The Editor's Desk

A commenter on Jason Smith’s story about the financial problems of the Barstow Humane Society mentioned having a negative experience with the staff there and said others have reported the same.

I’ve heard this as well, but I have to say they were pretty accommodating to me when I adopted my dog, Xander, from there a little more than a year ago. They were no-nonsense about the whole thing, but I wouldn’t call them rude. I have a reputation for being pretty blunt myself, though, so it’s possible I just am not sensitive to that sort of behavior.

They were also very helpful when, not two weeks after I adopted Xander, he figured out how to unlatch the gate and escaped from my backyard. One of the employees recognized him a couple of days later out on the street, brought him back to the shelter, and I was able to bring him back home.

I’ll have an editorial in tomorrow’s paper about the Humane Society’s issues, but it should pop up online after 5 p.m. here in the editorial section if you don’t want to wait.

The city’s Jeanette Hayhurst has pointed out (as well as a commenter on my latest editorial) that many of the rules the city is proposing for rental units in Barstow are no different from the HUD guidelines for Section 8 housing.
This may be true, but there are some very important differences that need to be understood to explain why landlords are coming out against the city’s draft plans.

HUD’s Section 8 guidelines:
• Participation in the program is completely voluntary. If landlords do not want to follow the strict guidelines to be a Section 8 household, they do not have to become part of the program.
• Compliance is encouraged through an incentive program. The federal government subsidizes the rents of landlords who follow the guidelines.

City of Barstow’s proposed rental program:
• Participation in the program is mandatory for all rental units with the city. If landlords do not want to participate, the city will attempt to force them to do so with court orders and search warrants.
• Compliance is demanded under threat of fine. The city of Barstow penalizes landlords who do not follow the guidelines.

Neither program is very good, as they both rely on wasteful and often capricious bureaucracy to enforce, but reading the comparison, it’s easy to see why exactly landlords are so upset. Rather than creating incentives, the city is creating punishments.

I’ll be updating the main site throughout the day with the latest wire reports about the Southern California wildfires.

Though the fires may not be anywhere near here, and we’re probably not in much danger here, that doesn’t mean the fires don’t have an impact on Barstow residents. If your family is personally being affected by the wildfires, please call our newsroom at 256-4121 and let us know.

It looks like I owe Manuel “Gil” Gurule an apology.

He called me at the end of last week about the casino happenings (and lack thereof) in Sacramento. His intention was to point out to me that the meetings between the governor’s staff and four City Council members may have been a Brown Act violation. The Brown Act is California’s public meeting law, which is intended to make sure that local governmental meetings and decisions (with some exceptions) happen in a public forum, with the community appropriately notified.

I blame casino outrage fatigue for not listening, though it’s really a lousy excuse. City Council members aren’t supposed to gather in large enough numbers to define a quorum — three or more in this case — without public notification of the meeting. Their meeting in Sacramento is most likely a Brown Act violation, though they amended the situation by reporting out the content of the meeting at the subsequent City Council meeting Monday.

I was dismissive of Mr. Gurule’s call, because I’ve grown tired of folks on both sides finding ways to pick pick pick at their opponents and trying to get the newspaper involved. I’ve also been made increasingly aware by our readership that most folks out there don’t care about the squabbling, just the results.

But while this particular Brown Act violation was fairly mild — they were just there to receive information, it appears, not to plan anything — there are potential serious repercussions when this happens. What other meetings could have taken place in Sacramento without our knowledge? Could there have been strategy sessions to deal with opposition to one project? Could they have discussed dumping the city’s agreement with one tribe or the other? These are all potential discussion subjects that are obligated to happen in public.

So I apologize for letting my frustration with the nature of this debate cloud my perception about what is happening in Sacramento. Gurule was absolutely right to be concerned and I appreciate his call, in retrospect.