No one wants to take their medicine

Well we knew it was coming. Just like it does every year. TV reporter bonanza week. Fire Season which now stretches into longer and longer seasons each year, as do the number of santa ana's or "offshore wind events" (as they are now in this age over "techno-describing" everything). So now the blame game begins. Who can we blame? The feds, FEMA, the state, the county, the city, developers, insurers, real estate industry, Al Queda, Global Warming, Al Gore...? The LA Times article below only covers some of it issues. It takes aim at the developers and the home buyers who buy into this mess we have in the housing market we have today. Here are some other causes:

1. Lack of proper brush clearing. Clearing should be a quarter mile from homes. Will that get done? No as its too costly and most of the brush to be cleared lies on govt. owned land and we all know they wont clear their own land while at the same time telling private homeowners to do it.

2. Allowing politicians to squander money away in ballot propositions aimed at fixing a specific problem and diverting it toward some other pet project or "political fire" of the moment.

3. Lack of cost effectiveness in fire protection. Like building a 50 million dollar training center in Orange County (aka "Taj Mahal") which really could have been spent on more part time crews to fight fires or leasing better air or ground equipment to use on a temporary basis in the fire season.

4. Not effectively using prisoners or volunteers to help with structure protection

5. Poor overall coordination of firefighting resources throughout the state

6. Homeowners or HOA's not insuring property for current rebuilding costs.Some have estimated that in the most recent fire 60% of the homeowners will be under insured.

7. Failure of the federal government to implement a federally mandated "all risk" homeowners policy that covers all risks regardless of what area of the country you live in.

8. Failure of homeowners, builders, government and insurers, to accept the risk of living in fire prone areas and doing what it takes to live there (getting adequate insurance, clearing brush, ensuring proper construction with fire resistant materials, fire spotting volunteers in high risk areas and periods etc., proper zoning and locations)

9. Failure of the government at all levels to insure that brush and trees do not get too thick in non cleared areas. This means the environmentalist will need to back off if they are going to allow development in these areas. I wonder how many "tree huggers" lost their homes?

10. Not undertaking an analysis as to what the origin of most of these fires are and taking steps to reduce the likelihood of those causes. Arson is obviously a big issue and very difficult to stop. Powerline issues are simply the result of negligence.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-notebook30oct30,0,5869832.story?coll=la-home-center
From the Los Angeles Times
CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK
It's time to recognize, not defy, wildfire risks
To break the cycle of build and burn, those who create and approve subdivisions in Southern California must take site and climate into consideration.
By Christopher Hawthorne
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

7:25 PM PDT, October 29, 2007

The enduring image of the Southern California hillside resident -- the one who braces for disaster every fall, just as the Santa Anas begin to blow -- is that of a self-reliant, latter-day homesteader who settled up among the trees because he finds solitude and freedom there. And maybe because he remains a bit suspicious of life in the city.

It wasn't hard to find examples of the breed in news coverage of last week's devastating fires, guiding horses to safety or crustily refusing to evacuate. Yet the vast majority of the nearly 2,000 houses destroyed so far weren't outposts marking the last remaining frontiers of the American West. They were neatly lined up in subdivisions, on gently curving streets slotted into terraced hillsides. Many of the biggest fires grew by leaping from one cul-de-sac to the next, tearing through the territory that the writer Mike Davis once called "Sloping Suburbia."

Since the middle of the 20th century, this is how we have developed much of our new housing in the U.S., and particularly in Southern California: by pushing deep into canyons and deserts and onto flood plains. We build reassuringly familiar-looking subdivisions, decorated with vaguely Spanish or Mediterranean accents, in locations that by land-use standards -- and by common-sense standards -- are truly exotic. We build with the unstinting belief that growth is good and that progress in the form of various kinds of technology -- new building materials, military-style firefighting, a vast system of pumps and levees -- will continue to make it possible to construct new pockets of nostalgic architecture virtually anywhere.

But maybe our nostalgia should extend beyond red-tile roofs to include earlier lessons about how and where it is safe to build. This country's culture as a whole is in the midst of a profound shift from the unquestioning confidence that marked the so-called American Century to a new recognition of risk, conservation, even fragility. Green architecture, with its rather old-fashioned emphasis on paying attention to site and climate, is part of that shift. But those who build and approve new hillside development -- "the lords of subdivision," as the nature writer Richard Lillard called them, the "replanners of the Earth's surface" -- have barely acknowledged it.

One of the success stories of the last week has been Stevenson Ranch near Santa Clarita, which narrowly averted destruction in part because its houses were built with concrete roof tiles and heat-resistant windows. To celebrate this neighborhood as a model for escaping fire is itself a kind of escapism. But the question is never, Why am I building here on this hillside that predictably catches fire every few years in the fall (and maybe now in spring or summer too)? It is, instead, How can technology and new materials -- how can progress -- protect me from the dangers inherent in living where I have chosen to live?

The aesthetic basis of a typical subdivision is reassurance and stability. Builders enforce those qualities with massive earthmoving operations, to flatten the streets and blur the topographical differences between one hillside and the next, and with architecture, choosing from a well-worn catalog of residential styles.

