So there's going to be a subdivision map application to add another 600 connections to a system that's already spilling effluent into the lake?

Registration and Turnout

http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Gover...060308.htm

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Completed Precincts: 52 of 52
Reg/Turnout Percentage
Total Registered Voters 14,349
Precinct Registration 14,349
Precinct Ballots Cast 2,114 14.7%
Absentee Ballots Cast 3,929 27.4%
Total Ballots Cast 6,043 42.1%


Registration and Turnout
REPUBLICAN PARTY
Completed Precincts: 52 of 52
Reg/Turnout Percentage
Total Registered Voters 10,251
Precinct Registration 10,251
Precinct Ballots Cast 1,405 13.7%
Absentee Ballots Cast 2,668 26.0%
Total Ballots Cast 4,073 39.7%


Registration and Turnout
GREEN PARTY
Completed Precincts: 52 of 52
Reg/Turnout Percentage
Total Registered Voters 389
Precinct Registration 389
Precinct Ballots Cast 39 10.0%
Absentee Ballots Cast 64 16.5%
Total Ballots Cast 103 26.5%


Herb like it or not here are the numbers that matter. You can move mountains with a calm vision. A ballot initiative like the one of Costco in Ukiah is a good example.

Education the public is hard as my mention of the Catholic Church.

Many will vote only because of issues they perceive matter to them . Abortion, Guns and taxes.

Need to show in a calm way why large subdivisions are more of a debit on a community than good. Show what your sewar water fee will be. Show the decrease in Police services and Ambulance response time. Show how schools will be overcrowded. But be careful backing a political organization. There are issues that over run the debate, like gay rights and Prop 8 and the Alliance of the LDS and Catholic Church.

A mention of the Sierra Club has the same emotion as the NRA. Try to build a coalition that is not dominated by the exreme groups.

Classic fights like this can be won, but take finesse and one on one arm twisting. I am sure the Corporate types that are paid to put through developments have page by page instructions to get there win.

How did we end up with so many ugly and unhealthy fast food places in Lake. How did we end up with big box stores, cuz the politicians are lobied hard, and most politicians need money the milk of politics and it hard to raise from poor retired folks who can not even tell you the name of the our Governor.

Enough of my ranting, but it is best to reason with everyone and do not make accusations that are in no way true, like your post

"Do you even live in Lake County or are you a spammer from some anti enviormentalist group? "

Herb think before you write. I have an editor - one for syntax and one for the smell test. Not here mind you but in other stuff I write - believe it or not not about politics.

And I have been in Lake my whole life on vacation and now pleasure. I like it here but am not ready to stand in front of Safeway and back a candidate. But I am close. I did that before and can di it again, but will do it right and have never lost anything I backed.

I still don;t really understand the relevance of these numbers to thid discussion. Are you saying that all members of the Democratic or Republican partes or the Catholic Church or NRA etc. will vote uniformly on this particular issue.
I know you took some time to gather these numbers and I appreciate your efforts. I am still not clear why these numbers are a part of this discussion.
I believe for instance people on both sides of any of the wedge issues you mention (gay rights, abortion, gun rights, religion...) can still recognize the economic advantages or disadvantages of a particular local development and vote accordingly.
From a political strategy point of view, I would have no idea how Catholics for instance would vote on Cristallago or why.
I am interested and would like to have a better understanding of the point yo are trying to make. Thanks.

I still don;t really understand the relevance of these numbers to thid discussion. Are you saying that all members of the Democratic or Republican partes or the Catholic Church or NRA etc. will vote uniformly on this particular issue.
I know you took some time to gather these numbers and I appreciate your efforts. I am still not clear why these numbers are a part of this discussion.
I believe for instance people on both sides of any of the wedge issues you mention (gay rights, abortion, gun rights, religion...) can still recognize the economic advantages or disadvantages of a particular local development and vote accordingly.
From a political strategy point of view, I would have no idea how Catholics for instance would vote on Cristallago or why.
I am interested and would like to have a better understanding of the point yo are trying to make. Thanks.

