I got an interesting call a few minutes ago from someone who read our story on the biker who kicked the 13-year-old kid in the jaw.

I can't vouch for the accuracy, but this caller told me that he used to ride with a guy at the Rose Bowl who had a very valuable bike. This biker, like the other, collided with a female pedestrian. Like Paul Teal, he blamed her for the collision, and got quite angry- according to the caller, he punched her in the face.

Needless to say, the caller said that was the last time he rode with the other guy, who never faced any trouble with the law.

Also, I notice from our comments section that almost none of our commenters seem to care very much for bikers in general- seems to be a lot of hostility. No doubt bikers can be obnoxious like anyone else, but as someone who rides a lot in this town, I do think it is a case of just a few bad apples. I'm kind of shocked to see so much anger focused at bikers, even for doing nothing more than riding on the streets during rush hour.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised- when I bike home after work I often see aggressive and hostile drivers who don't want me on the road. The worst is at crosswalks: even if I walk my bike across, as I am legally entitled to, cars sometimes accelerate then brake at the last minute, as if to send a message to me that I shouldn't be using the crosswalk and that I am lucky they chose to spare my life.

I think it is all part of the joys of having an overused road system where nobody can get where they want to go as fast as they like.

I had an email back and forth with Jon Dudley of the Pasadena Hockey League, in the wake of the Council's ice rink decision and he said the league is going to move its remaining teams in Pasadena elsewhere.

That will mean longer commutes for local youth hockey players- most of the teams play in Paramount, and the remaining teams that play in Pasadena, including the Maple Leafs, will likely be moved there.

Dudley said he is not willing to wait to see if the Council calls the issue back for further consideration. In his words: "We've been jerked around by the city council and staff for far too long."

We'll have more of the blow by blow of the council's deliberation on the ice rink project in tomorrow's paper, but to put a short summary on it: this was about as bitterly divided as I have seen the Council in the time I've been reporting on them.

Both Steve Haderlein and Steve Madison had some pretty serious things to say about the judgment and motives of the council members opposed to the project. Madison accused the opposition of looking for "political cover" when they subsequently voted to look into renovating the existing ice rink, saying they wanted to make it appear as if they are supporters of youth recreation in Pasadena (also suggesting that they are, in fact, not supporters).

Making matters worse was the fact that more members voted to keep the city engaged on the project than voted to kill it, and the absence of Victor Gordo meant that supporters of the project are now left to wonder where he would have come down in the vote. His support would have meant the project moved forward, at least until December.

The split isn't as surprising as it might seem- though the Council often votes together, more and more often Margaret McAustin and Terry Tornek are pushing for slow development, pro-open-space policies, while Haderlein and Madison are more often backing the business community (like in the dispute over trees). Gordo has tended to side with Haderlein and Madison, and Holden with Tornek and McAustin. Jacque Robinson has been a little bit of a wildcard, but often sides with the business side (effectively meaning each side of the dais tends to be on the same page.) Bill Bogaard, more than anyone else, is in the middle.

Again, in terms of actual votes, the Council still tends to find consensus, but the disagreements are more frequent than they used to be. Not that that is a bad thing- it just means that sometimes a couple of council members are left feeling like they fought the good fight and lost, which is how Haderlein and Madison no doubt feel right now.

Yesterday, I got my first chance to get deep into the Angeles Forest after the fire. Like most people who hike in the area, I'd been feeling a lot of anxiety about what might have been destroyed up there.

The news is not good. The lower end of the forest, up to the intersection with Big Tujunga Canyon Road, is absolutely devastated. There are stretches where there is almost no foliage left anywhere in sight. Guard rails are laying on the side of the road, the wooden posts that held them up burned to ashes. Without any trees left for wind break, yesterday's slight breeze felt very strong, sending up little dust devils whirling around the charred landscape.

There are few bright spots left for outdoors enthusiasts. Hiking trails off Big Tujunga Canyon Road will be useless. The trail up to Strawberry Peak that starts near Mt. Wilson is burned.

The backside of Mt. Wilson is one of the few exceptions in the area. Firefighters did an amazing job protecting the area, and hiking trails down in the canyon next to it could still be intact. Another bright spot is Switzer Falls, an extremely popular picnic area low in the park. Though the fire burned hillsides on either side of the canyon it sits in, the canyon itself is still mostly intact, especially right in the picnic area. The hiking trails in the area may not be open for a while, though, as trees and boulders have rolled down the hills into the canyon.

