Doers get the job done while jerks complain

Scarecrow Festival's final meeting

“Thank you” and “goodbye” were the themes celebrated Sunday by the sub-committee responsible for the “Return of the Scarecrow Festival.” The celebration included an impromptu, largely tongue-in-cheek “Kumbaya” that highlighted an interesting phenomenon; diverse, not divisive, political views.

The left and right, conservative and liberal, were represented. An employees’ union officer shared chili recipes and stories with a conservative blogger. A Democratic Party (local group) founder passed cookies to a businessman. A school teacher led retired professionals in the singing.

Each guest was treated with respect and honor – and responded in kind. Unlike Council meetings, the differences of opinion didn't spark argument or aversion – or hatred. Some kidding, yes, rancor, no.

One might guess that the guests were adults; that’s correct. One might assume all were responsible people, which was true. Six months ago every one believed that a City-sponsored, 60^th Committee supported event was “locked in,” but that wasn't to happen.

DIY cum laude 

The sub-committee had to make the festival happen with their own hard work, pleading and community support. The OCME (Orange County Model Engineers) made it happen. The lovers of music machines, or mechanical music machines to them, made it happen. The city did provide some support and the event was conducted at Fairview Park, which is City property. But the small sub-committee made it all happen.

Members got along partly because they worked so hard together to overcome obstacles, some seemingly devastating. They worked together to do something good for Costa Mesa.

But there’s another reason there was no rancor at the party; no agitators. No one showed up to insult someone else because they had different ideas. No one screamed and berated and vilified another who disagreed with them. They got the job done without hatred or vitriol.

Low cost but very effective 

The City paid very little for the festival, in actual dollars or in dollars for employees’ time. The employees were cheerful, enthusiastic and helpful, not arrogant and disdainful.

For example, a truck driver arrived a little early to pick up the shelters, tables and chairs – which were supposed to be stacked and ready “so our employees don’t have to wait.” He shouted, “Hey, we can do that. We’re good at it. You guys get the other stuff done,” with a big smile on his face.

The kids loved the scarecrows, the pumpkins, the fire truck and the train ride. The adults enjoyed a beautiful day in the park surrounded by happy kids, while the City incurred minimal expense. There’s a lesson here.

Disagree respectfully, then do the work 

There are different ideas about what is good for Costa Mesa. There are varied ways to better the City. We don’t all agree about what is good for her or how to get to “better.” Working together, project by project, contract by contract, will get the job done.

Using Alinsky tactics of disruption and vilification, or following the “Police Playbook” guides to intimidation of elected officials won’t get the job done. Accusations, insults, and innuendos won’t either. Rude jerks don’t want to do the work – they just want to get their way.

Working is hard, tantrums are fun

No rude jerks were present at the final meeting and end-of-project party; they wouldn't have been welcome. The party was for doers, not for complainers. It was for the left-wingers, the right-wingers, unionists, and all of the other “--ists” -- who were doers.

Perhaps the rude jerks should be uninvited from Council meetings, too. It might give doers an opportunity to get the job done.

* Watch a trip: Here

Bully them if they're right

Commenter bullies

We read that bullying isn't acceptable in schools and that it’s wrong in the workplace. What about bullying those who disagree politically? For a small group of haters in Costa Mesa, that bullying is acceptable.

If someone states that street and curb repairs, park maintenance and Westside development are all good for Costa Mesa they will be bullied. They’ll be ostracized, criticized, and marginalized by our local haters. Why? Because the Mayor and Pro Tem are driving the improvements.

The haters are (political) bigots. Their bigotry is simple – if the Mayor and Pro Tem are involved it’s bad regardless of the benefit for the City.

Bigots

The Pro Tem is walking down every street in the City, and the Mayor is visiting neighborhood after neighborhood with a Meet the Mayor program. The idea, in both cases, is to find out what is really going on in the city and what the citizens’ concerns are. What’s wrong with seeking the facts before making decisions? Back to the bigoted premise; the Mayor and Pro Tem are involved so it’s time to “bully the blighters.”

The bullies use attacks on personal lives, innuendos about (supposed) beliefs and ridicule of lifestyles. Personal attacks are all that the haters can muster because the value of infrastructure improvements can’t be argued.

An old malady

Costa Mesa’s haters aren't unique, just mildly annoying and sometimes amusing. (See Council Comments video Here.) There’s even a term for their affliction, coined many years ago. Xenophobia is the “unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.” Infrastructure improvements are foreign concepts to the haters.

Look at how the parks and roads and alleys were neglected, ignored, and unfunded when previous Council majorities set the priorities. Pontification and pandering from the dais didn't ensure street and alley maintenance, it just wasted money. One presumes the haters were happy as the Reserves drained away and politicians emoted tearfully from the dais. Now things are getting done, which upsets the haters.

Fear of that which differs

Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of one group toward another, including suspicion of the other’s activities and aggression toward those perceived as different.

The Pro Tem developed COIN (Civic Openness In Negotiation). It is being studied and copied throughout the state, and to some degree by cities in other states. The haters vehemently opposed this ordinance. After ferociously disputing and resisting COIN they now complain that it doesn't go far enough!  

Perhaps the haters should muster the discipline and political will to extend transparency to our other money-spending activities, if that’s what they really want. They can have credit for the “ON4-1/5” or Open Negations for (the final) one-fifth” of City expenses.

Not kid stuff but childish

Bullying isn't acceptable for adults. But for the haters, it’s all there is. Their diatribe is mostly ignored, so maybe we should call it attempted bullying.

Scream insults or study facts, take your pick

Deciding what's right

Let’s look at two approaches for deciding controversial matters of public policy. Both are in vogue in Costa Mesa. One approach involves investigation, discussion, and debate – by Costa Mesans -- to decide what’s best for Costa Mesa. This method has the most supporters.

Another approach is illustrated by a Councilwoman’s comment:

“I hope the feds send a strong message to the Council majority that the City cannot ignore the rules and just build the path, turn on the lights and make way for the parking lot and tot lot.”

So, she believes Costa Mesa can’t or won’t protect City property though our own procedures. She is insulting the ability and integrity of our Public Services Department and Director.

This is also an example of perceived locus of control – clearly she believes in committees appointed in Sacramento or Washington D.C., rather than Costa Mesans to best determine what is good for Costa Mesa.

Emotional not factual

Her remark is a bit short in the facts department, though. The path she’s talking about was in place for a long time and refurbished recently by citizens trying to improve the park. (The City Council ignored Park projects for several administrations so volunteers began maintaining some trails and fences at their own expense.) Just a matter of residents trying to help out when previous Councils didn't fund Fairview Park maintenance. (It's worth noting that only the Mayor and the Pro Tem were not involved in decisions to not fund Park Maintenance in the past.)

Further, the turnaround/parking was planned more than a decade ago and has just reached a funding stage; funding for study, that is. Hysteria about “paving the vernal ponds” was generated by a few folks with political agendas – again; unfounded and ridiculous warnings that have been done before. (1)

Lights are similarly being studied – and blamed on the Pro Tem’s enthusiasm for youth sports, ignoring the real arguments both for and against.

I'm mad -- I want the city to get fined 

The Councilwoman is rooting for the home team to lose, a curious stand for an executive. There’s the matter of loyalty, too. We started learning in Kindergarten to support our team. Some of us did.

So disloyalty in hoping for (if that’s all she did) her city to be “punished,” and attacking the knowledge and integrity of the Public Services Department, and distortions of facts – why?

Vindictiveness trumps integrity and loyalty

A key reason behind such silliness is personal vindictiveness. For example, consider a remark by a commenter after her post:

“Steve is sort of a bully. Jim, a failed leader. Together they fund a lot of lawyers.”

This has no bearing on the subject, it’s just an ad hominem attack – which is most commonly used when facts supporting a position are sparse or haven’t been researched. And more such nonsense; a frequent theme for about five very vocal commenters is:

“Theft of public land is a Righeimer hall mark going back to his days working with Suncal,” an ad hominem refuted as far back as 2011. (See 2) 

Facts and priorities or name-calling and blaming

So, there’s the approach of debating the priorities and issues, on one hand. There’re ongoing studies and plans by a devoted and highly-effective Public Services Director and his staff to collect facts to fuel and support debate about priorities. This also involves soliciting citizen – not agitator – input.

And, then there’re emotional outbursts seeking to blame the current Council’s majority for failures by past City Councils. This involves recruiting out of town agitators.  Those who enjoy the emotional catharsis of screaming at Council and Commission members will continue doing what they enjoy. (3)

It must tire them out 

Seeing every project and event through the lens of “I hate Mayor Righeimer and the Pro Tem, too” must be exhausting. It doesn't require any effort for research or thinking though.

1) Paving vernal pools: Good summary of several issues: Here

Early article:  Here

2) Untrue and malicious, refuted here:  Here

3) Alinsky’s Rule 6 is: “A good tactic (for manipulating public opinion without regard to truth) is one your people enjoy.”

Personal animosity is never correct, legal, or even productive

Law and Propriety

From the Municipal Code (City law)

Sec. 2-60. Propriety of conduct of council members

Members of the council shall preserve order and decorum during a meeting.

It shall be unlawful for any member of the council to violate any of the following rules:

. . . Members of the council shall not, by disorderly, insolent or disturbing action, speech, or otherwise, substantially delay, interrupt or disturb the proceedings of the council. . .

 (Code 1960, § 2223; Ord. No. 72-38, § 2, 10-16-72; Ord. No. 85-26, § 2, 10-21-85)

In the past, the law listed above would have seemed superfluous; after all, folks elected to conduct Costa Mesa’s business and to represent all of the citizens of the City would be responsible and honorable people. We expect respect for government process from government officers even when they don't get their way.

Laws apply to the audience 

Sec. 2-61. Propriety of conduct while addressing the council.

It shall be unlawful for any person while addressing the council at a council meeting to . .

. . . make any personal, impertinent, profane, insolent, or slanderous remarks.

. . .  yell at the council in a loud, disturbing voice.

. . .  speak without being recognized by the presiding officer.

. . .  continue to speak after being told by the presiding officer that his allotted time for addressing the council has expired. . .

(Code 1960, § 2224; Ord. No. 72-38, § 2, 10-16-72; Ord. No. 85-26, § 2, 10-21-85)

 

Sec. 2-64. Disorderliness by members of the audience.

It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a council meeting . . .

Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.

Refuse to comply with a lawful order or directive of the presiding officer of the council.

The sergeant-at-arms shall have the authority to remove any such person from the council chamber and place him or her under arrest, or both.

(Code 1960, § 2227; Ord. No. 72-38, § 2, 10-16-72)

Illegal and silly

So, the behaviors we've observed during recent meetings – and during last year’s City Council meetings -- are illegal, as well as foolish and embarrassing for the City.

And what if the sources of “profane language or obscene gestures” are city employees or volunteers? Are City employees exempt from City law? The employees who represent Costa Mesa to the public should be people who obey the law and observe rules of decorum.

Fortunately, the majority of the elected officials, and the great majority of the employees and uniformed volunteers are law-abiding, courteous men and women.

 

The number of rude, entitled brats is small; nevertheless Costa Mesa deserves responsible behavior from all of those who would represent her to the public. 

Personal animosity is never correct, legal, or even productive in government operations.

Reasons for pride, reasons for shame

Pride in workmanship

The Halecrest Chili Cook Off was a reminder of how important pride in workmanship and attention to detail can be.

All of the candidates were proud of their chili, and each table had someone who could explain in detail how the dish had been prepared. For example, the Chili Verde from one group had been prepared from meat smoked at a specific low temperature for many hours and . . . The person explaining was clearly proud of his chili, as were the videographer and the photographer who manned the CM employee table next door.

The competitors’ pride would have been no less if they had been forced to use smaller tables, or to have fewer staff at each table.

Beyond Chili 

During a couple of ride-alongs with CMPD we've observed that the officers were not only proficient, they were proud of their skill and expertise. It seemed to be routine, an attitude of, “We know how to ‘serve and protect’ and we do it well now. We'll do it even better.”

During the Scarecrow festival the OCME (Orange County Model Engineers) ran a great Pumpkin Patch program that required a whole lot of “on the fly” changes to keep it running – and they are paid only in smiles from kids. They cross-checked each other, made difficult decisions, performed hard physical labor – and cleaned everything up and put it away. They were all proud of what they accomplished.

Excellence, not excuses

It would have been easy to whine about getting a shorter contract than they wanted for the train site. It would be easy for the officers to slack off because they've been told that the Mayor doesn't like them and that he called them goons. It would be easy for the chili makers to dump canned chili into a pot to save time, money, and especially, effort.

Pride from accomplishments

In Costa Mesa we enjoy good policing, good youth train-pumpkin-scarecrow fun. We enjoy good fire and emergency medical service. We enjoy good communications and emergency service support. We enjoy good customer-service from most of the City employees we contact – most of the time.

We citizens of Costa Mesa recognize when and where good work is being done.  No, not everyone recognizes the excellence of employee service. And not every employee and volunteer strives for excellence. But most do.

Executive pride and accomplishment

The Mayor and the Pro Tem seem to be seeking excellence, too. And they are rightfully proud of their accomplishments. Yet the haters continue their uninformed diatribe against them.

Compare the haters’ innuendos, labels, and speculation with the COIN ordinance and Mensinger’s Contract with Costa Mesa. Contrast the haters’ ad hominem attacks against the Council majority and anyone who supports something they do, with the Meet the Mayor program.

Consider the Pro Tem’s goal to walk every street in the City to see what is really going on, and compare that to the speakers on both sides of the dais who don’t even bother to read the City staff’s study of an issue before they start to comment and criticize.

Compare and contrast the fact-finding and open communication with the hatred and insults. The haters don’t do much research before they accuse and insult. They don't seem proud of their accomplishments, just proud of their membership in the “hate the Mayor” group.

Great Chili Saturday; for our taste, the Chili Verde edged out the competition.

The majority depends on the Council to preserve their rights

Noisiest aren't the majority

“What seems to be the voice of the masses is the voice of a few – magnified and distorted.” Larry Tramutola

A recent post about bike trails facilitating crime caused some (mostly anonymous) controversy. Essentially, the comments could be summed up as, “you must think that bike trails are bad, and you're wrong because . . .”

We believe that bike trails are one of the advantages offered by a beautiful and vibrant city. However, beneficial trails cannot result from government’s “knee jerk” reactions to people who make noise. The City Council is not responsible to agitators; it’s responsible to all Costa Mesa citizens.

Agitate to get your way

Special interest groups have learned to pack meetings and disrupt proceedings to try to get their way. Alinsky wrote one of the earliest texts on using disruptive tactics to “get your way” back in the 60’s. Occupy (Wall Street) agitators (they prefer to be called “activists”) continue the process. 

These groups (or even individuals) offer unqualified “petitions.” They fill newspaper commentary and Commission and Council comments with opinions unsupported by anything beyond “I feel strongly about this (and almost every other) issue.”

Those who don’t pack the Council Chambers or wave signs from the sidewalk in front of City Hall don’t forfeit their rights because they don’t agitate. They are depending on the City Council to preserve their rights and to look out for their interests – that’s why they elected the Council.

Planning makes the difference

Intelligently-planned bike trails can be a reason productive people want to live in Costa Mesa. Bike trails help kids travel safely. Trails can enhance the lives of Costa Mesa citizens – if they're done right and designed to benefit all citizens. And we surely have a lot of room to improve bike access in the City.

Done poorly, in response to aggressive agitators, bike trails can be repellent to the majority of Costa Mesans as well as terrible wastes of time and money. They can significantly devalue surrounding property values; that is, they deprive property owners of value just to add an additional biking trail in Costa Mesa.

It’s not an issue of bike trails or not – it’s an issue of responsible government versus “knee-jerk” government.

