Newest articles and comments on The Sacramento Press written by Kelly Krehbiel

Kelly Krehbiel on "Kings to stay in Sacramento – for now"

2011-05-02T17:35:22Z

Is this supposed to be good news? They've said it themselves, "if an arena plan cannot be finalized in a timely fashion, the NBA’s relocation committee has assured Maloof Sports and Entertainment that it will support an application to move the franchise to another market". Really hard to see how this isn't just our fair city being held hostage for another year; the ransom being a new arena complex we probably don't need. One would think that the city would be looking for ways to fill any void left by the kings leaving; not by begging them to stay -- but by instead capitalizing on what makes Sacramento a destination. In my mind, an NBA team has never been one of those things.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Cultivating a healthy comment ecosystem"

2010-06-24T20:00:06Z

I also agree that mentioning him by name is bad form. While I haven't had the debatable pleasure of interacting with this particular individual much, I suspect some might deem it 'Troll Food'. After all, they tend to thrive on notoriety.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Cultivating a healthy comment ecosystem"

2010-06-24T19:56:41Z

I'm a tremendous fan of self-moderated communities, and I think that if given the feature set, your readers would pull it off in fine style. You've provided the ability to rate comments, all that's left is to tie those ratings to thresholds that severely obscure comments that are consistently down-rated by the community. (The text of such entries becomes either extremely light gray, or their backgrounds become very dark.) Those who wish to read them still can, however they aren't as prevalent to those looking for comments of value. Some sites take it a step further and hide down-ranked comments, requiring a + click to display them. http://www.wow.com uses a comment system such as this -- yah, I'm one of *those* geeks. =) Such a system discourages trolls by making it 100% clear to them that their actions aren't appreciated, and that any such content will quickly become that much harder to see if it doesn't bring some value to the discussion. It also completely takes you guys out of the censorship business, which I can only imagine will eliminate any fallout from necessary actions such as this. Take it a step further to automatically ban anyone who only contributes 'Greys', and you've got yourself a system that manages everything all by itself, without making Sacpress out to be the bad guys. Pity folks can't behave themselves and act like adults. While you can't change behavior, systems such as this can at least encourage the type of community you're looking to foster here.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Local Accredited Senior Appraiser Unites Accounting & Appraisal Acumen"

2010-02-12T23:43:09Z

Can't wait to see this on CNN.

Kelly Krehbiel on "City cracks down on code violations "

2009-08-20T00:03:19Z

I don't view this as a good idea - at all. These properties would likely become centers for crime, not havens of opportunity.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Ask Officer Michelle - The Dog's Bite is Worse than the Bark!"

2009-07-27T21:37:16Z

Great advice on both counts. :) True attack dogs like those used in the military and law enforcement are trained relentlessly to perfect their abilities over many months before they ever see service. These dogs then re-use their training at regular intervals to keep them sharp. In my years of experience with dogs, I've found it to be neither practical nor effective to train your household pet to attack. It's better to instead reinforce what dogs do best - Sound the Alarm. Before you can begin to teach your dog to react to unique situations (or anything else for that matter), you have to understand how dog society works. Dogs are pack animals, which means that every dog abides by a very specific hierarchy. This hierarchy starts and ends with the Alpha, who is top dog in the pack. Every pack has its one leader, which the rest follow without question. Your dog considers your family to be his pack. (Even if that 'family' is just you and the dog.) The first step to effective training is to ensure that you are that leader. If you have any question about whether you're the alpha or not, then it's probably safe to assume that you're not. This makes training incredibly difficult, because if you aren't the Alpha, then your will has no bearing on how the dog will behave - they will instead try to train you. It may seem amusing to think of a dog training its owner, but it really can lead to some very serious issues. Most dogs end up in the pound over this very problem, as their owners can't control them. All of that said, here's precisely how I reinforced this 'alertness' training with my dog Cosmo: Note: this information can be very dangerous if improperly applied. If you have any doubts about your ability to train your dog, please contact a professional. As Alpha, you have to know when your pup has reached his or her limits, and tone down your efforts when that happens. If you over-do this, your dog can quickly become stressed, which adversely effects the training process in many ways. It can also lead them to attack in situations where it's unnecessary. Be aware of the dangers, and use this information at your own risk. NEVER apply this training to every-day occurrences, such as the mailman's visit or other common events. Not only will it defeat the purpose, but is incredibly unsafe, and can cause your pooch serious mental harm. To train my dog to be more alert, I would start by modifying my temperament and body language whenever I heard a strange noise, or when someone would knock on the front door. The idea is to come across as cautiously nervous, but not frightened. (Dogs are masters of body language and can sense the slightest change of emotion.) Next, I would immediately approach the sound of the noise, asking Cosmo in a low whisper, "What's that?". I'd repeat this phrase quickly, and with great urgency, whispering or speaking in low tones all the while. (In reality, the sound comes across as 'wassat', and serves to heighten his attention in whatever we're focusing on.) The result of modifying body language and using this verbal cue is that most dogs become very nervous, and whine and/or bark in response to the situation. Any noise at all should be rewarded with praise, which will also help to calm them after the fact. I still do this occasionally to this day, but only to things that don't often occur. He's since learned to identify sounds that are unusual and immediately sounds the alarm when they occur. Anyone so much as approaching the front door usually sets him off. The other side of this training is teaching him to stand down. This starts with praise after he makes a noise, but if he continues, it's as simple as stating his name in a sharp tone of voice, then rewarding him with affection once he stops. Basically, once the threat has passed, you must immediately relax, and prompt him to do the same. If you miss this step, he can remain amped up - even when people are allowed to come inside, which can be extremely dangerous. Following this method OCCASIONALLY should increase Fido's awareness of his surroundings, making you feel safer. :)

