Page 1 of 12
Posted on November 24 at 5:34 p.m.
JarvisJarvis is right. Prop 63 should be handling this. We should also not be building huge jail expansion to house mentally ill people in lieu of proper psychiatric care. These "courts" are an oxymoronic concept whereby punishment is threatened to conform behavior and legal talent and skills are wasted on efforts outside their training. This "feel good" exercise is a joke. If County Mental Health had any competency it would object and find a process in its own system using many of the social services resources mentioned in the article in a better and more inclusive way (you shouldn't have to be charged with a crime to get in).
On Restorative Court Celebrates Three Years of Improving Lives
Posted on November 4 at 2:05 p.m.
In this day and age when PR and BS is what it is about it was good to deal with a man who didn't pull his punches. I did that for decades and found him a man of a great deal more integrity than others in the law and order side of things. I never understood the fixation with the MJ case. It is so sad the media of the community and world have nothing else but a soundbite about that trial to document a hard fought and well deserved life.
On Former DA Tom Sneddon Dies
Posted on November 2 at 4:26 p.m.
I think the point of this essay is that SBCC is not serving the local community. Health and fitness can exist without importing out of area players. In fact local kids are being removed in favor of others.
On Measure S: SBCC Should Focus on S.B. Students
Posted on November 1 at 10:03 a.m.
Georgy means No On S I think because "boondoggle" is the most apt description of SBCC's attempt to sneak this monster by for really sloppy purposes and rationale.
On No SBCC Tennis Team
Posted on October 30 at 2:11 p.m.
Now that this mea culpa has come forth it would be so invigorating to see the same confession of error with regard to Measure S. Progressive minds need to understand the decidely greedy proponents and supporters of this massive four in one bond that will enrich lawyers and Wall Street types for the next 35 years if passed. What about the idea that in a democracy we should have close and frequent oversight of our officials and institutions. Measure S removes this and says that officials in 12 years can spend money at our expense on problems they identify without any reference to us. Bad policy. And it's not like SBCC has been so trustworthy with Measure V money. Vote No On S for the sake of democracy and accountability.
On An Anti-Endorsement
Posted on October 27 at 8:55 a.m.
The "independent commission" that is discussed in this pro forma argument is window dressing designed to mislead folks in to trusting the powers that be even though they have proven unwise in their decisions. Look at how previous bond money was spent and what is proposed this time. It is critical to remember that the commission has no authority over the use of the money except to check that it was spent as the school wants to spend it and not on something extraneous. The commission has no independent resources and relies totally on what SBCC tells it. When SBCC has multiple over budget projects, as they did with Measure V, the commission could do nothing to complain but only to OK the increase in spending for the project. They even had to sign off on off the multi-million dollar loss for the Cinema Arts project that was abandoned.
On Measure S: SBCC Needs Lots of Work
Posted on October 22 at 2:59 p.m.
Succinctly said. Well done.
On Measure S Unready
Posted on October 17 at 9:52 a.m.
Yes on S? How disappointing. Two-thirds of your own poll respondents recommend NO ON S. As you note, $288M is a huge demand with no controls. Your supposition that the administration of the future will be more responsible in spending this is not supported by the history of their action. A much more sensible recommendation would be that voters say "no" to this demand and that SBCC come back in the future with specific bonds to address specific needs, such as you apparently think exist. This grab is really four bonds in one, really too much for too long.
On Endorsements 2014
Posted on October 9 at 8:59 a.m.
So now Measure S proponents admit they hid language in it to allow the construction of campus dorms/housing. This was not part of their campaign until blown by others. The list of "Projects" which account for ALL of the money from Measure S does not have one buck for student housing. So where is the money to come from? Which project that Dr. Gaskin sees as so needed and studied will be eliminated? Student housing at a campus in a such geographically small community college district is unneeded except to attract more out of district, out of state and out of nation enrollees which already account for well more than 11,000 of the student population. Consider the neighborhood impact of another beacon saying to kids "come on down and play here". Vote No On S.
On City College's Sprawling Impact
Posted on October 7 at 1:35 p.m.
Oaintw--there are several flyer size pieces posted on the VoteNoOnS.org site. Across the top of the page are "buttons" marked "ABOUT" "BOND INFO" and "FAQ" all of which contain pretty succinct statements. But you are right, No ON S doesn't have the bucks that Yes On S is receiving from those who will profit big if it passes (see button marked "CAMPAIGN $$$"). So maybe people could contribute by selecting the button marked "DONATE" !!!
On Don't Reward the Wayward College