REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2007
CITY COUNCIL COMES UP WITH NEW SEATING ARRANGEMENT ON THE DAIS (saves city lots of money by having all five Councilmembers sit on one chair--on top of Ms. Dixon who refused to move)
At last night's City Council meeting, Mayor Mansoor announced that he wanted to have Councilmember Leece and Councilmember Dixon switch seats for Council meetings so that Ms. Leece, who is the newest member of the Council, could sit next to City Manager Allan Roeder and thus be able to easily get advice from Mr. Roeder during meetings.
Councilmember Dixon didn't like this and refused to change seats. Observers asked by the CM PRESS about this, said they thought Dixon's refusal was rude, childish and insulting.
Dixon's stated reason for not moving was that such a move would put Ms. Dixon and Councilmember Foley next to each other [way down on the LEFT end of the dais--Laugh out loud] and that this might set the two apart from the rest of the Council [in fact, they are apart from the rest of the Council on most issues because of their views, opinions and votes].
Indeed, since Foley and Dixon are mostly in lockstep on most votes, it would be easier to follow things to have them sitting together.
Some wags have suggested that it might even be better for Foley and Dixon to sit together back in City Hall's lunch room instead of on the dais.
WHAT'S NEXT?
Other than spraying Dixon with Mace, putting her in a headlock, and dragging her down to the seat next to Foley, about the only thing the Mayor can do is put this item on the agenda for a future meeting and have the Council vote on it.
At that time, there would probably be three votes to have Dixon move. Then, she'd either move under her own power or the Mayor could ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to move Dixon to her new seat.
# # #
SUPERSTITION? KARMA? COINCIDENCE?
A note to the superstitious. We don't want to make you paranoid, but have you noticed that when some people in the city publicly deny that there are dangerous chemicals being released from the approximately 60 acres of industrial businesses on the Westside Bluffs into the breezes that then blow over most of our homes, that some of these deniers soon become ill with the types of illnesses or conditions that many believe may be caused by some of the suspected chemicals?
Also, the labels on many of the chemical containers opened in many industrial businesses carry warnings that the chemicals are known to the State of California to cause cancer or other illnesses. So, if these chemicals evaporate into the air, which they do, and if the air is a moist and almost constant breeze from the ocean blowing over Costa Mesa, which it is, where do you think these chemicals go?
"Hey, I cain't see them there chemicals in the air and I cain't smell them, so they must not be there. Ain't nothin' there if'n I cain't smell it or see it. Why, I figgers them there chemicals just done dissappeared. Like into one of them there alternate universes or somethin'. Talk about toxic chemicals is just comin' from them tree-huggin' eco-freaks who also want us to believe that cigarette smoke is bad when we knows it's good for us 'cause the tobacco companies told us so."
Sorry, we wish it were so. We really do. You can't see the air you breathe, either, but we're pretty sure it's there.
Open a can of paint thinner or solvent of some type on the Westside Bluffs, and the moist ocean breezes pick up the molecules making up these chemicals and carry them over most of Costa Mesa. Depending on their weight and other factors, the chemical molecules then begin dropping to where we breathe them in. Then, they enter our blood through our nasal passages and lungs and are carried throughout our bodies.
But, we're not experts on this and we always have an open mind--we're ready to be convinced that we're wrong. In fact, since we and our loved ones live downwind, we hope and pray that we're wrong. So, all you toxic chemical deniers, please convince us that we got this wrong. We'll sleep a lot better at night.
However, don't tell us fairy tales such as that the AQMD says everything is fine. That agency is set up mainly to test for pollutants from motor vehicles, not the chemicals in the type of scenario we outlined above.
At a time when many "green" cities are even banning cigarette smoking in public parks, how much worse must 60 acres of industrial buildings sitting between moist ocean breezes and our kids be?
No, the CM PRESS is not against industrial businesses. The problem we have in Costa Mesa, however, is that they're in the wrong place.
Again, you don't put an open can containing toxic chemicals between a fan and people downwind of that fan. And, that, in essence, is what we have. The difference is that our "fan" is very large and it almost never stops and we have far more than just one open can of toxic chemicals.
WHAT SHOULD THE CITY DO?
The CM PRESS thinks the advice of a speaker to the Council last night was good: Prove the CM PRESS wrong.
Maybe, as the speaker said--tongue in cheek--the only things being used in the 60 acres of industrial buildings on the Westside are harmless water and baking soda.
So, come on City Council, prove us wrong. Nothing would make us happier than to be wrong. But don't do as you did before and ask the Costa Mesa Fire Department to prepare a report. When the Fire Department did that before, the first thing they put in their report (which showed their honesty) was a disclaimer saying that they have no expertise with such chemicals, and that they were only doing the report because they were asked to do so.
Instead, City Council, hire a competent and independent outside private firm that specializes in toxic chemicals to tell you what is really being used on the Bluffs and what is going into the air. Let them tell you what our risks are.
WHAT SHOULD AN OUTSIDE FIRM ACTUALLY DO AT A MINIMUM?
1. Do a paper check of all the businesses on the Bluffs to see what chemicals they use.
2. List those chemicals and their dangers to humans.
3. Supply wind charts.
4. Randomly check the air--not just at ground level--but higher up where the breezes actually are rivers of wind blowing from the ocean over our city.
5. Interview residents who are sick or who have relatives who are sick or who have died from various cancers and other diseases suspected of being caused by toxic chemicals and produce a map showing where they live--correlate that with the wind charts.
6. Do soil testing at logical locations.
7. Integrate the above into one easily read map that will help reveal patterns and connections if any exist.
8. Compare frequencies of diseases with coastal cities that do not have major industrial areas upwind of them.
Will Linda Dixon and Katrina Foley vote for the above? It's doubtful. Much of their support and the support for their chosen candidates in the last election came from the industrialists on the Bluffs.
# # #
PAULARINO AND OTHER PASSIVE PARKS
City Manager Allan Roeder confirmed to the Council that, contrary to staff's statement at the last Parks and Recreation meeting, direction had been given to staff about moving forward with plans to make Paularino and other passive parks safe for their intended purposes.
So, supposedly, something will now happen. Soon. Very soon. Well, maybe later. Sometime or other. Someday. Who's was in charge of this? In charge of what? What was the subject?
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.
