For the last 10 days Animal Control has been trying to catch Rodney the Rooster (our name for him).
He's constantly looking for a place to roost for the night and then he's up at 4:30 a.m. or earlier, greeting the morning with his cock a doodle doos. All the neighbors are shooing him away but he is tenacious. Animal Control said catch him and then call them.
We give up. Maybe he belongs on the front page of the Daily "Plot" (our loving name for your great local paper). He's mostly on the Vista Parada and Vista Ornada greenbelts.
Banning Ranch approval
So you still think local governments are more sensitive to the needs of their constituents than the politicians in Washington? In an astonishing display of arrogance, your Costa Mesa City Council voted 4 to 1 to approve funding for road improvements for the development of Banning Ranch, which essentially everyone in Costa Mesa opposes.
Congestion should be the nickname, maybe the middle name for Costa Mesa, "CostaCongestionMesa." As a worker for almost 30 years in Costa Mesa, I know. The streets and neighborhoods are currently unsafe and over-crowded.
So why would the Costa Mesa City Council plan to vote on an agreement not to oppose, contest or challenge any aspect of the 500-oil-well Banning Ranch development and not to interfere with the permitting process of this project when it is expected to increase traffic to 15,000 more car trips per day on Costa Mesa and surrounding city streets?
The Costa Mesa residents will bear the brunt of the traffic, noise and air pollution. Development of Banning Ranch is immensely unpopular in Costa Mesa. Please oppose any Banning Ranch development. Please do not agree to any negotiations with those affiliated with this toxic oil dump.
If you ignore this request, you are blatantly agreeing to disregard the health, needs and quality of life of your constituents and that of their children. Such current plans are representative but not representative of the will of those whom you are supposed to represent.
City charter quote
I was quoted in Joseph Serna's Aug. 1 article, "Charter to go on ballot," and I would like to explain the comment that I made at the charter hearing.
During the public comment portion I said that the charter was poorly worded and used vague language that is subject to interpretation. I referenced charter Sections 103 and 800.
I also said that the vagueness results in granting too much power to too few (three-council member majority). The point is that the charter grants more power to the City Council than it has today, otherwise it wouldn't need to push the charter through. Therefore, the same three-councilmen majority, which Councilman Steve Mensinger said can now dictate policy, will have even more power with this loosely written charter.
Keep in mind that more power can lead to bigger government and nobody wants that.
Challenges for Muslim columnist
One would truly be impressed with a Muslim girl if she were to attend services in:
A) A synagogue
B) A mosque belonging to another sect (and fold her hands in prayer in their fashion, not hers)
C) A meeting house of the Religious Society of Friends.