Sunday January 25, 2015
Jump to content
They've even filed a suit about it. Part of the charge claims that the primary psychiatric hospital in Nevada “intentionally and wrongfully” foisted the cost of caring for indigent mentally ill people onto California cities and counties by issuing patients bus tickets out of town without making proper arrangements for their care.
The charges were filed by San Francisco where some of the mental patients have been ending up.
The case claims that Nevada bussed 500 mentally ill patients to California between July 2008 and March 2013.
Nevada replies that in only one case did they fail to ensure that the person given the one-way bus ticket had family or treatment waiting for them, but that the other 499 did.
Who paid for the tickets to bring the ones here? (:
Tom, To send mentally ill people to any other area without proper care and support waiting is unspeakably callous. On the flip side of the coin, how would the Californians know the difference? Someone once said that when God created the U.S. , the continent was split in the middle and shaken. All of the loose nuts and flakes rolled to the East and West Coasts. :)
How does Calif. know who paid for the tickets and who decided they were all mentally ill?
Sounds like a slow news day.
If I was walking around loose someone would probably send me off somewhere else.
Good question, Pat. probably the DNC.
I like that, John. It sometimes seems that way, doesn't it. Wasn't that way when I was younger. The East Coast was quite conservative (in the true meaning of the word, not the political meaning). Change was no popular there. We used to look at New England as somewhere between middle and right. Mind you, New York City was beginning to lean to the left even though upstate New York was solidly Republican. The cause was the mess in the NYC slums and the crooked political bosses that created a "progressive" movement. I happen to be reading about that right now.
What happened to New England was two things: The anti-war movement during Vietnam that was caused by a change in the draft laws so that college kids were no longer exempt. Up until that change the nation was firmly behind the military because it was fighting the USSR, but I saw it happen. The very first demonstrations over the war were about the changes in the draft laws. What scared the hey out of everyone was the fact that it was a lottery; if your number came up off you went.
The other things was the civil rights movement. The college kids jumped on that too, and somehow or other they got the two of them connected up, how I never quite understood. Then the southerners tried and in-your-face trick that worked. They loaded up buses with "freedom riders" and sent them north. Washington responded with welfare extensions so that the New England states didn't go broke, and that was that.
What is really screwy about all this is that the entire "conservative southern wing" of the Democratic Party is now Republican. Even Arizona went Republican.
As for California, it was always a destination state, and people who get up and go somewhere else tend to be loose guns. You never know what they'll approve. The original settlers were very conservative, but they were just overwhelmed by numbers.
As to the original issue, I have a feeling that Nevada got tired of the backwash from CA, just as AZ has gotten tired of it, and this was their way of saying, "Hey! These are your people. You take care of them."
If 499 out the 500 they sent back over the border were really CA people, I guess they were right. But how can you trust a number like that?
A couple of days ago I read an interesting letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic from a Payson resident. The writer of the letter said that California had a law that required people to keep their lots free of brush and combustible debris. If you didn't, you could be fined and the authorities were free to come on the lot and clean it up. The writer was wondering why Arizona didn't have such a law.
How about it? With the danger of fire always present, do we as a society have the right to force someone else to "clean up their act?" Do we have to tolerate a "clear and present danger?"
"With the danger of fire always present, do we as a society have the right to force someone else to "clean up their act?""
I have a one word answer. NO!
Three piece answer as to reason that no.
It is an invasion of privacy and an attempt by the government to control individual tastes.
There is never any actual clear and present danger.
Whenever something like this starts it always turns into a neighborhood vanity program.
Nice job on highjacking the topic.
But since you have...Californians have a history of passing laws to control every aspect of life.
I agree with Tom's comments. Payson already has an ordinace and a process to file a complaint about a brush filled lot.
I really resent you holding up Ca. as an example of what we should do....that is EXACTLY what is wrong in Az.. now.
If they do it in Cal......do the opposite!
Rex, please read my comment. I didn't hold California up as an example of what we should do. I asked some questions. Why all the vitriol?
There's a lot of anger here in Arizona about Californians who have come here to retire and have brought some of their ideas with them. It's too bad. Many of them are no doubt fine folks, but I will admit that I have meta couple (down in the Valley) that had some wrongheaded ideas, and they always involved the government getting into things they should stay out of.
