The Brown Study

"Open Space" and the Banning Ranch

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:11:00 +0000

Yesterday at the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee meeting, our guests were George Basye of Aera Energy and Rewdy Holstein of Brook Street to provide our committee with an update of the Banning Ranch Development Plan. The appearance was timely in that the “public comment” period for the Environmental Impact Report on the plan has closed and the report should come before the Newport Beach Planning Commission in January and then on to the City Council.

As most citizens of Newport Beach know, the General Plan Update approved in 2006 provided for two uses of the property. One was that the property remains completely 100% open space, or the city shall consider a development proposal for 70% of the property to remain open space and 30% for development and amenities. In order for the project to remain 100% open space, it would have to be purchased by a group committed to that effort such as the Banning Ranch Conservancy. The City of Newport Beach has no plans to purchase the 400 acre property.

The open space alternative is the impetus for this post. What exactly is “open space?” According to the Institute of Natural Resources at Oregon State University open space is, “an area of land that is valued for natural processes and wildlife, for agricultural and sylvan production, for active and passive recreation, and providing other public benefits.” This definition works for me; without knowing anything else, I would support the Banning Ranch property to be maintained as 100% open space. But, you see, I do know something else. I have been on the property, I have seen the condition of this property as it stands today with my own eyes.

As we all know, there is nothing natural about oil production. There have been over 400 oil wells drilled on this property since 1943. To look at the ranch from an aerial photograph you see a mosaic of dirt roads carved in to the terrain for access to these wells with oil rig debris strewn along the shoulders. The water resources have been polluted with chemicals and other toxins making it uninhabitable for most forms of wildlife. Much of the native species, such as the coastal sages, have been driven out by invasive species much more tolerant to the harsh conditions which exist there today. The property is too dangerous to be enjoyed by any member the public for passive or active recreational use. In short, the Banning Ranch property is not open space now.

To become open space, the property will require extensive mitigation measures with an estimated cost of 30 million dollars or more. That then becomes the most important question in the whole issue. Who will pay for that clean-up? Is it feasible, in the near term, for a non-profit group to raise sufficient funds to purchase the property and then clean it up in our lifetimes? I don’t have a crystal ball, but I suspect it would be unlikely. Because I like open space, I would really want to see something done soon so that I might be able to enjoy more open space in Newport Beach while I am still here.

In the current development plan, 25% of the property just under 100 acres would include single family homes, some commercial space and a small resort hotel. The remaining 300 plus acres would be cleaned up, natural resources and habitat restored and maintained as true open space in perpetuity. If this is not a win-win for those of us who enjoy and appreciate open space, then I don’t what is. In the coming weeks and months, we will all be hearing and reading more about this issue. Please don’t fall for the emotional appeal of “Keep the Banning Ranch as open space.” If we keep it the way it is now, it is the antithesis of open space because it will remain a public hazard and fenced off to all of us who want to see more open space in Newport Beach.

So far, my job has not gone away

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:09:00 +0000

The fall of each year is a busy time for me because I am an avid supporter of Arizona State University football as ASU is my alma mater. We travel to see each football game home or away which means that we are traveling virtually every weekend between September and December. I, like most of you, remain concerned about the state or our economy as I am an educator, and yes, one of those public employees! Although, I am 59 and not even considering retirement because I could not continue to live in Newport Beach on my pension benefit.

I attended the Orange County Economic Forecast presented by the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce last week. There was an outstanding group of panelists, who seemed to agree, that the economy is not likely to improve until consumers begin to spend, and consumer spending is, of course, linked to jobs. All four panelists stated, at some point during their presentations, that many of the jobs which have been lost due to corporate downsizing and improving efficiency will not come back leaving everyone there to ponder, "What will bring us out of this?" That thought, however, is not the impetus for this piece.

Last Saturday we arrived at John Wayne airport as we were going to catch our flight to Phoenix. We are “A-listers” on Southwest Airlines meaning that we avoid any lines, walk right up to the kiosk, punch in our reservation confirmation number and take our Boarding pass without even speaking to a real person. About an hour later, we arrived in Phoenix and noticed that soon there will soon be a computer operated tram to take us directly to the Rental Car Center. We are Dollar Car Rental Express members so we head down the escalator to pick up our car and notice a new electronic board that has my name on it and the number of the space in which we will find the car reserved for us and the keys on the dashboard.

Granted, most of us are familiar with the kiosks at the airport; they have been with us for a while now. However, it wasn’t that long ago that Boarding Passes were issued by ticket agents. Until that tram at Sky Harbor Airport is operational, which apparently will be soon, the shuttle bus to the Car Rental Center is driven by a bus driver. Two weeks ago when we picked our car from the Dollar Express station, it was an agent who issued me the keys to the car and directed me to the space in which it was parked. Then, it hit me, and I thought to myself these jobs have gone, or will be gone soon, and they won’t be coming back. Corporate efficiency may be improving profit in a weak economy but corporate profit, in and of itself, will not help us move out of the economic doldrums we find ourselves in.

Then, I begin to think about my students I face in class twice a week. I teach at Riverside City College and many of them are there to improve their chances for employment by earning a degree. I suspect that maybe more are there because they have lost their job, possibly one of those that won’t come back, and are seeking to be retrained. Then, I think about the hundreds of students that are turned away now each semester because there are no longer as many sections of my course being offered due to the California budget woes. I start to feel some frustration and realize, "Wait a minute; I am on my way to a football game. This is supposed to be fun! But then, I have job that, as of yet anyway, hasn't been replaced by a computer.

Seven Days in August

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 02:10:00 +0000

“Tim! Tim!” I awake wondering who is yelling my name from outside my window. Finally, as I become more coherent, I realize it is Stephanie. “Something is wrong with Dink! Come down here right now!” I get up, and stumble down the stairs in my bare feet to find our dog hunched in the drive way looking like a black cat on Halloween and shivering. Dink, our Weimaraner, had been undergoing radiation treatment for the past few weeks as a precautionary measure to prevent re-growth of a small tumor taken from his inner ear a few weeks before. Thinking it must be related to the treatment; I load him up in the car and drive him to the clinic which is located in Carlsbad about 45 minutes away.

Stephanie called ahead, so when we arrived they were waiting. “Assessment!” reverberates over the PA system as the nurses come out to take Dink and lead me to a small treatment room to anxiously await the doctor. In about fifteen minutes, which seemed like an hour, the doctor comes in and says, “We are not sure what’s wrong, but we think it is in his lower gastrointestinal track and he is dehydrated. We are going to put him on an IV and run some more tests. Your oncologist has been called and he is on his way here now.” Later, the oncologist comes in and explains, “It could be many things and we have go about ruling them out one at a time.”

Later, a nurse brings Dink in with an IV hooked up and he is still shivering. I get on the floor and coax him to lie down on a blanket and be still. A few hours later, the oncologist returns and says, “This is not my field, I am going to consult our Internist, she will do an ultrasound.” Following the ultrasound, the internist brings Dink back and she says, “I have ruled out a number of things but there are signs of fluid around the prostate gland and it is enlarged. We are going to do culture on the fluid to see if it contains bacteria.” Later, I was told, it did not, and there was still no reliable conclusion as to what may be wrong. It is 6:00 pm, Stephanie has arrived and we have to make some decisions as to what we are going to do. We decided Stephanie would go home and go to work in the morning and I would stay with Dink.

I slept on the floor next to him feeling him shiver all night despite frequent intrusions by nurses and doctor’s checking his IV meds and vitals. The next morning, I desperately wanted to see change so I was looking for anything. Maybe he is not shivering as much, I think to myself, but the internist comes to retrieve him and he had an accident on the way out and she quickly said, “Something isn’t right. You’ve been here all night, go get some breakfast and let me run some additional tests.” Fooling myself into thinking he was improving, I elected to run home take a shower and then come back. As I get out of the shower, the phone rings. Stephanie is on the other end saying, “Tim you need to call the doctor, they are talking about exploratory surgery.” I call the doctor. He explains that they did another ultrasound, and again, noticed fluid around the prostate and this time the culture showed bacteria. “We need to find the source and we are unable to locate it with ultra sound. He is declining and we need to open him up. I would prefer you talk with the surgeon who is standing by.” I say, “OK, I am leaving right now.”

As I am driving, my cell phone rings. The number of the clinic appears on the screen. I have to answer even though I am driving. The doctor says, “Dink is getting much worse and we need to operate, where are you now?” “How long before you are here?” “Soon,” I am on Camp Pendleton, maybe I’ll be there in 15 minutes.” I ask, “Do you need me to be there to start? “No,” the doctor replies. “We are prepping him now. Oh, there is one more thing, his blood pressure has been dropping and one of his clotting agents is deficient.” For the first time, I am starting to think, “Oh my God is he is going to die?”

I don’t remember the rest of the drive to the hospital. I arrive and one of the technicians leads me to a room and I wait for the doctor. Soon after the doctor comes in and repeats what he had told me on the phone, he explains what they are doing to raise Dink’s blood pressure and the deficient clotting agent. “We are injecting fluid into the circulation system to raise the BP, and it is working. We have extracted proteins from the blood of another dog and packing Dink’s blood.” I am starting to feel a little bit relieved, then I am “hit in the gut” to hear the doctor say,” You should go and see him. Let me make sure he is covered.” Now, I am scared again because it seems the doctor doesn’t think he is going to make it. I am led in and find him lying on his side on a stainless steel table with a blanket over him. The internist is holding a syringe full of a clear substance and slowly injecting it into a central line in Dink’s neck. “The pressure is rising,” she says.

The surgeon walks up and I am introduced, He is Indian and very young. My immediate thought, “Is he experienced enough to save my dog?” I am told there is disagreement on the source of the bacteria. The internist believes the source is in the prostate gland. The surgeon explains that he has never seen a dog “crash” this fast where there wasn’t a perforation in the intestine. They are going to perform the surgery to find out. He explains what he is going to do and then bows his head in respect to me. I turn towards Dink and raise his head in my hands. He looks up at me and tries to get up. The internist says, “That is a good sign.” Shortly thereafter, the anesthesiologist comes over and they wheel him away. I look at Dink and wonder will this be the last time I see him alive.

I am lead away to another room to wait. The oncologist tells me he will update me every few minutes on how Dink is doing. The surgeon comes by one last time, he says “His vitals have improved dramatically, he is very strong right now, and we are going to get started.” I tell the surgeon, “don’t give up on him, you don’t know this dog, but he has incredible drive. If you give him a chance, he will make it; he has a lot to live for.” He says, “OK” and bows again, and he is gone. In about ten minutes, the oncologist comes in and said he has never seen six people around the operating table before. They are looking at the small intestine now and haven’t found anything yet. About ten minutes later, the internist comes in and says nothing was found in the intestine, but that is a good thing because one more thing has been eliminated and they are moving to the prostate. Ten minutes later, the oncologist returns and says, “They found it.!” An abscess had ruptured in the prostate and there were bacteria in the fluid surrounding the structure. They had removed the abscess and filled it with fatty tissue, lavaged the abdomen and were closing him up.

Soon, the surgeon opens the door. He explains that the surgery went well, but the next 12 hours are important. He says “Dink will be placed in an oxygen kennel and we will provide him with as much support as possible, but it is really up to him now.” We are allowed to see him briefly about an hour after the surgery, his eyes were open and he was resting comfortably. He seemed to recognize us, but was too weak to even wag his tail. Stephanie, asks him to "Find Tim!" We can see his eys locate me and we know that at least for the moment he is there. The doctor explains if he makes it through the next 12 hours, the next be hurdle will be getting him to eat. If he will eat naturally, that is a better sign because they won't have create more stress for him by inserting a feeding tube. We leave him for the night and take a hotel room across the street from the clinic. Stephanie and I go to sleep talking about how we might be able to get Dink to eat, even though he may not want to.

The next day, the doctor suggests that we put off seeing him until later in the evening; they do not want him to get too excited. We leave a variety of Dink’s favorite foods before we go. We return later in the afternoon to see if the nurses had been able to get him to eat. The word came down and it was. "No!". Stephanie has fed him by hand many times before when he hasn’t been feeling well, she is confident she can get him to eat if she were to purée something and include peanut butter. Dink has always had a weakness for peanut butter. Over the years, to keep him from spitting out medications, Stephanie has disguised the tablet with peanut butter, Even though he probably suspected the trickery, he just couldn’t resist. We return with the concoction and Stephanie carefully placed a bit of the puree' on Dink’s lips to see if he would lick his lips. He didn’t, not to be deterred, she places some on the roof of his mouth, he seems to respond, soon after, he is licking the concoction off her fingers. Everyone standing around is relieved. The nurses say, “If we can get him to eat regularly during the next 24 hours; he should start to gain strength.”

He did continue to eat and gain strength. The next day after rounds, the doctor says, “emotional support will continue to be important.” They will remove him from the oxygen kennel and let him be with us in one of their many “comfort rooms”. For the next three days, we fed him and watched him sleep, but it was clear he was improving each day. Finally we were able to bring him home. We remain incredibly grateful to the doctors, nurses and techs at California Veterinary Specialists in Carlsbad, CA that not only saved Dink’s life and nurtured him through this, but for putting up with Stephanie and I during what was a very emotionally draining experience.

Where Is The “Greater Good”?

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:10:00 +0000

I was at a breakfast meeting this morning. When we arrived at that place on our agenda for announcements, one of the attendees reminded all of us that if we did not want a minority group to rule the majority, we should attend the City Council Meeting on February 22nd and speak in support of the Ronald Reagan Statue.

The person with the reminder is someone who I have great respect for and when he speaks, I generally listen carefully. He explained that he had attended the Arts Commission meeting this past Thursday and was very disturbed at the conduct of many of those in attendance who do not support the Ronald Reagan Statue. By his description of the events, and what I read later in the Daily Pilot, it was a “raucous” meeting. Any time crowd behavior becomes unruly at a public hearing, it is unfortunate and should remind us all, that no matter the extent of our passion for or against an issue, restraint and mutual respect for other’s views should be paramount.

However, that is not the focus of this piece. Nor, am I going to voice my support for the Ronald Reagan Statue. Although I am not sure it should be located in the new Civic Center, I would not be troubled if it were located somewhere in the city of Newport Beach or in one of our parks. There was a quote in the column I read that does trouble me. It was an unusual quote attributed to the person who said it and yet it was overheard by the columnist. The quote was this, "They may be the only 100 people in Newport Beach who don't want it." The person who said it was referring to the attendees at the Arts Commission meeting.

Most of you know that I sit on the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission. You also know, if you follow civic affairs in Newport Beach, residents are generally quite content with local government and the way the city is run. I am in my eighth year as a Commissioner and I can count the number of times a 100 people or more have attended one of our hearings and I can recall all of the issues involved. It is naïve to think that 100 people in Newport Beach would show up at an Arts Commission meeting to voice their disapproval of the statue if this were not a divisive issue.

As all of us know, every once in awhile a divisive issue arises and our City Council must reach consensus on, often negotiate compromise for, and sometimes reject one side or the other’s position for the “greater good.” After all, that is why we elect leaders. At the end of the day, hopefully all involved, when passions are set aside, can be confident that “greater good” was the driving force behind the decision whichever way it went.

A couple of years ago, there were over 100 people at a PB&R meeting who live near the site for Sunset Ridge Park. They were passionate about their desire not to have that site become an active sports park. In the end, our Commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend to the Council that the site include a baseball diamond and overlaying soccer field. We did so because we know that the youth in our city is better served if we have adequate sports facilities for them to compete on. Although disappointed in the outcome, most, if not all of those residents, knew in their hearts that there was a “greater good” to be served by the recommendation.

Can we say that there is truly a “greater good” being served here by approving the Ronald Reagan Statue over the objections of so many when we compare it to the Sunset Ridge Park issue? And, that is only one of several that I could have used to make the point. My message here to the Council is to simply move on to more important issues we are facing and we know those are many. It is not about a minority ruling the majority, but rather the importance of the scale of the “greater good” when faced with an issue that can divide residents in our great city.

Increasing California Community College tuition may provide for a better return on taxpayers' investment...

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:41:00 +0000

Governor Brown’s budget proposal includes an increase in tuition from $26 to $36 per unit; a 38 percent increase over a 30 percent increase two years ago. Any time college tuition goes up, we hear that higher education in California is pricing itself beyond what Californians can afford. The reality is tuition and fees for the California Community College System in 2008-2009 were the lowest in the nation. The next lowest state was New Mexico which was 50 percent higher during the same period (Source: 2008-09 California Postsecondary Education).

I have been teaching at a community college in California for over 27 years. When I first started teaching in 1984, the tuition was $5 per unit. Should the $36 per union tuition stand, it will calculate to approximately a 3 percent increase per year since 1984. On average, college tuition rates across the country tend to rise 8 percent per year (Source: Digest of Education Statistics). Clearly, tuition for the California Community College system has remained quite low when compared to national trends in higher education.

In my experience, the greater financial stake a student has in his/her education, the more committed they will be to completing a single class. Many community college students must overcome a number of obstacles to pursue higher education, For example most work at least part-time, and many are married and have families. Often, younger students do not have strong support at home to attend school. With complicated lives, and very little monetary investment, attending class can become a low priority and being dropped for lack of attendance usually results. Millions of dollars are spent enrolling, assessing, and processing transcripts for students who never complete a class. Registration for classes is conducted by seniority for date of admission; not completion of courses. Until the recent cutbacks, 50 percent attrition rates were common for most classes offered at a California community college.

With fewer sections of classes being offered, the demand has risen and these drop rates have lessened somewhat but they are still very high when compared to the California State University and the University of California where students have paid a substantial amount of money to be able to attend a class. I am not suggesting that community colleges command the tuition and fees by the state’s universities. However, asking students to personally invest more in the opportunity to receive an outstanding higher education experience helps provide a greater incentive for them to maximize the investment California is making in them by subsidizing its costs.

Qualifying students will still have options to secure financial aid. For example, the budget proposal still provides for Board of Governor’s (BOG) tuition waivers. There are also many sources of grants and other forms of financial aid for students willing to search and take the time to apply. The Internet has made this process much easier and less time consuming than it was even five years ago. The increase in tuition for community colleges is necessary not only for the survival of the institutions in this very difficult economy, it will provide for a greater return for our taxpayer dollar because students will be less inclined to take the opportunity to receive an affordable higher education for granted. Raising tuition $10 per unit is, not in itself, going to deny any student in California wishing to attend a community college. What it will do is help the system continue to provide classes and services as well as require students to hold themselves more accountable.

Just because it has always been done this way?

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:04:00 +0000

“Past practice,” or we have always done it this way…”so, if it has been done for a long time, we should continue to do it even if it does not or no longer serve the interests of all. That seems to be an integral part of the argument being advanced by boating community who has been critical of the Council’s attempts to raise the mooring fees and prevent leaseholders from selling their leases at inflated prices. It should not be surprising that what was an acceptable practice, (more likely just ignored) many decades ago and is no longer acceptable today. Whether we like it or not, times change, priorities change, and yes, the value of limited resources increases.

It’s ironic, in some ways, that the mooring lease holders have actually created the artificially increased value of their moorings because of this practice of being able to sell something that is not actually owned in the first place. The Newport Harbor belongs to all of us. The moorings are leased to boat owners by us and managed through the city. My boat is actually in a slip that I rent from a property owner. I am quite sure that I am paying more for that slip today than I would have 25years ago. I accept that; it is a principle of supply and demand. The supply went up recently with the economic down turn and I was able to afford a slip in Newport Harbor after keeping my boat in Dana Point for many years.

I am concerned that the city always keeps small boating a priority for Newport Harbor. I agree that we need to b careful not to force small boat owners out of our waters. I also support the city looking at the fees for all property owners maintaining slips along the shoreline. Mooring leaseholders should not bear the brunt of fee increases on their own. However, if I were to buy a larger boat and desire to moor it rather than keep it in a slip, I should be able to secure a mooring lease during my lifetime without having to buy a decrepit boat, and pay to have it salvaged in order to secure that lease. Families holding on to mooring leases for a boat that is decaying in the harbor because they want to profit from property that is not theirs is not consistent with the spirit of small boat owners. Making that mooring available to a family that will use it for fun and recreation is.

Further, I think the city should use the revenue generated from mooring leases and property owners with docks around the harbor exclusively for harbor maintenance, infrastructure improvements, and dredging. Leaseholders and property owners around the harbor would feel better about increased fees if they could see how those fees are helping to keep the harbor area clean and improving boating facilities.

The folklore associated with boating is one of the things that draw many of us to the harbor waters in the first place. What has happened to mariners throughout the years at our harbor as well as harbors around the world should be cherished and passed down to others, particularly the younger generation. Let’s not confuse these heroic tales with the practice of hoarding moorings for the purpose of profiteering.

Vision-building at the Gateway to the Balboa Peninsula

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 01:32:00 +0000

Of the 2010 Priorities set by the Newport Beach City Council if February of 2010, Goal 6 deals with Community Enhancements. One of those enhancements is the future of the current City Hall site at 3300 Newport Blvd. Most residents would not consider the City Hall an “economic engine” for the city but Dave Kiff, Newport Beach’s City Manager recently said, “he’ll feel sorry for the Starbuck’s employees across the street when the 240 people who work at the old City Hall clean out their desks and move away to the new building in late 2012.”

Councilman Mike Henn, whose district the old City Hall site is part of, was the guest of our Government Affairs meeting this past week and discussed this very issue with our committee members. Councilman Henn explained that the city has entered into an agreement with the two largest landholders near and around the old City Hall site to share the costs of hiring a professional land planner to develop potential land use designs. He stressed that this was only the very beginning of building a vision for the area that would prompt public input on what might be done to collectively develop a cohesive plan.

The large landholders in the area of the 4-acre old City hall site are the Vornado Reality Trust, who owns the Lido Marina Village shopping center, and the Fritz Duda Company who owns the Via Lido Plaza. Councilman Henn explained that the any comprehensive plan involving all three properties would have many complexities. For example, agreements would have to be reached with different land-lease holders along the waterfront, what to do with the current parking structure that exists in the Lido Marina Village, as well as accommodating the Lido Theater which will stay where it is currently located. To further complicate the matter, the docks in front of the Lido Marina village must be replaced and all of these properties lie within the Coastal Zone requiring approval from the Coastal Commission on whatever is decided
upon.

Thinking outside the box was a comment that Councilman Henn used to stress that anything is possible and all ideas, regardless of how far-fetched, should be on the table in this initial phase. An interesting idea that has been proposed is constructing a canal from the corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard across the old City Hall site to Newport Bay. It would provide for easy access to the Bay from the ocean side of the peninsula and provide for cleaner water for residents whose properties back up to the channel on Newport Isle.

The Newport Beach Lido Fire station which is currently located at the corner of 32nd Street and Finley could be relocated to the corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard or even across the street on the opposite corner. Councilman Henn pointed out that making the accessibility of fire and emergency vehicles more accessible to 32nd Street was important because of the future site of Sunset Ridge Park and any future development which may take place in the Banning Ranch property. Again, potential designs will be made available to the public and there will be many public hearings in front of the Council before any development plans or agreements will be entered into.

Long term planning is vital to the health of any community. It is significant that these three large property owners are talking about a shared vision for land use at the gateway to the Balboa Peninsula. In the mean time, residents should be aware that there are changes in these areas already. On Sundays between 9:00 am and 1:00 pm in the Lido Marina Village, resident and visitors will find a Farmer’s Market with locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. The aging Newport Beach Center at the corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard which was once a turnaround spot for the Santa Fe Red Line is currently undergoing a facelift that will be completed in late spring. The Von’s Pavilion store currently located in Via Lido Plaza will occupy the space being vacated by Albertson’s. The center’s name will change to the Landing and will include the Mexican eatery Chipotle Grill and Gina’s Pizza.

One Sun Devil Fan's Experience in Madison, Wisconsin

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:31:00 +0000

I am a graduate from Arizona State University and hold season tickets to Sun Devil football. My friend Stephanie and I also attend as many basketball and baseball games as our schedule permits. Since football games are usually on weekends, we attend both ASU home and away games. In the past several years, we have traveled to many college towns across country and have actually enjoyed the passionate enthusiastic fans wherever we have been until this past weekend in Madison, Wisconsin.

Madison Wisconsin is a beautiful place with its scenic view of the Lake Mendota, the Capitol Rotunda and of course, the University of Wisconsin. A trip to see a football game over a weekend rarely affords us adequate time to really see the city, so in most cases, we leave thinking we will have to make it a point to come back when we can spend more time. We will not be looking at dates when we might be able to return to Madison because neither of us wishes to return.

Last Friday night, we arrived late because of airline delays and found ourselves looking for an open restaurant after 10:00 pm. We were directed across the street from the hotel by the front desk clerk. We entered and noticed several big screen TV’s on the wall broadcasting football games live from the west coast. We thought to ourselves this is perfect and sat down at one of several empty tables. Of course, we were wearing ASU fan attire that clearly indicated we were there to see the ASU-UW football game the next day. We sat for almost 30 minutes without acknowledgement. Finally, after another group of four sat down and was greeted and served immediately by a waitress, we sought out the manager. Shortly thereafter, a waitress came to the table to take our order.

Curiously enough, while we were waiting to be served, a patron from the restaurant passed by our table on her way out to smoke a cigarette. She asked if we thought people were being mean to us, because she had heard as much. Having just arrived, and thinking our experience in this restaurant is just an anomaly, we replied “no.” The next day we chose to walk through town to an area near the university to eat breakfast. Again, we were wearing ASU sweatshirts and caps because we were going to go straight to the game following breakfast. As groups of students passed us on the street, we were told that ASU s _ _ k s more often than we want to repeat. I have heard that phrase before of course, and when I was in college I may have used that phrase occasionally. Having admitted that, I can honestly say that I never shrieked that to an adult from across the street.

After arriving at the State Street Mall area near the university, we searched for a newspaper so that we might be able to read the pregame analysis while eating. We located newspaper machine in front of a smoothie establishment and went in and asked for change for a dollar. The reply from the employee was “No!” Not “I am sorry our policy is not to give change”, or “I am sorry, at this time I don’t have enough change.”--just “No!” We finally did get some change following a purchase at another business, bought the paper and proceeded to choose the restaurant. While waiting in line for our order to be taken, people stared, children moved so their parents were between them and us. We began thinking to ourselves, “if it is like this on the street, what will it be like in the stadium?”

As it turned out…we sat in a block with other Sun Devil fans sprinkled with Badger fans and there was no vulgarity or other offensive remarks, maybe it was a question of being out –numbered, because it started again as we made our way back to the hotel on the shuttle bus. As traffic crawled down University away from the stadium, students on balconies of resident halls taunted the bus with obscenities and pointed to graphic signs hanging with depictions of “Bucky” the Badger beneath the imperative ASU fans… S_ _ _k my d_ _ _k!

I teach a critical thinking class at local college so I decided to share my experience with my class to get their reactions. Interestingly enough, they did not seem surprised or taken back at all, which makes me think my reaction to this behavior is more generational than a matter of mutual respect. Nonetheless, at least two people who may have returned to Madison will not. When good news is made in Wisconsin, whether by the university or the state, it will be seen cynically by at least two people. In times such as these, can a state capitol or a major university afford not to be concerned about the impressions left on visitors?

Renaming of the Oasis Senior Center

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:54:00 +0000

At our September Parks, Beaches and Recreation Committee meeting, one item on the agenda was a recommendation to the City Council on renaming the soon-to-be-reopened Oasis Senior Center. The center has undergone a total renovation during the past 16 months and a virtually new facility will reopen to seniors next month. As with any project like this, fundraising was a key to getting the project off the ground and completed. Evelyn Hart, former Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner, City Councilwoman, Mayor and Citizen of the Year was instrumental in the fundraising drive and a force behind getting the project completed on time.

Few people in Newport Beach are as respected as Evelyn Hart and I suspect that had someone other than Evelyn been out in front of this effort, the facility might still be in the planning stages. I have served on the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for over seven years and I received more e-mail and telephone calls over this issue that any other we have addressed. The list of those issues includes banning smoking on the beach, restrictions on the uses of Corona del Mar State Beach, removing trees from neighborhoods and dog parks to name just a few. Those who contacted me were evenly divided for and against adding Evelyn’s name to the Oasis Senior Center.

Those who want to see Evelyn’s efforts recognized have been advocating that the Oasis Senior Center be renamed the Evelyn Hart Oasis Senior Center. The issue was taken directly to the Mayor, and of course, his response, though unofficial, was positive. Then, the idea became the topic of a newspaper editorial. After that, those who have a long history (approximately 30 years) with the Oasis Senior Center became concerned that this “train had left the station” so to speak, and began to voice their concerns as to whether or not adding Evelyn’s name to the Oasis Senior Center was appropriate. The point here is that there had yet to be any dialogue between the important constituency groups (i.e. the Friends of Oasis Senior Center and the City who owns and manages the facility) on the issue and it had already become divisive.

In 2002, the City Council adopted a policy that would prohibit naming parks, public areas, and buildings after individuals. It was understood at the time, that should an unusual circumstance arise, the Council could except the policy, but it was approved to avoid having the issue arise every time a new park or city facility would open. The reasoning behind this is fairly obvious. In almost every public fundraising effort, there are many people who are crucial to its success and recognizing one often becomes political and the resulting decision could discourage others from becoming involved when the next project requiring public support comes along.

Back to my point about the idea of adding Evelyn’s name to the Oasis Senior Center becoming divisive before it had even become an issue. It seems to me that there could be a lesson learned here and avoid a sensitive issue like this being placed on a Parks Beaches and Recreation hearing agenda for a recommendation to the City Council in the future. First, had those who supported the idea of adding Evelyn’s name to the Center, done some research on existing city policy for naming buildings after individuals, they would have been alerted to the significant challenge before them. Before asking the Mayor’s opinion, had they asked the opinion of constituency groups associated with the building, perhaps everyone involved could have reached consensus on an alternative idea before going to city officials and the public.

I find it ironic that the issue became as divisive as it did over the name of Evelyn Hart, woman who has dedicated most of her adult life to building consensus around conflict in our city. In studying the staff reports prior to our hearing, I spent a lot of time thinking about what Evelyn must be feeling and thinking about this. While listening to citizens rave about her efforts in the success of the project and then disagree how those efforts should be recognized, I kept looking at Evelyn who was in attendance at the hearing. I haven’t spoken to her since we decided on our recommendation, but I have to believe that she would support it. I certainly hope so because she is to me, as she is to many others, a model for civic leadership.

What would a vote for Measure "V" mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:04:00 +0000

Yesterday, at our regular monthly meeting of the Governmental Affairs Committee meeting, our guest was Newport Beach City Attorney David Hunt. David was there to talk about Measure “V”; the Newport Beach City Charter Amendments which Newport Beach residents will vote on this November 2nd. To offer a brief history of the Charter Amendments, at Mayor Keith Curry’s request, the Council appointed a special commission to review the Newport Beach City Charter and determine if some processes were outdated, no longer applicable, or conflicted with current law. The Commission made several recommendations to the Council, which in turn, authorized the issue to be decided by the electorate.

David explained there were two categories of recommendations. First, there were “Policy-Related Issues” which included taxation and oil drilling. On the taxation issue, Measure “V” provides for a repeal of Taxing Authority. Currently, the City can enact, for limited purposes, up to $1.00 annual tax on each $100.00 of assessed value of taxable real property within the city. In addition, the City has the ability to levy and collect taxes for capital improvements. Approval of Measure “V” will eliminate this authority. Regarding the further restriction of oil drilling, Measure “V” prohibits off-shore drilling originating from the ocean’s surface and restricts future land-based oil operations to approximately 20 acres. David did comment that Newport Beach has limited authority to prohibit off-shore drilling along its coastline, but that this language in the City Charter would make it clear that residents reject off-shore ocean-surface drilling.

The second category, “Modernization and Efficiency Issues” included several updates and some repeals. Measure “V” provides an update to ordinance publication procedures to mirror the state law and to allow the City Clerk to follow general contracting procedures to administer and award publishing contracts. David surmised that this would provide for significant cost savings when the City Clerk must notice the public on ordinance changes. For example, the new Zoning Code is a two-inch thick document. It is very expensive to publish all of that information in the newspapers. Publishing a short summary with an electronic link to the document not only saves printing costs, but saves paper as well.

Measure “V” provides for an update to franchise procedures allowing them to be awarded in accordance with the municipal code. This would apply to the contracting out for selected municipal services such as what has occurred with street cleaning recently. There is also an update for the formal bid requirements for Public Works agreements increasing the threshold from $30,000.00 to $120,000.00 with the provision that the threshold can be increased according to an index selected by the City Council. Again David explained the primary benefit here is cost savings because there will be fewer Public Works projects that must be sent out for formal bidding.

Measure “V also provides an update to remedies regarding Charter violations. The list of remedies would grow to include misdemeanor, infraction, civil action and/or administrative citation. Further, it would provide for the appointment of a redistricting committee every ten years. David pointed out that with the modest growth Newport Beach experiences, every ten years makes sense and it also coincides with the national census. Measure “V” includes updates to several sections of the Civil Service code to make it more compatible with municipal code. In addition, Measure “V” repeals the limitation on Chamber contributions. This repeal allows the City to treat the Chamber as any other non-profit organization with respect to financial contributions. Measure “V” would repeal the 25-year term limitation on City contracts and leases, thus providing greater incentive for investment in leased properties by the private sector. For waterfront properties owned by the city, Measure “V” would provide for voter approval for the sale of those properties rather than a Charter Amendment. Finally Measure “V” provides repeal to the requirement that the City Manager reside in Newport Beach and it provides for an update for all gender references that they be neutral.

So what does your vote on Measure “V” do? If Measure “V” is approved, all of the repeals and updates will be incorporated into the Charter and ordinances. If Measure “V” is not approved, the Charter ad ordinances will remain unchanged.

Following David’s presentation, the committee discussed the November 2nd ballot initiatives and voted to recommend to the Board of Directors that the Chamber support or oppose them based on the the extent to which teach will benefit local businesses here in Newport Beach. I will take those recommendations to the Chamber Board for consideration at its September 27th Board of Directors meeting. In addition, the “Bac Pac” arm of the Chamber will interview all of the City Council candidates for the purpose of granting an endorsement. In October, the Chamber will make public its position on Measure “V”, each of the nine November 2nd Ballot Initiatives and those City Council candidates who have earned Chamber endorsements.

Grading the Teachers: Value-Added Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:45:00 +0000

I am a teacher, and as you might imagine, a number of my friends, family and colleagues have asked me for my reaction to the LA Times “value added” statistical analysis of math and English scores to estimate teaching effectiveness. I have also been asked whether I think it is appropriate to publish the information. I see these as two completely different issues, so I will first offer my opinion on assessing teaching effectiveness.

Teachers do not assemble products that have common characteristics. They cultivate minds of human beings which are extremely diverse. Objective measures (almost any statistical analysis) used in isolation can reasonably compare two or more things that are more alike than different. However, when you are talking about children whose intelligence, academic preparedness, cultural values, socioeconomic status, and state of health make it almost impossible to determine what is typical, any measure used by itself to estimate any relevant performance attribute will produce, at the very least, an inconclusive result and at worst misleading information.

For example, it is common to find students with varying reading abilities within a single school and possibly within a single classroom. A student in fifth grade who reads at the sixth grade level will not advance as far in one year as a student who may be in the same school or classroom that is reading at the second grade level. This phenomenon distorts the difference between the projected performance and the actual performance crucial to calculating the “value” when comparing results. Also, standardized tests of any kind are only one imperfect measure of student learning. For instance, many students experience test anxiety that is only amplified with the inflexible administration of a standardized test. Tension will inhibit performance on these instruments. In addition, there are many physical and environmental factors which dramatically impact student learning as measured by the test that are completely out of the teacher’s control such as disability, nutrition, or abuse to name just a few. Failure to meet a projected score should not lead to the conclusion that nothing important or relevant was learned during the year.

To the second issue concerning whether parents should be made aware of the results of a reliable assessment of teacher performance, I believe they should be. We are able to gather performance information on other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants who, by the way, are not paid with public dollars. In my view, there is no single responsibility an adult assumes that is more important than raising a child. Education is compulsory in our society and parents should be able to make informed choices about who will guide the learning of their children. Other than a child’s parents, few people have the ability to influence the future of a child more than a teacher.

So how did we get to the point where journalists take it upon themselves to conduct an analysis of data collected by a school district and publish the results? Teachers unions have been able to create a system which effectively shields a teacher from facing the consequences of poor performance. The unions, despite pressure from legislators; accrediting agencies; and now the federal government have refused to address the problem of school districts being forced to continue employment of teachers who cannot or will not improve their instructional techniques. When you simply refuse to take the necessary steps to address a problem that everyone admits exists, someone else will take those steps for you and that is what I believe has happened here.

On a recent Sunday morning, there was a wake-up call to teachers unions across the state to work with their local school boards and administrators to craft a reliable and comprehensive performance evaluation that uses multiple measures to assess student learning, effective teaching, provides for ample support for teachers to improve performance where improvement is needed, and if performance does not improve, provide districts with a fair and impartial process for termination. There are too many good teachers not to do this.

New Police Chief for Newport Beach, Jay Johnson

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:56:00 +0000

This morning at the regular monthly meeting of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs committee, our guest was new Chief of Police Jay Johnson. His first day on the job was July 3rd and his comment upon my introduction was “I have been here since breakfast.” Chief Johnson spoke to our group for about 45 minutes on his background in the Long Beach Police Department, his first impressions of the Newport Beach Police Department, and his vision for the role of the Newport Beach Police Department in our community as it moves forward under his leadership.

I had not met Chief Johnson before this morning and one of the many things that struck me about him was his sense of humor. He certainly did not fit my stereotype of a police chief, in that he seems reluctant to take himself too seriously. That is not meant in any way to suggest that he does not take the job seriously because he does. In contrasting the community of Long Beach and Newport Beach, Chief Johnson explained that the perception of crime rate in Long Beach is higher than it really is, and in Newport Beach the perception of crime rate is lower than it really is. His point, there is serious work be to be done to make Newport Beach more safe and secure.

Another thing that struck me was that Chief Johnson very candidly stated that suppression alone cannot and will not reduce crime. He talked about the importance of a cultural shift away from a destination for “partygoers” on the 4th of July for example, to one of a more “family-friendly” atmosphere. He used the annual 4th July parade in Huntington Beach as an example. He spoke about workshops and seminars provided by the department as a way to change our behaviors about what we leave in the front seats of our cars when we go to the gym. Chief Johnson’s message seems very clear, he will be looking for ways to engage all of us who live and do business in Newport Beach in cooperative effort with the NBPD effort to reduce alcohol related crime and theft. I look for Chief Johnson to be a very visible figure at community events and activities, and energetically involved with the leadership of the various homeowner and neighborhood associations.

Chief Johnson, on behalf of the NBCC Governmental Affairs Committee, welcome to Newport Beach and we look forward to your leadership of our police department.

Negative Mailers on Steve Rosansky

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:46:00 +0000

I do not vote by absentee ballot, so I did not receive the “hit piece” on Steve Rosansky, but several of our neighbors did and because they know I support Steve they called it to my attention.

I teach a class in critical thinking and one of the first things I teach is how to assess the credibility of arguments in print. When the evidence in a claim is substituted with ad hominems, the maker of the claim seeks to distract the reader’s attention from the issue under consideration with a personal attack. My students know that is the very first clue that the argument as presented is fallacious. I have confidence that the voters residing in Newport Beach are astute enough to see this piece for what it is; nothing more than a “cheap shot.”

The larger issue is that tactics like this have no place in our local elections. People like Steve Rosansky who aspire to help guide our city and serve our residents are essentially volunteers. They are not paid much beyond expenses incurred to meet their responsibilities, it certainly does provide celebrity status, and many augment the cost of running for the seat with their own personal finances. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with a member of our city council, their willingness to serve should cause us to think twice about supporting an effort to discredit one of them in such a despicable manner.

I believe those responsible for this mailer are a very small group who lack the confidence and courage to stand up and argue the facts in the group home issue. When I look closely at the evidence they present, I guess I would be reluctant to stand up too.

Corona del Mar Library

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:21:00 +0000

The Oasis Senior Center located in Corona del Mar will be renovated in the next two to three years. It will be expanded considerable to better serve the nees of our community's seniors. The Corona del Mar Library which is now housed in a very old building also needs renovation as does the fire station that sits directly behind it. The fire station is inadequate to serve the emergency needs in Cornoa del Mar. It needs to be much larger so that it can house the paramedics in addition to fire. The Corona del Mar branch of the library is used primarily by seniors as all the childrens materials were moved to the Central Library less than three miles away.

The city of Newport Beach would like to relocate the Corona del Mar Library to the newly renovated Oasis Senior Center. In doing so, the fire station in Corona del Mar could be upgraded to provide the services required and the library would be more accessible to the residents it serves. Seems like a no-brainer!

It has become controversial as a result of semantics. Predicatably, residents are opposed to closing the library. The term "closing" does not accurately describe what the city plan would do, yet many continue to use the term. The plan does not close the library branch, it relocates it to the Oasis Senior Center. Again, it seems like an easy solution would be to not continue to use the term "closing." However, there are those who oppose the term "relocation" because they fear the city plan would lead to other activities in newly renovated senior center other than just those for seniors.

There will be hearings, outreach efforts and probably some editorials in the paper, over a plan that serves the interests of all involved, but if we cannot use our words to exchange ideas, how can we build consensus and move forward?

Newport Center Park

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Brown) — Wed, 23 May 2007 01:40:00 +0000

Tonight (May 22, 2007) at the Newport Beach City Council meeting the Council is going to consider whether or not to fund the initial phase of development for the Newport Center Park. Newport Center has been designated as a passive (view) park. As most people are aware, there are some in town that would like to see joint use the the property and relocate the City Hall on this site as well.

The Council asked the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission to reconsider our previous decision as to whether Newport Center Park should remain a passive park and what other park elements should be added. The P,B&R Commission heard public testimony most supporting the continued designation of a passive park with some added amenities to "encourage people to use the park."

I found that particular suggestion a bit ironic. Should the City should spend millions of dollars on a park and be concerned with adding amenities to encourage people to use it? Some say that the city already has too many passive parks that go largley unused. I wonder if the City were to fund the construction of an active (sports) park in West Newport Beach it would need to consider what amenities could be added to encourage people to use it.