It was 70 years ago this year that the most famous radio broadcast in history was aired: Orson Welles’ ‘War Of The Worlds’. I’ve always been fascinated by both the radio play and the panic it induced in people who thought that it was no play at all, but the description of events that were actually occurring. I remember, as a kid, staying home from trick-or-treating for the very first time so I could hear a 30th anniversary rebroadcast in 1968.

Here’s a TV dramatization of the events of that night, originally broadcast on CBS in 1957. It’s an hour long, but it’s pretty good. You’ll see some then-unknown future stars as members of the cast: Ed Asner, James Coburn, Warren Beatty, John ‘Gomez Addams’ Astin, and Vincent Gardenia.

Read Part 1

The lady I mentioned in part 1, whose apartment was upstairs in a different building from the offending smoker, lives in a rent-controlled apartment: that is, her rent is raised periodically by an amount regulated by law, which after time means her rent is well below the market rate in her neighborhood. I myself live in a rent-controlled apartment; my rent can be raised 3% a year, and I’ve had my rent raised by that amount only once in the four years I’ve lived in it. There are stories about people in New York who live for decades in their rent-controlled apartments, paying hundreds in rent compared to the thousands their neighbors pay.

(As an aside, when Proposition 13 froze property taxes back in 1978, anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis said that rents would go down when that constitutional amendment passed – fat chance.)

Anyway, this lady was not shy about her intent to protect her financially-favorable residency in her cheap apartment – it was the smoker (who pays a full market rental rate for her apartment) who would have to change. Even when the smoke-sensitive lady had the option to move to a non-smoking apartment building (although that wouldn’t have mitigated this particular problem, as the smoker was not a tenant in the same building), had she moved, she would have lost her rent-controlled boondoggle and would be paying those same full-market rents that her neighbor pays.

By the same token, this ordinance could have been used by landlords as a club to finally get rid of smoking renters who’ve been enjoying rent control for many years. That’s why members of Santa Monica’s Rent Control Board (who also spoke at the meeting) said that there should be a stipulation in this ordinance that it could not be used to evict current tenants. A man who was the head of the Greater LA Landlord’s association (or some such entity) and a landlord himself said that the only way to transitition a smoking-allowed building into a non-smoking facility was to phase it in – to declare that newly-vacated units were non-smoking, but also stipulating in the lease that other residents of the building may be smokers and that the landlord had no control over their tobacco-enjoying habits. Eventually, through attrition, all the units would become non-smoking, but who knows how long that would take?

So if an offending smoker can’t be evicted, how would the law being enforced?

“Hello, police? There’s someone in the common area below my window lighting up a Marlboro – come and cite him!”

Don’t think so.

Santa Monica city staff, in its recommendation to the Council, listed these possible methods:

1. Private Right of Action, which means essentially that a tenant could sue the smoker in court for damages or civil penalties for redress of the violation. This would protect the smoker’s tenant rights, as well as derail any efforts by an unscrupulous landlord from using smoking as a pretext for eviction.
2. The City could declare second-hand smoke a nuisance, at least in the common areas, which would provide landlords with just cause for eviction, but that bumps up against the rent control issues described above. Also, if second-hand smoke is a nuisance when it’s wafting up from the laundry room, why is it not a nuisance when it floats out of the living room window up into the window of the apartment above?
3. Infraction, which gets the cops involved. Common area smoking could result in a citation, as it already does in public common areas. But how would the police enforce this law in a private residential setting? There is no obvious or easy way.

As urban population increases, and more and more people move into multi-unit residential buildings, and as ‘personal space’ becomes more and more precious, this issue is going to become only more insistent. What’s your answer? Does your right to a lungful of ‘fresh’ air override the other’s right to use a legal substance as he will?

I’m creating a new post subcategory under ‘Opinion’: “It Got Me To Thinking”, which will be a collection of posts where I and my Dear Readers have a chance to explore and discuss various concepts, ideas and issues.

On the way home from VOC rehearsal last night I happened to tune in to the broadcast of the Santa Monica City Council meeting. They were in the public comment period and were discussing a proposed extension of the smoking regulation already on the books: to wit, to prohibit smoking in the common areas of multi-unit residential areas such as apartment complexes, condos, duplexes, etc.

In May 2008 the California State Senate approved a bill (SB 1598) that would allow landlords to prohibit smoking in apartment buildings to protect tenants from secondhand smoke. Significantly, the proposed law excluded rent-controlled apartments – more about that later. That bill, by the way, seems to have been sitting in the Assembly Judiciary committee since late June at the request of the bill’s author, Senator Alex Padilla of the San Fernando Valley (he claims it died in committee).

Many of the people who approached the mic last night seemed to be in favor of a tough version of this ordinance. One person was complaining about a chain-smoker who lived in a completely different property some ten feet away from her windows. The smoker smoked in the patio of her lower-lever unit, and the smoke drifted up into the open windows of the upper-level apartment next door. Closing the windows didn’t help, as the smoke seemed to waft up over the roof and enter windows on the other side of the building. As this example has nothing to do with common areas in a single property, I don’t see how this law would help this situation. Maybe the ultimate goal is to completely ban smoking in the entire city. Another condo owner told the story of being woken up at five o’clock in the morning by the smell and eye irritation of smoke seeping through the common walls via the electrical outlets, cable junction boxes, etc. from his smoking neighbor.

It got me to thinking^TM.

I had a similar problem with a neighbor when I lived in Alameda. We had a eucalyptus tree in the back yard that hung over the fence we shared with our dear neighbor. She said that she was tired of raking up the leaves that fell off our tree into her back yard. She demanded that we trim the tree; we told her she was free to trim the branches on her side of the fence, which she did. She still wasn’t happy, so she continued to pressure us to remove the entire tree.

I wasn’t a fan of the tree anyway – eucalypti are susceptible to uprooting due to their shallow root structures. If it ever fell over, it was going to hit a house no matter which direction it fell and I wasn’t comfortable with the liability. But damned if I was gonna get that tree taken down because this…recalcitrant woman next door told me to. Finally my wife took over and arranged to have the tree cut down.

The thing was, the leaves on our tree weren’t the only detritus that blew into her yard. There were trees of various varieties all around the neighborhood. And the words ‘neighborhood’ and ‘community’ are key here. Living in a neighborhood has its costs, no matter how far away from your neighbor you live. Noise, leaves, house color, landscaping, all have their effect on a street block, neighborhood, community, city, state, country. Even people who live in a sparsely-populated area like Wyoming or Montana will find cause to complain about the barbed-wire fence that separates their property from their neighbor ten miles away.

Cigarette smoke is impossible to corral, just as the leaves that blow around in the wind this time of year. When you choose to live in a community of humans, you’re gonna have to put up with some level of unpleasantness. Tobacco use is legal, and people who smoke have as much right to smoke in their apartment or condo as I have in planting a crapberry tree in a place that overhangs a parking space on the street, bombing every car that parks under it. I’m lucky in that I don’t have to deal with smoking neighbors, as my apartment is above the carports of my building, but I do have to deal with the motorcyle owner who parks directly under my bedroom, and loves to warm up his chopper for what seems like an hour every morning at 6:30 AM. I have the choice to move, I guess, to a soundproof house, but I can’t afford that, so I compromise.

I’ll continue to develop my thought on this, including the impact of rent control on this issue. In the meantime, what’s your view? Does your ox get particularly gored by either side of this issue?

Read Part 2

I gather that it’s traditional for the Voices of Christmas to hold a sort of warmup show at a local mall, just to make sure the costumes are all in place, the music is ready to go, the stage presence rocks, stuff like that. This year the gala will be held at Fashion Square Shopping Center, 14006 Riverside Drive in Sherman Oaks on Tuesday Nov. 25 from 7-9 PM. That’s Thanksgiving week, by the way, and it’s sure to be a real blast, so y’all come!

I’ve got the tailcoat, the waistcoat, the pants and shoes, the tie/scarf will be provided. The last element of my costume to fall into place will be my top hat. I’ve got a few leads as to where to look for one – a few costume houses in Hollywood, and various magic shops. Don’t want to spend too much on this prop – when will I wear it again, anyway (other than next year)?

A couple of things on my mind today:

• The New York City Council has unilaterally changed the city law on term limits at the behest of mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is termed out and wants to run for a third term as Gotham’s leader. Never mind that three-quarters of the council members are also termed out. Never mind that voters have voted IN FAVOR of term limits – TWICE! Another example of the arrogance and hubris that is endemic of ALL polititians to some degree or another.

• Banks are borrowing from the Federal Reserve in record amounts, but seem to be hoarding the cash rather than lending it out, further stymying recovery of the credit markets, which have been frozen for weeks. I’ve always thought that the $700 BILLION bailout was targeted in the wrong direction. Rather than buying ‘toxic’ debt from the banks, the government should be shoveling that money at the true sufferers – the poor homeowners holding the predatory mortgages, which the banks are refusing to renegotiate because the mortgage holders are now ‘bad credit risks,’ for Pete’s sake!

Pam Nguyen is one of my nieces, who’s still as cute as a button even though she’s in her late twenties (okay, mid twenties). She’s just started her very own blog, the subject of which is mostly Kaitlyn, Pam and Mark’s little girl who’s also as cute as a button. Pammy’s using email to fans and friends to get some traffic – and she dropped my name in her email! Funny, though – she mentioned my website, but she didn’t include the URL.

Must have been an oversight. And I’m sure she’ll post it to her own blog as soon as possible.

In any event, I don’t want to make the same mistake, so without further ado, I give you:

The Nguyen’s

Be sure to leave a comment that you came from randyphillips.net when you visit! Way to go, Pam!

This post will stay at the top of the blog until election day.
Look below for new posts.

It’s time to reveal my recommendations for state and federal issues in the upcoming election on Tuesday, November 4.

No matter if you agree or not, the most important thing is to VOTE! If you disagree, your vote will cancel my vote. If you agree, two votes are twice as good as one!

CALIFORNIA STATE ISSUES

Prop. 1A
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act

YES

Don’t you want your great-grandkids to be able to get from SF to LA in three hours?

Prop. 2
Standards For Confining Farm Animals

YES

Let’s let Miss Piggy get up and walk around a bit.

Prop. 3
Children’s Hospital Bond Act

YES

I believe that children are our future – let’s keep them healthy in safe, clean well-equipped medical facilities.

Prop. 4
Waiting Period And Parental Notification Before
Termination Of Minor’s Pregnancy

NO

This is a tough one. I voted in favor of this issue in the past, but I’m becoming more concerned with a young woman resorting to an unsafe procedure because she’s afraid to tell Mom and Dad.

Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses

YES

I think it’s a much better solution to fix offenders rather than incarcerate them.

Prop. 7
Renewable Energy Generation

NO

It’s a great idea, but 2010 is too soon to require that government-owned utilities generate 20% of their power from renewable energy – everyone’s power bills will go up to pay for inefficient technologies.

Prop. 8
Eliminates Right Of Same-sex Couples To Marry

NO

It’s been just this year that many gay friends of mine have been able to marry the ones they love like I married the one I loved once. Don’t believe the fearmongers. Let love rule!

Prop. 9
Criminal Justice System, Victim’s Rights, Parole.

YES

I’d want to know if my convicted attacker was up for parole.

Prop. 11
Redistricting

YES

I’d rather have a third uninterested party in charge of redrawing district boundaries – take the politics out!

President and Vice President of the
United States

BARACH OBAMA and JOE BIDEN

It doesn’t happen very often, but our nation faces a defining moment in history. Fundamental change is possible in a way we haven’t seen probably since 1960. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are dragging on, our once-virtuous international reputation has degenerated to one of weakness and presumption, the economy is damaged, our energy policy is a failure, the envrionment has taken a beating, all at the hands and during the watch of the incumbent party. I’m loathe to give the Republicans another chance. Obama has everything we need in a leader – clearheadedness, unambiguous expression of optimism, but with a realistic view of the sacrifice that will be required of all of us in the next few years. He will inherit a mess, but he’s the hand I want on the country’s tiller, to make the hard decisions that the other party has refused to make.

Besides, can you imagine a President Palin? That was a huge mistake, and a glaring exhibition of John McCain’s lack of sober judgement.

Please feel free to agree or disagree and post your comments. Above all -
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

This post will stay at the top of the blog until election day.

Yes, against all odd, John McCain came out on top – at least at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York on October 16. It’s been a tradition at the white-tie event (when held during a presidential election cycle) for the candidates to let their hair down a bit and take himself (and his opponent) a little less seriously. McCain (or at least his writers) won this debate hands-down.

First McCain – Part I:

McCain – Part II:

Now, Obama – Part I:

Obama – Part II: