NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION
LIVINGSTON CITY COUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that the December 15, 2009, Regular Meeting of the Livingston City Council has been cancelled due to a lack of urgent agenda items.
Dated: December 11, 2009
/s/ Donna Barnes
City Clerk
Disclaimer for purposes of “legal disclaimerness” I have an Asphalt Composition roof on my home. I would just LOVE to have a Tile Roof, but since I can’t afford a Tile Roof I don’t have a Tile Roof. I have nothing personal against people who have Tile Roofs. I think Tile Roofs are pretty and it would be wonderful if everyone who wanted a Tile Roof could have a Tile Roof. I want a Porsche, but I can’t afford one of those either. And-to top it off-my poor humble home has already suffered a huge loss in Equity due to the “dump” in the Housing Market-so the idea of more homes being built during an already “depressed market” is personally depressing.
That being said….
Looks like the Planning Commission “punted one” last night..
Punted a decision to the City Council I mean..
The request by the Developer was straightforward: to add Composition Roofing to the approved list of materials for existing floor plans (that had originally been approved back in 2006).
And by a 2/2 split vote of the Planning Commission, the “decision” was, in effect to not “decide”: which automatically passed “the decision” on over to the City Council: to be heard at Its next meeting. {Insert sigh and “eye-roll” here}
The Developer’s position was they are still building, but only in locations where they are confident of a “positive cash flow”. The switch from Composition to Tile would equate to a saving, allowing them to offer the houses for sale at a price that made sense in today’s economy.
Hence: the “heart of the deal”. If Composition Roofs are added to the Approved Materials List, the developer could build these homes for less, sell them for less, and still come out ahead just enough to have that “positive cash flow”.
From the Developer’s perspective-they “recover their costs” and keep some of their people working…
…And besides, other Cities were willing to “cut the deal” in light of the current economy. Why not Livingston too?
From the City’s perspective-cutting “the deal” means the possibility of receiving more Development Impact Fees from the issuance of additional Building Permits.
As far as the discussion amongst the Planning Commission discussion went, there seemed to be two distinct “philosophical camps”
The
“If in this Economy that is what it will take to build houses at prices low enough to sell and it keeps his people working-that makes sense” Point of View
And The
“We should stick to the original agreement about only using Tile Roofs-because if we change this for one builder, we’ll have to change it for other developer too” Point of View
Which resulted in the 2/2 split[1]
So…it looks to me like there are several issues at play here that no matter what the Council’s decision is[2], someone will be upset. Such as….
· If the Council sticks to “Tile Only”, would the developer just go to other cities that will allow the switch to Composition roofs-and wont there be complaints about the loss of Permit and Development Impact Fees?
· If the Council sticks to “Tile Only” and the developer builds elsewhere-wont there be screams of “jobs lost”?
· If the Council sticks to “Tile Only”, wont that add to Livingston’s reputation as a “bad place to do business”?[3]
· If the Council decides to add Composition Roofs to the “approved list” in order to “save jobs” and get the benefit of Permits and Development Impact Fees-wont there be complaints about “doing favors for developers”?
This seems to me to one of those “can’t make all of the people happy all of the time” deals…
And that might be enough to keep the City Council discussing and postponing, and discussing and postponing, and discussing and postponing, and discussing and postponing, and discussing and postponing……….
Unless there are 3 council persons willing to read the background material, consider all sides, think it through, reason it out, then “suck it up” and make a decision.
In my next post…I may talk about the possible “political heartburn” that may come from the other decision Planning Commission made last night: the decision to Deny an Extension of the Temporary Conditional Use Permit for the Great Big Tarp on Main Street…..
[1]Because the Commission was “one body short” there was no one there to break the tie. Two had already resigned. There was only 1 Alternate available as a “replacement”)
[2]If it ever actually makes one..
[3] After all-the City Council has already “punted” on the “parking lot issue” re: mixed use Dental Office project-can’t help but wonder if they would put this one off too (to give the public more time to talk about it as business people walk out the door in a huff)
LIVINGSTON PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1416 C STREET, LIVINGSTON
Members of the public are advised that all pagers, cellular telephones and any other communication devices be put on vibrate mode or turned off during the Planning Commission meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance
Item No. 1 – Consent Agenda
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine by the Planning Commission and will be adopted by one action of the Commission unless any member of the Commission wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.
a. Action Minutes from the November 10, 2009, regular meeting (To be approved at the January 12, 2010, meeting.
Members of the Audience – At this time, any person may comment on any item that is NOT on the Agenda. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. While the Planning Commission encourages participation from the audience, no more than five (5) minutes are allowed per discussion item. Topics not considered urgency matters may be referred to City Staff and/or placed on the next agenda for consideration and/or action by the Planning Commission.
Item No. 3 – Public Hearings
a. Site Plan / Design Review 2009-05. David Agee/K. Hovnanian Homes, the developer for the Parkside Subdivision proposes the Site Plan / Design Review of new roofing materials for the existing floor plans.
b. Temporary Conditional Use Permit 2009-01. Review of the Temporary Conditional Use Permit approved on July 22, 2009 for the Neighborhood Church’s tarp located at 1329 F Street
Item No. 4 – Reports
a. Planning Commission
b. City Staff
c. City Attorney
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at (209) 394‑8041, Ext. 112. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
Members of the public who have questions regarding any agenda item may comment on that item before and during consideration of that item when called upon by the Planning Commission Chairperson.
All actions of the Livingston Planning Commission can be appealed to the Livingston City Council by filing an appeal, in writing and paying the appropriate fees, with the City Clerk.
Remember that scene from “The Matrix” where Morpheus tells Neo something like “I bet you’re beginning to feel a little like Alice–falling down the rabbit hole”?
I’m starting to have that sensation of wondering, if in my waking moments, I am really just in the middle of a very bad dream and if I could only wake up-things would be normal and “real”.
Events seem to be increasingly spinning out of control towards a major “crash and burn” for the City I care so much about.
Lawsuits are flying while a couple of council persons have flung Logic, Reason and Stewardship to the four winds.
Frankly-I’m worried.
I am worried that the verbal venom and spite hurled from the Council Dais is so thick I can feel it.
I am worried that the financial, mistakes, missteps and political pandering of administrations past have finally caught up to us and we have persons on the current council who refuse to believe it, much less willing to deal with it.
And I am worried about the mistakes, missteps and political pandering I see in the present administration.
I’m worried that we have people on the council who, on the one hand decry the amount paid to City attorneys then speak from the Dais in such a manner as to actually encourage more lawsuits against the City.
Which it would have to defend-therefore spending more taxpayer money on attorney’s fees.
Which would be said to be “too much”
Which would be voted against
And said to be to much
And voted against
And said to be too much
And voted against
And said to be to much
And voted against
And said to be too much
Until any decent attorney with his/her head screwed on straight would never want to work for Livingston….
Leaving us to “be served” by the kind of attorney who (I’ll let you fill in this blank)
We even have two council persons who voted to hire back an attorney they previously voted to not pay.
What the heck is that about?
Which leads me “down the rabbit hole” to an observation on the most recent lawsuit about the Water Rates
Weren’t all the Rates Based
On a Study done by Consultants
Who were chosen by the Attorney
That 2 Council persons want re-hired
But they voted not to pay?
(Voted not to pay the attorney-that is…)
That “creeps me out”.
The same thing is happening to other professionals who provide services for the City: votes against accepting the Independent Auditors report. Votes against paying the Executive Search Firm handling the search for the new Police Chief.
(Who’s gonna want to do work for the City under these circumstances?)
The same thing is happening with agreements with other agencies. A Memorandum of Understanding with the Livingston High School District; an agreement that took months-years of public input at High School District Board Meetings and City Council Meetings to reach a final “meeting of the minds” was put off until the January Council meeting so there could be more “public comment”
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that this is one of those times for “little less talk and a lot more action”.
After all, if the Council does decide to change even one little thing, that means the Memorandum of Understanding gets “batted back” to the High School District Board for approval.
And the “scope of work” needed for the Environmental Document gets delayed,
Which means the CEQA process gets delayed
Which means the date for “ground breaking” gets delayed
Which means lining up all the contractors and sub-contractors gets delayed
Which means the High School Expansion that folks are looking forward to gets delayed.
