Conservancy on Senate Floor Monday

email | August 20, 2004 | Jedd Medefind

[hedgetrimmer]

Dear Sierra Friends,

A very good Friday afternoon to you all!

In case you had not heard, I wanted to make sure you knew that the Sierra Nevada Conservancy bill, AB 2600, will be heard on the Senate Floor this coming Monday, August 23.

Senator Bruce McPherson (R—Santa Cruz) will be presenting AB 2600 as the bill’s official floor jockey.

Below, I am including material we’ve put together on the highlights of the consensus reached by Assemblyman Leslie and Assemblyman Laird and the Schwarzenegger Administration.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by phone or e mail.

Sincerely,

Jedd Medefind

--AB 2600--

Sierra Nevada Conservancy

Assemblymembers Leslie and Laird

Thirteen member voting board

• Six elected Sierra supervisors appointed locally
• Five gubernatorial appointments
• Two legislative appointments

Nine stated goal areas include:

•"Provide increased opportunities for tourism and recreation."
• "Protect, preserve, and restore the region’s … resources"
•"Reduce the risk of natural disaster, including fire"

The Conservancy Can:

•Carry out restoration, trail building, fuel load reduction, and other projects
•Purchase easements

•Give grants to local government and non-profits for projects, easements, and land acquisition

The Conservancy Cannot:

•Exercise any power of eminent domain
• Regulate land use
• Regulate activities on land owned by others
•Hold any authority over water rights held by others •Purchase land

The Conservancy Must:

•Undertake public hearings and planning with local officials and residents

•Cooperate and consult with local government and water agencies

•Require land management of any lands acquired via its grants
• Include in its planning process existing government plans, including local general plans and recreation plans

•Spread funding equitably across the region’s six sub-regions and among its stated goals.

[farmfriend]

"The Conservancy Cannot:
•Exercise any power of eminent domain
• Regulate land use
• Regulate activities on land owned by others
•Hold any authority over water rights held by others •Purchase land"

That is what they have AB 2631 for. Regulate under the invasive species bill, it also promotes native species, then when the land owner can no longer use his property the way he wants he will sell to the conservancy!

[NormsRevenge]

We already have a Regional government apparatus in the Bay Area.. it's called ABAG

Not too mention a Regional transportation body (MTC) which effectively controls all bay area transit programs, in one way shape or fashion. they support ferries and alternative modes of transportation while bridge tolls go thru the roof to support poorly run state projects .. and then have to stick it to current users to squeak by becuz the state has looted 'dedicated' transportation funds to meet general fund obligations and mandated spending.

We got gubamint coming out of all our orifices, it would seem.. ;-)

[SierraWasp]

Like I said when Gray Davis was busy squandering Pete Wilson's accidental "surplus" of $8 Billion... "We don't have a government surplus... What we have here is... Surplus Government!!!"

We've got SACOG up here in occupied territory and don't forget that LAFCO is also a state created Regional Agency that is also usurping County land-use authority in a big way!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

Yes, they are putting governmental structures in place for transportation, air, water quality and land use.

None are run by elected officials.

There is no local say in the policies because the "collective" is supreme.

[SierraWasp]

For some unknown reason, so many people have such a hard time discerning the "full court press" we are under in the rural American West! You are exactly correct in "pulling the covers" of the ulterior motives behind the "invasive species bill!"

It is not conspiracy, folks! It is orchestration right out in the open for all to see, that will see! This morning I went to my Taxpayers Group meeting and they were being presented by the local water district, with Bruce Babbit's grand "no surprises" policy of "Habitat Conservation Plans" to mitigate development through establishing HCP's!

They discussed wading through these wetlands of quicksand to try to pander to and appease the GovernMental EnvironMentalistas! They discussed how much (taxpayers) money it would take to legally "bullet proof" such a plan to make it possible to supply the water needs and infrastructure of it's service area.

It's impossible to satisfy them as you spend million trying to "Zig," they will sue the tax/rate payers for not "Zagging." And even if by some miracle, you were able to get through that quicksand, the State or Federal regulatory agencies would reneg on any commitments they make as they will not negotiate a "contract" of commitment, ahead of time.

So, therefore, it is practically impossible for any officials, elected or otherwise to put together ANY "no surprises" HCP without capitulating entirely to the wishes of the most insanely radical or our leftist/socialist society!!!

Free enterprise, free markets and control of one's own property are virtually defeated in this state, which will eventually overburden the economic viability of the world's sixth largest economy!!!

Yet we must also have a Sierra Nevada CONservancy on top of it all, from compromising "fiscally conservative" Republicans in Sacramento! How pathetic!!!

Has anyone any news of the senate hearing today?

[freesoiler]

In response I would say from personal experience one can protect land from negative events with restoration of resources, like planting riparian vegetation and stream bank stabilization to prevent cut downs from causing erosion etc.
Ranchers do this all the time, with no consideration or compensation for the water quality benefits they are bringing to downstream users.

One more than half of the board of this conservancy may be appointed, but they are appointed by elected representives. If one supports a republic as opposed to a direct democracy is this not consistent? You can't have it both ways...you can't say you support a republic instead of direct democracy if you like your representatives then support a direct democracy over a republic if you don't like them.

More than 100 million people a year visit the Sierra Nevada. They are not going there to open new mining claims, they are there to visit and recreate. By preserving histroic buildings and sites you are protecting the things they are going there to see and by improving recreational access you capture thier dollars and increase the economic contribution of those visitors.

[hedgetrimmer]

One more than half of the board of this conservancy may be appointed, but they are appointed by elected representatives. If one supports a republic as opposed to a direct democracy is this not consistent?

Creating a board to act as a layer of government between our elected officials and the citizen, is not indicative of the representative republic defined by our federal and state constitutions.

Forcing the citizens/property owners in an area to shut down their economic engines of choice, like logging, mining, ranching, farming, etc so the government can promote ecotourism is exercising tyranny over those citizens. Whatever your personal feelings about "preserving" which means preventing citizens from rightfully using their private property has its genesis in only one organization, and that is the United Nations. The United Nations Johannesburg summit on sustainable development gave the edict that US lands were to be preserved for ecotourism, and our corrupt politicians have gladly imposed an unconstitutional form of government on us, in the form of the soviet council system, to do it.

Are you from the United Nations? Or from an government organization that has been corrupted by the UN, like the EPA, the department of the interior or US forest service? Your words are not the words of a free man who values liberty. If you value liberty it is your duty as a free US citizen(if your are a US citizen) to defend the liberty and property of others. It is wrong to force the implementation of a system of subservience to a soviet style council.Thats my opinion.