The RECENT construction of ANOTHER fire department -- at Pinion and Curry Streets -- you know the one -- with the large white tents over much of the construction -- is just sitting there -- flapping in the wind, idle and unoccupied.   That aesthetic edifice adds to the property values doesn't it?

My research indicates that Tehachapi City Officials -- who should have read the applicable codes for compliance BEFORE the fact -- didn't take the time to read until AFTER the fact.  The compliance codes expressly state that ANOTHER fire department SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED -- ("shall" and "must" is mandatory language and "may" is permissive language when interpreting Codes) -- NEAR AN EXISTING fire department -- UNLESS (except) the NEW construction is AT LEAST ONE MILE AWAY. 

The NEW construction at Pinion and Curry Streets is a "stone's throw" away from the EXISTING fire department at Valley Boulevard and Curry Street.  There's NO getting around the CODES.  It's statutory law and you apply the literal interpretation of statutes  In other words, do what it says you're to do -- there's no wiggle room.  I shouldn't be teaching the City Attorney and other learned City Officials how to read and interpret statutory law.  I'm sorry.  I'll save it for my students.

There was OBVIOUSLY the sophmoric belief that you've read it all, know it all, I don't need to READ, I'm omniscient, I'm omnipresent, I absorb through osmosis.  Sure you do, and pigs fly too.  I expect such academic oversight  from my students who're still in training -- not grown folks charged with LEADING City Government!  That's unconscionable and dereliction of duty for Three Million dollars.  Had televised council meetings been in place, this major fiasco could have at least been discovered by citizenry with learned, objective reasoning that could have "put the brakes" to the bonfire before it scorched the Tehachapi earth.  

That apparently means that occupancy of the new $Three Million Dollar fire department would be unlawful.  Hence, another example of City Tax Payers' dollars at work and why a $Three Milion Dollar construction is completely worthless.

What's a "bonfire"?  According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, it is" a large fire built in the open air, for warmth, entertainment or celebration, to burn leaves, garbage, etc." 

What's a "boondoggle"?  According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, it means "to do work of little or no practical value merely to keep or look busy".

This latest "boondoggle" is the best one yet !  -- that I've seen in 25 years here in Tehachapi.  The construction of the NEW $Three Million Dollar fire department is tantamount to taking $Three Million Dollars and putting a match to it and inviting everyone to the bonfire.   It's no earthly good because it's NOT "Code compliant".  With tongue in cheek:  It makes me feel warm and fuzzy just  thinking about the City Officials who had Tehachapi Residents' best interests in mind before spending $Three Million Dollars. I hope we're all invited to the bonfire. 

That's -- THREE  MMMMMMMMMM ILLION for the bonfire PLUS a continuing monthly salary for such paragons of wisdom.  Now, doesn't that make you feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside beholding management of your City's dollars in one of its finest hours?   What do you think private industry would have done in this case of abject failure to perform?  What would you do with such an employee?  This failure to read before spending Three MILLION dollars happened at the TOP because someone would have resigned because of personal reasons otherwise.  Crazy?  Sure it is -- crazy as a fox.  My contracts teacher in law school made an unforgettable statement 20 years ago -- "If the result is askewed and you can't shed any daylight on it, follow the money and you'll get the answer."  Feel warm and fuzzy yet? 

Tehachapi Councilwoman Deborah Hand was recently quoted -- in the Sept.  20, 2007 Edition of The Desert News' Article entitled "Wild Tehachapi Council Meeting"  -- as stating:  "Term Limits Are Anti-Democratic".  That was not an opinion open for debate.  That was a statement of Councilwoman Hand's belief -- with a period at the end of her statement; and with no supporting authority whatsoever to bottom a public statement at a public City Council Meeting where the Desert News Reporters of California City were in attendance. 

With all due respect, I don't think even Aristotle will agree with that statement, when he is quoted (by the Institute of Governmental Studies' Public Affairs Report of the University of California, Berkeley) as stating:    “It is not enough to say a citizen is someone who lives in the city or has access to the courts of law, since these rights are open to resident aliens and even slaves." (emphasis added.)

"Rather, ARISTOTLE SUGGESTS that A CITIZEN is someone WHO SHARES IN THE administration of justice and the HOLDING OF PUBLIC OFFICE. Aristotle then broadens this definition, which is limited to individuals in democracies, by stating that A CITIZEN IS ANYONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN DELIBERATIVE or judicial OFFICE.”  (emphasis added.)