Mountain Views News          Saturday, August 18, 2012

16

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday August 18, 2012 

MITT ROMNEY AND PAUL RYAN

THE PAUL RYAN-MITT ROMNEY 
TICKET: TROUBLE FOR GOP

By Bill Press

 
The Obama team would have us believe that they are in a state of euphoria 
over Romney’s VP pick, that somehow Ryan’s selection puts into crystal 
clear focus the contrast between the competing visions for America, and 
that spotlighting this contrast actually helps Obama. I think they are in for 
a rude awakening. It doesn’t take much to comprehend that the VP pick 
does, in fact, highlight the differences between the two competing visions, 
but to argue that this contrast is flattering to Obama, or helps his re-election 
chances – is wishful thinking at best.

 The pick itself shows Romney’s hand. With Wisconsin congressman, Paul 
Ryan, as his running mate, Romney has clearly communicated to American 
voters that his central election and, if elected, administration theme will be 
reducing the national deficit and debt while restoring economic growth. If 
Paul Ryan is known for anything – and in truth, he has a remarkable, multifaceted reputation in 
Washington – it is for his commitment to understanding and fixing the budget morass and debt 
disaster that face this nation. A few concrete facts and figures will illustrate this point clearly enough.

 With a $15 trillion economy, the United States has $15.9 trillion in “official” debt. That doesn’t 
even count the unfunded liabilities of $38.6 trillion for Medicare liabilities and $8.6 trillion for Social 
Security. Moreover, if, as suspected, the projected savings from Obamacare don’t materialize, then 
the Medicare debt may actually double in size. That potentiality really doesn’t matter because even the 
official U.S. debt is $63 trillion, which represents a commitment four times the size of the economy.

 How we got here is as undisputed a fact as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. When 
Obama assumed the Presidency, the previous year’s (2008) deficit was $455 billion. His 3 years in 
office have given us the following: 

 2009, a $1.4 trillion deficit; 2010, a $1.2 trillion deficit; and 2011, a $1.3 trillion deficit.

 Those on the left argue that revenues are down. But as the always-prescient economist, Walter 
Williams, recently pointed out, if you go back to 1960 you would find that even considering the effects 
of inflation, tax revenues are 23 times greater today, but government spending is 42 times greater. 
Our problems are not due to the recession; they’re not due to rich people skipping out. They’re due 
to the profligate spending which occurred on one man’s watch.

 That man and his administration have only one response. They say we have to tax the rich 
more. Some Americans may be tempted to believe this simply because it offers a simple solution to a 
scary problem they’d rather not contemplate. But it’s not a realistic solution. It’s fantasy of the worst 
sort. More than one serious study has shown that even a 100% tax on rich people wouldn’t solve the 
problem as shown below:

 100% tax on all people earning $1 million or more would only generate $600 billion,

 100% tax on all people earning $500 thousand or more would only generate $800 billion,

 100% tax on all people earning $250 thousand or more would only generate $1 trillion.

 Even 100% taxation on all the people earning $250,000 (the Obama administration’s oft-used 
definition of “rich) would generate less than the current deficit. There’s no money in any of these 
preposterous schemes to cover expenditures, let alone to reduce the existing debt. This is not a 
revenue problem, this is not a tax problem, this is not a “some people aren’t paying their fair share” 
problem. This is a spending problem, and that’s what makes Paul Ryan such a great choice.

 When Governor Romney picked Paul Ryan, he made it perfectly clear that this issue is going to 
be tackled, that he intends to turn this government around. This is a message that will resonate with 
most Americans. For most of the last decade, if not longer, conservatives and independents, alike, 
have focused on the deficit and the debt. Many Democrats point to the 2006 and 2008 election 
victories as evidence that Americans have rejected the conservative answer to the spending problem, 
but that is a grave error.

 The 2006 and 2008 elections showed an American public willing to throw the bums out – in 
this case Republican bums – when they couldn’t control their spending. Republicans came into 
power earlier in this decade with the promise of reforming out-of-control government and reducing 
profligate spending. When they kept to that promise, the electorate rewarded them. When they 
became spenders and tolerated the corrupt in their own party, the voters threw the Republicans out. 
In their place were put Democrats who promised to be different, to control spending and to run a 
tighter ship. Democrats shouldn’t be surprised this November when the voters throw them out for 
breaking the same promise. 

 Republicans were returned to power in 2010 and given a probationary run. If they prove themselves 
to be trustworthy by tackling the fiscal problems that face this nation, they will undoubtedly be 
rewarded with more victories. In picking Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has communicated his, and 
the party’s, commitment to save this nation from the fiscal cliff that waits if we continue to spend 
more than we earn. So, on his first major test of leadership, Romney gets a strong A.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer and has spoken to several civic and religious 
organizations on cultural and moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. He can be reached at gregwelborn2@gmail.com

Scary things sometimes 
come in pretty 
packages. Take 
Paul Ryan.

Most members of 
the media have a 
man-crush on him. 
When he released 
his 2012 budget, the 
New York Times raved about his "piercing blue 
eyes." He's the guy with "jet black hair and a touch 
of Eagle Scout to him," gushed Time magazine. 
Columnist Joe Klein called Ryan's plan "without 
question, an act of political courage." The Times' 
David Brooks praised it as "the most courageous 
budget reform proposal any of us have seen in 
our lifetime." And many outlets praised Mitt 
Romney's "bold" move in naming Ryan as his 
vice-presidential running mate.

Oh, give me a break. Get a room. Or do your job! 
Did anybody bother to read what Ryan actually 
proposes? It's not bold, it's dangerous. To most 
Americans, generally. But, especially, to Mitt 
Romney.

First, the budget. For starters, it adds to the deficit 
by giving the wealthiest of Americans yet another 
tax break, cutting the top rate from 35 percent to 
25 percent. Ryan would also cut corporate taxes 
and eliminate capital gains taxes. As a result, according 
to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, Ryan's budget would not see a surplus until 
2040. So much for his reputation as a deficit 
hawk.

Meanwhile, that loss of revenue must be made 
up somehow. Ryan does it by sparing the Pentagon, 
while slashing $6 trillion over the next 
10 years out of Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, 
food stamps, Pell grants, and every other program 
helping the poor or middle class, which is 
why his budget has been criticized by the United 
States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Don't buy the big GOP lie that Ryan's plan actually 
preserves Medicare, while Obama's destroys it. 
True, Obama would cut $716 billion from Medicare 
-- not by cutting benefits, but by cracking 
down on double billing by insurance companies 
and health care providers (the kind of waste and 
fraud Republicans used to champion). But here's 
what Romney won't tell you: the Ryan budget 
contains the very same $716 billion in cuts. On 
top of which, Ryan would indeed "end Medicare 
as we know it" by replacing it with a voucher program 
-- which the CBO finds would leave older 
Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs 
10 years from now. If Ryan had his way, there 
would be no more Medicare, no more Medicaid, 
and no more Social Security.

And that's what so many in the media label as 
"bold." Nonsense! There's nothing "bold" about 
pandering to Wall Street. There's nothing "courageous" 
about tossing seniors out of Medicare 
so the wealthiest Americans can enjoy another 
tax break. There's nothing "patriotic" about helping 
Mitt Romney lower his 2010 tax rate from 
13.9 percent to .082 percent: the effective rate he 
would have paid under the Ryan plan, according 
to an analysis done by The Atlantic.

Clearly, there's nobody more extreme right on 
fiscal issues than Paul Ryan. But here's another 
big secret: There's nobody more far right on social 
issues, either. Ryan is the poster boy of the extreme 
religious right. He's not only anti-abortion, 
he co-sponsored fetal personhood legislation, 
which would ban most forms of contraception. 
He also sponsored a bill to force a woman to have 
an ultrasound before an abortion. And he's not 
only anti-marriage equality, he's also against gay 
adoption.

Given all the baggage he brings to the ticket, 
it's small wonder that, in interviews with more 
than three dozen Republican operatives, Politico 
found the most common reaction to Paul Ryan's 
selection ranging from "gnawing apprehension 
to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically 
ceded the election." They realize that Ryan's plan 
to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid will also 
make it more difficult for Republicans to maintain 
control of the House.

And small wonder that Romney's already trying 
to distance himself from Ryan's budget. Except 
he can't. You can't embrace Paul Ryan without 
embracing everything he stands for, including 
his "mahvelous" budget (Romney's adjective, not 
mine). Whether Mitt realizes it yet or not, on 
both fiscal and social issues, this is now the Ryan/
Romney ticket -- and no longer the Romney/
Ryan ticket.

In the end, Barack Obama himself could not have 
picked a better vice-presidential partner for Mitt 
Romney. History repeats itself. This campaign 
could be over before it begins. In 2008, John 
McCain destroyed his chances by picking Sarah 
Palin. In 2012, Mitt Romney just destroyed his 
chances by picking Paul Ryan.

Columnist Bill Press is host of "Full Court Press" on 
Current TV and author of the book "The Obama 
Hate Machine." His email address is: bill@billpress.
com.

City of Sierra Madre

ORDINANCE NO. 1330

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE 
ADOPTING CHAPTER 1.14 IN TITLE 1 OF THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL 
CODE REGARDING PUBLIC NUISANCES, CODE ENFORCEMENT FEES AND 
ATTORNEY’S FEES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. New Chapter. Chapter 1.14 [“Public Nuisances; Code Enforcement Fees and Attorney’s Fees”] of Title 1 of the 
Sierra Madre Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 1.14 – Public Nuisances, Code Enforcement Fees and Attorney’s Fees

Section 1.14.010 Definitions

As used in chapter, the following definitions shall apply. For purposes of this chapter, these definitions shall supersede any 
other definitions in the Sierra Madre Municipal Code that conflict with this section.

A. “City” shall mean the City of Sierra Madre.

B. “Code” or shall mean the Sierra Madre Municipal Code and any code, law, or regulation incorporated therein by 
reference, and any adopted and uncodified ordinances. 

C. “Code Enforcement Fees” shall mean fees imposed by the City to defray its costs of code enforcement actions, as 
authorized by California Government Code section 54988, California Health & Safety Code section 17951, the Sierra Madre 
Building Code, and any other applicable local, State, or Federal law, as well as by the City’s police powers as authorized by 
the California Constitution.

 Code Enforcement Fees shall be equal to the actual costs, fees, and expenses (incidental or otherwise) in connection 
with the time and other resources that City Officials (and agents thereof) expend in inspecting real properties, identifying 
and investigating public nuisances, and seeking or causing the abatement of a public nuisance or any other violation of any 
provision of this Code, unless separate costs, fees, and expenses are otherwise set by Council resolution.

 Code Enforcement Fees shall include those costs, fees, and expenses resulting from the following actions in 
connection with public nuisances and other violations of this Code: inspections of real properties and any structures thereon; 
taking photographs; drafting notices, letters, or other written communications; conducting or participating in meetings or 
conferences; and appearances before any judicial or other reviewing authority when seeking the abatement of any public 
nuisance or other violations of this Code.

D. “Person” shall mean and include any individual, partnership of any kind, corporation, limited liability company, 
association, joint venture or other organization, however formed, as well as trustees, heirs, executors, administrators, or 
assigns, or any combination of such persons. “Person” also includes any public entity or agency that acts as an owner in the 
City. 

E. “Public nuisance” or “nuisance” means anything which is, or likely to become, injurious or detrimental to health, 
safety or welfare, or is offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the 
comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or that unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of 
any sidewalk, public park, square, street or highway. Any condition, use, or activity that violates or is otherwise contrary to 
any provision of this Code or any approval, license, permit, or other entitlement issued pursuant to or in accordance with this 
Code, or that violates or is contrary to any applicable County, State, or Federal law or regulation shall also constitute a public 
nuisance.

F. “Responsible person” means any person that causes, creates, allows, permits, suffers, or maintains a public nuisance 
to exist or continue within the City, by any act or the omission of any act or duty. A responsible person shall also include 
employees, principals, joint venturers, officers, agents, and/or other persons acting in concert with, or at the direction of, and/
or with the knowledge and/or consent of the owner and/or occupant of the lot, building or structure on, or in which, a public 
nuisance or violation exists or existed. The actions or inactions of a responsible person’s agent, employee, representative or 
contractor may be attributed to that responsible person. 

Section 1.14.020 Public Nuisances

A. Prohibition. No person shall cause, create, allow, permit, suffer or maintain a public nuisance in the City.

B. Penalties. Any person who causes, permits, suffers or maintains a public nuisance in the City is 
guilty of a misdemeanor offense punishable in accordance with Title 1, Chapter 1.12 (“General Penalty”) of this Code. Any 
person who causes, permits, suffers, or maintains a public nuisance is also subject to an administrative fine as provided in Title 
1, Chapter 1.18 (“Administrative Enforcement”) of this Code.

C. Continuing Offense. Each responsible person shall be guilty of a separate offense for 
each and every day, or part thereof, during which a public nuisance is allowed, committed, continued, maintained or permitted 
by such person, and shall be punishable accordingly.

D. Abatement. In addition to the penalties provided by this Chapter, any public nuisance may be summarily 
abated by the City by all civil, administrative or equitable means as provided by law or in equity, including, but not limited 
to, by injunction.

E. Non-Exclusive Remedies. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive.

Section 1.14.030 Code Enforcement Fees

 A. Responsible persons shall be charged and shall be responsible for the payment of Code Enforcement 
Fees assessed by the City to defray its costs of code enforcement actions. Such fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably 
required to achieve this objective and are chargeable whether the City’s code enforcement actions occur in the absence 
of formal administrative or judicial proceedings, as well as prior to, during, or subsequent to, the initiation of such 
proceedings.

Section 1.14.040 Attorney’s Fees.

 A. The prevailing party of any action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a 
nuisance or to cause the abatement of a nuisance shall be entitled to recover attorney’s fees.. Attorney’s fees shall not be 
recoverable unless the City elects in writing, at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its 
own attorneys’ fees. In no action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding shall an award of attorneys’ fees to a 
prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding.

 B. Unpaid attorney’s fees shall be collectible in any manner allowed by law. 

SECTION 2. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be 
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have 
no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance 
and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. 

SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption as provided by Government Code 
Section 36937. 

SECTION 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of 
its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published 
and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day August, 2012.

Yes: Moran, Walsh, Capoccia, Harabedian, Koerber No: None Abstain: None

City of Sierra Madre

ORDINANCE NO.1331

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE 
AMENDING SECTION 17.36.010 OF CHAPTER 17.36 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.41 
ENTITLED KENSINGTON ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY 
ZONE TO THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A 
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 
SIERRA MADRE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:

WHEREAS, a request for the development of a 60,100 square foot assisted living facility on a 1.84 acre property (“Property”) 
located at 245 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard and 33 N. Hermosa Avenue was filed by Fountain Square Development West, 
12701 Treeridge Terrace, Poway, CA 92064 (“Applicant”), and

WHEREAS, the Property consists of two contiguous parcels (APN 5768-019-041 and -043) and is approximately 1.84 acres 
in size. The southerly parcel is 54,917 square feet in area and developed with a vacant 32,545 square foot, one-story building 
previously utilized as a skilled nursing facility. It is zoned C (Commercial) and has a General Plan Land Use designation 
of Commercial-C. The northerly parcel is zoned Multiple Family (R-3) and has a General Plan Land Use designation 
of Residential High Density-RH. The parcel is 25,226 square feet in area and is currently developed with vacant a 1,150 
square foot single-family dwelling that was used a nurses quarters when the skilled nursing facility was in operation. The 
applicant proposes to demolish all of the existing improvements in order to construct the Kensington Assisted Living Facility 
(“Project”), and 

WHEREAS, General Plan Policy L3.1 requires the adoption of a comprehensive plan or similar planning document for all 
developments on properties exceeding one acre in size. 

WHEREAS, the applicant has elected to file the comprehensive plan in the form of the Kensington Specific Plan (“Specific 
Plan”) with the intent for it to establish zoning and development requirements designed specifically for the project. The 
proposed Specific Plan will “overlay” the existing Commercial and Multiple Family zones and the regulations in the proposed 
Specific Plan will supersede the regulations of the two underlying zones, but only for the development of an assisted living 
facility or similar congregate care facility, and 

WHEREAS, In order for the Specific Plan to have regulatory authority over the underlying zone(s), a zoning code amendment 
(“Amendment”) is required, and

WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan adopted by the Amendment will only apply to the development of assisted living 
facility or similar congregate care facility, and to the extent that any development on the property is not provided by the 
Kensington Specific Plan, the requirements of the existing underlying zones shall prevail.

WHEREAS, an environmental initial study of the proposed project was performed pursuant to the California Environmental 
Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the purposes of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the project. Based on the 
study and the City Council’s independent review of the study and evidence presented, the City Council adopts the Mitigated 
Negative Declaration indicating that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with the 
implementation of mitigation measures noted in the study. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre as follows:

SECTION 1: Paragraph A of Section 17.36.010- Criteria for Commercial Zoning of Chapter 17.36- C Commercial Zoning 
of Title 17- Zoning is hereby amended to read as follows:

“General or Other Adopted Plans. Compliance with the General Plan or other plans or programs adopted by the city shall be 
demonstrated. Development on properties exceeding one acre in size shall require the adoption of a comprehensive plan.”

SECTION 2: Chapter 17.41- Kensington Specific Plan is hereby added to Title 17 of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code to 
read in its entirety as follows:

“Chapter 17.41- Kensington Specific Plan Overlay Zone

Sections: 17.41.010- Specific Plan Overlay Zone Adopted

 17.41.020- Development Regulations

17.41.010 Specific Plan Overlay Zone Adopted 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following land within the city is placed in the Kensington Specific 
Plan Overlay Zone:

Lot “A” of Tract No. 6962 in the City of Sierra Madre, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in 
Book 145, Pages 84 and 85 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and

Lots 26, 27, and 28 of Mrs. C.B. Jones’ Subdivision of the south half of the west half of Lot 15 of Sierra Madre Tract, in the 
City of Sierra Madre, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 13, Page 89 of Miscellaneous 
Records of said County.

17.41.020 Development Regulations

All development within the Kensington Specific Plan Overlay Zone shall occur in accordance with the Kensington Specific 
Plan only for rest homes, guest homes, convalescent facilities, assisted living facilities and similar institutions. The 
Kensington Specific Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 12-57 by the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre on July 24, , 
2012 and consists of 47 pages. Two copies of the Specific Plan are on file with the City Clerk for use and examination by the 
public. To the extent that a development is other than a rest home, guest home, convalescent facility, assisted living facility 
or similar institution, the requirements of the underlying zones shall prevail.”

SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall not take effect unless and until an amendment to the Sierra Madre Municipal Code 
Chapter 17.35, “Voter’s Empowerment,” Amending Section 17.35.040 “Core Area Density Limit” to permit development of 
an assisted living facility at 33 North Hermosa Avenue (APN 5768-019-043) and 245 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard (APN 5768-
019-041), is approved by a majority of the electorate at the November 6, 2012 Special Municipal Election.

SECTION4: Severability: If any selection, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any 
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions 
of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, 
subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, 
clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. 

SECTION5:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted 
in the manner prescribed by law. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 2012. 

AYES: Moran, Walsh, Capoccia, Harabedian, Koerber No: None Abstain: None