High Noon Open Thread

  • What comes before Part B? (depends on where you live) SF and SoCal answers.
  • California Congressman George Miller (D-Martinez) has really been reaching out online as of late (keep it up and ramp it up). While his Darfur youtube video is important, what I really like is his new Facebook group for, “questions and suggestions about what Democrats are and should be doing to stop the War in Iraq.” Miller is an super-great Congressman and is in the Speaker’s inner circle so go tell him your ideas and — who knows — it just might happen.
  • Speaking of Facebook, if you are a political junkie and haven’t yet signed up, you are selling yourself short. So go set up an account and then join the Calitics group
  • Is Lee Kaplan a douchebag? The line has a question mark because I don’t want to have to pay up $7,500 like some poor Berkeley undergrad who took on the wingnut writer. If (hypothetically) I were to write about such a guy I’d probably make some reference to wetting his pants because some might say when he writes it is with such a voice of fear of the terra that there would be more to laugh at seeing him in person than just reading his junk.
  • What Digby said on Hillary getting booed (but you can’t watch the video of her explaining things perfectly at TBA because so many people wanted to see that it crashed Google). Really. Probably because of a Calitics link.
  • Is Gavin Newsom glorious or is this just his GF talking (Swiss Miss vs. Beth Spotswood — always love it). According to some British online gambling site the answer to the odds is 42:1 that Spots would prevail.
  • San Francisco 4 Democracy Political Affairs Committee meeting has been rescheduled for the following Wednesday, June 27.

Anyone have anything we should know about?

July 1 Rush

July 1 is the date in boilerplate legislation for an effective date.  So, in the next few weeks we’ll have several new, enforceable laws.  Some highlights from the LA Daily News:

  SCHOOL JUNK FOOD BAN: School districts will have to ban soda and limit fat and sugar content and portion size of meals.

PLASTIC BAG RECYCLING: Supermarkets will have to provide ways for customers to turn in plastic bags for recycling and to provide reusable bags as alternatives to plastic.

BEVERAGE RECYCLING: The deposit charged on bottles and cans, and refunded to those who recycle them, will increase by a penny.(LA Daily News 6/20/07)

Most of these laws were passed in the 2005 session, so not much of major consequense happened.  This was during Arnold’s Super-partisan phase.  Much of the post-partisan 2006 legislation will go into effect July 2008. 

For you cell phone addicts, that includes the hands-free requirement.  You know, I supported that legislation, because it is a good start, but it doesn’t go far enough. Even talking hands-free leaves you as dangerous as a drunk driver, or so says a University of Utah study. So, people, do me a favor, stop texting while driving (I’m talking to you guy on I-80 near Vallejo who started drifting into my lane) and stop talking (I’m talking to you Chatty McChatkins who thought it was totally cool to drive 100 mph weaving through traffic while on the cell phone just west of Sacramento) and drive. Seriously, that requires enough attention.  As MADD says, Arrive Alive.

Ok, end cell phone rant…

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of an Ocean View

Nothing says “California” like the coastline. We love our beaches. We love the ocean. And when we live so close to the ocean, we love to see it from the house. But what happens when your precious ocean view is taken away from you? What happens when your “personal space” with that lovely ocean view is INVADED?

“… [T]hat’s a real invasion of our personal space,” says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. “It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean.”

(From OC Register)

Believe it or not, this is what the War of Shorecliffs is all about. In a small community in San Clemente, people are fighting over property rights, and what that exactly means. Do we have a right to build a second story to our house? Do we have a right to a permanent ocean view? Do we have a right to preserve the “bucolic” feel of the neighborhood?

San Clemente is just one of many coastal cities that’s grappling with this conundrum. OC’s southernmost city has an ordinance banning second story add-ons in Shorecliffs. On the other end of OC’s coastline, Seal Beach repealed its ban on three story homes. In San Diego County, Solana Beach voters recently passed an “anti-mansionization” initiative. A similar measure was approved by the city council of Manhattan Beach, in Los Angeles County. The entire Southern California coast is grappling with this issue. But is there a fair solution for all of these coastal communities? Do all coastal homeowners have the right to an ocean view?