And folks will be complaining about the delays
(And who’s gonna want to “work with” the City under these circumstances?)
I keep hoping that I will wake up some day and it will all have been just a bad dream. But I fear I will just wake up to find the whole of Livingston being the butt of many jokes and the laughingstock of the State.
Which is really so very sad…we have so many good people here: quietly going about their business, donating to worthy causes and volunteering their time and effort: doing so much good for the good of others.
You don’t see a whole lot about them in “the papers” now, do you?
We’re now in the Season That’s Supposed to be Jolly, but “Peace on Earth and Goodwill” is getting harder and harder to find in the Council Chamber.
Isn’t it sad………
There is so much happening in Lil ole Livingston at the moment-I hardly know where to begin. But-since I have a little “time on my hands” at the moment-I’m going to thrown my “two cents” in on a couple of current “hot topics”
First…..let me see if I got this right..so we have 2 council persons who voted to transfer the lawsuit with Foster Farm (who is suing over the increase in the rate they would have to pay for the water they use) to Best, Best and Kreiger: the same firm they voted against paying earlier this year. (about the time of the Grand Jury Postscript to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report)
Now…if “the attorney they already voted against paying but want back anyway” DOES decide to accept the case anyway….doesn’t that meant that she will have to “defend her client (The City) to the best of her ability”?
In other words…try to win?
But…since Foster Farms is alleging that one of the grounds for their lawsuit is the City went against the advice of the attorney when it raised the water rates (Which attorney? Guess who? Yep! Same one)
Therefore, in order to fully comply with her “fiduciary responsibility” to the City and vigorously defend the City against Foster Farms……..
Wouldn’t she have to argue against her own previous opinion?
Am I reading this right? Or am I missing something? Either way-it sounds like an episode straight out of “The Twilight Zone” (cue music!)
Next.. I have a few comments about the Court Ruling (on the General Plan Update) and recently released Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate.
First… “I told you so”
Next…from the October 21, 2008 Draft Minutes–
Quote
“Mayor Samra said he received comments from the community at meetings as well as in the community. The comments ranged from too ambitious to not ambitious enough. He said it is difficult to get 100% agreement from the community. Mayor Samra clarified that the County has been invited to be involved and that public notices were sent out in multiple languages. He added that it is impossible to publish entire documents in multiple languages. The Mayor and Council can translate at meetings. Mayor Samra reported the City is not going to take land from farmers who are not willing to sell. We appreciate the County and their participation in the process. Our services are far superior to the County’s services for 16,000 houses. We must speak to the future.
Motion: M/S Ingram/Espinoza to adopt Resolution No. 2008-55 approving the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2005 General Plan Update Project, and the 2005 General Plan Update. The motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members: Espinoza, Ingram, Samra, Soria, Vierra
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: None”
End Quote
Next Quote: Same Meeting
The Council went into Closed Session at 6:35 p.m. for the following matters:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) (1) of Government Code Section 54956.9: (one case involving the 2025 General Plan Update EIR).
End Quote
Seems to me that the night they voted to adopt The Plan, they knew a lawsuit was inevitable.
For all the folks who are screaming now about the amount of money spent on lawsuits (and believe me, I aint too crazy about it either) make sure you take a real good look at the names of just who it was who voted 5/0 to adopt that General Plan in the First Place!!!
If you really want an answer as too why the City adopted a General Plan it got sued over, you really need to ask that of ALL 5 who were on the Council at the time the Plan was adopted.
And you might want to ask a few questions of the “council before that”: when the General Plan Update Process was begun.
Before we begin, let’s have a Reading from the LIVINGSTON MUNICIPAL CODE Title 1-Administrative; Chapter 11-Purchase Policies and Procedures: Section 1-11-10:
“EXEMPT FROM BIDDING:
Contractual services will not include the following, which will be exempt from the bidding requirements;
A. Contracts involving the obtaining of professional or specialized skills such as, but not limited to, services rendered by attorneys, architects, engineers, accountants and specialized consultants.
B. When calling for bids on a competitive basis in the opinion of the city Manager is undesirable, impossible, unavailing or incongruous.
C. Where the City Manager’s requirements can be met solely by a single patented article or process. (Ord. 331, 5-19-87)”
(Hmmmmm-I guess that means that not EVERYTHING has to go out to bid after all)
Well, well, {cough-cough}….on to “the topic at hand”
Remember “Promise Rings”?
Those cute little “do-dads” you exchanged when you weren’t quite “growed up” enough yet to get engaged.
They were a kinda “promise” that “if something else doesn’t get in the way and we are still in love when we are old enough to make a real decision, we agree to agree to get married”
Well….it seems Governmental Agencies have their own “paper version” of “the promise ring”: one that is on tonight’s City Council Agenda.
And it has to do with Peach Avenue
In my “What to do about Peach Avenue” series, I chronicled the seemingly never ending saga of twits, turns, flip-flops and wheel spinning surrounding the multi-year quest for a final decision on just what to do about Peach Avenue.
You see….Once upon a time; the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD) decided it would do an “expansion” of Livingston High School.
Which meant someone had to figure out how to get the students across the road.[1]
Which lead to countless discussions, and multiple meetings, etc., etc. and so forth.
It seems that maybe-just maybe-“the powers that be” have finally made up their minds, made a decision, decided to all “get on the same page” and put down in writing what they are all “agreeing to agree to”.
{However—There is one tinsy, tiny “legal catch” (hence those expensive lawyers I alluded to in a prior post)}
Because of certain “nuances” in CEQA law (California Environmental Quality Act) the City and the District can’t “legally” really agree to a “formal and final (enforceable as in “contract”)” Memo of Understanding about improvements to Peach Avenue until after
“the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is completed and approved. However, both entities can tentatively agree on the scope of work for the environmental document as outlined in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding.”[2]
So….if I got it right they can “agree to agree”[3] on paper, but they can’t agree to DO on paper until after the CEQA process is done.
Are you confused yet? (That’s why the lawyers make “the big bucks”)
Anyway…
The following includes excerpts from the Staff Report entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Merced Union High School district and the City of Livingston Regarding the Deferral of Improvements to Peach Avenue. (For brevity’s sake, I have not reproduced every “jot and tiddle” in the report. If you wanna read it all-head up to City Hall and ask for the counter copy of the Agenda Packet-It’s in there)
Ready or not.. here we go…..
[4]“BACKGROUND
Merced Union High School district has purchased approximately 19 acres on the south side of Peach Avenue for expansion of the facilities at Livingston High School….
At the January 20, 2009, City Council meeting, the City council voted to eliminate the closing of Peach Avenue as an alternative. Three alternatives remained for dealing with Peach Avenue….
Option #1 Close Peach Avenue at Seventh Street and Main Street and reroute the street to the south as indicated on the attached drawings.[5] …After the (school bond) was approved by the voters in November 2008, the City made it clear that it would not participate in the condemnation of property for this alternative is the District did not have willing sellers. At this time, there is at least one property owner that does not wish to sell.
Option #2 Raise Peach Avenue at Seventh Street and Main Street
Option #3 Install a pedestrian overpass over Peach Avenue
DISCUSSION
There appears to be a growing consensus that a modified Option #3 would resolve this long-standing issue.[6]
The project description for the CEQA study will contain the following responsibilities for the Merced Union High School District as part of the Livingston High School Expansion project:
1. Improve Peach Avenue consistent with the City’s standards and General Plan to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer…
2. Construct a pedestrian bridge over Peach Avenue, centrally, located between Main Street and 7th Streetwith the proceeds from the final sale of bonds from Measure M…..
3. Construct a crosswalk across Peach Avenue with a pedestrian-activated traffic signal or flashing read traffic light (or multiple red traffic lights, if deemed necessary by the city)…
4. Paint all curbs red on both sides of Peach Avenue between Main Street and 7th Street and include appropriate signage…
5. Construct an 8 foot non-climbable wrought iron fence on top of a brick or concrete base along the entire length of the south side of Peach Avenue between main Street and 7th Street, except at the crosswalk location …
6. Construct a lockable gate at the entrance of the parking lot on Peach Avenue that will remain closed except during the starting and ending times of Livingston High School when school is in session.
7. Dedicate right-of-way for a 110’ wide 4-lane Minor arterial for Main Street/Lincoln Boulevardas required per the City of Livingston Traffic/Circulation Master Plan….
FISCAL IMPACT
THE Merced Union High school district will be required to pay for all expenses relating to the environmental document, modifications to Peach Avenue or other required improvements.”[7]
So…what we have here is a “promise ring” of sorts where the MUHSD promises to use it’s own land and it’s own money to make it possible for students to cross the road at Peach Avenue.
[1] And because of all the “squawking I have heard at Oh so many meetings: at this point I am having a very hard time restraining myself from launching into a whole series of “why does the chicken cross the road” jokes J
[2] Staff Report “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Merced Union High School district and the City of Livingston Regarding the Deferral of Improvements to
Peach Avenue
[3] Which is a heck of an improvement over the convoluted mess that was going on before
[4] Quote J
[5] Copy of which is at City Hall-(Sorry-I’m not yet sophisticated enough to scan documents directly into my postings yet)
[7] End Quote J
But first, before we get to the “main event” let’s take a look at a couple of good things being done by good people for the good of Livingston
GIVE BLOOD, SAVE LIVES
Give a Pint-Get a Pint
Donate a pint of blood and receive a coupon for a pint of Baskin Robins ice cream and a Holiday T-Shirt, along with a coupon for a meal, hosted by the Livingston/Delhi Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary.
The Livingston Community Blood Drive will be held
Thursday, December 3rd, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., at the
Veterans Memorial Building, located at 1605 7th Street, in Livingston.
If we had more blood donations, more lives could be saved. Please take an hour out of your busy schedule and give someone a chance to live.
Your donation does make a difference. There is no substitute for blood.
Your donation of one pint of blood can save up to 3 lives. One donation can be separated into different components, helping different patients, such as new born babies, those suffering from cancer or leukemia, accident or burn victims, etc.
Please drink plenty of fluids before donating and bring your donor card or photo ID with you. Donors must be at least 17 years old, be generally healthy and weigh at least 110 pounds.
Stop by and give the gift of life. For more information or to make a life saving appointment, call Denis or Sue Wells at 394-2059. Walk-ins are always welcome.
VFW CHRISTMAS & RUMMAGE SALE!
Do your Christmas Shopping With Us!!!
We have everything from furniture to the tiniest baby booties, and lots of new or nearly new Christmas gifts.
The Livingston/Delhi Ladies Auxiliary VFW #8327 will be holding a Gigantic Rummage Sale on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, December 7th, 8th and 9th, at the Delhi Veterans Hall, Located at 9799 Stephens Street in Delhi.
We have items too numerous to mention here, come by and see us.
The sale hours will be 8-5 on Monday and Tuesday and 8-? on Wednesday. Everything on Wednesday will be $1.00 per bag (we furnish the bag) or half price if it is too big to fit in a bag.
If you have any questions, please call Sue Wells at 394-2059.
All proceeds from the sale will go to fund our many programs.
And will stay within our own community!
(And now..On to the)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 1, 2009
CLOSED SESSION: 6:40 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING: 7:00 P.M.
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Regular Meeting on December 1, 2009, at the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California. Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the Deputy City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at (209) 394-8041, Ext. 121. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the members of the legislative body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available for public inspection at Livingston City Hall, 1416 C Street. The Regular Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The Closed Session will be held in accordance with state law prior o the Regular Meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Closed Session will be held in the City of Livingston City Hall Conference Room located at 1416 C Street. The agenda shall be as follows:
Closed Session
A “Closed” or “Executive” Session of the City Council or the Livingston Redevelopment Agency may be held in accordance with state law which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items: personnel matters, labor negotiations, security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators, conference with legal counsel regarding pending litigation. The Closed Session will be held in the City Hall Conference Room located at 1416 C Street, Livingston, California. Any required announcements or discussion of closed session items or actions following the Closed Session will be made in the City Council Chambers, 1416 C Street, Livingston, California.
1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation.
Government Code Section 54956.9(a).
a. Merced County Farm Bureau v. City of Livingston, et al., California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151754 [consolidated with Valley Advocates v. City of Livingston, et al., Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151757]
b. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. City of Livingston, et al., California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000292.
Page 2 of 3
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Next Resolution Number: 2009-53
Next Ordinance Number: 585
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Closed Session Announcements.
Changes to the Agenda.
AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
Supervisor John Pedrozo Announcements and Reports.
City Council Members’ Announcements and Reports.
Mayor’s Announcements and Reports.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Resolution Conditionally Approving Site Plan/Design Review 2009-04 for the Dr. Singh Mixed Use Project.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item NOT otherwise on the agenda. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, and identify themselves. Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes. In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening. For items which are on the agenda this evening., members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council as each item is brought up for discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine or non-controversial and will be enacted by one vote, unless separate action is requested by the City Manager or City Council Member. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council or City Manager request that specific items be removed.
2. Approval of Warrant Register Dated November 20, 2009.
Page 3 of 3
DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
3. Memorandum of Understanding Between The Merced Union High School District And The City Of Livingston Regarding The Deferral of Improvements to Peach Avenue.
4. Introduce and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Livingston Amending Title 2(Government Organization) Chapter 3 (Citizens’ Service Committee) of the Livingston Municipal Code Relating to the Organization and Duties and Responsibilities of the Citizens’ Service Committee.
5. Consideration of Approval and Request by Council Member Espinoza to Discuss Warrant Numbers 68840, 68984, 69096, and 69181.
6. Policy Regarding Council Member Excused and/or Unexcused Absences from Council Meetings and Related Sanctions or Penalties.
7. Police Chief Recruitment and Costs.
8. City Manager Announcements and Reports.
ADJOURNMENT
First off: a couple of dumb question…..#1What is the purpose of immunizations
Yes..I know…dumb question…(and I know there is a genuine debate out there about the safety and efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine but just for a second lets just talk “in general”. OK)?.
I mean. Why do you have your kids immunized? Kids sure don’t like it. They fuss. They cry. Sometimes they get rashes, fevers, muscle aches. Sometimes even worse reactions.
And I’m sure you are not thrilled about annual Seasonal Flu shots either.
So…….why do we immunize as a matter of public policy?
The obvious answer is because if we didn’t, the consequences to the public as a whole would be even worse.
It doesn’t mean being vaccinated for things like Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Seasonal Flu and H1N1 will prevent you from being exposed the disease. It just means (in general) that even if you do get hit with it, the results probably won’t nearly be as bad.
I guess you could call immunizations a kind of painful, necessary (small) “evil” that prevents an even greater one.
Dumb Question #2…Does the clinic or General Practitioner where you get immunizations also provide mammograms, colonoscopies, or reconstructive surgery?
Of course not….in the medical profession there are a whole host of specialists. I’m sure you can think of a number of medical conditions that would require the services of a Specialist.
That doesn’t mean General Practitioners (GPs) are stupid or lesser creatures. It just means there are just some things beyond their basic “knowledge base”. For that, there are the Specialists.
And if your GP or Specialist “screws up” with a misdiagnosis, prescribes the wrong medication (or cuts off the wrong body part) that’s called “malpractice” and you can end up really worse off than you were before)
So…Where am I going with this?
Well, just for a few moments, think about your city as if it were a “living organism” that eats, drinks, (and yes) excretes waste products.[1]
If all the “parts” aren’t in good working order-you can have a very “sick” city. Roads flood, the trash doesn’t get picked up regularly, pipes rust and water becomes unfit to drink. Problems crop up with the sewage treatment system.
And the City “gets sick” and city life becomes “not so swell”.
Consultants/engineers and Lawyers are kinda like: “immunizations and doctors” for the City.
When things are not “in good working order”, it is the job of the Consultants to diagnose the problem and prescribe a solution. So that the trash gets picked up, the roads are in good order and clean, and the water is good enough to drink, etc.
And when the Consultants/engineers “screw up” it’s usually called “errors and omissions” which is kinda like “malpractice” and the City (which means you) will be worse off than before. Unless the City sues the Consultant/engineers and recoups “the losses” (which could take years)
It’s the job of the City Attorney to “immunize” the City against litigation (either by being sued or having to sue): making sure everything is done all “nice and legal” when it comes to making sure the trash gets picked up, the roads are clean and in good order, and the water is fit to drink (or at least drinkable enough not to give you arsenic poisoning, e-coli or cancer-which is a whole ‘nuther topic for a whole ‘nuther day)
And if the lawyer “screws up” it’s called “malpractice” and the City (which means you) will be worse off than before.
One of the problems is, it’s become a whole lot more cumbersome and complicated to run a city (and keep it healthy) than back in the “good ole days” when you could send your sewage straight into the river untreated.[2] There is a whole slue of regulations governing how a city’s local government can do things in our Modern Enlightened World. Like:
· Labor Law (State and Federal)
· Wage Law (State and Federal)
· Environmental regulations (State and Federal)
· Civil Rights Law (State and Federal)
· Laws governing the Accommodation of People with Disabilities (State and Federal)
· Contract Law
· Government Codes
· Etc. etc. and so forth.
Here a law, there a law, everywhere a law, law.
There are so many laws on the books nowadays even lawyers “specialize” and Law Firms have lawyers to represent them.
As far as City Government goes, no matter what it does do, it is likely to get sued. And if it doesn’t do certain things, then it can end up in trouble with the State, or the Feds (or both)
It’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” and no matter what you DO do, you end up in a bunch of “Deep Do Do”
Which gets me back to what Lawyers and Immunizations have to do with each other: It’s about lessoning the likelihood and severity of the inevitability of litigation in this “lawyered up” world we live in.
One of those painful, expensive, “necessary evils” of our times.
It’s like this: having the consultants and lawyers won’t prevent a City from being sued.
But without them the “damages” (and cost to the City-which really means you) would be much worse.
[1] I “borrowed” the “city as an organism” idea from Dr. Oz’s book You Staying Young: The Owner’s Manual for Extending Your Warranty (Loved the Book-a really easy read-would highly recommend it to any of you in the “over 40” set. J)
[2] Now don’t get your boxers in a bunch or your “thong” twisted up in knots. That “sewage” reference was a bit of hyperbole to make a point.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 17, 2009
SPECIAL MEETING: 6:00 P.M.
*Change of Meeting Location: Livingston Pentecost Hall,
1237 Main Street
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Special Meeting on November 17, 2009, at the Livingston Pentecost Hall, 1237 Main Street, Livingston, California. Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the Deputy City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at (209) 394-8041, Ext. 121. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the members of the legislative body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available for public inspection at Livingston City Hall, 1416 C Street. The Special Meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. The agenda shall be as follows:
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER Next Resolution Number: 2009-52
Next Ordinance Number: 585
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Changes to the Agenda.
A Proclamation of the City of Livingston for a Day of Thanksgiving.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Resolution Awarding Construction Contract to Hensley’s Paving, Inc., Hickman, CA, Approving the Expenditure of Construction Funds for the Basketball Courts at Walnut Sports Complex Land Development Fund Competitive 06-01613 and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Hensley’s Paving, Inc.
2. Approval of Warrant Register of October 28, 2009, with Exception of Warrant No. 69096.
3. Approval of Warrant Register of November 12, 2009.
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
4. Council Meeting Rules of Decorum and Conduct.
5. Public Information and Comment on Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Rates and Discussion Concerning Changing Water Rate Tiers and Eliminating Current Tiered System and Replacing it With a Single-Rate Tier of 35,000 Gallons of Water Per Household Per Month.
6. Request by Council Member Espinoza to Discuss Warrant No. 69096.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item NOT otherwise on the agenda. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, and identify themselves. Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes. In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening. For items which are on the agenda this evening., members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council as each item is brought up for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
General Meeting – All Invited
Ag/Art/Nature Tourism in Merced County
Meeting: Monday 16, Nov 2009, 11:00am to 1pm
Multi-Cultural Art Center
645 W. Main Street
between M and N Streets, Merced
Sponsored by: Valley Land Alliance and UC Cooperative Extension
Light lunch provided
11:00 Welcome – Maxwell Norton, Farm Advisor
Penny Leff, UC Small Farm Center: Learning about other counties’ agritourism efforts – organizations, funding, events, promotions, etc.
