Julie Al-Huneidi 
Member since Sep 30, 2013


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Brown Should Kill the Water Tunnels — Not High-Speed Rail

Comparing the importance of the creation of California high speed rail to the creation of the water tunnels of the Sacramento Delta is comparing apples to oranges. Water in California is vital whereas high speed rail would be nice. These water tunnels are yet, another phase of the original plan to hydrate parts of CA that do not have water for the profit of a few at the price of many. The profit goes to the few engaged in agribusiness in the arid portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the homeowners and the businesses that provide services to those homes in SOCAL. The price is Northern California's environment and the livelihood of family farms and ranches, some of which have existed since the Gold Rush - decades before water rights were an issue. In 1908, to enable the development of housing and pad the pockets of land developers in Los Angeles, construction of the Los Angeles Aquaduct began. Go to this link, http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyof…, to read the history of the Los Angeles Aquaduct that redirects NORCAL water to facilitate land development and benefit those homes in LA. *Note the project was originally named the "Los Angeles Aquaduct" not the "California Aquaduct", which is the current name on signage implicating complete acceptance of the project by all Californians. Is it okay to allow the long-time, family-owned agricultural businesses and environment of NORCAL be sold out for the benefit of SOCAL homeowners and the agribusiness in the dry parts of the San Joaquin Valley where farming/ranching is a new endeavor? I don't think so.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Julie Al-Huneidi on 12/06/2013 at 5:06 PM

Re: “The Case for Private Security Guards

Actually, Leonard is wrong about the background check and security training for security guards in California. In order to work as a security guard a security guard needs to receive a license from the CA Dept of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. In order to apply for that license they must complete 40 hours of training, receive a clear DOJ and FBI background check and then 8 hours of annual training after the first licensed year. It is not equivalent to law enforcement requirements but they do have to pass a background check and security training. If the guard is armed they have more training to complete and pass. I realize this doesn't really help the dichotomy of protection Oakland but let's not pick on the security guards either. They do have their place in our society and respectfully, they earn the right for that place.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Julie Al-Huneidi on 09/30/2013 at 4:37 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation