STEVE SMITH -- What’s up

Costa Mesa needs a chill pill. After watching two proposals -- one

absurd, the other mysterious -- go down in flames, city watchers are left

to conclude that any idea is fair game, even if it’s half-baked. In fact,

half-baked ideas get ballot consideration.

The first proposal was the ban on exhibiting exotic or wild animals in

the city limits. Because there was no mention of grandfathering these

animals, we had begun to build a secret attic for Midnight, our hamster;

Leroy, our frog; and our goldfish Sharkey, Blackfin, Garfield and Fluffy.

Thankfully, the proposed animal ordinance was withdrawn at the City

Council meeting Monday night.

But we also had to contend with the mysterious proposal, which came in

the form of three ideas to shake-up the city’s makeup. Supported at first

by both Councilmen Gary Monahan and Chris Steel, the idea was to let

voters decide not whether we should change the structure of city

government, but whether we should decide to decide.

The idea, according to Steel, was to “get the concepts on the ballot.”

Monahan agreed, which provoked a reasonable request from Councilwoman

Linda Dixon, who presented him with a couple of examples of

inconsistencies in his record on similar matters.

“There are no secrets here. There’s nothing I’m trying to hide from

anyone,” Monahan said of his proposal. Those comments were particularly

telling because up to that point, no one had accused him of keeping

secrets or trying to hide anything.

At that point, I had to lie down. Then I realized that the only way I

was going to figure all this out was to talk to an expert. So, I invited

my friend and neighbor Norm Fricker, the former championship speech and

debate coach at Orange Coast College, to explain it.

To Fricker, the restructuring proposal was contrary to what he

teaches. “We teach people that when you argue a policy, it’s your burden

to justify that policy,” he said.

Then Fricker explained the concept of presumption: “To outweigh

presumption, you have to demonstrate that there is a need for the change

you are proposing.’

Don’t go lie down, here’s what it means: The whole idea was

half-baked.

“Monahan and Steel were saying, ‘Let’s have a change and people will

provide us with the need for that change,”’ Fricker said.

One of Fricker’s most important points was about details, a subject

Monahan and Steel tried to avoid Monday.

When you are discussing policy “you have to look at the residue of the

arguments and decide whether we can justify a change,” Fricker said.

But there was no residue discussion Monday. Neither Steel nor Monahan

dared to follow the details down the line to determine whether there were

any important consequences of this action. It was, in Fricker’s words,

“Ready, fire, aim.”

In the end, the girls shot down the boys, with a 3-2 vote.

A closer look at the residue of another proposed ordinance is in

order. This one will require landlords to evict tenants accused -- not

convicted -- of drug or gang-related offenses.

Follow this policy down the line and it becomes scary if you are a

small-business owner who owns a building or buildings. No one would argue

that criminals should not get the book thrown at them. But one landlord

has expressed to me his opposition to the ordinance because it would not

only make him do a job he believes the police should do, but he’ll also

have to pay about $1,000 in court costs and attorney fees each time for

the privilege.

But there was another thought. He is also concerned about his personal

safety and the safety of his family.

Those are the details that need to be examined.

There are drugs and gangs in Costa Mesa, just as there are in every

similar community. But using the “Fricker test,” it is easy to see that

our Police Department is doing an excellent job and neither one of these

problems is so overwhelming that we have to enlist the services of

landlords -- and possibly put them in harm’s way -- to solve it.

So while there is no argument about the “whereas” of the gang and drug

problems, the “therefore” becomes another half-baked idea.

All of this is secondary to the big problem: the disappearance of

civility, compromise and thoughtful discussion in the Costa Mesa City

Council. Some council members do not look at another member they are

addressing, and in my book that’s plain rudeness. Also, it seems that now

everything is an argument.

If I thought more council members or district representation or direct

election of the mayor would make a difference, I’d lead the parade along

with our wild animals to support it. But the Costa Mesa City Council

worked well until the elections in November and it seems to me that if

the last general election caused these problems, it will be the next one

that solves them.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and freelance writer. Readers

may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at (949) 642-6086.