Letters to the Editor

Don't send the same letter to this site that you've sent elsewhere, it's no fun to read the same thing in more than one place. I won't be able to print them all and will probably edit them if necessary.

Note: these letters are displayed with (roughly) the newest one on top, so if you want to read them in order you'll need to start at the bottom.

email: bruce@brattononline.com,

or write: Bratton Online
82 Blackburn St Suite 216,
Santa Cruz, California 95060

Current Letters:

Felton, Peninsula systems shouldn't be merged, PUC says

Action means immediate, drastic boost in water rates of Santa Cruz Mountains town

By VIRGINIA HENNESSEY
Herald Staff Writer

The Monterey Peninsula's water rates may go up considerably next year, but they won't include subsidies to reduce the water rates in Felton.

The Public Utilities Commission has rejected California American Water's application to merge the two districts' rate structures, saying that the consolidation would be an unfair subsidy at the expense of Monterey-area customers and was "almost universally opposed" by ratepayers in each district.

The majority of Felton's residents were opposed to the consolidation because they did not want to be associated with the Peninsula's water woes. They will now face some long-delayed, bitter medicine in the form of higher water rates.

The commission's ruling means that rates in the Santa Cruz Mountains community will go up immediately by 44.2 percent and increase again by as much as 38 percent in January, On top of that, Cal Am will be allowed to collect the 44.2 percent increase retroactively to 2002.

Cal Am suggested a consolidation of the two districts in 2002 as a way to spread out costs and reduce "rate shock" in Felton after the utilities commission approved the 44.2 percent rate increase. The commission suspended the rate increase and told Cal Am to return with a formal consolidation application, which it did in 2004.

Ruling last week that the consolidation was "not in the public interest," the commission ordered Cal Am to begin billing the 2002 rate increase, and to collect the retroactive increase over the next six years.

The new ruling is an adjustment to an earlier proposed ruling that called for an immediate 30 percent increase, with the remainder to be collected over five years.

Not including the retroactive increase, the average customer's monthly bill of $34.89 will go up immediately to $50.32. If, as the commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates predicts, the community's rates are increased by an additional 38 percent in January, that bill would go up to $69.49.

"Thank God I don't have a lot of plants around my place," said Jim Graham, a member of Felton Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW), a group that pushed through a July ballot measure approving a bond measure to finance a public takeover of Cal Am's Felton system.

Graham said members of his group urged the commission to reject the consolidation and consider ordering Cal Am to divest itself of its Felton district, as it previously did with the Montara water district in San Mateo County.

While Graham said Commissioner Susan Kennedy described the idea as "intriguing," the commission stressed that it did not consider the issue of public ownership in its ruling.

Instead, the board concluded that consolidation could actually increase Cal Am's expenses and would leave Monterey Peninsula ratepayers subsidizing Felton at the same time Cal Am is projecting that the Peninsula's rates will increase by 130 percent over a five-year period. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, which opposed the consolidation, said Cal Am's calculations show local rates could triple in 10 years.

The commission also said that Felton's rate shock was not caused by overcharging by Cal Am, which acquired the system in 2002, but by long intervals between rate-adjustment applications.

Cal Am spokeswoman Catherine Bowie said Felton's rates have not been increased since 1998.

Vote 'no' on Rancho San Juan

Contrary to what Rancho San Juan supporters would have voters believe, RSJ opponents do want more affordable housing built for local working people.

Those opposed to this massive project cite concerns that this taxpayers' boondoggle will do nothing to improve our housing crisis, and instead create permanent negative impacts for Monterey County and Salinas.

Supporters say Butterfly Village, the largest part of Rancho San Juan, will create 235 jobs. They don't say 145 of them will pay less than the 180 farmworker jobs they will displace.

Rancho San Juan supporters say 35 percent of the housing is affordable, yet they don't mention that 15 percent of the affordable units will require household incomes of $90,000 and above; nor that 235 workers will have to compete for the 130 units in their price range.

RSJ supporters ignore the service-district fees that would double residents' annual tax burden - a burden that reaches $10,600 annually on an average-priced ($530,000) RSJ home.

Rancho San Juan is not about working families finding a home or a job. It's about the big money out-of-town developers like Marin-based Mo Nobari will make while we residents deal with RSJ's consequences and get nothing in return.

For my money, Salinas is doing a better job of trying to deal with our affordable housing issues.

On Nov. 8, residents should put their interests first and vote "no" on Rancho San Juan.

Marilyn Ramirez, Salinas

Posted on Fri, Sep. 09, 2005
Desal group blasted for secret draft

Board members call for public workshop

By VIRGINIA HENNESSEY
Herald Staff Writer

A growing distrust of the effort to develop a regional governance board for a desalination plant boiled to the surface Thursday at a workshop of the Monterey Peninsula water board.

Two water board members criticized the county-led process as being secretive and called for a public workshop on the issue after learning from a resident that a "working group" of city and water-agency staff members had circulated a draft governance agreement without public input.

Kristi Markey, vice chairwoman of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board, chastised David Berger, the district's general manager, for his involvement in the group, saying the board had never given him direction on its preferences and never received a copy of the draft from him.

Board member Alvin Edwards said the process, being led by Monterey County Water Resources Agency General Manager Curtis Weeks, was the latest effort to do away with the water district.

The controversial issue sprang to the forefront during an otherwise mundane morning after Madeleine Clark, chairwoman of the Elkhorn Slough Coalition, informed the board she had filed a Public Records Act request and obtained documents written by the "Regional Urban Water Supply (RUWS)" working group.

Clark has criticized the group, made up of senior staff members from northern Monterey County cities and water agencies, for excluding the public and media from its meetings, and has characterized its efforts as a "power grab" by the county.

On Thursday, she said the group, laboring behind closed doors, had circulated a draft agreement that would establish an advisory board of appointed members to govern regional water-supply projects, including a potential desalination plant in Moss Landing. Under the agreement, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors would have ultimate authority over the project for at least three years.

Board member Judi Lehman objected that a board governing a regional water project should be a traditional joint powers authority with elected members.

Clark said the working group had also circulated a draft job description for a program manager whose tasks would include providing support to Weeks' water resources agency "in presenting updates of the Cal Am Coastal Water Project planning efforts."

'Clerical error'|

California American Water is one of two entities that have proposed desalination projects in Moss Landing. The county last year withdrew from plans for a partnership with Cal Am after fielding criticism that it was excluding a competing project by Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District.

In November, the board of supervisors directed Weeks to pursue a regional collaboration that would consider all proposals. On Thursday, Clark said the job description for the project manager made clear that the county and the working group had already identified Cal Am as the project's developer.

Weeks said he had used the program-manager model previously written for the Cal Am agreement and failed to update it for the regional project. The omission of Pajaro-Sunny Mesa's project from the job description was a "clerical error," he said.

The existence of the draft documents came as a surprise to members of the water board. In April, the board was surprised to find out that Berger, the district's general manager, was participating in the regional effort without direction on the board's preferences for a governance model. At that time, Markey asked Berger to keep the board apprised of developments in the group's efforts.

On Thursday, Berger said he received a copy of the draft agreement, but had not passed it on to the board because it was not complete.

"We had a discussion in the spring about the need (for Berger) to keep the board informed on important and controversial issues. That's not being done," Markey said during a break in Thursday's meeting. "I'm very upset that this (draft agreement) was not shared with the board."

Berger and Weeks said it was typical for city councils and other entities to leave early project development up to senior staff and then approve draft proposals when they were ready.

An angry Markey disagreed.

"Staff (members) do not go out and innovatively come up with concepts," she said. "Staff (members) take action after being given direction by the board.

"This process has been marching forward under cover," she said.

Water Board Chairman Larry Foy and board member David Potter defended Berger, saying the board had directed him a year ago to become a "catalyst" for community and regional solutions to the Peninsula's water needs.

"People forget what they assigned staff to do," Foy said.

Calling for a public workshop on the regional governance group, Edwards said he learned more from the presentation by Clark "than I've heard since it's been going on.

"This thing is bigger than we thought it would be," he said. "I still think it's an effort to remove this district. If you're going to create a super water district, the people ought to vote on it."

The effort to design a regional governance structure has been led by Weeks, who has characterized it as an unusual convergence of cooperation and consensus in Monterey County. Other area leaders have praised his efforts.

But the path to consensus has not been smooth.

Weeks was criticized by members of the Pacific Grove City Council and the Marina Coast Water District during presentations to those boards in recent months. Pacific Grove City Councilwoman Susan Goldbeck questioned the secretive nature of the group's meetings, and Marina water district board members Ken Nishi and Howard Gustafson criticized Weeks "untoward" relationship with Cal Am, a privately owned company.

In April, Weeks issued a press release heralding a "historic" consensus among all parties "endorsing" a governance concept that would leave the Board of Supervisors ultimately in charge of a regional project.

E-mails obtained by The Herald indicate the press release was not met with agreement.

"This press release goes far beyond what I believe we agreed to in Salinas -- my question on Monday was when do we take this to our council as we cannot make decision for our cities -- yet this is what is implied by these releases," wrote Carmel Mayor Sue McCloud. "I hope, Curtis (Weeks), that you can adjust this language and take out the definitive words such as 'agreement,' 'endorsed' et al before this is released."

No vote|

"Also I thought that at least the principals were going to have an opportunity to comment on this before it was released, but not so," she wrote, "and this is what has me concerned about the process."

Others, including Seaside Mayor Ralph Rubio, Salinas City Manager Dave Mora and Foy, of the Peninsula water district, concurred with McCloud.

None of the involved city councils or boards has voted on the draft agreement, which calls for each entity to contribute $5,000 to start-up costs. The county would contribute $250,000. The agreement also calls for each city and water agency to have one representative on the board except for the county and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, which would each have two because of the county's greater financial contribution and "because the water users within (the district's) jurisdiction require the majority of new water resource needed within the urban region of the county."

Virginia Hennessey can be reached at 646-4355 or vhennessey@montereyherald.com

Japan 2005 -Newsletter #2 -Sunday, September 4, Tateyama

This is a brief update to let you know that everyone made it to Japan intact and that everyone is healthy, happy and well fed.

JAL Flight 001 -SFO to Narita
The flight departed on time and was marked -as always -with Japanese punctuality and efficiency. They weighed our carry-ons (a first) and made us adhere to the 10 kilogram limit -those over 10 kg had to be checked in. The group assembled for the first time at gate A 11 and everyone was in high humor. Vic and Peggy Bogard were given a rousing ovation when Business Class boarding was announced, and though that peer pressure might have been pretty strong, to hear the creature comforts they enjoyed in Business Class (had no idea there was a hot tub in that bubble atop a 747), I doubt that we convinced them not to travel that way in the future.

The onboard video programs, games, and audio were a helpful diversion to make the 9.5 hour flight go quickly, but the new innovation that we had not seen before was a video camera in the nose that gave us a nose-view perspective of take-off and landing. To watch the runway speed up was enough to make any old drag racer weep. The same was true of the landing. We literally had a view as if we were strapped beneath the plane as they came down and hit the runway. I wonder how the pilots feel about this new view for the passengers -I would think they would try to hit their marks very carefully knowing that everyone behind them is watching intently.

The group was seated as a block, and except for two screaming children elsewhere in the cabin (Paula Suzuki told us about the therapeutic uses for Nyquil in situations like that-apparently she resorted to that when raising her kids !?) the flight went as quickly as anything can where you're crammed together in a metal tube screaming westward above the Pacific chasing the sun.

Narita to Tateyama
My Japanese partner, Kaori Mizoguchi, met us at the airport and quickly had us on a bus headed down the freeway for Tateyama. Despite all of my entreaties and threats, we have a virtual mountain of luggage -more than we could fit beneath the bus. A separate van carried the overflow and even then we had luggage piled up to the back window of the bus -Pati and Patrick Sullivan lounging beside and underneath it. We stopped at a highway rest stop along the way, and several group members had their first experiences with Japanese vending machines (they are the best on the planet). We got to the hotel about 7:15 PM, checked in to their rooms and had dinner at 8:00 in a special dining room set for the group. (That would make the fourth meal during a very long day.) During the meal, one of the hotel managers made a presentation about the umihatoru -what the Japanese call the "ocean firefly" -plankton that, when agitated, gives off a magical blue glow. The umihatoru was one of the themes for the next day's Symposium, so it was fitting when they turned off the lights in the dining hall, put the live end of an electrical cord into a glass filled with the plankton (don't try this at home!) and the glass glowed and eerie blue. It was a lovely way to end the day and get the group ready for the Big Day - September 3.

Saturday, September 3, 2005
The weather has been slightly overcast, but relatively hot and humid -85 degrees with humidity in the 80s.

Our first event -an optional one that everyone attended -was a commemorative moment at the Tateyama harbor where American Marines landed on September 3, 1945 at 9:20 AM to mark the beginning of the Occupation. A lively group of locals met us at the location and the resident historian, Nobuo Aizawa, with his orange bullhorn in hand, led us down the ramp and gave the group a brief history of the moment back in 1945. This event was the original reason for my bringing a group to Japan this year, and the importance of our coming became immediately apparent as several local men came forward to tell their stories of witnessing, as little children, the landing of American troops. This was the first time that any foreigners had ever heard their stories (their views of the landing from the perspective little children was delightful), and Aizawa said that our coming had inspired many of the locals to begin showing an interest in their own history. Lud McCrary told of being an engine room oiler in the merchant marine in September 1945 and hearing the news of surrender and the dilemma the military had deciding what to do with boatloads of ammunition headed for an invasion that had been called off.

An invasion called off -lovely concept, that. So, at 9:20 they handed me the bullhorn and I tried to make some sense of what was happening. To be standing on that ramp with folks from both sides of the Pacific, it seemed to me that the most powerful thing about September 3, 1945 was that it was the beginning of a 60 year period of peace and cooperation between the US and Japan. All of the contemporary strife and rancor across the globe fell away before the sweetness and optimism and good will of the moment.

It was hotter than hell standing out there on the concrete in the sun, and the group was happy to reboard the bus and get back to the hotel and prepare for the only dress-up affair in the itinerary - the Symposium.

The Symposium
-It is going to be difficult to summarize what happened yesterday afternoon, and the group members are still buzzing about it this morning (this is being written the morning after). In all their finery -beautiful dresses, coats and ties - no wonder we have so much luggage! -the group boarded the bus and went over to the 1,200 seat, modern, Tateyama cultural hall and found themselves being applauded as they filed into the auditorium. They stepped off into a cultural moment the likes of which even I could not have foreseen. I think it's safe to say that yesterday afternoon and evening will stay with the group members forever. I'm pressed for time, so the event will have to wait until our next newsletter. To be continued.

Meanwhile, everyone is having a wonderful time, and I think today, they're in a state of shock. As Wendy Stevens said to me at breakfast this morning, "How are you going to follow THAT?" Don't know that I will ever be able to.

Hope all's well where you are.
Onward!
Sandy

Panel poised to allow growth

COYOTE VALLEY PLANS LINKED TO TREASURY

By Rodney Foo San Jose Mercury News

A task force drawing up plans for a 25,000-unit housing development in San Jose's Coyote Valley tentatively approved new standards Monday that would govern the timing of growth. But environmentalists expressed concerns that the proposed benchmarks would accelerate development, reduce green space and drain the city's coffers." This is facilitating the loosening of requirements to speed up growth in Coyote Valley," said Brian Schmidt of the Committee for Green Foothills, a non-profit organization. Last month, the Coyote Valley Task Force indicated it would let homes be built in the area first to take advantage of a vibrant housing market and provide the impetus needed to build $1.5 billion in roads and sewer, utility and water lines. If the city council, which has the final say over Coyote Valley growth, adopts the task force's recommendation, it would supplant a longstanding policy that at least 5,000 jobs be established in the valley before residential construction could begin. Monday night, the task force, in principle, approved allowing building permits to be issued when the city's budget director certifies that the next phase of development will not burden the general fund. The current standard provides that permits can be approved if economic forecasts indicate a stable city budget for five years, among other factors.Schmidt contended the change isn't strong enough to safeguard the city against Coyote Valley drawing down the treasury. But task force member Steve Speno, whose company controls more than 600 acres in North Coyote Valley, disagreed.The change "basically says no phase of Coyote Valley development can proceed unless it is a fiscal net benefit to the city," Speno said.

Another recommendation adopted by the task force calls for residential developments with fewer than 40 units per acre to pay for acquisition of open space in the valley's southern greenbelt -- the area between Palm Avenue and the Morgan Hill border -- as land in the north and central valley is gobbled up. Commercial projects would contribute by paying a fee based on square footage.

Money contributed for the purchase of open space would go to an entity that would have authority to purchase green-space land for preservation.

Michele Beasley of Greenbelt Alliance said that recommendation wasn't aggressive enough. Beasley urged the task force to adopt a plan that calls for buying 3,400 acres of green space instead of 740 acres.

Lastly, the task force also approved a measure to ensure 20 percent of the units would be affordable housing. Redevelopment agency and city funds could be tapped to build housing for those with extremely low incomes.

Laurel Prevetti, deputy city planning director, said the recommendations will be drawn up, incorporating the suggestions of the members, and presented later this year to the task force again for formal approval.

Domestic Violence - just say no.

A local review described The Aristocrats as "hilarious", "you'll hurt yourself laughing" and "the title is the punch line to one of the funniest, most disgusting jokes ever created". The review didn't prepare me for the joking about rape, statutory rape and incest. I tried to leave, but couldn't, because I have bad balance and would have fallen in the darkened theater.

I was appalled and offended by The Aristocrats. Various comedians attempt to find humor in statutory rape, rape and incest (My father raped me when I was 11 years old). The idea that this type of behavior is okay, even funny, is crazy. It is the most vile, disgusting thing a child could ever experience. If I had told my Mom what dad had done to me (they were divorced), she would have killed him - these are crimes against people, they can never be funny.

When dad sodomized me, I didn't laugh, it wasn't hilarious. I dealt with my feelings of rage, shame and betrayal by focusing on war fantasies, watching a lot of TV and reading books. I wanted to scream, I became really mean to defenseless animals; terrorizing pets, wreaking havoc on other creatures.

The Aristocrats tries to find humor in incest, attempts to make the sexual exploitation of children, amusing and domestic violence, laughable - don't waste your time and money on this offensive movie.

A. Walton

Taking sides on Peninsula water issue
By VIRGINIA HENNESSEY

Nowhere in the wording of Measure W are voters asked if they favor a public takeover of California American Water's local water system.

And nowhere does it say that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District would be the public agency to accomplish a takeover if one happened.

But if ballot arguments for and against the initiative are any indication, that's what the upcoming campaign will be all about: Whom do you want to provide your water, Cal Am or the water district? Which entity do you trust more, or less?

Battle lines are already being drawn. Ron Chesshire, a former water board member, carpenters union official and opponent of the ballot measure, announced his candidacy to replace water board member Judi Lehman, a Measure W supporter.

And the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce voted last month to oppose the measure, even before it had been turned in to the elections office. Moe Ammar, executive director of the chamber, said the decision was a vote of no confidence in the district.

It was a 4-3 vote of the water district's board of directors that put the measure on the ballot. The measure was proposed by board member Alvin Edwards, who is also up for re-election, and supported by directors Lehman, Kristi Markey and Dave Potter.

Before voting on the measure, board members stressed that it did not designate the district as the public agency that would pursue any future takeover, and agreed they would take no stand in the ballot arguments.

Following the lead of Felton residents, who last month passed a ballot measure funding a public takeover of their Cal-Am operated system, local supporters named their initiative Measure W. Unlike Felton, however, it asks only if voters want to pay up to $550,000 for the district to study the process and cost of a public takeover.

Argument against profits|

The argument in favor of Measure W criticizes Cal Am as a foreign-owned, for-profit corporation that wants to triple rates over the next five years in an area that already pays among the highest rates in the state. It blames the company for "illegally taking massive amounts of water from the Carmel River (and) over-pumping the Seaside Basin" and says the company's poor management has led to "water-wasting system leaks, loss of storage capacity and poor customer service.

"For a one-time charge of about $14 per water connection, we can fund an independent analysis of Cal Am's value and the process required to acquire its water distribution system," it reads.

The argument is signed by an unlikely coalition of business and environmental interests, including former Monterey Mayor Peter Coniglio and Naval Postgraduate School professor Ron Weitzman, both members of Monterey Friends of Locally Owned Water; environmentalist Janice O'Brien; Patricia Bernardi, Carmel River activist and former chairwoman of the water district board of directors; and Darryl Kenyon of the Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association.

The argument against Measure W is signed by Ronald Pasquinelli of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, former water board member Edwin Lee, former Del Rey Oaks mayor Jack Barlich and Chesshire, who identifies himself as a former water board member, but not a candidate or carpenters union official.

Costs questioned|

The group argues the initiative's $550,000 price tag is misleading. Ratepayers would pay millions in legal fees if they ever decided to pursue public acquisition from an unwilling Cal Am, opponents said, not to mention the cost of buying the system, fixing its leaks and developing a new water source.

"Who would buy Cal Am?" the argument asks. "Only two years ago district voters voted overwhelmingly to dissolve the district, now that district wants to explore expanding their power and buying out Cal Am."

The group's rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure W is even more direct, asserting that the district has spent more than $70 million of taxpayer money since it was formed and still has not developed a new water source, one of its original missions.

"Don't be fooled by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's power grab," it reads. "The more of your money and power the district has, the longer we will be without a new water supply."

In addition to Pasquinelli and Chesshire, the rebuttal is signed by conservationist Frank Emerson, former Pacific Grove Mayor Jeannie Byrne and Ammar of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce.

Measure W's supporters also presented a rebuttal, calling the threat of legal action a "hollow" attempt to "frighten voters" and asserting the cost of fixing the local system and developing a water source would be cheaper under public ownership because ratepayers wouldn't have to feed Cal Am's profits and would have access to tax-free grants and low-interest rates.

No public operator named|

"Measure W designates no specific agency as the owner of the system following public acquisition," it reads. "Rather, Measure W's investigation will make clear the various public ownership options for our consideration."

The argument, also signed by attorney Michael Stamp and former county supervisorial candidate Jane Parker, also uses wording taken directly from the ballot argument in favor of Felton's Cal Am takeover -- language adopted under court order after Cal Am financed a citizen's lawsuit opposing the original language.

"Cal Am is a corporate monopoly with the legal right to generate a profit no matter how poor the service or how high the price," it reads.

With less than three months to go before the election, the campaign promises to be bruising.

Donation from Cal Am|

Ammar conceded that the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce's vote to oppose Measure W followed a $6,000 contribution from Cal Am for promotion of Good Old Days, a chamber-sponsored town celebration.

In recent weeks Cal Am has conducted a telephone survey to gauge local sentiment toward the company, a move that American Water, its corporate parent, has made in most cities where it has faced the threat of a public takeover. The surveys have been used to help guide attacks on the takeover efforts. Cal Am has made it clear in recent months that it will not face takeover in Monterey without a fight.

A similar survey was used in Felton to help formulate a "Felton Communication Plan," which called for Cal Am to "make the road a rocky one for proponents (and) an unpleasant experience for the incumbent county supervisor, Mark Stone."

The plan also said Cal Am had hired "an experienced community relations and political organizer to live and work in the community."

Last week, Cal Am hired Catherine Bowie for a similar role in Monterey. Bowie was part of the team at Armanasco Public Relations that directed Cal Am's "public outreach" effort for its proposed desalination plant. A state consumer watchdog group has questioned whether that effort, billed to ratepayers, included lobbying costs that are not supposed to be passed on by the company.

'Water summit' planned|

The first public blows in the campaign may be exhibited at a "water summit" sponsored by the water management district beginning at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday at the Embassy Suites in Seaside. The town hall-style meeting is slated to be an update on various water-supply proposals, which may open the gate for discourse on Measure W.

Measure W Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Shall the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District be directed to investigate the cost and process to publicly acquire the private water utility system presently owned and operated by the Monterey District of California American Water (Cal-Am), and be directed to recover up to $550,000 for costs of the investigation as a surcharge upon water bills of Cal-Am customers? | Vote | YES | | | VOTE | NO |

Virginia Hennessey can be reached at 646-4355 or vhennessey@montereyherald.com

Developers are "listening"

DMB proposes new city in San Benito, and so far, people like it

By KATE WOODS

Pinnacle Staff Writer

The developers who propose to build San Benito's third city – to be called El Rancho San Benito – say they are short on answers because they are still in the "listening stage" of their proposal.

On Saturday, hundreds of locals streamed in and out of Hollister's Veterans' Memorial Building to learn more about what DMB wants to create upon 4,500 acres of land on the south side of Highway 25 between Hollister and Gilroy. What they did learn was that DMB has built picture-perfect communities in Arizona and hopes to do the same here – with San Benito's blessing.

"It's a year-long process of listening, and so far we're seven months along in that process," said Ray Becker, spokesman of the massive venture, as he gave the same power-point presentation about a DMB project called Verrado in Buckeye, Ariz, four times throughout the day to small crowds of people.

Other curiosity seekers drifted among the tables of fresh fruit, bakery goodies and coffee or stopped in among the six presentation booths, each manned with a representative at the ready to explain how successful the company's previous projects have been.

Among the local notables attending were Hollister Councilman Doug Emerson, supervisors Pat Loe and James De La Cruz, former supervisor Richard Place, county Planning Commissioner Gordon Machado and commission Chairman Richard Bettencourt, and Casa de Fruta executive Joe Zanger.

Bettencourt said he was neither for nor against the project.

"As a planning commissioner, I have to go in with an open mind and get all sides of the issue," he said.

"I think it's terrific, the greatest thing to happen to this county," said Joe Zanger.

One thing everyone attending seemed to agree on was that they appreciate DMB's approach of asking the community what they want before pouring the concrete.

"It's refreshing to have developers come in and ask before they build," said Emerson.

However, throughout the four hours of open-house niceties, representatives did more talking up than asking just what everyone wanted. There were no question and answer periods, and representatives at the booths – under the titles of "Resources," "Housing," "Water," "Economic Development," "Transportation," and "Public Services" – only talked about the community called Verrado in Arizona. Adorning each booth were photographs of the city: folks strolling squeaky clean "Main Street," the Spanish-stucco and terra cotta stylized entrance to Verrado Middle School, and Verrado kids munching on watermelon in the town square.

Some of the booth representatives seemed unfamiliar with the local area. When someone asked the water representative, Anona Dutton, a question about commuting, she said, "Oh, do a lot of people commute from Hollister?"

Local resident Ruth Erickson said she believes the new city will further entrench Hollister's image as a bedroom community.

"There will be no jobs," Erickson said. "It's going to be more of the same."

A feature of the transportation booth were overhead maps of the railroad lines that traverse the Bolsa in the north end of the county and run straight through the Rancho San Benito acreage. DMB has bought the rights-of-way to the passenger lines of the area and plans to include rail lines as an integral part of transporting people to and from their homes to work in the Bay Area. One of the booth representatives talked of building a road that cuts directly from Highway 101 to the development, a road that bypasses 25 but encounters the Flint Hills toward the 101 end.

Lead spokesman Becker still won't answer the crucial question of how many homes DMB intends to propose. But if Verrado is any indication it could be about 5,000. Becker said Verrado is "about twice the acreage of San Benito," and that it houses 10,000 people.

During the 15-minute presentations, Becker explained how his company lays the groundwork for the new city. DMB gets the approval for the project, lays in the infrastructure, builds the parks, schools, fire and police stations, community center and a few retail shops, then turns it over to the contractors who must fashion the homes, condominiums and apartments to a strict set of guidelines: that could mean either in the architectural style of Spanish Colonial, Spanish Mission, Western Farmhouse or Craftsman Bungalow.

Becker said his company builds one park for every 100 homes, and the parks are half-acre to 2-acres in size.

"We start with the park design and build the neighborhood around it," Becker said. "We do all the infrastructure. We don't build homes."

The community will have a "town manager," said Becker, and he emphasized this would not be anything like the president of a homeowners' association. He did not elaborate further.

The new homes Rancho San Benito would bring were on the minds of Hollister residents Ken and Laura Smith as they strolled among the booths with their toddler. The Smiths said that they love Hollister but it's stagnant. Many of their friends have moved because, said Laura, they couldn't afford to stay.

"We don't want to move," said Laura.

"It's nice that someone is putting some thought into the development of this county," added Ken. "We're at a standstill because no one put any thought into it before. At least they (DMB) are making the effort."

Even slow growth activists have a hard time quarreling with the proposal.

"They're good," said Aromas resident Richard Saxe after he listened to Becker's 1 o'clock spiel. "They're really good."

Saxe is part of a workshop group comprised of local citizens and developers who are trying to figure out how a Transferable Development Credit program could work in the county. The idea is to assign monetary credits to parcels of undeveloped land, and when a landowner is ready to sell, he or she can sell their development credits instead to a developer who can cluster houses closer to city centers near services. It is hoped that the TDC program, initiated by former planning director Rob Mendiola, will discourage leapfrog development in the county.

"If this project were to participate in the TDC program, they could preserve more than 15,000 acres of agricultural land," said Saxe, who has been working on the TDC program for more than a year. "This could be a great benefit. I think it's crucial that San Benito County not sell itself short. Everyone wants to develop in this community now, everyone, and we need to ask the right questions."

One of those questions might be, what happens when DMB gets the ball rolling on their new city, then packs their bags and leaves? Inevitably, that's when big-box retail moves in next to the new community to provide the mountains of goods the new Rancho San Benitoans will consume.

It's a part of growth some leaders, such as planning commissioner Machado, says he isn't looking forward to.

"What bothers me is as they publicize their venture, other (commercial and mixed) developers start looking at the same area," Machado said. "How long can we hold on?"

For now, some local leaders are asking the more obvious questions, like how many jobs will such a new community provide.

"Is it going to promote employment?" said council member Emerson. "And how's our delicate infrastructure going to handle it, especially with what the city is going through with our wastewater problems?"

Emerson, like many others, didn't get an answer Saturday. That's because DMB officials are "still listening.

DMB has scheduled two forums for the public to be held at the Veterans' Memorial Building on San Benito Street in Hollister. The first will be a transportation forum regarding El Rancho San Benito on Sept. 13 at 7 p.m. Another on housing will be held Oct. 6, also at 7 p.m.

Rancho plan heads to voters
Supervisors uphold earlier approvals

By Larry Parsons
Herald Staff Writer

A public vote on the giant Rancho San Juan development plan will proceed in November, Monterey County supervisors decided Tuesday.

In a surprising vote, supervisors split 3-2 against overturning their December approvals of the 4,000-home, mixed-use development just north of Salinas and canceling the scheduled election over Rancho San Juan.

Supervisor Jerry Smith joined supervisors Dave Potter and Lou Calcagno, who had originally opposed the overall Rancho San Juan plan, earmarked for about 2,500 acres of rolling farmland. His vote allowed the referendum election to go forward. Supervisors Butch Lindley and Fernando Armenta dissented.

In a strange twist to the drawn-out saga, opponents of Rancho San Juan -- who say the massive project would further snarl North County traffic and threaten tapped-out water supplies -- pushed supervisors to allow the election to go forward rather than cancel project approvals.

The referendum drive to place the issue on the ballot was mounted by opponents of the plan.

Early Tuesday, about 50 Rancho San Juan foes staged a demonstration in front of the county administration building in Salinas with signs that said, "Referendum or recall," "Let us vote," and "Don't deny us the right to vote."

Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County, said the protest was designed "to insist the supervisors give the voters... a chance to vote."

Opponents of Rancho San Juan gathered about 16,000 petition signatures to qualify the ballot measure and were rebuffed in March when they first asked supervisors to overturn county planning policies that were amended for the giant project.

The election scenario was reversed in May when the developer of the first phase of Rancho San Juan -- the 670-acre golf-subdivision Butterfly Village -- suggested that supervisors overturn the December approvals and cancel the election. The county is in the midst of processing a smaller plan for Rancho San Juan that would still include Butterfly Village.

That plan is scheduled to be made public in September, about two months before the ballot measure on the already approved Rancho San Juan plan.

County Counsel Charles McKee told supervisors the November vote won't be an up-or-down vote on the Rancho San Juan development, but merely a decision on whether to overturn specific general plan amendments that would allow the massive development.

No matter how voters weigh in on the measure, McKee said it wouldn't affect a new Butterfly Village plan within a scaled-down Rancho San Juan plan.

Jay Brown, a South County cattle rancher and member of the pro-development 21st Century Solutions Group, said Rancho San Juan opponents want a potentially meaningless election to go forward "as a bully pulpit to forward their cause."

But Marilyn Maxner of the League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula said canceling the election would be "a significant violation of the public process."

What the supervisors' decision to keep the referendum intact means for Butterfly Village or other future development in Rancho San Juan wasn't immediately clear. The fight over the November referendum was the latest twist in more than 20 years of county planning for Rancho San Juan. The area was designated for intensive development in the early 1980s.

Mark Blum, an attorney for Butterfly Village developer Moe Nobari, observed the three-hour hearing but declined comment outside the board chambers. Nobari has a pending damages lawsuit against the county for delaying his project.

Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, said she was surprised and gratified by the board decision not to cancel the election. She reasoned that the number of voters who signed petitions played a large role in the decision.

"Politically it would have been harder for them to make the hard decision," she said.

Engell predicted it will be a tough, high-spending battle to pass the measure against the Rancho San Juan plan. "It will take a hell of a lot of work," she said.

Much of the county's recent actions on Rancho San Juan have been influenced by Nobari's lawsuit victory that the county improperly delayed his project plans for 14 years. The issue of possible money damages owed by the county remains unsettled.

No matter how the November election turns out, McKee said the county remains obligated to process a Butterfly Village plan and to allow a certain level of development on Nobari's land.

George Riley, a Monterey resident who helped the referendum drive, blasted county officials for getting caught up in "legal blather" and turning "a blind eye to the public interest."

Potter said it would be "disrespectful" and "insulting" to deny the public a vote on Rancho San Juan.

"We've been afraid all along of litigation," he said. "Litigation is going to happen."

Calcagno said he was torn by the issue because if voters defeat the referendum in November, they will endorse a project that he personally opposes along with many of his North County constituents.

"It's got me pretty much in a state of limbo," Calcagno said.

Smith said the fact the project already is being scaled back shows that supervisors are accepting "the will of the people."

Smith said the November election won't affect a project that is "still alive and well." And he said there is a lot of erroneous information about Rancho San Juan and he chastised its opponents for blocking needed housing.

At the same time, Smith referred to himself and Lindley and Armenta -- three Vietnam War veterans on the board -- and said many U.S. troops have fought to preserve the right to free elections "even if the information you get it is not correct."

******************************************************************************
NOTE from Margie: there is an error in this Californian article because it was Supervisor Johnsen who voted in December to approve before Jerry Smith became the District 4 Supervisor in January.

******************************************************************************

Rancho will be up to voters
Supervisors vote to keep 2,400-acre development on November ballot

By CLAUDIA MELÉNDEZ SALINAS
The Salinas Californian

Monterey County voters will have their say Nov. 8 on Rancho San Juan, a massive development project that would rise just north of Salinas and extend well into Prunedale.

In a move that surprised most observers, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors left a referendum on the ballot despite a developer's request to remove it. The vote might not be the final word on the vast development, which, as now proposed, would spread over 2,400 acres and include 4,000 housing units, commercial and light industrial areas, and a golf course.

County planners are at work on a smaller version of the plan, which could still gain supervisors' approval and come to fruition. But a strong signal by voters against Rancho San Juan would demonstrate the public's distaste for development in that area. Tuesday's decision nevertheless pleased Rancho opponents.

"I was very surprised. I think most people were," said Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, the leading force against the project.

The 3-2 vote did not come without the drama reserved for the most controversial projects in Monterey County.

Smith casts deciding vote

Supervisor Jerry Smith, considered a strong supporter of development interests, voted along with Supervisors Dave Potter and Lou Calcagno to keep Rancho San Juan on the November ballot.

"This is no reason to celebrate," Smith told the audience of mostly anti-Rancho activists. The 4th District supervisor from Seaside, who voted in favor of the project in December, said he wanted his vote to be a first step toward finding accord on how to build more affordable housing.

"There are three veterans on this board that put their lives on the line so people here could have a right to vote," Smith said, referring to military service by himself and Supervisors Fernando Armenta and Butch Lindley.

Smith was one of the three votes that gave the go-ahead to Rancho San Juan in December.

Under threat of paying millions of dollars in damages to Marin County-based H-Y-H Corp., a development firm that has been struggling for years to build a 670-acre project within Rancho San Juan, supervisors approved the whole Rancho San Juan concept Dec. 14.

Rancho opponents immediately went into high gear and gathered about 16,000 signatures in the space of a month to put the matter up for referendum. In March, supervisors had the choice of repealing their approval of general plan amendments that would allow Rancho San Juan to move forward, or leaving the matter up to voters. The board decided to let voters have their say.

But lawyers for Moe Nobari, the principal in H-Y-H Corp. asked the board last month to remove the matter from the ballot and repeal its original decision, because planners are working on a scaled-down version of Rancho San Juan and Butterfly Village, the H-Y-H project, to move forward.

Removal from ballot advised

In an extensive presentation about Rancho San Juan and its contentious history of more than 20 years, County Counsel Charles McKee said supervisors could not have repealed their approval of the project in March because such a move would have left the door open to litigation by H-Y-H Corp.

But now that H-Y-H has requested the repeal, McKee advised supervisors to do just that and withdraw the referendum from the ballot. McKee argued the action was exactly what the residents were seeking with the referendum. Repealing the supervisors' vote would make the referendum moot, he said.

Anti-Rancho activists argued otherwise.

"We want a chance to vote," Carmel Valley resident Paula Lotz told supervisors. "You had your chance. Why did you wait so long? Why did you make us get 16,000 signatures to have the chance to say how we feel? You did what you needed to do; you approved it. Where does it say you have to keep on approving it?"

Several members of a largely pro-development group called 21st Century Solutions urged the board to pull Rancho San Juan off the November ballot.

"Ballot-box land-use planning doesn't work," said Tom Carvey, executive director of Common Ground, an organization that promotes fewer restrictions on growth.

'Signatures based on a lie'

Aaron Johnson, a land-use attorney, told supervisors that referendum backers seemed to use deceptive techniques to get so many supporters behind their cause.

"The only decision is to referend the general plan amendments," not the plan in its entirety, Johnson said. "This highlights that petitioners gathered 16,000 signatures based on a lie."

The referendum would repeal approval of general plan amendments that allow for the type of development spelled out in the Rancho San Juan Plan; it would not scrap the entire plan as it stands. But supporters of the referendum have said that placing an entire plan on the ballot would be nearly impossible, as the whole document - thousands of pages - would have to be presented to each voter who signed the petition.

Engell, a Prunedale resident, said she's pleased with the vote.

"I attribute the change not only to people who spoke so eloquently, but also to (Supervisor) Dave Potter," she said. "He really drove that decision at the board. I think he did a wonderful job, and we're all very grateful for that."

Nobari of H-Y-H Corp., who attended the meeting, declined to comment, as did his attorney and public relations agent.

Contact Claudia Meléndez Salinas at cmelendez@gannett.com.

Originally published August 17, 2005

No Means Yes
Supes vote against yanking approval of Rancho San Juan—which means voters will get to decide if they want to kill it themsleves.

Aug 18, 2005
By Jessica Lyons

In a surprising 3-2 vote on Tuesday, Aug. 16, County Supervisors agreed to allow county residents to vote on Rancho San Juan—the largest development project ever proposed in Monterey County.

Supervisors Fernando Armenta and Butch Lindley voted to repeal the board's earlier approval of the 2,581-acre project, but lacked the third vote necessary to cancel the November ballot measure.

Opponents of the development fear that if the whole project is simply scrapped, they'll face a slew of smaller developments at the site just north of Salinas.

A November ballot measure, they hope, will send a clear message that voters do not want the mini-city—which would include 4,000 homes, a golf course, hotels, shops, schools, parks and a town center.

"We're not talking today about land use," said LandWatch's Executive Director Chris Fitz. "Today's decision is all about the democratic process. It will send a message that you, as a body, care very much about what the people think."

Prior to the meeting, about 50 of the development's opponents marched outside the new county administrative building carrying signs that said, "Stop Rancho San Wrong," and "Don't Deny Us Our Right To Vote."

But many of the marchers believed that the Supes would go along with the developer's wishes, rescind their earlier approval, and cancel the November vote. (Meanwhile, a scaled-back version of Rancho San Juan works its way through the pipeline.)

Pundits and politicos alike predicted that the Aug. 16 decision on Rancho San Juan would come down to a 3-2 vote. It did—but not the 3-2 vote that they had expected.

Supervisors Lou Calcagno and Dave Potter voted to let county voters decide in November. That wasn't a big shock—the two have consistently voted against the project, and against spending more money to study it. Both have said the project is too big, and they are concerned that it would worsen already bad traffic congestion, as well as the water overdraft situation.

Canceling the November vote, said Potter, "would be disrespectful and insulting to those who circulated the petition and those who signed it."

Calcagno, however, initially seemed to indicate that he would vote to repeal the board's December decision.

"I voted against the project," he said, "And if the project was before us today, I'd vote against it again."

But he decided against supporting the vote. Between now and November, he said, there will surely be a long campaign during which Rancho San Juan supporters will likely spend big bucks to put a glossy, PR shine on the massive project.

"What happens if the vote goes the wrong way? I'm gonna kick myself all over for that," he said Tuesday.

"I understand your desire to preserve your vote," Potter responded. "The public is asking for an opportunity to do what you got to do, and vote on this project. If the project is approved by the public? Then you and I misread our constituents, and that is a political risk I am willing to take. To say we are going to continue this unholy alliance with the developer doesn't feel good to me."

Finally, in a role call vote, Supervisor Jerry Smith sided with Calcagno and Potter and voted to let the referendum continue.

His vote came immediately after he voiced pro-development arguments: that project opponents were misleading voters about the repeal-versus-referendum decision at hand.

And then, immediately following the 3-2 vote, Smith lectured a stunned audience in the Supervisor's chambers that "the project is still alive and well," and "this is not something to celebrate today."

"We need to stop putting up these false obstacles to providing housing," he continued. "You have three veterans up here who put their lives on the line to give you the right to vote even though the information [on the petition] was not correct."

Late last year, County Supervisors approved the first phase of the huge development, a 1,147-home and golf course subdivision called Butterfly Villages, along with a series of general plan amendments that would allow development on the entire Rancho San Juan area.

During the following three weeks—the holiday season—opponents collected more than 16,000 signatures to force a referendum to stop the development. In early March, supervisors decided to let voters weigh in.

But then, in May, the board voted to spend an additional $325,000 on new environmental studies, which would look at a scaled-back version of the plan.

At that time, opponents worried that once the new environmental reports had been completed, the Supes would rescind their December approval of the project, cancel the November vote, and then approve a smaller Rancho San Juan, or allow the area to be developed piece by piece.

Their worries were confirmed when, last month, the Butterfly Villages' developer asked the Supervisors to cancel the November vote and consider a smaller development instead.

The developer, Moe Nobari, has been trying to build on Rancho San Juan since the early 1980s. In 2001, his successful lawsuit forced the County to process a Rancho San Juan specific plan—a kind of mini-general plan for the entire area.

Last year, he threatened to sue the County again, but agreed to dismiss his claims of damages if the Supervisors approved the project by the end of 2004.

The Supes did just that—and got slapped with five other lawsuits, including one from the city of Salinas and another from the state Department of Transportation, challenging the project's environmental report.

In July, when Nobari's attorney asked the board to cancel the November vote and consider a scaled-back project—which would still include Butterfly Villages—Nobari's attorney said that this would give Rancho San Juan opponents what they have been asking for all along.

A generally pro-development group of men took this argument and ran with it at a news conference on Aug. 15. At the news conference, organized by 21st Century Solutions Group, spokesperson Brian Finegan—an attorney who usually represents pro-development interests but insisted that his group didn't support or oppose Rancho San Juan—accused project opponents of lying.

"They really don't want the Board of Supervisors to repeal the resolution, as requested in their petition," he said, adding that the "real motive" is to "further their political agenda."

Julie Engell, who chairs the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, said her group's real motive is to protect the public's "constitutional rights and our ability to exercise them."

She said that the only reason the supervisors were considering rescinding their previous approval of Rancho San Juan was because "they have already spent the money to redesign a plan and put in motion the developer's interests in this."

On Aug. 16, following the board's 3-2 vote to keep the measure on the November ballot, Engell said she was pleased, but added she doesn't believe that the board will vote no on a scaled-back version of Rancho San Juan.

"Is less better than more? Absolutely, but you have to go back to the initial promise made to the people of Monterey County: That the crisis of water and roads will be solved before development."

When asked what it will take to win the November vote, she said, "A hell of a lot of work."

Iraq: A Very Dead End

by David McReynolds

(David McReynolds, a member of the Socialist Party's National Committee, was in Iraq in 1991 as part of a delegation from the Fellowship of Reconciliation, seeking possible ways of avoiding the first Gulf War. The delegation secured the release of several US citizens being held hostage).

On the eve of the Iraq War I assumed someone would stop Bush. Not because the invasion was wrong or in violation of international laws (though it was both) but because it was madness. A "Christian" nation invading the heart of Muslim territory? It seemed a guarantee of disaster, as it has proven to be.

My first point would be to see the war as a reminder of how "the best and brightest" so often do not know what they are doing. My second point is that while various reasons for the invasion have been given, the only one which counts is the US interest in control of the oil in the region.

The other reasons are worth looking at - briefly. We were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found. We were told Saddam was building nuclear weapons. A lie out of whole cloth - not a shred of evidence has been produced. We were told Iraq was home to the Al Queda network - a charge made on the assumption Americans would not understand that the Islamic fundamentalism of Osama Bin Laden was diametrically opposed to the secular State of Iraq. We were told - when no weapons of mass destruction were found, no evidence of nuclear weapons, and no links to Bin Laden, that our mission was really to bring democracy to Iraq.

This "mission shift", which occurred months after the war began, deserves comment. First, the lack of genuine democracy in the US is shown by the ability of the President to lie to the Congress and send our troops into battle in the face of overwhelming opposition to the war. Democracy rests on the "informed consent of the governed". But when the public, and the Congress, were lied to by the President and his advisors, it is impossible to argue that a democratic decision was even possible.

Now the war has come home to haunt the Bush Administration. As I write this more than 1800 Americans have been killed, at least 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and the wounded will haunt us for years to come, men and women coming home without arms, or legs, with nightmares no therapy can dissolve. This has been a war fought by working class Americans who enlisted in the military because it offered work, or a chance at an education, and found themselves ten thousand miles from home.

At first the opposition to the Occupation was written off as only a handful of terrorists. The media has long since given the opposition the correct name - "insurgents". The insurgents are a mixed group, some supporters of Saddam, some from the Sunni, some simply Iraqis fed up with the humiliation of being occupied, and a relatively few young men who have come into Iraq because this is their chance to fight what they see as the enemies of Islam.

Dreadful as Saddam's regime was - it terms of political repression - it provided medical care, education, housing (and the electricity worked!). It was a regime which was secular and guaranteed the rights of women (so long as they did not take part in political opposition to the regime). Now Iraq is a hotbed of terror where the Americans are holed up in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, where the few miles from the Green Zone to the Baghdad Airport are traveled at great risk. History students can examine the records of Occupied Europe under Hitler and will find that never did the Nazis travel at such risk as our troops in Iraq do today.

The issue of a possible Western military victory has been answered by events. As I write this, the insurgent forces control more of Iraq than the US and Britain. The Iraqi recruits are violent, badly disciplined, and from reliable reports, more feared by the population than the US troops.

What can be done now? US forces in Iraq are contained, for the most part, in camps outside the major cities. The US can launch brutal attacks, as it has done three times in Falluja - considered by many the Guernica of our time - but it cannot hold onto the areas.

Bush would like to find a way out. There have been informal discussions between the US military and some of the insurgents. But it is doubtful if the US will be able to accept the fact of its military defeat (which is why, every two or three weeks, Vice President Cheney or other US officials announce the "resistance is in its last phase"). It is equally doubtful there is an easy political way out - the government in Baghdad, put in place by elections which were boycotted by the Sunni, has little popular support. (Unless the three main forces - the Shiites, the Sunni, and the Kurds - are "at the table", there is no way a political settlement can be achieved).

US policy has had the ironic result of bringing Iraq and Iran closer together. In a sharp rebuke to Bush's pressure on Iran, a reactionary but widely popular leader emerged as the winner in the recent elections there.

What position should socialists take toward the insurgents? This is a difficult question First, some elements of the Iraqi left - the Iraqi Communist Party and some Iraqi trade unionists - work with the provisional government, so while they might support negotiations with the insurgents, they are not part of them. Second, the insurgents in Iraq are very different from the situation thirty years ago in Vietnam, when the Vietnamese Communist Party, through the National Liberation Front, represented the vast majority of Vietnamese. (The Vietnamese resistance was much different from the horror of Iraq - there were no suicide bombers, no beheadings, etc.). In Iraq the insurgents are divided among themselves, and for the most part, have politics with which none of us would agree. They do not want democracy, but an Islamic State. They do not want women's rights.

While we need to respect the right of the insurgents to resist the US and Britain, it is impossible to say that their cause is our cause. The most important thing for Americans to understand is that this is not the issue that is important - the views I might have on the insurgents will have no impact on them. The insurgents didn't ask for the permission of the US left, it doesn't feel itself part of the US (or international) left, and it will fight the US and Britain regardless of what we say or do. Our job is not to divide the US movement over whether or not we "support the insurgents" but to unite on the demand the US and Britain leave Iraq. (I should be clear that of course the Iraqis have a right to resist the US Occupation).

There are other points which should be made by us. Blair and Bush should both be brought before an international tribunal and charged with launching a war of aggression - which is a violation of the UN Charter. Bush should be impeached. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld should not only be fired because of the well-documented human rights violations at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, but he should be on trial for criminal abuse of his office. Unhappily those things will not happen - no US official was jailed for the crimes of the Vietnam War, even though over three million Vietnamese died. But at least let us say that, in our view, the heads of the US and British government are guilty of crimes against humanity. And let us be clear that our movement wants the kind of society where such gross violations of international law would be treated as criminal acts.

As to what to do? Ironically the liberal Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, have called for more US troops to be sent to Iraq, while at least one Republican member of Congress from the Deep South has called for the US to withdraw. There are liberals who opposed the war itself but who now feel the US can't "just pack up and go", that "there is a moral responsibility to help fix the mess". One of the most painful lessons of history is that in a case such as Iraq the last people who can "fix the mess" are those who created it.

There have been suggestions that perhaps the United Nations could send in troops, or that the Arab states could take on peace keeping. People say we have a moral responsibility to fix what has been broken, to understand the US invasion tore apart Iraqi society more deeply than anything Saddam had done - and "you can't just walk out".

The problem is that nothing can fix Iraq except, eventually, the Iraqis. The Arab states can't send in peace keepers because they are themselves divided over what they want in Iraq. Some want a Shiite Iraq, some a Sunni Iraq, all are afraid of the Kurds - in short, the Arab states aren't in agreement to start with, and their intervention in Iraq would be seen (correctly) by the Iraqis as more foreign meddling. The United Nations? The only time that UN forces have been really effective is when two warring sides have agreed to a peace keeping force. But with Iraq on the verge of civil war (or already in one), there is no realistic role for UN forces. And who would send them? Can one see the French or German governments taking on a peacekeeping role? People say "the United Nations" because no one wants to face the depth of the mess of Iraq, and they search desperately for any way out.

The truly criminal part of this situation (aside from the criminal fact of the invasion itself) is that the US, which had already done enormous damage to Iraq through nearly ten years of economic sanctions (which caused the death of over a half million Iraqis), has, through the war, deepened the damage. Places such as Falluja have been almost totally destroyed. I think the immediate US withdrawal will be a disaster - the problem is that I don't see any alternative to that disaster which would not be worse.

No one can predict the future of Iraq if the US leaves - but we can see from the past two years what the US Occupation has meant. One group of moderates in the peace movement have started a campaign to set October of 2006 as the date to begin a withdrawal of US and British forces. We must refuse to be drawn into setting any dates - we have to demand that the US and Britain withdraw, immediately, as swiftly as transport can be arranged to get the troops out. If that takes a week, a month, or three months, OK. But to suggest October of next year as the date to begin withdrawal is to accept that the Bush Administration can be trusted. For the sake of our men and women in Iraq, for the sake of the people of Iraq, we must demand the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all US forces, military and civilian, from Iraq, and the closing of all US military bases in the country.

Subject: Fwd: Audible Pedestrian signals on Mission Street

Dear All,

For some reason Caltrans has taken out the audible pedestrian signals on several intersections on Mission Street. This change is causing problems for our blind members. Below is a copy of the email Veronica Elsea sent to Caltrans.

Debbie

Begin forwarded message: Audible Pedestrian signals on Mission Street

Hi Julie!

I'm writing to you about the apparent changes in the audible signals on Mission Street. As I arrived at the corner of Mission and King (across from Union) I was surprised not to hear the locator tone of the Polara. When I asked my new dog to find the pole, she seemed a bit puzzled. Imagine my surprise when after searching for quite awhile, my hand eventually touched a completely different style of pole!

As of this writing, I have noticed that the audible signals at Mission/Walnut have also been replaced. At this intersection I have also noticed that the phasing of the light is different as well and can't figure out if the chirper begins while I'm competing with possible left-turning traffic.

Here are some of the potential problems with these unannounced changes:

1. Have you forgotten about our mocking bird? One of the initial reasons for requesting the spoken word over the old chirpers was because of the problems this neighborhood had encountered with the mocking birds imitating the chirper. We still have plenty of mocking birds in the vicinity.

2. At the time of installation, it was made clear that on a local level, we were responsible for the education and training of all blind members of our community in the use of the audible pedestrian signals. We filed all reports which were requested. It creates unsafe conditions when the APs is suddenly changed without warning, particularly the loss of the locator tone, on which we had learned to rely for orientation at offset crossings as well as finding the button. We suddenly are confronting the loss of alignment assistance at a particularly difficult corner at Mission/King/Union. It is also more difficult to hear the cars at the Mission/Walnut intersection because of the bouncing around of the sound of the loud chirpers. Who is responsible for education in the use of these altered intersections when the alteration is done without discussion or explanation?

3. When the current audible pedestrian signals were installed, we took great care and effort to obtain community opinions and involvement. Now it appears as though the sounds have been changed without consulting those most affected by them, namely, those who use the APS and those who live or work in the vicinity of the APS. A spirit of good will and the willingness to work together to accommodate each other's needs are fragile things, easily damaged by surprises which are perceived as unpleasant.

Questions:
1. Can you explain what prompted these changes at these two intersections?
2. What is the future of the remaining intersections? (Mission/Laurel, Mission/Bay, Mission/Younglove/Almar, and Mission/Swift)

The Mission Street widening Project was such a shining example of what can result from excellent communication and cooperation. I'd hate to think this was just a temporary phenomenon. We are very unhappy about not being given the courtesy of prior notification of the changes, or consultation with regard to any problems that may have been perceived. We care very much about the quality of our neighborhood and look forward to reopening the lines of communication before any further changes are made. We also hope we can restore the two intersections back to the level of security we've come to know. Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter. We very much look forward to hearing from you soon.

Veronica Elsea
Veronica Elsea, Owner
Laurel Creek Music Designs
Santa Cruz, California
http://www.laurelcreekmusic.com

Posted on Sun, Aug. 21, 2005

Old dumps a costly headache for cities

TESTING AT S.J. PARK SUGGESTS LONG ORDEAL
By April Lynch
Mercury News

A Chico doctor gives free blood tests for toxic lead contamination. Bakersfield officials, confronted by angry homeowners whose land has a tainted past, buy the houses back. San Diego finds itself with patches of pollution that cost more than $6 million to clean up.

The cause of these cities' troubles? Old trash dumps where burned garbage has left behind toxic substances and polluted land. All around California, the cleanup of these "burn dump" sites has been contentious and costly -- a reality San Jose now faces in the Watson Park area.

The long-overlooked site of what once was San Jose's main trash dump and incinerator plant will soon get extensive testing to see what cleanup may be needed. Soil tests have already found elevated levels of pollutants such as lead, zinc and other hazards. And almost all of the park is now closed, waiting for fences that will go up over the next week.

A Mercury News investigation found that the old dump site includes much of the 35-acre park, and probably extends beneath Empire Gardens Elementary School and possibly to nearby homes.

Many dismayed neighbors, who knew nothing of the park's history, hope for a quick fix. But the advice from veterans of other burn-dump battles is: Don't count on it.

"Oh no -- not another burn dump," said Barbara Vlamis, executive director of the Butte Environmental Council, who has spent years fighting over Chico's site. "Get ready for things you can't even begin to expect."

These oft-forgotten sites are a well-known hazard. Decades ago, torching piles of trash was a common way to get rid of garbage, and state records show at least 500 burn-dump sites throughout California. About 50 have been tagged as significant environmental threats.

The extent of San Jose's problem is still unclear. Watson Park was developed in the 1960s, and it's unknown what, if any, cleanup was done then. Recent city studies have yet to pin down the size or contents of the dump site, and no one knows what health hazards the residue may pose.

But initial tests -- and the experience of other cities -- offer some sense of what lies ahead for San Jose.

Environmental poisons are the biggest worry. Some pollutants already found in Watson Park are commonly found at burn-dump sites, especially lead. The metallic element, which can trigger nervous-system damage and other ailments, is especially dangerous to children.

In Chico, where parts of an old 157-acre burn dump were heavily laced with lead, the contamination sparked a battle between city officials and concerned community members that has lasted for more than a decade.

Since problems at the dump site surfaced in 1992, cleanup has been a key battle. Officials planned to move more than 65,000 cubic yards of waste and cover it with clean soil. Critics, challenging claims that the process would be safe, said the move would stir up lead dust and endanger neighbors.

One Chico physician, Dr. Philip Smith, was concerned enough to offer free blood tests for lead to those near the cleanup site, planning to test both before and after the summer cleanup.

Pressured by residents, the cleanup was revamped. Massive amounts of water -- about 6.4 million gallons -- were sprayed on the polluted dirt to control dust during the move. Earlier this month, city officials said their part of the contaminated material had been relocated.

About 200 people took Smith up on his offer, and he plans on the second round of tests this fall. But he doesn't expect the new tests to find significant lead problems -- which, for him, makes the whole effort worthwhile.

The cleanup "was handled better, which is due, in part, to the fact that people were watching," he said.

Burn dumps also kick up fights over property values. Many old dump sites now hold homes, buildings or public places built years ago, when environmental rules were not as strict.

In San Jose, old property maps show that the city-owned land in the dump area included a strip of property on the west side of North 22nd Street between Jackson and Washington which now holds at least a dozen homes and part of Empire Gardens Elementary School.

Most homeowners on that land are waiting for further details from the city. "I'm reserving judgment, and curious to learn more," said Jeff Thompson, whose home faces the park.

In Bakersfield, after 20 homeowners learned their homes were sitting on a former city burn dump, officials quickly faced a big problem. The neighbors sued the city, saying any contamination was its fault.

In one yard, a family's citrus trees bore fruit laced with contaminants, recalled Bakersfield lawyer Bill Slocumb, who represented most of the property owners. City officials told another family to move out after dangerous methane gas created by buried, rotting garbage was found leaking into their house. (So far, no significant levels of methane have been detected at Watson Park.)

City officials eventually agreed to buy the homes, paying about what the owners would have gotten before the history of the land came to light.

"My clients couldn't sell their properties on the regular market," Slocumb said. "They were ruined. The city had owned the property and the city was responsible."

Bakersfield officials later had the land cleaned up and resold the homes, telling new buyers about the properties' past. The mess cost the city about $3.5 million, said City Manager Alan Tandy.

"For a while, there was an atmosphere of fear and panic," Tandy said. "But buying the houses sure helped."

Bakersfield's bill isn't unusual.

A little more than a decade ago, investigators in San Diego uncovered two burn-dump sites in the same neighborhood. About two dozen homes proved to be near contaminated land. By 2002, the cleanup bill had hit more than $6 million, with federal and state agencies paying for part of the work.

Chico spent more than $1 million to identify problems at its burn dump and will probably wind up paying between $5 and $6 million more on cleanup.

"These are always complicated projects," said Andy Kopania, leader of Sacramento-based EMKO Environmental, consultant on the Chico dump. "Quick fixes aren't easy to come by."

San Jose still doesn't know what to plan for. The city has spent more than $82,000 on consultants so far, and recently authorized $800,000 for an extensive, yearlong environmental study.

City leaders may also set aside reserves for the Watson Park area, but no decisions on the fund or its size will be made until this fall, said Tom Manheim, spokesman for the city manager's office.

But cities with experience say saving up is smart.

"We had the same circumstance -- an unknown situation where people were worried," said Bakersfield's Tandy. "What finally made things better? Spending money. After that, it turned out just fine."

Contact April Lynch at alynch@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5539.

Imagine the gall; gallons of it...Promoting the war and tying it to 9-11. Assholes have no shame! ...and we could wonder what this event is going to cost the taxpayers? Paul Dragavon

Walking the Wrong Way
The New York Times Editorial

Sunday 21 August 2005

The Bush administration has announced plans for a Freedom Walk on Sept. 11, which will start at the Pentagon and end at the National Mall, and include a country music concert. The event is an ill-considered attempt to link the Iraq war to the terrorist attacks of 2001, and misguided in almost every conceivable way. It also badly misreads the public's mood. The American people are becoming increasingly skeptical about the war. They want answers to hard questions, not pageantry.

It is perfectly appropriate for the Defense Department to organize a memorial for Americans who died on Sept. 11, since many were Pentagon employees. It is also fine to pay tribute to the sacrifices being made by the troops in Iraq. What is disturbing is the Bush administration's insistence on combining the two in a politically loaded day of marching and entertainment.

Having failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the administration has been eager to repackage the war as a response to Sept. 11. The Freedom Walk appears to be devised to impress this false connection on the popular imagination.

The walk will end with a concert by the country musician Clint Black. Mr. Black is a gifted entertainer, but his song about the Iraq war, "I Raq and Roll" - which contains such lyrics as "our troops take out the garbage, for the good old U.S.A." - sends a jingoistic message that is particularly out of place at a memorial service.

The Freedom Walk is being organized at a time when popular opinion has been turning against the war. In recent days, Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has attracted enormous attention with her protest outside President Bush's Crawford, Tex., ranch. The increasing war toll and the sad stories of multiple losses in some communities are reinforcing the message that the invasion of Iraq has not been pain-free for all of the country. The mother of a fallen marine, Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II - one of 16 Ohio-based marines killed in a recent three-day period - said last week that the president should either "fight this war right or get out."

These mothers are expressing concerns that a growing number of Americans share. In a recent Associated Press poll, just 38 percent of those surveyed approved of President Bush's handling of Iraq. In a Gallup poll this month, 57 percent said the war has made the United States less safe from terrorism.

The Bush administration took the nation to war on the basis of a bundle of ever-changing arguments, few of which stood up once the fighting began. Ever since, the White House has tried to shore up its positions by discounting all bad news and shielding the civilian public from any war-connected inconvenience. But that strategy has very clearly stopped working. It is time for a somber acceptance of the war's costs, and some specific talk about what the nation's goals and strategy are in Iraq.

The Defense Department's ham-handed mixture of mourning and celebration, and its misleading subtext, feels as if it was dreamed up by an overly slick image consultant. It is not the kind of program the administration should be sponsoring, unless it wants to give the impression that the Pentagon's mood is less serious than the public's.

Bills would protect property After court ruling, lawmakers focus on eminent domain

By JAKE HENSHAW
The Salinas Californian Capitol Bureau

Simón Salinas

AT A GLANCE

Here is a list of legislation that has or will soon be proposed on the issue of eminent domain. In some case, identical measures are being proposed in the Senate and Assembly. Bill numbers may not be available for bills still being finalized:

SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 15 by Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, and ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 22 by Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale: These measures would prohibit the use of eminent domain for any private development and require court approval of public uses of the condemnation power.

SCA 12, Sens. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch: Would ban the use of eminent domain for owner-occupied residences for private use.

SB 1026, Kehoe, and an undesignated Assembly bill by Assemblyman Simón Salinas, D-Salinas, and Gene Mullin, D-San Francisco: Would impose a two-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain on owner-occupied private residences for private use. Mandates a study on uses of condemnation on these residences over the last decade.

SB 53, Kehoe: Would require redevelopment agencies to spell out how they would use eminent domain power. Would ban its use more than 10 years after a new project starts and three years for existing projects when the bill takes effect.

SB 1099, Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta: Prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire farmland unless it's for public use or by a private agency for heath, utility, railroad or other common-carrier uses.

SACRAMENTO - Worried that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision might increase the threat of homeowners and businesses losing their property, California lawmakers are proposing new protections.

At issue is the authority of public agencies to force private-property owners to sell their land for use by other private businesses or individuals for public benefit such as economic development.

Lawmakers are trying to rush through legislation, including a constitutional amendment, before the Legislature ends its session for the year Sept. 9.

At the milder end of the legislative spectrum are bills proposing to impose a two-year moratorium on using the power of eminent domain to acquire owner-occupied residences.

That legislation, co-authored by Assemblyman Simón Salinas, D-Salinas, also would direct state researchers to produce a report on the use of eminent domain over the past decade.

"I think what we need to do is take a measured response," Salinas said. "I think what we're doing is push this idea of a moratorium and have the research of the past 10 years of what kinds of eminent domain issues have come up and really take a look at that before doing anything."

In its June decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of a Connecticut city to evict homeowners and renters to make way for a hotel, stores, offices and new homes adjacent to a Pfizer research center.

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, is pushing for stronger medicine to counteract the ruling. He supports legislation for a constitutional amendment to ban any public agency from condemning private property for any private use. Such an amendment would have to be approved by voters it if gets through the Legislature.

"I absolutely think something needs to be done immediately," Denham said. "The longer we wait, you will see other areas around the state making decisions based on fiscal issues rather than property rights issues." Governor takes no position

In an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno in June, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized the high court's decision, calling it a "bad idea."

In response to a question from Leno, who said polling showed the decision was overwhelmingly unpopular, Schwarzenegger said:

"I understand that, because you would be worried - again, it goes back to people being able to go and pay off politicians, you know, and they would then control which land would be developed and which would not be touched."

But the governor hasn't taken any position on any of the proposed legislation.

Generally, the federal and state constitutions require government to pay private property owners a fair price if their property is taken for a public purpose, which traditionally has been for uses such as roads, schools and public buildings.

There's no push in the state Capitol to end such use of eminent domain, though some lawmakers want to tighten up the process for using it.

Much of the focus of the debate over the use of eminent domain in California is on redevelopment agencies, which often are governed by city council members or boards of supervisors wearing a different hat.

These agencies generally lead public efforts that may use eminent domain for economic developments, which can generate higher tax revenue for communities.

'Provides motivation'

Supporters cite benefits of redevelopment such as the turnaround from a downtown "skid row" in Salinas to improvements highlighted by a new 14-screen movie theater that opened last month.

The project didn't use eminent domain, but Salinas Redevelopment Agency director Alan Stumpf said it's the existence of eminent domain was crucial to getting cooperation from property owners.

"It provides the motivation for people to negotiate rather than hold out," Stumpf said.

To use eminent domain, redevelopment agencies are first supposed to declare an area "blighted," or economically troubled, and defenders of the current law said this requires a lengthy public process that protects property owners. A finding of blight isn't required in Connecticut and wasn't addressed by the high court.

Critics, however, argue that the term "blight" is vague and that non-blighted land can be condemned at times. Its definition may be the subject of some discussion in the current debate.

Stumpf said he's skeptical of the need for additional legislation. While his agency focuses on commercial property in Salinas and probably wouldn't be affected by a moratorium on using eminent domain on residences, he counseled caution in any changes that would restrict use of the condemnation power.

"There is no other tool to address blight, and if you take away the power of eminent domain, you might as well fold up your shop," Stumpf said.