Speaker, from Mariposa County Agri-Nature Trail
Committees report back on progress made:
Steering committee (Maxwell, Jean, Cindy, Karen)
Regulatory (Bob, Cindy & Perry)
Countywide tourism promotion (Karen Baker)
Group event or tour (Janis)
On demand tours (Denise, Cindy, Jean, Anna, Larry)
Inventory of Merced County Attractions (Bob, Diana, Karen)
Networking (Alan, Bob, Penny, Tim, Alex)
Update from Los Banos (Rhonda Lowe)
Future speakers – geo-tourism? a tour operator? Liability insurance?
Set date for next meeting
Closing
Coming together=beginning; keeping together=progress; working together=success
The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 21, 2009, at 5:00 P.M., in the Conference Room of City Hall, 1416 “C” Street, Livingston.
Dated: November 12, 2009
BETTY COTA
Deputy City Clerk
Arlington, Va.—Pfizer, Inc., announced today that the company will be closing its former research and development headquarters in New London, Conn. This was a project that involved massive corporate welfare and led to the abuse of eminent domain that ultimately bulldozed the home of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London.
This was the same bogus development plan that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question when the property owners of New London pleaded to have their homes spared from the wrecking ball. Justices mentioned that there was a plan in place, and that so long as lawmakers who are looking to use eminent domain for someone’s private gain had a plan, the courts would wash their hands. Now, more than four years after the redevelopment scheme passed constitutional muster—allowing government to take land from one private owner only to hand that land over to another private party who happens to have more political influence—the plant that had been the magnet for the development is closing its doors and the very land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood remains barren to all but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.
Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case for the Institute for Justice on behalf of the New London homeowners, said, “Today’s announcement that Pfizer is closing its research facility in New London demonstrates the folly of government plans that involve massive corporate welfare and that abuse eminent domain for private development. The majority opinion in Kelo v. New London described the Fort Trumbull project as a ‘carefully considered’ plan, but it has been an unmitigated disaster from start—and now—to finish.”
Bullock continued, “Project supporters blame the economic downturn for this turn of events. That is all the more reason why taxpayer dollars should not be put at risk in speculative and risky development schemes.”
Despite the Court’s Kelo ruling, much change for the good has occurred.
Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice and co-counsel in the Kelo case, said, “In the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling, 43 states have now reformed their laws to better protect property owners. What’s more, seven state high courts have stepped in post-Kelo to protect the rights of homeowners against eminent domain abuse. The high courts of Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey and Rhode Island have all ruled in favor of property owners and against eminent domain for private gain. None has made Kelo the rule under their own state constitutions.”
The tragic saga of the Kelo case is detailed in Jeff Benedict’s book Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage (Grand Central Publishing; 2009). In it, Benedict shares with readers how Kelo took on the City of New London, a cast of politically powerful villains and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that sparked a revolutionary change nationwide in eminent domain laws—except in Connecticut.
Christina Walsh
Director of Activism and Coalitions
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
(703) 682-9321 – fax
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
Merced County Road Closures / Delays for the week of November 15 – 21, 2009
ROAD CLOSURES:
October 29 – November 30, 2009
Childs Ave. between Coffee St. and Kibby Rd. will be closed from October 29, 2009 to November 30, 2009. Traffic will be detoured from Childs Ave. to Gerard Rd. and Highway 140.
ROAD DELAYS:
There are no road delays to report for next week.
If you have any questions, please call Curt Royer at (209) 385-7601.
FRIENDS & MEMBERS OF THE MERCED COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
PLEASE JOIN US ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18 AT 11:30 AM
AS WE CELEBRATE WITH THE MERCED COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
THE OPEN HOUSE AND RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY
FOR THE ALLIED HEALTH / DR. LAKIREDDY SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER.
LIGHT REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED AND TOURS WILL BE CONDUCTED.
PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE TRI COLLEGE CENTER.
RSVP BY CALLING THE MERCED COLLEGE FOUNDATION @ (209) 381.6470
SEE YOU THERE!!
