Strange Bedfellows

Bruce Tarzy is supporting John Mullin, Don Higginson, and Carl Kruse for Poway City Council.

Who'd of thunk it?

Tarzy, Mullin, Higginson and Kruse go way back in Poway politics. Tarzy was elected to the first council 30 yrs ago. Kruse was appointed 2 yrs later to fill the term of Clyde Rexrode, who died the day before he was re-elected. Mullin served on a committtee to advise the council whether Poway should form a redevelopment agency in 1983, and was chairman of the first official Redevelopment Advisory Committee in 1985. Higginson's was first elected nearly a quarter of a century ago. Their voices are not new voices in Poway politics. What is new is seeing old political foes regroup.

It is no surprise that Tarzy is supporting his longtime friend, Carl Kruse. They both served as officers of the Green Valley Civic Association (GVCA) and they even vacation together. Some people have said that Carl Kruse is Bruce Tarzy's personal council member.

It is surprising that Tarzy is supporting Higginson and Mullin. Back in the mid-1980s, one of the chief political issues was how Poway should grow. Tarzy (and Kruse) were on the side of slow, controlled growth. Mullin and Higginson were pushing for more development. In 1988, the 2 sides lined up behind competing ballot propositions, Prop FF (slow growth) and Prop GG (the developer's alternative). Prop FF was sponsored by a group called "Poway Citizens for Limited Growth". Bruce Tarzy, Jerry Hargarten and Bob Emery were key architects of Prop FF. The competing proposition, Prop GG, the "quality of life initiative" was written by council member Linda Brannon. Higginson and Mullin favored Prop GG.

Before I get into the Prop FF-GG contest, I want to paint a little picture of what Poway was like in those days. There was no industrial park in the hills of south Poway. There was no Old Coach development or Maderas gold course. Scripps Poway Parkway, known as "alternate this" or "alternate that", was only a pencil mark on a map. The houses in the Arbolitos development were just starting to show up on the horizon. A brand spanking new shopping center, anchored by a Target store just opened. There was no Wal-Mart. Our original "town center", Creekside, was a grazing area for cows. There was nothing between the Poway city limits and the freeway except open space.

When Poway incorporated in 1980, one of the first things the council did was to impose a building moratorium until a new development plan was approved. The first council was dedicated to keeping Poway rural and controlling growth.

In the 1986 election, Don Higginson and Linda Brannon defeated Linda Oravec and Mary Shepardson, two of the original Poway councilmembers. This was the only election that any incumbent Poway council member ever lost. The moment marked a major shift in Poway politics. Higginson and Brannon were both considered "pro-growth" in a community that had incorporated, largely to control their own growth.

In the 1988 election, Bruce Tarzy (who had decided not to run for re-election) and Bob Emery (who was running for re-election) teamed up to write and support a proposition that was later named Prop FF on the ballot. Tarzy and Emery hoped to prevent future councils, ones with the likes of, ummm, say a Brannon or Higginson, from being able to ruin their vision of what Poway should look like.

As a competing measure, Brannon wrote Prop GG, the "quality of life" initiative, the kind of thing developers love. Higginson and Mullin supported Prop GG.

Prop GG qualified for the ballot after paid signature gatherers obtained the necessary number of signatures. The council passed resolution 88-085 on August 2, 1988, thereby putting Prop FF on the ballot.

A few days before the election, a group of five Poway residents delivered a letter to City of Poway special counsel complaining about some campaign hanky panky between Bob Emery's election committee and Poway Citizens for Limited Growth, the committee that was formed to get Prop FF passed by the voters. Specifically, the group claimed that Bob Emery's campaign committee was controlling the Prop FF committee (Poway Citizens for Limited Growth) and that they were sharing campaign expenses.

(The Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Nov 3, 1988. pg. B.8)

The seven-page letter contends that Emery's committee controls the FF committee and has violated Poway's campaign-finance laws by collecting contributions above the $100 amount allowed for controlled committees.

...snip....

The complaint given to Knoepp contends that Poway Citizens for Limited Growth became a "controlled committee" Sept. 24, when two airplane banners touting Emery and Proposition FF flew over Poway during the city's Poway Days celebration.

...snip...

The difference in the shared cost indicates that the Emery committee controls the Proposition FF committee's financing, the five said.

When a committee is considered "controlled," under Poway's campaign ordinance, a contributor can give no more than $100 to each campaign.

