I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree, served 24 years in the USAF, am a former school board president, Recreation and Park Board member and Contractors State License Board appointee.

I served as president of the local Air Force Sergeants Association Chapter, the North Highlands Visions Task Force and the District 1 Neighborhood Accountability Board.

I worship at Faith Baptist Church and am President of the Gideons International Sacramento North Camp. I stand for traditional family values.

I am a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Tuskegee Airmen, the NAACP and VFW post 4647.

I was recognized as the local public broadcast station, KVIE, 1999 volunteer of the year and as Antelope-Highlands Chamber of Commerce 2001 businessman of the year.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

My questions are:

1. Why should billionaires be subsidized by the public — especially by the poor who are caught up in a tax structure that will affect them more so than those who are wealthy or middle class?

2. Why has the public been thrown a “future bone” of sharing one-half of the projected $1.2 billion revenues “down the road” for supposed, but not-targeted (left to future legislatures to determine the details) use in the emotion-laden areas of transit, law enforcement, fire safety, arts, libraries and after-school programs?

3. Without considering the true value of future dollars, why not propose an increase of just 1/8 of 1 percent (half what now is proposed) just for the arena and allow the other areas to be taken care of out of prioritization of the general fund and other program expenditures by the legislators elected to do so.

4. What led the drafters of the agreement to move from a direct up or down vote just about the arena to a position of “throwing in a few other items” to allow them to call it a general bond proposition versus what it appears to be, a specific bond proposal? Of course, the difference in approval authority is 50 percent plus 1 for the former and 66 2/3 percent (two-thirds) for the latter. **

5. Why was the financing constructed to allow the Maloofs to have a static payment schedule without taking into account the future value of money and the projection of the public’s contribution being interest based — meaning that the public’s end amount increases year to year as inflation and other factors devalue the dollar?

6. I am led to believe that the downtown pro-arena campaign will raise and possibly spend millions to convince the public to approve measures Q and R. Why cannot these contributions be considered as direct donations for the building of the arena in lieu of the sales tax increase? Albeit a drop in the bucket compared to the overall $1.2 billion projected to be raised over 15 years ($80 million a year), the millions spent to gain approval could be applied directly to the principal of the bond debt, thereby decreasing the life of the payments and further still, the overall dollar amount to be paid. If this sounds familiar, it is the same thing many home owners do by either paying a 13th monthly mortgage payment each year or by paying twice a month instead of monthly or by making at large payments over and above the mortgage directed to be applied directly to reducing the principal balance.

7. Is this the proverbial “one size fits all” concept? For example, some local leaders say it would be good for their city because they are land locked. Others say it is bad for theirs because they are expanding. If it is good for some and bad for others, should not the goal be to equalize gain by requiring that revenues be weighted to ensure that all gain the same relative to their populations — simple fairness?

CAVEAT: I have no aught against the Maloof family or the Kings/Monarchs organization. The idea of a multipurpose arena is great. I do not contest the location, though I have heard that there is some mitigation of toxic waste that must be dealt with. My objection is to the public funding of the arena as structured and presented to the voters.

CAUTION: I additionally am concerned that taxpayers need to be watchful for and wary of any ancillary actions that may come about that smell of eminent domain. With the new definition of public use to mean public benefit and the unlimited life span of blighted area designations, a usual justification government officials use to seize property — especially property concentrically surrounding its pride and joy showpiece — Sacramento County or City officials may believe that such areas need to be fixed up or replaced perhaps because of secondary traffic patterns to and from the new arena location. And often time, who is it that is hurt right along with the home or small business owners who may or may not want to sell? Many times it is those least able to fend for themselves. Just a thought, not an accusation!

SUGGESTION: As with any proposal, when briefed by advocates of the downtown arena as put before the voters, require of them or of those who crafted the proposition to identify the other alternatives considered (for example, expanding the existing Arco Arena) and to explain why they were rejected so you may clearly understand their thought patterns in concluding that the proposal before you is the best solution.

FINALLY: Please do not ascribe motive to the reasons some may give for disagreeing with my point of view or for my disagreeing with their point of view. Good people with the same goal may see some things differently without being bad people.

** NOTE: “The Sacramento County Taxpayers League goes deeper than this, considering the entire two-Measure plan as a direct violation of Proposition 218, (the Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes. Limitations on Fees, Assessments, and Charges proposition that was passed in 1996), and should this scheme pass, we will join with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in challenging the Measures in court as a violation of the State’s Constitution.” SOURCE: Joe Sullivan, Executive Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The community needs to provide the respect and recognition seniors have earned (dignity)

Over the next 40 years the senior population will grow at a disproportionately high rate when compared to other age groups.

Assumed an extended lifespan, quality of life is a major concern for seniors.

Numbers are increasing.

Life expectancy is increasing.

The life expectancy of one who reaches 65 years old is an additional 19.3 years to 84.3 years, nearly two years more than the life expectancy in 1990.

Expectations are that there will be a 158 percent increase in population of those over age 60 by 2040 and a 316 percent increase of those 85 and older.

In 2000, there were 1.23 million residents in Sacramento County of which nearly 15 percent or 178,000 were over age 60,

Baby Boomers were in their peak economically earning (financially productive) years in the 1990s. They paid the most they ever had into Social Security and in taxes (more relevant are those for Medicare and Medicaid) on average. Their contributions paid for those who came before them.

The expectation is that there will be a 2 percent increase between the numbers of seniors age 60 or older in Sacramento by 2010 over the amount in 2000.

Because of the lost revenues to Social Security and diverse taxes and the increase of those drawing from the system, multiple problems arise.

Women live longer than men. As a result, 37 percent of women aged 60 and older are widowed as compared to only 11 percent of males.

Of seniors today, more than 85,000 live without a spouse compared with approximately 94,000 living with a spouse.

Seventy percent of all seniors living in Sacramento County are white. Asians represent 10 percent and Blacks/African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos both represent seven percent. Eight percent categorized themselves as being of more than one race and another seven percent as “other.”

Six percent of the senior population in Sacramento County either does not speak English well or not at all. They are labeled “linguistically isolated.”

Nearly 74 percent of area seniors have a high school diploma or higher.

Many seniors cannot afford to retire and return to the work force.

One of the most pressing financial concerns is housing or home maintenance. An older adult’s ability to pay for housing while meeting the rising costs for other necessities such as food, health care, medications and transportation, may determine whether or not they will have the opportunity to “age in place.”

Seventy-five percent of seniors are homeowners. Twenty-five percent are renters.

Renters are more likely to be challenged to find safe housing in a desirable neighborhood and are at higher risk of losing their home due to rate increases.

Thirty-five percent or more of area seniors’ income is used for housing.

In 2000, the median annual household income for all Sacramento County residents roughly was $44,000. For those ages 65 to 74, the median annual income was only $36,506.

For those over age 75, some 75 percent of them lived in households with incomes of less than $15,000 income.

More than 50 percent of Baby Boomers are concerned with whether or not they will have sufficient retirement funds.

Average retirement savings had declined from $120,000 in 2001 to $93,000 in just 2002.

Only five percent of all County seniors live in group quarters.

Housing Concerns:

1. Affordability – Seniors are more likely to pay as much as 50 percent of their income for housing than are non-seniors who typically pay approximately 35 percent.
2. Adequacy – Older homeowners tend to live in older homes: many with deferred maintenance needs.
3. Accessibility/Adaptability – Among others, two needs come to the forefront:
   • Universal design to allow for comfort in multiple locations within proximity of their own dwelling.
   • Accommodations for mobility aids such as wheel chairs or driving carts.
4. Coordinated Services – For example, help with meals, transportation, household chores, errands or health care referrals.

Homeowners age 62 and older are allowed to borrow against the equity in their home through a reverse mortgage.

Renters are at a higher risk of losing their rentals due to rate increases than are homeowners.

Due to escalating demand and a supply that has not kept pace, rental housing prices have been increasing steadily since the 1990s.

For older adults on fixed incomes from a retirement plan or Social Security, high rental costs in relation to income may make the difference between an older adult’s ability to age comfortably in place and enjoy a good qualify of life or a significantly reduced standard of living and even possible homelessness.

Older women may be especially vulnerable to the challenges of affordable housing since they tend to live longer than men and typically have lower income levels.

On April 23, 2004, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors endorsed a requirement that all new residential developments include housing that is affordable for low-income individuals and families.

