Apart from the legislative crowd? Chris MacArthur and Eminent Domain

Reaction to the overturn of Prop. 22 in the Inland Empire. Pity if those "defending" marriage could focus their time and energy on improving the 50% of marriages which end in divorce. For some professions like law enforcement, the percentage of failed marriages might be closer to 75-80%. Probably at least as high for politicians and other similar professions. So ask yourself, do you really want to go to the pearly gates telling St. Peter that you have spent your life "protecting" marriage without addressing such dismal odds among straights for marriage survival?

Because if there indeed is a marital "crisis", it's in those high divorce rates.



Blistering heat has come to the Inland Empire. Drink your water and wear protective gear on your head.

But get this, Riverside City Council representative from the fifth ward, Chris MacArthur has urged voters to pass Proposition 98 to end eminent domain abuse, according to an article he wrote for the Press Enterprise.

The guy has just run off and committed blasphemy. He has just gone off and betrayed the brotherhood (with one female member) which has been using threats of eminent domain like a sledge hammer, including in connection with the Riverside Renaissance fever. Especially if you compare some of his sentiments with past and current city council members who seem to believe that eminent domain is simply one of their useful toys. What was this guy thinking?

Though 98 is essentially a wolf-in-sheep-skin-clothing due to its challenge of rent control laws, it only goes to effect as state law if it receives over 50% of the vote and exceeds the passage of that other initiative, Prop. 99, which you guess it, is also a wolf-in-sheep-skin-clothing initiative pushed by interests that want to protect the cities and counties' rights to pluck up businesses and hand them off to friendly private developers as the middle-men between those who own the properties and those who wish to acquire them. It's a given that there will be one compromised initiative to at least bring an issue of great concern to the table and another one which is a counterattack in disguise but there needs to be better options at the table than these ones.

Prop. 99 is not about saving homes from eminent domain, because the "public safety" exceptions could be used to legally allow eminent domain as a tool to gentrify neighborhoods where lower-incomed and/or families of color live and hand those properties off to private developers to build upscale housing. So basically, unless you are middle-class or higher on the economic scale, Prop. 99 doesn't even protect your home. Because say, you're a woman who calls the police because your husband is hitting you to the point where you have repeated calls for service, then the city attorney's office and/or governing council decides you've had too many police calls and declares your property a "nuisance" for seizure. In poorer neighborhoods, there's often much less of a distinction between who's the one committing the crime and who's the victim and in many cities, the problem exists of victims being treated even on domestic violence complaints as if they were the criminals. This probably contributes to the appalling low report rates for these types of crime.

For the true exceptions, the language in the initiative should be tighter to protect home owners from attempts by cities like Riverside to gentrify (which is already taking place as it has taken place). If you check out the local state university's long-range plan, all of the Eastside that remains is little pockets here and there.

But Prop. 99 exists mostly to divide and conquer eminent domain opponants into the "homes only" camp and the "businesses included" camp, not realizing that given the high failure rate for the relocations of some of the businesses which are targeted by eminent domain may render their owners without their homes especially during this time of higher foreclosures. Not to mention that included in the Kawa Market deal was the purchase and destruction of a family home which sat adjacent to the once-historic-declared-blighted-by-the-city-due-to-the-racial-identities-of-its-shoppers market.


What can you say, but be careful of strangers who come bearing gifts? But it will be interesting to see what happens at the ballot box with the respective initiatives.

Anyway, MacArthur's essay on the issue is sure to cause some consternation from some of his dais mates who love eminent domain and use it to get rid of what they perceive as "blight" even as them and the taxing and spending habits of the Mission Inn's pet committee, the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership, contributed to that "blight" by throwing all the money on renovating a pedestrian mall. Yes, the same mall that's a mix of rubble, cement trucks and jackhammers right now.



Here's an excerpt from MacArthur's article.


