Posted on 03/15/2005 12:51:30 AM PST by calcowgirl
Environmentalists released a sweeping report today outlining major milestones in preserving open space and other resources through the state's landmark land-use law, which is now being eyed for revisions.
Marking the 35th anniversary of the California Environmental Quality Act, the hefty report points to dozens of "success stories," including saving the Santa Monica Mountains from development and cleaning air at Los Angeles' ports.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and various legislators are now considering changes to CEQA to ease California's housing crisis and spur home building.
"CEQA is really the foundation of California's environmental laws. It gives ordinary people the power to stand up against powerful interests to make sure their homes and communities are places they want to live," said Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for the California League of Conservation Voters, which produced the report with the Planning and Conservation League.
"What's happening is the usual suspects, the powerful special interests ... are lining up to try to rule out this safeguard."
Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires public review of proposed new developments, and requires that new projects remedy or reduce any harm they would cause to the surroundings.
Using CEQA, opponents have successfully fought off industrial facilities near neighborhoods, oil drilling off the coast and housing in open space, the report said.
But developers and some political leaders in Sacramento have been increasingly arguing that the law is being abused by NIMBYs who can file a lawsuit and halt a development.
Tim Coyle, senior vice president of the California Building Industry Association, said the development community wants to end the abuse.
"Home builders are strong supporters of the California Environmental Quality Act. The problem is not CEQA, but those who abuse CEQA," he said.
He and others point to the state's housing crisis, with record-high home prices and demand outpacing supply, as key reasons to revisit the law.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
By Mike McCarthy
Sacramento Business Journal, March 13, 2005 (via MSNBC)
The California homebuilding industry is proposing major changes to state housing laws that are likely to become part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's push to build more homes and help quench the fierce demand that's sending prices higher.Schwarzenegger hasn't said which changes he likes. But the industry has been promoting its agenda in private talks with the administration, and many of those ideas are on parade in a series of bills headed for the Legislature.
One dramatic industry proposal that Schwarzenegger already supports, sources said, requires local governments to designate a 20-year supply of land for housing, up from the current five.
Cities and counties would also have to zone enough land for 10 years of new homes to maintain an assured supply, instead of rezoning piecemeal as individual landowners propose new projects, said Tim Coyle, senior vice president of governmental affairs with the California Building Industry Association.
(snip) -- Long article.
Ping
Ping
Yesterday, I was admiring one of our beautiful "Heritage Oaks" in our fantastic Sierra-Nevada CONservancy and noticed how, over the past 27 years I've lived here, it has gradually become choked with a common parasite called MISTLETOE!!!
These so-called EnvironMental laws are sucking their CA host's sustainability with terminal negativity to the max!!! They are nothing but full employment for lawyers and professional posey plucker consultants!!! The Republican Executives that signed them, though loveable, have hurt CA and the nation, and the concept of "limited government!"
GovernMental EnvironMental Parasitic Pissants perpetually tormenting American Progress!!!
Great analogy that I could not let go by without cpomment. Left untreated it will eventually kill the oak; however, death of the host results in death of the parasite, so it must infect other trees in order to propogate itself. State bureaucracy is a parasite on those that produce. Left untreated, it will kill off the vary entities which fund it. Case in point: Big Timber's Last Stand
Here is my letter to the board, copied to the Senate Rules Committee, Arnold, and local representatives:
Members of the Board,
This letter concerns the appointment of Nancy Drinkard to the California State Board of Forestry as a qualified independent opinion of her technical and personal qualifications.
I have been actively restoring habitat on my property for nearly fifteen years, of which the last three have been a full-time commitment. I have no economic interest in timber harvesting, whatsoever, nor do I so anticipate. Professionally, I have obtained environmental permits in the USA, Canada, and Belgium (which have among the most stringent standards in the world), often over the objections of my superiors.
During that habitat restoration process, I became peripherally involved in the seemingly endless strident battle over commercial timber harvesting in the County of Santa Cruz. Concerns about weeds had led me to participate on the Agenda21 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Roundtable. There, I became familiar with our County’s noted anti-timber activists and their dishonest and unethical behavior, I have since extensively documented in a book that has received national recognition from both sides of the environmental debate. I would happily supply copies to you free of charge (you would find the chapter on Gamecock Canyon most illuminating).
I have visited several timber harvest sites where Nancy Drinkard had been the inspector. What I saw reflected the letter of the law, if not my personal preferences. I have observed her at numerous public meetings, with environmentalists calling her a tool of the timber industry and landowners complaining that she was a stickler for unnecessary detail. Nancy’s comportment has always been completely professional. How she has remained as polite as she has in the face of a barrage of brutal invective, spite, and slander, I will never know. The one thing I do know is that what the activists most fear about her appointment: Nancy knows them intimately, what they mistakenly believe, and how little real evidence they have by which to substantiate their distorted claims.
In conversation, I have always found Nancy receptive to new ideas to improve forest management. She understands that we have a lot yet to learn to improve the condition of forests and streams. She recognizes the need for scientific inquiry and experiment across a wide range of circumstances by which to deliver the best in site specific management. She realizes that there are not only many competing risks and interests in any regulatory decision, but that excessively bureaucratic management systems are doing more to deliver expensive paperwork than improving the condition of timberland. She is also well aware of the massive damage being done to forests by neglect, particularly as regards the risk of catastrophic fire in the rural suburban interface, a problem which would be well served by her extensive experience in those issues. Too often forests need expensive work to resolve past damage that a harvest could finance but for the cost of paperwork. She has been a friend to the small landowner of limited means who is trying to do their best for their land and streams.
Please refrain from a politically expedient capitulation to whimsical interests and support Governor Schwarzenegger’s outstanding nomination of Nancy Drinkard to the California State Board of Forestry.
Sincerely,
According to BOF chairman Stan Dixon, the guv isn't going to appoint any new members. We were told in Sacremento that the BOF may still be eliminated by guv's reform intiative....in either event, the WQ boards now run forest policy in CA.
Y-y-y-y-yup.
Here's why: Nancy is open to the idea of allowing people to deviate from the rules for purposes of scientific inquiry and process development.
It's important.
I recently spoke with Stan L. Dixon, Chairman of the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF). Dixon was first appointed as a public member to the BOF in 1999 by Governor Davis, and then named BOF Chairman in 2002. He's a former Humboldt County Supervisor and Mayor, City of Ferndale.
Governor Schwarzenegger has submitted a government reorganization proposal to the Little Hoover Commission, recommending the elimination of 88 state boards and commissions including the BOF. During our interview, Chairman Dixon shared his hopes for the BOF's future and responded to criticism regarding its effectiveness.
How does it feel to be Chairman of a state board that the Governor is proposing for termination?
I don't really have any feelings one way or another about being Chairman of a Board that's being considered for... actually there's a nuance there - it's not being proposed to be abolished, it's proposed to be absorbed into the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. It's a small nuance, but it's important because the functions of the Board - if this proposal were to take place - would continue. The other side of it is that the proposal is really just the initiation of a process. The process includes the Little Hoover Commission and it includes review and action by the Legislature. It's really premature to speculate about what may happen.
In order for the BOF and 87 other Boards and Commissions to be eliminated or abolished, the Legislature will have to acquiesce in the Governor's reorganization proposal. Do you have any indication of what action they'll likely take?
Not any really concrete idea of where they may go. In the past couple of weeks I've met with a number of legislators, not just about this CPR proposal but also about other issues that are before the Board. We know, publicly, what the members of the Little Hoover Commission had to say about the hearing process that has already taken place. There seems to be some real skepticism about how valid the proposal is… The thing that I saw come out of the Little Hoover Commission remarks were that there are boards and commissions on the list [submitted by the Governor] that really are relevant still.
I've recently attended meetings of CLFA, NorCal SAF and the California Forestry Association. There is ambivalence in the profession about whether the BOF should stay or go. Some support the BOF's retention and others would just as soon see it done away with. Many have no strong opinions either way. Does this lukewarm response from California foresters surprise you?
Not really. Having been on the Board for some five years now and having heard testimony on rule packages and other issues… It's clear that not everybody is always happy with the Board. If the foresters are happy, it probably indicates that the environmental community or some other segment of California society is not happy with the Board. If foresters are unhappy with the Board, it probably indicates that the environmental community or other segment of California's population is happy with the Board. When you represent everybody, as the Board needs to do, you're never going to always hit something right down the middle where both sides are happy with it.
I would qualify that to some degree: I think that the foresters and people in the industry that I've had the opportunity to talk to are not as unhappy with the Board as they are somewhat dissatisfied with the process, particularly the regulatory process. I think that's what prompts the interest in performance-based programs… It's (performance-based regulation) a proposed solution to resolve some of the regulatory headaches that people are concerned about.
The biggest criticism of those who support the Governor's proposal to dispense with the BOF is that the BOF has failed to lead. These foresters see the regional water boards as being the policy driver in current state forestry regulation, with the BOF's authority to a large degree marginalized. Is this a fair criticism?
It's a valid criticism. It's one I don't necessarily agree with… The Board has been in a state of flux. When I first got on [the BOF] we had a member that was there only to give the Board a quorum, because at that time there was no quorum… During my five years on the Board we've had two Members appointed that were not confirmed, and another who had to leave for legal and technical reasons… After April 15th, when Tharon [O'Dell] and Dr. Britting leave the Board, the administration has indicated that there will be no new appointments… I think it's difficult for any board with little continuity… you know, people don't just walk onto the Board of Forestry and become instantly oriented and able to help carry the load. I found that out myself.
Budget issues have also not allowed the Department [CDF] to be as fully staffed as we ought to be. Since I've been on the Board, we have an entirely new staff, from the Executive Officer through all the administrative help, to the Licensing Officer, through the Regulations Coordinator and through those people in the Department that were assigned to assist the Board.
There are administrative reasons why the Board has not been as dedicated and firm in its policy goals and its mission as we'd like to be. But I think we've made some strides. The regulatory part of the Board's activity has slowed down. There are issues like the forthcoming FRAP Assessment proposals that will set the Board's long-term policy, probably for the next decade. Hopefully, that will happen this year.
Part of the concern that I see, [is that] sometimes the Board is the lightening rod for issues that are really with the Department, with issues that are really brought about by legislation that gave the Water Boards authority that the Board assumed to be its authority as lead agency on water issues relating to timber harvest.
I don't agree with the idea that the Board has failed to lead. There are a lot of mitigating circumstances. It takes awhile when you have a brand new board, brand new staff, budget issues… It takes awhile to meld a board together that is ready and able to do better things.
Assuming for a moment that the BOF survives beyond June 30th, is there anything (especially based on this near-death experience) that you would seek to change about the way the BOF conducts business, sets priorities and the like?
The biggest issue for me is performance-based rules… I think we need to develop the concept more definitively so that we can begin to see how it could work in California.
I'm not always a big fan of bringing in outside consultants, but I think there are outstanding people in the State of California who have the background in forestry that would be able to draft a macro concept, and from there then we can do the micro kinds of things. I think we need to have the big picture drawn for how performance-based rules would work in California. We need to get the concept defined and then go after how it could be implemented. And I'm really excited about that.
If you still think that the BOF is a viable institution after reading this, e-mail me the addresses of who you want me to send a letter to in support of Nancy. Personally, I believe the BOF is no longer relevent.
Given that Water Quality has NO clue about (nor intention of) managing a forest they WILL screw up. If thereafter BOF exists at all, they might be able to reassert themselves, OR property owners might do it, particularly if the BOF managed to carve out a few niches I have in mind.
Cynicism (however justified) cuts off the ability to see opportunities. I think it in our best interest to keep as many irons in the fire as is easy to manage.
As for a letter, you might want to scope the list of Senate Rules Committee members and see if there is someone you recognize. Given that you don't know Nancy, your opinion might not carry much weight.
California State Senate Rules Committee: Don Perata (Chair), Jim Batten (Vice Chair), Roy Ashburn, Debra Bowen, Gilbert Cedillo,
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.