The Editor's Desk

My editorial for Wednesday is about the wasteful spending behind the state’s seat belt public safety campaign. Paying officers overtime to check to see if folks are wearing seat belts? Really? Is this really a smart way to spend tax money?

I had my own experiences with this program last month. While I was driving down to Ontario to catch a flight, I was pulled over by a CHP officer for apparently no reason other than to see if I was wearing a seat belt. I was. Fortunately I always make sure to give plenty of padding time to get to the airport, given the potential bottleneck of the Cajon Pass, and it was just a slight nuisance.

Then, toward the end of May, I returned back from another trip on a Friday and of course got caught up in crawling traffic on Interstate 15 heading toward Cajon Pass. I wondered if this was just typical holiday traffic (Memorial Day weekend) or if there was an accident or problem up ahead. My car slowly crept along the highway, approaching one of those big signs they put in place to warn about traffic conditions or Amber Alerts. Maybe it would tell me what was going on?

Nope. Instead, it read: “Click it or Ticket.” That’s it. The sign’s intended use was subverted as well for some wasteful campaign.

I received a press release from the No on 98 folks crowing about the latest polls that show the proposition losing and losing pretty badly next Tuesday.

Given that the entire campaign against the proposition is based on the rent control provision, I do have to wonder if it was a mistake to include it. We ran a guest commentary from Timothy Sandefur explaining in detail why the rent control issue isn’t a big deal, but sadly in some situations it is tough to fight emotional arguments with rationality.

Somebody needs to just suck it up and write a ballot initiative that restricts eminent domain and does nothing else, period. There’s too much mission creep going on. I understand the arguments for getting rid of rent control and keeping local government from abusing the zoning process to get what they want, and I agree, but this is a battle fought in increments. Let’s re-establish the proper use of eminent domain first and then wage the other battles.

I’m also disappointed in the number of newspapers who have fallen for the horrible arguments that have been presented to kill 98 and approve 99. You’d think an industry that requires government respect for the Bill of Rights in order to function would have a little more appreciation for property rights. But, sadly, for many newspaper editorial writers, the strength of your rights seems to weaken based on the amount of money you have. If you own a mobile home, you have all sorts of rights. If you own a mobile home park, well then, forget it.

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.