Corruption in River City

Charter Schools Can Close the Achievement Gap

2009-12-07T18:11:28Z

For many of Sacramento's neo-liberals and die hard union supporters, proof, based on research, that charter schools can do a much better job at educating our children than public schools, creates an uncomfortable dichotomy. They publicly wring their hands over the issue of the "achievement gap" while at the same time they rabidly attack those who support charter schools. These attacks on charter school supporters appears to boil down to one issue and one issue alone, their fanatical support for unionized public teachers. It appears on the face of their argument that having teachers in public employee unions is more important that the education of our children.

Sunday nights 60 Minutes drove a nail in the coffin of this debate. There is no question that private charter schools have the ability to do a much better job at educating our children, and at a much lower cost than we spend in California.

In the Charter program highlighted by 60 Minutes, the average cost per pupil is only $5000.00, in California we spend an average of almost $9,000.00 per pupil in public education. In California we spend almost twice as much, and get a much poorer outcome, by all measurable standards.

Regardelss of the cultural differences or national origin of the student population, it is a fact that strict teaching of academic fundamentals works. What was effective in 1909, is more effective than our current "modern" education system. Uniforms, strict discipline is the answer to closing the achievement gap.

To watch the 60 Minutes program see: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5914322n

I wonder, how many of the detractors of charter schools actually have school age children? As a parent, I dont want the politics of education to harm my children's chances at a quality education.

K Street: Proof Government is Not the Answer

2009-10-14T21:46:29Z

The problems with K Street will never be solved by government subsidies to wealthy developers. The philosophy that there can be no economic development without government intervention ignores the reality of our nation’s history and the fundamentals of what America was founded upon.

The unsolved problems with K Street can almost entirely be blamed on our past and present City Council. They allow housing to be destroyed to be replaced by businesses that only draw day time patrons. They put light rail down the middle of the street. They approved and subsidized that monstrosity currently called the Westfield Mall, which is a dark dreary barrier to Old Sacramento and the waterfront. They have restricted parking so much that only the brave venture to dodge the rabid parking enforcement. They subsidized massive (and mostly failed) business development without requiring an included housing element. They built a convention center which blocks off K Street from mid-town. They have completely ignored integrating K Street into the rest of downtown; they have intentionally isolated it like it is an island unto itself. They focus all of their attention on failed and unsustainable “economic development” which subsidizes only wealthy developers; the same developers who then devour and put out of business hard working and unsubsidized entrepreneurs. They repeat their mantra that, subsidies will spur on economic development. However, reality and the history of K Street has proven that this attitude is a complete failure. They have single handedly created an economic environment on K Street where only subsidized business can compete, there simply is no level playing field - exactly what their campaign contributors want. They have proven time and time again that even with hundreds of millions in subsidies, these businesses eventually leave when the benefits of the tax payer’s subsidies run out. Their subsidies artificially inflate commercial lease rates and property values, harming non-subsidized businesses and forcing them move or go out of business. The history of K Street proves that government intervention over the last 30 years has lead only to one failure after failure. Their solution? Stay the course, keep pumping in tax dollars, and increase the subsidies. Their overinflated egos will not allow them to believe that when it comes to K Street, and most other affairs, government is the problem, not the solution.

You want proof that government subsidies cannot solve K Street? To date, over the last three decades, the tax payers were forced to subsidize businesses and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into K Street. Yet despite all of these subsidies, most of those businesses have failed; K Street continues its decline. To date it is apparent that all subsidies on K Street have been a complete failure. What makes anyone think that pumping more money into that money pit will suddenly change anything, especially in our current economic times?

For some reason, Sacramentans have bought into the belief that businesses and people cannot survive or flourish without government intervention or subsidies. This philosophy is the antitheses of everything our country was founded upon, individualism, independent spirit, entrepreneurship, personal responsibility and self reliance. They take our tax dollars at gun point (try not paying your taxes) and give it to those who are already wealthy. Developers and businesses have been conditioned to not invest in K Street without a government subsidy. And why should they, our Council have always subsidized a handful of greedy developers that contribute heavily to their political campaigns. They give these greedy developers corporate welfare to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, (through SHRA) in what can only be described as a campaign contribution money laundering scheme. These hand full of developers donate heavily to campaigns, and it appears that in return, they get hundreds of millions of dollars in development subsidies.

Every major well known martini bar, hotel or restaurant downtown has been subsidized by our tax dollars. This is disgusting, diverts precious funds from where it is most needed, and is nothing but a theft of money by the government to give it to their developer benefactors.

If I didn't know any better, I would say that Sacramentans as a lot are un-American, anti-capitalist and anti-free market. We have evolved into City that believes that business can only survive through tax payer subsidies. We have evolved into a true micro-oligarchy, where the average citizen has absolutely no say in how our city is governed or how our tax dollars are spent. To even get on the Council, each candidate must first be blessed by the chosen few, the wealthy developers who control our City. The insane irony is that those on the Left in Sacramento, bend over backwards, and rabidly support the use of government’s power to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the very wealthy. Even if it means taking away the property, at gunpoint, of hard working business persons, only to turn around and give it away for free to the wealthy. These are the same wealthy people/developers that the Left bemoan that are the root of most evil in America, yet these same people cheer on the Council when they give developers anything they ask for.

The only role of our council should be to provide a broad vision, make zoning recommendations as to where they want commercial, residential or mixed use, review proposals, and to direct transit dollars to provide mass transit to best serve the appropriately zoned areas of downtown. The rest should be left entirely up to the free market. Despite what the Left in Sacramento would have you believe, history has proven time and time again that the independent American spirit, entrepreneurship and the free market works very well. If you believe that Sacramento has a lot to offer, like I do, then you should also understand that left to their own devices, investors would invest where they believe there is profit potential.

We must change our attitude that government is the answer to everything, and that business cannot survive without tax payer subsidies. This same philosophy, on a macro level, lead to the bail out of the Wall Street bankers, the very same scumbags that caused the economic collapse of our banking system. Our City Councils role should be limited to creating a level playing field, an equal economic environment on K Street. We need to allow Americans do what they do best, innovate, compete, and solve the problems of K Street.

Council Distirct 1: Cadidates Forum Tonight

2009-10-21T17:19:10Z

District One Candidates for City Council

Do you know who is running for District One City Council? Join your neighbors and other community members 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Oct. 21 at the South Natomas Community Center to meet and greet the four candidates:

•Angelique Ashby; Creekside Neighborhood Assoc.
•John Dahilig; Navy Veteran, Corpsman
•Lisa Kaplan; Natomas Unified School District Board Member
•Ray Tretheway; Incumbent

The community center is located at 2921 Truxel Road.

Despite Huge Deficit, CIty Continues to Hire

2010-03-07T15:39:34Z

Despite having an estimated $40 MILLION dollar deficit for the SECOND year ina row, The City of Sacramento (and the State of California)continue to hire unionized public employees in positions that could be outsourced to private companies for much less money to the tax payers.

Link

They will never lear.

District 1 Candidates: The Meet and Greet Q&A

2009-10-22T06:37:29Z

I attended the District 1 candidates meet and greet tonight at the Natomas Community Center, which was sponsored by the Natomas Community Association. Three candidates are currently vying for the Council seat which is currently held by Ray Tretheway.

The candidates are Angelique Ashby, Lisa Kaplan and incumbent Ray Tretheway.

Each of the candidates gave a five minute presentation and then split up and answered individual questions from community members. I asked each of the three candidate’s the following three questions.

1. Do you support the City’s plan to annex thousands of acres of farm land to the North of North Natomas? (This is known as the Natomas Joint Vision, some simply call it urban sprawl)

TRETHEWAY: “Yes…I helped write the Joint Vision.”

KAPLAN: “I don’t have enough information yet, to make an informed decision”

ASHBY: “Not at this time, I support infill and finishing current projects first.”

2. What do you believe is the reason for the increase in crime in Natomas over the last 8 years?

TRETHEWAY: “I disagree that crime has increased, it has actually gone down”

KAPLAN: “A lack of public safety… a lack of empowering neighborhoods with programs like neighborhood watch”

Ashby “A lack of police presence and allocation of police resources”

3. Given the recent revelation that City employees in the Planning Department issued building permits in violation of federal law, do you believe that these individuals should be terminated?

TRETHWAY: “yes”

KAPLAN: “Yes”

ASHBY: “Yes of course, if this was in the private sector wouldn’t we lose our jobs?”

For me tonight was a test, I did not attend this event planning on asking questions and posting them on Sac Press, but I believe that I will continue to do this throughout the campaign season and possibly in other district races. I definitely have many more questions of the D1 candidates, post more in the future.

Sustainability in Sacramento? Give me a break!...a response to Noss' article.

2009-09-21T19:10:33Z

I have to give big kudo's to Richard Noss, Jacob Griscom and RailBridge Cellars for hosting this event. The facility is fantastic for groups and the wine was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly, because being a bit of a wine snob, I wound have never thought I would like a wine our of Sacramento. I did. As for the featured speaker, Cecilia Jensen, I have nothing positive to say. She stated many things, that I’m sure in hindsight, she probably wishes she did not say.

Here are the top four tidbits I picked out:

A: She was hired as the sustainability manager for the County despite, not having any experience in sustainability.

B: She has no staff and no authority within the County to do ANYTHING.

C: She admitted that for the County, "the bottom line is ALWAYS about money." Meaning that in the end, revenue and taxation will always be more important to the County than environmental issues or sustainability. (Also meaning that urban sprawl, and the revenue raised by building cheap tract houses, is more important than the negative effects it creates on the environment)

D: That she and the County fought the federal government on NPDES enforcement. NPDES stands for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. It is a list of federal regulations that regulate storm water runoff. Storm water, you know the stuff that mostly falls from the sky, and goes through industrial sites, falls on roadways, or is simply drained into the storm water system after being used for industrial or commercial purposes, and which also carries toxic metals like mercury and lead, as well as a myriad of toxic petrochemicals into the drains…which all lead directly to the Sacramento River, which then feeds the Delta ecosystem. Yeah that storm water… Well, the federal government actually does some good occasionally, and enforcing NPDES is one of the good things they do. Well, in Sacramento, the local government wants to pollute our waterways, and they don’t want the federal government breathing down their neck while they do it.

Now after hearing Ms. Jensen drearily blather on for what seemed like an eternity, and thinking I would much rather be having a colonoscopy than having to listen to her, members of the audience had a chance to pose some questions. I was excited to hear these questions; I had high expectations from this crowd, after all they were all active and involved environmentalists weren’t they?... No they weren’t, or at least as could have been told by the questions that were asked… In fact, not one person asked a question on sustainability.

Well I waited until the very end to ask my two questions, after hearing the pointless questions and vapid and virtually unresponsive responses, I started to feel like my questions were going to go over as well as me taking a steaming dump in the middle of someone’s Christmas dinner table…

Question One: ( Asked mostly as a statement, but a question at the end..paraphrased…) “I see that the County hired you as the sustainability manager, yet gave you no staff and no authority to do anything…How can you as the sustainability manager defend the County as it annexes tens of thousands of acres of land, promotes urban sprawl, and continues to harm the environment by building tract houses and strip malls. I went ahead with my second questions and asked her to respond to both…

Question Two: ‘I find it offensive that the County would actually fight the federal government on enforcement of NPDES violations…NPDES was designed to protect the Sacramento river and the Delta…How can you defend wanting less enforcement of environmental laws… She stared into the crowd for at least ten seconds….blank stare…

I stated .. Don’t you have any responses to my questions? She offered nothing, I believe it was Richard Noss who stated…”You didn’t ask a question.” Well I believe I had, but regardless, I repeated my questions just to make sure she got it…

As for Urban Sprawl… She had NO RESPONSE AT ALL. She mumbled something about staff reports and sending them to the Supervisors…and then said…I have no response… As for wanting to reduce NPDES enforcement..she stated that the “ the NPDES laws were designed for cities like Los Angeles, and we felt it was unfair to enforce them in Sacramento, like they would in LA….” Well, she was completely wrong… NPDES was designed for EVERY community in America…pollution affects every watershed and every river and everyone’s groundwater equally…but it especially affects watersheds like the California Delta…and Sacramento sits on the banks of this watershed…. It was clear that Sacramento County just did not want to impose strict regulations on businesses…AKA the folks who donate to Supervisors campaigns…

All in all, I got the exact answers I expected from a County bureaucrat; mealy mouth and meaningless. I could not have asked for better responses actually…she was as honest as she could be….”I have no response” to we want fewer environmental rules in Sacramento.

While I applaud Richard Noss and Jacob Griscom for organizing and hosting the Sustainability forums, I have some constructive criticisms of their efforts. The single biggest hurdle to protecting the environment in Sacramento is the inability of environmentalists to organize in Sacramento. As one persona stated last month at the forum… “The lack of effectiveness of the environmental movement in Sacramento.” Is the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Noss & Griscom, started the Sustainability forum as an independent movement…this was a mistake; they should have organized it with ECOS. We need a united front in Sacramento, not a number of fractured and ineffective groups…mostly fighting for the same cause. Organization is always the most important part of any effort. I suggest rethinking your strategy, if you have one, and bring as many likeminded organizations and people together under one united umbrella.

Don’t allow Trojan horses to be involved with your efforts. There are many people, companies and/or special interests that will call themselves environmentalists, which will infiltrate your organization and control the agenda. They already have started; you are now apparently partners with the Sacramento Tree Foundation, the largest environmental Trojan horse in Sacramento. STF was started and is controlled completely by developers. Ray Tretheway, a City Councilman, a self proclaimed environmentalist, Executive Director of STF, is one of the most strident leaders of urban sprawl in Sacramento. Tretheway got into office by suing over environmental efforts, then dropping the lawsuit, only to become close friends with all of the developers, which put him into office and pays his Tree Foundation salary …He is the perfect Trojan horse, but he is just one of many in Sacramento…many of the others attend your Sustainability forums, and they will infiltrate your organization if they haven’t not already and control your entire agenda…if they haven’t already.

Finally, Richard Noss stated to me he is not interested in becoming politically active with his environmental group… My only response is…Then why are you doing this? To drum up business for yourself and Griscom? It appears that both of you are in businesses that make money off trying to appear Green… The ONLY avenue for environmentalists to make any change is through political pressure and activism, there is simply no other way…politicians only perform under two circumstances…out of greed or fear..Nothing else motivates them. You can’t buy them, they are already owned by developers…but you can make them fear you at the ballot box. So get active, get political or get out of the way. We don’t need another Trojan horse distracting those that truly care about the environment.