The Uncomfortable Truth

In this discussion, when I say, "developer," I mean someone who builds houses.
When a house is built in a city, certain fees are incurred. How else are we going to pay for police, firefighters, roads, sewers, and everything else it takes to make a city? How do we pay for the infrastructure?
Chico currently collects about thirteen thousand dollars in "developer fees" for each single-family residence. This is not enough. A story in the August 1st edition of the Chico E-R revealed that fees collected will amount to only 72% of the money needed to build the infrastructure required for Chico to be developed in the next twenty years.
Who pays the rest of the money?
We do!
When developer fees are not high enough--like in Chico, the taxpayers subsidize the developers.
When the developer fees are high enough, the developers don't make as much profit.
Some people say that developers can simply pass the costs of the fees through to the buyer--that is simply not true. A house is worth what it will sell for.
This explains why developers give money to political candidates--so they can make more money. And we can either pay more in taxes or lose city services.
This is why Chico is in its current economic state. For too long we elected the developers' candidates to the council. People who refused to charge the fees necessary for infrastructure. The shortfall had to be made up somewhere. So, we have cops getting laid off, and we are in a pickle with the firefighters. There is probably a huge pothole in your street that matches the one in mine, and we are looking at a sales-tax increase.
Every so often, candidates have to report who gave how much money to their campaigns. (When these forms are turned in, I will post a link to them.) As you examine the forms, please look at who is taking money from developers. You might ask them why they think you should subsidize their contributor's development.

Last Friday, all nine of the Chico City Council Candidates came to the CARD center on Vallombrosa to discuss the issues at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast.
After the event, Megan McDonald, a reporter for KNVN, asked me if I was a conservative or a liberal. I replied, "Labels are for haters." She asked again, and I repeated myself.
The following day, a woman whom I greatly admire, Sue Hildebrand, of the Chico Peace and Justice Center told me it was impossible to box me in.
Well, I certainly can't be put in the same box with our local TEA Party conservative candidates! ALL of them would move the city council election to June for the express purpose of denying students their right to decide who will represent them; who will tax them and how much they will be taxed.
The original Tea Party was about "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny." Which is exactly what I told everyone last Friday.
Yet the "conservatives" are completely unwilling to hew to that basic conservative principle--the one this country was founded over!
Fascinating!
Although no one would confuse me with the modern-day definition of conservative used by the haters. I am, indeed, the only candidate in this race with TRUE conservative values.

I have been an alcoholic since the day I was born. I am the son and grandson of alcoholics (I don't know about my great-grandfather or his antecedents, but I'd bet on it), and at least one of my sons is an alcoholic. One form of alcoholism is carried on the Y chromosome, though of course, women are not excluded from having it.
Alcoholism is a cruel disease, robbing many of their potential. It almost robbed me of mine.
Many people would have us believe alcoholism is a sign of a lowlife, and not a disease. This is ludicrous as many talented and great people have been alcoholics, while everyone knows the most famous teetotaler in history was Adolph Hitler.
Alcohol causes many people to behave . . . . . well, stupid is a good word for it. I am not immune from this. I have quite the criminal history because of the stupid stunts I've pulled while drunk.
Like many, I got away with even more.
I am not bragging here. But neither will I shut the door on my past. I am simply being candid.
I spent nine months in The Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center in San Francisco. There, I learned how to face my mistakes without regrets--that instead of the vengeful God I had grown up with, God was a loving Father Who had sent His Son to die for my mistakes, and if He forgave me, then who was I to feel shame by questioning God's decision? I learned to accept God's unconditional love and forgive myself.
Shame and regret are what cause most alcoholics to relapse--which I had done five times before I got to "Sally."
It's a vicious cycle. Get drunk, get stupid, get remorseful, get drunk.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's no way to live. That's for sure. And yet many people do. Many do quite well. Many function OK in society, until . . . . . . . . . . .
I lived that way for thirty-three years. From my first drunk at age fifteen to my last just over five years ago.

I was on one of my benders (I was not a daily drinker) in June of '05. Like many alcoholics, after several days of self-abuse, I got suicidal. I was in possession of my father's Colt .45 Automatic. My son put the gun in my car and took my keys. He told me later he didn't want to carry it around himself, and he certainly had no place to keep it.
He did not know I had another set of keys. On the morning of June 10th, with a BAC of .41, I went to the 76 station a couple of blocks from my house to buy beer. I had the shakes because I did not have enough alcohol in my system (I found out at Sally this is not unusual, considering my genetics). Anyway, while trying to leave, I shifted into forward instead of reverse, driving a trashcan almost though the window. Several folks came running out, telling me to stop. I flipped them off and drove away.
I read in the police report that I was followed all the way home while obeying all laws. When I got home the cops helped me out of my car and easily found the gun. This has all been relayed to me; I have no recollection of it.
Like I said, I do stupid stuff when I am drunk. I cannot deny it.
I could detail other examples, but why bother? This would qualify as the apex of stupidity.
I use to wish the screwups of my life had never happened. I mean, they are not anything to be proud of. Now, I am glad they are a part of me. I get what many don't--frequent counseling with folks just like me. I have gained a tremendous insight into myself that many do not. It is often remarked that "normies" have missed out on self-realization. I have learned in recovery my past has made me stronger. Great steel comes from a great pounding. Great men make great mistakes.
Am I great?
I have learned that, despite my past, I can be.
I know that, with faith, I will be.
Without shame.

Recently Congress passed another law regulating money in political campaigns. Of course, the people who spend the most to bribe Congress are upset, equating giving money to "Free Speech."
The definition of "free" in free speech does not, of course, have anything to do with monetary costs. Free means you have the freedom to speak. Corporatists and their minions would have us believe that the freedom of speech is not a freedom to be shared equally.
I disagree.
Isn't America all about Equality?
Wasn't the history of the last century replete with examples of The United States doing its best to ensure to ALL the blessings of liberty?
Wouldn't equal access to our government be a basic tenet of "Equal Rights?
Shouldn't equal access to our government be a basic tenet of "Equal Rights?
It is time for Congress to outlaw all influence peddling and initiate a system whereby the public airwaves can be used for the noblest use: informing the public about the choices they have to lead them.
It's time for the "Campaign Channel."

The Supreme Court today affirmed what many people have known for years. Ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supremes averred the second amendment to the Constitution gives everybody a right to carry weapons.
The Second Amendment says--in eighteenth-century American English:
Groups of able-bodied adult men (a militia), well-trained in military skills (well regulated), are vital to maintain their freedoms from an overreaching central government (being necessary for the security of a free state). Therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with shooting intruders. It has nothing to do with shooting animals.
The Second Amendment is about maintaining freedom from an overreaching central government. Period.
The Fourteenth Amendment expanded liberty to the States in that the States could not restrict the people's rights as an 'end-around' The Constitution. The Slaughter-House cases USSC 1883 were used by governments as another end around the Second even though the case had nothing to do with gun rights.
Is there any question that government will overreach if given the chance? That is why the Supremes had to hear the case.
In the 219 years since the adoption of the second amendment, hundreds if not thousands of attempts to overreach and restrict our system of ordered liberty have been tried.
Even though the Court itself allowed for further suits to "refine the issue"--Stimulus for lawyers?--the basic premise of the ruling is sound: no government--city, county, or State can take away the freedoms granted by our Founding Fathers.
Good call!

I got an email today that told me the system that notifies me of comments broke down. when you comment on my blog, the system sends me an email. I have my email send these to their own folder which highlights (emboldens? Is that even a word?) when emails land in it. Simple!
Until it breaks.
Looking at my comments, the system broke in February.
I apologize for this. It was not my intention to appear . . . . . well, rude is a good word for ignoring other people.
The comments and my replies to them have been posted.
I have contacted all who posted, save for one fellow named HT who posted on the tax day essay.
I now know how to check for them without waiting for an email.
This shall not happen again.

Good-bye Aero Union!!!
One of Chico's best known companies has decided to leave Chico for Sacramento, taking 100 of the best jobs in this city along with it.
The Story in this morning's paper said, "Employees were told the decision was based on cheaper operating expenses in Sacramento including utility costs . ."
Electricity costs one-third less in Sacramento.
That's because they have Godless, PUBLICLY OWNED electricity in Sacramento.
Yeah, the poor people down there were NOT given the choice to save money--and jobs.
Those socialist/big government/ nanny-statists down in Sacramento decided that the noblest goal was the public good and went ahead and worked for the PUBLIC GOOD!!!
WOW!!
Oh well.
I hope the folks who are losing their jobs will vote to save the jobs of other Californians by voting NO on proposition 16..

I love the arguments in favor of proposition 16. They appeal to all of us. We are told--endlessly--that "people should have the right to vote before government spends our money" on public utility systems.
Think about that. "People should have the right to vote before government spends our money."
Before government spends ANY of our money?
Or, before government spends our money on public utilities?
If you believe the government should consult us before they spend a dime, how do you propose they do that?
Should we have an election every time?
Wouldn't that be an awful lot of trouble?
Isn't that why we were founded as a republic?
Proposition 16 is one of those propositions that separates the conservatives from the Conservatives.
Conservatives believe in the republican form of government.

This morning on ABC's "This Week," Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that the Obama administration is open to modifying Miranda protections to deal with the "threats that we now face."
You thought you were voting for "Change" when you voted for Obama.
What you are now seeing is that this Administration is going to frighten you into submission just like the last one.
Did you know there is no agreed-upon definition for terrorism?
There cannot be. For the US would qualify as a terrorist nation if we used our own commonly-accepted definitions.
I was outraged last week when I heard John McCain pandering to the extremists in his Party by saying terror suspects--even citizens--should NOT be Mirandized!. But, I am not an Arizonan.
Besides, the actions of some whore whoring for votes is hardly newsworthy.
The Attorney General's comments are another matter entirely.
It shows what we have been saying all along:
Bush destroyed the Constitution.
Obama will bury it.

And you won't see MacBeth done better!
The Rogue Theater--which performs at the 1078 Gallery (850 Broadway), are doing "MacBeth" like you've never seen it before.
The press release reads in part: director Shawn Galloway and Art Director Amber Miller have set the 400 year-old tale firmly in the dark, rich and corrupt world of modern crime and business. Deals are made in strip clubs and promotion in the company gives you all the lavishness a gated community can offer. The MacBeths - a couple very much in love and the envy of their social circle, are rich, witty, powerful, smart and good-looking. What more could they possibly want? This is a tale of how having it all just isn't enough. It is a tale of how ambition and greed can undo the best of us. It is a tale which, when told by the Rogue Theatre, delivers all the excitement, humor and grown-up fun that audiences have come to expect. It is, like life, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
The Rogue Theater produces some of the highest caliber theatre you will see here in Chico. Amazingly, they are also the lowest price of any theatre in Chico.
The Rogue uses "Lucky-7 Ticket Pricing." Either pay a mere seven dollars or roll the dice and pay whatever comes up. "Boxcars" will get you in FREE!
The show plays today, tomorrow, and Saturday. It will also play next Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Seating is limited. Doors open at 7pm. The show starts at 7:30.