Ron's Log

I Spit On Your Corpse

I happened across this film, I Spit On Your Corpse (aka, Girls For Rent) because a friend recommended another movie with a similar title. When I looked it up I saw that there were four movies with titles that were variations of I Spit/Piss On Your Corpse/Grave and then a fifth entitled I Spit On Your Corpse, I Piss On Your Grave. I thought it would be appropriate to work through some real trash films for Halloween.

I Spit On Your Corpse jumped out at me not because of any high quality values. It is, in fact, distributed by Toma Entertainment, which is infamous for the (sometimes entertaining) trash in its catalog. No, I Spit On Your Corpse grabbed my attention when it became obvious that it was filmed right here in Coachella Valley. I first recognized Box Canyon Road (near Mecca) as the scene of a car chase. Later scenes along the Salton Sea and in the Mecca Hills were easy to pick out. When I listened to the commentary by director Al Adamson, he identified filming locations as Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio, Mecca and Whitewater Canyon. There are some scenes where I recognized the characteristic tailings that are along the Colorado River Aqueduct, plus some of the concrete structures that show up at the aqueduct's siphons. When he said "Desert Hot Springs" he may have actually meant Sky Valley.

Interestingly, Al Adamson was murdered at his home in Indio in 1995 by his "live-in contractor" who buried his body beneath the tile and concrete in his newly remodeled bathroom. Desert Sun articles on the murder and trial can be read here. His murderer is now serving a 25-year sentence.

Green Path North Meeting, November 6

After the election it will be time to turn our attention back to all those political issues that fill our time between elections. The California Desert Coalition will have an update meeting on Thursday evening, November 6, at 7 PM in the fabulous Yucca Room in the Yucca Valley Community Center, 57090 Highway 62 in Yucca Valley.

That Was Brief

Nancy Downer, who was announced on September 17 to be the new and first general manager of Cabot's Pueblo Museum has resigned with no reason given.

McCain vs. Obama

If you haven't settled on a minor party candidate who suits your standards, or you feel you must choose one of the major party candidates and you are somehow still undecided between Obama and McCain after this long, long, miserable campaign, I don't know how you happen to be reading Ron's Log, but you've come to the right place because I'll tell you how to vote.

From my point of view any differences in their economic policies are insignificant, mere re-arrangements of deck chairs. They both voted for the $700-billion bailout - but McCain has made it clear the bailout ran against his principles in a number of ways, which says more about McCain than the bailout itself.

Neither of them are proposing to shut down the IRS or repeal the income tax. Neither promises to bring all U.S. troops home from around the globe. Both are about equally afraid to publicly endorse pro-gay rights measures that they may privately agree with as individuals.

Despite the fact that I have asked my readers numerous times to point me to well written endorsements of McCain, I've received no such suggestions. I have received some ad hominem attacks on myself or Obama, however. All the endorsements of McCain that I have read that seemed to come from moderately level-headed people cite his long experience in government as his greatest asset. I agree that experience is an important attribute and that McCain's got it from both government service, military service, and his years as a prisoner of war.

So McCain brings those decades of experience to his campaign for President, the high point of his career, and we should be seeing one damned fine campaign packed with great endorsements written by great people who are drawn from across the political spectrum to his centrist views. But what has been the actual result? A disastrous campaign, erratically lurching on the issues, caving to the non-thinking religious right wing of the Republican party, a campaign based on stirring up fear and hatred among the bigots in our population, and his first and most important selection for his future cabinet: Sarah Palin.

When do we get see the benefits of McCain's experience? Surely he knew these Republican party advisors were giving him advice that ran counter to his long-standing principles of decent political behavior and his knowledge of what's best for our country. How in the course of a few months could he disappoint so many of us by forgetting what he stood for?

What guarantee do we have that between November 4 and January 20 McCain would throw off these Bush-ite advisors and become his own man again? There is no such guarantee.

OTOH, we have Obama who despite less experience has maintained his campaign on a straight arrow basis for two years without deviation despite the curs of hatred and innuendo who are still yapping and snapping at his ankles. His ability to lead, organize and unify a diverse coalition is as obvious as McCain's lack of it. And 90% of being a good, effective President is being able to lead, organize and unify a diverse nation and even more diverse world. That's more important than where Joe The Plumber's capital gains tax will kick in; more important than the exact ratio of troops in Iraq to troops in Afghanistan.

