Doug Ose for Congress

Rico Oller for Congress

California Republican Party

Republican Main Street Partnership

PCRA Weblog

Republican Commentary
for the Masses

OTT: Bruce Kranz Explains His Yes Vote on the PCCP

Posted by Aaron Park on October 03, 2008 at 08:38 PM

This comes courtesy of the Sierra Sun:

Sierra Sun
September 30, 2008

My Turn: Conservation Plan: The Devil is in the details—again!

Bruce Kranz
Placer County Fifth District Supervisor,

Fearing the taking away of property rights in the name of conservation, last year I reluctantly voted to send the Placer County Conservation Plan, back to a city-county task force to answer questions that citizens and I raised.

A year later the county staff inexplicably increased the number of parcels negatively impacted in my district from 295 to 1040. Then the staff added to the dangers of catastrophic wildfires by creating 300- to 660-foot conservation zones in streams.

By notifying property owners and fighting back, this last week, I again reluctantly voted for the plan process to continue on condition the 5th District parcels were removed from the plan. In addition, at my insistence the process will now include the recommendations of CalFire. Staff and members of the Board of the Supervisors also have promised to improve transparency and seek public input.

So what is the problem? As a California State Parks superintendent for 33 years, I created and protected open space. As a county supervisor, I have supported open space at Waddle Ranch in Tahoe area and Hidden Falls Regional Park. However, most of the 5th district is already public land protected by environmental law. Over 75 percent of Placer County is under government ownership.

The Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe quickly spread through a fuel-heavy stream zone acting as a wick. The Angora Fire raged up a canyon loaded with dead, dying, diseased and dense brush and trees. Over 250 families lost their homes and businesses. Recently, the Gladding fire near Lincoln was initially fueled on conservation land off Doty Ravine. An overlay of a CalFire map of the Gladding fire upon a Placer County parcel map shows the Gladding fires, starting at Gladding Road and Merrit Lane, swept through parcel 020-162-022 owned by the Placer Land Trust and overgrown with Medusa and tarweed with no firebreaks. It continued through blackberries in conserved wetlands owners believed they could not touch. This is why I insisted that CalFire participate in the county’s conservation plan process.

The county lacks adequate data and solid science, to prove the existence of the environmental resources on all the parcels designated purple, reserved. Many of the purple painted, reserve, parcels have no vernal pools, no salmon, no blue oaks, and likely none of 34 species. Additional parcels painted blue are twixt and between in a netherland of transitional parcels with uncertain future property use and value.

I believe citizens have a right to know when a government decision may negatively impact their life, liberty or property. County bureaucrats did not notify property owners of meetings on the county conservation plan. At my own initiative, I notified owners in my district, 295 properties in 2007 and 1040 this time. Some property owners were outraged, some in tears and near everyone happy to have been notified.

County planners still assert there will be no impact on property values. We know this is false. The 2007 report said, “the [conservation plan] reserve area (i.e., the ‘purple area’) would be managed in perpetuity as habitat for the covered species.” Clear enough? I believe future rights are threatened to make a living, build new homes and businesses, or give an inheritance to loved ones.

County staff has never answered whether there will be revised restrictions on the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which may impact agriculture. Taking private property, not to build roads, bridges, schools and parks—but to preserve wildlife habitat and to endanger human habitat is wrong. Last year, staff told me ‘trust us, it’ll work out’ and came back with a worse plan. The Sacramento Bee in 2007 said, “frankly we don’t care whether any given landowner is happy with the outcome or not” and calls the plan “revolutionary.”

Year after year county bureaucrats come back to spend other people’s money for projects the taxpayers do not want. The taxpayers voted not to fund Placer Legacy with a sales tax increase in November 2000.

Stay alert to the conservation plan. Make your opinion known. I have worked hard to remove District 5 parcels and to keep people informed and involved as they choose.

—Bruce Kranz is the Fifth District Supervisor for Placer County. He represents North Tahoe, portions of Tahoe’s west shore, the Martis Valley and portions of Donner Summit.

Comments

There are 0 comments on this post. Post yours →

Post a comment

Required fields in bold.

 
Back to Top ↩

-Legal Notice-

Any comments posted on this site are subject to the following terms, which may be changed at any time. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not view this blog. The Placer County Republican Assembly ("PCRA") does not assume any responsibility for any comments or opinions posted on this site or any web site linked to this site. All content expressed herein is just that, expression protected by the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

The opinions expressed herein are only the opinions of the author of that post/comment and may not necessarily be those of the PCRA or its Board of Directors. If you submit content or comments, you agree that the PCRA may reveal your identity and any known personal information about you to any law enforcement agency or government official in the event of legal action arising from postings or comments made by you. The PCRA at its sole discretion may edit, display, delete, transmit or distribute content posted on this site without your permission. However, the PCRA shall not be responsible for controlling or editing any content, nor can the PCRA ensure prompt removal of inappropriate or unlawful content.

You understand that blogs are furnished for entertainment and informational purposes only, and that opinions and comments expressed by its authors are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Freedom of speech is useless without freedom of thought.
- SPIRO AGNEW, speech, Dec. 3, 1969
Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom;
and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.
- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, The New England Courant, Jul. 9, 1722