Minorities Major Victims of Leftist Abortion Policies—Planned Parenthood Eugenics at Work

Is it bigoted when 78% of those aborted in New York City are “of color”? In fact, Planned Parenthood is more of a danger to the black and Hispanic community than any police force or government edict. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist—she wanted the organization to be the leader in holding down the population of minorities—people she felt were inferior. It is embarrassing to see leading Democrats supporting as organization that could have been formed by the KKK—both had the same views.

“The Abortion Surveillance report published by the CDC, for which the latest abortion numbers are for 2011, show there were 76,251 abortions in New York City that year.

For that total, 9,550 abortions were of white babies, which is 12.5% of the total; 35,188 babies were black (46.1% of total); 23,959 were Hispanic (31.4%); and another 7,554  “other” abortions, 9.9%, which includes Asians and Native Americans, as well as those babies not reported by race.

Abortions of black and Hispanic babies combined totaled 59,147 – that is 77.56% of the total abortions in NYC.”

Why isn’t government stopping the abortions that look like they are targeted to killing off babies of color?

Planned Parenthood Abortion Pro Choice

NYC: 78% of Abortions Were Black and Hispanic Babies

By Michael W. Chapman, CNSNEWS.COM,   12/1/14

In New York City, 77.56% of the abortions in 2011 were performed on Black and Hispanic babies, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Abortion Surveillance report published by the CDC, for which the latest abortion numbers are for 2011, show there were 76,251 abortions in New York City that year.

For that total, 9,550 abortions were of white babies, which is 12.5% of the total; 35,188 babies were black (46.1% of total); 23,959 were Hispanic (31.4%); and another 7,554  “other” abortions, 9.9%, which includes Asians and Native Americans, as well as those babies not reported by race.

Abortions of black and Hispanic babies combined totaled 59,147 – that is 77.56% of the total abortions in NYC.

Blacks, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, make up 25.5% of the population of New York City, and Hispanics comprise 28.6% of the NYC population. Despite those population percentages, blacks make up 46.1% of the abortions, and Hispanics, 31.4%.

While whites comprise 44% of the NYC population, they made up 12.5% of total abortions in that city.

That total for one city, 76,251 babies killed, surpasses the number of abortions of any state reporting, according to the CDC. No other state reporting its abortion numbers surpassed 76,251 babies killed. (However, combine the NYC abortion numbers with the New York state number and the total is 103,339, which is still higher than any other state reporting, based on the CDC data.)

The state of Texas ranked second for total abortions at 71,658.

The CDC states that it obtained its data from 27 reporting areas [states and District of Columbia] but this did not include numbers from 25 reporting areas: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The Abortion Surveillance report is available online and the data for abortions by race are listed in Table 12.

 

Arnold, Jerry and AB 109 Causing MORE Drug Smuggling INTO Jails

Great news—it is just as easy to get drugs at a government school, on the streets by a fast food joint as it is to get drugs while in jail. Maybe easier to get them while in jail? Maybe the taxpayers should force the drug dealers to pay rent for use of the county jails for the sale of illicit drugs?

“Officials have placed most of the blame on the 2011 realignment law, which introduced a rougher level of inmates into county jails. In particular, they point to a provision known as “flash incarceration,” which allows parole violators to spend 10 days in county jail rather than months in state prison. Criminals, they say, have used it to smuggle contraband into the system for profit before returning to the streets.

Want to see crime in action? Go to your county jail.  Sad.

Healthcare costs

Drug Smuggling On the Rise in County Jails

California County News, 11/30/14

California county jails have witnessed an explosion in illegal drug smuggling over the past three years, officials say. Now, they’re pointing the finger at opportunistic criminals bolstered by the state’s realignment law.

Since 2011, 7 of the 10 most populous counties in the state have seen a significant uptick in jail narcotics cases. In San Bernardino, intra-jail drug seizures climbed 102 percent between 2010 and 2012. During the same time period, drug cases at Orange County jails jumped from 91 to 378, while Los Angeles saw an increase of about 10 percent. The figures are no coincidence, according to county officials. In fact, they say many parolees are purposely getting themselves arrested in order to distribute narcotics behind bars.

Officials have placed most of the blame on the 2011 realignment law, which introduced a rougher level of inmates into county jails. In particular, they point to a provision known as “flash incarceration,” which allows parole violators to spend 10 days in county jail rather than months in state prison. Criminals, they say, have used it to smuggle contraband into the system for profit before returning to the streets.

While narcotics have always been a problem for the jails, sheriff’s officials say they’ve never seen anything quite like this.

“Nobody was ready for this freight train,” said Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, who also heads the California State Sheriff’s Association.

University of California, Berkeley Professor Franklin Zimring, however, doubts that realignment is fully to blame. He believes sheriff’s departments could be overstating the problem, noting that they were among the most vocal opponents of the law to begin with. Whatever the cause, numerous counties have already undertaken efforts to combat the problem. These efforts include increased security measures and perimeter controls, more drug-sniffing dogs, and body scanners.

Read more about the growing narcotics problem at California county jails here.

Southern California Stuck in Drive

In the Bay Area it takes three hours to get from San Fran airport to East Palo Alto, 20 miles away via government transportation.. Any wonder folks do not give up their cars—plus the heavy subsidies, tax dollars meant for the public is being used to make the Left feel good about itself, while paying off the unions and special interests.

Our confused Guv Brown wants to spend $200 billion on a choo choo train to no where, for nobody, sold based on lies and misrepresentations. Now we know that government transportation in Southern California is a waste, losing tens of millions of dollars each year and riders.

“An analysis of transit ridership, however, shows that the region is essentially no better off than when the modern period of transit funding began in 1980, with the passage of Proposition A, which authorized a half-cent sales tax for transit. In 1980, approximately 5.9 percent of workers in the metropolitan area (Los Angeles and Orange counties) used transit for their commute. The latest data, for 2013, indicates the ridership figure has fallen to 5.8 percent.”

Will an adult in Sacramento stop the waste and corruption?

Photo courtesy of skew-t, flickr

Photo courtesy of skew-t, flickr

Southern California Stuck in Drive

Joel Kotkin,     New Geography, 11/30/14

Southern California has long been a nurturer of dreams that, while widely anticipated, often are never quite achieved. One particularly strong fantasy involves Los Angeles abandoning what one enthusiast calls its “car habit” and converting into an ever-denser, transit-oriented region.

An analysis of transit ridership, however, shows that the region is essentially no better off than when the modern period of transit funding began in 1980, with the passage of Proposition A, which authorized a half-cent sales tax for transit. In 1980, approximately 5.9 percent of workers in the metropolitan area (Los Angeles and Orange counties) used transit for their commute. The latest data, for 2013, indicates the ridership figure has fallen to 5.8 percent.

Never ones to let facts get in the way of fantasy, some retrourbanists and media types continue to insist our mass-transit transition is well on its way. Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias, writing in Slate, declared that Los Angeles is destined to become America’s “next great transit city.”

This view is echoed throughout retrourbanist circles. “The City of Angels is noticeably transforming. Our once car-centric town is becoming less car-dependent,” suggests the local LA Streetsblog, “Public transit is having a comeback. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructures are improving.”

Instead of rushing to rail, Angelenos continue to rely on their cars to get to work. From 1980-2013, the market share of drive-alone commuters has risen from 70 percent to 74.1 percent. There has been an increase in driving alone of approximately 1.4 million daily commuters. Driving alone accounted for d approximately 85 percent of the region’s increase in commuters.

Why do people stick to their cars? For one thing, transit takes longer. The average drive-alone, one-way commute in Los Angeles was 27.0 minutes in 2013, compared with an average commute of 48.7 minutes for transit.

The other big factor is accessibility to jobs. The University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory produced an estimate for the percentage of jobs that the average L.A. resident could reach within 30 minutes by car. In Los Angeles, the average resident can reach 60 times as many jobs in that time by car as by transit.

Transit needs downtowns

Transit plays an important role in America, but mostly in the urban cores of a handful of “legacy” cities. These core metros (excluding their often-sprawling, low-density suburbs) – New York City, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington and San Francisco – account for 55 percent of all transit-work trip destinations, just 6 percent of the country’s employment. Overall, the legacy cities’ transit ridership is nearly 10 times their proportionate combined share of jobs.

To a large extent, this reflects history and urban form. Transit remains largely a matter of downtowns. The cities with transit legacies have an average of 15 percent of their jobs downtown, three times the average for other major metropolitan areas. In contrast, Downtown Los Angeles has 2 percent of the metropolitan area’s jobs. In Orange County, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, homes to much of the regional population, there are really no substantial downtown areas.

In contrast, the many regions sharing L.A.’s multipolar form and large-scale transit investments – Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Portland, Ore., – have seen their transit market shares stagnate or decline, despite having built expensive rail systems.

One problem is, like virtually all U.S. metropolitan areas (including the suburbs of legacy cities), the Los Angeles area, which pioneered the multi-polar metropolis, has been becoming more so and is even moving beyond polycentricity. The vast majority of growth in the statistical area encompassing Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties has taken place in precisely those areas – the Inland Empire, South Orange County or the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys in northern Los Angeles County – that also have the lowest transit ridership. In contrast, the core’s growth barely represents a blip. From 2000-10, the functional urban core, which has the strongest concentration of transit destinations, accounted for virtually none of the region’s growth.

Dreaming of New York?

