The latest pro fireworks missive even twists a quote out of context from The Downey Eagle in an effort to convince the unwary reader of the goodness of fireworks.
It is true, the Eagle quoted Police Chief John Finch as stating that "even if fireworks are banned completely, it will take several years before their use throughout the city can be abated through education and enforcement."
But what the mailer doesn't include is that this was part of a Finch presentation supporting a BAN on backyard fireworks. What the Police Chief was saying was let's get started towards controlling the problem with a ban NOW!
Both the Police and Fire Chief favor the passage of Measure L which would ban backyard fireworks.
Downey needs to control this problem now before serious fire loss and/or injury occurs. It was out of control last year, and public safety personnel dread the coming 4th of July holiday.
What Downey needs is a patriotic City-sponsored 4th of July community fireworks display.
Congressman Steve Horn's office called to say that the picture of Horn in the "Vote No on L" mailer gives the false impression that Horn supports backyard fireworks. In fact, Horn takes no position on the matter.
It is hard to believe that political experts capable of designing and producing such a sophisticated political tool as this mailer could unknowingly use a picture portraying Horn in a political stance which he does not support. Just another case of the pro-fireworks interests twisting the facts.
There is also a problem with youngsters tearing and kicking down "Yes on Measure L" signs in neighbors' yards.
One longtime Downey resident, Myrtle Risley, called The Downey Eagle to complain that the youngsters who kicked her yard sign over appeared to be led by an adult.
Vandalizing political signs is a violation of law. Breaking the law is not something to teach youth.
You know who you are.
Such is also the case with cities and towns-especially towns, the smaller the more vulnerable. The expression "ghost town" has a long history and many candidates. A prime indicator of a town's health is the vitality of its businesses, which is why bedroom communities don't have enough sales tax income to pay for services. Another cause of decay is an aging housing and commercial building stock. Generally, normal turnover takes care of this because the new owners will "fix things up." In hopes of speeding up the process of revitalization, some towns have taken to more aggressive "code enforcement" policies than just for safety reasons. This practice fails for several reasons.
The City of South Gate some years ago, to improve their housing stock, passed a law that all residential and commercial buildings must be inspected and "brought up to code" before they can be sold. This virtually brought the normal turnover to a standstill. Improvements are usually made by the buyer in keeping with the new use. The seller doesn't want to, or can't for various reasons, make these improvements, and so the property just sits there under-utilized, unsold, in need of repair and the town continues to deteriorate. South Gate is not dying, it is dead from the oppressive club of extreme code enforcement. To restrict the sale of property is to ensure a reduction in property values and the stagnation of the town. Our city of Downey is about to embark on a similar path.
The City of Downey, in fact, has never had a 'business license' requirement. What we have is a fee for business name registration resulting in a tax certificate, a very laissez-faire arrangement with Planning, Building & Safety and the Fire Dept. There are few inspections and permits required, which is why we have such a dynamic business environment. All that is scheduled to change. Code enforcement, which had for years been under Building and Safety was moved to the Police Department. When diplomacy and persuasion failed, instead of going to the courtroom, it was felt a police presence was necessary. This, as to be expected, has led to even more confrontation and bad feelings abound in the community.
We have a new code enforcement officer on the beat and he gave a presentation at a recent Chamber of Commerce committee meeting outlining the planned changes. The idea is to get new business on the right track before they spend a lot of money and set up shop. The police want to issue a real business license after the "use" has been checked against zoning, the signage has been approved, the condition of the building has been brought up to code, the landscaping approved, and correctly, a Fire Dept. clearance. Then you get your occupancy permit and business license. Interestingly, it had not been decided if these very significant changes were going to be submitted to the City Council or just implemented on an administrative level. Some of these things would have very significant ramifications in the landlord/tenant lease negotiations.
We also learned at the meeting that not too long ago, a code provision was added that required color chips to be submitted to Design Review Board for approval before repainting a commercial building. I suspect this, too, was added on the administrative level to avoid "bothering" Council. I remember the big brouhaha from the public over the color of Embassy Suites and how nice everyone thinks it looks now. Then there were some hot pink awnings on Florence Ave. that caused a stir and a new brightly colored medical building on Florence was good for a few more moans and groans. All of which brought new color and vitality to the community, something that soon may be missing when five people, few of whom even live in Downey, tell you what color you can paint your building, what safe earth tone, like which shade of beige we will all become. And of course, the DRB routinely redesigns your building for you.
It should be noted, when asked if housing would be next, the officer reported there was not enough manpower for enforcement - at least not yet. If your house is pink, green, yellow or blue, you may have a problem in your future.
The concept of rebirth is based on change and innovation, not on preserving the old ways. Some people think Santa Barbara is a beautiful place. It is in its uniformity, a cocoon of things past, frozen in time.
Code enforcement is part of the increased police mentality that we are being immersed in for "our own protection." This country was not built with code enforcement. It was built with freedom of choice, ideas and the vitality of change. Code enforcement should be confined to safety measures, not the design and color of your building. Such is to bring the club of police into our long march to becoming a police state.
It must be remembered that the sole purpose of government is to control people. Government is always about control.
The ban on these large contributions, some ranging up to $1 million in a single check, is the heart of legislation that the House has passed in each of the past two Congresses and that finally passed the U.S. Senate last year by a vote of 59 to 41. These contributions have become known as "soft money" because they are not covered by current federal campaign laws that impose "hard" limits on the size of contributions that go directly to candidates for federal office and that require candidates and their committees to fully disclose the sources of their funding.
Campaign finance reform still faces final action by the Senate due to relatively minor differences in the two versions of the legislation. If the Senate passes it, the President will have to decide whether to sign it. If the bill approved by the House becomes law, then the political parties will be bound by the same common-sense limits that candidates have lived under for decades. Congress decided in 1907 that corporations should not be allowed to contribute to candidates and it applied the same prohibition to unions in 1948.
This reform is long overdue, given the controversies from the 1996 presidential campaign and questions about selling access to White House coffees and dinners, or even an overnight stay in the Lincoln bedroom, for six-figure contributions directly from corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals. The recent bankruptcy of Enron and its efforts to influence policymakers in both parties has only renewed the public concern about the role of big money in political campaigns.
A second major reform in this legislation would end the current practice that allows anonymous and often phony groups to fund vicious attack ads against candidates without having to disclose the sources of their funding. The bill requires that any group spending more than $10,000 for broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate in the final 60 days of an election campaign must disclose the identity of anyone giving more than $1,000 to the effort. This reform does not ban any ads or muzzle any groups, but it does require that all groups must abide by rules like those that cover the candidates themselves.
There are other worthy features in this legislation that will require political candidates and the parties to file monthly disclosure statements on finances, to make information available on the Internet and to require that state parties disclose their spending for federal election activities so that we do not create a new loophole for hidden spending.
Of particular concern to me, the bill also expands the current requirement for all candidates to clearly and legibly state in each advertisement that they take personal responsibility for the content of the ad. This implements key provisions in legislation that Representative David Price (D-N.C.) and I offered to make all candidates "Stand By Your Ad" and be accountable for attacks or distortions in political advertising. This provision may not end vicious attack ads, but it should help restore some civility to our campaigns.
In short, the campaign reform bill passed by the House, with a solid bipartisan majority, is a balanced and sensible plan that requires all groups and persons involved in a political campaign to abide by the same rules, to participate openly and fairly without being able to hide in the shadows and to prohibit inordinate amounts of money being spent to influence the voters on behalf of a secret agenda or an anonymous contributor.
The Senate now must decide whether to pass the House bill and send it to the President or whether to adopt new amendments that could force the issue into a House-Senate conference committee where it could be permanently sidetracked by powerful opponents of reform in both parties. It is my strong hope that the Senate will send this legislation to President Bush and that he will promptly sign it into law and end nearly 30 years of inaction on campaign finance reform.