A blog about News.
|
Indian casino OK with me PG&E SmartMeter problems, how to get involved! Need help finding Tejon indians! PG&E sued over SmartMeters Cool Christmas gift AND helping dogs a perfect combo! Agency needs to stock up on credibility Supervisors continue the concrete plant issue Another CARB board member doesn't like what I have to say Sins of the past plaguing us again Fight for the Kern River begins August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
The world of public finance is so loopy it makes your head spin. For example, Kern County won a state grant for $100 million to build a desperately needed new jail. OK, that’s good, except it’s bad because Kern County would have to come up with $40 million we don’t have to match that grant and $20 million a year we also don’t have to staff and operate it. But wait, there’s more! Since our state legislators are so criminally incompetent they can’t get their budget act together, that grant money (which would have come from bonds yet to be sold) is on ice. That’s bad, except it’s kind of good for Kern County supervisors because it means they won’t have to decide whether to sell local bonds to pay the match and they won’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, in order to fund new jail operations. Meanwhile, Lerdo is busting at the seams, the sheriff is having to knowingly violate a federal court order by filling the maximum-medium dorms without mandated staffing levels, there’ve been two riots since summer in the minimum security section because detentions officers have no place else to stash rival gang bangers and most of the non-violent criminals are only serving 30 percent of their time. That’s bad. And by that, I mean, BAD bad. Oh, and two more goodies are looming on the horizon. The state will likely demand, and soon, the decrepit barracks that make up Lerdo minimum be demolished and rebuilt. AND a three-judge panel is poised to order the state to release massive amounts of prisoners because of inadequate medical facilities in our state prisons. Because Kern County sends the largest percentage of inmates to the big house, we can expect the largest percentage of those lovely folks right back here on our doorstep. “We can’t afford (to fund our share of the new jail) with the economy the way it is,” Sheriff Donny Youngblood told me. “But we can’t afford not to do it, or we’re really not going to have a jail.” And before anyone out there starts quoting internet articles they’ve read about “Sheriff Joe” in Maricopa County, Arizona and his tent jails, this is CALIFORNIA. Youngblood can’t legally throw up a few tents and stick inmates in them. “I would be subjecting this county to extreme financial liability,” Youngblood said. “I get asked about that at every public talk I give.” Instead, he’s doing what he can inside the lines, such as offering some inmates more credit for work release, which keeps them out of the jail. And he’s going to the state Jan. 8 to see if he can get the rules surrounding the $100 million grant changed slightly. The grant doesn’t allow the county to go down in beds, meaning once it’s opened, we can’t shift people from our aging minimum security section to the new beds, which are intended to be for maximum-medium security inmates. But Youngblood is going to ask if we can remove and rebuild one minimum-security barracks a year, at county expense, and move those inmates and staffing temporarily to the new jail. That way, we could work on the barracks problem we know is coming to a head and Youngblood can cut the operations portion of the new jail from $20 million a year to about $10 million a year until all the barracks are replaced. It’s breathing room. Normally, the state would tell us to pound sand. But Youngblood is hoping the fact that most other counties also couldn’t accept the grant money given the current economy will hold some sway. Other than those scanty Band Aids, however, no one is doing anything to really look at “fixing” the prison/jail overcrowding problem. Neither supervisors Don Maben, Mike Maggard nor Ray Watson had too many creative ideas largely because we’re at the mercy of state purse strings and state rules. When I asked whether they were interested in lobbying the state or working with reform groups to get the state to loosen up on how inmates can be housed, Maben likened any such effort to the effectiveness of “howlin’ at the moon.” Other states, including Texas and Kansas, have already implemented creative sentencing/rehabilitation programs to reduce overcrowding. In some cases, they’ve reduced parole and probation violations (a major cause of recidivism), shortened sentences for low-risk inmates who participate in education or counseling while in prison, or diverted thousands of other prisoners, such as DUI offenders, to rehab facilities, saving bed space for the really bad apples. In California, however, our solution has just been to build more prisons without a thought to rehabilitation. Even Youngblood will tell you, as he’s told me repeatedly, we can’t build our way out of this mess. We need better and more early intervention programs to work with youngsters most at risk of going bad, and we need programs for inmates to get driver’s licenses, work training and counseling so that jail and prison don’t become regular flop houses for them. “All it takes is money,” he said. Well, that and leadership, both of which seem to be in short supply with our Legislature. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com Dear Santa, I only want one thing this year. Please, please, please! Bring the good people of Kern County some gumption. It is my most fervent Christmas wish to see more people involved in deciding how their community will grow, where it should spend its money, how best to educate its children, and so on. Civics is not just a class to get through in high school. When you’re an American, lucky enough to live in a country where government actions are legally required to be conducted in the open, records are available to anyone and regular citizens can voice whatever opinion they want, it’s downright criminal to sit silently by. I’ve often heard from people that they would like to get their foot in the door of community life but 1) nothing ever changes, so why try? I’ll try and address the issues listed above and, hopefully, Santa will sprinkle a little “anti-apathy” powder over Kern County tonight. But the rest is up to you! Yes, things do change when average people get involved. Major kudos to the residents of Frazier Park for proving that point just recently. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District implemented severe no-burn rules this winter, greatly curtailing days we can burn wood in fireplaces and stoves. And they did away with a previous exemption for people who live in higher elevations. That was a big problem for Frazier Park folks. They got involved, learned about the issue — including the fact that the district never did a study showing smoke from the mountains harms valley air, or even that it fouls Frazier Park’s air the way it does in the valley when the inversion layer traps soot — then took their case to the district. And they won, sort of. The district began a new forecasting system specifically for Frazier Park that will likely show much cleaner air than in the valley and allow more burn days. If it seems like problems are lurking around every corner (they are) and it’s just too overwhelming, then stop looking around every corner. Look at your own corner. That’s what Carol Bender did. Bender, a strong advocate for better planning in northwest Bakersfield, joined her neighbors to kibosh a giant double overpass at the intersection of Allen and Hageman roads over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, pushing for an underpass design instead. County planners took heed and have been working on designs that are more in tune with the neighborhood, according to Kern’s Roads Deptarment director Craig Pope. They are planning another public meeting to look at design options in January, he said. “We don’t have a strict answer yet as to design because we want to build a consensus” with the people who will have to live next to the interchange. Of course, all bets are off for now, as the state has frozen all infrastructure funding. Sigh. But that’s another rant. If your neighborhood is just perfect, pick a topic that fires up your passions and tackle that. Such as better fitness instruction in schools, the lack of services for juvenile addicts, Kern County’s horrible animal overpopulation problem and on and on. As for how to get involved, start by asking questions. Lots of questions. What agency is in charge of the topic you’re interested in? Where can you get more information? Are there any community groups also working on this topic? Ask us. It’s what we do! In fact, we publish a regular feature — Ask The Californian — every Monday in which we answer questions from readers. Use government resources to keep tabs on what’s happening. The city and county both have very rich websites where you can pick through agendas, meeting minutes, reports, fee schedules and more. You can even watch meetings live online or on KGOV, cable Channel 16. And, of course, make sure you read The Californian daily to keep up on what’s going on. Then let officials know you're watching. Attend meetings. Nothing puts you in touch with decision makers and other community members better than actually being there. Call council members and supervisors, write letters, send emails — be a squeaky wheel! These people work for you, not the other way around. It’s your hard- earned money that’s paying for every government program you see. Your say matters. But you have to use your voice. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
How to reach out and touch local government:
A massive housing project in northeast Bakersfield that’s been in the works for years was finally approved by the city Planning Commission Thursday night. When it’s finally built, it will change the look of that hilly, bucolic area forever. Psyche! It’s NOT The Canyons. You’re certainly to be forgiven for thinking I was talking about the controversial Canyons project (also approved, unfortunately, by the commission Thursday night), which seems like it started back when rocks were cooling on the earth and giant sharks still glided above the bluffs the project proposes to level. But no, there was another, even bigger, project considered that night — Rio Bravo Ranch. Rio Bravo developers actually filed their first application with the Planning Department in 2007, four years after The Canyons developers filed their application. And the Rio Bravo project is much bigger, covering 1,853 acres compared to 890 acres and includes a whopping 4,688 residential units as opposed to The