Categories
California

The once Great City of San Francisco

Night Fishing in San Francisco


Strolling the streets of San Francisco, the nation’s leading open air exhibition of failed social policies, never fails to instruct one in the infinite disabilities of social utopianism. Although large sections of this city still retain their charm in the far or middle distance — the swooping helicopter pan shot in from the Golden Gate; the brightly painted Cable Car cresting a backlit hilltop — most soon lose all charm in close-up.
Example: A clear and crisp dawn in a small side street near Laguna and Hayes. Plantings in all the window boxes, well but not fussily painted facades. A few, very small, very well kept front yards. Clean curtained windows.
All in all a pretty and quiet moment in the city’s morning. Then, between two of the cars on the street and a bulging shopping cart on the curb, I noticed a man who has obviously slept rough for at least 200 consecutive days turning in a slow pirouette and gazing intently at the ground. Then he lowered himself delicately down between an Audi and an SUV.
Seeing no real reason not to stroll on past, I did and noted that the man, pants to his ankles, was relieving his bowels. I was to see this behavior twice in a single day in San Francisco. And I was in the better neighborhoods.
In the course of a random walk of four hours through the most touristed sections of the city, this scene was only the most unhappily memorable of a serious of disturbing moments.
Perhaps they only disturbed because they were playing out against the postcards of my memories of San Francisco during the six years I had lived and worked there in the early 70s; against even deeper images of the city in the Summer of 1968.
Against memory any present day moment would pale as nostalgia took its toll. You’d be prepared, at the least, to be disappointed since feeling that the past is preferable to the present is a common human instinct.
What you’re not prepared to be is disturbed but yet not shocked. After all, you’ve read and heard about it for years. No matter. The actual San Francisco of the present is a clear reminder that the rap is not the territory.
The extent to which the homeless, the hard-core unemployed, the drunk and the addicted, and general shabby personalities of all kinds are deployed about the city is something to bring even the most hard-core liberal from elsewhere up short.
If the myriad policies and millions man-years of effort, coupled with untold billions of dollars in funding deployed in San Francisco over the last four decades have created the current visible result, something is seriously askew with the city’s basic social engineering.
It is as if the entire region has spent 40 years and 400 billion building a replica of the Golden Gate Bridge on Ocean Beach intending to span the Pacific. A good intention, but a city’s gotta know its limitations.
Strolling the streets of San Francisco 
— past the blanket wrapped souls that sleep upright in bus shelters
— past the ad-hoc shanty towns of clustered shopping carts
— past lone men swaddled in sleeping bags on a stretch of stained concrete with only a fence and a warning between them and a few meager blades of grass
— gives one a deep sense of unease and unmitigated tragedy after the 20th exposure. After the 50th they all just fade into the background body count, one more item of the city’s detritus
— sudden sirens, condom stuffed litter sloshed about by the wet wind, hysterical graffiti, crass billboard ads announcing yet another source of 24 hour lap dancing, blather of schizophrenic panhandlers; all just part of San Francisco’s rich tapestry of diversification through stupefaction.
Seeing so many driven so low
— and this in what still passes as ”the better neighborhoods”
— you have to wonder what happened to, and what is still happening to, the billions of public funds being compulsively shoved at this problem. Where has the money and time and good intentions all gone? Where, indeed, have all the flowers gone?

The best that can be said is that tsunami of free  money has provided lifetime employment in various government and private agencies for those who would otherwise be part of the problem they have sworn to solve.
Although it is commonly thought that poverty creates homelessness, it is also as correct to say that agencies set up to combat homelessness have a deep and abiding interest in preserving homelessness.
This interest and these agencies are now such a permanent feature of our government that there is virtually no chance of disbanding or eliminating them. Ever.
The best that can be done is to slow, if possible, the growth of their funding since increased funding primarily swells the size of their employee pool and thus perpetuates and enhances their power.
A cynical person might believe that THISF ( “The Homeless Industry of San Francisco)”, which recently merged with the Free Schizophrenics Movement (FSM), exists not to curtail suffering but to expand its scope.
After all, were the number of the homeless to actually diminish in San Francisco, the number of those serving the insatiable needs of this group would also be expected to fall.
A cynical person would believe that an institutionalized, unionized group with excellent benefits and a fine pension plan would never knowingly d o anything that would lower its customer base.
Indeed, it would be much more likely to make the description of its customer increasingly complex so that ever more people would be discovered to be lacking in basic social services.
A cynical person would believe that the industry’s customer base in San Francisco was booming. Booming to the extent that this year, and the next, and the years that come after the years after, the nation, state and city will all require more and more money from the citizens to continue to not solve homelessness.
But I am not that cynical person. I see hope in the small things, the little signs on the street that not all the homeless wish to remain so; that some of them still possess the classic American entrepreneurial spirit.
Example: At night in the same day as dawn above. I am walking down Laguna Street towards Hayes with an old friend. We have just been to a party and to drinks after and are feeling very in charge of the night. As we walk down the block I can see we are coming up on a parking lot behind a chain-link, razor-wire capped fence. I notice something odd in the fence.
When we get up to it I can see it is a used — very used — fishing rod of uncertain vintage and battered aspect. Instead of fishing line, rough brown twine comes up through the line loops on the rod and dangles down from the tip about 11 feet above the sidewalk.
On the end of the twine, is a used — very used — large Starbucks coffee cup. The twine is very carefully woven into the lip of the cup. On the cup itself a grimy 3×5 card is taped. Printed on the card in hasty letters is the word “Please.”
That’s it. Just hanging there in the middle of the block panhandling for its owner well out of standard pan handling hours. We glance inside and it’s working. There’s about three dollars in change at the bottom.
Cynical men would have emptied it out to feed the parking meters for their Escalades. Not having Escalades we just chipped in and strolled on by.
Still, it was nice to know that somewhere in the vast and increasing army of the homeless now occupying The Streets of San Francisco was at least one soul who pushed aside total dependency and chose, instead, innovation in his or her chosen field of endeavor.
You’d think that the vast apparatus that exists to keep people from begging on the street could learn a bit about begging from this constituent. But then again, why should they? Getting more money to do less from San Franciscans these days is like shooting fish in a barrel; a large barrel and a lot of very fat-headed fish.

Alert the Authorities!

Categories
A Victory! California Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom

I remember these, God am I ever getting old!

The outgoing, family oriented, car culture society that thrived during the 50’s spawned an explosion of drive-in theaters across the United States, as a car happy generation of patrons sought outdoor movies as a way to enjoy their favorite pastime with their families in the comfort of their own cars.

Invention of the Drive-In Movie Theater

The First Drive In Movie Theater
 
 
 
In 1931, Richard Hollingshead Jr. owned and worked in his own automotive supply store called Whiz Auto Products Company.
Always on the lookout for the next great new idea, Hollingshead noted that even though the Great Depression was in full swing, people still found money to attend movies at their local theater.
He pondered the means to combine his auto parts business with movies and dreamt of opening a deluxe gas station and auto repair shop that featured a restaurant and movies for the customers to watch while they customers waited for their car repairs to be completed.
To bring his dream to fold, Hollingshead began by experimenting with the “outdoor movie” concept (and as he progressed, the concept morphed to exclude the gas station and auto repair business).
Hollingshead tested the outdoor movie concept in the driveway of his home located at 212 Thomas Avenue in Riverton, New Jersey.
He placed a 1928 Kodak projector on the hood of his car projecting the movie onto a white screen nailed to a nearby tree.  He tried various placements of speakers behind the screen in an attempt to find the right distance and volume for the soundtrack.  His experiments grew in complexity and soon he was testing the sound projection with windows in his car opened at different heights.  He even used a sprinkler to simulate rain to see how outside noises would affect the soundtrack of the movie.
Hollingshead Drive In Theater Patent
 
 
 
Hollingshead soon realized that if several cars were lined in a row, the cars in the rear would not have a clear view of the screen, even as he adjusted the distance of the screen from the ground.  To ensure the automobiles had an unobstructed view of the screen, he placed ramps on the ground and drove the cars up onto the ramps to raise the front of the car off of the ground.
He reasoned that a series of ramps placed at taller and taller heights as you got closer to the screen would solve the problem.  Soon Hollingshead was comfortable with the setup and filed a patent (United States Patent 1,909,537) for the Drive-In Movie Theater on August 6, 1932.
Cars entering an early drive in movie theater
 
 
 
While he waited for the patent application to clear, Hollingshead began promoting his novel idea and sought investors for the new project.
His cousin, Willie Warren Smith, a parking lot operator, agreed to partner with Hollingshead and the two formed Park-In Theaters Inc.  Edward Ellis, a road contractor, was offered a portion of the company’s stock in exchange for paving the lot the theater would be located in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey.
A 4th investor, Oliver Willets, an executive at Campbell’s Soup, was also allowed to provide seed money in exchange for shares of the new company’s stock.
Screen of the first Drive in Movie Theater
 
 
 
 
On May 16, 1933, the day the patent was granted, Hollingshead began construction of the world’s first drive in theater on Crescent Boulevard in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey.  Construction took three weeks at a cost of $30,000 and included a 40 foot wide by 30 foot high screen located 12 feet off the ground.  The screen was enclosed in a mammoth concrete and brick structure that could be seen from miles away.
The drive in theater lot was paved with gravel and oil to keep dust down and discourage mosquitoes. Sound was supplied by three six-foot square RCA speakers (that could be heard from miles around on clear summer nights).
Old Drive-in movie theatre
 
 
 
 
Opening night was scheduled for Tuesday June 6, 1933.  The new drive in was to be known simply as “Drive-In Theater”.  Hollingshead hammered on the numerous advantages drive-ins provided over indoor theaters.
Drive-in Theaters provided patrons the option of smoking in their own cars, not having to worry about talking and disturbing other movie goers, did not have to worry about finding or paying for parking spots (theaters in the 1930’s were often located downtown where available parking was sparse) and most importantly, children could be taken and allowed to sleep in the backseat of the car while their parents enjoyed the show.
Opening night was a smashing success as 400 car loads of patrons packed the lot to see the 1932 release of Wives Beware.
Strangely, a skeptical movie industry forced Hollingshead to pay $400 for a four day rental of the movie while indoor theaters only paid $20 for an entire week.  Admission was 25¢ for each car and an additional 25¢ for each person, somewhat higher than the prevailing price at the indoor houses at the time (who were also offering double features for a lesser price).
Families arrived in droves while teenagers protested with “Down with Drive-Ins, More Work for Babysitters” signs (in the 1930’s, it was common for adults to leave their children with babysitters while they enjoyed a night out to watch a movie).  A week later Hollingshead added a concession stand to sell food before and during the show.
Weymouth Theater in the 1940's
 
 
 
 
Success of the first drive-in theater was short lived.  By 1936, Hollingshead was forced to close the theater in Riverton and move his operations to nearby Union, New Jersey.  Revenues were good but Hollingshead incurred significantly higher movie rental costs than the typical indoor theater which made it hard to turn a profit.
During that same year, a second theater was opened in Weymouth Massachusetts on May 6, 1936.  The owners of the Weymouth Drive-In neglected to purchase licensing rights from Hollingshead (who held the patent for the drive-in movie concept) and Hollingshead filed a patent infringement suit against them.
A settlement was reached and Weymouth Drive-In entered into a licensing agreement with Hollingshead’s Park-In Theater company.  Shortly thereafter, theaters began popping up all over the area and legal wrangling lasted for years afterward.  So many suits and countersuits were filed that Hollingshead could barely keep up with the legal battles.
One case, involving Leows Theater in the late 1930’s, made its way to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  The courts decision was stunning and crushed Hollingshead’s Park-In Company.
The court ruled that the patent, which was the basis for the licensing fees that Hollingshead collected from other drive-in theater owners, was invalid and should have never been granted in the first place.
The court’s opinion was that the outdoor theater patent was not inventive and was merely a facsimile of the layout of an indoor theater utilizing cars instead of seats.  Although a crushing blow to Hollingshead and his Park-In Company, the effect was to open the gates for further drive-in theater development.
Drive in theater speakers
 
 
 
By the 1940’s, community complaints concerning the noise that the drive in theaters emanated, spawned the introduction of in car speakers.  The innovation was well received by drive-in movie patrons.  By the end of 1949 there were 155 drive-ins located around the country.  When the “car culture” of the 1950’s roared into full swing, the number of drive-in theaters swelled to over 800.  By the end of the 1950’s there were over 4,000 drive in movie theaters in the United States.
Westbury Drive-In TheaterIn the 1950 post war years, Americans began to move to the suburbs and everyone owned an automobile.  And they loved their cars.  Drive ins became particularly popular in rural areas.  Parents loved drive-ins because they could take their kids.  Teenagers loved them because of the privacy they gave them and their dates.  During their height, some drive-ins used attention-grabbing gimmicks to boost attendance.
They ranged from small airplane runways, unusual attractions such as a small petting zoo or cage of monkeys, actors to open their movies, or musical groups to play before the show.  Some drive-ins held religious services on Sunday morning and evening, or charged a flat price per car on slow nights like Wednesday.
This boom caused a trend toward ever-larger and more elaborate drive-ins, such as the Bel Air Drive-In in Detroit, built in 1950.  This location featured space for 2200 cars, an elaborate concession stand along with a full playground and a train ride for the kids.
Some operators put up amusement parks, boat rides, fishing ponds and added in-car heaters to remain open year-round for their patrons.  It was also during this period and into the 1960’s that the drive-in business began to expand beyond U.S. borders, with locations opening in Australia, Great Britain and Denmark among other countries.

Categories
Born again Cynic! California

California, I kid you not!

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Being a Stranger in a very Strange Land Born again Cynic! California Cops

What a "Privilege" to live in California! – CA Broadens Gun Confiscation Laws to Include Ammunition, Certain Magazines

A magazine with newly manufactured 5.56mm cartridges is seen at Stone Hart manufacturing, Co. April 9, 2009 in Miami, Florida. Ammunition suppliers nationwide are reporting a shortage due in part to a sharp rise in gun sales after the election of President Obama that are said to be fueled by …
Joe Raedle/Getty
Aspects of California’s gun confiscation laws broadened on January 1, 2019, as the state added ammunition and certain magazines to the list of items that can be confiscated when firearms are seized.
KRCR reports that Senate Bill 1200, which Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed into law, “adds ammunition and bullet drums to the list of items related to firearms that can be confiscated.”
This means that police executing a Gun Violence Restraining Order can not only sweep a gun owner’s home for firearms, but for ammunition and certain firearm accessories as well.

Other California gun controls which took effect January 1, 2019, include an expansion of training requirements necessary to acquire a concealed carry permit and inclusion of certain misdemeanors as justification for a lifetime ban on gun ownership.
The Wall Street Journal reports that misdemeanor domestic violence charges–such as “harmful touching of a spouse, roommate or dating partner”–can now be treated on part with domestic violence felonies and result in a total forfeiture of Second Amendment rights.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Categories
All About Guns California Cops

The Inevitable Death of Gun Control: Cody Wilson and the Future of Untraceable Homemade Firearms – I hope so!

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns California Good News for a change! I am so grateful!! Tax Write off / Review Well I thought it was neat!

My newest addition to the Collection – The Sig Sauer P-226 in 9mm!

Related image
Yesterday was one of those few greater days of my life. In that I had some time, the money and the opportunity to buy almost any gun that I wanted.
(The Best days being when I first met my Wife or when my Son gave me a Granddaughter)
So off I went to one of the local Gun / Pawn Shops in the area. Where I was able to buy after a modest amount of haggling. A used P-226 in 9mm in the box.
Now dear Reader, here is why I brought this hand cannon.  As I figured that since my P-220 in 45 ACP was an absolute Champion of a hand gun. That and my Beretta 92f was kind a lonely too..
Plus I am told that the Seals and a bunch of other hard nose types liked them & whom am I to disagree with them? Right!?!
So I figured why not & so handed over the cash with all the various ID crap that this crazy state requires. So that I can exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
Now for the bad news, in that I am a citizen / prisoner / inmate of the Peoples Republic of California.
I now have to wait until the 9th of January 2019 to gain possession of my property.
Plus we have just elected a very anti Gun Governor & Legislation.  All of whom have never met a Tax or Anti Gun Bill that they do not adore. God help us out here is all that I can say!
Image result for Sig Sauer P226 9mm Handgun Review (HD)
https://youtu.be/OKyTZXxGoAw 
Anyways here is what my future P-226 looks like for those folks who have not had the privilege of seeing one before!
 
 

SIG SAUER INC - SIGARMS P226 9MM SEMIAUTO PISTOL W/8 EXTRA FACTORY HI-CAP MAGS SN# U157471 - Picture 3
SIG SAUER INC - SIGARMS P226 9MM SEMIAUTO PISTOL W/8 EXTRA FACTORY HI-CAP MAGS SN# U157471 - Picture 4 I also wish I had that many magazines come with the deal. But sadly no and to make it more irradiating. I can only had 10 round magazines out here in La La land!
  But never the less, I am NOT going to let that rain on my parade! So as soon as I can come the New Year. I will let you know about how this pistol does with me on the firing line!
Grumpy



Categories
California

And as a Native Born californian I guess that I am suppose to be surprised by this? Pot & California

 The now a days, The People of this state for the most part and all of its Politicians. Would mess up a wet dream & then try and tax it! Grumpy
___________________________

One year of legal pot sales and California doesn’t have the bustling industry it expected. Here’s why
Leonardo Catalan smells different options of cannabis before making a decision to purchase at Delta-9 THC in Wilmington.
(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

When Californians voted in 2016 to allow the sale of recreational marijuana, advocates of the move envisioned thousands of pot shops and cannabis farms obtaining state licenses, making the drug easily available to all adults within a short drive.

But as the first year of licensed sales comes to a close, California’s legal market hasn’t performed as state officials and the cannabis industry had hoped. Retailers and growers say they’ve been stunted by complex regulations, high taxes and decisions by most cities to ban cannabis shops. At the same time, many residents are going to city halls and courts to fight pot businesses they see as nuisances, and police chiefs are raising concerns about crime triggered by the marijuana trade.

Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, who played a large role in the legalization of cannabis, will inherit the numerous challenges when he takes office in January as legislators hope to send him a raft of bills next year to provide banking for the pot industry, ease the tax burden on retailers and crack down on sales to minors.
“The cannabis industry is being choked by California’s penchant for over-regulation,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a pro-legalization group. “It’s impossible to solve all of the problems without a drastic rewrite of the law, which is not in the cards for the foreseeable future.”
After voters legalized marijuana two years ago under Proposition 64, state officials estimated in there would be as many as 6,000 cannabis shops licensed in the first few years. But the state Bureau of Cannabis Control has issued just 547 temporary and annual licenses to marijuana retail stores and dispensaries. Some 1,790 stores and dispensaries were paying taxes on medicinal pot sales before licenses were required starting Jan. 1.

(Los Angeles Times)
State officials also predicted that legal cannabis would eventually bring in up to $1 billion in revenue a year. But with many cities banning pot sales, tax revenue is falling far short of estimates. Based on taxes collected since Jan. 1, the state is expected to bring in $471 million in revenue this fiscal year — much less than the $630 million projected in Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget.
“I think we all wish we could license more businesses, but our system is based on dual licensing and local control,” said Alex Traverso, a spokesman for the state Bureau of Cannabis Control, referring to the requirement that cannabis businesses get permission from the state and the city in which they want to operate.
Less than 20% of cities in California — 89 of 482 — allow retail shops to sell cannabis for recreational use, according to the California Cannabis Industry Assn. Cities that allow cannabis sales include Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and San Diego.
Eighty-two of Los Angeles County’s 88 cities prohibit retail sales of recreational marijuana, according to Alexa Halloran, an attorney specializing in cannabis law for the firm Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson. Pot shops are not allowed in cities including Burbank, Manhattan Beach, Alhambra, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, Compton, Redondo Beach, El Monte, Rancho Palos Verdes and Calabasas.
“While some cities have jumped in headfirst, we’ve taken a deliberate approach,” said Manhattan Beach Mayor Steve Napolitano, “to see how things shake out elsewhere before further consideration. I think that’s proven to be the smart approach.”
Voters have also been reluctant to allow cannabis stores in their communities.
Of the 64 California cities and counties that voted on cannabis ballot measures in the November midterm election, eight banned the sale of cannabis or turned down taxation measures, seven allowed sales and 49 approved taxes on pot businesses, said Hilary Bricken, an attorney who represents the industry. Among them, voters in Malibu approved pot shops while Simi Valley residents voted for an advisory measure against allowing retail sales.
Javier Montes, owner of Wilmington pot store Delta-9 THC, says he is struggling to compete with a large illicit market unburdened by the taxes he pays as a licensed business.
“Because we are up against high taxes and the proliferation of illegal shops, it is difficult right now,” Montes said. “We expected lines out of our doors, but unfortunately the underground market was already conducting commercial cannabis activity and are continuing to do so.”
Montes, who received his city and state licenses in January, says his business faces a 15% state excise tax, a 10% recreational marijuana tax by the city of Los Angeles and 9.5% in sales tax by the county and state — a markup of more than 34%.
He says there isn’t enough enforcement against illegal operators, and the hard times have caused him to cut the number of employees at his shop in half this year from 24 to 12.
“It’s very hard whenever I have to lay people off, because they are like a family to me,” said Montes, who is vice president of the United Cannabis Business Assn., which represents firms including the about 170 cannabis retailers licensed by the city of Los Angeles.
DELTA-9 faces a 15% state excise tax, a 10% recreational cannabis tax by the city of Los Angeles and 9.5% in sales tax by the county and state, the shop owner says.
DELTA-9 faces a 15% state excise tax, a 10% recreational cannabis tax by the city of Los Angeles and 9.5% in sales tax by the county and state, the shop owner says. (Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)
Sky Siegel, who operates a cannabis business in Studio City, said he recently gave up trying to open another store in Santa Monica because of its restrictions on such businesses.
“It turns into this ‘Hunger Games’ to try to get a license,” said Siegel, who is general manager of Perennial Holistic Wellness Center, which has a dozen employees in Studio City and also operates a delivery service.
He says his firm is up against thousands of unlicensed delivery services going into cities where storefronts are banned.
“To me, it doesn’t make sense” that many cities have prohibited shops, he said. “Banning does nothing. It’s already there. Why not turn this into a legitimized business, which is what the people want.”
California has also issued fewer cultivation licenses than expected in the first year of legalization, with about 2,160 growers registered with the state; an estimated 50,000 commercial cannabis cultivation operations existed before Proposition 64, according to the California Growers Assn. Some have given up growing pot, but many others are continuing to operate illegally.
The trade group hoped to see at least 5,000 commercial growers licensed in the first year, said Hezekiah Allen, the group’s former executive director who is now chairman of Emerald Grown, a cooperative of 130 licensed cultivators.
“We are lagging far behind,” Allen said. “It’s woefully inadequate. Most of the people in California who are buying cannabis are still buying it from the unregulated market. There just isn’t a reason for most growers to make the transition.”

Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg), who has crafted cannabis regulations, said the licensing system had not yet lived up to its promise.

“The state licensing process this past year has been a painful one,” said Wood, adding that the complex rules are particularly difficult for small businesses. “I recognize that this has been a significant undertaking for the state, and you combine that with the cannabis industry learning how to navigate the process — it’s been difficult for them both.”
The legalization of recreational pot has also created tension in areas of the state where cannabis growers are operating close to residents.
Jesse Jones said he moved his family to Petaluma from Marin County six months ago so his three children could enjoy more open space, but he is now fighting a proposal for a cannabis farm to operate a few hundred feet from his home, in part because of safety issues.
“You are going to have what is still a [Schedule 1] narcotic being produced in line of sight of my kids’ trampoline, on a shared road that was never intended for this type of commercial operation,” said Jones, an energy industry executive.
Sanjay Bagai, a former investment banker who lives with his family next door to a new cannabis farm in Sonoma County, is a leader of a residents group called Save Our Sonoma Neighborhoods, which has obtained a preliminary court ruling against one cannabis-growing operation.
Bagai said his group was “not anti-cannabis” but added that pot cultivation “is not something that fits into our neighborhood here.”
“The smell is horrific,” he said of the marijuana plants. “It’s like rotting flesh. And the traffic is insane.”
Quality-of-life complaints have also surfaced in neighborhoods where cannabis sellers have set up shop.
Van Nuys Neighborhood Council President George Thomas said he had received about a dozen complaints in the last year from residents living near pot stores who were concerned about loitering, the smell of marijuana smoke and other issues. Thomas, who is the publisher of the Van Nuys News Press and is an LAPD volunteer, passes complaints on to police officers.
“If they are not in compliance,” Thomas said, “if they are within a thousand feet of a school or church, we are totally against them and we are happy to work with the neighborhood prosecutor in the city attorney’s office to shut them down.”
At the same time, he said, the neighborhood council has worked with licensed cannabis stores to get them involved in improving the community and has asked the Los Angeles City Council to devote some of the tax revenue from Van Nuys shops to solving local problems, including homelessness and crime.
Meanwhile, despite concerns from law enforcement, the state is finalizing a proposal to allow deliveries throughout California — including in cities that ban retail stores. The new rule by Lori Ajax, chief of the state Bureau of Cannabis Control, is expected to be implemented in January.
Ajax says she believes that as the system is refined and is shown to operate successfully in some cities, other local governments will allow retail pot sales. But opponents of pot legalization, including Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, are happy that most cities are saying “no” to selling the drug.
“The residents of Compton and these other cities have seen the ills that come with allowing marijuana in the door,” Sabet said, “including skyrocketing drugged driving; the promise, then failure of social justice; and the targeting of children through the use of colorful and deceptive candies, gummies and sodas.”
Even in cities that allow cannabis sales, businesses face big hurdles.
The various taxes and fees could drive up the cost of legal cannabis in parts of California by 45%, according to the global credit ratings firm Fitch Ratings.
There is less of a tax burden in Oregon, where voters legalized recreational pot in 2014, and state and local taxes are capped at 20%. With nearly a tenth of the population of California, that state has more licensed cannabis shops — 601. On a per capita basis, Alaska has also approved more pot shop licenses than California, — 94 so far. The state imposes a tax on cultivation, but there is no retail excise tax on pot.
Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) tried and failed this year to push for a temporary reduction in California’s pot taxes to help the industry get on its feet.
“It’s a work in progress,” Bonta said of the current regulatory system. “We knew we weren’t going to get it exactly right on Day 1, and so we’re always looking for ways to achieve the original intentions and goal.”
Bonta said he may revisit the taxation issue in 2019 and is exploring the idea of having the state do more to get cities to approve businesses, possibly by providing advisory guidelines for local legalization that address cities’ concerns.
California cannabis businesses, like their counterparts in Colorado and Oregon, also face costs to test marijuana for harmful chemicals.
“The testing costs are excessive — $500 to $1,000 per batch, and most crops involve multiple batches,” said Gieringer, the director of California NORML. “No other agricultural product is required to undergo such costly or sensitive tests.”
Another problem hampering the legal market is a lack of banking for cannabis businesses. Federally regulated banks are reluctant to handle cash from pot, which remains an illegal drug under federal law.
“Banking continues to be an issue in terms of creating a real public safety problem with significant amounts of cash being moved for transactions,” said Bonta, who co-wrote a bill this year that would have created a state-sanctioned bank to handle money from pot sellers. It failed to pass after legislative analysts said the proposal faced “significant obstacles,” including no protection from federal law enforcement.
Industry leaders and activists said they knew it would be a slow process to establish a strong legal market, noting other states with legal pot, including Colorado, Washington and Oregon, also faced growing pains and problems along the way.
But Ajax, the state pot czar, says her agency has had a productive first year, issuing initial licenses, refining the rules and stepping up action against unlicensed operations, including partnering with the Los Angeles Police Department to seize $2 million worth of marijuana products from an unlicensed shop in Sylmar in October.

“I am optimistic about the coming year, where our focus will be primarily on getting more businesses licensed and increasing enforcement efforts on the illegal market,” Ajax said.

Categories
Born again Cynic! California Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Grumpy's hall of Shame

Teaching in California, I am so sorry & embarrassed by this!

Least-Educated State: California No. 1 in Percentage of Residents 25 and Older Who Never Finished 9th Grade; No. 50 in High School Graduates

By Terence P. Jeffrey

California Gov. Jerry Brown and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) outside the U.S. Capitol, March 22, 2017. (Getty Images/Alex Wong)

 
(CNSNews.com) – California ranks No. 1 among the 50 states for the percentage of its residents 25 and older who have never completed ninth grade and 50th for the percentage who have graduated from high school, according to new data from the Census Bureau.
Texas ranks No. 2 for the percentage of its residents 25 and older who have never completed ninth grade and 49th for the percentage who have graduated from high school.
9.7 percent of California residents 25 and older, the Census Bureau says, never completed ninth grade. Only 82.5 percent graduated from high school.
8.7 percent of Texas residents 25 and older never completed ninth grade, and only 82.8 percent graduated from high school.