According to campaign disclosure statements filed with the Poway city clerk, nine contributors have given $100 or more to the Emery re-election committee and $100 or more to the committee for Proposition FF, which would require voter approval to increase density in rural residential areas. Three people, including Councilman Bruce Tarzy, have given the $100 maximum to Emery and $500 or more to Poway Citizens for Limited Growth.

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It is a classic campaign maneuver. Just before the election, one or several of a candidate's supporters file a letter of complaint against their candidate's opponent. The complaints get some press, and it goes to a special counsel who holds off on looking at the complaint until after the election and then he/she dismisses it.

One of the 5 people who signed the letter of complaint against Emery and the Prop FF committee was John Mullin. Mullin's complaints against Emery and the Prop FF committee were found to be without merit. But for the record, special counsels appointed to oversee election complaints generally dismiss all of the complaints. Serious complainers must file a signed grievance with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). During that same 1988 election, somebody did send a couple of complaints to the FPPC that resulted in stipulations and fines. One was against Emery's opponent, Larry Valente and the other was against developer Kuebler. Valente was fined $1500 for sending a late campaign mailer titled "The Republican Update"which did not identify Valente's committee as the true source of the piece. Richard Kuebler, a Poway developer, was fined for $17,500 for not disclosing campaign donations in Escondido and for failing to identify himself as the source of two "hit piece" mailers against Bob Emery.

Prop FF beat Prop GG 2-1 in the election. The rest is history.

Fast forward to 2010. Why is a slow growth guy like Tarzy supporting his old pro-development enemy, John Mullin? Mullin has made no secret that he wants to make development easier in Poway. He has proposed a "streamlining process" as a first step. The streamlining will allow staff to approve projects that now require public notice and council approval.

John Mullin is also a member of CALPASC, (California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors). In fact, Mullin is on Government Affairs Committee of CALPASC. When Poway Patch's Margie Palmer queried Mullin about his involvement in this group, Mullin didn't see the inherent conflict of interest.

"My being a member of Cal-PAC is no different than me being a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Mullin said. "It's a trade association. And people who continue to propose that having some sort of significance with regard to my role on the council are incorrect."

Uhmmm, no. CALPASC is not simply a trade association like the local Chamber of Commerce. Now if Mullin was referring to the US Chamber which spend buckets of money, some of it from foreign entities, to influence legislation in the US that is advantageous for businessfolk and disadvantageous for workers, well he may have a point. While the local Poway Chamber does advocate for their members, they don't bring it to the level that CALPASC does. Check out their CALPASC's webpage. They have paid lobbyists who help write and push for certain legislation, de-regulation and judicial remedies. Our local chamber is doing street fairs, not filing "amicus briefs" in court on behalf of contractors.

According to Cal-Access, the California Secretary of State's database, CALPASC has hired 2 firms to lobby for them: Government Strategies, Inc, (2003-2009) and California Strategies & Advocacy, LLC (2009-2010). CALPASC spent just under $300,000 lobbying in 2007-2008 and have reported over $73,000 spent so far in 2009-2010.

It is pretty unethical to be on a legislative body, even a local legislative body and to belong to a group that is lobbying for legislative remedies at the same time.

So why is Bruce Tarzy supporting John Mullin for council? I've got a theory, but I'll save that for a future blog. What's your theory?

Protest

Protest Poway Sewer/ Water Rates

I have been on a mission for the last 18 months or so, trying to get the city to change the sewer

fees to a uniform unit rate. Currently, the sewer fees are structured so that those who use the

least pay the most. The sewer fee structure also has these screwy irregularities in it that could

result in a single drink of watercosting a customer $150 more over the next year.

Every one of the current council members has been deaf to my pleas. So I found it very

interesting to watch GVCA leaders and the large lot owners hyperventilating one summer

evening in the council chambers, proclaiming that it wasn't fair that the folks who used the

most water would have to pay more for it. They even said it was illegal, because if some people

were paying more for water, then they were "subsidizing" the people who were paying less per

unit. Now you have to remember that some of these folks were getting a "discount" on their

large volume water purchases just a year or two ago.

Hmmm, when they get cheaper rates, it isn't illegal or a "subsidy," it's a "discount."

Nevertheless, with their shrill sense of unfairness and injustice, I figured that at least a few of

them would want to join my efforts for uniform sewer rates. I figured wrong. The GVCA has not

asked the council to do diddly about the sewer rates. They are not interested in fairness or

justice; they are only interested in their own advantage.

There was a letter to the editor in this week's Poway News Chieftain. A certain Sylvia Ginsberg

responded to Marijo Van Dyke's previous letter complaining about the city abandoning

conservation water rates at the request of the GVCA.

A homeowner with a larger family or lot uses more water no matter how much they conserve. The five- tier system is unfair and a detriment to the conservation efforts. Tier 1 doesn’t even cover what Poway pays to buy the water. Apartment dwellers and businesses are charged the Tier 1 rate, no matter how much water they use. Homeowners are billed according to the five-tier system: if you use 15 units or less you’re billed at Tier 1 — once again, less than the cost of the water. How does this encourage conservation?

The five-tier system not only penalizes high water usage, but also subsidizes Tier 1 users. Are you charged a higher price for gas because of the vehicle you drive and the gas mileage it gets? Same thing here.

Ms Ginsberg seems to be really worried that she might be paying more for water than an

apartment dweller or a businessman. What if the shoe was on the other foot? Would she want

it changed? Probably not. Oh wait! The shoe is on the other foot. Ms. Ginsberg is wrong.

Apartments, condos and businesses were never, ever in tier 1. The tiers were only for single

family ratepayers. Condos, apartments and businesses all were assigned a rate equal to the rate

in Tier 3. The new rates, which will kick in in January, will be $4.10 per unit of water for condo,

apartment and business users. For the water gluttons in north Poway? They will be

charged $4.02 for their first 199 units of water.

OMG!!!!!! The water hogs are being subsidized.

And it isn't just their water rates. Large lot owners have the lowest sewer rates in town.

For using 50 units of winter water, they will be charged less than $2.00 a unit, which is less than it

costs to have that sewage processed at Pt Loma. Single family homeowners who use 12 units

will pay $3.67/unit. Condo owners, apartment dwellers and businesses will pay $3.40/unit.

OMG!!!!!! They are really, really being subsidized.

And, by the way, when you buy gas, you pay a tax proportional to the total amount of gas you

buy. Buy water in Poway and you pay a tax called a "fixed fee". But it isn't proportional. The

same fee is charged to the person buying 15 units as to the person buying 200 units. How is that

fair?

What can we do?

1. Click on the fullscreen link above the letter to make it larger. Print it, fill it in and mail it to

the city.Email a link to this blog to your friends so they can protest too.

2. Do not vote for any of the incumbents in the next election. If we don't elect some other

people, we will get stuck paying subsidies to the large lot people from the GVCA forever.

The Tale of Two Cities

Well, not really TWO cities. Just one city. The one they call "the city in the country". But it is really more like "the city AND the country". Yeah, I'm talking about North Poway and South Poway.

North and South Poway are geographically divided by Twin Peaks. Green Valley runs through North Poway; Poway Valley through South Poway. But the division is more than geographic. North and South Poway are zoned quite differently. North Poway is almost entirely rural residential, save for the Pomerado Rd area by the hospital. South Poway is a mix of everything else. This did not happen by natural design. Before incorporation, both north and south Poway were residential, save for the commercial strip down Poway Rd. After incorporation, North Poway leaders were successful in keeping their end of town a rural residential enclave while foisting unwanted development on South Poway.

The Green Valley Civic Association is the political arm of North Poway. It is really run by only a few people, but at election time, GVCA sends out the word on which candidates  will protect the North Poway lifestyle and folks vote accordingly. Why discard advantage?

I don't expect a group like the GVCA not to look out for themselves. Everyone has the right to look out for themselves. But because of their disproportionate clout, the GVCA has successfully gotten almost every councilmember to ascribe to the GVCA mantra- land in North Poway is for quality of life; land in South Poway is for revenue generation or stuff they have to do because of some mandate or other. For example, whenever LAFCO or Sandag or some other government agency pressures Poway because we don't have enough land zoned for affordable housing, first, the council bitches about "state mandates", then, they make changes to the general plan that increase density in South Poway only. I remember one change was to redefine the RS-7 zone (7 house per acre) to mean "8 houses per acre.

Another change was the Poway Road Specific Plan. This plan is another general plan amendment that decreased setbacks and allowed multiple uses in various zones on Poway Rd., so they could pack in more affordable housing and more commercial entities.  GVCA's Jerry Hargarten was one of several North Powegians  that helped to write the plan, which adversely affects property only in South Poway.

Last year, the council approved a general plan amendment to allow 3-story buildings in Poway, if they were deed restricted for affordable housing. While this change will impact a single affordable housing project  being built  near Pomerado Hospital, on the fringe of North Poway, it does not in any way impact any residential area of North Poway. Likely South Poway will get a bunch of these.

As I said, to the GVCA and the councilmembers they elect, land in North Poway is for quality of life, land in South Poway is for revenue generation and mandate fulfillment. 

There are probably no better tales that exemplify that land use prejudice than the story of a proposed Ralph's shopping center (1985) and the story of Wal-Mart's approval and proposed expansion. 

In 1985,  a shopping center, including a Ralph's grocery store, was proposed for the northeast corner of Stone Canyon and Pomerado Rd. in Poway.  The parcel was zoned residential and would require a general plan amendment (GPA) to rezone it to commercial.  If the council did not approve the GPA, the developer said he would (and eventually he did)  build the shopping center on the west side of the intersection, which was in the city of San Diego. The shopping center was going in on that intersection no matter what decision the council made. However, if the Poway council approved the GPA,  they would be the beneficiary of sales tax revenue from the project. The GVCA was adamantly opposed to the GPA.  Many GVCA members attended the council meeting and spoke against the project. The council denied the GPA.  From the Sept 12, 1985 Union-Tribune (sorry, I can't link to it directly):

The council Tuesday night refused to allow 9.4 acres at the intersection of Pomerado and Stone Canyon roads to be changed from a residential zone for single families (three to four homes per acre) to a commercial zone, even though several neighbors in the vicinity thought this would improve the "blight" of the parcel.

The proposal by landowner John Visconsi was one of three separate applications for increasing density reviewed by the council. In each case, however, the council agreed to adhere to what it called the "integrity" of the General Plan, and the need to keep densities down in established residential areas.

A stream of speakers came to the microphone to plead with city officials not to allow commercial development of any kind at Stone Canyon-Pomerado intersection. Residents said they feared that development would bring traffic problems to the area.

William Jensen, a resident of Stone Canyon Road, declared, "We aren't really blighted, you know. We're just country!" which brought chuckles from council members, several of whom live in rural areas around the city.

.

.

.

snip

.

.

.

The council supported the planning staff's finding that such commercial zoning could create "strip commercial" areas along Pomerado Road, and would not be in harmony with nearby rural residential neighborhoods. Planning Director Barry Hogan stated in his report that "the applicants have not demonstrated that a sufficient local demand exists for additional commercial territory, through either a prepared market study or other substantiating evidence."

This was one of several General Plan amendments that the council considered Tuesday, and in each case council members said they opposed "up-zoning" -- or allowing increased development -- in areas that have already been set aside as neighborhoods for single-family dwellings.

ln 1985, the current councilmembers  were Bruce Tarzy, Bob Emery, Linda Oravec, Mary Shepardson and Carl Kruse. Tarzy, Emery and Kruse lived on rural residential land in 1985.  In Nov, 1986, Oravec and Shepardson lost their re-election bids  to Don Higginson and Linda Brannon. (This is the only time an incumbent lost an election in Poway.)

Higginson and Brannon also lived on rural residential estates, although Brannon did not live in Green Valley. Thus, the entire council lived on rural residential estates. Not one councilmember was from South Poway; not one councilmember lived in a higher density area of Poway. Higginson and Brannon were much more "pro-growth" than the original council.  The GVCA feared that might have consequences for them. The GVCA and Emery got a proposition passed in 1988, Prop FF ,which protected rural residential property from being up-zoned. But it did diddly squat for residential property in South Poway. My husband once asked Emery why Prop FF was not written so that it applied to all residential property in Poway. Emery told him that the more developed parts of Poway "could look after themselves."

Right, that's worked out so well.

Bruce Tarzy did not run for re-election in Nov., 1988. Jan Goldsmith (then a Powegian, now a Sandy Eggan) joined the council. Although Goldsmith lived in South Poway, he also lived on acreage zoned rural residential. So this council was also 100%, unanimous, rural-residential dwellers. It was this council (Emery, Goldsmith, Higginson, Brannon, Kruse) that  approved the original Wal-Mart project for South Poway in Nov, 1990.  One of the things that struck me about that approval is that no EIR was done for the original Wal-Mart.  Instead, staff (Penny Riley was the chief planner) prepared a "negative declaration" which is a checklist of possible negative effects (noise, traffic, pollution, drainage problems, etc) and ways to mitigate those effects. For example, traffic problems could be mitigated by street improvements and adding some left turn lanes and traffic lights.  So, the council signed off on the traffic finding

That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact surrounding streets and/or the City's Circulation Element, in that main access will be combined with that of the adjacent center and all parking will be contained within the site.

Yeah, that's worked out so well, too, there's just no adverse traffic impact from Wal-Mart.

To help defray the cost of road improvements, the council agreed to give Wal-Mart almost $1 million. And to make Wal-Mart feel even more loved, the council approved their request  for a 15 ft. monument sign, even though the code only allows an 8 ft. tall sign. Of course, the 8 ft. rule still applied to everyone else, like, ahem...Golden State Gasoline.

Fast forward to 2010. The proposed Wal-Mart expansion may be due for a vote sometime this summer.  The general plan has been amended so many times, we are past the point of pretending we are preserving any sort of rural ambiance down here. None of that "country looking blight" for us. The real question is whether anyone on the the current council even entertains the idea that South Powegians are due any quality of life considerations. Will they buy the spin of Wal-Mart public affairs manager John Mendez who says that traffic is a blessing?

“Traffic does not mean traffic,” he said. “Traffic means commerce. When you ask small-business owners in Poway, all of them are saying that the more traffic the better, because that brings in more people, and that means more commerce, and that means additional sales.”

Of course Mendez also said that shoppers "have overwhelmingly told us they want one-stop shopping". Yeah, well, if they want one-stop shopping, they are really not going to be spreading their shopping dollars all around different spots in town, are they?

In 1985, the entire council capitualated to the GVCA and voted to keep their neighborhoods shopping-center free, even though it meant foregoing needed sales tax revenue. Where does the GVCA stand on expanding Wal-Mart and allowing it to operate 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week in an area that is surrounded on 3 sides by residential apartments? What does the GVCA have to say about that? I looked on GVCA's webpage and did not even see Wal-Mart mentioned.

And what about the councilmembers that live in GVCAville?  Higginson, Kruse and councilmember Jim Cunningham all live in the no-shopping-center area of  North Poway.  I suspect that  Kruse and Higginson, who both approved the original Wal-Mart will support the expansion. In fact, Kruse has indicated he favors it. Cunningham, I'm not sure about.  Will he have quality of life empathy for people beyond his own kind? I don't know.

And what about Rexford and Boyack? Both live in South Poway. Someone asked Boyack whether she supported the Wal-Mart expansion at a candidates forum in 2008. Her response indicated that she supported the Wal-Mart expansion and thought traffic could be mitigated by changing the left turn lane on Poway Rd. I know Boyack is very sensitive about the impact of lights and noise and traffic from the proposed lighting of the sport's field near her home, but she hasn't indicated any concern about lights, noise or traffic affecting those who live near Wal-Mart.

As for Rexford, I haven't got a clue. Rexford usually shows some empathy for other people, but votes with the majority in approving big projects like the waterpark and girl's softball park.  The fact that somebody really wants her off that council before the Wal-Mart vote is kind of interesting though. And the fact that Kevin McNamara, the guy who owns part of the Wal-Mart shopping center, has been giving money and office space to the recallers, is a pretty good indication that he is one of the people who wants Betty out before the vote. It isn't as if McNamara would be in a tizzy about Rexford's supposed ethics violations. Isn't he the guy who chopped down all the trees on his Midland Rd property early one morning on a weekend, when the city workers wouldn't be around to stop him from violating Poway's ordinances?

An anonymous commenter on my last blog wrote:

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but most of us who live here know that this city is run by the Green Valley Civic Association and they run people and have the power to win. Until one can get enough voters to vote else wise, they will always control our city. It is a sad day in Poway.

I have to agree with Anonymous. The GVCA has pretty much ruled this city and they have the power (and the money) to run their candidates. Although their candidates don't always win, the GVCA manages to exert enough clout over a majority of the council to preserve their quality of life. A big share of the burden to fulfill mandates and produce revenue falls on South Poway, at the expense of quality of life in our neighborhoods. I am not willing to cede that that is the way it will always be. What I am looking for in a council candidate is someone who is truly sensitive to quality of life issues in South Poway as well as North Poway. There have been a few such candidates in the past, but they generally get rather low marks from the GVCA and have had little chance of winning. 


With all the noise out there from the recall about Betty getting her "own firetruck", you'd think the main issue facing voters was whether a single person got more than her share of advantage in this city. The issue of a whole end of town getting almost no advantage at all gets lost in the screaming.


And, uh, a note to candidates: Don't run around claiming to be a "uniter, not a divider". We all know how well that turned out, too!


UPDATE: I just checked  here  and found out that Carl Kruse lives on a RS-4 (4 houses to the acre) lot near Stoneridge Golf Course. So, he doesn't live on rural residential land, although he is pretty well surrounded by it, and I think there is zero chance anyone would get to build a corner grocery store near  his lot, much less an affordable housing project or a super Wal-Mart.

Are You Listening?

There were lots of goings on last week in the ol’ Poway corral.

First off, Rod Gould unexpectedly resigned. He is going to be leaving Poway in January to take the city manager ‘s job in Santa Monica. Gould has been Poway city manager for 4 yrs.  That's not very long by Poway standards (Jim Bowersox served for 24 yrs), but probably only a few years shy of the average city manager’s tenure. Gotta wonder just how much of Gould’s decision was a desire to get away from the rancor and contentiousness of Poway and how much was a desire to do something in a bigger city and get paid a lot more for it. Gould is a consummate professional. We will probably never know.

Betty Rexford was elated at the news about Gould’s leaving. Apparently she and Gould didn’t get along too well. I think there may have been some words between them about this city not being big enough for both of them. She’s still standing, so I guess that’s a win for her.
Last week, Rexford launched her website, therealbettyrexford.com. It is Rexford’s effort to get her side of the story out. As you might expect, the Poway Posse aka the recall-rexford folks responded to the rollout of her website by rolling up their recall tent. Not. You can read their responses here, but I suggest you avoid it, unless you have a perculiar nostalgia for your junior high years.

Last week was also the performance of Steve Vaus’ Carols by Candlelight. That’s his annual “for charity” gig. But since Vaus’ production company is a for profit company, we won’t know how much of the donated money and ticket revenue from Carols by Candlelight went to coddle the artists and line Vaus’ pockets and how much of it actually went to charity.  The recall stampede has been pretty quiet lately. I am not sure if that is because Vaus has been otherwise occupied or if they just ran out of steam.  Vaus hasn’t sent out a tweet since Nov 10.  No new republican leaders have stepped forward this week demanding that Rexford resign right this very minute.

Vaus’ claim that other houses burned to the ground during the Cedar Fire because a fire crew  was diverted to “babysit” Rexford’s house has been getting a lot of pushback.  I must say, the “facts” about the fire presented on the realbettyrexford site here, here, here  and here are pretty compelling. The documents on Vaus' site don’t back up his claims, they just show that a fire truck was sent to Rexford’s neighborhood to mop up after the fire. No document that Vaus provided shows that Rexford called and made any demands to send a firetruck. No document shows that any other house burned down due to a truck being sent to the Creek Rd neighborhood to quell spot fires.  Although not backing down or apologizing for what sure seems like a freakin’ distortion of events, Vaus (and his friend, Jack) are quick to point out that the issue of Rexford costing us a lot of money remains.

Do whatever you can to hide the real issue. Betty Rexford is unfit to serve and her repeatedly poor ethical choices have cost the city almost 1/2 a MILLION dollars. Does this not even bother you Gerold and Chris? You would rather put up with someone who is clearly unfit to serve rather than let anyone replace her?

So, maybe another house didn't "burn" as a direct result of her having trucks babysit her home, but does that make it any less salacious that she was able to have her own personal fire brigade stationed at her property and available to her beck and call?

Yes, it does bother me that the court case cost the city almost $500,000. I don’t agree with the recallers that Betty, and only Betty, was the problem that led to the court case. Nor do I agree that removing her from office just before her term expires and replacing her with an appointee is gonna fix things. But, consider the mathematics of the settlement. There are about 50,000 people in Poway. This case cost us about $10 ea. Or about $25 per household. Since January, I have been bitching about something that is costing me and many other Powegians about $50 per bi-monthly billing cycle. That is about $300/yr and it has been going on for years and will continue to go on until the council takes some action on it. I’m talking about my sewer consumption rates also known as “a variable commodity charge”. I’ve blogged about it here, here, here, and especially here. I’ve also complained about the fixed fees but that is another whole blog. Right now I am paying $72.23 for using 13 units of sewer water.(even when I only use 10 units). That is over $6/unit. Customers who use over 51 units are paying less than $2.29/unit. It isn’t fair, it isn’t just, it doesn’t comply with the best management practices of cities that have joined together to promote less consumption. Why should those who dump less water into the sewer system be paying a higher rate?


Tonight, the council will take another look at the water rate increses that went into effect this summer. The GVCA (Green Valley Civic Assoc) has complained that the rates aren’t fair and that some people will be paying more than it costs the city to provide the water.  Well, hello, isn’t that what I have been saying about the sewer rates for almost a year now? Can anybody hear me?  At least with the water rates, everyone is paying the exact same rate for the same amount of water purchased. Not so with our sewer rates. Those who buy more pay less. So how is it that GVCA got the council to bring back the water rates, but my complaints about the unjust and unfair sewer rates have been completely ignored?

Not a single councilmember has stepped forward to bring back the unfair sewer rates and put it on the agenda. In fact, Merrilee Boyack is the only council member to even respond to my many emails. Ms Boyack said maybe the council will look at it in a couple of years. A couple of years, eh? In a couple of years, that $300 extra that water-wise Powegians are paying each year is going to start adding up. It makes the Rexford settlement look like chump change.

Betty Rexford has also spoken in favor of rehearing the GVCA call to roll back the water rates to a flat rate. My request to rehear the sewer rates? She has done nothing.  Here is the issue where I am in total agreement with the recall folks. Betty Rexford has not been doing a good job of representing all of us.  But I’m not looking to replace Rexford with an appointee chosen by the council. I want the voters to replace her with someone who will listen to everyone in this community, not just the GVCA.

As for Higginson, Kruse and Cunningham, I haven’t heard a peep out of them about the unfair sewer rates either. They all live in north Poway and are pretty much tethered to the GVCA, but, uh, don’t you guys represent all of us? The unfair sewer rates  are not a north v south issue. The people who are getting ripped off are the ones who don’t use a lot of water in the winter months.  They are paying up to 10 times the sewer rate of the people who are putting a lot of water down the drain.

To be fair, most of my complaints were sent to the council before Carl Kruse was appointed.  So, here is your chance Carl. At tonight’s meeting, I am hoping you will ask to bring back the sewer rates and change them so that everybody pays the same rate for their sewer use. Not the same fee-  the same rate-  for each unit of water put into the sewer pipes.  Are you listening, Carl?  


Is anybody listening?

Birthers, Deathers, and Poway Mobs

I'm proud to be an American. Which is not to say I am proud of all my fellow Americans. Lately, it is getting down right embarrassing to be of the same species as some crazy-talking folks.

First up in the crazy folk category are the birthers. These are the people who claim Obama was born in Kenya. Even though Obama has released his birth certificate and Hawaiian officials have verified that Obama was born in Hawaii, and even though the local newspapers printed birth announcements when Obama was born there, some whackos still insist he was born in Kenya.

G. Gordon Liddy, one of Nixon's White House Plumbers, was on the teevee the other day proclaiming that a "certificate of birth" isn't the same thing as a "birth certificate", thus Obama's "certificate of birth" is not the real thing. Does this criminal not even have a basic understanding of English? Who let him on the teevee?

Liddy also said he had a "deposition" from Obama's step-grandma stating that she saw him born in Kenya. But, it wasn't a deposition, it was a taped phone call. And you'd think that somebody who was a convicted felon would know the difference. The phone call involved several translators and a bit of miscommunication at the beginning. Obama's step-grandma meant she was "here" in Kenya, not "here in Kenya at Obama's birth". A full translation of the entire phone call indicates that Obama's step-grandmother and the translator repeatedly clarified that Obama was born in America, not Kenya. But the crazy birther people just keep carrying on.

I was surprised at the amount of traction this story got. Think about it. Obama's mother was a teenager. She would need a passport, and a plane ticket. Assume for a moment that she managed to get them and hide her plans from her parents, who would've raised holy hell if they found out. Then there is the travel itself; a multi-houred plane ride on one or several planes. Most doctors (except Sarah Palin's) and airlines do not recommend that women travel by plane in the late stages of pregnancy. Sitting in a chair can be uncomfortable in the 9th month; a many-hour plane trip to Kenya would not be fun. It could even be dangerous.

But think a little harder. Why would a teenager leave her parents and friends to give birth in an unfamiliar place, with people she doesn't know, speaking a language she cannot understand, in an unfamiliar and uncertain medical situation? I mean, it wasn't like she was Angelina Jolie.

Next up in the whacky nutjob department are the deathers. These are hysterical mobs disrupting health care forums claiming Obama is gonna kill their granny. Sarah Palin, the queen of the deathers, wrote on her facebook page,

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down's Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Please Sarah, quit making stuff up. There are no "death panels" in Obama's health care initiative. Did you even read it, Sarah? Nevermind, don't even bother answering that.

Obama's plan does contain a provision for patients to elect to be counseled about end-of-life care. Most people don't actually have an "advance directive", which is a legal document that spells out what medical treatments someone does or doesn't want done at the end of life. We decided to get one after the Terry Shiavo fiasco, where government did intrude on a family making end of life decisions.

There are several do-it-yourself advance directives online. We did ours as part of our estate planning and if anyone wants a recommendation for a great estate lawyer, check out Walter Pinkerton. We are glad we did. He was quite reasonably priced too. I have no problem with this service becoming part of health insurance coverage. It is the best way to make sure everyone gets the end of life care that they really want.

So how did something so reasonable as an advance directive morph into "Obama's death panels"? Who whips these people into a frenzy and why do they let themselves fall for it? I can answer the first question. Just follow the money. Who is going to lose billions of dollars if Americans have reasonably priced insurance and cannot be terminated for having a medical condition? Exactly.

As for why people let themselves turn into a frothing, seething, hysterical mob, some of whom are "packing heat", well, I can't quite figure that one out. Do these people not see that it is to their own advantage to have health insurance, for everyone to have health insurance?

Rustling up a mob to advocate for something that is not in their own interest baffles me. I'm more familiar with the mob mentality to protect an advantage from being taken away. In Poway's current water/sewer rate structure, the advantage is entirely in favor of the large water user. The restructured rates also favor the large water user, but slightly less so than the old rates.

When the new rates were first proposed, the city held several workshops and got input from many residents. On July 21st, dozens of angry residents showed up at the council meeting complaining that the new rates were unfair to large water users. Nevertheless, the council approved the new rates. (Two votes are required- the second council vote will be on August 18th). A week after the first vote, Bruce Tarzy of the Green Valley Civic Association (GVCA) sent a written proposal (Aug 18th staff report) to the city proposing an entirely different rate structure. He suggested that the city charge all single family rate payers a higher price for their water and then give a rebate to users who reduce their consumption based on their 2006 water use. Guess who this would advantage.

Now, I imagine that GVCA sent their proposal to all of their members and asked them to lobby city hall to discard the plans that the city had been working on for months and endorse the GVCA's new rate structure instead. A couple of dozen letters were sent to the city in response to the GVCA proposal.

Here is one of my favorite crazy quotes from someone named Mike Myers:

I strongly support the alternative water rate structure put forward by the GVCA. It creates necessary conservation measures but does not socialize water use.

"Does not socialize water use." Uh, Mike...who do you think owns and operates the water department right now? I will give you a hint. It starts with g, o, v and ends with m, e, n t.

Among the more than 2 dozen letters sent to the city, there are some from reasonable folks who asked the city NOT to switch to the GVCA plan. Those letters came from GVCA members as most of the people in the city who would have been disadvantaged by the GVCA plan never got an opportunity to see it or comment on it. (Disclaimer: I saw it, I commented on it, but I did not write a letter directly to the city and my letter is not included in the packet for August 18, 2009 although I may submit one later.)

Tim Herberer wrote:

The GVCA proposal only rewards people who have wasted water in the past and it penalizes people who have already made changes to reduce water consumption.

Pete Babich:

As to the argument that large water users are subsidizing the low water users, I suspect the reverse is true. Because of the fixed costs associated with the water/sewer bill, low water users actually pay more per unit of water than large water users.

Michael J Smith, Vineland Hills HOA BOD Secretary:

The following is what I sent to the GVCA:

"I'm appalled at your late input into the water rate schedule.

Where were you when the city held the Water Conservation Workshops?

I was in attendance.

If you have a large lot then change its structure.

I have done this for my meager lot and have gone from using 50 units to using 10 units at a fair cost to me.

Why should I further subsidize large lot owners?

Further as a member of the Vinelnd Hills HOA BOD we have gone from using 8000 units in MAY-JUN-2008 to 4000 units MAY-JUN 2009.

We have been anticipating the water shortage for over two years.

Where have you been?"

Yes, yes, where has GVCA been? It isn't as if the water shortage just cropped up last week. But more importantly where are they going next? Are we going to have angry mobs at the council meetings or will reasonable people prevail?