takes place - City Hall.  There's a novel concept.  A City Clerk, who is accessible to her constituents for multiple hours each week, in City Hall.  Karma Bell has shown herself to be an effective administrator, as president of Sierra Madre Little League, Sierra Madre PTA, and Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce.  Karma Bell has organized and managed the Wistaria Festival, an event that requires management skills far beyond those that a City Election, probably the most formidable task in the City Clerk's job description, requires.  Karma Bell believes that the office of the City Clerk should give the appearance of impartiality.  She'll still have her opinions, but she won't be broadcasting them, recognizing that her position as manager of the City's election requires her to maintain the appearance of impartiality.  She recognizes that sometimes freedom of speech is best exercised by remaining silent.

- And Why Sierra Madre Voters Need to Retire Nancy Shollenberger

There is just so much to say here, I don't know where to begin.  But I'll try, recognizing that this is going to get longer as I find answers to some of the things I'm researching.  Get out your reading glasses, grab a cup of coffee or a bottle of water (or wine, whatever your preference), because this is going to be a long one.

I think I'll start with some of the most recent, and work my way backwards.  Our City Clerk screwed up big time on the April 8th election, and has shown an incredible lack of judgment, transparency and accountability ever since.  Basically, the Argument for Measure P was allowed to be printed in the sample ballot with two glaring errors in it.  Errors that could compromise the integrity of the election.  In the argument, which starts out accurately enough, the Utility Users Tax (Measure U) is twice misidentified as Measure P, and the Police Officer's Association (POA) initiative, Measure P, is misidentified as Measure UA.  The argument, which is signed by all five City Council members, informs voters that the POA has abandoned the initiative, which they had placed on the ballot after collecting the required signatures.  The statement says that the officers had come to the conclusion that their initiative would have "resulted in cutting services the City provides that the Community has come to enjoy and expect."  It states that the POA agreed to accept a more modest salary increase than their measure would have provided, and that the City would provide that increase only if it receives the necessary revenue to do so.    Up to this point things are accurate.  However, in its next two sentences, the argument misidentifies the two ballot measures, stating "Accordingly, the Police Officers Association respectfully asks that the Community vote YES to increase the Utility Users Tax (Measure P) and vote no on the POA initiative (Measure UA)."  The Utility  Users Tax is actually Measure U, and the POA initiative is actually Measure P.   The next sentence incorrectly reads "A YES vote to allow an increase to the Utility Users Tax (Measure P) will provide our public safety employees (police, fire, and paramedics the compensation necessary to keep our experienced and loyal public servants working in Sierra Madre."   It should, of course, identify the Utility Users Tax initiative as Measure U, not P.  Following the argument are the "signatures" of all five City Council members.  If things weren't confusing enough before, they just became significantly more so.

It is the Clerk's responsibility to proof read and submit to the voters an accurate product.  That was obviously not done in this case.  Failure to do so has caused staff to spend time researching the error, and trying to determine how to deal with it.  Now there will be the time spent on preparation of the corrected ballot, the expense of printing it, and the expense of mailing it citywide.  Further, the City Clerk decided to issue a press release as her way of dealing with the situation.  It appears she did not have the City Manager or the City Attorney provide any input on the method of correction, or on the press release she issued.  The office of the City Clerk is a separate entity, responsible only to the voters.  City Council and City Manager have no authority over her, and she is not required to work with the City administration to fix the problem.  However, one would think that with the potential liability to the City caused by her error, a committed team player, who is cooperating with others who are most definitely adversely effected by her error, might consult with them, or at least make them privy to her response to the situation.  Yet she did not even provide a copy of the press release to the City Manager or the City Attorney before releasing it to the press.  And it might have been in her best interest to have had it reviewed by the City Attorney, as her method of dealing with the error includes offering people who have already sent in their ballots the opportunity to receive a replacement ballot.  I've been told by one former Southern California City Clerk that she doesn't know how Ms. Shollenberger intends to replace already received ballots with a replacement ballot without, for lack of a better word, "tampering" with the ballots.

In addition to all the costs associated with correcting the error, there is also the potential that backers of one of the measures effected could challenge the election based on the error.  Such a challenge, if upheld by the court (how much for the City to defend itself?), could, require an expensive replacement special election.

She has failed repeatedly to respond to questions about how this happened.  I sent her a series of direct questions, many of which were questions that voters were asking when I spoke with them.  Among them:

1. Who submitted the Argument in Favor of Measure P?
2. Was it submitted exactly as it appears on the sample ballot?
3. If not, what is different, and how did those changes occur?
4. Is it the City Clerk’s responsibility to check (proofread) said arguments for factual errors such as appeared in this argument?
5. Did you proofread this argument?
6. Even if not required by law, should the City Clerk check for such errors in order to reduce the possibility of the City expending large amounts of money and time investigating and correcting this type of error?
7. If the City Clerk sees a factual error such as those found in the argument, is he/she required to request clarification from the submitters, or in any way notify the submitters that their argument contains errors?

Ms. Shollenberger at one point told me that she would respond to the questions "when decisions on next step have been made.” (sic).  The next step was taken, the release of the press release.  I asked her to respond again at that time, and she has not responded.  I asked a third time, this time asking if she intends to respond, and again have received no response.  Apparently Ms. Shollenberger feels no obligation to respond to a voter who has questions regarding an error by her office that is going to cost the City a lot of money.  (Editor's update: Sunday at 2:25pm, nearly 48 hours after my second request for her to respond to my questions, I received the following from Nancy: Bill,  "I will be answering questions at the Kiwanis luncheon on March 25th.  I have been advised not to answer questions..." )

In fairness, the argument was most likely presented as it was printed in the ballot, with errors intact.  Ms. Shollenberger obviously knows, but won't tell me, for whatever reason.  I've also asked the President of the POA, but have not yet heard back from him, either.  But even if the error was initiated by others, it is Ms. Shollenberger's responsibility to protect the City by making sure that errors like that don't get printed.

