CALIFORNIA CHILE

We are no longer offering Atomic Horseradish or any other product for sale. We will be offering stories about the Ventura, Ca Ivory Tower, (Ventura City Hall) and the Gang that inhabits that structure. (Ventura City Council)
California Chile Home      
History of San Buenaventu
Tales of the Ivory Tower
Gang in the Ivory Tower
PAGE TWO
PAGE THREE
PAGE FOUR
Citizens Speak
Charley Reese
Ancient History
Stuff ya really got to re
CONTACT US

PAGE THREE

Tales of the Ivory Tower

 

This page will be dedicated to writings and stuff other than the Ivory Tower.

 

                   

In March of 2010 Mr Bob Brooks was the Sheriff of Ventura County.  Now I really didn't know much about Mr Brooks so when I read his article in the Ventura County Star I got to know him real well.  This is what he wrote at that time.

 


Mr Bob (ya gotta be kidding) Brooks recently wrote a completely ridiculous article for the Ventura County Star.  It is reminiscence of the 1930's and 1940's when the big tobacco and alcohol industries paid off the politicians to make Marijuana illegal.  They produced movies such as "Killer Weed" and hired PR firms to develop ads portraying Marijuana as an addictive killer drug.

 

Mr Brooks uses examples of what he determined were the incorrect figures by the California Board of Equalization of revenue gained of $1.4 billion dollars if Marijuana were legalized.  He also belittled the findings of Mr Jon Gettman the former National Director of NORMAL. (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).  Saying that Mr Gettman's findings were grossly incorrect and that was where the Board of Equalization got their information.

 

In his article he doesn't bother to tell us what he believes the true revenue would be, he instead relies on the work of a single lady, Dr Rosalie Pacula from the Rand Corp for his information.  He then makes the point that for every $1.00 gained in tax revenue on alcohol and tobacco we, the citizens pay $8.95 in social cost.  Nobody disputes that Alcohol and Tobacco are dangerous, addictive, drugs, but they are legal, taxed, and controlled.

 

He then goes on to state that Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive, and highly potent drug.  In my 50 years experience with Marijuana, (I lived through the 50's and 60's), and1000's of user of Marijuana I have known, I have yet to find anybody that has become addicted to it.  As a matter of fact just the opposite, as a person ripens in age they become less and less enamored with Marijuana, it seems to not be as enjoyable and also the fact that it increases hunger and tiredness makes it very much less desirable.

 

Mr Brooks insists that Marijuana smoke causes Cancer.  In test over 50 years no evidence exsists that Marijuana causes Cancer.  As a matter of fact it has been proven to eliminate some forms of Cancer and helps tremendously in the after math of Cancer treatment.

 

It's certainly a good thing that Mr Brooks finally left office, it's also a good thing that the person he touted to replace him lost the election.

 

The only real reason that law agencies are so against the legalization of Marijuana is simply because they make too much money fighting the "War on Drugs".


For your entertainment and edification here is a little sonnet I wrote for Mr Brooks.

 

Ode to a Good Ol' Boy

 

Old Sheriff Bobby Brooks is a "Good Ol' Boy"

He runs the department with a personal ploy

 

He got his job, on a Silver Platter.

Now says to all, What the hell is the matter?

 

He was Bradbury's boy, in the good ol' days.

He thought for sure he'd get his ways.

 

These days he sighs, When he hears "Hang um High"

He knows it's over, makes him want to cry.

 

He wants to pick his successor, we know thats true

The Commission popped his bubble and now he's Blue.

 

He says he'll retire, get out of the race, it's only a way to try to save face.

 

He'll ride into the sunset, with his retirement money,

Laughing all the way, knowing it's all so Phoney!

 

Rellis Smith

 


 

----- Original Message -----
From: "RONALD SMITH" <rellis39@sbcglobal.net>
To:
biking@cityofventura.net

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 4:56:25 PM
Subject: Bike Idea

A short while ago my wife was involved in an accident with a bicycle on Poli St in front of the city hall.  The police were called and determined that the accident was the fault of the bicycle rider who had been wearing a head set with an ipod listening to music and didn't hear my wife coming behind her and made a left turn into the side of my wife's car. 

 

Luckily my wife is a very conscientious driver and was only going about 20MPH.  The girl that was riding the bicycle was slightly injured and her bike was a mess, not to mention the side of my wife's car.

 

The major problem was that of course the girl had no insurance to alleviate the situation so we, (my wife and I were forced to pay $400.00, our deductible).  Our insurance paid the remaining $1500.00 to fix our car.  That's right; the girl on the bicycle had caused almost $2000.00 damage to the side of my wife's car.

 

Now that that has been said, I believe because we, (the tax paying citizens) pay out millions of dollars per year for the "Bicycle Riders), we give them a portion of our streets marked so that nobody else can use that part, the law states that bicycle riders have the same rights on the road as cars do. 

 

We build racks so they can lock up their bicycles to keep them safe, we spend time and money on committees to develop more "things" to give to bicycle riders, and yet bicycle riders do not need a license to ride on the streets and of course the worst part is they are not required to have insurance.  Cars need insurance, motorcycles need insurance, scooters need insurance, but not bicycle riders.

 

I have read about maybe a dozen accidents in the past year in our area that included bicycles.  I do really think it's about time bicycle riders are required to have a license and insurance like everybody else.  The cost of course would be determined by the insurance industry, and the license cost would be determined by the DMV.

 

Rellis Smith

rellis39@sbcglobal.net

 


  What does the Gang in the Ivory Tower actually do with all of our tax money you might ask...

Read this stuff....

 

June 27, 2009

 

Stupid is as Stupid does!

 

It never ends, the Gang in the Ivory Tower, (Ventura City Council), once again is in the throes of considering giving away $2,000,000 of our tax money.  They have been crying “poor boy” for months now and even want the citizens of Ventura to allow them to raise the sales tax in the city by ½ percent in order to raise money so they can give away more.

 

Best Buy a multi-billion dollar corporation that has more money than god or the city of Ventura by far is considering opening a store in Ventura but the owners of the property, a Los Angeles company, they want to move into, doesn’t want to spend the $2,000,000 to make improvement that would be required.  Sooooo.... Best Buy is asking the Gang in the Ivory Tower to give them a $2,000,000 tax break so they can make the improvement needed.

 

Our illustrious, intelligent, looking out for you, City Manager, Mr Rick Cole stated that it would make more sense for the property owner to leave the store vacant until the economy recovers, (or hell freezes over), than to lease it to Best Buy on their terms.  Even if the Gang in the Ivory Tower decided not to go along with Best Buys request they have already started spending our tax money on the situation, they hired another “consultant” to tell them if they should do it or not.

 

In 2005 they gave a 10 year $400,000 loan to Jaguar/Land Rover which they claim is being repaid, of course they don’t mention how much the city is making on the loan or if it is being paid on time.  Then a while back when the Pacific View Mall was being built the Gang that was in the Tower at that time made a “tax sharing” deal with the property owners that we are still paying on, Mr Cole says he thinks it was a 30 year deal. (Funny he only thinks it was a 30 year deal).

 

The deal Best Buy is requesting is the same as the Pacific View mall deal, we (the citizens) would pay them back the $2,000,000 by giving them a share of the sales tax generated over a period of years.  Cole says, “It is a subsidy paid out of tax revenue we wouldn’t otherwise get”.  Does Mr Cole not know, or is he simply stupidly ignoring the fact that any sales by Best Buy would simply mean a sale not made by other stores in Ventura, so the sales tax that he says we “otherwise wouldn’t get” is not entirely true, we would have gotten it somewhere else and not had to share it with anybody.

