A few weeks ago some of these signs appeared along one of the sections of Topanga Canyon Blvd. that has been plagued by those horrible parked billboards for the past few years. This is a step in the right direction. That block can now be cleaned by the street sweepers, residents can park there, drivers have a clear view, and the visual blight is gone. But nearby blocks are still available, so it's not surprising that some sections now have more signs than ever. Perhaps the most annoying for many is the sign for a porn shop that has been parked in front of a church.
In the meantime, Saul Daniels in his Chatsworth Patch blog informs us that new legislation will allow the city of Los Angeles to regulate these monstrosities and perhaps get them off the streets for good, without having to post these silly signs everywhere.
I've never understood why these were allowed at all. Other kinds of advertising signs are regulated. For example, the Bureau of Street Services often lets us know how much they want to eliminate all the garage sale and lost dog signs that are posted in neighborhoods. While those signs may not be pretty, most people aren't greatly bothered by them, and they don't cause the kind of hazards and inconveniences that the billboards on wheels do.
Rats!
We may not see them, but they are there. The Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus), also known as the sewer rat, brown rat, etc., thrives in and around human habitats. This one was seen foraging among the fallen birdseed under one of our feeders. It looked fat and healthy. But beware: Rats and squirrels are among the many animals linked to plague, rabies and other nasty diseases here in South California.
Coyotes!
The number of lost pet signs in our neighborhood has increased a lot in recent months. This sign appeared a couple of weeks ago on a corner where I have often seen both coyotes and the rabbits they hunt. (On the other side of the fence is a large expanse of undeveloped land.) Coyotes are not new here, but I suspect they have become bolder over time. And a lot of people somehow manage to remain oblivious. Folks who don't live here seem amazed when I tell them that in this heavily populated suburban area we have skunks, possums, raccoons, rabbits and coyotes, and that I wouldn't be greatly surprised if one day a mountain lion wandered in. I've had conversations with people from other areas who adamantly insist they they don't have coyotes, that there is no habitat nearby - until one day one jumps a fence and a neighbor's cat or dog is killed. I've faced individual coyotes on the street here and elsewhere. Wisely, they tend to treat humans with caution, but that isn't the same as fear. They are used to us. Our domestic pets are delicious, and easier to catch than the wild rodents they should be hunting.
Why I Won't Be Serving on the Redistricting Commission
I now completely understand why so many qualified individuals never get involved in public service.
Having passed the preliminary screening (along with over 25,000 other Californians), I've learned what is required to continue applying to be on the new redistricting commission. I could certainly write answers to the essay questions and provide a resume. They want to know all about me, which is understandable. But they also want me to include information about my parents, siblings and children. I wouldn't want my relatives providing information about me, so why should I be willing to provide it about them? And if I become a finalist, I have to make a detailed financial disclosure, which would affect not just me as an individual, but my husband, and, by extension, his business partner, and which will become part of the public record. Anyone with a normal sense of privacy and respect for others would not want to do this.
I've carefully read the job description and the list of qualifications, and I believe I'm highly qualified to do this. I realize that it involves being "in the spotlight" because it is controversial, requires public hearings, etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with exposing people who aren't applying for the job to undue loss of privacy. Perhaps all this information is legitimately needed to avoid any conflict of interest or wrongdoing. But at the same time, this is why only a certain type of person (whether they are good, bad, or mediocre) will do public work. And I believe that is why we have the kinds of problems we have.
Having passed the preliminary screening (along with over 25,000 other Californians), I've learned what is required to continue applying to be on the new redistricting commission. I could certainly write answers to the essay questions and provide a resume. They want to know all about me, which is understandable. But they also want me to include information about my parents, siblings and children. I wouldn't want my relatives providing information about me, so why should I be willing to provide it about them? And if I become a finalist, I have to make a detailed financial disclosure, which would affect not just me as an individual, but my husband, and, by extension, his business partner, and which will become part of the public record. Anyone with a normal sense of privacy and respect for others would not want to do this.
I've carefully read the job description and the list of qualifications, and I believe I'm highly qualified to do this. I realize that it involves being "in the spotlight" because it is controversial, requires public hearings, etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with exposing people who aren't applying for the job to undue loss of privacy. Perhaps all this information is legitimately needed to avoid any conflict of interest or wrongdoing. But at the same time, this is why only a certain type of person (whether they are good, bad, or mediocre) will do public work. And I believe that is why we have the kinds of problems we have.
What the #&*! is CSUN Thinking?
Today I was on the Cal State Northridge campus to take a test. One of the administrators proudly pointed out that the classroom was filled with lovely, newly-purchased desks. Every single one of them was a RIGHT-HANDED desk!
There is absolutely no excuse for this. Two-sided desks have been available for decades. Other schools purchase them. Why in the 21st century would a public institution be permitted to continue discriminating against 15% of the population? This is simply unbelievable.
There is absolutely no excuse for this. Two-sided desks have been available for decades. Other schools purchase them. Why in the 21st century would a public institution be permitted to continue discriminating against 15% of the population? This is simply unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)