Follow me after the flip for more…

San Clemente resident Robert Strutt wants to add a second story master bedroom suite with a wraparound deck to his lovely Shorecliffs home. He says that he just wants to add more “living space” to his home, and he wants to take advantage of his fabulous ocean view. However, the neighbors don’t want Mr. Strutt to add that second story. They’re afraid that his taking advantage of his ocean view would lose them of theirs. That’s what led to this.

“If Robert is going to go up, that’s a real invasion of our personal space,” says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. “It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean.”

But Mr. Strutt thinks his privacy and property rights are being intruded by nosy neighbors who don’t want him to improve his own home.

For his part, Strutt says he modified his plans to be less intrusive and that he has a right to build on his property.

“My privacy is as important to me as it is to them,” Strutt said.

OK, so Mr. Strutt believes that his right to a second story is being violated by the new ordinance banning second stories in Shorecliffs. However, his neighbors believe that Mr. Strutt would be violating their right to an ocean view by adding that second story. So who’s right here? And whose right matters here?

Actually, NONE OF THEM really have any of those rights.

Homeowners do not generally have a right to a view or a second story, experts say. Often, city regulations or neighborhood codes dictate what is allowed.

Cities typically respect the private policies of a community and “have no interest in what goes on inside the gates,” said Joseph DiMento, professor of law and society and planning at University of California, Irvine.

Barring that, cities are hardly bashful about changing the rules and sometimes intervene in disputes, experts said. Still, residents will try to overturn unpopular regulations, they said.

“The powers of zoning and land use are for cities,” said Matt Parlow, assistant professor of law at Chapman University in Orange.

Ah, ha! So we’re really talking about the right of the city to regulate land use within city boundaries! Well, it looks like the City of San Clemente has clearly intervened in this dispute. They’re exercising their right to regulate.

But is this the right to do? It depends on what the city is looking to do.

Perhaps the city has an interest in preserving the character of the neighborhood, and in preserving the views of all the homes on the block. Solana Beach seems to have that interest. In a special election this past March, voters narrowly passed the “Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance” that limits the size of homes on the small lots in six neighborhoods west of the 5 Freeway. Manhattan Beach also seems to have that interest. In April, the city council voted to impose a moratorium on merging properties to make way for more massive homes. Most of the residents of these cities wanted to preserve the “small, welcoming beach town” character of these old neighborhoods, and the cities followed through in respecting the wishes of the residents.

And you know what? This interest is legitimate. If the greater community wants to preserve the character of the community, then the elected officials should respect that the desires of the community. Simple as that.

So the major question here is what do San Clemente residents want. What do San Clemente residents want for Shorecliffs? Do they want all homeowners to be able to “mansionize” to their hearts’ content? Or do they want the historic character of the community preserved? And do they prefer that every home in the community have an ocean view? Local governments are the ones that have the true right to determine what standards are set for the community. However local governments are supposed to represent local residents, and they should do what’s in the best interest of the local community.

That’s what San Clemente needs to decide. And that’s what all the other California coastal communities struggling with “mansionization” need to decide. What’s in the best interest of the community? And what do members of the community really want for the neighborhood? Ultimately, the people in the community must decide whether their beach cities should protect the right to pursue that grand ocean view.

Evening Open Thread: Digby at the TBA Conference

The progressive blogosphere was given an award by the Campaign for America’s Future at their Take Back America conference tonight (we won!), and accepting on our behalf was Digby, one of our finest advocates, who ended her years of anonymity and revealed herself with an excellent speech about who we are and why we do what we do.  I was proud to have sat around in front of computer screens and typed furiously away lo these many years after hearing Digby, my fellow Santa Monican, explain to the world what this movement is all about.  Thanks, Digby.

Consider this an open thread.

Workers Rally for Free Choice Rights

(cross-posted from Working Californians also up at Daily Kos)

The voices of the casino workers were heard within the Capitol today.  Hundreds of red-shirted workers gathered on the North steps for a rally and then marched inside in an orderly fashion to do some lobbying.  The event culminated as over two hundred UNITE-HERE members chanted from the second story of the rotunda “¡Si, Se Puede!” just steps from the office of Speaker Fabian Nunez.  The dome amplified the chants as staffers poked their heads out of their office doors and the CHP scrambled to ensure the direct action did not get out of control.

The events today were the last big push by the workers to ensure that workers rights were included in the Indian gaming compacts that the legislature is about to vote on.  At issue are the basic workers rights protections that workers have under California law.  In particular, the right to use check cards to indicate the desire of workers to form a union. 

It is that exact right that is actually being heard in the U.S. Senate ironically today, as part of the Employee Free Choice Act.  The Democratic leadership here in the state legislature has been indicating that they are siding with the tribes on the establishment of right to work colonies in the casinos.  Dozens of labor leaders, including Working Californians’ co-chairs Marvin Kropke and Brian D’Arcy signed on to a letter to Senator Perata and Speaker Nunez recently.  Here is an excerpt from that letter:

In contrast to most previous compacts submitted by the Governor in 2004, this compact—and presumably others to come—removes from the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance the right for tribal casino workers (who are virtually all not tribal members) to freely choose whether they want unionization through card check, and to establish a level playing eld for their pursuit of decent wages, benets and working conditions. Instead, the Governor has reverted to the 1999 procedures for unionization, even though Speaker Núñez and Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero conducted a detailed study of those procedures and found them severely decient and ineffective.

The U.S. House of Representatives, led by California’s own Nancy Pelosi and George Miller, with the support of every California House Democrat, recently voted to approve the card check procedure of organizing as a reform of the National Labor Relations Act. A super majority of California Assembly and Senate Democrats signed a letter of support for that legislation. Unfortunately, even if this effort should succeed, the enforceable jurisdiction of national labor law will not be settled law at tribal casinos for many years to come, if ever. In contrast, the card check procedure of organizing has become the standard in commercial gaming, and many tribal casinos, throughout our country and Canada. It would be ironic in the extreme for the California legislature, led by Democrats, to reject card check at the same time that California’s congressional delegation is leading the way on the same issue.


It is doubly ironic that the day of the rally is the day as debate begun on S. 1041 (EFCA).  Indeed thousands of fellow brothers and sisters gathered on the National Mall today as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Dick Durbin, Edward M. Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders spoke to the crowd about the importance of passing the Employee Free Choice Act. (photo of Sen. Brown speaking from democrats.senate.gov)


Meanwhile, I watched AFL-CIO Labor Fedration head Art Pulaski work hard today to explain to Nanette Mirada of ABC 7 why secrete ballot elections are not fair in practice.  It is clear that there is a real lack of education on the issue.  He used the example of the tribes scheduling several “educational” meetings on unionization, or deliberately making security guards fill out their ballots under video cameras and other intimidation tactics.  He also patiently explained that workers do not have access to workers compensation and other benefits since they are working on the reservation.

Pulaski also went into the politics of the fight and vaguely threatened the Democratic leadership.  Pulaski referred to the gathered workers as the “ground troops” for the election, noting that they would not be particularly motivated in upcoming elections if they lost this battle now.  “Money talks inside the capitol…and the odds are stacked against these workers” he said, referring to the large amount of donations the legislators have received from the gaming tribes.

More from the letter:

It is incomprehensible how California, in a period when the state is relying more and more on service sector jobs for economic development, could enact compacts which will create the largest expansion of gaming in American history with no clear path to the middle class for a work force eclipsing 60,000 workers, soon to be 100,000 workers, who are the engine behind this extraordinarily lucrative industry.

All the workers want is that the new compacts include the same rights as the 2004 Compacts did, nothing more.  Already, 5,000 tribal gaming employees have chosen unionization.  That choice has improved their lives and communities and simultaneously relived the Californian taxpayers of the burden of their health care costs and other social services for the working poor.  If the Democratic Congress can support these basic rights, so should the Democratic State Legislature in California.

More pictures in my flickr set.

Mutual Political Masturbation

Also in Orange and Blue.

Was that title a bit too graphic? Well, how else can you describe this image? It seems the Governator and Mayor Mike have developed quite the relationship.  Now, they are fawning over each other and the presidency.

UPDATE: Todd, over at MyDD just noted that Bloomberg has left the GOP, making an independent run more likely.

The Hollywood brute and the Wall Street mogul may look like the oddest couple since Twins, but there’s a reason Schwarzenegger calls Bloomberg his soul mate. They’re both self-confident, self-made men who rose to stardom from middle-class obscurity — Bloomberg in Medford, Mass., Schwarzenegger in Thal, Austria — through Tiger Woods-level determination and Donald Trump-level salesmanship. They’re both socially liberal Republicans who have flourished in Democratic political cultures; Schwarzenegger is even a member of the Kennedy clan, through his marriage to Maria Shriver. (Time 6/14/07)

By the by, that article was written by Michael Grunwald, the same guy that wrote the WaPo article on Tauscher.  He loves him some moderate politician story-lovin’.  He can make a whole career out of following politicians without a moral core.  Sweet!

And the cover story of Time Magazine isn’t the end of it.  Yeah, Arnold wants to make Bloomberg his proxy candidate for the presidency. From the wire yesterday:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he has no plans to run for president, but that didn’t stop Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Tuesday from predicting his fellow Republican would be “an excellent candidate.”

Schwarzenegger’s gentle encouragement came at a joint appearance, where Bloomberg again said he has no plans to enter the 2008 race. But Schwarzenegger said the mayor – who shares the governor’s maverick brand of politics – would be a worthy addition to the large field.

“I think he would make an excellent candidate,” the governor said, with Bloomberg at his side. He’s “all about fixing problems and creating a great vision for the future.”

Bloomberg later joked about forming a presidential ticket with Schwarzenegger and dickering over who would lead it. (AP/Fresno Bee 6/18/07)

And of course, the two got some not-so-mild encouragement from Warren Buffet in the Time article. At the end of the article, Buffet points out that there is apparently no rule on American birth for VP candidates. and suggests that a Bloomberg/Arnold ticket would be his dream come true.

Well, right about now we need a bit of a wet blannket here. Arnold isn’t likely to run for VP. That’s really not his style.  But a closer look shows these two are actually a bit further apart than some would have us believe.  Bloomberg used to be a Democrat, and then decided it’d be easier to win as a Republican, so he switched. Ok, but Bloomberg has really governed as a Democrat.  Arnold has pretended to govern like a Democrat.

Bloomberg participates in the Kyoto treat. Arnold signs AB 32, the landmark global warming gas reduction act, and then guts it with one stroke of the pen. Sure, Bloomberg is no progressive hero, just look at the comments here for what seems just like what is happening in SF right now: progressives in search of a candidate.

That being said, Bloomberg is a lot more progressive than Arnold.  And as a bonus, he has about a $1Billion stash for his election.  That money should vault him just high enough to make sure that the Republican nominee couldn’t win.  In New York and New Jersey, where they are quite familiar with his act, Bloomberg does quite well, but, in the end, he helps any Dem nominee to a victory. Nationwide, he seems like quite a nice spoiler candidate for the GOP.  Of course, Rasmussen asks some crazy-ass questions, like would you join a Bloomberg national party and would you vote for a Bloomberg Party Congressional Candidate.  All that crazy data here.  Because, you know, Bloomberg is going to spend some of that $1B/year income on just building up some sort of 3rd party.  Whatever.

So, by all means, run for president Mayor Mike, and take Arnold with you. WIth Arnold out on the stump with you, we’ll have an administration led by a quasi-Democrat Susan Kennedy and Democratic Lt. Governor John Garamendi.  And, if, perchance the Mayor Mike/Governator Arnold ticket wins, well, can you think of a better place for Arnold Schwarzenegger than a meaningless Vice Presidency?