Canyons’ 1,334 units. So how did Rio Bravo come to this first point of approval so quietly and quickly if, as The Canyons developers have contended, Bakersfield is “anti-development”? Because A) that’s a load of hogwash and B) Rio Bravo’s developers did what The Canyons people could have — and should have — done from the very start: they worked with the community. “When it’s done, our family wants to be proud of what it looks like,” landowner and developer James Nickel told me. His father, George Nickel, bought the land in 1965 and had it annexed to the city in 1970 with hopes of putting Cal State Bakersfield there. That didn’t happen and wave after wave of development followed the college to the southwest. When development began moving eastward again, the Nickel family decided to rev up its patriarch’s vision. “I’d always said it would be my grandchildren who would develop this land,” James Nickel said. “Suddenly, the boom came and we thought it was time to get ready and protect ourselves.” The Nickels live in that area and have no intention of leaving. So this development will truly be their neighborhood. After talking to a number of people involved in the project, even those who oppose it, I was impressed by how Rio Bravo evolved. The Nickels took their time. They looked at how other developments on similarly hilly terrain had been built around the state. They talked to area residents. They talked to environmental groups. They consulted with the Urban Land Institute. They sought out trails advocates, conducted archeological studies and even met with people in the Kern River Valley concerned about traffic, dark skies and how the project would affect the look of the mouth of the canyon. They asked a lot of questions and answered even more. The Nickels didn’t shut anyone out, they invited the entire community to help mold their vision. The results? They voluntarily reduced the number of housing units allowed by the city by 7 percent, they designated 20 percent more of the land as open space than was required and they’re staying away from the ridge lines and hill tops, instead clustering houses and commercial in the flat areas. And when have you ever heard of this happening? The Department of Fish and Game sent a letter saying the Nickels didn’t have to do as much mitigation as they were planning to protect endangered species. OK, it’s not all rose petals and marshmallows. A number of people in the Kern River Valley still feel traffic and dark sky issues haven’t been addressed well enough. And Gordon Nipp, vice chairman of the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club, told me that group is considering suing because Rio Bravo developers underestimated the amount of greenhouse gases the project will emit and it’s not conducive to public transportation. Even Nipp, though, acknowledged the Nickel family’s willingness to work with the community. “The developers have been willing to do a lot of cool stuff,” he said. “And there’s a lot of good design features.” His angst is mainly with the city for not requiring more, and he wonders why such a large project was even being considered in these economic times. “We’ve got a 40-year backlog of houses already approved,” he said. “In order to approve this, the city will have to do a statement of overriding consideration saying it’s so important to build more houses that they have to overlook things like global warming. “Why? What’s the need for it?” I wondered that as well, especially now that Senate Bill 375, which will force cities and counties to make greenhouse gas emissions and public transit a part of the planning process, is looming on the horizon. Planning Director Jim Movius told me that even if Rio Bravo developers were trying to get in before SB 375 kicks in, which they weren’t, it wouldn’t work. The buildout is so far into the future (possible start date was listed as 2013 with full buildout at 20 to 25 years in the environmental docs) that SB 375 rules will apply. “These guys already have land entitlements. They can build homes. They’re rearranging it to do something better,” he said. “They could sell it off right now to three or four developers who wouldn’t care about what it looks like when they’re done.” Which brings us back to The Canyons with its impossible cut-and-fill plans, walled fortress neighborhoods and trails shoved to the sides of busy roads. It’s an ill-conceived project with only one goal in mind and that is to get a map approved allowing as many lots as possible so owner General Holding can sell it off to developers for more profit. Out-of-towners will never care about this community as much as people like the Nickel family. I’m not saying they should. That task belongs to city planners, Planning Commission members and, ultimately, the Bakersfield City Council, which is the next stop for both The Canyons and Rio Bravo Ranch. It’s up to them to say “No!” to bad development and demand more from builders coming here looking to make a buck. After all, they were elected, appointed or hired to look out for our interests, not developer profits. Right? Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com The Bakersfield City Council will choose a new vice mayor Wednesday night and, if you follow these things, it probably won’t be Sue Benham, as expected up until just days ago. No, it will likely be Zack Scrivner. And the swing vote putting him into that powerful position will be cast by none other than Harold Hanson, who Scrivner tried to stab in the back last summer when he got his political ally, Mark Abernathy to front a candidate against Hanson. The Scrivner-Hanson rift came after Hanson split with Scrivner on an employee health care vote last January. Though the Abernathy candidate bungled his paperwork and never made the ballot, Hanson clearly knew the depth of Scrivner’s antipathy. Or should have. But now, Hanson is about to hand the council reins to Scrivner, who has shown a propensity toward proving the old adage about power and corruption. The most important thing the vice mayor does is appoint council members to committees, which is where new policies and ideas either die or sprout to life and go on to the full council. Those appointments can be very political, and Scrivner is above nothing when it comes to playing that game. Remember, it was Scrivner who hijacked the city-county meeting on traffic only so he could stymie discussion on any actual solutions. Yeah, that was some bold leadership. Not only that, it’s no secret Scrivner is gunning for higher office, most likely the seat of his boss, Assemblywoman Jean Fuller, if she moves up to Sen. Roy Ashburn’s seat when he terms out in 2010 (which is when Scrivner’s council term ends as well, coincidentally). So why would Hanson switch his support from Benham, who’s been on the council longer, served on numerous committees, has demonstrated a strong working relationship with other council members and staff and doesn’t have one eye glued to her future political career? At first, Hanson told me he’s not “switching” his vote. He just hadn’t made up his mind until recently. I reminded him that he told members of the Bakersfield City Fire Department union a few weeks ago he was supporting Benham and asked them to make calls on her behalf. Then Monday, union president Derek Tisinger called Hanson and learned about the switch. “I was caught completely off guard,” Tisinger told me. Tisinger praised Benham as being a smart, steady council member who listens to all sides and doesn’t get caught up in political rhetoric. On the flip side, the union’s distrust of Scrivner for his opposition to what he calls “unfunded liabilities” in lucrative pensions for city employees is well known. I pressed Hanson on throwing his support to Scrivner. “Under the circumstances with the state of California and some things Zack is working on, it makes him an attractive candidate,” Hanson told me. OKaaaaaay. Scrivner is a district rep for Fuller and he serves on a number of committees as appointed by Hanson, the Council’s current vice mayor. Scrivner is not a powerful politician in Sacramento. He’s right here with the rest of us peons waiting to hear what the state is going to do to our local budgets. As for Fuller, she’s a junior Assembly member in the minority and in no position to affect budget negotiations. True, Hanson said. But Scrivner can relay information. He can do that without the vice mayor’s gavel. In the end, Hanson couldn’t give me a good strong reason for pulling the rug out from under Benham, who he encouraged to run and who was repeatedly told of his support, by the way. “I’ve learned he’s not a man of his word,” Benham said of Hanson. “I think character and trust are really important in what we do in public service.” As for Scrivner’s back-stabbing, Hanson told me that’s all water under the bridge. “I just don’t let things like that prey on my mind,” he said. “Sure, I was angry at the time. Quite angry. And I probably said some things that, when I was in a more rational frame of mind I shouldn’t have said.” Call me jaded, but I can’t imagine anyone, especially a politician, being quite that forgiving. I wondered if Hanson had extracted something else, besides the hatchet in his back, in exchange for his vote. Such as a promise by Scrivner/Abernathy to help him in a future run for mayor, which Hanson openly has designs on. Hanson laughed heartily at my speculation. “There’s more people interested in me running for mayor than Harold Hanson is,” he said and denied having any such discussion with either Scrivner or Abernathy. Besides, Hanson’s term isn’t up for another four years, he said. Uh-huh. Current Mayor Harvey Hall’s term expires at the same time. Stay tuned. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com This caller thinks Jagels' cagieness is about watching out for his department. I doubt it. No supervisor wants to cut public safety, regardless of the DA's status on or off the campaign trail. That's political suicide in this town. That said, I still can't divine what Jagels' true motives are. Either way...I like how this caller revs up as he goes along. Will he or won’t he? I got some intel that District Attorney Ed Jagels was so unhappy after his proposed 11 percent raise was shot down by the Board of Supervisors last month that he said he’d run again when his term comes up in 2010 and stick around until he gets that money. When I called and asked him about it, I half expected him to say he’d never said any such thing. Instead, he was cagey — cagier than I’ve ever heard him, which is saying something. “It’s premature to talk about that,” he said, and I could practically feel that classic Jagels smirk through phone line. “What?!” I gasped (really, I did). Prosecutor Lisa Green, who had said until recently that she would only run if he retired, announced