Assisted living refers to housing that is a combination of housing and personalized support and health services in a non-institutionalized setting designed to maximize personal independence. Current there is no state-level funding for assisted living, the cost of which currently is between $2,000 and 4,000 a month based on location and level of care.

Residential care is more institutionalized and provides a greater level of personalized assistance and medical care.

Older adults are less likely than other age groups to be the cause of traffic accidents and injuries.

Persons over the age of 60 account for only 17 percent of all licensed drivers in the County.

Seniors who are hurt as a result of a vehicle accident are more likely to suffer severe and even fatal injuries than other age groups – often due to their age.

Nationwide, 21 percent of Americans 65 and older do not drive because of:

1. Declining health
2. Concern over safety
3. No access to a vehicle
4. Personal preference.

More than 50 percent of non-drivers age 65 and older stay home on any given day because they lack transportation options.

Alternatives to private automobiles include:

1. Public transportation
2. Dial-A-Ride services
3. Non-motorized transportation

Common challenges to walkable neighborhoods include:

1. Crime and safety concerns
2. Missing or damaged sidewalks
3. Heavy traffic
4. Lack of resting places
5. Traffic lights that do not allow sufficient time for pedestrians – especially older adults – to completely cross the roadway before the traffic flow resumes.

As of March, 2004, forty-nine percent of County seniors were registered as Democrats and nearly 40 percent as Republicans.

There are more than $50,000 veterans over the age of 60 living in Sacramento County.

Older adults feel that their health status is good to very good.

Lack of exercise, tobacco or alcohol abuse and obesity contribute to illness and premature deaths of seniors.

According to a report released in June 2002 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “300,000 people die each year from diseases and health conditions related to sedentary lifestyle and poor eating habits.”

Medicare is a federally-funded health insurance program that pays for:

1. Most types of health care for persons 65 years of age and older
2. Persons considered permanently disable as defined by the Social Security Act
3. Persons with end-stage renal disease

Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) is a state-administered, federally-funded program designed to serve low-income individuals who are:

1. Aged
2. Blind
3. Disabled
4. Members of families with dependent children

Almost 77 percent of aged Medi-Cal eligibles also have Medicare coverage.

Medi-Cal generally pays the Medicare premiums, deductibles and any co-payments for those dual beneficiaries, also known as “Medi-Medi” beneficiaries.

Medi-Cal pays for services not covered by Medicare, such as:

1. Drugs
2. Long-term care
3. Limited assistance to a small number of Medicare eligibles that have incomes a bit higher than what is considered the medically-indigent standard.

Many adults over the age of 65 are eligible for Medicare because of their age and Medi-Cal based upon their income.

For older veterans, Medicare is the primary source of health care coverage and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is a secondary payer for services.

Unintentional falls were the leading cause of hospitalization for nonfatal injuries for all seniors.

Of the five leading causes of natural death for seniors over age 60, more than 50 percent were a result of heart disease (nearly 28 percent) and cancer (23.5 percent).

The other causes of natural death varied by race/ethnicity, with the top reasons including:

1. Pneumonia & Influenza
2. Cerebro-vascular Disease
3. Cirrhosis: Kidney Disease
4. Chronic Respiratory Disease
5. Diabetes
6. Artery Disease

Disabilities fall into five major categories:

1. Vision
2. Hearing
3. Physical Communication
4. Cognition
5. Physical Agility

The average rate of violent crime against those 65 and older is less than two per 1,000 populations.

The greatest threat of crimes against seniors comes from abuse or neglect.

The most common for of elder abuse in Sacramento County in 2003 was financial abuse.

Financial abuse takes two basic forms:

1. That committed by a caregiver or family member
2. That committed by “con artists” and bogus contractors who target older persons to cheat them of their savings and other assets.

SOURCE: A Profile of Older Adults (in Sacramento County California 2004), a project of the Sacramento County Adult and Aging Commission in collaboration with more than 100 community organizations and individuals.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Again, the community, under the leadership of Keith Weber, President, Antelope-Highlands Chamber of Commerce, and the Friends of the Historical Gibson Ranch and Dry Creek Parkway are attempting to take action to plan for this contingency.

This leadership group has scheduled a Benefit Ice Cream Social (plus a wagon full of fun family activities) on Friday, September 22, from 5:00-8:30 pm on the Ranch Store Lawn at Gibson Ranch. Requested donation is $5.00 per person (includes gate entry). Note that children under three (3) enter free.

The hope is to raise money to be used for targeted improvements in an attempt to mitigate any depreciation caused by County Parks & Recreation not having the ability to properly maintain the facility due to the anticipated revenue shortage.

Gibson Ranch is one of the most important treasurers in north Sacramento County. Let us all pull together once again to help preserve it in fact, and in a condition that those who come to use it will not be dissatisfied.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Sacramento Bee’s summary: Believes shoring up the levees is key to protecting the public. Thinks the state should take steps to prevent local jurisdictions from approving construction in high-risk areas without accepting responsibility for those decisions.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I am an appointed member of what is known as the McClellan RAB (Restoration Advisory Board), and work with Air Force (the former owners/users of the base that now is a technology center known as McClellan Park), federal, state and local government agencies and other community members to provide input on behalf of the community regarding cleanup actions that should be taken at McClellan Park that are most cost effective, will clean it up to agreed upon standards, and that will allow for reuse of the property as quickly as possible.

A few years ago, I wrote a lay person article about the ongoing cleanup and the RAB, and have only recently updated it.

Please click here to view it should this be an area of interest for you.

Part of the inherent responsibility of the RAB members when providing advice is to concern themselves with how proposed actions may impact the community. In other words, we are to ask the questions you may want answered before signing off on a proposed plan of action.

One example is found at a state’s Contaminated Vapor Treatment Technology Workgroup site of which I was the public member working with environmental organizational representatives and state regulatory agency representatives to structure an understandable template for public use.

This group was chartered under the leadership of the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) with a purpose of providing the public information that they could understand and that would assist them in asking necessary questions of the professionals who wrote the proposals and implementation plans for toxic cleanup.

Should you be interested in the result of that workgroup, please go to website http://sve.ucdavis.edu/Index.htm. I suggest you especially make it a point to visit the “questions for community use” portion of the site. Hopefully the questions listed there will become the benchmark questions that RAB members will ask as they represent you in the development of the cleanup proposals.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

They claim that pastors, by doing so, are in violation of what has become known as “separation of church and state.” Typically this is done whenever someone does not want a person who professes Christ as their Lord and Savior to use the doctrine of the faith as foundation for their choosing between competing points of view or candidates.

There are two problems with this so called doctrine:

1. Pastors have a God-given right and responsibility to preach and teach “thus sayeth the Lord” from the pulpit and parishioners have a corresponding right to “choose ye this day who you will serve” relative to moral issues.
2. The term, “separation of church and state,” is a misnomer. It implies that a Christian’s faith is somehow outside of or otherwise “attached” to the follower of Christ rather than it being from within as the Holy Bible tells us, because our “body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]” – the place where God resides within us — and “… ye are not our own.”. (1 Cor. 6:19)

Christianity therefore is the essence of a Christian’s being. It is his or her character. It is the foundation for their decision making, and as such, is who Christians are. And since they cannot be separated from themselves, the idea that they should not bring to the table who they are is ridiculous.

I believe that the intent of this effort to separate church from state has two purposes:

1. To remove the God who judges both behavior and persons from the discourse even in the house dedicated to his honor and glory.
2. To curtail the influence (especially in the political arena) of those who profess to be Christians so as to move an agenda forward that is contrary to God’s revealed word.

I will provide the source references for two such “hot button” issues that are in the news today as examples, but first must provide you with my definitions of two terms: position and opinion.

1. Position: taken where the proof is inviolate and a conclusion can be made
2. Opinion: given when there exists the ability to have more than one conclusion.

Why are these definitions important? Because candidates for office who stridently cite scientific studies, poll data, etc., as authority for their position on secular issues, even though the so called “experts” they cite may disagree among themselves, must similarly be made to cite their authority for their position on moral issues.

I believe that there are two main reasons candidates might profess agreement with a bible-based position but not cite the bible as their source:

1. Their position was derived at by happenstance and represents only the opinion they have arrived at without the use of an absolute standard.
2. Their position truly is taken from God’s Word, but they are ashamed of the author of the truth they speak because they fear man more than they fear God.

Scripture, however, admonishes us against this. We are to fear God and not man (Mt. 10:28) and to “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord . . . but be though partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God.” (2 Timothy 1:8)

Christians therefore need to be wary of those who merely present an opinion that, in truth, just happens to agree with the biblical principle that applies, but that may only be a matter of expedient personal choice or preference and not necessarily a position someone is committed to as we would be as non-ashamed persons indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

The fact that there is no standard against which a candidate may come to a conclusion other than what is in his or her own mind is even more egregious with regard to moral issues than it is were the issue to be a secular one. And both are inconsistent with representing the public interests.

And even worse, if some who truly are Christians are fearful of or ashamed to publicly acknowledge such and therefore withhold boldly speaking about what they know to be true; they thereby cause other Christians to struggle to identify them.

As for me, I take positions on moral issues based upon my understanding of God’s Word and am not ashamed. (Please note that this does not imply that I received a unique revelation from God, merely a revelation that is consistent with that received by others who know and love the Lord as do I, and who then have studied His Word to show themselves” approved.”)

Now let us look at two “hot button” issues of the day as examples. My plan is to provide biblical references that apply, and finally note what is going on at the nation or state with regard to them so as to distinguish myself from other candidates seeking office.

Issue #1 – Homosexuality (including same sex marriage : Leviticus 18:22 , Romans 1:22-28 and Genesis 2:21-24

• Le. 18:22 reads: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: It is abomination.
• Ro. 1:22-28 reads, in part: … For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient. . . .
• Genesis 2: 21-24 reads: And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, “this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Issue #2 - Abortion on Demand : 1 John. 2:16 , Exodus. 20: 3 and Psalms 127:3 and 147:13

• 1 John 2:16 : For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world.
• Exodus 20:3 : Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
• Psalm 127:3 : Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
• Psalm 147:13 : For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath blessed thy children within thee.

NOTE: The verses I used regarding these two issues are not all inclusive. There are others that, when viewed with the understanding that the Bible interprets itself, but does not contradict itself leaves room for some to choose to choose to use other verses rather than the ones I selected.

These are but two examples of the types of issues that heretofore were not a part of the domain of government, but which are now. A partial list of others that should be dealt with in the same way are: prayer in public schools, crosses or other Christian symbols on or in public buildings, assisted suicide, and whether or not there exists a collective responsibility to care for both the elderly and the young.

Today, many elected government leaders have chosen to make policy that goes against what is found in the Bible and is understood by Christians as being directive upon them.

The reasons they do this stems from their misunderstanding of the role Christ is in the life of a believer: Christians accept Christ in two ways and not one as customarily is believed.

• Christ, who died for all our sins, is Savior. Many, even some Christians, who stop here or those who disbelieve accept a Christian’s right to believe this because it is not visible and looks to the after life and because it does not effect them for the most part.
• Christ is Lord who must be obeyed by Christians. This is hard for others to accept because obedience to Christ is not a passive activity; rather it is active involvement.

God requires Christians to be involved in the world and that includes in positions of leadership where they can contribute to the general well being as the Lord honors their faithfulness to Him by blessing their actions. Two examples come to mind immediately:

• Joseph. After he was sold into slavery in Egypt, he rose to a position of authority second only to that of Pharaoh “in the throne.” (Genesis 41:40)
• Daniel. Taken into captivity because of his talent and skill, he too rose to a position of “ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.” (Daniel 2:48)

Neither forgot God while they served those who were allowed by God to be in a position superior to their own and their appointer.

So too should Christians who govern. God should not be forgotten. Neither should Godly principles be ignored.

To see how Christians should apply their status to positions in a secular government made up of those who believe and those who do not, there needs to be a brief explanation about the decision-making process and its meaning when competing belief systems attempt to coexist.

When making a decision, I subscribe to a traditional decision-making process: (1) define the problem (not using the symptom as the problem), (2) list the assumptions, (3) identify the factors that bear on the problem, (4) develop alternatives and finally, (5) select the alternative considered to be the best.

The most difficult step with regard to moral and ethical issues is found at the assumption step. Christians, for example, accept that God is real and that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, Rom. 15:4 and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

But others do not, and until such time as they do (since that assumption is foundational to who we are in Christ) they and we cannot agree upon a meaningful solution to the problem that is before us.

Consequently, we should not be involved in public debates about the merits or pitfalls of the moral and ethical issues that today are before our government leaders.

Any attempt to have someone who holds an antithetical assumption to your own regarding an issue undoubtedly will not arrive at the same alternatives or consider the one you choose as the best.

There therefore is no common ground to be reached because any attempt to decide either for or against represents man attempting to decide by majority vote whether or not to accept God’s word as a higher authority. And, of course, man does not have standing to do this.

With this in mind then, how do those who advocate positions contrary to God’s word attempt to ensnare Christians into a fruitless debate with them. They obfuscate the truth. I will use abortion on demand as an example.

Abortion on demand is the law of the land based upon the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade and Christians, who are to “… render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s , ” (Luke 20:25) are not to take that decision as their own liberty to partake of abortions, but also are not to sin in their attempts to convince others to not do so.

Since that decision, all later discussion has been in the context of “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” Those who choose pro-life are considered to be “out of touch with the “mainstream.” Those who choose pro-choice are considered to be “enlightened.” Discussion also has become technical: “when exactly does life begin,” for example, at conception or once delivered from the womb.

But we should remember that so long as Christians engage those who wish to give mankind control over life and death using worldly definitions and compartmentalizations, they will be ensnared and lose any discussion.

The fact that the choices are posed as they are implies that man has the right to agree or disagree with God and that man can understand the intricacies of birth and life more than what God has revealed to him.

So I choose not to become embroiled in answering the question of pro-choice or pro-life in the context in which it is asked because it is a lose – lose situation. I either go against my understanding of God’s word or am labeled as someone who wishes to impose his own opinions on others contrary to the not-so-long-ago determined constitutional “right to privacy.”

My answer therefore is: “I believe everyone has the right to choose to disobey God at his or her own peril.”

And once God is included in the answer, there no longer can be any discussion about my authority to tell anyone else what to do or not to do with their body. They must now refer to the Bible to verify what God has said should they seriously be looking for answers. And should they accept God’s word as authority, they will either act in accord with it or will disobey him.

But none of these issues is of the Yes or No variety. There are various, interrelated portions of scripture that apply as we define how we will respond to them.

Merely accepting God’s broad or umbrella position on them does not necessarily specify how we should respond at the detail level in any given circumstance when making policy that affects not only ourselves, but others, as well. That’s what governance is all about. And that’s what I am seeking your support to do – to become part of the governance team of the state of California.

What follows are some of the verses I use to demonstrate that scripture dictates to me how I am to conduct my personal life, but that I am not mandated to be the policemen for how others conduct their lives. Caring about and praying for are not the same as demanding that others obey God.

The result is that I hate the sin and love the sinner (note: I define this to mean that because I too am a sinner (only a different sin) that I can get along with the “sinner,” work on agreed upon goals with the “sinner” and otherwise treat the “sinner” as a human being without compromising my core beliefs).

• Ezekiel 33:8-9 (and 2-7 - Watchman): When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood shall I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou has delivered thy soul.
• James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, Deut. 27:26;Mat. 5:19;Gal. 3:10 he is guilty of all.
• John 8:7: So when they continued asking him, he lift up himself, and said unto them, “ Deut. 17:7;Rom. 2:1 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ”
• Proverbs 22:6: Train up a child in the way he should go: And when he is old, he will not depart from it.
• Matthew 5:44 and 46: But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you … For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
• Matthew 28:19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

As I go forward with this campaign, my prayer is always to be in step with the Lord as I have joined him in this undertaking. If you conclude that my campaign is worthy of your support, please:

• Tell others about it or provide me with the forum to do so.
• Volunteer to or encourage others to assist the campaign with their time and talent.
• Provide or encourage others to provide financial support.

In summary, remember: (1) “separation of church and state” does not exist; (2) there is a difference between a position and an opinion; (3) politicians who do not cite the source for their positions on moral or ethical issues may not necessarily be in agreement with you, the Christian; (4) avoid debate (especially public debate) about the merits of spiritual issues with those who do not accept the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God; (5) acknowledge that sin is sin and that God despises your and my sin just as much as that of the person whose sin we despise; and (6) understand that as we hate the sin and love the sinner we are called to live in and take part in this world but as Christians.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Accoding to information received, its purpose is to “achieves excellence by providing a nurturing community to stimulate motivation and creativity in an environment that builds integrity, independence, and productive citizens.”

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I am a supporter of the eminent domain concept that allowed the taking of the real property of an individual owner for public use by the state. For example: public use projects such as dams and roads or, as was done during the country’s westward expansion, railroads - which today may equate to airports.

These uses resulted in a direct benefit to the entire public regardless of the need to charge fees because the entity that received the transferred property was the government itself and it leased it to the primary service or other provider. Furthermore, the government most often regulated the fees that were allowed to be charged by the provider.

Two things have happened to skew this, however, and cause me to not be in favor of eminent domain as it now is defined.

First, the definition of public use identified above has over the years been changed both in practice and in the courts to be synonymous with public benefit. This has had the effect of empowering local legislative bodies to summarily decide what is in the public benefit without regard for its public use.

An example is the taking of a small business owner’s property in a minority or low socioeconomic community over the owner’s objection and turning it over to large commercial business (no longer government owned or overseen) to build a shopping mall.

The assumption that the resulting public benefit of increased taxes to the city is the same as providing public use is not the same. At most, any such benefit, if any, will only be secondary and minimal in terms of a particular individuals government services.

And even if the goods and services provided by the new business can be taken advantage of and are made more available, only that segment of the public that may need the services provided and chooses to use that particular name brand store will benefit.

Often times this action changes the “style” or “flavor” of the community, and most often provides a financial advantage to the new store over the other small businesses that remain in proximity to that location.

The second problem with eminent domain as it is used today is the use of blight as a primary justification of government in considering whether or not to use its eminent domain power.

Blight is a disease associated with plants that leads to their dying that has come to be used to define areas of a community that are run down and that otherwise theoretically bring down overall area property values and eventually cause it to “die” as people leave and others choose not to move in.

On its face, this seems to work for the benefit of the real property owners in proximity of the “blighted” location because an upgrade may increase their property values and prolong the life of the area.

However, this is not so in many instances for three reasons:

1. Blight is in the eye of the beholder (many times the local legislative leaders or those who covet the property location for their own use and benefit).
2. A single property labeled as blighted labels the entire “area” as blighted. Note: the definition of and limitation upon the word, “area,” when used in association with eminent domain, is arbitrary and summary).
3. Once defined as a blighted area always defined as a blighted area since there are no provisions of which I am aware to have such a designation taken “off the books.”

The impact again falls more so on minority and low socioeconomic communities where small business owners, especially those that not only are working hard to stay in business and make a profit, but at the same time are taking steps to improve their surroundings, find that out of the blue they are included in a “blighted” area definition as a prerequisite to a government take over of their property in the name of eminent domain.

And the most appalling thing about this to the business owner is that he or she was moving forward by working hard to pull himself and his family, his business and his community up from where it was and that all that effort is counted as meaningless and to no avail when he or she refuses to sell the property to the government..

Often, this refusal to sell is not about the money. The fair market value proposal made to property owners of eminent domain takeover may or not be fair in the eyes of the property owner because they typically include only land and improvement values along with that of location.

What most likely is not included in the offer is payment for the so called “sweat equity that now will have been for naught, the existing relationships, the history that may be generational and the general ties that have been built and maintained. In an accident or wrongful death court case, this might be labeled as compensation for “pain and suffering.”

And on top of all this is that the calculation typically does not take into account what is referred to as the “assemblage value” of the area of homes or businesses. As an example, let us assume that there are 10 parcels each valued at $100,000. Total value of $1 million.

But if the 10 were combined into one and fair market value then computed, the value based upon the potential expanded use (“the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” concept) may be as much as double or $2 million. This too is lost to the owner though under eminent domain.

Regardless, the real issue remains whether or not a refusal to sell should be overridden using the new guidelines for the government taking the personal property of a private citizen.

If the courts continue to uphold the changed definitions and provide legal cover for the local legislative bodies that use the new definition of eminent domain, then the public is stuck without direct action at the ballot box.

If that fails, one simple solution is to make the aggrieved property owner a for-life prorated (to that property only) perpetual shareholder of the private company that was given “ownership” over the property.

Another attempt to provide property owners a purchase offer more near to the real worth of the property might be to base the offer on a statistically validated assemblage value.

If the new business and its shareholders should benefit for the life of the business, then so should the original real property owner and his or her heirs.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites