Fireworks: unsafe, insane

Fireworks: unsafe, insane

Whittier Daily News, CA - 1/25/06
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinions/ci_5087604

FIREWORKS is an explosive issue right now in Whittier.

However it is also a no-win issue.

And, it can be a politically, good ol' boy type of issue.

It is kind of like the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Well, you get the idea.

Even as this editorial is written, we find ourselves occasionally stopping and wondering if those we have chosen to criticize actually may make more sense than we think.

We fight off that moment of ambiguity and proceed straight ahead.

So where is straight ahead?

We find ourselves standing unequivocally in favor of safety for all living things and protection of property.

We believe that to vote in favor of lifting Whittier's 20-year fireworks ban is to approve of a certain amount of unnecessary risk to local life and property. And this is to say nothing about the terror that fireworks strike into the hearts and psyches of our beloved house pets and the flora and fauna in the Whittier Hills we claim to hold so dear.

We can't have it both ways, folks.

Tuesday, we watched oral communications at the Whittier City Council meeting on television and saw a significant parade of residents go to the podium to speak against legalizing "safe and sane" fireworks. One opponent brought a petition against fireworks signed by 17 people. Only one man, employed by a fireworks company, spoke in favor of lifting the ban.

Mayor Cathy Warner and council members Bob Henderson, Greg Nordbak and Joe Vinatieri voted to lift the ban and allow the sale of fireworks from

9 a.m. to 10 p.m. from June 30 through July 4, and allow the use of the fireworks only on July 4.

Only Councilman Owen Newcomer opposed the motion, citing essentially the same reasons that we do.

Proponents of bringing back local sales and use of fireworks cite patriotic tradition and righteous celebration of the birth of the nation as well as nostalgic recollections of their own family fireworks traditions as reasons to lift the ban.

They also see a financial benefit to the local non-profit organizations that will be able to obtain permits to operate 10 fireworks sales booths as well as fees brought into the city to pay for increased law enforcement to locate violators who use "unsafe and insane" (read: illegal) fireworks.

As far as we are concerned, that fundraising "benefit" is no longer worth the risk to people and property.

We would much prefer for the city to bring back a city-sponsored, city controlled July 4th fireworks event in a park or on a school campus.

The bottom line, all-important point to be made is this: Whether Whittier continues with a fireworks ban or not this county will "explode" with illegal fireworks before, after and during July 4th until more violators are caught and receive stiff penalties.

Until we get serious about controlling the illegal fireworks traffickers and users in this county and in all of our cities, lives and property will continue to be lost to this childish folly.

As far as we are concerned, the blatant, uncontrolled, noise and extreme hazards created around July 4th make no more sense than a riot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editorial: Creating more risks
Article Launched: 01/30/2007 07:10:22 PM PST
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_5119804

"Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up" is an old adage that we have all heard many times.

At the Jan. 23 Whittier City Council meeting, this attitude was in evidence on at least one matter. The proposal to lift the ban on fireworks in the city and allow legal sale and discharge of so-called "safe and sane" fireworks was passed without meaningful discussion.

A majority of the council members seemed unconcerned about the physical jeopardy to both persons and property that this action might cause. Whittier needs concerned care, not opportunities for carelessness to wreak harm upon its citizens and their property.

The rather flimsy and shallow reason offered for this action was that "we need a way to express our patriotism," as if mimicking the sounds and sights of war is an intelligent way to show our love for the democratic institutions that insure our cherished freedom and independence.

We all know that the practice of war is a manifestation of man's failures and that killing and destruction is sure to lead us to oblivion. Some of us counseled against starting up a war in Iraq four years ago, but what good did it do?

As reports of injuries from "legal" fireworks come in, some can say, "I told you so." But what good would that do? When the first reports of property damage come in, some can say, "I told you so." But what good would that do?

At this same council meeting, the county fire chief recommended that his new permitting ordinance not be passed. But what good did that do?