Kelly Krehbiel on "Commentary: The Budgetary Elephant in the Room"

2009-07-20T23:02:59Z

I definitely agree - the flip side of 'reversing inherent penalties associated with saving money' is to enact measures that penalize departments that spend more than their share. Taking accountability to the department level should have largely positive effects, allowing them as individual departments to plan for what may ail them in the future. I just hope that more discussion begins to revolve around this very crippling problem. None of the solutions either party is talking about implementing will work under the current system until this issue of waste is addressed.

Commentary: The Budgetary Elephant in the Room

2009-07-20T18:21:32Z

It seems everyone is talking about it.

Sacramento still has no budget, and the cost of inaction alone is steadily approaching half a billion dollars. It's big news, with blame being cast on both sides. In a prime example of the definition of partisanship, our elected leaders can't seem to make up their minds. Granted, the decisions to be made are tough - stemming from a stagnant economy. But this in of itself isn't the big picture. It doesn't even address the crux of the issue. The entire argument and subsequent cost seems to entirely overlook the Elephant in the Room.

When I think about what goes on behind closed doors in the Capitol, I picture a frenzy of men and women in suits, fighting over a very large pie. Some wield better weapons than others, and few seem to have the interests of their constituents at heart. The laundry list of line items they debate over is staggering; police, fire, schools, public health, higher education, infrastructure, libraries, and public services - the list goes on and on. Each of these have powerful lobbies backing them, bending our elected leaders toward their will - further compounding the problem.

Even without the hurdles our political system creates, it's a huge undertaking - one that affects 36.7 million people. It's no wonder it takes time to sort it all out. As an aside, many of us are left wondering though; just what is it that our leadership had been doing leading up to the deadline? The budget's due date isn't a state secret... Its passing alone saves the state millions. So what gives?

There's a bigger problem though, one that's being overlooked from every angle. In my vision of our legislators 'at work', there's a rather timid, rather large elephant sitting in the middle of the room. He occupies plenty of space, but no one seems to care. They can't see him, even as he himself sits upon a very large portion of the imaginary pie.

This elephant is hard to name, but he represents the manner in which our individual state departments spend their money. He's not occupying a share of the pie that belongs to any one agency or initiative, but all of them. He's parked himself on the very center of the proverbial pie, eating up a vast share of the available pool of money. It takes a keen eye to see his effects, and a little experience working in or around any one of the many agencies and institutions that serve the business of running California.

Based on my experience, here's how it works:

In any one of our many agencies and institutions, there exist multiple departments, each of which is responsible for a set series of tasks. Some pertain to public services such as parking, public transit, libraries, etc. Others support infrastructure. Still others simply oversee the people who serve in these departments, be it from a human resources perspective, payroll, or training & development. There are many hundreds of these departments. Each department has a role it plays in the overall progress of the state's initiatives, and each one has an allotted amount of money. This money comes from the California State Budget, which serves as an allocation of funds to various state departments.

