People are Interesting: Nine Years of Standing on Fresno's Streetcorners (Continued)

In a February 28th posting, I shared some of my experiences standing on Fresno's street corners both during and between three election cycles over a nine year period. Even though the weather (cold and foggy in the winter and a blast furnace in the summer) was not particularly pleasant, I found Fresno folks to be particularly friendly and interested in their community. Once in awhile the opposite was true. Allow me to share with you a few stories.

• One lady, let's call her Beth, often stopped at my morning "Coffee Stop." She was usually on her way to pick up refreshments for her senior friends at the Pinedale Community Center where Fresno's Parks and Recreation Department schedules programs and meals for seniors. Beth, while always polite, was on a mission: to improve the physical facilities at the Community Center. She carefully monitored the other senior citizen centers in Fresno and immediately let me know whenever upgrades were made to those facilities. She could recite the last date of Pinedale Center improvements, and it was quite obvious to both of us that Pinedale had been overlooked for quite some time. I told her that I would look into it. Beth, smiling and polite as ever was at the ribbon cutting in 2008 when the Pinedale Community Center rehabilitation project was completed.


• A well-known sports figure in the community took pity on me one cold morning by leaning out his window and handing me a full McDonald's breakfast and coffee. He told me that he had tasted my coffee previously, and I needed to serve the McDonald's brand of coffee instead of my own.


• On the busy, noisy corner of Blackstone and Herndon, I was startled by a female voice. Turning around (it was raining like crazy) was a camera crew from a local radio station wishing to find out what I was doing. They interviewed me in the pouring rain while commenting after the cameras were turned off that I must be nuts. I told them that a Fresno rain was preferable any day to campaigning in Wisconsin winters (snow and sleet!)many years previously when I was a candidate for (and won) county supervisor.


• Another of my favorite citizens was "John" (not his real name) that had had his brushes with the law and was now "clean." John's youthful years in Fresno were a litany of both funny and sad stories. I learned more stories about this city and its people. John knew everything about everybody! He also was deeply involved in the complicated process of applying for a patent for a very clever invention. I told John that I was entitled to a 5% commission for listening to him at almost every one of Fresno's corners. That reminds me, I need to see if he got that patent and is making a bunch of money...something about my commission.


• People who stopped to talk at my Coffee Stops were particularly interested in their immediate neighborhood. They often wanted to know about proposed development projects that may impact the value of their home or the traffic in their neighborhood. Usually, but not always, I could answer their questions and they left relieved that the neighborhood rumors were false.

There were, however, some citizens that could be difficult. This was particularly the case with very opinionated, mad, or just bored individuals in need of someone to talk to. Remember, I am standing on a corner with a table, coffee, and signs that made it difficult to just politely thank them and walk away. Some examples:

• While I always appreciated their passionate interest in issues involving Fresno County, the State of California, Congress or the President, people did not want me to tell them that I had no authority to do anything about those issues. Some people were so angry that they would yell at me, as if I could do something about the issue. Fairly typical examples were state taxes, local superior court actions directed against them, abortion, the Iraq War, 9/11 terrorists, firearm regulations and their children's school issues. The more I tried to explain that I could not solve their problem, the madder they got. There were times I seriously worried for my safety and my sanity.


• And speaking of safety, probably the strangest incident was on the corner of Bullard and Chestnut as dusk was beginning to settle in, and I was about to wrap-up and head home. A strangely attired man came riding up on his bicycle, got off and immediately started swearing at me. When I chose to ignore him by turning away and facing the traffic in a different direction, he immediately moved in front of me and told me in a non-stop fusillade of expletives that he dared me to fight him so that he could knock me off my a__." Every time I turned a different direction he moved around and confronted me with his expletives. Eventually, he suddenly stopped yelling, got on his bicycle and headed off into the darkening night. I promptly packed up and left.

Coming attractions...
1). The need for national standards for public schools

2). End of the Coffee Stops: The Bill McEwen story.

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

An "Obesity Tax" on Snacks and Drinks?

