Ryan Burns has been burning the midnight oil this week. Besides the interesting and informative cover story inside look at Dan Johnson’s life from Dan Johnson’s perspective, he had at least two significant pieces on the Guiding Principles (GP). Thank you Julie Timmons for cluing me into the second one which I missed. And thank you Ryan Burns for keeping an eye on this. Of course the detractors paint Ryan’s paper as part of the local liberal media, but it’s really not. Reality does have a liberal bias (imho) and Ryan does an important job (ie he is actually paid for this – which is so important) of reporting what often is the boring reality of life that does not attract as much attention as a criminal’s mugshot (LoCO, TS I’m looking at you!) (But again TS, thanks for Wednesdays informative and important article.)
Dumb Government
BOS to Guiding Principles: “We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Principles”
Well, the BOS has decided planning is best done in private, Both private meaning behind closed doors and private meaning private industry. Here are my first thoughts on a comment on Sohum Parlance if you are interested. This little Democrat will not be voting to endorse Supervisor Bass this June. Actually I don’t have a vote, but if I did I wouldn’t. I don’t know if she will be beatable, most people I talk to say no. Supervisor Sundberg just became much more beatable imho. See you in June. (We have more time to plan for Supervisor Bohn’s and Fennell’s race)
And don’t forget to honor a landowner today! They deserve it even if the BOS voted to remove that language. We can’t expect them to be too honest. Although I will give props to Supervisor Fennell who stood up for the phrase honoring landowners to the last. Kudos Supervisor Fennell.
(Sarcasm is hard to get across on the internets. My tongue was firmly between my cheeks on that last paragraph.)
Public v Private: The Affordable Care Act
Two landmarks in politics happen today – one from each governing philosophy. I’m actually not sure if it’s a coincidence or not that they both happen on the same day. On the one hand the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace opens today. On the other hand the government is shut down, again.
In the end, after all the hot air and legalese, this is about one thing. Should government be empowered to act in society? The Right might frame the question like this, does government have the constitutional right to act in society?
What’s happening today, on both fronts the ACA and the impasse between the House and Executive is ultimately about this question, should government be empowered to act on universal health care?
Democrats say yes, Republicans say no. The current debate on a national health care plan goes back to the early 1990’s*. At the time the Right deemed the Left’s attempts to solve our national disgrace Hillarycare today it’s Obamacare. Back in the 1990’s in response to Hillarycare the Right got behind The Heritage Foundation’s plan which actually is the heart of Obama Care today. So in a real sense the Right has won this argument, at least so far.
Of course you will never, ever hear them say that. To jibe with their narrative where the Democrats have rammed the ACA through the process in a strictly partisan manner, they have to completely forgotten that a) the framework for this plan started as their approach to a public response to our national health care crises and b) that the first largely successful and popular experiment with this approach in Massachusetts was passed with a Republican Governor, one who was the Republican’s standard bearer during the last election, btw.
In order to win his party’s nomination, Mitt Romney had to run as far away from his plan as possible. Ultimately the conflict over the ACA is not about the ACA itself, it’s about how far right the Republicans have shifted. The ideology that the free market will solve all problems is as much a crazy Utopian dream as the far left’s defunct dreams of a purely socialist state. Unfortunately the right wing/libertarian free-market fantasy is an ideology that wins hearts, minds and votes because it has an unbelievable amount of money behind it. With that money the ideology can buy a narrative that turns truth on it’s head.
It’s a narrative you are going to hear a great deal about until this impasse is over. You can hear it anytime you like before or after the government reopens and the ACA is up and running on Rush, Glenn or Fox. Please don’t buy it. In the end it’s a lie – a golden lie that is making a lot of people a lot of money all the while destroying the fabric of our country.
And, btw, it was fun to take the Right’s challenge to call the ACA Obamacare. Well, we won the last election largely on Obamacare despite the Right’s attempt to tarnish the ACA by attaching the President’s name to it. We owned it for the election, now it’s time to call it by it’s proper name. It’s not the Democrat’s law or Obama’s law. Despite the Right’s tantrum, it’s the law of the land and we will be better for it.
Related articles
- Bernie Sanders: Obamacare is a ‘good Republican program’ (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- GOP lawmakers bridle at calling Affordable Care Act the law (thehill.com)
- ObamaCare: The Latest and Greatest Bastardization of the Constitution (americanthinker.com)
- ObamaCare and the “let it burn” theory of socialist collapse (humanevents.com)
Blog note: the articles above are a selection I made from several offered by WordPress for each post based on the text of what I have written. I don’t get a thorough preview, but often I’ll choose articles that look good and come from different perspectives. It’s fun and easy and interesting to see how effective text-based searches can be.
Times-Standard Covers GPU Guiding Principles
First of all, thank you TS and Supervisors for taking time to cover the GPU GP. I have been looking all summer long, and this is the first time I’ve found any of the Supervisors addressing their opinions of the Guiding Principles in particular. As I’ve written before, its been somewhat of a blackout.
Some thoughts…
- First from Supervisor Sundberg. “They’re so general that they don’t really mean a whole lot.” OK, so why vote for a change made by two of your colleagues rather than keeping the original Guiding Principles developed with robust public participation?
- From Supervisor Rex Bohn. “We’re not going to turn into Santa Rosa. In 1960, the county had a population of nearly 105,000, now we have a population of nearly 135,000.” It’s not about the number of people. It’s about the effect that even a small number of people can have on our surroundings. Whether it is our asphalt footprint, our carbon footprint or the effects of forestry, agriculture and industry, even small populations like ours can have a huge impact on the environment – local, regional, and global.
- Supervisor Bohn again “I don’t have an agenda. There are no hidden agendas. The doors are always open. People can come in, talk and say how they feel. What we’ve done is opened up a dialogue.” “Maximizing flexibility” is an agenda. Gutting the democratic process and enacting extremely partisan changes to the Guiding Principles while denying anything is happening is having an agenda.
- Supervisor Bass: “Some people haven’t brought forward solutions. They’ll say, ‘We shouldn’t do X’ or ‘We shouldn’t do Y,’ but there are some constructive ideas in there.” *sigh*
- But of course the biggest whopper of them all comes, as usual from Supervisor Fennell. “It’s important that policies reflect a cross-section of the community.” Puh-lease. The only cross-section she seems to be sampling is her friends in Sohum growing weed (still always illegally federally -that is why she can’t bring it up), and her old colleagues at HumCPR.
- Of course, leave it to Supervisor Lovelace to be the only example that I can find of a Supervisor addressing specific principles. He addressed the 5th and 6th principles. I recommend heading over to the TS to check out the article.
One note. I don’t know if this statement from the TS is technically true. “While the revisions have not been referenced during subsequent General Plan meetings”. There was one BOS meeting I attended where I heard Supervisor Sundberg reference the Guiding Principles when he was searching for, well, guidance. I noticed this because I wasn’t sure which set of Guiding Principles he was referencing.
Anyhoo, those are some thoughts. Hope to see you tomorrow.
3 Days to the GPU Guiding Principles Meeting. Reviewing Supervisor’s Responses and Some Final Thoughts
So, 3 weeks ago I posted a version of a letter I sent to the four Supervisors that voted for a new version of the General Plan update Guiding principles. The only response I received was from Supervisor Bohn. My Supervisor, the 4th district’s Virginia Bass, had said she would try to respond, but in the end could not – at least not in a timely manner that would have allowed for dialog. I don’t really blame any of them, firstly because most of them do not represent me, and secondly because the questions were difficult and I’m sure they would rather not have the answers in writing.
In summary the question where: 1) Why was the new version superior, principle by principle, phrase by phrase? and 2) How long should the new guidelines last once passed?
Here is Rex’s (non) answer, but at least he had the courtesy to respond to the question.
There has been quite a bit of public input since the adoption of Guiding Principles in 2004, and in talking with a lot of people their input was not considered or simply ignored in public process pre 2004. There is now a draft set of Guiding Principles that has been presented and straw voted now we will have more input and all will be listened to. I have heard an overwhelming, enthusiastic voice of support on the new draft which was not an overwhelming difference as some stayed as written. The whole idea is dialogue and a plan that has Maximum Flexibility, (caps his, underline mine – dJon) protects the environment, and preserves property rights, Let us Hope for the Best, Rex
Here’s Supervisor Bohn on the purpose of the 6/3 meeting. “All this is is a point of discussion, this doesn’t mean we are going to print these in stone or anything else. And obviously we’ve opened up a dialog.” (2 hr 53 min) Also, here is where I first heard Supervisor Bohn’s catch phrase. “Maximize flexibility are probably the two neatest words I’ve heard through this whole process.”(2 hr 54 min)
My question is, if the Board of Supervisors representing the public decides to maximize flexibility, who benefits? A: Private interests.
Follow up question… How is a plan a plan if it allows for maximizing flexibility? Are not the two concepts contradictory?
As Supervisor Fennell did not respond to my question, here is the best quote I can find for a reason she gives for the changes. Nothing specific mind you, we will not know why this or that phrase was added, but we do have this catch-all explanation…
“All we are trying to do is to make this work for the majority, for the whole.” (2hr 49 min)
How do you know this Supervisor Fennell? How are we to hold you accountable?
Ryan Burns has a good review of this process in the North Coast Journal. Included is a link to a staff report pdf file that demonstrates the relatively open and transparent decision-making process that resulted in the previous version of the Guiding Principles. Unless the Board of Supervisors decides to change course, the version we are finally stuck will not made any equivalent effort for public education or participation and will not consist of any paper trail what-so-ever. But this is the type of public process that in the end the Dan Taranto and Bonnie Blackberry’s of the world really wanted – the type of public process that resulted in the set of principles they preferred. Whether the public was actually involved is neither here-nor there.
Our Feudal Overlord Requests Our Attention
So Mr. Arkley is convening a meeting tonight to address HumCo’s and homeless problem. I’m sure he will be approaching it from a perspective of doing what is best for our unfortunate brethren. (sarcasm) I for one plan to attend. The TS has a write-up of it here. (5:30 PM at the Wharfinger Building)
Homelessness is an intractable problem and should be considered a national shame given our nation’s wealth. Mr. Arkley is probably going to come from the perspective of – let’s make sure they are not on my businesses doorstep. Obviously the problem is much deeper than that.
democraticMom just emailed me a link to a book that was discussed recently on Charlie Rose’s late-night show by E. Fuller Torrey. It looks very interesting given it’s subtitle – “How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System”. This is on my To Read List. *sends sample chapter to ebook app*
I think both Republicans and Democrats share a great deal of the blame on our nation’s treatment of the homeless. There are difficult decisions to be made, and it isn’t fair to either enforcement officers or the homeless that this is where our government and the destitute interface.
I hope Betty Chin will be there tonight.
Related articles
Honoring Landowners; GPU Thread Part v
Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Supervisors, DO NOT remove the one honest addition to the new Guiding Principles. I know they will, but I hope to goodness they don’t.
Here’s Principle #7, which also guts any principle to protect natural resources for their own sake, but forget that for the moment. Notice the addition of “honoring landowners”. How perfect is that? Especially in a set of principles bought and paid for by HumCPR. (The PR stands for “Property Rights”). Really and truly and sincerely, please do not remove the honoring, please. But they will.
I mean they didn’t choose ‘person’s’ or ‘resident’s’ for example, but ‘landowner’s’. Perfect AND honest. And I am pro-honesty in government.
Guiding Principle #7:
Existing principle:
“Protect natural resources, especially open space, water resources, water quality, scenic beauty, and salmonid habitat.”
New version:
“Honor landowners’ right to live in urban, suburban, rural or remote areas of the county while using a balanced approach to protect natural resources, especially open space, water resources, water quality and fisheries habitat in cooperation with state and federal agencies.
Please?
Protest? Would Anyone be Interested in Standing in Opposition to the GPU GP Process With Me?
I don’t want to do it alone, but I think it might add pressure to the Board of Supervisors.
Forget about everything else for a moment. It is the process that is so surreal. For years previous to gaining a majority on the board the developer/weed/realtor/property-owner/land-speculator/mortgage-broker coalition was arguing for a more democratic process. Here is all that is left of what was once a substantial argument from the Section 1500 group in regard to the end-round Supervisors Fennell and Bohn committed with the support of Supervisors Bass and Sundberg.
The Section 1500 group consisted at one point of Peter Childs, Dan Taranto, Bonnie Blackberry, Tom Grover, and Estelle Fennell (before she became Supervisor). Bonnie Blackberry is closely associated with Charley Custer as they co-host a civil liberties show on KMUD which seems to be 90% complaints about laws against weed, argued under the general umbrella of civil liberties.
Here’s the thing that drives me nuts, and might drive more people nuts if they paid close attention. Bonnie Blackberry and Dan Taranto at some point formed the Public Participation Work Group and began advocating for 3 new public participation principles added to the existing 9. When Estelle and Rex and whoever else drafted the new Guiding Principles, which in effect represent a giveaway to private interests of the government’s responsibility to plan for the future to; when Estelle and Rex did this, they did it in a way ignoring the only 3 principles they did not change. AND those were the three principles they advocated for and successfully added just prior to being elected. It is mind numbing and I wish I had the writing skills to better express why.
Also, take a listen to the BOS justifying the changes (around 2 hr 45 min). You will be amazed by the inconsistency and double speak if you know the whole story. So, I’d really like to see if anyone else is as frustrated as I am and would care to join me for some good-ole 1st amendment action in front of the Courthouse next week. I’m thinking 3 to 5 days 2 to 3 hours around lunch time. Anyone else game?
Bonnie and Dan, I hope to see you out there with me.
A: Greed and Weed. GPU Thread Part iii (16 Days To Go)
Q: What is driving our current GPU process.
Here are some links to Sohum Parlance threads where I and others (many others at first, later only Cookie and I) were commenting on the General Plan Update in general and often the Guiding Principles in particular. The first link is very interesting as many of the most influential people in the process weighed in including Peter Childs, Bonnie Blackberry and Dan Taranto of the §1500 group.
Sohum Parlance Links which included Guiding Principle comments.
- June 3rd – “Northcoast Environmental Center on the GPU Guiding Principles” Thread
- June 11th – “Online Petition to the Board of Supervisors“
- July 17th – “Pathetic!“
This is the comment in the Pathetic! thread where Cookie and I started to make an attempt to go through an analysis of each Guiding Principle, one by one. It was really a useful exercise and I recommend everyone interested to do the same. Take a copy of the new and old Guiding Principle and ask yourself why make these changes? The answers you come up with will be as good as any offered by the Board, btw, because they haven’t offered any except Supervisor Fennell’s declaration that her and Supervisor Bohn’s rewrite was a fair representation of the introduction to the chapter on the Guiding Principles.
I think this one comment, made by “Jane”, back in April 2012 was so insightful given what has happened in Summer 2013 that it is worth a special link.
Estelle, like most politicians without extensive actual experience, can always adopt the feel-good friendly-to-transparency point of view. Those of us who have worked with Estelle in other organizations know this is not always how she manages her own workload.
Remember. This was written a year plus before Supervisor Fennell worked with the most conservative member of the BOS (as a Democrat mind you) to rewrite the Guiding Principles that had been worked on extensively and with substantial effort at inclusiveness.
More on that post title later.
KMUD Civil Liberties Fund Drive
A banner from today’s KMUD web site – KMUD’s focus on civil liberties is great, but progressives have to understand the ramifications of this to HumCo politics.
(d)emocratic Humboldt 