That's it. If you must vote major party, vote Obama.

UPDATE: Possible future news.

California Proposition 7 - Renewable Energy

It would be easy for me to cite my libertarian free market ideals to explain my opposition to Prop 7 which is a lengthy, lengthy proposition that finagles with electric utilities and how much energy they have to buy from renewable sources. An argument like that would certainly appeal to the other 93 libertarians in California. But it's nice to find agreement from an impressively long, deep and broad list of other opponents to Prop 7 including even the Democratic and Republican parties of California! Whoda thunk I would have found myself in such nasty company! OTOH, the list of those endorsing Prop 7 is rather impressively short and shallow, including no organizations at all, but a few recognizable individuals: Danny Glover, Art Agnos, and others you may know if you are an informed Californian.

In the Voter Guide the Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 7 (written by Prop 7 supporters) consists almost entirely of vague ad hominem attacks against its opponents - a sure sign they've got no good arguments to support their position.

An Unlikely (no, REALLY unlikely) Ally Against Prop 8

You can add Shirley Phelps-Roper to the list of those opposed to Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would take away the right of gay people to marry. Ms. Phelps-Roper is the daughter of Fred Phelps, the preacher for the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. She was in San Francisco to picket at a fundraiser for a charity that was a favorite of Paul Newman. "Phelps-Roper said Newman had lived in adultery because he'd divorced and remarried, and the 'so-called Christians' are 'living in adultery by the droves.'" This is her opinion of Prop 8:

Prop 8 is "too little, too late," she said, adding that Prop 8 backers were "phony, self-righteous, so-called Christians who did not do their duty to serve their God" by protesting same-sex weddings on June 16.

"We were in San Francisco and LA ... where were the 'Christians?'" she said.

"They need to shut the hell up about Prop 8 and take it and like it. They're a bunch of anal-retentive, mean bastards," said Phelps-Roper, referring to Prop 8 supporters.

I find myself wondering what brand of bathroom tissue is preferred in the Phelps-Roper household.

Ms. Phelps-Roper said that if Prop 8 passes "it'll take a judge about 2.4 seconds to dismantle it." Let's hope she's right.

Ocotillo Wells Is Ringing

A series of small earthquakes has been occcurring near Ocotillo Wells which is west of the Salton Sea. Here's the USGS map. Which, at the moment I'm looking at it, lists 84 quakes at that epicenter starting at 7:16 PM on the 28th (Pacific time) ranging from 1.2 to 3.6.

California Proposition 6 - Law Enforcement

Proposition 6 should be a NO vote for two reasons: (1) like Proposition 5 it's long and detailed, touching on this issue and that, funding some things, amending current statutes, to a level of complexity that should be dealt with by the legislature not by the voters; and (2) it writes guaranteed funding levels into law. For example:

(b) The sum of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the COPS Fund for the 2009–10 fiscal year, and annually each fiscal year thereafter, adjusted for cost of living pursuant to the California Consumer Price Index for the purpose of supporting local public safety, antigang, and juvenile justice programs.

Half a billion dollars each year, every year, forever, guaranteed. This provision doesn't even foresee its own success. There are no sunset provisions, no allowance for a reduction if the law works and gang-related crime dwindles in the future. Yes, there is a provision that requires funds to be returned if unspent, but it's a pretty incompetent government agency that doesn't manage to spend its full allocation of funds.

The proposition contains a lot of good elements, but the fact that they haven't been approved by the legislature is not a sufficient reason to bundle them all together into this one gargantuan prop and send it to the voters. Rather, it's more evidence that the legislature needs to be reformed, and the first reform should be to eliminate the requirement for a super-majority to pass a budget.

Two Different Views of Mt. San Jacinto From DHS

DHS City Council Study Session, October 28

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS

Tonight's fascinating Desert Hot Springs city council study session began with 15 minutes on the subject of Community Development Block Grants. This year Riverside County has decided the smallest possible grant will be $10,000 -- so you will probably wonder, as I do, why we may be eligible for $116,920 for capital projects and $19,034 for community service projects. Despite the $10,000 rule the community service project funds, for example, could be divided between two projects: a $10,000 one and a $9,034 one. The city intends to use all the capital project for streetscape work in the downtown area. Applications for block grants must be received by the city before 5 PM on November 4. The city council will make its decisions at the meeting on November 18.

