Sac County Ordinance: Dogs Must Be On A Leash!!

By U.S. Air Force Photo by Josh Plueger. Postwork by Dove (Derivative work from) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Do you see dogs running around without a leash in your neighborhood here in South Sac?  They pee and poop all over your yard, mark your car's tires and create havoc.  Sometimes big dogs harass smaller dogs, real dog walkers, or pedestrians.  It's common to see people walking in South Sac carrying golf clubs or just big sticks for protection.  The people who allow their dogs to run loose - besides being inconsiderate - are breaking the law!!!

The Sacramento County document titled Animals (Title 8) covers everything about animal control, including rabies, permits, vicious animals, and cats. The section below (8.08.056) is information pertaining to dogs off-leash.

Definition of AT LARGE: "At large" means an animal off the premises of its owner and either: a) not under the control and in the immediate presence of the owner, or b) if a dog or a cat, not under physical restraint. (SCC 0815 § 2, 1990; SCC 304 § 4, 1977; Ord. 1053 § 7, 1969).

8.08.056 DOGS AT LARGE.

No person shall permit or suffer a dog to stray from private property owned or legally possessed by the dog owner or the person who has a right to control the dog unless the dog is restrained by a leash or lead not exceeding eight feet in length, except in the following situations:

1) When the dog is assisting a peace officer who is engaged in law enforcement duties or when the dog is participating in a search and rescue effort at the specific request of a law enforcement authority;

2) When the dog is enrolled in and actually participating in a dog training or obedience course, exhibition, or competition conducted by an organization or private or public property with the permission of the owner or operator of the grounds or facilities;

3) When the dog is assisting the owner of person in charge of livestock in the herding or control of such livestock; or

4) When the dog is accompanying and under the direction of a person engaged in hunting on land which is within a restricted shooting district as defined in Section 9.40.060 of the Sacramento County Code.

The question is do you want to confront your neighbors and create hate and discontent, or just call animal control and see if they ever show up.

Two South Sac Bicyclists Killed in June - Where's Our Supervisor?

Ever See a Sac County Supervisor Bicycling in South Sacramento?

By Villy Fink Isaksen (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

UPDATE:  Today (6/28) The day after this post was originally published, we learned that a bicyclist was struck by a light rail train in the City of Sacramento.  See here.  Can we start talking more about bicycle safety and better infrastructure?

Two bicyclists were hit and killed this month by motorists in South Sacramento.  That's not okay, and our local leaders need to step up and advocate for bicycling and pedestrian safety.

Last year, the Sacramento Bee published an article entitled, "Sacramento is not a friendly city for cyclists," by Daniel Weintraub. 

In addition to describing how difficult it is to bicycle in the City, Weintraub noted that bicycling to the City - such as from unincorporated South Sacramento - is dangerous.

"Bike trails are almost nonexistent, and bike lanes outside the city center either don’t exist or aren’t continuous. They end randomly or are squeezed by traffic structures and shifting vehicle lane widths. Cars, trucks and buses speed by inches from your ear as drivers rush to and from work."

In fact, Weintraub might have been writing specifically about South Sacramento when he added:

"These problems are especially bad in the city’s lower-income neighborhoods, where more people depend on bikes as their only form of wheeled transportation. Bike lanes are even sparser, and the roads tend to be vast arterials designed to move cars quickly without regard to the safety of cyclists or pedestrians."

more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/the-conversation/article26030500.html#storyl

As they used to say, if they can put a man on the moon, why can't they come up with road designs where bicyclists won't get killed?  Actually they have, see here and here.  The solution boils down to funding and political will.

We realize that Sacramento County Supervisors must contend with numerous important issues, but the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians must be one of those issues.  If it's true, as Weintraub suggests, that bicycling is particularly dangerous (even terrifying) in areas such as South Sac, and design solutions are available, then shouldn't our County Supervisor be doing more to give us safer streets here?

Supervisor Kennedy?

Death From Bicycling

The first June bicycling fatality occurred when a bicyclist turned right on to French Road from a driveway.  You can read more about that accident here.

The map below shows the general location - the accident occurred south of the marker.




The second fatality - from a hit and run accident - occurred last Friday on the 4200 block of Stockton Boulevard, south of San Francisco Boulevard.  More on that accident can be found here.




Here in South Sacramento we're sadly familiar with bicycling deaths.  Last April a bicycle rider was hit by a car and killed as he rode south on Center Parkway C Parkway.  You can read about that accident here.