The media pitch in too. Thursday night on CNN, Anderson Cooper and other anchors focused relentlessly on the news that an arsonist may have set the Santiago fire in eastern Orange County. The Santiago fire destroyed 14 houses -- a tiny fraction of the total this week. By contrast, the Witch fire that roared through suburban developments in northern San Diego County, consuming more than 1,000 houses, was caused by downed power lines. The emphasis on possible crime suggested that the disaster could be pinned on a few rogue evildoers. But the vast majority of destroyed houses burned as a direct result of choices made by home builders, homeowners, politicians and planners about where to put new development. The culprit is us.

The truth is that most Southern California residents who move into fire-threatened hillside neighborhoods are not adventurous souls hoping to thumb their noses at convention and urban mores and carve out a life surrounded by nature. While houses near Lake Arrowhead and in certain canyons that burned this year are marked by real isolation, most are merely looking for spacious single-family residences that feel attractively adjacent to, rather than in the heart of, the hills and mountain ranges that divide the region's coastline from its deserts.

Adjacency to nature rather than full immersion in it has always been at the heart of the suburbs' appeal. The developers who create our version of it, particularly in the fastest growing parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, have been highly successful at giving their projects the air of the familiar mixed with a touch of unspoiled landscape.

Disasters, though, have a way of stripping away those signs of comfort and rather starkly revealing land-use patterns as well as the philosophies that underpin growth. The flooding in New Orleans that followed Hurricane Katrina, for example, wiped out mostly suburban-style ranch houses that had been built slab-on-grade, without the raised foundations and other low-tech flood-protection mechanisms that once distinguished the city's houses.

There is a reason that the oldest neighborhoods in New Orleans virtually never flood. They were built on naturally high ground, produced over the centuries by deposits of Mississippi River silt. And there is a reason that wildfires in Southern California prey mostly on subdivisions built in the last 50 years or so, when suburban expansion and faith in American know-how were at their height.

We can draw a final connection here, even if it is only a metaphorical one. The way that American home builders keep pushing out into new territory, developing parcels of land once considered unsafe for residential construction, is an architectural version of the way that banks and lenders have acted over the last decade, practically tossing money at borrowers once dismissed as too much of a credit risk. The goal in both cases is to maintain a pace of growth and expansion that is ultimately unsustainable.

The crisis in the credit markets, by pulling down the broader economy, has shined some needed light on predatory lending and slowed its spread. Though history suggests that we probably shouldn't hold our breath, perhaps the fires, by the sheer scale of their destruction, will have a similar effect on the way we build.

christopher.hawthorne@latimes.com

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

"We want what they have..."

This article is a follow up to this prior article

The firefighters make a good point. We want to get paid what all other public employees get paid as far as pensions. What they fail to point out is that this is the basis of the problem we are in today. Each govt. employee just keeps pointing to the next higher salary at another city and starts a bidding war. A bidding war not using private dollars of companies but taxpayer dollars taken from private employees paychecks.

Govt. employees salaries and pensions have no corollary in the private sector. Maybe they did at one point in time but no longer. With the demise of unions in the private sector and the opposing rise of public employees unions, the disparate result in pensions is staggering. The other problem of course is that politicians who set these salaries, pensions and benefits (dont forget the generous life time healthcare) are spineless wimps who only want to get re-elected and are glad to sell voters down the river and saddle them with huge tax liabilities in the future to fund these giveaways which will only increase as time goes on. The public employee unions are also shrewd politicos themselves, as Arnold Schwarzenegger found out two years ago. Quite frankly its easier to do a snow job on the sucker taxpayer/voters as most are asleep at the switch. Most of these pension and salary giveaways are claimed to be public but in reality are cloaked in secrecy.

Government employees fail to realize that its called "public service" for a reason. Now it has become the new ruling elite. The employer of last resort is now offers the most sought after union jobs in the country. Meanwhile the private sectors wages, benefits and pensions has been ravaged by the Bush tax policies and years of mergers and corporate raiding by venture capitalists. Govt. employees also fail to realize that all their pensions and benefits come from the taxpayers and are guaranteed against all market risks by the taxpayers (unlike in the private sector) Everything in govt. work is guaranteed in a sense. In the private sector if a business fails or fails to gain marketshare or sales the salaries and pensions fail as well. Not so in govt. There is no shrinking or "rightsizing" in govt. Only growth and only increases of everything all the time year after year.

So here is the real question. Do we bring public pensions and benefits in line with the private sector or do we try yo bring the private sector up to the govt. level and usher in full blown socialism?

Guest Commentary: Firefighters just want same treatment
By RED BLUFF FIREFIGHTERS- Special to the DN
Article Last Updated: 10/27/2007 08:28:08 AM PDT

For three years, the only statements from city representatives simply included, "it is not a financial issue, but a philosophical issue" and "The City Council is not interested." The firefighters now finally have some new information for the first time in three years with the City Council's media release. The City Council states that they do not negotiate in the press, but with their document they are, in fact, doing so by implying that an agreement may be reached if the retirement issue is set aside by the Union. The Red Bluff Firefighters Association is not a "Union," and it is simply the nine full time personnel assembled as a bargaining unit. There are no ties to organized labor.

After more than three years of patience, the Red Bluff Firefighters have found that there was no interest by the City Council for fair treatment. With no other alternative, and with overwhelming public encouragement, a petition was developed. A salary survey which was confirmed by the Human Resources Department of the City of Red Bluff using cities confirmed by the Council's consultant, Koff and Associates, and a salary survey conducted by the City of Oroville, both of which were available in the stacks of information at the petition signing sites and which are also posted on our Web site. In addition, the check stubs of a top step fire captain, the position listed on the salary surveys, were and still are available for review, simply contact Larry Snell.

1. Top step captain hourly rate is $17.73 which matches the City of Red Bluff's 7/1/07 salary schedule available at City Hall. As with other departments our size, the City of Red Bluff regularly calls its firefighters back for training and emergency calls. Your firefighters invest many more hours than most other professionals do.

2. In 2002, the firefighters and the City Council reached an agreement on a new work schedule that greatly enhanced our service to the community, and placed us on 24-hour shifts which equaled an instant 40 percent increase in work hours. Previous to this, the firefighters worked a standard 40-hour work week as most people do. It is interesting to note, that although our work hours increased by 40 percent, as a group, we are barely a few percentage points ahead of other bargaining units that did not increase their work hours at all. Therefore, we feel that it is unfair that the City Council states that the firefighters earned the highest salary increases, which completely ignores the notable increase in work hours.

3. Contrary to what the City Council may have implied, the firefighters are not the only group whose retirement is paid in full. In fact, every city employee enjoys this benefit. We are curious why the City Council seems to imply that this is exclusive to the firefighters.

4. PERS retirement schedules and service credits are similar for all city employees and approved by City Council action. The retirement contract is between the state CALPERS system and the City of Red Bluff, not the employees.

5. The City Council already approved and awarded this option of 3 percent at 50 retirement to approximately 30 police officers. Nine firefighters simply request the same option. The vast majority of fire departments on the city's survey list already provide this benefit to their personnel.

6. The police had the same retirement plan as the firefighters have now (2 percent at 50). The City Council awarded the police this exact same increased 3 percent at 50 retirement.

7. The City Council would like you to believe that the 3 percent at 50 retirement plan that we are asking for costs $190,000 per firefighter to obtain. The City Council neglected to share the 30-year time frame in their media release. The City Council also states that it will have to incur debt to finance this retirement proposal. First, the cost of the 3 percent at 50 plan is roughly $6,000 per firefighter per year, plain and simple. Why does the City Council object to this plan for nine firefighters when 30 police officers were awarded this same package several years ago? We are only asking for the same benefit that has already been granted to our hard-working police officers, nothing more.

8. The firefighters had no choice, but to reject the poor offers provided recently by the City Council. Cost of living increases of each year were not even adequately covered by these proposals and the City Council completely ignored the issue of the salary disparity between ours and other like fire departments.

Improved health insurance? The firefighters simply wish to obtain the same less expensive health insurance already awarded to the police. This less expensive insurance is simply a cheaper premium that would save the firefighters at least $400 a month in out of pocket expense. This costs the city nothing more and we ask why they have refused this.

The City Council states, "While our hearts may want to reach an agreement with this group of dedicated and valuable employees, our heads and sound judgment do not see this as a financially sound course of action." If that is the case, were they not using their heads or using financially sound judgment when the City Council awarded, by vote, the very same retirement and cheaper health insurance to the Red Bluff Police?

The firefighters are taxpayers also and appreciate sound management practices, in fact, the firefighters take great pride in, and care for millions of dollars of fire related equipment and buildings.

Contrary to what the City Council may imply, the firefighters have maintained an open mind about negotiations. The fact still remains, however, that the firefighter's salary is 40 percent below average, as confirmed by the City's Human Resources Department, using the comparable cities developed by the City Council's own consulting firm, Koff and Associates. The firefighters did not compile the cities used. The City Council also awarded 30 police officers the exact same less expensive health insurance and the exact same 3 percent at 50 retirement that the firefighters seek.

Your firefighters still simply wish to be treated fairly.

The Red Bluff Firefighters are: "A" crew: Domenic Catona, captain; Dave Carr, engineer; Matthew Shobash, engineer; "B" crew: Larry Snell, captain; Fred Agundes, engineer, John Campbell, engineer, "C" crew: Vern Raglin, captain, Brian Smalley, engineer, Jimmy Heinle, engineer.

