CA freepers, RED ALERT Thread 2

Alliance for America ^ | May 2, 2004 | Rose Comstock

[forester]

Sierra Conservancy bills - Gov needs to hear from you

DATE: MAY 2, 2004

TO: ALL GRASSROOTS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS . . . . . . . . . . . (PLEASE SHARE WITH YOUR LIST OF CONTACTS)

FROM: ROSE COMSTOCK - PRESIDENT - ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA           www.allianceforamerica.org

WHAT:    Wednesday of this week the California Assembly Appropriations Committee approved two bills that would establish a Sierra Nevada Conservancy.

Governor Schwarzenegger has indicated that he intends to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy during his first term in office. These two bills-AB 1788 and AB 2600-present radically different ways of doing so.

AB 2600 by Assemblyman Laird (D-Santa Cruz) would give Sierra residents virtually no say in the conservancy's operations. In contrast, AB 1788 by Assemblyman Leslie (R-Tahoe City) would create an entirely new type of conservancy. It would ensure that a large portion of the conservancy board is comprised of locally-elected officials, and it would give local communities the right to say "no" to projects they find objectionable.

Yesterday, however, staff members of the Appropriations Committee removed the parts of AB 1788 that gave local communities a "veto" power over objectionable projects.

Assemblyman Leslie has stated unequivocally that he will actively oppose any Conservancy language that does not provide local communities a point of real leverage in the decision-making process. If he cannot amend AB 1788 and return meaningful local influence to the bill, he wishes to "assure the residents of the Sierra that he will drop his own bill and actively oppose any attempts at creation of a conservancy-regardless of the possibility that AB 2600 may become the law of California."

ACTION: There is only a small window of opportunity to generate pressure to reinstate language that ensures strong local voice in the conservancy decision-making process! Both bills are headed for the Assembly Floor next week. Governor Schwarzenegger, the Resources Agency, and members of the Assembly need to hear from you! Governor Schwarzenegger can still intervene, but he will only do that if he gets strong pressure from all of us.  Make your calls beginning Monday, May 24th, send your faxed letter and emails all next week until a vote occurs.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_homepage.jsp State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 governor@governor.ca.gov

Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman

California Resources Agency Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 Phone: (916) 653-5656 (916) 653-8102 fax http://resources.ca.gov/

          Assistant to the Secretary for Resources:           Cynthia J. Paulsen           Cyndy.Paulsen@Resources.Ca.Gov

Members of the State Assembly

To find your State Assembly member: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/

TALKING POINTS:

• Any proposed conservancy gives us cause for serious concern. Countless problems have been created in our region by state employees with no accountability to the people and little connection to the areas their decisions impact. Like the Governor, it is our 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 can 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.

• In addition, a new conservancy must not be funded on the backs of taxpayers. How can Sacramento lawmakers justify crating 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? Unless its funding is drawn from existing conservation programs, new conservancy would only add to the existing budget burden the state is facing.

Background:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm - AB1788 Leslie This bill creates the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) in the Resources Agency, with a governing board consisting of 20 voting members and three non-voting members, to acquire, and direct the management, of public lands located primarily within the "Core Sierra Nevada Region."

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm - AB2600 Laird  This bill creates the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) in the Resources Agency, with a governing board consisting of seven voting members and three non-voting members to undertake activities that encourage tourism and recreation, protect, conserve, and restore the region's resources, reduce the risk of natural disaster, protect water quality, help local economies, identify high priority projects for funding, enhance public use and enjoyment of public lands, and advance environmental preservation and economic well-being.

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=31721

In the Heights of Sierra, It's Hard to Give an Inch Source: Copyright 2004, LA Times Date: May 16, 2004 Byline: Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer

The Sierra Nevada's rural communities share more than 400 miles of the granite mountain range and an unswerving conviction that the region should not be dictated to from afar.

But that independent streak threatens to scuttle a five-year effort to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy, which could funnel millions of dollars to the economically depressed region while protecting its vaunted scenery and natural resources.

Two bills in the Assembly that would create a conservancy could be defeated as a result of the region's reluctance to cede authority to outsiders and because of fear that too much land will be put off-limits to hunting, fishing, livestock grazing and other traditional activities.

Originally posted at: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-sierra16may16,1,6491835.story?coll=la-news-environment

[forester]

PING to those on the first thread. Please excuse the delay in posting this. Thanks to calcowgirl for helping me translate this to HTML. Farmfriend, please send this out to the property rights ping list. Thanks

Additional background info:

Ca freeper RED ALERT Thread 1

A Sierra Umbrella? - Conservancy proposed to protect Mountain Range

[SierraWasp]

Great! But the last bullet should be first and be highlighted as it's the most important essence of the objections!!!

Also, there's a little typo "crate" instead of create...

Thanks forester... Yooo da MAN!!!

[Carry_Okie]

Rose has done a good job for a long time.

[Carry_Okie]

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?

[SierraWasp]

This thing is really awful! Robert Kennedy, Jr's wet dream!!! The Governor, with his immense popularity shoving it down our throats with our own legislator Leslie who has opposed it in the recent past... Stunning stupidity in the face of fiscal and economic disaster!!!

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!

[SierraWasp]

I don't really know, but your last guess seems most likely to me.

This is just simply compound insanity and will become a huge embarrassment to Arnold and his party if they don't stop it NOW!!!

[TheSpottedOwl]

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.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Govenor=Governor.

I'd better remember how to spell before I write anything to anyone...

[SierraWasp]

Hey Owl person... Just makin sure you got pinged to this!!!

[forester]

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?

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.

[farmfriend]

I'm going to talk to Julie Clausen today sometime. I'll let you know what progress I make there.

[SierraWasp]

Ah good! I see you got pinged already.

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!

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!!!

[farmfriend]

Haven't seen you guys on these threads yet.

[AuntB]

Bump!

[CounterCounterCulture]

Haven't seen you guys on these threads yet.

Nobody pinged me till now ;-)

[farmfriend]

Nobody pinged me till now ;-)

Sorry for the oversite. You are not on any of my standard lists.

[ExSoldier]

After the warning of new terrorism fears I'd be real careful about putting the label RED ALERT on anything, at least through the elections.

[Seadog Bytes]

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)