And before that, in 2014, a woman bicyclist was hit by a truck and killed on Florin Perkins Road, near Elder Creek. The story for that accident is here.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/the-conversation/article26030500.html#storylink=

A Good Thing About Living in South Sac . . .

Incredible Farmers Market!

Here's a short post to give favorable mention about the Farmers Market in South Sacramento.  It's held every Thursday, from 8:00 a.m to 12:00 noon, in the Florin Mall parking lot in front of Sears.



The photo below shows our latest "harvest" consisting of white peaches, nectarines, green beans, big beefy tomatoes, green bell peppers, 2 heads of cabbage, and bok choy.  All for just $8.00!!

The fruit is sooo sweet, like candy.  Amazingly delicious.  You can't buy produce this good in stores.

More pics . . .

The Game of Life and How to Play It – Chapter 3

The Law of Love

By Katarina Caspersen (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

If you've been following South Sac Blog, then you know that I have been reviewing a very interesting book entitled, The Game of Life and How to Play It, by Florence Scovel Shinn. This short book was written in 1925, and I would describe it as an outline of life's principles based on Shinn’s Christian spirituality. My post for Chapter 1 is here, and Chapter 2 is here.

In Chapter 1, Shinn introduces her concepts by explaining that for most of us, life is a struggle. But that is because we don’t realize that life is a game, and we are not playing by its rules. Those rules are not specifically taught in schools as such, or even in homes. Although some people may stumble on a few of them over time, and even apply them with good results. Living by these rules, according to Shinn, will bring you true happiness and success.

Shinn goes on to write in Chapter 1 that life is a game of giving and receiving. Always remember the Golden Rule: "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you." But take this a few steps further. Shinn reminds us that just thinking ill of someone is the same as actually performing a bad act. So instead of thinking evil, think and visualize good. You must learn to see clearly in your mind the accomplishment of your goals. This includes removing all mental images of negativity, or evil. So learn how to visualize yourself achieving your goals - and practice regularly!

In Chapter 2, Shinn introduces us to the New Thought principle of prosperity, which holds that God is the ultimate supplier of everything that is good, not your employer, and not the government. God is our supply, and this is true for every situation or need. So remember to pray, and pray correctly. Shinn reminds us that Jesus gave specific direction for how to pray. She quotes Matthew 21:22: “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” So when you ask in prayer, you must believe that you already received it.

So now on to Chapter 3: "The Power of the Word." This chapter seems to me to be a further extension of the Golden Rule. In Chapter 1, Shinn warns that you should not think evil of another, and this chapter is an elaboration of that principle. Words have power, and Shinn cautions us that whatever you voice, you will attract. And sometimes, the results can be literal. Speak of a certain disease often enough, and you are likely to attract it to yourself.

Therefore, you must remind yourself only to use your words for three purposes, to heal, bless, and prosper. That includes what you speak about others, for what you wish for another, you are actually wishing for yourself. This leads us to what Shinn calls the "Law of Love." She references Jesus' new commandment from John 13:34: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Of course it makes no difference whether you considered another person to be your friend or your enemy. You are still directed to "love one another." After all, anyone can show love to your friend, but try extending your hand to your enemy.

Indeed, Shinn says that expressing love to one another in this Game of Life takes "every trick." 

I can think of an example from current events that demonstrates how difficult it can be to practice this principle. A few days ago, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch made some remarks that seemed to ignite a hailstorm of hate and discontent.

When speaking to the LGBT community after the recent attack on the Orlando nightclub, Lynch said:

“The good in this world far outweighs the evil. Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love. We stand with you today because we grieve together, and long after the cameras are gone will continue to stand with you as we grow together in commitment and solidarity and in equality.”

After making these comments, Lynch was ridiculed for suggesting that the way to fight ISIS is with love.  Read her comments carefully. When I do I feel she was saying we must show love and compassion to the victims of terrorism.  But even if she was saying that we should respond to  terrorists with love, those sentiments seem to be a perfect expression of Jesus' new commandant, love one another.  The responses were terrible, however.  Someone wrote: "Attorney General’s Plan To Fight Terrorism Translates Loosely To ‘Hug It Out.’" Another questioned if the Attorney General was "really that naïve?" One stated with disgust: "According to Lynch, the ultimate weapon in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism is… love."

