10/20/05
I promised last week to have some remarks about the great pot
bust up on San Juan Ridge, so I will, but there’s not a whole
lot to say, really. I heard the sheriff talking about it on the
radio, and I got the distinct impression that local cops were
just along for the ride while the feds were running the show.
Only six people went to jail, so as federal police actions go,
it was small change, and I’m pretty sure there are a few more
than six pot growers on San Juan Ridge, so they’re not exactly
conducting a clean sweep. I’m also pretty sure the cops could
find just about every plant on The Ridge if they wanted to, so I
can’t explain why these six people caught the heat.
The sheriff said they were commercial growers; they say, of
course, that they’re medicinal growers. Because of current
California law, that’s the legal dispute in every pot bust.
What’s interesting and a little disturbing is that, although
local law enforcement has worked out a pretty clear
implementation of the state law, the federal government is
inspired to come into a place like this and assert the claim
that federal restrictions trump the state law, and they did it
just to bust six small-time growers. It demonstrates how far the
feds are willing to go in thwarting the voters in states who
have chosen to change the restrictions on hemp. You have to ask
who the feds are trying to protect.
* * *
An interesting development in local development: The Grass
Valley Planning Commission voted 4-1to deny the application to
build the project called Berg Heights on Ridge Road. By the time
the application went to the commission, the number of houses
planned had dropped from 122 to 97, but that wasn’t enough to
dissuade the commission that the traffic impact on Ridge Road
was too much, or at least that’s the reason the four
commissioners who voted against it cited. Just as developers try
to sugar coat their proposals and portray their motives as
altruistic, planners and elected officials don’t always reveal
their true reasons for the decisions they make.
I’m not sure what’s going on with this one, and I sure
can’t tell from reading The Union. The developer claims
to be a non-profit which is trying to provide some affordable
housing, but neither The Union nor the commission seems
to have any information about how high the developer plans to
price these houses. Every developer claims to be an
environmentalist, and every developer claims to be building
affordable housing. My instinct is to believe that neither of
those claims is true until proven otherwise, but this business
of claiming to be a non-profit corporation is a new wrinkle. I
wish someone would tell me why a non-profit corporation would
want to build 97 houses without telling anyone how much they’ll
cost.
At least one city council member has expressed disapproval of
the Planning Commission’s denial of th is project, and if I
were betting, I’d bet it will be appealed to the City Council
and approved.
I guess Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court
continues to be the major national story. First, I want to say
that I don’t think the Democrats have the votes or the hair to
stop her confirmation. Even if she’s flagrantly unqualified,
she will end up sitting on The Court, and she won’t be the
first unqualified person ever to do so. A couple of comments
about her qualifications, as usual, just from what I read in the
papers. As I read it, she’s a corporate lawyer with little or
no experience in a courtroom trying cases. When you consider
Dubya’s background, excluding his youthful indiscretions, it
makes sense that his personal attorney would be a corporate
lawyer. The primary slogan in selling her nomination has been
that she was the first woman to serve as the head of the Texas
Bar Association. Think about it. Being the chair of any
professional association is a job for which you have to scrounge
up a taker. Anyone who has a real job wouldn’t even consider
it.
Anyway, the curious thing about Miers’ nomination is that
she’s catching flak from both directions. The conservatives
think she doesn’t have enough conservative credentials. They’re
afraid she’ll bail on abortion. The liberals, if there really
are such things, think she’ll immediately persuade The Court
to overturn Roe vs. Wade, as though abortion rights are
the only important thing The Court has to consider. She can’t
win on either side, but she claims she’s never told anyone her
opinion on Roe. I don’t believe that, but I also don’t
believe that Harriet Miers sitting on the Supreme Court will
seriously damage the judicial future of the country. I wouldn’t
vote for her, but it’s not the end of the world.
I like the story that made the mainstream media rounds last
week about how Miers’ religious beliefs influenced the
Bushwhacker’s decision to nominate her. Bush came right out
and said it. Article 6 of the Constitution says, "No
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any
public office or trust." In another time, with a real
opposition party, Miers’ nomination would be toast after the
guy who thinks he’s President says he nominated her because of
her religion.
* * *
Obituaries: Bill King. Forgive the hyperbole, but he was
quite plainly the best sportscaster who ever lived. Over the
years, my interest in professional sports has waned, but my
appreciation of Bill King’s work has not. He’s widely
regarded as the best football announcer ever, he was equally
adept at baseball, and no one before or since could give you
basketball on the radio like Bill King. He was an intellectual,
a bon vivant and a free spirit. Despite repeated offers for
national television work, he remained a local broadcaster in San
Francisco, because those TV fools demanded that he shave his
beard, and he said, "Screw you."