Some suggested that a lifetime of

professional experience and education dictated that placing our lives and our property at needless risk is unwise. But what good did that do? There are enough risks in our everyday world. We do not need to create any more for the sake of a few cheap thrills.

Robert J. Cantrell

Whittier

Fireworks ban in Calaveras district

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/A_NEWS/70125001

By The Record
January 25, 2007 6:00 AM

MOUNTAIN RANCH - The Fourth of July should be a little quieter and safer this year in this mountain hamlet.

That's because the board of the Central Calaveras Fire and Rescue Protection District adopted an ordinance that took effect Jan. 15 to ban fireworks.

The ban covers both "safe and sane" personal fireworks and the larger varieties used in commercial productions. Large events such as community celebrations can still use fireworks but will require a permit from the fire district.

Central Calaveras Fire Chief Robert L. Gill said he proposed the measure because the many homes in the heavily wooded district are extremely vulnerable to fire. The Central Calaveras fire district serves Mountain Ranch, Sheep Ranch, Rail Road Flat and Glencoe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fiscal prudence urgently needed in coming years

KERN COUNTY
Fiscal prudence urgently needed in coming years
Investments considered as more boomers retire

BY JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer
e-mail: jburger@bakersfield.com | Saturday, Jan 27 2007 10:55 PM
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/96754.html#

Last Updated: Saturday, Jan 27 2007 10:58 PM

Paying for retiree health care used to be easy for the county of Kern.

The county paid a little. The employee paid a little. The money was invested. That was enough.

Now it's not.

"Historically we have been able to fund this just fine," said County Administrative Officer Ron Errea.

But he said the cost of health care has climbed dramatically in recent years and a substantial chunk of county employees, many from the baby boom generation, are rushing to retire in the next few years. Paying for all that takes taxpayer dollars.

Now new rules from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board are forcing governments across the nation to tell the public how much those retirements are going to cost them.

Kern County hasn't finished crunching the numbers yet. An actuarial report is expected to be released in February.

It seems likely that there will be a lot of red ink in that report.

The county won't have to pay up immediately. In fact, there is no legal requirement that it set aside money now to pay for future retirement costs.

But to avoid bad credit and weaker bonding muscles, the county is looking for the best way to invest enough moneyeach year -- over 30 years -- to pay for estimated cost of retiree health care.

"It's a serious problem. It's constantly coming to the forefront," said Supervisor Ray Watson. "We are amortizing our liability. We smooth that by paying off that deficiency over 30 years."

In June 2005, actuaries estimated the county's retiree health care account was short by around $78 million.

This year the county will contribute $1.7 million to that account. Next fiscal year the amount the county contributes is proposed to more than double to $3.9 million in an effort to catch up with its looming debt.

County employees currently contribute eight-tenths of one percent of their base pay toward their retirement health benefits.

Next year the county wants to bump that to 1.85 percent, according to county officials. County unions would have to agree to that.

Errea said fiscal prudence demands that the county look for a way to fund the rising cost of health benefits.

If it doesn't deal with it, county officials say, its official debt level could burgeon and its bonding capacity could suffer.

But the county won't be able to establish concrete solutions until it has updated actuarial numbers.

Right now, the only plan is to pour more money from taxpayers and county employees into the retirement investment fund, they said.

Watson said the county and its unions need to talk about a way to provide health benefits to retirees without breaking the county's bank.

That may mean the county funds a lower level of defined benefits and have employees pay more in contributions to buy increased coverage, he said.

Chuck Waide, spokesman for the Central California Association of Public Employees, said the union is watching closely to see what the impact might be to county employees the union represents.

"All of us recognize that the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed," Waide said.

He said the hope is that employee's increasing contributions to their post-employment health care will control the costs.

"Our members are feeling it because (the contribution) keeps going up," he said.

But Waide said the issue isn't just about how Kern County deals with rising retirement costs.

The rising cost of health care, and retiree health costs, are national problems, he said, and they need a national solution.