So Lynch's statement, seemingly based on profound Christian principles - the Law of Love as Shinn would say - was misunderstood and poorly received. Those that attacked Lynch cannot seriously consider themselves to be Christian. Consider this passage from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 

Practicing the Law of Love in this world does seem to invite a sort of crucifixion. But the reason there is so much hate in this world, is because there is not enough love.

In Chapter 3, Shinn began writing about the Power of the Word, and finished with the Law of Love. If I could distill Chapter 3 into one more Rule for the Game of Life, it would be this: Because words - spoken or unspoken - are so powerful, and because violating the Golden Rule has karmic consequences, you must not wish harm on any person, only love. Love protects.

My chapter reviews are not meant as complete summaries. They are not a substitute for reading the book yourself. Shinn provides many examples and anecdotes to make her points that I do not include in my brief blog posts. They help to explain her spiritual teachings much better than I could.

Taco Fresco Burgers & Fries Continues to Amaze!

Even Better Than We First Thought!

As we posted here, in the Search for the Best Crispy Fried Tacos in South Sacramento, Taco Fresco Burgers & Fries - on Florin Road just east of Power Inn Road - took the early lead.  Their crispy fried fish and shrimp tacos, with freshly made corn tortillas (you can watch them make them!), and then fried until puffy, with delicate fish or shrimp, and their own sauce, set the high standards for deliciousness and freshness.  I just haven't found any tacos like this anywhere else in Sac Town.

But we put those tacos in their own category - fish and shrimp - tacos, because that's how they are listed on the menu at Taco Fresco.  In other words, the other tacos at Taco Fresco, with carnitas, beef, and chicken, are offered on the menu with the soft - non-fried - corn tortilla.

We returned to Taco Fresco the other day to verify our belief, and to our pleasant surprise, we discovered that we were wrong.  So to clarify:  The amazing crispy fried tacos at Taco Fresco Burgers & Fries are available with any filling they have, such as fish, shrimp, as well as beef, pork, and chicken!   All you have to do is ask.  People, these tacos are incredible.  For one thing, where else do they make their own corn tortillas?  Why there isn't a line out the door here is beyond me.

Here's some pics of their fluffy fried tacos, one with carnitas and the other with chicken.  Note the generous servings of cheese.

It gets even better.  As you can see, we also ordered a torta with carnitas, and  . . .

Our minds and taste buds were completely blown.  It was delicious!  The bun and carnitas by themselves would have been tasty and filling, but as you can see, the torta also has fresh avocado, jalapeno, lettuce, and tomato.  I think I would rather get one of these than a sandwich at Togos, or Subway - and I do love my Subway tuna fish sandwich on Fridays.  But check out this offering from Taco Fresco:

Size comparison.  Two tacos and one torta (cut in half).  This hearty sandwich will fill you up.

Taco Fresco also has a pick-up window for telephone orders.

In our search for the best crispy fried tacos in South Sac, Taco Fresco Burgers and Fries is the clear front runner.  But we are ditching the larger chain restaurants to investigate the smaller establishments like Taco Fresco.  We suspect there are other taquerias out there in South Sac that will pleasantly surprise us.  And we are determined to find them!

There is so much delicious food down in here in South Sac, thanks to this region's diversity, that we are in awe.  

Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill - No Crispy Fried Tacos

Not a Contender for Best Crispy Tacos

South Sac Blog's search for the best crispy fried tacos in South Sacramento continued yesterday at Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill.  Alas, Rubio's is not even a contender, because they don't offer crispy fried tacos.

As I blogged here, when I was growing up, my mother, who was Mexican-American, made tacos by wrapping the filling in a soft corn taco and then frying it in a skillet. That's how her mother made them. When prepared properly, the corn tortilla is slightly crispy, but not anything like the dreadful hard shell taco sold in boxes.  Because it was soft, the tortilla absorbs the juices and flavors of the seasoned meat filling and oil, making it moist and soft inside - and muy delicioso!

The problem is that although I have lived here in South Sac for 13 years now, I had not stumbled upon an establishment that sells those delicious crispy fried tacos like my dear mother used to make. So we have devoted the resources of South Sac Blog to identify any local restaurants and taquerias that do prepare them that way.

Rubio's is famous for its fish tacos so we were anxious to see if crispy fried tacos were also on the menu.  We went to the Rubio's in South Sacramento, on Bruceville.  It's right behind the Target.




We strolled to the counter and inquired about Rubio's tacos.  No, we were told, there are no crispy fried tacos made there.  But something called the "'Grilled Gourmet Taco' has toasted cheese, and offers a bit of crunch, so why not try that?"  I agreed and ordered the two taco plate (comes with rice and beans), with my second taco being the "Classic Taco" for comparison.  South Sac crew members ordered various soft tortilla fish tacos.

The lunch crowd was there consisting of professional types from the nearby medical offices.  The atmosphere was pleasant and welcoming.  We found some empty tables and waited for our orders.

Here's my taco plate:

The Grilled Gourmet Taco offers a blend of mozzarella, Monterey jack, and white cheddar heated directly on a hot flat grill until it’s melted and toasted.  This cheese mixture is then layed on a warm, stone-ground corn tortilla to create the foundation for the rest of the taco.  The filling has your choice of meat, bacon, avocado, cilantry, onion and two chile sauces.  I wish the grilled cheese bed had been a little thicker.  I thought the chile sauces tended to drown out the flavors of the other items.

The Classic Taco has fresh guacamole, cheese, salsa fresca, lettuce, and is drizzled with chipotle sauce.

Quite honestly, I thought my tacos were okay.

I didn't care much for the large drizzling of sauce.  I thought it made the tacos too wet and runny.  I had terrible heartburn an hour later and I suspect it came from the chipotle sauce.  But everyone is different and your tummies may vary.  I left disappointed, because I'm searching for a taco prepared in a particular way, and didn't find one.  However . . .

I must emphasize that my reaction is not a reflection on the other items on Rubio's menu.  There are seafood tacos which crew members raved about.  It's obvious Rubio's has made an effort to infuse its seafood offerings with rich flavors.  The fish and shrimp have a nice seared exterior with delicate interior.  The fish tacos come with traditional cabbage or slaw on top, and are made with Mahi Mahi, Tilapia, or Salmon.    

Also on the Rubio's menu are seafood burritos, regular burritos, quesadillas, enchiladas, and other items.  The Rubio's down on Bruceville offers a pleasant place to sit down and enjoy lunch or dinner. We didn't see any unhappy faces.  I would stick to their famous fish tacos if I returned.

So there it is.  In our search for the best fried crispy fried tacos in South Sac, the amazing Taco Fresco Burgers & Fries holds on to its early lead.

We're going to venture back into the wonderfully diverse heart of South Sac for our next review.

Court Provides Temporary Victory for Farmworkers' Rights

Anti-Union Lawsuit Stalls

You didn't see this in the news - at least we didn't anyway - but recently the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (in Fresno) handed the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) a temporary victory in an ongoing case called Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould IV.

In Cedar Point, which we first mentioned here, employers are trying to turn back the clock on farm workers by threatening their hard-earned right to organize.

Short History Lesson

First, some background for you non-native Californians unfamiliar with the century long struggle of farm workers in this State, or those California-born residents of privilege who never cared. Ever wonder how you're able to enjoy the fruits and vegetables that end up on your dinner table?

South Sac Blog Photo

Well of course they come from farms. But do you realize most were handpicked by workers who endure hours of back breaking labor in the fields and orchards for nothing more than minimum wage?

Jack Delano [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Machinery can't be used to individually pick fruits and vegetables from plants. No. Laborers, often stooped over in the hot Central Valley sun and with blistered fingers and hands, must painfully wield the tools of their trade that have been used by farm workers for centuries, such as knives, hoes, clippers, and pruners.

California farm workers have always had it rough. From the 1800's, when thousands of oppressed Chinese and Japanese laborers were brought to work in the fruit orchards and sugar beet fields, to the 1930s and 40s when Filipino workers labored in pitiful working and living conditions and endured racially motivated assaults, to the 1960s when Mexican farm workers continued to face deplorable living and working conditions, farm workers of all minority races often lived in mosquito-infested bunkhouses and shacks without electricity, running water, or bathrooms. All endured racial discrimination, mistreatment, and depressed wages. Growers kept workers separated and isolated, even pitting minority groups against each other. 

In the 1960s and early '70s, farm laborers won better working conditions as a result of the merger of two workers' rights organizations, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) led by Filipino organizer Larry Itliong, and the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) led by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta. The two organizations formed the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee on August 22, 1966. This organization was accepted into the AFL-CIO in 1972 and changed its name to the United Farm Workers Union.

In 1975, California enacted the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA), creating the ALRB. The ALRB is responsible for the prevention of unfair labor practices that impede the free exercise of farm workers' rights.

Consequently, at the end of the 1970s, California farm workers were among the highest-paid farm laborers in the U.S. But these gains were short-lived. 

Today, California's agricultural laborers continue to endure jobs that pay minimum wage and often less, and are mostly unable to find permanent year-round work. At a hearing in September of 2015, the ALRB heard testimony that farm workers remain largely unaware of their labor rights because of a number of communication barriers: 1) Reaching employees directly offsite is difficult because of the long hours that agricultural employees work; 2) Many workers are not literate in Spanish or English, and lack access to the internet because of the high cost of data plans and computers; 3) Workers’ lack of language and computer literacy means that online outreach efforts have largely unsuccessful; and 4) Farm workers remain fearful about exercising their rights and face-to-face communication is critical in helping them overcome these fears.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould IV

The lawsuit by Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company is a legal challenge to an ALRB regulation - the Access Regulation - that facilitates the sacred rights of farm workers to organize. The freedom of association guards an individual's right to become part of a group for the protection of his or her rights. It is an explicit aspect of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stemming from the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. It is the freedom of association which creates the possibility for citizens to win other freedoms, and is closely linked with the right to organize.

ALRB's Access Regulation provides that “the rights of employees" include “the right of access by union organizers to the premises of an agricultural employer for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees and soliciting their support.” In other words, as a result of the long history of oppression by California growers against their own workers, representatives of a union are allowed by law to enter farm lands where laborers work in order to inform them of their legal rights. 

The Access Regulation does not allow union representatives unfettered access to private property. For example, consider these limitations: 

1. The union must provide notice to the ALRB and the employer of its intent to appear onsite.
2. No organization may appear for more than four thirty-day periods in any calendar year.
3. Organizers may only enter an employer’s property “for a total period of one hour before the start of work and one hour after the completion of work” and for “a single period not to exceed one hour during the working day for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees during their lunch period.”
4. Access is limited to a certain number of organizers (depending on the number of employees) and organizers are not allowed to engage in “conduct disruptive of the employer's property or agricultural operations, including injury to crops or machinery or interference with the process of boarding buses.”
5. Organizers are only allowed to meet with employees in areas “employees congregate before and after working” or “at such location or locations as the employees eat their lunch.” 

Organizers that violate the above provisions may be barred from accessing employers’ properties.

In papers filed with the court, the employers - Cedar Point and Fowler - disclosed that union reps entered their property on only one occasion.  Accordingly, they do not contend that the Access Regulation deprives them of “all economically beneficial use” of their properties.

Despite these facts and the limitations enumerated above, Cedar Point and Fowler, claim that, in its implementation, the Access Regulation amounts to both a “taking” of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and an unlawful seizure of their private property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They sued the ALRB in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment stating that the Access Regulation is unconstitutional as applied to them and an order enjoining the ALRB from enforcing the regulation against them.

Back in February the employers filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to immediately enjoin the ALRB from enforcing the Access Regulation on their properties. The court rejected the employer's Fifth Amendment "takings" claim in April, finding the employers were not likely to succeed on that claim. The employers argued that the Access Regulation constitutes a per se/categorical physical taking of their properties, because it infringes on their right to exclude strangers from entering on to their lands. The court found that the plain language of the Regulation simply does not allow the "permanent physical occupation" of the employers' properties that would violate the Fifth Amendment.

But the court asked the parties for more briefing regarding the employers' Fourth Amendment - unlawful search and seizure claim. Having received that briefing, the court issued another decision on May 26th. In that decision, the court found that: 1) Cedar Point and Fowler were not likely to succeed on their Fourth Amendment claim; 2) the Access Regulation was reasonable; and 3) the employers cannot show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm, because they failed to demonstrate that the regulation causes constitutional injury. Therefore, the court denied the employers' motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety.

What's Next?

Still pending before the court is a motion filed by the ALRB for the court to dismiss the case. If the court grants that motion, the employers are almost certain to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. If the court denies the motion, the parties will probably complete discovery and file additional dispositive motions before having to go to trial.

The employers must respect the rights of workers to organize, but so must union officials respect the property rights of growers. The court's May decision indicates that the employers can take, and have taken, other measures to protect their rights against unlawful trespass by union reps that disrupt their business activities. Cedar Point has apparently filed charges with the ALRB that the union reps entered their property in a manner that violated the Access Regulation. We hope the ALRB takes a fair and objective look at that claim, and initiates appropriate action if warranted.  That seems like a more reasonable approach to ensure that peaceful and productive agricultural work continues, while safeguarding the mechanism to protect workers' rights.