The Editor's Desk

We’ll be running The Orange County Register’s editorial about Propositions 98 and 99, the competing eminent domain measures on the ballot in June, in Wednesday’s Desert Dispatch.

I know some folks tend to ignore the editorials we run from other newspapers, but OCR’s editorial writers are experts when it comes to eminent domain issues, and they’ve certainly taught me a thing or two. I consulted with one of their editorial writers, Steven Greenhut, before taking my position in support of Proposition 90 back in 2006. I will ultimately write my own editorial prior to the June vote, but OCR’s editorial writers are saying what I plan to say anyway.

Whenever there’s a state proposition on the ballot, I get inundated with press releases and phone calls from folks hoping to bend my ear and influence our editorial stance for the vote. Yesterday I took a call from a polite woman who wanted to encourage us to take the exact opposite stand that we’re taking. I don’t argue with these folks, because there’s no point in it. It’s not like I’m going to convince this paid shill to change sides. But it did amuse me that she clearly had no understanding of our libertarian editorial position (not that I blame her; at times I feel Freedom Communications is pretty much alone in the mass media wilderness in our worldview). She attempted the “bandwagon” argument by pointing out all the government agencies and organizations that oppose Proposition 98 and support Proposition 99, unaware that this actually makes me more skeptical of her claims.

Her big misstep, which they keep repeating in their e-mailed press releases, is try to convince me to oppose Proposition 98 on the grounds that it harms rent control laws. I don’t support rent control laws (and I say this as somebody who rents a house), so this argument has the exact opposite effect of their intentions. And they’re not convincing me otherwise with such arguments as “Proposition 98 hurts real people,” somehow suggesting that people who rent property are not real people and don’t have rights.

I have a typical pattern of “checking things” when I first arrive in the morning. I check my voice mail and e-mail of course. Then I check the web site to make sure there aren’t any pending abuse reports for comments or blogs and take a look at site participation. I was a bit surprised to check in this morning and discover several comments about today’s editorial.

The editorial, about a proposed global warming tax plan in Los Angeles, was reprinted from the Orange County Register (part of our chain of newspapers). I run editorials from them on state, national and international issues because we share a libertarian viewpoint. Normally, their editorials don’t garner much response on the site because they’re not about local issues, and of course, local reporting drives our readership and online participation.

Figuring then that another site must have referred to or linked back to us, I decided the check out our web stats. Much to my surprise, we had set a new record for page views for an entire day, even though it was only 8:30 a.m. After some investigation, I found out the Drudge Report had linked to the editorial, which was driving thousands of folks from outside Barstow to come take a look.

I certainly don’t mind the boost in page views for a day, but felt bad because the OC Register was responsible for them. I did let the editorial crew there know they had gotten a Drudge Report link, even though it was through our site.

The United Way in Barstow is in the middle of determining the allocation of its donations to its local member agencies for the year.

I was invited to participate in one of United Way’s allocation subcommittees, which visits the agencies to see what they do and serves as a form of oversight to make sure United Way donors’ money doesn’t go to waste.

One of the agencies I visited was New Hope Village, a transitional housing complex for homeless adults and families that works to make them self-sufficient members of our community. I met a couple of the complex’s residents, recovering addicts who are working to put their lives back together. According to Executive Director Angela Pasco, many of them have destroyed their credit ratings, making it difficult for them to overcome their problems even after fighting back their addictions.

New Hope Village struggles as well, trying to secure enough funding to keep their modest efforts going. Pasco said they’d like to expand to offer more apartments for needy families. They rely a lot on donations to furnish the apartments they offer. They do a lot with a little.

A couple of weeks ago a wrote an editorial chiding State Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner for trying to compound the failures of the drug war by increasing penalties for meth use and sales. Their “Safe Neighborhoods Act” is a costly waste of time that attempts to garner support for their own ambitions by appealing to people’s fears.

And so you may ask, “Well then, what’s the alternative?” Places like New Hope Village are the alternative. Residents get assistance with meeting basic needs, training and help with their problems so that they learn to overcome them, and most importantly, they’re also held accountable for their actions. They are neither discarded, nor coddled. They are treated like adults, not wards of the state — but also not like helpless children.

We need more places like New Hope Village, not more prison cells.