Okay, so let's get past this whole sample ballot error stuff.  Item number 2 - A frightening lack of attention to detail that could have had an adverse effect on the voting process.  I recently decided to do an article on absentee ballots, because this year's election falls during spring break for Sierra Madre schools.  I informed our City Clerk of this, and asked her about the process so that I could provide the information in my newspaper article.  She sent me two sentences.  And one of those had an error in it.  Her response was "Sample Ballots will be out between March 10-13 and the request for vote-by-mail ballots is on the back.  You can request from March 13-April 1st."  No mention of Permanent Vote By Mail ballots or how to initiate that process.  No mention of emergency absentee ballots, which can be gotten between April 1st and election day.  And her statement that you can request from March 13 was off by 3 days, as you can actually request beginning March 10th, per the Election calendar posted on the website of Martin and Chapman.  Martin and Chapman is the large Orange County consulting firm Shollenberger uses and the City pays to conduct the election..

I then asked for more information, about a couple dozen questions.  She responded to many of them, but her response to one of them concerns me.  When asked about what happens to ballots after an election, she responded "The ballots are kept by the City Clerk's Office for six months."  The City Clerk's office?  Does that mean her house?  Garage?  I've been told by more than one source that she stores them at her house.  Seems to me they should be stored within the security of City Hall, but maybe that's just me.  Oh wait, it's not, the same ex-City Clerk who told me that replacement ballots were problematic tells me that it's not okay to store ballots at one's home.  There were also about half a dozen questions that didn't get answered.  But her failure to answer questions is not as big a deal as the whopper of an error that was included in her e-mail to me.  I quote: "As long as a Vote By Mail ballot is postmarked by April 1 we will count it or the resident can take it to the polling place."  This seemed a little strange to me, and since I was going to be attempting to inform readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, I wanted to double check the info, so I called her at home.  She was very gracious, accepting my call a little before 9 in the evening, which she really didn't have to do.  I asked her, "...if a voter sends you their ballot and it's postmarked April 2nd, and you receive it April 5th, 3 days before the election, you're still going to discard it because it's postmarked after April 1st?"  She said that was the case, that they had to be postmarked by April 1st or brought to the polling place.  As the conversation continued, though, she realized her error, and acknowledged that she had made an error, that she must have been thinking about the application for an absentee ballot, which have to be postmarked by the first, that she could in fact accept absentee ballots right up until election day.  Had I not questioned the date, I would have misled readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, based on Ms. Shollenberger's misinformation.

Item 3 - Lack of sound judgment regarding managing an election.  At the recent candidates' forum, Ms. Shollenberger was asked about whether it was appropriate to have lawn signs out endorsing candidates.  Ms. Shollenberger acknowledged that this is an issue that has been coming up for years, and that she has freedom of speech, and if City Council members can put up lawn signs, why shouldn't she?  She added that she had consulted an attorney and he had informed her that it was perfectly legal to do it.  This is an unresponsive answer.  The question wasn't "is it legal", the question was, "is it appropriate?"  While I don't question Ms. Shollenberger's free speech rights, I would like to point out that the answer to Ms. Shollenberger's question about if City Council members can do it why can't she is this:  we look to our Council members to take a stand, to have opinions, to make endorsements, to, in some cases, lead us by helping us in our own decision making process.  But we look to our City Clerk to ensure a fair election, free of bias.  And if I'm a voter driving up to Ms. Shollenberger's house to pick up an absentee ballot or some other document, and I see lawn signs endorsing candidates, I'm going to have to wonder about that.  This wouldn't be such a big issue for me if the City Clerk business was all done at City Hall, and it was merely her private residence that had signs up.  I still think it would be wrong to do that, but it wouldn't be as big an issue.  But she does most of her work from her home.  People go to her home on official city business.  In essence, her home is the office of the City Clerk.  And as such, I think it should be free of even the appearance of potential bias for or against candidates.  I also take issue with the fact that she admits that members of her constituency have had a problem with this for years, but she ignores them and just does what she wants.

All right, it's after 1 in the morning, and I've just written more than 2,000 words, (and you've just read that much), so I'm going to stop and give us both a break.  But I'll be writing more soon.  Here are a few things I'll be touching on, some of which may take a little longer to get written because there's research involved. 

• Revisionist history in her sample ballot statement regarding taking of the minutes. 

• Absolutely incoherent minutes submitted since she returned (I'll probably be publishing some samples from the media packet that I am provided). 

• Failure to publish ordinances for 7 years straight, exposing the City to extreme liability, and costing it tens of thousands of $$. 

• Providing candidate's with outdated handbooks.

• And there's so much more to add. 

If it weren't sad, it would almost be funny.  But it's not funny.  It's very serious stuff.  This is our town we are talking about here.

(6/16/07)  All-America City - It Really IS a Big Deal!!

Editorial by Bill Coburn

I admit it.  I didn’t get it.  Just like some of you that I’ve talked with over the last few days, I didn’t see what the big deal was.  What’s the big deal about being an All-America City?  I wanted somebody to tell me that it meant that we’d see an increase in revenue for the City, maybe get the boys in blue the pay raise they’ve deserved for too long.  Or maybe that there would be an attendant rise in property values, because after all, “WE’RE AN ALL-AMERICA CITY.” 

When we were named an All-America finalist last year, I thought, okay great.  We didn’t even get named something that I don’t really get the big deal about anyway, we came in second.  I was not the least bit excited. 

But I tend to keep my mind open till I close it, and I knew that many of the people associated with last year’s campaign were people I respect, and people who had/have what I consider to be the best interests of this City at heart, so when this year’s campaign was getting underway, I decided to be a part of it.  For the first several months, I didn’t do much, just published reports about upcoming rallies, etc.  Didn’t get into the nuts and bolts, didn’t work with any of the committees, just showed up at the rallies, wrote my delegate check, now and then put a few words in the paper.

As the competition approached, I got a little more involved.  Decided I’d be a part of the crew that went on stage, help with the presentation to the judges.  Showed up for rehearsals, tried not to get in the way.  Memorized my lines, then had them given to others, so I stopped memorizing them, figuring I’d wait till we were closer to the final rehearsal, and memorize them then.  Helped with a re-write of one section of the script, only to be warned “if you do good at this, next time you’ll be one of the first ones we come to for help with the script.”  Oh great.

