It is pretty lame that the homeless were evicted from their "Obama-villes", but who cares what the UN says? How arrogant that our Bill of Rights strived to protect property rights, while leftist europeans think everything is a "human right" from health care to housing to internet... while they go bankrupt making it happen. No thanks. Those homeless deserve better charity than being evicted from unused lands though. Its also ironic that KJ and co boycotted AZ last year for similar so called "rights" violations (arrogantly), while they signed it with pens made in China, the country with extermination vans. Pandering. Everyone needs to read some Rothbard or John Locke and quit bastardizing the words "rights".

To clarify - that's not what happened. The rep for the candidate that didn't respond was courteous, but informed me that they were busy doing more in-person forums and wouldn't have the time to respond to this questionnaire. It was not a matter of deadlines.

I mean this in no way as critical of the candidates answers (because I'm thankful for their time and thoughfulness in replying) but instead critical of my own questionnaire... if I ever do something like this again I will probably aim to include strictly Yes/No questions. I will try to attend the two candidates forums posted above. Thanks for sharing those. It would be helpful if anyone recorded and posted video of them as well for the online community. Hopefully we'll get some of these topics covered with Yes/No answers at the forums. :-) Thanks again to candidates who share their views on these important issues to the community!

I watched the City Council meeting when Land Park NIMBY's moaned & whined, then councilmember Angelique Ashby (not even her district) caved and suggested excluding Sutterville Rd from the study. There was no rhyme or reason to that decision, if anyone is familiar with West Sac and Sutterville Rd... just look at a map and you will see that allowing those homeowners sensible access to I-5 is just plain smart city planning. Land Park folks were absolutely being NIMBY's, because nobody wants to drive through their neighborhood... they just want freeway access and to get from Point A to Point B without driving through Points C, D, Y, and Z to get there.

The problem with the "99%" is that they have misdirected their anger. Wall Street is not the problem. Government is the problem. Wall Street does not have the Rule of Law to to use force, they influence politicians to do that. If Joe paid Frank $100 to punch you in the stomach... who is the villian? In this scenario - the Tea Party would blame Frank. The OWS would blame Joe. The OWS has their priorities mixed up. In order for you to remove the rights of a corporation, you would have to remove the rights of individiuals... because a corporation is just a group of individiuals(shareholders). If you want to restrict corporations, then also restrict the rights of: labor unions, clubs like Boys Scouts, or two guys standing on a street corner... because there is no difference between groups of people unless you want to violate the 1st Amendment whereby people are free to assemble & speak or act for common purpose. (But let's not pretend... the OWS movement is about socialism/communism and looting the wealthy. That's why they only talk about corporations & not unions)

If that were true (thought it's not), then change the Constitution why don't you? Pass a new amendment "Since well regulated militias are no longer needed, the right to bear arms may be infringed". Until then... deal with it. The Constitution was written in ink, not pencil.

This is a great story. Even if it wasn't your goal to "test the cops"... I think that was the most important part of your adventure.

This is hilarious... What if it's not a scammer, but a germ-o-phobe who wants to eat out... but KNOWS what really goes on in the kitchens of most restaurants. My bet is - this guy is a customer the next day after these phone calls.

Gayle, Do you really think pepper spray or a stun gun will be suitable defense against a predator who's entered your home? It is time to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. Keeping a loaded shotgun and/or revolver in your home should ease your concerns. As for walking around town... it's fairly safe since most of downtown is farily busy, but stick to well-lit streets with eyes on them.

Ditto man - you nailed it with that comment.

... and if anyone doesn't think the ballot language was confusing... imagine you are one of the large voter turnout for Prop 19 or governor, and read this... What would you make of it? "Shall the ordinance repealing increases in monthly water, sewer, garbage/solid waste disposal service rates approved by the Sacramento City Council in June 2009, setting these monthly utility rates at the amounts in effect on February 2010, and allowing the City Council to increase these rates without voter approval beginning July 2012 only if the rates are not increased above the annual increase in a specified consumer price index, be adopted?" This should make anyone who believes in democracy extremely angry. It's dishonest of City Council to not let voters decide an issue on it's merits by clearly representing it on a ballot. It's outright fraud.

"Steve Cohn ... led a "No on Measure B" campaign with Councilman Kevin McCarty and local union leaders." - Wow, big suprise local unions had anything to do with opposing this. "I think the tea party sort of anti-government, anti-tax (movement) – it doesn't have as strong an appeal in the city of Sacramento" - This statement is very true in Sacramento, #1 US city of government workers (see recent Sac Biz Journal article on that). It's why Steinberg, Matsui, et al never have to even campaign against their opponents. But I'll tell you a big reason why Measure B failed so dramatically. It's because of slimey tactics by City Council to make mincemeat out of the ballot language. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/12/2953196/councils-ballot-gobbledygook-tries.html When my wife voted, she filled out her entire ballot except Measure B... and had to ask me what it meant when I came home.

Well, my neighbor built a house on an empty lot and it took him 3+ years to navigate the departments, committees, and permits. Ask him if he would ever try that again.... well, maybe, if he could bribe some CDD officials.

Fine whatever... AB 32 will sink the state at the cost of local ARB jobs. Pay a dollar for a dime. City leadership doesn't surprise me with another short-sighted move. YES on 23.

PW, to that point - it follows that the CDD's disarray & the permit process does nothing to incentivize infill. It 'shoo's developers away. I bet most folks who praise the permit process haven't dealt with it much. I wanted to install a new window in my house. I called to ask if I needed a permit, and was instructed to come down to CDD/Planning. I waited an hour just to find someone to answer a simple question, before walking out & giving up on the entire plan due to frustration. Remember... the title of this article isn't "codes", it's "permits". They are very different issues.

I support codes, so far as they prevent one person from damaging another persons property. The permit process, however, is an entirely different matter and causes more harm than good. Instead of being reactive, and holding citizens accountable for code violations (which could in many cases be handled better in small claims courts anyways)... it makes doing business in the city painful. Most if not all the examples I listed do not protect property. E.g., the Happy Happy restaurant was not anoise pollution issue, it was the police dept abusing codes to punish a business for unrelated reasons.

An audit which I linked to in this article as an example of what happens when you rely on layers of bureaucracy to micro-manage private property & free-commerce: inefficiency & abuse.

On the contrary, many rules are born from special interests seeking to control others. E.g. medical marijuana dispensaries supporting moratorium to squash competition. Same goes for taxi cab permits, and local restaurants outlawing hotdog stands. Then there are the other cases where City simply wants revenue. I often wonder why they planted a sycamore tree in front of my house, which is known for aggressive roots raising sidewalks & not meant for narrow parking strips. Yet, they deny my permit to cut back the tree & will surely profit from sidewalk repair fees. This is at best negligence, at worst extortion.

The examples are not a joke either.. from figure models to miniature golf courses. It's all there in the city codes (first link in the editorial).

I also suspect that the City is violating Prop 218 by charging green waste "opt-out" (claw/pile pickup) residents more than those who use green waste containers. All residents benefit from claw pickup, even those with containers. The City seems to be shifting costs to "opt-out" folks, because the City is prevented by 1977 voter-passed ordinance from outright mandating containerization on residents.