I teach at Fresno City College. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these students--at least a quarter and possibly half--are overweight. And this is typical for k - 12 students as well. We also know that adults are not exempt from the problem of being overweight. Businessweek magazine recently stated that obesity costs U.S. businesses about $45 billion a year in medical expenses and lost productivity. We can, of course, educate our children and the general public about the need to "eat right and exercise." But it doesn't seem to be enough. Americans, particularly those in the Valley, just keep getting fatter.

Would it make sense to impose taxes on "junk food," similar to what is done with cigarette taxes? While he hasn't succeeded--and he may never be successful--New York Governor David Patterson proposed an 18% sales tax on non-diet soda and sugary juice drinks. The tax, he claims, would discourage consumption of these foods and drinks as well as raise millions of dollars for public health programs to combat obesity.

Arguments both for and against imposing tobacco-style "obesity taxes" on some snacks and drinks are fairly easy to make. Some would argue that the concept is simply advancing the "nanny state" more into what should be personal decisions made individuals. As long as the food and drinks are "safe" there is no reason for government to tax them based on some faceless agency's "sugar" criteria. Afterall, these foods and drinks, unlike cigarettes, don't have dangerous tars and nicotine in them.

The flip side of the argument is that we don't want to be a nation, state, region, city or family of overweight Americans, highly subject to poor health and premature death. And as Madison Avenue will quickly point out, just as companies successfully promote toothpaste, deodorant, detergent through advertising, a well-funded (from taxes on selected drinks and foods?) campaign could do wonders for promoting a healthy lifestyle.

I worry about the younger generation, whether they be in first grade or college. While I am not sure what the answer is to the problem of rising obesity in these young people, I am supportive of individuals like Governor Patterson who is trying to do something about it rather than just complaining.

Where's the leadership in our community?

Coming attractions...

1) Coffee stops, continued

2) The need for national standards for public schools

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

Where is that Long Overdue Adaptive Reuse Ordinance for Downtown Fresno?

Vacant buildings slow the economic growth of a neighborhood and invite degradation and blight. Fresno, like many cities, is facing a deepening sea of vacant space in downtown. In response to concerns from the Fresno City Council in 2006, City of Fresno staff compiled data on the amount of vacant building space in the downtown area, the area bordered by State highways 99, 180E, and 41. Staff identified 118 vacant buildings, comprising 1,926,364 square feet of unused space. This is approximately the same square footage of the two former World Trade Center Towers. Moreover, approximately 40% of the vacant space, over 775,000 square feet, is housed in blighted buildings. The sheer volume of vacant space - close to eight times the amount of usable space in the Fresno Convention Center, including the Saroyan Theater, Selland Arena, and both Exhibit Halls - is a deterrent to the growth and vitality of downtown Fresno.

Fresno currently relies on public nuisance codes, in particular the Vacant Building Ordinance (VBO), to require developers to secure and improve blighted buildings. This approach, while helpful, is costly, slow and rife with legal obstacles.

The VBO stipulates minimum standards of safety and aesthetics. It requires owners to improve vacant buildings in relation to the surrounding area. It also requires that the vacant building be fully secured to deter vandalism and prevent squatters from assuming control of the building. In limited cases, the owner could be directed to provide to the City's Planning and Development Department a plan for making the building ready for occupancy. The ordinance, however, stops short of requiring owners to reoccupy a vacant building. Though the Ordinance is helpful in diminishing blight, it does little for downtown's growth and vitality.

The VBO is also an arduous tool to wield. Code Enforcement officers must first notify the owner that the building is not in compliance with the City's ordinance. If the owner fails to comply after the appeal process, the case is transferred to the City Attorney's Office for legal enforcement. This protracted legal process can be lengthy, limiting the City's ability to address other critical issues and diverting monies from other projects. In the end, the City is not guaranteed a reoccupied building since the building can legally remain vacant if it is secure and free from blight.

While the VBO is effective in addressing security issues and severe blight, its use is limited in transforming the sea of vacant buildings into vibrant centers of economic activity. To illustrate, let me briefly describe an instance when it was used in downtown. The City successfully used the VBO on the McMahon Building, formerly located on the corner of Van Ness and Tulare Streets. After a protracted and expensive legal battle, the building was razed. While the ordinance removed the vacant, blighted McMahon Building, it did little to encourage growth in downtown, and the lot that once housed the building is now home only to dirt.

Relying on the Public Nuisance Abatement codes to address the safety and aesthetic concerns of vacant buildings does not work. Downtown growth requires the two-pronged approach of enforcement and an adaptive reuse ordinance incentive to encouraging developers to renovate and reuse vacant buildings.

Three cities have implemented different approaches to combat vacant building space and spur growth in depressed areas, typically downtown or industrial areas. Denver, New York City and Los Angeles have all developed adaptive reuse ordinances to provide incentives to property owners to reoccupy their buildings for housing and commercial purposes. Though Denver was the first to implement an adaptive reuse ordinance, Los Angeles has had the most success. As of 2006, Los Angeles had already reused 3,700 buildings, while 5,400 buildings were finishing the process, and 7,000 buildings had applied to the program but had not yet begun the work. These numbers are much higher today.

The Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance provides several substantial incentives for building owners. First, the ordinance relaxes the building codes applicable to the building. This means that buildings in commercial zones could be held accountable only to residential building codes when adapted for reuse. Residential building codes are less strict in their requirements for indoor lighting, parking spaces, proper number of restrooms, etc. Second, the ordinance includes "by-right processing" - the property owner can bypass Planning Commission approval, Council approval, and environmental approval because: 1) the building already exists, 2) the adaptive reuse is only applied to the interior of the building (and minor exterior work), and 3) the ordinance includes a "Master EIR" for the Los Angeles downtown area. The owner only has to obtain the proper permits for the rehabilitation work and is only subjected to inspection fees, not any of the other fees associated with the development process (i.e. Planning Commission and EIR fees). Finally, the Los Angeles adaptive reuse ordinance also exempts the owner from any development fees and restrictions, including typical floor area ratios and open space requirements. Moreover, street fees or infrastructure fees are not levied against the property, even if significant rehabilitation is involved.

In May, 2006 I brought forward and the Council discussed options for working with Planning and Development staff , staff from the Economic Development Department, and staff from the Redevelopment Agency to address the vacant space problem in Downtown. Fresno, however, faces an unique situation when addressing this problem. Unlike Denver, Los Angeles and New York City, Fresno does not benefit from high rent prices in Downtown. Reuse projects in Los Angeles are immediately economically viable because the buildings are tall and rent is high, translating into significant revenue from housing uses (many rooms x high rent), giving developers financial "cover" while the investment for office use, which takes longer to turn a profit, matures. Adaptive reuse is more profitable in Los Angeles, Denver, and New York City because it is cheaper and easier than redevelopment, both of which could combine housing and office elements. Consequently, while staff was asked to look into an adaptive reuse ordinance in Fresno, they were also asked to study what types of incentives will encourage developers to reuse vacant downtown buildings.

Additionally, the type of vacant building is a factor. Staff was asked to evaluate the types of buildings that constitute the 1,926,364 square feet of vacant space in Downtown. Not all buildings present viable options for reuse. Many single-story buildings - particularly, large, single-story industrial warehouses - are not good candidates for adaptive reuse projects because they are not profitable for the developer. Fresno's ordinance needed to provide as many options as possible for projects that pose challenges to reuse.

Previous reuse projects in Fresno, especially the JC Penny Building on the Fulton Mall and the Hotel Fresno, provide examples of effective and ineffective, approaches. Staff was asked to examine those case studies for clues to how a comprehensive ordinance will quicken the process.

As a former council member, I requested and the Council directed in September, 2006 that City staff develop an adaptive reuse ordinance for Fresno. Staff was asked to consider tailoring the Los Angeles adaptive reuse ordinance, or others, to Fresno or to create an original ordinance specific to Fresno. Staff was further directed to provide incentives that would encourage developers to reuse vacant buildings, especially in downtown.

The need for an adaptive reuse ordinance was expressed during Mayor Swearengin's recent public hearing on downtown Fresno. City of Fresno staff, surprisingly, responded that nothing had been done to develop an adaptive reuse ordinance. This lack of progress on an adaptive reuse ordinance was disingenuous at best, particularly after assuring the Council numerous times since 2006 that one was being developed.

I encourage Mayor Swearengin to be more proactive than former Mayor Autry in insisting on having staff immediately prepare an adaptive reuse ordinance for Council and public consideration.

Coming attractions...
1) Coffee stops, continued
2) The need for national standards for public schools

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

Put an End to Cage Fighting in Fresno's Parks

What a sight! Mayor Alan Autry and Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer in the front row of a full crowd at Woodward Park cheering on cage fighters to beat up each other! I hoped that no one from the national press or the CBS News magazine 60 Minutes was there to report it.

What kind of a community uses an outdoor park facility to stage brutal cage fights when indoor City facilities downtown or numerous indoor private facilities are readily available? I applaud Mayor Swearengin for opposing using City park facilities for such a function. I wonder if Chief Dyer would be sitting in the front row if this mayor was not by his side?

Just the idea of holding such events in our parks should be enough to say no. There is, however, another reason to say no: the significant profit made by the promoter by having it staged in a low-cost park facility instead of Selland Arena or at a private facility. In essence, the taxpayers are underwriting the cost of the event.

Supporters of cage fighting events in our parks say that it is an activity no different than cross country races, Shakespeare performances, bike races and other entertainment events in the parks that charge a fee. I would say that this is simply not the case. Even when shielded from non-participants, a violent activity that involves physical punishment meted out by two men against each other is not a legitimate activity to be held in a public park. That does not mean that it can't be held elsewhere.

Most of the City Council of which I was a member of supported cage fighting in the park. Only Cynthia Sterling, if I remember correctly, joined me in opposition. Fortunately, the new mayor opposes it. I would strongly encourage the Council, with two new members, to do the same.

Coming attractions...
1) Coffee stops, continued
2) Importance of adaptive reuse ordinance for downtown Fresno

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

Thank You, Scott Miller and Natalie Clark

It is an accepted part of the election process to celebrate the winners and forget the losers. It is understandable in every contested election that someone has to win and someone (often more than one) to lose. I would like, however, to recognize and celebrate the efforts of all candidates for office by profiling two individuals from Fresno that recently ran for elective office and fell short of the brass ring. I have only briefly talked to Mr. Scott Miller, and I would not know Ms. Natalie Clark if she waved at me while jogging past their nursery from my teaching position at Fresno City College. Nonetheless, that does not lessen my respect for their willingness to serve our community by running for public office.

Scott Miller and Natalie Clark, married and owners of a successful Fresno nursery, were recently candidates for a City of Fresno Council position and Fresno Unified School Board seat. Both ran issue-driven campaigns, the type of campaigns that engaged the public on issues of importance to the City and School District. Both candidates also had the excruciating experience of an extremely close election that could almost have resulted in winning their respective offices.

Mr. Miller and Ms. Clark are to be commended for taking time from their labor-intensive small business to run effective campaigns. They did not simply file their campaign statements, hire a political consultant, and send out fliers. Both actively campaigned in the neighborhoods, attended candidate forums and, while receiving some campaign donations, also used their own personal financial resources.

As far as I can determine (I don't live in their election districts and could not vote for either of them or their opponents), neither Mr. Miller or Mr. Clark engaged in any electioneering activities the public would find objectionable. And they were gracious in defeat.

I want to commend every American that puts his or her personal life on public display in order to run for public office. A candidate cannot retreat to a private world. Every public word and sentence becomes fodder for an opponent and the news media. Often overlooked is the impact on the candidate's family. An effective campaign--win or lose--always involves the participation, even if just emotional support, of family and friends. Particularly at the local level, candidates are seldom prepared for the physical and emotional roller coaster ride of an election campaign. It's an experience, for better or worse, that is never forgotten.

The community appreciates Scott Miller, Natalie Clark and all candidates for elective office-- particularly those that lose, are not feted and don't have contributors retire their campaign debt-- for caring about their community. We salute you, encourage you to not be discouraged, and hope that you will continue to work for a better community.

Coming attractions...
1) Comments on Mayor Swearengin's Independent Police Auditor forum
2) Coffee stops, continued

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

What's in a Name....Fresno?

Even if you haven't been there, what do you think of when you hear Arlington, Corpus Christi, Santa Barbara, Paris, Danville, Majorca, La Habra, Paso Robles, Copenhagen or New Orleans? Generally, I think you would agree that it conjures up pleasant thoughts about a community you might like to visit or a place you might like to live. Now, ask yourself, and assume you know nothing about our community, does Fresno give you that same feeling? Probably not.

Maybe it is the 'no' in Fresno that is off-putting, that tends to send the message that things are negative here, something is just not right, that the residents are not welcoming. There is an unfortunate pairing of the two syllables in the name. "Fres," the first syllable, is a good start, almost a tangible "fresh." But the second syllable, the "no," takes the wind out of our sails, removes the positive aspect of the first syllable, and leaves us with those two doggone letters.

I suggest that we have an international contest inviting people to suggest a replacement name for Fresno. The winner would be provided an expense paid trip to our community and additional California travel options. (Isn't Fresno always "three hours from everything?") We could have a downtown celebration to rival the one in 2000 when we were selected as an All American City.

There is another reason to consider changing the name of our fair city. We would differentiate ourselves from the County of Fresno. It's not that we don't like the County, because we do. We would, however, stand out with a new name and the opportunity to develop a new community persona: priceless in an age of conformity!

Come up with a new name? Am I really serious? Yes, friends, I can hear the laughter building. It's easy to imagine all the reasons that can be used to deep-six the idea. So why even consider it? First, it's because there is something in a name. People like the sound and feel of things. Fresno as a name just doesn't make the cut. And, second, no one will have to listen to me anymore (nine long years) pleading, with tongue firmly planted in my cheek, for a name change to Fresyes.

Let the nominations begin!

Coming attractions...
1) Comments on Mayor Swearengin's Independent Police Auditor forum
2) Coffee stops, continued

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

Forest City and Downtown Fresno

It has been five or six years since the large, national development company, Forest City, proposed a major development project in downtown Fresno. Initially, the proposal was for primarily commercial development (remember the buzz about Bass Pro Shop supposedly coming to Fresno?) occupying a large portion of downtown Fresno. The Council, recognizing the opportunity to develop downtown with one large developer, gave Forest City an exclusive option to develop plans for developing the area.

Forest City then did nothing for well over a year waiting to see if a proposed proposition on the State ballot regarding eminent domain would be approved. As it turned out, the ballot proposal failed.

After significant delay and recognizing that large-scale commercial development was not viable in downtown, Forest City then approached the Council with a series of requests for exclusive development rights to a large portion of downtown south of the stadium to do mixed use residential and limited commercial. As a council member at that time, I did not support the last exclusive requested by and given to Forest City. Enough, I thought, was enough.

There are a number of reasons why the Council should not provide additional exclusives to this company. First, while Forest City has spent a considerable amount of their own funds on preliminary studies, they have have not provided Fresno with a viable, specific plans. Second, it is well known that the cost to the City of Fresno for its share of a large mixed use downtown development would be anywhere between $70 to $100 million dollars. There is no way Fresno can come up with those kinds of dollars. And, finally, small but significant downtown development has and continues to take place in Fresno. This entrepreneurial local development will only be accelerated by the almost approved downtown PBID or Property Based Improvement District (see my March 7th posting).

I would encourage the Mayor and Council to review the March 7-8 article in the Wall Street Journal, A Hole Grows in Brooklyn (Ms. Vitullo-Martin, the Manhattan Institute), about the proposed 2003 Forest City development project, Atlantic Yards, that was to remake downtown Brooklyn by building expansive residential and retail space, and a new arena that would bring the New Jersey Nets to the borough. Now, more than five years later, "what's been brought to Brooklyn is a very large hole in the ground and a project that is coming to symbolize why large government projects can be riskier than allowing local residents to fix up their own communities." Let Brooklyn's experience be a warning shot across City Hall.

There is no question that Forest City is an experienced developer of government-financed and tax-abated projects. I believe, however, that the City has given them all the exclusive negotiating agreements they need. Let them, if they wish, compete with anyone else interested in improving our downtown.

Coming attractions...
1) What's in a name...Fresno?
2) Comments on Mayor Swearengin's Independent Police Auditor forum
3) Coffee stops, continued

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

Time for a Downtown Business Improvement District

I was surprised and disappointed at the recent decision of the Fresno City Council to again delay implementation of a property-based business improvement district (PBID) for downtown Fresno. While it would appear that a PBID may be approved soon, there is no reason for continued delay.

A PBID permits property owners in the area to benefit from improvements--in this case, downtown property owners--by assessing themselves fees. The property owners then determine how they want to spend these fees within the designated improvement area. It is a win-win situation for everyone concerned. It has worked elsewhere and will certainly work in downtown Fresno.

As a City of Fresno council member, I worked as long ago as 2003 with Mr. Dan Doyle, president of a local bank, to establish a PBID for downtown. Mr. Doyle had been instrumental in establishing a very successful PBID for downtown Sacramento many years ago and wanted to establish one in Fresno. He and a number of business leaders took a full-day bus trip to Sacramento in 2004 to talk to Sacramento leaders about their downtown PBID. The Fresno group returned enthused about the concept and pressed anyone that would listen to establish it.

Unfortunately, local politics, particularly a lack of leadership from the mayor, the Redevelopment Agency, the Downtown Association and some council members, got in the way of establishing the PBID. I brought the concept to the Council on a number of occasions with no discernible action being taken.

I would encourage the Council to end the practice of delay and delay and approve the PBID. Mr. Doyle and other visionary business and civic leaders have waited long enough to move ahead with downtown improvements.

Coming attractions...

1) What's in a name...Fresno?

2) Comments on Mayor Swearengin's Independent Police Auditor forum

3) Coffee stops, continued

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.

Keep KIPP

The local KIPP (Knowledge is Power) School is, unfortunately, a creature of both the strengths and weaknesses of charter schools. As a Teacher Education instructor at Fresno City College, I share each year with my students local examples of charter schools that are succeeding and those that are weak and/or failed. I am, however, a proponent of charters because they offer parents and children a choice (other than public, private and home schooling) in their mandatory education. Charters are, almost by definition, risky since they are very entrepreneurial and, therefore, subject to failure.

KIPP is one of the most successful charter models in the country. In general, they have a proven track record of academic success, particularly when one looks at the "at risk" students primarily served by them. The local KIPP school is no exception.

What has apparently happened is that oversight by the local KIPP board, the County Office of Education and Fresno Unified has belatedly caught up with alleged poor management practices at the school. This sometimes happens with charters because of their loose, non-bureaucratic structure. It is very unfortunate, however, that the problems appear to potentially drop the school into the proverbial waste bin of educational failures.

Superintendent Mike Hansen and County Superintendent Larry Powell are correct in questioning unusual policies and operations at KIPP. It is, however, unfortunate that their decision to "pull the plug" on KIPP is jeopardizing continued funding from the State of California. This is a time when oversight agencies should be working closely with KIPP--rather than both sides pointing fingers at each other--to get the problems solved and provide the students with their on-going education. KIPP National should also be part of this process.

I find it very difficult to believe that KIPP knowingly would deliberately commit such egregious errors that it would fall into the same category of some other local charters schools that broke the law in such a way as to require legal action to be taken against them. While some former charter operators have been fined and sent to jail, KIPP certainly does not fit this unfortunate practice.

Let's have everyone work together to pull out a win here for the students and their parents. As a lifelong educator, I know it is possible.

Coming attractions...
1) What's in a name...Fresno?
2) Comments on Mayor Swearengin's Independent Police Auditor forum
3) Coffee stops, continued

Your comments are always welcome. Simply click on "comments" below.