Mayor enforces rules to get City's business completed

Rules for meetings

Robert’s Rules of Order “. . . provides for constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly.” Rules and laws have evolved to help assure fairness – and to open government processes to the citizens served. Some were prompted by disasters; e.g. the Bell fiasco.

Without rules . . .

Imagine the potential for a Council to wait for stormy day, with few or no observers, then to introduce a pay raise for themselves. No objections would be offered (because people were home out of the storm).

Or, imagine a developer who wanted to avoid opposition to his project; he could just comment for four or five hours until the opponents departed, then make his unopposed presentation.

Or consider the Council member who wanted to “pave the vernal ponds.” She could wait until just before a restroom break, then slip in a motion to “approve project 6175, on the OCPTS schedule per the LOBEEBAR as amended January 14, 2011, for a price of $650,000.” 

If her buddy seconded the motion, and the other members were distracted by their interest in the upcoming break, the measure could pass. No one would have time to research the motion, or to understand it.

Rules protect citizens

So, rules say the City must publish the Council’s agenda two weeks in advance, and consider only items on that agenda. The citizens then have the opportunity to research and understand the items on the agenda.

Some people come to Council meetings to appeal a citation or to ask for Council help – a cracked sidewalk that isn't being repaired for instance. They and the people who want to broadcast their opinions about anything get to speak – or sing or curse as they may prefer – before the items on the agenda are discussed.

Address agenda items too

Citizens and visitors may speak about agenda items as well, and many of the frequent speakers offer opinions on almost everything on every agenda. However, while any specific item is being discussed, they can only speak about that item. This keeps debate and discussion focused on the agenda item.

Council members or visitors can “pull” individual items from the Consent Calendar – which is deliberated and passed as a parcel – for discussion. Consent items are typically routine matters like paying bills, funding the period’s payroll, and such, that don’t usually require debate.

A tactic used in the past was to extend the meeting by pulling many Consent items for discussion. This left presenters for new and old business, City staff, and citizens who were interested in the new and old business waiting, sometimes for hours. We've observed that most often, the visitors who preached and complained departed shortly after speaking. Generally, they still do.

Delays moved to the end of the meeting

Currently, up to ten individual speakers are heard before the agenda; the rest are heard after all other business has been conducted. All discussion on “pulled” Consent items is heard after the Council’s other scheduled business as well. That is, prolonged discussion of a consent item doesn’t delay the main business of the Council.

 

This seems like a civil and organized manner of conducting City business.

The Mayor is charged with following and enforcing these rules, and for getting City business completed.

"You're stupid and mean. Want to go to a movie with me?"

Illuminate or bludgeon

A Daily Pilot commentary sparked remarks that illustrate two ways of approaching issues. The letter addressed a need to deal with the unfunded liabilities from employee retirement benefits.*

The first two and the fourth remarks below illustrate a positive and respectful approach to debating the issue. The third illustrates the approach we see from the “chronic haters;” an example of insulting one’s opponent to open a discussion. It drops the debate from rational argument – and solution seeking – to common diatribe.

“Charles, glad you agree. And I'm encouraged you get it. The trick will be to do it right . . .”

“Good commentary. You can fool people, but you can never fool math.”

“This City Council majority has a history of ignoring consultants and experts (sic) advice, at the expense of the taxpayers . . . , looks like he’s just kickin' that old can down the road…” 

“The analogy is interesting and I appreciate CM4RG actually talking about the elephant in the room in an intelligent way. But am I wrong? Didn't the author miss a very important issue as he . . .”

Agreement in the dirt and sun

 

A city employee who is active in union affairs was working beside me Sunday afternoon.

While we were sweating and getting dirty cleaning up the scarecrow area we discussed an approach to politics that annoys both of us; starting a discussion with insults. 

His examples of egregious openings differ from mine; samples of both are paraphrased below. Our examples are easy to tell apart, but the important point is, how likely is the ensuing discussion to lead to solutions both parties can live with?

“Your side is only concerned with your pay and benefits, you won’t try to help the city or compromise, or  . . ."

“You two (Mayor and Pro Tem) are destroying the city by the way you hate employees and want to lay everybody off  . . . “ 

“Your union is filled with rogues who are criminals and they just try to intimidate  . . .” 

“You guys (same two) are trying to bankrupt the city and pave over the vernal pools and  . . . so you can line your pockets/benefit your developer friends  . . .”

Start with insult -- go nowhere

These assertions, like those in the third example of comments above, are all false, unsupportable and inflammatory – without adding any information or insight to a discussion. Using them in a problem-solving discussion is more likely to block progress than to move toward solutions. 

If the tactic is chosen to inflame or to block progress, then the assertions are useful. Otherwise, they’re simply emotional manifestations of weak thinking skills.

*DP Article: Here

Tattling to promote yourself

Tattle tales and false leaders

A recent blog post inspired a flurry of comments, mostly anonymous, and some from folks who didn't want their remarks published.* They prompted this post.

Is it wrong to be a “whistleblower?” Clearly not; calling attention to a dangerous situation that needs to be corrected is ethical. However, that’s not the point addressed in the post.

Two good reasons

If intervention by a higher authority is emergently necessary, such as in a situation that involves risk to life or limb, it is the right thing to do. Calling the Police when screams and a gunshot are heard is wise; running out to investigate isn’t. (If the sounds came from your own home it would probably be better to call and intervene simultaneously if you are capable.)

In the case of a situation that’s ongoing and clearly harmful, but isn’t going to change, calling attention is the ethical choice, although often risky. An example would be calling a newspaper or a regulatory agency with a tip about your company clandestinely diverting its sewage into a pristine river.

Tattling to cause harm 

However, calling the “State Bureau of Classic Car Shows” because you lost an election or don't like the new president of your local car club is unethical. Or, calling the federal “Skunk and Weasel Preservation Committee” in Washington D.C. because your City government is starting to study the growth of a neighborhood skunk population – and you fear the results won’t agree with your view -- is wrong.

The city hasn't failed in its study – it’s just starting it. And, it probably will do a thorough and adequate study. However, being diverted to answering queries will waste its time and money.

If you believe that your City won’t do an adequate job of investigating the situation, the question then is, “will this be an emergent situation?” If the City’s study is likely to result in widespread poisoning of all skunks and other creatures that share their diet – immediately -- then reporting would be ethical. If there’s a process starting that requires reviews, plans, and funding over three to six months, waiting for the committee’s report is honest and disputing the solutions is ethical; reporting the committee or the problem to other agencies to cause a fuss isn’t.

To save or to disrupt is the question

Another question that should be asked is, “Why are we reporting the city?” If the purpose is to save a population of creatures, or a cherished landform from immediate destruction the intervention is appropriate. If the purpose is to try to embarrass a political opponent it’s not only unethical, it’s egregious. Representative government should not be saddled with wastes of time and money by the disgruntled.

We learned in Kindergarten that sometimes we lose; then we join forces with the winners to make the situation better. An illustration straight from Wikipedia:

“(John) Wayne supported Vice President Richard Nixon in the presidential election of 1960, but expressed his vision of patriotism when John F Kennedy won the election: 'I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job.'"

“Whistle-blowing” to get even with political opponents – or to set up a campaign – smacks of disloyalty. In Costa Mesa it’s reflecting adversely on the Public Services Department. That department is ethically and effectively managed by an excellent executive. Maligning the Director and his department to try to get a political advantage is dishonest,

disloyal and disruptive.

 

The citizens of Costa Mesa should ignore and deplore such egregious, self-serving political tactics.

*That post:  Here

Comments: doing it right

By their comments you can 

know them

Rational debate attempts to refute assertions using conflicting facts or opinions. It can include redirecting discussion to a related or supporting issue.

Here are some good examples of discussion or debate found in commentary about Costa Mesa issues.

Debate about the value and need for sports fields in Costa Mesa developed following a newspaper article about a possible Indian burial ground in Fairview Park.

Address the issue

“Dear . . .,  as important as physical exercise, I might argue more important in the bigger picture, kids need to learn to respect public property and go by the government's policies and rules when new ideas come along for new uses for public property. . . It's not just about the fields.”

Whether one agrees with the commenter’s opinion or not, it is an example of assertive but respectful use of opinion in debating an issue.

Supporting another commenter following a letter-to-the-editor headlined, “Council opponents are distorting crime rate:”

 “. . . We have a strong sense of community, just look at the value that organizations like Costa Mesa United have added to our town.
These scare tactics are just that. Another play right out of that law firm's pro police union playbook.
 ‘Spread fear and doubt and make the city council members assume a defensive stance.’

It is a fabricated storyline and should warrant no more attention than the background noise it is.”

This is opinion, including evaluation of the tactics and their source – directed to the issue.

More -- done right 

Here are a couple more samples of comments directed to the issue in a respectful manner.

“CEO Hatch took time in his comments to attempt an end at all the rumors and misstatement of facts. As CEO stated, there have been 10 new hires to CMPD over the last 10 months. Careful what anyone hears from unions,” about the issue raised in a letter-to-the-editor. And,
 “Respectfully, (name) I appreciate the information. My question however was how many "Lateral" Officers have left other departments to come to the City. . .”

The last comment was an attempt to divert discussion to a slightly-related discussion point. The author seemed to want to tie it to the discussion to support his point – a valid tactic.

A way to learn 

Sharing opinions, facts and logic in discussion – or debate – can be an effective way to learn about Costa Mesa issues.  Some Costa Mesans are doing just that.

Motel solutions aren't mutually exclusive

A closer look at “bad” motel issues

There are two main problems, each with a different solution set. Neither solution program is “right” by itself.

This Council is the first in at least four regimes to address the issue of the motels being a “public nuisance.” Community charities, churches and the present and previous councils have, and are, addressing the other problem: the wretchedness and discomfort of living in the problem motels.

Lousy way to live 

There is no doubt that it is hard for kids to study in a cramped and dirty home, or that crowding raises social, psychological and sociological stresses. It’s bad, simply bad.

 

One approach to reducing the feelings of helplessness, discomfort and discouragement is to help families with entertainment, such as cable TV. Other comfort helps include decent clothing, cleaning supplies, and adequate food – all improve comfort for the chronic residents.

Some kids are motivated to study by the need to keep their grades up to play sports. Some mothers will get their family medical care if they find transportation. These needs are being addressed. Adequately? Probably not, a lot more needs to be done.

Bad places, bad neighbors

The “public nuisance” aspect has been “kicked down the road” administration after administration. Motels have a higher rate of return per square foot than many other investments. And once the land and building are paid for the returns on investment (ROI) are lucrative. The price to buy each motel reflects the ROI.

Buying the motels with City money would raise a new issue; what are we going to do with it? A park or soccer field won't justify the investment of massive amounts of City money. But maybe we can persuade some developers to buy and build on the land. It won’t be a park, but it will be an improvement.

Incremental improvements

Perhaps there are other solutions, including “encouraging” the motel owners to maintain clean and safe habitation and driving the criminal element away from the poor family housing with focused enforcement. 

Building or identifying more low-income housing will help but building “slums” like the Fresno’s and New York’s “Projects” won’t help. The current administration is exploring solutions and increasing enforcement.

It is a crime to abuse others

We've read the rationalization recently that “most of the (police) calls are domestic disturbances, anyway, not crime.” Spousal and child abuse is criminal. And, regardless of the room number, on any call to the motels the nearby neighbors are mostly criminals.

Many disturbance calls lead to apprehension of a criminal on a felony warrant, recovery of a stolen bicycle, or an arrest for possession of illegal drugs. Focused enforcement isn't the whole answer, but it helps.

Long term and short term

The residents will be much more comfortable and much less likely to drift into illegal activity when they get decent housing. In the meantime they will be more comfortable in situ with better clothes, better next-door neighbors, and a safer environment.

Both approaches are being used in Costa Mesa – it’s not a question of which is right; they both are right for what they’re trying to do.