I never thought I would be so happy to see gas priced at $3.99 a gallon. After paying $4.49 a gallon just a few weeks ago, it feels like a good buy. It is amazing what a little market pressure can do to bring down consumption, increase supply and lower prices.
Market forces cannot only balance supply and demand against price; it can also make our environment greener. Just like in the ’70s when we had the first oil shock, business and industry learned very quickly how to be more efficient and use much less energy to save money. The byproduct was cleaner air.
Government mandates did not make us more energy efficient. Individuals and business on their own made rational decisions to save money by using less energy. People did not buy smaller cars because of government CAFE standards. They bought smaller, fuel-efficient cars because they saved money; and if companies in Detroit did not want to build them, they would buy them from someone else in the world who would.
This latest oil shock, which is now subsiding, also made us look at becoming more energy efficient. It did not take a government mandate for airlines to mothball their older, less fuel-efficient planes; it was the $5-a-gallon jet fuel that did it. It wasn’t a governmental mandate that made us consolidate auto trips, take the metro or get rid of the sport utility vehicle; $4.50 a gallon did it.
Now I know what some of you are thinking: Now that prices are dropping, the pressure is off to conserve. Wrong. Even at $3 a gallon, the average hard-working American will want to save money and conserve. High energy prices also helped tip us into a recession.
Ask any small-business owner who serves the public. Not many people can afford to go out to dinner after they just put $100 in their tank. People will adjust and consume less fuel so they can have money for discretionary spending.
I am not the first to say we need a new paradigm on environmentalism in this country. The old paradigm was to use government red tape and litigation to stop any new power-generating facilities, highway construction or new housing. The old paradigm wanted a centralized bureaucracy that thwarted personal liberty, destroyed good-paying jobs and worked to keep us gridlocked until we all agreed to take a bus.
Most Americans consider themselves “green,” but at $4 per gallon they want us to drill, drill, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, offshore, anywhere. Most Americans want to protect the environment, but would be appalled to know almost every major solar energy project in the country is being stopped by litigation from the old-paradigm environmental groups saying they are bad for the environment. Solar energy bad? Please.
Billionaire businessman T. Boone Pickens is touting a plan for wind energy, yet windmill projects were killed off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard because it might affect sailing. Even discussing the cleanest of all energy sources, nuclear power, makes old paradigm environmentalists go apoplectic.
The new paradigm for being green has to be growing the economy while keeping the environment healthy at the same time. The left would have you believe that any increase in the standard of living is a detriment to the environment, when in fact the opposite is true.
Travel around the world, and it is easy to see. Democratically controlled countries with strong economies have cleaner air, cleaner water and are more environmentally friendly. It takes a strong economy to promote a strong environment.
It is true we need some government regulation with regards to polluting the air and water. It would not be fair if one manufacturer dumped untreated water in our rivers to get a cost advantage over a competitor that cleaned the water it used. These external costs need to be paid by the ones polluting; not everyone else.
The American public has now been awakened to the whole energy equation. No longer are they going to let the old-paradigm environmentalists scare them. People want answers to problems, not scare tactics to stop progress.
This will be my last column for at least a few months. I have decided to run for City Council in Costa Mesa, and the Daily Pilot editors and I agree it would not be fair to continue writing during the campaign.
However, no matter how the race turns out in November, I hope to be back writing again.
Thank you all for your comments and critiques of this column. It has been a privilege to write it.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Football Has its Home
Football and cheerleading practice kicked off last night in Costa Mesa at Parson’s Field behind Estancia High School’s Jim Scott Stadium.
The new and hopefully permanent (I will talk about that later) home of the Costa Mesa Pop Warner league fielded more than 275 kids for football and cheerleading.
The league has grown more than 50% in one year, so I decided to ask new league President Steve Mensinger how he did it. His response was direct and to the point.
“We re-created the program to exceed the expectations of the community with great coaches, a professionally structured administration and excellent facilities.”
Steve and I have been close friends and business associates for more than 15 years. My girls call him Uncle Steve, and to his sons I am Uncle Jim. I asked him this week to remind me why he got so involved.
It started three years ago when one of his sons was practicing in what Steve called the unlit drainage basin fields at the Farm Sports Complex just next to the soccer teams who were playing on the bright green fields under bright lights with a permanent concession stand.
When Steve asked another parent why they had the unlit fields in the drainage area, the response was that they were lucky to have a field at all.
Since its inception, the league has never had a home of its own. Year after year, it has been moved from one field to another. One year the league was moved to three different fields in a season. Soccer dominates the city politically, and that was the way it had always been.
Mensinger, a volunteer assistant coach at the time, immediately got on the phone with then-Mayor Allan Mansoor and asked what it would take for the team to get a permanent home.
Mansoor connected him with Recreation Manager Jana Ransom, and they started by looking at aerial views of the city. When they came upon a sorry-looking but underused field next to what is now the Waldorf School, Mensinger knew he had a diamond in the rough. Right next door and still under construction was Estancia High School’s new stadium with its year-round synthetic field.
The big question remained whether or not Pop Warner could use the stadium for their home games. Councilwoman Katrina Foley then set up a meeting with Mensinger and Estancia High School Principal Phil D’Agostino. Steve made his pitch, and Phil welcomed the league with open arms.
The Newport-Mesa School district and the city approved the arrangement as part of the joint-use program the city and district have in place. To show their appreciation, league officials changed their mascot from the Mustangs to the Eagles to mirror their host school.
Volunteers worked hundreds of hours to get the field in shape. They repaired fences and built ramps for the two cargo containers that doubled as storage facility and concession stand.
I called Ed Baum, the director of football, who started with the league in 1967 when his now 53-year-old son was in seventh grade. He told me this was the most participants Costa Mesa ever had, and it reminded him of the league’s hey-day in the late ’60s and early ’70s when “we won all the conference titles and trophies.”
Ed told me the most important function of the league was not to see how many kids went on to play football or cheerlead later in high school or college.
“What we are doing here is teaching life’s lessons of hard work, discipline and character,” he said. “We are more concerned about the type of people they become when they are 35 than how many touchdowns they make in high school.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Pop Warner football started in Costa Mesa in 1963. It is the oldest youth sports organization in the city. The program, which has had its ups and downs, is enjoying a rebirth after 45 years.
If anyone one is interested, there are still some spots open on the 10 teams that are categorized by age and weight, including a flag football team for 5- and 6-year-olds. The cheerleaders also have a squad that starts at 5. Come to Parsons Field to sign up or get information at http://www.costamesapopwarnerfootball.com/.
Opening day for the newly christened Costa Mesa Eagles is Aug. 16 at Jim Scott Stadium. Hope to see you there.
The new and hopefully permanent (I will talk about that later) home of the Costa Mesa Pop Warner league fielded more than 275 kids for football and cheerleading.
The league has grown more than 50% in one year, so I decided to ask new league President Steve Mensinger how he did it. His response was direct and to the point.
“We re-created the program to exceed the expectations of the community with great coaches, a professionally structured administration and excellent facilities.”
Steve and I have been close friends and business associates for more than 15 years. My girls call him Uncle Steve, and to his sons I am Uncle Jim. I asked him this week to remind me why he got so involved.
It started three years ago when one of his sons was practicing in what Steve called the unlit drainage basin fields at the Farm Sports Complex just next to the soccer teams who were playing on the bright green fields under bright lights with a permanent concession stand.
When Steve asked another parent why they had the unlit fields in the drainage area, the response was that they were lucky to have a field at all.
Since its inception, the league has never had a home of its own. Year after year, it has been moved from one field to another. One year the league was moved to three different fields in a season. Soccer dominates the city politically, and that was the way it had always been.
Mensinger, a volunteer assistant coach at the time, immediately got on the phone with then-Mayor Allan Mansoor and asked what it would take for the team to get a permanent home.
Mansoor connected him with Recreation Manager Jana Ransom, and they started by looking at aerial views of the city. When they came upon a sorry-looking but underused field next to what is now the Waldorf School, Mensinger knew he had a diamond in the rough. Right next door and still under construction was Estancia High School’s new stadium with its year-round synthetic field.
The big question remained whether or not Pop Warner could use the stadium for their home games. Councilwoman Katrina Foley then set up a meeting with Mensinger and Estancia High School Principal Phil D’Agostino. Steve made his pitch, and Phil welcomed the league with open arms.
The Newport-Mesa School district and the city approved the arrangement as part of the joint-use program the city and district have in place. To show their appreciation, league officials changed their mascot from the Mustangs to the Eagles to mirror their host school.
Volunteers worked hundreds of hours to get the field in shape. They repaired fences and built ramps for the two cargo containers that doubled as storage facility and concession stand.
I called Ed Baum, the director of football, who started with the league in 1967 when his now 53-year-old son was in seventh grade. He told me this was the most participants Costa Mesa ever had, and it reminded him of the league’s hey-day in the late ’60s and early ’70s when “we won all the conference titles and trophies.”
Ed told me the most important function of the league was not to see how many kids went on to play football or cheerlead later in high school or college.
“What we are doing here is teaching life’s lessons of hard work, discipline and character,” he said. “We are more concerned about the type of people they become when they are 35 than how many touchdowns they make in high school.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Pop Warner football started in Costa Mesa in 1963. It is the oldest youth sports organization in the city. The program, which has had its ups and downs, is enjoying a rebirth after 45 years.
If anyone one is interested, there are still some spots open on the 10 teams that are categorized by age and weight, including a flag football team for 5- and 6-year-olds. The cheerleaders also have a squad that starts at 5. Come to Parsons Field to sign up or get information at http://www.costamesapopwarnerfootball.com/.
Opening day for the newly christened Costa Mesa Eagles is Aug. 16 at Jim Scott Stadium. Hope to see you there.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Solution to Tax Trouble is Simple
Why do tax rates always go up? When the economy is cruising along at 100 miles per hour and taxes are flooding the city, county and state treasury, why aren’t tax rates lowered? When homes are selling like hot cakes and the property tax revenue increases 500% on the same house, why aren’t property tax rates lowered?
When revenue from taxes such as the Transient Occupancy Tax that visitors pay cities for the pleasure of renting a hotel room increases 41% in three years, why aren’t the hotel tax rates lowered?
I ask because whenever the economy slows, we have all this pressure to raise the tax rates. So why is that?
It is actually very simple.
Government has learned to spend more revenue in the good times and cry poor in the bad times. During the bad times, you raise tax rates to balance your budget; during the good times, you raise your budgets to spend all that newfound money you have from the previously raised tax rates. Then the cycle repeats itself during the bad times when government again raises rates to pay for increased spending it committed to in the good times.
Here is a fact the tax raisers always want to blur: The amount of actual taxes brought in year after year is always higher than the previous year. The problem is the spending in some years goes even higher.
Government does not have a revenue problem — it has a spending problem.
The distinction, which is purposely blurred by those who want to raise tax rates, is the difference between raising taxes or raising tax rates. For example, let’s look at the Transient Occupancy Tax in Costa Mesa. When it is said that the Transient Occupancy Tax has not been raised in 27 years, those who want to raise taxes are somehow trying to tell the public that the amount of taxes paid has not increased, when in fact it has.
The Transient Occupancy Tax collected by the city of Costa Mesa increased 9.94% from the fiscal year ending in 2004 to fiscal year 2005. It increased again by a whopping 17.75% from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006, and again increased 9.26% from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007.
All in all, the Transient Occupancy Tax collected in Costa Mesa went up 41% in three years. This happened without raising the tax rate one iota. Not bad, a tax that was not raised in 27 years increased by 41% in three years.
When a city or state does a budget, it is in for a world of hurt if that budget spends all the excess revenues in good times and expects those good times to continue. They never do. Costa Mesa is projected to spend 6.47% more for fiscal year 2009 than fiscal year 2008. The problem is the projected revenue in out years may not keep pace.
The burning question in Costa Mesa is how we survive when the amount we want to spend is more than we have coming in.
It is easy — spend less.
This may sound ridiculously simple, but that is because it is. Let’s just look at the Finance Department’s report dated July 8, 2008.
The second reason stated that expenses are higher than they could be is due to the many facilities added over the last several years, such as TeWinkle Athletic Field, Volcom Skate Park, expansion of Brentwood Park, renovation of the police facility and development of sports fields at Fairview Development center. Adding new facilities in good years is prudent. Continuing to add them in a slowing economy is not.
Here’s a thought: When the economy slows down, do not add new facilities. The citizens will understand.
The City of Costa Mesa General fund budget has grown 37% in five years; not too bad. Compared to other cities in Orange County, we are in great shape. We get almost half of our general fund budget from sales taxes where other cities get about one-third. Thank you, Henry Segerstrom and family.
There are other ways to increase income in our city, and that is to increase the tax base.
When the economy slows, we must take that time to plan for areas like the Westside, which can be a major improvement for the city and help bring in more future tax revenue without raising the rates.
When revenue from taxes such as the Transient Occupancy Tax that visitors pay cities for the pleasure of renting a hotel room increases 41% in three years, why aren’t the hotel tax rates lowered?
I ask because whenever the economy slows, we have all this pressure to raise the tax rates. So why is that?
It is actually very simple.
Government has learned to spend more revenue in the good times and cry poor in the bad times. During the bad times, you raise tax rates to balance your budget; during the good times, you raise your budgets to spend all that newfound money you have from the previously raised tax rates. Then the cycle repeats itself during the bad times when government again raises rates to pay for increased spending it committed to in the good times.
Here is a fact the tax raisers always want to blur: The amount of actual taxes brought in year after year is always higher than the previous year. The problem is the spending in some years goes even higher.
Government does not have a revenue problem — it has a spending problem.
The distinction, which is purposely blurred by those who want to raise tax rates, is the difference between raising taxes or raising tax rates. For example, let’s look at the Transient Occupancy Tax in Costa Mesa. When it is said that the Transient Occupancy Tax has not been raised in 27 years, those who want to raise taxes are somehow trying to tell the public that the amount of taxes paid has not increased, when in fact it has.
The Transient Occupancy Tax collected by the city of Costa Mesa increased 9.94% from the fiscal year ending in 2004 to fiscal year 2005. It increased again by a whopping 17.75% from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006, and again increased 9.26% from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007.
All in all, the Transient Occupancy Tax collected in Costa Mesa went up 41% in three years. This happened without raising the tax rate one iota. Not bad, a tax that was not raised in 27 years increased by 41% in three years.
When a city or state does a budget, it is in for a world of hurt if that budget spends all the excess revenues in good times and expects those good times to continue. They never do. Costa Mesa is projected to spend 6.47% more for fiscal year 2009 than fiscal year 2008. The problem is the projected revenue in out years may not keep pace.
The burning question in Costa Mesa is how we survive when the amount we want to spend is more than we have coming in.
It is easy — spend less.
This may sound ridiculously simple, but that is because it is. Let’s just look at the Finance Department’s report dated July 8, 2008.
The second reason stated that expenses are higher than they could be is due to the many facilities added over the last several years, such as TeWinkle Athletic Field, Volcom Skate Park, expansion of Brentwood Park, renovation of the police facility and development of sports fields at Fairview Development center. Adding new facilities in good years is prudent. Continuing to add them in a slowing economy is not.
Here’s a thought: When the economy slows down, do not add new facilities. The citizens will understand.
The City of Costa Mesa General fund budget has grown 37% in five years; not too bad. Compared to other cities in Orange County, we are in great shape. We get almost half of our general fund budget from sales taxes where other cities get about one-third. Thank you, Henry Segerstrom and family.
There are other ways to increase income in our city, and that is to increase the tax base.
When the economy slows, we must take that time to plan for areas like the Westside, which can be a major improvement for the city and help bring in more future tax revenue without raising the rates.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Nanny State Says ‘No Cellphones’
I have to admit, when California started giving out tickets for not wearing a seat belt, my knee-jerk reaction was to oppose it.
My attitude was to ask what right does the state have to force people to wear a seat belt? Common sense should be enough.
This was one more reason why California has been known as the mother of all nanny states. Our legislators love telling us what they think is good for us. If we disagree, they use the power and force of the state to get compliance.
It’s kind of like a nanny making you finish your Brussels sprouts.
Only now if you continue to disobey, instead of not getting dessert, your driver’s license can be revoked.
However, after some consideration I began to understand the arguments about how it saves lives and severely reduces injury in an accident. The numbers made sense.
I realized that a lot of the same people who chose not to wear a seat belt also did not have enough insurance to pay for their medical care when they got in a wreck. Their medical care was going to be paid by someone, and someone usually means the taxpayer. My logic was that if wearing seat belts cuts down on serious injuries, then we all save money on medical care if people wear them.
I still may not like it, but at least we have some data, and it saves lives and money.
But then the nanny state struck again with the California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act of 2006.
As we all know, this gem became effective Tuesday. Putting a cellphone to your ear while driving a car is now a crime.
Now let me come clean: I spend about 3,600 minutes of my life on a cellphone each month. That’s correct: I spend 60 hours a month, 15 hours a week or 2.14 hours a day on a cellphone. I also drive a car during a large portion of that time.
To say this law affects me would be an understatement. Before you start telling me all I need is a wireless earpiece, you should know that I have spent hundreds of dollars trying to find one that works. I have a drawer full of them.
The batteries run down, they are not comfortable to wear, and they sound like you are in a cave to whomever you are talking to.
I have had to end calls because I cannot understand what someone is saying to me and vice versa.
The fact of the matter is there is zero evidence that talking on a cellphone while driving is a safety issue.
In fact, the author of this bill, Santa Cruz Sen. Joe Simitian, who has been introducing an almost identical bill since 2002, has no data that this will save any lives or prevent accidents.
The CHP, which was required to do a study, concluded that they may cause some distraction, but they had no statistics to show it caused accidents.
In fact, a 2003 study by the AAA’s Foundation for Traffic Safety found that ‘reaching’ and ‘leaning’ were the most prevalent distractions when driving. Using a cellphone was eighth on the list.
I have no problem driving a car safely and talking on the phone at the same time, and I think most Californians can do the same.
Just because someone can’t chew gum and drive a car at the same time is no reason the rest of us should have to stick metal earpieces with blinking lights in our ears.
So here is what I propose: Simitian cites a recent study by Jed Kolko of the Public Policy Institute of California, which says the new law will lower yearly traffic deaths in California by 300, or about 7%.
If traffic deaths are down by July 1 of 2009 by any significant amount, then the law should stay in place.
If not, the law gets repealed. However, my guess is that if traffic deaths do decrease, Simitian will push what he has always wanted: to outlaw cellphones in cars entirely. You heard it here first.
My attitude was to ask what right does the state have to force people to wear a seat belt? Common sense should be enough.
This was one more reason why California has been known as the mother of all nanny states. Our legislators love telling us what they think is good for us. If we disagree, they use the power and force of the state to get compliance.
It’s kind of like a nanny making you finish your Brussels sprouts.
Only now if you continue to disobey, instead of not getting dessert, your driver’s license can be revoked.
However, after some consideration I began to understand the arguments about how it saves lives and severely reduces injury in an accident. The numbers made sense.
I realized that a lot of the same people who chose not to wear a seat belt also did not have enough insurance to pay for their medical care when they got in a wreck. Their medical care was going to be paid by someone, and someone usually means the taxpayer. My logic was that if wearing seat belts cuts down on serious injuries, then we all save money on medical care if people wear them.
I still may not like it, but at least we have some data, and it saves lives and money.
But then the nanny state struck again with the California Wireless Telephone Automobile Safety Act of 2006.
As we all know, this gem became effective Tuesday. Putting a cellphone to your ear while driving a car is now a crime.
Now let me come clean: I spend about 3,600 minutes of my life on a cellphone each month. That’s correct: I spend 60 hours a month, 15 hours a week or 2.14 hours a day on a cellphone. I also drive a car during a large portion of that time.
To say this law affects me would be an understatement. Before you start telling me all I need is a wireless earpiece, you should know that I have spent hundreds of dollars trying to find one that works. I have a drawer full of them.
The batteries run down, they are not comfortable to wear, and they sound like you are in a cave to whomever you are talking to.
I have had to end calls because I cannot understand what someone is saying to me and vice versa.
The fact of the matter is there is zero evidence that talking on a cellphone while driving is a safety issue.
In fact, the author of this bill, Santa Cruz Sen. Joe Simitian, who has been introducing an almost identical bill since 2002, has no data that this will save any lives or prevent accidents.
The CHP, which was required to do a study, concluded that they may cause some distraction, but they had no statistics to show it caused accidents.
In fact, a 2003 study by the AAA’s Foundation for Traffic Safety found that ‘reaching’ and ‘leaning’ were the most prevalent distractions when driving. Using a cellphone was eighth on the list.
I have no problem driving a car safely and talking on the phone at the same time, and I think most Californians can do the same.
Just because someone can’t chew gum and drive a car at the same time is no reason the rest of us should have to stick metal earpieces with blinking lights in our ears.
So here is what I propose: Simitian cites a recent study by Jed Kolko of the Public Policy Institute of California, which says the new law will lower yearly traffic deaths in California by 300, or about 7%.
If traffic deaths are down by July 1 of 2009 by any significant amount, then the law should stay in place.
If not, the law gets repealed. However, my guess is that if traffic deaths do decrease, Simitian will push what he has always wanted: to outlaw cellphones in cars entirely. You heard it here first.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Freedom to Gather
Normally I write about the problem issues of the day; high gas prices, political shenanigans and governmental snafus. During this political season you hear a lot about what is wrong with America. But on the birthday weekend of this great nation, I want to write about what is great about America.
Two hundred and thirty-two years ago in a hot and humid hall, 56 men of great stature pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to declare our independence from England.
What they gave us was liberty. The God-given right to be free and to make decisions that guide our lives. Freedom comes with rights and responsibilities. In this country you even have the freedom to make bad decisions. The greatness of this country is derived from the fact that our people have the freedom to improve their lot in life through hard work and discipline. In fact, despite what the politicians want you to believe, with less than 5% of the Earth’s population, we have the largest middle class in the world. Our standard of living, recession or no recession, is second to none and in fact on a world scale we have the wealthiest poor people on the planet. We have safety nets in place so that no one in this country has to go hungry for need of food.
America is not great because of latitude and longitude. It is great because we have the liberty to do as we please as long as we respect the rights of others to do the same.
The right to succeed or fail is completely American. Americans love a comeback story.
This last week I was reminded of what a great country this is. My wife and I packed up the kids and flew back to the Midwest where I grew up to have a family vacation with Grandma and Grandpa Righeimer, my four siblings, their spouses and all of their children at my parent’s lake house in Whitewater, Wis. All told, we had 30 people at the house. The ages ranged from 77 for my dad to our youngest, Katherine, who is 2. Whitewater is a typical summer home community that you find on the lakes in southern Wisconsin. Where Southern Californians go to the beach or mountains to get out of the summer heat, Chicagoans head to Wisconsin with their boats and wave runners to cool down and enjoy the summer with family and friends. To get to Whitewater you drive straight north from O’Hare Airport for about two hours. When you get off the interstate in Wisconsin, you set back your watch about 50 years. There is something about getting all of your family together for a long weekend at the lake that feels like 1958. The older cousins are planning weddings; some are finishing high school or college. The younger ones are learning to swim or trying their first time on water skis.
This whole family started 54 years ago when James Joseph Righeimer met my mother Therese Katherine Redican at a friend’s wedding. He was a young high school teacher and football coach, and she worked at an insurance company in downtown Chicago. His father drove a beer truck and her mother came to America as a domestic. Through hard work and second jobs, my mother and father raised all five of us. My father was the original recycler. He had us bring home our lunch bags to be used again. They scrimped and saved and though some took longer than others, we all got college degrees and raised families of our own.
In no other country in the world could this happen. Only in America could a son of a truck driver achieve the American Dream.
On this Fourth of July weekend while we are having fun with family and friends, thousands of America’s finest sons and daughters are in far-off lands protecting us from people in the world who do not like our way of life and have sworn to destroy it. Like some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, some of them will give the ultimate sacrifice to protect the liberty we sometimes take for granted. Just remember while you are popping that cold one, the temperature in Baghdad will be 112 degrees. Please keep them in your prayers.
Two hundred and thirty-two years ago in a hot and humid hall, 56 men of great stature pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to declare our independence from England.
What they gave us was liberty. The God-given right to be free and to make decisions that guide our lives. Freedom comes with rights and responsibilities. In this country you even have the freedom to make bad decisions. The greatness of this country is derived from the fact that our people have the freedom to improve their lot in life through hard work and discipline. In fact, despite what the politicians want you to believe, with less than 5% of the Earth’s population, we have the largest middle class in the world. Our standard of living, recession or no recession, is second to none and in fact on a world scale we have the wealthiest poor people on the planet. We have safety nets in place so that no one in this country has to go hungry for need of food.
America is not great because of latitude and longitude. It is great because we have the liberty to do as we please as long as we respect the rights of others to do the same.
The right to succeed or fail is completely American. Americans love a comeback story.
This last week I was reminded of what a great country this is. My wife and I packed up the kids and flew back to the Midwest where I grew up to have a family vacation with Grandma and Grandpa Righeimer, my four siblings, their spouses and all of their children at my parent’s lake house in Whitewater, Wis. All told, we had 30 people at the house. The ages ranged from 77 for my dad to our youngest, Katherine, who is 2. Whitewater is a typical summer home community that you find on the lakes in southern Wisconsin. Where Southern Californians go to the beach or mountains to get out of the summer heat, Chicagoans head to Wisconsin with their boats and wave runners to cool down and enjoy the summer with family and friends. To get to Whitewater you drive straight north from O’Hare Airport for about two hours. When you get off the interstate in Wisconsin, you set back your watch about 50 years. There is something about getting all of your family together for a long weekend at the lake that feels like 1958. The older cousins are planning weddings; some are finishing high school or college. The younger ones are learning to swim or trying their first time on water skis.
This whole family started 54 years ago when James Joseph Righeimer met my mother Therese Katherine Redican at a friend’s wedding. He was a young high school teacher and football coach, and she worked at an insurance company in downtown Chicago. His father drove a beer truck and her mother came to America as a domestic. Through hard work and second jobs, my mother and father raised all five of us. My father was the original recycler. He had us bring home our lunch bags to be used again. They scrimped and saved and though some took longer than others, we all got college degrees and raised families of our own.
In no other country in the world could this happen. Only in America could a son of a truck driver achieve the American Dream.
On this Fourth of July weekend while we are having fun with family and friends, thousands of America’s finest sons and daughters are in far-off lands protecting us from people in the world who do not like our way of life and have sworn to destroy it. Like some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, some of them will give the ultimate sacrifice to protect the liberty we sometimes take for granted. Just remember while you are popping that cold one, the temperature in Baghdad will be 112 degrees. Please keep them in your prayers.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Help Burst Gas Bubble
Last month I wrote about my first $4 gallon of gas. I yearn for those days after paying $4.59 a gallon this week. We need to solve the energy crisis in this country, but we are never going to do it, if our national leaders say it cannot be done — so why even try? The economy will only get worse if Americans do not have any money left in their wallets after they fill up their tanks.
There is such a defeatist attitude on the left that no matter what we try to do to solve our energy problem, they say it either can’t be done or that it will take too long. This reiterates my point about our acting like children. Children do not understand delayed gratification; they need the fix now, and if it cannot be fixed immediately, they just do nothing and stomp their feet. Adults understand that sometimes it takes time to do the right thing.
The left’s latest example of foot stomping came after President George W. Bush stated that we should end the 27-year ban on offshore drilling in the U.S. Immediately the left, including democratic nominee Barack Obama, attacked the plan saying it would take 22 years to get any benefit out of offshore drilling.
Obama is preaching to the children on the left, arguing not to do anything to produce more oil because it would take too long. Sorry, kids: I cannot lower the price at the pump with new supply this week, so let’s just punish the big bad oil companies with a windfall profits tax.
First off, where does he get his facts? Does the American public really think it takes 22 years to drill an oil well? Even with all the bureaucratic paper work involved I think we could drill a well in say, a year or two. But according to Obama, why try at all? It will simply take too long.
When Bush also said we should build nuclear power plants, GOP nominee John McCain agreed and added that he proposes we build 100 nuclear power plants with 45 in operation by the year 2030. McCain’s plan, like JFK’s 1961 speech to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, was a challenge to the nation to do whatever it takes to reach our goal. In this case, reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
The left loves alternative fuels like corn-based ethanol. The only problem is that it doesn’t work. It takes more energy to produce corned-based ethanol than the energy it produces. That’s why U.S. taxpayers subsidized ethanol 50 cents a gallon when gas was $1.80 a gallon, and we still subsidized it 50 cents a gallon when gas is $4.50.
Ethanol is just a way to send billions of dollars to farmers in the Midwest. Sugar is five to six times more efficient to make ethanol out of than corn, but until they find a way to grow sugar cane in Iowa, there won’t be any political will. In fact, we add a tariff on any sugar-based ethanol that comes into the country to make it uneconomical. I guess it is better to buy oil from Middle East dictators than hurt the profit margins of agribusiness.
I am all for getting off our oil dependency, but we need to be realistic. First things first: We do not need to bankrupt every American family because they cannot afford to put gas in their car. The price of oil at more than $134 per barrel is a bubble about to burst. The sooner the leadership in the country acts to produce more oil, remove tariffs on sugar-based ethanol and approve nuclear power plants in a timely fashion, the sooner that bubble will burst and we will see oil back in the sub $80 per barrel range, which would put gas back at $2.70 per gallon.
The American public will support leaders who want to solve problems and not just give it lip service. At $4.50 a gallon, their patience is running out.
There is such a defeatist attitude on the left that no matter what we try to do to solve our energy problem, they say it either can’t be done or that it will take too long. This reiterates my point about our acting like children. Children do not understand delayed gratification; they need the fix now, and if it cannot be fixed immediately, they just do nothing and stomp their feet. Adults understand that sometimes it takes time to do the right thing.
The left’s latest example of foot stomping came after President George W. Bush stated that we should end the 27-year ban on offshore drilling in the U.S. Immediately the left, including democratic nominee Barack Obama, attacked the plan saying it would take 22 years to get any benefit out of offshore drilling.
Obama is preaching to the children on the left, arguing not to do anything to produce more oil because it would take too long. Sorry, kids: I cannot lower the price at the pump with new supply this week, so let’s just punish the big bad oil companies with a windfall profits tax.
First off, where does he get his facts? Does the American public really think it takes 22 years to drill an oil well? Even with all the bureaucratic paper work involved I think we could drill a well in say, a year or two. But according to Obama, why try at all? It will simply take too long.
When Bush also said we should build nuclear power plants, GOP nominee John McCain agreed and added that he proposes we build 100 nuclear power plants with 45 in operation by the year 2030. McCain’s plan, like JFK’s 1961 speech to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, was a challenge to the nation to do whatever it takes to reach our goal. In this case, reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
The left loves alternative fuels like corn-based ethanol. The only problem is that it doesn’t work. It takes more energy to produce corned-based ethanol than the energy it produces. That’s why U.S. taxpayers subsidized ethanol 50 cents a gallon when gas was $1.80 a gallon, and we still subsidized it 50 cents a gallon when gas is $4.50.
Ethanol is just a way to send billions of dollars to farmers in the Midwest. Sugar is five to six times more efficient to make ethanol out of than corn, but until they find a way to grow sugar cane in Iowa, there won’t be any political will. In fact, we add a tariff on any sugar-based ethanol that comes into the country to make it uneconomical. I guess it is better to buy oil from Middle East dictators than hurt the profit margins of agribusiness.
I am all for getting off our oil dependency, but we need to be realistic. First things first: We do not need to bankrupt every American family because they cannot afford to put gas in their car. The price of oil at more than $134 per barrel is a bubble about to burst. The sooner the leadership in the country acts to produce more oil, remove tariffs on sugar-based ethanol and approve nuclear power plants in a timely fashion, the sooner that bubble will burst and we will see oil back in the sub $80 per barrel range, which would put gas back at $2.70 per gallon.
The American public will support leaders who want to solve problems and not just give it lip service. At $4.50 a gallon, their patience is running out.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Keeping Tab on Progress
My 6-year-old daughter Morgan loves Angels baseball. She scans the sports page every morning to read the scores aloud: “Angels six, Mariners four; we win.” Or she’ll sadly say, “Angels three, Mariner five; we lose.”
Another local newspaper last week published scores ranking our four public high schools among the 63 in the county. The scores reflected state data on academics, college prep and cultural environment.
Our schools ranked as follows: Corona Del Mar High, 12th; Newport Harbor High, 37th; Estancia High, 51st; and Costa Mesa High, 58th. Ouch.
The most-cited reason for our schools’ rankings was that some students’ lower economic level lowered our scores. It is interesting to note, however, that La Quinta High in Garden Grove ranked seventh, yet has a higher percentage of low-income students (61%) than all but Estancia, where 63% of the students qualify as low-income.
If money were the only factor in scholastic success, Newport Harbor and Corona Del Mar should have ranked in the top five.
Recently, Newport Beach did a customer satisfaction survey to compare its services to those of other California cities and the nation. The respondents rated the “overall quality of services provided by the city,” at 87% satisfied or very satisfied, which ranks Newport Beach in the top 5% of cities surveyed.
On a not-so-good note, the development services division, which is primarily the planning and building departments, had more than 60% of the respondents dissatisfied with the actual process and 60% dissatisfied with the time it takes to get plans checked. The city staff had some explanations; but in the end, no matter how you spin it, the score was sub-par.
Whether it’s baseball, a high school or a city, it is of the utmost importance that we somehow keep score. I am not sure why the Angels win or lose, why some city services meet expectations or why some schools rank higher than others. The answer for those questions is for the people who manage those organizations to figure out. What I do know is that you cannot manage properly if you don’t measure first.
Newport Beach is going one step further and looking to set benchmarks. With these, they will be able to determine whether what they are doing is working.
I didn’t talk to any school district officials, but I think they also can use the newspaper’s ranking as a benchmark to see whether they’re taking the right steps toward improvement. The good news is that with rankings, at least we know where we stand.
Some people think scores and ranking are too judgmental. They are supposed to be. Someone is first and someone is last. Whenever you go to a school board or city council meeting, the elected officials always say how they have the best teachers, staff, city manager — just fill in the blank — than any other school or city around. The fact of the matter is they might, but they really have no way of knowing unless you measure.
By the way, the Angels are first in the American League, and Morgan is very happy. Go Halos!
Another local newspaper last week published scores ranking our four public high schools among the 63 in the county. The scores reflected state data on academics, college prep and cultural environment.
Our schools ranked as follows: Corona Del Mar High, 12th; Newport Harbor High, 37th; Estancia High, 51st; and Costa Mesa High, 58th. Ouch.
The most-cited reason for our schools’ rankings was that some students’ lower economic level lowered our scores. It is interesting to note, however, that La Quinta High in Garden Grove ranked seventh, yet has a higher percentage of low-income students (61%) than all but Estancia, where 63% of the students qualify as low-income.
If money were the only factor in scholastic success, Newport Harbor and Corona Del Mar should have ranked in the top five.
Recently, Newport Beach did a customer satisfaction survey to compare its services to those of other California cities and the nation. The respondents rated the “overall quality of services provided by the city,” at 87% satisfied or very satisfied, which ranks Newport Beach in the top 5% of cities surveyed.
On a not-so-good note, the development services division, which is primarily the planning and building departments, had more than 60% of the respondents dissatisfied with the actual process and 60% dissatisfied with the time it takes to get plans checked. The city staff had some explanations; but in the end, no matter how you spin it, the score was sub-par.
Whether it’s baseball, a high school or a city, it is of the utmost importance that we somehow keep score. I am not sure why the Angels win or lose, why some city services meet expectations or why some schools rank higher than others. The answer for those questions is for the people who manage those organizations to figure out. What I do know is that you cannot manage properly if you don’t measure first.
Newport Beach is going one step further and looking to set benchmarks. With these, they will be able to determine whether what they are doing is working.
I didn’t talk to any school district officials, but I think they also can use the newspaper’s ranking as a benchmark to see whether they’re taking the right steps toward improvement. The good news is that with rankings, at least we know where we stand.
Some people think scores and ranking are too judgmental. They are supposed to be. Someone is first and someone is last. Whenever you go to a school board or city council meeting, the elected officials always say how they have the best teachers, staff, city manager — just fill in the blank — than any other school or city around. The fact of the matter is they might, but they really have no way of knowing unless you measure.
By the way, the Angels are first in the American League, and Morgan is very happy. Go Halos!
Friday, May 30, 2008
Country Club A Local Gem
Every community has hidden gems. Whether it’s a locals-only restaurant, a small park or community event, they are what make every community special.
Usually they are small and out-of-the-way places. In this case, the hidden gem may be out-of-the-way, but at more than 100 acres it is not small. What I am talking about is the Mesa Verde Country Club, which turns 50 this January.
Many of the non-golfers in the community confuse it with Costa Mesa Country Club, which is off of Mesa Verde East but just south of Adams Avenue. Mesa Verde Country Club is north of Adams just off Mesa Verde West. You can understand the confusion.
The land where the golf course sits was sold in 1956 to investor Adolph Sleceta, who planned to work with the developers Ray Watt and Walter Gaynor to build more housing in Mesa Verde.
Due to terrain and utility issues, however, they could not build homes. They instead decided to fund construction of a golf course and clubhouse. Not so good for them, but lucky for us.
Over the years, the club passed though several corporate owners until 1975 when the members bought it from Japan Golf Promotion for a whopping $2.1 million. Today, even in a down market, many of the homes on the course sell for more than that.
The golf course has a very rich history. It has been home to many PGA and LPGA tournaments. It hosted the first Orange County Open, a PGA Tour event in 1959 and continued that event until 1962. Starting in 1979 it hosted LPGA tour events for six consecutive years.
This club rates high among golfers. Steve Rhorer, club vice president, avid golfer and Mesa Verde resident, joined in 2000. Prior to that, he had been a longtime member of the Virginia Country Club in Long Beach.
“I have played every private course in the county and from a pure golfing standpoint; this course is second to none,” he told me. “You will use every club in your bag, and with the tree-lined fairways, you better be accurate.”
More than 600 local families are associated with the club as golf, tennis or social members. Seventy percent of the families used to be from Costa Mesa. Now it is composed of almost equal parts Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach residents.
I talked with past board member Pete Daley, who joined in 1977. Daley, now residing in Aliso Viejo, lived on the bird streets for more than 20 years. He told me it is a very family-friendly club.
“Our three kids went through all the swimming and tennis programs,” he said. “The club played a big role throughout their youth.”
For the past 50 years, Mesa Verde Country Club has been one of those hidden gems that make up Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. It has not just been a place to play golf and tennis, but a place that makes you part of a community. It is where your kids learn how to swim and where you make friendships that last a lifetime.
On a different subject, make sure you all get over to the Lions Club’s annual Fish Fry today and tomorrow at Lions Park (18th Street and Anaheim Avenue). I recently received a call from longtime Lions Club member Jim Wahner, and before the conversation was over he had yours truly committed to help work the Fish Fry. So come on by, say hi and introduce yourself, even if you do have a “fish to fry” with me (pun definitely intended).
All the money raised goes to good local causes. It goes from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Besides the famous fish, there will also be carnival rides, local bands and the cutest baby contest.
Usually they are small and out-of-the-way places. In this case, the hidden gem may be out-of-the-way, but at more than 100 acres it is not small. What I am talking about is the Mesa Verde Country Club, which turns 50 this January.
Many of the non-golfers in the community confuse it with Costa Mesa Country Club, which is off of Mesa Verde East but just south of Adams Avenue. Mesa Verde Country Club is north of Adams just off Mesa Verde West. You can understand the confusion.
The land where the golf course sits was sold in 1956 to investor Adolph Sleceta, who planned to work with the developers Ray Watt and Walter Gaynor to build more housing in Mesa Verde.
Due to terrain and utility issues, however, they could not build homes. They instead decided to fund construction of a golf course and clubhouse. Not so good for them, but lucky for us.
Over the years, the club passed though several corporate owners until 1975 when the members bought it from Japan Golf Promotion for a whopping $2.1 million. Today, even in a down market, many of the homes on the course sell for more than that.
The golf course has a very rich history. It has been home to many PGA and LPGA tournaments. It hosted the first Orange County Open, a PGA Tour event in 1959 and continued that event until 1962. Starting in 1979 it hosted LPGA tour events for six consecutive years.
This club rates high among golfers. Steve Rhorer, club vice president, avid golfer and Mesa Verde resident, joined in 2000. Prior to that, he had been a longtime member of the Virginia Country Club in Long Beach.
“I have played every private course in the county and from a pure golfing standpoint; this course is second to none,” he told me. “You will use every club in your bag, and with the tree-lined fairways, you better be accurate.”
More than 600 local families are associated with the club as golf, tennis or social members. Seventy percent of the families used to be from Costa Mesa. Now it is composed of almost equal parts Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach residents.
I talked with past board member Pete Daley, who joined in 1977. Daley, now residing in Aliso Viejo, lived on the bird streets for more than 20 years. He told me it is a very family-friendly club.
“Our three kids went through all the swimming and tennis programs,” he said. “The club played a big role throughout their youth.”
For the past 50 years, Mesa Verde Country Club has been one of those hidden gems that make up Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. It has not just been a place to play golf and tennis, but a place that makes you part of a community. It is where your kids learn how to swim and where you make friendships that last a lifetime.
On a different subject, make sure you all get over to the Lions Club’s annual Fish Fry today and tomorrow at Lions Park (18th Street and Anaheim Avenue). I recently received a call from longtime Lions Club member Jim Wahner, and before the conversation was over he had yours truly committed to help work the Fish Fry. So come on by, say hi and introduce yourself, even if you do have a “fish to fry” with me (pun definitely intended).
All the money raised goes to good local causes. It goes from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Besides the famous fish, there will also be carnival rides, local bands and the cutest baby contest.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Martin has advantage for Sheriff
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will hold public interviews with the nine finalists to replace Mike Carona as the next sheriff in Orange County.
The voters normally pick the position — it’s a politically-elected position. Sheriff Carona’s resignation has handed the decision to the supervisors.
The one-at-a-time interviews will last all day and into the evening. Think of the sheriff as being the CEO of a company with 3,800 employees, a budget of $700 million and serving 3 million customers who, by the way, has to be elected by the people within two years to hold onto his or her job.
Even if every accusation against Carona is proven to be false, the department has still been through a severe amount of turmoil over the past few years. In the next highest positions the department has, two of his five assistant sheriffs have pleaded guilty to federal charges and are awaiting sentencing. A recent DA investigation shows a complete breakdown in administering the jail system.
Needless to say, the new sheriff will have to do a wholesale shake-up at every level of the department’s leadership.
I do not want to presume that I understand all the issues and concerns that a supervisor has in making this decision. But in my 30 years of running companies and being on boards, I do know a lot about hiring and firing of leadership.
So, without trying to be too presumptive, here are the issues I think should be taken into consideration when choosing our next sheriff.
All nine candidates on paper seem qualified to be considered for the job. My comments here mean no disrespect to any of them. I am sure they are all fine people. The reality is you can pick only one.
The sheriff’s position, while it will be appointed this time, will require the chosen candidate to run for office in 2010. Running for office requires a whole different skill set than running a law enforcement organization.
Therefore, the new sheriff must have ties to Orange County that will ensure he will get elected. This is an absolute must. The department cannot afford to have a leader who has any chance of losing his job in two years.
First off, it makes that person a lame duck as soon as he takes the job, and anyone who disagrees with his decisions will just wait them out.
Secondly, the decisions that must be made will not make everyone happy; if the candidate does not have a lock on the election, he will find himself making decisions based on the politics of special interests that may not be in the best interests of the 3 million Orange County residents he serves.
The department’s various labor unions have spent millions of dollars over the years getting people elected who will get them more pay for less work and more generous retirement packages. The labor union’s job, rightfully so, is to do what is best for its members.
The sheriff needs to do what’s best for the citizens, which will be in conflict with the union’s goals. The unions will spend millions of dollars to get a new sheriff in two years if they think they have a chance of getting someone who will give them what they want.
Of the nine candidates, only six have any connection to Orange County, of which only four have the political skill set and local support to get elected. For example, Beau Babka of Salt Lake City may make a fine sheriff in his hometown, but he would not have enough time to figure out the freeway system let alone understand the political landscape in Orange County. He would not stand a chance against a well-known, well-financed candidate in 2010.
Which leaves us with Orange County Interim Sheriff Jack Anderson, recently retired Orange County Deputy Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt, who ran previously against Carona, Commander Ralph Martin of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Santa Ana Chief of Police Paul Walters.
This next cut is much tougher. Over the years, I have met all of these men. Each one has the education, experience and credentials to do the job; but again, you can pick only one.
In any company or organization that has similar leadership problems, there needs to be a clean break from the past in order to move forward without any constraints. In a properly functioning organization, it is perfectly reasonable to move someone up though the ranks to the top spot.
In this case, not only is it not functioning properly, but the top leadership has also been tainted with associates that have either pleaded guilty to federal charges or are under indictment for the same.
Any candidate with direct ties to the department will not have the clean slate necessary to make the hard decisions without first having to consider previous relationships.
This choice on a personal level pains me in that I know both Hunt, who was one of the first to bring forward the problems in the department, and Anderson, who has done his best to run the department after the scandals.
The fact remains that it will take an outsider to clean it up. In business, we call them turn-around specialists, and they very rarely come from inside of a broken organization.
This leaves us with Martin and Walters. Both men lead large groups of sworn and non-sworn staff. Both will interview well. The only concern is who is electable in 2010. Once we choose a sheriff, he has to win in 2010.
We cannot go though this again. Martin is a lifelong Republican. Walters was a lifelong Republican and then became a Democrat in 2000 and then became a Decline to State in 2003 and then became a Republican again in 2007, after Carona was indicted.
I cannot assess the motives of someone who changes political parties three times in seven years; that would be for the voters to decide. But I can guarantee you that Walters would draw very strong opposition in 2010 because of his lack of commitment to any one party. This is an elected position, and politics matters.
The supervisors do not want to have a sheriff with political trouble in two years. Therefore, in handicapping this pick, the advantage goes to Ralph Martin.
The voters normally pick the position — it’s a politically-elected position. Sheriff Carona’s resignation has handed the decision to the supervisors.
The one-at-a-time interviews will last all day and into the evening. Think of the sheriff as being the CEO of a company with 3,800 employees, a budget of $700 million and serving 3 million customers who, by the way, has to be elected by the people within two years to hold onto his or her job.
Even if every accusation against Carona is proven to be false, the department has still been through a severe amount of turmoil over the past few years. In the next highest positions the department has, two of his five assistant sheriffs have pleaded guilty to federal charges and are awaiting sentencing. A recent DA investigation shows a complete breakdown in administering the jail system.
Needless to say, the new sheriff will have to do a wholesale shake-up at every level of the department’s leadership.
I do not want to presume that I understand all the issues and concerns that a supervisor has in making this decision. But in my 30 years of running companies and being on boards, I do know a lot about hiring and firing of leadership.
So, without trying to be too presumptive, here are the issues I think should be taken into consideration when choosing our next sheriff.
All nine candidates on paper seem qualified to be considered for the job. My comments here mean no disrespect to any of them. I am sure they are all fine people. The reality is you can pick only one.
The sheriff’s position, while it will be appointed this time, will require the chosen candidate to run for office in 2010. Running for office requires a whole different skill set than running a law enforcement organization.
Therefore, the new sheriff must have ties to Orange County that will ensure he will get elected. This is an absolute must. The department cannot afford to have a leader who has any chance of losing his job in two years.
First off, it makes that person a lame duck as soon as he takes the job, and anyone who disagrees with his decisions will just wait them out.
Secondly, the decisions that must be made will not make everyone happy; if the candidate does not have a lock on the election, he will find himself making decisions based on the politics of special interests that may not be in the best interests of the 3 million Orange County residents he serves.
The department’s various labor unions have spent millions of dollars over the years getting people elected who will get them more pay for less work and more generous retirement packages. The labor union’s job, rightfully so, is to do what is best for its members.
The sheriff needs to do what’s best for the citizens, which will be in conflict with the union’s goals. The unions will spend millions of dollars to get a new sheriff in two years if they think they have a chance of getting someone who will give them what they want.
Of the nine candidates, only six have any connection to Orange County, of which only four have the political skill set and local support to get elected. For example, Beau Babka of Salt Lake City may make a fine sheriff in his hometown, but he would not have enough time to figure out the freeway system let alone understand the political landscape in Orange County. He would not stand a chance against a well-known, well-financed candidate in 2010.
Which leaves us with Orange County Interim Sheriff Jack Anderson, recently retired Orange County Deputy Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt, who ran previously against Carona, Commander Ralph Martin of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Santa Ana Chief of Police Paul Walters.
This next cut is much tougher. Over the years, I have met all of these men. Each one has the education, experience and credentials to do the job; but again, you can pick only one.
In any company or organization that has similar leadership problems, there needs to be a clean break from the past in order to move forward without any constraints. In a properly functioning organization, it is perfectly reasonable to move someone up though the ranks to the top spot.
In this case, not only is it not functioning properly, but the top leadership has also been tainted with associates that have either pleaded guilty to federal charges or are under indictment for the same.
Any candidate with direct ties to the department will not have the clean slate necessary to make the hard decisions without first having to consider previous relationships.
This choice on a personal level pains me in that I know both Hunt, who was one of the first to bring forward the problems in the department, and Anderson, who has done his best to run the department after the scandals.
The fact remains that it will take an outsider to clean it up. In business, we call them turn-around specialists, and they very rarely come from inside of a broken organization.
This leaves us with Martin and Walters. Both men lead large groups of sworn and non-sworn staff. Both will interview well. The only concern is who is electable in 2010. Once we choose a sheriff, he has to win in 2010.
We cannot go though this again. Martin is a lifelong Republican. Walters was a lifelong Republican and then became a Democrat in 2000 and then became a Decline to State in 2003 and then became a Republican again in 2007, after Carona was indicted.
I cannot assess the motives of someone who changes political parties three times in seven years; that would be for the voters to decide. But I can guarantee you that Walters would draw very strong opposition in 2010 because of his lack of commitment to any one party. This is an elected position, and politics matters.
The supervisors do not want to have a sheriff with political trouble in two years. Therefore, in handicapping this pick, the advantage goes to Ralph Martin.
Friday, May 9, 2008
$4 A Gallon: We Did It To Ourselves
I just bought my first $4-plus gallon of gas today. My wife’s car takes premium, and there it was; $4.05 per gallon at the Arco on Bristol Street. The price of oil hit $126 per barrel this week. That is a 650% increase over the $22 per barrel we paid just six years ago. But we have nothing to complain about as Americans and especially Californians — this is exactly what we asked for.
Through our legislators we have decided that we do not want offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, oil refineries, power plants, power lines, pipelines, faster freeways or windmills that spoil our ocean views.
Well, we might consider windmills if we don’t have to see them. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is completely out of the question. God forbid, if we drill on 1% of it during the winter, it might affect Caribou mating patterns.
Bottom line, we have done everything we can to thwart the discovery, production or distribution of energy in this country, especially here in California.
The energy problems in California are self-imposed. Like self-indulgent children we stomp our feet until we get what we want. We want to drive our cars, air condition our homes and watch our energy-sucking, 52-inch, flat-screen TVs. But how we get the energy is someone else’s problem. Of course when we are given solutions to supply the energy we complain. Recently, when the residents of Ladera Ranch were told they needed a small peaker power plant to avoid summer blackouts, more than 500 people protested. They want it built somewhere else — like, say, India.
I talked to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher regarding his recent comments in the Daily Pilot on how to bring down oil prices. For the readers who do not know, some full disclosure is in order: Dana and I have been close friends for 18 years. I have volunteered on his campaigns, given and raised campaign funds for him and celebrated our children’s birthdays together. So to say I am a little biased would be an understatement. “Before we send our young men and women in uniform overseas, to ensure that our supply of energy is not controlled by radical Islamists who hate us, we should be drilling for oil in our own country and that includes [the Alaskan wildlife refuge] as well as offshore.”
Rohrabacher must be kidding. He can’t actually be thinking of drilling off our coast. Not Newport Beach. Does he really want us to lose our unspoiled coastline view just to save the lives of some unknown soldiers? Could you imagine how traumatic it would be for us to look out over the ocean and see an oil platform five miles off the coast? The horror could cause a collective mental disorder. The fact that someone’s son or daughter might get killed protecting our strategic interests is minor when you compare it the beauty of an unblemished ocean view. The parents will get over the loss, but a view is forever. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic, OK?
We could save millions of barrels of oil a day if we built environmentally clean nuclear power plants like the French and Japanese. But where are the screams of support for Assemblyman Chuck Devore’s bill to start building nuclear power plants in California? The silence is deafening.
I can already hear the pseudo environmentalist’s peanut gallery screaming all we have to do is conserve energy, take mass transit or car pool. Unless you carpool or take a bus to work, have solar panels on your roof and live like Ed Begley Jr. save your comments for someone who cares. For the people who tell me, “I would use a mass transit system if it would take me where I want to go when I want go,” they already have that — it’s called a car.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for conserving energy and pushing technology as far as we can to come up with solutions to our energy needs. But I am also a realist. There is no perpetual motion machine. Unless you want to live in the dark ages, we need energy. I would rather we produce energy here than send billions of dollars to foreign dictators and despots who hate our way of life. So, at the risk of being politically incorrect, here goes: Let’s start drilling the wells, building the nuclear power plants and windmills. It is time grow up and start acting like adults.
Through our legislators we have decided that we do not want offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, oil refineries, power plants, power lines, pipelines, faster freeways or windmills that spoil our ocean views.
Well, we might consider windmills if we don’t have to see them. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is completely out of the question. God forbid, if we drill on 1% of it during the winter, it might affect Caribou mating patterns.
Bottom line, we have done everything we can to thwart the discovery, production or distribution of energy in this country, especially here in California.
The energy problems in California are self-imposed. Like self-indulgent children we stomp our feet until we get what we want. We want to drive our cars, air condition our homes and watch our energy-sucking, 52-inch, flat-screen TVs. But how we get the energy is someone else’s problem. Of course when we are given solutions to supply the energy we complain. Recently, when the residents of Ladera Ranch were told they needed a small peaker power plant to avoid summer blackouts, more than 500 people protested. They want it built somewhere else — like, say, India.
I talked to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher regarding his recent comments in the Daily Pilot on how to bring down oil prices. For the readers who do not know, some full disclosure is in order: Dana and I have been close friends for 18 years. I have volunteered on his campaigns, given and raised campaign funds for him and celebrated our children’s birthdays together. So to say I am a little biased would be an understatement. “Before we send our young men and women in uniform overseas, to ensure that our supply of energy is not controlled by radical Islamists who hate us, we should be drilling for oil in our own country and that includes [the Alaskan wildlife refuge] as well as offshore.”
Rohrabacher must be kidding. He can’t actually be thinking of drilling off our coast. Not Newport Beach. Does he really want us to lose our unspoiled coastline view just to save the lives of some unknown soldiers? Could you imagine how traumatic it would be for us to look out over the ocean and see an oil platform five miles off the coast? The horror could cause a collective mental disorder. The fact that someone’s son or daughter might get killed protecting our strategic interests is minor when you compare it the beauty of an unblemished ocean view. The parents will get over the loss, but a view is forever. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic, OK?
We could save millions of barrels of oil a day if we built environmentally clean nuclear power plants like the French and Japanese. But where are the screams of support for Assemblyman Chuck Devore’s bill to start building nuclear power plants in California? The silence is deafening.
I can already hear the pseudo environmentalist’s peanut gallery screaming all we have to do is conserve energy, take mass transit or car pool. Unless you carpool or take a bus to work, have solar panels on your roof and live like Ed Begley Jr. save your comments for someone who cares. For the people who tell me, “I would use a mass transit system if it would take me where I want to go when I want go,” they already have that — it’s called a car.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for conserving energy and pushing technology as far as we can to come up with solutions to our energy needs. But I am also a realist. There is no perpetual motion machine. Unless you want to live in the dark ages, we need energy. I would rather we produce energy here than send billions of dollars to foreign dictators and despots who hate our way of life. So, at the risk of being politically incorrect, here goes: Let’s start drilling the wells, building the nuclear power plants and windmills. It is time grow up and start acting like adults.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Toll Road to Cost Millions More for Us
Did you know that today we pay 47% more per mile to use our end of the 73 San Joaquin Toll Road than South County residents pay to use their end of the same toll road? It gets worse. By 2031, we will be paying 108% more than they do. That same toll road will collect $100 million this year in tolls. That’s three times what it did when it opened in 1997.
How did I become such an expert on toll roads? It all started when Newport Beach City Councilman Don Webb left me a message two weeks ago about an idea for a column. I got a hold of him later that week and he asked if I had heard about the rate increases that were being proposed for the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road. I remembered skimming over an article in the Pilot referring to a 25-cent increase. He explained how Newport-Mesa residents were going to be charged more per mile entering or exiting the toll road at Newport Coast Road.
I’ve got to be honest with you, getting excited over a 25-cent increase seemed a little over the top; but what the heck, I thought. I was in my car on the Eastside and Don’s home was two minutes away, so I stopped by his house to pick up his copy of the “Traffic and Revenue Report for the Transportation Corridor System.”
This two-inch-thick tome was packed with graphs, charts and models that only an engineer could love. Don, who in his previous life was Newport Beach’s city engineer, had his copy all highlighted and tabbed. Don also created his own graph showing the cost per mile up and down the 73. Sure enough, based on his calculations, Newport-Mesa residents were paying more per mile to use our end of the toll road than south county folks paid to use theirs.
The 73 is a major transportation backbone for Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and UCI. Of the 6.5 miles that go though our towns, 1.8 miles of it is a toll road. That last 1.8 miles costs you $1.50 each way today. You could argue that there are other ways to get to the Eastern parts of Newport Beach without using the toll road, but the options are limited. If you are already traveling south on the 73, it would be unusual to get off two miles before your destination and take side streets to Newport Coast. So unlike other parts of the county we have to pay to travel around our community.
But is Don really getting worked up over a two-bit increase? Well, it was not the first 25-cent increase that was his concern. It was getting a 25-cent increase every two years until 2031.
That $1.50 trip will cost you $4.25 in 2031 while south county users don’t get a 25-cent increase for seven years; and then they get only a 25-cent increase every five years. Their trip that costs them $1.25 today goes up to only $2.50 by 2031.
If I have not confused you enough, here is the bottom line: Newport-Mesa users will pay $66 million more than South County users for traveling the same distance. Didn’t think those quarters could add up that fast, did you?
On May 10 the San Joaquin Hills Transportation agency’s “SJHTCA” board will probably approve the rate increases. Only two of the 14 board members, Don Webb and Costa Mesa Mayor Eric Bever, are from our end of the road.
I will let you in on a little secret about local governance. While most of the residents are still arguing about where we should locate City Hall or whether we should light the athletic fields — be it the SJHTCA, F/ECTA, OCWD, OCSD, MWD, OCWM, OCTC or SCAG — the real money is being spent in a bunch of agencies you’ve never heard of with alphabet soup-like acronyms.
How did I become such an expert on toll roads? It all started when Newport Beach City Councilman Don Webb left me a message two weeks ago about an idea for a column. I got a hold of him later that week and he asked if I had heard about the rate increases that were being proposed for the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road. I remembered skimming over an article in the Pilot referring to a 25-cent increase. He explained how Newport-Mesa residents were going to be charged more per mile entering or exiting the toll road at Newport Coast Road.
I’ve got to be honest with you, getting excited over a 25-cent increase seemed a little over the top; but what the heck, I thought. I was in my car on the Eastside and Don’s home was two minutes away, so I stopped by his house to pick up his copy of the “Traffic and Revenue Report for the Transportation Corridor System.”
This two-inch-thick tome was packed with graphs, charts and models that only an engineer could love. Don, who in his previous life was Newport Beach’s city engineer, had his copy all highlighted and tabbed. Don also created his own graph showing the cost per mile up and down the 73. Sure enough, based on his calculations, Newport-Mesa residents were paying more per mile to use our end of the toll road than south county folks paid to use theirs.
The 73 is a major transportation backbone for Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and UCI. Of the 6.5 miles that go though our towns, 1.8 miles of it is a toll road. That last 1.8 miles costs you $1.50 each way today. You could argue that there are other ways to get to the Eastern parts of Newport Beach without using the toll road, but the options are limited. If you are already traveling south on the 73, it would be unusual to get off two miles before your destination and take side streets to Newport Coast. So unlike other parts of the county we have to pay to travel around our community.
But is Don really getting worked up over a two-bit increase? Well, it was not the first 25-cent increase that was his concern. It was getting a 25-cent increase every two years until 2031.
That $1.50 trip will cost you $4.25 in 2031 while south county users don’t get a 25-cent increase for seven years; and then they get only a 25-cent increase every five years. Their trip that costs them $1.25 today goes up to only $2.50 by 2031.
If I have not confused you enough, here is the bottom line: Newport-Mesa users will pay $66 million more than South County users for traveling the same distance. Didn’t think those quarters could add up that fast, did you?
On May 10 the San Joaquin Hills Transportation agency’s “SJHTCA” board will probably approve the rate increases. Only two of the 14 board members, Don Webb and Costa Mesa Mayor Eric Bever, are from our end of the road.
I will let you in on a little secret about local governance. While most of the residents are still arguing about where we should locate City Hall or whether we should light the athletic fields — be it the SJHTCA, F/ECTA, OCWD, OCSD, MWD, OCWM, OCTC or SCAG — the real money is being spent in a bunch of agencies you’ve never heard of with alphabet soup-like acronyms.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Stadium Instills Pride in School
I could feel the electricity in the air as I walked onto the Estancia High School campus Friday morning.
An idea that started a dozen years ago was becoming a reality as the formal dedication of the Jim Scott Stadium was about to begin. I will steal a line from Board President Martha Fluor’s dedication address: “The stadium was Jim Scott’s original idea, and he spent more than 12 years uniting and mobilizing the community… without Jim’s vision and dedication, the stadium may not have been built.”
Costa Mesa City Manager Allen Roeder recalled to me the conversations he had with Jim Scott Sr., 12 years earlier. Scott had a dream that both Costa Mesa high schools should have a field they can call home. Twelve years is a long time. Parents, whose children were in kindergarten when Jim Scott had this dream, will be sitting in these beautiful bleachers as their now young adults walk across the field in their cap and gowns this June. “This will be our first high school graduation in our own stadium,” said one of the graduating seniors.
You have to understand what this means to a community whose high schools never had a proper stadium. I know we are all part of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, but for the residents of Costa Mesa there has always been the feeling of being a second-class citizen because both Costa Mesa and Estancia High School played their home games at someone else’s stadium.
I talked to Bruce Garlich while standing on the state-of-the-art, all-weather track that looped around the vibrant green artificial turf field. Bruce, whose son graduated in ’78 from Estancia, told me, “You never really felt like you were ever playing a home game, you always felt like a guest on someone else’s field.” I could see a glint in his eye as he looked over the field with pride.
You could see the amazement in people’s eyes as they filled the bleachers or walked around the track. This is the kind of field that you only see when watching the NFL on Sunday. The quality of the facility, with its new locker rooms, snack bar and professional press box, was not something the people of Costa Mesa were expecting.
Many of the people who followed Jim’s dream and started Costa Mesa United to get a stadium and pool complex for our high schools no longer have any children in the district. People ask why someone without any school-age children would work so hard to get these facilities. The answer I get is simple. Someone did it for us before we came along. People we will never know built our schools, parks and playgrounds before we came. In a real community, people do it for the future; for people they will never know.
Not only is the stadium being used for football, soccer and track for both Costa Mesa and Estancia High School athletes; but now thanks to Steve Mensinger, president of Costa Mesa Pop Warner Football, an agreement has been struck with the district so that our young Mustang players will have it for their home games as well.
If you are reading this early in the morning, head over to Estancia and take a look at the facility. The inaugural event starts this morning with a 5K and 2K run. Registration starts at 7 a.m., the races start at 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., respectively. If you are like me and would rather not run, they start serving pancakes at 8 a.m. Proceeds will go to support both High School foundations.
When the dedication ended I asked a few of the Estancia football players, who proudly stood on the field sporting their jerseys, if any of the other schools they played had an artificial turf field? The question bounced around some of the players, and as they turned to me to answer you could actually see them standing taller as one of them replied, “No one in the league has anything like this.” Our kids and community deserve something this great. Thank you, Jim Scott, for your field of dreams.
An idea that started a dozen years ago was becoming a reality as the formal dedication of the Jim Scott Stadium was about to begin. I will steal a line from Board President Martha Fluor’s dedication address: “The stadium was Jim Scott’s original idea, and he spent more than 12 years uniting and mobilizing the community… without Jim’s vision and dedication, the stadium may not have been built.”
Costa Mesa City Manager Allen Roeder recalled to me the conversations he had with Jim Scott Sr., 12 years earlier. Scott had a dream that both Costa Mesa high schools should have a field they can call home. Twelve years is a long time. Parents, whose children were in kindergarten when Jim Scott had this dream, will be sitting in these beautiful bleachers as their now young adults walk across the field in their cap and gowns this June. “This will be our first high school graduation in our own stadium,” said one of the graduating seniors.
You have to understand what this means to a community whose high schools never had a proper stadium. I know we are all part of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, but for the residents of Costa Mesa there has always been the feeling of being a second-class citizen because both Costa Mesa and Estancia High School played their home games at someone else’s stadium.
I talked to Bruce Garlich while standing on the state-of-the-art, all-weather track that looped around the vibrant green artificial turf field. Bruce, whose son graduated in ’78 from Estancia, told me, “You never really felt like you were ever playing a home game, you always felt like a guest on someone else’s field.” I could see a glint in his eye as he looked over the field with pride.
You could see the amazement in people’s eyes as they filled the bleachers or walked around the track. This is the kind of field that you only see when watching the NFL on Sunday. The quality of the facility, with its new locker rooms, snack bar and professional press box, was not something the people of Costa Mesa were expecting.
Many of the people who followed Jim’s dream and started Costa Mesa United to get a stadium and pool complex for our high schools no longer have any children in the district. People ask why someone without any school-age children would work so hard to get these facilities. The answer I get is simple. Someone did it for us before we came along. People we will never know built our schools, parks and playgrounds before we came. In a real community, people do it for the future; for people they will never know.
Not only is the stadium being used for football, soccer and track for both Costa Mesa and Estancia High School athletes; but now thanks to Steve Mensinger, president of Costa Mesa Pop Warner Football, an agreement has been struck with the district so that our young Mustang players will have it for their home games as well.
If you are reading this early in the morning, head over to Estancia and take a look at the facility. The inaugural event starts this morning with a 5K and 2K run. Registration starts at 7 a.m., the races start at 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., respectively. If you are like me and would rather not run, they start serving pancakes at 8 a.m. Proceeds will go to support both High School foundations.
When the dedication ended I asked a few of the Estancia football players, who proudly stood on the field sporting their jerseys, if any of the other schools they played had an artificial turf field? The question bounced around some of the players, and as they turned to me to answer you could actually see them standing taller as one of them replied, “No one in the league has anything like this.” Our kids and community deserve something this great. Thank you, Jim Scott, for your field of dreams.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Damage Offends All Neighbors
There was a very disturbing incident that occurred in the wee hours of Friday night or early Saturday morning. The incident took place in the very quiet and peaceful Mesa Verde neighborhood known to many as the State Streets. Which, not surprisingly, takes its name from the fact that all the streets are named after States.
According to Realtor Larry Weichman, president of Weichman Associates, this neighborhood is known for its sense of community and cohesiveness. “This is your typical friendly Costa Mesa neighborhood where they have neighborhood Fourth of July barbecues and everyone knows each other. It is the reason people choose to live in Costa Mesa instead of the more ‘master planned’ communities to the south where nobody knows who lives next door.”
It all started off when a resident of Montana Street, Charlene Ashendorf, received an anonymous typewritten letter in her mailbox asking her to remove her portable basketball hoop from the street. Though the hoop had been there for more than two years, Ashendorf told me the letter stated that the hoop was an eyesore and that it was lowering property values.
I have heard about a lot of things that lower property values. Uncut lawns, yes; Christmas lights hanging from eaves in July, yes; cars parked on lawns, yes; but in my 30 years in the real estate business, portable basketball hoops in the street was not one of them.
In fact, just take a drive to the “Port Streets” neighborhood in Newport Beach, where the homes go for more than $2 million apiece, and you’ll find a portable basketball hoop every sixth house. In fact, the number of portable basketball hoops is only exceeded by the number of USC flags hanging from every fifth house.
Three days after getting the disturbing letter, when the Ashendorf’s were not home, a City of Costa Mesa flatbed truck came by to remove the basketball hoop only to be stopped by several of their neighbors who convinced the driver not to take it as they quickly rolled it up onto the driveway. Now that’s the difference between a Costa Mesa neighbor and a “fill in the blank with any South County master-planned city” neighbor. Costa Mesa neighbors watch out for each other.
Now the story only gets more bizarre. That Friday evening with the help of her neighbors, the portable basketball hoop was moved down to the end of the cul-de-sac off the street. At 8 a.m. the next morning, Charlene Ashendorf noticed a group of her neighbors, still in their slippers drinking coffee, at the end of the street. She walked out to see what was happening only to be stunned by the sight of the basketball hoop’s metal pole and backboard cut up in pieces and dragged out to Gisler Street.
Now, even though I am a planning commissioner for the city, I am not sure what the codes say regarding portable basketball hoops. But what I do know is this type of vigilantism cannot be tolerated. If you have a complaint with a neighbor and for whatever reason you do not want to confront them about it, the city has a code enforcement department that will handle the complaint.
The fact that some disturbed person, in the middle of the night, would cut up a steel pole and backboard and throw it out onto a main street makes the hair on my neck stand up. Costa Mesa police should not treat this incident as some minor act of vandalism.
This is an act of neighborhood terrorism. The person or persons who displayed this act of cowardice, in the cover of darkness, was trying to settle a score with not only the Ashendorfs but the whole community when they threw the metal carcass into the middle of Gisler Street. This is an offense against the community, and I hope our fine police department is treating it that way. This terrorist needs to be brought to justice.
Costa Mesa is a great place to live because of the neighbors that Charlene Ashendorf has on Montana Street. Great neighbors make great neighborhoods. In the long run that is what really affects real estate prices. If people want to live there, the price goes up.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
55 Mess Requires Compromise
Traffic is always considered one of the biggest issues for residents whenever a poll is taken in Orange County. Newport-Mesa residents are no different. Recently the Orange County Transportation Authority had three local meetings to get input from residents on seven solutions for the traffic problem along Newport Boulevard.
The transportation authority was looking to shed some light on solving the problem, but in the end I think they just got a lot more heat. Discussing traffic solutions just isn’t done in polite company. It’s too emotional. Everyone wants to find a solution, unless they think it might negatively affect them.
Some history on the topic: The last approved plan, which would significantly increase capacity from the 55 terminus at 19th Street to the beach, was in 1985 when California’s population was less than 26 million.
By 2010, we will be approaching 40 million. That plan extended the 55 freeway just east of Newport Boulevard, bulldozing homes and businesses along the route. Lucky for us it was never built, or we would have another scar running though Costa Mesa dividing our town.
The traffic on Newport Boulevard is at a complete standstill on any summer day with people coming and going to the beach. These motorists that block the street are not just from Orange County. More and more are coming from the booming Inland Empire.
The 55 is the backbone between the beach and the 909 area code, and that doesn’t count the 5 million out-of-town visitors from Disneyland who want to cool off in the blue Pacific.
One thing to understand is that even though they are driving to Newport Beach, their final destination is not always Newport Beach; it’s Huntington Beach.
Huntington Beach has 10 miles of wide sandy beaches with available parking almost the whole length. It draws more than 11 million visitors a year, and a large percentage of them come via Newport Boulevard and the 55. This traffic problem will get a lot worse before it gets better.
We need to figure out how to get cars from the 55 to Huntington Beach without going down Newport Boulevard.
One obvious way would be to have a bridge at 19th Street connecting us with Brookhurst Street’s direct shot to the beach.
Though this may move a lot of cars off Newport Boulevard it sends a chill down the spine of some Eastside residents who are leery of any plan they feel will bring more cut-through traffic to their neighborhood.
A bridge on 19th Street is one of those plans. You also have some Westside residents who would rather drive a circuitous six-mile route to Huntington than have a bridge if they thought it might bring one more car though their neighborhood.
I am not advocating any of these ideas and do not know whether they would solve the traffic problem created by a freeway that ends abruptly in the middle of a city.
Of the seven solutions that OCTA presented, the preferred solution by those at the meeting, was called “cut and cover.” This plan involves building express lanes under Newport Boulevard from the end of the 55 to Industrial Way.
The disruption from digging up the street would be disastrous for some of the businesses along the route. Expect them to fight it.
The guesstimate of a $100 million price is mind boggling. But in the end it may be the best solution.
Transporting people to and from the beach isn’t really a traffic problem; it’s a political problem. That is why, 23 years after a plan was approved to solve a traffic problem, nothing has really been done.
You see, it’s very hard to get elected to City Council if you upset any one constituency. Elected officials in both Newport, Costa Mesa and for that matter Huntington Beach have been kicking the can down the road for years on solutions for the beach traffic problem.
The problem with these types of issues is they take several election cycles to get solved. Even if a council can agree on a solution, environmental impact reports take years. Planning and design take years and lining up funding takes more years.
No matter what plan you come up with, someone is not going to be happy. Unhappy people vote council members out of office. So the problem never really gets solved because you cannot keep a majority on a city council long enough to finish the project.
Unless all sides can come together and agree on a plan, nothing will ever get done. It’s time for all sides to hold hands, compromise and agree on a plan. This is one issue that has to be solved sooner than later.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Acts Won’t Save Homes
You can always count on the political class in this country to solve any problem they perceive with a check. Now, of course, that is easier for them to do because it is not their money. In the case of the federal government, it’s not even our money. In fact, with the size of the growing national debt, it’s our children’s money. As I wrote in last week’s column, we are still paying back state bonds authorized in 1970.
The latest political boondoggles on Capitol Hill are the “Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” passed in January and Senate Bill 2636 “The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008” passed out of committee by the Senate Thursday. The economic stimulus package will cost our children $168 billion. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will cost another $15 billion.
Neither act will stimulate the economy nor prevent any foreclosures. But they are not really meant to do that. Their only purpose is to get incumbent legislators reelected.
All Congress seems to cares about, Democrats and Republicans alike, is demonstrating to the public how much they care. If the economy is in bad shape or foreclosures are growing, just do something about it. It is oh-so painful to watch an economically illiterate Congressman yap on some cable network that this legislation is needed to avoid a recession or to stop foreclosures.
The voting public needs to understand that very few Congressmen or women actually understand anything about economics or how the real economy works. The only requirement to be in Congress is to receive the most votes. How do you get the most votes? By letting the voters know how much you care. It’s a vicious cycle.
Now, I guess you could argue that if the money is spent on items that will help the economy, it could pay for itself. Don’t hold your breath. For the most part, the stimulus act, among other things, is just sending out checks to 119 million households in the hope that it might strengthen the economy. Though some of the tax incentives for business may be good, sending families checks for more than $100 billion is a very inefficient way to stimulate the economy. The whole stimulus package, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle, is supposed to create 500,000 new jobs. Let’s see, $168 billion divided by 500,000 jobs. That comes out to only $336,000 per job. I wonder where we can apply.
Imagine my surprise, when I learned from my accountant that my family would be getting one of these checks for more than $2,000. Needless to say, the Righeimer family is not missing any meals. My accountant explained that with the magic of loss carry-forwards and accelerated depreciation on some of the shopping centers I built, we qualify. I had no idea how much we needed the help.
The Economic Stimulus Bill passed in the house with 385 ayes to 35 nays with 10 abstaining. Only one out of 12 representatives knew that this bill was a fraud and would not do anything to help the economy. Lucky for us, we have two of those nay votes, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and John Campbell.
I haven’t talked to either of them about the bill, but I know their personalities. Campbell, a former certified public accountant, probably modeled the economic impact to the economy in net present value and concluded it was a net loss.
Rohrabacher, former Orange County Register editorial writer and speechwriter for President Reagan, just figured that you could never stimulate the economy by handing out the treasury. Rohrabacher’s Libertarian mind never fails him in fiscal situations. Either way, they both got it right. It’s a lonely place in Washington when even your own party is voting against you. These gentlemen need to hear from us that they did the right thing.
The fact is, there is very little Congress can do in the short run that will be effective in stimulating the economy or preventing foreclosures. Last I checked it was the private sector that created jobs, and I understand they can do it for less than $336,000. And as far as foreclosures are concerned, I will leave it to the lenders and borrowers to figure out how to solve that problem. Congress could never pass a law that both the lenders and borrowers would not abuse at the expense of the taxpayer.
The latest political boondoggles on Capitol Hill are the “Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” passed in January and Senate Bill 2636 “The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008” passed out of committee by the Senate Thursday. The economic stimulus package will cost our children $168 billion. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will cost another $15 billion.
Neither act will stimulate the economy nor prevent any foreclosures. But they are not really meant to do that. Their only purpose is to get incumbent legislators reelected.
All Congress seems to cares about, Democrats and Republicans alike, is demonstrating to the public how much they care. If the economy is in bad shape or foreclosures are growing, just do something about it. It is oh-so painful to watch an economically illiterate Congressman yap on some cable network that this legislation is needed to avoid a recession or to stop foreclosures.
The voting public needs to understand that very few Congressmen or women actually understand anything about economics or how the real economy works. The only requirement to be in Congress is to receive the most votes. How do you get the most votes? By letting the voters know how much you care. It’s a vicious cycle.
Now, I guess you could argue that if the money is spent on items that will help the economy, it could pay for itself. Don’t hold your breath. For the most part, the stimulus act, among other things, is just sending out checks to 119 million households in the hope that it might strengthen the economy. Though some of the tax incentives for business may be good, sending families checks for more than $100 billion is a very inefficient way to stimulate the economy. The whole stimulus package, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle, is supposed to create 500,000 new jobs. Let’s see, $168 billion divided by 500,000 jobs. That comes out to only $336,000 per job. I wonder where we can apply.
Imagine my surprise, when I learned from my accountant that my family would be getting one of these checks for more than $2,000. Needless to say, the Righeimer family is not missing any meals. My accountant explained that with the magic of loss carry-forwards and accelerated depreciation on some of the shopping centers I built, we qualify. I had no idea how much we needed the help.
The Economic Stimulus Bill passed in the house with 385 ayes to 35 nays with 10 abstaining. Only one out of 12 representatives knew that this bill was a fraud and would not do anything to help the economy. Lucky for us, we have two of those nay votes, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and John Campbell.
I haven’t talked to either of them about the bill, but I know their personalities. Campbell, a former certified public accountant, probably modeled the economic impact to the economy in net present value and concluded it was a net loss.
Rohrabacher, former Orange County Register editorial writer and speechwriter for President Reagan, just figured that you could never stimulate the economy by handing out the treasury. Rohrabacher’s Libertarian mind never fails him in fiscal situations. Either way, they both got it right. It’s a lonely place in Washington when even your own party is voting against you. These gentlemen need to hear from us that they did the right thing.
The fact is, there is very little Congress can do in the short run that will be effective in stimulating the economy or preventing foreclosures. Last I checked it was the private sector that created jobs, and I understand they can do it for less than $336,000. And as far as foreclosures are concerned, I will leave it to the lenders and borrowers to figure out how to solve that problem. Congress could never pass a law that both the lenders and borrowers would not abuse at the expense of the taxpayer.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Labor Unions’ Clout Worsening Our Debt
The state has an $8 billion hole in next year’s $141 billion budget, which does not include the $2 billion we overspent this past year.
The state needs to find an additional $10 billion just to balance the budget. Fixing budgets is very easy. All you have to do is increase your revenue or lower your expenses.
The Democratic legislators think the problem is a lack of taxes Californians pay.
The Republicans think it is overspending. Most of the problems occur when certain programs have an automatic 7.5% increase, yet the tax revenue only increases by 3%.
Another part of the overspending is self inflicted by the voters of California who pass any bond measure that has a good 30-second commercial.
While digging into the state debt load recently, I was surprised to see that we are still paying back 1970 bonds that were authorized when I was in the sixth grade.
California has a total of more than $42 billion in general obligation bonds outstanding and another $61 billion that were already approved by the voters, but not yet issued, for a total of $103 billion in bond debt.
The payments on the issued debt are more than $6 billion a year and growing at 12.2% per year. That means before we pay $1 for anything we must first pay $6 billion for bond debt.
The largest part of the state budget is personnel. In that category the Sacramento Bee did a great service this month for the taxpayers and compiled a database of salaries by name and job title of all 367,680 full- or part-time employees who cash a state paycheck. www.sacbee.com/statepay.
This database includes every UC Irvine professor, state trooper, highway worker and clerk.
Needless to say, many state employees have blown a gasket that these public records, which were always available upon request, are now on a searchable database accessible to all Californians.
Did you know the 186 staff psychiatrists we have in the prison system make a base salary of $258,708 per year and that the 22 chief psychiatrists we have make $282,792?
We have 257 employees of the state Senate and Assembly who make more than $100,000 with the top earners breaking $200,000. That’s more than the legislators they work for get paid.
Our own UCI had 157 employees who made more than $150,000 base pay, with 28 making $200,000. You will note that I am talking only about base pay.When you add in overtime, bonuses and grants; five UC employees made more than $1 million. In fact, 91 UC employees took home more than $500,000 gross pay. These numbers do not include healthcare benefits and lifetime pensions.
A really disturbing part of searching the database is to see how many state workers make more than $200,000 per year. Just four years ago there were 36, today there are almost 1,000. One in 14 state employees make more than $100,000 per year.
According to the Bee, the highest paid 10% of state workers had their pay jump almost 25% in the 38 months from November of 2003 to January of 2007. It is impossible to balance a state budget with those types of increases.
Now, clearly all state workers are not overpaid, and some actually earn every dime they make. But when you figure in the overly generous pension plans and lifetime heath benefits, plus the fact that it is almost impossible to be fired; it is not a bad gig.
The state budget has been growing out of control for years. Besides the lack of adult supervision in Sacramento we have also made a mess with so-called campaign finance reforms.
All that these laws have done is restrict the speech of Californians by limiting what a person can give to a candidate for state office and at the same time allow public employee unions to use mandatory union dues for political campaigns with no limits on what they can spend.
Organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn., who fight to keep taxes down, have a hard time competing with unions that electronically take union dues out of each state worker’s paycheck, under the guise of union dues, and spend most of it on political campaigns without the worker’s permission.
In 1998, I and two other Orange County residents, Mark Bucher and current Mission Viejo City Councilman Frank Ury, put an initiative on the ballot to stop the practice (Proposition 226).
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put a similar one on the ballot in 2005 (Proposition 75). Both times it was defeated by state labor unions using those same workers’ dues to fight it.
California will never get its financial house in order as long as the state employee labor unions decide who is going to be in office.
There is an old saying , “You dance with the one that brought you.” In California, the state labor unions brought most of our legislators to the dance, and we have a $10 billion budget deficit to prove it.
The state needs to find an additional $10 billion just to balance the budget. Fixing budgets is very easy. All you have to do is increase your revenue or lower your expenses.
The Democratic legislators think the problem is a lack of taxes Californians pay.
The Republicans think it is overspending. Most of the problems occur when certain programs have an automatic 7.5% increase, yet the tax revenue only increases by 3%.
Another part of the overspending is self inflicted by the voters of California who pass any bond measure that has a good 30-second commercial.
While digging into the state debt load recently, I was surprised to see that we are still paying back 1970 bonds that were authorized when I was in the sixth grade.
California has a total of more than $42 billion in general obligation bonds outstanding and another $61 billion that were already approved by the voters, but not yet issued, for a total of $103 billion in bond debt.
The payments on the issued debt are more than $6 billion a year and growing at 12.2% per year. That means before we pay $1 for anything we must first pay $6 billion for bond debt.
The largest part of the state budget is personnel. In that category the Sacramento Bee did a great service this month for the taxpayers and compiled a database of salaries by name and job title of all 367,680 full- or part-time employees who cash a state paycheck. www.sacbee.com/statepay.
This database includes every UC Irvine professor, state trooper, highway worker and clerk.
Needless to say, many state employees have blown a gasket that these public records, which were always available upon request, are now on a searchable database accessible to all Californians.
Did you know the 186 staff psychiatrists we have in the prison system make a base salary of $258,708 per year and that the 22 chief psychiatrists we have make $282,792?
We have 257 employees of the state Senate and Assembly who make more than $100,000 with the top earners breaking $200,000. That’s more than the legislators they work for get paid.
Our own UCI had 157 employees who made more than $150,000 base pay, with 28 making $200,000. You will note that I am talking only about base pay.When you add in overtime, bonuses and grants; five UC employees made more than $1 million. In fact, 91 UC employees took home more than $500,000 gross pay. These numbers do not include healthcare benefits and lifetime pensions.
A really disturbing part of searching the database is to see how many state workers make more than $200,000 per year. Just four years ago there were 36, today there are almost 1,000. One in 14 state employees make more than $100,000 per year.
According to the Bee, the highest paid 10% of state workers had their pay jump almost 25% in the 38 months from November of 2003 to January of 2007. It is impossible to balance a state budget with those types of increases.
Now, clearly all state workers are not overpaid, and some actually earn every dime they make. But when you figure in the overly generous pension plans and lifetime heath benefits, plus the fact that it is almost impossible to be fired; it is not a bad gig.
The state budget has been growing out of control for years. Besides the lack of adult supervision in Sacramento we have also made a mess with so-called campaign finance reforms.
All that these laws have done is restrict the speech of Californians by limiting what a person can give to a candidate for state office and at the same time allow public employee unions to use mandatory union dues for political campaigns with no limits on what they can spend.
Organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn., who fight to keep taxes down, have a hard time competing with unions that electronically take union dues out of each state worker’s paycheck, under the guise of union dues, and spend most of it on political campaigns without the worker’s permission.
In 1998, I and two other Orange County residents, Mark Bucher and current Mission Viejo City Councilman Frank Ury, put an initiative on the ballot to stop the practice (Proposition 226).
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put a similar one on the ballot in 2005 (Proposition 75). Both times it was defeated by state labor unions using those same workers’ dues to fight it.
California will never get its financial house in order as long as the state employee labor unions decide who is going to be in office.
There is an old saying , “You dance with the one that brought you.” In California, the state labor unions brought most of our legislators to the dance, and we have a $10 billion budget deficit to prove it.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Mission At The Border Can’t End
Last week I was invited by Assemblyman Van Tran to go on a fact-finding tour with the California National Guard to see the work our men and women in uniform have been doing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, cocaine and other contraband across our southern border. To say the least, I was very impressed by what was being done by our California Guards. What was really an eye opener was to realize that before the Guard was in place, there was really no substantial barrier between the U.S. and Mexico.
For most Americans who cross from Mexico to the U.S. at the Tijuana or Otay check point, all they see is high steel fences, concrete walls and a lot of Border Patrol personnel. What most of us do not realize is that for most of the border, until the Guard started building a secondary 16-foot fence, there was only an easily scalable 10-foot steel fence, between the U.S. and the millions of people who live just across the border in the Tijuana metropolitan area. The secondary fence is several hundred feet north of the primary fence.
With millions of people living right on the border, it is physically impossible to stop the flow of illegal immigrants without some physical barrier. Before the secondary fence was installed, the existing 10-foot fence proved to be only a minor speed bump for people crossing illegally into the U.S. The 12-plus million illegal immigrants in this country are a testament to how ineffective it was.
What we really had was a very sophisticated game of cat and mouse with our Border Patrol agents trying to stop the wave of people crossing California’s 157-mile border with Mexico. Many times a small group of illegals would act as if they were about to cross to draw the Border Patrol agents to them only to have another group cross where the agents just left. The secondary fence has put a stop to that.
Not only is the Guard building a proper fence but also an all-weather, high-speed access road between the two fences that allows our border agents to quickly get to any points of incursion along the border.
When the National Guard started the program called “Jump Start” 20 months ago, it was set up to help the Border Patrol get a jump start on controlling the border. President Bush and Congress had approved funding to add 6,000 additional border agents in 2006, but it takes 18 months to hire and fully train a border agent.
So far, the Border Patrol has been able to hire only 3,000 agents. Besides building infrastructure, the Guard is used to backfill positions such as vehicle maintenance, electronic early detection “eye on the border” and aviation support.
This releases border agents to do enforcement duties such as apprehending people who cross the border illegally, which the military is precluded from doing. By law, the military is not allowed to act as police on U.S. soil.
Now that we have a program that seems to be working, it is about to end. The funding to extend the program has not been approved by Congress. The Guard has orders to shut down and pull out by July. It seems the Democrat-controlled Congress doesn’t feel the pressure to even bring up an extension for a vote.
So here we are with only half of the additional border agents hired, the 15-mile secondary fence needed in the Tijuana/Otay area not complete, and we are about to send the Guard home before the mission is complete.
Protecting the border is a responsibility of the federal government. Until recently the only reason the feds were concerned about controlling the border was for the “war on drugs.” Later, 9/11 raised the concerns of protecting borders from terrorists. The fact is the federal government is not really concerned about controlling the flow of illegal immigrants across the border. The real cost of illegal immigration is not borne by the federal government. It is borne by local governments with increased costs of education, medical care, law enforcement and incarceration.
Unless Congress is politically forced to do something, they won’t. Call, write or e-mail our U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to ask them to continue the funding of the California National Guards efforts to protect our borders. It’s the least the federal government could do.
For most Americans who cross from Mexico to the U.S. at the Tijuana or Otay check point, all they see is high steel fences, concrete walls and a lot of Border Patrol personnel. What most of us do not realize is that for most of the border, until the Guard started building a secondary 16-foot fence, there was only an easily scalable 10-foot steel fence, between the U.S. and the millions of people who live just across the border in the Tijuana metropolitan area. The secondary fence is several hundred feet north of the primary fence.
With millions of people living right on the border, it is physically impossible to stop the flow of illegal immigrants without some physical barrier. Before the secondary fence was installed, the existing 10-foot fence proved to be only a minor speed bump for people crossing illegally into the U.S. The 12-plus million illegal immigrants in this country are a testament to how ineffective it was.
What we really had was a very sophisticated game of cat and mouse with our Border Patrol agents trying to stop the wave of people crossing California’s 157-mile border with Mexico. Many times a small group of illegals would act as if they were about to cross to draw the Border Patrol agents to them only to have another group cross where the agents just left. The secondary fence has put a stop to that.
Not only is the Guard building a proper fence but also an all-weather, high-speed access road between the two fences that allows our border agents to quickly get to any points of incursion along the border.
When the National Guard started the program called “Jump Start” 20 months ago, it was set up to help the Border Patrol get a jump start on controlling the border. President Bush and Congress had approved funding to add 6,000 additional border agents in 2006, but it takes 18 months to hire and fully train a border agent.
So far, the Border Patrol has been able to hire only 3,000 agents. Besides building infrastructure, the Guard is used to backfill positions such as vehicle maintenance, electronic early detection “eye on the border” and aviation support.
This releases border agents to do enforcement duties such as apprehending people who cross the border illegally, which the military is precluded from doing. By law, the military is not allowed to act as police on U.S. soil.
Now that we have a program that seems to be working, it is about to end. The funding to extend the program has not been approved by Congress. The Guard has orders to shut down and pull out by July. It seems the Democrat-controlled Congress doesn’t feel the pressure to even bring up an extension for a vote.
So here we are with only half of the additional border agents hired, the 15-mile secondary fence needed in the Tijuana/Otay area not complete, and we are about to send the Guard home before the mission is complete.
Protecting the border is a responsibility of the federal government. Until recently the only reason the feds were concerned about controlling the border was for the “war on drugs.” Later, 9/11 raised the concerns of protecting borders from terrorists. The fact is the federal government is not really concerned about controlling the flow of illegal immigrants across the border. The real cost of illegal immigration is not borne by the federal government. It is borne by local governments with increased costs of education, medical care, law enforcement and incarceration.
Unless Congress is politically forced to do something, they won’t. Call, write or e-mail our U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to ask them to continue the funding of the California National Guards efforts to protect our borders. It’s the least the federal government could do.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Cable TV competition on its way
Cable TV gripes are not new.Costa Mesa residents are getting upset lately over quality-of-service issues and ever-increasing prices for cable TV.
Nothing infuriates a customer more than having to wait on hold for 25 minutes to solve a simple billing problem.
The basic problem for consumers is that cable TV by its nature is a monopoly; and monopolies, unlike other businesses, do not have to compete to keep or get business.
They know that because you cannot get the service anywhere else they can keep you on hold and that there is nothing you can do. It costs them more money to add service representatives. It costs them nothing to keep you on hold.
Unlike with other monopolies such as electrical, natural gas and water utilities, cable TV prices and quality of customer service are not regulated by the government.
Now, I can hear all the cable executives screaming about how they are not really a monopoly and that they have competition from two satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network.
Though there is some truth to this, cable TV’s ability to also deliver Internet and phone service on the same network gives those companies a competitive cost advantage over their satellite colleagues.
The best satellite can do is force cable into a duopoly. This is where you have two competitors in a marketplace.
I’ll spare you a painfully long explanation of French economist Antoine Augustin Cournot’s duopoly model, but let’s just say that duopolies compete on anything but price.
Once a duopoly is established, it is clear to both companies that lowering price hurts them.
Therefore, they may have lower introductory prices (three months free, etc.) as a sales gimmicks to get more market share, but they will never compete on price over time.
Now take note that I am not advocating that government regulate the cable companies.
But I also do not want government to protect them. This is what, until last year, was happening around California.
Local governments were, through the local cable franchise system, protecting cable TV franchises from competitors.
In October of 2006 that all changed when California passed the Digital Infrastructure and Cable Competition Act.
Now a cable competitor gets its franchise for the whole state. No longer can local jurisdictions shake down cable competitors to get local approval.
Now, finally, real competition is just around the corner. It is coming in the form of light beige utility boxes being installed throughout the city. What is in those boxes will finally bring long-awaited competition to cable TV in Costa Mesa.
AT&T is installing its fiber-to-the-neighborhood network, which will have not only high-speed Internet but also TV and phone service.
Several years back the cable TV companies got into the phone and Internet business.
They already had a wire to your house, and now with newly developed technology, they can deliver Internet and telephone service over that same wire.
This has been so successful that in South County the cable company has more phone subscribers than the local phone company.
The cable companies brought real competition to the local phone company for phone service and also Internet access.
The local phone companies were already getting fierce competition from wireless carriers, but it was cable that finally forced down prices.
Long distance is now basically free. In fact, more than 50% of people younger than 30 have never had a land-line phone in their home. The local phone company was not going to sit around and take the financial beating as more and more Americans disconnected their phone lines and replaced it with their cable or wireless phone.
If the cable companies want to compete on phone service, then the phone companies will compete on TV service.
And that is where we are at. AT&T is spending billions to bring TV, phone and Internet service to customers all across the country. That competition is now coming to Costa Mesa.
Mayor Eric Bever has also leveled the playing field by letting AT&T have the public access feed that broadcasts City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
Costa Mesa residents are spending more than $16 million a year on cable TV, and for the first time in 30 years, we are going to have some competition for that business.
Nothing infuriates a customer more than having to wait on hold for 25 minutes to solve a simple billing problem.
The basic problem for consumers is that cable TV by its nature is a monopoly; and monopolies, unlike other businesses, do not have to compete to keep or get business.
They know that because you cannot get the service anywhere else they can keep you on hold and that there is nothing you can do. It costs them more money to add service representatives. It costs them nothing to keep you on hold.
Unlike with other monopolies such as electrical, natural gas and water utilities, cable TV prices and quality of customer service are not regulated by the government.
Now, I can hear all the cable executives screaming about how they are not really a monopoly and that they have competition from two satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network.
Though there is some truth to this, cable TV’s ability to also deliver Internet and phone service on the same network gives those companies a competitive cost advantage over their satellite colleagues.
The best satellite can do is force cable into a duopoly. This is where you have two competitors in a marketplace.
I’ll spare you a painfully long explanation of French economist Antoine Augustin Cournot’s duopoly model, but let’s just say that duopolies compete on anything but price.
Once a duopoly is established, it is clear to both companies that lowering price hurts them.
Therefore, they may have lower introductory prices (three months free, etc.) as a sales gimmicks to get more market share, but they will never compete on price over time.
Now take note that I am not advocating that government regulate the cable companies.
But I also do not want government to protect them. This is what, until last year, was happening around California.
Local governments were, through the local cable franchise system, protecting cable TV franchises from competitors.
In October of 2006 that all changed when California passed the Digital Infrastructure and Cable Competition Act.
Now a cable competitor gets its franchise for the whole state. No longer can local jurisdictions shake down cable competitors to get local approval.
Now, finally, real competition is just around the corner. It is coming in the form of light beige utility boxes being installed throughout the city. What is in those boxes will finally bring long-awaited competition to cable TV in Costa Mesa.
AT&T is installing its fiber-to-the-neighborhood network, which will have not only high-speed Internet but also TV and phone service.
Several years back the cable TV companies got into the phone and Internet business.
They already had a wire to your house, and now with newly developed technology, they can deliver Internet and telephone service over that same wire.
This has been so successful that in South County the cable company has more phone subscribers than the local phone company.
The cable companies brought real competition to the local phone company for phone service and also Internet access.
The local phone companies were already getting fierce competition from wireless carriers, but it was cable that finally forced down prices.
Long distance is now basically free. In fact, more than 50% of people younger than 30 have never had a land-line phone in their home. The local phone company was not going to sit around and take the financial beating as more and more Americans disconnected their phone lines and replaced it with their cable or wireless phone.
If the cable companies want to compete on phone service, then the phone companies will compete on TV service.
And that is where we are at. AT&T is spending billions to bring TV, phone and Internet service to customers all across the country. That competition is now coming to Costa Mesa.
Mayor Eric Bever has also leveled the playing field by letting AT&T have the public access feed that broadcasts City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
Costa Mesa residents are spending more than $16 million a year on cable TV, and for the first time in 30 years, we are going to have some competition for that business.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
‘Liars’ Get Last Laugh?
I was hoping last week’s column regarding the real estate market would be my last for a while. I wrote about the “liar loans” that allowed people with no money down to puff up their incomes to get larger home loans than they could afford.
Lenders did not verify anything, including whether home buyers were even employed. These same people are now starting to lose their homes to foreclosure.
To the rescue to all these poor “uneducated” people is none other than Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) with Senate Bill 2636, “Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.” Reid thinks these people just did not understand what they were signing.
This bill would reward everyone who took out Liar Loans. If passed, it, among other things, would allow bankruptcy judges to lower the principal and interest payments on a home loan to the amount the borrower could now afford based on their income when they filed for bankruptcy.
Lets look how this would affect two couples who were looking to buy a home in Orange County. Both couples went house hunting in Costa Mesa in the summer of 2006.
First we have Jane and Joe Liar. The Liars got a no-money-down loan to buy a 2,500-square-foot home in Costa Mesa for $850,000. On the Liars’ non-verified loan application they stated their income was $11,200 per month.
At least it had been for the last six months. Both Joe and Jane were in sales and with the economy humming along their commission checks were higher than normal. Their 4% adjustable- interest only loan payment was $2,834 per month. With taxes of $850 their total house payment was $3,684 month.
The other couple; Bill and Sarah Doright, were also looking for a home in Costa Mesa. They too were in sales and the humming economy also shot up their incomes.
Some months, with help from large commission checks, they also made $11,200 per month. The couple also saved $45,000 over the last four years by not eating out, forgoing expensive vacations and continuing to drive their eight-year-old cars.
Their lender verified their average income over the last two years and even though they wanted a single-family home they were only qualified to buy a 1,100-square-foot condo for $450,000; which they did. Being on the conservative side they put down $45,000 and got a 30-year 6% fixed loan for $405,000. The loan payment was $2,135, and with taxes and association dues their total house payment was $2,735 per month.
Now let’s fast forward to January of 2009. Barack Obama is sworn in as president, and he signs the “Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2009.” The economy has slowed down, and both the Liars and Dorights are feeling the pinch. Both couples have much lower commission checks and are living off their base salaries. The real estate market has also tanked, and neither couple could sell their homes for what they owe.
The Liars’ adjustable loan goes up to 6%, and they can no longer afford what is now a $5,100-loan payment. No problem. The Liars file for bankruptcy and, lo and behold, because of the Foreclosure Prevention Act, they are saved.
A bankruptcy judge comes to the rescue and reduces their payment to what they can now afford, by lowering the principal on their loan to $395,000. This lowers the loan payment to $1,975. With taxes they are now paying $2,825 per month. A savings of more than $2,000 per month and $455,000 knocked off their loan balance to boot.
Meanwhile the Dorights, who make enough money to make their mortgage payment, continue to make the payments and live in their condo and hope someday to save up enough money to buy a home.
What message does the government give to people like the Dorights, who do not go into debt over their heads and borrow only what they can afford to pay back?
Reckless behavior gets rewarded. And good behavior gets punished.
There is nothing noble in preventing foreclosures. Foreclosures are the market’s way of re-pricing the housing market to what people can afford. The foreclosed homes we see in some neighborhoods with the unkempt lawns won’t stay vacant very long.
Remember: For every family that loses a home to foreclosure, there is another family who buys it at a price they can afford.By the way, lending institutions cannot stay in business if the money they lend out gets reduced by a judge and never gets paid back.
To stay in business, they will just make up their losses by charging higher interest rates to the rest of us. That won’t help anyone.
Lenders did not verify anything, including whether home buyers were even employed. These same people are now starting to lose their homes to foreclosure.
To the rescue to all these poor “uneducated” people is none other than Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) with Senate Bill 2636, “Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.” Reid thinks these people just did not understand what they were signing.
This bill would reward everyone who took out Liar Loans. If passed, it, among other things, would allow bankruptcy judges to lower the principal and interest payments on a home loan to the amount the borrower could now afford based on their income when they filed for bankruptcy.
Lets look how this would affect two couples who were looking to buy a home in Orange County. Both couples went house hunting in Costa Mesa in the summer of 2006.
First we have Jane and Joe Liar. The Liars got a no-money-down loan to buy a 2,500-square-foot home in Costa Mesa for $850,000. On the Liars’ non-verified loan application they stated their income was $11,200 per month.
At least it had been for the last six months. Both Joe and Jane were in sales and with the economy humming along their commission checks were higher than normal. Their 4% adjustable- interest only loan payment was $2,834 per month. With taxes of $850 their total house payment was $3,684 month.
The other couple; Bill and Sarah Doright, were also looking for a home in Costa Mesa. They too were in sales and the humming economy also shot up their incomes.
Some months, with help from large commission checks, they also made $11,200 per month. The couple also saved $45,000 over the last four years by not eating out, forgoing expensive vacations and continuing to drive their eight-year-old cars.
Their lender verified their average income over the last two years and even though they wanted a single-family home they were only qualified to buy a 1,100-square-foot condo for $450,000; which they did. Being on the conservative side they put down $45,000 and got a 30-year 6% fixed loan for $405,000. The loan payment was $2,135, and with taxes and association dues their total house payment was $2,735 per month.
Now let’s fast forward to January of 2009. Barack Obama is sworn in as president, and he signs the “Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2009.” The economy has slowed down, and both the Liars and Dorights are feeling the pinch. Both couples have much lower commission checks and are living off their base salaries. The real estate market has also tanked, and neither couple could sell their homes for what they owe.
The Liars’ adjustable loan goes up to 6%, and they can no longer afford what is now a $5,100-loan payment. No problem. The Liars file for bankruptcy and, lo and behold, because of the Foreclosure Prevention Act, they are saved.
A bankruptcy judge comes to the rescue and reduces their payment to what they can now afford, by lowering the principal on their loan to $395,000. This lowers the loan payment to $1,975. With taxes they are now paying $2,825 per month. A savings of more than $2,000 per month and $455,000 knocked off their loan balance to boot.
Meanwhile the Dorights, who make enough money to make their mortgage payment, continue to make the payments and live in their condo and hope someday to save up enough money to buy a home.
What message does the government give to people like the Dorights, who do not go into debt over their heads and borrow only what they can afford to pay back?
Reckless behavior gets rewarded. And good behavior gets punished.
There is nothing noble in preventing foreclosures. Foreclosures are the market’s way of re-pricing the housing market to what people can afford. The foreclosed homes we see in some neighborhoods with the unkempt lawns won’t stay vacant very long.
Remember: For every family that loses a home to foreclosure, there is another family who buys it at a price they can afford.By the way, lending institutions cannot stay in business if the money they lend out gets reduced by a judge and never gets paid back.
To stay in business, they will just make up their losses by charging higher interest rates to the rest of us. That won’t help anyone.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Liar Loans Sting Our Schools
The Daily Pilot recently reported that the Newport-Mesa Unified School District was postponing the sale of bonds.
The money raised by the Measure F bonds was meant to fund improvement projects at various schools.
These projects are being pushed back at least one year. The reason for not selling the bonds now was because the assessed valuation of real estate in the district was much lower than anticipated.
California has a staggering estimated $15-billion deficit because tax receipts are much lower than anticipated.
Capital gains taxes are expected to be a lower percentage of personal taxes this year than previous years.
Capital gains tax is paid whenever assets such as stocks, bonds and real estate are sold for more than their purchase price.
In Fiscal 2000-01, just prior to the bubble bursting on the stock market, the state collected $17.5 billion in capital gains taxes. This represented 39.3% of all personal tax revenues.
By 2002-03, capital gains taxes in the state were only $5.4 billion or 16.6% of personal tax revenues.
Whether it is school bonds or state budgets, the drop in real estate values will affect the economy for at least the next 18 months.
But to be fair, the drop in real estate values is directly proportional to the artificial increase in value we had in the last couple of years, which was primarily due to the creation of no money down “liar loans.”
These no-documentation loans allowed borrowers to overstate their incomes and qualify for larger loans, which in turn pushed prices higher than anyone could really afford. They also allowed a lot of people to buy widescreen TVs and RVs with their newfound equity.
As I wrote previously, until the $100 billion in losses, that lenders on Wall Street have already taken get to Main Street, the number of real estate transactions will continue to drop thereby continuing to put downward pressure on prices. Homes are now selling in our area for about the same prices they did in 2005. Not surprisingly, that is the same year the liar loans really took off.
There is, however, some good news in the real estate market. The Wall Street lenders have finally gotten their “short sale” departments up to speed to handle the actual write down of loans.
A short sale is where the lender agrees to take less than what is owed on a home in order to facilitate a sale. Lenders seem to agree that it is better to do a short sale and have an orderly transaction from one homeowner to another than to do a foreclosure and still have to find a buyer. Homes always sell better furnished than vacant.
Though it may only be anecdotal, I know of at least two buyers in as many weeks who bought homes this way. In one case the previous owners, who bought in 2006, paid $750,000 (all borrowed) for a four-bedroom, two-bath Costa Mesa home.
My friends, after waiting four weeks for the lender’s approval, paid just $512,000. The lender agreed to accept a $250,000 loss on the loan. This is what I mean when I say moving the loan losses from Wall Street to Main Street. Not coincidently, $512,000 was what neighboring homes were selling for in 2005.
I spoke with Valerie Torelli of Torelli Realty, and she said last year her office did one short sale. This year they expect one out of three home sales to be a short sale.
The other good news is that President Bush signed HR 5140, the economic stimulus bill. The important part of the bill was not handing out $600 checks to anyone who can breathe.
Any idiot can borrow from Peter and give to Peter and Paul. That was a political stunt to show the American people how concerned Washington is about us in an election year. That’s another column.
The important part is increasing guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limit on the size of loans they can buy from $417,000 to $729,750. This allows lenders to make loans at the higher amount knowing that Fannie or Freddie can buy it on the open market. Lenders should start making these loans in April.
Until now, even strong buyers with large down payments could not get a reasonable loan, over the $417,000 limit. Most lenders are afraid to make larger loans because they do not have any confidence they can sell the loan later if needed. Raising the limit raises confidence. Raising confidence brings liquidity to the mortgage market and allows home buyer to get loans.
The number of home sales will trend up throughout 2008. Notice I did not say prices will go up. Homes are worth what they were in 2005. But at least now you will be able to buy and sell them.
The money raised by the Measure F bonds was meant to fund improvement projects at various schools.
These projects are being pushed back at least one year. The reason for not selling the bonds now was because the assessed valuation of real estate in the district was much lower than anticipated.
California has a staggering estimated $15-billion deficit because tax receipts are much lower than anticipated.
Capital gains taxes are expected to be a lower percentage of personal taxes this year than previous years.
Capital gains tax is paid whenever assets such as stocks, bonds and real estate are sold for more than their purchase price.
In Fiscal 2000-01, just prior to the bubble bursting on the stock market, the state collected $17.5 billion in capital gains taxes. This represented 39.3% of all personal tax revenues.
By 2002-03, capital gains taxes in the state were only $5.4 billion or 16.6% of personal tax revenues.
Whether it is school bonds or state budgets, the drop in real estate values will affect the economy for at least the next 18 months.
But to be fair, the drop in real estate values is directly proportional to the artificial increase in value we had in the last couple of years, which was primarily due to the creation of no money down “liar loans.”
These no-documentation loans allowed borrowers to overstate their incomes and qualify for larger loans, which in turn pushed prices higher than anyone could really afford. They also allowed a lot of people to buy widescreen TVs and RVs with their newfound equity.
As I wrote previously, until the $100 billion in losses, that lenders on Wall Street have already taken get to Main Street, the number of real estate transactions will continue to drop thereby continuing to put downward pressure on prices. Homes are now selling in our area for about the same prices they did in 2005. Not surprisingly, that is the same year the liar loans really took off.
There is, however, some good news in the real estate market. The Wall Street lenders have finally gotten their “short sale” departments up to speed to handle the actual write down of loans.
A short sale is where the lender agrees to take less than what is owed on a home in order to facilitate a sale. Lenders seem to agree that it is better to do a short sale and have an orderly transaction from one homeowner to another than to do a foreclosure and still have to find a buyer. Homes always sell better furnished than vacant.
Though it may only be anecdotal, I know of at least two buyers in as many weeks who bought homes this way. In one case the previous owners, who bought in 2006, paid $750,000 (all borrowed) for a four-bedroom, two-bath Costa Mesa home.
My friends, after waiting four weeks for the lender’s approval, paid just $512,000. The lender agreed to accept a $250,000 loss on the loan. This is what I mean when I say moving the loan losses from Wall Street to Main Street. Not coincidently, $512,000 was what neighboring homes were selling for in 2005.
I spoke with Valerie Torelli of Torelli Realty, and she said last year her office did one short sale. This year they expect one out of three home sales to be a short sale.
The other good news is that President Bush signed HR 5140, the economic stimulus bill. The important part of the bill was not handing out $600 checks to anyone who can breathe.
Any idiot can borrow from Peter and give to Peter and Paul. That was a political stunt to show the American people how concerned Washington is about us in an election year. That’s another column.
The important part is increasing guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limit on the size of loans they can buy from $417,000 to $729,750. This allows lenders to make loans at the higher amount knowing that Fannie or Freddie can buy it on the open market. Lenders should start making these loans in April.
Until now, even strong buyers with large down payments could not get a reasonable loan, over the $417,000 limit. Most lenders are afraid to make larger loans because they do not have any confidence they can sell the loan later if needed. Raising the limit raises confidence. Raising confidence brings liquidity to the mortgage market and allows home buyer to get loans.
The number of home sales will trend up throughout 2008. Notice I did not say prices will go up. Homes are worth what they were in 2005. But at least now you will be able to buy and sell them.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
You Win Some, You Lose Some
The last two weeks were politically a little rough for me. Super Tuesday was almost two weeks ago, and I am still feeling the pain.
I had been working to get former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney elected for more than two years, and trust me: When you lose, it leaves a mark.
Looking back now, it is easy to see how it all played out. The conservative vote was split between Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had lost in Florida the week before, so he dropped out of the race. With no other moderate in the race, Arizona Sen. John McCain picked up the plurality of votes and won most of the delegates on Super Tuesday.
My hope was that Romney could do well in California and take the race all the way to the convention. That did not happen. McCain won fair and square.
This week Romney endorsed McCain and thereby forced every conservative in the country to make a choice about whom we wanted in the White House.
In any political race you do not get to create your own candidate. You chose from the candidates who are on the ballot.
When I look at my choices now they are McCain and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Though I cannot believe I am about to say this, I will support McCain for president. He may not have been my first choice, but among the three, he is the best choice.
On the local level everything I voted on came out my way except for Indian Gaming.
But I already knew those initiatives were going to pass when they started the “please help our poor tribe” ads six months ago.
One measure I supported that did pass was Newport Beach’s Measure B “City Hall in the Park” referendum.
Though this was passed by the voters, the issue is still muddled up with the Allan Beek lawsuit.
Mr. Beek sued under the argument that only the city council had the authority to decide where a city hall should be built and that the citizens could not make that decision.
It was reported in this paper that even though the initiative passed, he has decided to continue with his lawsuit.
The very essence of his suit is that the voters do not have the right to decide this type of issue. He wants his day in court.
Well, I am not a lawyer and can’t give a legal opinion of Beek’s lawsuit. But one way to solve this is to give Mr. Beek what he wants.
The council could vote on the City Hall in the Park’s location. This would solve Beek’s concern that only the City Council can make that decision.
Previously, four of the seven city council members did not support having the city hall at the park.
Hence, Bill Ficker and friends collected signatures and put it on the ballot. Now that the initiative has passed, I think the council vote would be quite different.
Mayor Ed Selich, who was one of the four who did not support the City Hall in the Park’s Avocado Avenue location, has said publicly all along that if Measure B passed he would go with the will of the voters and move forward to have the city hall built at the Avocado site.
I talked with Councilman Keith Curry, who also was not a supporter of the park location. He told me that the people have spoken and that no matter what happens with Beek’s lawsuit, he will now support the city hall in the park location.
That would now make it at least five of seven votes for the city hall in the park. Curry surmised that if a vote came forward he thought it would probably be 7-0 in favor.
Just prior to finishing this column I got a return call from Councilman Mike Henn.
Though he said he did not want to declare a vote in the newspaper, unless there was a prior decision in the Beek case, he would also support the will of the people.
Just as in the presidential race, some of us have to work with the choices we have, and not the choice we want. It is nice to see that the Newport Beach council is looking to unify the city and move forward on a location for city hall.
I had been working to get former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney elected for more than two years, and trust me: When you lose, it leaves a mark.
Looking back now, it is easy to see how it all played out. The conservative vote was split between Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had lost in Florida the week before, so he dropped out of the race. With no other moderate in the race, Arizona Sen. John McCain picked up the plurality of votes and won most of the delegates on Super Tuesday.
My hope was that Romney could do well in California and take the race all the way to the convention. That did not happen. McCain won fair and square.
This week Romney endorsed McCain and thereby forced every conservative in the country to make a choice about whom we wanted in the White House.
In any political race you do not get to create your own candidate. You chose from the candidates who are on the ballot.
When I look at my choices now they are McCain and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Though I cannot believe I am about to say this, I will support McCain for president. He may not have been my first choice, but among the three, he is the best choice.
On the local level everything I voted on came out my way except for Indian Gaming.
But I already knew those initiatives were going to pass when they started the “please help our poor tribe” ads six months ago.
One measure I supported that did pass was Newport Beach’s Measure B “City Hall in the Park” referendum.
Though this was passed by the voters, the issue is still muddled up with the Allan Beek lawsuit.
Mr. Beek sued under the argument that only the city council had the authority to decide where a city hall should be built and that the citizens could not make that decision.
It was reported in this paper that even though the initiative passed, he has decided to continue with his lawsuit.
The very essence of his suit is that the voters do not have the right to decide this type of issue. He wants his day in court.
Well, I am not a lawyer and can’t give a legal opinion of Beek’s lawsuit. But one way to solve this is to give Mr. Beek what he wants.
The council could vote on the City Hall in the Park’s location. This would solve Beek’s concern that only the City Council can make that decision.
Previously, four of the seven city council members did not support having the city hall at the park.
Hence, Bill Ficker and friends collected signatures and put it on the ballot. Now that the initiative has passed, I think the council vote would be quite different.
