Saturday, June 30, 2007

CM PRESS # 167


Our guess is that they're betting you're too apathetic to complain. They may be right.

The Costa Mesa Sanitary District wants to raise sewer fees for your home from $40 per year to
$ 60 per year. This is on top of a 20% increase by the district last year!

The sad thing about this is that whenever the district wants to raise the rates, there are only a few of us who even bother to attend the meetings to protest.

The CM PRESS and two other individuals protested an increase a couple of years ago. That's it, three of us in a city of about 108,000 people.

Maybe you don't complain because you're confused about what the district is and what it does. If so, here's a very quick primer:

1. The district is in charge of some sewer lines in Costa Mesa and gives out contracts to private firms to pick up trash at homes.

2. Especially note, as indicated in #1, that the district does not actually pick up the trash and it has no trash trucks. It gives out contracts to private firms to pick up the trash. "Costa Mesa Disposal" that picked up our trash from 1955 until recently, is a private firm.

3. The district has a five member elected board of directors that holds meetings similar to our City Council meetings. They get paid for this and also get other benefits. However, almost no one ever attends their meetings. This is a shame, because these people work for you. You're the boss.

4. A couple of years ago, the CM PRESS wrote extensively about the district and how it operates mostly under the radar. If you're a long time reader and have saved old issues of the CM PRESS, you can read all the details there.

What does the Sanitary District actually do except give out contracts? Well, in our case, they gave us the telephone number of the county sewer agency when we called the district and complained about sewer odors at the corner of Baker and Fairview that were so strong that we thought they might be explosive.

According to the district, that particular sewer line under our streets is operated by the County of Orange. So, don't call the Costa Mesa Sanitary District about problems with it. That sewer line is apparently full of out of town sewage on a cut-thru route under our city to the waste treatment plant in Huntington Beach. And, up above, on Baker Street, are people in cars who produced some of that sewage in their office buildings in Irvine, who are also cutting through our city to get back to their homes in Huntington Beach. It is unknown if the people in the cars beat their sewage back to HB, but given the odors at Baker and Fairview we might assume that some of their sewage is still here.

No doubt the district will easily pass the latest increase when the board meets on this issue in August, because, as in the past, there will probably be no strong public outcry.

Here's the link to the district's website.

The CM PRESS once suggested to the Costa Mesa City Council that the municipal government take over the functions of the Sanitary District as we see in so many other cities and thus eliminate what seems to be a double bureaucracy. This fell on deaf ears.

If the City were to handle these matters, we could probably save money. Dream on. Bureaucrats love their fellow bureaucrats.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

CM PRESS # 166


Our guess is that most people in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach get their local news from the Daily Pilot. That's what a local newspaper is supposed to do--keep people in its geographic area informed and aware--especially about danger.

However, the Daily Pilot, as we've reported numerous times, seems to have a PCitis problem in that it apparently finds it very hard to report full descriptions of outstanding criminal suspects if the suspects are non-white.

Not only does this give the criminals cover to continue their criminal acts and not be caught, but it keeps people from being on their guard and makes them easier victims.

In today's Pilot there's a story about a man who has "annoyed" three children in Newport Beach.

Annoyed? The guy has reportedly actually gotten out of his truck and tried to lure very young kids back into the truck with him. That's more than annoying children.

We'll give you ANNOYED! The CM PRESS is annoyed at the Daily Pilot about this.

Here's how the lefties at the Daily Pilot describe the creep and his truck: "A man in a white pickup with a utility rack...." And, "Police do not have a detailed description of the man."

That's it. That's all the Pilot gave readers to help them protect their kids.

The CM PRESS, has been on to the Daily Pilot's way of hiding descriptions of minority crime and criminals for some time, and we smelled something rotten here, so we went to the Newport Beach Police Department Website to see what they reported to the public and the Daily Pilot.

Sure enough. Here's how the Newport Beach Police Department identifies the creep and his truck. This information was available to the Daily Pilot just as it was to the CM PRESS, so why didn't the Pilot publish it?

"SUSPECT: Male Hispanic, unknown age, with a shaved head (short black hair)."

: White pickup with a utility rack (no shell) and gardening equipment in the bed of the truck."

How many more 5-year old kids will be in danger because parents haven't been alerted by the Daily Pilot that the creep is Hispanic and may be a gardener?
# # #

Please pass this important safety message on to others who may have young children who may be in danger from this guy. He may be operating in Costa Mesa because of the heat on him in Newport Beach and he may be targeting kids as young as four or five. He may be cruising neighborhoods almost unnoticed as people are used to seeing Hispanic gardeners.

