Posted on 06/17/2004 10:47:03 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
How could I possibly overlook pinging you to #60???
I hope the FRN types were on that list. It would seem they don't care unless it affects them.
Well, I thought of you and your brilliant book as I copied the fourth quotation!!! (I should have separated them with paragraphs, instead of line breaks)
"The more government we can keep at local levels in local hands, the better off we are and the more freedom we will have." (Ronald Reagan, Governor, April 12, 1973 on his weekly television program called "Governor and Students.")
bttt!
(GREAT quotes, SW!)
Leslie sent me this in the e-mail. I haven't replied as I have been busy with local issues and we are not in the Sierra range. Help me with some brief talking points and I will respond:
Dear Sierra Friends,
I am seeking your thoughts.
As you may know, I am carrying AB 1788, which would create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. A state conservancy is an agency that delivers state funds to areas of special value, such as Lake Tahoe or the California Coast. It makes grants and undertakes projects for a wide range of efforts, from acquisition of habitat to fire prevention and economic development. Unlike entities such as the "Coastal Commission" or the T.R.P.A., a conservancy does not have any
power to regulate lands.
As a staunch defender of private property rights and local control, I approached the idea of a Sierra Nevada Conservancy with trepidation. Most current state conservancies work in a friendly, cooperative manner with landowners and local communities. Still, if a conservancy board were to
become dominated by activists, it could become yet one more tool of those who have little respect for Sierra residents or our values. Despite my concerns, I decided to introduce AB 1788 for two simple reasons. First, Governor Schwarzenegger stated clearly that he intends to create a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Second, the California Legislature is ready,
willing, and able to create a conservancy that leaves local communities with no say in conservancy decisions.
It appeared almost certain that there would be a Sierra Nevada Conservancy. One question remained: "What kind of conservancy would it be?" I have been working to ensure that the conservancy remains the right kind of conservancy. It must guarantee strong local influence in conservancy decisions, while also honoring legitimate state interests. In my negotiations with the Schwarzenegger Administration and my Democrat colleague, Assemblyman John Laird, we appear to be nearing a point of agreement.
I have heard from many of you already. However, I would greatly value your thoughts at this critical juncture.
Remember, many of the provisions noted in the proposal below do not represent what I would view as ideal. They are the result of intense give-and-take negotiations. I did not receive every condition I sought; even so, I did gain many important provisions. I believe this may be the very
best we can hope for, providing an unprecedented level of local influence in the conservancy decision-making process.
For those who remain opposed, I certainly identify with your concerns. Just bear one final thought in mind. Under current law, the state often carries out conservation projects with little or no local input. Activists and
bureaucrats in Sacramento have total control. However, a well-designed conservancy would change all this. Decisions would no longer be made in "smoke-filled rooms," but by a board with strong representation from the Sierra. Local perspectives and priorities would carry an influence not seen
in decades.
Certainly, the conservancy might still carry out some activities we would find objectionable, but much less so than at present. In addition, local priorities like parks, trails, public access, economic development, and fire prevention would receive increased attention. In the end, I believe the
residents of the Sierra - both present and future generations - would be much better off than under the status quo.
Please review the following details and reply to this e mail as soon as is possible. I would greatly value your input.
Sincerely,
Tim Leslie
Assemblyman, 4th District
DETAILS OF CURRENT PROPOSAL
STATED GOALS OF THE CONSERVANCY
(a) Provide increased opportunities for tourism and recreation.
(b) Protect, conserve, and restore the region's physical, cultural, archaeological , and historical resources.
(c) Reduce the risk of natural disasters, such as fire.
(d) Protect water quality from degradation.
(e) Assist the local economy, including providing increased economic opportunities.
(f) Identify the highest priority projects and initiatives for which funding is needed.
(g) Undertake efforts to enhance public use and enjoyment of lands owned by the public.
(h) Support efforts that advance both environmental preservation and the economic well-being of Sierra residents in a complimentary manner.
(i) Aid the preservation of working landscapes.
CONSERVANCY BOARD
13 Members
6 Locally-elected supervisors appointed by their fellow supervisors
5 Gubernatorial appointments, including the Director of Finance and the Secretary of Resources
1 Senate Appointment
1 Assembly Appointment
(*I am currently seeking to ensure that one of the five Gubernatorial candidates is an elected official from within the Sierra.)
CONSERVANCY BOUNDARIES
In addition to the Sierra proper, the Administration intends to include the portion of the Cascade Mountains watershed that drains southwest into the Central Valley.
The conservancy's western boundary will be at approximately 500 feet in elevation. In order to make sure funds are not inordinately directed to the lower, more populated areas, language will be included that reads, "The board shall make
every effort to ensure that over time conservancy funding and other efforts are spread equitably across the various sub-regions and among the stated goal areas, with adequate allowance for the variability of costs associated with individual regions and types of projects."
CONSERVANCY LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
* No powers of imminent domain.
* No regulatory authority
* All business shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
* The conservancy shall hold meetings throughout the Sierra to receive local input and identify local funding priorities.
* All efforts and projects shall be undertaken based upon consultation with locally-elected officials and local agencies.
* No land shall be acquired unless the means and funding for appropriate management of that property have been identified.
* With any proposed land acquisition with a value of $250,000 or higher, the locally-elected agency with land use planning authority will have the ability to file an "objection" to the proposed acquisition. In the
event of an "objection," the conservancy will be able to proceed only with a 2/3rds vote of the board. (**Note: It has been suggested by some that this provision "sunset" in five years. I will stand absolutely opposed to any
proposal that contains a sunset on this important provision, no matter how long the period.)
IMHO, this issue needs a Bucket Brigade style protest march through the streets, letters won't cut it this time.
A lot of comment on the thread about nobody caring. I'm not sure about that, but this seems like a California thing, it's no good but that's where it is and there are lots of things going on all over the place and sending our dog to every hunt is just gonna tire the the old boy out.
Besides it seems as though the Governor ran on this - so it shouldn't be a big surprise that he's working to bring it about. WWRRD? I think that got posted upthread, and there was a guy running that probably would have come close, but California elected Ahnuld instead.
(That movie star with the accent, big dang ol', dude there got all the girls goin' woo-hoo, guns man, can't stop dang ol', terminator man.)
read later
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE: A.B. No. 2600
AUTHOR(S): Laird.
TOPIC: Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION: SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE: 05/20/2004
TYPE OF BILL: Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/30/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION: From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.).
COMM. LOCATION: SEN APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE: An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section
33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
------------------------------------------------------
VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: AB 2600
AUTHOR: Laird
TOPIC: Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
DATE: 06/29/2004
LOCATION: SEN. N.R. & W.
MOTION: Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 6. NOES 3.) (PASS)
AYES
****
Kuehl Alpert Bowen Ortiz
Sher Torlakson
NOES
****
Oller Denham Hollingsworth
ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
Can someone interpret this? The hearing was cancelled? What next?
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE: A.B. No. 1788
AUTHOR(S): Leslie.
TOPIC: Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
HOUSE LOCATION: SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE: 05/26/2004
TYPE OF BILL: Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/29/2004
LAST HIST. ACTION: In committee: Set, first hearing.
Hearing canceled at the request of author.
COMM. LOCATION: SEN NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE
TITLE: An act to add Division 23.3 (commencing with Section
33300) to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMPLETE BILL HISTORY
BILL NUMBER: A.B. No. 1788
AUTHOR: Leslie
TOPIC: Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
TYPE OF BILL: Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
BILL HISTORY
2004
June 29 In committee: Set, first hearing.
Hearing canceled at the request of author.
June 17 Joint Rule 61(b)(12) suspended.
(Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 4208.)
June 9 Referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
(snip)
My guess, by looking at these two bill actions is that Laird won the contest between his radical bill and Leslie's feeble attempt to slow down the Schwarzenegger Socialistic Sierra-Nevada freight train was shunted off to the siding and that now Leslie will feign some kind of feeble attempt to derail it at the last minute.
This, in an effort to regain his devastated respect amongst his long-time support base that had expected him to get out in front of something like this and "nip it in the bud!" He played with fire on this to endear himself to the new Governor and now he's going down in flames.
At least that's my wild guess, based on what I see here. He claimed in one of the articles posted above, that if at least some of his efforts to keep some semblance of "Local control in local elected's hands" were thwarted, that he'd turn against the whole idea.
I'm sure he wanted to appear "reasonable" and "helpful" to Arnold, so he would then be justified in openly opposing Laird's extreme leftist version. I suppose his strategy could work, if Laird's gets so far out there that Arnold is forced to veto, but I fear Arnold has created a monster that even he will not be able to slay, should he change his mind about it!!!
Good guesses SW... that is kind of what I thought (sadly).
Laird's version certainly is more sinister... perhaps our Republican 'leadership' will now go fight full force since it isn't the bill being carried on behalf of our 'Republican' governer. Fingers Crossed!
Ping to 70 and 71 - Status on Sierra Nevada Conservancy legislation
(In the absence of farmfriend's ping list, I tried to collect names of those who have shown interest
in this subject before. My apologies in advance if I included/excluded anyone I should not have).
BTTT
calcowgirl, thank you for the ping...
I am not sure if this will be a help, but here (below) is a list of the *SEVEN* threads which appear to be directly related (...some of which I had not even seen before...!), along with a formatted, sorted list of the (visible names) appearing on one or more of those threads. (Sorry, I don't have a ping list, either.)
The many postings to these seven threads contain an INCREDIBLE amount of information, facts, figures, contact names and numbers, hot links, etc., but I fear that many will have missed a good part of that, since the information is so 'scattered'. I am not an expert 'activist', but this all seems to CRY OUT for the collaboration and organization a (persistent) web page, or group of pages, could provide. I'd volunteer to create such a thing, but it appears that time is too short for that.
Absent that, it seems to me (IMHO) that if we want a LOT of letters and/or phone calls going into particular people/legislators/etc. ASAP, then a last gasp ping/plea to as many interested people as possible, along with a sample letter, or at least an updated list of talking points, is desperately needed...soonest.
I will leave it to those more experienced than I to make that call, but it is my hope that the below might be of some small help, somehow...
GOOD LUCK and GODSPEED.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110579/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141897/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143115/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150215/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155300/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157144/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161131/posts
.38sw; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; adversarial; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; Alia; alphadog; Alylonee; AmericanHombre; amom; AndreaZingg; Archie Bunker on steroids; Attention Surplus Disorder; AuntB; B4Ranch; backhoe; Ben Ficklin; BibChr; BjungNan; blaze; Bob J; BornOnTheFourth; BossLady; brityank; budwiesest; Burlem; calcowgirl; CalifornianConservative; Carry_Okie; Chesterbelloc; christynsoldier; CounterCounterCulture; countrydummy; Dave in Eugene of all places; Delphinium; diotima; DoughtyOne; E.G.C.; editor-surveyor; EggsAckley; eldoradude; ElkGroveDan; endthematrix; Ernest_at_the_Beach; eureka!; ExSoldier; FairOpinion; farmfriend; fhayek; forester; gaspar; George Frm Br00klyn Park; Grampa Dave; GVgirl; hedgetrimmer; Issaquahking; Jeff Gordon; Jim Robinson; Jonez712; jtill; Kay Ludlow; kjvail; knews_hound; Libertarianize the GOP; Libertina; lowbridge; madfly; marsh2; marty60; Mediaqueen; Mister Baredog; Neanderthal; NormsRevenge; Not gonna take it anymore; PeoplesRep_of_LA; petercooper; Phil V.; philetus; Pontiac; RichInOC; RonDog; sasquatch; Saundra Duffy; sauropod; Seadog Bytes; sergeantdave; sfwarrior; SierraWasp; skeeter; snopercod; South40; Southack; Spann_Tillman; StoneColdGOP; SunStar; take; Tamsey; tertiary01; TheSpottedOwl; tubebender; Walkingfeather; Wheee The People; WilliamofCarmichael; Willie Green; wita; zoyd;
Arnold didn't endorse Leslie's bill, or Laird's bill! He just endorsed the concept!!!
Do NOT jump to the conclusion that just because Leslie's version should "flame out," that Arnold won't sign Lairds!!! Thus... It's all still being carried on behalf of the Governor, no matter what!
It'll make zero difference to Arnold whose bill it is... Republican or radical, crazed Demonicrat!!!
I think you know that, but I didn't want ANYONE to misunderstand, or misinterpret how you put it, above.
If Leslie's is now failed, he was only doing it to CYA and try to calm Arnold down in some way. It may not work and I suspect it won't, at all!!!
The ping list I put together I pulled from 4 of those threads. I think I caught most all of them that you noted. I might have missed a few... but pretty close. Thanks for your effort.
I am not that familiar with the state legislative process, but I was thinking yesterday that if this bill ended up like the Cedillo driver's license bill, we may have some time to get more organized and set up a website or something over the next month. For the life of me, I don't understand why people aren't screaming "NO!".
The first thread I put up had a ton of information in an attempt to capture everything in one place. Others were initiated to try to shine a light on the issue and get some more participation. While it has caught the attention of some, it hasn't captured the masses. Since all of the financial incentive for establishing a conservancy seems to be with the deep-pockets, the chance of getting any major support (with some money to publicize this) is limited, IMO.
Here's the same links you posted, with the corresponding thread titles for reference. They are listed oldest first, most recent last. The last "RED ALERT" thread was nixed from the 'activism' category, so I have been posting any new material to this thread. We tried to be diligent about adding keywords; I'm glad you were able to find them!)
A Sierra umbrella? - Conservancy proposed to protect mountain rangeCA freepers, RED ALERT RED ALERT!!!
CA freepers, RED ALERT Thread 2
CA: Sierra Conservancy bills seek funding for range
ALERT:Hearing scheduled for Sierra Nevada Conservancy bills 6/29/04
RED ALERT: Socialist agenda being pushed through the California Legislature
"perhaps our Republican 'leadership' will now go fight full force since it isn't the bill being carried on behalf of our 'Republican' governer."The former was not considered to be inclusive of the latter. (I was hoping those Republican Senators would be able to nix it and keep it from hitting the GREENator's desk).
I agree... Arnie wants this. His contributors want this. Those who drafted his environmental plan (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al) want this. All of the Dems want this... all of the GREENS want this.
As you pointed out earlier, this legislation is so far GREEN and so LEFT, even Gray Davis vetoed it! Incredible! Keep yelling Sierra... maybe folks will "get it" before it's too late.
It is but one example of what can go wrong:
Conservancy Spending Assailed - Audit says that mountains agency misused $7 million
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.