It's worse then people realize. The Megan's law website only list the felony sex offenders on the screens the public may see. Those convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes are excluded by statute. In addition there are various ways to go about getting yourself removed from public display by going through the courts. So instead of getting the full picture the public can be lulled into a sense of security, not knowing the next door neighbor likes to expose himself (314.1 Cal Penal Code) But the even scarier part, mere possession of Child Ponography in California is still a misdemeanor. (Cal PC 311.11)
My "interpretation" of the vehicle code? The vehicle code is straight forward and plain.
CVC 21200. (a) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
I have been riding on the road since 1971 and I have 6 figure mileage experience. I'm still alive. I ride on busy roads all the time.
How about if you stopped giving advice on subjects that you know nothing about?
Bicyclists have as much right to the road as motorists do. That's the law. That's always been the law, since there have been road laws, since before the California Vehicle Code was created.
How about you just move over to pass bicycles at a safe distance of at least 3 feet as required by CVC 21760?
I've got 6 figure mileage experience riding on the road since 1971. I'm still alive.
You really don't know a thing about bike safety. I am a League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor. I know how to ride safely in traffic. I ride on major roads all the time. I actually prefer them because they tend to have multiple lanes which makes it easier for motorists to move over to pass me.
I'm not "interpreting" CVC 21200(a). It clearly says that bicyclists have the same right to the road as motorists do. You need to learn the actual law rather than the imaginary law that you wish for.
You also need to learn how to move over to pass bicyclists with at least 3 feet of clearance as required by CVC 21760.
"meeting the state's pollution goals ultimately requires a significant reduction in miles traveled by cars."
That is a completely false statement. If car efficiency improves then that will reduce pollution even with the same number of miles traveled by cars.
I would love to take a trolley or bus to work but it is not feasible. If one does not work near a trolley station or bus stop or if the hours of operation do not coincide with the transit schedule then the system is unusable. San Diego's transit system is a patchwork of trolley, train and bus systems that get you nowhere fast and only serve limited areas. From East county it takes 2 hours to get to downtown SD by bus about 45 minutes by Trolley and then you have to walk to work. Add to that the times of day/night and areas where it is less than safe it all adds up to an ineffective transit system. Add to that a bunch of bicycle paths that few can use to get to work and it is nothing but transportation chaos.
That infrastructure deficit is growing, not shrinking. That is due to the fact that the city (and in same cases the county) isn't even keeping up with the deterioration going on now. If the city wanted to make a herculean attempt to make up that deficit, it would require decades to do it. First would be a need to just spend enough, and spend wisely enough, to stay even. Then more would be needed to begin catching up. And the political will to keep spending on infrastructure and not on police and fire pay raises and fat pensions would have to be steadfast through a couple generations of local pols. What's the likelihood of that ever happening? Very slim, or vanishingly small, I'd say. BUT, it needs to be attempted, and it needs to start "yesterday." All this whoop-de-doo about a new and unneeded stadium just distracts all the players from the things they need to be doing. And while this is front-page news, little or nothing will be done to start the repair work.
Twister: We made the same argument when the Petco scam was on the table, and ultimately before the voters. And look what has happened. San Diego has a recognized $2 billion infrastructure deficit that is certainly far more than $2 billion. The city ignored infrastructure and neighborhoods by spending so much money on Petco subsidies.
If San Diego approves the silly plan put forward by the task force, and the Chargers can't get to L.A. and decide to stay, and the subsidized stadium goes forward, the infrastructure will rot at an accelerated rate. So will the neighborhoods. Best, Don Bauder
I resent every penny of tax money being spent on this. Government's business is public health and safety, NOT lining private pockets.
Am I understanding correctly? If a molester's victim was their child, stepchild, sibling, or grandparent ( which to me, is even more sicker than a friend or strangers child ) than they can be excluded from the website? What in the world would be the rationale behind such an exclusion?
It is automatic for, let's call them precursor sex crimes which are classified as misdemeanors (local custody time less than one year).
For example, 314.1 Cal penal code, Indecent exposure, is a misdemeanor crime. An arguement can be made that; 1) many instances have occurred before an offender is actually apprehended. 2) this type of act can or may lead to more aggressive haneous acts, such as the one committed by the subject of your article.
It wasn't that a small minority scuttled it. It is that a small minority brought serious issues to the attention of the Peter Pan's running the cycling portion of SANDAG. I am a cyclist and not an advocate, but I spoke up and opposed the closure of University for four reasons:
The transportation folks at SANDAG, you know the ones who know all about ingress and egress and emergency planning, claimed to know nothing about the closure of University. In fact, in answer to my email, they claimed that any changes like that would have to go through emergency planning review. There are only two ways out of the Midtown area of Mission Hills. This plan would have blocked one of them. Also, there are two major hospital complexes along the route. If I could reach out to the SANDAG transportation division, why weren't the bike folks doing so?
As far as I can tell, nobody reached out to the legal folks who defend the numerous county lawsuits either. Bike that route. See all those little driveways to houses and condominiums? Hmm, don't you think maybe those property owners might have some kind of right of access to those driveways? I'm sure some lawyer knows. Too bad the bike folks at SANDAG don't.
The claimed disclosure to the community about closing University never happened. Look at the SANDAG bike route on their web site. See any mention of closing University? How can you claim you made significant community outreach, when you never mailed the people in the neighborhood something along the lines of, "Just so you know, we're thinking about closing your only way out of your neighborhood. You may want to attend the next meeting." Instead, my neighbors and I read in the Reader about how the signs put up, not by SANDAG, but by an advocate, were taken down. Where were SANDAG's signs?
Parking does matter, and technology is making cars not the enemy they were. We have an aging population, particularly in Mission Hills, where a bunch of middle income workers were lucky enough to buy cheap condos in the 1980's and can't afford to move. In New York and Chicago, parking cannot be destroyed unless it is replaced elsewhere. If you want to take the parking out, buy some vacant lots and build some garages for the (electric) (and I hope self-driving) cars
When I wrote Councilman Gloria's office, they "backpedaled" claiming closing University was a single idea from a community member and that it was not in the final phases of being voted on. Really? Glad a "small minority" noticed.
It is sad that a billionaire can do so much harm, while he thinks--since he's so smart-- that he'd doing good. "Jake" was passing out bucks a few years ago to cultural institutions, such as the Symphony which got enough to keep it going in perpetuity, and avoiding politically-charged giving. Then he shifted gears and waded into politics big time. He's become a partisan giver, and with that Balboa Park effort, a know-it-all sort of guy. As far as the park goes, he needs to keep to his promise to stay out, and let others come up with the ideas and the bucks. His giving now carries strings, which are to insure his ideas and his values are incorporated. Local activists, preservationists and history buffs be damned!
The old man, who may be in his dotage, needs to pull his nose out of local politics, local preservation, and any other effort to impose his will. He may want to build a monument to himself, and since the better locations in the city are either gone, or off-limits, may still want Balboa Park have "Jacobs" smeared on everything within the boundaries. His idea of immortality, I'd suppose.
The Ralph M. Brown Act and later-enacted CPRA are vital tools to bring greater transparency by our government officials. The CPRA, however, needs reform to make it even stronger because of the built-in exemptions that are subject to regular abuse.
Note to all: (especially politicians and their minions) If you don't want it published don't write it and don't record it. If you want something kept private then do not do anything that will allow it to be aired in public.
Doing all those things has a common denominator and that is spending even more money. But the city is poor-mouthing all the time about its lack of funding. Except, that is, when it comes to trying to fund a stadium for Deano Spanos to keep him from leaving town with his Bolts. Hey City Hall, how about spending what you do have effectively?
There are no surprises here. The SD city government has been on a downward spiral for decades, spending ever-increasing sums of money on reduced accomplishments each year. No, it isn't money that is lacking, it is lack of caring and giving a damn on the part of the city bureaucracy.
If the city had a "strong" mayor, he should/could take immediate steps to start firing the do-nothing bureaucrats and replacing them with managers who would manage their operations. So, while the city thinks it has a strong mayor, Kev-boy squanders his time, energy, and political capital trying to placate the ingrate-of-all-time, Dean Spanos.
A recent advocacy piece by Kevin Acee (UT) is a good example of the tricks used to attempt to mislead voters about the true costs to citizens and true benefits to the Chargers.
These tricks have been mentioned before in many excellent columns by Don, and by many posts. But I'll repeat I see 2 major tricks which use horrendously flawed and misleading logic.
TOT taxes are just money from tourists. They don't affect San Diegans in any way.
Most of the $1.15B in tax revenue is being spent on a convention center expansion. Only $350M will be spent on the Chargers' stadium.
The Chargers are offering a good deal because most NFL stadiums get more taxpayer revenue than the Chargers stadium (assuming you don't count any of the land acquisition or convention center costs).
Of course, in reality both these arguments are deeply flawed.
Higher TOT taxes will mean less revenue for hotels - either they lower rates and/or have lower occupancy (results: possible bankruptcies, layoffs, lower salaries). Also, there are other things that increased TOT revenue could be used for which would be far more appropriate uses of tax money.
It's clearly not worth $800M for a non-contiguous convention center expansion. In 2013 a $520M contiguous expansion was proposed. It's debatable whether the $520M for a contiguous expansion would be a good deal for the city but it's certainly a heck of a lot better deal than $800M for a non-contiguous expansion. So more money is allocated for a less valuable convention center expansion. This would be like going to a car dealer and telling them you will pay 50K for a BMW 530 then having the dealer offer you a Toyota Camry for 80K. (Not to bash Toyota - I'm quite happy with my Camry).
A "good deal" is only in perspective to the really, really bad deals other cities have received. This would be like a mob boss telling store owners that paying him 1% revenue as "protection money" is a good deal because other mob bosses charge 2%.
For all his flaws there is only one presidential candidate unequivocally opposed to this systematized exploitation of labor. No, not Sanders. The other guy. If you want to end these practices and policies established by GW Bush and continued/expanded by Obama/Clinton that have been designed to suppress wages and extract concessions from workers then you have to vote for Donald Trump. Why do you think exploiters such as Bain Capital's Mitt Romney and Facebook's Zuckerberg are so hysterical that Trump might win? (hint: neither of them really care about Trump's twitter messages). I will gladly put up with a few silly sexist retweets to get this issue fixed. Some offended egos at a rally do not bother me in the slightest. There was not even one bloody nose -thier is no unbridled "violence" that the press calls it (in comparison to 500 murders in Chicago alone - now that is violence and it has been allowed to continue by the Establishment because they just don't care). And I have no sympathy for the feigned indignation by professional protestors who were bought and paid for by George Soros. Trump is a clear and easy choice for any American who earns, or wants to earn a paycheck.
Mercy Baron 7:30 p.m., May 27
Ian Anderson 5 p.m., May 27
Garrett Harris 4 p.m., May 27
Don Bauder 3:30 p.m., May 27
Dorian Hargrove 2:30 p.m., May 27
Ted Burke 1 p.m., May 27
Julie Stalmer 12:30 p.m., May 27
© 2016 San Diego Reader. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced without our written permission.
Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!