RED ALERT: Socialist agenda being pushed through the California Legislature

[tertiary01]

BTTT

[Carry_Okie]

That Arizona was admitted under such terms violates both the Equal footing doctrine and the principal of State citizenship, not to mention States' rights. IIRC, it's even worse in Nevada.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Your name sounded familiar. How are you doing?

[calcowgirl]

>>>political bosses will disperse mineral and land usage rights to their own special interests

Water! 65% of the State's water (and much of western Nevada) comes from the Sierra Nevada.

[backtothestreets]

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading.

[A CA Guy]

These places would be considered places where you can start fires easily, wouldn't they?

Could be lot's of restrictions on private property could happen. Maybe they will make private places pay to have water mains brought up for firetrucks.

Maybe they will come up with huge fines for things like abandoned cars, and things that could be fuel for a fire on your property.

What is the fear, because even in the suburbs lots of folks face restrictions of all kinds?

[Seadog Bytes]

...BUMP !!!

[FairOpinion]

Check my post #3 on this thread.

[tertiary01]

Thank you farmfriend for your extensive efforts to bring this to the light of day!!

[SierraWasp]

BECAUSE IT'S HUGE!!!

The damned thing takes up 1/3rd of a huge state!!!

Besides it's time to stop these frauds!!!

Thanks for the nice list.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Yes. Arizona was held at arm's length long after it should have been admitted, because of a scandal involving members of Congress and railroad bonds issued by the territory for a spur line that was supposed to be built from Tucson to somewhere. The man who was supposed to build the line absconded with the money he got to build the line, and congressmen demanded their money back. The territory refused, and it was a long standoff that kept Arizona out of the union until 1912.

[backtothestreets]

You are right to point to the water rights swirling around the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The politicians that take control of water, control agriculture, growth, and ultimately, the state.

Have we digressed to a point where having a country fit for raising families is now primarily a place for raising corporations?

Raising a family was once regarded as the pinnacle of achievement. Over the years government applied pressures that made raising a family difficult. In the last 30 years, I've seen corporations add to the difficulty. Both the government and corporation are equally invasive in the daily lives of individuals. Both the government and corporations are feeding off the labors of individuals. Both the government and corporations decide the course of the country. Both the government and corporations live and thrive at the expense of families.

Whatever the politicians cannot accomplish with government, they give to corporations to accomplish. I was sent a link today that hit this note with me. It's titled LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER: Bush to screen population for mental illness (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078)

Imagine, corporal punishment which was known to correct bad behavior when properly applied is going to be replaced with a government culture that teaches kids to use drugs. To top this off, the government will probably require all schools, public and private to participate or lose tax advantages or grants.

I can envision a time when the government issues drugs throughout the population to keep the people in line.

Something has to be thrown over the side of the ship, and it's not tea.

[BJungNan]

The entities I listed are managing land trusts where the beneficiary of the trust is the state.

Typically the state comes in and tells home owners they are going to take the land and their homes, paying them for it of course, to make a state park.

The deal that gets worked out so these people do not get booted out of their homes is they agree to put their land in a trust that stipulates in 100 years the state will get the land. They get to live out there years there. But, since it is a trust, you lose some immediate control of your land to a trust management board that tells you want you can and can not do on the land (no taking firewood, no erecting fences, no altering the landscape, no additions to the home, etc, etc.

If you want to call this "private" fine, but in effect it is the same and you are only playing with semantics.

My first experience with such land trusts was over 20 years ago in Trinidad, CA on a stretch of coastline known as Moonstone Beach. The State Dept. of Parks and Recreation was going to take 24 homes I believe it was. The land trust that was worked out I believe was one of the first (others may have better information on the history of these trusts prior to Trinidad).

Again, call it what you will and refer to the one you are fighting now as the biggest, socialism or whatever. But this has been going on for a long time and a great deal of land, homes and lives have been affected.

