(Mod: I have had some serious doubts about this Sunday News
idea. I really have. Sunday is a day when most people are off doing
other things, and traffic here on this site falls off rather markedly. Obviously
The Tattler is a work-a-day production killer, something a lot of
people read on their office computers when they should be tabulating
sales figures, or the amount of sodas sold at lunch. Or something. But
give people a day off to go and visit Uncle Jack Tom and Aunt Franny
with the kids, and they're out of here. So what is the point, I ask.
Yet, there are those who do read this blog on Sundays, and though
their numbers are a bit less, they seem to like our near weekly
feature. So for now I'm sticking with those who stick with me. Here's
the news:
Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Surges - Expert Says 2013 on Pace to See Highest Number of U.S. Expatriations Ever (
Wall Street Journal -
link): The
number of U.S. taxpayers renouncing citizenship or permanent-resident
status surged to a record high in the second quarter, as new laws aimed
at cracking down on overseas assets increase the cost of complying and
the risk of a taxpayer misstep.
A total of 1,130 names appeared on the latest list of renunciations from
the Internal Revenue Service, according to Andrew Mitchel, a tax lawyer
in Centerbrook, Conn., who tracks the data. That is far above the
previous high of 679, set in the first quarter, and more than were
reported in all of 2012.
Taxpayers aren't required to explain the move, but experts said the recent rise is likely due to tougher laws and enforcement.
"The IRS crackdown on U.S. taxpayers living abroad seems to be having an effect," said Mr. Mitchel.
The IRS declined comment.
(Mod: Here is a marginally related question. What if you want
to live in the United States, but don't wish to remain a citizen? Are
you then issued a green card? And if not, where do they send people who
have lived here all their lives?)
Should bond measures only need 55% voter percent support instead of two-thirds majority? (
KPCC -
link):
In
the last Los Angeles city election, a bond measure to raise money for
transit projects failed to pass by a hair. Measure J secured 64.72% of
the vote, but needed 66.6%. State law requires local bond measures to
have two-thirds of the vote, but some lawmakers want to change that.
They argue city infrastructure is crumbling because tax-raising efforts
are hamstrung by too high a threshold for voter support.
One lawmaker in particular is rather passionate. Yesterday [WED], City
Councilman Bob Blumenfield won support of L.A. City Council to support
passage of ACA 8. The Sacramento bill was authored by Blumenfield during
his time in the California State Legislature.
If it passes the Senate, it would place a measure on the November 2014
ballot to reduce the threshold for passage of local infrastructure bond
measures to 55%. Why is two-thirds the current standard for such
measures?
(Mod: It was actually a Los Angeles County measure, but why
quibble. Like the pols in this town that want a do-over vote on Measure
U, the L.A. County folks just can't bear the thought that taxpayers
denied them even more money than they take now. Obviously anything that
would diminish our ability to stop tax increases in this vastly corrupt
county would need to be stopped.)
Feinstein: You’re Not a Real Journalist Unless You Draw a Salary (
InfoWars -
link):
California Senator Dianne Feinstein has proposed an amendment to the
Media Shield Law – an irrelevant law ignoring protection already
afforded by the First Amendment – that would limit the law’s protection
only to “real reporters,” not bloggers and other upstart alternative
media types.
A real reporter, declared Madame Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing, is “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New
York Times or ABC News, not a shoestring operation with volunteers and
writers who are not paid.
Feinstein voiced her concern “that the current version of the bill would
grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all,
who have no professional qualifications,” like bloggers and citizen
journalists.
Last week, Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, worried the
Shield Law, if passed, would be used to protect whistleblowers and
others who ferret out government corruption.
“The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish
journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all
those, and we’ve ensured that,” Schumer said. “But there are people who
write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They
should not be excluded from this bill.”
The bill moving through Congress would require the Justice Department to
notify reporters it decides to monitor. The law would allow Justice
Department officials to delay notice for a period of 45 days. In
addition, it would permit the DOJ to ask for an extension of 45 days.
(Mod: Hey, thanks Diane! The Tattler loves you, too! No, really!)
Why Downtown Growth Hinges on Water (
Los Angeles Downtown News -
link): Today, the Downtown area bounded by the freeways and the Los Angeles River supports about 450,000 workers and residents.
If every last square foot of property was built to the maximum height
and density allowed by the city, the same area could hold 4.3 million
people.
That’s among the core findings of Capacity, a study put together by
Downtown-based architecture firm Gensler and students from California
Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.
While Gensler found that Downtown could theoretically increase its
population by a scale of 10, the report, which is available in an
eight-minute online video that you can view below, shows why the legally
allowable density is practically impossible.
The maximum build-out would add the equivalent of 360 Burj Khalifas (the
tallest building in the world, in Dubai) to Downtown. While that
prospect might put a sparkle in the eye of density devotees, the Gensler
study argues that the demands of that population could not be
supported.
“I think the bottom line is that maximum density as defined by the city
is really unachievable,” said Shawn Gehle, a design director at Gensler
who co-led the Capacity study. “There’s a resource demand by that
population that could not be met by current infrastructure or
utilities.”
According to the study, current electricity resources could support up
to 2.6 million residents and workers. But when the study factors in the
consumption of an even more precious resource — water — the population
ceiling drops to 1.36 million.
(Mod: Funny how the big development crowd everywhere can't seem to
get their heads around the water problem. Either that or they just don't
give a damn.)
City of Sierra Madre is hiring: Part-time Code Enforcement - Closes 09.09.13 (
City of Sierra Madre -
link): Under
general supervision, serves as the City's Code Enforcement Officer,
enforcing a variety of occupancy, health, safety, public nuisance,
zoning and land use regulations, and related codes and ordinances;
inspects suspected violations and takes action as necessary.
The following duties are normal for this position. These are not to be
construed as exclusive or all-inclusive. Other duties may be required
and assigned.
- Interprets and explains code provisions to property owners and others
requiring information; responds to requests for service; responds to
complaints of alleged violations;
- Enforces a variety of occupancy, health, safety, public nuisance,
zoning, building and land use regulations; inspects suspected violations
and takes action as necessary;
- Enforces and administers City ordinances with regard to storage of
vehicles, non-conforming land uses, commercial signing, and related
codes and ordinances;
- Issues citations to those in violation of codes, health, safety,
public nuisance, zoning and land use ordinances and regulations;
- Coordinates the enforcement activities of the County Health Services with the appropriate City departments;
- Testifies in court, as required;
- Provides information to citizens and responds to inquiries at a public counter and over the telephone;
- Performs other related duties as required.
(Mod: This one pays $18.79 to $22.84. Not bad for part time.
Though I cannot figure how you'd cram all of that into 20 or so hours a
week. Unless you'd just go fishing, of course.)
More than 100,000 want to go to Mars and not return, project says (
CNN Mexico -
link): More
than 100,000 people are eager to make themselves at home on another
planet. They've applied for a one-way trip to Mars, hoping to be chosen
to spend the rest of their lives on uncharted territory, according to an
organization planning the manned missions.
The Mars One project wants to colonize the red planet, beginning in
2022. There are financial and practical questions about this venture
that haven't been clarified. Will there be enough money? Will people
really be able to survive on Mars? But these haven't stopped some 30,000
Americans from signing up.
You can see some of the candidates on the project's website, but they're
not the only ones who have applied, said Bas Lansdorp, Mars One CEO and
co-founder.
"There is also a very large number of people who are still working on
their profile, so either they have decided not to pay the application
fee, or they are still making their video or they're still filling out
the questionnaire or their resume. So the people that you can see online
are only the ones that have finished and who have set their profiles as
public," Lansdorp said.
The entrepreneur did not specify how many have paid the fees, completed their profiles and configured them as private.
(Mod: The fees are really quite reasonable. $38 for a U.S.
resident. And there are some people who really should sign up for this.
But here is my question. What if you do go to Mars, but then decide you
don't like it very much and want to come back?)
A social-equity 'emergency?' (
Marin Voice -
link): DID
YOU KNOW you are living in fear? It's true. According to Marin
Grassroots, "the majority of Marin residents are increasingly in fear of
participating in local government decisions ..."
So, evidently, if you are not in that majority, feeling actual fear,
there is something wrong with you. In fact, you might be a racist. This
is the simplistic rhetoric of a dogmatic group that tolerates no
dissent. Anyone who disagrees with them is a racist. The parallels to
McCarthyism are unmistakable.
Marin Grassroots' press conference took Marin residents to task for
daring to differ with the view that Marin needs to be urbanized (i.e.
high density city-style housing). Indeed, they are welcome to their
view. But they engage in projection, seeing their own intolerance only
in the other side.
By example, if you are among those who want to maintain Marin as the
wonderful place it is, you are a "lynch mob." It is a powerful phrase
used by Grassroots' director, John Young. What an outrage to use such a
heinous phrase, comparing political opponents to murderers.
And in no shortage of irony, this group does this to condemn what they feel is a lack of civility in debate.
Marin Grassroots' statement cites "implicit racial threats," yet
inexplicably fails to specify any threat allegedly made. You see, Mr.
Young says he wrote to Gov. Jerry Brown, asking him to literally declare
a state of emergency for Marin.
(If you don't see the emergency, perhaps you forgot that a majority of us are living in fear.)
Mr. Young claims this is not a political stunt. Presumably he
understands that a state of emergency is a funding measure for counties
stricken by devastation. Mr. Young should tell us how much money he
seeks and who gets it.
It is understandable that so many of our neighbors here in Marin are
very upset about a regional government insisting we start converting
from suburb to mini city. The outrage comes when plans are made with
little or no publicity.
Most San Rafael residents, even today, don't know that the Civic Center
Station Area Plan creates a virtual Northgate City, authorizing five
stories at Northgate Mall and Northgate III, putting apartment houses on
top of stores. Other locations go to five stories, too.
Supervisor Susan Adams held a meeting to hear constituents' concerns,
but used half of the allotted time to lecture the audience — instead of
listening. Naturally, people got angry.
In contrast, San Rafael Mayor Gary Phillips held a meeting, made brief
welcoming remarks and then stopped talking, saying he wanted to hear
from us.
While there were occasional outbursts in reaction to claims that SMART
had passed in Marin County (in Marin, SMART was voted down, failing to
win a two-thirds majority), it was mostly a proper meeting. Some
speakers were angry, but their presentations were orderly.
Formerly an ACLU regional board member, I thought I was a liberal
Democrat. But after I opposed Plan Bay Area, a Marin Grassroots hitman
published a photo of me, captioned to associate me with the Tea Party.
Marin Grassroots is hypocrisy of the highest order, but great political theater. Its "glass house" is a wall of mirrors.
Randy Warren is a San Rafael lawyer. He is running for City Council on November's ballot.
(Mod: Huh. Sounds an awful lot like Joe Mosca's 2010 civility campaign.)
OK, that is more than enough for today.
