Long Beach Web Of Bike Trails Moves Ahead

http://www.gazettes.com/biketrail07262007.html

New City Web Of Bike Trails Moves Ahead
7/26/07
By Kelly Garrison
Features Editor

Plans for new bicycle trails that would connect paths from the San Gabriel River to the Los Angeles River will soon enter the design phase.

The Long Beach City Council approved unanimously on Tuesday a proposal to begin the “East-West Bikeway Connections and Signage Program” project, which would create new trail connections and new signs identifying them. Traffic and Transportation Manager Abdollah Ansari said that bicyclists will find “comprehensive coverage throughout the city” once the project is in place.

The design will consist of three parts. First, a bikeway will link the downtown area to the southeastern portion of the city — with additional connections to Orange County, the San Gabriel River, the Alamitos Bay area and the Seal Beach bike route system.

Another bikeway will link California State University, Long Beach, with the San Gabriel River Bike Path. Some paths will line busy roadways, while others will be situated in residential areas, Ansari said.

“It will provide local and regional circulation,” he said. “For a beach city, it’s good to have a continuous bike path system. People will be able to get to other areas by taking these river paths.”

The third phase adds signage throughout the system.

The city currently has bike paths that link different areas of the city, including the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath, but has no connector between the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers. Other trails include the Los Angeles River Bikeway, the San Gabriel River Bike Trail and the El Dorado and Heartwell park bike paths.

They range from two to about 30 miles in length.

“Right now, these are just scattered connections,” Ansari said. “This will provide alternative movements for recreational and commuting purposes.”

In addition, new signs and stenciling will be placed within the area of the project to warn vehicles of bikers on roadways. Designs also will include a new city bikeway logo to promote the paths for current and potential bicyclists, he said.

The project design should be completed by early next year, he said, with construction beginning by Dec. 31, 2008.

The paths likely would open within a year of their completion.

City officials chose KOA Corporation, based in Tustin, to design and develop the plans after reviewing proposals from two other firms.

The design phase will cost about $98,000 and will be paid for by federal and city money.

For more information about city bike paths, visit the city’s Web site at www.longbeach.gov/park.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

Perhaps a Presidential limo?

Sigh...this stuff never ends. "We work in state/local govt. We are privileged. We are the ruling class. We dont want to hear complaints from you 'little people'. Just pay your taxes and shut up." Hmmm well I guess the 'little people' found the internet. Read more about that here.


http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_6438788
Officials balk at driving hybrids
County supervisors cling to gas-guzzlers
By Alison Hewitt Staff Writer
7/26/07

The Board of Supervisors voted to encourage the county to use hybrid vehicles a year and a half ago, but several supervisors are still buying and driving regular gasoline-powered cars.

The supervisors asked in 2005 that the county buy hybrids for the county fleet to protect the environment.

But some of the supervisors and their press deputies described hybrids as generally too small for the county's five elected representatives, although all 16 new cars purchased for the supervisors' staffs since late 2005 have been hybrids.

"I don't see any benefit to driving large, non-hybrid vehicles on the highways," said Mark Bernstein, a USC politics professor and member of the USC future fuels and energy initiative.

"Hybrids are significantly cleaner than other vehicles," Bernstein said. "It's not like the electric vehicle, those tiny cars that were out a few years ago. Hybrids are regular cars."

Supervisor Michael Antonovich's press deputy said Antonovich, who has a Cadillac, is too tall and spends too many hours traveling each day to be comfortable in a hybrid.

Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke said she would need a hybrid large enough to ferry her and her constituents around, but
Advertisement
the hybrid waiting list was too long when she got her Chrysler.

A spokeswoman for Supervisor Gloria Molina said Molina wanted an American car, but American-made hybrids were unsatisfactory, so she stuck with a Buick. Even Supervisor Don Knabe, who does drive a hybrid, noted that it was smaller than what he was used to.

