Mani-Pedi Judgment

Cleaning up browser windows, I am going to write a couple of quick blog posts. 

I am pretty laissez-faire about most things, but I am very judgmental about people who use nail salons. 

Nail salons should not exist. 

No one needs nail polish or acrylic nails. The chemicals used are not just toxic to the clients, but they poison and permanently disable the nail salon workers. 

From Nail Salon Technicians Inhale 10 Times More Chemicals Than E-Waste Workers

For a lot of people, visiting a nail salon for a manicure and pedicure is about treating themselves to a cheap but still luxurious pampering session. But for nail salon workers, it’s not only the low wages and extremely long hours while being cooped up in a small room that takes a toll on their health. A recent study found that nail technicians who work in discount salons are exposed to a wide range of chemicals that are used as flame retardants and plasticizers. 

A group of researchers from the University of Toronto found that nail salon workers’ exposure to these chemicals was 30 times higher as compared to to exposure within households from everyday products and 10 times higher than electronic waste facilities’ employees.

The damage can be cumulative and cause permanent and debilitating health damage to the workers. 

The CDC says that it also causes damage to salon workers' children. 

OSHA says 

Nail technicians working in salons across the United States face possible health hazards every day. Workers exposed to chemicals found in glues, polishes, removers, emollients and other salon products may experience negative health effects such as asthma and other respiratory illnesses, skin disorders (e.g. allergic contact dermatitis), liver disease, reproductive loss, and cancer. Additionally, workers often endure muscle strains from awkward positions or repetitive motions; and have a high risk for infection from contact with client skin, nails, or blood.

So, if you frequent nail salons, I am going to be judgmental. Harming other people needlessly is a major red flag.  

Vote No on CA Proposition 36

Do you remember when California spent more money on building and operating prisons than on higher education?  I remember.  Those were terrible times for every one involved except for the prison profiteers. 

[We are still grappling with the aftermath as public university tuitions soared, UCs made up lost revenue by admitting out-of-state students instead of qualified in-state students, and student loan balances approached the size of mortgages for their parent's generation.]

Rehabilitation and reintegration into society are hard to explain in a soundbite. They are not as catchy as "3 Strikes and you are out!", but they have more evidence showing that they work and they are more cost-effective. 

I am not going to link to that awful LA Times article about the person who was let out of prison, only to commit a murder. You can always find a few recidivism stories. But, you will rarely find a news story about rehabilitated prisoners who successfully reintegrate into society because they very understandably need their privacy. 

You will also not read stories of the children whose parent came home from prison, possibly on "supervised release" where they wear a GPS ankle bracelet. Even a parent on supervised release can perform childcare so that their co-parent can go to work. This can prevent a family from falling into poverty and repeating the cycle. 

Crime statistics show that crime is going down at the same time that we are using evidence-based principles to decide appropriate punishments/rehabilitation, and to reduce prison populations. This is the time to stay the course. Do not harm families, bankrupt the state, and steal our futures again. 

Criminal justice reform, just like climate change mitigation and adaptation, requires clear-eyed analysis of the complex issues, and consistent practice of evidence-based solutions. It takes time, but it is worth it. 

While you are voting, please reflect upon why it is easier to build prisons than college dorms and vote for people who will help build college dorms and more housing in general. 

Need more convincing? Read League of Women Voters California's recommendation of why to vote no on 36. 

Read all of LWVC's Ballot Measure Recommendations. 

Open Space is Working Land

The framing of Eastern Sierra housing crunch: With all this open land, why are so many workers living in vans? made me scream internally in rage. 

In Mono County "more than 90 percent of the land is owned by conservation-minded government agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the federal Bureau of Land Management and, most controversially, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power." 

Public open land is usually not developed for a reason. Read the legal definition of Open Space. Most importantly, Open Space has value for ecosystem services (that may indirectly help humans). 

Open space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes; rivers, streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands.

One of the reasons for acquiring US Forest Service lands is to protect watersheds for downstream users (farmers and urban users). If you don't see any buildings or roads on it, the land is working as intended. I don't want to get into a debate about whether it is appropriate to divert water from the Eastern Sierras for the City of Los Angeles. But, if this is the headwaters for a water supply (one of many) for 4 Million people, it is correct to protect the upper watershed from housing development & the roads necessary to service the housing. The USFS lands protect watersheds for other downstream users, including wildlife and farmers. 

Mono County is over 2 million acres, 94% of which is publicly-owned.  This leaves 120,000 acres of privately-owned land that could potentially be used for housing. About 7,500 people reside in the Mammoth Lakes region and another 35,000 visit annually. You can easily find enough space to house workers if you build densely enough in already-developed areas. The only thing preventing you is imagination and bad zoning. (You will also have to do some infrastructure work, but it will be much less than if you continued the sprawl development pattern.)

The population density of Mono County is 4 people per square mile. Even if you add in visitors (vacation home owners), the density is still < 20 ppl/sq mi. In contrast, my census tract in suburban Los Angeles County has 18,000/sq mi. If you use only the 6% of private land, that's still only ~500 ppl/sq mi. I know that some of the land is not suitable for housing, but there is still lots of room to build infill housing if the local government were to allow it. 

Not allowing denser housing in town, near the jobs, is causing the homelessness euphemistically called "Van Life". Small towns can build social workforce housing so that workers won't have to compete with vacation home buyers. Salida, CO is doing that. They are building UP--allowing mixed use housing above downtown commercial space. They purchased land downtown to build a 100% affordable workforce housing project. Why don't the Mono and Inyo county towns do something similar? Infill workforce housing of < 100 units is exempt from CEQA (Class 32). 

I was incredulous when I learned that the communities did not have public bathrooms and showers. It would not take that much space and $ to build public bathrooms and showers. Colorado mountain towns often have laundromats that sell showers. (So refreshing after a backpacking trip.) Why don't the CA towns build their own public showers or partner with a laundromat to add showers?

Don't whine about others so you can perpetuate sprawl. Make bathrooms and showers available in the short term. Upzone the small towns and keep everything compact, affordable and sustainable.