Airport Noise and Other Issues - Santa Monica and Anchorage

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities invited me to their email list sometime last year and I get periodic announcements.  So when I see their articles in other media, I know where they come from.

Last week I got an meeting announcement about Noise for Feb. 29.  We won't be back yet, but I hope someone goes.

Anchorage

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Announces
Public Meeting for Part 150 Study Update

Anchorage, AK – Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport will hold a public information meeting on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 to kick-off the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the Spenard Community Recreation Center in the Multi-Purpose Room located at 2020 W. 48th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99517.

The purpose of this meeting is to inform interested parties about the purpose of the Part 150 Study Update and to outline the general study process. Airport staff and the consultant team will be available to listen to citizen comments and answer questions about the study.
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has begun the voluntary process of preparing an update to the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study to examine the current and future noise effects caused by aircraft operations at the airport. The goal of this study is to work with surrounding communities, aviation experts, and stakeholders to establish a balanced, cost-effective and comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise.
This is the first of several public meetings that will be held throughout the course of the study. Public and stakeholder coordination is an important portion of the study, and the airport is interested to hear the public’s opinions and concerns on these important issues.
 For additional information please visit:     www.anc150study.com

 Expect much to happen?  Look at their words:

• listen to citizens (if it's not too noisy to hear you, but there is nothing about doing anything with what citizens say.  Do they really care or are they doing it because they have to?)
• answer questions about the study (but not about noise itself)
• voluntary process of updating (but the FAQ's on their website has this sentence buried in it:
  
  "The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport is updating their previous Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that the Airport have current Noise Exposure Maps to receive federal funding for noise mitigation measures."
  
• to establish a balanced, cost-effective and comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise.  (Get a bunch of them in a room and off them - ok I'm being silly here.  But I suspect airport noise affects more than just people.  It's an area - sound impacts - that science is just beginning to look at.   But unless airplanes get quieter, I'm not holding my breath that the cost-effective part won't mean that not much will happen.)

The documents section of the linked site gives us an agenda:

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Initial
Public Meeting for Part 150 Study Update

Date:
February 29, 2012
Time:  6:00 p.m.
Location:  Spenard Community Recreation Center – Multi-Purpose Room

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

• Introductions 
• Study Team
• Who is Involved?

• Brief Explanation of FAR Part 150 and the Study
• What is a Part 150 Study? 
• Background on the Previous Part 150 Study 
• Why Update Study?
• Relationship to FAR Part 161 
• Study Process

• Description of Noise Metrics – DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc.
  
• Discussion on Potential Noise Monitoring Sites
• Questions/Comments

Santa Monica

And after I got the email about the Anchorage Airport, my mom got this flyer in her mail from CASMAT (Community Against SM Airport Traffic).  This is a somewhat different breed of airport.  It's a very busy private airport surrounded by residential neighborhoods.  The airport's been here longer than most of the houses.  On the other hand, jets weren't flying out of the airport when most of the houses were built.  On the border of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, it's probably more valuable as real estate than as an airport.  But if it closed, where would Jerry Seinfeld keep his planes?

Anyway, the flyer is inviting people to attend "Airport Visioning" Workshops and then the Airport Commission's workshop on March 26. 

The airport site (link to airport site which I'm guessing will change over time) lists several reports.  The report from the city staff - offered by the City Manager, Rod Gould, gives a long history of the airport from its start in 1917 through today.  Then it talks about legal issues, probably the crux of what is happening.

Santa Monica's Airport has been the subject of many legal disputes between the City and Airport users, Airport neighbors, or Airport businesses. However it is the legal disputes between the City and the FAA that have proven to be the most difficult.    The most recent example is the eight year legal battle over the City's Aircraft Conformance Program and the corresponding ordinance banning Category C&D aircraft. This dispute cost the City well over $1,000,000 and the C & D ban was struck down.

Over the course of that dispute, the FAA explained its legal position relative to the City's obligations in its briefs filed with federal appellate courts. Thus, on the issue of Airport closure, the FAA has made it very clear that it does and will take the position that the City cannot close the Airport in 2015 because the Instrument of Transfer, executed after the conclusion of World War II in 1948, obligates the City to operate its Airport in perpetuity. Additionally, the FAA takes the position that the City accepted federal grant funds in 2003 and is thus required by federal law to operate the Airport for at least 20 years thereafter, or until 2023.

Then it goes on to list various options offered by some of the consultants.  Those reports are available too, but the staff report is the only one with substance.

Image of Santa Monica Airport from SMO fact sheet  North on Top

Lost Camera

I took my camera to lunch in the hospital yesterday.  When I was on my bike headed home I realized it wasn't in my pocket.  We went back after dinner and I checked in the cafeteria.  It wasn't in any of the drawers.  They sent me to security.  He looked at a paper.  Nothing reported.  He didn't ask for my name.

Then I remembered how my mom was instructed several times not to have anything valuable in in her overnight back.

OK, it's just a camera.  I didn't break a finger.  I can go out and buy a newer, better one, cheaper one.  And the little door to the battery and sound card was broken and I had taped it together.  It's just a thing.  But as a blogger, it was almost like a finger.  I think I'm more upset that I wasn't paying attention and must have put it down and walked away.  It's usually in a pocket, but it was warm and I wasn't wearing a jacket and I didn't put it in my jeans pocket.  Dumb.

And you don't want me drawing pictures.  I don't want me drawing pictures very often - that takes way too long.  But I did learn how to draw a teardrop in photoshop today. OK, I learned how to draw something that resembles a teardrop.  I'll get better. 

The LA Times lists sales for cameras..

[UPDATE 11am:  J found my camera.  It was in the cafeteria office, which was closed last night.  Patience and faith, I need more of them.]

Rain Yesterday, Sun Today - Random LA Images

The title's inaccurate.  The images aren't random.  They're ones I picked because they made a point I wanted to make or I just liked them. 


I thought that during the Super Bowl the freeway traffic would be lighter.  But getting onto the San Diego Freeway just before game time proved slow.  But the sky was very clear and the temperatures a delicious and dry mid 70s. 

Car stuff in general reminds me why I live in Alaska.  One reason we came down was to help my mom when she went in for some elective surgery.  She's in a private hospital in Santa Monica where parking is horrendous.  So many streets have permit only parking.  The others have meters.  Finding an empty space isn't easy.  When my mom is with us, I have no problem using her handicapped sign, but I won't use it when she's not with us.  (The handicapped sign has all sorts of benefits

including not paying for parking meters.)  But yesterday I couldn't find a parking space after wandering around, so I tried the parking lot.  $2 for 15 minutes!  Providence Anchorage - thank you for your free parking.  On the other hand, if traffic is so bad and parking so difficult, maybe more people will experiment with the bus or with a bike.  Today I biked up.  When people drive, they really don't think about how far things are.  It only took me 20 minutes on my second hand utility bike.  And parking was right at the entrance for free.  (Mine's the bright blue one.)

Yesterday it rained.  It was a nice break from the relentless sun as Dan Bern sang about it in The Wasteland.


This is the entrance to St. John's, with wet pavement.  They even had plastic umbrella bags at the entrance even though it really didn't rain hard enough to soak below the soil.

Sunday we had breakfast at the Mar Vista Farmers Market.  I also got my stem tightened on my bike by the friendly folks from Bikerowave , a do it yourself bike shop, that had a table there.  Also got to talk to some folks from the Mar Vista Community Council.  Hey Anchorage, we had them built into the Charter in 1975, but LA only got theirs into the City Charter in 1999. 

I just liked the way the sun was lighting up this mass of Birds of Paradise.







We had take out Monday night from Thai Vegan on Main Street.  Great prices and decent Thai food.  We even had mango and sticky rice for dessert. 
















And after yesterday's grey, I couldn't resist getting this bright yellow house and equally bright blue sky this morning on my morning run - which I had had to skip for a few days. 

By the way we decided to move the car.  We had to wait a looooooong time for the car in front of us and then the attendant spent a long time counting money before serving us.  It was $4.  I asked how long we'd been there and when she saw it was 16 minutes, she said $2 would be fine. 

Alaska Redistricting Board To Appeal Ruling on Districts 37 and 38

[11:50am Anchorage time:  I heard this online.  They met - got an overview - went into executive session.  When they came out, what I understood was that they would appeal the decisions on House Districts 37 and 38.  Then they discussed timing.  Things may not be totally complete by the June 1 filing deadline for candidates.

What I didn't hear was when or how they would deal with HDs 1 and 2.  I didn't hear they would appeal them or what they would do to meet the judge's ruling about them.  Below are my notes as listened.  Also worth noting, Attorney White mentioned that the plaintiffs could also appeal parts of the decision that went against them.]

[UPDATE Feb. 8:  The Board posted this on their website regarding HDs 1 and 2:

The Board decided not to appeal Judge McConahy's remand of House Districts 1 and 2.

"We believe that the fix to House Districts 1 and 2 will be relatively straightforward," said Torgerson. "We will address those issues after the Supreme Court has made its ruling next month."]

 ROUGH NOTES WARNING:  Read at your own peril.  These notes should give you a sense of what happened, but are not reliable for specifics.  What you find here is, at best, good for figuring out what further questions to ask. 

Board opened at 10:03am Alaska time.  Everyone was there (at least by phone.)  [As I was listening online, I couldn't quite tell who was there physically.]

Live streaming - lots of echo. [It turned out I had this on two different windows and when I shut one down, the echo disappeared.]

Michael White's Report
Judge McConahy's Decision

Here's the agenda:

BOARD MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 7, 2012 Anchorage, AK
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
    - Bickford talked about the budget
5. LITIGATION UPDATE
Michael White (Board Attorney) is going over his memo which you can get here.
Found on our favor on splitting Fairbanks, the proportionality rulings, and the Senate seats.
Found we could have higher deviation if necessary for other factors.
He ruled HD 2 not compact and we had nothing for that.
Districts 1 and 2 unconstitutional and have to be redrawn.
HD 5 in our favor.  HD 6 - hard to know what they wanted - but judge ruled in our favor.  No issues with any of the FB Senate pairings.
They said city of Fairbanks entitled to a Senate seat.  Judge agreed with us they didn't have enough people for one seat.
Compactness, court said, they had to go somewhere.  
37 and 38 against us.
Our decision to divide Aleutian Chain to avoid pairing of Senators Hoffman and Stevens, which we thought was necessary to avoid.  . .  we thought if we paired two out of seven Native lawmakers, it would be problematic, we had complaints from Calista and Kodiak, we knew all along that the Hickel decision ruled splitting Aleutians unconstitutional unless required by law.  The judge said it was too speculative so it didn't trump the Constitution and remanded it back to the board requiring us to put Aleutians back together.

Also alluded that other Native districts had more Native population than required.  I'm still struggling with that, I still don't understand that.  Somehow he thinks because 39 and 40 affected the necessary standard for violating the constitution.  He has a citation in Hickel.  We'll talk more in Executive Session what I think about these things.

HD 38, in which he said Board - urban and rural had to be combined, undisputed.  It's reasonable to take from Ester and Goldstream, but at the end he says I'm throwing it out because avoiding Stevens and Hoffman pairing affected  district 38 - which it didn't - and so it wasn't necessary to violate constitution for VRA.
Tally and Scoreboard.  4 districts court found unconstitutional.  Obviously dependent on the SC if we go there.

Bickford - which ones not remanded?
All the other Senate pairings.  four out of ten challenged.
Brodie:  If we make any changes to 37 or 38 we have to resubmit to DOJ?
White:  Any change at all has to be resubmitted.  We're under expedited ....
Petition for Review, means in non-redistricting context.  Ask appellate court   ---- because remanded to court, not technically a final order.  We have a meeting scheduled for 2:30 today ???? they want briefs by Friday - three days from now.  Increased from 15 to 25 pages.  Any petitions for review by us or plaintiffs.  Then oral argument in middle of March, March 15 likely date for that.
Looking at procedural things that need to be done.  No transcripts of trial and whether they need to be done.
Bottom line is that in the end there are 4 districts remanded by the judge to the board and we have to decide what we want to do.

Bickford:  Clarification - we can choose to appeal a part?
White:  Yes.
10:29  Torgerson:  Going to Executive Session.  It should last about an hour.  We will have people here wait in the hallway because some things brought up in trial were discussed in Executive Session so we assume that things were heard in the past while we were in Executive Session.

Things stopped at this point and they should be back in about an hour or 11:30 Alaska time. (I was listening online from California.)

6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

11:38 Anchorage time - they are going to appeal about 37 and 38.  Michael White is talking about timing, I didn't catch it all.  Something about seven days.  SC would either affirm or reverse and send it back to trial court and then it would be remanded to the board.

About 3rd week in March the board would get back together and adopt an amended proclamation, then parties to the case could raise issues.  Others couldn't.  New people can't come in and raise new challenges.  If there are challenges SC will review.  Middle of May or towards the end of May last time it was done.

If any lines changed have to go back to DOJ.  Probably wouldn't wait for all appeals, could go to DOJ before all settled.  There's an expidited process available.

Last time they got the letter of non-rejection in middle of June.  Preclearance means you can't put a plan into use, but people can file.

Hope to get it before June 1 but may not happen.

Brodie:  Filing for a review from SC?

White:  With an appeal you have ten days.  Petition for review, put justification for why they should take it.  SC will take it.

Brodie:  SC sends to trial court then?

White:  It will be a pass through to us when it comes back.

Torgerson:  Appeal 37 and 38?

All vote yes. 

Torgerson:  Any other motions?  Seeing none, go to board comments. No more meetings until it goes to SC.  If members want to fly up, that's legitimate.  I plan on being there.

About March 15.  Michael says meet 3rd week of March, but I think it will be close to 1 April.  Once we get decision, we'll start fishing dates, depending on rulings.  For planning purposes, let's block out three days.  Depending on the ruling, try to block out three days or more if possible incase we had to we could keep going.

White:  Last time they allowed people to present plans.  Don't know if that's required.  Litigants at least were allowed to comment.  Something to think about.

Torgerson:  Kept the most open plan there was, but put back by the presentation of a plan the first day of trial.  The Democrats putting a plan out to protect Fairbanks Democrats, put the rest of the state under the bus to help Fairbanks Democrats.

Brodie:  Do the best we can.

Torgerson:  Anyone else?

Bickford:  Look at your calendars for April.

Torgerson:  Michael has pre trial hearing today.

White:  After oral argument last time I went away to CB Winery cooking school.  I slept til ten and . . .  we got our decision March 27 or something last time.

Torgerson:  Thank you everyone for taking another day out of your schedule.


8. ADJOURNMENT

"Using our children as the experimental animals" - What's More Important, Infant Health or Corporate Profits?

From the transcript of a Bill Moyers PBS show entitled Trade Secrets:  

DR. PHILIP LANDRIGAN, CHAIRMAN, PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, MT. SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: We are conducting a vast toxicologic experiment, and we are using our children as the experimental animals.
NARRATION: Not a single child today is born free of synthetic chemicals.
AL MEYERHOFF, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: With chemicals, it's shoot first and ask questions later. 

Thousands of new substances are added to the the Chemical Abstracts Service Register daily and used without being tested.   Researchers report in an Italian journal:

The database CAS REGISTRY (www. cas.org), produced by Chemical Abstracts Service, a division of the Chemical Society that since 1907 identifies univocally chemicals, at present includes more than 33 million organic and inorganic sub- stances and over 59 million sequences (January 2008). This database is updated daily and, as an average, approximately 4000 new substances are added each day. [emphasis added]

Should each new substance be tested before it's put into food we eat or products we use or into the air or water?  Or would that impede progress, the introduction of new products, and the growth of the economy?

And what about the cumulative effect of one chemical from different sources?  Or the cumulative effect of many chemicals?  We know, for instance, that different medications interact with each other often cause negative effects. 


BPA As an Example

So to put this into perspective, I got an email with a link to a 2010 post about BPA in canned tomatoes.  It refers to a Prevention article about an endocrinologist not eating canned tomatoes.

The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain Bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”

But the American Chemical Council says there's nothing wrong with BPA as you can see in a post on their website

From an October 13, 2010 press release entitled: "Canada's Announcement Regarding BPA is Contrary to the Weight of Worldwide Scientific Evidence" quotes their own PhD expert:

“Just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) once again confirmed that BPA is safe for use in food-contact items, Environment Canada’s announcement is contrary to the weight of worldwide scientific evidence, unwarranted and will unnecessarily confuse and alarm the public. This puts Environment Canada at odds with the recent conclusions of EFSA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, all of which have concluded that BPA is safe in contact with food.  The decision also appears to contradict the very recent opinion of Health Canada, which stated in August that ‘the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.’   

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) release cited by the American Chemical Council didn't exactly say it was safe for use in food.  It actually says, in its Sept. 30, 2008 release, ". . . they could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise the current Tolerable Daily Intake[2] for BPA of 0.05 mg/kg body weight[3] set by EFSA."

So, they have current maximum levels of safe intake of BPA.  That suggests that more than those levels are NOT safe.

It goes on to say:

The CEF Panel members acknowledge that some recent studies report adverse effects on animals exposed to BPA during development at doses well below those used to determine the current TDI. These studies show biochemical changes in the central nervous system, effects on the immune system and enhanced susceptibility to breast cancer. However, these studies have many shortcomings. At present the relevance of these findings for human health cannot be assessed, though should any new relevant data become available in the future[6], the Panel will reconsider this opinion.

A January 20, 2012 (ten months earlier) US Food and Drug Administration Report also doesn't say what the ACC release suggests: 

"Studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.  However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.  In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA."

The German study does cite two studies that show little risk in studies of rats that seems to not substantiate earlier studies that showed problems.

To me this is reminiscent of the tobacco industry's decades of denial of any health problems related to smoking.  

Who's In Charge?  The Regulated Industries or Regulators?

Another issue here is the influence of lobbyists on Congress overseeing the regulators and how much that impinges on the FDA and other agencies' abilities to test and to declare chemicals dangerous. 

How does this relate to people who do not want their kids vaccinated?  They argue they are being forced to risk their kids' health.  But that seems to be totally different for two reasons. 

• First, the vaccines are far more thoroughly studied - even if there are lingering questions for some - than the tests on all these commercially used chemicals.
• Second, vaccines prevent the spread of serious health hazards, while commercial chemicals are important mainly because they help corporations make profits.  Yes, the profit because they offer something that makes life a bit more convenient, but again, that convenience is just that - a convenience, but hardly a necessity.  

It does seem clear that the various government agencies in the US and Europe have determined that there is a level above which they believe BPA's are dangerous, yet the several press releases I've looked at offered by the American Chemical Council are worded to imply that they have all found it safe.  Which isn't true. Their argument against the Canadians was not based on the science, but on ACC's allegation that their conclusions are different from everyone else, which isn't exactly true either.  


Here's what the Mayo Clinic website says about BPA:

BPA stands for bisphenol A. BPA is an industrial chemical that has been used to make certain plastics and resins since the 1960s.
In particular, BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Polycarbonate plastics are often used in containers that store food and beverages, such as water bottles, and baby bottles and cups. They may also be used in toys and other consumer goods. Epoxy resins can be used to coat the inside of metal products, such as food cans, baby formula cans, bottle tops and water supply lines. Some dental sealants and composites also may contain BPA. And certain thermal paper products, such as cash register receipts, may contain BPA.
Some research has shown that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA or into your body when you handle products made with BPA. BPA remains controversial, and research studies are continuing. The American Chemistry Council, an association that represents plastics manufacturers, contends that BPA poses no risk to human health.
But the National Toxicology Program at the Department of Health and Human Services says it has "some concern" about the possible health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. This level of concern is midway on its five-level scale, which ranges from serious to negligible. The Food and Drug Administration now shares this level of concern and is taking steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply by finding alternatives to BPA in food containers.

The corporations seem to think that if it hasn't been proven dangerous, they should be able to use it.  But if it hasn't been proven safe, would you want your infant to be exposed to it?  We should use it and if problems show up, then we can take another look.  Essentially, test it on the general population.  Monday's New York Times has another example of this:

The United States Army is investigating whether certain dietary supplements for athletes, available until recently at stores on military bases in the United States, may have played a role in the deaths of two soldiers.

To me this is all related to the Occupy Movement and their concern about the power of big business over government and over people's perceptions about health and safety.  It's also related to the Citizens United - the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.  By getting candidates who make decisions that favor the corporations, they gain control of government and how government treats larger corporations.  The irony is that while the corporate spokespersons rail against government, they are the de facto government. 

It's not a cut and dried issue, but it seems to me that at this point the balance of power is way over on the side of industry, not on the side of the general public.

German Word of the Day - Feige

From www.dict.cc  German to English:

feige

coward {adj}
craven {adj}
dastard {adj}
cowardly {adj} {adv}
cravenly {adv}
recreant {adj}
skulking {adj}
dastardly {adj} {adv}
lilylivered {adj}
lily-livered {adj}
fainthearted {adj}
faint-hearted {adj}
pusillanimous {adj}
sissy {adj} [coll.]
chicken {adj} [coll.]
gutless {adj} [coll.]
weak-kneed {adj} [fig.]
yellow-bellied {adj} [coll.]
chicken-hearted {adj} [coll.]
chicken-livered {adj} [coll.]
yellow {adj} [coll.] [cowardly]
chickenshit {adj} [Am.] [vulg.]

feige [niederträchtig]

caitiff {adj} [archaic]

Feige {f}

bot. fig

Anchorage Has Another Chance to Move Out of Dark Ages

I was reminded how far behind we are in Anchorage by a story in today's LA Times.  It lists six states debating the legalization of gay marriage.  And six more states, plus the District of Columbia, where same sex marriage is legal.

But in Anchorage we're still struggling to get a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment and other such situations.  We would have such guarantees already had our current mayor not vetoes an ordinance passed by our Assembly just before he became mayor.

But there is a proposition on the ballot and a chance to show the world that the voters of Anchorage are not as intolerant and narrow minded as some of our politicians.

Why does this matter?  As OneAnchorage, the group behind the initiative, posts:

In Anchorage, all employees should be judged solely on their capabilities and job performance. Today, however, most – but not all – hardworking Alaskans are protected from being unfairly fired. For example, no one can be fired from a job solely because they are married or single. It is illegal to refuse to interview a job applicant because the business owner doesn’t like Christians, Jews or Muslims. You can’t be denied service in a restaurant because you’re African-American, Asian, from South America or Alaska Native. You can’t be turned down for a credit card or bank loan because you’re sight or hearing impaired.

However, these legal protections that most of us rely on everyday do NOT protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender workers.

But even when this initiative is passed in April, we still have a one man - one woman marriage clause that was added to our state constitution in 1998.

When I say far behind, I mean it in the way that people in the South were far behind other parts of the US when they still had legal segregation whereas Blacks had legal (if not de facto) equal rights in other parts of the country.  As behind as those people who opposed voting for women and then other rights for women.  One form of human progress is the gradual elimination of the legal props that support social prejudices against people who are different from the majority, props that give 'normal' people power over the 'other.'

Balancing Postive and Negative - Alexander DCD Smith

Alex is the nephew of an old friend of J's and we ended up accidentally having dinner with him, his aunt, and his parents earlier this week. He invited us to his show Saturday night in Culver City and so we went.




There were giant commercial looking inspirational 'posters.'  But looking close there was a lot more going on.  Alexander
explained he used brushes, spray paint, and stencils on wood.


And remembering our dinner conversation the other night, it made sense that Alex would be pushing things like believe, dedication, productive, and success.  He's dealt with some health issues and he now works from early morning until late at night.






But the edgier side of him balanced this show with four Stop Signs like this Stop War piece.  Looking at the motivational work on the photos now, I'm seeing a lot more in the background than I originally saw.

He also does live paintings and Alex's blog has speeded up video of him creating these pieces.  There were QR codes on each description card that took you to a video of him painting that piece.  I can't locate those videos, but you can check out his blog for other videos.

You can get a sense of his excitement in the video below.






  

Dedication close up

 

A Chat with Treeman Near Venice Beach

We took advantage of the nice weather to bike down to Venice Beach. On the way back I saw a person I needed to talk to. Of course, I had my camera with me. Somehow I meet a lot of interesting people, but this certainly was one of the more unique people I've met.


Treeman's message might not resonate with everyone, but there is clearly a sense of being one with nature.  When it was all over I thought that I had had a chat with a relative of the Na'vi.

Treeman, judging from his website Treemanity, is a character of someone who told me his father named him Lantis (I think) as in Atlantis. Perhaps in this character, Lantis is able to talk about things he normally wouldn't be able to. The character Treeman also made me think about Charles Wohlforth's book The Fate of Nature.  Many people today, in their own ways, myself included, are concerned about humanity's loss of connection with the natural world.  Perhaps I was transporting my concerns onto Treeman, but I do believe he too is concerned with our human relationship to other living things, to water, to the earth, and to the heavens. 

Redistricting Court Challenge: Judge Sends 4 Districts Back To Board

Judge McConahy's decision on the Alaska Redistricting Board challenge came out Friday. The decision itself is 136 pages, plus nearly another 100 pages of appendices.  You can get the whole decision here.  The Judge has a whole list of terms at the beginning of the decision which might be helpful.  I've discussed them in various previous posts and I won't redefine them here.  Overall, the decision is quite readable.  But then I've been immersed in this stuff since last March, so I'm not a good judge.

I've gone through it pretty quickly, but here are some key points I see.

Basically he sent back four districts to the Board to be redrawn.  These are the four districts that were found to be unconstitutional in summary judgments before the trial opened - Districts 1 and 2 in Fairbanks, District 37 which splits the Aleutians, and District 38 which combines suburban Fairbanks with rural and roadless villages all the way to the coast.


Districts 37 and 38 are both effective Native districts.  Both had more Native population than necessary to qualify as effective under the Voting Rights Act.  He focused on the Board's reluctance to pair Democratic Native Senator Lyman Hoffman of Bethel with Republican Senate President Gary Stevens of Kodiak as insufficient reason to violate the state constitution's compactness and contiguity requirements.  He concluded that the speculation that such a pairing might be seen as a violation of the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice was not strong enough grounds to violate the constitution.

"Ultimately the Board is asking the court to approve the split of the Aleutian Chain so that  Native Senator Hoffman will not be paired because DOJ might not pre-clear the plan.  The court does not find that this option was necessary under the VRA but rather is speculative.  There will always be groups that are unhappy and they all have the option of objecting to DOJ.  The Board cannot base the plan on fear of speculative consequences." [p. 127]  

You can read the specifics of the Judge's analysis on pages 123 - 127 of the decision.

This conclusion, coupled with the fact that both districts 37 and 38 had (plus neighboring district 36 had significantly) more Native population than they needed to be effective, led to the judge remanding 38 as well.

District 1 in Fairbanks was remanded because of the finger that protrudes into District 4.  (See this recent post for a map.]  While the judge rejected plaintiff's allegations of political gerrymandering here, he found the Board's reasoning for the irregularity (strange protrusions are a sign of lack of compactness in the redistricting standards literature) - to keep the deviations low - unpersuasive.  He mentions the fact that plaintiff's witness, Leonard Lawson, could  make minor adjustments to the district without affecting deviation.

The judge has little to say about District 2.

"The court previously found that Proclamation House District 2 was not compact.  The Board did not argue that the Proclamation House District 2 was necessary under the VRA.  No evidence was presented on Proclamation House District 2 at trial.  The court remands Proclamation House District 2 to the Board to redraw."  [Map of HD 2 at this post.]

Significantly for the future of the Alaska State Senate, the Judge did not accept the plaintiff's arguments that pairing two Fairbanks Democratic Senators was done for partisan reasons and he did not rule against the allegations that underlay those charges.

Will Affect More than the Four Districts, But First Going To Alaska Supreme Court

Although four districts have been remanded for redrawing, it will be impossible to redraw those four without affecting the districts around them.  And while the Board staff might start playing around with maps this weekend, the Board will surely appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.  The judge's ruling even addresses the Supreme Court on occasion.


Below I've copied the conclusion points in the judge's decision from pages 134 - 136.

[UPDATE 11am: I forgot to mention that the Board will meet Tuesday, February 7 at 10 am to discuss their next actions, though since this relates to litigation, I would guess much of the meeting will be off the record.  Their January 24 notice said:

This meeting will be streamed at www.alaskalegislature.tv. In the event you can't listen on internet you may call 1-855-463-5009. This is a listen only meeting.  Testimony will not be taken.]