Four of the five supervisors have replaced their county-provided vehicles since enacting the policy.

The cars are bought with county funds, then either leased by the supervisors for $670 per month - after they receive a $620-per-month car allowance and $70-per-month parking allowance - or the supervisors are taxed for their personal use of the vehicle, said Don Ashton, the administrative deputy for the executive office of the Board of Supervisors.

The county has replaced 170 cars in the fleet with environmentally friendly, gas-sipping hybrids, primarily Toyota Priuses.

Conversely, the supervisors' replacement autos have been large cars.

Molina drives a Buick Lucerne, bought by the county for $32,409; Burke has a Chrysler 300, bought for $37,854; Antonovich has a Cadillac DTS, bought for $31,663; and Knabe a hybrid Toyota Highlander, bought for $39,795.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who still drives the same car as when he and Antonovich authored the motion supporting hybrids, has a Buick Park Avenue, bought for $27,600.

There aren't many hybridized luxury vehicles available for those who prefer larger cars, said Matt Miyasato, a technology demonstration manager at the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

"Hybrids are better for the air than a regular gasoline-powered car," said Miyasato. "For air quality, there are some equivalent models out there among regular gasoline-powered cars, but where the hybrids really shine is in fuel economy."

The AQMD's "Clean Air Choice Vehicles" list includes the Prius, listing it as getting up to 60 miles per gallon. The list also includes Knabe's hybrid Highlander at up to 33 mpg. Also on the list, as a "Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle," is Molina's regular Buick Lucerne at up to 29 mpg.

"When you look at the Clean Air Choice list, there are very few large luxury vehicles on the list," Miyasato said.

The motion the supervisors passed in November 2005 called for cars to be replaced with hybrids only "where practical and economically feasible."

"This motion is designed to have the county make a priority out of buying ... hybrid vehicles," Yaroslavsky said at the 2005 meeting. "We can contribute in that way to cleaning our air ... we can do something about conserving fuel."

Tony Bell, Antonovich's press deputy, said the 6-foot-3-inch supervisor has to spend an unusual amount of time in his car - three to four hours daily - to traverse his large district and meet with constituents.

"For the supervisor's job, a large sedan is more suitable for covering an area twice as large as Rhode Island," Bell said. "Hybrids are small by design. They are lightweight, the materials can be fairly flimsy, and the interiors are not that large."

USC's Bernstein disagreed.

"A Prius is a really nice car. It's not a chintzy little car ... (and) the Prius meets all the crash tests that everyone else does," he said. "I would ask them if they actually went in to drive one ... They're not as big as a Cadillac DTS, but do they need that size vehicle?"

Those of Antonovich's deputies who have hybrids spend less time in the car than the supervisor, Bell said.

"It was Supervisor Antonovich's motion that began the process of replacing retired cars with hybrids," Bell noted.

Knabe also found hybrids to be too small, but ultimately settled on the SUV hybrid Highlander.

"Other than it being smaller than what I'm used to, it's very comfortable," Knabe said. "I'd driven some of my staff's Priuses, and I liked the feel of it, but they were way too small. It sounds hokey, but I wanted to do my share (for the environment)."

Burke said when she replaced her last car, there were no hybrids available for her or her deputies because there was a waiting list. She said she would be interested in exchanging her Chrysler, which she added gets 16 mpg in city streets, for a hybrid when her lease ends next year, especially now that hybrids are getting bigger.

"We have to get cars sufficient to be able to carry constituents or staff ... so we do have to have something of a certain size," Burke said.

Yaroslavsky, who co-authored the motion encouraging the purchase of hybrids, will keep driving his Buick until it's time to replace it, said his press deputy, Joel Bellman.

"Zev definitely intends to replace his car with a hybrid," Bellman said.

Molina's press deputy, Roxanne Marquez, said the supervisor prefers an American car.