I am thinking of the poor guy in Pennsylvania who was so unfairly harassed by a small town council because one of their members lived near him and didn't like the way he lived, that when they finally took his land away he went to the town hall and started shooting people. It put the story into a string a while back. I don't condone what he did, but there is no doubt that they persecuted and honest man and stole his land.
I put a short comment on the string to bring it back up. Just read it.
By the way, Tom, I agree with your reasons for saying no. In fact, I am surprised that California has such a law. Afterall, I would heatedly object if someone told me my Honey Locust had to be removed because it was a fire danger. I just might strap myself to the tree just to save it!! Would that be an example of a "peaceful demonstration." :-) However, my husband would be very happy if someone told him the pyracantha had to be removed -- he doesn't relish trimming them. In other words what I regard as something of beauty others might regard as trash.
How did Payson get away with passing such an ordinance and how is it enforced?
The vitriol came from the way you crafted you comment. You explained a Cal. law and then ask the questions...as a society..and do we have to tolerate. That implied to me that you agreed with the Ca. law. If I was wrong...I apologise.
The bottom line on clean-up-your-property ordinances is that whenever they are passed they always manage to go too far. If someone had turned his property into an actual junkyard that would be something different, but because his property does not meet the neatly manicured styles of those around him is not a reason to harass someone. And the truth about the fire hazard stuff? It is used an excuse. You can have all the weeds you want growing as high as they can grow and they are not a "fire hazard" until someone brings a flame to them. In nature, they will NOT catch fire. Fires, if they start through something natural at all, start from a lightning stroke, which hits trees not weeds.
And the truth about fire hazards is something that no one actually wants to face. Take Pine, for example. The only real danger to Pine are the pines and other large conifers growing in the town. If they were all maples of apple trees, or whatnot, they would not be a concern. But the lines of pine trees growing straight from the forest to the town are like a fuses running from all over to bomb. The way to make the town safe is simple. Cut down every blamed pine and conifer in town, selling them to a lumber company, and live safe. If there is one lightning strike in the wrong place, and a little wind to go with it, this place is doomed.
And I will bluntly honest with you. Had I known beforehand the fire dangers here I would not be living here, nor would I be here if Lolly could be moved. I am too old and too worn out to reestablish our household in a safe place. If I could do it I would find a property without a conifer on on it, and without one close enough to conceivably make a problem. I'd make sure my land was large enough to that flames could not travel to it, and I would ensure that not one blade of hay-like grass grew anywhere on it.
That's real fire safety and the fire people know it. They just could not get the townspeople to agree to doing the cutting. If they could I'm sure they would.
As to the California thing, I suspect that what happened is that the laws in Nevada for the care of the mentally ill are better than those in CA. I saw that once when I had to stop overnight in Nevada. The place was crawling with homeless. I think that people were "allowed" to find their way there, and all Nevada has done is ship them back. Doesn't that seem likely to be what happened?
Here's a good question for you. I suppose that all of you hate mental hospitals the way most people do. They seem too much like prisons. We have by and large gotten rid of them, and that may (or may not) be a good thing. The result? "Homeless people." Is there a better solution?
Payson did have an ordinance you couldn't cut down trees on your property without their permission. Don't know if they still have it but I do know there are a lot of places in Payson that could be a real problem if lightning struck a tree or the under brush growing there. Drive on McLane north of Longhorn to Payson Pines for one place that would be a disaster.
When I moved back here in 1993 the first thing I told my real agent was I do not want to be in the trees. Am in my 3rd. house and no trees and under brush surrounding me.
Forgot to say lightning struck a house across the street from me about a month ago. Just damaged the house but it did not burn. If it had struck 100 ft. farther north there would have been a problem as it backs up to quite a few trees, and under brush.
I live south of them and no trees.
it's amazing how ignorant we are of the true facts before we move up here. I can tell you that the years when we have sat here in Pine under orange gray skies and watched ashes coming coming down snow were no fun. Nor was it fun when we could see the forest burning just a few miles off and see it as plain as could be all night.
The only sensible thing for us all to do — and by all I mean everyone who lives at the edge of this pine forest — is to cut down all the conifers, every last one of them. If it doesn't happen it is inevitable that the town will burn. As I said, all you have to do is come up here, look at the rows of pines lining the streets and ask yourself how you could possibly stop a fire once it started, and you'd see that it is nothing more than good luck that there is a building standing here.
It only makes good sense. The conifers are beautiful to look at, but they cannot be allowed to grow where people live. Not in this climate.
The future? I would be willing to bet any amount of money that the day will come when there are laws against having a conifer growing within a town in Arizona.
Think of what it's like when your home burns. Your whole life, everything you have gathered around you, everything that makes your house a home, a lifetime of caring, so many years of memories, so many precious things — all gone.
Start over? Sure — if you're 30 years old. But I look around this house at what Lolly and I have gathered around us over 53 years of marriage, and I can tell you: it hurts just to think that when we go it will all be dispersed, owned by people who have no idea how and where it came to be, meaning nothing anymore. And to see that happen while I am still alive....?
Wisdom. What does it mean? It means having lived long enough to recognize a mistake so that you avoid making it again.
Tom, I think if everyone would clean up their property, whether it is built on or just an emply lot, the fire danger would go down. Also, if we could have the brush cleared out in the areas surrounding our towns that would also be a big help.
I can not understand why anyone would buy some property and then just let it go to )(*(&_(&. In my walks I see privately owned property with thick grass growing that is higher than my knees (I am not short). I also see burnt down cigarette butts. Why would anyone throw out a burning cigarette with all the burnable stuff around. Just don't get it.
O well, one man's or woman's idea of beauty is another's idea of trash.
Will just inject a few thoughts on the topic about the local environment. Most of you know my career was in the Fire Service. With that experience, I was fully aware of the potential of moving into the forest interface. As with much of life, it all comes with certain risks. I accept the risks associated with living in this environment and am low to modify/remove the very desirable attributes that drew me here. In the Wildland Fire Defense approach, we applied a "triage" to those places we were charged with protecting. There simply are not enough resources, even in the largest departments, to provide protection to each dwelling in your jurisdiction. We would apply our resources where there was the greatest chance of having a positive outcome. I fully expect that approach to be applied should the worst case scenario occur. My home is NOT a "saver", it's a loser.
In our particular subdivision, the CCR's prohibit the removal of ponderosas except for the clearing of the lot to accommodate the structure. I read those CCRs and still purchased where I did. I did my due diligence research before ever moving into this area. I was already very familiar with the issues associated with the town of Pine, ie. water issues, unincorporated village, little service infrastructure, etc. Anyone who didn't do their research, you have my sympathies, but that's all. Life is full of risks. As always that's simply my view and your mileage may vary.
Ah! A comment from someone with expertise.
Your is a fascinating point of view, but an honest and admirable one. And I'm sure you mean it; I don't see you standing outside a burned down house, whining about it, and blaming someone else for what was a free and voluntary choice on your part. I've seen a lot of that in my life, not about fires, but about a whole lot of other things. I'm sure you have too. You pays your money, and you....
As to "research" you operated from a position of superior knowledge. Some poor clown like me, coming from the East where trees have leaves and don't burn, and where rainfall is abundant, is handicapped, and rare indeed would be the real estate agent who would do anything to educate someone like me. I don't blame anyone else for my ignorance. We're all ignorant when it comes to some things; that's life. My only comment is that I would not NOW make the same error, and I would be content to look at the trees up on the sides of the hills (far away) and plant aspens, cottonwoods, and other fire-safe trees. I wouldn't force it on anyone else, but I'd be right there are part of the program.
Your comment about the CC&R's intrigued me. As I'm sure you already know, having worked in the Fire Service, because it steps into an area that CC&R's cannot regulate it would not, of course, stand up in court, and it's interesting that anyone would think they could write a property restriction like that, thereby telling a governmental agency what it can or cannot do. As you know, if the County, for example, were to set establish a fire safety program that was opposed to that restriction it would be swept away. But it's interesting that someone would try to maintain the value of property with something as cosmetic as that. There's always someone trying to make a buck.
"Life is full of risks." Perfect comment because it's not only true, but if you'll check the time when each of them was posted you'll see that I read it about five minutes after I put up the post on General Sedgewick. I first heard that story when I was on the firing range for the first time back when we were in "brown shoe" days of the Air Force, still wearing Army khaki, and still under the influence of WWII combat veterans. An old master sergeant range NCO told us something that went like this: (next post)
"We're going to teach you how to fire this rifle. Pay attention. Do what you're told because it's not theory, it's fact. Learn how to use your weapon and how to take care of it because if you get in combat it's going to be your second best friend — the guy next to you being your best one. Come out here (to the range, he meant) when you have time and we'll feed you all the ammo you need to become a crack shot. There are times when one determined rifleman can change a whole action. History has shown that many times."
He paused for a minute, frowned, and said, "Now I'm going to tell you something that sounds like I'm saying the exact opposite, but I'm not. Most of the time when you're in combat you're not going to be able to see a (bleepin) thing out there. So don't sit around looking for target, pokin your head in the air, and trying to fire expert. Just put up a hail of lead and maybe you'll stay alive."
I never forgot that. Later on i read that one of the biggest problems in combat is that some people literally never pull a trigger because they don't "see anything to shoot at."
It's the same way with the pine tree bit. I'd be perfectly happy to cut down the two beautiful pines out front if everyone in town would do the same. It would be playing the good side of the odds. But it's a choice and it SHOULD BE.
Bernice, I agree with you that tall dry weeds are a fire hazard, though I only mean if a fire is headed your way. A large, dry field near a house can lead a fire right to it. Happens in CA all the time. I've never understood why people with homes in that chaparral didn't just mow it. You know what my solution was when I arrived in Pine? I mowed a fire break in the fields behind my house. I just did it. Didn't ask who owned them or complain about why they didn't mow. I just got out the mower and cut down the weeds. It enhanced the look of the fields so much that people bought the two pieces of property of which they were composed. Now, they mow back there, but I still mow a 40 foot wide swath back of my place. They're happy about it; cuts down their work.
I'd rather to that than see somme county ordinance.**
As to cigarette butts and other trash, all my life I have seen people who weren't worth the gunpowder to blow then to hell doing things like that. It's the main reason that the Forest Service is trying keep us out of Fossil Creek: Trash dumping trash. I don't understand people like that. Just last week I watched a woman's arm come out of a fancy-dancy car and toss a throw away diaper onto the side of 87.
**Please note mistyped "some" in sentence above. Want some fun? Type it on your screen and note that your spell checker accepts it. Know why?
It isn't just pine trees that burn in the forest. A lot of the fire is moved by underbrush and Cedar trees burn really good. Almost anything burns if it gets hot enough.
I just want to go back and say that I admire your "face the facts, be honest about them, and accept the responsibility for my actions and choices" attitude. Man! Would it help if more people would do that!
Pat, I say "pines" once in a while, but I'm really referring to all conifers.
As to what fuels a forest fire, that's of no interest to me in this particular discussion because it is not a danger to my house. When a pine forest burns it gets so hot that everything goes. Even solid cast irons stoves melt down piles of slag.
Forest fires will happen. They do not concern me in this discussion. My concern is things that act like a fuse, bringing the fire FROM the forest to homes; things like pines and other conifers, tall grass, and tall dry weeds. You can go for a walk around Pine and plainly see that those things have to be removed in order to prevent forest fires from spreading into housing areas. Left to me it would be done.
And why not? The result would be a place which is just as natural as it is now. Deciduous trees are every bit as beautiful as pines. They're just different. In other parts of the country beautiful deciduous forests stretch for hundreds of miles, are just as beautiful as what we have here, and are not subject to wildfires. I would not for one minute think of changing the forests here, not in any way! (Wouldn't work anyway; not enough rain.)
But to be practical we need to face the fact that the pine forests are going to burn, and learn to stop those fires at the edge of the forest by maintaining a fire break and planting drought resistant deciduous trees like aspens, cottonwoods, black walnuts, fruit trees, and so on in our towns and cities. It isn't done now because developers consider only profits, not fire safety. Some day it will happen. The savings will be immense, both in money and in stress free living.
We need to learn to love our pine forests — but from a distance.
The same is true of dry open lands. Look at CA. Those people over there build new homes right in the same place where the last group of homes burned down. And in some cases they do nothing to maintain fire breaks, so the next group of homes burn down, and all they do is build it all over again. That's nuts!
