There is an excellent article by Yasha Levine on Alternet about the recent "great California water reform package". Levine puts it in a nice historical context. Read it at www.alternet.org/module/printversion/144020

 It reads like a novel, and a pretty noir one at that . There is an equally excellent review, in three installments, of this "monumental" and "path-breaking" and "historical" legislation on Sheila Kuehl's site at

http://www.sheilakuehl.org/...

Although in Levine's story Resnick is the main bad guy, we have to remember than Tejon Ranch Company is equally involved in these schemes. They control about 30% of the Kern Water Bank -- and they do not sell state water for a lot of money to desert developers, they channel state water inexpensively to themselves.

These gigantic tax-payer subsidies to the very rich have been going on in California since 1860 and are actually the basis of the whole Tejon empire. The Sebastian reservation, Beale's surveyor general position, the Owens Valley, the San Fernando Valley land deals, the Monterey Agreements, the Kern Water Bank, Miller-Lux, Tevis-Haggin, Tejon-Paramount:  these are all examples of federal and state and local gifts to the wealthy by privatizing the land and water of the commons.

The motto for Caifornia land and water policy is, and always has been, Mark 4:25: "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."

There was a Cornerstone presentation tonight at the High School about the modified Frazier Park Estates plan. It had some new information, but basically Arciero wants to tough it out. The main changes in the new plan are

– 550 lots;
– stay away from the slopes, no hillside ordinance violations;
– no blasting, less grading;
– 500 acres of the 850 are “open space”, whatever that means;
– new water studies will be done, a new well will be drilled.

Now let’s look at what is not in the plan. There is no outside water source — just a new well, and the Planning Department required an outside water source. Also, if you want to pack 550 lots (plus a water reclamation plant, plus roads, plus a commercial center) on only 350 acres, then you’ll have more tract housing and more Castaic-ness than before. There is a big difference between 188 lots, in the County proposal, and 550 lots. Maybe it is time to rename the project Frazier Park Cottages.

The timing is also interesting. The Cornerstone engineer expected the housing market to be back to normal by 2010, but he did not expect to break ground until 2012. The buildout would take at least 7 years, depending on the market. And, most interestingly, the plan is to build 200 houses first, then after two years another 150, and after another two years another 200. The presentation indicated that the phasing was planned in this way because of the water studies. Cornerstone now admits there is not enough data to prove that there is sufficient water available. This logically leads to the question if they actually have been lying about the water supply until now. For a firm with such a strong moral background that’s hard to believe. Anyway, they plan to do water studies (both groundwater, well tests, stream flow, and precipitation) and it will depend on the outcome of these studies if the project will go to its next phase.

Now it seems to me that this is a clear example of piecemealing, which is against CEQA case law. CEQA prohibits piecemeal environmental review by “chopping a large project into many little ones–each with a minimal potential impact on the environment–which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165 [217 Cal. Rptr. 893].) Of course you can call it “phasing”, but it still means that the second phase will be harder to stop than the first one, and that the overall plan with 550 units is approved early on (as far as zoning and maps are concerned). And second, it also seems to me that this plan violates SB 221/610, which requires a project with over 500 houses to prove a 20 year water supply even in multiple drought years.

The phasing, by the way, have as a consequence that the commercial center will not yet be developed, because having only 200 homes is not sufficient for large stores to come in. So the commercial center will have to wait until at least 2014, and if there is not enough water for the second phase it will never be built.

Want to look like a former legacy-preserving Californio, now working for a Wall Street wrecking crew?

This is your chance !

www.TejonClothing.com

Now that Tejon Ranch is slowly being demolished by dividing it up into various pieces with separate designations and forms of governance, it is perhaps interesting to review how it was originally put together, roughly in the period 1855-1865. There is symmetry in history. It was put together by robber barons, and it is being taken apart by mutual funds and hedge funds. Pecunia non olet.  Read the story at www.cuddyvalley.org/blogs/nimby/

Impressions from the October 5 meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

www.cuddyvalley.org/blogs/nimby/

The overhead linked here is a presentation for the Tejon Mountain Village discussion at the Kern County BOS meeting of 03/10. Get  a pdf version at gifi.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw/envdocs/traffic_ho.pd f

 Hello Jan,

I just posted an overview story on CNN and You Tube about the pending development at Tejon Ranch called Tejon Mountain Village. Please circulate to your tcwdogs list as background for Mondays meeting:

http://www.ireport.com/docs...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Here is a summary of the story:

CA TRIBE CHALLENGES TEJON RANCH DEVELOPMENT

The Kawaiisu Tribe says Tejon Ranch Corporation is making plans to bulldoze their Reservation and Sacred Sites and they are sharing a history lesson to prove their point.

Kawaiisu Tribal Elder David Laughing Horse Robinson talks about the Sebastian Tejon Indian Reservation, the first Indian Reservation in California. It is located near Los Angeles, at the southern end of Kern County.

Mr. Robinson says his Native American Tribe had vast land holdings under Spain and Mexico then suffered genocide during the early years of California statehood.

David Laughing Horse Robinson says the U.S. Constitutionally required steps to transfer the Reservation from Trust Land has not occurred. He says that Congress is the sole authority in these matters.

This story talks about the Tejon Ranch Corporation development called Tejon Mountain Village and notifies interested parties about a public hearing coming up on October 5, 2009 in Bakersfield, with the Kern County Board of Supervisors.

Thank you,
Kate DeVries

661-378-1085

 The fourth district Supervisor does not trust us, and we do not trust him. In order to give the impression of listening to the locals he has conjured up some democratic gloss, and tentatively proposed a Mountain Communities Municipal Advisory Council (MCMAC). At the same time he is trying to make sure that it will have no power, cannot represent the community except directly to him, is not an elected body, and will only consist of individuals he approves of. It seems to me that one must be either corrupt or gullible, or both, to want to serve on such a council. Unless, of course, the only reason one wants to be on it is to hobnob with the mighty supervisor and whisper lobby-talk into his supervisorial ear.

Let me make this clear with some comparisons. California Government Code 31010 says, with my emphasis in blue added: 

 The board of supervisors of any county may by resolution establish and provide funds for the operation of a municipal advisory council for any unincorporated area in the county to advise the board on such matters which relate to that area as may be designated by the board concerning services which are or may be provided to the area by the county or other local governmental agencies, including but not limited to advice on matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning. Unless the board of supervisors specifically provides to the contrary, a municipal advisory council may represent the community to any state, county, city, special district or school district, agency or commission, or any other organization on any matter concerning the community. The board may pay from available funds such actual and necessary expenses of travel, lodging, and meals for the members of the council while on such official business as may be approved by the board.

The resolution establishing any such municipal advisory council shall provide for the following:

(a) The name of the municipal advisory council.

(b) The qualifications, number, and method of selection of its members, whether by election or appointment.

(c) Its designated powers and duties.

(d) The unincorporated area or areas for which the municipal advisory council is established.

(e) Whether the establishment of the council should be submitted to the voters and the method for such submission; provided that if an election is required pursuant to subdivision (b), such election shall be held at the same time as an election held pursuant to this subdivision.

(f) Such other rules, regulations and procedures as may be necessary in connection with the establishment and operation of the municipal advisory council.

The draft bylaws for the Mountain Communities Municipal Advisory Council say, among other things, with my emphasis in red added:

I-C-4. The MCMAC is an advisory body and may represent the communities served to any state, county, city,district, agency or other organization on a matter concerning the community when authorized by the Supervisor of the District. This is not intended to limit the ability of MCMAC members from representing themselves as individuals before any body as an exercise of their rights.

II-B-1.1. The members of the MCMAC shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, upon recommendation of the 4th District Supervisor, and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors or until their successors are appointed.

Some of us thought, at some point, that potentially the MCMAC, after a couple of years when the first batch of supervisorial appointees had disappeared, would be an improvement over the Mountain Communities Town Council (MCTC), because it would be on the ballot and at least be an elected body. If the draft bylaws in this form are approved, then we are worse off. The MCTC, which has been defunct for more than a year, at least had the distinction that it represented absolutely nobody. The MCMAC will represent the supervisor, who does not even live here, as well as a limited number of commercial interests that he feels comfortable with and that he can use and control.

 During my anthropological expeditions to Bakersfield I have now been able to observe the Kern County Planning Commission twice — and I have seen an all too common distinction between two types of public servants. Two of the five commissioners seem to be what has become known, since the Bush years, as “reality-based”, the other three are “ideology-based”. The R-commissioners look at EIR, at the planning department’s staff report, listen to the opponents, and listen to those in favor, and then arrive at an independent recommendation. The I-commissioners have no need for all this information, party because they have received all the relevant information already at the little get-togethers organized by the developers, but more importantly because their ideology already provides all the answers in a neatly pre-packaged form, independent of all this annoying empirical evidence.

The R-commissioners see their job as safe-guarding the interests of the local area, its inhabitants, the County, and the famous ``common good'', the I-commissioners see their job as representing business and developer interests in local government. I have no doubt both groups are sincere, but I happen to think one of the two groups is actually destructive and dangerous. Planning should be R-based, and rely on S (for science).

In the case of Tejon Mountain Village the same dichotomy could be observed, to some extent, in the public comments. The people speaking in favor of the project almost without exception had financial ties to Tejon and financial interests in common with them. They basically talked about a hypothetical, so-called ``growth'', but not on the basis of empirical or scientific information, just on the basis of principle — development brings growth, and growth is good. And growth is good because it delivers money and benefits to the “right people”. They are I-commentors. A particular statement is true if and only if Tejon Ranch Company, the Ueber-Developer, says it is true. All the commenters need, basically, is guidance. Their motto is Luther’s “Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding.”

On the other hand, those from the public speaking against the project, although generally not scientists, defend a perhaps equally abstract idea, the environment, but try to rely as much as possible on observable facts. Although environmentalism is clearly a secular religion, with many I-components, it does seem that reality, in the form of empirical data, plays a much larger role in that particular religion. The motto is Deming’s “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” At least some R intrudes into their I.

To put it differently, people speaking against the project emphasized actual environmental impacts and mitigations, and people speaking in favor of the project emphasized hypothetical economic benefits overriding the significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. And of course looming large in the background of the Growthers are their individual financial interests, or those of the small predestined group of individuals elected for salvation that they belong to.

There are signs that EPA and FWS, as the generally incompetent political appointees from the Bush years are replaced by career staff, academics, and technocrats, are slowly changing back to R-based and S-based politics. There are even signs that Kern County, through its Planning Department, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors, is retreating somewhat from the knee-jerk idolatry of property rights, economic growth, socialism for the rich, and maximizing the amount of payoff for the minimum number of people. But the process will probably be too slow to rescue the Tejon Pass and the Grapevine from the destructive rituals of the Growthers.

An army of agencies once again struck down a major challenge to public health and sanity, emanating from Pleito Canyon.

"Approximately 12,645 mature marijuana plants with an estimated street value of $50,580,000.00 were removed from the area by helicopter."  

It would be nice if the paper described these "street value estimates" for what they are: idiotic nonsense. It would also be nice if someone found out the costs of these surrealistic operations. I witnessed yesterday's carnival, with about 40 men, 20 vehicles, one helicopter, and I guess three or four clerks in Pleito canyon to count the plants. And all because a bunch of puritans decided that marijuana consumption endangered our ultimate ascent to that big pot plantation in the sky..