in April she was running. Didn’t that mean Jagels was, in fact, retiring? “It’s too early to talk about that,” he told me. “I still have two years left in my term.” I tried to ask more questions, but Jagels was done with me. “Bye bye,” he said, politely before the line went dead. My head was whirling with scenarios. Jagels may be serious about running, in which case, wouldn’t that be somewhat awkward for Green to run against her boss? So awkward she’d drop out? Or, maybe he’s pulling a Bill Thomas and keeping his retirement cards close to the vest to keep people out of the race, thereby giving the advantage to Green, one of Jagels’ top lieutenants. For background, you may remember that former Congressman Thomas didn’t announce his retirement until four days before the filing deadline to run in the primary for his office in 2006. The next day, his long-time protege, then-Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy filed and handily won both the primary and the general election. That was Bob Barton’s best initial guess about Jagels’ intent. Barton, himself a former Kern County prosecutor and now a senior assistant inspector in the Bureau of Independent Review, which helps oversee state prisons, said he’s running for DA regardless of what Jagels does. Or, um, doesn’t do. “I don’t think Lisa would be actively campaigning” if Jagels wasn’t retiring, Barton said. But then, Barton paused, he wasn’t really 100 percent sure about Jagels either. “If he stays in, I don’t know which of them would be the more difficult candidate to run against,” he said. Hmmm. Or, Jagels was just messing with me. Dang, he’s wily. “Yeah, he’s good at this,” Green agreed. “He’s been doing it a long time.” I asked if she’d drop out if he ran. “I’m not even going to engage in that kind of speculative would of, could of, should of,” she said. “As far as I know, he’s not running in 2010.” And now she’s taken the “if he retires...” tag line off her candidacy. “I am running for DA. I’ve got my committee, I’ve got endorsements and I’m out in the community raising money,” she said. “And on top of all that, it’s going very well.” Her confidence gives my “messing with me” theory more weight. Still, there’s a lot of “green,” as they say in billiards, between now and the election. With Jagels in the mix, anything can happen. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com Well, we’re back in the national spotlight. Yup, time to start screening calls from far flung friends and relatives who want to know, once again, why you live here. The number of Bakersfield residents with bachelor degrees or higher (13.5 percent of the population) was so low we’ve been named 7th in the top 10 most uneducated cities in the nation in a recent Forbes magazine survey. OK, that’s bad enough. But dig a little and it gets worse: the number of high schoolers dropping out in Kern is up. Not just for one year, but over the last three years, we’ve had a steady increase of kids leaving school between 9th and 12th grades. In the Kern High School District alone, our dropout rate is 25 percent. Twenty-five percent! UGH. Just unplug the phone! If you’re sitting there with your big degree and good job, your kids safely graduated and tucked away in a large university and you’re thinking, “So what?” A populace’s educational achievement is both the chicken or the egg for its economic achievement. Less brain power equals less horsepower in the local economy, and that affects all of us. According to the Forbes piece “...the less-educated cities have weaker economies. According to September data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the most recent month available) the 10 metropolitan areas atop the list have an average unemployment of 5.1 percent. The 10 at the bottom? 9.4 percent. The national average that month was 6 percent.” Kern County’s unemployment rate in October was 9.9 percent. But even the Forbes article couldn’t pin down what follows what — do the high degrees attract more high-end jobs or visa versa? For Richard Chapman, president of the Kern Economic Development Corporation, a public-private organization tasked with bringing jobs to Kern county, it’s a reality he deals with daily. “It’s a Jekyll and Hyde syndrome,” he told me. “We have a poor educational ranking, but we’ve seen progress in terms of some employers favoring this area because our labor costs are so low.” While mid-range jobs, such as warehouse work, are certainly better paying and less cyclical than non-skilled ag work, having a job that requires a degree may make a more stable economy overall, according to previous studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A 2007 survey by the Bureau showed that for people without a high school diploma, the unemployment rate was 7.1 percent compared to 2.2 percent for those with at least a bachelor’s degree. “It is a serious problem,” Mark Evans, Associate Dean of Business and Public Administration at Cal State Bakersfield, said of Kern’s “brain drain.” A problem the CSU Chancellor’s office hasn’t exactly been helpful with, by the way. Evans and others at Cal State Bakersfield sent a proposal to the Chancellor’s office to create an “applied studies” degree that would have allowed people to complete a four-year degree in various technical areas using a mix of credits from time worked in the field or military training and courses through Bakersfield College. That’s a