Saving Money, Building Parks, and Addressing Sexual Predators

Just a few more loose ends from last night's meeting:

Our city's employees are going to be staying with PERS as their health care provider.  Had we been able to complete our migration to Cigna, the city could have saved $250/employee/month.  That's somewhat over $100,000 over the course of a year.  It's unfortunate that certain council members who like to present themselves as guardians of the public treasury did not allow the shift to occur.

They argued that PERS may be more expensive now, but there's no guarantee that alternative, private insurers might not be more costly in the future.

While that may technically be true, the fact is that, when you look at historical billing rates, PERS has always been more expensive for us here in southern California than have private health care providers.


Regarding Jessica's Law in CA, it's still not clear to me who it applies to.  It definitely covers people convicted of sexual offenses but currently on probation.  It also seems to apply to those convicted of sexual offenses after November 2006, even if they are not on probation.  It does not appear to apply to convicts who are no longer on probation.

For those it does apply to, they are (among other things) prohibited from living within 2000 feet of a K-12 school or a park where children may congregate.  So if you want to make your city a "no live" zone for sexual offenders, building more parks and schools might be a good idea. 

Now, doesn't Mayor Tran's plan for a series of parks along Edison's right-of-ways sound a whole lot better?


At the last two city council meetings, concern has been expressed about the presence of "Sober Living Facilities" withn the city of Rosemead.  Not mentioned, but something else I have read elsewhere about, deals with the possibility of a city using its police powers to impose zoning restrictions on the establishment of SLFs.

In theory, an SLF provides a drug- and alcohol-free environment for recent parolees.  The concern is that it leads to a concentration of undesireables in your city.  Also, it's a fact that there are currently several such facilities in the city house sexual offenders within 2000 feet of city schools and/or parks.

Some SLF are affiliated with churches.  Others are just run by people who see this as a way to make an easy buck (the state will pay you to board parolees in your house).

If you have fewer than six parolees, there is no state licensing requirement.  Also, currently, there are no city ordinances restricting where SLF may be located.  Cities might thus find it in their interest to amend their zoning ordinances to restrict where these facilities can be placed.  In some cases, it is also suggested that a city might need to amend (or create) a city charter that empowers the city to address these facilities in its zoning codes.

I'm just thinking out loud.


They shouldn't allow just anyone to operate these, even if it's fewer than six people. People without the right social environment can relapse into their addictions. You pretty much have to teach these people how to live properly; not doing drugs isn't enough. Also, watch out for operations like Victory Outreach -- look them up online. Sketchy.