Artist John Trumbull's 12-foot by 18-foot oil on canvas of the Founding Fathers presenting the Declaration of Independence in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. The figures standing in the front of the room are members of the committee that drafted the declaration – including John Adams, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson (presenting the document) and Benjamin Franklin. They stand before John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress. Trumbull's painting was commissioned in 1817, purchased in 1819 and placed in the Capitol Rotunda in 1826. The same portrait appears on the back of the $2 bill. Courtesy of the Independence Hall Association.

Before we head out for barbecues and fireworks displays this weekend, let's pause to reread the Declaration of Independence.

In 2008, 232 years after it was drafted, the declaration still has much to teach us about our country's aspirations and the unique opportunities citizens of the United States are meant to enjoy.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The original Declaration of Independence is now exhibited in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in Washington, DC. It has faded badly, largely because of poor preservation techniques during the 19th century. The document measures 29 and 3/4 inches by 24 and 1/2 inches. Courtesy of the Independence Hall Association.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

We need two solutions and we need them fast: a short-term solution that lowers the price of oil and a long-term solution that reduces our dependence on oil. However, we must be very wary of solutions that are nothing more than choreographed political stunts designed to win elections rather than bring Americans relief. If we’re not careful, we’ll end up with more of the same – no energy policy.

Also, we need to beware of quick-fix proposals being sold by some people who think all we need to do is drill. If drilling operations were expanded into new areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska or off our California coast, any oil found would not reach consumers for eight to ten years. And according to the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, the impact on gas prices would be negligible, less than a nickel a gallon. Moreover, given the thirst of new oil consumers in China and India, there’s no guarantee Americans would see the additional oil.

Right now, oil companies aren’t utilizing the vast majority of the nearly 90 million acres of federal land they’ve already leased. Nearly 70 million acres have not been touched, despite estimates that they contain 80 percent of oil and gas reserves on federal lands. As energy prices continue to climb, these companies are leaving recoverable oil and gas in the ground so they will appreciate in value.

Oil companies are also not making enough of an investment to build the infrastructure needed to increase the domestic oil supply. Last year, the five largest integrated oil companies used their record-breaking profits to buy back $50 billion in stock rather than investing in infrastructure improvements that would reduce supply disruptions that cause prices to rise.

We also have to deal with oil speculation, which experts estimate is inflating prices by anywhere from $20 to $60 per barrel of oil.

We need both long and short-term energy plans that will put downward pressure on gas prices, start us on a course toward clean renewable energy and sever the strangle-hold that foreign oil-producing countries have on us.

We need to turn down the volume of rhetoric and roll up our sleeves to address this problem. In the short run, we need to:

– Release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) into the market. Currently, the SPR is at 97-percent capacity. Drawing down the reserve to 90-percent of capacity would add 50 million barrels of oil to the market and would send a strong message to speculators. This would undoubtedly help ease the significant premium that speculation has added to the price of fuel.

– Crack down on unregulated oil speculation. We need to increase regulation over speculators to prevent market manipulation and ensure no one speculator is allowed to hold enough futures contracts to be able to manipulate prices. We can also increase the amount of money speculators are required to put down on futures and only allow speculators who can actually take delivery of the product in which they are investing. (When companies such as Morgan Stanley own huge quantities of oil, you know there’s trouble.)

– Tell oil companies, “use it or lose it.” Oil companies need to use or lose the land they have already leased for drilling.

And to ensure a sensible energy policy for the future, we should:

– Extend tax incentives for renewable energy technology, such as solar, wind, biomass and cellulosic biofuels;

– Put the development of other energy technologies on the table;

– Encourage the development of more fuel efficient cars and continuing tax credits for individuals who purchase hybrid cars;

– Incentivize the development of filling station infrastructure to support hydrogen fueled vehicles;

– Increase our investments in public transportation to allow for further conservation of fuel; and

– Invest in expanding current refining capacity and requiring diligent development of existing leases that have already been permitted by the federal government for oil drilling.

We have the ingenuity and resourcefulness to achieve these goals. The solutions we reach must be based on what’s best for the next generation, not the next election.

The people of our great country need reasonably-priced energy to grow our food, drive to work, heat and cool our homes and live a productive life. But we must also remember the importance of a healthy environment, particularly in an area like ours that relies on tourism, agriculture, coastal resources and the fishing industry.

Congressman Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) represents Lake County in the House of Representatives.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

These programs are referred to as the California High-Cost A-Fund and the California High-Cost B-Fund. Their existence helps compel the PUC to meet its stated goal of universal telephone service to all Californians, along with competition in the residential telephone service arena.

The A-Fund provides a source of supplemental revenues to 17 small, rural local telephone companies. Up until 2007, the A-Fund provided them with approximately $37 million in annual subsidies through a 0.21 percent surcharge on telephone bills; that surcharge was reduced to 0.13 percent on Jan. 1. In any case, the subsidy is used to cap residential telephone rates for these companies at not more than 150 percent of the rate charged to residential customers in urban areas.

The B-Fund provides subsidies to telephone carriers of last resort for providing basic local service to residential customers in high-cost areas that are currently served by larger companies (Pacific Bell, Verizon California Inc., Citizens Telecommunications of California and Surewest).

A “carrier of last resort” is obligated to serve customers within its service area – even those in very high-cost areas. The purpose of the subsidies, among other reasons, is to keep basic telephone service affordable in rural and high cost areas and to encourage competition. In 2007, this subsidy provided these companies with approximately $434 million funded by a 2.7 percent surcharge on telephone bills (this surcharge was also reduced, to 0.25 percent, effective Jan. 1 of this year).

The whole of Humboldt, Lake and Mendocino Counties are considered B-Fund areas, as are parts of Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

The problem is that both of the high-cost funds are set to expire on January 1, 2009. If they do, many Californians are likely to experience extreme increases in their residential telephone rates.

In fact, people across the North Coast shouldn’t be surprised if their bill for basic phone service doubles or triples after Jan. 1, 2009, when the telecommunications industry is deregulated. For example, according to the PUC, a resident of Humboldt County’s basic phone service costs $68.64 per month, but the customer only pays a rate of $11 a month. The B-Fund pays the rest of the cost of service.

Without an extension of the B-Fund, customers can expect to pay the entire $68.64 on their own. The amount could be higher, depending how much AT&T or Verizon choose to charge for basic phone service next January. And services that customers used to receive for free, such as free incoming calls, free calls to 800 numbers and free access to call 911, could all become things that they are charged for – at a cost that is unregulated.

That’s because in August 2006, the PUC decided that there should be no regulation of rates for telephone services, no examination of costs of service, and no profit regulation on previously-regulated phone companies. In essence, the commission deregulated all telephone rates, allowing rural prices to change independently of urban rates. However, the deregulation of basic service was delayed until 2009, pending an examination (by the PUC) of the high cost fund programs. All other services were deregulated in 2007. If the excessive increases in these services are any indication of what’s to come, folks in rural areas where there is no competition for basic services should be prepared for the worst.

Since 2007, caller ID rates have increased 62 percent, call waiting rates have increased 86 percent, unlisted numbers rates have increased 346 percent, and directory assistance has increased 226 percent.

I introduced Senate Bill 780 to ensure that rural/high cost residents in my Senate district would not be subjected to exorbitant residential telephone rates. SB 780 will extend the A & B funds, and will require the PUC to conduct an affordability study of basic phone rates and factors affecting affordability.

The PUC continues to report statistics about subscribership and universal service, but has not undertaken any analysis, since 2004, of the factors which cause service to become unaffordable for customers. My bill requires the PUC to report the findings of its affordability study to the Legislature by July 1, 2010. And it will enable the Legislature to examine the cost/rates of basic phone service and determine if the rates are affordable or excessive and take the appropriate action.

SB 780 expresses my desire that the high-cost programs be extended, and that they address the continued need for affordable basic telephone service in rural and high-cost areas of the state, particularly where telecommunications competition is limited, and without diminishing the key components of what customers expect as ‘basic telephone service.’

Patricia Wiggins represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

After several conversations with John Stoddard and others, I became aware that there are many laws being broken by members of the current board. Both developed and undeveloped property owners are being held hostage by these tyrannical individuals, who prey on the elderly and absentee landowners, illegally imposing fines and restrictions and forcing compliance by processing liens against them. There is no democracy here.

My property was transferred to me in 1979 and I have not developed it. Plans were submitted and approved, but with the economy being what it was (through the 1980s and 1990s), and next to zero growth in the Riviera over the last 20-plus years, I couldn’t afford to build on it.

After the debacle with Mt. Konocti Water Co., it even left a bigger sour taste in the mouths of property owners. The only people who prospered from that endeavor were the attorneys.

There was a glimmer of hope. Younger families began migrating into Kelseyville, and it seemed that there was some positive movement towards cleaning up old dumpy properties and chasing out the less-than-desirable characters that inhabited Kelseyville proper. A new grammar school was built two blocks below my property, and I saw hope. The property values jumped exponentially and it was time to build.

Then came the crash. Sept. 11, 2001. Within one year, the market began to decline and the insurgence of new blood all but dried up. Property vales began to stagnate, and sales and purchases began a steady decline.

Two years ago, my little chunk of land in the Riviera was fetching a price over $60,000. Yet now I can’t even hope to list it for more than $25,000 – and then there’s the lien, which prevents me from being able to sell anything.