Remember: Male Hispanic with short black hair or bald head and a white pickup truck with a
utility rack and with gardening tools in the pickup bed. If you see anyone fitting this description, don't hesitate to call the police. If you're mistaken, it's no big deal, but if you're right you may save a young kid's life. Here's the CMPD #: (714) 754-5252.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them. Here's our permanent link:

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

CM PRESS # 165

REVITALIZATION OF WESTSIDE GETTING OFF TRACK? (An open letter to the Planning Commission)

Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners:

As a member of CRAC and WROC and as a long time advocate for the revitalization of the Westside in general, and the Westside Bluffs in particular, I have noted that some of our efforts to revitalize the Westside appear to be going off track.

It seems to me that some are now incorrectly and narrowly defining "revitalization" to mean the upgrading of the appearance of existing tilt-up industrial buildings on the Westside Bluffs by changing their landscaping or paint schemes or other minor things.

This is not a revitalization, in any sense of the word. The root of "revitalization" is "vital" and "vital" means "life." It is life that is needed on the Westside Bluffs, and this means that people need to be brought into the area to live on the Bluffs and shop on the Westside.


The guiding principle for many of us who began this effort to revitalize the Westside is the belief that:

Due to their closeness to the ocean and upscale beach communities, the Westside Bluffs will find their highest and best use for residences and such residences will trigger a revitalization of the entire Westside.

In other words, the transition of the Westside Bluffs to residential uses is absolutely key to the revitalization of the entire Westside. It is the only practical way that we can bring in enough new residents with disposable incomes to attract quality retailers to the area and begin the cascade of changes that will make the Westside the vibrant part of Costa Mesa that, given its highly desirable location close to the ocean, it should be.

That Guiding Principle remains the same today, and all the rest of our rules, regulations, meetings, developments, conversions, etc. are seen by most activists as minutiae and details that should conform to that guiding principle and help it become a reality.

However, we are now seeing that some of the minutiae and details seem to be shifting the focus away from a true revitalization a little at a time. This shift is frustrating and impeding a true revitalization.

Specifically, and by way of example, at your Study Session this week you will receive a document from Staff entitled "Zoning Code Amendment C-07-01 (hereafter, "Report").

On page 2 of the Report, in the second paragraph, we read, in relevant part:

"The urban plan encourages the development of residential uses, live-work units, and mixed-use developments, while allowing the provisions of the 'base' zoning to remain in place
The base zoning districts in the Mesa West Bluffs area are industrial and commercial zones. Therefore, the urban plan provides flexibility to property owners to consider either a [residential] development or [industrial] use option, but it does not favor one use over another." (emphasis added)

On page 3 of the Report we read:

"However, staff believes the core objective of the plan is to revitalize the Westside. Non-residential [industrial] condominium conversions which involve structural, landscaping, or facade upgrades are substantial improvements to the property which further the plan vision's [sic] for revitalization."

Contrary to the assertions in the Report indicated in black italics above, and as I wrote earlier, the intent of those truly working to revitalize the Westside has always been to bring life, in the form of people in housing units, to an area that has been almost exclusively used for industrial units. The intent has never been to simply cause cosmetic changes to industrial buildings and keep the Bluffs as a lifeless industrial zone.

The intent is also to avoid using the heavy hand of eminent domain to accomplish the revitalization, but it has never been to keep local government from actively encouraging, in all ways possible, a market driven evolution of the area to more residential uses.

Again, behind the Guiding Principle is the belief that land closer to the ocean generally finds its highest and best use for residences, but that the Bluffs have not evolved mainly because local government has protected and prevented the Bluffs from evolving to residential uses via zoning and other regulations and has shown a lack of will to encourage the evolution to housing.

Because the Westside Bluffs have been used for industrial uses for so many years, there is an interest by some, including many who don't live in Costa Mesa, to keep the Bluffs dedicated to industrial uses.

Most revitalization activists agree that the City, which has protected the industrial uses for many years, must now do more than simply give lip service to allowing residences, and must actively work to bring in such residences. Simply putting in dual zoning and saying that residences are allowed is not enough to overcome the inertia and special interests that are keeping the Bluffs from being revitalized.

With the above in mind, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission move, as a matter of public policy, to clearly annunciate its own guiding principles for the revitalization of the Westside Bluffs and that the Commission take such action as it deems necessary to keep this process on track for the benefit of all of Costa Mesa and particularly of the Westside which, as you know, is generally considered the worst part of Costa Mesa when in fact it should probably, due to its geographic location, be the best part of our city.

Thank you for your consideration.


M. H. Millard

# # #

Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Monday, June 25, 2007

CM PRESS # 164


Call your Senators and ask them to vote AGAINST cloture.

Cloture vote for Senate Amnesty Bill is tomorrow Tuesday, June 26th.

If the amnestynuts get at least 60 Senators to vote for cloture, the amnesty bill will be closed for further debate (a bad thing!) and go to the floor for a final vote.

On the Senate floor, the amnesty bill then only needs 51 votes to pass and open the floodgates for the destruction of the U.S. as we know it.

Thus, defeating the cloture vote is the best way to kill the Amnesty Bill!

Even if your state senators voted against cloture last time, call them again. Senators are flip flopping on this bill back and forth every day.

For full details on the cloture vote, and how you can get phone numbers and send free faxes to senators click here.

The Senate Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

Also, don't forget to forward the CM PRESS to relatives and friends in every state and city where you may have once lived. And, don't be shy about also contacting senators in those states.

You might also let Senator Trent Lott, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham know you want them to get off the amnesty bandwagon and vote for America by voting against cloture.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Here's our permanent link so you can check back often: CM PRESS

Sunday, June 24, 2007

CM PRESS # 163


Waving Johnson, publisher of the Daily Pilot, and his gaggle of lefties are at it again--allowing my name to appear in articles and anonymous posts where it doesn't belong.

In today's Pilot, there's a printed version of a post that appeared on the Pilot's blog from a person who calls himself "Westside." (Westside is apparently unaware that he left his IP address behind)

Westside writes that "Bever and his mentor Martin H. Millard need to give up on this one." (The letter sent to President Bush by the Council asking the President to uphold our immigration laws)

While it would be nice to to be able to take some credit for helping Mayor Pro Tem Bever become the great Councilperson that he has become, I can take no such credit.

I've never been Mr. Bever's mentor in any sense of the word. And, from what I've seen, he certainly doesn't need any mentoring from me or anyone else.

As to the letter to President Bush, I only learned about the letter by reading about it on the City's website and in the Pilot.

So, since I'm not Mr. Bever's mentor, and since I had nothing to do with the letter, why did Waving allow my name in the Pilot?

Can it be that Waving figures he can sell more newspapers by letting my name appear even when what is written is factually false or contains innuendos?

Hey, Waving, if you want your readers to know what I think about things, let me know and I'll sell you some columns.

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

CM PRESS # 162


It was a bad day for the keep-Costa Mesa-low crowd on Tuesday.

Once again, the three person majority of Mayor Mansoor, Mayor Pro-Tem Bever, and Councilwoman Leece showed their unity and desire to make Costa Mesa the great city it can be as they voted to send a letter to President Bush asking him to get off his duff and protect our borders.

Protecting our borders and our citizens are the sorts of things that presidents usually do, you see. It's expected by the hoi polloi. We pay our taxes to the government and the government protects us. Just as we put fences around our homes to protect ourselves and our property, we put borders around our extended home--our nation--to protect us and our property. Call it a tit for tat arrangement. Works pretty good when we have a president who understands his duty to citizens.

Unfortunately, President Bush has other ideas. He's never seen a U.S. border that he likes and he also apparently figures the whole planet is just ripe to be Mayberryized with his just right porridge world view. Merge the whole planet, level the playing field, push everyone to the center. Non-conformists need not apply.

Now, how did that plain speaking, tongue twisted, word mangling cowpoke George W. Bush, get his twig bent so far out of shape that he's not doing his job?

Well, for starters, Master George--he of the silver spoon birth--don't you know, spent his formative years in a prestigious Prep school in Massachusetts instead of living in a loving home with a mother and father. Holy Charles Dickens! An ersatz orphanage for poor little rich kids whose parents are too busy or too disinterested to parent. That old reptilian brain seems to tell some folks to lay the egg and crawl away.

So, young George, 'paked his hoss in Havad Square," as we say in Boston. The Texas ranch came later, dude. The real world of the Lone Star State got into his accent but not into his head--that was apparently already closed up.

Today, as a result of Bush's failings, the populace is in a foul mood. His ratings are lower than Texas Longhorn cow pies. So, how is it that George can keep doing whatever he wants?


Yup, rats. About the only thing keeping enraged citizens from running Bush out of town (other than the reality of our political system) is the fact that he's slapping all of them on one cheek while kissing them on the other. America has become a big Skinner box with most of the rats being played via approach-avoidance stuff.

One large group of rats is yelling "We hate the war, let's run Bush out of town. Then, before they can light the torches and pick up the pitchforks, they realize that Bush is buttering their bread with his open borders plans which they like.

Damn bunch of gelding rats can't decide whether to smack him because of the war or kiss him because of his open borders schemes.

Meanwhile, another large group is doing just the reverse. "We love the war, Hooray...George! Ah, but we hate the open borders crap, Boo...George!" Like robots in a cheap science fiction movie they are unable to do anything but stand there with their heads up their exhaust pipes saying "Will not compute, will not compute...."

The two groups thus cancel each other out and Bush is allowed to continue both his war and his open borders schemes like an inner city pimp who keeps his girls in line by alternatively beating and taking care of them. We're caught up in an abusive relationship and we can't get out. There's no citizens' domestic abuse shelter where we can go and get our heads straight and develop our self-esteem.

Ah, but dear friends, you are obviously intelligent, discerning and well informed as evidenced by the fact that you're read this far; and you may be saying that there are also those who love both the war and open borders and others who hate the war and who also hate open borders. And, right you are. However, these folks are out on the sparsely populated edges of the Bell Curve and can pretty much be ignored. They're the porridge in the too hot bowl and the too cold bowl and George goes for the just right bowl where most of the porridge can be found.

And, speaking of Bell Curves and porridge; this brings us to Newport Beach resident Joe Bell. Bell lives under the flight path of John Wayne Airport and maybe the jet fumes have something to do with his thought processes, or, maybe not. At any rate, Bell has his usual column in the funny pages of the silly Daily Pilot today.

Bell, it may be remembered, is the guy who apparently loves job centers (so long as they're in Costa Mesa and not in his Newport Beach neighborhood). He also seems to be on board with most other liberal views. Oh, the emotion of it all! The guy's columns are a very predictable grocery list of liberalism. You know what Bell's views are before he even writes them. This makes him right at home at the Daily Pilot.

Well, Bell doesn't much like the fact that the City Council in Costa Mesa (where Bell doesn't live, remember) is sending an anti-open borders letter to President Bush. Ho hum. Yawn. "Stop the presses! Bell doesn't like it." Snore. Hell, we could have told you Bell's opinion before Bell put his two fingers to his Smith-Corona and killed another tree with his pedestrian prose that seems to be the product more of a jerking knee than anything that might exist in his cerebral cortex.

Meanwhile, back on the streets of almost coastal Costa Mesa...

As could have been predicted, Councilwomen Foley and Dixon--think two Joe Bells in dresses-- demurred and voted against sending the letter. No surprise, that. "Say, Opie, what could their vote against sending the letter mean? Could they be in favor of continuing to allow Costa Mesa to be overrun by illegal aliens?"

It's always a good day in Costa Mesa when the out of touch libs get upset. It means that the majority on the Council is going in the right direction to improve Costa Mesa.

The letter may not change Bush's mind (such as it is), but good people speak out for what is right and just even if they are ignored.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

CM PRESS # 161


At the City Council meeting last night, the CM PRESS suggested that the City should change some of the ways we look at parking and open space requirements for condo conversions in order to bring in the best possible housing for Costa Mesa.

In the specific conversion request before the Council, the building itself was going to be upgraded with new electric and plumbing and a number of other things that would essentially make it like a new building.

There was one problem, however. The building was short 6 parking spaces.

The CM PRESS suggested that the landscaping could be changed so that a small, plain-Jane grassy lawn in the front could become a parking space and then that a berm could be built between the parking space and the building that could be planted with drought resistant plants similar to what is in front of The Camp on Bristol Street.

After we made our suggestion, Linda Dixon spoke and said that she agreed with the CM PRESS, but that it always frightens her when she agrees with something we've suggested.

The Council pretty much went along with the CM PRESS and our new best friend, Ms. Dixon, on this suggestion. It may sound like a small thing; unless you're one of those who buy one of these condos and can't find anyplace to park your car.

While the CM PRESS had hoped that our suggestion would prime the creativity pump and that the Council would then try to find even more potential parking spaces on the site, this didn't happen. Never fear, the CM PRESS is relentless in improving our city. We'll be back to make more suggestions and frighten Ms. Dixon some more in future meetings.

Of course, Ms. Dixon doesn't have to be frightened when she agrees with us. Our suggestions to the Council are always ones that we believe will help improve Costa Mesa; and isn't this a worthy goal for everyone who lives here?

The CM PRESS works on very simple principle: We ask whether or not something that is before the City Council, the no-Planning Commission or the Parks and Recreation Commission will help improve Costa Mesa or not.

If we conclude that on balance something will help improve our city, then we're for it. If we conclude that on balance it won't help improve our city, then we're against it.

If it's a mixed bag (as is often the case), and has some bad and some good, we try to make suggestions that might make the project better.

In the case of apartments being converted to condos, we believe that this is generally good for the city because this helps correct our owner vs. renter statistics (Costa Mesa has 60% renters and 40% owner occupied residences and this is just about the reverse of what it should be).

However, many of the older apartments were built with less stringent parking and other requirements that make them substandard for today's Costa Mesa.

When the CM PRESS looks at such projects, we try to come up with reasonable suggestions to make the finished project better for Costa Mesa citizens.

Ms. Dixon, isn't it time that you admitted that you really do agree with a lot--perhaps most--of what the CM PRESS and improvers want for Costa Mesa? Isn't it time that you overcame your biases and joined with those who are working hard to make Costa Mesa the great almost-on-the-coast city it can be?
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

CM PRESS # 160


Because the Daily Pilot showed sensitivity and removed the offensive "G" word from its blog, we have removed our original post where we turned around the pejoratives to make a point.
# # #


The Council tonight may authorize the Mayor to send a letter to President Bush asking him to enforce our immigration laws.

Be sure to go or watch it on TV to see how Katrina Foley squirms about this as she talks out of both sides of her mouth. And, tomorrow, be sure to read the Pilot as they once again quote Foley (she's their go-to person on the Council).

# # #

Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading the

Friday, June 15, 2007

CM PRESS # 159


We imagine...

"Hello, Costa Mesa City Council? This is XYZ Supermarket and we wanted to remind you that at your next meeting on June 19, we're asking that you renew the shopping cart pick-up service for our, ah, suspected undocumented customers.

"Yes, that's right. We want you to spend $ 4,000 per month (that's $ 48,000 per year, Ms. Dixon) of your taxpayers' money so our customers can take our shopping carts full of groceries back to the slums with them.

"As in the past, our customers will then leave our shopping carts in the alleys and on the sidewalks so you can pick them up. Thank you. Please don't damage our carts, or we may sue you. Thank you for this great service that helps us make much more money.

"What's that? Oh, sure, we could have carts like Smart & Final on 19th Street or even like the 99 Cents store on Harbor that can't be removed from the parking lot, but if we did that, our customers wouldn't buy as many groceries.

"Thanks for this tax payer subsidy, suckers."
Yes, it's true, the above shopping cart pick-up item really is on the City Council's agenda for June 19. Go and watch as the Council bends over and grabs their ankles to keep spending your money to help supermarkets that won't be good neighbors and suspected illegal aliens that shouldn't even be in the country. (Ever wonder why suspected illegal aliens feel so comfortable in Costa Mesa?)

And, please, dear readers, don't tell the CM PRESS that you think this is money well spent because you'd rather have the carts picked up instead of being all over our streets.

Who ever told you that the only two choices are to pay through the nose or have abandoned shopping carts?

There is a third choice: Have the Supermarkets use carts that can't be removed from their parking lots. This isn't brain surgery. As mentioned above, Smart & Final on 19th Street and the 99 Cents store on Harbor are already doing this.

Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing the markets so they can sell more groceries or offering a cart valet service to shoppers. The friggin' City isn't in the grocery business! Good grief!#$&*@#
# # #


Live-Work & Lofts on Baker Street

The Council will consider a screening request from a developer who wants to build a four-story mixed-use development at 845 Baker Street (right near the Shark Club). The preliminary plan is to have 9 live/work units on the ground floor that open on Baker Street and 22 residential lofts up above.

The CM PRESS's call to the developer for additional details was not returned as of press time.

Letter to President Bush about Immigration

The City Council will also consider whether to send a letter to President Bush outlining the City's position on Federal immigration reform.

The last time the City Council sent such a letter was about two years ago. At that time, four members of the Council agreed to send the letter, but Katrina Foley said she'd send her own letter. As far as we know, she's never sent that letter. Probably a slow writer.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

CM PRESS # 158

LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS "Legalization of immigrants widely backed."--[LAUGH OUT LOUD!]

How difficult is it to get poll results that you want? Not very. Check out the illegal alien friendly Los Angeles Times and it's Times/Bloomberg poll (hereafter, Times) today, for clues about this. Link

First, the headline gives a clue to the bias. Note that it doesn't say "illegal aliens," nor even "illegal immigrants." Instead, it says "immigrants."

The Times said it called 1,183 adults nationwide by telephone June 7-10, and asked them a number of questions.

One ringy dingy, two ringy dingy...
"Hello Mr. or Mrs. Nobody, living out there in Turkey Gulch, this is the LOS ANGELES TIMES. Can we ask you a few questions?" ["Hey Ma, put down the varmint gun, you can bag a possum for supper later on. The Los Angles Times wants my 'pinion 'bout somethin'. I told you I was impotant and that someone values my uninformed opinions about things that I haven't thought much about."]...

"Do you support or oppose the following proposals:

"Q. Allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted and learning English among other requirements." (emphasis added)

"Geez," says the collective Opie in our subconscious, "our blessed great grandparents who came from Ireland or Germany or other European nations were immigrants and they were good. Why, golly, immigrants are just immigrants. We support our immigrant ancestors, ah, because they are our ancestors, er, because they're immigrants. Yes, that's it. We support immigrants. Long live immigrants. They are our ancestors."
The Times reports that, overall, 63% of respondents support the above and only 23% oppose it.
Notwithstanding that, could there really be a problem with the poll in general and the above question in particular?
In the first place, the wording of the above question is suspect. Note, especially, that it refers to illegal aliens as undocumented immigrants. Note the use of positive and soft words such as "path," to citizenship. Note that the word "amnesty" is never used.
In the second place, respondents were asked a mixed bag of questions about immigration and Iraq.
Depending on the order in which the questions were asked, this can skew results. For example, salesmen are taught to lead a prospect to a sale by asking a series of questions whose only socially acceptable answer is "yes" and then finally asking the prospect the closing question. "You do want the best for your family don't you? You do love your children don't you? You do want to make them safe in this new car don't you?" Putting certain questions before others in a poll, even if unintentional, can have a similar result.

Again, note that the question doesn't use the term "illegal aliens," or even "illegal immigrants." Instead, it uses the term "undocumented immigrants," and then it lays on a sympathy phrase "who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years," and then it further defines this group as law abiding when it says "who do not have a criminal record."
In other words it sets up illegal aliens as law abiding, hard workers who are part of the community. Poll respondents also often want to be liked by the pollsters or want to avoid sounding un-PC, and often pick up subtle nuances and answer so as to be liked or to be PC.

"Hey, you bigot, racist, xenophobe, nativist, do you want to kick that law abiding hard working person and his little kids out of this country where they have been productive undocumented citizens for many years? Hmmm? Well, would ya? Hey, we called you. We have your telephone number. We know who you are and where you live. You don't want to be a bigot, racist, xenophobe, nativist, do you? Answer the question!"
Here are a few questions off the top of my head that I'd like to ask the Times about this poll:
a. How did the Times know those answering were adults?
b. What were the ages of those adults?
c. How many males, how many females?
d. Did the Times contact land lines only or also cell phones? How many of each?
e. What time of day were the calls made?
f. Were the questions asked only in English?
g. How many of the "adults" were actually registered voters?
h. How many of the "voters" voted in the last election?
i. What political party affiliations do they claim?
j. What was the ethnic breakdown of those responding?
k. What was the education level of respondents?
l. What was the income level of the respondents?
m. Did any of the Times' callers have marked ethnic--perhaps, Hispanic--accents?
n. How many calls were made to each state and how many respondents were there from each state?
Here's the question I think the Times should have asked: "Do you favor amnesty for illegal aliens who have broken into this country in what amounts to an on-going trespass and who are lowering your quality of life, who are draining public resources, who are causing the closing of hospital emergency rooms, and who are destroying our cities and our schools?"
My guess is that if the Times asked the people in the poll the question as I've rephrased it immediately above, that their results would have been much different and that their headline on page one would have been something like: "Large majority against Bush's amnesty." But, of course, that's not what the Times wanted to appear in the paper.
# # #

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

CM PRESS # 157


The Westside Bluffs

The CM PRESS reminded the no-Planning Commission that unlike other coastal cities, Costa Mesa is currently backwards and that this is detrimental to improving our city and making it the great place it can be.

Indeed, in most coastal communities the neighborhoods get nicer as you get closer to the ocean. In Costa Mesa, it's just the reverse.

We have our best land--land closest to the ocean--the Westside bluffs--used for the lowest and worst use--industrial buildings--instead of for its highest and best use--homes.

But not just any homes should be put on rare land nearest the bluffs' edges; that land demands that top quality homes--even mini-estates--be built there. Such homes will attract people who are willing and able to pay higher prices for such homes, and they'll be human assets to our community and will help make the Westside the great and vibrant part of our city that it should be.

We also noted, however, that while there seems to be a general consensus that eminent domain should not be used to correct past zoning errors on the bluffs, that the City government must act and do the right things to jump start the free market so the bluffs will begin the evolution.

This means that the City government must take an active role in encouraging the building of homes and live work spaces on the bluffs.
# # #
Common Interest Development Conversion Projects (Condos, etc.)

The CM PRESS also spoke to the issue before the no-Planning Commission about changing our zoning codes in respect to both residential and non-residential common interest development conversion projects.

Our concern with the staff report was that while scenarios were covered about converting apartment building to residential condos, and industrial buildings to industrial condos, there was scant mention about converting industrial, retail, or office buildings to live-work condos. And, it is this type of live-work conversion that many believe will help the bluffs begin the transition to higher and better uses; so changes to our zoning codes should clearly include provisions to allow this to happen.

Others spoke to concerns about a new rule that would bar owners of apartment buildings older
than 40 years from converting them to condos. The primary argument against this rule was that these are the types of conversions that might most benefit the city if these older buildings are thoroughly refurbished and brought up to modern codes.

The no-Planning Commission finally decided to refer this matter to their Study Session on June 26, for further discussion and then to bring it back to the no-Planning Commission for action on July 9.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

As always, please feel free to pass the CM PRESS on to others who want an improved Costa Mesa. Here's our link:


Monday, June 11, 2007

CM PRESS # 156


There is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children.

--He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.

--He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

--He qualifies for food stamps.

--He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

--His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

--He requires bilingual teachers and books.

--He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

--If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

--Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of
this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

--He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners

--Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed

--He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in

--In Costa Mesa he gets free services and handouts from the City Council that are funneled through some charities.

--Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after
paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash

# # #
The above is our version of this list that appears in various forms on the Internet. Feel free to pass it on.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

CM PRESS # 155


Here's a link to Congressman Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign website.

Tancredo is doing more than just talking about defeating Bush's stupid amnesty scheme-- he's targeting politicians who are going along with Bush.

The CM PRESS thinks this is a good way to handle screwball politicians. Defeat the creeps. Cut off their campaign funds. Spit when you hear their names. Send these loons back to the private sector.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

CM PRESS # 154



(Daily Pilot misses the big story and didn't even mention it in today's paper)

At last night's City Council meeting, former Mayor Gary Monahan "casually" asked the Council to put an item for the direct election of Costa Mesa's mayor on the ballot next year.

In the blink of an eye the Council agreed to do this by immediately asking staff to bring this issue back to Council in July so the Council can officially vote on whether to put this on the ballot or not.

In other words, the Council is moving at warp speed to put this on the ballot.


The first thing the public needs to know about this is that having an item come back for consideration so quickly is rare. Usually, the wheels of local government move at a snail's pace.

When things are pushed through this quickly, and in such a seemingly off handed manner, many people miss what's going on until it's too late.

The speed that this item is taking seems to indicate that a lot of back room talk has been going on and agreements have already been reached to fast track this.

This issue needs a full public airing so the pros and cons can be argued in public by the public.

One thing is certain. A system with a directly elected mayor tends to concentrate power in the hands of the mayor and takes power away from individual Council Members.

Here are a few initial questions that need to be asked and answered:

1. Why do this? If the present system works, why change it?
2. What will happen to our City Manager form of government?
3. What will a directly elected mayor be paid?
4. Will a directly elected mayor be a full time elected official?
5. Will the city be split up into districts for election of Council members?
6. Will the mayor be given an office--maybe a corner office--in City Hall?
7. Will directly electing a mayor throw our elections into the hands of the big developers and monied special interests and take them away from the grass roots?
# # #

The Council on a 2 -3 vote, with Katrina Foley and Linda Dixon voting against the motion, killed the city wide traffic calming study. The majority on the council apparently believes that individuals and individual neighborhoods can contact the city if they want traffic calming methods used in their neighborhoods.

The CM PRESS agrees with the majority on this and we know from personal experience that City Staff is very responsive to such requests.

It appeared to the CM PRESS that City Manager Allan Roeder was a little perturbed about the way this was handled. At one point, Mr. Roeder asked the Mayor to put exactly what he wanted staff to do in a motion that the Council could then vote on so there would be no confusion. The Mayor refused to do this.

This little exchange, given the poker faced and emotionless demeanor that usually characterizes those on the dais during Costa Mesa's meetings, was the equivalent of a street corner shouting match.


There appears to be an almost constant miscommunication happening between some members of the City Council and City Staff. We saw this as it related to Paularino Park and we see it again in this traffic calming matter.

There may be several things happening at once.

1. When the City Council has its study sessions to discuss various matters, it is not allowed to take official action on those matters. However, it can give direction to Staff.

2. Staff is generally very responsive to what the Council wants. Thus, if a Council Member sneezes at a Study Session, staff is likely to show up with a truckload of Kleenex.

This being the case, Council Members need to start being very clear at these Study Sessions about when they really are giving direction and when they are not.

3. Mayor Mansoor seems to work on the principle of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." While this is good in many ways, it can lead to him not shooting down ideas of other City Council members at these Study Sessions.

In the present case, the traffic calming idea was apparently Katrina Foley's. And, since the Mayor and his majority didn't come right out and firmly say they didn't like the idea, staff may have incorrectly believed that the Council as a whole had given them direction to move forward with holding community meetings, etc.

So, based on "direction," that apparently wasn't direction, staff put in many hours and spent about $ 6,000 on holding community meetings and gathering information before this was deep- sixed last night.

Come on Council, let's communicate a little better. Give signals at these Study Sessions so everyone knows where you're going. This means that you'll have to be more direct and pointed in your comments to each other and to staff.

Our guess is that some of you Council Members (especially those of you born and raised in California) may consider such direct and pointed comments to be rude. Get over it. You need to be understood, and it is clear that right now you're not always being understood. Learn to disagree without being disagreeable but learn to communicate what you want. People can't read your minds. This is costing taxpayers money.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

CM PRESS # 153


Here are some other brilliant things said by Mr. Bush:

1. "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
George W. Bush

2. "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.
It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it. "
George W. Bush

3. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
George W. Bush

4. "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
George W. Bush

5. "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for
George W. Bush

6. "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments
in the future."
George W. Bush

7. "A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
George W. Bush

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

CM PRESS # 152


By now you've probably heard about the accident on Victoria near Canyon last night(Friday, 6/1) at about 8:50 p.m. in which three people were killed.

The driver of the vehicle in which the three were killed, Jose Gustavo Castillo, 26, of Costa Mesa, has now been arrested on suspicion of DUI and vehicular manslaughter charges.

U-P-D-A-T-E--The victims, all Costa Mesa residents, were identified as Juan Alberto Romero-Figueroa, 18; Francisco Javier Rodriguez, 19; and Julio Cesar Sandoval-Telles, 21.

Here's the link to the OC REGISTER that gives details.


We've written about this in prior issues. The CMPD always seems to hold DUI checkpoints on the Eastside but almost never on the Westside. Why? Are there some higher-ups in the department with political agendas and illegal alien friendly attitudes who don't want to arrest illegal aliens for not having driver's licenses, registrations and proof of insurance, as some readers of the CM PRESS have suggested?

This past week, the CM PRESS noted that every time we drove the CM PRESSMOBILE down E. 17th Street toward Newport Beach, that we always saw two CMPD motorcycle cops working that street. And, we drove that street often and at different hours. Every time we did so, we saw the two motorcycle cops.

Come on City Council. Take action. Have the CMPD start holding some DUI/paper checks on the Westside (and also at Fairview and Baker in north Costa Mesa) and have the department put some of their traffic cops in places other than on the Eastside.

Let's not have any more people killed because of misguided attempts to not arrest illegal aliens by not concentrating police traffic enforcement in areas where illegals are most likely to be found if, in fact, that's what is going on.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Friday, June 1, 2007

CM PRESS # 151


The Pacific Coast Credit Union at 1700 Adams was robbed at gunpoint at about 9:40 a.m. today (6/1). The CMPD press release on the robbery describes the robbers as:

"Suspect #1 was described as a male/black, unknown age, wearing a black hoodie, sweat
shirt, blue jeans, and a black bandana covering the lower portion of his face.

"Suspect #2 was described as a male/black, unknown age, wearing a grey hoodie, blue jeans,
and a black bandana covering the lower portion of his face. Both suspects were wearing
gloves at the time of the robbery." (emphasis added) CMPD LINK

The Daily Pilot reported on the robbery on its website, but the Pilot "forgot" to tell you part of the description of the perps. Can you guess what they forgot? Here's how the Pilot describes the robbers:

"One robber wore a black-hooded sweatshirt, blue jeans and a black bandana to cover most of his face. The other robber wore a gray hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans with a bandana to mask his face...." PILOT LINK

Now, why didn't the Pilot tell readers that the robbers are black?

Why is it that the Pilot seems to have a problem in describing outstanding violent criminal suspects when they're not white? Hmmmmm? Would the public be better served if they had full descriptions of dangerous criminals in our city? Might lives be saved? Could it help with catching the criminals?
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

CM PRESS # 100

THE GATEWAY PUNDIT #                                      #                                                       # TRUMP'S TWEETS HER...