Further up in the forest is a different story. Firefighters are still battling the blazes up there. One side of Mt. Waterman is burning, but the fire does not appear to be out of control. Higher peaks are still outside of the burn area.

The area below Waterman is a mixed bag. In the Devil's Canyon area, where there are several popular campgrounds, there are some trees left standing, and some burn areas. It looks different around every curve up on Highway 2. There are still smoky hotspots in the area, and it is hard to tell exactly what has been preserved and what hasn't.

It's hard to say exactly what the future of the forest helds for recreational users: some areas will be reopened, some may not be, at least in the near future. But even in the best-case scenario the loss of great wilderness areas is very staggering, and a little hard to take once you see it with your own eyes.

The fire stopped just short of Millard Camp- or at least it was stopped there, by dedicated firefighters who managed to save the place.

Unfortunately, the hills above it have been absolutely scorched. The creek that runs through is full of dirt.

Lonnie Fehr, the campground hosts describes the place as "eerie" now that there are no children playing in the camp, no hikers walking through. Most of the time, the place is a zoo. Today all I could hear was birds chirping, and a steady stream of pebbles rolling down the eroded hillsides, like a steady drizzle.

It was amazing to stand there knowing that an hour and a half drive's away, in other places I've hiked, the same fire that burned above Millard is still burning.

I teach a journalism class over at PCC. Here is a note I found in my classroom today, on the opening day of class:

"Here are your whiteboard markers for the fall semester. You get three colors. When these dry up (or are misplaced) you will need to purchase your own. The days of unlimited supplies are in the past and possibly in the future, but they are not in the present. Blame your state legislators; blame Arnold; blame Bernie Madoff, but please understand that for now, we do not have an unlimited budget for makers (which cost about $1.20 each) for 100 faculty members. Use them wisely!"

What was absent from the note: whiteboard markers. Apparently a teacher who had already used the classroom had taken them. In the past, my experience has been the whiteboard markers stay in the classroom, not go with the teacher. Those days appear to be gone. Anyone got a spare marker?

I did some personal research into Pasadena's internet situation this week after seeing a link to a report on the average speed of U.S. Internet connection.

To make it succinct: the U.S. has lackluster Internet speed, California has lackluster Internet speed, and Pasadena does as well, at least compared to some other countries that we ought to be competitive with.

The city's has two major providers Charter and AT & T, and the fastest speed you can get from either is up to 6 mbps (megabits per second). Note the "up to." That means it isn't guaranteed to be that fast.

How does that stack up? California's average speed is 6.6 mbps. The U.S. has an average of 5.1. Japan has a 16 mbps average, Sweden, 12.7, and South Korea, a whopping 20.1.

What is discouraging for us in Pasadena, is that 6 mbps, which you can get through AT & T, costs $45 a month. Its cheapest service, which I have, costs $25 a month, and has paltry speeds of up to 768 kbps (also known as .768 mbps, less than 1/20 the average speed the enjoy in South Korea). Try watching TV episodes online with that speed, and you are pretty much guaranteed to have at least a couple of breaks for the screen to "buffer."

The "fast" connection you can get through Charter, which is more expensive than basic, gets speeds up to 1.5 mbps.

If you look at the statewide map, provided in the report, you can see that the Bay Area is generally whopping L.A. County in terms of Internet speed.

The one bright spot for Pasadena, is that we may soon have faster options from AT & T's UVerse option, which offers speeds up to 20 mbps. The company got permission last year from the council to install some cable boxes, that were somewhat controversial at the time. Those boxes may well insure that we can have faster Internet.

The question will be at what cost? I've been told from other UVerse users that in order to get fast internet you have to pay for a bundle package that includes other services, like television or a telephone line.

UPDATE: One reader mentions that he gets speeds of up to 10 mbps in Altadena with Charter. One thing I should note is that different areas may have different speeds available. This post reflects the options I get at my house in the Lamanda Park area. It does make me curious now to follow up and see if the speeds vary throughout the Pasadena/Altadena area a lot, and if so, what might be done about it.