very realistic approach for our area given the need for so many kids to start working after high school. The Chancellor’s office said no because 1) they didn’t like the original name of the degree, which would have been an Administration Degree and 2) they felt the electives in the program listed too many options. Okaaaaaaay. Evans said the university will rework the proposal and resubmit it next spring. “I’m optimistic we can get it approved,” he said. After all, the CSUs at Domiguez Hills and Stanislaus already have similar programs. Such a program would work well with the proposed expansion of vocational opportunities at Kern High School District being pushed by Trustee Joel Heinrichs. While the focus on voc-ed may seem contrary to a push for higher degrees, research shows voc-ed actually increases the likelihood that kids will go on to college. “They may start out thinking they want to be a medical technician, but when they see all the options, the say, ‘I think I’ll shoot for an RN,’” Heinrichs said. Besides, Kern County is so far down in terms of education, increasing even the number of certificated employees and those with two-year degrees would be a substantial bump in our educational level overall. And that sounds pretty smart to me. These are Lois Henry’s opinons, I once had a boss who had a sign in his office that read, “Poor planning on your part does not create an emergency on my part.” And he meant it, believe me. Too bad he wasn’t around these parts in the 1990s when the city and county were gleefully approving housing and other developments in northwest Bakersfield with little or no thought given to roads. Yup, now there’s a traffic emergency. I’m sure we could pick intersections all over town that fall into this same crisis of poor planning, but at Allen and Hageman roads where the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks cross, the situation has become particularly acute because of an unheard-of problem for Kern County — real money from the state. Well, technically, the money isn’t the problem, but the timetable attached to it. We have to spend the money to improve the intersection by June 2010 or we lose it. Projects like this typically take four years. Now, neighbors are afraid, and rightly so, judging from the “conceptual plan” shown at a public meeting in October, that the county will slap together a monstrous double overpass with quarter-mile long ramps and glaring signal lights on top that will loom over their homes, foul the air and destroy their peace and quiet. If planners can’t work out something better than the conceptual plan, which looks like a giant squid splayed across whole neighborhoods, I say they should let the state money go, start from the beginning and do it right. People would have to endure daily traffic snarls at that intersection for a while longer, but that’s better than continuing our trend of slapdash public works projects that do more to fragment this community than pull it together. (Dead-end freeways anyone?) But I’ve been assured that planners are working feverishly to kill the giant-house-sucking-squid concept and find a way to go under the railroad tracks. “They’ve been really receptive to our ‘Are you kidding?’ comments about the first design,” said Carol Bender, who lives in the area and has been a regular agitator for better traffic controls. “Until I hear they’ve approved it and they’re actually building an underpass, though, I’ll still be fighting the fight!” A good policy when dealing with government, if you ask me. Planners will meet with Supervisor Ray Watson next week to show him a new design. A public meeting will be held sometime later. Watson said if the underpass doesn’t cost too much more than the original overpass idea, he’ll find the money somewhere. And if it costs a lot more, I asked? “Then we’ll have to look at it in terms of the impact on other things we have committed to do in terms of TRIP (the large collection of road projects under the Thomas Road Improvement Project).” For the Hageman-Allen project, the county got $17 million from state Proposition 1B money, which would pay about half the costs based on the overpass design. The other half would have to be cobbled together using stray local dollars from a variety of sources, Watson told me. Planners had half-heartedly submitted the project for funding thinking it didn’t stand a chance because Kern isn’t a “self-help” county, meaning we don’t have a special tax dedicated to roads projects like other counties, including Fresno. In August they were shocked to learn they’d gotten the funding. They’ve been scrambling ever since. “We will get it built,” Kern’s Roads Commissioner Craig Pope told me. No small part of that determination is because, without it, development will grind to a halt in that area. This intersection is named as a “must fix” element in several environmental reviews, he said. My goodness! Planning ahead for traffic?! My heart nearly fluttered until I wondered, does that mean you’d go back to the giant-house-sucking-squid overpasses if the numbers don’t work on the underpass just to keep development churning? Pope saw that one coming, though and he deflected it like a pro. “Right now, the underpass is looking like a possibility,” he said. “I haven’t seen a fatal flaw yet.” Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com On paper, Shafter High School has a triple whammy of “UIs” (my own personal edu-jargon for underachievement indicators) that typically lead to the depressing test scores we see so often in Central Valley schools. But these dreaded UIs — poverty, low parental education and English learners — are no match for Shafter’s physical education program. That’s right, PE. Shafter’s fitness test results, released last week by the Department of Education, not only top all other campuses in the Kern High School District, they’re above state scores as well. And not by just a little. Shafter High kids significantly outperformed other students in all but one of the six categories the state tests for — body composition, which measures fat content. Even so, the cumulative percent of Shafter students that hit the fitness marks on all six tests was 45.9. Compare that to 35.6 percent in the state and an abysmal 25.5 percent in KHSD. Among KHSD schools, the only one that came close to Shafter was Ridgeview where 37.6 percent of students passed all six tests. That’s still almost 10 percentage points behind Shafter. OK, so what gives? They growing bionic kids there? Magic water? What? Nope, the answer is even more crazy. They’re focusing on ... wait for it ... fitness. Ta DA! All four Shafter phys-ed instructors focus their teaching time on student fitness as opposed to concentrating on other priorities, such as a sport they may also coach. Coaching and athletic teams, I learned, are the elephant in the room when it comes to high school phys-ed. Several people from different schools told me coaching and athletics takes time, attention and resources away from overall student fitness. Nooooooobody, though, and I mean noooooobody, wanted to talk about it on the record. It’s a touchy subject since coaches are first and foremost teachers, so just asking the question is looked at as tantamount to accusing them of shirking. “I do take a little bit of offense at that,” said David Reese, principal of Bakersfield High School, which ranked dead last in KHSD in the percentage of students able to pass all six fitness tests — 8.3. A whopping 74.9 percent of students couldn’t pass the aerobic capacity test. “I think that’s simplifying things to a degree,” said Reese, himself a former coach and history teacher. “When I hire my coaches, I look them in the eye and tell them, ‘You’re a teacher first.’” There are lots of other non-school factors that affect fitness, he said. Fast food, sedentary lifestyles, apathetic students, lack of parental concern, etc., etc. I asked if he’d be willing to look at the possibility that some coaches may be focused on their teams to the detriment of overall student fitness. “I’m not going to throw my coaches under a train like that,” he said. Soooo ... getting back to Shafter, Reese said he’d be interested in emulating what parts of that program he could, given he’s dealing with a much larger student population with different demographics. What you pick up really quickly about Shafter’s program is that it doesn’t take a back seat to any other subject. It’s just as important as math or reading, said longtime director Vickie Shoenhair. Beyond that, they’ve done away with a lot of the traditional PE “activities” such as field hockey and soccer and have pared classes down to real workouts — calisthenics, stretching, running, weight lifting — you know, fitness. The teachers coordinate so students are on the same page at the same time with their workouts. And they all use the same curriculum to learn about fundamentals such as target heart rate zones (which is fat-burning and which enhances endurance), muscle-building techniques and the benefits of stretching. They tell the kids what they’ll be tested on, how and when, give them the proper training and then test them regularly. When I went to see the program in action on Monday (cardio test day) I didn’t want to leave. These kids are getting the kind of training that would cost big bucks at a gym later in life. Shafter requires kids to dress out and participate. No slacking. And they publicly recognize hard work using shirt colors — gray for everyone, blue for A-level effort work and gold for outstanding work, achievement and leadership. I asked around a little and it seems such public recognition gets a frowny face in other schools where somehow we’ve gotten the idea that high schoolers can’t take the brutal fact that greater effort reaps greater rewards. So, in the interest of not crushing their delicate feelings, we’ve abandoned the notion that they should be prepared for what’s coming in real life. Sheesh! But I digress. None of this was accomplished with a huge infusion of cash. Shafter is just as strapped as every other school. It’s all a matter of focus, Shoenhair told me. “We’re all very serious about it.” Considering the childhood obesity epidemic is now predicted to shorten life expectancies for young people by a minimum of five years from my own generation’s life expectancy — about 75 years for men and 80 for women — it’s something we all need to get serious about. These are Lois Henry’s opinons, not necessarily The Californian’s. Her column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Call her at 395-7373 or write lhenry@bakersfield.com.
The California State Department of Education has been conducting fitness tests for students in the 5th, 7th and 9th grades since 1998. All the scores, broken down by county, district, school, gender and ethnicity, are online. |
