Posted on 05/27/2004 6:11:18 AM PDT by forester
Additional background info:
A Sierra Umbrella? - Conservancy proposed to protect Mountain Range
Also, there's a little typo "crate" instead of create...
Thanks forester... Yooo da MAN!!!
Rose has done a good job for a long time.
One thing that bothers me about this "conservancy" is that the powers of the Coastal Commission have already been ruled unconstitutional. Have they figured out a "get around" with this conservancy or are they just trying the same thing again knowing that it will be ten years before the courts strike it down?
Try as I might, to be civil and think of anything supportive to say about this... and NOTHING comes to mind!!!
I'm sure the Governor and the head of the resources agency who came up through the CA Farm Bureau will never listen to anything I say on this as I've never supported either of them. I'm afraid our only hope is if those who supported him, talk turkey to him before it's too late and an embarrassing mistake is made with 1/3rd of CA's future!
This is just simply compound insanity and will become a huge embarrassment to Arnold and his party if they don't stop it NOW!!!
Thanks for the ping, and the links, and especially the talking points. I've been having some trouble coming up with a good letter to the Govenor. Also, I want to include my concerns about his "about face" on the drivers license issue in the letter.
Govenor=Governor.
I'd better remember how to spell before I write anything to anyone...
Hey Owl person... Just makin sure you got pinged to this!!!
I agree with the waspman. So little is known about conservancys that it will be years before the full impact is realized. Incrementalism is the name of the game, and vague gibberish wording is the means to a socialist end. As hedgetrimmer stated in the first thread:
The government gibberish is a bill that is about to become law. We cannot have a government by the people and for the people when the people don't analyse and understand the laws the most corrupted ones in Sacramento want to force on us. The bill is not gibberish, everything in it has meaning and purpose. If a statement is vague, it means the politicians want to interpret it very broadly after it passes which means bad news for us. If the bill is specific, understand what they are telling you, most of the time it is very bad for us.
I'm going to talk to Julie Clausen today sometime. I'll let you know what progress I make there.
Best to keep your letters to one subject. That also gives you and excuse to write more letters and magnify and amplify your response.
I know... more stamps, but believe me I used to get these letters and the ones containing multiple rants were just too much to deal with, or comprehend quickly, or even respond to, quickly. Time is of the essence, as always!
BTT!!!!!!!
Haven't seen you guys on these threads yet.
Bump!
Sorry for the oversite. You are not on any of my standard lists.
Thanks for the ping!
I just faxed a letter to the guv, then faxed a cc to Leslie, as below:
Please feel free to use, reuse, recycle, etc. any of it you like.
(HEY! ...This is all about *CONSERVATION*, ISN'T it??? ...grin)
Thanks for, and Good Luck with, your fine efforts on behalf of all us California citizens.
--Seadog
May 27, 2004
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger VIA FACSIMILE: 916-445-4633
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 - Fax: 916-445-4633 - governor@governor.ca.gov
RE: PROPOSED SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY
Dear Governor Schwartzenegger
I strongly support Assemblyman Tim Leslie’s vision in this matter – that the creation of this conservancy without meaningful local controls would be a disaster – and urge you to support him in his efforts to insure that any conservancy so created will answer, and at all times be accountable, to the citizens within the areas directly affected.
The proposed conservancy gives cause for serious concern. Countless problems have been created in the past by state employees with no accountability to the people and little connection to the areas their decisions impact. Like you, Governor Schwartzenegger, it is my desire to see government become more responsive and connected to the people, not less so. If there is to be a Sierra Nevada Conservancy, it must be built upon respect for and collaboration with the people who live in the Sierra. Such a conservancy should be established only if its design requires collaborative decision-making. The Conservancy board must contain strong representation from the Sierra region, and, more importantly, any major board action must be based upon general consensus with local elected officials.
Local governments are responsible for local land use planning and decisions, and are held accountable by their constituents for such decisions. Unless local government has the ability to say "no" to conservancy acquisitions it finds objectionable, the conservancy will have the power to approve acquisitions with no local oversight.
Giving local communities a true voice would be unique for a conservancy. However, any conservancy stretching across the entire Sierra Nevada would be unique. No existing conservancy contains the vast area, diverse sub-regions, and varied land uses encompassed by the Sierras.
The best government efforts always draw from the perspective, volunteerism, and commitment of local communities. By ensuring the conservancy only undertakes projects embraced by local communities, we can create the goodwill and trust critical to effective efforts.
Lastly, any new conservancy should not be funded on the backs of already-overburdened taxpayers. The State already owns vast amounts of land, and has insufficient resources to properly maintain the lands it already owns. How can Sacramento lawmakers now justify creating another agency in the business of buying up more land, while the state is dealing with a severe budget deficit affecting education, healthcare, fire protection and other vital services? Buying up more land already reduces the tax rolls upon which cash-strapped state and local governments rely. In these tight times, California taxpayers are already overburdened, and still paying for, the consequences of previous bad decisions at the state level (…such as the legislature’s energy “deregulation” disaster). Californians simply cannot afford further attempts by state legislators to play ‘Lady Bountiful’ with taxpayer funds. Unless any new conservancy’s funding is drawn from existing conservation programs, the new conservancy would only add to, and exacerbate the existing budget burden the state, and our local governments, are facing now.
I therefore urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to adopt and support Assemblyman Tim Leslie’s vision, so that any new state agency created has both the necessary local oversight, and does not further negatively impact the already exceedingly difficult state and local budget situations.
Sincerely,
cc: Tim Leslie (R-CA4)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.