These departments are allocated a finite amount of money with which to undertake their initiatives. The decision for what to spend and how is largely left to the individual department leader(s). These leaders approve or deny requests to spend money from their subordinates. The requests cover everything from staples and other office supplies, to computer software and peripherals, to huge projects, and everything in between.

Here's where the problems begin. Each department is given a set amount of money to spend, and a set amount of time to spend it in. If for any reason they don't require the full amount they've been allocated, two things can (and typically do) happen. The first is that any amount left over when their time expires is lost. The second is that their budget allocation for the next cycle is often reduced by whatever amount they didn't spend. This means there is no incentive for individual departments to save money, only penalties for not spending it.

I like to demonstrate my points with scenarios, so let's consider an unlikely one here to demonstrate this effect:

Let's say that your spouse is responsible for your family budget. (S)he determines how much money is coming in, what money is to be spent, and where. Your spouse allocates a set amount of money for bills, entertainment, automotive upkeep, rent/mortgage, etc. One of the items within the budget is your meal allowance, which your spouse has set at $40 a week.

Now, let's imagine that on Sunday night, your spouse hands you $40 cash for your meal allowance. You put this in your wallet, and commence your week. Some days, you eat out. Others, you take a lunch from home. It's a busy week, so one day you don't eat lunch at all. You know how much you have to spend, but by the time Sunday rolls around again, you have $10 left.

You ask your spouse about your meal allowance for the coming week, but before they hand it over they ask, "How much do you have left from last week?" You show them your $10, which they promptly take from you, and pocket.

They then take out $30, and give it to you as your meal allowance for the coming week. Puzzled, you look at this and ask why it's been reduced. "Clearly, you don't need as much as I gave you." They reply.

Confused, you ask for the funds to be increased over several weeks, and have little success. Each time Sunday comes around again, you've ensured that every last dime is gone before you approach your spouse for the next week's allowance. You realize that if you don't spend it, you don't get to keep it. Worse still, you also get less to spend the next time around.

Unlikely though this may be in your personal life, it applies to an important lesson in how bureaucratic spending works. Sadly, this is how many of our state's departments are run. It demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the way our political system does business - one that will ensure that the problems we're facing now will never go away.

So what's the fix?

Simply put, it's to reverse the inherent penalties associated with saving money. This can only occur on a department level, but must be brought about by reform at the highest levels of the budgeting process. Until department leaders are confident that saving money won’t put their efforts deeper in the fiscal hole, we'll never see the progress we'd like.

I'm of the belief that departments should be rewarded for the savings they bring about. I consider it akin to training dogs or small children - you simply reward the behaviors you like to see, and discourage those you don't. There's several ways this could be brought about through unique incentives for employees and departments alike. Any of them could truly serve the interests of the people of California, by mitigating spending on every level.

Sadly, this isn't likely to ever happen in California, largely because our elected leadership is often in the stalemate brought about by the 2/3rd's majority rule. This rule alone impedes our ability to get much of anything done (wasting significant amounts of time in the process), and makes our state leadership ineffective at bringing about change.

That said, department spending isn't a problem limited to our efforts here in Sacramento, but one that faces bureaucracy on every level nationwide, be it city, county, state, or federal. In our personal lives, we value our money and strive to save it. When we do so, we're rewarded. I believe that the system of government that reflects our will should absolutely do the same.

Until it does, I'm afraid the hole we're in will just keep getting deeper and deeper.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Demonstrators rally at Capitol in response to Prop 8 decision"

2009-05-28T17:07:09Z

They do not however have the same rights as other homosexuals who have been allowed to marry - and whose marriages are still valid.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Prop 8 decision: initial reaction"

2009-05-28T16:30:39Z

Well Jim, I don't know about you, but I have enough difficulty trying to keep one spouse happy - let alone several. Allowing two people who love each other the ability to wed is hardly polygamy. I can see how you came to this point though - people who closely follow religious ideologies often have difficulty distinguishing one perceived 'sin' from another. This isn't an argument about social values - in the slightest. If we truly wanted to address that issue, we as a society would be outraged at how some people choose to parent (or not.) We would not allow homelessness, and would in fact have a moral police to lock up anyone not contributing to society (there's plenty of people like that out there, as you know...) The question is, who are you to determine what's appropriate in terms of how others live? The reality is, the union of *anyone* doesn't affect who you are, or how you live. You have direct control over you and yours, and it really is enough for you decide that it's simply not for you. Live and let live. I believe in most cases, the vehement opposition to homosexual marriage is largely grounded in homophobia. That it's been wrapped up in ideological values is convenient, but fear is driving it for the most part. The campaigns in support of Prop 8 fed this fear by lying to the public. These campaigns are another point of contention - for obvious reasons. The discrimination comes in two parts - first, the plethora of homosexual individuals who were allowed to marry - and whose marriages are still valid - have been granted a right that others of the same sexual preference cannot have. Second, 'Domestic Partnership' does not allow all of the same rights as traditional marriage does. In summary, I see no legitimate harm in allowing two people of the same sex to wed. It also seems to me that most people on the opposing side of this argument are either very closed minded, or very invested in their religious ideologies. I have no problem with the latter, until they begin using their ideological doctrine to tell others how to live.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Demonstrators rally at Capitol in response to Prop 8 decision"

2009-05-27T22:54:48Z

To me, it's not about gay people getting married (honestly, who cares?) I simply oppose the creation of a condition where discrimination became the rule of law. It's not hard to believe that 52% of California voters feel threatened by this issue. I'd ask them to live and let live. This isn't a moral issue, its one of equality. Simple as that.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Prop 8 decision: initial reaction"

2009-05-27T22:48:16Z

To me, it's not about gay people getting married (honestly, who cares?) it's about opposition to the creation of a condition where discrimination became the rule of law.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Civil liberties advocates protest city's plans to install surveillance system"

2009-05-27T20:48:50Z

To me, this issue is less about deterring crime, and more about solving crimes that have occurred. Video evidence can be difficult to refute in many cases, and has been instrumental in solving countless crimes of all types - all around the world. I believe that the concerns expressed by the ACLU are grossly exaggerated. People in public are going to be seen. Creating a record of that serves the greater good in many ways, each of which far outweigh any potential privacy concerns that may arise. Perhaps the ACLU can enlighten us as to what evil will befall us if these cameras are installed? I must be missing something - At worst, we'll be seen. In public...

R.I.P. KWOD

2009-05-22T23:31:42Z

As of Friday, May 22nd, 2009, Sacramento's Alternative Radio Station, KWOD 106.5 is no more.

I've been a native of Sacramento for over 10 years now, and for a majority of that time, KWOD ranked as one of my favorite local stations. Before I discovered other means to enhance my musical knowledge, I found its playlist to span the entire genre of Alternative, from Dave Matthews to Limp Bizkit. This 'Alternative' programming was introduced to the station in 1993, and despite some attempts to change it since, it was largely the format used until it's demise earlier today.

KWOD's heyday by most accounts occurred during the mid 90's, during which time they ranked amongst the highest-rated major-market alternative rock stations in the United States. It's hard to say if this drove their recent decision to drastically change formats and abandon the KWOD brand. Listeners to the station today will hear just how far they've thrown back to this golden age, as KWOD has been replaced with 'The Buzz', and enacted a tremendous change in format to a playlist that is exclusively 90's era music of all genres.

In a letter posted by the station's program manager Curtiss Johnson to its website, KWOD expreses its history, regret, and thanks:

"...it is so difficult to tell you that, after 18 years, KWOD is coming to an end. The last few years have been very challenging for KWOD; as it has been for the world of Alternative music, and the radio stations that play it, in general. ... Some of you may want to blame this decision on some faceless corporation. While KWOD does have a parent company, it’s not how it came down. This was a local decision that was both difficult and personal. We had to finally admit that our best efforts, over a number of years, were not going to produce the results we needed ... Your loyalty to the music, and to KWOD, is more appreciated than any of us can effectively express. So, we will leave it with a simple, genuine 'Thank you'… "

While it's sad to see KWOD bow out for good, I can't say that I'm surprised. Truth be told, I had largely abandoned the station after their failed programming change in March of 2005, during which time they had dropped all hard rock and metal from their playlist. The resulting track load was reminiscent of one of my favorite stations of all time (KEXP). It played an eclectic array of artists, with local talent mixed in with largely unrecognized artists - many of whom are fairly mainstream in the indie music scene. KWOD 2.0 - "Radio without Rules" proved to be short lived for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was an uprising by loyal listeners - many of whom were put off by the stations new 'emo' approach.

Changes with the station's parent company allowed them to switch back to their pre-2.0 rock position in October of 2005, bringing back their familiar Alternative tracklist. They've been suffering a tremendous decline in ratings ever since the early 2000's, and were never able to recapture the glory days of their highest ratings period ever in 1995.

I know of many people who are saddened by the changes at KWOD. They typically did a fair job of promoting local musicians and shows, and were more generous than other commercial stations when it came to playing listener requests. KWOD's demise may have been brought about by a lack of ratings, or it may simply be a sign of the times. Progam Manager Curtiss Johnson said it best - the past few years have been very challenging for the world of Alternative music. I suspect this has alot to do with the broad scope that 'Alternative Music' as a genre entails. Stations like KWOD find themselves attempting to appeal to their masses to stay alive. Sadly, their broad scope prevents them from keeping a loyal following, as someone is always put off by the music that's playing.

The only model of success that I see in the radio business as a whole is KEXP (formerly KCMU), a public radio station based in Seattle, WA. After the demise of KWOD 2.0, I sought to discover what options I had as a music lover, and found myself listening exclusively to KEXP, a station hundreds of miles away. I didn't have to listen to 18 minutes of commercials per hour, or 20 minutes of DJ talking points. I could hear new music every day - amazing stuff I'd never heard before by artists like The Arcade Fire, Ben Harper, Grandaddy, !!!, Death Cab for Cutie, and countless others. I could control my own exposure to the type of music I liked by simply choosing which time of day to tune in. (And regardless of the time of day - as KEXP archives every minute aired in the past two weeks.)

These types of services make KEXP invaluable, and are seldom found with other stations.

KEXP's customers are it's listeners, who not only support the station by spreading word about it, but also finance its efforts as members. During their last pledge drive, the station raised over $500,000 to continue its operations. These donations came from all around the world, including Sacramento. Listeners value the musical experience the station provides, and in some cases, they're willing to pay a premium for it. Single members have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the station in the past to keep it listener powered.

While this may read to some of you as a pitch for KEXP (and it may be...) the overall point is that radio is changing. KWOD's demise is a prime example of that. In successful cases like KEXP, we've seen that a radio station's customers does not have to be its advertisers. We've seen that major advertising conglomerates like Entercom and Clearchannel don't have to be at the reins to make a station thrive. Finally, we've seen that a radio station can make people feel empowered in many ways, and inspire them to fight with their pocket books to keep it alive.

I hope that local stations can find innovative ways to thrive much as KEXP has. That said, I won't be shifting my dial to 106.5 anytime soon - unless I feel the need to hear some Phil Collins or Ace of Bass.

Kelly Krehbiel on "State may take local funds, Sacramento sounds alarm"

2009-05-21T23:21:52Z

I think we're missing one glaring major problem with bureaucracy itself which is perpetuating these problems at the city, state, and federal level. The main problem as I see it is simply that fiscal budgets are allocations - not reflections of actual or necessary spending. Typically, individual department leaders are expected to spend their entire budget allocation, for fear it will be reduced next year, or eliminated altogether. The only way they feel they can justify the amounts they've been allocated is to spend more, regardless of the merit of what the money is actually being spent on. It's obscenely inefficient, and it's driving our country further and further into the hole. Instead of evaluating allocations, and making determinations on what costs are warranted, we're often stuck in this cycle of spending based on what was spent historically. It makes absolutely no sense, and reflects a fundamentally flawed system. If any individual were to handle their money in such ways, they'd be destitute in no time. This, coupled with public official's tendency to make decisions based on self preservation instead of the greater good is the root of the problem. I'm not going to champion the cause of turning every person into a tree-hugging cave dweller, however the reality is - in order for us to escape from this mess, we all have to learn to live with just a little bit less. So, if you happen to be in a position to question the practices of a state, federal, or local agency, you should do so. I find that often times things are done for no other reason than "That's how it's always been done." In this time of economic crisis, that simply isn't good enough. Questioning how things are done might bring about change, but the most effective solution will involve rewarding department leaders and staff for their savings. I can't imagine that such a program would be that difficult to implement.

Kelly Krehbiel on "Is Anyone Paying Attention?"

2009-05-14T20:12:04Z

I actually had a unique story idea about this the last time I went. It basically involved a subset of locals acquiring expired bread from local bakeries, and using this bread to 'fatten up' the wildlife in the pond. They'd then come back at night during the holidays and select a few for their festivities. Twisted to be sure, but I could think of no other justification for the massive amounts of bread some people seem to show up with. That said, let's all be especially vigilant during the holidays - ok? LOL