As you might imagine, I saw a lot of action in wildland fires in California in my 29 years. Not so much with forest fires, as they tended to be in the North and further East, but I still participated in some of those via the Mutual Aide Programs in place in that state. One major difference with what we see occur almost annually in California as opposed to other places is the presence of the Santa Ana winds that descend on that state about every October. With that element alone, when they are active they tend to humble mankind's feeble attempts at fire protection barriers. I've personally witnessed things that are completely contrary to what one would think would be the normal fire patterns. Like tornados, they pretty much tend to go where they want as long as all elements of the fire triangle are present.
You are most correct in your assessment of the situation in Pine/Strawberry. I looked at that very closely when I was contemplating the move here. We can provide all the surrounding fire breaks we want, but the real threat lies within the townships themselves. I'm not certain anyone wants to fight the battle of having some governmental agency dictate to them the types of natural environment they choose to live in. We did it in California and it was not pretty from a social/political standpoint but the powers to be prevailed. They STILL lose any number of homes to wildfires every year. That's one of those risks in life I spoke of. I look at the folks who have bought/built their homes at the tops of "chimneys" in the Portals subdivisions and scratch my head "what are they thinking?" But most probably have no idea of their compounded risk. The reality is that due to the nature of the environment we chose to live in, we are ALL at risk to differing degrees. I would not prevent someone from making their survival chances better with modification of THEIR property, but at the same time I would not force everyone to live in a "cookie cutter" environment. Most came here to get away from that approach.
Ron, have you checked to see that the CC&R's are enforceable?
The last I was able to discern, was that if one signed the acknowledgment and were provided a copy of the CCR's, that yes they were "an agreement between the respective property owners", but as you indicate there is no actual enforcement agency (no HOA as such) that sees that people comply with that agreement. After consulting with an attorney, I was told it would be up to an individual to file a civil court action against someone in the subdivision that was not in compliance with the CCRs. That's not something I think we would see in out little part of paradise, but the possibility is out there. How would you or your other close neighbors respond if another next door neighbor started raising pigs on their property? Not something that would be feasible but possible. Your recourse would be through the CCRs that prohibit "maintaining livestock" within this subdivision.
And I personally have removed trees that were close to my house and were leaning towards it. I had one snap off about 8 feet from the ground and took out another tree and my flagpole, and the telephone box. Fortunately it was in the front and fell away from the house. We do what we feel is prudent and at the same time still try to stay within the bounds of neighborliness.
Nice answer, Ron. And Bernice, Ron is exactly right. If there is no HOA, the only enforcement is a civil action by an individual, which I suspect makes the whole thing moot because no one is going to spend the money.
You know what? This may sound VERY long term, bit I think it would be a practical way to approach our fire situation in Pine. If the County would pass an enlightened ordinance to reduce its fire fighting costs, one that would not get into areas where government does not belong, and if time were allowed for it be become effective, the problem would go away.
Most of the pines and other large conifers that I see in Pine which would lead a fire right to our doorsteps do not stand on private land; they stand on county land. So the first step for the county would be to negotiate a contract with a lumber company to come in, remove all pines and other conifers growing on county land within built up areas, and on county roads where those roads lead into built up areas. That would eliminate about 75% of the problem, and if the contract were properly written, using the value of the lumber as the payment for the work, then the cost to the county would be basically nothing.
The second part of the ordinance would be that no conifers (the actual species would have to be named) may be planted on private property, and as those which now exist on private property die, they cannot be replaced.
It would take some time before the town were "safe," but that first step — the clearing of trees off county land — would do most of it, and given 25 to 125 years it would done. We'd still be able to see those magnificent pines outside built up areas, our houses** would be safe, and no one would be hurt.
And it is doable!
** I have a bad habit of hitting a "t" when I mean to hit an "r." The sentence you read "We'd still be able to see those magnificent pines outside built up areas, our houses would be safe, and no one would be hurt." originally read, "We'd still be able to see those magnificent pines outside built up areas, out houses would be safe, and no one would be hurt." I just see someone asking why I had such an interest in the safety of outhouses. :-)
I think if someone were raising pigs on there property, most of the homeowners would be upset and probably join together in a lawsuit.
What's wrong with pigs anyway?
They're quieter than dogs, and they serve a purpose.
Posting comments requires a free account