"She did research to see if there were any hybrid vehicles that were to her liking, but it was important to her to drive an American-made car, and the only two American-made hybrids at the time in `07 were SUVs, and she was not comfortable driving one," Marquez said. "She is used to Buick, therefore we stuck with that."

Bernstein acknowledged that American-made hybrid options are limited.

"You really don't have too many options if you're buying U.S.," he said. "You basically have to buy the Ford Escape or the Lincoln."

alison.hewitt@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2730

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

New Mexico Company Fined, Ordered To Stop Selling Illegal Fireworks

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 20, 2007
Release #07-249

CPSC Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: Scott Wolfson, (301) 504-7051

New Mexico Company Fined, Ordered To Stop Selling Illegal Fireworks
Components

WASHINGTON, D.C. -In the aftermath of the Fourth of July holiday, the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is announcing another
success in its fireworks enforcement program aimed at reducing deaths
and injuries to consumers from illegal fireworks.

At sentencing today, United Nuclear Scientific Supplies LLC, of
Edgewood, N.M., founded and operated by Robert Lazar, was fined $7,500
and received three years probation. The firm violated federal law which
prohibits the sale of chemicals and components used to make illegal
fireworks.

"This court ruling is a victory for consumer safety," said CPSC's Acting
Chairman Nancy Nord. "By shutting down the illegal operations of United
Nuclear and securing a major court victory against Firefox Enterprises
and its owners in May, CPSC is demonstrating our commitment to keeping
illegal fireworks out of the marketplace and preventing serious injuries
to consumers."

U.S. Chief Magistrate Lorenzo F. Garcia of the District of New Mexico
handed down the sentence after United Nuclear pled guilty to three
criminal counts of introducing into interstate commerce and aiding and
abetting the introduction into interstate commerce of banned hazardous
substances. The firm sold the chemicals and components used to make
illegal fireworks, such as M-80's and quarter sticks, which are banned
under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and CPSC regulations.

United Nuclear, its principal, Robert Lazar, and accountant Joy White,
also entered into a consent decree that permanently limits the amount of
future sales of fireworks-related chemicals and prohibits the sale of
any fuses, tubes and end caps. The decree also required destruction of
the firm's remaining inventory of components and specified chemicals.

The case was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of
Consumer Litigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the
District of New Mexico.

To see this press release on CPSC's web site, which has a link to the
consent degree (pdf) please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07249.html

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

Are Costa Mesa voters smarter than Lakewood voters...likely

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/07/19/politics/dpt-pollandscape19.txt

Fireworks on ballot?

Every Fourth of July, a handful of Costa Mesa (CA) residents bring up the nuisance and danger they say are created by fireworks, both the "safe and sane" kind and illegal ones. And inevitably someone brings up a 1990 advisory vote in which city voters opted to ban fireworks. That vote, however, was nonbinding, and apparently a fireworks ban won by such a slim margin that council members didn't take any action.

Now, City Councilwoman Linda Dixon wants to put the issue before voters again. She asked at a Tuesday council meeting to have the council decide at a future meeting whether to place a fireworks initiative on the ballot, possibly for the February presidential primary.

She also suggested the council look at boosting the city's hotel bed tax by 1% and using the proceeds to somehow benefit community youth and sports groups, which raise money by running fireworks stands.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

"There needs to be some accountability."

I love the last line of this article which is a quote from the pension board member re the County union employees. Actually she has it backwards (like most politicians). The accountability needs to run FROM the politicians and the county union members to the taxpaying public. Remember our name here is the Lakewood ACCOUNTABILITY Action Group. Accountability is literally our middle name!!


Fresno Co. pension confusion compounded
Instead of getting refunds, some Fresno Co. employees may have to pay more.
By Brad Branan / The Fresno Bee
07/19/07 04:24:11

About 5,000 current and former Fresno County employees expecting refunds from a retirement fund may have to make payments instead.

The possible change in direction, discussed Wednesday by the county Board of Retirement, came after an actuarial firm found yet another miscalculation in how employee contributions were determined.

The latest report drew anger and disbelief from county employees.

"Employee morale is at an all-time low," county employee Jon Endara told the board.

In February, plan administrator Roberto Peña said thousands of current and former employees could expect refunds of roughly $1,000 each because an audit found that they had been paying too much for cost-of-living increases.

That estimate was based on a review by The Segal Company of San Francisco.

On Wednesday, however, Segal officials told the board that after further review, they found that about 5,200 employees actually paid too little for cost-of-living increases -- $1.1 million less than they should have.

The new finding was based on a review of data not covered in the first audit of the $2.5 billion pension fund, Peña said.

But some employees still could get a refund.

About 1,000 current and former public safety employees were found to have paid too much into the plan -- a total of $4.4 million, said Paul Angelo, a Segal vice president.

Officials are still crunching the numbers. The board Wednesday asked a consulting firm to figure out exactly how much employees might be asked to repay -- or receive in refunds. A decision could come during the board's Aug. 15 meeting.

The confusion left board members scratching their heads.

"This is totally unacceptable," said board member Alan Cade. "There's no excuse for this."

Board members and Peña on Wednesday said they would consider conducting more audits -- possibly as often as every three years -- to better detect such problems. The audit that turned up the original rate mistake was the plan's first in 50 years, Peña said.

Employees and union representatives Wednesday told board members that they should stick to the original plan of issuing refunds.

"You've told them they're going to get refunds," Endara said.

Henry Lopez, a county program supervisor, questioned the figures, saying employees are due a refund.

"We're not talking about a world where one plus one equals two. We're talking about actuaries," he said. "You can arrive at any number you want."

But Angelo defended the new rate estimates. He said the actuary who made the mistakes -- Ira Summer of Public Pension Professionals -- has acknowledged that he incorrectly calculated the cost-of-living adjustment factor for one fiscal year. Summer agreed with the new calculation by Segal's actuaries, Angelo said.

Summer did not return phone messages left Wednesday at his Oakland office.

The conflicting information from the actuaries has left pensioners frustrated, said retirement board member Stephanie Savrnoch.

"Our members don't have confidence in what they're being told," she said. "There needs to be some accountability."

The reporter can be reached at bbranan@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6679.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

Utah bans all fireworks

Oh Yes by all means talk to TNT about fireworks!? What the hell will they say to the Governor? Fireworks dont cause fires, people do...or some such nonsense. Or just to look good he could talk to them and tell them to go peddle their fire in California where the "Governator" did not have the balls to ban fireworks before July 4. Apparently the Utah Governor is more worried about fires than "Arnie", who is only afraid of Democrats. Utah's statehood on July 24 is yet another opportunity for fireworks distributors to cash in on what was not sold on July 4. Sort of a "fire sale" on fireworks.....

Fireworks distributors pan guv's proposed ban
By Dawn House
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Launched: 07/18/2007 12:23:13 AM MDT

A spokesman for one of the nation's largest distributors of fireworks blasted Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. for asking local municipalities to ban fireworks without the governor consulting industry officials.
"We've been a good corporate citizen," said TNT Fireworks spokesman Jerry Farley. "We're extremely disappointed that the governor has chosen not to talk to us."
On Tuesday, Huntsman asked local municipalities to ban personal fireworks in their jurisdictions because of wildland fire dangers. Fireworks already have been banned on all state, federal and unincorporated lands.
Farley said trucks already are loaded at the company warehouse in Salt Lake City in preparation for the July 24th celebration, which rivals the Fourth of July in revenues.
"People have been preparing for the past 11 months for this," he said. "Spaces have been leased, products have been paid for and now there's nothing."
Farley said it will be a gamble if operators and civil organizations pay for fireworks shipments because it is unclear which jurisdictions could ban their use.
Phantom Fireworks, which stocks 20 stores and 40 tents and stands in Utah, could lose as much as 30 percent of revenues from the ban, said account manager Joee Witter.
"Nonprofit organizations also will lose out, too," said Witter. "Selling our fireworks is a big fundraiser for many church and civil groups."
Marsha Gilford, spokeswoman for Smith's Food & Drug, said it's too soon to tell how an emergency declaration by Huntsman could impact the state's largest grocery store chain.
"If the decision is made in the best interest of the community, we're 100 percent behind it," said Gilford. "What we carry is low-key. We're not concerned about the loss of sales."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tinder dry conditions
Emergency declaration: Governor asks cities, counties to ban personal fireworks
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Launched:07/18/2007 12:23:20 AM MDT
It's July in Utah - a time when it's not uncommon to hear whizzes, pops or loud bangs once darkness has fallen.
However, that kind of fireworks action could be outlawed less than a week before the Days of '47 celebrations on July 24. It depends on how individual towns and cities respond to a request by Utah's top official.
On Tuesday - spurred by the state's tinderbox conditions - Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. issued an emergency declaration asking local officials to ban personal fireworks within their jurisdictions.
"There isn't much we can do about the unpredictability of Mother Nature, which is the cause of many fires," Huntsman said in Tuesday's news release. "There is something, however, we all can do about human ignition of fires, which this year has been very costly."
This year's fire season officially began Monday - but more than 600,000 wildland acres have already been ravaged by fire this summer.
"We've had an insane number of fires already - more than 400 in the state," said the governor's spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley. "Millions of dollars have already been spent fighting them."
East-side Holladay, positioned near the mountains and full of wooded lots, responded quickly Tuesday afternoon. City Manager Randy Fitts signed an executive order banning residential fireworks.
Then Draper's City Council, in an early evening meeting, voted 4-0 to ban the incendiaries.
"I agree with the governor. It's just too dry out there," Fitts said. Holladay's ban kicks in Friday.
But in Sandy, officials questioned whether they had the authority to ban personal fireworks.
"We tried it years ago," said Mayor Tom Dolan. "The Legislature said we cannot ban fireworks."
City Attorney Walter Miller agreed, noting state law requires that firework sales be allowed around certain holidays.
Some fireworks consumers responded with resentment to the governor's action.
Susannah Barnes, 28, standing near a fireworks display in a Salt Lake City supermarket, said the ban would be unfair.
"If [Huntsman] plans to ban personal fireworks, he has to ban them all," Barnes said, referring to the numerous professional displays planned throughout the state on July 24.
Stray fireworks at such shows also could cause fires, so they are just as dangerous, she said. Besides, fireworks are fun; they're festive, and children love them.
Johnathan Nielsen and his wife, Taren, said parents - not the governor - should decide whether they can buy fireworks.
Taylorsville Mayor Russ Wall announced, via e-mail, his city will not be passing a ban.
The city, he explained, is not adjacent to any open lands that could be threatened by personal fireworks.
And one eastern Utah city, Roosevelt, indicated it may follow suit.
"There's not much chance for a wildfire within city boundaries, so I don't think we'll put a squelch on fireworks," said Mayor Russell Cowan. "But I think the governor is doing the right thing. In the more rural areas it's a big concern."
Meanwhile, Salt Lake City executives were unsure Tuesday whether implementing a municipal ban could be as simple as issuing an executive order.
Perhaps the issue should go before the City Council, suggested Patrick Thronson, spokesman for Mayor Rocky Anderson.
Such restrictions already are in place for state and federal lands - the governor issued that order July 2.
State Fire Marshall Dick Buehler concurs with Huntsman's statewide request.
"We're in one of the worst seasons I've seen in 34 years," Buehler said. "We've lost five civilian lives this year, and that's unprecedented."
In Sandy, where a number of east-bench homes cannot be served by fire trucks, City Council Chairman Bryant Anderson said his colleagues would consider a ban.
"We'd have to have some discussion. It makes sense to me, in a dry year like this, perhaps we could do without [personal fireworks]."
West Valley City Mayor Dennis Nordfelt said the governor's request "carries a lot of weight."
"A total ban would actually be easier to enforce than the laws we have now that allow some [fireworks] and not others."
Nordfelt's City Council considered passing a ban Tuesday night, but then declined to vote, citing a lack of time to study the issue, said city spokesman Aaron Crim.
Eagle Mountain already planned on a ban, according to its spokeswoman, Linda Peterson.
Lehi City Administrator Jamie Davidson said his Utah County community shares Huntsman's concerns. However, Lehi's next regularly scheduled council meeting is in August, well after July's Pioneer Day celebration winds down.
Cottonwood Heights Mayor Kelvyn Cullimore said he sees merit - and complications - in the request.
"It would be very awkward to do, given all the fireworks stands that are up," Cullimore said. "There are probably some equity issues associated with having licensed those.
"I will certainly talk to the council."
Salt Lake County Councilman Jeff Allen supports such restrictions in the foothills, but wonders if a countywide ban is going too far. But Councilman Jim Bradley disagrees.
"I think it's for the best," Bradley said.
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
---
* CHRISTOPHER SMART, STEVE GEHRKE, ROSEMARY WINTERS, DEREK P. JENSEN, JEREMIAH STETTLER, OLGA MU OZ AND DONALD W. MEYERS contributed to this report.

Reaction so far

Responses from several areas contacted about the governor's request to ban private fireworks:
* AGREE: Draper, Eagle Mountain and Holladay
* LIKELY TO CONSIDER: Sandy, West Valley City, Herriman, Cottonwood Heights, Orem and Park City
* UNLIKELY TO AGREE: Roosevelt
State Fire Marshall concurs with Huntsman's statewide request.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

Bakersfield ban on fireworks back in discussion

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=87b02321-3cb1-44a2-863d-e8186c9eeef7

Last Update: Jul 10, 2007 11:15 AM

BAKERSFIELD - Fire investigators are still looking into whether some small fires on the Fourth of July were started by fireworks.

That, coupled with injuries suffered yearly, has reignited the debate on whether fireworks should be banned in Bakersfield.

You may remember a few years ago, Bakersfield Fire Chief Ron Fraze proposed to ban the sale of fireworks in the city, but it wasn’t well received.

The chief said he still supports the ban, but doesn’t plan to push for it again.

Fire and police officials arrested dozens of people and confiscated half-a-ton of illegal fireworks this year, but it’s not just illegal fireworks that caused problems.

Since Fraze pushed the ban, changes have been made, including the ban of Piccolo Petes and ground bloom flowers in the city.

Some believe more needs to be done.

Others argue we shouldn’t be punished for the actions of others, and non-profits benefit greatly from the sale of fireworks.

"There's a lot of folks that would like to see something happen when you look at the air quality, you look at the problems that we have with the SPCA and the animals every year, the injuries, the fires," Fraze said.

"People get hurt. There are accidents that happen even with the Safe and Sane fireworks,” said Knights of Columbus member David Verrell, “but I don't think the number of people that are injured in Bakersfield or in Kern County are in a great enough proportion that we should ban them altogether."

Fraze said it will likely take a grassroots group to push for a ban, and maybe even get it on a future ballot.

The Baca Hilton transcript

On June 26, 2007 Sheriff Baca was questioned by the Board of Supervisors. The complete transcript of the hearing can be found here. We have highlighted relevant portions and added our own comments.

From reading the transcript it is quite apparent the Baca is very hostile about the whole Hilton debacle and of course refuses to admit that he made the wrong decision, arguing that he did not want anyone "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" him. Quite frankly reading this makes me think that he and "The Decider" Bush may be long lost brothers. Most of the transcript is just rambling BS as he uses the hearing as a platform for overcrowded jails and other totally non responsive material and to pat himself on the back. Yeah Yeah old story. The point is that Hilton WAS NOT RELEASED DUE TO OVERCROWDING. Baca admits this.

Baca was in a tough position but as usual he made the wrong call. We all know that Hilton ended up serving more time than MOST BUT NOT ALL "mortals" for the "crime" (as Baca's claimed figures presented at the hearing supposedly prove). But as she was a celebrity and the criminal justice system was under the scrutiny of the world wide press, the way this was handled had to hold up to scruitiny.

In this case if he wanted to let her out under an "early release program" he should have approached the court and followed the procedure for early medical releases. Instead he apparently "cooked up" a deal with Hilton's menagerie of attorneys, doctors and "handlers" that she needed to be released for "medical reasons" to act as cover for what was an otherwise perfectly legitimate early release. Just not for THIS case. This medical reason was never explained, nor was the judge ever formally petitioned to address the early release for medical reasons. Baca claims that Judge "Saugus" was asked on the phone about the early release but this was not the judge that made the original sentencing order! (original judge was Sauer) Also Baca did not make this call but one of his aids did. The judge apparently disputed all this and it is apparent from the transcript that Baca and his people did not understand that the judge plainly said leave her in! The judge also requested all the "medical reports" and apparently never received them. I doubt they exist.

The point being that Hilton was out partying all night before she went into prison the first time and is out doing the same now. None of her team of high priced lawyers EVER brought this so called "medical" condition to the attention of the judge in the context of petitioning for an early release. Instead they figured that it would be easier to approach Baca who has a history of favorable star treatment as apparently he is star struck and considers himself a celebrity as well.

At one point in the transcript Baca claims: "SHE HERSELF WAS UNABLE TO TELL US THE TYPE OF MEDICATION OR DOSAGE THAT WAS NECESSARY" So that is a reason to let her out early? Give me a break! Has Baca and his team of crack doctors ever heard of a label on a prescription bottle? Helloooo?

He later goes on to say that they have social workers, clergy, and psychologists all on staff at the jail. So these people were not able to help? Apparently they were, in the second half of her stay.

No matter. We all know now that her "medical condition" was "treated" at the second facility and she served all her sentence. So Baca's own department made a liar out of him. I think all of this was pretty transparent and obvious to the supervisors (well at least two of them from the questions they asked.)

Bottom line: There was a procedure in place to deal with Hilton's "medical condition" and it was not used but rather circumvented. This in turn has led to claims and suits alleging favorable treatment by others who need medical treatment in prison and claim not to be getting near the level of treatment Hilton recived. This was handled very poorly and Baca cannot see that, or at least stubbornly refuses to admit it (Like Bush). For that reason alone Baca is incompetent and head and shoulders BELOW "Broadway Bill" over at LAPD. Point is he was elected by voters who dont even know who he is, and as all the articles in this section aptly demonstrate, he will weather this storm and hopefully retire in two years thank God (on a King's pension). Hopefully his successor will be a better manager and a little more savvy of the media.

Trying to Hide the pension mess from Taxpayers

Well Arnie is starting to act more and more like a Democrat. Great idea. Lets use secret bonds not approved by the voters to finance the pension mess. Whoops. That's illegal. Damn courts getting in the way! Well we don't want to ask the voters what to do...or do we? Hell they are stupid enough to pass most other bond issues we run up the flagpole so why not this one. I hope the taxpayers never figure out that they have to pay for all these bonds as well as all the interest on them and that it is all so the fat cat public employees can retire at 50, 15 years before the private sector, with at least twice the benefits.

Hats off to The Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers (whom we linked to long ago) for catching this and nipping it in the bud so that that voters can at least try to stop this madness.

http://globalpensions.com/?id=me/17/news/28/46004/38/
State loses bond battle
by Heather Dale 04-07-2007

US – Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration has lost its court case bid to issue US$560m in bonds to cover government pensions

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the State’s proposed “pension obligation bonds” are illegal because they were not submitted to voters as the Californian Constitution requires.

A court document stated: “Concluding the pension obligation is one imposed by the State on itself and, therefore, does not fall within an exception for obligations imposed by law. The court entered judgment against the Committee.”

Authorised by the Legislature and the governor in August 2004, the bonds were designed to pay a portion of the State’s contribution to the Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) for a single year.

The Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers (FACT) was the only challenger to the bonds in a “validation” action brought by the State. In late 2005, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei ruled the bonds invalid under Article 16, Section 1.

The State appealed, argument was held by the Third District on 25 June, and this ruling is the result.

Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Harold Johnson, who represented FACT in challenging the bonds, said: “The court upheld the basic right of the people of California to chart their fiscal destiny and have the ultimate say over major state borrowing.

“The court affirmed that the Legislature can’t saddle the people of California with major debt without first getting their permission. This ruling should also be a warning to spendthrifts in government. They can’t spend like tipsy sailors and automatically borrow their way out of the mess they make.”

Can't we use tickets as warnings?

What ever happened to the street sweeping law to be put into effect July 1 2007? Not done. What about the shift of RV's and Trailers onto private property? We will be lucky to have something worked out on that fiasco by October 2007 (even though the city had a large staff working on it since Nov 7, 2006). Ever wonder what the so called "parking control" budget is vs what the city takes in by way of parking fines? Lets challenge the city to post that information. if they dare. see LAAG's related prior story

As far as warning owners of RV's on street parking have they not had since Nov. 7, 2006 as ample warning? Just another example of a city which lacks the guts to enforce the law for fear of being unpopular or being like that "fascist regime" known as Cerritos where "mean spirited" parking laws are enforced regardless of complaints!! The Horror!!


Lakewood RV laws take effect
RV, trailer owners have 2-week warning period.
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched: 07/05/2007 11:38:54 PM PDT
http://origin.presstelegram.com/news/ci_6309541

LAKEWOOD - Minutes after starting her shift Thursday, Natasha Martin, the city's lead parking control officer, zeroed in on a trailer parked on the street.

After checking to see if it had a city permit, she proceeded to write up the trailer.

"Hey, did you give me a ticket?" an annoyed man said as he rushed to his vehicle.

"It's a warning," she said to the man, who looked relieved.

As Martin threaded through the neighborhoods bordered by Del Amo Boulevard, Candlewood Street, Cherry and Downey avenues, she spotted within the first hour of her shift at least six trailers and RVs in violation of new laws that ban recreational vehicles and trailers on city streets without a permit.

"People are getting it," Martin said. "It's letting them understand where you're coming from. We're just (carrying out) what the residents voted for."

The ticket-like warnings are part of an information campaign the city has been conducting since April to warn residents about the new laws that took effect Sunday.

Hoping to stop owners from using city streets for storing rigs and motor homes long-term, the City Council recently passed a series of measures to address the issue. They included a pair of November ballot measures banning the vehicles on public streets without a permit, which voters overwhelmingly passed.

The permit allows for a maximum three-day pass. Residents can get up to 16 permits annually, but must allow at least three days between permits.

Since April, the city has been mailing letters and postcards, leaving paper hangers detailing the city's new laws and issuing warnings leading up to Sunday.

The city decided to give owners a two-week warning before officially ticketing on July 15.

"We expect that by the time citations are going to be issued that every RV and trailer owner knows the consequences of parking their RVs or trailers on city streets without a permit," said spokesman Don Waldie.

Waldie said that the information campaign appears to be working, judging from the city's last four "windshield counts."

The windshield counts - another way of describing the number of warnings issued to RVs and trailers - have diminished by more than 90 percent in the last four months, Waldie said.

The last count, which was being compiled Thursday, showed fewer than 90, significantly lower than the 350 counted in April. "It's a really remarkable testament to the willingness of owners" to follow the rules, he said.