Last week I did a story on the city's budget and their sales tax estimates, which were initially too optimistic. The quick summary on that is that the city is $2.4 million more in debt than they thought they were. And some council members think it could end up being worse when they get new sales tax numbers in October, though Michael Beck thinks it will be better.

One thing that got cut from the story and the city's budget process and optimism is the deferral of staff raises, which saved the city about $4.5 million in this year's budget. The only problem is that the one-year deferral was agreed to in May, whereas the city's budget process runs through June. That means that the staff has the right to their raises before the end of next year's budget process.

Beck, at last week's council meeting, acknowledged that to keep to the city's proposed 2009-2010 budget, the staff would have to agree to defer those raises again. Meaning, basically, the city's already dire-looking $12 million projected deficit would be higher if the city wasn't making the assumption that it can get staff to defer those raises again.

My guess is that the city is going to try to get them to defer the raises for at least one more year, rather than just two extra months, based on the expectation of city staff that the city will run a deficit in 2010-2011 again.

In the story I wrote on Pasadena's new proposed water rates, I said that some people might have to cut their water usage by up to 30 percent in order to avoid having their monthly bill go up. I arrived at the claim using the city's online water bill calculator with a purely hypothetical customer scenario.

I set myself up as having the city's smallest meter, 5/8", meaning I would likely have a smaller lot. A majority of city users have either a 5/8" or 3/4" meter, and they have the same rates.

I set my monthly usage as 10 HCF, also known as 7,480 gallons. That would set me as a relatively low user of water (assuming I lived with at least one other person), and would put me in the lowest of three billing tiers, in the current rate structure.

Currently, my water rate is $23.25. Under the new plan, my monthly bill would jump to $30.85. The bad news, is that when additional charges are added next summer, part of the plan, the bill would go up further.

So, how much can I reduce my usage to cut that bill? Let's assume I'm fairly average- I water my lawn and landscaping more than they need and shower a little too long, and wash my car without using a bucket, but don't have an excess of landscaping, don't hose down my driveway, and generally don't otherwise waste water.

City staff reports on water usage assume that a person like me should be able to cut my usage by at least 10 percent primarily by watering really carefully, and less frequently, using a bucket to wash my car, and being more conscious about shower time. So I cut my usage by 10 percent. My new bill: $27.72. Plus, it will increase again in a year.

To get to 20 percent savings, I'd probably have to put in a drip irrigation system, and put in new landscaping that uses less water. My new bill would be closer to my old one: $24.59. I would have had to invest some time and money into my yard though.

For most users to reduce their usage 30 percent, most people would have to start reducing the size of their lawn, according to staff reports. That is not a likely course of action for most people, and the utility said in its reports it doesn't expect people to cut back at this level. Those who did would now pay a monthly bill of $23.06, meaning they would have savings, at least this year.

Opponents of the increase have charged that it doesn't incentivize cutting water use. Depends on your perspective: would you just through your hands up in the air and give up when you know you are facing a higher bill no matter what, or would you frantically try to minimize the increase as much as possible?

The other argument, of course, is that those who already don't waste water will be screwed because they have no way to reduce their usage. That is valid, and is the reason the city wants to eventually switch to the budget-based system that would allocate an expected water budget to each household. People who were watering efficiently would get lower rates, and those that weren't, higher. The question is how long should it take a city to set such a system up? Phyllis Currie, of PWP says it will take until next summer just to have the information needed to phase in such a system.

The city last night did a first reading on a water ordinance it previously approved at a public hearing (read about it here). The plan basically pushes for Pasadena residents to cut their water use by 10 percent through a series of new restrictions, and sets up the possibility of larger savings.

Last night Margaret McAustin threw down the gauntlet (in a possible attempt to publicize the new rules) and challenged other council members to open their homes to a water audit to see what improvements could be made. Steve Madison took up the call.

We'll keep our eyes peeled on this one- presumably it will have better results than when a now-out-of-work journalist pestered the head of the Los Angeles Department Water of Power to release his water bills to the public.

I was briefly worried when I went to the polls an hour ago as we were rapidly approaching noon- I didn't want to get caught up in the lunch "rush." I figured maybe there might be a short wait- but there was no one there. Nobody came in during the entire time I voted.

Not a big surprise considering the low turnout predictions (the figures from early morning showed a 2.49 percent turnout), but it still felt strange compared to the line I waited through in the November election at the same polling station.

It is still lower than the L.A. county wide numbers and state-wide numbers, but Pasadena is beginning to catch up. This time last year, the city had a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, and was far lower than the county, state, and nation- it had barely increased from boom times.

I wrote an article last summer when the rate hit 5.7 percent. In it, county economist Jack Kyser opined that Pasadena's unemployment rate would not rise too much because it has so many employees who work at colleges (PCC, Caltech). Normally, in recessions that is a pretty safe job, because of the size of college endowments or state sponsorship.

This time, it didn't prove to be enough of a safeguard for Caltech employees- several dozen were laid off a few months back, making a contribution to the rising unemployment rate.

Still, I would imagine the bulk of the unemployment is coming from financial services, banking, and other white collar office jobs. By comparison, Claremont, another university town which I would think has a higher percentage of workers in college employ than Pasadena, is only at 5.9 percent unemployment.

Here are some of the signs I jotted down while at the May Day Tea Party event Friday:

*Howard Jarvis Lives!

*Fox News = Truth

*Obama's Budget a Man-Caused Disaster

*Born Free, Taxed to Death

*God asks 10 Percent, Gov't asks 39 Percent

*Spread Work Ethic, Not My Wealth

*Your 'fair share' is not my wallet!

Now that the city has (hopefully) resolved the standoff over the Colorado tree project, I think it is really time to look to the future of the city's tree plantings.

The problem the city has had has stemmed from its desire to reassure the business districts that their plans will stay intact, while also appeasing a vocal resident movement to save trees, and to plant certain kinds of trees.

As was stated at the meeting last night, three districts have current plantings scheduled. The city will let them plant- so now the issue should be what happens in the future.

One thing I believe has been overlooked in this entire debate is the fact that the city is now trying to cut resident's water consumption by 10 percent, while also looking to eventually cut it by 20 percent. According to the city's studies on the issue, getting to 20 percent will be more or less impossible unless people begin replacing their water thirsty plant species with native landscaping.

So, if the city is expecting people to begin planting native species that use less water, it seems to me that it should hold itself to the same standards. Instead of having a self-created tree rating system, as the city is now proposing, it would make more sense to simply require that only natives be planted in town. That would drastically reduce the number of possible species that would be planted, making it easier to come to consensus.

And, with the water problems the state has, I can't see how anyone can justify a future plan that would involve planting a non-native species that will need more watering. As long as the city allows the current plans to be "grandfathered" in, I doubt very much there would be a lot of protest against changing the future policy of the city.

This is becoming such a routine story you can almost just write it by template with a few key insertions. Insertion #1: name of failing institution. Insertion #2: bonus their chief executive received. In any case, the Sacramento Bee has the scoop:

California's two biggest public employee pension funds handed out millions of dollars in bonuses last year to their top executives and investment managers, despite losing billions of dollars.

Cities, like Pasadena for example, contribute money to these funds to secure pensions for their employees. CalPERS put a lot of that money into real estate, which has made the funds value plummet. Meanwhile, in an attempt to recoup losses, the institution is now pursuing a risky plan to buy bad mortgage assets from national banks in a hope that it can take advantage of firesale prices.

With regards to the pay out, our own representative Anthony Portantino has been attempting to limit top executives pay checks to $150,000 during the fiscal crisis. The legislation also called for a freeze on bonuses, but according to the Sacramento Bee, that is no longer happening:

The bill, AB 53, initially included a freeze on bonuses, but those provisions were removed "over concerns of breaking existing contracts," said Portantino spokesman Michael Tamariz.

Periodically I get angry emails from people who claim they've been unfairly targeted by the city's parking ticket contractor- there was enough concern on the issue, actually, for the Council to call for a review of the contract. Ultimately they renewed it.

Today, in a related story, one of our reporters Nathan McIntire, told me a painful story about his attempts to park on the streets of Pasadena legally overnight.

The city's overnight parking policy, like many area cities, bars people from parking without an expensive permit. The logic? I am not sure, other than that it brings in revenue.

But apparently, not only are the permits expensive, they are also hard to obtain- McIntire, who recently moved back to Pasadena into an apartment with a roommate that has just one parking spot, tried to get one and was unable to because his vehicle registration does not have a Pasadena address on it. A copy of a bill mailed to his new residence was apparently not sufficient for the city.

Now, he has a problem: his car is registered in his father's name. So to get the paperwork in proper order for the city of Pasadena, he would have to buy the car from his father, and register the new address. In the mean time, McIntire is paying for an expensive temporary parking permit.

Is this really a necessary demand for the city of Pasadena to make? Do they really need this information simply to allow someone to park on the streets overnight? After all, we do have a sizable student population in this town- many of whom drive cars registered to their parents.

Just thought I would share this tale of woe- please feel free to add additional parking grievances in the comments section.

I didn't attend the City Council meeting this week, but I have been catching up on video. As predicted by Councilman Chris Holden last week, Victor Gordo's insistence on putting the Lake Avenue ginkgo and palm planting back on the agenda spawned another painfully long meeting, with the same voices who have opposed the plan saying the same things they always have, as well as the requisite weigh-ins from the Playhouse District folks.

And it isn't over yet. Apparently it will be on the agenda at the next Council meeting on April 27.

I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the Council actually reverses course one more time and authorizes this plan. But then again, I have been surprised by some of the previous twists and turns of this saga.

Bottom line: I really hope April 27 is the meeting that puts a nail in the coffin on the issue, one way or another.

The Pasadena chapter of the national tea party movement held its event Saturday, instead of on tax day, and caught us off guard. Hence, we did not have a reporter in attendance.

Bombastic radio show host John Ziegler showed up to speak, and we hear about 200 people showed up. You can view Ziegler speaking here.

The Council approved a $162,000 contract for improvements to Central and Memorial Park Monday. $63,000 of the cost was for architectural fees for designing a bathroom, an expenditure that got Sid Tyler and Margaret McAustin. Tyler voted against the contract and McAustin abstained, after both suggested that they use the same basic park restroom design that is found elsewhere in the city.

Staff's explanation for why they need the funds was a little hard to follow. Watch for yourself here, starting at 55:24, if you are really dedicated to finding out the answer.

Janette Williams wrote yesterday about a plan for developing Colorado Boulevard, between the intersections of Lake and Mentor (also known as the view out the newsroom window):

PASADENA - Plans to restore the 1926 Constance Hotel and replace small businesses lining the 900 block of East Colorado Boulevard with new stores, restaurants and offices have started through the city process.

The plan came up as an information item in last Monday's meeting and several council members have already expressed some concern about the plan. Sid Tyler and Margaret McAustin both seemed unenthusiastic about changing the entire block, and McAustin specifically said she didn't like the idea of a multi-story development, which is what would be taking place.

Also, the duo, along with other Council members were concerned about the fact that the plan will only be heard by an officer of the Planning Department- according to Richard Bruckner, the plan does not need to go before the Planning Commission or Council unless there is a challenge to the plan filed with the city.

There was concern among the council members that a plan that would seriously change a major block along Colorado could go through without any further input from the council, the Planning Commission, or the public.

I expect we will be hearing a lot more about this plan in the future.

A ruling in the lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Tax Payer's Association appears to confirm that the transfer of funds from a city's utility to a city's general fund is a violation of state law. From the Los Angeles Times:

A Superior Court judge has issued a tentative ruling ordering the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to repay its customers nearly $30 million that city officials had hoped to spend on other services.

Why is this relevant to Pasadena? The city generally transfers about 7.5 to 8 percent of the Pasadena Water and Power budget to the city's general fund each year. This year the transfer was about 7.5 percent, somewhere around $11 million, but the latest budget recommendation is to up its increase to the full 8 percent because of its troubled budget situation.

It would not be surprising to see L.A. appeal the decision, so I doubt Pasadena will be making changes any time soon. Ultimately, the city would not have to make any changes, though it could risk a similar lawsuit to the one filed by the Howard Jarvis association.

In the long run, if the city did have to make changes, it would certainly impact the city's spending habits: transferring the funds from the city's utility has been an essential part of balancing its budget (when it does balance its budget) each year.

I've emailed Michael Beck to see if this is on the city's radar at all.

UPDATE: Beck tells me (via email) that the decision will not affect Pasadena because PWP has a different charter. I'll be speaking with someone in the city on the topic to get more detail later this week.