Daily Archives: July 19, 2006

Bay Area

DWR’s Hetch Hetchy Report out and It isn’t as pretty as the Hetch Hetchy Valley

4 Comments

The Department of Water Resources revealed its report to a few selected officials and apparently the cost is pretty high.  I’ve done a fair amount of research on the issues surrounding the Hetch Hetchy Restoration, and this report only aggregates information from other sources.  From what I’ve seen cost estimates in the past have ranged from a low range of $1B to a high range of $10B.  The DWR’s report doesn’t give much more specificity than that apparently, pegging the estimates at between $3-$10B.  I suppose this is higher, but not really out of the realm of possibility.

It would cost anywhere from $3 billion to $10 billion to fulfill one of California environmentalists’ fondest dreams — draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and restoring a valley in Yosemite National Park that John Muir called “one of nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples.”

That is the conclusion of a report worked up by the state Department of Water Resources, analyzing what it would take to bring back Hetch Hetchy Valley and find alternative sources of water and power for San Francisco, which operates the valley’s O’Shaughnessy Dam. The cost estimate is more in line with what critics of the idea expected, and as much as 10 times the figure floated by environmentalists.

“Clearly, it’s not cheap,” said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, one of a handful of officials who have been briefed on the findings. The report has not been made public.

“But we knew it was going to be expensive, no matter what the option,” said Canciamilla, who is nevertheless still intrigued by the possibility of restoring Hetch Hetchy.

The idea was first raised back in the 1980s by then-Energy Secretary Donald Hodel, but it really gained traction two years ago when the nonprofit group Environmental Defense issued a report called “Paradise Regained.” It put the cost of draining Hetch Hetchy, coming up with other sources of water for 2.4 million Bay Area customers and replacing the electricity that Hetch Hetchy generates for San Francisco at anywhere from $500 million to $1.5 billion. (SF Chron 7/19/06)

But, I don’t think this report really kills the discussions of tearing down the damn as much as some officials (DiFi, Leno, the SFPUC in general) would like.  The Environmental Defense people have acknowledged that their predictions of costs were very rough and have made provisions for higher costs.  The thing is, nobody truly understands how beautiful this place is.  When I first came at the issue, I thought it was nuts to dear down O’Shaughnessy Dam, and I still think it’s a bit crazy to give up our secure water and power resources.  However, have you seen the pictures of that valley? If you click on the picture above, you’ll be taken to the Sierra Club’s HH photo gallery.  You won’t be disappointed.  It is simply beautiful.

So the question that is now posed to us is: How much would we pay for a valley that has beauty that is only rivaled by Yosemite? I don’t think even billions should be considered crazy.

Uncategorized

Prop 90: Peter Schrag on the Trojan Horse

Peter Schrag has a great column in today’s Bee about Prop 90. It articulates the real problem with the initiative, which is that it goes too far:

In fact, if you look at the politics of Proposition 90 from a distance, it looks a lot like Proposition 13. Like Proposition 13, it starts with a legitimate worry — also about homeownership — and ends with a sledgehammer remedy. It’s a Pandora’s box of trouble.
***
California law requires that only blighted properties can be condemned, but that hasn’t kept some redevelopment agencies from seizing good homes and small businesses in the search for new development that will yield higher tax returns. As Proposition 90 supporters point out, “blight is a broad term.” The law, as even League of California Cities Executive Director Chris McKenzie concedes, needs fixing.
***
But Proposition 90 isn’t just about eminent domain. Buried in it are “takings” booby traps that throw into question a wide array of future regulations, zoning decisions and other actions that “result in substantial loss to private property.” The initiative allows regulation to protect public health and safety, but says nothing about protecting the environment or public welfare. It also says that if private property is taken “for any proprietary government purpose … the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.” That appears to mean that slumlords must be compensated not at the value of the condemned housing, but at the value of the property under the convention center or affordable housing units that replace it. Nor could a city turn the housing over to a private agency — say a church or social organization — even if such an agency was a more efficient operator of the project. Even backers of Proposition 90 concede that there’ll be plenty of litigation to clarify the ambiguities and apparent contradictions in the law.
***
But will the initiatives really put voters “back in charge,” …? Or will it be lawyers, slumlords, speculators and polluters? (SacBee 7/19/06)

Not much else to say.  The article is worthy of your time in its entirety as well.  Prop 90, however, is not.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Environment

Jon Fleischman goes off the public dole

Jon Fleischman, propeitor of the FlashReport, a right-wing conservative California blog, has announced that he’s leaving the office of Sheriff Mike Carona.

Jon Fleischman, spokesman for Sheriff Mike Carona and publisher of the political daily e-zine the FlashReport, will be leaving the gig with Carona next month to set up his own public affairs operation. He will also be spending more time on his Web site, which advertisers have helped make an increasingly profitable venture. He will be subletting office space in Irvine from county GOP Chairman Scott Baugh.

Fleischman has close ties to the power center of Carona, District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, and Mike Schroeder, the former chairman of the California GOP who is a political advisor to Carona and Rackauckas. Fleischman, a longtime friend of Schroeder’s, served as executive director for the state GOP from 1999 to 2001, when he took the post with Carona and launched the first version of the Flash Report as a newsletter.  (OC Register Blog 7/18/06)

Fleischman has been a “PR Officer” at the OC Sherriff’s Office for several years now, all the while moonlighting with the various incarnations of FlashReport.  Now, I’m not against a little bit of blogging at work, I mean c’mon I love the blogosphere, but there have to be some questions about Fleischman’s role at the Sheriff’s Office Past and Present.  He was being paid off taxpayer dollars, and there should be some accountability to the people of Orange County. Jon actually once said, in a post that has now been removed about Amy Thoma, his departed Central Coast Correspondent, how fortunate he was to have a boss who understood his blogging and was supportive of it.

Well, now he’ll be doing it on his own time.  Good Luck Jon, I hope your services are in high demand due to the flailing of the California GOP.Jon Fleischman goes off the public dole

Uncategorized

This Is What Democracy Looks Like

This is going to be a series where we introduce the people who make up the campaign. Every staffer will explain a little about who they are, and why their involved in the campaign.

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Max Berger, and I’m currently working as Web Coordinator for Robert Rodriguez for Congress. I’m a 20 year-old college student dedicating my summer to helping a fantastic candidate (and a good friend) get elected to Congress. I’m what you could consider a “netroots Democrat.” I’ve been a daily blog reader since 2002, took time off school to work full-time for the Dean for America campaign in Burlington, and spent a summer at Media Matters. I want to share the story of how I came to be involved on this campaign, and why it matters so much to me.

I agreed to join the campaign because Robert was a colleague of mine on a previous campaign, and I was taken in by his thoughts on the need for real leadership in American politics. As young people (I’m 20, he is 28), we were frustrated the current political class almost pathologically inability to take the long view. Whether it’s the Democrats weakly voting for the war in Iraq for political reasons, or the Republicans greedily denying global warming because it didn’t fit their worldview, too few in DC today look past the current moment.

We see so little leadership on important issues facing America because that would require our leaders make personal sacrifices. Sacrifice is the antithetical to the current regime. As a young person, the inability of the “leadership” to use their position to invest in the future is a personal affront. Tax cuts in a time of war? Letting America fall behind Korea in broadband access? Continuing to under-fund No Child Left Behind? There was a time in American politics when people appreciated the sacrifices of previous generations and were willing to make similar sacrifices for future generations. Grand investments in the future of the nation from the GI Bill, to the Apollo program, to the interstate highway system form the basis of our present prosperity. And yet, no one in politics today even dreams of such things, because of the sacrifices of money and standing it might require. I wanted to work for a campaign that would provide leadership.

My involvement with the campaign started in early June when I drove down to Palmdale from Portland, Oregon. I got in at 8 pm after a full two days of driving and was excited to check out to my new digs and meet my new colleagues. I arrived to find a combination house/office that I have come to call “the compound.” We work upstairs and live downstairs. My colleagues were running around getting everything together for a big rally and press event the next day, making final touches, and rallying supporters to show up. I was thrown straight into the fray, making calls without even a moment to unload my car, or take a shower. I worked straight through until 2 am.

When I was done, I wondered to myself, “what the heck am I doing here?” I gave up my summer of chilling out with my friends and working a mindless job to slave away doing busy work in the middle of the desert? I had almost forgotten why I was involved before I even got started. Before I headed to bed I went to the kitchen to get a glass of water. What I found changed my entire outlook on the campaign, and reminded me of why I was here. Robert, who had just finished a 15-hour workday, was mopping the kitchen floor. It hadn’t even occurred to him to ask someone else to do it. There was nothing he could have done that would have been more inspiring.

Uncategorized

The Importance of Alternative Energy

In today’s Sacramento Bee, Dan Walters discusses the decline in excess capacity of power production in the state:

Electric power consumption mushroomed to record levels Monday as interior California baked in the year’s most powerful heat wave, raising the specter of blackouts in the minds of those who recall the state’s energy crisis five years ago.
***
The Energy Commission pegs the state’s peak power supply at over 70,000 megawatts, including about 13,000 imported from out of state. But new power plants due to come on line will be offset by retirements of older plants, leaving the supply virtually stagnant while each year the peak demand increases by about 2 percent, or approximately 1,000 to 1,200 megawatts. Thus, the commission says, the reserve cushion may shrink by a third or more by the end of the decade.(SacBee 7/18/06)

Walters also notes that California leads the nation in power usage per capita by having a per capita power usage of approximately 5,000kW less than the national average.  In that respect we have done a good job, but we need to keep up with our population growth. We can gain power production through a number of ways: we can build additional polluting power facilities such as “clean coal”, dam up some more rivers and kill some fish, or we can work to ensure greater alternative energy sources.

This is where Schwarzenegger’s leadership has failed us.  Arnold mearly says: “We have to create more power,”.  He supports building additional power plants.  And that’s all well and good, but it certainly doesn’t help address global warming concerns, concerns that a large majority of Californians share.  So, why don’t we have a greater sense of imagination?  Where is the policy flair?

Well, Phil Angelides has supported alternative energy research as state treasurer through his “Green Wave” initiative.  You can learn more about his environemental plan here.  Angelides has the experience and the track record to work for energy independence in the state.  it’s one of the reasons that the Sierra Club has endorsed his candidacy.

We need big ideas and a big vision.  We have two resources in abundance: wind and sun.  So, let’s just take one of those resources, solar energy.  This might be a bit bold for the state right now, but let’s just think bold: Require solar cells on all new homes built and increase incentives for current houses.  I understand it’s expensive to install solar cells on existing homes, but it would be much more affordable to install them on new houses.  Additionally, the major growth areas all reside in areas that receive tremendous amounts of sun, especially in the summer months.  THink what we could do if we had built solar cells into the roofs of all the houses built into the Central Valley in the last ten years.  It’s a staggering thought, but we can do this now.  We can be a leader in energy independence, a model for the nation.

Now, I’m certainly not imputing these ideas to Angelides, but so far Arnold has provided no leadership on these issues.  Phil has shown his commitment to the environment throughout his career.  His development projects have been lauded for their use of green growth.  He worked hard for the environment in the past, and I’m comfortable with his commitment to do so in the future.  Can you say that about Arnold and his Hummers?

California

Proposition 90: Full Text

Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

  (a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
  (b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
  (c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
  (d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.

Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

  (a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
  (b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
  (c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
  (d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
  (e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact “The Protect Our Homes Act.”

Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

  Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
  (2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
  (3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
  (4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

(b) For purposes of applying this section:
  (1)  “Public use” shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term “public purpose;” its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
  (2)  Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
  (3)  Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
  (4)  In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government’s occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner’s election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
  (5)  If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
  (6)  In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
  (7)  In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
  (8)  Except when taken to protect public health and safety, “damage” to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. “Government action” shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
  (9)  A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
  (10)  For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.

Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT

  This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.

Section 5. SEVERABILITY

  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE

  This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
  The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
  Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.