California and Texas—while having the highest percentages of residents 25 and older who never finished ninth grade and the lowest percentages who graduated from high school—are the nation’s two most populous states.
In fact, the 2,510,370 California residents 25 and older who, according to the Census Bureau, never finished ninth grade outnumber the entire populations of 15 other states.
In California, children are required to attend school from six years of age until they are 18. “California’s compulsory education laws require children between six and eighteen years of age to attend school, with a limited number of exceptions,” says the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, an agency of the California state government.
(The National Center for Education Statistics also indicates that children in California are compelled by law to attend school from 6 to 18 years of age.)
Massachusetts ranks No. 1 for the percentage of its residents 25 and older—42.1 percent–who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree.
These rankings are based on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates, which were released this month.
In the survey, the Census Bureau asks respondents to specify the level of educational attainment for each individual in their household. The question is: “What is the highest degree or level of school this person has COMPLETED. Mark (X) ONE box. If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received.”
The survey form then offers the respondent multiple options ranging from “no schooling completed” to “professional degree” or “doctorate degree.” If an individual has not earned a high school degree, the respondent is asked to specify the highest grade the individual actually completed—ranging from “nursery school” through “12th grade—NO DIPLOMA.”
The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey queries a random sample of more than 3.5 million U.S. households each year and publishes a one-year estimate for each year. The five-year estimate, the bureau says, “is a weighted average of the five one-year estimates.” The newly released five-year estimates are for the period from 2013 through 2017.
Nationwide, 5.4 percent of residents 25 and older have never finished ninth grade, according to the latest five-year estimates.
Ten states exceeded the nationwide level of residents 25 and older who have never finished ninth grade. These include: California (9.7 percent), Texas (8.7 percent), New York (6.5 percent), New Mexico (6.5 percent), Kentucky (6.1 percent), Nevada (5.9 percent), Arizona (5.9 percent), Mississippi (5.6 percent), Rhode Island (5.5 percent), and Louisiana (5.4 percent).
Wyoming—with 1.8 percent—had nation’s smallest percentage of residents 25 and older who never finished ninth grade.
In seventeen states, the percentage of residents 25 and older who at least graduated from high school was less than the nationwide percentage of 87.3 percent.
These seventeen states included: California (82.5 percent), Texas (82.8 percent), Mississippi (83.4 percent), Louisiana (84.3 percent), New Mexico (85 percent), Kentucky (85.2 percent), Alabama (85.3 percent), Arkansas (85.6 percent), Nevada (85.8 percent), West Virginia (85.9 percent), New York (86.1 percent), Georgia (86.3 percent), Tennessee (86.5 percent), South Carolina (86.5 percent), Arizona (86.5 percent), North Carolina (86.9 percent), and Rhode Island (87.3 percent).

Nationwide, 30.9 percent of residents 25 and older have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
In nineteen states, the percentage with a bachelor’s degree or higher exceeds the national percentage. These nineteen states include both No. 14 California (32.6) and No. 9 New York (35.3), which respectively ranked No.1 and No. 3 for the percentage of residents 25 and older who never finished ninth grade.
The ten states with the highest percentage of residents 25 and older who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher are: Massachusetts (42.1 percent), Colorado (39.4 percent), Maryland (39 percent), Connecticut (38.4 percent), New Jersey (38.1 percent), Virginia (37.6 percent), Vermont (36.8 percent), New Hampshire (36 percent), New York (35.3 percent), and Minnesota (34.8 percent).
West Virginia—at 19.9 percent—has the lowest percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
In another seven states, the percentage of residents who have a bachelor’s degree or higher is less than 25 percent. They are: Mississippi (21.3 percent), Arkansas (22 percent), Kentucky (23.2 percent), Louisiana (23.4 percent), Nevada (23.7 percent), Alabama (24.5 percent) and Oklahoma (24.8 percent).

In California, according to the Census Bureau’s five-year estimates, the resident population 25 and older was 25,950,818. Of those individuals, 2,510,370—or 9.7 percent–never completed ninth grade.
Another 2,033,160 California residents 25 and older completed the ninth, tenth, eleventh or twelfth grade—but did not earn a high school diploma. Thus, a total of 4,543,530 California residents 25 and older—or a nation-leading 17.5 percent–have never graduated from high school.
Those 2,510,370 individuals 25 and older in California who never finished 9th grade outnumber the entire populations of 15 other states, according to the Census Bureau’s latest population estimates. These include: Alaska (737,438), Delaware (967,171), Hawaii (1,420,491), Idaho (1,754,208), Maine (1,338,404), Montana (1,062,305), Nebraska (1,929,268), New Hampshire (1,356,458), New Mexico (2,095,428), North Dakota (760,077), Rhode Island (1,057,315), South Dakota (882,235), Vermont (626,299), West Virginia (1,805,832), and Wyoming (577,737).

In Texas, the resident population 25 and older was 17,454,431. Of those individuals, 1,513,995—or 8.7 percent—never completed ninth grade. That outnumbers the populations of 11 states.

Categories
Born again Cynic! California

Well I guess that my Gas & Electric Bill out here is going to go way up soon!

PG&E broke laws in 12 NorCal wildfires, Cal Fire found. Prosecutors may not file charges

BY TONY BIZJAK AND

DALE KASLER

 
The Camp Fire began on Nov. 8, 2018, and has since become the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history. Drone footage shows the fire destruction, with home after home lost, in Paradise, California.
By Alyssa Hodenfield | Hector Amezcua
PG&E has already been convicted in criminal court for a recent deadly tragedy. Could the utility soon find itself as the defendant in a dozen more cases, charged with breaking state laws?
In the wake of massive utility-caused Northern California wildfires, a handful of district attorneys in flame-scarred counties are pondering whether to charge the utility company in criminal court for misconduct.
Cal Fire, the state’s fire protection agency, sent investigative reports to seven counties this summer saying it believes PG&E likely violated state public resources and health and safety laws in 12 blazes.
Cal Fire spokesman Scott McLean said it is up to local prosecutors in Sonoma, Napa, Yuba, Nevada, Lake, Humboldt and Butte counties to make independent decisions on whether to use the fire agency’s investigative conclusions to file criminal charges.

“We saw cause, and we gave it to the DAs to figure out,” McLean said. “Whether they are going to prosecute, that is up to them.”

The decisions on whether to charge Pacific Gas and Electric Co. could have a major impact on the company. The utility currently is subject to court-ordered federal monitoring stemming from a criminal conviction for the 2010 San Bruno gas-line explosion that killed eight.

A violation of PG&E’s probation in the San Bruno case — such as a criminal act — could lead to what one former prosecutor said would be an added layer of “onerous” controls. And, arguably even more troublesome, new criminal charges could give the utility giant a public black eye that would exacerbate its mounting financial woes.

Prosecutors pass

So far, none of the counties has filed charges. Cal Fire is still investigating last month’s Camp Fire, which killed 86 people in Butte County, mainly in the towns of Paradise and Magalia. That report is due next year.

In Sonoma and Napa — where Cal Fire alleges five wildfires were the result of PG&E law violations — attorneys said they are waiting for the state to come to a conclusion on the the biggest fire of all in 2017, the Tubbs Fire, which burned part of Santa Rosa and killed 22 people.

They and a few other counties recently asked the state attorney general to review the cases as well for potential state prosecution.

One county district attorney already has taken an alternate tack.

Butte District Attorney Mike Ramsey recently worked a deal with PG&E. He agreed not to file criminal charges for a small wildfire last year near Paradise. In exchange, PG&E pledged $1.5 million to pay for four new fire safety inspectors, and to allow those inspectors to look at PG&E’s power lines. If the inspectors find a fire safety hazard, PG&E agrees to correct it within 24 hours.

The fire that prompted the deal, the 2017 Honey Fire, was ignited by a tree limb hitting PG&E power lines and burning 150 acres of brush a half-mile from Paradise. Cal Fire determined that PG&E had failed to follow state public resources code that required it to trim a decaying limb close to the power line.

The Butte safety inspectors had not yet been hired when the devastating Camp Fire hit Butte County last month. If the program had been in place, could it have averted the Camp Fire? “That is the old, ‘What if?’ ” Ramsey said. “We can do that all day.”

Ramsey declined to say whether he would file criminal charges if Cal Fire determines PG&E broke laws in the Camp Fire. “It’s a little premature,” he said. Besides, “we don’t want to show our cards.”

Play Video

Duration 2:03
A memorial of crosses has been erected in Paradise in honor of the victims who died in the wildfire in Butte County. A family who lost their home and belongings stopped to visit on Thursday, Dec. 20, 2018.
By Renée C. Byer | David Caraccio

Beyond reasonable doubt

Some residents, such as Christina Taft of Paradise, said a criminal prosecution would carry emotional resonance.

Taft has been struggling with guilt since the fire, wondering how much she is to blame for her mother’s death. Victoria Taft refused to leave their apartment that morning, despite her daughter’s pleadings. So Taft left without her mom, not realizing how dire the situation was. “I feel like I didn’t do enough,” she laments. “I didn’t wait long enough.”

Taft said she had a nightmare the other day about it: In the dream, it was early morning, and her mom was looking out a window at a light and was confused about what it meant.

Taft says she knows PG&E has a history of failing to maintain its infrastructure, but she is more angry with the county for not alerting her and her mom to the level of danger they faced. “It was not just our choice, it was a lot of factors. It wasn’t all my fault.”

In Napa County, where officials await the state’s Tubbs Fire report, Mike Rippey, son of Charles and Sara Rippey, the two oldest victims of the Atlas Fire, said he would like to see a criminal prosecution, if warranted.

“If someone does something criminal, then they should be punished,” he said. “But it’s not going to bring my parents back. It’s not going to make me feel any better.”

One county already has decided not to file criminal charges. Yuba County, where a pair sagging utility lines slapped together in high winds last fall, sparking the Cascade Fire which killed four people in the Loma Rica area, won’t take PG&E to court.

The criminal charge in that case likely would have been involuntary manslaughter, which carries a fine of up to $10,000 in each instance. County District Attorney Pat McGrath published a four-page paper in October detailing the fire investigation and explaining his conclusion that the burden of proof is too high to convict.

“This office has concluded that a criminal jury would be unable to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is sufficient to establish criminal negligence, as opposed to ordinary negligence, on the part of PG&E,” he wrote.

McGrath said he will reconsider, however, if new information comes out that would make a conviction more likely.

That doesn’t sit well with Marjorie David, who lost her daughter Roseann Hannah, 53, in that fire. David, who lives in Florida, first heard about her daughter’s possible death when a niece posted a prayer on Facebook. Another daughter called her minutes later with the bad news.

“(PG&E) should be held accountable,” she said. “I’m not looking for anything financially out of it. I don’t know a lot about what went on up there. I just don’t think people should get away with things like that, particularly the electric company, due to their neglect.”

In Nevada County, where the McCourtney Fire destroyed 13 buildings last year, District Attorney Clifford Newell said the decision to prosecute is complicated.

His county famously set a legal landmark in the 1990s, winning a wildfire criminal conviction against PG&E on hundreds of charges. But the utility’s actions were egregious back then, he said. In recent years, he’s seen utility crews out doing maintenance leading up to fire season.

Given that PG&E is making payouts in individual civil lawsuits stemming from the fire, and that his county already is pursuing a civil case against PG&E, Newell said he is asking himself: “Is it right for me to file criminal action? I don’t know yet. Criminal negligence is one of the toughest standards to meet. It has to be super-egregious activity.”

The potential for criminal charges is only a part of a morass of legal issues PG&E faces as a result of several years of fires involving utility lines in drought-plagued California. The company has been hit with numerous individual civil suits from residents who lost homes, businesses and loved ones.

A group of nine counties also has filed a joint civil action against PG&E, called the North Bay Fire case. That includes several counties also pondering criminal charges.

Those counties are following a trail blazed by Calaveras County in 2015 when it civilly sued PG&E for causing a fire called the Butte Fire, which killed two people. The fire was named for the road closest to the ignition point, Butte Mountain Road in Amador County.

Calaveras recently extracted a $25 million settlement from PG&E. The county will use the money to replace damaged infrastructure and to compensate itself for lost tax base.

Calaveras chose not to file criminal charges, though Cal Fire said PG&E had violated several state codes by improper tree cutting, allowing a weak tree to hit the lines.

Deputy District Attorney Jeff Stone said his office decided a jury may not view PG&E as criminally responsible for the two deaths, given how far away they were in time and distance from the fire’s origin. One of the victims reportedly refused to leave his property, instead staying to clear brush around his home.

“In both cases, it was at least the second day of the fire,” Stone said. “We saw that as a little far removed. We had to evaluate: Did these people perhaps choose to remain at their home and protect their home. We didn’t see PG&E as being criminally responsible for that.”

Payouts vs. punishment

Civil lawsuits are more popular because they typically lead to much higher fines than criminal charges, and have a lower legal bar of proof. In many cases, criminal liability for starting a fire is just a misdemeanor and the fines are small, often $1,000 per incident.

Civil litigation attorney Gary Danko, part of a legal team representing several hundred Camp Fire victims, said a criminal fine is like “a gnat on the backside of an elephant” compared to multimillion dollar civil payouts.

After the 2010 natural gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, PG&E was fined $1.6 billion by state regulators. When the company was found guilty of six felony counts for violating federal pipeline safety laws, it was fined $3 million — the maximum allowed by law. PG&E was also ordered to spend up to $3 million publicizing the convictions and had to commit to 10,000 hours of community service.

But some legal experts say PG&E has good reason to fear criminal convictions. The San Bruno criminal case also left the company on probation for five years, starting in 2017, during which it’s had to submit to outside monitoring of a corporate “compliance and ethics program.”

A federal judge last month demanded that PG&E explain to him by the end of the year why the Camp Fire is not a violation of the probation terms. (The cause of the Camp Fire has not been officially determined, but PG&E acknowledged equipment malfunctions on the day the fire started at the location where it started.)

Several fire lawyers said the judge could choose to tighten federal court monitoring of the utility, or even appoint someone to run the company if he determines PG&E violated its probation.

Beyond that, though, PG&E likely has a general concern about looking like a bad guy in the public’s eye.

“Companies do not want to be prosecuted criminally. Reputational harm is huge and companies don’t want that,” said Stacey Geis, a former assistant U.S. attorney who helped bring the San Bruno charges against PG&E. “Most companies would ask me to prosecute them civilly and not criminally.”

PG&E declined to comment about potential criminal charges. Spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo said the company is focused on safety.

Play Video

Duration 1:51
Flyover shows the destruction from the Camp Fire, California’s deadliest wildfire, in Paradise, CA., on November 13, 2018.
By Hector Amezcua

Categories
Born again Cynic! California Grumpy's hall of Shame

Californians Get the Government They Deserve..and That’s Deadly

“The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
— Thomas Jefferson
The state of California is massively in debt. Middle-class jobs are leaving and taking California’s middle class along with them. With growing crime, it is more dangerous to live in California each year.
After failure like that, California politicians call for higher taxes and more gun control. Why would politicians propose more of the prescriptions that failed in the past? That is a fascinating question. Let’s see if we can help.

California compared to other states-

California has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. California is ranked first of the fifty states when it comes to gun-control.
Those laws are so severe and so extensive that California has an “A” rating by the Giffords gun-control group. Shouldn’t those gun-control laws guarantee very low rates of violent crime and a remarkably low murder rate?
The answer is a tragic ‘No’. California has regulated guns for decades, yet gun-control hasn’t come close to delivering on its promises. Not then, and not now.
California gun laws-
Unless you’ve lived there, you might not be familiar with California’s extensive gun laws. The state mandates safety training before a sale can take place. They have universal background checks before each gun sale, and a ten day waiting period before you can take possession of your gun.
Ammunition sales are also regulated. You have to buy a gun lock with each firearm. Most handguns sold in the United States are not allowed for sale in California. Magazine capacity is limited, and you can only buy one gun a month. California also regulates and registers what the state calls “assault weapons”.
Most California citizens can’t get a permit to carry a handgun in public. Nor does the state recognize carry permits from other states. California proposes more gun-control laws each year.
Each growing infringement on the right to keep and bear arms was supposed to guarantee that criminals wouldn’t use guns for violent crime. The opposite took place. In California, the criminals are armed and the law abiding citizens are disarmed.

Comparing California’s crime rate to other states

California is quite violent when compared to the rest of the fifty states. That is bad and becoming worse year after year. California ranks in the worse half of states when ranked by violent crime. Thirty five states were safer than California in 2016.
Also, the homicide rate in California increased by 18 percent from 2014 to 2016. Note that California classifies some crimes as non-violent that most states, and most citizens, consider to be very violent. For example, forcible rape is punished as a non-violent crime in California.

Political considerations

Why do California politicians persist with more of the same old policies in the face of repeated failure?
High taxes mean there are lots of government programs that reward special interests. Special interests provide campaign contributions to incumbent politicians. California is ruled by Democrats, and high taxes persist because they work for California Democrat politicians.
It is more important that California Democrat politicians succeed than that California citizens succeed.
We see similar forces at work with gun control. For Democrat politicians, rising rates of homicide are a beneficial feature rather than a fault. High rates of violent crime provide a justification for more gun-control legislation.
That legislation provides more campaign cash from gun-control donors. Gun-control works for Democrat politicians even while it fails for California citizens. Now, California Democrat politicians want to tax guns, but does anyone think that criminals will pay those taxes?

For all the compassion that politicians show in front of the cameras,
very little compassion makes it to the streets where people are dying.

This isn’t an academic question. We pay for these political adventures with our lives.