Just for Fun Friday

I normally speak to local issues, that is our charter here. I've been out of work due to a broken arm and spend more time than usual 'crawling the web". I give you a selection of items I have found amusing. Warning: this is what can happen when you simply has too much time on your hands.

No matter how stupid you may feel over some recent goof; there is someone dumber. Today in Norfolk Virginia 11 Somalis were charged with piracy and are subject to mandatory life sentences. Somali piracy in the Gulf of Aden has become a cottage industry and too often a profitable one, most shipping companies end up paying the ransom to get crews and cargoes returned. This case involves two separate, but similar incidents. Both cases, these homebrewed pirates, small craft, handheld weapons up to RPGs took on US Naval warcraft, in one case the frigate USS Nicholas, the other an amphibious landing ship USS Ashland.

I've seen pictures of both US ships and they look like just what they are; about 650' of heavily armed, well-crewed warships. The story of the ambitious ant crawling up an elephant's leg with rape as his intent comes to mind.

As long as we are on Naval issues, Sec. of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today that the next San Antonio class Amphibious Transport Ship will be the USS John P Murtha. San Antonio class ships are more modern cousins of the Ashland mentioned above. Such ships are designed to deliver up to 700 Marines and supplies with air coverage and transport capability to wherever in the world.

It is customary at this point to include language about "mean no disrespect for the dead", but in this case, I cannot do even that. The recently deceased Murtha was a king of the "earmark" second only to Robert Byrd, Murtha was well known in Pennsylvania for plastering his name on anything that would stand still long enough for the paint to dry. More to the point, Murtha had accused the Marine Corps of systemic abuse and war crimes against Iraqi civilians, a charge he had to withdraw for lack of evidence. To say the Corps is unhappy with the naming is a huge understatement and it was a tone-deaf move on Mabus' part. A popular suggestion in the blogoshere is to name a Naval "head" after Murtha, which I guess would be the John john. Or dedicate the USS Murtha to hauling supplies of pork. Three of the ships in this class are the USS New York, Arlington and Somerset, each named for a 9/11 crash site.

On to a topic just quivering of its weightiness, an Islamic cleric, one Hojatolesam Kazem Sedighi has announced that recent earthquakes have been caused by women who go about (in his opinion) indecently dressed. A Purdue University senior, one Jennifer McCreight, has taken issue with both the politics and the physics of the cleric's allegation and is inviting women around the world to protest by going about next Monday more um, skimpily attired than usual. Now this is "community activism" I can support! I hope we see full coverage of the uncoverage on the cable news channels. If the house falls in due to earthquake Tuesday, I retract all of the above, and Jan will start wearing a veil.

As serious as it has been for air travel, the story of the Iceland volcano has provided some amusement. The name of the volcano is Eyjafjallokull. Care to try to say that out loud? Don't bother, I've seen a phonetic rendering of it, unless you are Icelandic you will get it wrong. I caught a montage of brave but foolish local newscasters trying to wrap their English tongues around this name.

Anyone remember Gary Gilmore (Let's do it) the famous Utah death penalty inmate who insisted on death by firing squad? We got another one, Ronnie Lee Gardner who killed an attorney in an escape attempt, 1977. Utah has changed the law, now does lethal injection, but Gardner's case pre-dates the change, he is still allowed to choose. This will be a predictable media circus.

On to sports, some still claim baseball is the American passtime. Facts seem to argue otherwise. Last night the opening round of the NFL draft outdrew NBA playoff games. NOT a football game, but live broadcast of the draft! Me, I read it this AM, I'd as soon watched grass grow, but there it is. Also yesterday, Yankees/Bosox, A-Rod initiated the first triple play for the Yankees in 40 years! And the Yankees managed to lose the game! When I was a kid, this would have been front-page, above-the-fold headlines.

Don't know if they still do, but science teachers in my day (about Paleolithic it seems) would take a helium balloon, have one of us breathe it and then speak in a high-pitched, squeaky voice. Object was to demonstrate the higher velocity of lighter gasses. Judge Matthew Sciarrino has cleared the Manhatten DA (think Jack McCoy on Law & Order) to proceed with prosecution of a ballon seller outside Madison Square Gardens at a Phish concert for "distribution of a noxious substance". Seems the arresting officer observed "unnamed, unarrested persons" inhaling a balloon, I'm guessing doing the same amusing thing my science teacher did 40 years ago. Officer Nosy then busted the vendor. Texans should feel insulted, the field out of Amarillo is America's only natural source of helium. If helium was the most "noxious" substance at a Phish concert the kids of today just ain't trying.