 

In 2009 Best Buy opened 285 stores and acquired 2,414 stores in Europe.  The City of Ventura can’t even keep it’s streets and parks in good shape and these “Fat Cats” want us to subsidize them.  There has never in the history of Ventura been a time when the Gang in the Ivory Tower even considered giving a “subsidy” to a “small business owner” that wanted to open a restaurant, gift store, ice cream parlor, or any other type of small business, they only want to give to the “Fat Cats”.

 

If this isn’t a perfect reason to vote “NO” on their sales tax increase rip off, I certainly don’t know when a more perfect reason will come along.

 

Rellis Smith

rellis39@sbcglobal.net


www.venturanow.web.officelive.com

 

I sent this e-mail to Rick Cole, city manager on February 12, 2009
 
Hey, I gotta good idea how the city can save a few thousand bucks per month.  Why not set up a computer system t allow us citizens to pay our water/sewer bill on line, we could pay by bank account or credit card, with an option to discontinue hard copy bills.  The city would obviously save a bunch of money on paper, labor, and postage and the citizens would save by not having to make out checks and put a stamp on the bill.
 
I then received an e-mail from Ms Mary Landis, Utility Billing Supervisor in return:
 
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your suggestion.  Our current billing software does not allow for online payments, it is almost 30 year old. We are in the process of implementing a new billing system that would allow for online payments of utility bills.  You are right about the cost saving for the customer and the city.  The implementation is expected to take approximately 9 months.
 
Well folks here it is over 2 years later and as was foretold the city does now have a system where you can pay your utility bills online, only one small catch.  The will charge you an additional $4.95 cents if you do want to pay online.
 
I pay almost 95 percent of my bills online and not one company, or bank, or credit card company charges a red cent for that privilege.  So once again the City of Ventura has figured out how to add an additional "fee" without a vote of the public.
 

 
Another bit of frivolity for your edification:
 
Business as usual:
 
I don't really know for sure but the following memo's are reputed to be issued from the office of the Ventura City Manager
 
1. As of tomorrow, for security reasons employees will only be able to access the building using individual security cards.  Pictures will be taken next Wednesday and employees will receive their cards in two weeks.
 
2.  This project is so important, we absolutely can not let things that are more important interfere with it.
 
3.  Teamwork is a whole lot of people doing what I say, so what I will need immediately is a list from each department of specific unknown problems we will encounter in the future.
 
4.  We realize that lack of communication is a problem with the morale situation, but the administration is not going to discuss it with employees.  Also from now on, e-mail is not to be used to pass on information or data, it is to be used for city business only.
 
5.  This is to inform you that a memo will be issued today regarding the subject of the memo.
 
Finally the Gem of all memos.
 
6.  The City of Ventura is endeavouringly determined to promote constant attention on current procedures of transacting business focusing emphasis on innovative ways to better, if not supersede, the expectatations of quality.
 
Is it any wonder why the Gang in the Ivory Tower always has a sorta blank look on their faces?

I was talking to Mr Tom Mericle head of transportation for the city of Ventura.
 
I was telling him my idea of having the state require bicycle riders to be licensed and insured exactly like any other vehicle that uses the public roads.  Mr Mericle told me that the long term plan was to spend $23 million dollars on improving bike lanes, bike signage and other bicycle goodies.  I sent this e-mail to Mr Mericle:
 

Monday, March 21, 2011

Ventura master bike plan

Obviously somebody has their head in the clouds.  23 million dollars for bicycle riders?  Come on guys, we can’t even fix our crumbling roads, were closing library’s, firing city employees, policemen and firemen,  reducing city services, and now you’re going to spend 23 million dollars for bike paths and bike racks?  Does that really seem like a well thought out plan?

Tom Mericle, a devout bike rider made the statement that there is a desire by city residents to riding a bike to work a couple of days a week to save on gas.  First of all we could buy a hell of a lot of gas for 23 million dollars.  Secondly Mr. Mericle is using the same tactics that most of the Gang in the Ivory Tower use when they want to insure to everyone that they are without a doubt telling it like it is, it is called embellishment or to put it more crudely …. Spinning.

With out to much strain on the imagination anyone can realize that bicycle riders are only a small fraction of the population of the city.  If there is a desire by city residents to ride a bike to work a couple of days a week I would doubt if that total number of residents exceeds 500 people.

I sent Mr. Mericle and the City Council a suggestion a few weeks ago about the fact that all other forms of transportation, cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, are required to be licensed and insured to use the public roadways.  Now Mr. Mericle states that in recent years there have been quite a number of accidents involving bikes throughout the city.  Plus there is the overriding fact that all other forms of transportation are the ones that are supplying the tax money for the public roadways while bicycle riders pay nothing.

As the old saying goes, “Something just doesn’t seem copacetic here.”

 

Rellis Smith

rellis39@sbcglobal.net.

 


I inquired with the City Attorney Mr Ariel Callone about weither or not the city of Ventura has an ordinance stating bicycle riders must have a license to ride on public streets. Apparently the city does have such an ordinance

 

Sun, January 29, 2012 9:05:51 AM

Re: bikes

From:

"Calonne, Ariel" <acalonne@ci.ventura.ca.us>

View Contact

To:

RONALD SMITH <rellis39@sbcglobal.net>

 

FYI -- I haven't researched its enforceability under state law

Sec. 16.315.010. License required.
After August 1, 1975, no resident shall ride, move, haul or leave standing, or allow to be ridden, moved, hauled, or left standing any bicycle on any road, street, highway or other public property within the City of San Buenaventura unless such bicycle has been licensed in accordance with this chapter or has been licensed in accordance with former Ordinance Code section 7611 et seq.
This chapter does not apply to bicycle manufacturers or bicycle dealers transporting bicycles in the normal course of business.
(Code 1971, § 7621.1)

Ariel Pierre Calonne
City Attorney
City of San Buenaventura
(805) 654-7818


Once again I was e-mailing to Mr Tom Mericle after I found out that the city was going to supsidize the downtown business owners by giving they a private overnight parking space in one of the public parking lots so they could park there business vehicles ... Overnight.

 

1/16/2012

$20 Parking Permits for Downtown Business Owners

So now that it was decided by the Gang in the Ivory Tower to subsidize the Downtown Business owners by granting them an overnight parking space in one of our public parking lots, does this mean that any person that has a business in the city of Ventura, IE: landscape, painting, trash hauling, roofing, general contractor, et c. will also receive the same “Good Ol’ Boy” $20 overnight parking permit that is being given to the Downtown Business owners or will they be discriminated against?

As far as that goes how about people that own RV’s or Trailers?  I am sure they would all jump at the chance to be able to use one of the $20 parking permits for their vehicles.

Rellis Smith

Rellis39@sbcglobal.net

From: "tmericle@ci.ventura.ca.us" <tmericle@ci.ventura.ca.us>
To: rellis39@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tue, January 17, 2012 10:10:01 AM
Subject: RE: City of Ventura case number 60504

Mr. Smith,

This new permit is only for downtown businesses to leave their business vehicles parked in the lots they are already using and not be subject to the overnight parking restriction. It does not apply to businesses outside of downtown or to recreational vehicles. As we do with downtown resident permits, the business will have to show that they do not have a private parking area available to them. There are already a few businesses that have been doing this for 15 years or more and this is formalizing the practice to make it easier for keeping track and for enforcement.

Tom Mericle
Transportation Manager

 

I do understand what the council decreed, however it still doesn't belie the fact that it is blatant discrimination against all other business owners that would love to have a overnight parking place for $20.00 per year. Also how in the world did someone come up with the idea of only charging $20.00 per year when it cost tax payers over $200.00 per year for maintenance per parking space?

 

As I said in my other e-mail this is certainly a case of the Gang in the Ivory Tower subsidizing the downtown business owners which gives them a slight edge over other business owners in the city. This is, in my opinion, another bad idea by the Gang in the Ivory Tower.

 

Rellis Smith