I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Official summary of "Jail-4-judges" proposition was incredibly biased

This is a follow-up to my article titled "Fraudulent election results for "Jail 4 judges" proposition?".

Ballot propositions often have official summaries that appear on the ballot or in official ballot guides published by the government. It goes without saying that these official summaries must be neutral -- a single biased word could swing the whole vote. The official South Dakota summary -- called the "Attorney General Explanation" -- of the Amendment E ("Jail-4-judges") proposition was so badly biased against the proposition that there was a lawsuit to have the explanation changed, but the court required that only one word be changed ( an obvious case of the fox guarding the chicken coop ).

I will now examine some individual parts of the Attorney General Explanation for Amendment E. First, consider the following statement:

The proposed amendment is retroactive. The special grand jurors may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago.

No provision in Amendment E says that, and any such interpretation of Amendment E would be unenforceable because ex post facto laws are prohibited by Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the US Constitution.

The explanation says,
If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

Official summaries of propositions should never speculate about the likelihood or possibility of lawsuits. For one thing, such speculation raises fears of big legal expenses, but even a lawsuit with multi-million dollar legal expenses would have a negligible fiscal impact on a state, even a low-population state like South Dakota.

The Attorney General Explanation for a gay-marriage amendment, Amendment C, that was on the same ballot did not mention that that amendment also carried a big risk of lawsuits. Amendment C says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota." The Attorney General Explanation for an abortion referendum on the same ballot also warned about lawsuits and that too was wrong.

California's famous Proposition 13 resulted in at least three lawsuits but I doubt that the official summary for that proposition warned of the likelihood or possibility of lawsuits. One of the lawsuits against Prop 13 was heard by the US Supreme Court: Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). There was also a lawsuit against Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 proposition, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

The Attorney General Explanation says,

Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions.. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side.
The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen special grand jurors to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the special grand jurors. Special grand jurors are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.

Just for the hell of it, why not just add the governor and the state legislature to that list of individuals and groups who "are all required to make judicial decisions"? With the term "judicial decisions" so broadly defined, is there any rational basis for excluding the governor and the state legislature from the list?

BTW, the legislature's resolution against Amendment E, passed way back in February, also claimed that Amendment E applies to all of these individuals and groups:

WHEREAS, if approved by the voters, Amendment E would actually allow lawsuits against all South Dakota citizen boards, including county commissioners, school board members, city council members, planning and zoning board members, township board members, public utilities commissioners, professional licensing board members, jurors, judges, prosecutors, and all other citizen boards; . . .

Here is what Amendment E actually said:

1. Definitions. Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural; and for purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:

- - - - - - - - - -

b. Judge: Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.

So if you are not a justice, judge, magistrate judge, or judge pro tem and you don't want Amendment E to apply to you, then the solution is simple -- just don't claim to be shielded by judicial immunity.

Also, as I have already pointed out, the state legislature should not have voted on Amendment E because the proposition was created by a "direct" initiative, which means that the proposition is supposed to go directly onto the ballot rather than going to the legislature first.

According to the Jail-4-Judges website, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's summary of the proposition was as follows, but I don't know if he actually approved this summary because the proposition never qualified for the California ballot:

"JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member 'Special Grand Juries' empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court's jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation."

A webpage on the Jail-4-Judges website also has a long condemnation of the SD attorney general's "explanation."

The official California voter pamphlet has neutral summaries of the propositions along with debates between the supporters and opponents of the propositions. That is the proper way to do it.

The question here is not whether Amendment E is good or bad but whether the government followed fair and legal procedures in handling the proposition. The answer to the latter question is a resounding no.

Labels: ,

22 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

>>>The proposed amendment is retroactive. <<<

> No provision in Amendment E says that <

Nor does any provision exclude that.

> and any such interpretation of Amendment E would be unenforceable because ex post facto laws are prohibited by Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the US Constitution. <

The ex post facto provision in the US Constitution is commonly misinterpreted by legal tyros such as yourself. I would explain it but, like most things, it would go over your head.

> Official summaries of propositions should never speculate about the likelihood or possibility of lawsuits. <

They often do. Take a look at your California Voter's Guide for this year. It would be irresponsible for them not to mention it in this case.

> For one thing, such speculation raises fears of big legal expenses <

This is not an unrealistic fear.

> but even a lawsuit with multi-million dollar legal expenses would have a negligible fiscal impact on a state, even a low-population state like South Dakota. <

The fiscal impact is not an issue.

> California's famous Proposition 13 resulted in at least three lawsuits but I doubt that the official summary for that proposition warned of the likelihood or possibility of lawsuits.<

There is a big difference here. In one case it was a proposition that had a considerable value to the public if it passed. In Proposition E, it would only allow a few fanatics to get some publicity.

> The Attorney General Explanation says...<

And he is quite right.

> Just for the hell of it, why not just add the governor and the state legislature to that list of individuals and groups who "are all required to make judicial decisions"? With the term "judicial decisions" so broadly defined, is there any rational basis for excluding the governor and the state legislature from the list? <

Is there any rational basis to include them?

> So if you are not a justice, judge, magistrate judge, or judge pro tem and you don't want Amendment E to apply to you, then the solution is simple -- just don't claim to be shielded by judicial immunity. <

It looks like you are campaigning for the Lunatic of the Month contest again. It isn't necessary. You already won.

> The question here is not whether Amendment E is good or bad but whether the government followed fair and legal procedures in handling the proposition. <

The answer to the latter question is a resounding yes.

Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW babbles --
>>>>>>"The proposed amendment is retroactive." <

> No provision in Amendment E says that <

Nor does any provision exclude that. <<<<<

LOL. That stupid comment is not even worthy of an answer.

>>>>>>The ex post facto provision in the US Constitution is commonly misinterpreted by legal tyros such as yourself. I would explain it but, like most things, it would go over your head. <<<<<<

Then why don't you just explain it for the benefit of other visitors?

You are just a big bag of hot air.

>>>>>> Official summaries of propositions should never speculate about the likelihood or possibility of lawsuits. <

They often do. Take a look at your California Voter's Guide for this year. <<<<<<<

This year's Calif. Voter's Guide's official summaries of the propositions are here. Show me where any of those official summaries speculate about lawsuits. The Pro and Con statements and the "arguments and rebuttals" (e.g., here) might mention the lawsuit possibility, but those are not part of the official summaries.

The official South Dakota voter guide is here. The "Attorney General Explanation" for each proposition is followed by partisan pro and con arguments, but there are no rebuttals of those arguments. Large parts of the attorney general's "explanation" of Amendment E are nearly verbatim quotes of the con argument.

>>>>>> For one thing, such speculation raises fears of big legal expenses <

This is not an unrealistic fear.

> but even a lawsuit with multi-million dollar legal expenses would have a negligible fiscal impact on a state, even a low-population state like South Dakota. <

The fiscal impact is not an issue. <<<<<<<<

First you say that possible big legal expenses are not an unrealistic fear, then you say that they are not an issue. Make up your mind.

>>>>>> California's famous Proposition 13 resulted in at least three lawsuits but I doubt that the official summary for that proposition warned of the likelihood or possibility of lawsuits.<

There is a big difference here. In one case it was a proposition that had a considerable value to the public if it passed. <<<<<<

Prop 13 has no value to the many people it shafted.

And your argument is just more of that Alice-in-Wonderland "best butter" crap. You never learn, you stupid fathead. Here again is the "best butter" story from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party--

The Hatter was the first to break the silence. `What day of the month is it?' he said, turning to Alice: he had taken his watch out of his pocket, and was looking at it uneasily, shaking it every now and then, and holding it to his ear.

Alice considered a little, and then said `The fourth.'

`Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

`It was the BEST butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

`Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'

The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the BEST butter, you know.'


LOL

>>>>>> With the term "judicial decisions" so broadly defined, is there any rational basis for excluding the governor and the state legislature from the list?

< Is there any rational basis to include them? <<<<<<

I already said why they should be included: if city councils, county commissions, etc. make "judicial decisions," then the governor and the state legislature make "judicial decisions," too.

Your turn.

Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with every part of the last post. By the way, it did not get much publicity, but there was a big judge's conderence in San Francisco last week, called by California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George, on "The independence of the Judiciary"

He tried to make it sound like some high-minded effort to save the third estate from petty partisan politics, but in fact, it's clear they are scared there will be some accountability for incompetent and biased judges, and they don't want that.

Right now, according to statistics published by the State Commission on Judical Performance, the watchdog agency for judges, they ONLY place you can go to complaint, only 1 in 60 complaints is acted on by that organization.

I sent them a complaint, one which I could PROVE beyond doubt with an audiotape. This did not involve any decision the judge made, it was a matter of clear misconduct.

Anyway, the "investigator" for the CJP refused to listen to my tape, or contact my witness, (who has since told me he called them twice, got no return phone call)

After not listening to any evidence, or talking to any witnesses, the CJP wrote me a form letter saying they could not find any evidence to sustain my complaint.

This is the kind of oversight California Judges currently have. ALl the complaints which resulted in serious and public discipline for judges came under one or more of three categories:

1. Judge had said something politically incorrect.

2. Complaints againt Judge came from insiders, other judges or court system personnel

3. Complaint had already made the newspapers, and CJP had to act, or it would look bad.

In other words, if, as a judge, you don't say anything politically incorrect, don't piss off the other people in the system, and keep your misconduct out fo the papers, you will never get in trouble

Does not matter how bad your misconduct is, as long as none of those three conditions apply.

Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

The unspeakable imbecile brays...

> That stupid comment is not even worthy of an answer. <

You are incapable of answering.

> First you say that possible big legal expenses are not an unrealistic fear, then you say that they are not an issue. Make up your mind. <

Dumbshit. The legal expenses are not an unrealistic fear. Fact number one.

Fact number two. The fiscal impact is not a required item in the summary.

I know the difference will go over your head. It will probably go over the head of your anonymous alter ego.

> Prop 13 has no value to the many people it shafted. <

Who would you say that Prop 13 has shafted?

> And your argument is just more of that Alice-in-Wonderland "best butter" crap. <

You still don't get it, do you?

>Here again is the "best butter" story from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party <

As many here have observed, you believe that repeating something false will make it true. Repeating something irrelevant will make it relevant. You birdbrained imbecile.

> I already said why they should be included: <

Not really. You just said that they should be and then gave a non-sequitur.

By the way, you aren't fooling anyone with "anonymous".

Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( 11-12-06 @ 8:22:00 PM ) --

>>>>>He tried to make it sound like some high-minded effort to save the third estate from petty partisan politics, but in fact, it's clear they are scared there will be some accountability for incompetent and biased judges, and they don't want that. <<<<<<

Thanks, anonymous. These judges are like foxes who want to guard the chicken coop.

Lousy, rotten, disgusting finks like Kevin Vicklund, Bill Carter, VIW, VIU, etc. take the side of corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, etc. against the little guy.

>>>>>3. Complaint had already made the newspapers, and CJP had to act, or it would look bad. <<<<<

YES -- publicity helps to keep judges honest and publicity is often the sole benefit of a lawsuit! That was the case in my lawsuit that made the top of the front page of the Daily Breeze -- a major local newspaper -- in an article summarized below --

A cycling group's bid to halt its impending eviction from the velodrome at California State University, Dominguez Hills, was rejected Friday by a Superior Court judge.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles resident Lawrence Fafarman has filed a Superior Court lawsuit that seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting demolition of the velodrome on the grounds the track is a historic structure.


The velodrome had been built for the 1984 Olympics. Home Depot, which was going to build a sports complex on the campus, finally agreed to build a replacement velodrome and as a result I promptly dropped my suit. I will never know the effect that the above news item about me had on Home Depot's decision, and it was probably a small effect, but every little bit helps. The new velodrome would have never been built if a lot of people had not fought to have a velodrome in the area.

Monday, November 13, 2006 12:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

The dimwit has begun to post as "anonymous" to give the impression that there is someone who agrees with him. He also uses this to introduce more stories about his pathetic legal failures.

> Lousy, rotten, disgusting finks like Kevin Vicklund, Bill Carter, VIW, VIU, etc. take the side of corrupt judges, politicians, lawyers, etc. against the little guy. <

No. We are taking the side of good judges who are protecting the public against mindless fundamentalist fanatics.

> rejected Friday by a Superior Court judge. <

See. Another good judge doing his job.

The velodrome comprised a large chunk of valuable property on the limited campus of a state university in need of expansion. The facility, originally built for the Olympics, was used only by a handful of people who believed that the world owed it to them to support their hobby and wanted to obstruct the use of this public property by others.

Let's not be confused here. This was not a matter of the government taking a piece of private property. This was a matter of using a piece of public property on a college campus for the needs of the college.

A sports complex was to be built for the use of the entire student body
despite the desires of a handful of greedy people to retain it as their personal fiefdom.

Larry(?) filed one of his many lawsuits to stop this property from being used for the greater public good. Like every lawsuit he ever filed, it was laughed out of court.

A person with more competence in legal procedures may have been able to obstruct the progress for much longer but Larry(?) was swatted away like a pesky fly.

Monday, November 13, 2006 5:02:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW bullshits ( Nov. 12, 2006 10:35:15 PM ) ---
>>>>> The legal expenses are not an unrealistic fear. <<<<<

If you say so.

>>>>> The fiscal impact is not a required item in the summary. <<<<<

You stupid fatheaded ignoramus, I checked the official California voter's guide and every proposition summary has a fiscal impact statement, even where there would be no fiscal impact.

>>>>> Who would you say that Prop 13 has shafted? <<<<<<

The people whose property tax rates are several times those of their neighbors -- obviously.

>>>>>> And your argument is just more of that Alice-in-Wonderland "best butter" crap. <

You still don't get it, do you? <<<<<<<

No, you dimwitted beetlebrain, the analogy is perfect. If raising fear of a lawsuit in the summary of a ballot proposition is like putting butter in a watch, which is not supposed to be done, then raising fear of a lawsuit in the summary of a ballot proposition that you think would not benefit the public -- which you think is a good idea -- is like putting the "best" butter in a watch.

>>>>>> I already said why they should be included: <

Not really. You just said that they should be and then gave a non-sequitur. <<<<<<

I only said that the governor and the legislature should be included if city councils, county commissions, etc. are included.

>>>>> By the way, you aren't fooling anyone with "anonymous". <<<<<<

You are the one who is not fooling anyone, Ed.

VIW strikes out again.

Monday, November 13, 2006 7:16:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW bullshits,

>>>>> rejected Friday by a Superior Court judge. <

See. Another good judge doing his job. <<<<<<

Wrong. The judge was wrong in this case.

The San Diego Velodrome Association had a five-year lease for operating the 7-11 Olympic Velodrome. The lease had a clause allowing the university to terminate the lease early if the university needed the velodrome or the land for its own purposes. The university tried to terminate the lease before finalization of an agreement with Home Depot for construction of a new sports complex on land occupied by the velodrome. The university just had a vendetta against the velodrome and the association.

>>>>>>A sports complex was to be built for the use of the entire student body
despite the desires of a handful of greedy people to retain it as their personal fiefdom. <<<<<

Wrong. The sports complex is not even primarily for use of the student body. The sports complex is described here and the velodrome is described here. The description of the velodrome has one mistake -- though it is now the only permanent indoor velodrome in North America (and probably the Western Hemisphere), it was not the first -- that was the Montreal Olympic Velodrome (unfortunately, the track itself has since been demolished).

>>>>> Larry(?) filed one of his many lawsuits to stop this property from being used for the greater public good. <<<<<<

Wrong. I filed the lawsuit as part of a group effort to force or persuade Home Depot to build its new sports complex around the old velodrome. Home Depot decided instead to build a new velodrome.

>>>>>>> Like every lawsuit he ever filed, it was laughed out of court. <<<<<<

Wrong. The lawsuit never got beyond the complaint stage. I dropped the lawsuit immediately after Home Depot announced its intention to build a new velodrome.

VIW, if you continue to clutter up this blog with assertions that have no basis in either firsthand knowledge or reliable references, I am simply going to delete your comments. That's all there is to it. Too much is too much.

Monday, November 13, 2006 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The Dumbshit wheezes...

>>>>> The legal expenses are not an unrealistic fear. <<<<<

> If you say so. <

You say so. That is why you want to get laws passed limiting them.

>>>>> The fiscal impact is not a required item in the summary. <<<<<

> I checked the official California voter's guide <

Weren't we talking about South Dakota?

>>>>> Who would you say that Prop 13 has shafted? <<<<<<

> The people whose property tax rates are several times those of their neighbors -- obviously. <

Those people are not being shaftee by Prop 13. They are being shafted by the politicians. The tax of those covered by Prop 13 has gone up to go along with inflation (not the inflation in the cost of houses). The politicians are greedy for more. Those who are paying enough in taxes owes nothing to those who are paying too much. The politicians are playing "divide and conquer" with the lame brains such as yourself. If you had to pay for your home yourself, you might have a different opinion.

>>>>>> And your argument is just more of that Alice-in-Wonderland "best butter" crap. <

You still don't get it, do you? <<<<<<<

> the analogy is perfect. <

You still don't get it, do you?

> then raising fear of a lawsuit in the summary of a ballot proposition that you think would not benefit the public <

This is raising a fear of a real problem.

You could equally claim that warning people about quicksand is like putting butter on a watch. Then again, you are an idiot.

>>>>>> I already said why they should be included: <

Not really. You just said that they should be and then gave a non-sequitur. <<<<<<

> I only said that the governor and the legislature should be included if city councils, county commissions, etc. are included. <

Yes. A non-sequitur.

> You are the one who is not fooling anyone, Ed. <

I thought that you said I was Bill Carter?

The troll strikes out again. Doesn't he always?

Monday, November 13, 2006 11:27:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>The university tried to terminate the lease before finalization of an agreement with Home Depot for construction of a new sports complex on land occupied by the velodrome.<<<

Of course they terminated the lease before finalizing the agreement with Home Depot. They couldn't finalize the deal with Home Depot until after they terminated the lease. That's how contracts work. How does this translate into a vendetta?

Monday, November 13, 2006 3:57:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund said,

>>>>> Of course they terminated the lease before finalizing the agreement with Home Depot. They couldn't finalize the deal with Home Depot until after they terminated the lease. That's how contracts work. How does this translate into a vendetta? <<<<<<

What if the deal with Home Depot fell through after the lease was terminated? The university administrators hated the Olympic Velodrome and they sounded as if they were going to demolish the place even before Home Depot made a commitment to build the new sports complex. They bellyached that the velodrome was costing the university a lot of money, but they cooked the books to make it look that way. They accused the velodrome association of mismanagement. There was a lot of bad blood. Anyway, it's a long story. I just used this as an example of how publicity about a lawsuit can have a positive effect -- in this case it helped show that some people were really serious about having a velodrome. It all worked out for the best -- there is now a beautiful new sports complex with a beautiful new velodrome.

I used to love riding velodromes. For example, in riding pacelines, after your turn at the front you would swing up the bank and then swing down at the back of the paceline. It really takes a lot of coordination -- there are no brakes for finely adjusting your speed and you don't want to run into the last guy in the paceline and you don't want to have to chase him down the track either -- you can control your speed only by means of the banks and the pedals (the bikes have direct drive -- no coasting). I used to love the 200 meter time trials too -- controlling the bike at high speed was a real challenge (my bike would sway a lot due to flexing -- I think my bike frame was too light). To me it's the sport of kings.

Monday, November 13, 2006 5:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> They bellyached that the velodrome was costing the university a lot of money, but they cooked the books to make it look that way. <

Did you see the books? Do you know any more about accounting than you do about law? Why should they even have to justify their actions. There is no constitutional right to having your hobby subsidized at the expense of others.

> They accused the velodrome association of mismanagement. <

Perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn't. It doesn't seem to be relevant.

> I just used this as an example of how publicity about a lawsuit can have a positive effect <

In this case it had, if any, an negative effect.

> there is now a beautiful new sports complex with a beautiful new velodrome. <

At whose expense?

> I used to love riding velodromes. <

This is wonderful. I have a lot of expensive hobbies myself. Should I expect others to subsidize them?

> you would swing up the bank and then swing down at the back of the paceline. <

I suppose it reminded you of swinging through trees.

> I think my bike frame was too light. <

How about those Frankenstein versions of tandems that you made? They were pretty heavy for their purpose.

Were you ever able to get someone to ride with you?

> To me it's the sport of kings. <

To be paid for by the peasants.

Monday, November 13, 2006 6:06:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Wilderness wheezed, .

>>>>>> They bellyached that the velodrome was costing the university a lot of money, but they cooked the books to make it look that way. <

Did you see the books? <<<<<

Damn you, do you have to quibble about everything? That is what one of the velodrome staffers told me, and I can believe it. Whenever a velodrome event -- including non-cycling events -- looked like it was going to turn a profit, the university charged a big administrative fee so that the event looked like it lost money.

The university paid nothing for the velodrome's construction. The velodrome was being run, maintained, and repaired by an outside organization and volunteers. The university had neglected the velodrome for many years and parts of it were badly in need of repairs. I and many others spent many hours doing volunteer work on the velodrome -- painting, mowing the lawns, installing new railing, etc.. Don't give me this bullshit.

>>>>>> They accused the velodrome association of mismanagement.

Perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn't. It doesn't seem to be relevant. <<<<<<

It's quite relevant -- that was one of the reasons that the university gave for trying to evict the San Diego Velodrome Association (though I don't know if that is what the university told the court).

>>>>>> I used to love riding velodromes. <

This is wonderful. I have a lot of expensive hobbies myself. Should I expect others to subsidize them? <<<<<

Lots of people's hobbies are subsidized, e.g., a lot of tax money has gone into building stadiums for pro sports.

Monday, November 13, 2006 6:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Damn you, do you have to quibble about everything? <

I have to hold your feet to the fire. You often spout off without knowing what you are talking about. I caught you again.

> That is what one of the velodrome staffers told me, and I can believe it. <

In other words, you were repeating gossip from a not-disinterested party.

> The university paid nothing for the velodrome's construction. <

Irrelevant.

> The velodrome was being run, maintained, and repaired by an outside organization and volunteers. <

It would have been criminal if the university had to pay for it against their will.

> The university had neglected the velodrome for many years and parts of it were badly in need of repairs. <

Are you claiming that they should have been responsible for repairs?

> I and many others spent many hours doing volunteer work on the velodrome -- painting, mowing the lawns, installing new railing, etc.. <

Good for you. Since you were getting the benefit of this work, you should have done this. Don't act like it was a great sacrifice.

> It's quite relevant -- that was one of the reasons that the university gave for trying to evict the San Diego Velodrome Association <

San Diego Velodrome Association. So the association wasn't even within 90 miles of the campus!

> Lots of people's hobbies are subsidized, e.g., a lot of tax money has gone into building stadiums for pro sports. <

This is usually done with the expectation that the government agencies (usually cities) will make it up on taxes on the trade that such stadiums are supposed to draw. How much new commerce did the bicycle brigade bring in?

The troll loses again.

Monday, November 13, 2006 7:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW babbled,
>>>>> The university paid nothing for the velodrome's construction. <

Irrelevant. <<<<<<

It was quite relevant. There was no initial investment to recover.

>>>>>> The university had neglected the velodrome for many years and parts of it were badly in need of repairs. <

Are you claiming that they should have been responsible for repairs? <<<<<

No one forced the Olympic Velodrome on the university -- the university bid for it.

>>>>>> Since you were getting the benefit of this work, you should have done this. Don't act like it was a great sacrifice. <<<<<<

Most of the work I did was cosmetic.

>>>>>San Diego Velodrome Association. So the association wasn't even within 90 miles of the campus! <<<<<

So what? The association had a lot of experience in velodrome management.

>>>>>> Lots of people's hobbies are subsidized, e.g., a lot of tax money has gone into building stadiums for pro sports. <

This is usually done with the expectation that the government agencies (usually cities) will make it up on taxes on the trade that such stadiums are supposed to draw. <<<<<<

Studies have shown that the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Why do you continue to carp and quibble? Some people just like velodromes.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Bozo blithered...

> It was quite relevant. There was no initial investment to recover. <

There was the investment of a valuable piece of land, but what it cost the university is quite irrelevant and comments about the cost do not make it otherwise.

> No one forced the Olympic Velodrome on the university -- the university bid for it. <

And they lived up to their committment. The Olympics are over. There was no committment to maintaining the velodrome endlessly for the benefit of a few.

> Most of the work I did was cosmetic. <

You were the one who mentioned it.

> Studies have shown that the costs far outweigh the benefits. <

And probably other studies say the opposite. That is not the point. The investments are made with the expectation of a financial return. In your case you want them to make an investment with a guarantee of no financial return.

> Why do you continue to carp and quibble? <

Because you want my tax money to support your hobby. (Please don't bore us with your absurd claims that there was no cost. Keeping a valuable and needed piece of land out of use is a great cost.)

> Some people just like velodromes. <

I have no complaint about velodromes as long as those who want them pay for them. Had you and your friends considered taking up a collection to pay the several million dollars that the property was worth?

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:17:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness babbles,.
>>>>>> It was quite relevant. There was no initial investment to recover. <

There was the investment of a valuable piece of land, <<<<<

Wrong -- it was public land and not for sale, and it was mostly undeveloped before the Home Depot sports complex was built.

>>>>> And they lived up to their committment. The Olympics are over. There was no committment to maintaining the velodrome endlessly for the benefit of a few. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, the benefits of the Olympics were supposed to continue after the Olympics. For example, the huge profit of over $200 million from the Olympics went to help fund the Amateur Athletic Foundation and the US Olympic Committee.

USC continues to use the swimming and diving pools that were built especially for the Olympics. Should USC stop maintaining these pools because they benefit just a few?

>>>>>> Studies have shown that the costs far outweigh the benefits. <

And probably other studies say the opposite. <<<<<<

I have seen no other studies that say the opposite. The studies conclude that the major long-term effect of the new stadiums is just a shift in local entertainment spending.

>>>>> Had you and your friends considered taking up a collection to pay the several million dollars that the property was worth? <<<<<<

Most velodromes in the USA are on public land and many are partly funded by the government. They are no different from other publicly funded sports facilities.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Wrong -- it was public land and not for sale <

I thought that it was on university property? You could claim that since it was a public university that it was public land but I doubt if even you are that disingenuous.

> and it was mostly undeveloped before the Home Depot sports complex was built. <

Irrelevant. It was not going to remain undeveloped under the university's plans.

> You stupid fathead, the benefits of the Olympics were supposed to continue after the Olympics. <

You pathetic imbecile, many of them did.

> USC continues to use the swimming and diving pools that were built especially for the Olympics. Should USC stop maintaining these pools because they benefit just a few? <

USC has an extensive swimming and water polo program. The pool is in constant usage for those programs as well as for the recreation of the students. If this were not the case, USC would not be expected to tie up the land forever. The swimming stadium next to the Coliseum was built for the 1932 Olympics but in recent years there have been only three or four times as many using it as were your velodrome so they are tearing it down so the land may be better used as a parking lot.

> I have seen no other studies that say the opposite. <

There are a great deal of things that you have not seen, yet the world seems to go on despite your ignorance.

> Most velodromes in the USA are on public land and many are partly funded by the government. <

Pork projects. There is a great deal of government waste but that doesn't justify even more.

> They are no different from other publicly funded sports facilities. <

There have been 92,000 people plus or minus at the Coliseum at every USC home football game this year. Even if the Coliseum did not pay for itself through a rate paid on gross ticket sales, there would be considerably more people getting enjoyment out of it than the dozen or so tyros that were peddling their toys on the velodrome.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:50:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< Attorney General Explanation >

Hey, Larry(?), speaking of A.G.'s, why don't you run for CA Attorney General? You're at least as sane as the bloke the voters, in their inscrutable wisdom, just elected as A.G. (And he wasn't even legally eligible to run.)

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

I.e., that's in two years (assuming he doesn't get disqualified or recalled before then).

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Winston Churchill said...

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill <<<<<

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
~ Winston Churchill

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home