OK – so the Sierra Club Complains about any development, but this one is special. Doug Ose was taking direct action on behalf of his father’s land interests in Natomas…

Bob Matsui and Doug Ose were so well connected that Ose refused to allow Matsui’s sacrifical lamb opponent – Ken Payne – to be photographed with him in 1998. Payne is a current member of the Placer GOP Committee.

Why didn’t Ose have Wally Herger take the lead on this? Herger is right next door in Sutter County – only about 10 miles away and Herger who never endorses anyone endorsed Ose. Seems like those two are pretty tight.

Take a look at the end of this where the attorney representing the opponents of expanding Natomas Development lit into Ose. It seems that Enlow Ose owns 1,118 acres right in the affected area.

Of further note are the BONDS that were passed to pay for infastucture development. Will further investigation show that Ose campaigned for those bonds as well? Bonds used to pay for infastructure for development on daddy’s land, a sweet deal that should keep the developer fees nice and low!

This is not a debate over how wrong the Sierra Club is or their opposition to development of any kind, rather it is a debate over Ose’s motives for doing what he did.

This should also give you pause as the levees, also a subject of this contraversy were downgraded effective 5/1/2008 and development in Natomas is effectively being halted.

Why is Ose running to get back into Congress again?

Take a look at this article from 2002 -

Copyright 2002 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Sacramento Bee (California)
January 23, 2002 Wednesday
HEADLINE: Matsui, Ose urge action on Natomas plan;
Environmentalists accuse lawmakers of interfering in species protection process.

Worried that North Natomas developers will run out of land to build on by summer, city officials recently turned to Sacramento’s two congressmen for help.

City officials and developer representatives met with Reps. Robert Matsui and Doug Ose in late October. They told the lawmakers the federal government was moving too slowly on a revised plan for protecting endangered species in the Natomas basin. The plan is needed before portions of the area can be opened to development.

Matsui and Ose responded with a Dec. 14 joint letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton urging that federal regulators approve a new agreement by May 1.

The lawmakers said further delays could erode the credibility of the habitat conservation plan concept, in which all developers in an area pay a fee to help preserve large blocks of land, rather than simply addressing concerns raised by their individual projects.

Failure to move quickly could “tarnish the image of the HCP program in the eyes of the development community,” the lawmakers warned.

The old Natomas plan was thrown out by U.S. District Judge David F. Levi in January 2001. Levi found that the city’s Habitat Conservation Plan was inadequate to protect two species, the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk, which are listed as threatened by federal and state environmental regulators.

Environmental groups accused the lawmakers of meddling and trying to limit the scope of changes to be made to the previous plan. But Matsui, a Democrat, and Ose, a Republican, say their letter simply represented the legitimate interest of local governments and constituents in their districts.

“We were shocked and dismayed at much of the congressmen’s letter, which made demands that were clearly improper and unethical,” reads a Jan. 21 letter to Matsui and Ose that was signed by representatives of the Sierra Club, the Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk.

These same groups sued the city over the previous habitat conservation plan, causing it to be thrown out.

Their letter points out that Ose’s father, developer Enlow Ose, owns 1,118 acres in North Natomas. The bulk of his land lies outside the city limits and is not immediately eligible for development, but Enlow Ose is seeking eventual permission to build.

Congressman Ose’s spokesman, Yier Shi, dismissed the idea that Ose was pursuing his family’s interests in co-authoring the letter.

“This is not something that’s personally driven; it’s something local government came to him for help with and he complied,” Shi said.

Matsui spokesman Cody Harris pointed out that the city of Sacramento has already issued a substantial amount of bonds – more than $100 million – for North Natomas streets, sewers and other infrastructure. Bond repayments are dependent on developers being able to build.

“The congressman wants to see the habitat conservation plan go through as quickly as possible,” Harris said. “It’s just a win-win for everybody. It makes environmental protection and economic growth compatible.”

In their letter, Ose and Matsui refer to the importance of completing a new plan by the “May 1, 2002 deadline.” But city officials said there was no deadline set by Levi. May 1 is simply the start of the five-month season when developers can grade land.

An interim agreement approved by Levi in May 2001 allowed the city to issue grading permits for 1,668 acres in North Natomas – a move that prevented construction in the rapidly growing area from coming to a halt. But only 600 acres of that allotment remains, said Carol Shearly, the city’s North Natomas manager.

“We will get considerable pressure, come May 1, to issue grading permits,” Shearly said.

At this point, it is unlikely that a new plan can be finalized by May 1, Shearly said. The new plan includes not only the city of Sacramento but also Sutter County, Reclamation District 1000 and the Natomas water district. The parties have just hammered out a preliminary draft of a new agreement that would bring Sutter County – which has big development plans of its own – into the habitat agreement for the first time.

Once the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepts a plan, it must circulate it for public comment for 60 days, and then respond to those comments.

Cay Goude, Sacramento field supervisor for the federal endangered species program, said she is “very hopeful” that a new plan will be approved sometime this summer.

Goude said the letter from Ose and Matsui asks “fair and legitimate questions.”

“The applicants understand we have a large volume of work and they want to make sure we devote our attention to it, which is understandable,” Goude said.

The Bee’s Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com

The letter follows:

The congressmen attempting to dictate the content of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan have committed two serious violations of ethics.

First, the House Ethics Committee ethics manual has “admonished all members to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper action.” Rep. Doug Ose should avoid lobbying the wildlife agency on Natomas Basin issues because close family members, including his father, own 1,118 acres in Natomas.

The congressmen also were pressuring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to violate the National Environmental Protection Act, which prohibits a federal agency from making a decision affecting the environment until after extensive analysis and public review. Surely it is unethical for congressmen to pressure an agency to violate federal law.

The original Natomas Basin Habitat Plan was flunked by the federal court because it failed to provide legally required wildlife protections. The Sacramento community cannot afford another failed plan. Continued legal strife over protection for endangered species is worse than plan delay. The congressmen’s interference has heightened tension and mistrust, roadblocks to building the consensus we need.

-James P. Pachl, Sacramento Legal Counsel, Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk