Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

I received the following press release from the county:

Nevada County Clerk, Gregory J. Diaz announced today that on August 19, 2010, the Nevada County Clerk intends to cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8, pursuant to a U.S. District Court order released today.

On August 4, 2010, the U.S. District Court ruled in the case entitled Perry V. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292VRW, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The decision directs state and local officials who offer marriage services to permit couples to marry regardless of gender.

However, the court issued a stay on the order overturning Proposition 8, in order to allow supporters of the measure to argue why it should remain in effect while they pursue an appeal.

Today, the Court lifted the stay. To wit: “None of the factors the court weighs in considering amotion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.”

Due to the level of interest in this case, a site has been created to notify the media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings, as well as access to case information. The link is here.

It is my commitment to all customers that we conduct business in a fair, courteous and professional manner that complies with all statutory rulings and requirements. As a service to our customers and to accommodate all constituents that have questions or concerns, the aforementioned link will be posted on our website. This link will also keep everyone posted on the latest developments in this case.

Marriage services are conducted at the Clerk-Recorders Office, located at the Rood Center, 950 Maidu Ave, Ste. 210, in Nevada City. Licenses and ceremonies are available during normal business hours, Monday thru Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Appointments are strongly encouraged and are given priority status.

Walk in customers are accommodated, but are required to wait until appointment customers have been processed. It is also important that appointment customers arrive at least 15 minutes early to assure they are ready and to avoid the possibility of rescheduling to another day. For an appointment, customers can call (530)265-1221. For more information, please refer to the County Clerk-Recorder website here or call (530)265-1221.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

One of the problems here (as elsewhere) is the inability of public leaders to come together and, well, lead. The thinking is too myopic and “compartmentalized.”

A classic example is the debate in the Nevada City School District about what to do with the now closed Nevada City Elementary campus.

Should the School District lease the building to a charter school such as Forest or sell it to help build a downtown courthouse?

The decision should be a “no brainer,” but it will require big-picture thinking and collaboration. School enrollment is declining and will continue to decline. Our population is declining and aging.

The issue we keep dodging is consolidating school districts — but it will happen. It has too.

Meanwhile, we risk losing a downtown courthouse in Nevada City. A courthouse breathes live into any downtown, and it is “recession proof.” It provides a balance of tourism with local commerce.

If you don’t believe me, just look at neighboring Placer County. The downtown Auburn courthouse largely was relocated to Roseville.

It is called the Bill Santucci Justice Center, and it is the middle of nowhere — in a field near the Thunder Valley Casino. I dropped some FoodWineArt magazines there this summer, and they were elated.

“There’s nothing for people to do out here,” one person remarked. At a recent hearing about the courthouse in Nevada City, a person showed up to make a similar remark. You can watch a video of the meeting, courtesy of NCTV, here.

Old Town Auburn, meanwhile, could benefit from all the business that a full-fledged courthouse would have provided. Like many historic downtowns, it suffers from the “boom and bust” cycles of tourism. A high-profile arrest of three men was reported this week, as I reported yesterday.

A courthouse is supposed to be a fabric of the community, not an isolated building in a complex of government centers. It serves “we the people,” not government bureaucrats.

Our public leaders need to join together and ensure that the county courthouse stays in the downtown.

For historic background, check out the book called Courthouses of California: An Illustrated History.

It chronicles 150 years of judicial architecture in California, honoring and preserving the history of these public buildings. It is published in conjunction with the California Historical Society.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

A pervasive “Christian supremacist milieu” exists inside the U.S. military that’s a danger not only to constitutional order, but to the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to an article at alternet.org.

It is about Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and his fight against “Christian supremacists inside the armed forces.” The background on the MRFF is here.

“The United States military cannot favor one religious sect over another, staying true to the Constitution’s establishment clause that service members pledge to defend,” according to the article. “More pragmatically, the military cannot favor one religious sect over another because it’s destructive of good order and discipline, creating divisions between service members when they must rely on the guy next to them to survive in a firefight.

“Yet inside the U.S. military a small, determined, and fanatical clique wants to abuse its power and prosetlyze to service members below them in the chain of command.”

The Weinstein family is an Air Force family. MRFF received its second nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in late October.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 65 Comments »

Two of the biggest polluters in the state also are the biggest donors to Prop. 23, according to a new study.

Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Petroleum Corp., two Texas-based refining companies, have donated $4.5 million to the campaign to repeal AB32, the state’s climate legislation, as California WatchBlog reports.

“There is little scientific debate about the toxic natue of many of the substances that Tesoro and Valero emit into the air, water and soil of California,” according to the report by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the California Environmental Justice Alliance, two groups that advocate for inner-city residents.

According to regulatory filings, refineries owned by both companies have repeatedly been accused by environmental agencies in California of violating pollution laws, the study said.

The report is here.

Valero contends the report “wildly exaggerated” several facts and figures.

These facts are widely accepted, however: Valero’s Benicia refinery is the No. 4 producer of toxic chemicals in California, with 1.6 million pounds in 2008 alone.

Tesoro’s Martinez refinery is not far behind at No. 8, producing 761,000 pounds of toxic substances.

“The source of this information is data turned over by the companies themselves to the U.S. government, under federal law,” as the report pointed out.

Here’s some details that are less widely known, from my years covering the oil industry at the San Francisco Chronicle that are relevant.

Valero’s Benicia refinery was once owned by a major “integrated” oil company (exploration and refining) but was sold to a refinery-only operation — a riskier bet in the oil business because you only depend on refining for revenue growth.

Exxon owned the Benicia refinery but had to divest itself of some assets after it merged with Mobil in 2000.

Tesoro’s Martinez refinery has had some well publicized troubles over the years.

The Tesoro refinery is one of five refineries located around the Bay Area. It was built in 1913 to process heavy crude from the San Joaquin Valley, making it one of the oldest though it has been updated. The refinery’s previous owner included Tosco.

“Four workers died because of a fire at the refinery in February 1999, and Tosco has had difficulties satisfying regulators and government officials that the plant is being run safely and cleanly,” as the L.A. Times reported in 2000.

More details are here.

Both of the current owners have a lot at stake in whether Prop. 23 prevails. What’s at stake for the rest of us is balancing old California industries with new ones.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 15 Comments »