Charter chatter 

Costa Mesa is presently a “General Law City,” subject to a lot of control through the State legislature. However, her City Council seems likely to revisit the issue of a Charter soon.  Charters are essentially just City Constitutions.

Peddling influence efficiently

Lobbyists love General Law Cities because their efforts can be concentrated in Sacramento. The legislation they sponsor (or buy) there applies to all General Law Cities in the State.

The City’s governing body, the City Council, is concerned with its residents and the welfare of its city, but what it can change is limited in a General Law city. One lobbyist can easily cause more change to life in the city than the whole City Council can.

Charter City governs itself

In a Charter City, the other type allowed under California law, the overall state laws, such as driving and street and integrity statutes, are still enforced. However, the various measures that are applied, willy-nilly, by Sacramento to all General Law cities don’t affect Charter Cities.

 

Let’s look at a few specifics. In a Charter City, as in a General Law City, meetings must be publicly announced, and elections conducted according to standard rules. That’s state law, and it applies in both types of cities.

Ordinances still enforced 

In both types of cities, codes of conduct, procedures for purchasing, and operational rules are written into the city codes (or books of laws and procedures). So, for example, if a city ordinance specifies an audit by outside auditors every three years, that law is enforced, whether it’s a Charter or a General Law city.

The protections of State Law apply in both types of city. Charter Cities have no bogeymen waiting to issue “no bid contracts” as was asserted during the last election. Council members can’t affect contract awards in either type of city without facing prison sentences, per State law.

How it works 

For example, the Council can specify that purchases over $50,000 must follow a specific formal procedure labeled “bidding.” This legally-defined procedure involves publishing the RFP (Request for Proposal) for a certain period of time, advertising the purchase in a specific manner, developing specifications through which bidders prove that they meet requirements (such as having equipment to do the job, and financial ability to perform a job of that size). This state law is enforced in both Charter and General Law cities.

Let’s use the example of the purchase of paint and painting equipment. If it’s expected to cost over $50K, the formal procedure is followed, which is expensive and time consuming. It might provide net savings to the city. The City Council sets the levels at which formal bids are required.

City procedure by city staff

If the supplies are expected to cost less than the trigger amount, the city follows its internal procedures. For example, the city may allow department managers to make purchases up to $10K by just placing an order with an existing provider; they order from a catalog. Most managers call providers to find the best price and delivery, and then sign the order. City procedures specify how the departments document their purchases.

If the supplies are likely to cost more than $10K but less than $50K  internal rules might require that the City Manager get “bids” or cost proposals from three suppliers. The City Manager issues the order based upon what the suppliers propose in their replies. Documentation is specified in city procedures.

Council buys nothing, staff does

The City Council oversees the operations, and may audit to check that city procedures are being followed. But it can’t “give contracts to its friends,” as the frenzied commenters warned, whether the city is a Contract City or a General Law City.

Making new laws 

What about changing the city ordinances? That’s the City Council’s job. And remember from earlier discussions, Costa Mesa has a representative government. All of the residents don’t vote for an ordinance, only the Council Members do. And, the majority makes the decision.

So, although the screaming nay-sayers worked themselves into lathers warning that “only three votes determines the law under the (proposed) Charter,” that’s how it’s supposed to work. And, majority rules in both City Contract or General Law cities.

In either type of city, an ordinance must survive two readings and a thirty-day wait before it becomes law. It is subject to referendum during that time whether in a Charter or a General Law city.

Crooks, unsustainable wage guarantees still possible

Charters can be written to cause disasters of

course, as in Stockton. And crooks can slip thievery in where transparency is weak, as in Bell. But adopting a charter doesn't make a city subject to graft and corruption; the charter is usually a benefit to the city. And, Costa Mesa’s government transparency wins awards.

Which is best 

The only advantage to being a General Law City accrues if that city is unable to stand on its own. Costa Mesa is certainly self-sufficient in most resources. We’re even independent of the State for our water!

So what’s the advantage enjoyed by a Charter City?

According to the California League of Cities,

The ability to govern in the general law cities is “bound” by state law “regardless of whether the subject concerns a municipal affair.” On the other hand charter cities have “supreme authority” over municipal affairs under their constitutions – the charters.

We've seen the State suddenly raze the redevelopment agencies, raid the cities’ funds, and “re-direct” vehicle license fees that were constitutionally guaranteed to the city. The residents, and especially the funds, of Costa Mesa are becoming fodder for the bigger fish. Sacramento couldn't do these things to us if we were a Charter city – at least not so easily and directly.

There's more than this to consider

Maybe a Charter would be a good thing for Costa Mesa. 

What’s in a charter?  

We’ll look into that in a future post. It involves legal matters, so there’s a lot of nit-picking and defining, and numbering and . . . but we’ll deal with that next time.

Naive or Realistic 

Let’s start with a definition and how it might apply to Costa Mesa’s – and California’s -- government.

According to Wikipedia, naivety (or naïveté) “is . . . having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication . . .  where one neglects (being realistic) in favor of moral idealism.”

405 Fiasco

Remember when Caltrans insisted on a double carpool lane for Interstate 405? They said it would be good for the City in the long run. Once the investment was paid off, they said, tolls would cease and all of the harms it caused in Costa Mesa would be healed.

We should notice though, that Caltrans’ plans are not plans in the business sense. Their executives do not set milestones and reach the plan’s goals. They just plan, settle in, and increase the tolls from time to time.

What’s the evidence?  This article by Doug Irving in a recent Orange County Register article covers it well. He writes about a study that suggests “Toll roads may never pay off debt.” Toll Roads forever article

Never? Our grandchildren will be paying tolls on these same roads? Didn't they tell us the roads would be paid off and the tolls would stop?

The answers are all “yes.”

Former Mayor Eric Bever led the battle that forced Caltrans to select a different plan for Costa Mesa’s stretch of the “OC Crush.” His sophistication saved a lot of problems for the City.

You want another example?

More pension benefits without any cost to us  

How about the (cancerous) growth of unfunded liabilities by cities, counties, and school boards that depended on CalPers for their employee’s pensions? “CalPers assures us the city won’t have to pay a cent for these expanded benefits, so let’s share the good times. It won’t cost us a penny. They put that in writing in their brochure.”

Now we see that the unfunded portions of our liabilities are growing, into the billions. And Costa Mesa is on a course to add 50% to her millions in unfunded liabilities. But didn't they assure us . . . ?

Yes, they did. Please re-read the definition above.

We expect capable politicians, not dreamers 

We should be able to expect the politicians we elect to be realistic, and maybe even sophisticated. We should expect them to apply a critical eye to plans, estimates, and promises when they address their responsibilities as government officers.

They should not be naïve. They should not believe in free money from Washington D.C., or pensions funded by 7.5% investment growth.

How do we know

How are we, as citizens of Costa Mesa, to hold our leaders to realistic

decisions? How can we evaluate the proposals, such as that by organized labor to institute PLAs (Project Labor Agreements) with school districts? How are we to understand, and tell our City Council what we want, when we look at demands for funds from various charities?

A start is to look realistically at the choices. For example, a student pilot learns that she can have airspeed or altitude, but not both. She has to choose, knowing that as one increases the other decreases.

There is a similar scale for individuals. We can choose (or have the state choose for us) the free food and medical benefits we get in prison but we’ll enjoy little freedom. Or, we can pay for our own benefits and enjoy a lot more freedom as a business owner.

What realistic information should educational systems use to decide about PLAs? What are realistic options?

Questions to ask

First, are the unions that are seeking PLAs trying to support their communities, as they claim?

Northern California faced a “sympathy strike” by the trash haulers’ union this week. The local trash haulers had no beef with their company or their community. They were striking in support of an out-of-state group of trash haulers.

That is, California communities suffered because a union in another state was more important to the local union than their own communities. It might be naïve, then, to think that unions, in general, will show any loyalty to their—and our-- communities.

And PLAs increase the price paid for needed work, decreasing what can be done with the limited dollars available. This may hurt the district’s bond ratings, which increases the cost of borrowing to build school infrastructure. So, the unions may not have our interests in mind when they demand PLAs, and the PLAs raise our costs. Our choices are clearer when we are realistic instead of idealistic – or naïve.

Charities want a hand

Giving our funds to charities provides money to groups that may be run by executives with six-figure paychecks. Their income depends upon their recruiting more and more “helpless and homeless,” not on resolving the recipients’ issues. So, if a given charity would be laughed out of a church-council meeting for soliciting donations, why would the City give them money? Recall the definition of naïve.

Perhaps building infrastructure that supports productive measures, such as shelters and belongings storage, would be better. Providing help to an agency that demonstrates significant help for Costa Mesans might be worthwhile.

But, a realistic approach suggests that if no local group is funding an agency for significant amounts, Costa Mesa City probably shouldn't either.

A quick glance at the staff report for the Block Grant Study Session this week shows about 83 homeless and 41 disabled have been helped so far this fiscal year. The cost for contacting nearly 1780 needy people has been about $140K plus City Staff time. Notice the number actually helped in each category in the City’s report. (That information is near the end.) Block grant staff report

Step over to the rational side 

The difference between naïve and realistic is a chasm. Unfortunately, too often in the past our politicians have fallen, for whatever reason, on the naïve side.

Let’s insist that our government officers do what’s best for Costa Mesa, not what sounds sweet and nice. Let’s insist they consider the trade-offs and the likely consequences, instead of swallowing “projections” and promises as if they were business plans.

It's not the same

Projections and promises from CalPers, Caltrans, and similar agencies are not business plans. 

Beware of unfunded liabilities and unsubstantiated promises. They'll come back to bite you!

Strangle crime, don't 
document it 

There have been calls for more police from both sides of the dais in Costa Mesa. There are less-vocal but clearly articulated calls to remove the niduses of crime in the City. Let’s survey some research conducted elsewhere to see what works to reduce crime. It turns out to be cheaper and more effective to reduce crime than to add more officers to investigate crime.

Broken Windows theory 

The broken windows theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further vandalism. And it should stop escalation into more serious crime.

The theory has been used as a motivation for several reforms in criminal policy. (N.Y.C) Mayor Rudy Giuliani hired Bill Bratton as his Police Commissioner to apply the idea. Bratton adopted the strategy widely under the rubrics of “quality of life” and “zero tolerance.”

Bratton had the police more strictly enforce laws against subway fare evasion, public drinking and urination, and graffiti. Rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.

Three approaches tried, one works best 

In 2005 university researchers worked with local police to identify 34 "crime hot spots” in a Massachusetts city. In half of the spots, authorities cleared trash, fixed streetlights, enforced building codes, discouraged loiterers, made more misdemeanor arrests, and expanded mental health services and aid for the homeless. In the other half, there was no change to routine police service.

The areas that received additional attention experienced a 20% reduction in calls to the police. The study concluded that cleaning up the physical environment is more effective than increasing misdemeanor arrests. And, it was clear that increasing social services had no effect on the crime rate there.

An experiment with a control

In a 1969 experiment, an automobile with no license plates and the hood up was parked idle in a Bronx neighborhood and a second automobile in the same condition set up in Palo Alto, California.

The car in the Bronx was attacked by "vandals" within minutes of its "abandonment". Within twenty four hours everything of value had been stripped from the vehicle. After that, the car's windows were smashed in, upholstery was ripped, and children began using the car as a playground. At the same time, the vehicle sitting idle in Palo Alto, California sat untouched for more than a week.

Similar events can occur in any civilized community when communal barriers – the sense of mutual regard and obligations of civility – are lowered by actions that suggest "no one cares".

Good policing, increased attention locally

The “skinhead gang” infestation in Costa Mesa’s recent past has been diminished and defanged by aggressive enforcement. Known gang

members find it difficult to loiter, prowl alleys, drive erratically, or fight in Costa Mesa. Gang enforcement officers are effective. The message to the gangs in Costa Mesa is clearly; “We Care.”

Costa Mesa's “problem motels” and some “low-income housing” are foci of criminal activity, as a resident reminds the City Council periodically. Enhanced code enforcement, rapid graffiti removal, and neighborhood blight control are pushing the petty crime rate down. Again, as a City we are saying, “We Care.”

California has a lot of rules protecting homeless from imagined or real disenfranchisement. That forces the City to follow a fragile and tangled path to reduce the blight of homeless camps and piled belongings.

State law requires us to have a shelter and a place to store goods for those who need – and will use them. Then we can more aggressively improve the “We Care” image in places like Lyons’ Park and the Westside motels and slums.

Kudos to Council

Kudos to the present City Council for using effective methods to reduce crime and to beautify Costa Mesa. Their efforts reinforce the idea that, in Costa Mesa, “We Care.” 

We want to reduce crime, not investigate it more efficiently.

The rest of the Council meeting   

The Council meeting last night was long Meeting video but provided a good Civics 100 lesson. It also generated blogger-angst unrelated to the issues, which was addressed in the previous post. The gist of the meeting is on the City’s website and is covered in local papers. The whole thing can be experienced on the City’s site

Two speakers addressed concerns similar to their prior presentations; one was concerned about the Bark Park. His issue last night was the unfairness of letting big dogs into the small dog area.

Another speaker again advocated cleaning up the crime niduses and developing the Westside area. The approach he used last time was that of a drill sergeant, but this time he used the approach of a well-informed citizen speaking for an improved City.

Let's make it happen

His ideas are sound, and we believe that the current City Council is working that direction. His repeated presentations are goads, or at least reminders, that the problem has been defined and at least some of the causes identified; now it’s time to intervene. And, the sooner we intervene the (relatively) less difficult the intervention will be.

The meeting ended with an appeal by the Director of the Churches Consortium. As usual,Heyhoe's presentation was concise, organized, and impassioned. Her comments at City Council meetings should be emulated by the “frequent fliers.”

A partnership with a couple of relief groups was endorsed last night and the City is using newly-hired enforcement agents to encourage the motel and derelict building owners to toe the line – like every other business in Costa Mesa.

Another quiet volunteer

Mayor Righeimer recused himself from the partnership debate because he is on the BOD of Mercy House. No back-patting, chest thumping or speeches about his volunteer work. Just rolls up his sleeves and gets to work.

Wait, you cry. Is that the Righeimer who the Anti-Everything folks call callused and hard-headed and even downright cruel? Yup, and the same guy who shared with a newspaper that he prays for humility.

How dare you enforce rules on her 

A local blogger lambasted him for reminding a frequent -- very frequent -- speaker that she had not identified herself in time as wanting to address the Council.

Pre-identifying folks interested in speaking is a method of controlling the flow of a meeting. If speakers “dribble” to the podiums to speak, a manipulative group can extend discussion endlessly as it recruits new speakers and provides talking points.

This may have happened last night. Perhaps the frequent speaker was getting her instructions and talking points and neglected to go to the podium in time to indicate that she wanted to speak. (Texting reigns supreme in Council meetings.)

The frequent-talker arrived as the “last” speaker was finishing and was gently admonished by the Mayor. The local blogger was critical of the Mayor’s assertion of his authority. Apparently the blogger doesn't believe speakers he likes should have to follow the same rules that apply to others.

Government working 

Here’s the good civics example. A developer is trying to develop an odd-shaped lot with a significant grade. He has appeared before the Planning Commission several times, returning each time that he fixes complaints from neighbors, meets unique requirements imposed by the Fire Department, and overcomes other objections. He requested a group of variances for two of the buildings he proposes, and one variance for the project as a whole.

Variances (exemptions from specific code requirements) are supposed to “level the playing field” and allow equitable use of different properties with the same zoning, but with different and unique challenges. For example, the developer of a small, irregular, hilly property would be unfairly penalized if his property were governed by the same detailed requirements applied to a large, square, level plot.

The Planning Commission investigates and reviews

The Planning Commission reviewed the variances requested, the comments of neighbors, and the changes in plans – over and over. When all of the requirements were addressed by the developer, the Commission voted 5:0 to approve the design with the variances. The City Council’s job was to insure that due diligence was done to protect the interests of the City.

Although Council Member Genis grilled the developer and the City Staff diligently and ad nauseam, the measure passed. The Mayor Pro Tem noted that the design was not to his taste, but that the developer had met all requirements from the Planning Commission and City Staff, and was in compliance with the law, per the City Attorney.

One must wonder about the motivation of Council Member Genis to pound the staff and developer relentlessly (the Mayor asked her several times to return to the question being decided). Also make one wonder how she responds to relentless nit-picking from the dais when she's hired to work up similar projects in her professional life.

Council did its job

Regardless, the Planning Commission did its job of protecting the City and guiding the builder. The City Staff did its job of researching applicable State regulations and appropriate engineering principles and practices. The Staff and Attorney did their jobs by identifying and applying local ordinances and identifying other variances that had been granted in like developments.

Finally, the developer’s plans were accepted; he had met the requirements, explained his plans, and defended his proposal. (And endured a long and grueling grilling – sorry, couldn't resist.)

Opponents had been heard, although mostly about matters that the City Council couldn't affect, such as verbal agreements alleged between the developer and a home owner.  Government worked last night, at least partly due to solid leadership and at least three, and probably four, members’ strong knowledge of the job of Council Members.

Good work, even though we sympathize with the homeowner who felt betrayed, and we certainly don’t like the looks of the proposed buildings.

Long, educational meeting with a look back

The Council meeting last night was longer than expected, but it had several positive results, and it generated blogger-angst unrelated to Council issues. Of course, since the usual culprits were involved, it generated a fair amount of babble unrelated to the issues, as well. We’ll cover the good example of government at work in the next blog.

The gist of the meeting is on the City’s website and is briefly covered in the local papers. It can be seen in its long-suffering glory on the City’s site when the video is uploaded.

Presentations and maybe blather 

The presentations to the founder of Mesa Verde, and especially to the CPR recipient and providers are worth watching. At the end is an appeal by the Director of the Church's Consortium, Becks Heyhoe, which was concise, tightly organized, and effective – once again. We’re starting to expect solid presentations from her. (Perhaps she could teach a class to the naysayers so they’d . . .)

One Council Member’s discourses may or may not be related to the issues; we’re not always sure. They’re issued shotgun-style and hard to follow for meaning. For example, in a single tirade we heard concerns about: trash on the freeways; Bark Park; Veterans’ Hall; a Historical Society presentation; massage parlors; the 60^th Anniversary Celebration; and Anchor Trailer Park. Our imperfect note-taking may have missed a few concerns in the discourse.

Attaboy Skosh 

The problem of Styrofoam in our environment was addressed by a speaker who complimented Council Member Monahan for the “green” approach in his restaurant/lounge Skosh Monahan’s.

Too sophisticated for that term 

Blogger Geoff West objected to the Pro Tem’s “Costa Mayberry Walking Club” being discussed because “many Costa Mesa residents find it extremely offensive” to identify the City with “a hick town.” That’s a pretty big stretch, since the comparisons we've heard have to do with walking the streets of Costa Mesa, meeting folks, and resolving problems amenable to prompt government intervention.

Mr. West accuses Mensinger of " being clueless" and reliving "frat days." Perhaps. Or, maybe Mr. West misses the point of the TV Classic that "harked back to the old days when things were simple and problems got solved." That's escape TV in a capsule; it wasn't meant to demean Mayberry or the sheriff and his sidekick (who was portrayed as slow but well-meaning -- like some of the show's critics). 

Perhaps those who hate Mensinger and Righeimer find Costa Mayberry “extremely offensive.” Probably so, they find everything the two do offensive. They've expressed outrage about Meet the Mayor, visits and coffee with Lions Park neighbors and researching the law and issues before Council meetings. However, most folks seem mildly amused by or moderately favorable to the Costa Mayberry term.

Which reminds me. . .

West’s hit on Mensinger invites a look to the past and a perspective that might help him answer a question he poses in a previous post.  He notes that Will Swaim “published The Republic of Costa Mesa - which aimed directly at things I wrote about Costa Mesa.  I was always curious why he authored that thing, since he doesn't live in Costa Mesa and had no skin in the game.” 

In “An Open Letter to Geoff West” Open Letter Swaim applied professional journalism to rebut unsubstantiated accusations of failure and perfidy that West made. It opens;

Our story begins with a June 11 . . . post in which you claim that Mensinger and . . . Jim Righeimer are going to destroy the city of Costa Mesa (with) . . . the “skills that they used to ride two divisions of SunCal Companies into the ground.”

The accusations were shown to be clearly untrue and likely to constitute libel even though the two men accused were public figures.

Answers to his own question 

In his more recent blog West finds his own answer when he notes that Swaim, in a radio interview, referred to Righeimer as “buddy.” Perhaps Swaim considered Righeimer a friend when West attacked him.

What’s known to most of us, while ignored by West, is that the values of loyalty and friendship aren't negotiable; they’re there or they aren't.

Friends defend and counter the attacks of those who (especially unfairly) attack their friend. They might be outraged by the dishonesty and unfairness used to pillory their friend. (Or they might ignore attacks by folks with no credibility, so Swain must have considered West credible if misguided.)

Friendship and loyalty valued

Maybe friendship and loyalty are indecipherable to some folks. One wonders what they learned during their formative years and during their military service. Or if they even risked or suffered at all to defend their (First Amendment) right to be rude, obstructive, and dishonest

We should be tolerant. It may be hard to absorb values like friendship and loyalty while one is in school, and even harder as he moves forward into a government sinecure. Or even into a staff job where he learns to back-stab,  prevaricate and avoid risk. 

One learns different lessons in command and leadership positions, an education that is demanding. Demanding lessons might have been avoided by some of the “experts” who criticize leaders.

Should expect your target's friends to respond

Regardless of one’s background, it’s wise to anticipate that friends loyal to a good man are likely to be aroused in his defense. They might object and react if one tries to kick the good man in the crotch.

That might answer why Swaim addressed West’s diatribes while he was posting warnings about the unfunded liabilities in his blog. (He also praised West for expressing understanding of the pension bills coming due.)

We’ll get to the lessons in good government from last night’s meeting in the next entry.

  

Identify the problem to solve it 

Assuming your argument without proving it, a classic logical fallacy – is to assume the entirety of one’s case without proving it.

Rich guys owe me, it's only fair

A long time ago we arrested a young man for prying open the back door of a pharmacy and trying to steal money and drugs. (This is certainly not a unique, or even an unusual event, it’s just one from personal experience.)

He explained that “Rich guys don’t pay any taxes so I’m just getting mine.”

He was making assumptions: first, the pharmacy owner was rich and, second, the guy didn't pay taxes. And, he assumed that, as an unemployed thief, he had a personal right to some of the pharmacist’s unpaid taxes.

Occupy the sidewalk and teach 'em a lesson

Sound far-fetched? Remember “occupy Wall Street? The occupiers assumed their argument; that is, that the rich don’t pay taxes (or enough taxes). Setting up a camp on Wall Street was supposed to bring this unfairness into the public eye. As we mentioned in a previous blog noted economists have determined that this assumption isn't correct. Tax the Rich -- more!

However, by assuming the argument without proving it, both the thief and the “occupiers” can move on to the best way to correct the unfairness they defined in their argument. Then they can steal or camp on the sidewalk to overcome that unfairness.

Ban the hardware, save the children

Similar thinking arises when well-meaning folks argue for “denial of hardware” strategies to solve the problem of violence. They scream, “Absolutely no tolerance for weapons” as they boldly rush into foolishness.

One example is prohibiting “gun-like” symbols on campus. We have heard about the child who tried to nibble his pop tart into a mountain shape being punished because his creation looked like a gun. Officials assumed that images of guns are dangerous, so if they maintain a no-tolerance policy for gun images they’ll “save children.”

The school officials “assumed the entirety of their case without proving it.” And proceeded ludicrously.

Pear was frightened but uninjured

In a similar vein, a young girl who wore braces was punished for having a butter knife in her lunch bag. She had to chop pieces out of her pear, because of her braces, instead of biting into the fruit. But her school had a “no weapons” policy so . . .

In each of these “ban the image” situations school officials assumed hardware, or images of hardware, were the evil that they wanted to prevent. Hardware is easier to demonize than parenting or medication. It’s also much easier to understand.

Way back when hardware didn't cause shootings 

Back in our school days – and that’s a while ago – little boys all carried a pocket knife. How else could one carve a cottonwood shoot into a whistle? The teachers stopped the boys from playing “mumblety peg” which could have resulted in injuries, rather than banning the ubiquitous penknives.

And, some kids who received Christmas presents of Red Ryder BB guns -- with a leather thong -- brought their prized gifts to school for Show and Tell. So, the “guns and knives” didn't “cause” violence back then.

Hardware can't cause violence

If truth be told – or even considered -- they’re inanimate, and can’t cause violence now, either. People cause violence.

Maybe we have some causes

There’s evidence that violent video games, pretended-crisis news announcers, psychotropic medications, and poor parenting are directly associated with violence. It would seem wise, then, to look for possible “cause and effect” links in these areas, and to seek interventions that deal with those links.

However, there is a great deal of evidence that increasing the concealed carry of loaded pistols markedly decreases all violence, not just gun violence. This needs further study, too, for cause and effect links.

Define the solution you like into the problem

If we accept the tautology* used by a local columnist; “if there are fewer guns there will be fewer gun deaths” we can focus strictly on the number of guns in town. This is, again, an example of assuming the argument without proving it, then going on to solve the problem we defined in our assumption.

Actually, the violent crime rate is higher where legal gun ownership is low, such as in Los Angeles or Chicago. And it’s much higher where guns are essentially forbidden as in Britain. More guns less violence

Fences keep bad guys away

Recently in Costa Mesa we were faced with another hardware issue – school fences. Some schools don’t have intact fencing around them. Should we get those fences completed to keep the bad guys out of schoolyards?

That probably won’t be of much value, according to folks who should know, such as a retired Costa Mesa cop: "I'll tell you after 30 years of police work, fences don't keep aggressive people out . . . I don't believe it will add to security one iota." Fences won't help

Fences might reduce the number of homeless folks seeking rest rooms, sleeping spots, and salable items on campus. They might also help keep kids on campus. They’re unlikely to keep sex offenders off the campus.

Identify the real problem first

So, if we address poor parenting, violent games, and psychotropic medicines, we may be able to reduce violent crime. If we ban guns, we can be pretty sure that we’ll increase violent crime rates. If we build fences to keep out violent sex offenders we’ll probably waste money without increasing safety.

Assuming the argument without proving it – then solving the problem you've assumed – doesn't work. Assuming the argument without proving it leads only to ineffective attempts to find effective solutions.

We’ll be much more likely to actually solve problems if we honestly define the problem first. Once we understand what the problem is, we can identify probable causes, and then address potential interventions.

*A series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct.