Entire Column

Judicial matters: Wonder when we’re going to get some local comment on a very recent decision handed down from the Ninth Appellate.

The ruling came in Lands Council v McNair where the justices, sitting en banc, unanimously ruled to limit judicial oversight in forest remediation projects. The decision also grants federal wilderness managers much more leeway in implementing such projects.

Naturally, the so-called environmentalists will appeal this decision, but allow me to point out a judicial fact.

In the history of the Ninth Circuit, it has never heard — much less overturned — an appeal to one of its own unanimous en-banc (all of the justices sitting) decision.

Blogger’s Comments – It is about dammed time a court recognized that the Sierra Club has been suing for years advocating a hand’s off forest policy whose disastrous results were borne out in this years’ unbelievable wildfire season.

Hat tip to Jim Ruffalo – oh, and he actually provided some balance to the AJ’s pimping for Jennifer Montgomery – writing: Burning questions: And while we’re on the subject of elected offices, allow me to request that one and all keep an eye out for Jennifer Montgomery, the other candidate for the District 5 Supervisorial seat.

For weeks now, she’s been promising me a sit-down interview session, but even when we’re in the same room — as was the case a few weeks ago at Meddlers — she somehow disappears when the pen and notebook appear.

Even her top handler, Rob Haswell, as been working hard to get us together.

But being the political junkie that I am, I fully understand the rigors of waging political warfare. Even in the best of times, one loses all track of time.

I’m sure she’s not ducking me and remain just as convinced that she really wants to answer the hard questions. For example, I’d love to query her as to where she really stands on the question of opening burning.

Does she want to ban any open flame in the foothills, as she told the League of Women Voters, or is she foresquare for a property owner’s right to torch trash and slash, as she was quoted in the Aug. 19 Sierra Sun?

Such confusion can easily be sorted out by means of a quick interview, and I’m sure she’ll get back to me. Probably no later than that crucial first week of December. ...

Blogger’s Note – Jennifer Montgomery is vigorously supported by the Sierra Club.

SB 375 is a Sierra Club endorsed brainchild of Darrell Steinberg. Like most issues, Charlie Brown has yet to take a stand – but Charlie’s Friends Jennifer Montgomery and the Sierra Club love this Bill.

SB 375 would centralize planning, basically screwing over Suburbs in an effort to force development back to city centers. What is sinister is that SB 375 could allow School Bond money to be taken away from districts as well. That’s correct, even if Measure Q passes – SB 375 could allow the State to raid the bond money because of how it is written.

While Brown chides McClintock for not doing his job – McClintock did his job, setting Steinberg and others who are promoting this partial birth abortion of land-use on fire. Not bad for a SoCal politician that doesn’t know where Placer County is… huh?

SB 375 – Steinberg
Urban Cores

Mr. President:

The Orange County Register summed up this bill very accurately when it asked, “Want to live in a condo by the train tracks?”

Some people do, and they’re welcome to. But most people – particularly those with families – want a yard for their kids to play in; they want a lawn and a garden; they want a little distance between themselves and their neighbor.

And in a free society, people have that choice. Those who want to live in a condo by the train tracks can do so and those who want to live in a quiet, tree-shaded neighborhood can do so.

And government once respected these individual choices and provided the infrastructure to accommodate them.

What rankles the left is that most people prefer the quiet, tree-shaded neighborhood. That’s why they move to the suburbs – so that they can enjoy what the left now scoffs at – what we used to call “the American dream.”

Under this legislation, the “American Dream” of raising your kids with a back-yard and swing-set and a barbecue and a little elbow-room is to be replaced with something the liberals are calling the “Preferred Growth Scenario.”

And let’s be clear on what they mean by “Preferred Growth Scenario.” It isn’t about your preferences for your own life. They’re talking about their preferences for your own life. And for your family’s life.

They prefer that you move into dense urban cores – and they are prepared to manipulate public policy and misuse government authority to force you to do so.

What is this brave new world? It is very precisely defined by this politburo edict as a density of 20 families per acre living a half-mile from a busy transit corridor. (That’s roughly three and a half times the population density of San Francisco).

If you comply, you’ll be rewarded with streamlined regulations that are otherwise stifling development and a cornucopia of tax revenues taken from those who don’t choose this Brave New Preferred Growth Scenario.

This says to the millions of Californians who have rejected this lifestyle: “Tough. We know what’s better for you and your family than you do.”

This says to the millions of voters who have supported one bond measure after another: “Tough. You are not going to receive the proceeds of your taxes unless you conform to this Brave New Preferred Growth Scenario. The money that you thought you had voted for highway construction under this bill will instead be used for so-called transit villages, or more accurately, dense condominiums next to a train track.”

I’m curious to find out how many of the elitists who vote for this measure have actually made that choice for their own families. I suspect very few.

This bill is the ultimate victory of bureaucratic central planning over individual freedom of choice. Apparently, the sponsors believe that it worked so well in the old Soviet Union that we ought to give it a try here.

Mark me down as skeptical.

OBM Machine = Obama-Brown-Montgomery

Check out Barak Obama’s Comments on his ‘faith’

Hmmm… the Auburn Journal has made sure that everyone knows that Bruce Kranz is a Republican with ties to (gasp) John Doolittle… (What Republican in Placer County is not tied to John Doolittle, even Ted Gaines is!)

One only need to take a cursory look back at some recent history to see that Jennifer Montgomery is an accomplished political activist. Good for her – she is just on the wrong team.

However – the stories I am linking to are from the Sierra Sun, not the Auburn Journal. Why is the Auburn Journal behind the rest of the local media with their coverage of Montgomery’s Democrat Party ties?

Monty talks about supporting Charlie Brown in a letter 10/30/2006

Monty and ‘Republican’ Joanne Neft were at a fund-riaser for Charlie Brown 10/05/2007

Monty found her way into the local Media again, Pro-Obama locals prepare for convention

Of interest in today’s Obama Convention article is this excerpt – “Convincing Nevadans to vote Democratic may not be as difficult as years past if the swing state follows a trend that has transpired in what was once a predominately Republican Placer County, said Rob Haswell, campaign manager for Fifth District supervisor challenger Jennifer Montgomery.

“There has been a resurgence in Democratic activity in Placer County,” Haswell said. “The number of people registering Democratic in the first quarter of this year was pretty astounding for the Republican-dominated county.”

Earlier this month, nearly 200 onlookers attended the reopening of the Democratic Party headquarters in Auburn, which hadn’t opened its doors in nearly a decade, said Haswell, whose vote is driven by Obama’s economic and environmental concepts.

In the first quarter of 2008, more people registered as Democrats in Placer County than any other affiliation, pushing Republican registration below 50 percent for the first time in a decade, according to a Placer County Democratic Party press release.

“It’s going to be a historic year in many ways,” Haswell said. “I think this county and this country are ready to embrace Obama’s message of change.”

Blogger’s Notes – The Placer GOP has out-registered every other County in California for New Republicans.

Haswell and his friends are in for a rude surprise. Placer County is ready for change – and change is what they are getting, an activist Central Committee willing to stand up and take on the establishment when they endorsed Tom McClintock, and energized Central Committee that is crushing the rest of the state in registration.

Placer County will keep continuing the economic progress of Placer County by re-electing Bruce Kranz.

Why is Montgomery qualified to be supervisor? All I have heard is her supporters making absurd comments and opposing fire summits…

The Editor’s culpability for the Auburn Journal’s horrid record on reporting crime

Source Documents

Well chronicled on these blogs has been Deric Rothe’s single-minded rampage against anything Republican in Placer County. Another pattern emerged as well with regard to the Auburn Journal’s spotty record on reporting crime.

It included trying and convicting John Doolittle, even though the now 4 1/2 year old investigation has yielded nothing. The Auburn Journal refused to report about the fact that all of Doolittle’s staff whose Subpoenas were front-page news months ago have now been withdrawn.

It also includes the white-washing of Emil John Vodonick. When Mike Spence broke the story about how Vodonick is one step away from losing has law license – the Auburn Journal received an advance copy of the story from Spence.

They called Vodonick and allowed him a pre-emptive comment. Vodonick characterized the severe penalty for misappropriating $53,000 of client’s money as a “failure to pay client’s fees”. To a layperson, that is felony embezzlement. Why didn’t the AJ care to go into any detail about the judgement against Vodonick in So Cal either?

Blogger’s Note: Vodonick is a registered Republican, but a professed Tom McClintock / John Doolittle hater. Maybe he is related to Joanne Neft?

Before these latest examples of bias, I started to wonder why the Auburn Journal was particularly obsessed with Bruce Kranz. Kranz is former law enforcement, and the Journal was trying to tar and feather Bruce with Michelle Ollar-Burris. Ollar-Burris was investigated and no charges were filed, so now the County is suing her.

What did Kranz have to do with it? She was one of dozens of appointments he made to various boards and committees. God forbid I ever hire an employee who gets investigated. The Auburn Journal will post on it Five times a week!

When Rothe posted an editorial trashing three strikes, it hit me. Rothe is completely disinterested in Crime unless unless reporting on it damages Republicans. Otherwise, Rothe could care less about Crime at all.

WHY?

I think Deric Rothe’s antipathy toward reporting crime has a personal Genesis.

Case Number 86436 8/18/1988 xref 1446198 Rothe Deric Evan – Count C001 HS 11351 severity: Felony, Count C002 PC 182(1) severity: Felony.

On 10/18/1988 Rothe pled guilty to count c001 Charge violation of HS 11351 a Felony. HS 11351 is used to try and convict drug dealers… usually those dealing in Cocaine or their derivatives. (It is also used for Heroin as well)

On 1/17/1989 Rothe was sentenced to 2 years in State Prison for drug trafficking.

On 1/28/1990 Rothe was released from Duel Correctional Facility on Parole after serving 360 days in State Prison.

On October 17th, 2003 – Rothe was granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation. This could mean that Rothe had his civil rights restored at that time. I have been unable to determine if Rothe was pardoned as the certificate recommends to the Governor that the named person on the Certificate be Pardoned.

Given the fact that Rothe has a strike (unless he was fully pardoned), no wonder why he opposes three strikes.

The infuriating thing for this blogger is that Rothe who looks to have been pardoned is using his paper to try and convict John Doolittle and Bruce Kranz.

At the same time, they wink at Kevin Ramirez’ shenanigans, ignore potential violations of Grand Jury law by Bill Martin and whitewash Emil Vodonick’s pilfering of $53,000 from a client. Roger Yohe running Western Placer into the ground, nope, a hero’s goodbye for that Ramirez associate, too.

But wait – there’s more… to be continued…

Source Documents

Well chronicled on these blogs are the all-star team that Jennifer Montgomery has accumulated. Montgomery’s all-stars are salivating over the prospect of toppling Bruce Kranz.

The Auburn Journal will be there every step of the way, how? they report very little on Jennifer Montgomery. Why? Because when Jennifer Montgomery speaks, she loses votes.

Her All-Star team is the leading edge, but Montgomery in her own right has a few things to say about growth.

This article about Royal Gorge was the first shot. Montgomery says she is not opposed to development, but proceeds to go on a rampage over the next couple of years against Royal Gorge. In fact, the Auburn Journal was right there every step of the way trying to tar and feather Bruce Kranz with it.

Amazing considering this story from the Sierra Sun says nothing about Kranz or any other Republican being involved in the purchase of that Ski Resort.

Two years later – here is Montgomery showing her NIMBY side

The Royal Gorge project is about as green as they come, but here is Montgomery predicting the end of the world if it is built. Since Montgomery lives in Serene Lakes – one wonders if her motivation is environmental or just simple keep people out of my backyard.

The Coup d’etat – the Montgomery supporter with the Tourists Go Home letter, pretty much sums up Montgomery’s campaign the best

The best excerpt from the man’s letter says, “Bruce’s continued acceptance of financial support from the development and tourism industries (see www.placerco.ca and the Sierra Sun’s My Turn column of April 30) undoubtedly places him in the uncomfortable position of trying to keep his principal financial supporters happy at the expense of his constituents in District 5.”

When you couple this with the Sierra Club Support and their own antipathy for property rights – the Montgomery Agenda starts to become very clear.

By Meera Beser, In this the “information age” we are suffering from a massive amount of disinformation. I personally find it interesting and infuriating that the press is so involved in making sure the community is lied to, and abused by, people who seem to have have a very deep, hidden agenda. Could we work on printing some truth for awhile even if it is uncomfortable and controversial?

Did you know that when Bruce Kranz voted for the four lanes he had the support of a majority of Kings Beach business owners (not necessarily property owners) as well as the residents on the grid? Did you know that Caltrans prefers the four-lane alternative in terms of safety for pedestrians, accessibility and traffic control, as does the Federal Highway Commission? Did you know that Placer County Sheriff’s Department and the North Tahoe Fire Protection District prefer the four-lane alternative in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety, and the ability to provide emergency services throughout the Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista and Crystal Bay area?

Did you know that the Washoe County Sheriff in Incline Village, Nevada also prefers the four-lane alternative having determined by independent study, that the two-lane alternative will create a deadly gridlock situation in emergency evacuation situations such as the Angora Fire?

Did you know that your very own elected senator, Dave Cox, requested Placer County to vote for a four-lane alternative due to the traffic issues?

Did you know that both the two-lane and the four-lane alternatives provide the required water quality improvements in Kings Beach? And that even if there is no project Placer County is mandated to install sidewalks, curbs, gutters and storm drains. So that even a “no project” vote would thereby fulfill those same water quality issues?

Did you know that the four-lane project will solve all the existing problems without creating more unsolvable problems?

If not then you need to know that the above statements are true and verifiable. Since both the four-lane alternative and the “no project” alternative fulfill the environmental threshold issues, and the four-lane alternative fulfills the “needs and purposes” of the environmental impact report/environment impact statement then there is no absolutely no basis for a vote of “overriding consideration”.

A vote of overriding consideration regarding the four separate “serious and unavoidable consequences” would be necessary to go forward with the two-lane alternative. It makes it even more apparent that Placer County has hidden agenda in the vote for a two-lane alternative. It is very important that you pay attention to this fact.

If there is an alternative brought forth in the EIR/EIS, which provides solutions to the threshold issues and to the needs and purposes of the EIR/EIS then there is no basis for a vote of overriding consideration.

This issue isn’t about Supervisor Kranz behaving badly, in fact, he is doing the right thing on all levels, it would be nice if Placer County staff and supervisors would do the right thing as well.

This is a Link to the Sierra Sun for Attribution

Jennifer Montgomery has assembled an all-star team. (OBM = Obama/Brown/Montgomery)

Remember the angry white male who’s angry that while males ‘rule’ Placer County?

How about the deranged blogger who suggests that Placer County is Occupied territory?

Of Course there is the ‘Republican community leader’ who has a pedigree of Democrat activism

They all have to aspire to a leader…

Jennifer Montgomery long before her all-star team was assembled was issuing a thesis for how she intends to lead Placer County. She wrote a diatribe in a local paper dated 8/30/2005.

She asked several questions of the President.

I’d like to pick a few.

Question 18 – Mr. President, why won’t you meet with Cindy? (Sheehan)

Question 19 – Mr. President, what is the “Noble Cause”?

Question 11 – Mr. President, you’ve compared the War on Terror to WWII. But by the time we had been involved in WWII this long, Hitler had killed himself, Tojo had surrendered, and the Allies had won. In the current War on Terror, Bin Laden is a free man, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan due to our troop withdrawal there, and terrorists are gaining experience in Iraq that they are taking to other countries. Do you have any comment on that?

Question 7 – Mr. President, you say that we must stay the course in Iraq to finish what we started and honor the memory of the fallen. Are you aware that this rationalization was given 30 years ago as a reason why we should stay in Vietnam?

Blogger’s Notes – This is one of many letters by Jennifer Montgomery that keep a tally of the fallen in Iraq. she consistently a la Jane Fonda celebrates American dead.

Unfortunately for her, the corner has been turned and Iraq as an issue is sliding down the political food chain.

What this letter does do is lets a Conservative County see inside the mind of a Partisan Liberal who was all to eager to highlight fallen troops and compare Iraq to Vietnam.

I have yet to see Jennifer Montgomery demonstrate any sort of experience that qualifies her for office other than the fact that she is a political operative. This letter to the editor also displays some incredibly twisted logic.

Earlier, I blogged about Taumas Colliver – he of the Placer County is Ruled by White, Male Republicans and the crazy anon blogger talking about Occupied Placer County. Well, the all-star team just added another to their roster.

Who is Joanne Neft?

Joanne Neft purports to be a lifelong Republican. She is purported to be a close associate of Liberal Republican Supervisor Robert Weygant.

Joanne Neft has never given a dime to the Placer County Republican Party in the entire time I have been involved with it.

Neft wrote Liberal Democrat Jennifer Montgomery a $1500 check, as reported on Montgomery’s 6/30 form 460.

Neft wrote Charlie Brown a check for $1,627 in 2006.

Now Republican Joanne Neft is up to her old tricks. After supporting and lending her name to the attempted recall of two Republican members of Sierra College’s Board of Trustees – she is a “leader” in the Save Sierra College effort to elect Liberal Democrat activists to that board.

In 2002, Neft was part of the Placer County Republican Congress slate of Liberal Republicans that formed to attempt the takeover of the Central Committee. They were also active in supporting John Doolittle’s primary opponent, Bill Kirby. This was pre-Abramoff – Doolittle won with 78% of the vote.

Neft is involved with the Sierra Club and like organizations.

In 2002, Neft authored the John Doolittle coloring book – that may have been a violation of Campaign Finance Laws, but nevertheless was replete with attacks against John for supporting Hunters, Gun Rights, Development and Tax Cuts.

In 2006, Neft was part of Now-Democrat former Congressman Pete McCloskey’s effort to weaken John Doolittle in the primary called “Revolt of the Elders”. Again, their mailer was replete with Environmentalist attacks.

Neft has never endorsed or supported Bruce Kranz, she supported Liberal Democrat Rex Bloomfield.

Neft has never endorsed or supported Ted Gaines in the time I have been active.

Neft has never endorsed or supported John Doolittle – and I won’t hold my breath waiting for her to support McClintock either.

Now – Save Sierra College is bragging about Bi-partisan support of “Community Activists”…

Neft has a right to her opinions. As a Republican activist, I have a right to call her a fraud. She certainly fits the mold of the OBM Machine.

This is an informative piece from the Sierra Club – who has endorsed Jennifer Montgomery (whose letters to the editor oppose development and tell tourists to go home…) and the Sierra Club Endorsed Charlie Brown in 2006.

OBM Machine = Obama / Brown / Montgomery

From the Chair: by Marilyn Jasper

Link to Web Page (Click on the “From the Chair” button to find the source of this post.)

Blogger’s Note: Marilyn Jasper is Presidnet of the Mother Lode Sierra Club – The “Placer Group” (commune) are active in the Montgomery for Supervisor / Brown for Congress campaigns.

SO VERY NICE: Our heartfelt thanks to volunteers that helped at the Confluence Festival. Kathy Randazzo, Kathy and Phil Weber, Carol and Chris Love, and Terry Davis warmly greeted the steady flow of folks to our booth. Also, a huge thanks goes to Krista Norieka for all her work on the Chapter’s Awards Party at Claire Tappaan Lodge—what a success that was! Kudos are in order to Caroline Hickson and Millee Livingston who also work steadily behind the scenes.

NOT SO NICE: In our effort to protect the environment and save precious ecological landscapes from destruction, we’ve heard more than one elected representative state that “private property rights” must be upheld. They proclaim that landowners should be “made whole” and suffer no economic losses.

Blogger’s Note: Translation – take their land for eco-mitigation and don’t give them a dime. Nice.

The fallacy of “private property rights” has been carved into our psyches as if it’s a commandment. Ownership rights have turned into property rights and are morphing toward profit rights. From opposing laws and ordinances that govern the use of property, proponents of private property rights now seem to want profit guarantees as well.

Example: You have a right to buy shares of stock, to have private ownership rights in publicly traded companies. You know a good buy when you see one, so you make a major investment. However, if the stock market slips, if values decline, or if the company goes bankrupt, are your speculative losses insured? If you buy land in a speculative venture, does the government provide a FLSIC (Federal Land Speculation Insurance Corporation) as it does for bank deposits?

Blogger’s Note – This is an absurd argument, it sounds a lot like the you can’t support the war unless you have served argument

The right to own property has taken a turn toward a sanctimonious right to an increase in economic “value.” With incredible stealth and duplicity, the concept of private property rights has promoted a subtle “government guarantee” façade with elected officials seemingly afraid to buck land speculators and/or make decisions that are in the public good. Land speculators and developers have done a great job in duping the public with beliefs that their profit margins somehow trump sustainable-life issues, environmental values, and future costs to communities. As elected officials eagerly embrace the profit motive and spin the “private property rights” mantra, they become de facto brokers for speculators even though there is no public mandate to do so.

(Blogger’s Note: Translation – We need more government regulation, stop enterpreneurship – Montgomery for Supervisor.)

We, the public, have been sold a bill of goods as well—that we can do nothing. Wrong. We can do a great deal, but we need to roll up our sleeves and work to right this travesty. We need to take back the right to make land use decisions based on what’s good for communities and future generations and not be blinded or hamstrung by profit propaganda.

Last, even if we buy into the pseudo private property rights concept, look at whose property rights are really being damaged. When new developments diminish air quality, create nightmarish traffic jams, pollute our water sources, and/or bring wildlife to the brink of extinction, haven’t we also lost our right to enjoy our property, to live healthy lives? Speculators complain loudly at any hint of jeopardizing their bottom line; we should be protesting even louder because our basic lifestyle rights have been compromised. To tweak words attributed to the producer of “Sicko,” There is no room for the concept of profits when all life depends upon a healthy environment.

(Blogger’s Note – It is amazing that they whine about pollution and traffic jams when they advocated for making traffic worse in King’s Beach and worsening pollution with idling cars. Also further note the contempt for development and growth… people wonder why California’s Government is so screwed up, these Sierra Club Types run large parts of it.)

The Kool-Aid Award goes to the OBM Machine – (Obama / Brown / Montgomery) How stupid do they think voters are! We all knew that the Obama Energy Plan was a fraud!

This E-mail was sent out to Placer County Democrats by the local Sierra Club Chapter

If you are concerned about Sen Obama’s position on offshore drilling, you must read the statement below from the Sierra Club.

The sender wrote the following preface:

Some Obama supporters have been concerned about the Senator’s recent statements concerning offshore oil drilling. Below is a Sierra Club memo to Club staff and volunteers explaining the Senator’s positions on energy. If you think it would be of value to circulate it to your Dem list, please feel free to do so.

To: Field and activists
FR: David Willett and Athan Manuel
RE: Update on offshore drilling and Obama

Last Friday, Senator Obama released a statement concerning proposed legislation from a bipartisan group of Senators that includes opening some areas to off-shore driling. He also made comments to the Palm Beach Post that some have interpreted as going further than the written statement in
support for drilling. Finally, Obama is giving a major speech in Michigan today on his energy policy. Some in the media are attempting to portray a major shift in Obama’s policies, but a closer look reveals that his statements were consistent with his existing policy. The biggest shift Obama is making today is calling for the opening of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—something Nancy Pelosi has been calling for for weeks and which
the Sierra Club has supported.

Key points for reference On Obama’s Energy Plan.

Senator Obama has strong positions and an excellent record on energy and environmental issues. His new plan released today prioritizes efforts that will benefit working families instead of the outdated fossil fuel industries. Like the Sierra Club, Senator Obama supports creating millions of jobs by investing in the cleanest technologies to meet our energy needs and stimulate our economy. Senator Obama’s mix of short and long term measures includes key goals like a windfall profits tax on Big Oil to pay for immediate consumer relief, a comprehensive and science-based plan for tackling global warming, increased fuel economy standards, a renewable energy standard, and more energy efficiency.

Senator McCain’s Energy Policy instead focuses on the wrong priorities. Instead of helping move America off oil, expanding our energy options or investing in a clean energy future that will create jobs our nation desperately needs, John McCain is offering more of the same policies that have devastated our economy but which are demanded by Big Oil who has given McCain more than $2 million. McCain’s plans won’t give consumers relief, but they will mean more profits for the oil companies and a third term for Bush energy policies that have benefitted the wealthy and powerful special interests and left ordinary families behind.

On Drilling:

1. As the Palm Beach Post points out, there was no new position or change in policy in Senator Obama’s statements about the legislative proposal, “Obama has always said that he supports expanded drilling in existing open
areas, which include offshore areas. His campaign figures there are 68 million acres currently open that are not being drilled on by oil companies. He opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the outer continental shelf.” In his speech today, Obama said specifically, “We should invest in the technology that can help us recover more from existing oil fields, and speed up the process of recovering oil and gas resources in shale formations in Montana and North Dakota; Texas and Arkansas and in
parts of the West and Central Gulf of Mexico.”

2. While open to drilling in existing areas, Obama actually prioritizes ending Big Oil’s tax breaks, while investing in fuel-effient cars and wind, solar and biofuels. He also states, “I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling
decisions based on science and fact.”

3. Obama’s energy plan does include some drilling, specifically the 68 million acre “use it or lose it” proposal that has already been outlined in Congress and defeated by Republicans. His speech also discussed increased production in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico where drilling already occurs. And there is also discussion in his plan of production of oil and gas from shale. The Sierra Club Board of Directors has created a task force to develop Sierra Club’s position on fracturing on shale for gas production.

4. As both Barack Obama and T Boone Pickens have said, we can’t drill our way out of this problem. Drilling our coasts would do nothing to reduce gas prices for the average American family—it would only line the coffers of the oil industry, which raked in more than $50 billion in profits in just the past three months alone. More offshore drilling is not a short-term fix. It would take at least a decade to bring new leases into production, and twenty years for them to reach peak production. With less than 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the oil would amount to a drop in the bucket on the world market and would have a negligible effect on gas prices, if any at all.

*Statement from Friday available from www.barackobama.com
Chicago, IL – Below is a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the ‘Gang of Ten Bipartisan Energy Plan’ to Reduce Gas Prices and Break our Addiction to Foreign Oil:

“For too long, partisan gridlock and special interest influence has blocked progress on some of the most urgent challenges facing the American people, and that is especially true when it comes to our energy crisis. That is why I welcome today’s bipartisan effort as an important step in the process of reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and why I look forward to September’s bipartisan energy summit.

“Today’s announcement includes many of the policies I’ve been fighting for during my time in the Senate and over the course of this campaign. It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels.

“Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven’t always supported. I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.

“But I’ve always believed that finding consensus will be essential to solving our energy crisis, and today’s package represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning. In the coming days, I’ll be laying out additional steps I believe we must take to bring down gas prices for good and truly free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil.”

I had a look at Montgomery’s campaign filing from the 6/30 cutoff and a few more names popped out…

George Beland – Former D-3 Supervisor

Jan Christofferson – Former County Executive Officer that was replaced by current CEO Tom Miller

Terry Davis – Staff Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Mother Load Chapter (notice Montgomery listed him as a self-employed landscaper) http://motherlode.sierraclub.org/committee.html

Blogger’s note: I sure got a kick out of Terry Davis being listed as a self-employed landscaper. I need to fix my front and back yards. I should ask him for a bid.

Steve Kastan – Former D-5 Supervisor Rex Bloomfield’s Field Representative for the Tahoe area

Dave Mackenroth – Former Candidate for D-3 Supervisor

Don Malberg ( I think he’s the husband of Patricia Malberg who ran against Congressman Doolittle in the early 90’s)

Alex Mourelatos – Owner of property in the Tahoe area who wants to develop a housing project in Tahoe Vista

JoAnne Neft – Former Manager – Placer County Agricultural Marketing Program.

Blogger’s Note: JoAnne Neft is part of the group trying to oust Republicans from local office. Neft is a life-long Republican who will be the subject of an entire post later

Bill Newsom – Father of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

Placer Public Employees PAC ($7,000)

GD (Dean) Prigmore – Former Deputy Planning Director under Fred Yeager

Take Back Red CA – http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org ( Take Back Red California (TBRC) is a grassroots coalition that connects northern California Democrats in urban counties with northern California Democratic activists working in rural counties especially on a local level.)

VOICE – A Homosexual advocacy group with a PAC out of San Francisco.

John Foster – North Lake Tahoe Democratic Club

Tina Thomas – She is a CEQA attorney long known for her contract relation with Angelo Tskapolous. Angelo Tskapolous might as well be the executive director of the California Democrat Party.

Add in a host of Democratic clubs – and you have the unmistakable pattern of the Democrats throwing all their eggs into the Montgomery Basket. I also believe that Liberal Democrat activist Elaine Rowen is their number two priority as they try to work with RINO’s Barbara Vineyard, JoAnne Neft (there she is again) and Bill Martin to take control of Sierra College.

Please further note the money she raised from Bay Area Liberals on her previous filing as well.

One glaring omission – Pete McCloskey must have forgotten to write her another check as he did not appear on this report.

Last week, it was a letter to the editor written by a White Male Communist complaining that White Male Republicans run Placer County.

This week, it is a blog – Called Sundahai39 on Politics:

Their Opinions are so well thought out, I decided I’d share them with you:

Defeating Placer County Supervisor Bruce Kranz, Aaron Klein and Scott Leslie and Tom McClintock Will Liberate Occupied Placer County

Freedom from neo-conservatism and international corporate tyranny is now possible if we act decisively. We must look at reality straight on: Republicans are pressuring Governor Schwarznegger to roll back emission laws; McCain pledges to continue Bush’s scorched earth environmental policies and his march toward American Empire. They together have temporarily divided the US from the world.

Locally, we may begin by rejecting Bruce Kranz, the epitome of all that is bad in local government, a puppet of developers and their suppliers. His attempts to undermine Placer Legacy, to turn Meadow Vista over to a gravel company, his complicity in the blocking of Homewood Ski Resort being sold to the Forest Service for the peoples’ benefit, his appointment of Michelle Ollar-Burris to the County Planning Commission combine to show his contempt for us.

With their records of self-service and assassination of Kevin Ramirez, Aaron Klein’s and Scott Leslie’s bids for re-election to the Sierra College Board are laughable.

Blogger’s Note – What’s laughable is the cover-up of what Ramirez cost the taxpayers, and the Conflicts of Interest in the 2005 Grand Jury report that spurred the recall attempt.

John Doolittle has sulked off in disgrace opening the door for carpetbagger Tim McClintock to seek his job at the peoples’ expense.

These people care not about our home. Nothing they have ever done has helped the people; reject them

Blogger’s Note – Are we sure this blogger doesn’t work for the Auburn Journal? There are absolutely no facts in this post – editor material.

And then there’s this one -

Kranz serves Kranz. The general public is aware of Kranz accepting large donations from developers, appointing Michelle Ollar-Burris to the Planning Commission, favoring a gravel company over the people of Meadow Vista, blocking the Homewood Ski Resort sale to the Forest Service and redirecting it to private developers, and his clearing the trail to develop Royal Gorge Ski Resort.

Blogger’s Note – in the minds of the left, there is no due process for Ollar-Burris or Doolittle, they are guilty… throw them into the gulag

Kranz intimidates Placer County employees. Talking to several Placer County employees who obviously wish to remain anonymous, I have learned county workers fear retaliation from Kranz if their decisions or findings do not favor the person Kranz is currently piloting through the process. Workers feel intimidated, feel pressure to “go along” as opposed to doing what is right and proper. Kranz uses favoritism to bully workers into giving him and his “clients” what they want.

Kranz always tips the tables in his favor. When Kranz is involved, there is never a level playing field because if workers do not do what he wishes, he will find a willing worker, but never forgets the one who would not do his bidding. Policies are manipulated to suit individuals, and decisions are rendered unevenly in Kranz’ favor.

Blogger’s Note – If this was true, then why is King’s Beach going 3 lanes instead of four?

When Kranz is involved, fear is palpable among workers. With layoffs imminent in Placer County, fear of retaliation makes Kranz even more threatening because workers who do not go along fear reprisal.

People would be shocked to learn what type of vehicle demanded Placer County supply him for 24/7 use with a County credit card.

Kranz is like George W. Bush because favoritism always trumps policy.

Kranz is not an administrator so much as a manipulator, an intimidator, a person who ought never to be a Placer County Supervisor.

Blogger’s Note – the Agenda pops out, this is another Moonbat that sees McCain, Bush and Doolittle in the eyes of Kranz. Call an exorcist! WAIT! An exorcist would violate separation of church and state.

And of course, this blogger is anonymous… Cute. Team Montgomery, can you feel the passion?

Link to blog for attribution

12/23/2004 Letter

(Notice how the Yellow Elephants are back…)

Are you happy?

So far 19 dead in this week’s attack on the mess tent in Iraq. What a terrific Christmas present for their families. And what does our President have to say about this? According to the Associated Press, “President Bush said the explosion should not derail the elections and that he hoped relatives of those killed know that their loved ones died in ‘a vital mission for peace.’”

There is now an opening for any Truckee Bush voters in Iraq – 19 openings to be specific (actually 1,325 since the start of the war). Or better yet, I nominate the Bush twins to go serve in Bush’s “vital mission for peace.”

You got what you voted for. Are you happy?

Jennifer Montgomery

Soda Springs

So, here you have it – Jennifer Montgomery celebrating the death of Soldiers to make political points.

In addition, she shows a lack of creativity, trotting out the Nancy Pelosi Yellow-Elepahnt argument. (You can’t support the war unless your son is serving, you have served or are serving, etc…)

Next, she uses their death as a entree into explaining why people should vote Democrat instead. That is sick and extreme…

Now, she is running for Supervisor – for what reason? When you read the above, you have to wonder what her purpose for becoming a supervisor will be.

So much for the concept of “Non-Partisan Office”...

It is telling when people celebrate against good planning. It is well known that Sacramento is going to run out of water for development.

So what, say the enviros… make ‘em go somewhere else. (Maybe the Sierra Club forgot that a founding principle of America is freedom of movement)

Jerry Brown deep-sixed freeway construction in the 1970’s and now our evil SUV’s are belching out pollution because they are idling on roads built when the world’s population was 1/2 what it is now. Don’t give me the crap about Priuses – the forests are being strip-mined for the minerals to make their batteries. Poor people in Africa are being subjected to slave labor for minerals used in a ton of the components that go into “GREEN” electronic products.

MTBE – it rapes the ground water to clean the air. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer were all about MTBE 20 years ago, now they are blaming Republicans for it. (hell, the Oil Industry actually got this one right…)

Now we have the Enviros and Jennifer Bloomfield-Montgomery dancing in the end zone over the demise of the Auburn Dam.

The NIMBY’s from around the area are celebrating their victory over sound planning. While the below article is from a fisherman group – the NIMBY concept is alive and well. The Enviros, and the Sierra Club, who have endorsed Jennifer (Bloomfield) Montgomery are eually as excited about this development as well.

Article

“Auburn Dam is DEAD,” said Jennings. “The autopsy, obituary and eulogy have been written.”

[Jennings represents at most a miniscule special interest, sports fishermen, who claim veto power over the region’s elected representatives and the people’s genuine public interest in water, electricity and flood proection. The DEAD will be human beings with names—killed by preventable flood, drought or blackout. Those who do not care should have their names on the record in the months that remain. We can start with the names of members of the Sacramento City Council, Board of Supervisors who choose to cower from enviro intimidation. The voters will know who the obstructionists are in this election and those elections that follow.]

And of course – the favorite weapon of the Enviros – “If the Bureau’s water rights are not revoked, CSPA will sue. Should the water rights not be revoked, the State Board must then schedule a hearing on a time extension and their own staff has already told them they can’t do that without the necessary documents. Should they try: CSPA will sue.”

Find a liberal judge to usurp if all else fails!

Rumor has it there are people in office looking forward to Bruce Kranz’ ouster.

I am wondering if they have thoroughly vetted the person they are supporting actively or by ommission.

Jennifer Bloomfield-Montgomery is a prolific writer.

Have a look at Jennifer Montgomery Introducing herself to the Sierra Sun almost 4 years ago (8/25/2004):

The entire article is linked here.

An exceprt is provided here for your consumption -

“The second woman was also raised in Palo Alto, but in a very socially progressive family. Her mom and dad were both actively involved the civil rights and anti-war movements. They were both staunch environmentalists. Her father did pro bono work for those accused on minor drug possession charges. When no local court reporters could be found, her mother traveled to Mississippi to take the depositions of people involved in civil rights trials. Her first presidential vote was for a Democrat. After college she traveled and lived in Europe and came back to the U.S. with a new perspective on how the U.S. was viewed in the world. She became active in women’s rights issues, environmental issues and is currently working to get John Kerry elected.

Which of these women has the right to the label “patriot”? Both of them; they are the same woman: Me.

Montgomery does not stop with the expose’ on her background – she decided to make the following additional statement near the end of her letter -

I am now not a member of any political party. I have an American flag decal and a John Kerry bumper sticker on my car. I am a patriot and I question the policies of George Bush and his Cabinet. I support our troops and I believe this new Iraq War to be predicated on fabrications. I love my country and I doubt that our current government represents the best interests of the United States.

Jennifer Montgomery is a political activist and is not fit for office. It seems that her base of support are the Sierra Club and affiliated types looking for an activist presence on the Board of Supervisors.

Those eagerly awaiting the ouster of Bruce Kranz weather for their own purposes of revenge or seeking power had best take pause.

The comment about not being a member of any political party is disengenuous at best. Montgomery has been a staunch supporter of everything liberal (Charlie Brown, Eco-Groups etc.) since anyone knew anything about her.

In the last 4 years, Montgomery has had a lot to say about many things. Stay tuned.

Blogger’s Note – this Letter to the editor was posted in its’ entirety before the Primary but merits being brought up again as this is the first notation of Montgomery in the local media we could locate.

Blogger’s Note – Let’s see what happens, I am with Bruce, I think 3 lanes is not going to help traffic.

Time will tell – the board of Supes have spoken as have the vocal minority/majority? of King’s Beach Residents.

Drive On…

From the Sierra Sun:

The Placer County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted in favor of the three-lane, roundabout alternative for the Kings Beach Commercial Core Tuesday.

The board voted four-to-one, with Supervisor Bruce Kranz voting against.

However, Kranz said as a representative from the board of supervisors to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, he would still vote against three lanes when the TRPA board discusses today whether it will reconsider its June 25 vote
in favor of a four-lane plan through Kings Beach.

Kranz’s vote for the four-lane alternative caused an uproar throughout the Kings Beach area, which was evident during public comment at Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting in Kings Beach.

But the 4-1 vote wasn’t the end. Kranz’s comment that he wouldn’t take the board’s collective choice to the TRPA meeting on today spurred other supervisors to vote to remove him as Placer’s representative. Instead, Kranz’s alternate, Larry Sevison, said he would vote for three lanes as the board had.

As has been the routine for the commercial core project, the room was nearly full at Tuesday’s supervisors meeting. Proponents of three lanes held up green signs with “Team Hybrid” written on them, while a few four-lane supporters simply held four fingers in the air.

“I feel all the comments and letters have built a consensus and a strong consensus. My opinion is that about 80 percent are in favor of three-lanes. Logic dictates three lanes best option,” said Supervisor Rocky Rockholm. “I strongly support the three-lane hybrid.”

Kranz stuck to his position stated at the June 25 TRPA meeting, taking issue with both on-highway traffic and cut-through traffic in the grid neighborhood of Kings Beach.

“For the life of me I don’t understand why we are going to spend $45 million to make traffic worse, when elsewhere we are spending hundreds of millions to make it better,” Kranz said.

While Kranz suggested that if presented with all the issues, both local emergency services and Caltrans would be against the three-lane alternative. Representatives from the North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Caltrans and
the California Highway Patrol said that while they preferred four lanes the three-lane plan is acceptable.

“We’ve had the opportunity to review the options and we’ve concluded we can provide service to either option. As such we’ve taken a neutral position,” said Chief Duane Whitelaw of North Tahoe Fire.

Members of the public questioned the priority put on traffic congestion over other issues including safety, environmental impact and community character.

“Cars and traffic should never be cited as a primary decision-making factor,” said Bill Johnson, a Kings Beach property owner.

“We’re in a small community here, how is it OK to talk about traffic when he [looking at her son] is twice as likely to be killed?” said Sarah Smith, a resident of the Kings Beach grid in favor of the three-lane option.

She was referring to statistics presented by Ken Grehm, director of public works for Placer County, who said Kings Beach has an vehicle-pedestrian accident rate three times that of the state average and twice the fatality rate.

Other residents said this project shouldn’t only consider those who live and work in Kings Beach, but also the visitors who come to Lake Tahoe.

“This isn’t Kings Beach road,” said area restaurant owner Tom Turner. “This is a road for the United States of America.”

Jerry Dinzes, a Kings Beach resident, said while some have made comparisons to Tahoe City, Kings Beach will have even more traffic.

“Kings Beach has considerably more traffic flow than any of our neighbors. Only one that comes close is Tahoe City and they are fairly congested, and don’t have the growth potential we do,” Dinzes said.

CHECK IT OUT

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board members will vote today onthe reconsideration of the three-lane, roundabout option for the Kings Beach Commercial Core, which they voted down June 25. The meeting starts at 1 p.m.
at the North Tahoe Community Conference Center in Kings Beach.

Blogger’s Note: Where’s my tribute? After all, I am getting paid so much for doing this blogging…

The attached letter to the editor is part of a series entitled – Team Montgomery Update. It is informative to shed light on someone’s team to ascertain their possible course of action in office.

Taumas Colliver is one such person. Mr. Colliver had a blog on the “Placeropolis” site of Gold Country Media. That Blog was pulled down – I would assume because of its’ vile content. I read Mr. Colliver’s rantings – in particular against County staff and it was pretty outrageous.

7/8/2008 – Deric Rothe decided against spiking this letter to the editor and ran it.

Placer is ruled by white, male Republicans

What’s white, male and Republican?

The answer, of course, is our government.

If governments and entities representing “We the People” are truly representative, then why, in Placer County for instance, are all five supervisors and seven planning commissioners white male Republicans? For fair demographical representation, two to three supervisors should be women. Considering that supervisors are — in theory — non-partisan seats (please hold your laughter, Placer County), then two or three supervisors should be other-than-Republican. In lily white Placer County, there should be at least one woman who is of color and other-than-Republican included in the decision-making loop.

The planning commission consists of seven white male Republicans. They are appointed by the good ol’ white male Republican supervisors. Again, three or four women, and people of color who are other-than-Republican would more correctly represent “We the People.”

Our Congressman John Doolittle is a white male Republican. So is (Assemblyman) Ted Gaines, (Gov.) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Certainly, the majority of council members and other governmental representatives are white male Republicans.

So, do I think white male Republicans should be given credit for doing such an outstanding job with our economy and lifestyles? Should white male Republicans be given credit for taking us to war, rattling their sabres at other countries and violating our privacy?

It truly doesn’t matter what I think. I’m only a taxpaying voter without a diverse pool of talent to choose from because the conservative media highlights only two parties out of many.

Taumas Colliver

Foresthill

Blogger’s note – Placer County is 88% white, Mr. Colliver. so if we held with your racial quota – then one supervisor should be half white / half another and the remiainig four should be enitrely white.

I guess Carol Garcia, Kathy Lund and Democrats Linda Stackpool and Gina Garbolino don’t count in Mr. Colliver’s calculations either.

Mr. Colliver – did you take the time to look at all the white males on Montgomery’s donor list? Pete McCloskey, Gavin Newsom’s Dad, Weatlhy Millionaire from Los Altos?

I hope Montgomery hires this guy as her spokesperson. (spokesman would be another white male ruling Placer County.)

Guess what? This story did not appear in the Auburn Journal… (surprise)

That is correct. I heard rumors of such a move.

The advocates of the 3-lane alternative have an advocate in Supervisor Jim Holmes. Since Bruce Kranz provided what is characterized as the swing vote in a 7-6 decision by the TRPA to go with the 4 lane alternative versus the 3 lane alternative with accident-causing roundabouts… the 3-laners have gone to the next level.

Next is an e-mail exchange between where Bruce responds to a supporter over the plan to replace Bruce with someone characterized as anti-growth (Larry Sevison) on the TRPA.

For Context, please also note that Holmes is presenting this move as a way to relieve Bruce of the contraversy over taking a position on 3 lanes vs. 4…

Rumor has it that they are planning to replace Bruce with Larry Sevison to vote on the road project. Can you verify this rumor? Or does Bruce prefer it this way?

Meera

Hi Meera,

I just got back from a week’s vacation and am only hearing about this rumor today (Sunday). All I can tell you is that I will not change my vote in favor of more gridlock. If the Placer County Board of Supervisors vote in favor of the three-lane alternative on Tuesday and ask me to change my vote on the TRPA reconsideration, I will have to decline. I will make every effort to convince my fellow board members to make the right decision by supporting the four-lane alternative. In that case, there will be no need for a replacement on the Governing Board. Nevertheless, they may chose to remove me – so be it.

Years from now, if the three lane alternative is approved, I do not want my vote to be identified as “that vote” that created all the traffic problems Kings Beach will be experiencing.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Bruce Kranz, Supervisor, District Five County of Placer

Folks, it is because of issues like these that the board’s ideaological tilt hangs in the balance with this election. Montgomery’s election will turn the board into a 3-2 anti-growth green majority. In Placer County, that is not representative of the people.

Blogger’s Note – This is important as this addresses the slew of commenters who have been vocal about opposition to the 4-lane expansion of Hwy 28 in Kings Beach.

Get real! Wisdom has prevailed…

As reported in the Sierra Sun – July 15, 2008

In your recent editorial calling for the examination of “TRPA’s decision making process must be examined” (Sierra Sun June 30) there is an underlying assumption to your criticism of the board’s vote on the Kings Beach Core Improvement Project.

The assumption is that only the proponents of the lane reduction with roundabouts represent the true interests of the community at large. This could not be further from the truth. Your paper continues to be the pawn of a few key staff leaders of Placer County and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that control information released to the Sierra Sun, rather than doing your own research of the environmental documents (EIS/EIR).

The Sierra Sun is perpetuating the biggest propaganda campaign ever directed against the citizens of any Lake Tahoe community. You condemn the TRPA Board for not voting to degrade the environment and then question their representation of the “public will.” You take Tim Leslie’s valid comments out of their original context, and then generalize and judge what you see as an unfavorable decision, but only for the lane reduction proponents.

The TRPA Governing Board public hearing on June 25 at 10 a.m. was attended by many more supporters of the four-lane improvement alternative. Some had to leave by noon to go back to work since the actual public comments did not begin until about 12:30 p.m. There have always been many more citizens in favor of retaining the four-lane capacity (consistent with the Kings Beach Community Plan), keeping on-street parking for local businesses, installing wide sidewalks and pedestrian safe signalized intersections, without any degradation to the surrounding community. For responsible reduction of the roadway capacity to be feasible would require traffic volumes to actually decrease significantly. The general welfare of the broad community and the environment of Lake Tahoe were both protected by the TRPA board decision in a display of democracy and clear reasoning.

The environmental benefits were avoidance of degradation due to increased traffic congestion, state highway traffic diverted through residential neighborhoods, and reduced levels of service for mass transit. These negative impacts are clearly stated in the EIS, and only occur due to reducing the lanes from four to two through Kings Beach. This position was clearly and publicly stated by Tim Leslie (Sierra Sun July 2) and Bruce Kranz (Reno Gazette Journal July 10). Mike Weber included the rationale that the decision to reduce the lanes is irreversible at Tahoe leaving no room for error.

The Placer County and TRPA staff leadership has been orchestrating this lane reduction campaign for at least the last five years. They have falsely claimed that this lane reduction is a prerequisite for economic revitalization of Kings Beach and is the only way to slow the traffic through the town. Every justification for the lane reduction compares its benefits to the existing undeveloped highway and ignores the four-lane improvement alternative that achieves the benefits without environmental degradation.

The “public process” that needs examination is how the Placer County staff leadership, using public funds, conducted an elaborate propaganda campaign to “sell” their predetermined lane reduction idea. The usual tools were employed including half truths, exaggeration of benefits, ignoring negative consequences, misapplying general planning theories, and “pounding reiteration” of their slogans (traffic always flows in roundabouts, the four lanes is responsible for Kings Beach’s current economic condition, we want traffic to go to Kings Beach instead of through it, etc.). Facts were constantly spun to make lane reduction appear to be workable and absolutely the only option. Control of the media, the Sierra Sun in particular, was necessary to influence what is read and debated in the community.

The charade is over. The special interests and narrow self interests of a few activists and property speculators have failed to override the facts of environmental impacts and persuade the ultimate decision makers responsible for the general welfare of the community at large. Common sense and wisdom has prevailed.

Now the Placer County staff has been directed to detail the four-lane alternative and move ahead with this much-needed and long-awaited improvement to the Kings Beach community. Whether the staff will truly be public servants and judiciously use public funds to produce the best improvements to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility, beautify the commercial core, slow traffic, and install water quality improvements in a timely manner remains to be seen.

Richard Leon is a board member of the Kings Beach Business and Citizens Alliance and a NTFPD commissioner for 12 years.

Dear Mr Kranz,

Thank you so very much for opposing the 3 lane Highway project in KB, CA.

We are for the 4 lanes and belileve it will save our businesses. Three lanes would be a total disaster for the North Shore.

We are business owners in KB and we need a tough stance against the 3-lane proposal. Stand firm and don’t let slander or pressure cause you to change your position. Thank you and it was an honor to vote for you.

Sincerely,
Pastor Marty Chamberlain
Christ Life Church
Kings Beach, CA

Dear Bruce,

I just wanted to express my appreication for your decision to direct County staff to the four lane with all the enhancements. The fall out was predictable as the 3 lane proponents had waged this campaign for about 4 years. They had decided what they wanted and then used every technique available to convince others their choice was the right choice. They shut us out using much of the same language they are using to blast you.

We are the strong and usually silent majority but this has gone too far and we will continue to defend this redirection because nobody has to lose. There does not have to be degradations suffered by anyone to achieve a great Core Improvement project. Thanks for being strong about the convictions of your own conscience.

Dave McClure

I am a business owner and have lived in Kings Beach and Tahoe Vista and drive through Kings Beach almost daily and usually several times. I am AGAINST the 3 lane option and
completely agree with the recent decision to be open to the 4 lanes. I don’t care for more street lights, however
they are better than round-abouts.

Many of the photos taken on the YouTube showed people crossing illegally and not at crosswalks. If they cross illegally with roundabouts or not at a street light, the same result will occur. Also,are we basing a huge change on the busiest 4 day weekend of the year? If we had street lights these pictures would be irrelevant as the cars would be stopped at the light for the people to cross.

I did not see any filming of people being in danger crossing at Coon street with the traffic light and
crosswalk.

I was on a view deck for the 3rd of July fireworks. Afterwards, the 4 lanes were packed with cars and then one of the West bound lanes cleared up first, thankfully, as the sherrifs, fire truck and emergency vehicles had to get around. If there were 3 lanes, one in each direction,
the traffic would have been backed up even longer and I could not imagine how the Emergency vehicles would have gotten through.

Why was there not any filming of this scene that night? It clearly showed how negative a 3 lane situation would have been. The group for the 3 lanes make it sound like it is the huge majority. They are more vocal. The majority
of people on the deck that night and many of the business owners in Kings Beach are for 4 lanes.

It really depends on who you talk to as I would say that the majority of people here are for 4 lanes.

We do see how 3 lanes has harmed Tahoe City and its’ businesses. We want our businesses in KB to succeed.

We do need an improved Kings Beach and I am looking forward to this moving forward soon. I hope that your majority vote for 4 lanes continues the same and a 4 lane plan gets passed through quickly.

Thank you all for your time and consideration,

Pat Evans

Resident of Kings Beach and Tahoe Vista and business owner since 1996

Quoting Bruce Kranz:

Deric and Tony,

In your previous e-mail to me you say “We have not received any letters supportive of your position on the Kings Beach roundabouts.” These are common folk without a political agenda. I consider them to be equally important! You should also.

Bruce Kranz, District Five Supervisor
County of Placer

This was submitted to the Auburn Jorunal – not printed as of yet.

Editor: Alternative submittal

I’m glad they’re (TRPA Governing Board) not waiting the mandatory 12 month period to bring back another three lane/roundabout adaptation. I think that the residents, tourists and locals alike will enbrace the four lanes, new sidewalks, street-scape, water quality measures, and overall beautification.

The four lane supporters did not fire an attack at the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission or the Placer County Planning Commission when they made their decisions-

We came with the same message to the Governing Board. I still feel the same- a vote was taken, clearly identifying that safety in the grid and level of service for traffic flow are the most important aspects when analyzing the issues. The three lane alternative failed- lets just get on with a four lane improvement and start beautifying Kings Beach.

Respectfully,
Ellie Waller
Tahoe Vista Resident

To all the members of the TRPA Governing Board,

I want to thank you for your participation in the KBCCIP vote last week. It was a grueling and emotional day and I appreciate all of you for your attentiverness and wisdom. Even those who didn’t vote “the way I wanted” have earned my respect by the insightful questions and the intense consideration you all gave to the issue at hand.

I truly hope that while Placer County Department of Public Works goes back to the drawing board that you all carefully study the EIR/EIS document that was a huge part of the controversy we all experienced that day. Most all of
the community members who support the 4 lane alternative do so because of the findings in that report. We didn’t exagerate or make up statistics or flaws they all exist in the document as we stated. In addition there are many more of us than the 3 laners would have you believe and we have been involved in the entire process. Our poster is valid as are all the names listed.

One of the flaws, as I see it, is that DPW did not put a “3 lane, no roundabouts” alternative in the study. I think that this option would have been more acceptable with fewer traffic issues. (this is because most of the problems with traffic, highway parking and pedestrians comes with the
roundabouts) In addition the 4 lane alternative was under studied and left off all the traffic calming ideas that would also benefit the community. I am hoping that the 4 lane project brought forth by Placer County is as thoroughly vetted as their 2 lane roundabout option.

Additionally, in their refusal to add traffic to the purpose and needs section of the study they tried to deliberately avoid the problems with gridlock and push through traffic while saying that traffic had nothing to do
with thresholds relating to lake pollution. If you read the “purpose and needs” section of the report you will see where the authors of the study indicate a problem regarding traffic. Please also study the Gordon Shaw’s report on traffic and note that his numbers are conservative and realistic while at the same time showing that the traffic impacts are completely unacceptable. This is a report requested by DPW then deliberately discredited by the same people. It isn’t the “30 days of gridlock sometime 20 years in the future” as Mr Polivy would have you believe. It’s bad in the immediate future getting even worse as time goes by.

Believe me when I say that we all want the BMP’s, sidewalks and curbs done as soon as possible but accepting a project as flawed as the 2 lanes with roundabouts is not the way to get it done. As we wait for DPW’s report please take the time from your busy schedules to research, on your own, the
issues that we presented, I think you will see that although it might make things pretty in a superficial fashion it is not the best management practices for the Lake or the community.

Sincerely,
Meera Beser

Blogger’s Note – More Coming, we will be here all week

In a retort to Deric Rothe – Bruce Kranz forwarded several emails he received from supporters of the 4 lane highway alternative for Kings Beach. He also forwarded a letter to the editor that the AJ didn’t print (imagine that).

Sierra Sun – July 10, 2008
Readers Write: Sensible Move

I want to give Mr. Bruce Kranz and the TRPA a big thank you. Thanks for making a sensible decision based on the needs of a peaceful community and not caving in to private interests. I don’t know how anyone can claim that the majority of the community wants three lanes, since no one bothered to ask me and my neighbors how we feel. If these people had the courtesy to ask, I would have laughed. And I think the “majority” of residents in Kings Beach would not choose a plan that endangers their children. I also don’t think they would support a plan that congests the Tahoe Basin. Traffic jams are why I don’t make it out of Tahoe often. Some of us don’t want to see Tahoe turn into a mini-Bay Area.
Ken Feely
Kings Beach

Dear Supervisor Kranz,

Thank you for taking the time to study the documents and the tremendous list of pros and cons for the Kings Beach plan. I studied the project late in the game, and although I wanted to go along with those who had been devoting time and energy to the process, I found the traffic issue a tremendous concern. I understand that many Kings Beach residents are not concerned as the opinion is that only a few days in peak season will cause a problem. I find the traffic on those peak days already a problem, and have had to turn back on several occasions to wait until the traffic flow improves. I cannot imagine the wait on those high peak days, and I anticipate a good long wait throughout the summer worsening annually. It feels irresponsible to knowingly create a situation that will negatively impact traffic flow now and in the future.

As for safety, I foresee people taking risks as they pass to skirt traffic making an unstable situation at best. I have seen several of the letters sent to you by angry residents who have worked hard on this plan, and I understand their disappointment. However, I am relieved that the Hybrid plan is not a done deal. I also worry about the challenge of evacuation in case of fire as Hwy 237 would be difficult to access. The roundabouts also create a concern as many of the large boats will be unable to navigate the turn to the boat ramp and will have to seek alternate ramps out of Kings Beach.

Thank you for standing for your constituents. I attended the meeting in Kings Beach last week and felt that most of the speakers were part of a well organized group whose goal was to speak as a vocal majority. In the crowd, there were many who opposed the plan but were reluctant to speak against those who were obviously working together to present a unified front. I was one who did not have the nerve to stand and speak. Thanks again for looking
carefully at the plan and deciding on its merits rather than allowing your vote to be swayed by a vocal group.

Regards,
Elyse Pasha

Blogger’s Note: The following is an email exchange between Bruce Kranz and Deric Rothe – the Rampaging Editor of the Auburn Journal.

I am really starting to wonder if Deric Rothe’s rage against anything Republican is too simple an explanation for why he is after Bruce Kranz. We all know that Rothe was long time friends with Kevin Ramirez, the fueled his angst against the Sierra College Board Members…

Kranz was ex-law enforcement is it that? Kranz never served in the military, so it can’t be that… Kranz never had business dealings with Rothe, I don’t think either of them knew each other before Rothe took over at the AJ in the early 2000’s.

At least I am honest about my bias!

Bruce Starts:

I’ve yet to hear back from you (Deric) regarding my request that the Auburn Journal run my Kings Beach editorial. The Reno Gazette-Journal and now the Sierra Sun have both run my editorial and, apparently the Auburn Journal believes it isn’t news worthy in Auburn. I find this hard to believe
considering you have allowed 4 very caustic “letters to the editor” (see below) to be printed on this very subject. Is allowing only one side of the story to be heard good journalism in your book?

I am, once again, asking that you play fair and allow me to present my side of this issue. Since I’m leaving on vacation tomorrow morning (July 12th) I’m hoping you’ll run my editorial without further communication.

I look forward to your response.

Rothe Replies:

Bruce, we publish the letters to the editor that we receive, if they meet our criteria. We have not received any letters supportive of your position on the Kings Beach roundabouts. We have received many letters that are critical of your vote. If we give you a guest column, we will give Jennifer Montgomery a guest column as well at the same time. She is your opponent in a run-off election. I will contact her today and see if she is interested in
writing about TRPA and the Kings Beach issue. If so, I will publish your column as is. If not, we will consider other alternatives to ensure you are treated fairly. I am sorry I did not get back to you immediately yesterday. We had a busy day with our Best of the Best party at the Fairgrounds
yesterday afternoon, fire and smoke coverage, accidents on Interstate 80 … My best to you and yours. Have a nice vacation. —Deric

Blogger’s Note: this smells – 50% of my letters don’t make the cut and those that do get chopped to pieces. Basically, Rothe is telling Bruce to pound sand. Based on my own experience, 50% or more of the pro-Bruce letters we could send in will get axed. Please also further note that the AJ letter Writers, the Sierra Sun letter Writers and the Montgomery Commenters on this blog are the same people.

Kranz Replied to Rothe:

What an answer! You’ll let anyone say what they want to criticize an individual without allowing a response. You’ve proven, once again how politically prejudiced you actually are. I’m sure you realize the politics behind these letters. I hope Jennifer appreciates all the support you continue to provide…

One question Deric – If you have to get Jennifer’s side of the story in order to run my response to blatant attacks, why were you so open to allowing Rob Haswell to attack me before contacting me for my response? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Tony – Why do you allow this kind of behavior? Two legitimate newspapers realize that it’s only fair to allow equal time. I guess the only way to respond to this kind of attack in your newspaper is to buy the space – if you even allow that.

Blogger’s Note: This is why I am all over the Auburn Journal. They have gone into berzerk mode. Bloggers are competing with the Liberal establishment.

That’s right – the Sierra Club, the home of lawsuits preventing forest clearing and thinning has brought us their vision for the 5th Sup district – Traffic Congestion and Forest Fires.

Her supporters descended upon this blog with at least 7 comments of similar construction and someone who posted a U-Tube video link.

I thank them all for visiting, but from looking at the chief objections of their supporters – it looks like a chronic case of NIMBY. Not in my Back Yard…

So Rocklin is not the only place where the existing residents have decided to fight growth. People die in an alarming rate on our freeways today because in the 1970’s Jerry Brown torpedoed all freeway construction thinking that people would not come to California.

Jerry Brown should have tried to run our budget like Perata and Nunez in addition to stopping road construction, then he’d have been able to stop California’s growth – because our population has grown 250% since then and has only gone backwards recently with out of control spending.

The point being is Bloomfield-Montgomery’s people have hung their hats on stopping progress…

It is going to make a fun next four months.

Gavin Newsome’s dad is going to be digging for some more of his money to keep the Montgomery Freight Train Moving.

Holmes Brothers = Auburn Councilmember Mike Holmes (longtime Doolittle antagonist) and 3rd District Supervisor Jim Holmes.

You read it here first – I had lunch with Supervisor Jim Holmes today.

First off, I would like to make sure and write that Jim Holmes is a consoumate gentlemen and is also a devout Christian man. His faith and grounding comes out through his pores. I was duly impressed by his charisma.

Among the things discussed were fellow supervisor Bruce Kranz’ race and Tom McClintock.

Holmes told us that he and Mike had lunch with McClintock down at the Capitol Club.

After they got their initial questions answered about local government funding – the conversation went afield from there.

Jim went out of his way to complement Tom McClintock on his knowledge of issues and process.

Jim indicated that he and his brother would be wholeheartedly supporting McClintock.

Once I get confirmation – I will be removing Mike Holmes name from the above counter.

This was a LTE in the Sierra Sun

My Turn: Protecting a neighborhood’s sanctity

By Jerry Dinzes, On behalf of so many in the community: Thank You Supervisor Bruce Kranz and the six other Tahoe Regional Planning Agency board members who agreed that the three-lane alternative had too many negative consequences. It would be the epitome of poor planning to burden a residential community with through traffic intended for State Route 28, yet thousands of vehicles were nearly diverted into the highly pedestrianized Kings Beach neighborhood, which is adjacent to the commercial corridor (SR 28).

Proponents of the lane reduction have accused me of fear mongering for bringing this issue to the table, but this is, in my mind, the most important issue at stake. My neighborhood doesn’t want — and doesn’t deserve — this burden, which the county traffic consultant claims will occur on around 100 days of the summer.

Those who have raised families along our residential roadways, and those who have bought into hearty mortgages, thank you for protecting their neighborhood’s sanctity. Thank you for not being fooled at the Sierra Businesses Council’s claim that the majority of Kings Beach wanted the hybrid alternative.

The SBC’s claim is unjust and non-representative of the community. After inviting citizens from across the Truckee and North Shore region to an SBC workshop, the council was able to get approximately 141 citizens to show a preference towards the lane reduction. In 2000, the U.S. consensus reveals that Kings Beach had a population of 4,037. To claim a majority would require 2019 Kings Beach residents, and not a 141 from Truckee-Tahoe at large.

However, the SBC seemed not as concerned with due process, as they were with advocating a particular position. This is apparent in their decision to place an avid “three-laner” in charge as one of the program directors running the workshops and compiling for informational handouts.

Jerry Dinzes is a Kings Beach resident. Link to Article in Sierra Sun 2008 All Rights Reserved

Recently, I voted against spending $45 million to make traffic worse in Kings Beach in Tahoe. I do not believe we need more traffic gridlock in the Tahoe region or anywhere in Placer County. Some are very unhappy about this vote, focusing their entire effort against me in a letter writing campaign. Many of the letters are organized, word for word.

The recent decision of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, TRPA, about how to fix traffic problems in Kings Beach ended with a divided community. From the beginning I supported this very lengthy, public process hoping that somehow a consensus would occur. It did not.

It is not true, as the many nearly identical letters in the Sierra Sun insinuate, that I was the sole person responsible for defeating the 3-lane alternative. The TRPA Governing Board voted 7-6 against the 3-lane alternative. I made my decision, one out of seven, after listening for several years and reading the very thick EIS/EIR report. I learned, among other things, that the 3-lane option could divert as many as 10,000 cars to the back-street grid, in an effort to bypass an additional delay of 8-10 minutes on the main road. I can not, in good conscience, allow this to happen. These back-roads are residential neighborhoods where scores of children play in the streets every day. They have no sidewalks and are very narrow. I support the 4-lane alternative because it causes no additional harm to our traffic problems, yet provides all of the environmental benefits to lake water quality.

Traffic experts at Cal Trans, our elected representatives Senator Cox and former Senator Leslie all favor the 4-lane option. After last Wednesday’s vote, it now appears that the majority of the TRPA Governing Board would look favorably on the 4-lane option.

After years of conflict, the decision is now finally before us. I am urging the staff of the County of Placer to move ahead on the 4-lane option immediately to fix the long endured traffic problems of Kings Beach.

Some have asked whether I believe this will have an impact on my re-election. As I told the Sierra Sun recently, “I didn’t do it to affect whether or not I’m reelected — whether it helped or hurt I’m elected to do what’s right. I’m supposed to make decisions that are good for the community and that’s what I did.” Ironically, my opponent, Jennifer Montgomery, not only favors the 3-lane alternative, but also the developers in Kings Beach who want gridlock. She and the developers are now opposing the TRPA Governing Board vote, the CALTRANS superior alternative, and Senators Dave Cox and Tim Leslie.

I was elected to represent all of the people not the most vocal special interest group. I voted against gridlock on our roads and in our government. I will not shrink from making the tough decisions that are my job as your supervisor and your elected representative.

Blogger’s note – let’s see if this gets printed in any of the papers.

UPDATE – 7/10 Reno Gazette Journal / 7/11 Tahoe Sun

My wife and I were walking on the American River last night and saw 4 C-130 tanker planes in the Air – two landing, two taking off to go to Big Sur. I thought to myself ho