Councilmembers Betts and Baker in addition to Mayor Parks want city staff to look at abandoning the county's block grant allocation system next year, so that we can request funding directly from HUD.

ENTERPRISE ZONE

In a California state enterprise zone an employer can receive a $35,000 tax credit for every employee, in addition to more tax credits on equipment. There is already one enterprise zone in the east valley sponsored by Riverside County and the cities of Indio and Coachella. Two-thirds of that zone are in unincorporated areas, and its closest proximity to us is Thousand Palms.

Desert Hot Springs has met with Palm Springs, Cathedral City and Riverside County to discuss applying for an enterprise zone here in the western valley. The three cities are all committed to it, but Riverside County is not. A preliminary study will be made. A full scale application will require retaining a consultant which will cost $79,000 to $115,000 (the expense to be divided over the three cities, or the cities plus the county if it joins in).

The major hurdle is that the state sees that Coachella Valley already has an enterprise zone, so why should it get a second. No other metropolitan area has two. If we fail to get approval for an enterprise zone, we could request that Indio, Coachella and Riverside County amend the boundaries of the existing enterprise zone. It is already at the maximum permitted size, which is 35,000 acres. To benefit the western valley would mean that enterprise zone would have to reduce its size, and create a zone in the western valley so that the two together total no more than 35,000 acres.

Councilmember Betts suggested that we examine ways to improve transportation between Desert Hot Springs and Thousand Palms to make it easier for our residents to get to jobs in the enterprise zone. He did not propose a monorail, but specifically mentioned the chronic traffic backups on Mountain View and Varner.

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

Or, more specifically, "The Downtown Specific Plan And What Can We Do If, Say Just For Example, Somebody Proposed A Small Grocery Store Right In The Middle Of It That Didn't Conform To Our Not Yet Codified Vision, Just Hypothetically Speaking Of Course."

Assistant City Attorney Ellin Davtyan, discussed the possibility of an "Interim Urgency Ordinance" that would block all but specified development in the proposed area. Such an ordinance would require at least four votes in favor to pass. The ordinance would last for 45 days (just like the marijuana moratorium), and could be extended for 10 months and 15 days and then extended for one more year.

Councilmember Betts asked if this was just the same as the oft-discussed moratorium on new construction. The attorney explained that this ordinance would be crafted to block only specific types of development in the specified area.

Assistant City Manager Rudy Acosta said that things had been going swimmingly on the downtown plan so far, and so he was very reluctant to consider expanding the area as that would mean increased costs and work and delays. Councilmember Schmidt said he thought the plan should be expanded to include ALL of Palm Drive, to the depth of one parcel, so that the city could exercise complete control over this gateway route.

Councilmember Baker said city staff had not done its due diligence on updating the General Plan, and that no Interim Urgency Ordinance would be required because any proposed development would require a General Plan amendment and a zoning change, so the city council could kill any proposal at that point. It's not clear to me if an Interim Urgency Ordinance as described by the attorney might afford the city additional legal protection against lawsuits from denied developers. At the last city council meeting Attorney Duran did suggest that the developer of the proposed market at 2nd and Palm could pursue litigation if the city turned him down.

City Manager Rick Daniels said that to his chagrin developers were NOT advised about the downtown specific plan underway when they first contacted the city. He said that the EIR for the General Plan update will take a MINIMUM OF 270 DAYS! So in case, you thought this was finally getting close, just be patient. Here is a timeline that was handed out for the General Plan update:

Click the image to get the full size version. I do believe I heard someone say that attempts to update the General Plan began in 2000. In case you can't remember back that far, Bill Clinton was President, AOL was bought by Time Warner, the dot-com bubble pushed the Dow Jones Industrial Average to 11,722.98, Windows 2000 was released, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore for President, Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat met at Camp David, a French Concorde crashed during takeoff in Paris, the summer Olympics were in Australia, the Yankees beat the Mets in the World Series, and I was still working (by some definition of the word) in Boston and had probably never even heard of Desert Hot Springs.

And here's the timeline for the Downtown Specific Plan:

Full size you will get by clicking.

You'll see the Downtown Specific Plan timeline says it will be complete in April 2009.

Citizen Hank Goodreau [yes, I just make up these spellings] rose to remind the council that we are "the spa city," not the mini-mart city, not the tire store city, and that businesses on our main corridors and downtown should be those that will draw visitors and tourists to the city. He said that any developer that actually did not know that the city had been working on a plan for downtown for the past two years should not be building here at all. His comments were met with applause from the audience.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

If you want copies of the Palm Springs and West Hollywood medical marijuana ordinances referenced at the meeting, you should download the agenda [PDF] which includes those ordinances. For further reference, here is the incredibly brief text of proposition 215 and here you can read SB 420 which fleshed out that simple proposition. Here is an 11-page [PDF] set of guidelines issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown this past August.

We had a number of new faces in the audience for this discussion. KMIR channel 6 was there to record most (or all) of the discussion.

But first, Councilmember Baker really laid into Assistant Attorney Davtyan. Not just those half-joshing jabs he makes at Attorney Duran during council meetings, but really attacked her saying that she hadn't presented what the council had asked for, and that she was trying to write policy. Specifically, he complained about the long list of "whereas's" in the draft ordinance to ban medical marijuana that cited many (probably all) of the alleged problems with medical marijuana distribution without citing any evidence whatsoever to support those statements.

The attorney said she had been instructed to bring back a "banning" ordinance and a copy of the Palm Springs ordinance (which has not yet been finalized).

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MARIJUANA

Ted Mayrhofen got up to say that he had not read any of the proposed ordinances, and he didn't know if there were any provisions to keep marijuana distribution sites away from schools. Several members of the council interrupted him to say that, yes, they all did that. He said that anybody with 8 ounces of marijuana was a dealer in his opinion. He wondered if the California law would permit the smoking of marijuana outside in the backyard where neighbor kids might be able to smell it. He then rambled on into a discussion about hemp versus marijuana and wondered if we allowed medical marijuana would we also permit the growing of hemp? Oh, dear lord, whatever was he thinking? The informed citizen will recall that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a narrowly written hemp bill in 2006. Hemp growing is technically allowed under federal law, but it is regulated by the DEA which has never seen fit to permit any actual growing. Those who are interested in agricultural and industrial hemp should check out the Vote Hemp site which has a lot of good, well written information on the subject.

Hank Goodreault rose and told us that Mr. Mayrhofen's comments were an example of the sort of ignorance that exists about medical marijuana. Mr. Goodreau is a nurse and cited examples of the relief from their symptoms that several patients had enjoyed when using marijuana. He also told us there are 20 types of THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol), a fact that I did not know. He specifically cited "Delta," I believe. Here is some information about Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.

Roger Fisher, a DHS resident and patient who uses marijuana, told us that collectives and coops are now referred to as "compassionate patient groups," although when I Google that phrase I find nothing. He mentioned the tax benefits to the city resulting from having a marijuana site in DHS.

Lanny Swerdlow (here is a YouTube video of the DHS city council meeting from EARLY 2007 where Mr. Swerdlow makes a comment on the proposal to impose a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries) - we haven't had a meeting as exciting as that in a long time) who is with the Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project told us that he recommends the Palm Springs ordinance and said that the Palm Springs Planning Commission will have it on their agenda at their next meeting, Wednesday, November 12 at 3 PM. He said that currently Palm Springs is the only city in the Inland Empire with marijuana collectives, and that Palm Springs (and potentially Desert Hot Springs) could receive substantial tax benefits if they permit marijuana sites.

Jim Camper, the former owner of Organic Solutions, the dispensary that was open in Desert Hot Springs for five months got up and also cited the tax benefits of allowing a marijuana site in the city. He also said that the California Supreme Court had ruled that the DEA could not interfere with California medical marijuana. Councilmember Baker said there had been no such Supreme Court ruling; that a California appeals court had upheld the ruling of a San Diego Superior Court saying that federal law does not preempt the state medical marijuana law. News story here.

Councilmember Baker went on to say that there would be no tax benefits from a marijuana coop or collective. However, in the Attorney General's guidelines it says this:

Business Licenses, Sales Tax, and Seller's Permits: The State Board of Equalization has determined that medical marijuana transactions are subject to sales tax, regardless of whether the individual or group makes a profit, and those engaging in transactions involving medical marijuana must obtain a Seller's Permit. Some cities and counties also require dispensing collectives and cooperatives to obtain business licenses.

There is more info in this memo [PDF] from the State Board of Equalization about taxes and seller's permits.

Mayor Pro Tem Matas asked Police Chief Williams if "the DEA could still raid us." The Chief's brief answer was simply "Yes." I do wish one of them would have taken a moment to clarify who "us" is. Certainly the DEA can (and does) raid marijuana distribution sites. But did "us" refer to the city council? city property? city staff? I have not heard of the DEA raiding a city government simply because it had permitted medical marijuana establishments in its jurisdiction.

Councilmember Schmidt said that he favors a complete ban because of his concerns about any potential increase in crime. He said he does, however, have compassion for those who are ill and need marijuana.

Councilmember Betts said he had "No comment." Later he said he is undecided on the issue, appreciating the compassionate need for marijuana by ill people, but also concerned about a potential increase in crime.

Mayor Parks reminded us that the Attorney General guidelines clarified that only coops and collectives are allowed, that no for-profit marijuana dispensaries are permitted. She wants any ordinance to ban the use of any storefront by a marijuana collective or coop. She is also concerned that any need for police to be involved with a marijuana site will be time they are not available in residential areas of the city.

Police Chief Williams spoke at length about the secondary criminal impact of allowing marijuana coops and collectives, while also recognizing the potential for health benefits. He said that as of August crime is down 18% from a year earlier in Desert Hot Springs. He said that "Cal Chiefs" have substantial evidence illustrating the increase in crime that accompanies medical marijuana. By "Cal Chiefs" I'm sure he means the California Police Chiefs Association. I've searched their site using the terms "marijuana" and "crime" and haven't found anything like what Chief Williams referred to, but it's quite possible that they have not put that information up on their website. He went on to cite robberies and burglaries of medical marijuana sites and customers; loitering in the area, increased traffic, and possible DUI by those patients who do not wait to get home to medicate. He said the U.S. Attorney estimates that 90% of non-profit medical marijuana sites actually turn a profit. If an ordinance permitting medical marijuana establishments were passed, he said he preferred one similar to West Hollywood's which requires neighborhood input, requires on-site security, restricts the number of sites and requires on-site neighborhood ombudsmen.

Councilmember Baker voiced my thoughts exactly when he pointed out that all of the drawbacks the Chief mentioned could also be attributed to a 7-Eleven store. The Chief readily agreed, but added "7-Eleven pays sales tax."

Finally, City Manager Rick Daniels asked the council for direction, so that staff could prepare some kind of ordinance. Things became a bit unclear to the audience not only because of conflicting motions, but because the councilmembers referred to the different positions simply as 1, 2, 3 and 4. Those may be the attachment numbers in the agenda PDF, but in any case I believe that #1 was to take no action (the moratorium would expire and any proposed medical marijuana site would come before the Planning Commission who would have to deal with it using current zoning which is silent on marijuana); #2 was the Palm Springs ordinance; #3 was to ban them; and #4 was a hybrid of Palm Springs and West Hollywood ordinances. Councilmember Baker moved for #1 and #4 with an emphasis on West Hollywood in the hybridization (seconded by Matas). Mayor Parks asked Baker to amend his motion to #3 and #4, but not #1. He was agreeable, but before he could do that Councilmember Betts moved to have staff prepare ordinances for #1 (which actually required no ordinance, but just a report, I suppose), #2, #3 and #4 (seconded by Schmidt). Hoo-boy, if I could have seen the eyes of the attorney I think I would have seen dollar signs at that proposal. Councilmember Schmidt tried to rescind his second, but that is not permitted, it seems, so it went to a vote and failed 1-4. Whereupon, Councilmember Baker did amend his motion and also clarified that the "hybrid" (#4) would allow coops only, would allow them only in industrial areas and include all the restrictions in #2 (Palm Springs, distance from schools, churches, residences, etc.). That motion passed 4-1.

City staff, the attorney and the police chief will commence work posthaste and have something ready by Friday noon, said the City Manager. I believe he said the products of that work would be presented for city council review. The November 4 city council meeting would be the sensible time to do that, but for some reason I've got November 10 written in my notes. That would be the usual day to schedule a study session, but neither the on-line city calendar nor last week's city council agenda list a study session on the 10th. (If somebody will chime in with the correct dates we will all appreciate it, I'm sure.) In any case, the city council would again give direction, I believe, and then it would go to the Planning Commission for their meeting on Monday the 17th of November (the city's on-line calendar still shows that meeting scheduled for Veteran's Day, November 11). The Planning Commission will do the heavy lifting and then the ordinance will come to the city council at their December 2 meeting for first reading.