I guess because I’ve taken a picture or two of town activities over the years, I was asked if I could help with a video/slideshow that was to be shown at a booth at the competition.  I said sure, and threw together something that I hoped wouldn’t be an embarrassment to the City.  But I still didn’t get it.  As much fun as it was to spend that time re-experiencing these town events through the photos and videos, and being reminded of all the things that make this town so special, I still didn’t get it.  In fact, the last night before the conference began, when I saw the final script, and saw that I now had just one sentence to say, I couldn’t believe I had disrupted my life so drastically, three days worth, for just one line.  And one of those days was a deadline day, which meant trying to get things done from Anaheim on a laptop, instead of at home where everything I need can be accessed with a click of the mouse. 

As I say, I didn’t get it.  Now I do, and couldn’t be happier that I did disrupt my life for those three, very important days.  And I would do it again, without a single line.  Because it’s not about lines, or being the one to express the right words to the judges that makes them decide to vote for your town.  It’s about community, and working together for the benefit of the town we all live in.

I’ve heard it’s been said recently that some of the people who volunteer in this town do it because they like to see their name in the paper.  I can’t help but wonder if maybe the people who say things like that are judging others by their own standards and sentiments.  The people who were a part of this delegation worked so hard, did so much, and not once was there any intimation that any of the people involved were working for their own glory, or to get recognition, in the paper or otherwise.  Not even just to be recognized by their peers.  No one I spoke with who was thanked by anyone in my presence for their efforts wanted to hear a word of it.  They basically deflected everything to the other members of the team.  “Oh, I didn’t do anything, did you see (fill in the name), and how well he/she did what he/she did?”

This event wasn’t about personal glory or recognition.  This event was about everybody pulling together to do something positive for our hometown.  I can’t emphasize enough that word, positive.  Positive.  Everything about this event was positive.   Yes, we were competing.  But we wanted everyone to win, as long as we did, too.  The National Civic League created a forum to build community, and it worked. As Mayor Joffe said in her acceptance speech, “I feel like we all have sixty new friends in this delegation, and hundreds of you out there who are now our friends, too.”   There were people in this delegation that I knew, but now I know them better.  There were people I didn’t know, but now I know them.  We have a shared experience, working together, as a team, to bring recognition to our City, and will always have that memory and that collective affection and appreciation for the work that we did together.  A sense of community.

But we also became a larger community, getting to know the delegates and delegations from other cities.  Learning that all of our small town communities (and larger ones, too) face problems, and that in each of these towns, there are people who, just like in Sierra Madre, pull together for the good of the town.  As delegate Cathy Ryne said “Isn’t it nice that the people of the cities we “hung out” with also won? Yea- Clinton, Dubuque…Polk County with the great black hats, Hickory and Hollywood Florida with the medical van. They were so nice and fun to be with. It’s fun to be winners with them!!” 

Participating in this competition placed Sierra Madre on a national stage, and by winning, we showed that Sierra Madre, small as it is, deserves to be recognized as a community of worth, the equal of any other community in this country.  Some towns flew fifty delegates coast to coast to participate.  I’m told some towns spent $100,000 dollars on their participation.  As I understand it, Sierra Madre spent about $13,000, reportedly all but about $1,000 of which was from donations.

Former City Manager John Gillison sent a congratulatory message to members of the delegation, saying “You all deserve to be very proud of what you worked so hard for.  In true Sierra Madre fashion you pulled together and proved again that what you have in common is stronger than what divides you, and the whole truly is so much more than the sum of the parts.  You should rightfully be very proud and do not let anyone who was not there or does not appreciate the magnitude of what you accomplished take this away from you.  It truly is the first of many great stories that will mark the next 100 years.  Happy Birthday to all my friends in the wonderful City of Sierra of Madre.

Now, Sierra Madre has been through some divisive times lately.  Some of us haven’t been getting along.  Gillison’s heartfelt congratulation message alludes to the possibility that there may be some who don’t want to acknowledge what the group that brought this national recognition to Sierra Madre has actually done for our small town.   The fact of the matter is, Gillison actually addresses one of the reasons why people might feel that way, to my mind.  Never having been there, I didn’t get it.  And I don’t think that anyone who hasn’t been there really can properly appreciate its magnitude. They probably CAN’T get it.  But this is a big deal.  It’s a very big deal.  I know.  I was there.  I saw.  And if you weren’t there, and you didn’t see, I don’t expect you to get it.  But please recognize that there is a possibility that even if you don’t get it, now, you might, if you get involved next time, and you go, and you see.  That’s what happened to me.  It could happen to you.  So get it or not, try to help to mend the fences, try to help re-build the community.  Congratulate your neighbors, congratulate the delegates, feel good about yourself and your town.  This award was given to the entire community, because it was the entire community that created the YAC, the Senior Housing, and addressed the open space issue.  Even if you voted against these ideas, you were still a vital part of the process of determining what the community wanted.  And the community, working together, even with some disagreement, completed these projects that won us this award.  Let’s use winning this award as a rallying point for healing our community.  Because community is what this award is all about.

We are coming up on one of Sierra Madre’s favorite traditions, 4^th of July.  Let’s enjoy the festivities without the animosity.  We are celebrating our Centennial.  That’s one hundred years of community.  Let’s enjoy the Centennial festivities without the animosity.  Let’s work together to find a solution to the fiscal problems we face, and address the issues that confront us, such as finding more money for the police.  Let’s work together, as a community to address these issues, and enjoy the process, without animosity.  We used to be able to disagree with one another, and still respect each other enough to work together to find common ground.  That’s how we’ve survived 100 years.  And that’s how we became an All-America City.  Let’s work to find that ability again.  Let’s prove again that, as Gillison stated, what we have in common is stronger than what divides us, and that the whole truly is so much more than the sum of the parts.  Let’s celebrate who we are and what we do, even if one of the things we do is to sometimes disagree.  Because, as Dereck Okuba of the National Civic League said about communities, “it’s like families, there’s no such thing as perfect families, every family has its issues….a lot of it is that level of belief that is there, that mindset of what is possible, that mindset of spending the energy, not on who’s to blame, and who can I point that finger on, but what can we do together to address that issue.” 

SO CONGRATULATIONS TO SIERRA MADRE.

WE ARE AN ALL-AMERICA CITY!!

AND IT’S A VERY BIG DEAL!

(4/11/07) Why I’m Going to Vote No on Measure V, Part 2

An Editorial by Bill Coburn

2-30-13

Let’s break it down.  Two.  As in two stories.  I talked a little about this in last week’s editorial.  Two is too restrictive, and sets limits on the rights of the downtown property owners that, I can guarantee you, you wouldn’t want placed on you if you owned the property.  Properties on a slope?  Underground parking is still considered one story.  Look how much of a slope there is at the Howie’s parking lot.  You could easily put one story of below grade parking at the south, and two stories above, without blocking anyone’s view, particularly if the stories were stepped.  We shouldn’t need an election to allow that kind of project.  The community can give its input during the planning commission and city council meetings, as they’ve done for a hundred years.

Thirty.  Thirty feet is too restrictive.  Hotel Shirley is 39 feet.  Any church that wants to replace an aging structure with a more modern one, as both Bethany and St. Rita’s have done (yes it was some time ago, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen again), would be limited to 30 feet, or would be required to go through the election process.  Of course, going through the election process, they would not have to do an EIR, so we wouldn’t really know what their project’s effects would be.  Enough said.

Thirteen.  This is the one that really gets me.  There are a lot of people in this town who still don’t know that Renaissance Plaza and Hotel Shirley have residences in them.  I lived here for two or three years before I found out.  Yet Hotel Shirley has a DU ratio of 20/acre, and Renaissance Plaza has a rating of 60/acre.  You read that right.  60 DU per acre, and many people don’t even know that it has a single residence there.  So I guess I don’t see how a DU ratio that is more than 13 is going to devastate the downtown area.  I think we could realistically exceed 13 by quite a bit before finding ourselves beset by serious negative impact.

And another thing.  If, say, 72 units are built in a residential area, the people at those 72 residences will have to drive through the downtown to get home or to do business in other cities, and they will most likely drive back downtown to visit restaurants or do some shopping, go to the post office, pick up their prescription, etc..  If those 72 units are built downtown, the residents will be able to walk to the restaurants, shops, post office and drug store.  Which way creates more traffic downtown?  I said last week, I think mixed use can be a good thing, and is consistent with the ideas of the turn of the 20^th century (you know, when this town was started) because back then, shop owners frequently lived over their commercial establishments.

As I also said last week, senior housing downtown makes more sense in an area where folks who can no longer drive can walk to the post office, the drugstore, the restaurants, and the bus lines that will take them out of the City.

But I get too wordy, so here’s a bulleted list of some of the reasons why I’m voting No on Measure V, and why I encourage you to do the same.

• It makes dramatic changes to the 100-year old system that got us to where we are, while claiming to want to keep things the way they are.  If the system was good enough to get us what we claim to want, why replace it?
• It’s a flawed initiative with multiple ambiguities, many of which will likely need to be litigated to be defined, and we can’t afford that.
• It infringes on the property rights of the property owners downtown.
• It has no clause for emergency rebuilding of historic properties that exceed its restrictions.
• It will require, at the very least, a re-examination of the city’s compliance with the housing element, and possibly a restructuring of the housing element.
• If, due to Measure V, we fall out of compliance with state housing laws, judges can require us to accept any project that offers high density housing, whether we want it or not.
• If a project goes to initiative, the developer is no longer required to complete an Environmental Impact Report.  This has the potential to be very dangerous to our way of life.
• Joe Q. Public is not qualified to make decisions regarding very complicated land use issues.  I consider myself to be a fairly bright guy (did I say that out loud?), but I do not at this point feel qualified to make major land use decisions.  I think I would have to have a much better understanding of the City, State and Federal Zoning, Housing and Building ordinances and laws than I currently have to be qualified to make those decisions, especially since I’d be making them without the benefit of an EIR to help me understand the implications of the project.  And let’s not forget, this town has its share of buffoons.  I don’t want them making these decisions, either.
• Second units, which currently have a height limitation of 15 feet, would be up-zoned to a 30 foot height limit.
• We have been told that Measure V draws its restrictions from the 1996 General Plan.  That’s only partly true.  It places far more severe restrictions on property owner’s options than the General Plan does, and I don’t appreciate people misrepresenting the facts when they are trying to help me decide how to vote.
• We have been told at the beginning of this campaign by Council Member Zimmerman that if the DSP passes, there will be dump trucks disrupting our lives as they travel up and down Sierra Madre Blvd.  But Zimmerman forgot to mention that those dump trucks will be there even if Measure V passes.  This is fear mongering, and I don’t appreciate people trying to manipulate me with fear tactics.
• We have been told that if Measure V doesn’t pass, our property values will sink, sink, sink.  Presumably, lower property values make lower commissions for the realtors.  If that’s true, why aren’t the realtors and their associations backing Measure V, so that property values, and commissions, don’t sink?  Again, people are playing on people’s fears.
• The League of Women Voters broke with its tradition of non-partisanship and took a stance against Measure V.  The Pasadena Star News says No on V.  The Sierra Madre Chamber says No on V.  The Sierra Madre Volunteer Fire Department says No on V.
• I have read the initiative, listened to the rhetoric, visited the websites, read the mailers, read the editorials and letters to the editor, talked with the people, attended the forums, and everything I’ve learned from all this leads me to believe that Measure V is not good for our town.  And I trust my reasoning in making that decision, and I trust my instincts.  But were it the case that I didn’t…
• Some of the people in this town for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration, people that have served time on Planning Commissions, City Council, and as Mayor, and who therefore are far more qualified than me to judge this initiative, tell me either personally or by adding their names to the list of opponents, that No on V is the right way to go.  People like Clem Bartolai, George Maurer, Glenn Lambdin, Doug Hayes, Rob Stockly, Ron Brandley, John Hutt, John Buchanan, Joe Mosca, Enid Joffe, even (dare I say the names?) Tonja Torres (who sat on a council that placed 180+ conditions on a building project at the top of Baldwin, a process that would not be possible on downtown projects that exceed 2-30-13 if Measure V is approved) and Bart Doyle (yes, Black Bart, the infamous allegedly “evil building association guy”).  And frankly, I trust them. 
• Many other people in this town, whose opinion I also respect, among them Eph Konigsberg, Mike Bamberger, Bill and Sue Messersmith, Bob and Rosemary Burnett, Judy Webb-Martin, Benn Martin, Hank Landsberg, and Lew and Joyce Watanabe, just to name a very few of the dozens, have declared No on V.  And I also trust them.

If you want to find information about Measure V, you can do so at www.cityofsierramadre.com (official documents), www.sierramadrenews.net (documents and opinion), www.smrrd.org (Yes on V website), www.stopmeasurev.org (No on V website) www.smrsvp.org (No on V website), www.yes-measurev.org  (Yes on V website).  Please bear in mind as you visit these sites that some of them are going to tell you only one side due to their bias towards their side, but I think it is the right thing to list them, so you can see what each side has to say, and let you make your own decision. 

I urge you to get the facts, and having learned them, I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s in Sierra Madre’s best interests to vote No on V.

Why I’m Going to Vote No on Measure V

An Editorial by Bill Coburn  (4/5/07)

I’ve decided to vote no on Measure V.  And here are some of my thoughts as to why I came to that decision.

1. I think there are too many flaws in the initiative, too many angles that have not been thought through.  Ambiguities.  Things that could be interpreted in more than one way.  So we end up in litigation to find the answer.   We end up using the City’s minimal reserves fighting lawsuits, and the attorneys get richer.  Then, what if new sources of revenue are found, say the state decides not to use the money it’s been pulling from the City for one reason or another, and the City gets some money in.  Do we get to use that money to increase what we pay our cops?  To bring the library up to seismic standards?  To re-open the pool year round?  No, it’s going to have to go back into the reserves, because we’re too busy depleting them fighting about ambiguities in legislation that should never have passed.  Sierra Madre can’t afford Measure V.

2. I don’t want higher density projects such as senior or low income housing to be built in our residential neighborhoods.  If Measure V passes, higher density projects such as low income or senior housing will be prohibited in the downtown area.  So they would be built in our residential neighborhoods.  Do you want a new condo complex next door to your house?  To me, building senior housing in these areas doesn’t make a lot of sense.  The downtown area is where seniors would want to live, so that if they get to a point where they no longer feel comfortable driving, they can just walk to the Post Office, walk to the coffee shops, walk to the restaurants, the dentist, their doctor, the library.  
3. Another reason is property rights.  I think that the people that own property downtown should, within reason, be able to build on their property a structure or structures that can appreciate in value over time, and earn them some money as it does.  That’s kind of the intent of commercial property.  But if the restrictions on building that are put in place are too severe, they aren’t going to be able to do that.  Let’s take the property that’s in front of the Mariposa parking lot for instance.  This area is on a slope.  Now, why shouldn’t these property owners be able to put up two stories at the street level to conduct business, and utilize the slope to put another story underground to provide additional parking?  Measure V prohibits that, unless the City and the building owner bring the project before the people in an election, because Measure V defines that type of structure as a 3-story structure, and it does not allow anything more than two. 
4. I don’t believe that property values are going to fall because Measure V doesn’t pass.  Some of the people who back the initiative will tell you that the only way to maintain our property values is to pass Measure V.  In the same breath, they will tell you that the money-hungry realtors are trying to stop Measure V.  Guess what?  If property values go down, realtors make less money.   If Measure V is going to help us maintain property values, wouldn’t the realtors be backing it? 
5. I’m not as scared of mixed use as some people in this town seem to be.  Many of the proponents of Measure V say they want to retain the 19^th century charm of our downtown area.  Well, the way I understand it, in the old days, it was not uncommon for a store owner to live in the space above their store.  Mixed use properties have been around for a long time.  Seems to me that while it may not be the actual store owner living above the store, we’d still be practicing the same principal of dwellings over commercial.
6. I don’t think Joe Q. Public is equipped to be in charge of land use issues for the entire downtown area.  I don’t think most people had any idea what 13 units per acre was until a few months ago.  I don’t think most of them still have any idea what floor area ratios are.  I don’t think most of them understand about grading, or surveying, or even common things like setbacks.  What do you know about traffic flow?  What are the different ratings of firewalls needed in kitchens, and are they dependent on the equipment being used?   How about a kitchen that has excess water flowing because there are multiple dishwashers in use?  What size drain pipe is required?  Are we voters qualified to review projects and determine that they meet the necessary land use standards?  And yet, if Measure V passes, any project in the downtown area that exceeds the 2-30-13 restrictions is going to be reviewed and approved or denied by the residents of this town.  I have to say, I’ve seen more than a few people in this town upon whose intellect I would not want my project to be dependent.
7. The elections remove any negotiation with the builder.  Recently, at the top of Baldwin, the City Council approved a project, but placed more than 180 conditions on the builder, in order for the project to be approved.  Suppose there was a project proposed that was beneficial to the City, and we liked everything about the project, but there was a large, unsightly air conditioning unit located along side the building.  In an election, we either say yea or nay.  We don’t get to say yea, so long as you put up plants to cover the unsightly a/c unit alongside the structure, or move the a/c on the roof, or behind the building.  So we either say yea, and get an unsightly a/c unit, or we say nay, and turn down a project whose only drawback was that it needed some plants.  Maybe kind of an extreme hypothetical, and for all I know, there may be land use ordinances in place that prevent that from happening.  I don’t know.  But that’s kind of my point number 6.  I don’t know the land use laws, so I shouldn’t be making decisions that affect other people’s lives and livelihoods by approving or denying their projects with my uneducated vote.
8. I don’t think all development is bad.  There, I’ve said it.  I don’t think all development is bad.  I do think overdevelopment is bad.  I think wrong development is bad.  But I think there is such a thing as responsible development.  And I trust our planning commission, the city council, and the people of Sierra Madre to work within our current system to ensure that responsible development is the only kind of development that takes place downtown.  I include the people of Sierra Madre in that equation, because Sierra Madreans have shown time and again that they will turn out in force to stop ideas they don’t agree with.  A drive-through at the corner of Auburn and Sierra Madre.  A high school at the top of Baldwin.  But they did it at planning commission meetings and city council meetings, not at an election.  Using our existing system.
9. We have a system in place that’s celebrating its 100^th year.  We elect representatives to handle things like land use issues.  If you decide you don’t trust the people you put in place, you vote them out at the next election.  You don’t just scuttle the system that’s worked for a century.  I trust our council members to do what they think is best for our City.  I may not agree with what they think is right, but I trust that they believe they are doing the right thing.  And so, I think you do your best to convince 3 of the 5 to handle things until that next election takes place.  What you don’t do is pass laws that change the entire way the City operates, setting the City up for major financial problems and lawsuits.

These are just some of the reasons.  Tune in next week, when I’ll tell you a few more.

Recalling Joe Mosca Not in City’s Best Interest

An Editorial by Bill Coburn  (3/2/07)

City Council member Joe Mosca has been served with recall papers.  In my opinion, anybody that would choose to recall Joe Mosca has an agenda that is something other than who can best represent this City as a Council member.  For me, it’s that simple.  I can not recall anyone who has worked harder and been more involved as a City Council member than Joe Mosca.  Why would somebody want to get rid of someone who works so hard for the benefit of the City, even if there are several issues you disagree on, much less the one that seems to have set these people off?  This community is being torn apart over 10 feet (height).  One story.  Seems kind of silly.

When you look at the reasons given by the proponents of the recall for recalling him, it becomes obvious that there wasn’t a lot of thought put into the whole idea.  It’s more like the “It’s my ball, and you play my way or I go home and take the ball with me” mentality that’s at work in this thing.  “Thumbed his nose at his constituents?” “ Recklessly shattered the calm of this delightful and friendly village?”  I think they’ve got the wrong Councilman.  I think there are a few (very vocal) sore losers that thought they were electing a puppet that were disappointed when he didn’t vote the way they wanted him to – on one issue – and all the other work that Joe does (and has done) should apparently be ignored.  Forget that as liaison to the MTA, he represented the City’s public transportation users and worked to minimize the effects of the MTA’s desire to alter the bus routes through town.  Forget that he served as the deciding vote on an update of our hillside zoning law which better protects our hillside from over-development.  Forget that he voted to bring paramedics to town, increasing the safety of every member of this community.  Forget that in one of his first actions on Council, he voted to bring an emergency water supply to town (again, increasing the safety of every member of this community), finishing up work that had begun more than a decade earlier, and which his fellow newbie council members either questioned as a (non-existent) pro-development conspiracy or didn’t know enough about to make a vote on. 

That last sentence actually brings up a very good reason to keep Joe.  Joe knows enough about issues to make a vote on them, or he finds out.  He stays on top of issues that are before the Council.  He doesn’t come to a meeting unprepared, he doesn’t forget his Council information packet, or bring the packet without having reviewed it, he doesn’t come to the most important meeting of the City Council’s annual work, the budget meeting, and tell us he doesn’t understand the budget or didn’t have time to review it.  Actually, this paragraph should be re-written, because these are things we’ve seen other Council Members do.  So let’s get back to talking about Joe: He comes to meetings prepared, with his Council information packet, which he’s reviewed, and he came to the budget meeting prepared to discuss, suggest, modify and act on the budget with his fellow Council Members.  

Joe serves the City not only within our City government as a Council member, but outside the community, as well.  He represents Sierra Madre on the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), San Gabriel Valley Service Sector Governance Council.  He represents Sierra Madre as Vice Chair of the Pasadena Unified School District, (PUSD) Management Audit Advisory Committee (MAAC).  He represents Sierra Madre as an Alternate Member of the Governing Board for the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (COG).  And he represents Sierra Madre as a Member of the Community, Economy, Housing and Development Committee (CEHD) of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).  By providing Sierra Madre with representation when these organizations are planning the regional future, we have a say in what those plans will be, and how they will affect Sierra Madre.  I am constantly amazed at all the events and meetings he attends, and I’m sure I don’t know the half of his efforts.

The crux of the matter seems to be that some people aren’t happy that Mosca didn’t team up with Watts and Zimmerman in their attempt to put an unfinished document before the people for a vote.  The recall petition says that Joe voted against submitting the DSP to a public vote.  What it doesn’t say is that at that time, the DSP was incomplete and unready to be voted on.  When asked to bring the DRAFT DSP, yes, I said DRAFT, as in unfinished, still needs work, rough copy, outline, as in INCOMPLETE and therefore not ready for voting on, DSP before the voters, Joe decided it might be better to complete the document, before putting it to a vote.  Yes, putting it to a public vote.  You know, of the people.  Then Joe took it upon himself to prepare a time line for COMPLETING the Draft, i.e., finishing, i.e., no longer rough, as in made ready to be voted on document, and that timeline included as one of its action items a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

As Joe states, “As to the claim that I do not support a public vote on the downtown plan, it is not true.  I supported and still support a public vote.  I authored and the Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for more public input and a public vote on the completed document.”

So what is the agenda I spoke about in the first paragraph?  It’s my opinion that the people who are calling for the recall, many of whom are backers of Measure V, have decided to try and distract the folks who support Joe, many of whom are against Measure V, from their effort to defeat Measure V.  Think about it.  There have been calls for Joe’s recall since June of last year.  But nothing got done about it until just a few weeks before the election on Measure V.  Now Joe hasn’t taken a stance that I’m aware of on Measure V.  But many of his supporters have.  And what better way to help Measure V than to distract the people fighting it with something they feel is just as worthwhile, keeping Joe on the council?  It’s an age old strategy that has been used for both good and bad, called “divide and conquer.”  I don’t know with certainty that that’s what’s intended here, but I suspect it is, and the idea that it might be being used by our friends and neighbors against our friends and neighbors disturbs me.

The terms of the recall require that the proponents get a whole bunch of signatures (1800+) on a petition to recall Joe, and they have to do it fairly quickly.  When they ask you to sign, I hope you won’t sign it.  I sure as heck won’t be signing it.  And I’ll tell you one of the biggest reasons I have for withholding my signature.  Trust.  I trust Joe. I trust Joe to be prepared.  I trust Joe to have an understanding of the issues brought before him.  I trust that he will seek informed counsel if for some reason he doesn’t understand an aspect of what he’s voting on.  I trust him to represent my interests as a citizen of this City, both at the local level and as my representative on regional organizations.  I trust him to tell me the truth, whether I want to hear it or not.  I trust that even if I disagree with the decisions he makes, he is making the decision that he considers to be best for Sierra Madre, from a position of knowledge, having considered all the options he can see before him.  I trust him to treat me and my opinion with respect.  I trust him to show his respect for the members of this community by putting the time and the effort into being prepared to do his best on every issue that comes before the Council, and to also show his respect by attending events that are important to the people of this town, such as Chamber mixers, Little League openings, All-America City rallies, Wistaria Day, Dickens Village, Mt. Wilson Trail Race and so many more.  Each one of these events is an opportunity for him (and the other Council members, those who show their respect for their constituents by making the time) to talk with the people of the City and find out what’s important to them, ask their advice about the issues.  I trust that with Joe, if I want to discuss our differences (or similarities) of opinion, I’m going to be treated with respect, and our conversation will be informed, intelligent, civil and non-confrontational. I can’t say that about everyone on the Council.  Please don’t sign the petition.

(9/15/06) Editorial - What’s Being Said, What’s Not Being Said About 2-30-13

By Bill Coburn

Well, I guess I’m in for it now.  I’ve decided to bring my opinion into my writing.  You’ll notice that when I did so, I put the word “Editorial” in front of it.  I wish more papers would do that.  Anyway, I expect I’m in for it now, since I’m sure many of you will disagree with what I have to say. 

Now, I’m not taking a position yet on the 2-30-13 initiative vs. the General Plan vs. DSP.  The only one of those that exists is the General Plan.  The DSP is in a state of flux, as it is a draft, subject to change based on the discussion and opinions of the Planning Commission, the City Council and we, the people. I’ll need to have something a little more concrete, so to speak, before I can endorse the DSP, if I end up deciding I want to endorse it.  But I plan to participate in the creation of future drafts, just as I did when the first draft was being formed.  And I invite and encourage everyone else to do so as well.  Even if you support 2-30-13.  Because what if 2-30-13 doesn’t pass?  You’ll have missed out on an opportunity to participate in the creation and direction of the DSP.  Don’t put your eggs all in one basket.

The 2-30-13 initiative has been submitted to the City Clerk.  She passed it to the City Attorney, who will give it a title and summarize it, and it will be returned to the submitter.  Once it has received Title and Summary, its backers can begin collecting signatures to try and get it on the ballot.  I just received a copy of it a few moments ago, but haven’t had the time to look it over yet.

I recently attended the “launch” party for the 2-30-13 initiative, put on by SMRRD at Café 322.  The meeting was, for the most part, civil, and a lot of information was provided.  No actual initiative yet at that time, but a lot of information, and some misinformation. 

I am concerned by what was being said, and what was not being said, in a letter read to the audience that was apparently written by Kurt Zimmerman, a City Councilman who is a member of SMRRD.  In the letter, Zimmerman said that “Our previous City Council retained a consultant to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan to encourage development and redevelopment in our downtown areas…”  What wasn’t said, was that RBF Consulting was retained to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan to provide guidelines and limits as to what can be developed in our downtown area.  By choosing to say that the former Council was encouraging the development, rather than limiting it, either of which is accurate, Zimmerman is putting his spin on the facts.  I participated in the workshops when the draft was being put together, and the planning director at that time, Kurt Christiansen, and the members of RBF Consulting, were quite clear that the reason for the creation of the DSP was that the City wanted to establish guidelines and limits that would be more likely to preserve the Village atmosphere that we currently have when large parcels such as the Skilled Nursing Facility and the Howie’s Market site and others are being developed.  While Zimmerman makes it sound like encouraging development and redevelopment is a bad thing, the fact is that it needs to be done.  How many of you like seeing the plywood covered windows and doors at the Skilled Nursing Facility?  If more of the downtown goes the plywood route, how long do you think your residential property values are going to continue to rise?  We need to encourage the right kind of development, so that Sierra Madre maintains its Village charm.  And that includes establishing guidelines and limits, which is what the DSP is intended to do.  And the 2-30-13 Initiative, as well, for that matter, though if I understood what I heard at the meeting, it is intending to use the existing General Plan guidelines.

What’s being said: “There was a lot to dislike about that draft, for example, it calls for the construction of up to 325 new condos or apartments in our downtown area, and allows developers to erect 4-story or higher buildings in Sierra Madre.”  By the same author, in the same letter.  Now Mr. Zimmerman is an attorney, and as such, I expect that he has a pretty good understanding of words and what they mean.  Many attorneys pride themselves on their knowledge and practice of semantics.  That’s why I find it disappointing that he is not more careful about the words he chooses to use.  What’s not being said?  For one thing, that at the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting where the Draft DSP was introduced, it was agreed that 4-stories would not be allowed, and that future drafts should limit construction to 3-stories.  Yet here, weeks later, Zimmerman is still stirring people up by saying that 4-story buildings would be allowed.  They won’t.  Also, his statement that the DSP calls for construction of up to 325 new condos or apartments in the downtown area is false.  The DSP does not call for any construction at all.  It guides and limits construction.  It does not call for it.  And while the worst case scenario in the Draft DSP as written states that there could be 325 new units, what’s not being said is this: “As detailed in Chapter 6, the district will include a standard 1.0 floor-to-area ratio (FAR) and 30 dwelling units per acre. Under this scenario, assuming build-out in the Downtown, there is a potential yield of 325 new residential units and 220,000 square feet of commercial/office uses. The "maximum build-out" scenario assumes that every property owner will choose to redevelop their site and, if they do, they will choose to maximize its use - a highly unlikely scenario. Similarly, "maximum build-out" scenario does not take into account that developments will also need to include landscaping, parking, and circulation, etc., again making the maximum build-out unlikely to achieve. However, for purposes of environmental review and assessment, this maximum build-out of the Specific Plan is analyzed.”  That is a direct quote from the Downtown Specific Plan, page 5-2.  In other words, 325 new units being built downtown just isn’t going to happen.   But it makes a good sound bite to rile people up.

What’s being said (again, same letter, same author): “If you have seen the movie Field of Dreams, you probably remember the line “If you build it, they will come.”  If the Downtown Specific Plan is approved and implemented, the “they” will be hundreds of new residents.  As the population of our small town grows, so will a host of other problems.  During the construction phase, the dump trucks all moving dirt and other vehicles that carry workers and building supplies to and from our downtown will contribute to traffic congestion and otherwise disrupt the flow of our daily lives.”  What’s not being said:  Despite Kurt’s implication here that the DSP will be responsible for dump trucks, congestion, and disruption, there’s going to be dump trucks hauling dirt whether we keep the existing General Plan, implement the DSP, or pass the 2-30-13 initiative. The DSP, like the GP and 2-30-13, is a set of guidelines.  It is not a phased project, with design, construction, move-in.  Construction is construction, and with it comes disruption.  No matter what the design guidelines are.

What’s being said: “I support this initiative, which you’ll hear described this evening.  It does not prohibit development.  Instead, it places reasonable height and density limits on construction in our downtown area.  The limits are currently found in the General Plan, which guides all development in our city…”  Kurt again, same letter.  What’s not being said: While the name of the initiative and the discussion about it implies that nothing can be built over 30’ high if 2-30-13 passes, because the General Plan guidelines will be in place, the General Plan currently allows buildings in excess of 30’ and densities in excess of 13 per acre.  In fact, the Hotel Shirley stands approximately 39’, and the top part of that building was re-constructed in 1998, 2 years after the General Plan began “limiting” construction to 30’.  It seems facades and architectural appurtenances are allowed to exceed the 30 foot limit in the General Plan.  And while the General Plan doesn’t specifically state a density factor for downtown, it does state that the Municipal Code shall determine construction limits in the downtown area.  Much of the downtown area is zoned as R-3 or RP, which uses an allowable density factor of 13 – 16/acre, and the General Plan recommends incentives for various reasons, such as affordable housing, senior housing, employment increase factors, etc.  The first incentive recommended is 25%, and a second incentive factor, to be determined.  So the very plan that is being touted as a model of restriction recommends increasing density beyond what the initiative’s backers are saying will be the maximum allowed.

One other thing that’s not being said: “California law requires that a Specific Plan be consistent with the General Plan of the adopting locality. To this end, existing General Plan goals and policies were reviewed to ensure consistency between the Downtown Specific Plan and the Sierra Madre General Plan. The Sierra Madre General Plan provides a supportive foundation for the Specific Plan and reinforces the goals and policies for the Downtown area, as evidenced by the highlighted General Plan goals and policies in Appendix C. A thorough analysis of consistency with the Sierra Madre General Plan was conducted as part of the planning process. The analysis concluded that the policies contained within the Downtown Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan and no General Plan Amendments are required.”  That’s from section 2.5 of the DSP, found on page 2-6. 

Over the next several weeks, I will be writing articles that compare some of the differences and similarities in the three plans.  Maybe not every week, but as time allows, I’ll do what I can to bring you the facts about them.  We, the people, can’t make decisions in an informed manner, if the people we count on to inform us are giving us their spin, instead of stating the facts.  The articles I will be writing will be based on the facts.  I may also write an editorial or two, where I state my opinion, but they will be clearly marked as Editorials. 

I imagine some of you have something to say about this, you can e-mail me at bill@sierramadrenews.net.  Please note that your letter may be published, both in the paper and on the internet.

(8/29/03) Editorial Regarding Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Rail Station  I spoke Friday morning with Matthew Raymond, who is in Communications at the MTA.  He informed me that the MTA has adopted a new name for the Sierra Madre Villa Station, based on requests made to the Executive Staff and the Board of Directors of the MTA by the City of Pasadena City Council.  Because the request was unopposed, the MTA has adopted a new name, which Mr. Raymond stated that he would verify and get back to me with.  It has been reported elsewhere that the new name is to be the East Pasadena station.  Mr. Raymond tells me that while the new name has been adopted, no action has as yet been taken, and that because the organization moves somewhat slowly, there is still a possibility that the issue can be revisited by the Board and the Executive Staff, if opposing viewpoints are brought forth.  Mr. Raymond stated that the best way to have the issue revisited would be to have those opposing viewpoints directed to the MTA and the City of Pasadena City Council.  He recommended physical letters and E-mail.  To that end, we encourage you to contact Maria Guerra, Chief of Staff at the MTA, and voice your opinion on the issue.  Address your comments to:

Maria Guerra, Chief of Staff

One Gateway Plaza

Mail stop 9925-1

Los Angeles CA 90012-2952

Phone No. (213) 922-2202 

e-mail: guerram@mta.net, or to

Matthew Raymond, same physical address, e-mail at raymondm@mta.net. 

The City of Sierra Madre is currently paying a public relations firm a reported $80,000+ per year of taxpayer money to put the words Sierra Madre in front of the media, to help grow awareness of our town.  To keep the name Sierra Madre Villa Station accomplishes that exact goal, at no cost to the City.  We have quite a few new businesses and business owners in town right now, and we'd like to see the revolving door slow down.  Sierra Madre business owners should all take a moment to write a letter AND send an e-mail to the MTA, and to the Pasadena City Council, requesting a return of the name to Sierra Madre Villa Station. Reasons that have been expressed for the name change is that when people get off the freeway eastbound at Sierra Madre Villa, they have to do a little driving to get into the station, and west bound on the 210, there is no Sierra Madre Villa off-ramp.  I understand that, but don't understand how naming it East Pasadena station helps, since there is no East Pasadena off-ramp, either. Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard can be contacted by e-mail at bbogaard@ci.pasadena.ca.us, and mail can be sent to 100 N. Garfield, Pasadena, 91109.  Other council members can be reached at the same physical address, their names are Joyce Streator, Paul Little, Chris Holden, Steve Haderlein, Victor Gordo, Steve Madison, and Sid Tyler.  We also encourage you to contact the Sierra Madre City Council, City Manager Tammy Gates, and the Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce, and urge them to lend their voices to this effort by writing letters and any other means within their power.  Here is a web page that has a list of the names of the Board of Directors for the MTA, and all Executive Staff members. I suspect they can all be reached with physical letters at the One Gateway Plaza address above. www.mta.net/press/pressroom/facts.htm