Point of View

Gay Marriage Shocks The Diehards

When Are The American People Going To Wake Up?
By Fred H. Arm
Hats off to Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco’s and the State of Massachusetts. Cries of joy and exhilaration reverberate through County Clerk’s Offices as the Gay Community rushes to the alter to “tie the knot”. However, the recent allowance of Gay Marriages has created a firestorm of opposition by small-minded fundamentalists. When are they ever going to wake up? With every chapter of evolution in basic human rights and equality, the roar of the right-wing lunatics pollutes the airways with their juvenile clinging to outdated principles and religious dogma.

These unenlightened multitudes have forgotten many of the milestones in human rights progress that we have achieved over the years. When women were given the right to vote in the early twentieth century, the same intolerant crowd howled in opposition until ultimately women’s suffrage became commonplace. Not too long ago it was a felony here in California to have oral sex, adultery, and or sodomy with any other person, whether or not you were married. The court’s and the legislature struck down the statutes since these so-called sex crimes were commonplace regardless of sexual orientation. It is worthy to note that these arcane laws were most often enforced against homosexual men as a form of harassment.

Prior to 1954, it was legal to segregate schools by restricting minorities from attendance, entering certain business establishments, or living in certain neighborhoods. I recall a sign in the window of a Café in San Antonio in 1955 that said, “No Niggers, Dogs or Jews allowed”. I doubt that anyone questions these rights anymore. We simply take these basic rights for granted since our Constitution guarantees all citizens equal rights.

So why all the uproar by the looney toons of America? (The President of the United States included) I imagine that the same buffoons also complained bitterly in the past when other basic human rights were established. It seems they cannot stand to have anyone other than their own kind (whatever “kind” that is) enjoy the basic freedoms of life. It is unfortunate that so many people have to endure their cries and insults while society adjusts itself by formerly conveying these rights to those small minorities who ostensibly always had these rights in the first place under our Constitution. Enough already! Take your small-minded, bigoted mentality and put it where the sun doesn’t shine—and get a life!

Confusion Reigns Supreme On The City Council

Murphy’s Variance Denial Appeal Continued For Two Weeks
By Fred H. Arm

Once again, confusion reigns supreme at the last City Council Meeting on February 10th, when Murphy attempted to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial of the creation of a new parcel map and a variance that would have permitted him to build three mega-houses on his five undersized lots on Pacific Avenue. The merits of the case became secondary to the fears generated by the not-so-wise counsel of deputy City Attorney Everett Jenkins. He suggested that to deny the appeal could result in the appellant winning a substantial judgment against the City in the “six figure range”. Either Jenkins was absent the day they taught appellate practice in Law School or he is deliberately misleading the Council. Jenkins’s obvious bias towards granting the appeal has generated an irrational fear on the part of many Council members.

Since the Council has been reeling under the enormous financial crisis facing the City of Richmond, any suggestion of further potential monetary obligations has struck terror into the hearts of some of the less enlightened members. The additional concern that the City had recently granted permission for another developer to build five houses on five other sub-standard lots has so panicked the Council that they voted to continue the hearing for two weeks to allow the matter to be adequately researched.

If there could be liability established for abuse of discretion by an appellate tribunal, which is the hat presently worn by the City Council in relation to the appeal by Murphy, half the nation’s appellate courts would be liable for billions of dollars in damages. For Jenkins to suggest that the City Council be responsible for damages and attorney fees in the six figure range is truly irresponsible and most likely has severely prejudiced the Council to rule in favor of the appellant. I cannot imagine a competent attorney making such a blatantly inaccurate assertion, particularly when he is supposed to be representing the interests of the City. (See California Government Code §818.4)

As to the five lots at the end of East Richmond Avenue, they are clearly incomparable to the Pacific Avenue lots. Firstly, the lots are on a wide boulevard that even has a substantial green island separating the east and westbound lanes. Secondly, the lots are not constructed on a hillside. The hillside was removed, making the land essentially flat as are the rest of the homes on that street. Third, the street is on a dead end without any vehicular traffic. Fourth, the land is essentially undesirable since it is adjacent to the local water purification plant and it has no view whatsoever. The lots were permitted by the Planning Department without going through the required variance process, obviously due to that earlier misguided letter of Everett Jenkins that the lots were “grandfathered in”, which Jenkins has subsequently repudiated. You really should sneak a look at this aberration being constructed at the end of East Richmond. How this ever got by the Planning Department and the Design Review Board is truly amazing. But, that is another story. (See Murphy’s Law Revisited, November 9th, 2003.)

I guess it is back to the drawing board for the litigants. Hopefully at this next hearing, the concerns plaguing the anxious members of the City Council will have been adequately addressed so that this bogus appeal can be finally put to rest.