Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, October 24, 2020

14

 Mountain Views News Saturday, October 24, 2020 

PORTRAIT OF OUR NEIGHBORS by Stuart Tolchin


MEA CULPA (Conversation with myself)

 I am very sorry that there will be no portrait of a neighbor presented to 
you this week. I did prepare an article and emailed it to the intended subject. 
I have been informed not to submit the article for publication. She described 
my attempt as a random collection of facts that were mostly inaccurate 
which in no way presented a picture of who she was. In reflecting upon her 
response I have come to understand the true intention of my articles. 

 During this period of forced isolation connected to the Pandemic I, like 
most everyone else felt extremely isolated. I sought to relieve this condition 
by conducting interviews with neighbors in the canyon. This seemed like a 
wonderful idea. My house is perfectly set up to conduct interviews while still 
complying with the Covid restrictions. My plan was to invite an individual 
neighbor over to the house and just sort of talk to them for an hour or an 
hour and a half. After the conversation, during which time I would carefully 
take notes I would attempt to cobble together an article staying within the 
650 word .limit allocated to me by the editor. So far so good! I loved doing 
the interviews and the whole process gave my life a kind of meaning. It 
allowed me to feel a kind of significance during my retirement. 

 It was my hope that by presenting information about local people, our 
neighbors who are not generally interviewed, we would all learn something 
more about ourselves and come to understand that we are all pretty 
interesting and worth knowing. Additionally the permission I received to 
include a picture of the subjects would provide people some satisfaction. It 
is not everyone who gets to see their picture in the newspaper. Altogether, 
I thought this was a wonderful idea and speculated that perhaps the whole 
series of articles could be compiled into a book which would illustrate how 
one particular locality dealt with the Covid crisis. 

 I imagined I would interview parents of schoolchildren and teachers who 
were prevented from going to school. I would talk to small business owners 
whose businesses were now threatened by the enforcement of sheltering in 
place rules. I would talk to artists living in the community who would now have the opportunity to speak to the world, or at least the 
neighborhood, about the motivations behind their art. I imagined talking to doctors and scientists living within the neighborhood 
who would describe their individual methods of coping with the crisis. I would interview people of different political and religious 
beliefs and, while remaining as non-judgmental as possible, allow readers to realize that there is much to learn from one another and, 
importantly, that differences could be resolved through by civil conversation. This would be my contribution to the world. 

 After the interview, I would then do my best to go through this information and prepare an article of 650 words or less and 
present that to the subject for their approval. This time my subject did not approve and from this rejection I have realized much. I 
enjoy the conversations and the opportunity to get to know people a little much more than I enjoy the editorial process of carving out 
well written articles from the material. I realize that there are many important areas that I have been hesitant to delve into such as how 
does the person actually feel about the people they deal with or the effectiveness of the service they are providing? Do people long for 
retirement or are they happy in what they are doing and not thinking about the future? This is an area which I have avoided probably 
because it frightens me to talk about it. In conclusion, I once more apologize that there is no portrait of another neighbor this week, 
but, hopefully, you got to know this neighbor a little better.


In addition the County of 
Los Angeles has an item on 
the ballot and the State of 
California has twelve ballot 
measures for you to vote 
on. The League of Women 
Voters at the invitation of 
this newspaper, presented 
the Pros and Cons of each 
on Zoom last week. You 
can view the presentation 
and listen to the discussions 
by going to: https://us02web.
zoom.us/rec/share/cqcy-p2uMvannMTl81W9JVP4E5SNPWumr5OY1aoA2YD7sY2Nf6mmp2NTAKWUoGwg.
QcIo4jvULGvaGxRl Passcode: 8YE=q&M4.

Mountain Views News Recommendations:

Every election, the Mountain Views News brings together its 
'Editorial Advisors' to discuss the candidates and issues that are 
on the ballot. When done, we have our endorsement list to share 
with you. 

PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

 JOE BIDEN/KAMALA HARRIS

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 27TH DISTRICT

 CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 28TH DISTRICT

 CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE DISTRICT 25

 ANTHONY PORTANTINO, JR.

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 41

 ASSEMBLYMAN CHRIS HOLDEN

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - 6

 CRYSTAL CZUBERNAT

SIERRA MADRE CITY COUNCIL - 2 YEAR SEAT

 EDWARD T. GARCIA

SIERRA MADRE CITY COUNCIL - 4 YEAR SEATS

 ANDY BENCOSME

 ROBERT PARKHURST 

LA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

JACKIE LACEY

Susan Henderson, 

Editor/Publisher


California Proposition 14, the Stem Cell Research Institute 
Bond Initiative

A "yes" vote supports issuing $5.5 billion general obligation 
bonds for the state's stem cell research institute and making 
changes to the institute's governance structure and programs.

California Proposition 15, the Tax on Commercial and Industrial 
Properties for Education and Local Government Funding 
Initiative

A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to require 
commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as 
commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, 
rather than their purchase price.

California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 

Affirmative Action Amendment

A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby 
keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government 
and public institutions cannot discriminate against or 
grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, 
color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public 
education, and public contracting.

California Proposition 17, the Voting Rights Restoration for 
Persons on Parole Amendment

A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby 
continuing to prohibit people who are on parole for felony convictions 
from voting.

California Proposition 18, the Primary Voting for 17-Year-
Olds Amendment

A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby 
continuing to prohibit 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of 
the next general election to vote in primary elections and special 
elections.

California Proposition 19, the Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, 
and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties 
Amendment

A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to: 

*allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments
anywhere within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred 
to a more expensive home with an upward adjustment;

*increase the number of times that persons over 55 years old or
with severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments from 
one to three;

* require that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences, 
such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market 
value when transferred; and

*allocate additional revenue or net savings resulting from the
ballot measure to wildfire agencies and counties. 

California Proposition 20, the Criminal Sentencing, Parole, 
and DNA Collection Initiative

A "yes" vote supports this initiative to add crimes to the list of 
violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; recategorize 
certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable 
as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for 
certain misdemeanors.

California Proposition 21, the Local Rent Control Initiative

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thereby continuing to 
prohibit rent control on housing that was first occupied after 
February 1, 1995, and housing units with distinct titles, such as 
single-family homes.

California Proposition 22, the App-Based Drivers as Contractors 
and Labor Policies Initiative

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to define app-based 
transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent 
contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-
based drivers and companies.

California Proposition 23, the Dialysis Clinic Requirements 
Initiative.

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to require chronic 
dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are 
being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain 
consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; 
and not discriminate against patients based on the source of 
payment for care.

California Proposition 24, the Consumer Personal Information 
Law and Agency Initiative

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to expand the state’s 
consumer data privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers 
to direct businesses to not share their personal information; 
remove the time period in which businesses can fix violations 
before being penalized; and create the Privacy Protection 
Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.

California Proposition 25, the Replace Cash Bail with Risk 
Assessments Referendum

A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 10 
(SB 10), thus keeping in place the use of cash bail for detained 
suspects awaiting trials.


Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com