Rogelio V. Morales is a new Democratic candidate in the 2008 congressional elections for the 44th Congressional District (map) of California. He is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). The primary will take place on June 3, 2008. He is going up against Bill Hedrick and Louis Vandenberg.

Here’s his biography and background information, from http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…

“Rogelio V. Morales’s life is a testament to the continuing vitality of the American Dream.

Rogelio (pronounced row-hell-leo) was born in Los Angeles, CA. As a first-generation American, Rogelio was raised by illiterate Mexican immigrants whose combined schooling totaled a third-grade education. He also attended 92nd Street Elementary School in Watts, Los Angeles, CA. Throughout his childhood, Rogelio was often surrounded by gang violence, poverty and drugs.

In 1987, Rogelio’s family moved to the Inland Empire after his father’s job relocated to Riverside, CA. He attended several schools in the district, including Myra Lynn Elementary School, La Sierra Academy and La Sierra High School. In June 1995, Rogelio graduated from John W. North High School. A month later, he joined the United States Marine Corps.

Throughout his enlistment in the Marine Corps, Rogelio received several awards and commendations. In 1997, at the age of 20, he was selected by his unit commander to represent his infantry company in the Marine Corps’ Annual Rifle Squad Competition (ARSC). At the competition’s end, his unit was recognized as the “most combat ready rifle squad in 1st Marine Division.” According to his Navy Achievement Medal citation, Rogelio’s leadership as a fire team leader was “instrumental” to his rifle squad’s first place finish. Later that same year, Rogelio was awarded the ARSC Badge by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General C.C. Krulak, at an awards ceremony held at Marine Barracks, in Washington, D.C. Looking back on his achievements, however, Rogelio remains humbled by the awesome privilege of once being in command of Americans who had chosen to serve their country.

After being discharged from active duty in 1999, Rogelio enrolled at Riverside Community College (RCC). At RCC, he excelled at academics and student government. Rogelio graduated in the summer of 2002 and earned the honor of being named the student commencement speaker. That summer, he transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In 2004, Rogelio graduated from UCLA with a B.A. in Political Science. Then in September 2005, Rogelio enrolled in the Juris Doctorate program at the University of Washington, in Seattle, WA. Rogelio expects his law degree in March 2008.

Truly, Rogelio V. Morales represents new, exciting leadership the 44th Congressional District can be proud to call its own.”

Here is some background information on the candidate as well:

• Full Legal Name: Rogelio Vergara Morales

• Place of Birth: Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital in Los Angeles, CA.

• Age: 30 years old (as of 12/31/2007)

• Military Rank Attained: Corporal (E-4)

• Type of Discharge: Honorable

• Marital Status: Single/ Never Married

• Political Party: Democrat

• Religion: Christian – Protestant

• Other Languages: Spanish

• Reason for Running:

“Congressman Calvert has lost touch with the values and priorities of the 44th Congressional District. What’s worse, Congressman Calvert is no longer an effective representative to aid our district’s emerging political and economic importance. As your congressman, I promise to restore the special trust and confidence voters demand from their representatives. Indeed, I believe the best and brightest days for our district are still ahead, and I intend to hasten their long-awaited arrival.”  –Rogelio V. Morales, Democratic Candidate, U.S. Congress —

See contact info below:

[email protected]

Contributions can be sent to:

C/O Cardenas, P.O. Box 51748, Riverside, CA 92517

Make checks payable to: Morales for Congress

Julia- photo moved below the fold
(Cross-posted at The Liberal OC)

This is the latest part of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the “Speeding Our Way to Trestles” series on here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved… And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : )

There are just some things in life we can always count on. Death. Taxes. Another season of “Cops” on Fox. Thousands more poor souls being told that they have no talent on “American Idol” on Fox. Now for me, the one thing in life I can ALWAYS seem to count on these days is complete and utter garbage from Red County/OC Blog on the proposed 241 Extension to Trestles.

So what nonsense is being spun to death at OC Blogland today? Theodore Judah is claiming that some new screed from the San Diego Business Journal is evidence that the evil “eco-extremists” are stonewalling traffic relief for San Diego. Huh?!

Follow me after the flip as I take out my handy dandy facts once more to debunk the right-wing spin on the toll road to Trestles…

Nothing says “California” like the coastline. We love our beaches. We love the ocean. And when we live so close to the ocean, we love to see it from the house. But what happens when your precious ocean view is taken away from you? What happens when your “personal space” with that lovely ocean view is INVADED?

“… [T]hat’s a real invasion of our personal space,” says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. “It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean.”

(From OC Register)

Believe it or not, this is what the War of Shorecliffs is all about. In a small community in San Clemente, people are fighting over property rights, and what that exactly means. Do we have a right to build a second story to our house? Do we have a right to a permanent ocean view? Do we have a right to preserve the “bucolic” feel of the neighborhood?

San Clemente is just one of many coastal cities that’s grappling with this conundrum. OC’s southernmost city has an ordinance banning second story add-ons in Shorecliffs. On the other end of OC’s coastline, Seal Beach repealed its ban on three story homes. In San Diego County, Solana Beach voters recently passed an “anti-mansionization” initiative. A similar measure was approved by the city council of Manhattan Beach, in Los Angeles County. The entire Southern California coast is grappling with this issue. But is there a fair solution for all of these coastal communities? Do all coastal homeowners have the right to an ocean view?

Follow me after the flip for more…

San Clemente resident Robert Strutt wants to add a second story master bedroom suite with a wraparound deck to his lovely Shorecliffs home. He says that he just wants to add more “living space” to his home, and he wants to take advantage of his fabulous ocean view. However, the neighbors don’t want Mr. Strutt to add that second story. They’re afraid that his taking advantage of his ocean view would lose them of theirs. That’s what led to this.

“If Robert is going to go up, that’s a real invasion of our personal space,” says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. “It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean.”

But Mr. Strutt thinks his privacy and property rights are being intruded by nosy neighbors who don’t want him to improve his own home.

For his part, Strutt says he modified his plans to be less intrusive and that he has a right to build on his property.

“My privacy is as important to me as it is to them,” Strutt said.

OK, so Mr. Strutt believes that his right to a second story is being violated by the new ordinance banning second stories in Shorecliffs. However, his neighbors believe that Mr. Strutt would be violating their right to an ocean view by adding that second story. So who’s right here? And whose right matters here?

Actually, NONE OF THEM really have any of those rights.

Homeowners do not generally have a right to a view or a second story, experts say. Often, city regulations or neighborhood codes dictate what is allowed.

Cities typically respect the private policies of a community and “have no interest in what goes on inside the gates,” said Joseph DiMento, professor of law and society and planning at University of California, Irvine.

Barring that, cities are hardly bashful about changing the rules and sometimes intervene in disputes, experts said. Still, residents will try to overturn unpopular regulations, they said.

“The powers of zoning and land use are for cities,” said Matt Parlow, assistant professor of law at Chapman University in Orange.

Ah, ha! So we’re really talking about the right of the city to regulate land use within city boundaries! Well, it looks like the City of San Clemente has clearly intervened in this dispute. They’re exercising their right to regulate.

But is this the right to do? It depends on what the city is looking to do.

Perhaps the city has an interest in preserving the character of the neighborhood, and in preserving the views of all the homes on the block. Solana Beach seems to have that interest. In a special election this past March, voters narrowly passed the “Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance” that limits the size of homes on the small lots in six neighborhoods west of the 5 Freeway. Manhattan Beach also seems to have that interest. In April, the city council voted to impose a moratorium on merging properties to make way for more massive homes. Most of the residents of these cities wanted to preserve the “small, welcoming beach town” character of these old neighborhoods, and the cities followed through in respecting the wishes of the residents.

And you know what? This interest is legitimate. If the greater community wants to preserve the character of the community, then the elected officials should respect that the desires of the community. Simple as that.

So the major question here is what do San Clemente residents want. What do San Clemente residents want for Shorecliffs? Do they want all homeowners to be able to “mansionize” to their hearts’ content? Or do they want the historic character of the community preserved? And do they prefer that every home in the community have an ocean view? Local governments are the ones that have the true right to determine what standards are set for the community. However local governments are supposed to represent local residents, and they should do what’s in the best interest of the local community.

That’s what San Clemente needs to decide. And that’s what all the other California coastal communities struggling with “mansionization” need to decide. What’s in the best interest of the community? And what do members of the community really want for the neighborhood? Ultimately, the people in the community must decide whether their beach cities should protect the right to pursue that grand ocean view.

“Everything they do is done with great secrecy behind closed doors… Their main purpose is to keep everything quiet so they can say: ‘Nuclear power is so safe. Just look, we’ve operated all these years without hurting any of the public.’ They have accidents all the time. They just don’t call them accidents. They call them ‘incidents’ and ‘occurrences.’ Mild? They may be, they may not be, but they are possible precursors to something more serious.”

That was Lyn Harris Hicks. She’s a 30 year resident of San Clemente, and has lived by the nuclear reactors at San Onofre for all these years. She and the Coalition for Responsible and Ethical Environmental Decisions have been fighting to open up the culture of secrecy pervading the nuclear power plant. And on Sunday, The OC Register decided to join them in unearthing some of the radioactive, dangerous secrets of San Onofre.

Is the power plant really as safe as it’s supposed to be? Is it vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Is it vulnerable to accidents? Is it just a disaster waiting to happen? Or is this just all being overhyped? Follow me after the flip for more…

Well, San Onofre seems quite safe… Isn’t it?

Overall, San Onofre gets good grades from the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. Seven years elapsed between its last two major enforcement actions. But some neighbors don’t trust the commission. Last year, radiation 16 times higher than that allowed in drinking water was found beneath the decommissioned reactor known as Unit 1. The commission called it “troubling” but said it was within radiation protection limits.

Well, maybe things aren’t as great as they seem at San Onofre. Even the best and most “perfect-seeming” of systems are still run by imperfect people. And yes, people make mistakes.

So just how safe is the San Onofre plant?

How safe is San Onofre? The last major enforcement action issued by the commission to San Onofre was on Sept. 13, after liquid radioactive waste leaked from a truck in Utah. The tanker’s discharge valve was improperly closed and sealed.

The action before that was on Dec. 15, 1999, after operators failed to recognize a condition that rendered inoperable a diesel generator and battery chargers.

While violations serious enough to garner official dings are fewer and farther between than they were a decade ago, there are still many minor incidents – some reported by San Onofre itself. An Orange County Register review of commission reports shows San Onofre workers:

•Improperly labeled a container of radioactive material, which wound up in a chemistry-lab trash can.

•Allowed debris to collect in water-storage tank enclosures, which could block flow in an emergency.

•Failed to promptly identify trapped air in safety-injection suction lines, which could damage emergency core cooling-system pumps.

So just how safe is San Onofre? Aging infrastructure isn’t safe. Radioactive water below the plant isn’t safe. And oh yes, an open target for terrorist attack definitely isn’t safe.

Oh yes, and how about that tritium?

That’s not much comfort to Lyn Harris Hicks of San Clemente, who has lived beside the reactors for about 30 years.

She is deeply troubled that radioactive tritium was found last year in groundwater beneath a defunct San Onofre reactor more than a decade after it ceased operations. Public health was not in danger, the commission and Edison said: Every year, people are exposed to about 300 millirems of radiation from natural sources. Anyone in contact with the water would have received about 1/10 millirems.

Harris Hicks is skeptical. “Tritium into the beach is the most important issue to us,” she said. “This indicates it may have been seeping into the ground there all those years. We have our young surfers down there all the time. … That’s the problem of nuclear radiation, of course. It permeates.”

OK, so tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides. But hey, that still isn’t saying too much. It’s still carcinogenic. And yes, continued exposure to tritium can be quite dangerous. It might just lead to cancer.

So what does all of this mean? No matter how “safe” San Onofre is made, it’s still doing something very dangerous. And no matter how “safe” nuclear power is made, it’s still very dangerous. And Dr. Helen Caldicott reminds us why:

The people [promoting nuclear power] are not biologists, they’re not geneticists, they’re not physicians. In other words, they don’t know what they’re talking about. And that makes me very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about [20 to 30] tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years … As it leaks into the environment, it will bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish, us.

It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill you. [The most common plutonium isotope] has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future generations God only knows — and we’re not the only species with testicles. What we’re doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that.

I guess not. I guess we still haven’t realized just how dangerous the health effects of nuclear power can be. And of course, nuclear power plants still aren’t prepared for possible terrorist attacks. These things really are ticking time bombs, just waiting to be set off.

So what can we do about it? Well, maybe we shouldn’t allow for these nuclear power plants to continue operating. Maybe we shouldn’t count on nuclear power as a panacea for our climate crisis. And yes, maybe we shouldn’t rely on the unreliable power from nuclear power plants like the one at San Onofre.

So maybe residents in San Clemente like Lyn Harris Hicks do have reason to be worried. Nuclear power isn’t reliable. It poses health risks. It creates open targets for terrorists. And perhaps, we shouldn’t be counting on nuclear energy to power our lives here in Southern California.

Remember when Susan Davis’ amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill passed the House Armed Services Committee? Remember that this is the amendment that ensures that the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), Orange County’s toll road authority, complies with state environmental laws, which means that a toll road can’t be built through San Onofre State Beach to Trestles? Remember that the bill moved on to the US Senate after it passed the House?

Well, we have a new problem. One of our own Senators, Dianne Feinstein, is undecided on adding something like the Davis Amendment to the Senate’s Defense Authorization Bill. I guess she’s not sure yet whether California state environmental law is important enough to be enforced. Follow me after the flip to find out what YOU can do to ensure that Senator Feinstein votes to enforce the law, protect our coast, and respect the integrity of our parks…

So what can YOU do to convince Senator Dianne Feinstein to save Trestles and urge TCA to extend the 241 toll road legally? Why not send the Senator an email? Why not send a fax to the Washington, DC, office at (202) 228-3954? Why not contact one of Feinstein’s state offices? Let Senator Feinstein know how you feel about preserving the integrity of our parks, and how important saving this unique coastal park truly is.

So what can you say if you send an email or fax? How about saying something like this…

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Please join us in supporting the addition of language to the Senate Defense Authorization Bill that repeals riders designed to exempt the Foothill-South toll road extension through San Onofre State Beach from state and federal law.

In addition, we urge you to repeal the additional rider that authorizes the Marine Corps to grant an easement for the Foothill South Toll Road that permanently encroaches into Camp Pendleton and compromises their mission.

The proposed Foothill South Toll Road is one of the most environmentally destructive projects in California and sets a dangerous precedent for the intrusion into state park lands well beyond Orange County.

At minimum, this project should have to comply with all the same laws as any other similar project – just like those reviewed at the local level every week. Allowing the federal government to override the Coastal Act sets a disastrous precedent, the Marine Corps should use its own professional judgment in how best to safeguard Camp Pendleton from encroachment, without pressure from Congress one way or the other.

Please support Representatives Davis and Sanchez in their efforts to ensure that the Foothill-South Toll Road complies with all laws of the United States and the State of California. In addition, we hope you will go a step further and remove the riders that currently create unprecedented legal exemptions for the construction of the Toll Road through Camp Pendleton.

Thank you for your past support for California’s unparalleled natural resources, and for your willingness to carefully consider the impacts of the Foothill-South Toll Road on our Southern California coastline.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

Or this, if you’d rather not be so loquacious…

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I am a supporter of the Susan Davis amendment to the Senate Defense Authorization Bill, which repeals the legal exemptions for the 241 toll road extension through San Onofre State Park. I’m writing to ask you to vote in favor of this amendment, and also to vote to remove the riders that give the Transportation Corridors Agency so many legal exemptions for construction of this road.

I believe the builders of the toll roads should follow the same laws that everyone else follows and should not be granted special rights or privileges.

Thank you very much for considering this issue, and for your outstanding and long service to our state and nation.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

Now you don’t have to write something like this or the longer letter. Just use these as ideas for whatever you’d like to say to Senator Feinstein about supporting the Davis Amendment. Just allow these to inspire you to make her heartfelt sentiments about Trestles and our state parks known to the Senator.

Susan Davis and Loretta Sanchez did what needed to be done in the House to save Trestles and our state parks. So now, it’s up to the Senate. And right now, Dianne Feinstein can make the difference between preserving one of our most popular state parks for generations to come and setting a dangerous precedent for state and federal environmental laws to be ignored if they get in the way of a new highway and/or toll road and/or residential development. Dianne Feinstein can make a difference in the Senate this week, and she needs to know that we want her to make that difference.

But first, we need to make a difference. I need to make this difference, and so do YOU. I plan to write to Senator Feinstein about including the Davis Amendment in the Senate’s Defense Authorization Bill. Would you like to do the same? Do you care about keeping our parks open for us to enjoy for many years to come? If so, then please ask Senator Feinstein to support including the Davis Amendment in the Senate’s bill.

Senator Feinstein can make a difference for the better this week, but first we need to make that difference to urge her to do the same. : )

Just when you thought the fight over the toll road to Trestles was wrapping up, another shot is fired! Orange County Supervisor Pat Bates has now entered into the fray, and she has offered a truly bizarre reason for extending the 241 to Trestles in today’s “Orange Grove” column in The Register. You just have to see it to believe it:

The spectacular truck crash and fire that destroyed a freeway overpass leading from the Bay Bridge in San Francisco last month should be a wake-up call for Orange County. Today the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway is the only major roadway in and out of south Orange County. The lack of alternate routes through this area has long been frustrating. But, as the East San Francisco Bay Area has learned, it can also be dangerous.

As reported recently in The Orange County Register, if a similar traffic accident were to occur at the El Toro “Y,” south county would be virtually cut off. Should a freeway accident occur further south, there are even fewer options. In San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, roadway options are limited to the I-5 or city streets.

The Orange County toll road system is nearly complete, but the final 16-mile stretch of the Foothill (241) Toll Road, intended to connect with the I-5 Freeway just south of San Clemente, still needs to be built. This roadway would not only offer commuters an alternative to increasing daily traffic, but an escape route during emergencies.

HUH?! How the heck would a toll road to Trestles help South County in the event of an emergency? Follow me after the flip as I try to make sense of Pat Bates’ bizarre “logic”…

OK, so let’s go through all these points that Pat Bates is making. And let’s try to separate fact from fiction here:

Some opponents to this traffic relief alternative say we should just widen the I-5, but, as we saw in the Bay Area, no matter how wide the freeway is, if it ever is shut down, alternatives are needed.

The final section of the 241, known as Foothill South, has been on the county’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways since 1981. It has gone through two separate environmental impact studies and, when built, will be one of the most environmentally sensitive roadways in the state.

OK, I’m getting really sick of having to repeat myself here. I think most of us now want to see the 241 completed. I just don’t see why state law has to be violated in order to build a toll road through a state park. There are clearly better options for extending the 241. How about extending the 241 to the 5/73 Interchange in Laguna Niguel, which would actually take people to where they want to go? And while we’re at it, how about a more comprehensive solution for relieving Orange County traffic that includes more Metrolink and OCTA bus service?

But anyways, back to Pat Bates. Here’s more of what she has to say:

This roadway will have a state-of-the-art water-treatment system that will ensure all the initial water runoff, water that contains most typical roadway pollutants like brake-pad dust and motor oil, will be captured and treated. Once the road is built, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) has even agreed to treat the water runoff along a two-mile stretch of the I-5 Freeway near Trestles Beach. Today that water runs straight off the freeway and into the ocean untreated.

TCA also will build wildlife undercrossings so animals can travel throughout that region safely. Future native-habitat mitigation sites are planned and will be similar to the hundreds of acres of habitat throughout south county that TCA has already worked to restore. TCA’s natural-habitat restoration project has gone so well, that gnatcatchers are pairing in record numbers on TCA sites and various other native plants and animals are making a comeback.

Really? Is this why American Rivers named San Mateo Creek as THE MOST ENDANGERED WATERWAY IN AMERICA? Is this why environmental studies have reported that the habitats of the seven endangered species that call San Onofre home WOULD be threatened? Is that why Coastal Commission staffers are so worried about this toll road to Trestles? But I guess so long as Orange County politicians aren’t worried, every thing’s just A-OK.

But wait, Pat Bates’ “argument” gets even more unbelievable!

Orange County residents, businesses and elected officials all understand the importance of traffic relief and the need to connect the 241 to the I-5, but there are several politicians who have attempted to usurp our local decision-making ability. Last month, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, introduced Assembly Bill 1457 to stop the building of Foothill South. Last week, Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, introduced an amendment to a congressional defense bill, and a House committee approved it, that would give the state of California authority to stop the toll road, even though it is planned for federal, not state, property.

Since 1991, the TCA has been working with five federal government agencies and six state agencies in addition to local and regional organizations to obtain the many permits and approvals needed to build this final 16-mile connector road. Despite what some politicians think, more government is not the answer to completing our regional transportation network.

Ooh, Jared Huffman! We should be so scared. But really, his legislation can’t even make it through the Legislature, let along get a signature from Arnold. That won’t stop the toll road from being built. And all Susan Davis’ amendment to the federal defense authorization bill would do is require TCA to obey state law in extending the toll road. Now if TCA really were obeying the law on building this toll road, then they shouldn’t be worried about having to comply with the law.

So yes, traffic in South County is horrendous. That’s why we need a comprehensive plan to relieve traffic here, such as the one recently proposed by OCTA. We should enhance the 5, but we certainly shouldn’t stop there. Let’s also expand Metrolink service in the area, and let’s add some more express bus lines to make it easier for South County commuters to access train service. And oh yes, while we’re at it, why don’t we make new communities in South County “smart communities” that are designed for an easy commute to everywhere we need to go?

So yes, South County needs traffic relief… So why not something that actually DOES THAT? : )

It’s a classic “I’m just…” defense. In this case, Loretta claims she’s “just” ensuring the completion of the 241 tollroad will comply with state law — pointing to the nominal purpose of the amendment while refusing to admit to its real purpose. But that’s a red herring.

The intent of the Davis amendment is obvious. Davis carried this amendment at the behest of the Surfrider Foundation. Surfrider doesn’t want to ensure the 241 completion complies with state law — they want to ensure it is never completed. Period. That’s the purpose of the Davis amendment, and Sanchez is lying if she claims not to know that.

Tell us lies, Matt/Jubal. Keep telling us sweet little lies.

My fabulous Congresswoman actually took time to write a reasoned response to the crazed rant on The OC Register’s editorial page against her vote to ensure that TCA obeys state law as they extend the 241 Toll Road, and this is how Red County/OC Blog treats her. How much more shameless and despicable can they get over there?

Follow me after the flip as I work my way through the right-wing distortions to get to the TRUTH of this matter…

Here’s what Loretta Sanchez has to say for her own action:

I have not taken a position against the toll road […] In fact, I have been supportive of other similar construction projects, such as the 73, which has been of benefit to county residents and was built with sensitivity to environmental concerns.

What concerns me is that the SR241 be constructed with the same care and attention as these other projects. As the law stands now, it permits the “recipient of the easement to construct, operate and maintain [the highway], notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary.” If the Davis amendment is adopted it means that the impact on the environment will be fully reviewed, and labor will be paid according to prevailing wage law.

I have been told that those involved with the construction of SR241 have observed every state law that applies. If that is the case, then the Davis amendment will have no effect. There is a concern that future state laws will prevent construction of the road for one reason or the other. I share that concern. I remain vigilant so that Orange County can determine which roads are built in our community. Our democratic process will lead to the best solution.

There. Wasn’t that simple. Here’s an explanation of Loretta Sanchez’s position on the toll road, directly from Loretta Sanchez.

Loretta supports extending the 241, along with me and many other progressives in Orange County. We just don’t want state law to be violated, just so that TCA can build the road through an ecologically sensitive state park. If TCA’s proposed route through San Onofre is truly as legal and environmentally sensitive as they claim it to be, then they should have no problem. However, we know that this road would destroy the great waves of Trestles, along with the habitat of SEVEN ENDANGERED SPECIES. Sorry, but I don’t call that “environmentally sensitive”, and I definitely don’t see how this complies with state environmental laws. Maybe that’s why TCA is so afraid of having to comply with the law.

There are other options for the toll road. How about extending the 241 to the 5/73 Interchange in Laguna Niguel, wher it would actually take people where they want to go? And again, how about a completely comprehensive strategy to relieve traffic in South Orange County? How about expanding commuter rail service here? How about better bus service? Light rail? More live/work communities?

That’s all we’re asking for here. Can TCA please comply with the law, and come up with a toll road extension that doesn’t violate state law? And can OCTA work with TCA on developing a comprehensive plan to relieve South County traffic? We’ve had enough lies, distortions, and complete lunacy. It’s time for some hard truth, and for some real solutions to Orange County traffic.

Oh, gawd! I thought that Mr. Republican Insider didn’t get it on why a stupid toll road to nowhere isn’t worth destroying one of the last great beaches of Southern California. And then, I thought that nothing could be worse than The OC Register’s wacky editorial attacking my fabulous Congresswoman for doing what’s best for the people of Orange County. But my goodness, it gets worse… Now Chris Reed has open his mouth at The San Diego Union-Tribune’s “America’s Finest Blog” (yeah, right)… AND INSERT HIS FOOT!

Driving on Interstate 5 from San Diego to L.A. is completely maddening. Sometimes it’s only a minor ordeal. Sometimes it’s a gigantic ordeal. But especially on the south Orange County stretch of the 5, traffic is ridiculous. So any effort to lessen traffic in that area would be wonderful news for the millions of us in Socal who like to go back and forth between L.A./O.C. and San Diego.

But guess who doesn’t care: Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego. She may pretend she’s just interested in proper procedure, but her congressional maneuvering dealing with the planned extension of the 241 toll road in Orange County to the 5 near Camp Pendleton is clearly meant to kill the project.

So the next time you’re sitting stuck on the 5, save a few of your expletives for Susan Davis. She’s earned them.

Oh no, Chris Reed! I’m savin’ all my love for you. Follow me after the flip as I have to explain to Chris Reed why he’s missing the point on extending the 241 to Trestles…

So where do I start? Oh yes, how about that traffic? We all know that it’s horrendous. However, extending the 241 to Trestles would do absolutely nothing to ease traffic in South Orange County! Did you hear me, Chris Reed? Extending the 241 to Trestles would NOT ease congestion on the 5.

But you know what would ease congestion? Try these suggestions I made back in February:

[…] We can connect the 241 to the 5 AND the 73 at Laguna Niguel, and avoid the San Onofre wilderness while actually connecting South County commuters to where they want to go in OC! Additionally, we can do away with the non-compete agreement with the TCA that only serve to enrich the toll road operators while doing nothing for the people of Orange County. And perhaps if we start putting into practice better urban planning in South County, we won’t have to worry about losing the beautiful wild spaces that make South County living so fantastic.

Now don’t these ideas make more sense? Instead of building a stupid toll road to nowhere, what if we actually extend the 241 to where people actually want to go in Orange County? Instead of allowing TCA to continue fleecing local taxpayers with these ridiculous non-compete agreements, what if we actually put these roads to work for us? Instead of allowing for any more of this endless sprawl encroaching upon our last remaining open spaces, why don’t we start putting some common sense into our plans for growing Orange County?

But anyways, back to Chris Reed missing the point.

Chris Reed complains about Susan Davis’ amendment requiring TCA to obey state environmental laws in extending the 241. What’s so bad about that? So she’s trying to “kill the project” by simply requiring TCA to honor the law? If TCA can actually extend the 241 in an environmentally sensitive way as they claim on their web site, then why should they be afraid of the law?

Oh wait, maybe this is why they are afraid. This plan to extend the 241 to Trestles violates the Coastal Act. It would send toxic storm water down San Mateo Creek to Trestles, polluting the ocean water here. Oh, and speaking of San Mateo Creek, I don’t think the Coastal Commission would be happy to hear about how the 241 would alter the sediment flow of the creek, destroying the world-famous waves that have made Trestles such a great surf spot. And oh yes, how about those seven endangered species that would lose their native habitat forever if TCA were allowed to build the toll road to Trestles? Is there any chance that the Coastal Commission would agree to this nonsense?

So can Chris Reed understand why this toll road to Trestles is such a bad idea, now that I’ve laid the facts clearly at his feet? This stupid toll road to nowhere would do NOTHING to ease South County traffic. This road would destroy one of the last stretches of pristine coast left in Southern California. And yes, this road would illegally cut its way through a public park, and make the park completely unusable! I made sure to make these points clearly, so that Chris Reed wouldn’t miss them? I hope he doesn’t miss the point now.

(Cross-posted at the California Progress Report)

Yesterday, The Orange County Register’s editorial page took aim at Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) for supporting an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would simply require the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), the public-private organization that operates Orange County’s toll roads, to follow state environmental laws as TCA considers plans to extend the 241 Toll Road through South Orange County. Even though this amendment only asks TCA to follow the letter of the law in extending the 241, The Register seems to think that any request for TCA to extend its toll roads legally somehow adds to Orange County’s traffic woes. How does compliance with California state law cause additional traffic in Orange County? And why should TCA be afraid of the law?

Follow me after the flip for more on why TCA might be afraid of the law…

The Register’s editorial begins with outright falsehoods, and devolves into complete absurdity.

The Transportation Corridor Agencies for 20 years have been working on an extension of the Foothill (241) Toll Road from Oso Parkway to the I-5, a route that would skirt through a portion of San Onofre State Park, on Navy-owned land near the San Diego County line. The extension wouldn’t harm the heavily visited oceanfront portion of the park, but it would relieve the increasing congestion that often results in the I-5 resembling a giant parking lot rather than a freeway.

Sorry, but this simply isn’t true. Not only would the “oceanfront portion of the park” suffer huge damage as a result of what happens upstream, but the entire park would be obliterated. It would alter the sediment flow of San Mateo Creek, thereby destroying the world-famous waves of Trestles. It would destroy the habitat of at least seven endangered species, including the California gnatcatcher, the Southern California Steelhead Trout, and the Arroyo toad. Their native habitat would be gone if TCA were to have its way. All of this clearly violates the Coastal Act. Is this what TCA is afraid of?

What would all this ecological destruction do to alleviate traffic in South Orange County? Nothing. All this environmental damage would result in no traffic relief for South Orange County. So what is the point of building a toll road to Trestles if it does not actually do anything about traffic? Is this what TCA is afraid of?

The Register editorial goes on to distort Rep. Sanchez’s views on extending the 241, and distort what extending the 241 to Trestles would actually do to ease local traffic.

Rep. Sanchez said in media reports that she doesn’t want to stop the toll road – although environmental groups on her side said that was their goal. Toll road supporters point to stacks of environmental impact reports and other documents produced over two decades to gain state approval for the plan, thus disputing claims that the toll road somehow skirts the state’s environmental review process.

The Democratic-backed measure Rep. Sanchez voted for is different from the original one proposed by Rep. Davis, which would have clearly stopped the road by rescinding the Navy’s authority to grant an easement to toll road operators. Still, it’s too bad that a local congresswoman would join efforts to add to rather than reduce traffic congestion in Orange County.

Loretta Sanchez has said that she does not want to stop the toll road, and that’s the simple truth. She simply wants TCA to comply with state environmental laws in extending the 241. Is this what TCA is afraid of?

The Register editorial page simply doesn’t get it. TCA should not be allowed to ignore state environmental laws in order to build a toll road to nowhere that does nothing to ease traffic. Actually, TCA should not be allowed to ignore state environmental laws, period. That’s all that Rep. Susan Davis (D-San Diego) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez were trying to say. That’s all that the House Armed Services Committee voted to say last week. TCA must not violate California state environmental laws by building a toll road through a state park.

This struggle over the toll road to Trestles has been a long one, but it’s actually not just about this one toll road to Trestles. It’s about preserving our public parks for the use and enjoyment of the public. If TCA gets its toll road to Trestles, this park simply couldn’t survive as the campgrounds would be closed (to make way for the toll road) and the beach ruined (due to the toll road). California State Parks wouldn’t be able to renew the lease when it comes up in 2021, and once the military is ready to sell, the developers would be ready to buy. And if this park goes, which one is next? Which park would we allow to be opened next for a toll road, or a freeway, or a few hundred new houses, or a multi-million dollar luxury resort?

This is what TCA is afraid of. Once people realize the threat, they get it. Our public open spaces should remain open for all the public to enjoy. That’s why we have state parks in California. That’s why San Onofre State Beach exists. This parks belongs to us for us to use, not for TCA to abuse. TCA and The Register editorial page simply don’t get it. But fortunately Susan Davis, Loretta Sanchez, and most of their colleagues in Congress do get it. Let’s hope that Congress follows through in requiring TCA to obey the law, and allowing all of us to continue enjoying our open spaces.

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with one of Loretta Sanchez’s DC staffers, and he gave me the good news. The Davis Amendment passed, along with HR 1585! We’re one step closer to saving Trestles for good. And yes, Loretta DID vote for the amendment! : )

Remember what I said yesterday about Susan Davis’ amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would require TCA to comply with state and federal laws in extending the 241 Toll Road? Well, the amendment has come up for a vote TODAY… And we won! Now we know that TCA’s preferred route for the Foothill-South 241 Extension would rip through and destroy the last great stretch of coast in Southern California. We also know that the Foothill-South 241 Extension would do nothing to relieve traffic, and it would totally violate the law.

Basically, we know that this proposed toll road to Trestles is a total waste of our time and money… And now, we know that our representatives in Washington do as well. We need to  thank all our Democrats on the Armed Services Committee who voted for this timely amendment. Follow me after the flip to find out how you can thank House Armed Service Committee members for doing what’s best for ALL OF US in Southern California…

Contact these California Democrats to thank them for joining Rep. Susan Davis (D-San Diego) in asking TCA to comply with the law and save Trestles for many years to come:

Ellen Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek)
DC Office: (202) 225-1880
Walnut Creek Office: (925) 932-8899
Fairfield Office: (707) 428-7792
Send an Email

Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove)
DC Office: (202) 225-2965
Local Office: (714) 621-0102
Send an Email

And contact these California Republicans to tell them that there’s nothing “conservative” in wasting any more tax dollars on a project that violates state and federal law, and that goes against the very principles of conserving our natural resources:

Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon)
DC Office: (202) 225-5672
Local Office: (619) 448-5201
Send an Email

Buck McKeon (R-Santa Clarita)
DC Office: (202) 225-1956
Local Office: (661) 254-2111
Send an Email

Ken Calvert (R-Riverside, SAN CLEMENTE)
DC Office: (202) 225-1986
Riverside Office: (951) 784-4300
South Orange County Office: (949) 888-8498
Send an Email

Don’t delay! The future of Southern California’s coastline depends on our action! : )