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

LASD discourages independent oversight

Some of these quotes below are classic, especially those from the LASD union spokesman. Most "reviewed law enforcement agencies in the nation"...oh please. Given the few things that have leaked out about LASD and that are on this website, (this one for example) LAAG supports any effort to take the LASD review process away from its union and place it in the hands of taxpayer entities that are truly independent. Now the question is how "independent" will "The Office of Independent Review" remain. LAAG is always a little suspicious of an entity that sucks up still more tax dollars and needs to use the word "independent" in its name. You can read more on the "The Office of Independent Review" here and also contact them directly from that site.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-audit25oct25,1,7934644.story?coll=la-editions-orange
From the Los Angeles Times
Report lauds work of Sheriff's Department monitor
The Office of Independent Review, which looks into misconduct allegations, is fair and necessary, according to a county review.
By Stuart Pfeifer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 25, 2007

The Office of Independent Review, which oversees investigations into alleged misconduct by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, does a good job of making sure internal investigations and discipline are fair and has increased public confidence in the department, according to a report by the county executive.

The Board of Supervisors ordered the review last month after agreeing to spend more than $3 million to fund the unit for the next three years. The office is staffed by civil rights attorneys who consult with internal affairs investigators and make recommendations about discipline and training.

Supervisors sought the review at the request of the union that represents sheriff's deputies. Steve Remige, president of the Assn. for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, had told supervisors that he thought the department was already well monitored and that the money it spends on the review team could be better used to hire additional deputies.

The county report, released this week, concluded that the oversight group provides a valuable service to the county, including reducing liability to potential civil lawsuits by recommending training for deputies and by ensuring that deputies who violate policy are appropriately disciplined.

"By having the OIR monitor the department's actions, LASD personnel are more cognizant to follow departmental policy," according to the report by county Chief Executive Officer William T. Fujioka.

Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Office of Independent Review, said he believed the report accurately reflected the role his office plays in the sheriff's discipline and training process.

"I'm pleased to see that the CEO's office has reported that we actually make a difference," he said. "The most important thing we do in my view is actually keep investigations and departmental decisions on discipline honest, and when they're not we have the ability to tell the public that they're not."

Among its duties, Gennaco's office reviews lawsuits filed against the department and produces reports, available online at www.laoir.com, about the outcomes of investigations into alleged misconduct by deputies in the nation's largest sheriff's department.

"OIR's involvement gives the public confidence knowing that the LASD investigation is being monitored. The OIR's ability to be objective and impartial gives the review process more credibility," Fujioka's report says. "The idea that the department will cover up or hide essential facts from the case will have less significance when the OIR is involved to ensure the integrity of the investigation."

Sheriff Lee Baca launched the Office of Independent Review in 2001. The report "is a complete vindication of my desire to have transparency and to strengthen public trust of the Sheriff's Department," Baca said Wednesday.

Remige said he was not swayed by the report. He said the department already was one of the most reviewed law enforcement agencies in the nation, with an internal affairs bureau, a criminal internal affairs bureau, a county ombudsman, district attorney's office reviews of uses of force and semiannual reports by Merrick Bobb, an attorney who monitors the department for the Board of Supervisors.

"It's another layer of oversight that personally I don't think we need," Remige said.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

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

Who's bluffing in Red Bluff?

This is going on all over the country. Wake up you stupid taxpayers before your future is mortgaged. Your retirement will be taken to pay for these guys. It used to be thieves used guns. Now they use public employee unions. At least this city council has the guts to at least tell the taxpayers that the robbery is taking place. Not sure they can stop it. These people that support this BS union payouts and sweetheart deals are like the lame people that sit on juries and award million of dollars to people for no other reason than its not their money and they don't feel responsible for the outcome. I could care less what extortion money GM pays to their union employees as I will never own a GM car (each GM car has about $1,200 in union health care benefits built right into the cost I hear!) Unfortunately I have given control of all my tax dollars (against my will) to some lame elected official with a low IQ with no guts and who wants to scratch the back of public employees knowing he will get the same when his turn comes. All with my money. I may need to move to China where at least the corruption is out in the open and the rules are clear.


Red Bluff CA City Council OKs letter on issue
Special to the DN
Red Bluff Daily News
http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/ci_7213979
Article Last Updated:10/18/2007 08:43:18 AM PDT

The letter approved Tuesday night by the Red Bluff City Council, addressed to the residents of Red Bluff:

"Many residents have called on the Council to reply to the Red Bluff Firefighters' public campaign regarding their compensation. We have not done so out of respect for our long tradition of not negotiating with our employees in public. Our goal has been to maintain a positive and business like relationship with the Firefighters Union, by not participating in a media debate.

"Now the Red Bluff Firefighters Association is circulating a petition and asking residents to sign it without telling the residents how much they are currently paid nor the full cost of what they are demanding from the City. Therefore, as you consider whether or not you want to support the Firefighters and their compensation demands please consider the following facts:

1. On the average, each firefighter's total compensation annually costs the residents of our City over $87,000. ($69,145 in salary and overtime plus $17,876 to fund their retirement and health insurance benefits.) Excluding the City Manager, the firefighters as a group earn on average higher wages than any other group of employees in the City, including management employees.
2. Between January 2000 and July of 2006, firefighters received the highest percentage increases in pay of any other represented group in the City:
* Miscellaneous Employees - 27.8 percent in increases.
* Police Employees - 29 percent for officers, 27 percent for sergeants, and 29.5 percent for dispatchers.
* Fire Employees - 32.5 percent (or 35.5 percent if you include the 3 percent turned down in Jan. 2006)
3. Currently the City pays both the City's and employee's share of the retirement system costs. Retirement costs the firefighters nothing.
4. Currently a firefighter can retire after 33 years of service, as long as they are age 55 or older, and receive 90 percent of their single highest year salary (plus annual increases) for the rest of their life (90 percent is the maximum allowed benefit under PERS).
5. Firefighters are demanding to be able to retire at 90 percent of their salary at age 50, with 30 working years.
6. In simpler terms, Firefighters are now eligible to receive 2 percent of their highest year salary for each year worked at age 50. They want to increase this to 3 percent for each year worked at age 50. This is a fifty percent (50%) improvement in the benefit - 2 percent per year to 3 percent per year.
7. It will cost the City an extra $190,000 per firefighter to fund just the increased retirement cost of the demanded enhanced benefit. For current Firefighters, the City will be required to borrow the added cost of the added benefit from the State and will be paying off this new debt long after the employee has retired.
8. Our Firefighters have turned down more than 9.5 percent in raises and improved health benefits offered by the City over the last three years.

"Over the last several years eight different City Councilmembers and three City Managers have concluded that our Firefighters are very adequately compensated and that it would not be fiscally prudent to increase our firefighters' already generous retirement benefits. We try to use both our hearts and our heads in making decisions for the City. While our hearts may want to reach an agreement with this group of dedicated and valuable employees, our heads and sound judgment do not see this as a financially sound course of action.

"This dispute is not about public safety. It is about how much we should pay for fire protection services and about acting in a fiscally sound manner for the whole City. We repeatedly see news stories of other cities struggling under the burden of public safety retirement costs. We are concerned about the long term financial consequences of this added expense.

"Negotiations with our Firefighters will begin soon. If the Union can set aside their demand for an enhanced retirement package, we are confident that a reasonable agreement on salary and health insurance benefits can be reached."

(signed) Wayne Brown, mayor; Forrest Flynn, mayor pro tem; Dan Irving, councilmember; James Byrne, councilmember.
Councilmember Jeff Moyer recused himself.

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

Let their be light

Hey LAAG's not all bad news. LAAG likes city improvements. Not sure about the cost. Give the figures below (we assume total cost to city) is $2,750.00 per pole. No detail provided as to whether the lights will also be improved in terms of brighter, whiter and more energy conscious in the Press Telegram article. Hopefully SCE will shed some light on this. Actually its quite funny as LAAG learned this week from an SCE employee on the job that SCE was not responsible for light pole maintenance. LAAG was informed that a private entity called "City Light and Power" bought all the poles. Sure enough we see a 1997(!!) press release from their website. Seems at odds with the Press Telegram story also below.

http://www.clpinc.com/press/1197.htm
Innovative agreement to make streets brighter
City of Lakewood, California, November 1997

The Lakewood City Council has approved an innovative agreement to turn over operation of the city-owned street lighting system to a private company. Lakewood has two street lighting systems -- about 75% of the city is lighted by a city-owned system, the remainder is owned by the Edison Company.

Under the agreement, City Light and Power will upgrade the city's aging street lighting circuits, increase nighttime illumination by raising the wattage on street lamps, and maintain the improved system for twenty-five years. The cost savings from reduced energy consumption will fund the cost of improving the street lighting system.

Operation of the system will cost no more than the city's current operating budget for street lighting, with the added bonus for Lakewood residents that the city's fault-prone and antiquated street lighting system will be fully modernized. City Light and Power will be responsible for street light maintenance and will offer "same-day service" to replace burned out street lights. CLP will also dispatch repairs for the Edison-owned lighting system. Residents, no matter where they live in Lakewood, will have a single number to call to get street light repairs.

The CLP agreement, say city officials, fits with Lakewood's tradition of turning to private enterprise to provide lower-cost municipal services. The improvements CLP will build into their upgrade of the street lighting system would have cost Lakewood $7-$8 million.

Edison to update Lakewood lighting
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched: 10/16/2007 09:53:14 PM PDT

LAKEWOOD - Starting next week, Southern California Edison plans to shed some new light on the city.

The power company will begin on Monday a $2.2 million, three-month effort to replace 800 deteriorating steel street light poles throughout town with new 30-foot concrete poles featuring cobra-head light fixtures and flat glass lenses.

Work will begin in the northwestern portion of Lakewood, an area bordered by Ashworth and South streets and Palo Verde and Hayter avenues, said Ben Harvey of Edison.

The work should not affect traffic flow, since most of the poles being replaced are in residential areas, Harvey said.

The work in Lakewood is part of Edison's 20-year plan, worth more than $200 million, to replace 90,000 aging poles within its service territory.

Since beginning the program in 1998, Edison has replaced 10,000 steel poles with longer-lasting concrete ones. Concrete polls have a life span of 80 to 100 years, depending on climate and other weather factors.

Money for the work is derived from Edison's infrastructure replacement program, Harvey said.

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

sand buildup problems on the SGR trail

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:38:51 -0700
To: "Diego Cadena, Dep. Dir." <DCadena@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "Afshari, Shari, Div Head" <SAfshari@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "Paul Maselbas, Principal Eng" <PMaselbas@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "El-Rabaa, Maged, Program Dev." <MElrabaa@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "Alma Fuentes, Bicycle Coord." <AFuentes@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "Connie Sziebl, Field Rep for Knabe" <CSziebl@lacbos.org>
From: Lakewood Accountability Action Group | LAAG <updates@LAAG.us>
Subject: sand buildup problems on the SGR trail


I have been pointing out (to the county) sand buildup problems on the trail for years. Usually the place where it collects is under bridges and 300 feet either side of the bridges or tunnel in approaches. (Where the path dips down close to the sand) This is just due to poor design for runoff and lack of simple maintenance. Better design however would result in lower maintenance costs. As a result right after each rain, no matter how slight all these section have to be swept. 1/4 inch of fine sand is treacherous for especially road bikes (or any bike really) and can easily lead to a loss of control at almost any speed, even going straight let alone turning. Also the pavement near these bridge sections is poor. That is also a problem. Sand is white and blends in with the concrete color. Also it may be hiding other dangers or road surface problems underneath.

We had rain last on 9/21/07-9/22/07. No sand was swept as of 10/11/07. And now this weekend more rain. So sweeping has to be redone at the problem areas

I think the problem on the trail maint. has a number of causes: (1) the people that do the work are not very conscientious and/or (2) there is either no inspection of their finished work or contractors are county employees are saying the work is done and its not (If thats the case taxpayer dollars are being wasted) (3) the people that think the work was done don't ride road bikes over it so they really don't understand the safety problem to begin with as they just ride in cars or trucks with huge tires; (4) there may be poor direction given (poor communication) or workers just dont understand what the issue is and why it needs to be cleaned up properly or what is "proper". Likely it is all of the foregoing.

I was also puzzled numerous times on the carson/wardlow section where some holes and cracks would get patched but not ones nearly identical right nearby. Made no sense at all. I would love to ask the workers what they were thinking but never get to see them at the site

There are section of the trial that are quite clean but then they never really get dirty. You need to focus on the problems sections.

Re: enforcement of "no parking" in the Thursday sweeping area

At 12:37 PM 10/13/2007, Todd Rogers wrote:

This is part of the previously announced warning period.......which ends later this month. When that happens, the tickets will have fines associated with them.

These types of dramatic changes to people's lives need to be gradually implemented. Otherwise the push back will be overwhelming and counterproductive. Anyone who has spent any time in public service/administration understands this. The City of LA sure doesn't have anything on Lakewood.

"previously announced warning period"? No mention of that here < http://www.lakewoodcity.org/thenews/cleansweep.asp> nor on the letter mailed out nor on the door hanger cards.

What will the fine be? Second offense increase? Third offense?

Look we are not touting city of LA. Heaven knows they have their problems, starting with LAPD. However as much "bad" press as LA gets (see fox news link in prior email) on their "Draconian" parking enforcement they push right on ahead writing tickets and booting and towing cars. I have seen tickets for cars in parking garages with no front licence and tinted windows. Parking tickets! Now thats revenue generation and making people toe the line. Does LA worry about pushback? No. It sure beats pushback from LASD's "Operation Any Booking". Of course there will be push back. No one wants to comply with laws. You know that working for LASD. But like I have said many times before. Lakewood has created this scofflaw haven and these residents thinking that as property owners they can do what ever they want due to the fact that for years there has been no enforcement of parking and zoning laws (especially aesthetics related) except by complaint, which of course makes the complainer the bad guy and not the city, which quite frankly is wrong. It is also an effective way to limit enforcement. The City should take the heat for law/zoning enforcement. Not the residents. I am not blaming you for the fear of "push back" nor for the current situation due to years of lack of enforcement. But people are going to need to start taking their medicine. I suspect that is why voters voted in a law and order guy like you. And remember warning do nothing for the most part as you have already spend thousand on public education on this. The only way to change behavior like this is fine people. That is what most governments do. They are all grownups and most have had speeding or parking tickets before.

enforcement of “no parking” in the Thursday sweeping area

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:47:59 -0700
To: "Doug Butler Parking Control Sup" <DButler@lakewoodcity.org>, "Natasha Martin, lead parking control officer" <NMartin@lakewoodcity.org>
From: Lakewood Accountability Action Group | LAAG <updates@LAAG.us>
Subject: enforcement of "no parking" in the Thursday sweeping area
Cc: "Paolo Beltran, St. Sweeping" <pbeltran@lakewoodcity.org>, "Diane Perkin, Dir. Admin. Ser." <dperkin@lakewoodcity.org>, "Todd Rogers, City Council" <TSRR@msn.com>, <TRodgers@lakewoodcity.org>, "Joe Esquivel, City Council" <bayoujo@aol.com>, <JEsquive@lakewoodcity.org>, "Larry Van Nostran, city council" <oldeacon@aol.com>, <LVanNost@lakewoodcity.org>, "Steve Croft, city council" <stacro@aol.com>, <SCroft@lakewoodcity.org>, "Diane DuBois, City Council" <DDuBois@lakewoodcity.org>,

The following statement on your website is not correct. (see below) I have seen cars ticketed twice in Oct. in the "new" "test area" but the parking "ticket" (looks like a genuine ticket printed off a eticket handheld machine) which is still on the car says "warning" with "$0.00" for fines. The car was for sale and not in front of a residence which I understand is also illegal, but there was no fine for that either. Since when do cities bother writing parking tickets with no fines? Does "enforcement" of parking laws mean issuing warnings? I have never seen such a city. City of LA would laugh you people out of the room. LA is Rhino booting cars and towing them. < http://www.lacity-parking.org/laopm/boot.htm> < http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=999480B97CA941E52D58DE04B09BCE6F?contentId=4383422&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1 > Spending money to hire meter maids to write no fine tickets and then tout "enforcement" crackdowns. This is like Alice in Wonderland. The city needs to change its motto from "times change values dont " to "parking laws change tickets dont"

http://www.lakewoodcity.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1018
The Lakewood City Council has approved the first phase of a citywide "no parking" plan that will begin in the Thursday street sweeping area of northern Lakewood. The enforcement of "no parking" in the Thursday sweeping area will begin in October, following a thorough public education effort.

2,002 die in police custody in 3 years

This article below is an interesting companion story to an earlier one we did here. Note the next to last paragraph in the article below.


2,002 die in police custody in 3 years
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/11/2007 08:37:02 PM PDT

WASHINGTON - More than 2,000 criminal suspects died in police custody over a three-year period, half of them killed by officers as they scuffled or attempted to flee, the government said Thursday.

The study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics is the first nationwide compilation of the reasons behind arrest- related deaths in the wake of high-profile police assaults or killings involving Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo in New York in the late 1990s.

The review found 55 percent of the 2,002 arrest-related deaths from 2003 through 2005 were due to homicide by state and local law enforcement officers. Alcohol and drug intoxication caused 13 percent of the deaths, followed by suicides at 12 percent, accidental injury at 7 percent and illness or natural causes, 6 percent. The causes of the deaths for the remaining 7 percent were unknown.

The highly populated states of California, Texas and Florida led the pack for both police killings and overall arrest-related deaths. Georgia, Maryland and Montana were not included in the study because they did not submit data.

Most of those who died in custody were men (96 percent) between the ages of 18 and 44 (77 percent). Approximately 44 percent were white; 32 percent black; 20 percent Hispanic; and 4 percent were of other or multiple races.

"Keep in mind we have 2,000 deaths out of almost 40 million arrests over three years, so that tells you by their nature they are very unusual cases," said Christopher J. Mumola, who wrote the study.

"Still, they do need to be looked at to determine whether police training can be better or practices can be better," he said.

State laws and police department policy typically let officers use deadly force to defend themselves or others from the threat of death or serious injury. Deadly force also is allowed to prevent the escape of a suspect in a violent felony who poses an immediate threat to others.

The Justice Department study released Thursday suggests that most of the police killings would be considered justified, although it does not make that final determination. About 80 percent of the cases involved criminal suspects who reportedly brandished a weapon "to threaten or assault" the arresting officers.

Another 17 percent involved suspects who allegedly grabbed, hit or fought with police. More than one-third of the police killings, or about 36 percent, involved a suspect who tried to flee or otherwise escape arrest.

The report was compiled at the request of Congress in 2000 after the 1997 struggle between New York police and Louima, a black security guard who left the precinct house bleeding after officers jammed a broken broomstick into his mouth and rectum. A few years later, two police shootings of unarmed black men followed, including Diallo, who was shot 41 times after he reached into his pocket for a wallet.

Since then, following police sensitivity training, New York has seen a few killings involving suspects and officers, including last year's shooting of Sean Bell, an unarmed black bridegroom-to-be whom police say they believed was reaching for a gun.

Other findings:

Among law enforcement, 380 officers were killed in the line of duty over the three-year period and 174,760 were reportedly assaulted, according to FBI data. Most of the deaths were accidental (221), while 159 were homicides.

Blacks were disproportionately represented in arrest-related deaths due to alcohol or drug intoxication (41 percent vs. 33 percent for whites); accidental injury (42 percent vs. 37 percent for whites); and unknown causes (46 percent vs. 39 percent for whites)

On the Net

Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

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

Where does Baca get his material?

Since when are "quotas" an innovative "new" form of policing? Been there done that. Management 101 Baca. Nothing in the Sheriff's department is innovative from what we have seen. Their crime stats were wrong for 2006 and it takes months for them to be posted even with the wrong data. Then they are next to unusable as there is no easy way to compare crimes, cities or date ranges. Just look at their stats page compared to other large departments like LAPD. LAAG asked for 2006 stats in spring 2007. No response. Ever. At all. Their computer systems are antiquated which is why their crime data and their response and cost data are so inaccurate. It is a big and an old department and not as nimble as smaller departments yet other departments of the same size are more "innovative". Just compare the websites of www.lasd.org with www.lapdonline.org. The difference might be attributed to the fact that LASD promotes from within (regardless of the Sheriff being elected), whereas LAPD gets chiefs through extensive job searches from the entire country. That is where they got "Broadway" Bill Bratton (we call him Broadway as he has never met a camera he did not like). The problem with sheriff elections is that there are never any real opponents. Most know once they run against the incumbent and loose their career is over.

When LAAG thinks of the LASD "innovative" is not a term that comes to mind. Lethargic, bloated, slow, bureaucratic, overpriced, inefficient, lazy, unorganized. Those are the terms that come to mind.

If LASD wants to be innovate here are some ideas to start with:

1. When people email or call LASD about an issue, respond, in the same manner, promptly, that you will look into the issue (or wont and why) and then follow up with the result (or no result). In the private sector we call it customer service. You should try it.

2. Get going on crime stats as you hold these up a some sort of a Holy Grail as to your usefulness. Look here for real ideas on innovation.

3. The Lakewood PAVE (Partnership, Accountability, Visibility, and Enforcement) Program is a beat program where deputies who work in the City of Lakewood are made accountable for specific geographical areas. In addition to their regular duties, deputies are assigned to individual beats to better serve Lakewood neighborhoods. PAVE Deputies are responsible for interacting with residents, overseeing schools and parks in their respective areas and knowing the specific concerns and issues in their beat.

LAAG requested all the contact info for the PAVE deputies to post here as it was not posted anywhere on the LASD site. The "A" in PAVE means accountability. Without ways to contact these deputies we cant hold them accountable.

4. How about a Sheriff blotter like LAAG asked for months ago? (see related story)

Baca quotes from Jack Kennedy below and in a way seems to try to compare himself to the late President. To borrow a phrase from Senator Bentsen in the 1988 debates with Dan Quale: "Sheriff, you're no Jack Kennedy"..(for details read here)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-baca9oct09,1,6454891.story
Blowback
Criticism is the cost of police innovation The arrest-contest incident in Lakewood is not an indication of poor county policing, says Sheriff Lee Baca. By Lee Baca

October 9, 2007

The recent criticism of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department reminded me of a statement President Kennedy made in 1961 regarding his reform-minded approach to Latin America, which at the time was causing consternation among many of the old guard in government: "My experience in government is that when things are noncontroversial, beautifully coordinated and all the rest, it may be that there is not much going on," he said. "We are attempting to do something about Latin America, and there is bound to be ferment. If the ferment produces a useful result, it will be worthwhile." Soon after this statement, Kennedy and his administration averted a global nuclear disaster that has come to be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Obviously the recent criticism of the Sheriff's Department is not by any stretch of the imagination on the level of U.S. foreign policy in the early 1960s. However, Kennedy was trying something new, and it was causing controversy.

Since I have been elected sheriff, I also have been trying something new, and it too has caused some controversy. I want every department member, regardless of their standing, to be leaders in this department so that they can act independently of the bureaucracy to do their jobs right.

In fact, when I address a room full of deputies or professional staff, I always start by saying: "I see a room full of leaders." Furthermore, I always ask department members: "What new thing am I willing to do to make a difference?"

Most recently, a leader in the Lakewood station undertook an informal arrest competition among deputies. This idea was to boost morale and increase productivity among the deputies. It was a well-intentioned, ill-conceived idea.

When you try new things, there will be mistakes. We will not hide from them. We will be accountable. When I learned of the contests, I stopped them. I also was criticized for not being aware of the informal contests sooner. The station's captain knew about the contest and allowed it to go forward. But the key to growing as a leader is making decisions without constant interference from your superiors.

Again, I applaud the initiative but not the result. Law enforcement is not about contests, it is about quality.

I am called by some a "public safety reformer." Perhaps there's some truth to that, but that does not mean I ignore best practices of law enforcement. My deputies know what is right and what is wrong. They will stay well within the legal and moral boundaries while applying common sense and fairness in all they do.

So how are we doing with this leadership approach to public safety?

Crime is down in Los Angeles County, with homicides and rapes down by 13.02% and 13.36%, respectively. Homicides in Compton alone are down by nearly 50% over the spike in 2005.

We are on the verge of opening a gang emergency operations center that for the first time in the history of this great county will bring together all resources under one roof to combat the scourge of gangs. We have recently opened a new state-of-the-art regional crime lab.

Our Office of Independent Review is considered the model of law enforcement oversight nationwide, with one of our OIR attorneys recently selected to run the oversight of Chicago's police department.

Our Los Angeles Sheriff's Department University has graduated scores of sheriff's department personnel with bachelor's and master's degrees, with the full support of this department. I have long held that the better the education, the better the department.

And finally, by the end of this year, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department will have recruited more than 2,600 new deputy sheriffs.

When you try new ideas, pave new roads, pioneer new innovations, there is "bound to be ferment. If the ferment produces a useful result, it will be worthwhile."

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is producing a public safety result much more than worthwhile. It is one that is essential to keep us safe and secure well into the 21st Century.

Lee Baca is sheriff of Los Angeles County.


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