The fact that the Sacramento Bee endorsed Jennifer Montgomery comes as no suprise whatsoever.

The fact that the Sacramento Bee ignored that the anonymous letter about Michelle Ollar Burris hit two days different than the day that Bruce took his seat comes as no suprise. (The significance of this is the impossibility for Bruce to have known about Ollar-Burris’ issues beforehand.)

The fact that the Sacramento Bee spun running a house-cleaning service as better experience than 30+ years in Law enforcement as better experience is no suprise.

But, the height of hypocricy is illustrated by the following:

Jennifer Montgomery says that she is not beholden to developers and does not take their money. The Bee pointed out that fact – however, a look at Jennifer’s 460 shows -

1. Alex Mourelatos, seeking housing project in Tahoe Vista for years and supports the 3-lane alternative;

2. Dave Ferrari, Owner of the Ferarri’s Crown Motel, whose purchased a half dozen or more properties in Kings Beach for a future major development (Hotel, etc.) and also supports the 3-lane (gridlock) alternative;

3. George Koster, Century 21 commercial and residential properties

4. Carole Savory Century 21 commercial and residential properties

5. Teresa May Duggan, Century 21, who sell property in Kings Beach, supports the 3-lane alternative and stands to make profits through sales of commercial and residential properties in Kings Beach:

6. Susette Ghilotti (self employed Property Management – Colfax);

7. Steve Kastan (Property Management – Tahoe Alpine Assn.);

8. Sherry Wicks (Mortgage Broker in Foresthill)

To the Sacramento Bee – for a wonton ideaological sellout, this Jug’s for you.

Please Note – that Jennifer Montgomery has endorsed and supported Charlie “Colonel Klink” Brown since his previous run for Congress.

Please also note that Bruce Kranz served in law enforcement for 30+ years – I guess in light of this letter to the editor that was the brainchild of Montgomery, that makes Bruce a Taliban Officer?

As written by Jennifer Montgomery 5/18/2005 in the Sierra Sun:

American Taliban government

Senator Bill Frist has decided it’s time to roll back 200 years of the checks and balances designed by the drafters of the Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of single party rule. Through the Republican named and formulated “Nuclear Option,” Senator Frist wants to seize power of the judiciary by installing radical right-wing judges, Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will roll back worker’s rights, environmental protections, women’s rights and other protected privacy rights to the detriment of us all.

have truly begun to fear the imposition of an American Taliban-style government by reactionary forces such as Senator Frist, Congressman DeLay, Pat Robertson (who said that judges were a greater threat than the 9/11 terrorists!) and Rev. Dobson who has called for impeaching sitting judges for doing their jobs. This sort of behavior is un-American and it must be opposed. Speak out now before your rights are the ones that have been denied.

Jennifer Montgomery
Soda Springs

I have yet to see anything other than activism that could suggest why she is running for Supervisor? Is it a desire to shut down tourism? Is it a desire to screw over development?

Meantime – Montgomery’s biggest supporters are “retired” or “relieved” former County Employees… Nice.

Statement by Sac Metro Chamber and Metro PAC on Bruce Kranz Endorsement:

Placer County, Supervisor District 5

Bruce Kranz’s nearly four decades of public service have been dedicated to improving public safety, ensuring better use and access to natural resources and protecting property rights and taxpayers. He retired from the California Department of Parks and Recreation after serving as Superintendent of the American River District. Since his election in 2004, Bruce’s policy actions have been focused on preventing catastrophic wildfires and floods; preventing drug abuse; working for the economic and environmental well being of citizens in the Sierra, foothill and Tahoe regions (clean air, water, electricity, affordable housing, tourism and jobs); protecting private property rights from regulatory excesses such as eminent domain and taxpayers from excess spending. Bruce’s experience and vision make him the clear choice to help lead Placer County.

This endorsement is huge – because it means a fair chunk of money and the Sac Metro Chamber has a lot of members.

Recently, Montgomery bailed out on a televised debate with Bruce Kranz. The Hostinng station was in Truckee and could be seen in the entire North Lake Tahoe area.

Add to that, recently blogged is Montgomery failing to answer the bell for the Auburn Chamber of Commerce questionnaire.

It doesn’t stop there – the DCCC has withdrawn support for Charlie Brown, so hoped-for slate mail is not going to materialize for Montgomery.

Monty is deliberately avoiding being anywhere where Kranz is simultaneously. She apparently does not like answering questions about her anti-war activity, party affiliation or affiliation with extreme enviros.

The Coup d’etat – Montgomery has $66,000 with $27,000 committed. Kranz has $108,000 with $50,000 committed.

Stay tuned for a flurry of endorsements on the way for Bruce. It looks like Montgomery peaked a month ago.

Wally Reemelin wrote the opposition to measure R in the sample ballot for Placer County. The Ballot argument was not well constructed at all. Now, Wally takes a title of Bruce’s column a week ago in the AJ and uses it this week.

I don’t know if Wally was trying to help Bruce Kranz, but bombing Rocky Rockholm who endorsed Bruce Kranz at this time right before the election is crazy. My criticism of Reemelin is based on the fact that he bombs Kranz in the course of attacking Holmes and Weygandt.

I don’t know where the $3200 in perks comes from, the supes don’t get any benefits other than a mileage reimbursement. They don’t even get evil per-diem.

I agree with both Dr. Campbell and Mr. Reemelin – Measure R should be torped. What I disagree with is the way Wally brought the 3 lane vs 4 lane issue back into the argument and at the same time just bombed everyone and everything. I makes it look like Bruce Kranz gave Wally the info about Rocky’s charter flight, that would be campaign suicide by Kranz.

Ken Campbell blogged on this column earlier and his post has a link to it. I attached it here in its’ entirety and it appeared in the Charlie Brown gazette. (the AJ)

Devil’s in the details: Voters should reject supes pay increase

Editor’s note: For an opposing view on this issue, see “Supervisors deserve pay consistent with full-time job” under Columnists at Auburnjournal.com.

Measure R proposes a supervisor pay increase on the November ballot, innocuous on the surface, but the “devil” is in the details. Measure R would increase the base of $30,000 to $48,000 plus the existing perks, $3,200.

The “devil” is the CPI (consumer price index) automatic increase included. That would raise pay to $54,000 in four years and, exponentially, to $61,000 or more in eight years—and up.
In 1988-90 supervisors were setting their own pay and cockily spending tax money freely, feathering their own special interests and projects - some of which has been happening recently - and not addressing basic needs of county residents. Supervisors were raking-in $80,000 annually.

In 1992 the League of Placer County Taxpayers submitted Amendment Sec. 207 to the County Charter, which had voters set supervisor pay at $30,000 and require voter approval for increases. Voters approved Sec. 207 by over 60 percent.

Sec. 207 says “Voters are in charge of supervisor pay” and not some CPI automatically ratcheting upward yearly, whether supervisors really are serving the public needs or, again as in the 1980s, serving special interests. Sec. 207 is a “report card to the people” of performance by the supervisors.

You, the voter, are in charge.

In 1998 supervisors requested a 17 percent pay raise. Voters turned it down. The taxpayers league remained neutral on the issue.

Raising supervisor pay would apply to each officeholder, some who may be more deserving than others in serving the public.

Recent board activities raise such an issue:

• At the supervisors meeting in Tahoe on July 22, three members, Jim Holmes, Robert Weygant, and Rocky Rockholm, persuaded the county CEO to pay nearly $10,000 of your tax money to fly Rocky by charter jet from Utah to Truckee and back so he could cast the deciding vote for a three-lane with round-abouts improvement versus four-lanes on Highway 28 at Kings Beach, Tahoe. Voters should be outraged at this flagrant expenditure!

Caltrans, CHP, local fire department, and sheriffs of Placer and Douglas (Nevada) counties, who were concerned about public safety, favored the 4-lane design. Supervisor Bruce Kranz voted for the four-lane road.

• Each year Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has advised Placer supervisors that small, rural fire districts, ineligible for Prop. 172 funding, are in financial trouble and need steady funding support. Boards of supervisors have consistently turned a deaf ear to this issue, including the present board.

• While ignoring LAFCO’S report, since 1987, supervisors have doled-out $1,500,000 of “earmarks”—revenue sharing funds to county groups and organizations, some of dubious public interest. Revenue sharing is a vote-getting ploy.

Voters, keep yoru say on supervisor pay. Vote No on R.

Wally Reemelin is the president of the League of Placer County Taxpayers.

Guess what happens when a local Chamber of Commerce invites both candidates to participate in a publication and one refuses to answer the bell?

The Auburn Chamber of Commerce released a two-page commercial for Bruce.

Take a look at the attached to see vision for Placer County. (including 4 lanes and eminent domain reform.)

LINK To Auburn Chamber Newsletter

Why didn’t Montgomery answer the bell??? Is it a harbinger of her campaign status?

Blogger’s Note – I am wondering when the Marijuana farmers are going to endorse Montgomery…

Also – Montgomery finally agreed to some debates. These should be fun, bring the kids. She continues to duck Jim Ruffalo from the AJ as of the time of the posting of this blog.

Round 1: Friday October 3rd at 7:00 pm
Hosted by the Foresthill Chamber of Commerce
Foresthill Memorial Hall
24601 Harrison Street, Foresthill

And now the eagerly awaited press release:

Immediate Release Contact: Bruce Kranz, 1-530-906-1018

NorCal Cops Like Kranz

COLFAX-CA. Sheriff Ed Bonner and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Placer County have found Supervisor Bruce Kranz to be a friend of law enforcement. And now an organization representing 35,000 police officers and Deputy Sheriff’s throughout northern California also has endorsed Kranz’s reelection as District 5 Supervisor in Placer County.

Donald Atkinson, President of the Northern Alliance of Law Enforcement, wrote a letter from his office in South Lake Tahoe saying, “We stand beside our fellow officers of the Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association in their commitment to ensuring your election to office.” Atkinson said, he was “pleased and honored to provide you with our whole-hearted and enthusiastic endorsement…Our endorsement comes after careful consideration of your personal qualifications and your proven support of local public safety.”

Sheriff Ed Bonner has said, “There is no greater champion for public safety in Placer County,” than Bruce Kranz. Retired California Highway Patrol commissioner Art Anderson who says that in 34 years in law enforcement, he hasn¹t seen a more dedicated supervisor. “He doesn¹t just talk the talk, he walks the walk.”

Kranz has made public safety his first priority working on a new helicopter, improved communications, Meth drug abuse prevention, catastrophic wildfires, keeping CHP stations open and making public safety first in the county budget.

Northern Alliance of Law Enforcement represents the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Tribal Police Officers Association, Davis Police Officers’ Association, El Dorado County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Elk Grove Police Officers’ Association, Folsom Police Officers Association, Modesto Police Officers Association, Monterey County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Nevada County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Placer County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Rocklin Police Officers’ Association, Roseville Police Officers Association, Sacramento County Alliance of Law Enforcement (SCALE), Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Sacramento County Probation Association, Sacramento Police Officers Association, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association, Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Stockton Police Officers Association, West Sacramento Police Officers Association.

Friends of Bruce Kranz • P.O. Box 352 • Meadow Vista, CA 95722

Blogger’s Endnote: This is why Montgomery’s campaign is DOA, look what the Sheriff’s wrote: “Kranz has made public safety his first priority working on a new helicopter, improved communications, Meth drug abuse prevention, catastrophic wildfires, keeping CHP stations open and making public safety first in the county budget.”

Jennifer Montgomery is not qualified to be a supervisor…

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.

PCCP = Placer County Conservation Plan. This is a good idea on paper – Liberal Republican Supervisor Robert Weygandt has spent the better part of the last four years on this thing.

Why is there a need for such a plan? Because the extreme enviros have gotten bills past that require one acre to be frozen out for every acre developed. Remember that over 50% of California’s land is owned by governments – actually it is like 60%. National Parks / Forests / State Parks / Preserves etc etc etc…

Weygandt put this plan together as a way to preemptively take care of a lot of the eco-nazi restrictions against development. I get it…

What I don’t get is that the 1040 parcels Bruce is sounding the alarm about and many more in the other supervisor districts would be encumbered by the plan. Then, they would be managed by the Placer Land Trust.

CONNECTIONS TO MONTGOMERY CAMP?

Have a look at their list of advisory members and then compare them to Montgomery’s endorsement list. LINK Notice how our favorite “Republican” Joanne Neft is on the list amongst others.

A look at the list of Board Members shows none other than Doug Houston, Bob Houston’s son. Doug was terminated from a contract by Bruce Kranz due to ethical conflicts. LINK

This just does not look good…

LAND MANAGEMENT?

Are you kidding me? How many of you saw the news about the Gladding Fire?

The dirty little secret is that it started on Land ‘managed’ by the Placer Land Trust. The problem with the placer land trust is summed up by an angry resident:

...I’ll just repeat the concern that I and others have about the increasingly ‘unmanaged’ land in the county.

The fire north of Lincoln started on the old Hofman land that Westpark gave up as mitigation for its development in west Roseville. As I understand it, the land is “managed” by the Placer Land Trust. I believe they refer to it as the Doty Preserve.

If you look around the county at land grazed by the owners – people trying to live off the land – the fuel load is negligible. A legitimate argument can be made for saving some feed for fall before the grass comes in. In the case of the ‘Doty Preserve’ the vegetation is heavily made up of tar weed and Medusa head – very unpalatable under the best of circumstances, but with hungry enough cattle and enough rain on it – some might get eaten. IF a rancher wanted to save feed for the fall, that feed would have a value that he would want to protect. A person protecting his assets would disc, or at least mow, a fire break around the land – - – especially if it fronted Gladding Rd. where cigarette fires are common. Earlier this summer there was a small fire just a few hundred feet north of the recent burn. If you don’t owe it to yourself, you owe it to your neighbors.

Instead of acting like a reasonable and prudent person who lived on the land, or even a good neighbor, the Placer Land Trust has focused on putting in expensive metal fence posts and signs… The houses and outbuildings and riparian areas on both appear to have been totally destroyed, along with some neighbors.

My hat is off to CalFire for containing as well as they did the wall of flame that must have come off of those properties.

We need to do something to ensure that the ever increasing acreage of “habitat” land does not become a threat to those of us who live in the rural areas. The environmental community likes the word “working landscape.” Landscapes that are being worked, in my humble opinion, seem to have less of a fuel load threatening the neighbors.

Again – the Placer Land Trust would be in charge of managing that land given up to the PCCP. They seem to be following the same pattern that precipitated the horrendous wildfires that ripped California.

The “hands off” policy of the Eco-Left has come right home to Placer County. These are the folks lining up behind Jennifer Montgomery. People lost their homes needlessly because of their decision to do nothing in the name of environmental protection.

My Message to the Placer Land Trust – get out of the business of politics and start clearing that land. Then and maybe then will people start to coalesce behind the PCCP.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION – The land the Placer Land Trust gets would still be owned by the people giving it up. The problem is that it would be encumbered and un-developable making it worthless.

The significance of this is that the driving force behind this plan to take these parcels for the Placer County Conservation Plan is the Placer Land Trust. More on them, soon… suffice to say, Joanne Neft and a host of others on Team Montgomery are connected to the Placer Land Trust.

The Placer Land trust is an incompetent manager of Land. Just ask the three Homeowner’s whose homes burnt due to the mis-management of land owned by the Placer Land Trust. More on that later.

This Conservation Plan is being spearheaded by Robert Weygant. Doug Houston (recognize that name) is a lobbyist / officer with the Placer Land Trust. Doug Houston’s father Bob Houston ran in the primary against Bruce Kranz to avenge the termination of Doug’s contract with Placer County itself. The suggestion of connections between Montgomery and Weygant start to become clearer as this stuff comes out.

Could the fact that this vote is being agendized for 9/23/2008 right before the election be due to a strategy to give Montgomery an issue to attack Bruce with? (aka defending private property rights vs hugging trees)

This whole conundrum is starting to really make me scratch my head.

September 16th, 2008

Dear Parcel Owner within District 5, Proposed Placer County Conservation Plan Area:

For 295 of you, this is a follow up to a similar letter I sent you January 1ih of 2007. For the other 745 of you, this is your first notice, because additional parcels have been added to the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) area since 2007.

Your parcel(s) is within the proposed PCCP area. Currently we do not know what the impacts to your property will be. There is a possibility the impacts could be significant to taxpayers and property owners, as well as bringing an increased risk of wildfire to the area. I believe you have a right to know when proposed county ordinances may affect your property, which is why I am sending you this letter today. No other notification would have been sent to you.

In 2007, I had asked for parcels in District 5 to either be removed from this phase of the PCCP, or scientific evidence produced that would prove the necessity of putting this area into conservation. This last week, I learn that instead of removing District 5 parcels, the number of parcels have increased to 1040 parcels. Per my recent request, Michael Johnson, Planning Director has indicated to me that he has instructed staff to pull all District 5 parcels from the revised plan. I have not received confirmation yet of this change to the staff report. If the District 5 parcels are removed from this phase of pcep, they most likely will be included in the future study (phase 2 of PCCP) where I am hopeful the scientific evidence will be addressed.

This proposed PCCP item is tentatively scheduled to be again presented to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 sometime before noon. You are welcome to attend and voice your opinion. The Board of Supervisors Chambers is located at 175 Fulweiler Ave, Auburn. Please check with the Clerk of the Board for the finalized time at 530-889-4020, or check http://www.placer.ca.gov/bos/Agenda.aspx
at 5:00pm. Friday. September 19th for the posted agenda.

If you cannot attend this meeting, but would like to voice your opinion, please contact me at PCCP@brucekranz.com / 530-889-4010. Please feel free to contact myself or my staff directly if we can be of any additional help.
Sincerely,
(Signature)
Bruce Kranz Placer County Supervisor District 5
P.O. Box 352 • Meadow Vista CA 95722
Phone: 530.906.1018

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…

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

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 – can’t wait to see the 6/30 report.

A quick browse of Montgomery’s campaign finances shows a ton of donors from the Bay Area. We also see several known Placer Democrats doing their part will small donations – the way it is supposed to work, right?

Rob Haswell – former candidate for the 4th AD is running the campaign and the Placer Dems have decided that Bruce Kranz is their best shot for a take-down.

On Page 12 of the report the first “Donor of Interest” appears – Paul McCloskey, Jr. – When he was in Congress, people called him Pete McCloskey. As a RINO Congressman, his greatest contribution to America was the endangered species act – whose tenants have been used by the Sierra Club for years to sue to stop development and forest management.

McCloskey’s recent contribution to local politics was leading a group who recruited primary opponents to Richard Pombo and John Doolittle to soften them up for their Dem Opponents in 2006. After taking Pombo down, McCloskey re-registered Dem and has been out campaigning with Charlie Brown, nice.

Peter V. Cornell – A millionaire businessman from Los Altos who dumped some $31,000 into the campaign. Others with the same last name from the same zip code have contributed loads of money as well. Their names showed up as Clinton donors on related searches.

Auburn Area Democratic Club – no surprise there.

Placer County Dem Central Committee – $3500 no surprise there.

Tahoe Truckee Democratic Club – see the above.

VOICE (San Francisco Address) – searches reveal a Gay Rights / networking website. It’s features include “queermail”. Maybe we should ask Montgomery about Prop 8, I think it is a great question as Montgomery and her husband of nearly 20 years have different last names as well. Knowing how Montgomery views marriage would be a good window into how she is going to make decisions as a supervisor (morays).

And, finally, the Coup ‘d Etat – William A Newsom… father of Gavin Newsom. Gavin is literally the catalyst for why Prop 8 is on the ballot.

The donors confirm that Montgomery’s past writings were no fluke. The extreme left has unified behind her campaign. It is time for the rest of the county, including those withholding their support to choose sides.

There could not be a starker contrast.

P.S. Today – a week later than other media outlets, the AJ published Bruce Kranz’ response to the barrage of letters against him over the 4 lane highway in King’s Beach. The AJ of course made sure Montgomery got equal space even though they spiked letters in support of Bruce.

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

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.

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

Last year there were three evil $1 per car fee/taxes proposed by Sherrif Ed Bonner and the Placer County Sherrif’s department. Around the same time was a debate about Landfill tipping fees.

To start off, the RINO supervisors voted to reduce the tipping fees at the landfill.As a result of the reduction that averaged $11 per person – it has cancelled almost all of the effect of increased costs of diesel fuel. Despite diesel fuel going up some 30%, trash collection fees have only gone up an average of $1.37 per address in Placer County.

That alone is a good case for the re-election of Bruce Kranz and Kirk Uhler. I like RINO’s like that.

Evil $1 tax/fee number three – the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program was withdrawan by Sheriff Bonner and the department after Kirk’s questioning. That is correct – when they could not justify the fee/tax increase to Kirk – they pulled the proposal and have not brought it back.

Evil $1 tax/fee number two – Fingerprinting Equipment in Police Cars. Kirk was the lone no vote in a 4-1 vote in favor. Kirk felt that the money could be found in the budget without having to increase the car fee/tax. At that, the effeciency of having the equipment has aided law enforcement considerably in the field.

Evil $1 tax/fee number one – Joint Vehicle Theft Task Force.

This passed 5-0, in the 11 months it has been in effect… the $300K that has been raised has resulted in $835,000 in recoveries in stolen vehicles. If government could produce those kinds of results with taxes/fees, our taxes/fees would be quite low all the way around.

Your Auto Insurance rates will also reflect this – since 7/1 of last year…

Safeco took a 14.5% reduction in Placer County
Oregon Mutual 20%
Unitrin Specialty 33%
Traveler’s twice, totalling about 12% – targeted sepcifically to Placer County
Hartford changed Placer into their least expensive territory effectively lowering rates 7%

These numbers reflect that Placer has received larger reductions in Comprehensive rates (that part that covers auto theft) than surrounding counties.

This compares to the Auto Insruance Market as a whole which has flattened out. (some carriers have raised rates)

Meantime – in Sacramento County, my car was vandalized recently and my wife’s car was broken into a month ago. The perps could have stolen either car if they wanted to.

Rates in Sacramento County are some 15% higher than Placer all things being the same.

Thanks to the RINO supervisors Bruce Kranz and Kirk Uhler – my wife and I are motivated to move back to Roseville so our cars stay in one piece.

In conclusion – while getting assailed over the two $1 fee/tax increases the Supervisors are denied any credit for policies that froze out alomst all of the effects of fuel costs on trash collection.

While getting assailed over the two $1 fee/tax increases, the Supervisors are denied any credit for the effects of said fees leading to Auto Insruance reductions. Reductions that are greater than all surrounding counties – suggesting that Placer has done something special to warrant that treatment… the Task Force?

Bruce;

Deric Rothe has never made any bones about being a liberal
and has a long history of brazenly using the Journal to pimp for the left’s favored causes.

His view is the only one that matters and no one who disagrees with him or his cronies is going to get ink or space.

Expect the leftists on the Journal to endorse Montgomery before the end of the campaign.

Of course, it will be completely “out of ecological awareness.” And you could fertilize your entire summer crop with that reason! (She’ll owe them big time and be genuflecting with open check book in all ecological directions to pay for it!)

You have my permission to archive this e-mail and when the
endorsement comes out, show Deric Rothe just how predictable he really is! As well as he and all his so-called “editorial staff” being bought and paid for by the liberal left!

Oh not for money! Perish the thought! They obviously act
only from “highest motives.” Just ask them. They’ll tell
you. (As honest and pure as the motives of a divorce
or plaintiff’s attorney!)

Neither Deric Rothe nor his editorial board have the
moral courage to have even a token conservative anywhere
near their paper, much less on their board! They don’t want
to hear diverging views…but they sure are quick to condemn those who have “closed minds.” (And that’s anyone who disagrees with them!)

Rocky Warren
P.O. Box 1140
Colfax, CA.
Hm # (530) XXX-XXXX
Cell # (530) XXX-XXXX

P.S. The phone numbers are for you Deric. Just in case you have any guts. You might even consider a (gasp!) meet and talk! But I really expect you to remain spineless. You’ve been such a success at it so far!

(Rocky)

In an effort to get some blog diversification going – I have some Red County Placer exclusives.

Exclusive to the Placer CRA Blog are the political updates from local offices in Placer County, and insider commentary about County Central Committees and the State GOP.

Yesterday – I posted an exclusive article about Dan Logue leading a legal challenge to the half-baked Gay Marriage ruling by the CA Supreme Court.

Article

Be sure to check out the comments from the anon Charlie Brown supporters… I think we can figure out where Charlie stands on Gay Marriage.

Today – I started a special exclusive series called “Rampage Watch” – this is where I am going to track the editorial habits of Deric Rothe of the Auburn Journal as he attempts to use his publication to influence the elections results in 2008.

Article

Only got a one-week break, damn.

Blogs are sometimes a very informative medium.

Recently, we uncovered a blog entry by a young man who wanted to run for Placer Democrat Central Committee. He sounds like he was getting his inspiration from Bob Mulholland when he wrote.

The Irony is that he did not answer the bell to run as the Placer elections website did not show his name on the results.

LINK

The answer to the above question is found in the middle of his rant:

We need a voice in Placer County that is willing to stand up to conservative extremist County Supervisors like Kirk Uhler and Bruce Kranz, who see Placer County as the next Los Angeles. We need a person to speak up when Assemblyman Ted Gaines tries to push outgoing Congressman John Doolittle’s agenda of corruption and cronyism on us. In short, we need to send the message that this county belongs to all of us, not just special interests and private developers.

1. He must have been asleep when Gaines pulled an exploratory committee against Doolittle.

2. Why is it that only Kranz and Uhler get the label – I thought Weygandt and Holmes are Republicans, too?

3. The Democrats that read this blog must think attacks they agree with are OK and the ones they disagree with are “Smears that everyone are tired of”.

4. Some of the Republicans that read this blog may find the above comments from a Democrat activist informative as to how the other side perceives our Supervisors. (As in who gets the label and who does not…)

I would like to thank the Placer Democrat Party for providing a valuable public service – reminding us all of why Uhler and Kranz deserve our support.

Last night’s meeting featured out Republican nominee for Congress – Tom McClintock.

McClintock spoke about the State Budget and his upcoming campaign against the tin soldier.

Tom also spoke a length about the power of Blogs and letters to the editor. I think the next effort of the Placer CRA will be to put teams of people together to do just that.

Sitting in the front row was Bruce Kranz – Supervisor in the 5th District that is in a runoff against extreme leftist Jennifer Bloomfield-Montgomery. Kranz endorsed Ose, but is obviously on board with Tom.

Also in attendance was Miguel Ucovich from Loomis town council- Miguel did not endorse Ose.

The most interesting part of the evening was litening to Tom speak about the state budget and the dire circumstances of the State because of the refusal of the leadership to tell anyone no.

It remains to be seen if a late budget is going to affect Tom’s campaign.

ICYMI -

Bob Houston proudly emailed his endorsement by the Sacramento Bee – the same Sacramento Bee that trashed Bruce Kranz when he ran against Rex Bloomfield. Rex Bloomfield was a fundraiser for Boxer and a longtime Sierra Club booster.

Given that Bob Houston has spoken out publicly against private property rights – it comes as no surprise that the granola-crunchers on the Sacramento Bee editorial board would endorse Bob Houston.

Speaking of other great endorsements – the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Sue Horne. What that means is anyone’s guess – I wonder if the Bee is not too far behind there as well.

The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board can be read here.

For your benefit – I am providing some excerpts as to why the Bee endorsed Bob Houston – Think Anti-Growth and John Doolittle.

Kranz, a protégé of U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, came into office in 2004 by defeating Rex Bloomfield, a favorite of environmentalists. Over the past four years, he’s been highly engaged and has surprised some of his detractors.

OK – Clue Number one, Kranz is a Doolittle protege, and he committed the egregious sin of taking out the Sierra Club’s number one supervisor in Placer County.

In 2006, Kranz joined with Doolittle and developers in an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Weygandt, a moderate who as a supervisor has been an important voice for planned growth and open space preservation. This year Kranz is supporting Proposition 98, an eminent domain initiative that would make it harder for agencies to enforce environmental regulations and acquire land for public works.

Fortunately, there’s a candidate in this race who better suits the moderate conservatism of this rural district. Bob Houston, a longtime resident of Meadow Vista, has thrown $100,000 of his own money into his first run for office. He vows not to be beholden to anyone, opposes Proposition 98 and is wary of the scale of the proposed Royal Gorge project.

What does Bob Houston have in common with Ose? He is trying to buy the race, is a Moderate (according to the Bee), opposes development and opposes taxpayers by supporting Prop 99.

Finally, anyone who thinks Robert Weygandt is not involved in this race should look no further than this “endorsement” by the Bee of Houston.

P.S. There is more going on here. Let’s hope Kranz gets 50% +1 and we don’t go into a runoff.

First off – picture the scene when Bruce Kranz drives into the venue… 90% of the cars parked had “Charlie Brown” for Congress stickers on them.

This “non-Partisan” group certainly knew who the Conservative was, as they went after Bruce Kranz from the word go. The good news for Bruce is that he didn’t lose any votes as a result of that debate – most there were disciples of Rex Bloomfield.

Also present were Bloomfield disciples Jennifer Montgomery and Millionaire Lobbyist and Bloomfield associate Bob Houston.

(Bloomfield is the Barbara Boxer fundraiser / former Sierra Club Chapter President wanna-be that Kranz defeated for Supervisor in 2008.)

Bob Houston’s positions – Said he is a fiscal conservative yet supported increased funding for Placer Legacy and Sierra Nevada Conservancy. (This suggests anti-growth land grabbing)

Bob Houston claims to have refused developer money, yet +/- 17 of Bob’s 44 registered clients (Houston is a lobbyist) are Cement Companies! Of further concern is Houston’s business with Placer County which is a more direct conflict of interest.

“Cement is a green building product”, in a partial answer to a question about climate change… (Tom McClintock has had some choice words about Concrete in the past)

Houston also said he has much to learn – he said he didn’t know much on some issues but was listening. Actually, he expressed ignorance on several issues.

This suggests that Houston’s decision to run was sudden – this further adds to speculation that Houston is running to get even with Bruce Kranz.

Jennifer Montgomery -

“I support raising mitigation fees” – this should have made the league very happy, she agrees with Charlie Brown on raising our taxes.

“I support a ban on backyard burning” – her answer to the global warming question. I guess forests burning by the thousands of acres pale in comparison to the ecological damage from burning clippings in your backyard.

Claims to support sustainable agriculture – but supports Placer Legacy which prohibits fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides…

Claimed not to be against growth – pointing to the fact that she has not taken developer money. However, her donor list reads like Charlie Brown’s who’s who of Bay Area Liberals. Of note, she has taken money from Gavin Newsome’s father…

Former Assemblyman Tim Leslie appointed to TRPA governing board

Leslie known to be critical of the TRPA.

By Julie Brown
Sierra Sun www.sierrasun.com
March 27, 2008

One of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s fiercest critics has been appointed to the board of the agency.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today his appointment of former California State Assemblyman Tim Leslie to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board.

With 20 years of service in the California Legislature behind him, Leslie will assume the seat left vacant last year after former Chair Julie Motamedi resigned.

“Tim [Leslie’s] strong background in public service greatly qualifies him to serve,” said Rachel Cameron, spokeswoman for the governor. “As well as his familiarity with the region itself.”

During his service at the state capitol, Leslie developed a long list of achievements in the Lake Tahoe region, local officials said.

But he has also been one the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s most vocal critics. In 2006, the then-assemblyman hosted a survey that gauged public sentiment of the TRPA. Results showed that 85 percent of respondents felt the bi-state agency needed to be held more accountable to the public.

In past opinion letters published in the Sierra Sun in 2005, Leslie asserted that the bi-state agency is a “prime example of this type of abusive government,” referring to the agency’s unchecked operations.

“TRPA is a bi-state agency with a massive blanket of unaccountable bureaucracy layered over the top of otherwise elected and accountable units of government, with the objective of ‘protecting’ Lake Tahoe,” Leslie wrote.

Placer County Supervisor Bruce Kranz, who also sits on the TRPA governing board, said that Leslie will not be the only governing board member who is critical of the agency he serves.

“But now that he’s part of it, he can be part of the solution,” Kranz said. “I think there’s nothing wrong with that frankly. That’s one of the positive things I like about [Leslie]. He knows what the issues are.”

— Read the complete story in Friday’s Sierra Sun.

There are some substantial connections between Houston and Robert Weygant.

When I blogged before that Weygant and Houston has some sort of connection, I did not know what it was. I have a better handle on it now and I will be laying out the motivation behind Bob Houston’s run against Kranz.

Suffice to say, Houston is looking quite suspect right about now.

Our Conservative 3-2 majority on the Placer board of supes depends on defending Bruce Kranz.

The release appears below -

Houston is Serious about Supervisor Campaign

Starts with $100,000

Meadow Vista—Businessman Bob Houston has shown his commitment to his campaign for Supervisor by putting $100,000 of his own money in the account to get things started.

“People told me that running against an incumbent is really difficult, especially when the incumbent starts with more than $80,000 in his account,” said Houston. “I decided to level the playing field right away. I am running to win.”

Houston has spent more than five decades in private business. He is running for Supervisor to provide a voice to the communities of Placer County that have been completely neglected for the past four years.

“Campaign funds are usually correlated with election outcomes,” said political observer Tom Hudson. “When the incumbent seeks re-election with fewer resources than the challenger, it usually means problems for the incumbent.”

“In 2004 Bruce Kranz outspent my campaign by nearly three to one,” said former Placer County Supervisor Rex Bloomfield. “He will not have that advantage this time. Bob Houston has just put the incumbent in serious jeopardy.”

Blogger’s note – Bloomfield is the liberal Democrat that Kranz defeated in 2004. Bloomfield hosted a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer and supports Charlie Brown for Congress. It is curious that he would weigh in on this issue as he is supporting Jennifer Montgomery...

Houston has committed to serving on the Board of Supervisors full-time without pay. He views being a Supervisor as not something he does for himself but for the people of Placer County.

Houston is a businessman that lives in Meadow View with his wife Arlene. They recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. They have three grown children and are the proud grandparents of five.

The Tahoe Sierra-Sun had an opening article on Jennifer Montgomery:

The Article is LINKED HERE

A good look at Jennifer Montgomery is contained in the following excerpts:

Montgomery said she has no experience in politics, but contends that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Instead, she draws on a wide background and 17 years living on Donner Summit.

Montgomery’s goals include examining the affects of climate change on the area’s economy, implementing a night-sky standard for lighting, re-examining public transportation in the Tahoe Basin, and insuring new development is both responsible and green, she said.

After talking to a few people around the area, they have all told me that Montgomery started criticizing Bruce Kranz and has never met him. I will have to get a look at her voter registration history – as in if she is still a registered Dem or Grn.

As to Bob Houston: I was contacted a few weeks ago before he announced. I asked two questions of the person who called me: the first was will he (Houston) support the pay raise thing? The answer is held in his announcement speech/release that says he won’t take a salary at all.

The second was will he support local tax increase measures? The answer was – “I think he will be with you 75% of the time”. (Meaning 25% of the time he will endorse bonds and parcel taxes)

An excerpt from the article in the Bee regarding his announcement:

Houston, 71, founder of Corporate Advocates, a government affairs firm, said he isn’t part of any “political machine.”

“I will be an independent and experienced voice for the people of Placer County,” he said in a news release.

Later research has determined that Bob Houston is also a man of means and several I talked to see Robert Weygant’s fingerprints on his candidacy. At least two I spoke with think that Houston is going to write himself a nice-sized check to start his campaign.

Kranz, Uhler and Rocky Rockholm make up the 3-2 Conservative majority on the Board of Supervisors.

I would not look for much input from Kranz on the 4th Congressional race as he now has his hands full.