Liberty559

Porterville is looking to place limits on fundraising car washes. Fresno already has done so for several years. Why?

These car washes are becoming popular means for families and groups to raise their own revenue rather than begging the government. Businesses are voluntarily allowing these groups on their property for these events. Some groups rely on car washes for a significant portion of their revenue.

The rationales cited in the Fresno Bee today are very telling about the mindset of far, far too many government officials, elected and appointed.

"The big issue is that regardless of why the car washes were happening, the wastewater was just going down into the gutters, most of which drain into rivers. We have to stop that uncontrolled runoff into our storm drain system."

Does anyone out there think that the fundraising car washes make any kind of even semi-serious bump in the amount of pollution going into the storm drains? What percentage of people use fundraisers as a source of their car cleaning in any given time period? Moreover, does anyone out there believe that fundraising car washes increase in any serious way the number of car washes in an area at any given time? It's reasonable to assume that when most people notice that their car is dirty and decide to go to a fundraiser, the fundraiser will probably substitute for the commercial car wash or the driveway at home that they would normally use.

"Several years ago, we [Fresno] had the same problems that Porterville is having now. The car washes are everywhere, and there were problems with runoff, excessive water use and even traffic. People were standing in traffic to advertise their event. It was a very real hazard."

See above, and substitute "water use" and "runoff" for "pollution". As for people standing in traffic, it would seem that the nuclear option was not necessary in dealing with the behavior of car washers. Discipline them individually when they cause problems, but don't punish people who follow the rules.

"We used a lot of good customer-service skills. We shut them down, but we also told them where they could go to hold authorized car washes."

Liberty559 translation: "It's OK for government to put an operation out of business as long as it's done with kindness. And besides, the business that is hosting the car washes doesn't get any customers out of it because the people doing the car washes and the people waiting for the car washes don't normally buy stuff. So, it doesn't make any difference if the car wash is held at another location."

"That isn't one of the areas they are required to regulate, but they can choose to regulate car washes if they've had a problem."

This was a pollution expert at a pollution agency saying that car wash fundraisers are not on their regulatory radar. If cities are regulating fundraising car washes, they're doing it without any specific prompting from the pollution bureaucracy.

"We were having way too many people holding car washes every day, without a license, and without having to follow the same guidelines as professional car washes. It was polluting our water, and it was an unfair business practice."

Here's where the rubber meets the road. It is routine for a commercial industry to weigh in with their elected officials when small, impromptu individual business competitors spring up. Several years ago in Fresno, the city reviewed an ordinance proposal to clamp down on street corner vendors. Most specifically at that time were complaints about people selling flowers on street corners for Mother's Day and Valentine's Day. Who were the chief complainers? Florists!

"I'm involved a lot with schools, and I know how hard it is for them to raise money. We will try to help as many as we can, as long as people realize we can't do it every weekend."

An apparently sympathetic commercial car wash owner. Of course, scarcely anyone would or should expect commercial car washes to pick up the slack. That's more reason for the government to leave the situation alone and allow fundraisers and property owners to deal with the charitable need on a consensual basis.

"I know they are trying to reduce pollutants and also regulate businesses. What I don't know yet, is how we will replace the money we raised here. The car wash was run by men from the home, which doesn't receive any government money. This won't shut us down, though. We will find a way to stay open."

A nonprofit operating a car wash without a license (after all, it's nonprofit). What the license does, I don't know, other than restrict trade. Yes, you are correct, sir, in your view that Porterville is trying to "regulate businesses". The multi-multi-million dollar question is "Why?" To what end is regulation a benefit to Porterville or Fresno or any other city, other than benefitting a special interest? This group is functioning as best it can without its hand out to government officials, and this is the thanks they get? Godspeed to this organization as they try to move on without their car wash.

"I don't like the idea of the city shutting them down, but there is not much I can do."

The owner of the property allowing the nonprofit car wash to operate. Most of the time, there isn't much that can be done when elected officials are headstrong and focused in their regulatory zeal. Most elected officials want to do good, want to be reformers. Unfortunately, in weighing their options for reform, the best option is often the least considered option: DO NOTHING! The best way to avoid actions like those likely to happen to in Porterville? Elect libertarians!

"In a case such as a family trying to raise money for a funeral, they could ask a professional car wash business for help, and I think there are many in town who would do so. We're not trying to keep groups from raising money. We're just trying to make the situation fair for everyone."

Just more evidence that the concerns about pollution and runoff and traffic and safety, concerns that are either not real problems or are easily addressable problems on a individual basis, sublimate to the one concern that cannot be satisfied as long as these fundraising car washes are allowed to exist unregulated: competition.

A free marketplace IS a fair marketplace!

This week the City of Fresno and the law enforcement employee representatives have clashed over the utilization of numerical targets of performance. And today, we learn that the cameras installed at certain intersections to detect red-light runners are not paying for themselves and may possibly be taken down. In each case, the Fresno law enforcement community is financially rewarded for citing us citizens more for law violations.

The City wants police to show a 5% improvement in performance and is using the number of arrests and citations as the standard of measure. The mayor calls these standards goals; the employees call them quotas. Does a goal/quota of 105% of the present arrest/citation rate necessarily mean that the police are performing better? If crime goes up 10% or goes down 5%, is a 5% numerical citation/arrest rate increase fair to the employees or the general public?

What happens if police officers miss their goal/quota? If the targets are not quotas, why are they part of a performance standard proposal rather than part of an overall examination of policing in general? If an officer misses his/her targets without consequences, why have the targets as part of an employee's performance standard? If officers are to be penalized for missing their targets, are the officers going to go the extra mile to make arrests and citations, perhaps in a manner that is intrusive and/or discriminatory to the general public?

The red-light cameras may be eliminated because they are not bringing in the revenues that the City had predicted (desired?). Signal lights in other areas of the country were found to be tweaked in ways to artificially increase violations, thus revenues. Part of the reason for the lower revenues in Fresno is that the cameras don't work near optimum standards, with only 19% of violators being able to be identified to be cited. Although the question of the efficacies of the cameras are discussed, the effect of the cameras on the injury and death rate at intersections is not. That should be the predominant factor in installing or uninstalling the cameras, and clearly it is not.

Linkaging law enforcement activities with economic incentives heightens mistrust of the police by the citizens and encourages the least ethical in law enforcement to abuse his/her authority for personal gain. It is dangerous and should not be a policy of any police or military agency at any governmental level.

Larry Westerlund's defense of his vote for the Fresno City Council's purchase of the Barrister Building parcel downtown says a great deal about redevelopment in Fresno. While his explanation of the cost of the parcel may have some validity, it instructs us more why government should not be in the real estate or hotel business in the first place.

The involvement of the City of Fresno via the Redevelopment Agency appears to have artificially spiked the cost of the parcel. Indeed, that may be true for the entire downtown area since any real estate in a "project area," like downtown, can be confiscated by the City at what the City considers fair market value if the real estate owners don't play ball with the City by signing an owner participation agreement (OPA). In the case of the property adjacent to the Exhibit Hall expansion, the City tried to get it for much, much less eight years ago through eminent domain, but the Ophelia family stood its ground.

The councilmember explains the price of the parcel, but does not as deftly explain the value of the City's involvement. He says that the City needs "options". Well, what about those options? The build-out option for the Exhibit Hall is seen by scarcely anyone as a major factor in the convention center's fortunes. Government convention centers have been failures all over the country, and Fresno doesn't appear to be an exception. Government holding onto property for ownership sake is a counterproductive option, as the land is more productive when a private entity uses it for commerce or for philanthropy.

That leaves us with building a hotel. Why should the City do it? Lloyd Kennedy of the Convention and Visitors Bureau insists that downtown needs 50% more rooms for his agency to do its job of filling convention dates. But if a new hotel fills up only at convention time, does a public expenditure toward a that hotel in an economy of 30% present-day vacancies have value?
The interest in the property at the northern corner of Inyo and M is restricted to those who will deal with the City. The City has tried for at least two decades with exclusivity arrangements to find a suitor to build its hotel without success. Like Grizzlies Stadium, the assumption is made by the city leaders that if it is built in the manner and place that they say it should be built, they will come. Well, it may not get built and they may not come if it is built in a non-competitive environment. The truth is that a company that will have to spend $80 million to build a hotel, or anything else, does not want to be told where to build it or have the Redevelopment Agency nitpicking its operations.

The OPA ratchets up the cost of doing business in the City without enhancing the value of real estate or business opportunities. The threat of eminent domain, now heightened by last month's the Supreme Court ruling, is a greater disincentive than ever before.

The Redevelopment Agency is broken and can only be fixed by its abolition.

Some people argue that military defense (or offense) is not a local issue, but I could not disagree more. As long as there are local men and women serving in the military, it is a local issue. As long as we elect congress persons and senators to decided issues of defense in Washington, it is a local issue.

While I have nothing but praise for our soldiers, it is my opinion that our political leadership in Washington has made a grave mistake in invading Iraq. As a libertarian, I find that this foreign intervention in another country is unjustifiable by libertarian principles. By libertarian principles a foreign intervention is prima facie a questionable event. We believe that such military action must be in defense of the U.S. from aggression by another entity. Every justification floated by the Bush administration has been proven to be false. It is time that we withdraw from this quagmire in an orderly and expeditious manner.

The invasion of Iraq has not made us one bit safer from terrorists. In fact, the invasion has played right into the hands of the terrorists who had predicted just such an event. Terrorists do not have to defeat us to win! All they have to do is remain undefeated and take an occasional shot at our people. Armored divisions are made for defeating other military formations who will try to stand up to them. The U.S. military is not designed to fight terrorists. A much better weapon against terrorists would consist of local Iraqi old people and children with cell phones backed up by a few armed men.

It was announced in the paper on July 14th that Senator Clinton along with several of her fellow senators would support an increase in the army of 80,000 persons. When will we learn that the taxpayers are not a bottomless well of wealth that exists to fund the national budget including the military establishment. We do not need this kind of military force to fight terrorism. The Iraqi local people who look and act like the terrorists and speak the language must defend themselves from the terrorists in their midst. Sending more soldiers or allowing the ones we have there to remain is simply providing a ready supply of targets for terrorists.

It may be that the Iraq situation is winding down. We must certainly hope so, but the Bush Administration has set up a line of new enemies for us to vanquish when Iraq is completed, namely, No. Korea and Iran top the list. The dispute they are pushing is over non-proliferation of nuclear capacity which might lead to the production of weapons. The U.S. is reported to have 15,000 such weapons. Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel not to mention the Europeans have weapons. What justification do we have for preventing them from having nuclear capacity? By threatening them we merely increase their fears of us, and incite their resolve to have such weapons to defend themselves against us. Our own actions are creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

We should mind our own business at least militarily. We should reduce our military establishment to one that we can afford long term.

For Liberty, Jay Eckl

The Fresno Bee editors are continuing their relentless support for forcing all purchasers of taxable goods and services in Fresno County to give money to the Fresno County library system. The latest opinion is a "thumbs up" to the voters for supporting the continuance of the library tax in November 2004 so that a record number of people can use the Internet at county libraries in 2005.

Too bad this misses the point.

Is it surprising that people flock to free internet services? The fact that a record number of people are using the internet at the library is simply evidence that the internet is more popular than ever. There are also record numbers of internet hosts (domain names and IP addresses) on the internet, only a tiny fraction of which come from public libraries. So what is the point? There are dozens of private sellers of computers and internet cafes around town who would love to have more business and create more jobs selling internet services that the libraries are providing free through the forcible taxation of their neighbors against the will of many of those neighbors.

Last fall, the editors played the do-it-for-the-children card to justify the tax, but now they are claiming that it is great that adults are using the internet at the library as well. Should it be a source of pride that many middle class adults are using free library services paid for forcibly by someone else who may be even less wealthy than they?

Then, the editors seem proud of the fact that Home Depot used the library to recruit new employees for its upcoming Selma store. You mean Home Depot could not afford a tent and a bank of computers to sign up applicants on their own dime (or is their owner, also owner of the NFL Atlanta Falcons, paying way to much for quarterback Michael Vick)? Is the next Bee library story going to applaud the Woodward Park branch for hosting Central Valley Coyotes' Arena Football games (no doubt it could be done; there's enough room!)?

I feel no pride in contributing to the continued fostering of a dependency ethic in our county. The LPFC opposition to the library tax was NOT about the value of the internet or of education or of books or of an informed citizenry, as the Bee and other tried to couch the debate. Our opposition was about the dependency of some citizens on the forced contribution of other citizens and the damage that dependency causes. A library system that is totally funded by private donations and user fees and memberships would elicit no opposition from our organization.

Riverside County has used outsourcing to great advantage for their taxpayers (of course, the Bee could not see its way to report on this success, even though I alerted a Bee reporter to the Riverside case, because the Bee was in campaign mode). And Salinas, a poorer city one-sixth the size of Fresno County, has raised nearly $600,000 for its library in less than a year. If indeed the Fresno community values its libraries and the benefits they offer, there is no reason why the library cannot be funded without the un-neighborly act of taxation.

Unfortunately, we are going to be treated to eight more years of cute, but misleading library stories.