OK, just a few selections from the dream factory. One note, this Sunday WTOS will present a candidates' forum, 3:00 PM at St Paul's church, N MLK, another chance to see who's running May 8. Later this weekend I'll be going through our trash from the truck's point of view.

Soil and Codes

The city council has soil testing on the agenda next Tuesday. They will decide if soil testing will be the policy for all new subdivisions. This is a needed step in the right direction, but still doesn't completely address the failure at 3008 Clearview. There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

First off, we already had a soil test that said this location had expansive soils which means R403.1.8 of the International Residential Code applies. That sends us to section 1805.8 of the International Building Code. When you get over to Section 1805.8 of the International Building Code list four methods to design foundations for expansive soil. The key word here is “ designed” ie there must be design documents showing that the proposed foundation is suitable for the soil. Documents from someone trained to design foundations as in an engineer.

Bottom line is someone in the city government had to approve the plans for the foundation and that foundation was not suitable for the soil and the area. This should have been caught before the building permit was issued. A foundation designed by a professional engineer should have been required. The proposed policy change is a step in the right direction but needs some fine tuning.

We do have to be careful. We don't want to deal with building codes and related issues in a piecemeal manner. The different codes the city has adopted amount to a few thousand pages that are filled with technical and legal jargon and expansive soil is covered in less than 10. There are lots of potential problems where engineers, architects, and other experts should be involved. The city manager said at the last council meeting “there are things we know and things we don't know”, and that's true but that means they need to get better at doing the research, investigations, reviews, and inspections so they know enough to prevent or at least mitigate problems such as these. The policy should be if in doubt, find out. That's just part of protecting our citizens.

One last point needs to be emphasized: just because a home was properly designed and built for expansive soils doesn't mean there won't be issues in the future. My research has shown that buildings on expansive soil require special attention and handling throughout their life. Simple things like improper lawn watering can shorten the life of a foundation and improper installation and use of irrigation systems, swimming pools, gardens, and guttering can lead to major problems with the foundation and eventual building failure. The city needs to make sure that homeowners know if they are living on expansive soil, and they need to make information available on what to do (and not to do) when dealing with expansive soils.

3008 Clearview Part 2

This is the rest of the discussion at last weeks council meeting. You might want to watch the video in the previous post first.

There is additional information here on the Homeowners of Texas site. Bottom line, this home site required special handling because it has expansive soil. This type of soil is very sensitive to moisture content and will swell and shrink as the water content varies. This puts a great deal of stress on a foundation and can lead to early failure. The International Residential Code and International Building code, which our city and the state of Texas have adopted as the baseline building code require special handling for expansive soils. Copies of these codes as adopted by various states can be downloaded here but be warned: these are several hundred pages.

Bottom line, the city can make a case that testing was not specifically required at this site. After all, it had already been done in 2004. They can't get by the fact that these building codes require special handling for foundations in areas of known expansive soil. They dropped the ball and didn't do that.

There is not much we can do for the Montgomeries now but we need to get on top of this because there are many homes in the city that are potentially at risk. Living in a home built on expansive soils requires special care. Simple things like where you plant a garden or how a swimming pool is built or how you water the lawn or use gutters and down spouts all impact expansive soils and the foundation of a home. We need to alert homeowners to the potential problems they face.

3008 Clearview Part 1

At last weeks City Council meeting, there was a long discussion of the problems at 3008 Clearview and what the city. This is a house that didn't last a year from sale to condemnation. The Montgomeries, who had planned on making this their retirement home, have so far lost over $600,000 on this debacle. This is the city staff presentation and ends just before public comment.

The rest of the discussion, starting with the Montgomeries presentation, will be in the next post.

Stormwater Surprise(s)

I recently got my first water bill with the stormwater fee included. That was a surprise in itself, I was at a few of the public hearings held prior to passing the ordinances, and I recall hearing the fee would be assessed on property owners. As it was finally passed, that is true for commercial properties, but on the residential side, the fee goes to whomever has the water meter at the property.

Take my case as one example: the property I rent (since '92) includes a detached garage/storage building I do not rent, owner uses it exclusively. The building I do NOT rent moves me from Tier Two to Tier Three based on footage of roof area.

The first thing I discover, when I called the "customer service number" on the utility bill, I was told all stormwater questions had to go to another number. I call it, and get a recorded menu and first try, I end up back with the water clerk who couldn't answer my questions to begin with. I navigate the robo-menu, get a recorded invitation to leave a message. I finally end up talking to the City Engineer, Clinton Bailey, who it turns out is the first line and only line of response to stormwater questions. Minor point I suppose, but if we are going to include the fee on the water bill, shouldn't customers be able to get answers to at least basic questions from someone at the phone number printed on the bill? If nothing else, is having Mr. Bailey as first-and-only first response a good use of the City Engineer's time? I have come to respect the man as a competent employee, but surely he has better things to do.

Here I need to digress into the enabling ordinances. These coincidentally appeared online about the time I'm getting the bill, but they are now up online. Sec. 8.1900 sets the fee itself and the different residential/commercial Tiers system of setting fees. Of more interest to the rate-payer is Sec. 11.800 which has to do with collections and billing.

Under 11.807 "Appeals" I find that all appeals will go through [cut a lot of verbiage] Clinton Bailey, and as he pointed out, burden of proof is on the rate-payer. If I appeal, and do not like his ruling, I find under 11.807(d) "any landowner..may appeal to City Council". I had to point out the landowner language to Bailey, but it's there. In short,I am priviledged to pay the bill, but have no right of appeal to Council as I rent.

In fairness, this sounds like a leftover from when City intended to bill owners. If unintentional it needs amending; if intentional it is outrageous and probably unconstitutional.

If I were to convince my landlord to appeal (why should she, it would increase her bill) the result would be the total revenue to City would go from $4/month to $5, as my bill would drop $1, but the lowest Tier is $2, her share. I will not do any such absurd thing, I'll pay the $4/month, but it is an unintended result of the ordinance.

That brings to mind billing for duplex/triplex rentals. If the renters have separate meters, how is the impervious surface divvied up? Do $4 properties end up paying $6?

One thing I recall well from the public meetings was one session where staff actually showed us overhead images of properties. It wasn't GoggleEarth, but something similar with more up to date images. These were to be used as the stormwater assessment is based on "impervious surface". Especially for residential properties roof footage is the major component. A two story house with 3,500 sqft would likely fall in the 1-2,000 Tier for stormwater purposes. Unless the city is relying completely on Tax Appraisal District records, which do not state one/two/three story. Which the City apparantly does now. What happened to the overhead views? Again, burden of proof on the rate-payer.

While I'm looking into this, one person added a concern on the commercial side. Here we change to billing the owner. Regardless of whether individual businesses in a multi-use property have meters or the whole building is on one water meter, bill goes to the owner. Many owners are now being "stuck" with $100-$500/month fees they cannot pass along to long-term lease holders.

One other beef I have with 11.800: Let's say you have an appeal, filed and in process. In the interim, you pay the rest of the utility bill, but withhold the stormwater fee. This is commonly allowed in property tax cases without foreclosure. Under Sec. 11.808 "Failure to pay promptly shall subject such user to discontinuance of any utility service". Well, it's certainly a hammer, but I would prefer to see such actions move through a Municipal Court action brought by the City against the landowner.

I have to give points to someone for dividing the ordinances. It would be a hard sell to reopen the Tiers structure addressed in Sec 8.1900, don't see that happening. However, there are inequities in the 11.800 language, I suspect unintentional, that can be addressed and amended, and they should be.

I'm not by nature a fan of unfunded mandates, and this is the "poster child" definition for that term. Reality, City has no viable option save to comply. That is covered in Sec 8.1900, I leave quibbles over fairness of the Tiers for the review down the road. The inequities of the billing portion in Sec 11.800 can be re-examined without disturbing the core issue of City's compliance with State and Federal Regulations. It should be.

San Angelo has been surprisingly tolerant of the capital improvements addition to the water bill. People assign responsibility to different sources, but after the Christmas Debacle and a few geysers around town, we are willing to pay for dependable service. A couple of things that helped acceptance was selling people the idea there was a "new sheriff in town", we would manage and maintain the system better, AND the additional billing would have some semblance of fairness to it.

While not free, (there is staff time to consider), tweaking an ordinance by amendment is an inexpensive option compared to losing trust with rate-payers. The Monday Standard-Times article (which dropped off the radar in record time) mentioned there had been about 1,000 calls on the issue. Aside from eating up the City Engineer's time, that's a lot of people with questions, and doesn't count those who shrug in resignation and write the check, mumbling imprecations under their breath. Fairness in billing is essential to trust. Council should look at amending Sec. 11.800.

Poll Results

Well the results of our small, less than scientific poll are in and they don't surprise me. 30% want no smoking in businesses. Another 30% would allow smoking if at least smoking businesses had signs at their entrances saying they allowed smoking. The rest would allow smoking if all businesses indicated whether they were smoking or non-smoking at the entrance.

Seems to fit with what I expected.

Another Sunday Ramble

As I write, it is beginning to rain after a beautiful February full moon Saturday. I know it is virtually illegal to cuss rain in West Texas, but working construction, I'm on the verge of it. I suspect the folk tearing down the Carnival tonight would share my opinion, just cold enough to be miserable work in the wet. BTW, did I read it wrong or did a Grand Champion goat get a better bid than "Rock Star" the Grand Champion Steer? I know which I'd rather have in my freezer.

I have not seen much of the Olympics, but I took time to watch the hockey finals. Worth it on several levels. The IOC couldn't have scripted a better match-up, underdog USA v Canada, ratings must have been through the roof. Great game, surpisingly few penalty minutes, overtime game, Canada won, and good sportsmanship post-game by both teams. Perhaps next Winter Olympics the IOC will choose a location where they don't have to truck in snow.

I won't trouble City Council this Tuesday, I will be busy at the primary elections, been in the election-judging business for a long time. I do read Council Agenda. Conspicuous in its absence is an agenda item Accepting the Smoke-Free San Angelo petition. I was at last meeting, Council and City staff were assuming this pro-forma bit of business would be done March 2. I have to assume the item was pulled at request of the initiating committee, I also have to wonder why.

Two Agenda items that are there: #19 would give Council members access to the City's insurance plan as a Charter Amendment, subject to voter approval. There is a rather tangled history here. I was on Charter Review Committee a bit over two years ago, Prop 5 would have modestly increased Council pay, but it failed, by a small margin. Only then did it occur to City Legal staff that an obscure provision of state statute made it illegal for us to give Council members the same health insurance all other employees get, something they had received since the memory of man runneth not. I hope we can correct that error, if it takes another Charter Election, so be it. The vote will be on a regular election date, not much extra expense to City.

Since there is a two year period between Charter elections, if we are to have one, let's cover any other Charter items while we are at it. One that comes to mind would be amending Sec 47 on Initiative and Referendum to comply with case law we recently had pointed out to us so as to avoid future confusion.

I also look forward to #18, Work Session Criteria for Council and Boards. San Angelo has over 20 Boards and commissions, a good thing. These bodies range from Animal Services to Zoning, and give the average citizen a means to be heard. Over time they have grown without much oversight. All of these are volunteer appointees, and they are to be commended for their service. Still, City ought to look in on what they are doing every couple of years, just to stay in touch.

Some Boards are doing a great job, some are not doing much at all. Most of them could improve their accessibility by brushing up the website provided by the City. A list of who is on a board would be a good start, a clear statement of long-term goals wouldn't hurt. Most of these boards could benefit by regularly looking back and re-focusing on the original mission of the Board and how well they are doing in that mission.

No one wants to make it hard on Board volunteers. A once every two year joint session with Council would help both bodies understand one another, and what is expected and what has been done. There are a lot of details to be worked out, but that is what agenda item 18 hopes to start doing.

Remember to vote Tuesday, if you're really interested, don't forget the precinct convention at 7:15 after the polls close. If you don't vote, a five dollar fine for whining about the results. Voting, win or lose is your license to bitch about it.

Tell the Government

I was reading some of the anti-smoking stories from around the state and I kept coming across the same theme. It is captured in this quote I found in the Standard Times: "They can't say that the government is telling them what to do because they are telling them what to do, the voters themselves, its by the people. The people are the ones that are going to say whether it goes smoke free. Its the voters of San Angelo," by Carol Kahutek of Smoke Free San Angelo. This is a total misrepresentation of this petition and the governments roll here.

To begin with, this initiative is a request from a small committee for the local government to regulate smoking city wide. The signed petitions are the procedure needed to put the measure on the ballot of an election so the city government can get voter reaction. If a majority of those voters favor the petition, the government will turn the proposal into an ordinance and assume the authority and responsibility for this new law, just like they do with every other ordinance on the books. They will use the new law to tell people what to do.

At every step in this process, the government has been at the center. This is not the government not telling us what to do. This is one small group of people trying to convince a majority of voters to force the government to impose their will on another group of people. This is all about trying to force the government to tell an unpopular minority what to do.

Lotta "Smoke" over Smoking Proposal (Updated)

There has been, and continues to be, considerable confusion over the process and fate of the "No Smoking" petition. One thing is certain, it will not be on the May 8 ballot as supporters had hoped for. Another is nearly certain; the petition itself is not "dead", just delayed until the November election. Despite some confusion over controlling legal language, petitioners had sufficient case law to override black-letter Charter and State Statute language: the signatures were legally validated and sufficient in number.

The "Special agenda" raised some Council hackles. It was legal, but it was also "irregular". No one I spoke to recalls the last special agenda. More importantly, as City Manager Dominguez explained today, with the procedural steps involved, it was simply too late, even had Council taken delivery of petition today, to get it on the May ballot.

A nit-picky procedural point, but of importance; success of the petition does NOT mean voters will ever see the issue. Under Charter rules (so far unchallenged) there are two other possible outcomes. After acceptance of the petition, publication in the newspaper, and a regular agenda hearing for public comment, Council can look at the whole 12 page proposal, agree with it, approve it as submitted, then it is law.

Council can also offer amendments, after which the referring committee (NOT the 4421 signers, just the 5 committee members) can agree to the amended version, Council approves, then it is law. No frisky, unpredictable voters involved in either scenario. If any media outlet in town has mentioned this point, I missed it.

I would like to "clear the air", metaphorically on a point many people seem to be confused on. The use of the term "public place" is defined in petition, but few people appear to have read the 12 pages of proposal. Some have mentioned "not wanting to be subjected to smoke while waiting to renew my license", or buying groceries, or going to the Mall, at the movies, one even included going to church! I want to know about this church which allows smoking in the pews, I may start attending!

Point is, I don't know if they are going by old memories or just don't get out much, but all these places already prohibit smoking. No gov't office allows smoking. Most of these bans have been in place for 10-20 years. I won't claim numbers, but a "doorway" survey, looks like about half of restaurants are completely smoke-free, and that number is growing by the owners' free choice. While most bars still allow smoking, we have at least three that are smoke-free, and seem to be thriving. That success may encourage more bars to follow suit, depending on the owners' judgement of what the customers want.

I could see supporting some form of this law if there were an actual problem avoiding second-hand smoke. Truth is, a body can live a long and full life in San Angelo without ever entering an establishment which allows smoking.

The parts of this proposal I object are: it unneccessarily overrides the right of a PRIVATE business owner; it fails to make the public health case, as the smoke is easily avoided; and if one reads all of it, it imposes uncalled for burdens even on businesses which already prohibit smoking.

It doesn't take 12 pages to say "no smoking". The proposed ordinance requires new record keeping and continuing education by Board of Health, all places would have to post "no smoking" signs and remove all ashtrays. Better pull that "paraphenalia" off the shelves, Wal-Mart! The Colonels Pipe Shop can just close, he's not allowed to "share a common wall", nor is he allowed to move! Sports venues; can't smoke in the "seating area", but presumably the coach and players can indulge on the field. Forget that they petition a "San Angelo City Commission" which doesn't exist, hasn't since at least 1917. My guess, this will take a bit of amending.

This has not been defeated or undone. Petitioners' errors and the set-back to Nov. will allow for a clearer understanding of the details, amendment, perhaps reasonable exceptions, possibly defeat at the polls. To be sure, everyone has time to step back, take a deep breath, maybe even look at the particulars.

P.S. Link to proposed ordinance on Standard Times or on ConchoInfo. City charter and code of ordinances can be found here and chapter 47 on I&R here.

Minimal

I read a column by Bonnie Erbe today on the school lunch program that really got me thinking. I wasn't surprised by her support of steps by the federal government to dictate the contents of school meals. It was pretty much what I expected. What got me thinking was her claim to be a government minimalist.

She said "I am a government minimalist in the sense that I believe government should do only that which individuals cannot do for themselves." I had to stop and think about this. How many things do you and I do on a daily basis that we can't do as an individual. Most of these things don't require government action or interference (although it is all too frequently there), and yet somehow they keep getting done. Maybe that's because over the generations humankind has been around, we have developed organizations and mechanisms such as families, teams, clubs, churches, companies, charities, associations, corporations, etc.. to do what an individual can't do alone. We have used the strategy of coming together in groups to solve most of the problems of life and civilization, little to no government required.

Far too many people today think that once a problem is too big for them to solve as an individual it's automatically a government problem. They forget what families, churches, clubs, charities and companies do on a daily basis. Governments show over and over again they are good at very few things. Governments exist for a very limited number of functions, and once they go beyond those functions they tend to make a royal mess of things and they always reduce freedoms. Let's stop using the Erbe definition of minimal government.