[calcowgirl]

Your post brings dark images to my mind (both current and future). Your questions and projections are thought provoking and certainly not outside the realm of possibility. So... if not a tea pary, then what?

>>>Something has to be thrown over the side of the ship, and it's not tea.

Agreed!

[BJungNan]

Here is a bit more information on Land Trust Philosophy.

Local land trusts have protected more than 6.2 million acres - an area roughly twice the size of Connecticut - and each year protect an average of 500,000 additional acres. Despite the growing effectiveness of land trusts, more than eight square miles of agricultural and natural lands are lost to development every day - a total of two million acres every year.

At this rate, we have about 20 years to protect our most cherished landscapes before they will be lost forever. Due to tightening budget and political constraints on government land acquisitions, land trusts will be called upon to play a greater role in the conservation of private land.

[calcowgirl]

Generally, I don't disagree with anything you wrote... I believe in the case of the conservancy's established under the Resources Agency, the taxing authority does indeed put them in a different category though.

Your post gave me the impression that you believe since there are many land trusts, and it has been going on some time, that this new conservancy isn't the monstrosity it is.

When you keep getting pushed toward the edge of the cliff, do you let them keep pushing til you fall off? Or do you push back and stop them?

I'm for pushing back and saying NO. It is certainly worth trying! The Sierra Nevada covers over 20% of California. It provides 65% of the State's water supply. These should be huge issues to all Californians. Writing a few letters and making a few phone calls is a small task to try to retain a bit of our freedom. Will you write? Will you call?

[backtothestreets]

"Your post brings dark images to my mind (both current and future). Your questions and projections are thought provoking and certainly not outside the realm of possibility. So... if not a tea pary, then what?

>>>Something has to be thrown over the side of the ship, and it's not tea.

Agreed!"

I don't know.  I know what answers I dislike.  I don't want a wholesale change of leadership.  I can't begin to imagine what sort of troubles that would heap upon us.  I also believe some people in government are honorable.  I also don't want to see people have to arm themselves to take back what is rightfully theirs, and that is government itself.  I'd like to see a real spokesman of the people arise and lead the charge that ushers in laws that limit ALL special interests.  There are conflicts of interest occurring all around us, and most are allowed because laws have been passed to permit the practice, regardless of how unsavory the practice may be.

My questions are:

Can an honorable individual be elected without the money of special interests?  Can a grassroots effort do what money cannot?  Even if such an individual were elected, would the corporate media giants give an earnest accounting?  Can a single candidate have an impact?  Is the answer working within the existing major political party or a third party?  Could a third party even begin to grapple with the complexities of government the two parties have created to their own selfish whims?

While the nation is transfixed with the differences between the two major parties, the vast majority of laws enacted have the stamp of approval of both parties.  Thanks to the media, both liberal and conservative, people are only paying attention to the few items the parties fight over.  No one is looking at the whole picture to see the unity of self-serving practices the parties adopt together.  I don't believe we're watching two parties move different directions.  I think they're moving the same direction, hand-in-hand, but with slightly differing objectives.  Without a doubt in my mind, they are both looking to control the population.

I also know this.  I want a government that is truly limited, not government that uses corporations as hired guns to accomplish the dirty deeds of politicians.  And I don't want a return to government that uses government agencies to tackle those deeds either.  There has to be a solution.  God help us.

[calcowgirl]

Here's an article I didn't see before... I wonder who the "business owners" are that are so in favor of this thing. The article makes it sound as if the Farm Bureau is the only group opposed!

And, my favorite quote:

Sierra Nevada Conservancy:
"It has no regulatory authority," Martin said. "All it really does is give money away."

Sierra Nevada Conservancy in the works

Gregory Crofton, gcrofton@tahoedailytribune.com
June 11, 2004

The California Farm Bureau Federation is against it, but Gov. Schwarzenegger, business owners and Assemblyman Tim Leslie support it.

Two bills have been introduced, one by Leslie, R-Tahoe City, that would create a conservancy to dole out money for projects that protect the 400-mile stretch of pristine mountain country that is the Sierra Nevada.

The region encompasses a third of the state and supplies about 65 percent of its drinking water, according to The Sierra Fund, a nonprofit group in Nevada City fighting to establish the conservancy.

Tahoe has had its own conservancy since 1984. With funds generated through public bonds, California Tahoe Conservancy delivers about $20 million a year in grant money to local governments on the California side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The money is spent to conserve land as open space, install drainage systems that will help protect Lake Tahoe, and improve recreation.

A bill to create a Sierra Nevada conservancy, which would not eliminate the California Tahoe Conservancy, failed two years ago after Gov. Davis vetoed it.

This time around, legislation to create the organization has momentum because Gov. Schwarzenegger has said he wants to see the conservancy, the state's ninth, established during the first year of his term. The bills were approved by the Assembly last month.

The Senate Natural Resource Committee is expected to act on one or both bills - Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Rosa, introduced the other bill - when it meets June 22.

Leslie has been working closely with the state Resources Agency to make sure all the spending power doesn't fall into the lap of the state, according to Jedd Medefind, Leslie's chief of staff.

"From Assemblyman Leslie's perspective, local communities need to have a strong voice not only to ensure they are not taken advantage of but also to ensure that most effective conservation is carried out," Medefind said. "Effective conservation is built on collaboration not imposition."

Medefind said that Leslie is not against combining his bill with Laird's, but if local communities fail to adequately be represented in whatever bill gets heard, Leslie will "fight actively against" the creation of a conservancy for the Sierra Nevada.

California Farm Bureau Federation opposes both bills because the conservancy would mean less privately owned land and deprive local government of property tax revenue.

"Over 70 percent of the Sierra Nevada is already owned by the government," said John Gamper, director of taxation and land use for the California Farm Bureau Federation. "If they continue to acquire private land it will eventually take its toll ... and mean a loss of tax base. We think it is not a good idea, especially during very difficult fiscal times, for the state to create another state bureaucracy."

Elizabeth Martin, of The Sierra Fund, has pushed for the creation of a Sierra Nevada Conservancy for almost five years and says she is confident the governor will approve the legislation this year.

"It has no regulatory authority," Martin said. "All it really does is give money away.

[Seadog Bytes]

I received the below email from Tim Leslie this morning... (presumably in response to my earlier letter to the Governor, copies of which I sent to Tim Leslie, and posted on an earlier thread.)

Maybe others received this message also, but if not, I thought some of you who are perhaps more knowledgeable, and more perceptive than I am in these matters, might be better able to read between the lines... It appears to me that it may have been cobbled together in a hurry... Perhaps it represents an opportunity...? ...with a small time-window? To me, it suggests that he is looking for public support for his efforts to at least place a strong 'leash' on this monster which the Governor and the legislature seem bound and determined to create.


I'd appreciate your thoughts.

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie, Tim [mailto:Tim.Leslie@asm.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:15
Subject: Seeking Your Perspective


Dear Sierra Friends,

I am seeking your thoughts.

As you 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 primary 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. Although I have given conditional
support to the provision below, the

Remember, many of the provisions noted 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 some important
provisions. I believe this may be the very best we can hope for, providing
strong 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 its conservation efforts with little or no local input. Activists and
bureaucrats in Sacramento call the shots with little regard for those who
live, work, and raise their families in the Sierra. Not only is this
profoundly contrary to American principles of government, but it also
undercuts effective conservation by failing to draw from the perspectives,
volunteerism, and commitment of local communities.

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
appointments 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 of and funding for appropriate
management of that property have been identified.
--With any proposed land acquisition project 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: A five-year "sunset" has been suggested
for this important provision. I will stand absolutely opposed to any
proposal that contains a sunset on this provision, no matter how long the
period.)
,

[StoneColdGOP]

I backed McClintock.

I'm a Republican