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:

If you read the headline of the Sentinel this morning you already know this, but the SCPD cleared themselves of any wrongdoing in infiltrating the parade planning meetings of course.  (Police Investigation Clears Undercover Officers - SC Sentinel) 

Given that the investigation was lead by Deputy Chief Kevin Vogel who made the decision to infiltrate the planning meetings, this is no surprise.  The 600-page report said that the police had every reason to monitor the group (or any group in the future) because they had public safety in mind. 

If you are thinking this doesn't really truly involve you, or that you do nothing so sketchy that you'd attract police attention, consider this:  Among the 600 pages of documents in the internal investigation, the SCPD gathered intelligence on Santa Cruz Guerilla Drive-In, Santa Cruz Art & Revolution, and the Big Yellow House. 

Just three example of why we do not need the police spying on our peaceful group meetings:

• At one point during their infiltration of Last Night meetings, the SCPD gathered information about the planned peaceful Victoria's Secret protest which they shared with Capitola Police.  On the date of the protest 20 to 30 officers were waiting for protesters at Capitola Mall.
  
  
• Police gathered information about Art & Revolution's Anti-Corporate Christmas Caroling on Pacific Ave. without any evidence that the group had any intention of breaking any laws.  On the date, police monitored the group's activities.
  
  
• One person identified as a "main organizer" of the Last Night parade had little involvement and attended no meetings.  Yet, now this person has a police dossier on file at the Santa Cruz Police Department.  His police profile and entire police history appears in the public record as part of the internal investigation.

Subject: Information from Locally Owned Business Alliance of Santa Cruz

Bruce,

I wanted to take a moment to send you a copy of the press release we put out last week regarding the minimum wage proposal. The locally owned business community is really concerned about the impacts of this proposal. The vast majority of us do not oppose raising the minimum wage but we are concerned the ballot measure, as proposed, will do more harm than good to our local community. We are worried about our ability to provide jobs, benefits, etc. to the local community and what this proposal will do to our ability to stay in business over the long term. Rather than restate all the main points I'll let the press release speak for itself. I think it covers all the major concerns and issues of the local business community.

Anyway, we thought you would be interested to know what was happening from the locally owned business community. Here ya go......

Joe Marini
LOBA President

47 Locally Owned Businesses Announce Commission of Study to Determine Impacts of Minimum Wage Proposal

Santa Cruz -- 47 locally owned businesses representing a wide cross section of the City announced today that they have commissioned a study to determine the impacts of the recently proposed minimum wage ordinance.

The study will evaluate the impact of the proposed wage increase on locally owned businesses and non-profit organizations in the City. The study will address the following issues:

Effect on total employment, wages, and benefits, in Santa Cruz, Disproportionate effect on locally-owned companies, Effect on business location decisions in the region and the ability of the City to attract new business; and, Effect on City tax revenues, namely, sales tax revenues. "The locally owned business community is deeply concerned about the impacts this ordinance will have on our community and we have commissioned this study to determine what exactly those impacts will be," said Neal Coonerty, owner of Bookshop Santa Cruz and former Mayor. "Raising the minimum wage is a fine idea but we are very worried that the ordinance, as proposed, will do more harm than good."

Conducting the study is a firm called Civic Economics. With offices in Austin, and Chicago, Civic Economics is a leading practitioner of progressive economic development. Civic Economics provides businesses, communities, and civic organizations with creative tools to achieve sustainable prosperity. The young firm has gained wide notice for its innovative approach to economic challenges and its dedication to citizen engagement.

"Frankly, the proponents of the minimum wage ordinance should have done this type of research before asking the voters to approve their plan," said Larry Pearson, Owner of Pacific Cookie Company. "Instead, they choose not seek any input from local business owners to determine if their plan is sustainable in our community. Voters need to know if the proposed ordinance will decrease jobs, benefits or economic opportunity in Santa Cruz. This study will tell us the exact impacts of the proposal on our community."

Over the next few weeks, Civic Economics will conduct research and survey many local business owners as well as non-profit executives. They will be seeking information on how the proposed ordinance will impact the local workforce, what it will do to labor costs and how competition and consumer spendin g will be impacted.

The study will cost $20,000 and is being funded by donations from the 47 local businesses as well as Goodwill Industries of Santa Cruz. No single business donated more than $1,000 to fund the study.

"I'm not surprised that so many locally owned businesses have joined together in search of concrete facts and answers regarding the minimum wage proposal," said Cindy Geise, owner of Ristorante Avanti "Nobody knows if this will cause an elimination of jobs or an erosion of benefits. Nobody knows if this will hurt or help our community, not even the people who wrote the ordinance."

The results of the study will be made available to the public upon its completion in late April.

##### For more information contact Neal Coonerty at 423-0900 or Larry Pearson at 429-9709

For more information on Civic Economics, visit www.civiceconomics.com or contact Dan Houston at (512) 853-9044

List of Sponsors/Funding Partners for Civic Economics Study:

Ideal Bar & Grill; Walnut Ave Cafe; Santa Cruz Diner; Whitings Foods; The Buttery; Goodwill Industries of Santa Cruz; Battistini Canfield Insurance Services; Clouds Downtown; Las Olitas Cantina & Grill; Beach Street Café; Prindle Management Company; Artisan's Gallery; The Vault; Bedell & Nelson-Harbert Insurance; Baskin & Grant LLP; Paper Vision; Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk; Marini's Candies; Twisselman Enterprises; Sun Shops; Pacific Cookie Company; Kelly's French Bakery; Stagnaro Brothers Seafood; Red Tree Properties; New Leaf Market; Surf City Grill; The Garden Company; El Palomar Restaurant; Palace Art & Office Supply; Bookshop Santa Cruz; Gilbert's on the Wharf; Crow's Nest Restaurant; Santa Cruz Optometric; Acapulco Mexican Restaurant; Java Bob's Coffee Roasting; Ristorante Italiano; Trinideli; The Kind Grind; Hoffman's Downtown; Aldo's Harbor Restaurant; DeLaveaga Restaurant; Kiantis Pizza & Pasta Bar; Johnny's Harborside Bar & Grill; Gabriella Cafe; Ristorante Avanti; Casablanca Restaurant; Carniglia's; Dell Williams Jewelers; Zoccoli's Delicatessen

From: Rico Thunder
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: Last Night: The Big Issue

POLICE SPYING SCANDAL. By Rico Thunder.

I wanted to touch base with all y'all on the police spying scandal. There are a few good Indymedia articles which can quickly catch you up on stuff. Also posted on Indymedia are 14 pages of the 200+ pages received through the Public Records Act request. http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1799576.php

Not that it matters that much, but here is my opinion about the police spying from one who was there.

As far as I can tell, the SCPD weren't going to war on us, they weren't attempting to disrupt meetings, and they weren't making preparations to whisk us away to the camps. They were simply concerned about what they thought might be a public safety issue and so they did the easiest thing they could think of, sending undercover cops to the meetings.

I say this only because I don't want the true harm and the true outrage of what they did lost in hyperbole.

In infiltrating the meetings of a community group that showed no hint of serious criminal intent, they did violate the right of the attendees to free speech, free assembly, and privacy. They may well have violated the right to due process as well.

The courts have clearly argued in White v. Davis (1975) that the threat of infiltration and monitoring of peaceful groups risks chilling free speech thus violating state and federal constitutional protections. In response, the Attorney General of California recommended stringent guidelines for local PDs regarding police surveillance (which our police force has not yet adopted).

And to be clear, while the undercover officers DID disrupt meetings with their presence, it is not the behavior of the low-ranking officers that is the big issue. The important issue is the decision to infiltrate the group by high-ranking officers in the first place.

Looking at the Public Records Act documents, the decision to infiltrate the group was done very casually. And as far as we can tell, there was no concern about civil liberties, no consultations with the city lawyer, and no discussion about the rights of those involved.

There is currently an internal investigation going on. Unfortunately, the man who made the decision to infiltrate the parade group is heading the internal police investigation. So not only are the police left to police themselves, but the actual officers involved are leading the investigation. And while Deputy Chief Vogel assured me that he trusts that he will remain fair and objective as he leads the inquiry, I don't share his confidence.

The results of this highly suspect Internal Investigation are due to be delivered to the City Council's Public Safety Committee on Feb 13th at 4pm. We plan to have an old-fashioned rally and hoohaw at 2pm that day. Stay tuned about this.

If you want to do something with your outrage, call up the city council members and demand a truly independent investigation (an investigator not chosen by city manager Dick Wilson).

http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/council/members.html

We will not let up the pressure until citizens are free to express their right to free speech and free assembly without fear that there is a cop lurking in their midst.

Rico

THE PULSE OF OUR COMMUNITIES
by: Jan Mitchell

THE JURY'S FURY

Who doesn't enjoy a good book? Our rainy season encourages snuggling near a cozy fireplace to delight in some captivating tale. Perhaps your preference is a lusty love story, a sinister mystery, or that special biography recommended by a friend. As a land-use activist, my reading choices are not necessarily so pleasurable. Required review of statistics and environmental studies is often boring. My most recent enlightenment has been the '2005 Final Report produced by the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury.. Therein is documented much observation from a volunteer citizen.s group regarding the inner efficiency (or lack thereof) within our county governmental operation. Were I to fill all the pages of TCN, I could not report everything. View at www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/grand_jury.html. Free printed copies are available.

What is the Civil Grand Jury? Superior Court Judges nominate 30 volunteer citizens from throughout Monterey County, as officers of the Court in a public drawing of 19 Jurors and 11 Alternates held at a court proceeding convened during the first week after the New Year holiday. Their primary mission is to investigate county/city governments as well as districts and other offices to ensure that their responsibilities are conducted lawfully, and efficiently. Furthermore, they recommend measures for improving the functioning and accountability of those "intended to serve the public interest"---indeed, an admirable volunteer undertaking.

Witnesses who appear, or communicate in writing to the Grand Jury are protected by strict rules of confidentiality, for which violators are subject to legal action. The minutes and records of Jury meetings are protected by law, and cannot be subpoenaed or inspected by anyone. You, too can file a complaint with the Grand Jury if/when the need arises--- (831) 775-5400, Extension 3014.

While ongoing disputes over growth in Monterey County, as well as complex zoning requirements that negatively impact the Planning and Building Department and its permit process were acknowledged, NO other department in the 49 page report received the harsh criticism directed to the PB&ID. This department was described as "dysfunctional" and "suffering from inefficient and ineffective leadership, operational shortcomings, complex and inconsistent land-use policies, and negative internal and external pressures". The report also revealed "while investigating several complaints filed against the MC-PB&ID, the Grand Jury found that the SAME issues had been revisited numerous times by previous Grand Juries and reports".

Further summary stated, "it would be a simple matter to claim these conditions were solely a matter of budget cutbacks and high turnover". But, investigation found "these were not reasonable causes for this loss of revenue to the County, and delays and added costs to the applicant". "Delay of projects prevents properties or property improvements from enrollment on to the property tax base, denying the County additional revenues. Additionally, revenue has been LOST as a result of an ineffective Code Enforcement effort".

Some data was disturbing. For instance, "high department turnover" at one point in 2005, all 14 Associate Planner positions were vacant. Reasons for turnover include workload, stressful work environment from both internal and external pressures, cost of living in the Monterey Bay region, lack of job satisfaction, lack of operational management structure, lack of leadership, and complex and numerous regulations. This list of deficiencies has contributed to low morale among members of the staff.

Building inspectors had 12 to 16 inspections/day...Building Inspectors are required to validate that construction is in accordance with site and building plans permitted, and in compliance with the permit, and that there are NO code violations...All inspectors do NOT have the full array of current certifications to assure that projects are in compliance with the latest codes...Complex regulations, onerous time requirements, and costs for obtaining permits encourage people to avoid the permitting process altogether, and undertake ILLEGAL building activities..Be aware, this practice can adversely affect your entire neighborhood.s property values.

Some applicants can complete the permitting process prior to a hearing without providing ASSURANCE that a long-term and sustainable water supply is available..Is this fair to anyone?

As of their final writing, the Grand Jury reported there was a "backlog of 1,050 code enforcement cases". Fees and penalties are collected for code violations. Enforcement of many cases has been held in abeyance for many YEARS because a decision was made in the past to enforce them ONLY if the property were transferred to a new owner. This status results in either deferred revenue or a LOSS OF REVENUE to the County. A reputation for timely code enforcement by the County is an important preventives stimulus. In some cases, these issues are required to be cleared prior to transfer, others after..

"Code violations have occurred resulting in nominal penalties where it is less costly to the applicant to pay penalties than to comply with regulations". Such practice is inexcusable.

Advocates for Code Compliance (citizen volunteers) struggled for over 2 1/2 years to successfully draft to ultimately secure the Board of Supervisors approval for a NEW, improved Code Enforcement Ordinance containing enforcement "teeth". Sadly, this draft remains stalled in political limbo; until there is political will to support such an ordinance, serious violations will be routine.

"Code enforcement personnel establish their own priorities for pursuing enforcement cases when there is a backlog and they are unable to complete all assignments". The Planning Director reported that long deferred enforcement has recently been activated. In the past year, numerous cases were cleared that brought $200,000 in additional revenue to the County. The Grand Jury recommended funding for "ongoing training".

Was 2005 the year of unfinished business?---you bet. In short, the Grand Jury's underlying assessment pointed to the relentless influence of politics, degrading efficiency, and ignoring sensible judgment in policy and direction for the common good. Let's not forget, those who CAN make a difference in operation, function and budget are STILL five elected Supervisors, whose foremost duty is to represent your interests and mine.

Dear Friends, this might come as a surprise to you as it came as a surprise to me: for various reasons I realized beginning of December that the New School in New York was not the best fit for me (or as we say in German: it wasn't the "Yellow of the egg"). With lots of luck I was able to transfer on short notice to the American University, a fine institution in the capital! Classes are starting in one week from today, I moved two days ago into a dandy apartment which I wound 6 days ago. As you can see things happened rather swiftly.

Of course, I miss New York: especially places like the Brooklyn Bridge with the Statue of Liberty in the background.

The Washington monument just cannot compete . . .

Subject: Rapture & Bill Moyers

I do believe that the Bush administration is working hard to undo environmental protection legislation. I think that the Reagan administration did the same with the reprehensible policies carried out by James Watt and I think that the fundamentalist Christian right is a danger to American democracy.

I strongly believe that Bill Moyers is right to call on Americans to pay attention to the dangers inherent in having our longterm environmental and foreign policies directed by men and women who believe that supernatural forces are about to intercede to bring about the end of days.

I'm not certain which of the people so charged actually believe this scary scenario and which are cynically putting out that suggestion in order to acquire and hold the political (and military!) power that currently seems to require some nod in that direction. Unlike many on either side of the question, I do not know which sort of critter George W Bush is -- I don't care for either.

But ... Bill Moyers might well have stretched the point when making that speech (over a year ago). He has already apoligized to James Watt for misquoting him and his flips between specific and general references leaves the gullible reader convinced that the millions who read the Left Behind books of fiction all believe them to be gospel truth and all vote for Republicans in the hope that they will hasten the day of the rapture when they will rise to heaven to safely witness the plagues that will beset the rest of us. He could have been more careful but, like them, the more dramatic story makes for a more compelling read.

I share with Mr Moyers a concern for this dangerous thinking, I think that it's not necessary to embellish their hellish tale. Just reporting it would serve us better.

This link will bring you to a response from a conservative. I wish that he didn't have any good points to mix with his bull.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/244qiuuc.asp?pg=1

Tom Noddy

Aloha Bruce,

It looks to me like there's a second liquor store, on the far side of the Palomar Hotel, too, although even with the photo blown up my eyesight isn't quite good enough to tell.

That La Conchita traffic mess is because people slow down there to see the tiny community where 10 people, as I recall, died when those massive bluffs behind the town slid during last winter's terrific rains. Amazingly, is looks as though there are still people living there where future slides will surely kill them, as well.

Have you ever used that Highway 126, I think it is, between Ventura and that huge amusement park in Valencia at the I-5? It's a beautiful trip through orange groves in the Santa Paula and Fillmore area; in the spring those groves are filled with orange blossoms and he smell is heavenly. It'll all disappear, of course, as the landowners develop more and more subdivisions. Meanwhile, it's a nice way for people in southern California to get to, say, Santa Barbara -- by taking the I-5 out of town to the 126, then cutting over to the coast.

I am still exploring the endless bizarre environs of Orange and LA counties and finding little hole-in-the-wall restaurants that feature some of the best Shanghai, Peruvian, Vietnamese, Cuban, Chinese Islamic, Issan Thai or you-name-it cuisines you'll find anywhere. I love it here.

Lee Q

Next time you seek Highway 1 from Camarillo, take a short spin through the CSU Channel Islands campus, the former state mental hospital. It's a beautiful place, a real architectural treasure.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Claude Pascal - 17th century writer

Scott MacClelland

Subject: photo todays column

Hi Bruce,

Geez, you should know who the band is...

That is Santa Cruz High School. Those are the uniforms that they used when Norman Walters was the band director there.

FYI, when the band got new uniforms in the ~1950's, the 'old' ones went to Branciforte Junior High School (these were Cardinal Red Jackets, White Pants, with Leather Belts) and Ruth Muller had the kids wear them for her Marching Orchestra!! Imagine an upright bass attached to a skateboard, the violins/cellos were on the back of a pickup truck, and the rest of the kids marched along behind. It was a sight to see!!

The Town Clock Billiards were owned by the Meehan family. Gary Meehan is the son, he currently lives in Boon Doon with his wife. They own the Bonny Doon Lavender Farm.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving,

Best Regards, Sharon Korzep

As Published in the TRI -COUNTY NEWS, December, 2005 ­ Volume 5, Issue 7

THE PULSE OF OUR COMMUNITIES, by: Jan Mitchell

VOTERS VENT

Bliss County is a figment of my imagination. Share my vision ... an aesthetically splendid terrain, generally kissed by the sun, yet just as often bathed in fog drifts. Stately oaks and Monterey Pine forests pepper this incredible landscape, while various vegetation blends with wildflowers, wandering throughout seasonal golden rolling hills. Numerous foul and wildlife thrive here. Broad valleys belch acres of productive vegetable fields, plowed with endless rows of bountiful harvest, blessed by an exceptionally mild climate found nowhere else in God?s world. Couple this with a breathtaking oceanic coastline so scenic it beckons tourists worldwide, "Come, enjoy this splendor; we call it Paradise."

Sound familiar? Yes, it COULD BE Monterey County... the more urgent question is---WILL IT BE the Monterey County of our future? Communities should be shaped by choice, not chance. Do we want Monterey County to become another Orange County? or Silicon Valley? Paradise is routinely threatened by sprawling development and paved over by unreasonable growth, causing locals to become frustrated and angry with elected official's land-use planning and lack of "common sense" judgment. They fear for their property values and quality of life. As a result, voters stay informed, yet frightened and objecting--- all for very good reason.

Steinbeck wrote of farmer's devotion to this unique Salinas Valley land. Growers provided necessary housing for their migrant workers; that was merely another benefit after wages. Today, not so. Workers double-up in housing (live in garages and other deplorable conditions) just for the privilege of working here. Local home prices remain unrealistic. Many wait years for low income offerings. Workforce housing, benefiting our middle income firemen, teachers, nurses, police, hospitality workers and small business owners is sorely lacking. Second generation sons and daughters are "priced out". Families are separated; offspring uprooted, forced to more affordable destinations.

Meanwhile, big money developers, partnering with their own contractors and realtors continue to build high-end estate properties, escalating costs. Farmers who no longer work their land find it much more lucrative to sell to "out of town" developers, which jeopardizes the viability of our local agricultural economy. Pro-sprawl Supervisors never heard a subdivision they didn't like. Whether there is sufficient water, schools, police, and other resources and/or infrastructure for prudent project approval is inconsequential to them. Locals anxious to add a bathroom, or split lots to build a home for some family member are denied by water constraints. Yet, HUGE subdivisions like the sprawling Rancho San Juan are approved with tremendous water consequences, traffic gridlock, and lack sufficient infrastructure.

Such was the case that MEASURE C sought to prevent. The result: Measure C garnered 75 per cent of the vote to repeal the RANCHO SAN JUAN SPECIFIC PLAN in a "special election" on November 8. Voters didn't merely voice their objection to this project, they shouted their outrage! In the face of being told by County Counsel that voter's vote was "moot" (which incidentally is only a legal opinion), and Supervisors CLAIMING that the Marin County developer, Moe Nobari, would sue for millions in "takings" (which many still question)---voters were not deterred; democracy reigned supreme.

However, Supervisors did NOT WAIT for the ballot outcome. With an approval vote of 4 ­ l, they supported the smaller REVISED RANCHO SAN JUAN Butterfly Village project "coincidentally" one day before the public vote on Measure C. The previous approval vote was 3-2. Supervisor Potter, District 5, maintained his NO vote on the revised project. However, one vote changed---Supervisor Calcagno, District 2, voted to approve. It is important to note that the two areas most impacted by this harmful decision are District 2, and City of Salinas.

Do officials care that Revised Rancho San "Wrong Again" will still dump MORE THAN 13,000 additional vehicles on our roadways every day---yet still lacks funded capacity improvements? Do they care that the 1,147 homes proposed will cost an average of $530,000? With no schools? If this isn't nonsense enough---this project includes an 18-hole golf course in an area running out of water. Serve the public? Wrong Again - leaves taxpayers with a countywide fiscal disaster, and a political strategy to "sneak" a larger project through---parcel by parcel.

November 7th testimony by CALTRANS revealed the County and the developer were trying to "avoid providing any enforceable mitigation" for traffic problems they'll cause---the project's "fatal flaw". And, City of Salinas Counsel, Vanessa Vallarta testified that "25 new, unmitigated significant traffic impacts" would result. Both CALTRANS and City of Salinas lawsuits are ongoing. Why would Supervisors amend some "common sense" general plan policies (protections), when County voters said NO? Obviously, Supervisors failed to represent the public interest. They insulted their constituency by not waiting for ballot results. They approved a smaller version anyway.

Julie Engell, Chair of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, announced that a new Referendum petition is being circulated for the Revised Rancho San "Wrong (AGAIN)" project. The previous Referendum covered the whole plan, including Butterfly Villages, which voters rejected on November 8. "There is an obligation to go forward with this Referendum, because 75 per cent of County voters voted 'NO'", she said. Indeed&em;our vote does count, and our voice will be heard.

When approached with a request to sign this Referendum petition, you are AGAIN encouraged to stand courageous with your neighbors. Enough is enough; we want a better future for our respective neighborhoods and communities in every area of our special county. We want compact development, placed in communities where the infrastructure and services can support it. We want common sense land use planning, with affordable homes for our workforce, which RANCHO SAN WRONG and REVISED RANCHO SAN WRONG (AGAIN) both fail to provide.

"We must strengthen our resolve. If our communities are shaped and formed by the extortion of a wealthy and powerful few, we are not free."

Julie Engell, Chair
Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition

Here is my December article for Tri County News:

Water 101 - Either They Are Lying Or They Are Not Telling Us The Truth.

And, Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction Or Why Can't I Drink "Paper Water"

Monterey County voters were told our November 8th vote was "moot" and was not going to mean anything on Measure C regarding the December 2004 approval of Rancho San Juan. Even to the most casual of observers, it appears voters absolutely wanted the supervisors to know that our voice via vote does matter. As of this writing, over 75% who voted on Measure C let the county supervisors know that approval of Rancho San Juan was wrong. County approval was all about a pending lawsuit on "takings" by the Marin County developer on his application for a golf course and houses on 671 acres between Salinas and Prunedale. Mistakes had been made by the county in handling his application. Original designation of the area for development in the 1982 County General Plan was based on the assumption that transportation and water supply solutions would be in place. With still no Prunedale Bypass, what we do have is 14 more years of studies only. Historically, the area was grazing land and now has large acreage cultivating strawberries. Water savings of housing over strawberries was part of the county argument for approval on November 7th. The wastewater for the housing proposed is supposed to be used for irrigating the golf course. Locally, this idea has already been shown to be fiction and housing projects as Pasadera in the Highway 68 corridor between Monterey Peninsula and Salinas with homes around golf courses might not provide the water expected from the environmental impact report. Vacation homes do not have full time residents and older couples do not have full time families. With the requirement of water efficient appliances as toilets, showerheads, and washing machines- where is the water for the recycling effort? Belief is not truth no matter how strongly held.

From website (http://www.golfcalifornia.com/departments/coursereviews/pasadera-country-club-337.htm) touting the benefits of Pasadera: "That's a definite draw for empty-nesters, golfers seeking a second home and other veterans to Monterey County who have grown tired of the cool, damp and windy forces of nature living along the coast or inside 17-Mile Drive."

Next, Is Cal Am for sale or is it not? Cal Am General Manager Steve Leonard has claimed the German conglomerate RWE that owns Cal Am is not for sale. Cal Am has spent huge sums of money to fight off community buyout of water systems. The truth is RWE plans to sell all of its water holdings in the United States and the United Kingdom in 2007. So why would Mr. Leonard say Cal Am is not for sale? Was he lying?

Ever heard of "paper water"? Recently, the 2nd District Court of Appeals delivered an important decision rejecting development reliant on questionable water supplies. The Court's ruling determined that the City of Santa Clarita inappropriately used "paper water" to approve a large new development. "Paper water" is water that exists only on paper, but may well not exist in fact. It's "predicted" water, in other words, not water we can be sure of. The term was coined by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in the precedent-setting lawsuit by the Planning and Conservation League, which challenged the Department of Water Resources Monterey Amendments (PCL v. DWR). In that case, the court found that DWR could not deliver full contracted amounts of water from the State Water Project (water that appeared to be available "on paper," in the contracts between DWR and the water agencies). Yet, despite the fact that this "paper water" wasn't actually in existence, contractors and local land use planners were relying on that water as they made key land use and growth decisions. The Court determined that paper water was nothing more than a hope and dream.

Solutions are being designed to ease the water shortage on our Central Coast region of California. But what has actually been built and implemented? Water management agencies have basin management plans working towards hopeful solutions to the groundwater overdraft and seawater intrusion. Management districts have staff, board of directors and the public who study and scrutinize consultant's plans. Arguments include those who criticize the cost and who feel they will never benefit but must pay. Issues of property rights also drive much of the opposition. Management districts study possible solutions such as dams, desalination plants, recycling of urban water use for agricultural use, import pipelines of Central Valley water, and conservation by the more efficient appliances for industrial and urban use. There are timetables hopeful for approval by many agencies and construction for implementation, but this too is all "paper water." Have you ever tried to drink "paper water?" It is nothing like a dry martini.

Salinas Valley and North Monterey County property owners voted in the spring of 2003 to fund improvements for the Salinas Valley Water Project including a "rubber dam" on the Salinas River to store water for agricultural use during dry months and avoid groundwater pumping. Currently, county and city general plans are being debated everywhere on the Central Coast. Do we have proof for sustainable long-term supply of water, which is directly linked for future growth? The "rubber dam" has not yet been built so we don't know what it shall do. Yet Monterey County has been acting like this project is already built and implemented and has approved subdivisions using the benefit of the SVWP yet there are mutual well systems that are trucking in water to supplement what their wells do not provide.

"Developing public policy takes more than residents simply going to the ballot box," Stephen Haase, San Jose's planning director said during a panel on neighborhoods' role in government. "The more public participation, the better it will be." Democracy requires public participation. Many public participated for 4 plus years on Monterey County's General Plan Update yet the supervisors have tossed it all out including the Twelve Guiding Objectives. In June and July of 2001, after almost two years of extensive public outreach, the Monterey County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors adopted the Twelve Guiding Objectives for the Monterey County General Plan. These Guiding Objectives express what the citizens and residents of Monterey County want their General Plan to accomplish. "Guiding Objective #11: Seek to provide an adequate and sustainable water supply while protecting the county's watersheds and marine environment, including surface water, ground water, and aquifer recharge areas."

A poll, conducted in 2002 by The Nature Conservancy, found that eight out of ten Monterey County residents supported the 12 Guiding Objectives that were the foundation for the "first draft" document of the Monterey County General Plan Update. These objectives require that new growth be directed into existing urban areas, that more affordable housing be provided, and that farmlands and natural areas be preserved. Because of the policies and language the current Board of Supervisors are directing staff on draft version #4, many in the community are supporting an initiative to adopt a version amending sections of the 1982 General Plan.

From the Monterey County election web site: "The most serious threat to our democracy is the notion that it has already been achieved. The quality of our leaders and the direction of our Country depends on the participation of our people." Working people cannot spend years sitting in Board of Supervisor chambers. I am asking you, are you a citizen and are you registered to vote? If not, it is time for you to do so. If you are a registered voter in Monterey County, please review the Community General Plan Initiative and I hope you sign the petition to get it on the June 2006 ballot. We are also circulating a petition for a referendum on the revised Rancho San Juan since the general plan amendments still do not take into account the water and traffic problems. Cal Trans and the City of Salinas still have not supported the revised Rancho San Juan proposal and lawsuits continue.

Some elected officials have a habit of saying one thing during campaigning and then change once in office, have you noticed? Are they lying or are they not telling us the truth?

Hi Bruce, Cruzio will be matching up to $1500 in contributions to the Second Harvest Food Bank, and up to $1000 in donations to Doctors Without Borders, through December 30th. We're asking the community and our customers to help us fulfill this matching gift opportunity with their donations. In addition, we are collecting canned food donations for Second Harvest at either of our Cruzio locations.

November 28, 2005
Media Contact: Westi Haughey, Marketing Project Coordinator
Phone: 831.459.6301 ext. 247
Email: owesti@cruzio.com

CRUZIO MATCHES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK AND DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. – Cruzio, a local Internet service provider, is asking the community to help turn $1500 into $3000 for the Second Harvest Food Bank Holiday Food Drive, and $1000 into $2000 for Médecins Sans Frontières (aka Doctors Without Borders). Cruzio is committed to matching dollar for dollar, up to $2500 ($1500 for Second Harvest and $1000 for Doctors Without Borders) worth of cash contributions for these two worthy organizations. All donations must be made by Friday, December 30, 2005 to be eligible.

The Second Harvest Food Bank serves 44,000 meals every month, and depends on cash contributions. For each dollar donated the Food Bank can provide nine dollars worth of food. In addition to cash contributions, Cruzio will also be accepting canned food donations at its Santa Cruz and Watsonville locations. Needed canned foods include powdered milk, peanut butter, canned meals, cereal, fruit juices and tuna.

Doctors Without Borders fights malnutrition and disease, provides emergency medicine and surgical care, and delivers hygienic preventive care to nearly seventy countries everyday. With Cruzio and the community's matched donations, this Nobel Peace Prize winning organization will be able to provide continued earthquake relief in Pakistan and purchase necessary water and supplies.

Cruzio members and the community are invited to drop off their food or cash donations at Cruzio's Santa Cruz or Watsonville stores, located at 903 Pacific Avenue, Downtown Santa Cruz, and 23 East Beach Street, Watsonville, between 10am and 6pm Monday through Friday, or 10am and 2pm Saturdays, through December 30, 2005. Cruzio also collects canned food and (unmatched) cash contributions throughout the year, which can be dropped off Monday through Saturday during regular business hours.

Cruzio knows that hunger and unexpected disasters come more than once a year. For this reason Cruzio makes regular monthly canned food donations to Second Harvest by eliminating late-fees for customers when they donate at least three cans of food. Cruzio was awarded the "Blue Plate Special Award" by the Food Bank for this "No late fees for three cans of food" promotion in 2001.

Last year the Food Bank reached its goal of raising one million pounds food, thanks, in large part, to the generosity of Cruzio, their customers, and the community, who helped Cruzio make their largest contribution to date. In recognition of their contribution, Cruzio received one of the Food Bank's highest honors, the Blue Diamond Award, which is only presented to businesses who raise 50,000 pounds of food or 250 pounds per employee. This year the Food Bank has raised the bar, and is requesting 1.2 million pounds of food. Cruzio is counting on its members and the community to help the Food Bank reach their goal.

This is Cruzio's first year supporting Doctors Without Borders and ninth year participating in the Holiday Food Drive. Cruzio continues to grow its contribution to Second Harvest each year, and received the Bronze Can Award in 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Emerald Can Award in 2000, the Platinum Award in 2001 and the Blue Diamond Award in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

WHAT: Cruzio offers to match $1500 in contributions for Second Harvest Food Bank Holiday Food Drive, and $1000 for Médecins Sans Frontières (aka Doctors Without Borders).

WHEN: Through December 30, 2005.

TIME: 10am-6pm Monday-Friday, 10am-2pm Saturday

WHERE: Cruzio, 903 Pacific Ave. Suite 101, Downtown Santa Cruz, 95060 Cruzio, 23 East Beach Street, Plaza Vigil, Watsonville, 95076

HOW: Cash or check contributions, made payable to Second Harvest Food Bank or Doctors Without Borders USA, can be dropped off or mailed to Cruzio at addresses listed above. Once received, Cruzio will match the contribution and mail in your check. Canned food donations can be dropped off during regular business hours.

INFO: For more information about matching contributions or press inquiries, call Westi Haughey at 831.459.6301 ext. 247 or email owesti@cruzio.com.

Hi Bruce ~

Thank you for posting Gary Patton's Land Use Report each week! One quickie critique (Gary will understand): the plural of Sierra is Sierra. This is a regularly confused usage problem; kinda like Louden instead of the correct London Nelson! Here is the deal on the Sierra. Sierra is feminine singular: Sierra. It means saw, or toothed. Nevada means "snowy." It is also singular. La montaña sierra nevada is a range of mountains. Call anyplace you are, within their beautiful sanctuaries, the "Sierra". Or the Sierra Nevada. Just don't call ever say the "Sierras". Unless you are speaking of the California Sierra and... the range in Spain. Then you may say Las Sierras Nevadas (de California y Espana).

Accolades to Fred Geiger for suggesting 8' ceilings for Barry Swenson's La Bahia. As we approach the end of the Age of Oil, the less cubic feet of air to condition, the more efficient the structure.

Desal: At the same Moss Landing desal workshop in June (Patricia's report), we also heard that the City of Los Angeles grew by 20% AND they met that population growth without additional water. They met all of that growth demand through conservation. Los Angeles, City of millions fer crying out loud. Now, Bill Kocher of the City of Santa Cruz will tell us that we cannot wring any more water from conservation, especially in the commercial sector. How much ya wanna bet he is wrong? If every one who reads your column decides to produce water by conservation (shut the dang faucet off when you brush your teeth; take one less minute in the shower; water your lawn when you wash your car by driving your car onto the lawn beforehand, etc.), collectively we can produce water cheaper than by the energy wasteful industrial alternative.

P.S. Conspiracy theory: UCSC expansion is driving the desal plant.

Jean

Syriana: A review by David McReynolds

"Complex and fascinating" wrote the Newsweek reviewer. Right he was. A long film, running over two hours, featuring excellent performances by George Clooney and Matt Damon, directed by Stephen Gaghan, Syriana checks into our theaters as a film so complex, with so many threads running through it, that I doubt they would fit neatly together even if you saw the film two or three times.

This complexity is not the fault of the film but part of its fascination. Fundamentally the film is about the Middle East, and its oil. Skipping from the politics of Washington, to oil firms in Texas, to various sites in the Middle East, one realizes how much we need to know about the Arab world.

There is the Chinese connection, the Big Oil connection, the matter of corruption here, and in the Gulf states, the wheeling and dealing of the Emirs who are both trapped by the West- which had installed them - and canny about exploiting their position. There are oil connections to the former Soviet Union, and - most remarkable of all in the context of US politics - a sympathetic view of an Islamic suicide bomber. Within the Arab world, Syriana shifts from Beirut to the Gulf states, from the shadowy world of Hezbollah to the air-conditioned hotels of the Gulf states, where, if one steps outside, the temperature is searing.

George Clooney put on extra weight for the film, and appears scruffy as an agent of the US government, who only late in the game realizes how he has been used. (There is the sub-text of American racism and how it drives an African-American to reach for success within a fundamentally white power structure. Looking back on the film, Jeffrey Wright is the only black who ever appears in various meetings of government and oil corporation leaders. He can rise only by betraying his boss. Since his boss is no angel, there is irony involved, not tragedy - but in the relationship between Wright and his father one senses the generational anger of seeing a child succeed by "buying in". This is, however, only a sub-plot).

One can argue the film is not "political", but I feel like responding "how political can you get"?

It is a relief to see a film about the Middle East which leaves Israel and the Palestinians entirely out of the equation, focusing only on the power of oil, the determination of the West to force out of power any regimes or leaders (mention is made of Mosaddeq, the elected Prime Minister of Iran, who was forced out by the CIA in 1953 when the late Shah was installed - I was fascinated when I checked the CIA information page on Iran on the web to find that for the CIA the history of Iran starts with the Shah - Mosaddeq simply vanishes, an un-person. I had to go to Wikipedia, our invaluable online source, to get the information on Mosaddeq).. I say it is a relief, because this has been the driving force of US policy before Israel was created. It is what the war in Iraq is about.

And in the plotting for the murders that do occur (this is a thriller, and you must have murders)one realizes that the only difference between the Mafia and the crew of men (and women) who run corporate America is that, Gotti aside, the Mafia is always overweight and cheaply dressed. One expects them to do murder, and, as is the case in real life, to do it with their own hands. But the murders of the corporate state are planned in air-conditioned rooms, with men tanned and trim, and for the most part - Kissinger aside - painfully gentile and from the best families, the best schools. And always - here we can include Kissinger - the murder is done by others, the orders given by a wink and a nod. But murder it is. What is called "wet" jobs.

A film as fascinating as Syriana, which despite all the jumps from place to place, despite the plots which weave back and forth, must be credited to the director. We may lose track of things, but he does not. And if inevitably the critics will focus on the stars, the full range of casting and acting is first rate. One might almost think we were watching a European film, not a Hollywood production. The one question - implied but not pursued - is what will happen to this whole house of cards, from air-conditioned Texas ranches to air-conditioned Arab hotels - when the oil runs out.

Subject: Keep UCSC From Outgrowing Santa Cruz

Dear Friends of Santa Cruz,

A great resource, UCSC now threatens to become a dangerous colossus. Its huge 15-year growth plan is by far the biggest project in Santa Cruz history (imagine a second university) and would fundamentally change Santa Cruz.

We have reached a critical stage in the effort to keep UCSC from outgrowing Santa Cruz. They have released the Draft EIR and there are no surprises: almost 4.5 million square feet of development (think 45 home depots), 21,000 students, gridlock on our streets, 4,000 more students seeking off-campus housing, erosion of our tax base, consumption of most of the remaining water supply, urbanization of the north campus popular with so many runners, bikers, and nature lovers, destruction and fragmentation of remaining habitats. For the major impacts, the Draft EIR says that they are significant and unavoidable. Mitigations would only be implemented "if feasible" or "whenever possible". In other words, they intend to grow regardless of the cost to us and what it does to the quality of life and to the environment.

We believe there are better and more appropriate ways to serve the higher education needs of the State of California than to degrade what is left of the precious environment of UCSC and Santa Cruz by growing beyond the carrying capacity of Santa Cruz.

CLUE, the Coalition for Limiting University Expansion, has been diligent in researching potent legal and political approaches that we believe could stop or significantly curtail UCSC's growth plan. We propose that it is possible to restrict or even stop their plans and want to dispel rampant feelings of futility. Without trying, we would surely fail. The future of Santa Cruz is worth trying to save.

We need your help to engage others, spread the word, and to raise substantial funds. I hope as many of you as possible will help. Perhaps the easiest way, besides a financial donation, would be to forward this email.

We have a flyer outlining the reasons why residents should support our efforts and hope to send out a direct mailing to Santa Cruz residents in the near future. We can send you an electronic copy of our current flyer upon request.

Our hope is that each of you will personally make the effort to contact ten people you know, explain what is happening and seek help and monetary support. Our suggested donation will be $100 or more (or less) from every residence. Think of it as a one time tax in order to preserve your quality of life, if you will.

We also want to establish a Leadership Circle of major donors who can give $1000 or more.

If you can help with the fund-raising effort in any way and particularly with suggestions for the Leadership Circle, please email or call me. For potential major donations from individuals or groups, members of the CLUE Executive Committee are available to meet personally with individuals or to speak to groups.

Please help now with your most generous donation of time and money. Our goal is to raise $25,000 by January 1.

Thank you for your support. Tax-deductible donations can be made to: CLUE, PO Box 5241, Santa Cruz 95063.

Sincerely,
Don Stevens
425-4721
email: info@santacruzclue.org
Web: www.santacruzclue.org

Dear Bruce,

- isn't Bill O'Reilley subject to arrest under the Patriot Act now? Isn't it illegal to incite to a terrorist act? Doesn't publically inviting Al Quaida to blow up Coit Tower constitute a crime?

While I'm on a roll for out-of-line questions - what about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule? We've seen several autobiographies of military who have been discharged for "telling" when asked. What is the penalty for asking? Shouldn't both sides be held liable to the consequences of transgressing that rule?

best,

EARL JACKSON

Dear Councilmembers,

Here are the suggestions made to Jesse Nickell of the Barry Swenson Corp. regarding methods of reducing the building height at the La Bahia Project. These suggestions allow the current design to meet the 43' 2" height allowable under Planned Development guidelines. Their current proposal is at 57'.

PLEASE NOTE: These changes would not result in any loss of square footage, numbers of rooms, or potential revenue from their current proposal. Also, the cost of implementing these changes would be minimal of any at all, according to conversations with Jesse Nickell.

#1. Use concrete frame vs. steel I beam structure - height savings 1' 8" per floor x 5 floors = 100" or 8' 4".

#2. Locate HVAC equipment in the basement and substitute a 1' parapet for a 5' pitched roof (appearance from the ground could be similar and noise level in the neighborhood mitigated. Height savings 4'.

#3. Reduce 1st floor from 2 1/2' above grade to 1' above grade. Height savings 1 1/2'.

#4. Additionally, ceiling heights could be reduced from 9' to further reduce the building height - 8' ceiling heights are standard.

Total height reductions from #1 through #3 will give the reduction needed to comply with current BSOL requirements:

8' 4" + 4' + 1' 6" = 13' 10"

proposed 57' - 13' 10" = 43' 2"

Please remember the 43' 2" allowed for a planned development is a 20% increase over the normal height allowed in this area. Allowing an added increase over this 20% would be precedent-setting for future developments in this area.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

Fred Geiger
1517 Delaware Ave.
423-6059
Visit our website at http://www.SCRP.us/

Thomas Leavitt and the Ten Mile Bridge Victory

The Ten Mile Bridge is the third replacement project of Caltrans (they're doing a whole series of these). It is located on scenic Highway 1 in Mendocino County.

Some context: The email is from a group focused on preserving the scenic values and rural nature of various bridges on Highway 1 as Caltrans goes about systematically replacing them and doing seismic upgrades. From reading their site, they appear to be working in conjunction with the Sierra Club on this.

Basically, Caltrans doesn't give a fig about the aesthetic values, or pedestrian accessibility, of the bridges in question, and sees these concerns as an impediment to getting the projects done. These folks are lobbying the Coastal Commission to force them to do otherwise.

They haven't said anything about Santa Cruz area bridges yet, but like I mention below, it seems likely that at one point or another, Caltrans is going to want to replace one or more of our local bridges. If would be nice, if in doing so, they enhanced pedestrian safety and ensured that the view from these bridges was as aesthetically pleasing as possible (whether on foot or in a car).

Thomas Leavitt

The Coastal Commissioners listened!

Your letters and our long campaign to educate the Commissioners trumped the combined efforts of Caltrans and the Commission staff!>> > On a 7-4 vote, the Commission conditioned its approval of the Ten Mile bridge replacement on narrowing the shoulders to 4' for 8' and including a separated pedestrian sidewalk -- exactly what we wanted and scenic Ten Mile River deserved!

The vote followed a lengthy, dramatic debate. Commission staff and Caltrans defended the lack of any sidewalk, 8' shoulders, and an industrial-looking 54" high railing. Commissioner after Commissioner stated their desire for a protected sidewalk and narrower shoulder. Caltrans and staff proposed to approve the project with the > 8' shoulders and an "assurance" they would consider adding a sidewalk at a later date. The Commission would not buy it. The staff then favored putting off the decision.

Sierra Club lawyer, Mark Massara, who represented our case at the hearing in Los Angeles on November 16, captured the debate as it occurred. Mark's detailed recap of the hearing shows how the balance swung back and forth, until finally Commissioner Mary Shallenberger crystallized the discussion. She interjected, "A strong majority appear to want a separated pathway... it is a huge mistake and a disservice to Caltrans not to state that fact now and to incorporate it now. It isn't going to get any easier later to redesign the bridge."

The Commission then moved to condition approval on narrower shoulders and a separated walkway. Despite Caltrans saying this would "kill the project," the Commissioners approved the motion.

Caltrans will now have to decide whether to scrap the project (which will be difficult, given that it is an "urgent seismic safety project") or accept the conditions.

A great big "Thank you" to the almost 900 people who wrote the Commission opposing the Caltrans design. The Commission listened to you. Your effort was critical in defeating an especially egregious effort to degrade our beautiful coast.

More information and news on the campaign to protect scenic bridge views is at:

http://www.bridgerailings.org/

FIGHTS WORTH FIGHTING.

Hi Bruce,

In today's NY Times there was an article about Huntington Beach, noting that none of their hotels are directly on the beach but rather on the other side of the Pacific Coast Highway. They mention a new Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort & Spa with its own bridge to the beach, with 460 rooms ($285-360/night, with 57 suites that cost up to $3500!); and a Hilton with 290 rooms and suites ($179-374).

Not that I want Santa Cruz to emulate Huntington Beach, but just think of the potential money for our community by improving our hotel stock. It seems a bit hysterical to fear that encouraging the La Bahia project will somehow turn our beachfront into a strip of high rise hotels. Can't we compromise a LITTLE??

It seems more urgent to turn our energies to fighting UCSC's expansion. And are Santa Cruzans aware of the plan to build a new garage at Cedar & Cathcart? At $17 million this has got to be pretty large. How about some opposition to yet another high rise garage in a prime downtown location. We're already going to lose the charming cobblestone courtyard where Oswald's is. Doesn't it seem a better idea to build a garage in the parking lot in front of the hideous County building?

--Judi Grunstra

Follow Your Heart Action Network
Curtis Reliford
You are invited to join me on for a Slide Show and Report Back on Louisiana Relief Efforts
Louden Nelson Center Sunday Dec. 4th, 12 to 5 p.m.

Is there anybody out there who really cares???

I think it is time for all of us to come together, regardless of race, religion, or whatever would keep us separated. I will ask again, Is there anybody out there who thinks along these same lines? If so, please read this testimony of my experience following my heart from beginning to end. I am an eyewitness of the devastation by Hurricane Katrina in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans. The smell, the sludge, the demolished homes, the overwhelming destruction of trees, land and resources and other terrible sights were enough to turn anyone's stomach. Experiencing all of this touched my heart and triggered something inside of me to initiate an organization that no one can say "No" to©following your heart, because everyone has one. The devastation is ongoing and repairs need to be made for the next 20 years. My first trip to Louisiana was the 2nd week of September. During this time in my absence, the community continued to donate items for people in need. Upon arriving in Louisiana and seeing the mass devastation and great need, my spirit was moved to do all I could to help. I never expected that upon my return, so many items would be waiting to be delivered.

After returning from Louisiana in September, I was interviewed by the media and made an appeal to Santa Cruz and surrounding communities, Watsonville, Felton, Live Oak, Aptos, Scotts Valley, San Lorenzo Valley, La Selva Beach, Freedom/Corralitos and more to help the people that the hurricane in Louisiana devastated. I never thought that this experience would be ongoing. The people of Santa Cruz County, and faith based and volunteer organizations, schools, community service organizations and businesses united and donated food, clothing, shoes, household items, cleaning supplies, bedding, money, and a few tools at the Clock Tower in Santa Cruz. I left in the 2nd week of October with five other people, three vehicles, and a large overloaded trailer to deliver the items to people in Beaumont, Texas, Slydale, New Orleans, and Shreveport Louisiana. I felt a great depth of love from people during the collection of items, the giving of items and the teamwork of people traveling across the country. The project mission was a success! I returned home to Santa Cruz and found a few obstacles in my path after both trips. After my first delivery to Louisiana, I brought four people home with me that had lost everything and needed a place to regroup. After 6 years of living in my home on Freedom Blvd, I was evicted. The four people that I attempted to help were once again put out and found themselves with nothing.

After my second delivery to Texas and Louisiana, I returned home to find that my new living establishment had been sold and I was being evicted yet again. Even with all of my personal trails and tribulations, I will not be distracted from helping those with greater need because I can feel the presence of God within me. I am Following My Heart and I am asking for Santa Cruz and all of the communities to come together again. On Dec 4th, 2005 Follow Your Heart Action Network will be presenting slideshow documenting our travels and your donations given to the people. The presentation will take place from noon until 5pm at the Louden Nelson Center on Center and Laurel Streets in downtown Santa Cruz. Please come and bear witness to the devastation of lives and also the joy we brought to the people. I would like to ask for feed back from the community regarding these trips. Follow Your Heart Action Network has a great vision for the future and long-term goals. Please come and join our team! The work has really just begun, as the end is not anywhere near for the United States of American.

Curtis Reliford, founder of FYH Foundation

Note: Patricia emailed this letter last week before the City Council voted 7-0 to approve the Desalinization Plant. Her concerns are important, and her questions need answering. - Bruce

The Desalinization Plant problems

The Council appears poised to certify the EIR (25) and then award the pilot plant contract (26) despite a significant number of unanswered questions and concerns from agencies and the public. This technology and investment is being put forward as our area's only water supply alternative, yet I believe significant questions remain.

The city of Santa Cruz presently supplies water from south of Davenport to 41st Avenue, from Pleasure Point to UCSC to outside Scotts Valley to behind Dominican Hospital - approximately 90,000 people.

The proposal is for a "pilot plant", costing $3.2 million ($2 from state funds) to be located at Terrace Point -- but it's not in the CLRDP. The "real" plant will cost $40 million and be located somewhere along Delaware in the west side industrial lands and is designed to produce 2/5 - 4.5 mgd but there are no plans showing the design or location. Wastewater from the large plant will be piped under the lower west side to the sewer/water treatment plant so that the "hyperbrine" produced can be "blended" with the treatment plant effluent but the potential impact of this combined effluent is not going to be evaluated until after the pilot plant is built.

The large plant is conceived of as a joint venture w/ the Soquel Creek Water District which would daily use the water produced to recharge its aquifer and the city would use the water during time of "drought", which is not defined,not even in the simplest terms, that of rainfall. I didn't read far enough to figure out how the water is to get from west Santa Cruz to Capitola. The EIR does not summarize the alternatives that were explored; while references are provided, no cost comparisons are presented.

Regardless of where the plant(s) are located, there are 2 immediate impacts:

1. biological
2. economic

Under "biological" there are issues of "impingement and entrainment", meaning sea life that gets caught in the intake and killed. While large adult organisms may be able to pull away from the current, organisms that comprise the base of the marine food web - eggs, larva, floating small plants - will be taken into the plant.

Spawning season is a brief period during the year but it is the only time that marine organisms reproduce, so eggs, larva and immatures that are lost to the plant at that time are lost to the entire system for that year. As marine scientists state that it takes 100,000 eggs to produce an adult fish, additional mortality, especially in a "National Marine Sanctuary" seems inappropriate.

Under "economic" is the issue that desal plants are fueled by fossil fuels, the prices for which fluctuate widely and are only destined to increase. What will the cost of a gallon of desalinated water be? There are also significant unanswered questions on the quality of the water going into the plant. The California Department of Health has asked for a Watershed Sanitary Survey to determine the quality of the intake water, which presently is scheduled to be located in the area of the sewer outfall. The city "wants to do the survey later."

I went to the Desal Workshop organized by Save Our Shores, the Ocean Conservancy and the Surfrider Foundation and held in Moss Landing in June. The assembled 5 experts, including Jonas Minton, the former deputy director of the CA Department of Water Resources and now with the Planning & Conservation League, roundly dismissed desalination except for some brackish water applications and in a few locations where water could be drawn in through beach sands. Their unanimous opinion was that future demand could and should be met through increased conservation and recycling.

I also went to the 2-day International Desalination Institute meeting a couple of weeks ago in Monterey where the scientific opinion was the same. Issues were raised re: areas in the Bay where rates of mixing were high vs. low, where mixing varies during the year, where effluent from existing outfalls circulate - factors that directly the quality of water available to the process. These don't appear to have been factored in with this plant's location.

Thoughts on an "Integrated Water Plan":

1. Item 24 is to accept diversion plans for North Coast streams and wells that are already over-drafted.
2. There is no minimum flow rate guaranteed for the San Lorenzo River. In the name of water supply, every living creature dependent on a minimum in-stream water level in summer and fall in the lower river may be exterminated unless the city agrees to restrict pumping, leaving a guaranteed minimum regardless of rainfall.
3. The city already provides water to the outskirts of Scotts Valley, which does reclaim some of its water for use on parks and open areas. There are proposals to pump reclaimed water into old quarries to recharge aquifers. Given the nearly-overlapping present service boundaries, why doesn't the "IWP" include Scotts Valley and the opportunities for reclaiming water with and from them?

From the Monterey Herald:

Foes ramp up spending against Measure W
Cal Am, citizen groups

By LARRY PARSONS
Monterey Herald Staff Writer

The battle over Measure W -- the measure that would finance a study on the feasibility of a publicly owned water system for the Monterey Peninsula -- is turning on the spigot of campaign spending.

California American Water Co., the Peninsula's private water utility that could be threatened if Measure W succeeds, said Monday it wouldn't sit out the campaign on the sidelines.

"We felt there was so much misinformation being put out about the company that it was time to stand up for ourselves," said company spokeswoman Catherine Bowie.

She said Cal Am plans to spend company money independently of any campaign committees to mount a print and broadcast campaign against Measure W on the Nov. 8 ballot. How much Cal Am will spend hasn't been determined, she said.

"We really haven't decided everything we are going to do," Bowie said. "None of it will be occurring at ratepayer expense."

The move departs from Cal Am's standard policy of staying out of political campaigns, Bowie said. But Measure W is causing concern among the company's 90 local employees and could derail Cal Am's coastal water project for a desalination plant to comply with state orders to reduce Carmel River pumping.

"We want people to understand we are in a crisis situation in terms of securing a water supply," she said. "More progress is being made now than has been made in decades and this is not the time to be raising these type of issues."

Another group against Measure W called Water not Politics has filed papers with the state to begin raising campaign funds.

Rick Heuer, a spokesman for the group, said it already has raised about $5,000 from a cross-section of business and public sources, primarily from people who supported an advisory measure three years ago on dissolving the Peninsula water district.

"There is a fair amount of anger from people who wonder, "Didn't we vote (three) years ago to (do away with) the district and now they want more money?" he said.

Heuer said Water not Politics hasn't set a fundraising goal, but will seek "as much as we can" and at least send out a campaign mailer to explain "the nuts and bolts" of Measure W.

Last week, another group Heuer belongs to, the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, filed a lawsuit seeking a court to determine whether Measure W could pass with a simple majority or constitutes a special tax requiring a two-thirds majority to win.

The ramped-up campaign activity against Measure W caught its supporters a little off guard. But they said it would increase public awareness of the election.

"I guess since we roiled the waters, they are going to spend some money," said Ron Weitzman, a Measure W supporter who'd figured Cal Am would be "lying low, hoping nobody would notice" the ballot measure.

"I think it should be a public issue," he said.

Weitzman said it would be impossible for Measure W backers to match Cal Am "dollar for dollar," but that could help the measure's chances for passage.

"If they make a lot of noise, that could be turned against them," he said.

George Riley, treasurer for the pro-W group Citizens for Public Water, said Cal Am's entry into the campaign shows "pretty obviously they are into PR... and fluff,"

Riley said: "We're not a corporation with deep pockets. Our concern is trying to get the word out and hope people are curious enough to get the information."

Opponents of Measure W maintain that a customer-financed study would be an expensive way to ascertain that a public takeover of the Cal Am system would be more expensive for Peninsula water users.

"To add the cost of (a new water) project to the cost of buying out the company would not save ratepayers any money," Bowie said.

Riley said without a new study Cal Am customers would remain in the dark about the pros and cons of public ownership of the water system.

"We say it's important to get the facts and let the facts speak for themselves," he said.

Measure W supporters said it was too early to tell whether the stepped-up activity would change their fundraising and campaign plans.

"We're not going to match them dollar for dollar. We hope to match them in the sense that we make sense," Weitzman said.

THE PULSE OF OUR COMMUNITIES by Jan Mitchell

As published in the Aromas Tri-County News/October, 2005

"SNAKE OIL"

Captivating tales of pioneer life in the early west continue to fascinate us because mere existence was riddled with challenge and hardship. Endless open space afforded glorious opportunity for a better future, yet wild predators and numerous unknown threats were yet to be tamed throughout this vast California territory.

Savior to new settlements was the wandering medicine man. From his dusty wagon, this traveling peddler offered trinkets, necessities and mercantile goods for a price. Many products were new and intriguing. Among his most popular wares were his feel-good potions, which were guaranteed to CURE ALL ILLS, or so he claimed. Those who purchased, believed---momentarily anyway. Through the years, this concoction was dubbed "snake oil", primarily because most promises sold with this bottled "magic elixir" were just that---promises, and the medicine man who had long disappeared from the horizon, had successfully skirted vulnerability to any ridicule from his dissatisfied customers.

Not so unlike those early days, medicine men greet us at many levels today, barking claims to mitigate challenges related to development, which don't always materialize. Ironically, many challenges were created by previous modern-day "snake oil" peddlers. True, their image has changed...gone is the familiar cowboy hat, weather-worn boots and six-shooter. Today's medicine men have morphed into expensive designer suits with ties. Often, they are accompanied by an entourage of attorneys babbling legalspeak, and credentialed experts - certified to understand more about our community problems than we do. Let's not overlook accompanying public relations representatives, belching guarantees of more and more promises on paper, all designed to dupe those who might fall prey to such misinformation. Then, like early medicine men, they too fade into the sunset.

Today, our precious open space is premium, filling rapidly with sprawling subdivisions, besieged with severe challenges, most the direct result of poor planning and BAD decision-making. Are not these political "medicine men" the very representatives elected as cautious stewards of our property values, our rural integrity, and our basic quality of life? Often, some personal agenda or special interest motivates collaborators to join with other medicine men. Some local news entities, for example, provide abundant bias media in print, intended for public consumption. Propaganda in the form of prepared press releases inform readers ONLY what politicians think they should know (accurate or otherwise).

Citizen volunteer "Watchdogs" wear the white hats in this century. These volunteers are dedicated to defend our political land-use future. After all, county residents quality of life is dramatically impacted by political hanky-panky. Activists are regular folks, like you and me, who sacrifice personal time (and money) to follow a litany of critical issues. Why? --- Simple. If electeds won't do the job they were elected to do, it falls on the citizens of Monterey County to do it for them. More urgent, naturally, is a desire to ensure that ALL voters UNDERSTAND FACTS, not specious spin by medicine men and collaborators who contribute inordinate funding to foster public confusion, and circulate false information.

Such has been the case with the HUGE threatening proposed Rancho San Juan/Butterfly Villages project. For years, Watchdogs remained vigilant, attended meetings, provided testimony, researched an incredible collection of data, endeavoring to learn, then educate voters via an Advisory Petition in July of 2004, and later, collecting 16,700 plus signatures for the successful PEOPLE'S REFERENDUM last Christmas.

THE PEOPLE'S REFERENDUM ALLOWS YOU --THE VOTER--- TO VOTE "NO" ON THIS BAD PROJECT. Why would ten Planning Commissioners UNANIMOUSLY vote to recommend denial? The aquifer is 200 percent overdrafted. The traffic modeling was so inadequate that the County was immediately sued by CALTRANS. The City of Salinas filed suit as well over a myriad of valid reasons, fearing numerous impacts to the city, including perhaps providing some public services for this monster. With Sheriff's budget short, and Salinas' deficits closing libraries, does this make any sense? Commissioners' inquiries about AFFORDABLE HOUSING were not met with satisfactory answers, so when weighing the positive against the negative, there simply was NO positive.

The future of our neighborhoods and communities depends on today s careful decisions. Snake Oil and promises will not fool educated voters who understand that water and traffic issues have NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, public services ARE LACKING, and more mega-mansions WON'T FILL THE CRITICAL WORKFORCE HOUSING NEEDS in Monterey County.

Documentation does not lie. All data posted on the website noted below was derived from county records, researched and analyzed by activists who care, not medicine men and collaborators with fake promises. YOU, THE VOTER, CAN VIEW ALL OF THESE FACTS AT:

http://stopranchosanjuan.org

Don't be fooled; if this project proceeds IN ANY FORM, this area will fill piecemeal with a multitude of other subdivisions,---- BUTTERFLY VILLAGES is just the beginning. Don't forget, TWO others are already BEING PROCESSED!

The Committee Against Measure C urges you to educate yourself with FACTS. BE CERTAIN TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8. It is imperative that your county representatives receive your message---loud and clear. We intend to exercise our democratic right to vote, and WE WILL VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE C.

"Iffen' ya lie down with snakes, ya shore orta 'spect ta git bit!"
Chill Wills

Jan Mitchell

Surfs up! Residents take on California American in Monterey!
California's Monterey Peninsula is a worldwide destination for water-lovers: Breathtaking ocean views, meandering rivers, and the world-famous Monterey Bay Aquarium. But for residents, water has taken on a whole new meaning lately, as voters prepare to go to the polls Nov. 8 to take steps towards local, public control of their water utility. In Monterey, Measure W asks voters to fund an independent study of the water utility's value and the process required for the public to acquire it. The utility is currently run by California American, aka Cal-Am, which is owned by RWE/Thames Water. Throughout California, Cal-Am is known as a corporate water-grabber that has been challenged by fed-up citizens from Stockton to Felton to Thousand Oaks. In the Monterey Peninsula, Cal-Am's reputation has been tarnished by illegally overpumping the Carmel River for a decade, poor customer service, and charging some of the highest rates in California. A unique coalition of business leaders, landowners, environmentalists, elected officials and ratepayers are organizing to pass Measure W and ensure a healthy future for the Peninsula's water.

Local resident fed up with RWE in Lexington
In the hopes of staving off a citizen movement for local water control, one might expect Kentucky-American Water and its corporate parent RWE to put its best foot forward and dazzle Lexingtonians with stellar customer service. Yet unsurprisingly, Kentucky-American has dropped the ball again. One week after Public Citizen released a new report on RWE, a farmer near Paris, Ky., just outside Lexington, reported to Public Citizen that 1,000 gallons of water per hour have been spilling out of a Kentucky-American water main located on his property for at least two days. This is the fourth leak in the same spot in the past five years - and one of three spots that have leaked on the man's property. A messy trail of pre-recorded customer service responses, unhelpful company representatives, and maintenance delays have allowed the gushing to continue. "Definitely a dysfunctional operation," says the landowner. "So I've switched from being anti-takeover to pro." Lexingtonians will vote Nov. 8 for public acquisition of their water system from RWE, which took over in 2003.

Listen to this:
Emmaus, Penn., the small town that successfully rallied against a privatization proposal over the summer, was featured on National Public Radio's All Things Considered in early October. Listen online at EFLOW's web-site: http://www.ourwaterlv.org/audio_oct05.htm

Ms. Mitterand calls for public water in Latin America
Danielle Mitterand, the wife of the former French president, and head of a group called France Libertes, has been touring countries in Latin America where local citizens' organizations are protesting the role of the large French water transnational, Suez. In Argentina, where Suez has been threatening to leave and sell its shares to another private company, Ms.Mitterand said, "Water is a social good that should be in the hands of public water utilities." In Bolivia, Ms. Mitterand met with many organizations working to defend water as a public good and a fundamental human right. She told local Suez officials that she did not come to fight with them, but rather to lend her support to the social organizations in the country and "to support their just demands and efforts to return water to public hands and to public management." Ms. Mitterand also visited water rights groups in Brazil and Uruguay. In Uruguay, she urged the government to comply with the Constitutional reform passed by popular vote last October that protects water as a human right and public good. To date, the government has permitted the private water companies to continue operating in the country. If you speak French, check out France Libertes' web-site: http://www.france-libertes.fr/

Indianapolis update: Bad news keeps pouring in
It's another case of "I told you so." For years, the Citizens Water Coalition of Indianapolis, Ind., warned its city of the dangers of entering into a 20-year, $1.8 billion contract with French-owned Veolia Environnement, the largest water company in the world. Now, three years after the largest public-private partnership in the United States went into effect, many of the Coalition's concerns are coming true. Last week, the U.S. Attorney's Office subpoenaed four Veolia Water Indianapolis employees for allegedly falsifying water quality documents. This comes just months after the Citizens Water Coalition and several members of the City-County Council were denied a performance audit of Veolia. Last year, Veolia posted a revenue stream of over $92 million. In January, 40,000 public school students were sent home and several companies closed temporarily when Veolia allowed thousands of gallons of untreated water into the distribution system.

THIS JUST IN...Tell your local water company to steer clear!
Standard & Poor's, one of the world's best-known providers of credit ratings and risk evaluation, just released its semi-annual survey on the environmental services industry, noting that it anticipates continued growth for water utilities based on customer base expansion and rate hikes. The report indicates that municipalities are looking to publicly-traded water utilities for assistance in owning or operating their systems; these publicly-traded utilities can better operate and upgrade the water infrastructure systems and seek rate hikes from state commissions to cover the capital improvement costs. S&P expects further consolidation in the industry.

The devil's in the details in California desal battle
Ocean-water desalination plants continue their march down the California coast, joining forces with obsolete coastal power plants to produce expensive water for developers. Huntington Beach awaits round two with a confused city council having recently passed an inadequate Environmental Impact Review. On Oct. 17, a decision is expected on how the proposed palnt is to proceed with construction permits, followed by assured lawsuits from both sides. In Monterey, with a vote looming on Nov. 8 to study of a public takeover of its RWE-owned water utility and sale pending of the Duke power plant, desal proponents are nevertheless moving forward through the process with the California Public Utilities Commission. Stay tuned!

Another town fights back against privatized water
Nearly 150 ratepayers gathered in the Lucerne Senior Center in Lucerne, Calif., on Oct. 5 to demand explanations from California Water Services Company, the state's largest private water company, about the proposed 246% rate hike. Several weeks earlier, 300 citizens gathered on short notice to express their outrage at the unaffordable increase and to formulate a plan to address the issue. In response to a consumer survey, 27% of residents said they would have to dig their own well if rates rose. Sixteen percent said they would have to move, and 11% would not be able to afford proper food and medication for their family. Water quality is poor and the crumbling system needs upgrading, but citizens expressed concern that they would be footing the bill for infrastructure that would become part of the private company's assets. Cal Water representatives did not allow ratepayers to speak but rather insisted that all comments and questions be written on cards. Lucerne Community Water Organization, an active group of ratepayers, is organizing to solve local water concerns through affordable and democratic means.

TAKE ACTION! Let Congress know what you think of the Water for the Poor Act
U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 1973, "The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005," earlier this year. The bill seeks to re-prioritize U.S. funding for basic water services, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (see also Currents July issue). The House International Relations Committee voted unanimously in favor of the Water for the Poor Act, which is expected to be voted on by the full House of Representatives in the near future. Rep. Blumenauer will host an online townhall meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 18 at 4 p.m. EST to discuss his legislation and the future of U.S. efforts abroad to fight poverty, promote global health, and protect the environment. For more details, to submit questions in advance, or to join the e-meeting, go to: http://blumenauer.house.gov/water

The Score: Coastal Public Access 1, Seaside Company 0!!

Disclaimer: THIS IS A BIASED REPORT, READ ON IF YOU MUST

Okay, maybe it wasn't as clear cut and total victory as that, but a people's victory we must take when we can get it... we must honor those small wins...I'll explain...

Sitting in a WiFi cafe under the "University Heights" neighborhood sign----(here in Sandy eggo), the sign spans the length of the street almost as large as our own "Gateway" sign and almost every neighborhood has one of these...gawd this place is pretentious...thank goodness we have a bit more planning experience than they do here in "paradise with a lobotomy" (my friend's description of this town)--- trying to recap and make some sense of the Coastal Commission meeting head.

Brief meeting with Charles Lester, staff Deputy Director of Coastal Commission for Central Coast region. He hands me a staff addendum to item F13a, Permit Application 3-04-075, "Seaside Company Fence Extension." The preceding now being a misnomer, the whole fence idea is completely off the table and what will be discussed now will be how, when and why the closed gate has to be opened.

In the Commission report they "compromised" the 12 foot wide fence opening and settled on 9 feet and allowed turnstiles large enough for wheelchairs, but they are to be two way turnstiles ("ingress and egress") and not the typical very narrow turnstiles Seaside wanted. Also, staff addendum report backed away from year-round access gate to an open gate only when Seaside was open...but an open gate nonetheless we will finally get!

8:30am Since much of the posted agenda had been canceled Chair Meg Caldwell called for item F13a staff report. Charles Lester did a credible job in representing Coastal staff member Mike Watson's report on the blatant misbehaviour of Seaside Co. over the past 5 years. Lester showed slides and said what was now before the Commission came about through many meetings with Seaside officials. (He later told me that this item may not even have been presented had no one showed up to contest Seaside. "It probably would have landed on the consent agenda.")

So, at a minimum the 10 Commissioners out of 11 (one absent) present received a thorough report on some of what the Seaside Company is up to along our Santa Cruz coastline. (And that has to be viewed as very positive.)

8:45am Seaside Company spokesperson, Kris Reyes, was given 10 minutes (he only took about 8) to present the Boardwalk view of the world. He was "happy working with Coastal staff and working out a compromise..."(of course the compromise being that Seaside completely backed away from any and all immediate plans to fence off an additional 2300 square feet thus impeding the bike and pedestrian pathway running off the end of the trestle bridge and at the very end of the west side of the river levy pathway). So, I guess we will take "compromises" like this when we can get them!

Reyes led off with his (Seaside's) 9/11 public relations speech about security, security, security! It's all about security.' But to the credit of the commission members they were not buying any of this. The staff report said that there were a paltry 135 "incident reports" altogether in 4 years at the Boardwalk and this at a place that receives over 3 million visitors a year. The statistics speak volumes about the so-called criminal element running wild at the Boardwalk. It ain't happening. One Commissioner Patrick Kruer even said, "I am not sure closing off a public access point is the answer. I have owned a couple of shopping centers (okay, not your average Californian) and when I have had crime problems I just hired more security guards." Another Commissioner, William Burke later said that if their were no security frisks of customers upon entering, and all the rides were surrounded by a "low fence" and not shielded "like Disneyland," (Reyes' words) why was Seaside worrying about security at this particular gate? (It does make some of us conspiracy theorists wonder what the heck is really the issue here for Seaside? Go rumor mill, go!) Before Reyes sat down he was clear in asking for rebuttal time since I was the next (and only) speaker.

8:55am: Making immediate eye contact with our Commissioner and pro-access guru-ess, Sara Wan, (she was arrested not too long ago for visiting a beach which the rich folk said was theirs and she forced the issue and won an easement for common folk to get to the beach, with signage) I felt a surge of 'let-me-at-those-Seasiders, deny-ers of public access folks!' (see my attached statement) She listened intently and made notes. It was clear we had an audience. There were others who were supportive too.

8:58am: Chair Caldwell says, "Can you sum up your comments Mr. Krohn." Well, yes I can: Dear Coastal Commissioners I believe it is within your powers to direct Seaside Company to maintain year-round public access at Walkway number six. In opening and securing this access point I believe it would be a fitting way for Seaside to give back to the community of Santa Cruz the access which it has completely denied us these past four years. And it was over.

8:59am: Chris Reyes gets his rebuttal. Maybe Mr. Krohn has not read the staff addendum report (I hold it up to indicate I have it) but everything he is talking about has been addressed, he says. It's really about security, security, security...

9:02am: Commissioners entered into a fairly lengthy (40 minute) discussion on Boardwalk practices, signage (very important issue...when you don't know something is not there you don't use it, visit it, or access it...Debbie Bulger's big on this one.), turnstiles, revisiting the issue in 3 years after staff has done some research and collected data on the pros and cons of and open year-round gate, and...and...did you guess it? THE HISTORIC TIDELANDS. It was attached to the 3-year revisiting issue and was said that this issue would be looked at sooner if anything comes of the current Seaside Co. lawsuit against the City of SC and State Lands Commission.

9:40am: It is difficult for me to explain exactly what ensued next around the tidelands discussion and how it was actually incorporated into the final motion, but a discussion DID happen and something did make it into Commissioner Mike Reilly's main motion and that's when Seaside's spokesperson Reyes jumped to his feet, recognized by another apparent Seaside supporter, Commissioner Bonnie Neely, "I want to hear what Mr. Reyes has to say." And Reyes says the obvious (from the Boardwalk world view), the area in question was NOT part of the 3rd Street Parking lot issue and should be taken out of the motion. Clearly things are getting out of hand for the Seaside team.

9:45am: Chair Caldwell says to Reyes, who is keeping the floor much longer than called for...perhaps he is entering into filibuster mode because the tidelands genie is out of the lamp, 'You have already presented and you have responded to the Commissioner's query. You cannot continue making a speech.'

The second to the main motion, Ben Haddad an alternate, immediately withdraws his second. He says he is convinced by Reyes that the tidelands is NOT part of this issue here. Then our old land use "friend," Commissioner Dave Potter, clearly working at this moment in favor of Seaside from my vantage point, tried to salvage the day for the Boardwalk and explain why the area in question--where the gate was--should be removed from the main motion. It was not part issue but seemed to both agree that it was okay to leave it in. Then the predictable anti-motion motion came from (I think) Commissioner Neely and seconded by Commissioner Potter (not sure about who made and seconded this side moof the law suit he argued.

Others, fortunately, were more perceptive and had some eyes on the big picture prize. Another second was gotten from Commissioner Kruer. Discussion continued with both Executive Director Peter Douglas and staff legal counsel weighing in on whether the tidelands could/should be kept in the main motion or excised. They did not expound greatly on the tion, must check meeting minutes) demanding that the 3rd Street parking lot law suit be disconnected from the main motion.

And ya know what happened?! Our side won another minor-major battle...the 10 commissioners voted and deadlocked, 5-5, which means the motion to disconnect 3rd street from the gate was defeated. The commission is on record (we must check the finer details of this record)

...and what are they on record for? What I make of it is they are on record in favor of wanting to deal with any and ALL tidelands property once the Seaside lawsuit comes to a conclusion. Others will need to help me translate this action once they get a transcript or Coastal Commission report of the meeting. No, it's not clear to me either.

10am: The main motion passed easily. We got almost everything we could expect under the circumstances--open gate, signage, dismissal of Seaside fence project--as well as a 3-year revisitation of this issue to decide year round public access, and a very public recognition of the tidelands issue. Not a bad day for those who cherish public access to the beach, tidelands restoration, and activist politics.

Post meeting meetings: As I approached the podium to share information about the bogus security concern with Commissioner Dan Secord who had expressed security worries, Seaside huddled with Dave Potter, mmnnn. And, of course, I profusely thanked Sara Wan for all of her hard work in favor of us progressives and coastal access lovers. And I invited her to come and speak as soon as she could in Santa Cruz.

(Note: If you have read this far...you are a confirmed political junkie...)

Other Observations:

• Some of the commissioners also seemed not only keenly aware of the pending lawsuit but also clued into the following staff report tidbit, stated in a footnote on page 11: "According to Commission staff's review of (Seaside's) project plans and parcel maps, the area that would be enclosed by the expanded fence is on Assessor Parcel No. 055-341-14, owned by the City of Santa Cruz. (my emphasis added)
• Sara Wan on security issue: "This is a business, they can hire a security guard."
• Dan Secord on security: "I am concerned about security. How can the equipment operator protect its stuff from marauders? I would like to better understand how security works."
• Dave Potter apologetically on the security issue: The folks who hang out around this area (around walkway 6) are not your Pebble Beach kind of crowd.
• Chair Caldwell, an Arnold appointee, did a very credible job of chairing the meeting and asked pointed questions.

Sincerely, Chris Krohn

From: Ron Sandidge
To: bruce@brattononline.com

All Danish-loving folks know that Viggo Mortensen (see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=viggo+mortensen&spell=1) spells his name differently than appears in your recent column.

Danes and Vikings developed the habit, like other nations and groups, of adding the suffix "-sen" for male offspring and "-dattir" for female offspring. The Swedes are the ones who did the same thing with the suffix "-son."

Until the mid-1800s, Danish surnames followed a patronymic system. A father's given name was typically used for his children's surname. For example, Simon Pedersen's children had the surname Simonsen (son of Simon) or Simonsdatter (daughter of Simon). Peder Simonsen, Simon's son, gave his children the surname of Pedersen (male) or Pedersdatter (female). By the mid-1800s, this naming pattern was phased out, and one surname was passed through succeeding generations.

Ron Sandidge

Posted on Tue, Oct. 04, 2005
CAL AM SEEKS WATER PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT

Says increase needed to defer rate shock

By JOE LIVERNOIS

Herald Staff Writer

California American Water wants its Monterey Peninsula customers to start reimbursing the company for money it will spend to build a desalination project.

On Wednesday, Cal Am officials and dozens of other interested parties will convene in San Francisco to hash out a hearing schedule with a Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge for the company's proposed "interim rate relief."

If approved, the rates to consumers would more than double.

The current request had been part of a general rate that Cal Am submitted earlier, but a judge ruled that it should be considered separately.

The hearing itself is not expected to begin for several weeks at the earliest, but Cal Am, its critics and its competitors are gearing up for the showdown.

The water company, under pressure to find an alternative to replace almost 11,000 acre-feet of water now being taken from the Carmel River, is planning to build a $191 million desalination plant in Moss Landing.

Cal Am is asking the Public Utilities Commission for permission to raise fees to customers to pay for the work engineers have already completed and for work the company is expected to do to finish the desalination project, which Cal Am refers to as the Coastal Water Project.

Cal Am officials have told the PUC they want to start collecting money from ratepayers now "to mitigate the rate shock that would occur once the proposed Coastal Water Project becomes used and useful."

Catherine Bowie, a Cal Am spokeswoman, said the company wants to begin phasing in its rate increases now "to reduce rate shock to ratepayers later."

But critics say Cal Am is asking that consumers pay for a project that may never reach fruition.

"Ratepayers should pay for what they get," said Marc Del Piero, an attorney for the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Water District. "The ratepayers don't have anything yet."

Officials of Pajaro-Sunny Mesa are aggressively seeking their own desalination project in Moss Landing. So far, the little North County water district has secured both a site for its desalination plant and the services of a private desalination company that would build and operate the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa project.

"How is it justifiable for Cal Am to send a bill to its customers on a project that is so speculative as to be not identifiable?" Del Piero said.

Representatives for the Monterey County Water Resources agency and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates agree.

They argue that it is still premature for Cal Am to be seeking reimbursement for the ratepayers. They are urging the PUC to wait until there is certainty that the Coastal Water Project will be built.

The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is withholding judgment on the question, but is urging the PUC for a full hearing on the issue and more assurances from Cal Am that their project will in fact be built and will start providing water to the Peninsula soon, according to Dave Laredo, an attorney for the water district.

Cal Am has already submitted an environmental assessment on its Coastal Water Project, and the PUC is expected to select a consultant this month to complete a full-blown environmental impact report. That report will include an analysis of the Coastal Water Project, as well as several alternative projects that could resolve the Monterey Peninsula's chronic water shortages.

Once the environmental impact report is completed, the PUC "will be in a position to effectively evaluate the various alternatives presented, weigh the costs and benefits offered by different alternatives, assess the environmental impacts... and ultimately approve ratepayer funding for a water supply solution in Monterey," wrote Michelle Cooke, the PUC's administrative law judge, in a ruling last month.

The rate increases, if approved, would come in several different forms. Customers would be charged an estimated $5.25 per month per meter to recover what it calls its "existing pre-construction cost memorandum account."

Also, a $2 per unit "high block surcharge" would be levied on customers until the water project starts producing water. Cal Am would establish a connection fee of $12,000 per acre foot of water on new connections. And the company would create a surcharge of $2.20 per 100 cubic feet of water (or 750 gallons) in 2007. That surcharge would increase to $3.83 in 2008.

According to the Cal Am application to the PUC, the increases would raise monthly rates to average residential customers from almost $30 to between $50 to $70, depending on how the increases are calculated.

The "interim rate relief" Cal Am is seeking from the PUC to reimburse its desalination project is separate from -- and in addition to -- a general rate increase the PUC is already considering for Cal Am.

New Rancho San Juan plan scales back land
2,500-acre original now limited to Butterfly Village
By Larry Parsons
Herald Staff Writer

Monterey County officials are unveiling a new, smaller plan for the controversial Rancho San Juan development north of Salinas that is limited to the 671-acre Butterfly Village golf-residential project. That came as no surprise Wednesday to the head of a group that successfully mounted a petition drive to put the original 2,500-acre Rancho San Juan plan before county voters on the Nov. 6 ballot

The new Rancho San Juan plan "is simply Butterfly Village," said Alana Knaster, chief assistant county planner.The only significant difference from the previous plan is that a second access road to Butterfly Village would connect to Harrison Road and decrease project-generated traffic on San Juan Grade Road, she said. Nobari, who has sought to build in the Rancho San Juan area since the 1980s, wants to build 1,147 homes, an 18-hole golf course and 71 golf villas. Butterfly Village would also include 45,000 square feet for neighborhood commercial uses, about 12 acres of parkland, 141 acres of open space and 3.3 miles of walking trails.

The county designated the rolling farmland north of Salinas for major growth in the 1980s. But Rancho San Juan opponents contend development there would increase traffic, water and other growth-related problems. Supporters say the project would produce needed homes and jobs.

County planners posted the scaled-down Rancho San Juan plan on the county Web site Tuesday. Paper and CD copies of the documents will be availa