You have a special interest group, Sierra Club in one corner fighting against the developers in the other corner.

The sierra club is 1 or 2 people representing 400 people in an effort to prevent growth.

Lake Counties problems are far greater than this subdivision or the Lowes project. The problem is these same 1 or 2 people representing 400 people are the ones at the forefront in allowing companies into the county that could provide jobs. Sure, the county spends $100s of thousands of dollars doing surveys and promotions to entice business. They are not interested in Lake County because they see the powers being the special interest group of 400 prepared to fight their relocation. Who wants to spend money for lawyers to defend opening a business?


Lake counties business attitude is even less business friendly than the State of CA as a whole.

If this outfit of developers is going to pay for all the requirements on the county books for development then what business is it of anyone what a private land owner does wityh their land?

They are speaking on behalf of the interests of those who oppose unsound developments of all kinds and this one in particular. There are numerous other individuals and groups on both sides of this one.
They have no power other than that they have the donated funds to hire attorneys when the law is in question and they have the ability to rally folks who trust their mission.
No government body makes decisions based solely upon the SC position. but if you have ever been to a meeting where a SC member speaks to an issue, you will note that that their spekers are well educated about the issues and offer plenty of facts and science to back up their positions. In many cases, the governing body ignores them anyway such as the Clearlake City Council on the Lowe's issue, Provinsalia etc. Sometimes they convince decision makers but not that often.
I think you give them more power than they deserve for influencing policy and frinly I wish they had a little more clout than they actually do.
When they do make a difference it is only because they can rally al ot of support from the community or force people to obey the law.

If a developer meets the current requirements set by the feds, state and county what business is it of any person what a private property owner does with their land?

I pointed out the SC because they specialize in shutting down progress. They have 30 plus years of specializing in litigation to prevent progress or American self dependence.
I admit, the SC has a few good things going, like picking up trash in the woods, or along the highway.

Neither you or I know whether there is anything going on backhanded with Lowes or the topic at hand. I have seen inferences there is, but, unless we have proof to where we can involve the Fed district DA we have to play by the rules.

The rules for Lowes involves politicians elected by the public running on an anti lowes or a supervisor with enough nerve to claim they are anti expansion and anti growth in the county. That is the best way to decide things, not by these special interest professional antigrowth groups that burn up taxpayer dollars.

What is wrong in all of this is major growth planning is being decided by a few activists that threaten or involve citizens in long drawn out litigation.

Can you understand the point I am making here?

Catholic Church hammered Kerry for his abortion views. He lost. The Church none to subtlety akin the Sierra Club to those who favor abortion.


They preach and publish there distaste for limiting population through any means.

The teaching are pretty clear
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=5de39106-8a30-46ba-945e-77c06a375aba

Published: November 26, 2007
Save the planet, kill a baby!

Sierra Club joins Planned Parenthood to offer conferences on “Sex and the Environment”


During the first week of November, members of the Sierra Club traversed one end of California to the other for a series of conferences called “Sex and the Environment.” Accompanying them at most of their stops were representatives of Planned Parenthood.

Such conferences were held between Nov. 6 and Nov. 9 in Oakland, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, mostly on university campuses. The “tour,” says the Sierra Club’s web site, was “co-sponsored by International Health Programs of the Public Health Institute, Campus Progress, Global Exchange, as well as Planned Parenthood affiliates and a number of University of California Women's Centers and student groups.”
The 115-year-old Sierra Club, based in San Francisco and founded by California environmentalist John Muir in 1892 to “explore, enjoy and protect the planet,” now declares on its web site: “Sierra Club is a pro-choice organization.”

The November tour was part of the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which states as its mission: “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

The term “reproductive health” has long been understood as a code word for “abortion,” especially in Third World countries where the outright use of the word “abortion” would be politically unwise.

In a question-and-answer section on the Sierra Club’s web site discussing the Population and Environment Program, the group says it has endorsed a 1970 resolution drafted by the group Zero Population Growth. Among the provisions of the resolution: “families should not have more than two natural children,” “state and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and to discourage large families,” “policies, and attitudes that foster population growth or big families, or that restrict abortion and contraception, or that attempt to constrict the roles of men and women, should be abandoned.”

The Nov. 20 alternative weekly Sacramento News&Review reported on one of the Sierra Club/Planned Parenthood “Sex and the Environment” conferences. The conference covered by the weekly was held at the University of California, Davis, and featured a speaker from each organization. Speaking for the Sierra Club was Cassie Gardner. “Gardner’s job was created to address the connection Sierra Club sees between sex and the environment: If you educate women about their reproductive rights, many will choose to have smaller families, which will slow population growth and subsequently slow resource depletion,” the News&Review reported.

But apparently not all students at the conference bought the Sierra Club line, according to the newspaper. “At the close of Gardner’s lecture, an ethical debate erupted,” said the News&Review. “The gender-studies students asked: Is it fair to advocate a curb on population growth in developing countries when the United States uses 25 percent of the world’s resources for 5 percent of the world’s population?”

READER COMMENTS

Save the planet, kill a baby!

Sierra Club joins Planned Parenthood to offer conferences on “Sex and the Environment”


During the first week of November, members of the Sierra Club traversed one end of California to the other for a series of conferences called “Sex and the Environment.” Accompanying them at most of their stops were representatives of Planned Parenthood.

So keep in mind this view of the Sierra Club. It is not all hikes and fun. If the NRA was against this project you would also loose many folks that might have an open mind. Sierra Club is not loved by all, though I am neutral.

So for the anon post above. But remember politics has strange bed fellows.
The anti Sierra Club resonating has a myriad of reasons.
Developed over years.

So how to get over the hurdle, avoid connections to political groups that can be a greater hindrance than
help.

Be non committal. The local Reeps know all about the SC. They vote and hold sway. The SC has not been a help to getting BOS mahority in Lake.

Why. Because like religion folks think they are right. They do not understand changing hearts and minds personally without a t shirt.

My opinion only, but see how this all goes down bet the sub division and Lowes get built.

these special interest groups suggest costly litigation if they do not get their way. Human nature is to avoid conflict so we wind up with a lot of things counter to basic constitutional law.

In a sense, the special interest groups use a quasi eminant domain approach by blocking development with threats.

Like global warming. India is pulling out of the ALGORE Church and calling the UN and the IPPC highly questionble and suspect given the false data. Glaciers, Rainfall estimates, Artic Ice sheets all found to be tweaked by our so called scientists to produce the results government grants wanted. Americans were connned by mega investors like ALGORE, and Soros in a multibillion dollar tax carbon credit scam.

Why do I bring this up? Again the sierra club has its hands in the whole global warming con. Yet we give them credibility to decide local issues. What is wrong with the picture here?

I am not saying that Vbrandon or any other local is culpable, but I am saying the business of the Sierra club is.

Why does the Sierra club get to decide our counties business?

SC "excom", not all of us, supports Guenoc golf course project, but does not support the Cristallago golf course because golf is a "dying thing". So if it is a "dying thing", why would it succeed out in the boondocks for Ed Robey's boondoggle Guenoc project and yet fail in Cristallago, which has 325 resort units and 650 residential units a basis for support..........
please Victoria now that you got us in this mess, answer that.... don't just sit there. it is like you are looking at an endangered animal eating an endangered plant...... we want an answer or maybe it is all about one person???.

The Sierra Club is a "special interest..."
To those who support gun control, the NRA is a "special interest..."
That's how politics work. People with different interests compete for power. Often the ones with the most money win. Groups like the SC and the NRA give individuals without a lot of power a chance to come together and battle against the wealthy and powerful. Litigation only works when the law is on your side.
If a developer "meets all the requirements" as you put it, there are some believe that the people of a community should have a say about how their copmmunity is shaped. The law (CEQUA) actually has provisions to protect communities against "blight" caused by certain kinds of developments. Some may not like this but it is the law.
Political groups of all sorts including the most extreme on both sides are part of the system.
The Sierra Club is just made up of people who have a common vision for the planet.
If you have a different vision, support a group that backs you up.

... the global warming question is settled and we can once again begin spewing out pollution into the air we breathe. After all, Al Gore made a movie about it so it can't be real.
But for some of us polluting the air we breathe is obviously a bad idea. It is scientifically linked to ancer, asthma, emphysema, and a host of other diseases. Whether or not climate change is real (and science certainly does not rule it out by a long shot) there is no doubt that if we keep on spewing poisons into the air, it is to our detriment.
Long before the climate change issue became the center of the debate, the Sierra Club and other groups that saw the wisdom of not fowling our own nest, began the fight to protect our health from those who would compromise it for profit. That fight continues, and those of us who want to see our kids grow up on a healthier and cleaner planet, applaud these volunteers who stand up for us day after day and battle against the polluters, the profiteers and the politicians who would sell us out.

"Sweet Mystaery" [sic] whoever you are, I am so glad that you asked that question. The Guenoc golf course was intended as an adjunct to the primary agricultural business on the property (Langtry thinks it will attract big time wine buyers), included NO residential component, and would require no additional water. Above all, it was compliant with General Plan POLICIES (that's different from designations on individual parcels). Nobody had to argue that it would provide economic benefits to the community as an "overriding consideration" compensating for environmental damage, and the question of its possible economic benefits to the proponents themselves was rightly considered to be their own business.

Cristallago is entirely different: we're being asked to tear the new General Plan into shreds and accept a host of adverse environmental consequences because (supposedly) it's going to boost the economy. Therefore an accurate evaluation of genuine economic impacts is an essential element of a decision on the project.

No idea what the "mess" is that I'm supposed to have "gotten us into," who the "one person" is, where the "dying thing" quote came from, what boondoggle is being referenced, or what Ed has to do with it.

but now I have to hand her a hats off to some fine investigative reporting.

She has documented that every project that could help the economy in Lake county, every building project, and any use of scientific discovery is all being manipulated by a small select group of individuals.

Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, and Lloyd Augustus Hall would have been driven from lake county by this group.

Thank you Lake County news for documenting who the real power brokers in Lake county are.

Dear Miss Victoria
I am sooooo glad you responded as well because it shows the "deviousness"of you and your organization because for the past 5 years you have maintained that golf is dying business and should be replaced by trails, exercise units (must confess I certainly could use it) etc. Now you are justifying the golf course, which is necessary to help the wines sales... WOW, I always wondered if in business vs math that a "double negative" would create a positive.... sounds like “voodoo” economics to me. Oh yes the innocence of criticizing Cristallago for Prime Ag, which incidentally the GP shows none... and Ed Robey's project has tons for the golf course......hello Victoria earth to Pluto...Speaking of the GP, you remember the one that you supported, the one that has 800 units for the Guenoc golf course, which makes that project twice the size of Middletown and it is out in the "boondocks". WOW, that was really hard to uncover, let's see.....if we support a golf course on "prime" ag land and then separately approve the GP FOR THE 800 UNITS, you would have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out. So now that your very "devious" method of "piecemealing" a project, which is illegal, has been exposed. Do you to intend to come "clean" or are you purposely dumping one of your more reasonable and logical members at her next election.

Denise, jump, jump, the ship is going down very fast!!!!!!

Local Sierra Clubs always try to play politics..............results always the same... the good members get hurt! Hummm, wonder who that “one person” is…. Sherlock, Sherlock come quickly!!

She cited: No change in general plan or zoning, and whether the Guenoc golf course makes it economically or not is of no consequence to enyone but the investors themselves whereas, the Cristallago golf course is being touted as the justififation to taxpayers for huge enviromental impacts.
Whether you agree or not, that shouldn't be too hard to understand. So why accuse anyone of being devious or whatever? Just say: "I am in favor of this project and you're not..."
Simple, respectful and grown up.

How depressing to read the rants of Bearer and others who think that SC is a special interest for trying to save them from higher taxes and reduced quality of life. Meanwhile the developers represent "progress" to the remote controled minds. Cobbmt even mentioned a list of issues that are used to distract us from the manipulations of the representatives of the rich. That isn't to say that those arn't important issues, but a thoughtful person should see the manipulation of them to obscure the theft of our resources and our economic slice of the pie.

Take Cristallago for example. Cliches are thrown mercilessly; "growth is good" and all that rot. Bottom line; we trash our general plan, provide pristine land, and offer to subsidize the services for an out of town development so that we can gain some new residents, not because we have the need or capacity for them, but rather because some developers want to play us for fools.

And the fools line up on cue. "The Sierra Club is a special interest", "growth is good", "you can't stop progress" and all the other thought substitutes.

Democracy requires that enough of us own our minds. Thats why it's not working. Welcome to higher fees and taxes to subsidize wealthy out of county developers.

Herb, appreciate a lot of your comments, but this is typical of the SC throwing around these statements and no backup.
Please list just the three that are insignificant and unavoidable???? Because traffic impacts are acknowledged to be, and are part of the record, shown to be overstated by 30% and the residential vacancy rate used was 5% and the County's vacancy rate has been 27-28% for the last 30+ years. Since your inquiry can you explain how the SC can support the Guenoc Project and not Cristallago? When they supported the GP Amendment in 2008 that permits 800 homes to be built?

Thanks, your humble public servant

Further information Want more? Browse data sets for Lake County
People QuickFactsLake CountyCalifornia
Population, 2008 estimate 64,86636,756,666
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 11.2%8.5%
Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 58,30933,871,650
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2008 5.7%7.4%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2008 21.6%.5%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2008 16.2.2%
Female persons, percent, 2008 50.6P.0%

White persons, percent, 2008 (a) 89.8v.6%
Black persons, percent, 2008 (a) 2.4%6.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2008 (a) 3.4%1.2%
Asian persons, percent, 2008 (a) 1.3.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2008 (a) 0.2%0.4%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2008 2.9%2.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 15.76.6%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 75.5B.3%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 51.9P.2%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 6.6&.2%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 10.29.5%
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 77.3v.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 12.1&.6%
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 16,2885,923,361
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 29.127.7

Housing units, 2008 35,24313,393,878
Homeownership rate, 2000 70.6V.9%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 5.21.4%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $122,600$211,500

Households, 2000 23,97411,502,870
Persons per household, 2000 2.392.87
Median household income, 2007 $38,113$59,928
Per capita money income, 1999 $16,825$22,711
Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 16.4.4%
Business QuickFactsLake CountyCalifornia
Private nonfarm establishments, 2007 1,239891,9971
Private nonfarm employment, 2007 10,67313,771,6501
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2007 12.2%6.9%1
Nonemployer establishments, 2007 4,3912,757,179
Total number of firms, 2002 4,6022,908,758
Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 2.2%3.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 F1.3%
Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 F12.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 F0.2%
Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 S14.7%
Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 31.2).9%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000) NA378,661,414
Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000) D655,954,708
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000) 423,825359,120,365
Retail sales per capita, 2002 $6,806$10,264
Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) 40,75755,559,669
Building permits, 2008 15062,681
Federal spending, 2008 599,910299,922,6301
Geography QuickFactsLake CountyCalifornia
Land area, 2000 (square miles) 1,257.96155,959.34
Persons per square mile, 2000 46.4217.2
FIPS Code 03306
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Clearlake, CA Micro Area