Mayor Ed Selich, who was one of the four who did not support the City Hall in the Park’s Avocado Avenue location, has said publicly all along that if Measure B passed he would go with the will of the voters and move forward to have the city hall built at the Avocado site.
I talked with Councilman Keith Curry, who also was not a supporter of the park location. He told me that the people have spoken and that no matter what happens with Beek’s lawsuit, he will now support the city hall in the park location.
That would now make it at least five of seven votes for the city hall in the park. Curry surmised that if a vote came forward he thought it would probably be 7-0 in favor.
Just prior to finishing this column I got a return call from Councilman Mike Henn.
Though he said he did not want to declare a vote in the newspaper, unless there was a prior decision in the Beek case, he would also support the will of the people.
Just as in the presidential race, some of us have to work with the choices we have, and not the choice we want. It is nice to see that the Newport Beach council is looking to unify the city and move forward on a location for city hall.
Friday, February 1, 2008
A Week of Sickness and Excitement
The week started off as any other in the Righeimer household. Saturday morning I met up with Costa Mesa City Councilman Allan Mansoor at the Hale Crest and Hall of Fame Homeowners’ Assn. yearly meeting.
We had recently approved the CarMax at Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue, and we wanted to hear how the construction was affecting the neighborhood. My almost 4-year-old Ellie, who begged to go that morning, was now squirming in her seat thinking she should have stayed home with her sisters instead of learning how CarMax had designed the center dividers to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood.
The neighbors seemed fine with CarMax, so I headed home. We had a ski vacation planned for Friday, so when I got home Lene was off to Sports Chalet to buy the girls ski clothes. Our two youngest girls had colds, so we stayed inside and tried to enjoy the rain. Mitt Romney’s loss to John McCain in Florida didn’t help my spirits, but there’s nothing like playing with your kids to put your life back into perspective and make you realize how good you have it.
Monday morning started completely different. The Romney campaign had contacted me earlier about doing a rally in Orange County and they just confirmed that, despite the loss in Florida, Mitt was not giving up. They needed the rally and could I work with the advance team and put it together for Thursday morning?
I am what you call in politics a true believer. You stick with whom you believe in until the end. If Mitt is not going to quit, neither am I. This game is not over.
I called in a favor from Rick Huffman, one of the owners of the Bassett Furniture store in a center I developed in Fountain Valley. Could we use the warehouse part of your store for the rally, I asked. How many people, he asks. Maybe 250, I say. He thinks for a second and says, “You got it.”
I call the Romney headquarters in Boston and tell them we have the location. The advance team kicks it in high gear. We have less than 72 hours to pull off what may be Romney’s only rally in Southern California before Super Tuesday. We have to set up a stage with sound and lights, risers for the press corps television cameras, contact the VIPs and rally the Romney supporters to get a crowd.
About this time I get a call from Lene — the cold our 22-month-old Katherine has worsened, and our pediatrician says she has a respiratory virus and admitting her to Fountain Valley Regional Hospital now. This is when hiring good people pays off. One of my assistants, Ethan, a smart 23-year-old with a little campaign experience, says he can handle it. I put him in charge and head for the ER.
When I get there Katherine does not look happy with the IV in her little arm and oxygen tube in her nose. The ER is crazy, but Lene is keeping her happy. Boy did I luck out when I went on that blind date 14 years ago. Fountain Valley’s staff is great, but they do not have an available bed in pediatrics.
Mesa Verde neighbors Steve and Robin Mensinger came to the rescue and picked up Morgan from school at St. John the Baptist. I stayed at the Hospital for a few hours to give Lene a break, but now I had to leave for my planning commission meeting. I got home after 10 p.m. and called the hospital. They finally had a room, and Katherine was responding well to treatments. Things were starting to look better.
Tuesday morning I get up early and head to the hospital to give Lene a break. She has been up most of the night. Needless to say, without going into all the details, the stress and worry you go though during these times, I did not get much sleep. Two days pass, and they release Katherine from the hospital. We get home by noon Wednesday with a list of prescriptions for antibiotics and breathing treatments.
Well, I still have a company to run and a rally set for Thursday so it’s back to the office. I get in and start making phone calls. We have less then 24 hours to pull off the event. I head to the warehouse about 8 that night, and the place is hopping.
These Romney people are pros. They have the stage and risers built for the TV cameras. Sound and lighting is almost finished. Before morning we will have three satellite trucks set up in the parking lot linking us to the world. Only one issue left. Did we do enough to get the crowd? Without a cheering crowd this rally is going to be a bomb and that’s not exactly what the campaign needs right now on national TV. We put out the word to everyone we knew, but it is not like people are going to make a reservation for a rally.
I have two business meetings Thursday morning, and all I can think about is whether anybody show. By 10:15 I get a text message from Ethan that just says “big turnout.” I rushed over to find there wasn’t a parking space for blocks. The turnout was huge. I see Rep. Dana Rohrabacher in the parking lot, and the crowd is so big we cannot find a way to get into the building.
Finally I see a familiar face, and we get though a different door. I count 21 TV crews on the risers. The Romney staffers are stunned by the size of the crowd. After the loss in Florida they were all concerned about losing traction. To make a long story short, Mitt shows up, and the crowd goes nuts. He delivered the best speech I had ever seen him do. He energized the crowd, and they energized him.
If you are wondering what happened to our ski vacation, well, Lene and I talked it over, and she decided that I should take Morgan to Aspen. Morgan had been really looking forward to her first ski trip and she didn’t want to break her heart. Lene would stay at home with Ellie and Katherine. We got up at 4 this morning and headed to the airport. So here I am in Aspen on a daddy-daughter ski trip. The snow is falling as I type these words.
We had recently approved the CarMax at Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue, and we wanted to hear how the construction was affecting the neighborhood. My almost 4-year-old Ellie, who begged to go that morning, was now squirming in her seat thinking she should have stayed home with her sisters instead of learning how CarMax had designed the center dividers to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood.
The neighbors seemed fine with CarMax, so I headed home. We had a ski vacation planned for Friday, so when I got home Lene was off to Sports Chalet to buy the girls ski clothes. Our two youngest girls had colds, so we stayed inside and tried to enjoy the rain. Mitt Romney’s loss to John McCain in Florida didn’t help my spirits, but there’s nothing like playing with your kids to put your life back into perspective and make you realize how good you have it.
Monday morning started completely different. The Romney campaign had contacted me earlier about doing a rally in Orange County and they just confirmed that, despite the loss in Florida, Mitt was not giving up. They needed the rally and could I work with the advance team and put it together for Thursday morning?
I am what you call in politics a true believer. You stick with whom you believe in until the end. If Mitt is not going to quit, neither am I. This game is not over.
I called in a favor from Rick Huffman, one of the owners of the Bassett Furniture store in a center I developed in Fountain Valley. Could we use the warehouse part of your store for the rally, I asked. How many people, he asks. Maybe 250, I say. He thinks for a second and says, “You got it.”
I call the Romney headquarters in Boston and tell them we have the location. The advance team kicks it in high gear. We have less than 72 hours to pull off what may be Romney’s only rally in Southern California before Super Tuesday. We have to set up a stage with sound and lights, risers for the press corps television cameras, contact the VIPs and rally the Romney supporters to get a crowd.
About this time I get a call from Lene — the cold our 22-month-old Katherine has worsened, and our pediatrician says she has a respiratory virus and admitting her to Fountain Valley Regional Hospital now. This is when hiring good people pays off. One of my assistants, Ethan, a smart 23-year-old with a little campaign experience, says he can handle it. I put him in charge and head for the ER.
When I get there Katherine does not look happy with the IV in her little arm and oxygen tube in her nose. The ER is crazy, but Lene is keeping her happy. Boy did I luck out when I went on that blind date 14 years ago. Fountain Valley’s staff is great, but they do not have an available bed in pediatrics.
Mesa Verde neighbors Steve and Robin Mensinger came to the rescue and picked up Morgan from school at St. John the Baptist. I stayed at the Hospital for a few hours to give Lene a break, but now I had to leave for my planning commission meeting. I got home after 10 p.m. and called the hospital. They finally had a room, and Katherine was responding well to treatments. Things were starting to look better.
Tuesday morning I get up early and head to the hospital to give Lene a break. She has been up most of the night. Needless to say, without going into all the details, the stress and worry you go though during these times, I did not get much sleep. Two days pass, and they release Katherine from the hospital. We get home by noon Wednesday with a list of prescriptions for antibiotics and breathing treatments.
Well, I still have a company to run and a rally set for Thursday so it’s back to the office. I get in and start making phone calls. We have less then 24 hours to pull off the event. I head to the warehouse about 8 that night, and the place is hopping.
These Romney people are pros. They have the stage and risers built for the TV cameras. Sound and lighting is almost finished. Before morning we will have three satellite trucks set up in the parking lot linking us to the world. Only one issue left. Did we do enough to get the crowd? Without a cheering crowd this rally is going to be a bomb and that’s not exactly what the campaign needs right now on national TV. We put out the word to everyone we knew, but it is not like people are going to make a reservation for a rally.
I have two business meetings Thursday morning, and all I can think about is whether anybody show. By 10:15 I get a text message from Ethan that just says “big turnout.” I rushed over to find there wasn’t a parking space for blocks. The turnout was huge. I see Rep. Dana Rohrabacher in the parking lot, and the crowd is so big we cannot find a way to get into the building.
Finally I see a familiar face, and we get though a different door. I count 21 TV crews on the risers. The Romney staffers are stunned by the size of the crowd. After the loss in Florida they were all concerned about losing traction. To make a long story short, Mitt shows up, and the crowd goes nuts. He delivered the best speech I had ever seen him do. He energized the crowd, and they energized him.
If you are wondering what happened to our ski vacation, well, Lene and I talked it over, and she decided that I should take Morgan to Aspen. Morgan had been really looking forward to her first ski trip and she didn’t want to break her heart. Lene would stay at home with Ellie and Katherine. We got up at 4 this morning and headed to the airport. So here I am in Aspen on a daddy-daughter ski trip. The snow is falling as I type these words.
Monday, January 28, 2008
A Primer to Ballots for Feb. 5
Absentee ballots have been delivered, and voting has now started in California for the Feb. 5 presidential primary. Here are my picks, starting with the propositions.
Proposition 91 transportation funds: According to the proponents, this initiative is no longer needed. Subsequent to 91 qualifying for the ballot, a bipartisan group of legislators and the governor put Proposition 1A on the ballot in November of 2006 that accomplished what Proposition 91 set out to do.
Proposition 1A passed with 77% of the vote. Therefore, 91 is not needed. VOTE NO
Proposition 92 Community College Funding: This is the first time in my life I agree with the California Teachers Assn., which is against Proposition 92.
This initiative is a feeble attempt by one part of the public educational monopoly — community colleges — trying to get a locked-in share of the state budget by changing the California Constitution with a funding formula based on population and unemployment, and not on the number of students that attend their schools.
They try to pass it off as something to help poor students by lowering fees from $20 per unit to $15. The problem is this reduction is for all students. Poor students already get the fee waived. All this initiative does is give wealthy students more money for Starbucks and iPods. VOTE NO
Proposition 93 Term Limits: This is filed under, “How stupid do they think we are?”
Though it is called a term limits initiative, it does not add limits and in fact adds four more years to all incumbents senators and six more years to all incumbent Assembly members.
In fact, the reason we have two primaries this year was so they could pass this in February and then place their names as incumbents on the normal June primary before they are termed out.The Democratic leaders thought with some slick ads and good spin they could pass this in the dead of the night. VOTE NO
Proposition 94-97 Expansion of Indian Gambling Casinos: The Native Americans have more money to influence elections than any other special interest because they have the only gambling franchise in the state.
Almost every elected official, Republican and Democrat, is too afraid to ever upset the American Indians. The tribes will spend millions against any senator or assemblyman who gets out of line. The tribes always get what they want.
These particular compacts allow four tribes to more than double the amount of slot machines they have to 17,000. Tribes have been trying to get casinos into Orange County for years.
I enjoy gambling just as much as the next guy, but expanding this monopoly only puts more political power in their hands to do just that.
And please don’t fall for that argument that it will help the state finances.
Every dollar put in a slot machine would be spent in some other business and those businesses pay more taxes on each dollar they get than the tribes do. VOTE NO
Measure B City Hall in the Park: This is for my friends in Newport Beach. I have written extensively on this issue; it’s a simple no-brainer.
Cities should build on property they own before the buy more. It is the only fiscally prudent thing to do when you already own a perfectly good piece of property in the center of the city that is only growing weeds.
It makes no sense to spend $8 million to buy a smaller piece of property from the Irvine Company a few blocks away, which does not have enough room for its own parking. Not exactly the relationship the city needs; to be a tenant of The Irvine Company. VOTE YES
Now, when it comes to picking the nominees for president I will cede the choice of the Democratic nominee to someone who has a clue. I do not. You can pick a Hillary Clinton with no charm, a Barack Obama with no resume or John Edwards with no chance.
On the Republican side I told you before that I was already extremely biased. I hitched my wagon to Mitt Romney over a year ago when nobody knew his name.
I said last month that Romney would sweep Iowa and New Hampshire. Boy, was I wrong. He took second place in both, but won Michigan and Nevada handily.
Lo and behold, he is in a dead heat in Florida with John McCain. Giuliani spent the whole campaign in Florida and looks like he will place third there this week, which will end his campaign.
If Romney wins Florida, he will be the front runner when the race gets here.
So it’s now down to two horses, Mitt and McCain. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher made his choice this week and endorsed Romney. We need a Republican, not a rebel. VOTE ROMNEY
Proposition 91 transportation funds: According to the proponents, this initiative is no longer needed. Subsequent to 91 qualifying for the ballot, a bipartisan group of legislators and the governor put Proposition 1A on the ballot in November of 2006 that accomplished what Proposition 91 set out to do.
Proposition 1A passed with 77% of the vote. Therefore, 91 is not needed. VOTE NO
Proposition 92 Community College Funding: This is the first time in my life I agree with the California Teachers Assn., which is against Proposition 92.
This initiative is a feeble attempt by one part of the public educational monopoly — community colleges — trying to get a locked-in share of the state budget by changing the California Constitution with a funding formula based on population and unemployment, and not on the number of students that attend their schools.
They try to pass it off as something to help poor students by lowering fees from $20 per unit to $15. The problem is this reduction is for all students. Poor students already get the fee waived. All this initiative does is give wealthy students more money for Starbucks and iPods. VOTE NO
Proposition 93 Term Limits: This is filed under, “How stupid do they think we are?”
Though it is called a term limits initiative, it does not add limits and in fact adds four more years to all incumbents senators and six more years to all incumbent Assembly members.
In fact, the reason we have two primaries this year was so they could pass this in February and then place their names as incumbents on the normal June primary before they are termed out.The Democratic leaders thought with some slick ads and good spin they could pass this in the dead of the night. VOTE NO
Proposition 94-97 Expansion of Indian Gambling Casinos: The Native Americans have more money to influence elections than any other special interest because they have the only gambling franchise in the state.
Almost every elected official, Republican and Democrat, is too afraid to ever upset the American Indians. The tribes will spend millions against any senator or assemblyman who gets out of line. The tribes always get what they want.
These particular compacts allow four tribes to more than double the amount of slot machines they have to 17,000. Tribes have been trying to get casinos into Orange County for years.
I enjoy gambling just as much as the next guy, but expanding this monopoly only puts more political power in their hands to do just that.
And please don’t fall for that argument that it will help the state finances.
Every dollar put in a slot machine would be spent in some other business and those businesses pay more taxes on each dollar they get than the tribes do. VOTE NO
Measure B City Hall in the Park: This is for my friends in Newport Beach. I have written extensively on this issue; it’s a simple no-brainer.
Cities should build on property they own before the buy more. It is the only fiscally prudent thing to do when you already own a perfectly good piece of property in the center of the city that is only growing weeds.
It makes no sense to spend $8 million to buy a smaller piece of property from the Irvine Company a few blocks away, which does not have enough room for its own parking. Not exactly the relationship the city needs; to be a tenant of The Irvine Company. VOTE YES
Now, when it comes to picking the nominees for president I will cede the choice of the Democratic nominee to someone who has a clue. I do not. You can pick a Hillary Clinton with no charm, a Barack Obama with no resume or John Edwards with no chance.
On the Republican side I told you before that I was already extremely biased. I hitched my wagon to Mitt Romney over a year ago when nobody knew his name.
I said last month that Romney would sweep Iowa and New Hampshire. Boy, was I wrong. He took second place in both, but won Michigan and Nevada handily.
Lo and behold, he is in a dead heat in Florida with John McCain. Giuliani spent the whole campaign in Florida and looks like he will place third there this week, which will end his campaign.
If Romney wins Florida, he will be the front runner when the race gets here.
So it’s now down to two horses, Mitt and McCain. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher made his choice this week and endorsed Romney. We need a Republican, not a rebel. VOTE ROMNEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