For many L.A. planners and urban boosters, more transit – funded from Washington – often seems to constitute an exercise of social engineering on a grand scale. The hope is that, by pushing transit, particularly rail, we will recreate the metropolis with ever-greater density. “We are going to remake what the city looks like,” then-Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told an approving New York Times two years ago.

Despite the hoopla and the subsidization of downtown Los Angeles, however, relatively few people work in, or even visit Downtown, ecept for sporting or cultural events, although many pass by it on the freeways.

For most Angelenos, Downtown is simply not part of their day-to-day experience the way, for example, Manhattan is for many New Yorkers, or the Loop is for many residents of the Chicago region.

Transit Class Warfare

Developers and their planning allies tend to focus on transit as something that will get middle-class Angelenos out of their cars. But it’s difficult to see this working as long as such an overwhelming majority of jobs (98 percent) are located outside Downtown. Since 1980, driving alone, which was increasing its market share, added 15 times as many new commuters as transit, with its slipping market share.

At the same time, there seems to be a profound unawareness of the low incomes of Los Angeles transit commuters. The latest American Community Survey data (2013) indicates that the median earnings of transit commuters at the national level is more than 85 percent higher than in Los Angeles. In the metropolitan areas around transit legacy cities, the median incomes of transit commuters is 150 percent higher than in Los Angeles.

To some extent, poorer Angelenos, in the government’s expensive shift from buses to trains, are being sacrificed to satisfy the Utopian vision of planners, pad the profits of big urban developers, and to build the campaign war chests of the political class. Indeed, from 2008-12, the bus lines, which carry more than three times as many passengers as trains, were cut 16 percent If L.A. is experiencing a transit revolution, its most dependent riders have been largely left behind.

So What Should Greater LA do?

As anyone who drives the freeways knows well, L.A. has a traffic problem. But Los Angeles also has the shortest average commute time of any high-income world megacity for which data is available, despite having the highest automobile usage, the least transit and, except for New York, the lowest urban density.

The real question is, will more transit, at least in its current form, offer the solution? Certainly, expanding and improving roads – although politically incorrect – has helped make commuting easier for many working in Orange County. Other ways to entice people off the roads, such as telecommuting, should be encouraged. Since 1980, the number of Los Angeles residents working at home has increased by approximately 240,000. This increase – 2.5 times that of transit in total numbers – has come at virtually no cost to taxpayers.

To be sure, many Angelenos, for one reason or another, need decent transit services. Our approach would be for government to find out who these people are, and look for ways to make transit work better for them. Rather than invest huge dollars in rail megaprojects, perhaps we could reduce bus fares, a strategy attributed to the legendary Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn that increased bus ridership dramatically from 1982-85.

Unlike today’s “progressives,” Hahn’s prime interest was serving his largely working-class and poor constituents. Besides cutting bus fares and increasingly service, other solutions, such as more competitively contracted service provided by regional agencies, such as Foothill Transit and the Antelope Valley Transit Authority, could provide less-expensive, more efficient and expanded service.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, has also expressed interest in promoting the use of rideshare services, like Uber or Lyft, and, more importantly, self-driving cars.

Ultimately, rather than try to recreate New York, or undertake the expensive and virtually impossible task of rebuilding Los Angeles in the image of the latest urban planning fad, we should explore a host of innovative solutions that will help transit riders here and now by developing workable, and effective, ways to help them get to the services and jobs they need.

In Texas V. California, Results, Not Intentions, Matter Most –Chuck DeVore

It is not a fair bit of competition between California and Texas. The former Golden State has the highest taxes, the worst regulations, Jerry Brown, Democrats/unions running the State.

Texas has Rick Perry, low taxes, business friendly, highest rate of new jobs in nation, allows fracking and believes in business, not government.

Yes, Texas does have growth problems—because of too many California middle class and companies fleeing to the Lone Star State.

“Once again, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation at 23.4%, according to a new Census Bureau report that takes into account the variable cost of housing from state to state as well as noncash benefits such as housing vouchers and food stamps. (The official poverty measure assumes the same costs throughout America.)

This broad poverty measure shows that Texas’ poverty rate dropped to 15.9%, the national average. Along with the nation’s highest poverty rate, California, with one-eighth of America’s population, has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients.

Want opportunity, go to Texas. Want welfare, go to California. Go Cowboys!

Flag_of_Texas

In Texas V. California, Results, Not Intentions, Matter Most

By CHUCK DEVORE, Investors.com, 11/28/14
When it comes to poverty, the two biggest states, California and Texas, offer a vivid contrast: Results matter more than well-meaning intentions, and work beats welfare.

Once again, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation at 23.4%, according to a new Census Bureau report that takes into account the variable cost of housing from state to state as well as noncash benefits such as housing vouchers and food stamps. (The official poverty measure assumes the same costs throughout America.)

This broad poverty measure shows that Texas’ poverty rate dropped to 15.9%, the national average. Along with the nation’s highest poverty rate, California, with one-eighth of America’s population, has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients.

Its state and local taxes are a whopping 52% higher as a share of income than Texas’. In fact, California could completely eliminate its income tax, the nation’s highest, and it would still pull more money from its residents than does Texas.

The states where 1-in-5 Americans call home are both minority majority states. Hispanics make up 38% of the population in both, while 12% of Texans are black vs. 7% in California.

In spite of California’s generous welfare programs designed to lift people out of material poverty and its heavy progressive tax burden intended to “spread the wealth around,” the Golden State has 47% more people living in poverty on a per-capita basis than does Texas.

Breaking down the numbers by the three largest demographic groups, an average of 9.7% of white, non-Hispanics in Texas were in poverty from 2009 to 2012 vs. 14.8% in California.

Among blacks in Texas, 19.9% were in poverty, tied with North Carolina for the lowest rate among the 12 most populous states vs. 30.1% in California. For Hispanics of Mexican national origin, the poverty rate was 22.6% in Texas vs. 34% in California.

As for schools, according to the U.S. Education Department, Texas tied with Nebraska, Vermont and Wisconsin for the nation’s second highest high school graduation rate at 88%. Iowa was first. California came in 30th, with a high school graduation rate of 78%, just behind West Virginia.

But graduation from high school means little if it’s accomplished through social promotion. In the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Education Department’s national standardized test, Texas also bested California in fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading.

(California students do typically outperform their Texas counterparts on the SAT — but that’s because a far higher percentage of Texas students take the SAT in the first place.)

If the economy is strong, a solid education prepares young people for the workplace. From 2009 to 2012, 69% of Texans ages 24 to 64 were employed vs. 67% in California. Among African-Americans, the employment gap was huge, with 63% employed in Texas vs. 56% in California.

Since 2009, as California’s job market recovery has added 618,000 jobs, Texas’ has added 1.1 million. But California is larger than Texas. As a portion of the employment base, Texas has seen a 10% expansion of jobs in the past 5-1/2 years, more than double California’s anemic 4% rate of job growth.

Once people have work, their paychecks go further in Texas. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Lone Star State’s real per capita personal income in 2012 was $41,733, 7% higher than California’s $38,888 — and that was before taxes.

California’s big-government model is one well-worn path — and it isn’t working for the poor. The Texas model offers a compelling alternative: A dynamic economy with robust job growth fostered by low taxes and a predictable regulatory environment is far better at lifting people out of poverty.

For human dignity and well-being, a job beats a government program every time.

The last major round of welfare reform was completed in 1996. It’s time to revisit how best to reduce poverty in America.

Policymakers would be well advised to look to Texas for inspiration.

• DeVore is vice president of policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and served as a California state assemblyman from 2004 to 2010.

Middle Class to Subsidize “Affordable Housing” for Poor in Mountain View—Creating a Caste System in California

Why is California in a Depression? Look to Sacramento and the State mandate that the middle class pay higher prices for homes and rent in order to subsidize the poor and illegal alien housing. This adds to the economic push of the middle class to Texas, Tennessee and other rational States. As the subsidies go up, affordability of housing for the middle class—and the quality of homes for the middle class—goes down.

“Mountain View is considering raising fees on new construction to fund affordable housing, a move developers say would shift projects to other towns. But City Council members say the move is necessary because of a decrease in government funding for the projects.

Last month, the City Council proposed increasing a range of affordable housing fees and is now gathering community input ahead of a public hearing on Dec. 9. The city requires that developers pay the fees to help build more affordable houses for low-income residents.”

The more the subsidies, the higher the cost for the middle class. This is really an effort to make California the “India” of the western world—a caste system of just two classes—the very rich, the very poor—with a lot of poorer paid illegal aliens.

SantaMoney

Mountain View May Raise Developer Fees to Fund Affordable Housing

By Yuqing Pan, Peninsula Press, 11/29/14

Mountain View is considering raising fees on new construction to fund affordable housing, a move developers say would shift projects to other towns. But City Council members say the move is necessary because of a decrease in government funding for the projects.

Last month, the City Council proposed increasing a range of affordable housing fees and is now gathering community input ahead of a public hearing on Dec. 9. The city requires that developers pay the fees to help build more affordable houses for low-income residents.

Fees for affordable housing construction are already generating resistance from developers. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to a San Jose ordinance that had required housing developers to include affordable units for low-income buyers on new projects.  Some Mountain View  City Council members have suggested that the city wait until that ruling before adjusting their own fees, but other members think the city shouldn’t wait.

“We should at least begin the process of upping those fees now. If the Supreme Court comes down and says ‘no,’ then we suspend the rule. But if we don’t [increase the fees] now, we are going to lose another two years worth of fees,” City Councilman Mike Kasperzak said.

Mountain View attempted to increase affordable housing fees during the last housing boom in 2005, but the effort failed.

For new office construction, the council is considering roughly doubling the $10.26 fee per square foot. Fees on for-sale housing and rental apartment buildings could also see a rise.

“We need more affordable housing,” said City Council member Ronit Bryant. “Housing prices in Mountain View have been so high for so long, the city is losing its diversity, in terms of people at different income levels.”

Bryant is advocating taking advantage of the building boom to support affordable housing. The city is currently reviewing more than 20 new development projects.

But Patricia Sausedo — a policy consultant at the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, a coalition of developers — said it was unfair for the city to just look “at development industries to resolve what is really a social issue in Silicon Valley.”

Sausedo warned that a fee hike could discourage developers from building more houses in Mountain View, where there is already an inadequate supply to meet demand.

“Developers will go to locations where there isn’t such a fee. If you look at all the cities in the Bay Area, there are many cities that have no impact fees,” she said in an interview.

It could mean higher housing prices in the future, Sausedo said.

Kasperzak said he believed developers would continue to build in Mountain View regardless of the fee.

“It is possible that developers may think it’s too expensive to build, but right now there’s still too much money to be made in housing around here,” Kasperzak said.

Mountain View isn’t the only city that has affordable housing fees. Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale also implement similar fees, with Palo Alto being the most aggressive.

“It’s simply that the developers are going to take less profits, honestly,” said Lydia Tan, senior vice president of real estate advisor Bentall Kennedy (US) LP, who has 25 years of experience developing affordable housing.

The question then becomes a matter of balance between the need to provide more affordable housing and how much developers can bear. Tan suggested that the city scale up the fees over time to give developers some leeway.

Kevin Zwick — CEO of Housing Trust Silicon Valley, a nonprofit organization that loans money to affordable housing projects — said he was glad to see Mountain View taking the need for affordable housing seriously.

Mountain View is also the only city in Santa Clara County that charges a fee on rental housing, which started in 2012.

“Mountain View is leading the way in our county in showing that you can both raise a significant amount of funding for affordable housing, while at the same time making sure that residential and commercial development still happen,” Zwick said.

Affordable housing fees became crucial when both state and federal funds were slashed in recent years.

State redevelopment agencies provided nearly $1 billion every year for local affordable housing projects across California before they were disbanded in 2012, according to Zwick.

Mountain View was able to use $10.6 million of redevelopment money to build the Franklin Street Apartments before the dissolution. The complex has seen more than 400 applications competing for 51 units — so many that the city had to close the wait list.

Elena Pacheco, 56, a part-time teacher in Mountain View, said she had been on the waitlist for affordable housing for seven years, but still has no clue when she could get it. Until then, she rents an apartment on California Street for $3,000 a month and shares it with two roommates to afford the rent.

But last December, Pacheco got an eviction note from her landlord, giving her two months to move out. Several days after receiving the note, Pacheco passed out at work and was later diagnosed with a brain tumor. After a legal fight with her landlord, she was able to stay, but was given a $700 rent increase.

“When you talk about Mountain View, people think you are so lucky. All these giant companies, and everything is so cool. Not for me, not for my hardworking people,” Pacheco said.

 

Confused Guv Brown to Use His 1976 Law to Finalize Theft of Private Property on Coast

In 1976 a younger confused Guv Brown led the battle for the State to steal private property—by creating a Coastal Commission to tell people, in some cases 75 miles from the ocean—how they can use their property, if they can use their property and what the bribe, ur fee, is to payoff government for the use of private property.

I have a friend who moved from Santa Clarita Valley to an area near Corpus Christi, Texas, over looking the ocean. He has 2.5 acres, a 3500 sq ft home, for $350,000.   Imagine the cost of that home if it was in Malibu or Morro Bay? That is why Texas is prosperous and California is a dying State—a suicide.

Imagine in America it is illegal to block access to private property. In fact, thanks to Guv Brown and the Coastal Commission, there is no private property in California. Isn’t that the definition of socialism, government control of property?

“On top of the financial challenges, some property owners illegally post no-trespassing signs or padlock fences.

The California Coastal Trail was created as part of the 1976 Coastal Act. The law was designed to protect the coastline from environmental degradation and give all Californians the right to use the beach.

But it’s been a huge, costly effort to try to connect nearly 1,200 miles of shoreline that runs through San Diego Bay, Venice Beach, Monterey, Mendocino and on up the coast. It gets even harder when you consider that the trail needs to be as close to the beach as possible, and that the ideal route runs through some of the state’s most populous areas on private land.”

Brown-Jerry-229x300

After Almost 40 Years, California Coastal Trail Still a Work in Progress

By Vinnee Tong, KQED, 11/29/14

Think hiking in California. What comes to mind? Maybe the Pacific Crest Trail, thanks to the Cheryl Strayed memoir, “Wild,” and the upcoming movie starring Reese Witherspoon. But have you heard of the California Coastal Trail?

Your answer may be no, partly because it’s not yet complete. The problem is that it runs through many people’s backyards, and even though the public has a right to access it, it has taken almost 40 years to build. But earlier this year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that could finally help finish the trail, and open it up to everyone.

The nonprofit Coastwalk California leads the effort to complete the trail. Each year Coastwalk volunteers take hikers into the wilderness to let them get closer to nature.

“That really is our goal, is to get people out to experience it firsthand and up close,” says Coastwalk volunteer Stan Bluhm. “And if you’ve experienced it, you’re much more likely to love it, and be willing to do what it takes to protect and preserve it.”

On top of the financial challenges, some property owners illegally post no-trespassing signs or padlock fences.

The California Coastal Trail was created as part of the 1976 Coastal Act. The law was designed to protect the coastline from environmental degradation and give all Californians the right to use the beach.

But it’s been a huge, costly effort to try to connect nearly 1,200 miles of shoreline that runs through San Diego Bay, Venice Beach, Monterey, Mendocino and on up the coast. It gets even harder when you consider that the trail needs to be as close to the beach as possible, and that the ideal route runs through some of the state’s most populous areas on private land.

On top of the financial challenges, some property owners illegally post no-trespassing signs or padlock fences.

A San Mateo County Superior Court judge ruled that companies representing Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla have been violating the California Coastal Act by closing the gate on public access to Martins Beach, just south of Half Moon Bay.

“Californians have really come to expect that the beach belongs to everyone, which is true. It does,” says the California Coastal Commission’s legislative director, Sarah Christie. “But it doesn’t mean much to say the beach belongs to everyone if you can’t get to the beach.”

You may have heard of the controversy over Martins Beach, near Half Moon Bay. Property owner Vinod Khosla closed a gate to keep people out. The Surfrider Foundation sued for access and won, and the state Legislature passed a law to ensure the beach is open to everyone.

In July, Gov. Jerry Brown gave the commission the authority to fine violators who block public access. Fines can reach $11,000 a day. Christie says the agency hasn’t used its new authority yet, but that may change.

She says the commission is ramping up its program to fine violators.

The commission has about 2,000 complaints on its backlog of public access violations. Some of those violators have been blocking access to the California Coastal Trail. At Paradise Cove near Malibu, the property owner has been charging people to park near the beach and threatened surfers with trespassing charges.

If property owners near the beach cooperate, that would be a major step forward in completing the trail. And, of course, one of the biggest obstacles is funding, according to Coastwalk California Executive Director Una Glass. Her group organizes the fundraising hikes.

The state funds the trail through the Coastal Conservancy, but it’s not a dedicated funding source. The money is sporadic. So Glass says they need more money to buy easements and literally build the trail in some places. It’s about two-thirds complete.

And there’s been progress recently. Rancho Palos Verdes started construction, and Half Moon Bay added a new section of trail. And in San Diego County, the California Coastal Trail is just about done.

Groups Sue NorCal County Over Work With Federal Wildlife Agency

This is great—a “non-profit” organization is suing a Federal agency because it has not allowed wild animals to harm local communities. The infamous environmental impact report is needed, they say, to determine if the government should be allowed to protect the public. These folks, obviously regular visitors to Denver, believe the role of government is to stop the public from using public property and that wild animals are needed to keep kids from visiting the great outdoors.

“The suit, filed in the Superior Court of California in Mendocino County, claims that the county failed to submit its $142,356 contract with the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services division to proper environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the terms of the contract, Wildlife Services kills hundreds of coyotes, foxes, bears, and other animals in Mendocino County each year, without assessing the environmental impact of its work as required under state law.”

At what point do the people demand the courts to throw out such suits, make those bringing them pay the government—the taxpayers—for frivolous suits like this. Elitists love high taxes and government control—this is an example of radicals gone wild.

Photo courtesy of prayitno, flickr

Photo courtesy of prayitno, flickr

Groups Sue NorCal County Over Work With Federal Wildlife Agency

by Chris Clarke, KCET, 11/25/14

A coalition of wildlife protection groups filed a lawsuit against Mendocino County on Tuesday, charging that the county’s contract with a controversial federal wildlife agency violates state environmental laws.

The suit, filed in the Superior Court of California in Mendocino County, claims that the county failed to submit its $142,356 contract with the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services division to proper environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the terms of the contract, Wildlife Services kills hundreds of coyotes, foxes, bears, and other animals in Mendocino County each year, without assessing the environmental impact of its work as required under state law.

The groups had urged the county not to renew its contract with Wildlife Services in June, but their pleas went unheeded. Statewide, Wildlife Services kills approximately 80,000 wild animals in California alone, mainly on behalf of agricultural interests.

Story Continues Below

The groups filing suit are the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, Project Coyote, and the Animal Welfare Institute.

Wildlife Services has come under increasing fire as both its methods and the ethics of certain of its staff members have come under scrutiny. For example, Wildlife Services trapper Jamie Olson attracted the widespread ire of online wildlife activists after he posted photos of his dogs attacking coyotes who had been immobilized in steel-jaw leghold traps. (Note for the squeamish: that link goes to a story I wrote at the time on another site: you have to click yet another link in that story to get to the upsetting photos.)

More broadly, the Wildlife Services agency has faced mounting criticism for methods critics call wasteful and counterproductive, such as using unattended traps and poison bait stations to kill target animals. According to critics, Wildlife Services’ accidental death toll includes 50,000 non-target animals ranging from family pets to protected species such as golden eagles and California condors.

In 2013, wildlife groups successfully persuaded Sonoma County, just south of Mendocino, to end its contract with Wildlife Services. Marin County terminated its Wildlife Services contract 15 years ago, and has seen both its predator damage to livestock and its costs drop after implementing more sensible livestock protection programs.

 

Michelle Obama Now Setting Stamp Policy for Post Office—Costs YOU $142,000

Michelle Obama has gone power hungry. As the wife of the president she thinks she has the obligation to tell your children what they are allowed to eat. Michelle has been a major proponent of keeping your child hostage in failed government schools, while she pays $40,000 a year, each, for her kids to get a great education—and to eat real food at lunch!

Now, she is running the Post Office from her White House perch. She is given veto power over a government agency on the stamps they issue?   The Post Office has run an $8 billion deficit for several years—they are closing facilities and not placing retirees as fast as possible. If a private firm, it would go the way of W.T. Grant—an asterisk in history. Now she is demanding they waste $142,000—really, who cares about the design of a stamp, as long as it is in good taste and not obscene?

“The US Postal Service is going to take another shot at developing stamps promoting Michelle Obama’s fitness campaign after White House officials vetoed the ones they came up with last year.

The stamps, costing $146,250 to print and worth more than $22 million if sold, were never distributed.

Now, officials at the money-losing agency are getting ready to try again.”

President Obama And Vice President Biden Along With Wives Make Joining Forces Initiative Announcement

Unused ‘fitness’ stamps lie waiting in Postal Service warehouse

By Marisa Schultz, NY Post, 11/29/14

Michelle Obama’s fitness program had a bunch of stamps made, but they sit in a USPS storage facility.

The US Postal Service is going to take another shot at developing stamps promoting Michelle Obama’s fitness campaign after White House officials vetoed the ones they came up with last year.

The stamps, costing $146,250 to print and worth more than $22 million if sold, were never distributed.

Now, officials at the money-losing agency are getting ready to try again.

“We are continuing to develop plans regarding a fitness-themed stamp series,” USPS spokesman Mark Saunders told The Post.

Modal TriggerAbout 45 million of the stamps were left in a warehouse after the president’s fitness council expressed concerns that kids in the cartoon images weren’t wearing safety equipment.

Three of 15 stamps raised red flags: a kid doing a headstand, another taking a cannonball dive into a pool and a skateboarder without knee pads.

The White House’s concerns came to light when USPS marketing chief Nagisa Manabe asked the first lady to participate in a launch ceremony for the postage inspired by her “Let’s Move” initiatives, according to Linn’s Stamp News.

When officials on the president’s fitness council saw the designs they raised the safety concerns and the stamps were canceled.

 

Cal Berkeley “Demonstrators” Lazy—Take Holiday Break From Occupying Building

I love the rich and entitled when they are upset. They issue press releases, wait for the camera’s to arrive to chant—then stop when the camera’s leave. They are truly dedicated to radicalism and “the cause”. Except when the Holidays come and they want to go home or party. Then they call a recess, to be renewed when classes are held.

These are phonies. They want attention—for kids (they are kids because they are still emotionally driven—and facts have little value to them. The take over of Wheeler Hall at Cal Berkeley is a great example of the immaturity of the brain fried thought of the students. The “racism” they claim exists does not take a Holiday—so why do they? Because they are not against racism, they are for publicity, the limelight and having a good time. If they were truly opposed to racism they would demand the end of it on campus—end the racist organizations on campus, the invites to Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder and other well known bigots.

“After prolonged discussion, nearly 50 people in attendance voted to release a statement that says, “We, the Open UC at Berkeley, no longer feel the need to inhabit the Wheeler Commons at all times in order to assert our right to this space, this campus and this public institution. See you Monday!”

The group also voted to clarify that whether to stay or leave would be an individual decision and that the actions of those who decide to stay in Wheeler during the break would not be interpreted as being part of the movement.”

PileOfMoney

Tuition hike protesters vote not to occupy Wheeler Hall during break

By Amy Jiang, Daily Californian, 11/26/14

The Open UC, the group that has occupied Wheeler Hall for seven consecutive days to protest tuition hikes, held a general assembly meeting in Wheeler Auditorium on Tuesday evening to discuss plans over Thanksgiving break and the movement’s next steps.

After prolonged discussion, nearly 50 people in attendance voted to release a statement that says, “We, the Open UC at Berkeley, no longer feel the need to inhabit the Wheeler Commons at all times in order to assert our right to this space, this campus and this public institution. See you Monday!”

The group also voted to clarify that whether to stay or leave would be an individual decision and that the actions of those who decide to stay in Wheeler during the break would not be interpreted as being part of the movement.

Protesters occupied Wheeler Hall beginning Nov. 19 after a committee of the UC Board of Regents voted to move forward with a tuition increase policy of up to 5 percent tuition increases annually for five years, unless the state intervenes with additional funding.

Student protesters participated in a rally and walkout Monday. Joined by UC Berkeley faculty members and community members, the crowd of more than 1,000 protesters at its peak marched through the city and campus.

The group voted at a previous general assembly meeting to rally Dec. 2, the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement and in particular the day that 800 students moved into Sproul Hall after a rally. At Tuesday’s meeting, the group decided to collaborate with the Cal Progressive Coalition to plan the rally and organized groups to plan over the break.

“If the thousand people who showed up (Monday) was any indication of how many people are going to show up for the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, I think we could fill Sproul,” said UC Berkeley student Vanessa Raditz.

On Monday evening, the Cal Progressive Coalition tweeted about forming a human chain around California Hall, an administrative building, at 8 a.m. The demonstration, however, was cancelled due to protests in Oakland against a grand jury’s decision to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

Student Needs Therapy: Student mugged, says he deserved it because of his ‘privilege’

Imagine a student that is suicidal. They would believe it is Ok to be beaten up—maybe even killed because “they deserved it”. Why do they deserve it? They got into a great school, have the wrong skin color, can go to a restaurant, own a car. These folks need to be protected. Yet at Georgetown U. a student was mugged and liked it—admits he deserved it—and the administrators did nothing to protect him, from himself. Maybe the next time he will ask to be beaten, robbed and hurt?

“Senior Oliver Friedfeld and his roommate were held at gunpoint and mugged recently. However, the GU student isn’t upset. In fact he says he “can hardly blame [his muggers].”

“Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’ It’s precisely this kind of “otherization” that fuels the problem.”

Will someone protect US from him—why are criminals running loose on the streets? Because college educated people think getting a degree is a problem, not gangbangers with guns. The bigger question is why isn’t this a bigger story—the media needs to alert us there are people looking for “suicide by criminal” among us.

Photo courtesy neeravbhatt, flickr

Photo courtesy neeravbhatt, flickr

Student mugged, says he deserved it because of his ‘privilege’

Maggie Lit, Campus Reform, 11/24/14

 Oliver Friedfeld blames his misfortune on his privilege and the inequality gap.

 The student suggests that until we right the wrongs of the past, society should get used to “sporadic muggings and break-ins.”

 

A Georgetown University (GU) student who says he was mugged at gunpoint says he “can hardly blame” his assailants.

Senior Oliver Friedfeld and his roommate were held at gunpoint and mugged recently. However, the GU student isn’t upset. In fact he says he “can hardly blame [his muggers].”

“Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’ It’s precisely this kind of “otherization” that fuels the problem.”    Tweet This

“Not once did I consider our attackers to be ‘bad people.’ I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay,” wrote Friedfeld in an editorial featured in The Hoya, the university’s newspaper. “The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.”

Friedfeld claims it is the pronounced inequality gap in Washington, D.C. that has fueled these types of crimes. He also says that as a middle-class man, he does not have the right to judge his muggers.

“Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’” asks Friedfeld. “It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem.”

Police also aren’t the solution to the problem, Friedfeld argues.

“If we ever want opportunistic crime to end, we should look at ourselves first. Simply amplifying police presence will not solve the issue. Police protect us by keeping those ‘bad people’ out of our neighborhood, and I’m grateful for it. And yet, I realize it’s self-serving and doesn’t actually fix anything.”

Friedfeld suggests that the “privileged” adapt to normalized crime, until the wrongs of the past are righted.

“The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past,” writes Friedfeld. “Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.”

Friedfeld did not respond to Campus Reform’s request for comment in time for publishing.