Unfortunately, Waide said, nobody has come up with one yet.

City Council decides to ban fireworks in Fontana as of July 5, 2008; some city councils have guts

Apparently some city councils actually have guts and some fire and police departments are willing to take on the money grubbing local interests that worked so hard against us in the November 2006 election (and spent $40,000). Note this was a 5-0 vote in Fontana. Apparently they are also smarter than most voters in Lakewood. And of course John Kelly, again front and center, and once again protecting TNT's right to peddle toxic smoke and flames. Oh don't forget the "California Fireworks Safety and Education Program". That looks suspicous. Ill bet that group is packed with fireworks industry prople.

This will never happen in Lakewood if left up to the voters, the lame city council and the fireworks peddlers (the so called sports clubs in Lakewood). Score one for the little guy.

City Council decides to ban fireworks in Fontana as of July 5, 2008

http://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/01newsfireworks.txt

By MARIA ELENA KENNEDY

After listening to presentations from public safety and nonprofit groups, the Fontana City Council voted 5-0 on Tuesday to ban on the sale of fireworks within the city limits of Fontana.

The ban will not go into effect until July 5, 2008, which gives nonprofits two more years of selling fireworks.

The proposed ban had caused an outcry by nonprofit organizations, which are dependent on the income they receive from selling fireworks during the Fourth of July season.

At the Jan. 23 meeting, the City Council heard from numerous nonprofits how the proposed ban would adversely affect them and their ability to deliver needed services to the community. There are 45 nonprofit groups in the city which sell fireworks.

John Kelly, vice president of public affairs for TNT Fireworks, which supplies fireworks to approximately 80 percent of the nonprofits that sell fireworks in Fontana, claimed that a ban on fireworks will not stop the real problem -- the misuse of illegal fireworks.

"We are curious what the city hopes to achieve with the ban," said Kelly, who added that his company offers a "safe and sane product" that undergoes rigorous testing. "We offer a product that is approved by the state of California. The fireworks that are causing the problem are illegal fireworks."

Dennis Revell of the California Fireworks Safety and Education Program reiterated that the problem does not lie with the sale of legal fireworks, which he refers to as fire marshal approved fireworks, but with the sale of illegal fireworks.

"California has the strictest standards in the nation," he said, referring to the controls over legal fireworks. "We also have the biggest problem with the illegal fireworks."

Kelly noted that the city's attempt to ban the sale of legal fireworks would harm the nonprofits.

"We all know the problems on the 4th of July are caused by lawbreakers using illegal fireworks. Such a ban would only punish Fontana citizens who look forward to celebrating patriotic traditions, legitimate businesses, and the 45 nonprofit groups in the city that depend on fireworks sales to fund vitally needed services," Kelly said. "It seems fundamentally unfair to punish all the people who abide by the rules for the criminal actions of the few who knowingly break the law."

THE BAN was proposed by the Fontana Police and Fire departments.

Police Captain Tim Newsome said the problem of illegal fireworks has rapidly escalated in the city, especially over the past five years, to the point that "it's out of control."

In a report to the City Council, Newsome said that complaints from residents about fireworks on July 4 skyrocketed from less than 100 in 2002 to 333 in 2006.

He said that despite prolonged efforts to educate the public about the dangers of illegal fireworks (particularly ones that are purchased in Nevada and Mexico and smuggled into California), many residents still do not know the difference between legal and illegal fireworks.

He said the line between the two has become so blurred that legal fireworks are now just as much a part of the problem as the illegal ones. A ban on all fireworks is necessary to ensure public safety, Newsome claimed.

When asked if the nonprofits which benefit from the sale of the fireworks would be helped in finding alternative sources of income, Lt. Bob Ramsey said that the city was exploring funding possibilities for nonprofits such as the Fontana High School Marching Band, the Fontana A.B. Miller Marching Band, and the Bloomington Boosters 4-H club.

Judie Brown of the Bloomington Boosters 4-H club said that the ban would add up to a loss for the children.

"It's going to hurt the community services we provide. The money we make at the fireworks booth we return to the community. There will be a lot of children impacted," she said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editorial:
Fontana right to forbid sale of fireworks
Article Launched: 01/29/2007 12:00:00 AM PST
http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_5107984

Fontana has joined the growing number of cities in San Bernardino County to see the light and ban fireworks.

After two more Fourths of July, this year and next, there will be no more legal fireworks in Fontana. The city apparently was willing to risk two more flash-and-burn holidays.

The City Council last week unanimously voted to ban all use of fireworks, except for professional and civic displays, effective July 5, 2008.

Better late than never.

The action will leave Chino as the only Inland Valley city to permit the sale of fireworks.

Fontana officials chose to put public safety first, even ahead of fundraising for nonprofits, service organizations and high school activities.

Councilman Frank Scialdone, who once served as the city's police chief, said, "I can't rationalize raising money and putting people in jeopardy."

Setting off fireworks is a dangerous pastime, resulting in loss of limb and property. In Fontana, fires around the Fourth of July, mostly caused by fireworks, resulted in at least $1 million in response costs and property damage last year.

No one wants to see civic groups or schoolchildren forced to scale back on worthwhile activities because of the loss of revenue from fireworks sales. But there's got to be a safer way to raise money.

Fontana council members, who acknowledge the pain it will cause local groups to do without the money raised from fireworks sales, plan to schedule a meeting with nonprofits to discuss other ways to come up with needed funds.

"Being one of the last cities in this county, in this region, offering fireworks, somebody's doing some fundraising other than fireworks," said Fontana Councilwoman Acquanetta Warren before the council fell in line.

Public safety has to come first.

Govt Pensions: When will the madness end?

Although the story below is an issue brewing in Orange County (behind the "orange curtain" as we like to say) it is emblematic of a wider problem. Govt. employees at one agency talk with their pals in other agencies or counties and generate an endless public sector (taxpayer financed) bidding war. A race to the top of the pay scale sorta speak whereas in the private sector, where outsourcing is common, we are at a race to the bottom, a race to eliminate pensions and even the jobs themselves. For God's sake the federal min. minimum wage is under 11,000 per year and we have LIFEGUARDS earning 115,000 a year for life (Dont forget lifetime pensions with cost of living raises and the best free health bennies in the biz). That also assumes these lifeguards are not "forced" to retire at 40 due to a job related disability (sun burn).

Here is a government solution I learned from Nancy Reagan: "Just say No" Thats right, no to pay raises. Then what? The lifeguards will quit? Where will they go? Will they go into that lucrative private sector and become extras on "Baywatch". Nope that's in syndication already. Maybe they can go work for Motel 6. Nope they have signs posted at the pool: "swim at your own risk no lifeguard on duty". Even if they did want to hire lifeguards they would have to wait in line behind the maids union, which is currently trying to boost their pay over the federal minimum. Plus those "benefits" at Motel 6 are only all the soap you can steal.

But what about the poor Newport Beach residents that might drown you ask. What about the "children"...oh my God. Well thats where Darwin's law comes in. Swim during a rip tide, alone, or into a shark and you won't be contributing to the gene pool any more. The City is safe as the government code in California gives them absolute immunity for people that die or are injured due to natural conditions. Tons of drowning cases out there where the city walks away from the case due to the fact that signs were posted: "Swim at your own risk: No lifeguards on duty (due to pensions)"...

Here is another solution: Hire more part timers. It is primarily a summer position. Hell their are great swimmers out there that would love to have this job. It beats working at McDonalds. Who would like to work on Baywatch and scam on chicks all summer? Lots of cities do that.

Another solution: let the voters (who are not so beholden to govt. unions and have more backbone) vote on these scams. I think the voters would vote the way I would: Outsource the lifeguards!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newport lifeguards pushing pension issue
They want the same retirement benefit that police and firefighters in the city receive.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1557689.php

By JEFF OVERLEY
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

NEWPORT BEACH, CA – Seven months after their contract expired, Newport Beach lifeguards are still locked in negotiations with city officials.

The impasse centers on a request by lifeguards for a lucrative pension plan known as "3 percent at 50." Under such contracts, employees can retire at age 50 and get 3 percent of their salary for every year worked.

The payout, received annually for life, is capped at 90 percent of a worker's salary. For retirement plans, though, salary isn't just base pay, but also includes the value of certain benefits.

Similar arrangements are common for police officers and firefighters, and officials say they have been extended to lifeguards in such cities as Seal Beach and Huntington Beach.

In Newport Beach, police receive the 3-at-50 plan, and firefighters are due to switch over by year's end. Lifeguards currently have a 3-at-55 agreement, and non-safety employees get 2-at-55.

"We just wanted to be treated the same" as police and firefighters, said Brent Jacobsen, president of the Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association.

Jacobsen said lifeguards face the same risks as their public-safety counterparts.

"How many times does a police officer or firefighter have to go swimming at The Wedge when it's 20 feet, or scuba diving at night? It's just as dangerous," he said.

It's not clear why council members have not agreed to change the benefit. Officials largely declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of contract negotiations.

But one issue could be cost. In 2005, Newport Beach faced an unfunded liability for public-safety pension plans of more than $50 million, up 20 percent from two years earlier. Last week, the City Council approved an agreement making the city's police the highest-paid in the county.

Annual pay for full-time lifeguards ranges from roughly $50,000 to $115,000, not counting overtime or benefits.

Perhaps mindful of those bills, the City Council has balked at boosting the pension benefit. Jacobsen argued that the cost would be "trivial" because the pension plan would apply only to the city's 16 full-time lifeguards, not seasonal workers.

The two sides haven't talked since early November, but the council's makeup has since shifted, with two new members joining since the fall election.

Negotiations are set to resume Tuesday, Jacobsen said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lifeguards to shore up support for retirement
They want a benefit given to others but need to persuade a council majority that denied it in 2005.

By Alicia Robinson
http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/01/27/publicsafety/dpt-lifeguards27.txt#blog

Newport Beach police and firefighters are eligible to retire at 50, and the city's lifeguards are now asking for the same benefit.

But they may have to win over the City Council, after being turned down for that benefit in their last contract.

Under the "3% at 50" provision, employees can collect 3% of their final salary for each year they worked with the city. So an employee who started working for the city at age 49 could retire at 50 and collect 3% of his or her final salary.

It's a common benefit that lifeguards in Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and San Diego, among other cities, enjoy, said Brent Jacobsen, Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Assn. president.

All Newport Beach public safety employees were given a "3% at 55" provision in 2000, and police were later granted 3% at 50. City firefighters' most recent contract lowers retirement to 50 at the end of 2007.

If lifeguards are granted 3% at 50, it would cover the 17 full-time lifeguard positions represented by the management association, but not the 225 seasonal lifeguards, who are covered by a different contract.

It's been a goal for the lifeguards for "quite some time," Jacobsen said, "but it didn't really become a reality until the fire [department] received it in this contract. With a group of 16, we weren't really in a position to go out and get something like that."

Now, with negotiations in progress, lifeguards are pushing for it more than any other benefit. But four of the seven council members — Leslie Daigle, Stevve Rosansky, Ed Selich and Don Webb — were on the City Council that turned the liifeguards down in 2005, so they may need to be persuaded.

Most council members could not be reached or declined to comment on the negotiations. Just this week, they voted for a new contract that made city police the best-compensated in the county.

Councilman Keith Curry, who wasn't on the council in 2005, said giving the lifeguards 3% at 50 wouldn't be that expensive because it doesn't cover many people. But he hasn't made up his mind. "The issue for me is going to be how do all of the elements [in the contract] fit together in terms of overall cost to the city," Curry said.

Former Councilman Tod Ridgeway, who was termed out in November, said he never supported retirement at 50 for lifeguards because "nine months out of the year, they're doing minimal work."

He also pointed to the city's $51-million unfunded pension liability for public safety employees, and he said last year one lifeguard earned $199,000.

"That's an extraordinary amount of money for a lifeguard," Ridgeway said.

City officials couldn't confirm Ridgeway's figure, but the 2006-07 budget shows the top-paid lifeguards, two battalion chiefs, will earn $172,915 in salary and benefits this year, not including any overtime.

Jacobsen rebutted Ridgeway's claim that year-round lifeguards work less in the winter. He patrols the beach and also prepares to recertify seasonal lifeguards, train new hires, and get the popular junior lifeguard program going, he said.

"In the middle of the night when it's cold and dark, it's the permanent lifeguard staff … that have to get in the wwater" for rescues, he said.

"The potential to risk our lives happens throughout the year."

Govt. Pensions: Federal pay, benefits double private sector's

Report: Federal pay, benefits double private sector's

8/4/06
By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com

New figures from the Commerce Department's U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis show average compensation for federal employees to be double that of private sector workers for the first time.

Federal workers earned an average of $106,579 in 2005, including benefits, or about twice the average private sector compensation of $53,289 with benefits included. This marked the first time federal compensation reached this point; for 2004 the bureau's statistics put it at slightly less than double the private sector's.

Without benefits, the difference for 2005 is less. Federal employees earned an average salary of $71,114 while their private sector counterparts earned $43,917.

Read the full article here: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0806/080406r1.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 18, 2006
Pay Gap: A Different Take

By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com

The pay gap between private and public sector employees seems to be a given. Just this week, 10 congressmen made their case for a higher 2007 civilian pay raise than President Bush has requested by citing a 30 percent private-public gap reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"The federal government may never be able to compete with the private sector, dollar for dollar, but we must ensure that we do not fall further behind in the battle for talent," Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va.; Jon Porter, R-Nev.; Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and others said in a letter to fellow members.

But a new paper from the libertarian Washington-based think tank the Cato Institute argues that the pay gap actually travels in the other direction. Pointedly titled "Federal Pay Outpaces Private-Sector Pay," the paper by Chris Edwards, the institute's director of tax policy studies, makes the case for freezing government salaries.

By bundling federal benefits -- including defined pensions, the Thrift Savings Plan and health care subsidies -- together with wages, Edwards calculated that the average federal worker earned $100,178 in 2004, compared to $51,876 in salary and benefits for the average private-sector worker. Those numbers were based on statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

"The federal civilian workforce has become an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of private-sector American workers who must compete in today's dynamic economy," Edwards wrote.

Read the full article here: http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0506/051806pb.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also for a really interesting read take a look at the Cato Institutes article on the "Parasitie Economy"

excerpt: "It is useful to describe the United States as having a dual economy. On the one hand, there is the private-sector economy, which produces goods and services in response to the wants of consumers and businesses. On the other hand, there is the government sector, which largely redistributes income. Typically, government is said to redistribute income from rich to poor or from young workers to older retirees, but increasingly there is evidence that individuals use government to redistribute income from the general taxpaying public to themselves. Author Jonathan Rauch has termed Washington, D.C., a "parasite economy."[2] Of course, not all governmental activity is of a parasitic nature. The protection of rights--through police, courts, and national defense--is an essential function of government. Many traditional functions of government such

as providing roads and schools do yield benefits to taxpayers, (though some of those services might be produced more efficiently in the private sector). However, as government as grown larger, the parasite economy--that is, the people who derive their livelihood from government spending and taxes--has flourished. The amount of government spending defines the potential "pie" from which the parasites ("rent seekers" to economists) try to siphon off income for themselves.[3]"

Read the full article here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-250.html#

Mallard Fillmore 9/14/06: