The AD 8 Endorsement

It seems the Cabaldon endorsement might get pulled from the consent calendar. Even though he got the 70% that is noted below, there's still alot of contestation (is that a word?)

It seems to me both sides did some politick-ing and now the losing side is angry they didn't do it as well. It doesn't seem fair though to pull something from the consent calendar, though, when their campaign got the necessary votes.

The whole process is a little nuts, though. And, you know, totally democratic.

Pre-endorsement fun in the 8th

Here's a report on the quiet action at the pre-endorsement meeting of the AD 8 committee. It what wasn't too much of a race, contender Christopher Cabaldon secured the necessary numbers to avoid a convention caucus in a few weeks.

For the pre-endorsement process, it's not a matter of just getting more votes - a candidate has to clear 70% to avoid having to do everything again at the convention. So it's just a benefit for candidates. Of course, would-bes can call for a do-over, but it seems from the report that it isn't likely here.

From Bad To Worse: Could Natomas and Oak Park swap places?

It's like the real estate version of an unholy mating between The Parent Trap and A Nightmare on Elm Street: planners think today's suburbs are well on their way to becoming tomorrow's slums:

As Leinberger notes, new suburbs tend to be situated far from public transport, social services and commerce, so they are particularly bad places for people who can't afford cars. The housing stock isn't terribly flexible. Compared to the sturdy older buildings in the city that got chopped up into apartments, it's not easy to take a production-built house with three bedrooms and turn it into good multifamily housing. What's more, the neighborhood infrastructure isn't designed for higher density or commercial uses: The streets are often thinner, the pipes and drainage not built for heavier use.

Newer suburbs are also financially vulnerable: They depend on developers' fees and property taxes to pay for the communities. "When the growth stops and the property values fall," says Leinberger, "suddenly you're going to have this wicked situation where social costs are rising as funding dries up, but without any other tax sources from commercial or industrial activity."

Uh-oh, I think we're kinda screwed. The good news is that the trend toward more urban development is greener and healthier - "walkable" neighborhoods will be the rage of the future.

But that doesn't help poor Natomas, does it. It's been built and what's been built is bad. That should mean hope for Oak Park though, its smaller scale and proximatey to the city center should help it, right?

I would think cities like Tracy - which are like one big Natomas - probably have the most to fear.

Don't Miss the Fun

To Wake the Dead will be the Woodland Public Library's annual benefit this Saturday at 6:30.

Don't miss out on the fun, which features all the different city officials.

Beware of the Bee?

State workers protested outside the Bee in response to the Bee's publishing of a database of state employees' salaries.

Because, you know, the public shouldn't know that kind of information.

Bye-Bye Liz Hill

The Legislative Analyst, Liz Hill, will be retiring at the end of the year.

That's the same Liz Hill who had to come up with a non-partisan budget analysis. I bet she wants to retire.

Where the law can't reach

Creepy bastards are taking photos of kids at average high school sporting events and posting them online where they can attract graphic commentary.

But taking photos at public events isn't illegal. It would be hard to impose a ban on photographs - especially in the age of cell phone cameras and digital technology.

Some experts say civil, rather than criminal, courts hold the only good option for parents:

Margaret Johns, a law professor at UC Davis, said people who post such pictures on adult Web sites could be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress or, possibly, violating privacy for monetary gain.

Winning would be no slam-dunk, according to Johns, who said that a distress-based suit would have to show conduct that was extreme, outrageous, highly offensive and caused severe emotional distress.

"Those are tough requirements. … But I think that publishing a kid's picture on an adult Web site is beyond all bounds of decency, or at least a jury could think so," Johns said.

Of course, finding out whom to sue might be a problem since untangling website ownership and the true identities of those loading content and comments can be nearly impossible - or at least involve costly computer forensics work.

One legislator has proposed has proposed AB 2104 to outlaw posting "a minor's photo, without consent, on a Web site containing obscene matter. Violators could be jailed for one year and fined $5,000." I can see the word "obscene" being a sticky one, though.

We know it when we see it, right?

Anything, if run through the right filter (in someone's mind or on a website) can become obscene. People viewing these websites could just as easily find Flickr photos of random kids and use them to the same ends. That's the world. The world kinda sucks like that. It's not that it isn't worth trying to stop this kind of activity, but just saying "there oughtta be a law" simply doesn't work.

The law can't reach everything.