On the "Houstonization" of Inglewood, California for Sports Billionaires

By Alex Walker

The Golden State of California has an international reputation as a environmental leader., with the breathtaking beauty of our redwood forests, high deserts, sandy beaches, and snow-capped peaks. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations we, sure have setup an impressive store of environmental laws. But as the old saying goes God (or the devil) is in the details. As I write this,clever moves are under way by "liberal" legislators on behalf of the big league sports 1% in inner-city Inglewood, California. In this gentrifying working class city where Democrats can always sell thse projects as jobs for po' little oppressed "People of Color" (POVs) -- bipartisan "Houstonization" carries the day.

1. Inglewood deal with the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Team
2. Inglewood deal with the Saint Louis Rams Football team
3. Legislative initiatives to work around Cali environmental laws
4. The record of Cali sports stadiums deals
5. Big league sports and the "Houstonization" of American cities

Relevant Activist Links: 

The Uplift Inglewood Coalition: http://www.upliftinglewood.org
Black Lives Matter, Los Angeles: https://www.facebook.com/blmla/
Center for International Environmental Law: http://www.ciel.org/


The Inglewood Deal with Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Team

In the Summer ofr 2017, The Inglewood City Council unanimously approved an an "exclusive negotiating agreement" with the Los Angeles Clippers on Thursday that could lead to the construction of an arena for the NBA team across the street from the future home of the NFL's Chargers and Rams.

Posted By NBA.com, Jun 15, 2017 

New LA Clippers arena approved by Inglewood City Council 

INGLEWOOD, Calif. (AP) -- The Inglewood City Council unanimously approved an exclusive negotiating agreement with the Los Angeles Clippers on Thursday that could lead to the construction of an arena for the NBA team across the street from the future home of the NFL's Chargers and Rams. 

The agreement calls for a three-year negotiating period, including a six-month extension, with a developer to build a state-of-the-art basketball arena with 18,000 to 20,000 seats. It requires the Clippers to pay a non-refundable $1.5 million deposit to cover costs associated with the planning. 

The proposed arena would be on a 20-acre parcel of land located across the street from the under-construction, $2.6 billion NFL stadium that is set to open in 2020. The Clippers' complex would include team offices, parking and a practice facility.
The land is currently occupied by a variety of businesses. 

The Clippers have a lease to play at Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles through 2024. However, the team's owner, Steve Ballmer, has been open about his desire for a new arena since he bought the Clippers for $2 billion in 2014. 

The Clippers share Staples with the Los Angeles Lakers, the NHL's Kings and the WNBA's Sparks, leaving the Clippers third in choice of dates. They've played at the arena since it opened in 1999. 

Rams owner Stan Kroenke is privately financing the NFL stadium as part of a 698-acre mixed-use development that includes housing, retail and entertainment. The stadium is scheduled to host the Super Bowl in 2022. 

See Original Article: http://www.nba.com/article/2017/06/15/la-clippers-considering-new-arena-inglewood

At end of the summer. Inglewood residents, local businesses, and the owners of the nearby Inglewwod Forum, expressed concerns about the consequences of opening yet another sports arena in the city.

Published in the Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2017
Possible Clippers Arena has Many Inglewood Residents Worried They May Lose Their Homes or Businesses 

By Nathan Fenno 

When construction started on the $2.6-billion stadium for the Rams and Chargers last year, Bobby Bhagat figured his family’s commitment to Inglewood would finally pay off. 

For more than 40 years, they’ve owned the Rodeway Inn and Suites on busy Century Boulevard. The tidy 36-room property sits across the street from the 298 acres where the vast sports and entertainment district is starting to take shape. 

“We’ve got a gold mine now that the stadium is coming,” said Bhagat, whose father and uncle originally purchased the building. “This is what we worked for. We’ve been waiting for something like this to happen. Now with the Clippers project, it’s all up in the air.” 

The family’s gold mine could face a bulldozer. 

When a Clippers-controlled company and Inglewood agreed in June to explore building an arena, the 22-page deal sent panic through the neighborhood. Some residents are praying for the project to fail, losing sleep, participating in protests, consulting lawyers.
All this because of the legalese buried in the agreement broaching the possibility of using eminent domain to supplement land already owned by the city. The site map attached to the document shows 100 “potential participating parcels” over a four-block area where the arena might be built. Eminent domain allows cities and other government agencies to pay fair market value to take private property from residents or business owners against their wishes for public uses. 

The map doesn’t indicate there are an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 people, predominately Latino, who live in the four-block area. Same for the scores of children — schools are a short walk away — and blue-collar residents who have been in the same houses for decades. Many residences include multiple generations of the same family. The median income hovers around $30,000. 

The area includes the Inglewood Southside Christian Church, more than 40 single-family homes, apartment buildings with about 500 units, several businesses and the Rodeway Inn and Suites. 

The city owns large parcels of land in the area around the business, making it one of the most plausible arena sites. 

“It’s not an eyesore, it’s not blighted, it’s well-kept, well-maintained and we don’t want to go anywhere,” Bhagat said. “We’re going to fight tooth and nail to stop the project.”
He is among a growing number of business owners and residents pushing back against Clippers owner Steve Ballmer’s proposal to construct the “state of the art” arena with 18,000 to 20,000 seats alongside a practice facility, team offices and parking. Ballmer, worth an estimated $32 billion, has said the team will honor its lease to play at Staples Center through the 2024 season. 

See Original Article: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-clippers-inglewood-residents-20170813-story.html

The Rams deal may not be a "gold mine" for the "little people" either. It may, however, be a "diamond mine" for the 1% The $2.6 billion stadium is contemplating a ticket-pricing scheme unprecedented in the NFL.

Published in the Los Angeles Times, August 31, 2017

Rams Could Have the Most Expensive Seat in America 

By Nathan Fenno and Sam Farmer 

The $2.6-billion stadium Rams owner Stan Kroenke is building in Inglewood will be the world’s costliest venue with a ticket pricing plan that would offer the most expensive seats in NFL history. 

According to a document obtained by The Times, the highest priced personal seat licenses for Rams games could range from $175,000 to $225,000 per seat. It would far eclipse the $150,000 PSLs offered by the Dallas Cowboys at AT&T Stadium.
The license only entitles the owner to purchase a Rams season ticket after paying the one-time fee, which in a first for the NFL will be refundable — without interest — after 50 years. The buyer must then purchase a game ticket with the best club seats tentatively priced between $350 and $400 a game. The PSL can be sold to another party with permission from the Rams, a standard practice in the league.
. 

. .  

Virtually all of the stadium’s 70,240 seats (about 5,000 are for suites) will require seat licenses, although licenses won’t be required for standing-room tickets. The document projects 80% of the PSL revenue will come from club seats, which make up 25% of the seats in the program. Despite the price range in the document, the most expensive club seats are expected to be closer to $175,000 when prices are final, according to a person familiar with the arrangement. 

The NFL’s three newest stadiums priced the licenses much lower: Atlanta ($45,000), Minnesota ($9,500) and San Francisco ($80,000). About half of the NFL’s teams use PSLs or something similar to finance their stadium.
. . .
See Original Article: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-rams-psl-20170831-story.html

In the latest development. State Sen. Steve Bradford is engineering a last-minute end-run around the state laws requiring  Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) reports for development projects of this scope.

Published in The Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2017 

Backers of a New Clippers Arena in Inglewood Push a Last-Minute Plan in Sacramento 

By Liam Dillon and Nathan Fenno

Supporters of the Clippers’ proposed new arena in Inglewood are pushing for major help at the Capitol to get the project built.

Backers are seeking last-minute legislation that would give the arena a significant break under the state’s primary environmental law governing development, according to a preliminary draft of the bill obtained by the Los Angeles Times. 