(excerpt)



If approved by California voters on June 3, Prop. 98 would make it illegal for government to take private property through the process of eminent domain for the purpose of selling it to a developer. Homes, farms, small businesses and houses of worship would be safe from seizure by a city, county or the state if the intent is to make money through development.

Prop. 98 also would make it illegal for government to pay anything less than the fair market value for any private property that it does take for a legitimate public purposes -- such as the construction of a freeway, fire station, public school or vital water project.

The Prop. 98 sentiment is not new. It is the way America's Founding Fathers envisioned private-property protections when they created the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The Founding Fathers were well aware of how dangerous a government can be when there are no limitations on its power.




These are words that the former business owners who used to exist in the downtown and the Kawa Market might appreciate. But most of them have been leveled to rubble, and some of the land still sits vacant like the spot where the little market which had been a fixture since the last World War used to rest.

So amidst all the group think that exists on the dais now on seizing businesses the city leaders believe are inconsequential and handing off the land to developers like Mark Rubin and Doug Jacobs who show up and have shown up on campaign funding lists for sitting city council members, there is actually someone who is thinking outside that box. The city council has approved threat after threat of eminent domain and some elected officials actually try to sell their actions as being charitable to those business owners who probably aren't getting fair market value for their land as one property owner said that maybe because he had an attorney, he would get close to 75% of market value, better than that afforded to some of his neighbors.

And it's indeed ironic especially in the downtown where statues of civil right heroes, like Martin Luther King, jr. and Mahatma Gandhi stand watch, many of these businesses have been owned by Asian-American and Latino families.


There's a lot of things to criticize MacArthur for beginning with his rather odious political campaign (which unfortunately is being parroted by candidates in the District One supervisor's race) but on this issue, he got it right. Why does he get it? Is it partly because he's a small-business owner himself and thinks that just because it's not being done to his own business doesn't mean it's not wrong when it happens to others. Maybe he understands how precarious the economy is for many small businesses especially when they're forced to relocate, given that over 80% of those businesses often fail or underperform.

At any rate, the opinion piece was a breath of fresh air in a stagnation of herd mentality on the issue of eminent domain in this city. I just had to check several times to make absolutely sure it was actually written by a member of the Riverside City Council. Given what's happened in the arena in the past several years, you can't be blamed for that.




The Inland Empire and what that means is asked and answered by writer in another opinion piece that's worth checking out.




Riverside County Sheriff Department representative and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians' leaders have met with a federal mediator to discuss issues which have arisen between the parties after a series of officer-involved shootings took place on the reservation, most of them after the law enforcement contract between the two parties had ended.




The Inglewood police chief commented on the recent fatal officer-involved shooting there, calling it "highly tragic" but as most chiefs do, immediately defended the officers' actions.



Thanks to a new ordinance in the works by the Los Angeles City Council, it could cost hospitals who dump patients on Skid Row, $25,000 in fines. They've been dumping patients who can't afford to pay more money even being caught on video cameras, including a man who had been in a wheel chair and was wearing a hospital gown and colostomy bag who was dumped in the gutter. The City Attorney's office in Los Angeles has been taking legal action against several area hospitals.



Controversy about the amount of money the Orange County Sheriff's Department has spent in overtime has led to an audit.


(excerpt, Los Angeles Times)



We have to take a hard look at whether this overtime is justified," Moorlach said Wednesday. "Taxpayers get concerned when they think someone is gaming the system. We need to verify that this approach to manpower management within the Sheriff's Department was appropriate."

Moorlach said he had asked Steve Danley, the county's performance auditor, to study whether the department relies too heavily on overtime and, if so, how much overtime is appropriate.

In the last three years, the department's overtime budget has soared from $26 million to more than $49 million. Counting salary and benefits, the money could pay for more than 300 additional deputies.

Moorlach said he also wanted Danley to study whether the department could save money by switching from three-day to four-day workweeks. Deputies currently work three 12-hour shifts a week and one 8-hour shift twice a month.






The county grand jury investigation into the San Bernardino County Accessor office has taken an interesting turn.




Getting some more police powers are the lifeguards in Oceanside. As you know, Riverside Police Department has attracted quite a few lateral officers from Oceanside. Are the lifeguards filling the gap or is this an ongoing trend in that particular field?





Atlanta Police Department Officer Arthur Testler lied like a pro during his tenure with that department. That's what Assistant District Attorney Kellie Hill told the jury during her closing argument in the trial that stemmed from the fatal officer-involved shooting of Kathryn Johnston, 92, in 2006.

Tesler wasn't one of the officers who shot and killed Johnston, then handcuffed her and left her on her own floor to bleed to death, but he played a role in her death through his lies. The narcotics officers after all had falsified information on a warrant to break into her house.



(excerpt, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)



"Mrs. Johnston is dead because of a lie," Hill said. "No, he didn't pull the trigger."

In a case where the jury has to decide whether it believes Tesler's testimony that he didn't know a search warrant was illegal and later he felt forced to participate in the cover up, Hill reminded the jury he lied to the FBI.

She also made it when Tesler was on the witness stand Wednesday when she asked about his recorded statement in an FBI investigation of Kathryn Johnston's death.

"You heard your voice when you were lying to the FBI," Hill said. "Is there anything about your voice that would have let Agent [Joe] Robuck know that you were lying?"

"I don't believe so," Tesler responded.

"So tell me, how am I supposed to know when you're telling the truth?" Hill asked.






Former Bolingbrook Police Department sergeant, Drew Peterson has taken his image to eBay by hawking off a hat that he has personally autographed.


Or did he?


(excerpt, Chicago Sun-Times)



Bids for the "Authentic Autographed Drew Peterson Today Show Cap" was slated to open at $1,000 -- but Wednesday, the hat's first day on the block, no one had stepped up with the money to get in on the auction.


Peterson, the embattled ex-cop with one wife missing and presumed dead and another wife dead and assumed slain, said he had nothing to do with putting the hat on eBay and questioned its authenticity.

"I don't know who I autographed one of these for. It's not even real," Peterson said.

But after some checking around, he recalled signing a hat for a friend who watched his children while he was in New York City for his "Today" show appearance. The friend, Paula, gave the cap to her mother, and she is the one apparently holding the auction.

"I just signed it for Paula, she gave it to her mom, and her mom needed some money," Peterson explained.




The Shreveport Times Editorial Board stated that the issue of civilian review needs a hearing.



(excerpt)



We are disappointed that state Rep. Roy Burrell, D-Shreveport, didn't follow through on filing legislation to authorize the Shreveport City Council to set up a citizen review process. It's a system once proposed by Cedric Glover when he was in the Legislature, but from which he has stepped back now that he is mayor.

In an e-mail to The Times, Burrell didn't appear to drop the matter because of a lack of concern about police operations but rather the lack of encouragement he received from the mayor and the City Council. He also cited the lack of an increased "level of concern for a Citizen Review Committee" over the Garbarino case.

Burrell reported three of five council members who responded to his request for feedback offered unequivocal rejection of the citizen review proposal. They were Bryan Wooley, Monty Walford and Michael Long. Burrell wasn't sufficiently swayed by two others — Council members Calvin Lester and Joyce Bowman — whose response he took to be "not a bad idea" but stopping short of an "unequivocal 'yes.'" Bowman did write: "The minute that something starts up — we will wish that we had this." We agree.

While we credit Burrell for at least considering the measure, we would suggest that it's his job to introduce and push the legislation his conscience and/or need dictate. Let the City Council fret with their own consciences and the political consequences about whether to implement a citizen review process. Burrell's additional desire to give new police Chief Henry Whitehorn "an opportunity to clean up any possible issues 'in house' that may contribute to needing a Citizen Review Committee" seems to make its own point for the need for such a panel. And wouldn't an independent review process assure system integrity regardless of who is police chief?

Statistics can't tell the whole story whether the topic is baseball or police conduct. A low batting average, like an increase in complaints, can call attention to areas that need scrutiny. But absent a citizen review process, the team owners — the taxpaying public — not only are kept behind a thin blue foul line, they aren't even allowed in the ballpark.






What has catalyzed the discussion was a report from the newspaper that police complaints alleging excessive force had increased by 25%. Adding to the concern was the high number of unsustained findings (neither proven or disproven by available evidence)for those complaints.



(excerpt)



The Times studied 3,708 complaints, including those for rudeness, procedural violations, misconduct and other allegations, received by Shreveport and Bossier City police departments and the Caddo and Bossier sheriff's offices from Jan. 1, 2003, through February. The data include all complaints filed against officers, deputies and jailers, including those made internally or resulting from disciplinary reports. They also include one or more complaints about one or more officers stemming from a single incident.

The newspaper found:


The Shreveport Police Department received 70 complaints regarding excessive force in 2007 — a 30 percent increase over the 54 complaints received in 2006 and an overall 25 percent increase since 2003.


The Caddo sheriff's office saw a 72 percent increase in excessive force complaints — from a low of 11 in 2003 to 19 in 2007.


Force complaints made against Bossier City police officers have decreased 11 percent since 2003.


The Caddo sheriff's office had the highest rate of finding in favor of a complainant alleging excessive force — 22 percent were validated by investigators. The Bossier sheriff's office and Shreveport Police Department validated 16 percent and 15 percent, respectively.


Of 67 excessive force complaints received by the Bossier City Police Department over the time period studied, the agency only found four had merit. The department found against a complainant about 94 percent of the time.





Sending obscene emails got one Kentucky police detective into hot water. Perhaps more so than in 2005 when he was suspended 20 days for a driving under the influence of alcohol arrest.



Deputies in Harris County in Texas have been investigated for falsifying training records. Add another to the list. Not to mention that four deputies have been charged with criminal conduct.



(excerpt, Click2Houston)



Capt. Cecil Lacey was charged with tampering with government documents.

In March, Deputy Michael Serges was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child.

In February, former deputy Eric Spiller was sentenced to 14 years in prison for having sex with a 16-year-old girl.

And in October, a supervisor, Capt. Tim Cannon, was indicted for tampering with evidence.

"In these incidences, it was found out, investigated and passed along to proper authorities," said Capt. Paul Staton, with Harris County Precinct 4 Constable's Office.

The head of the Precinct 4 Internal Affairs Division said charges against two of the officers were sparked by internal investigations and that the four criminal cases out of a force of 400 officers is not an indictment of the entire department.





Cyber bullying charges filed in L.A.













County of Riverside Commission for Women - Legislative Forum


The County of Riverside Commission for Women will hold its first public hearing on issues confronting women and families in Riverside County on Thursday, June 19, 2008, from 9:00am to 5:00pm at the Robert T. Andersen County Administration Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Chambers, in Riverside .



This is the first time in the Commission's history that hearings will be held to gather information from the public about obstacles and challenges faced by the women of Riverside County . Information from the hearings will help determine the Commission's legislative agenda and recommendations for administrative action.



Speakers wishing to address issues impacting women and their families are strongly encouraged to complete a speaker sign-up form available on the Commission's website (http://cfw.co.riverside.ca.us/events.shtml), as time slots are limited for this one day event. Speakers are also strongly encouraged to provide written testimony in addition to their oral testimony. Written testimony from those unable to attend the hearing is also sought. All testimony will be compiled and presented to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors with recommendations for action. In addition, a report will be made available to the public following the hearing.



Originally established in 1976 as an advisory board to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the County of Riverside Commission for Women seeks to improve the status of all women by ensuring opportunities for each woman to develop to her full potential. In support of this mission, the Commission for Women identifies problems, defines issues and recommends policies and procedures to the County Board of Supervisors regarding, but not limited to, women and health, the workplace, family, education, violence, law and society.