CREDO Action, an arm of the national group Working Assets, is targeting our Congressman Tom McClintock for a “shockingly irresponsible” vote on climate change.
“As The New York Times reported earlier this month, climate change is literally contributing to the destabilization of our food system,” according to the group. “So it’s shocking that 238 members of the House, including McClintock, were more concerned with casting a vote to deny that climate change is affecting our planet than to implement a new, common-sense policy to help prepare for global warming, and plan for ways to prevent disastrous disruptions in our food supply.”
Agriculture experts are feeling “a rising unease about the future of the world’s food supply,” it says, adding: “It only makes sense that the Department of Agriculture would pursue a policy to protect our nation’s ability to grow food.”
The three-page policy broadly states that the “USDA will develop, prioritize, implement and evaluate actions to minimize climate risks and exploit new opportunities that climate change may bring.”
It adds: “Let’s make sure that we send a strong message to Congress that denying the reality of climate change is totally unacceptable.”
Editor’s note: Former Nevada City Mayor Steve Cottrell recently commented on Sierra Foothills Report about “R1″s in town. Steve’s remarks are here:
When all is said and done, this is not about a meditation center. It’s about the creeping additional intrusion of nonresidential uses in neighborhoods. Sure, it’s an area where mixed uses already exist, but does that mean that additional nonresidential uses should be allowed? The appropriate level of nonresidential uses along Zion Street was settled when the General Plan was codified.
Offering a peaceful environment for its users is not a criteria for determining conditional use permits. If we use that premise to approve or disapprove land-use issues, then what does the planning commission or city council say to someone who walks in wanting a conditional use permit in an R1 zone for, say, a peaceful art gallery or a quiet tea room operated by a nonprofit using the “quasi-public” exception to the Zoning Ordinance?
As a former mayor recently told the planning commission when it was considering a new B&B ordinance, “R1 is supposed to be R1.”
It seems odd to me that with all the current political energy being spent trying to maintain a ban on B&Bs in R1 zones, that there’s seeming support for the meditation center.
A B&B with six rooms would require fewer than 10 parking spaces; the meditation center will apparently have 24 spaces. B&Bs (at least when they were still allowed in Nevada City) required that off-street parking had to already exist; the meditation center will be allowed to create spaces where no spaces currently exist.
A six-room B&B would typically have a dozen guests –– mainly on weekends –– and outside activities would be limited only to the guests. The Meditation Room alone has apparently been given a capacity of 49, with up to 80 folks allowed for special events six times a year.
As terrific as the meditation center might be for the community, and as appealing as the image of its use might be, it will have a greater impact on the neighborhood than would a B&B. But the decision-makers appear opposed to B&Bs and supportive of the planned center.
A public hearing on the appeal of the Mountain Stream Meditation Center in a Nevada City residential neighborhood — the city’s latest litmus test of the sanctity of “R1″s in the small town — is set for July 27 at 6:30 p.m., as previously reported. Background is here.
Here’s the latest update:
“Staff is in the process of preparing the staff report and supporting data which will be distributed to the City Council,” according to a memo from City Planner Cindy Siegfried to the neighbors who are appealing the decision. “Copies of the agenda and staff report will be provided to you as soon as they are available.”
It adds: “After hearing all evidence and considering the record, the Council may uphold the appeal and deny the project, deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, or make changes and modifications in the Planning Commission decisions.”
The hearing will consist of:
1. Staff presentation
2. Presentation by the appellants, which shall be limited to 30 minutes.
3. Presentation by the applicant, which shall be limited to 30 minutes.
4. The public hearing during which members of the public will be allowed to give testimony limited to 5 minutes.
5. Summation by the applicant and appellants.
6. Council questions of staff, deliberation and decision.
California’s new state budget deal, expected to be approved starting Tuesday, assumes billions of dollars in extra revenue. If revenue falls short, more cuts will follow.
In our region, we face parcel fees for firefighting, the dismantling of redevelopment agencies and park closures (see analysis and details below).
For all of us, car owners will pay $12 more per year to register their vehicles, and the state would attempt to force online retailers such as Amazon.com to collect sales tax on purchases by California residents.
Universities, courts, social welfare and programs for the elderly, blind, disabled and poor all face cutbacks.
With no bipartisan deal, the state sales tax will drop one percentage point and the vehicle license fee half a percentage point on Friday.
Here are some comments I found telling:
•”I thought we were getting close, but as I look back on it, there is an almost religious reluctance (by Republican lawmakers) to ever deal with the state budget in a way that requires new revenues,” Gov. Jerry Brown said.
•Tax extension initiatives are expected to be put before the voters in November 2012, when Obama will be up for re-election and more Democrats can be expected to head for the polls.
•The “gang that chooses not to govern,” the Democrats term for the GOPers who sat on the sidelines thumbing their noses at political compromise, will still get paid now that a deal is reached.
The best articles I found were here (Los Angeles Times), here (Sacramento Bee) and here (San Francisco Chronicle). The original proposed budget, in detail, is here. Nothing of substance in the local media.
Here’s my regional analysis:
•Fire fees of $150 per parcel for rural homeowners for escalating fire-fighting costs. This has sparked a heated debate — in some cases along the coastal-rural boundaries that increasingly divides our state down the middle. (Forget the NorCal/SoCal, Dodgers/Giants-type rivalry anymore).
The controversial bill, ABx1 29 (Bob Blumenfield, D-Van Nuys) is here. “This is a fair way to deal with these high costs,” argue proponents such as Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego).
Opponents counter it “fleeces” property owners whose property taxes already go to fire-fighting efforts. They also point to “zero” added services.
The opposition by the Regional Council of Rural Counties and the California State Association of Counties is here.
•The budget continues supporting Gov. Brown’s plan to starve the state’s redevelopment agencies. This will greatly impact foothill towns, such as Auburn and Grass Valley, that depend heavily on the money.
“The bills don’t so much kill redevelopment as attempt to starve it to death,” as one report observes. “The first bill eliminates the program and the second bill allows agencies to reconstitute themselves if they dedicate some of their property tax revenue to schools.”
Redevelopment boosters have threatened to sue.
•State parks such as Malakoff Diggins State Historical Park are slated for closure. The list of announces closures are here. Reminder: We had a chance to pass an extra $18 fee per vehicle to keep state parks open. It was defeated, however.
Brown’s budget update from earlier this month — before the new budget deal — is here:
CREDO Action, an arm of the national group Working Assets, is targeting our Congressman Tom McClintock for a “shockingly irresponsible” vote on climate change.