Under the proposal, any lawsuits against the arena filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires developers to disclose and minimize a project’s impact on the environment, must aim to be wrapped up within nine months, a significantly shorter timeline than in typical cases. 

The bill would also limit a court’s ability to halt the arena’s construction, even if it found the project's environmental review didn't adequately study traffic problems or had other flaws. Both of these perks were supported by the Legislature in 2013 to benefit a new basketball arena for the Kings in downtown Sacramento.
The Clippers proposal would also provide the same legal relief to a new transit hub that could include a street car or monorail for easier access to the new arena and the nearby under-construction NFL stadium for the Rams and Chargers. It would also allow the city to permit more billboards and other signage around the arena than otherwise allowed under the law. 

The author of the draft bill is Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), who represents Inglewood in the Legislature. Bradford wasn’t immediately available for comment Wednesday. 

In a statement, Chris Meany, the project manager for the arena, confirmed that the team was supporting the proposal in the Legislature and likened it to breaks under the environmental law that lawmakers have given to other stadium and arena plans.
"The L.A. Clippers will fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for its proposed city of Inglewood basketball arena and team facilities,” Meany said. “This compliance will include an open and transparent public hearing process.”
Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts said in an email to the Times that the city supports the proposed legislation and sought the help of its representatives in Sacramento to ease development of the arena and transit hub.
. . .
See Original Article: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-inglewood-arena-legislative-exemption-20170823-story.html

The byzantine maneuvering around ther Rams, Chargers, and Clippers is not unusual in today's American or even in California. The Sacramento Bee has published an analysis of deals for the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders. While it seems counter-intuitive, the subtle truth is that the big league sports billionaires do not want to be in world-famous metropolis like San Francisco or Los Angeles proper, and those bega-cties do not want them or need them. The 1% has figured out that the "price" of local politicians is cheaper in smaller towns populated by "the little people."  

Published in the Sacromental Bee, Qugust 31, 2017 

Why Santa Clara and Inglewood are Football Losers 

By Joe Mathews

Will California’s four National Football League teams – the 49ers, Raiders, Rams, and Chargers – win big in the new season? 

Who knows? But we already can identify the losers: California cities foolish enough to host teams. 

In other states, major cities build NFL stadiums because they see football franchises as providing a publicity and economic boost. But in California, with its nation-sized economy and globally famous big cities, major cities have been shedding their football teams, and avoiding the headaches of devoting valuable California real estate to stadiums. 

In this contest, the biggest winner is San Francisco, which got free of its NFL headache by “losing” the 49ers to Santa Clara. Across the Bay, Oakland, which resisted building a new stadium for the Raiders, will win by shipping them off to Las Vegas in three years. 

San Diego registered its civic triumph when – after its voters defeated a proposed new stadium – the Chargers left for a temporary home in the L.A. County city of Carson. In 2020, the Chargers, along with the Rams – who relocated to Southern California in 2016, from St. Louis – will move into a new, shared stadium in the city of Inglewood. 

The destinations of these teams are telling. The only places in California that seem willing to risk hosting an NFL team are smaller and poorer, cities in the shadow of global municipalities. Desperate for high-profile development, such cities devote land and resources to teams that won’t even incorporate their names. (It’s the San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams, not the Santa Clara 49ers or Inglewood Rams.) 

That’s the least of the indignities of being an NFL city. Economic studies show that sports teams merely siphon dollars from other entertainment-oriented businesses. And then there’s the cost of civic conflict that greedy NFL teams can engender.
The Santa Clara stadium, while billed as privately financed, required a hotel tax and $600 million in construction loans by a city-related entity. 

Three years after it opened, city and team are fighting about everything from the 49ers’ use of local soccer fields for parking to whether the team lives up to its promises on financial disclosure and stadium spending. 

“We learned we cannot trust the 49ers,” Santa Clara’s mayor told the San Francisco Chronicle this spring. 

Things aren’t that bad in Inglewood yet, where the opening of the stadium, part of a larger entertainment complex, is three years away. But construction is already a year behind schedule, and community opposition is growing. The stadium, sold as a totally private project, could cost the city an estimated $100 million in tax breaks. 

None of this should surprise. Most NFL teams are profitable, so those teams that must relocate – including all four of California’s – carry the stink of failure. It’s no coincidence that California’s NFL owners show up in rankings of the worst owners in pro sports.

These include the Rams’ owner, Stan Kroenke, who has produced teams with losing records for a decade. The Spanos family, which owns the Chargers, alienated San Diego with poor management. Raiders owner Mark Davis, perhaps the NFL’s poorest owner, inherited the team from his late father, Al Davis, a litigious scoundrel who moved the team from Oakland to L.A. and back. 

And USA Today said 49ers owner Jed York had turned the team into “the NFL’s biggest joke.” 

Meanwhile, life after NFL football looks pretty good. San Francisco, sans the 49ers, is more prosperous than ever, and is using Candlestick Park, its former home, for developments more valuable than the stadium was. San Diego, still wrestling with the costs of the Chargers’ old stadium, is imagining happier development possibilities in replacing it. 

Oakland should find that the departure of the Raiders opens up transformational opportunities for land next to a transit center. 

But enough about the winners. NFL football in California is for losers. Pity the home teams. 

See Original Article: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article170132257.html

Democratic Houston vs. Republican Houston 

The distinguished and influential New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, published a commentary the week Hurricane Harvey devastated the City of Houston.

Zoning: Both Sides Get It WrongBy Paul Krugman  

The disaster in Houston is partly Mother Nature — natural disasters will happen sometimes whatever we did — but with a powerful assist from human action. Climate change definitely made such an event more likely; beyond that, Houston’s total lack of zoning, complete failure to limit the amount of land paved over, made it much more vulnerable than sheer geography required. 

But this isn’t a simple parable where hostility to government intervention is the villain. In general, I have contempt for “both sides” arguments; given the corruption of modern American conservatism, on most issues there is a huge asymmetry between left and right. When it comes to land use policies, it really is true that both sides get it wrong. 

Having no zoning, no control, can be disastrous — which is what we’re seeing in Houston now. But all too many blue states end up, in practice, letting zoning be a tool, not of good land use, but of NIMBYism, preventing the construction of new housing.
In fact, liberal (in the non-political sense) land use policy is probably the secret behind Texas economic growth: the state doesn’t offer high wages, but it does offer cheap housing even in huge metro areas. Compare real housing price evolution over the decades in Houston and San Francisco . 

. .
See Original Article: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/zoning-both-sides-get-it-wrong/

The problem with Mr. Krugman's analysis as with nearly all analyses based on generalizations about so-called red Republican areas and so-called Blue Democratic areas is that, as I said at the top, God (or the devil) is in the details. What Mr. Krugman calls "NIMBYism" only applies to places where the well-to-do live. Alas, when it comes to "the little people" in a gentrifying working class city like Inglewood where the Democrats can always sell the idea that stadiums mean jobs for those po' little oppressed "People of Color" (POVs) -- the bipartisan "Houstonization" marches on.

Important Relevant Links: 

The Uplift Inglewood Coalition: http://www.upliftinglewood.org
Black Lives Matter, Los Angeles: https://www.facebook.com/blmla/
Center for International Environmental Law: http://www.ciel.org/

See CIEL Statement: 

Green Groups Oppose Amendments to SB488 (Bradford)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 22, 2017

Defending Science is a Priority for ALL. not just Scientists.

While there are multiple drivers for the current war on science; an anti-science media, religious ideologies, postmodern fuzziness; but it should be enlightening to look at the ways in which those on the political left and right have decided which science to challenge and which to accept. As we know more about the universe that we live in, it is increasingly difficult to know enough to make rational decisions about anything scientific. It has just become too complex.

As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nicholas Murray Butler defined an expert, "someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing". In that final sense, we are all scientific experts.

The attacks of the anti-vaxers on the left: citing relatively fringe authorities, some even having been soundly debunked, claiming government collusion, relying on anecdotal evidence; are very much like those from the climate deniers on the right. They use the same tactics. There is an anti-authoritarian element in that neither believes the government nor government funded studies. There is a difference in that progressives tend to be convinced the industry lies about everything to make a bigger profit while the climate denying conservative tends to support the industrial technology that promises them more jobs and says that it will all be OK.

That is an oversimplification. But these difference prevent science becoming a partisan agenda item for the Democratic Party and thus it is not part of our national discourse. We need a new focus on science and that will require a new way of examining these issues. As a Green, perhaps even a Deep Green, I feel that it should be done through an ecological lens. Need to think about this a bit more and see where that applies. I know it does to pollution (a left issue in general) and to GMO use (an anathema to most of the left.)

I the 2015 election cycle, California Greens ran in 13 local races, winning 10.  That is a good record.  I am, however, surprised that we have not done more in this regard. This level of results indicates that we should.  All of the energy seems to be involved in the focus on the 2016 presidential race, a fact that seems to be driven by the big money that sponsors the outreach efforts of the candidates and the incessant campaign coverage from those oh so savvy pundits on the tube.

This seems antithetical to Green ideals that value, at least is words, grassroots democracy, decentralization and community based economics.  You would think that Greens would be making the effort to do more at the local level.  These are the offices that can literally change our lives and provide the name recognition to gain higher office.

In California, no event will dominate 2016 like a highly probable strong El Niño. This is all the more important as it follows a 4 year severe drought that has had far reaching effects on local government.   In Morgan Hill, two entities control how we get our water and at what cost.  They are the Santa Clara Valley Water District (wholesaler)  and the City Council of Morgan Hill, the retailer.  I use the business terms because both organizations are in the business of delivering water for our use

During the drought, we were asked to use less water, saving what little we had until the rains came again.  As a result, neither the Water District nor the City had as much revenue as they had projected.  Their solution is to charge more for each unit of water.  Since we use less, they need a higher rater to cover the costs that are mostly fixed, not subject to variation with volume.  In his recent book, Water 4.0, David Sedlak traces the history of water systems from ancient days to now and arrives at the conclusion that we can no longer manage this most precious of resources through large scale systems.

In Sedlak's view, Water 4.0 will have to provide for distributed management of water.  That is a bit of what we are doing.  We now have a collection process for rooftop water and use that to make sure our garden and fruit trees are adequately watered as long as we can.  In the past year, we managed to lower our consumption of city supplied water by over 30%.  In a review of Water 4.0 published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Kate Galbraith concludes  with a quote from Sedlak. "If they want to realize the full benefits of conservation, water utilities will have to accept the idea that they are no longer in the business of selling water," he writes. "Rather, they are stewards of a limited resource."

 Both the City Council and the Water District Board are elected offices.  This is where Greens should be focusing energy and effort.   If we can get this right, we might end up with Water 4.0 and a path to higher office because we proved that we can be trusted to govern.

Grid-lock

This is a bit of a diversion from my promised series of posts on CA Water and the Delta.  But then, maybe it isn't.  Last month, I read a post by Oregon State professor Michael E. Campana (referenced in my list of sources in Part I.)  based on a review of UC Berkeley engineering professor, David Sedlak's new book, Water 4.0.  Yesterday, I was scanning the new book section at the Morgan Hill Public Library and there it was, Water 4.0.  Now, it is on my table waiting for me to finish it.

The review was written by G. Tracy Mehan III, currently Executive  Director of Government Affairs for the American Water Works Association. That makes him the key lobbyist for those whose business is delivering the water when you turn on the tap.;  Since Water 4.0 intends to turn a lot of this on it's head, that makes Mehan's review doubly meaningful.  Is he more apt to criticize those aspects of Water 4.0 that challenge the function, or the legitimacy of his member organizations?  I can't answer that yet, but welcome the words that conclude his review:

Sedlak has written a stimulating, provocative book that both informs and challenges the reader to think seriously, and creatively, about water management for the next generation.

More pertinent to my thinking, is the idea that we need to dispense with the "grid" as an effective means of distributing water.  As Mehan states, 

He sees climate change with its erratic precipitation patters (too much or too little,) as as the primary driverof this imperative to get beyond this traditional water grid. Other drivers include a growing economy and population; aging infrastructures; escalating costs of water capture, transportation, storage and treatment and tenacious resistance to price increases by local leaders and citizens whether it be for upgrading infrastructure or conservation.

Right now, we have a water grid that is massively expensive to maintain.   The most recent projects from the CA Department of Water Resources calls for spending $10s of billions on infrastructure... known as the tunnels... that will deliver no new water.   It is all part of a gigantic bureaucratic system in which so called stakeholders only pretend to represent the public.  When CA DWR asks for stakeholder input it comes not from the public who use the water, but from the wholesalers like the Metropolitan Water District who continue to need more water to sell to continuing paying for their operation and salaries.These organizations also appear to own the state apparatus that is supposed to oversee the system. 

If this sounds familiar, it should.  The Public Utilities Commission is supposed to regulate electric and gas industry in CA.  We have seen recently where both PUC members and PG&E executives have lost their jobs for being too cozy with each other.  Another hierarchical grid designed for the efficient delivery of  a needed service.  

Maybe it is time to lock up these grids.  The alternatives for electricity are clearly available and it is becoming easier to go off grid or to share locally.  When I sit on my deck, I can look across Anderson Lake to a row of houses on the crest of Finley Ridge to the east.  They are all off grid.  Homes were designed to be energy efficient years ago.  

What we are lacking is a regulatory system to manage this.  Can we envision PG&E as managing the distribution of electricity no matter where or how it is generated?  It might require also rethinking our local governmental structures to work deal with a rapidly changing architecture.  It won't be easy, but at least the pieces are there.  

The problem with Water 4.0 is that the pieces are not yet so clearly identified and the impact of land use is much greater.  Right now, our governmental leaders are not even asking the right questions, the word ecology not being in their vocabulary,  let along coming up with the right answers.  If we need distributed electric generation, and distributed water management might we alo need distributed political power in the manner that only Greens are advocating.

Drought, Water and Politics Part II, Saving the Delta

I don't think that you can understand what is happening regarding the CA Delta if you only consider what you are being told.  There are currents running through the politics that are as dangerous as an Ocean Beach rip tide if they are ignored. I hope to lay out what I think is happening though no one is quite willing to say it... yet.   I guess that stubbornness comes with age.

To begin with, we all need to understand just what the delta is and one good way to do this is to view the recently posted Youtube version of Restore the Delta's award winning documentary, Over Troubled Waters.  Words are not sufficient to tell us all we need to know.  We need the imagery.


There are some who do not think that the Delta can be saved, or at least not all of it.  There are two interlocked issues involved.  First, there is climate change with the inevitable result of sea level rise. That interferes with the multiple use of the Delta and it's water: agricultural land, water supply and an ecology that supports all of it's non-human species.  To view the scope of this problem, we need to look at a map.  The views on these maps show just how much of the Delta is threatened.

I have long espoused the view that the CA Dept of Water Resources has no intention to protect the Delta from climate change driven sea level rise.  That is the only rationale for the twin tunnel project that makes any sense at all.  But, I was waiting to find good substantiation for that.  This past week, the Woodland, CA Daily Democrat published an OpEd by Jerry Meral that lays it all out.

Even without earthquakes and floods, Delta islands will almost certainly be inundated by sea level rise during our lifetimes -- making it no longer possible to move fresh drinking water across the Delta to the Bay Area.

Who, you might ask, is Jerry Meral?  He is a long time Jerry Brown crony from Brown's first administration.  In more recent times, he was Deputy Director of the  Dept. Water Reso.urces in charge of, among other things, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan that includes Gov Brown's major tunnel project.  Earlier this year, he  resigned and joined the National  Heritage Institute as Director of the California Water Program.

It is my opinion that Greens should withhold any support for Delta Water Projects until the State of California has a clear plan what has to be done to deal with sea level rise.  Right now, that plan is often referred to but never worked on.

Major infrastructure investments are apt to be throw away projects if they are built in the Delta.  Two current plans are the tunnel project and a decision by the Metropolitan Water District to buy 4 Delta Islands.  In both cases, the lands involved have a high probability of being inundated by sea level rise before their useful life is completed.  The southern terminus for the twin tunnel project is called the Clifton Court Forebay, and that is only 1 M above mean high tide.  This could by severely affected by 2050 during very high tides. 

I wonder how what the residents of the Delta are going to do as they slowly lose their homes and livelihoods.  I also wonder how the State of CA might attempt to mitigate the financial ruin of those families.  It is not something than anyone wants to talk about and for good reason.  They have no answers.

Drought, Water and Politics Part I, Introduction

Not long ago, I promised that I would work on a review of water issues for the Green Party of CA.  It is a complicated set of issues with a long and often ugly history.  I won't go very far into the history of the issues here unless it applies directly to what we are facing now.

For example, when I started looking seriously at CA water issues I was working to unseat Richard Pombo, at that time Chairman of the House Committee on Resources (now Natural Resources).  Often, we saw Pombo, a Republican, together with Sen. Diane Feinstein, a Democrat.  Well, Pombo is gone but not Feinstein and so the history of what she has done in the past is open to criticism and that will be given.  The summary of her achievements is simple.  Nothing has ever worked but she gave great speeches and keeps getting re-elected. I have written about the Delta for years and that means writing about Sen. Feinstein, as I did back in 2006 when we were stuck with an unworkable CalFed compromise that she sponsored and which the current plans was supposed to fix. 

I think that it makes sense to divide this into specific sections focused on the upcoming issues that require political action.  First and foremost is the question of the State of California's plan to build twa o massive tunnels under a portion of the Delta, carrying the water from the Sacramento  and American Rivers under the Delta to discharge at Clifton Court Forebay northwest of Tracy, where it can be pumped into canals carrying it South to West San Joaquin Valley ag interests and then over the mountains to the Metropolitan Water District.  The scope and cost (upwards of $40 Billion) make essential that we get it right and that everyone understand what is happening, not just what the bureaucrats want you to know.   Clifton Forebay is only about 1 M above mean sea level and no one is talking about the cost to deal with that.  That will come as Part II, and shortly as we only have a couple of weeks to make any impact on the process.

In Part III, I will deal with issues related to the drought we are experiencing now and the deluge we might be getting from a very strong El Niño.  Very few media outlets get this right.  Most oversimplify the issues involved. There are only a few journalists that I trust with this story.  I will list those below.

Sources:

Journalists:  These are the major CA journalists who have the knowledge and the capability to deal with water issues in CA.  Most of them have years of experience on the "environmental beat" and that show when they don't feed you pablum.

• Paul Rogers:   Writes for the San Jose Mercury News.  I follow him on twitter(@PaulRogersSJMN) to make sure I don't miss anything.  Twenty years on the beat and tells the story straight.  Also often on KQED.
• Matt Weiser:  Writes for the Sacramento Bee:  
• Alex Breitler:  Writes for the Stockton Record and covers San Joaquin Valley issues.
• Chris Austin:  Chris is a sel described "water news junkie" and maintains the Maven's Notebook.  She catches everything that the others don't cover and a lot more. If you only have time to follow one source, this should be it.

 Bloggers:

• Emily Green.  Her blog is Chance of Rain and it is well worth the read including this summer's post, Fixing a Broken Delta.
• John Fleck.  His inkstain blog is often cited by those who really know western water.   Lives in New Mexico but understands almost everything about Western US Water.
• Lloyd G. Carter. Lloyd was a journalist until he became a lawyer.  He calls his blog The Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood. I will mention Lloyd more, as he was key to reporting the selenium pollution of the Kesterson Reservoir by ag interests from the Westlands Water District.

Academia:

•  Dr. Peter Gleick  Founder and Director of the Pacific Institujte.  Worldwide reputation on water issues.  Follow him on twitter to see what he is up to now.  @PeterGleick
• Michael E. Campana  Professor Emeritus at Oregon State University.  Blogs as the AquaDoc  I follow on twitter @WaterWired as much of what he produces is irrelevant unless you have a degree and are interested in a job.  
• Donald Zeitland.  He has a blog called Aquanomics.. the political economics of water.   But I list him here.  PhD in economics from UC Berkeley and currently Assistant Prof. of Economics at Leiden University in the Netherlands. If you think that water and economics belong in the same sentence, you need to read Zeitland.

Activist Organizations: Both of these have had some supportand or endorsement from GPCA.

• Restore the Delta  Managed by Delta residents for all of California
• California Water Impact Network.   

Then, there is Dan Bacher: Journalist, blogger, activist and always outspoken.  Dan is managing editor of Fish-Sniffer, a magazine for sport fishing.  Blogs all over the place including at Daily Kos though he is no Democrat (not at Green either).

Testing the World's Will

Television news does a very good job of covering disasters.  Now, it is the flow of refugees from Syria and other Middle East or North African countries streaming in to Austria, Germany... passing through Hungary where the government does not want more workers, but is willing to pass them on and the people are turning out to help in a humanitarian way.

Television news does not do a very good job of digging in to the root causes of the story.  The "fleeing ISIS" motive is real enough to be all they need.  It is easy to understand.  It has a villain to blame.   But the problems in Syria come more from the reality of a multi-year drought.  With flocks and fields failing to support the rural existence, many Syrians fled to the cities where there was no work.  The unrest that followed is what we have seen, again and again, whether you want to blame the Assad regime or ISIS. 

For this type of news, you need to turn to alternate media, such as this post yesterday by Joe Romm at Climate Progress.   He clearly links the Syrian crisis to climate change.  More importantly, he warns us all that, unless the US makes major changes, we will be the target of an even greater climate driven mass migration.  While Donald Trump is railing against our porous borders and the fact that they allow relatively easy access to the US for those willing to risk the desert, we find that almost all of the Republican Candidates for POTUS have prepared some version of a "stop the immigration" position. 

Romm makes our choices clear:

Given the current political debate over immigration policy, it’s worth asking two questions. First: if the United States, through our role as the greatest cumulative carbon polluter in history, plays a central role in rendering large parts of Mexico and Central America virtually uninhabitable, where will the refugees go? And second: will we have some moral obligation to change our immigration policy?

While every current candidate of the major parties is treating this as a policy, their basis changes.  Some would protect our economy, workers jobs, the rule of law, or in Trump's case, provide safety on our streets, not a single one has come forward to treat this as a moral issue.  To do so would have ramifications that they dare not consider. If climate refugees becomes a moral issue, then surely we must act to prevent it.  Leave the fossil fuels in the ground until we have no other choice would be a good beginning.  Do we have the political will to do this?

What "The Left" Should Be Doing in the USA in 2015

Check this conversation between Amy Goodman and Richard Wolff.

Instead of obsessing over sex and "race" this should be the focus of "The Left" in the USA today.

RICHARD WOLFF: I think what Syriza shows in Greece is the potential of a mass popular resistance, not only to the austerity policies that came in after the crisis of 2008, but even to the very basic system of the countries of Europe that divide people into a tiny number of very wealthy and a mass of poor, that the system is producing outcomes that more and more people are hurt by, are critical of and want to change. But the conventional politics, the Republican and Democratic parties here and their equivalents all across Europe, don’t see it, don’t act on it, don’t even speak about it. So it becomes a kind of a vacuum, where there’s no political expression of what a growing mass of people feel, both about austerity and about capitalism as a system. And so it’s like a solution into which you drop that last little bit of hard material and everything crystallizes. Everybody is waiting for the new political voice to emerge that speaks to and represents what the traditional politics have failed to do.




Bernie Sanders is doing that in this country, and he’s doing it very well, exactly like Syriza surprised everybody. Indeed, in England, there’s a struggle going on right now inside the Labour Party, where a candidate like Bernie Sanders, named Corbyn, is surprising everybody by the support he’s getting inside the struggle for who will be the new leader of the Labour Party. So you see everywhere the signs of an emerging left wing, not because of some political maneuver, but because of the enormous vacuum that a left leadership can take advantage of, given what has happened in the last eight years of this capitalist global system.


AMY GOODMAN: How does Bernie Sanders compare to Hillary Clinton?

RICHARD WOLFF: Well, she’s the old. She is the staid, do it by the books, the old rules, as Paul said so nicely. She is playing the game the way the game has been played now for decades. Bernie Sanders is saying the unthinkable, saying it out loud, saying it with passion, putting himself forward, even though the name "socialist," which was supposed to be a political death sentence—as if it weren’t there. And he’s showing that for the mass of the American people, it’s not the bad word it once was. It’s sort of a kind of position in which the conventional parties are so out of touch with how things have changed, that they make it easy for Mr. Sanders to have the kind of response he’s getting. And my hat’s off to him for doing it.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what socialism means.

RICHARD WOLFF: Well, that’s a big one. Socialism has traditionally meant one thing, but it’s changing, as well. Traditionally, it meant that instead of private ownership of means of production, of factories and land and offices, you socialize it. The government takes it over. And instead of having bargaining in the market, buying and selling goods to one another, we work from a governmental plan. So it gives the government an enormous power. But the idea was, if the government owns and operates the businesses, and if the government plans how we distribute goods and services, it will all be done more democratically, more egalitarian, etc., etc., than capitalism. That was always the idea. The problem was, socialists have to admit, that giving the government that much power raises a whole new set of problems, which the Soviet Union and China and so on illustrate. So the question is: Are there other ways of understanding socialism that gets us the benefits without the negatives? And I think the new direction is the whole focus at the enterprise level, of changing the way we organize enterprises, so they stop being top-down, hierarchical, board of directors makes all the decisions, and we move to this idea which is now catching on: cooperation, workers owning and operating collectively and democratically their economy and their enterprise.

* * * 

Unfortunately, Ms. Hillary Clinton is not the only one in USA politics representing "the old... the staid, do it by the books...  playing the game the way the game has been played now for decades." The same thing can be said of the old activists and intellectuals who dominate Our So-Called Left in the USA. They have lived their whole lives playing the game of single-issue "Identity Politics" for decades. And just like mainstream Republicans and Democrats our "Lefty" leaders "don’t see it, don’t act on it, don’t even speak about it."

Thinking About Thinking in 1776 and 2015

Haymo Schauer, a Green Party brother in San Francisco, posted a statement on the California Green Party Facebook page on July 4, 2015:

The USA was founded by wealthy men who wanted to have independence from other rich men in Europe. They did this so that they would have the freedom to act in any way they wanted to enrich themselves further. But the rest of us are not free of these ruthless free men since they violate the rights and boundaries of those beneath them. Until we the majority of the population are free of their tyranny then we have nothing to celebrate.

Such views are not uncommon on "The Left" in the USA. Thus, every thanksgiving, we note that many of our Indigenous brothers and sisters call Thanksgiving a "Day of Mourning". In my African-American community, we remember the July 1852 speech by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglas: "What to the Slave is 4th of July?" as if nothing has changed in the USA in the last 163 years.

I respectfully disagree with this project. I do not disagree on account of any sentimental attachment to the USA Establishment. I disagree because it is time to quit thinking about the thinking of 1776 or 1852 and start thinking about the thinking needed to save humanity and the planet in 2015.
 
In my humble opinion, we should remember and honor the revolution of 1776 as exactly no more... and no less... than it was. Yes, it was a no more than a "bourgeois" revolution of wealthy White men. But it was no less than the overthrow of kings, state church, and the nobility of what was then the world's most powerful empire.
 

Thinking About Our Thinking in 2015

I strongly believe that both "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans in the USA are incapable of grasping our unprecedented global crisis of the 21st Century.  I am a Green Party man willing to publicly declare that our 10 Key Values of the 4 Pillars of Green Parties around the world are superior... yes, superior... to the thinking of the "Old Liberals" and the "Old Left." 

The Four Pillars of the Green Party are a foundational statement for many worldwide Green parties as a future oriented movement based on the practical experience and wisdom of labor, civil rights, and peace movements.

1. Ecological Wisdom
2. Social Justice
3. Grassroots Democracy
4. Nonviolence 

The "Old Liberals" talk a good game about "the environment" to appeal to their base of educated middle-class voters. But they refuse to "connect the dots" between environmental issues and social justice. The "Old Left" has never really believed in nonviolence. My "Lefty" friends cherish the old dream of bloody, violent revolution. Never mind that in the USA violent radicalism is more likely to resemble the fascism our Left leaders fear than the revolutionary socialism  they say they want. Finally, one shocking thing is the general contempt of "Our Leaders" from Left, Right, and Center to democracy. They claim to speak for "The People" but their speeches, writings, and Internet posts and tweets are dripping with contempt for "The People" whom they regard as lazy, "dumb", rascist, sexist, fools. 

Give the people strong, independent progressive alternatives. Then, we'll see  who is the fool. 
 

 

El Niño is not our savior.

California is in the 4th year of a drought. There is a lot of hope, speculation that El Niño conditions will last into early 2016 and end the drought. The last strong El Niño was in 1997/8 and the worries at that time were for floods.

This should not get us too excited. While El Niño may end the drought in CA, it is causing a serious drought in the Caribbean with reservoirs drying up, rivers running dry and crops failing. That is almost the conditions we have in California this year. ,

  Dr. Peter Gleick of the Paciific Institute has warned us that an El Niño event in the middle of a drought might not be the reason to become careless with our use of water. To begin with, the summer is not over. The Rain Year has not started and 2015 is already acting like the hottest year on record. It is going to get worse before the summer is over. My neighbors, most of who do not have lush lawns, are talking of just trying to keep trees and shrubs alive. So let's assume a strong El Niño continues. We get a lot of water. What then? How much do we use and how much do we store? Can we bank the water in the aquifers that are currently collapsing. According to a tweet from @PeterGleick "Tulare CA approved new 3284 drilling permits while 1,126 wells have gone dry.Unsustainable." http;//tularecounty.ca.gov/emergencies/in… pic.twitter.com/uly7utfy3W"  They will not all fill up. Some of that aquifer capacity can never be reclaimed as the land above it has subsided. In some areas of CA, this is happening at a rate approaching 1 ft / yr. 

Then, we have to ask what happens following the rains of an El Niño year, assuming that they come as hoped for. Will we return to the averages of that past of have we gone through such a climatic shift that we return to an extension of the drought? I can see a lot of reasons to assume that the drought conditions return and very few, if any, downsides to basing water policy on that assumption. 

 With water policy on the agenda at the next GPCA meeting, we need to get this right. Martin Zehr and I worked very hard to get a new statement of water policy through the GPUS National Committee when we were both on the GPUS EcoAction Committee. I can see no reason why that should not guide us now. Failing to do so just adds to the problem of food scarcity.

I call attention to the very recent report Food System Shock published by Anglis Ruskin University and Lloyds of London Insurance Co. This report describes a realistic scenario of inaction on climate and then projects that out to 2040. The goal is to help the insurer make better plans for the future. The result is to scare the hell out of me, not so much because the ramifications are so severe (and they are, famine, riots, etc) but that we can see it starting to happen now, with this drought, here in California. You see the anything for a bigger profit corporate agriculture and its control over the political process. You see the manner in which so many are cut out our so called democratic decision making processes with secret closed door deal and a nod and a wink from Sen. Feinstein.

California Water Crisis and What We Should Be Doing

It is hard to escape the fact that California is in a drought.  In one way or another, the subject of the drought makes it into the news every day.  Unfortunately, the events that the media covers are often staged and the media coverage is frequently very flawed, not mentioning the link between the drought and global warming and failing to acknowledge that the big agricultural operations plant inappropriate crops for the locale and exacerbate the problem through wasteful irrigation practices. I can't even begin to count the number of newspaper or television accounts I have seen that blame high unemployment numbers in the San Joaquin Valley on the drought and the lack of agricultural water allocation without letting you know that the same area has high unemployment even when the water is plentiful.

It is my intention to use California Greening as a platform to summarize much of the background that is required to develop, or understand, water policy in a geography that swings from extreme drought to seeming everlasting deluges.  If I can do that well, then California Greens might be able to formulate a policy that will ensure a better future if followed, or at least to give environmental activists an alternative to just voting for the latest Democrat because they are scared of a Republican bogeyman.

As I complete each section, I will post it here.  You can follow the blog if you want.  I will also tweet the link to each new section from @wrolley.  If you follow that, you will at least know when an update is available. 

The first piece of the puzzle that I will try to put in place will be to answer the question of whether there are technological solutions to water problems that we should be using, or at least planning for.  This is a rather clearly definable area but is not getting much attention unless it involves the perennial fights of the construction of desalination plants.  But even this is a large enough topic to require multiple posts if I want to cover it adequately.  There are others who are doing a good job of keeping us all informed as to the daily events.  Foremost among there is Chris Austin whose Maven's Notebook. is an essential resource.  If you care about what is happening in the California Water Wars, you should follow closely.

Good news for Resnick and Starrh, bad for us.

I mentioned farm subsidies in yesterday's post and mentioned a cotton grower named Starrh.   The story continues bleakly according to a release today from  the Center for Rural Affairs.  What Congress does behind closed doors is scandalous and, in this case, the effects are not limited to Rural America.  All of us pay subsidies to support major growers of a small list of commodity crops: cotton, sugar, corn, soy beans, wheat. 

Subsidy Reform - In a huge blow, the final bill cut historic reforms to commodity program subsidies that had passed in both chambers of Congress. They actually increased the limit, and they cut “actively engaged” language, which would close the loopholes that allow large, wealthy farms to collect many multiples of the current payment limit. 

I have posted about subsidies before, but the story never changes.   If Greens are going to fix our economy, subsidies to Big Ag and Big Oil should be a great place to start.

CA Drought News. Oil and Water mix it up in Kern County

The recent ruling by California's State Water Board severely restricted water deliveries in 2014.  In many  cases, they will be eliminated.  Part of the background for this is the drought declaration from Governor Brown asking all Californian's to restrict water usage by 20%.   It made me wonder just far that goes in restricting agricultural and industrial usage or whether it only applies to "citizens" like you and I.

I remembered reading about the use of water in oil extraction in a past issue of High Country News.  I quickly found the article declaring that Oil and Water Don't Mix with California Agriculture.  It begins with a narration of the troubles of a farmer on the eduge of Kern County's oilfields.

Starrh Farms has 6,000 acres of pistachios, cotton, almonds and alfalfa. Starrh proudly points out almond trees planted 155 to the acre with the aid of lasers and GPS. At the edge of his land, he pulls up beside 20-foot-high earthen berms, the ramparts of large "percolation" ponds that belong to a neighbor, Aera Energy.

From the mid-1970s to the early 2000s, Aera dumped more than 2.4 billion barrels (or just over 100 billion gallons) of wastewater -- known in the industry as "produced water" -- from its North Belridge oilfield into those unlined ponds, Starrh says. The impact became apparent beginning in 1999, when Starrh dug several wells to augment the irrigation water he gets from the California Aqueduct. He mixed the groundwater with aqueduct water, applied it to a cotton field beside the berms -- and the plants wilted. Eventually, the well water killed almond trees, Starrh says; he points out a few that look like gray skeletons.

If you wonder what Aera Energy was doing to that water it is just like fracking. The water inserted into the ground and petrolems is extracted along with most of the water.   In the case reported by High Country News, the water was left in unlined settling ponds.  In other cases, it is reinserted into old wells to disposal.  But that allows it to mix freely with the groundwater with disastrous results for Agriculture.

One good thing about recent CA legislation is that we can get a bit of a glimpse at what Aera Energy is using.   They now have to file a formal document with a water management plan.  On Dec. 11, 2013Aera Eenrgy filed an  "Interim Well Stimulation Treatment Notice" for a well in Kern County's South Belridge Fierld.   The attached water management plan stated that the water could be sourced from the California Aqueduct via Aera's interest in the Belridge Water Managent District.  So, if Oil interests are fouling the water for these big ag farmers, who is selling them the water?   The Board of Directors for the Belridge Water Management District includes Larry Starrh, brother and business partner of the Fred Starrh featured in the HCN news.  Also on the Board is William D. Phillmore, an executive with Paramount Farms, another Big Ag comrporation owned by Demorcatic Political players, Setward and Linda Resnick.  I am sure that you are familiar with the Paramount Farms brads: Fiji Water, Halos (used to be branded as Cuties) Mandarine Oranges, Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice and the entire Wonderful family of nut products,. pistachios and almonds.

It is pretty clear that we will be asked to save water while the politically connected Kern County Oil companies will continue business as usual.   Hell, the Starrh family will probably sell their water rights to Aera Energy and collect more money that they would growing crops in the desert. Have to see how much the Starrh operations collect in Cotton Subsidies.  Love the quote from Fred Starrh on that link as he discusses farm subsides with John Stossel.

 If they can't make a profit, I don't think they deserve a gift from taxpayers just so they can keep farming.

"Well I totally disagree with you John, and the legislature is with us
at this point, so we're winning, and you're losing," Fred Starrh said.

California Greens need to increase their level of knowledge on water issues.  With a few exceptions, we clearly do not have the expertise required to begin putting together  sensible policies.  Hopefully, a little outrage about how the arrogant affluent control our lives and isolate themselves from the consequences of their own actions through the exercise of political power.  After all, as Starrh says, the legislature is with them, not us.

In a response to another Green on the  GPCA Forum email list, I suggested that Greens needed to read, asI have done, Supply Shock by Dr. Brian Czech. I have just completed a review of that book and posted it to Amazon. The review also recommends reading Herman Daly's earlier (1996) work, Beyond Growth.

Personally, I was fortunate to find Daly's book in my local public library, but not Czech's. Maybe I should be shocked at the lack of supply.

Taken together, these two books give the reader a lesson in why our economy is destined to falter. It takes both to cover the varied histories which Czech does deliberately and Daly more anecdotally. I know that I will read so called progressive economists like Krugman much more carefully. Krugman's policy prescriptions for the US Economy, while helping to enhance social equity, will only lead us further down a dead end path through growth beyond the carrying capacity of our planet.

Sierra Club Agrees with Glickman

Far too often I hear the Sierra Club condemned for not endorsing Greens. While it is not as common as we would like, since we believe that the Green Party has more in common with the goals of the Sierra Club than any other party, it does happen and even in partisan races. The most recent Sierra Club endorsement has gone to Marnie Glickman. While the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District is a not a partisan office, we know what it takes to gain these endorsements. 

I even remember Tom Hutchings, a San Luis Obispo County Green, getting Sierra Club endorsement for State Assembly Dist 33 in 2004 after years of supporting efforts to block the expansion, if not able to close, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. It can be done, you just have to work at it.  

Democratic Party Hack Du Jour: George Shirakawa

The California Democratic Party Hack Du Jour is Disgraced Santa Clara County Supervisor George Shirakawa Jr. While awaiting sentencing for lying on campaign finance reports and gambling with public funds, Shirakawa is faced with a new charge that is downright bizarre: impersonating a political opponent. The critical evidence? Shirakawa's DNA pulled from a postage stamp on an illegal campaign hit piece. The new charges could get the supervisor-turned-defendant three more years in the pen.

Here is the part of the story relevant to our California Green Party: Shirakawa was a solid good 'ole boy in the San Jose Democratic Party Machine. He has been strongly backed by the big labor unions. His illegal campaign "hit piece" was on behalf of a former aide, Xavier Campos, who is, himself, a relative of Democratic Assembly Member Nora Campos. Finally, Shirakawa was one of those "People of Color" we are told all progressives, including Greens, should defer to without question. And what was in his campaign "hit piece?" The piece, written in Vietnamese, accused Campos' opponent of being a Communist (you can't make this stuff up).

Thus, Shirakawa's saga represents everything wrong with the Democratic Party Machine politics in the U.S.A. today.

News Report from KGO-TV in San Francisco, June 5, 2013
DNA Links George Shirakawa, Jr. to New Felony Charge



Published in San Jose Mercury News, June 7, 2013
Mercury News editorial: Shirakawa Corruption Plot Thickens with Charge of Slimy Campaign Tactics

The latest felony charge against former Santa Clara County Supervisor George Shirakawa Jr. probably marks the last time anybody personally licks a stamp for a sleazy campaign hit piece.

The only surprise is that DNA is the evidence apparently tying Shirakawa to the political slime that helped propel his former aide Xavier Campos to a San Jose City Council seat in 2010. Shirakawa's DNA was found on stamps used on mailers that made Magdalena Carrasco out to be a communist, probably sealing her narrow defeat, since many Vietnamese American voters see communists as a lower life form. The charge is impersonation because the mailer said it was from Carrasco's own campaign.

We hope District Attorney Jeff Rosen's office and the state Fair Political Practices Commission are continuing this line of inquiry. Mailers like the one on Campos' behalf are not the product of one person, and the fact that a similar hit was used against Shirakawa's opponent for supervisor in 2008 implies a pattern.

Dishonest campaigning on this scale poisons the well for honest politicians and makes it harder to attract good people to run for office. Some consultants and candidates treat it as a joke. We're glad our county and state criminal justice agencies do not.

My one frustration is that, once again, I have to read this news in the mainstream media after my son-in-law told me about it on a trip from Los Angeles up to San Jose. Why aren't California Greens monitoring this? We Greens will never achieve our goals so long as we continue giving our local Democratic Party Hacks a free pass. The Green Party is no longer an a;ternative. The Green Party is an imperative.

Snuggly the Security Bear - Tribute to Eric Holder

Animated Cartoon By Mark Fiore

Greetings, from the Department of Justice!
It's me, Snuggly the Security Bear-- here to tell you all about spying on the press!

See, I'm not scary, and neither is Attorney General Eric Holder!

So what if we secretly snooped into the phone records of a hundred or so journalists-- it was all to keep you snuggly and secure-- trust us! Heeheeheehee!

Those people in the Associated Press are helping the terrorists by protecting their sources and stuff.

We're just trying to keep you safe . . . from people in government who leak things to the media!

Which is why my boss Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowe-- er-- criminals-- than all previous presidents combined!

But before we nail 'em, we've got to find 'em-- by doing things like secretly looking into the phone logs of journalists . . . at the office, at home, at the capitol, or in the men's room!

Would you rather have Freedom of the Press or would you rather be more snuggly and secure with the most transparent administration ever!

Best part is-- my warm hugs of security, are bipartisan! Republicans are outraged now, and Democrats were outraged about two-thousand and four!

. . . which keeps them not-outraged in reverse! Partisanship can be so bipartisan.

So of course you can have your Freedom of the Press and confidential sources-- as long as your confidential sources don't mind the government having their phone numbers! Heeheeheehee!



Link to Original Post on Black Agenda Report:
www.marfiore.com



Editor's Note: The California Green Party could use this kind of media to ridicule Cal Democrats and Republicans. If you are a craftsperson who knows how to do this, then please step up.

2 Local Issues in L.A. - Which Way for Greens?

All politics is local.  Forget "Robamney." Which way for a serious Green Party on two important local issues in the City of Los Angeles: 

• Another sales tax hike
• Another fight over public employee pension. 

 There are knee-jerk "liberal" positions on both in the One-Party-Democratic city. As an unapologetic Green Party man, I could argue for or against both propositions. Dear Green Friends, let's have a timely dialogue about this.

L.A. Moves Ahead With Plan to Increase Sales Tax
Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2012
The Los Angeles City Council agreed to place a half-cent sales tax hike on the March 5 ballot to avert new cuts in city services, drawing immediate opposition from critics in and outside city government.

Voters would decide the measure, which will boost collections by an estimated $215 million a year, on the same day they choose a new mayor. And there were signs the proposal already is influencing the race, which is expected to focus heavily on resolving the city's chronic budget crisis.

Mayoral candidates Jan Perry and Eric Garcetti, both council members, voted against the tax plan Tuesday. City Controller Wendy Greuel, another top mayoral contender, said she also opposed the tax hike, which would apply to millions of everyday transactions, as well as major purchases such as electronics and appliances.

. . .

Riordan Accepts Police Union's Pension Debate Challenge
Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2012
Multimillionaire businessman and former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan has accepted a police union's challenge to put his mouth where his money is.

Riordan agreed Wednesday to a series of three debates on the merits of a pension revamp  initiative that he is trying to get on next year's city election ballot. The measure would create a  401(k)-style retirement plan for newly hired workers instead of the current guaranteed pensions.

L.A. Moves Ahead With Plan to Increase Sales Tax
Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2012
The Los Angeles City Council agreed to place a half-cent sales tax hike on the March 5 ballot to avert new cuts in city services, drawing immediate opposition from critics in and outside city government.

Voters would decide the measure, which will boost collections by an estimated $215 million a year, on the same day they choose a new mayor. And there were signs the proposal already is influencing the race, which is expected to focus heavily on resolving the city's chronic budget crisis.

Mayoral candidates Jan Perry and Eric Garcetti, both council members, voted against the tax plan Tuesday. City Controller Wendy Greuel, another top mayoral contender, said she also opposed the tax hike, which would apply to millions of everyday transactions, as well as major purchases such as electronics and appliances.

The proposal also came under attack from former Mayor Richard Riordan, a Republican multimillionaire who is promoting his own ballot measure to roll back pension benefits. He accused City Hall leaders of foisting bloated employee retirement costs on consumers.

Left-of-center groups complained that council members had caved to real estate interests by dropping plans for a tax on property sales in favor of one that disproportionately hits working class Angelenos. "The process was entirely hijacked by the real estate folks," said Sunyoung Yang, lead organizer for the Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group for low-income residents.

A second and final vote on the sales tax ballot measure is set for next week. If approved by voters, the measure would leave Los Angeles with one of the highest tax rates in the state — 9.5 cents on every dollar of taxable sales.
. . .

Riordan Accepts Police Union's Pension Debate Challenge
Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2012
Multimillionaire businessman and former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan has accepted a police union's challenge to put his mouth where his money is.

Riordan agreed Wednesday to a series of three debates on the merits of a pension revamp  initiative that he is trying to get on next year's city election ballot. The measure would create a  401(k)-style retirement plan for newly hired workers instead of the current guaranteed pensions.

"Dick Riordan looks forward to the opportunity to share his views with the public about the dangerous path the city is going down when it fails to deal responsibly with its pension costs,'' his spokesman John Schwada said in a statement.
. . .

Union leaders want Riordan to back up his claims that unless changes are made, ever-increasing payments to the city's three pension systems could cripple the city's ability to provide services.

"Riordan has chosen to hide behind carefully orchestrated radio talk-show appearances where no challenging or insightful questions are asked, appearances before groups where he knows his ideas won’t be challenged, and well-crafted media releases that lack any pretense of substance,” the police union leader said.

Rising city pension costs have become a hot-button issue in next year's mayoral race. Two of the candidates, City Councilman Eric Garcetti and Controller Wendy Greuel, are backed by influential labor groups and have expressed concerns about Riordan's measure.

A third, Councilwoman Jan Perry, has sought to define herself as the fiscally conservative alternative, in part by setting out her own plan to trim pension costs. Kevin James, a lawyer and former radio host, said he will support Riordan's measure if it qualifies for the May ballot.
. . .

"People are fed up with waiting for their government to take action,'' Riordan told the John & Ken Show on KFI radio last month in announcing his proposed measure.
. . .

California Now Has Water as a Human Right. Oh, Really?

The headlines read: law passed in California to make water a human right.  AB685 does indeed have that language but California is far from that as a reality. The question really is whether this is a real breakthrough or whether it presents the potential of a creating a new maze of litigation in the future. From looking at the language of the bill, it would be a profound mistake to consider this a victory for poor people or an acknowledgement of their basic survival needs. It needs to be said that there are so many questions raised by such a law that are not addressed in the law that it will assuredly result in profound impacts on farmers and farm workers throughout the state of California.

Water as a Human Right has to be defined in the context of both drinking water and food production.

This bill needs to be repealed and the sooner the better. As someone who has written on water as a Human Right  and on its relationship to regional water planning, I have continued to advocate for political and structural reform that democratizes water resource management.   AB685 is bad law and bad law opens the door to litigation, protest, corrupt administration and usurpation of authority. Messing around with water supplies is a dangerous precedent that Sacramento has gotten in the habit of doing on a regular basis.

There is a profound mischaracterization of water use among urban users, academics and many Greens that singles out “agribusinesses” as the focal point of structural reform. This addresses corporate law, not water allocations. If we are to address the users of the resource even-handedly, we need to acknowledge that agriculture will always be the primary user of water. From there, we need to acknowledge not only the economic benefit of agriculture but also its social good in providing the food that supply both our urban and rural populations. Increasing dependence on food importations is not a sustainable alternative that develops and improves the quantity, quality and distribution of food to our growing population.

Water governance in the age ahead needs to be structured for open input and transparency. Adaptive governance needs to provide flexibility and input in water management in an effective manner. Administrative state agencies are not representative of users. Neither are they elected because of their distinct interests and concerns as stakeholders. No where does the bill provide for long-term regional planning or adaptive governance in this matter. Unintended consequences of this bill as written are so obvious it was opposed by water agencies in the state of California. This is not some classroom assignment or a slogan for some demonstration.

It is long past due for those who want to guarantee safe drinking water and sanitation for people to start looking at the consequences of their proposals when enacted into law. It is time for NGO’s to stop using environmentalism and social justice as rationalizations for promoting Democrats and recognize the distinct needs and concerns of diverse users. Water as a Human Right requires both the political and administrative entities that address water. As it stands, water is a function of partisan divides and not collaborative decision-making by users, the science and the environment. As it stands, the case made for Water and Sanitation as a Human Right holds its advocates with no responsibility towards allocations that are fair and equitable to all users.

Opponents of AB685 have raised the issue of the impact on pricing of the law. Given California’s financial status, it is reasonable to raise the issue of how future research and development for new sources, re-uses, desal, improved purification, sanitation and conservation are critical in addressing increasing demands for the resource. The presumption that AB685 will address this by supporters is myopic and fundamentally disregards the particular characteristics of regional supplies. There are positive local models as demonstrated by the Stanford groundwater study.   These initiatives will increase out of necessity. But, what AB685 does not do is establish a structural foundation for decision-making that addresses long-term planning and distinct concerns of regional users and stakeholders.

Do we injure the fundamental goal of developing Water and Sanitation as a basic Human Right by opposing AB685? Only if our putting the language into law is more important than addressing the underlying issues that obstruct the real implementation of that goal. If the object is to take water from agriculture to give to growing cities, then AB685 will be a tool with fundamentally conflicting consequences. The process of really making water a human right will require the restructuring of existing water law in California where rural users are under-represented in the debate. The presumption that drinking water will be a priority exists today. The failure in implementing this does not lie in the absence of AB685 in the vast array of water-related laws and regulations. Rather, it lies in the hands of the State Legislature’s proclivity towards diversions and politically based funding of existing infrastructures such as the upgrading of the Hetch-Hetchy aqueduct.

Will regional planning develop and improve the quality of decisions in regards to decisions made regarding use and allocations of our fresh and salt water supplies? We do have a learning curve here in the record of depletions and subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere, that suggests bad decisions and overuse manifest in agricultural uses as well as in urban uses.   Water planning is not simply an administrative matter where constituencies are not integrated into the decision-making process. The economic and social consequences of water allocations have distinct impacts that need to be recognized in the future through the development of regional governmental water entities. Water politics and governance are polarized as things stand today and benefit the two party constituencies only to the extent that they influence the State Legislatures.

Water as a Human Right has been qualified by the United Nations in regards to the characteristics needed to make it meaningful and implemented in a fair manner. “Human rights can be a powerful vehicle for change. However, they have to be enshrined not just in normative statements, but in legislation, regulatory systems and governance systems that make governments and water providers accountable to all citizens, including the poor. Too often, the language of human rights serves as a smokescreen behind which the rights of poor people are violated by institutions that have little or no accountability.”    In point of fact, the rural poor stand to gain more from a process that includes them as stakeholders in the decisions being made than does legislation that lack the means for input and implementation. The risk of AB685 is raised in the UNDP report as follows: “Water may be a human right, but someone has to pay the capital investments and cover the operating costs— either users or taxpayers and government.”  “Water is a human right. But human rights count for little if they are divorced from practical policies to protect and extend them—or from mechanisms for accountability that empower the poor to demand their rights.”

Furthermore, the UNHDP Report specifically cites issues in regards to agricultural users and even uses a California example of the impact on family farms by urban users. "The danger is fast growing cities and industries seeking more water will extend their hydrological reach into rural areas, reducing the access  of poor households to a crucial livelihood resource." Page 173, Chapter 5, "Water Competition in Agriculture, UNHDP Report. elsewhere in the report a California study is cited regarding the impact of urbanization on rural and agricultural poor and family farmers. "One study of the distribution of gains and losses from water transfers in Mendota, California, found that the  number of farms in water-exporting regions fell by 26%  between 1987 and 1992. But the number of small farms fell by 70% and labour demand fell even more as wholesale produce firms went out of business. While aggregate welfare increased, the losers included a large group of poorer producers."  Page 180, Chapter 5, "Water and Competition in Agriculture", UNHDP Report.

Lest anyone think we are omitting poor and working people, it is important to take notice of the population growth in the Central Valley and the growing political engagement around the water issue. Both the peripheral canal and the proposed sale of water by Modesto to San Francisco engaged local users and residents in the Central Valley. It is possible only in a political context to really unify urban and rural constituencies around the issue of diversions and Water as a Human Right. From the start, Water as a Human Right has to be defined in the context of both drinking water and food production.