Add in Allied Trust, and the tyrannical Riviera Association.

Right around the time the Riviera began to see some positive growth, the board saw fit to start charging folks late fees and assessments and aggressively pursuing homeowners for ridiculous demands such as the removal of a carport (that was part of the permanent structure) to the clearing of properties. In my opinion, this was done to do nothing more than fatten the board members' coffers, and the community as a whole saw no benefit.

Without proper notices on property “assessments” from the Riviera Association, I received a threatening collection notice from Allied Trust for more than $3,000 for past due Riviera fees and of course a 50 percent-plus collection fee attached. Like a fool, I settled the matter. I had to borrow money to bail my property out of a lien status, and it took the agency months and me constantly requesting them to produce the completed filing, to actually acquire the recorded lien release.

In short, I allowed the Riviera to bully me out of fear. They won, and I’m out thousands.

Then the real problems began.

I began receiving notices from the Riviera Associatioin that all lots had to be “cleared to a park-like setting” and they provided a list of “recommended contractors” who would clear properties for astronomical prices. I smelled a rat. This was the first. I checked it out, and called several of the “approved” vendors, and was amazingly quoted very similar price structures from each. I began to think that they had a deal with the board, and kickbacks were being given to listed vendors. Although I cannot substantiate the claims, there was talk that this had in fact occurred.

I, at one point, found an independent vendor (out of town) who said they would gladly do it for approximately $500 less than the quoted prices for approved vendors. He, too, also believed that the landowners we being bamboozled by the board.

As if this wasn’t enough, I started receiving notices from the Riviera board that noncompliance of lot clearing would result in a fine of $125. I contacted the Riviera Association and began asking questions. They were many times downright rude and abrasive, and refused to answer questions. I tired to negotiate with them. I took several days off of work to personally meet the members of the board and review activity within the Riviera, and somehow, the office was always closed, or they were unavailable.

The minute I began to question the ethics of the board, their attitude changed and they became more aggressive and threatening. They told me my property was now designated a “fire hazard,” and shortly thereafter that I began receiving notices in the mail, that I was being fined $125 for the “fire hazard,” and if I cleared the lot, and until I cleared the lot, I would continue to be fined. They said I could attend a hearing, which meant taking more time off work, to deal with these felonious charges. I chose to address the board in a letter. Their response was to send me a letter that stated the fines would not be lifted, and increased to $250. Clearly, this was purely retaliatory in nature, and meant as an in-your-face tactic to bully me.

At this point, I began to demand accountability. One, to produce a signed copy of the CCRs and bylaws, and two, to prove to me that all members of the Riviera had similar fines. They refused on both parts, and continued to send me fines. Every attempt I made to resolve the issue was met with resistance and more fines. They have now employed the use of Allied Trust to further harass me.

I contacted the California Department of Forestry, which I believe is the governing body for the Kelseyville area, to ascertain if, in fact, my property had been deemed a “fire hazard.” The chief I spoke with said that there had not been a fire, and no properties within the Clear Lake Riviera had been tagged for fire hazard. I questioned further if the Riviera Association had the authority to designate a property “fire hazard.” “No,” they do not. Further, there haven’t been any significant fires in the Riviera, period.

As my property, and a majority of the hillside has been undeveloped for over 25 years, it seems to me that we would be destroying the natural habitat, and it seemed senseless to change the trail of the deers, quails, etc., for no reason. There is, I believe, a green belt directly behind the end of Bel Air East/West, in which everything remains in it’s natural state. As an environmentally aware person, it seemed senseless to destroy the natural surroundings, and if and when I was to build, great care would be taken to make sure that the natural wildlife would not come to any harm, and be disturbed as little as possible.

In short, I started doing research on the Web, and discovered there may be many more people, many of which are retired seniors, who are in a similar boat as I.

John Stoddard, and his colleagues belong to We the People, which I understand is an organization established to represent the owners of the Riviera properties. I gladly lend my voice to them, as we cannot fight the tyrannical association and its cronies without help.

I would encourage all residents and owners of the Clear Lake Riviera to band together and stand up to the egregious claims and fines levied by the current board.

Talk to any real estate agent in the surrounding area. Property values in the Riviera have plummeted, and lots are just not selling.

The current board has done nothing for the Riviera community to improve this situation. All they have done is generate false charges, harass senior citizens and landowners, and cast a disparaging light on the future of the community as a whole. I once thought this would be a great place to retire. I’ve changed my mind.

I suggest we contact the plaintiff’s attorney in the Mt. Konocti Water Co. debacle, and see if they would represent the Riviera landowners in a class action lawsuit. I know personally that I can’t afford to hire an attorney, and I doubt many senior citizens are in any better shape. We need help. The Riviera community needs the help of someone greater.

Barbara Betz lives in San Jose.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)