Appropriations Committee passes AB1991

Bonnie McClung says
“The citizens of Half Moon Bay have worked hard on a grass-roots campaign to support AB 1991..”

Madam Mayor, please tell the truth. Hiring a Washington DC lobbyist named Lanny Davis to push this bill through the Assembly with the help of local realtors is not a “grass roots campaign”

At the Local Government Committee hearing there were more individual letters against AB 1991 than for it. I don’t know the letter count at the Appropriations Committee, but there were many, many letters from HMB citizens who oppose this awful bill.

Really offensive to have the Mayor of the town say things to the press that are simply not true.

And what’s wrong with LOCAL REALTORS.  Many of us have lived here and worked here for decades trying to make this a better place for everybody.

There probably isn’t an organization or charity on the Coast that hasn’t benefited a lot from our hard work, support and donations.

I know I support a handful of organizations and events.  And on top of that I’ve been writing for your favorite paper for over 12 years now educating the public on a variety of real estate topics.

I don’t want to see this place bankrupted cause of some weeds or because some obscure group hundreds of miles away doesn’t like what we do.

So if you want to know more of what we do for our community,  I’d be glad to educate you over lunch.  Its on me. 

Come on down to the Dark Side.  I think you’ll find we’re pretty nice and caring people who love the Coast.  We just hate the politics.

Steve, the point is that realtors are looking out for their own professional and financial interests. SAMCAR has a hired professional lobbyist (George Mozingo) working to help push AB 1991.

That is not a “grass roots campaign”.

The grass roots folks are the volunteers trying to stop AB 1991 with nothing to gain other than the satisfaction of knowing they are doing what is right: protecting the integrity of the Coastal Act and other environmental laws.

SAMCAR = San Mateo County Association of Realtors.

And that makes us different from the people who own gas stations, shops, restaurants, etc.  All the Realtors I know think this is a great place to work, live and raise a family.

As far as George Mozingo goes,  he does a great job in protecting property owners rights from bad legislation.  We are lucky to have him.  The Coast is a small part of SAMCAR but he spends a disproportionate amount of his time dealing with all our issues.

I doubt I’ll make any money off of Beachwood,  which is years away from seeing built homes,  so I’d say my efforts are grass roots too.

I think I’m right too.  There’s nothing special about this sacred field of weeds and I don’t want to pay $18 million for cleaning up a mess.  This is the logical way to go.

Comment 5 by Charlie Gardner  on  May 23  at  5:56pm  •  All my comments • 

Kevin,

I know how upsetting this must be for you not to get your way on this one, but the true facts are that it is a local grass roots effort in support of this bill.

The fact is that there were more letters in support than opposed by a margin of almost 3-1. If you discounted the form faxes sent from outside our local community by people coerced into believing your myth that this bill will strike down the State’s environmental protections, the local support margin of passage is increased significantly.

It must of been embarrassing for one of the obstructionists who spoke at the Assembly meeting when asked what it was in the Bill they were opposed to admiited they had not even read it, but were “told to show up and speak in opposition”.

The mayor should be applauded for her efforts.

Meanwhile the majority will see this Bill as the best deal for our community, and the Coastal Act will still be in place after this is passed.

Ok Charlie. Didn’t you, McClung and others who now suport AB 1991 also tell us for years that putting the Middle School at Wavecrest was “the best deal for our community?”

After wasting 10 years and tens of millions of dollars in escalated construction costs, we all got to find out that you were wrong.

And your letter count is wrong too. I am talking about letters sent to the Committee who voted on the bill.

What is wrong with local realtors on the midcoast and in HMB is that most (not all) are shills for overdevelopment, overpopulation, and destruction of local resources. The few who aren’t operate very quietly.

No one paying attention is fooled by support of select community causes for the sake of PR. That obvious ploy is used by businesses and their associations in almost every industry and area of government. Smile superficially to the public while eviscerating the future, in this instance by establishing a model for across-the-board exemption from already inadequate environmental regulations.

Comment 8 by Barry Parr  on  May 23  at  7:22pm  •  All my comments • 

It’s not surprising that there is HMB support for this bill. HMB residents have been told that they will be personally be responsible for thousands of dollars if it doesn’t pass.

This is the problem with all special-interest legislation. The benefit is concentrated in a small number of pockets and the cost (which is always much higher) is too widely distributed to engender opposition.

The concentration of dollars makes it possible to pay for lawyers, lobbyists, flacks, etc.

That’s why it’s specious to refer to HMB support for this bill as “grassroots”. It’s just a wider special interest than usual.

Comment 9 by Anneliese Ågren  on  May 23  at  8:18pm  •  All my comments • 

So what is it going to take to get into the heads of the “full assembly vote next week,” to not pass this bill?

And this is not about winning one or losing one, this is about one party taking responsibility for its own consequences - just as I have had to take responsibility for mine in my own life, and you each in yours.

What is the next step here, for those of us wanting to say, “Hey!  No.  City of HMB can eat this one and deal with it.”

Who has the direction to provide us?

And I’m a resident of HMB and feel completely comfortable with letting the city work its way out of this situation.  No bail-outs no matter what the supposed cost.  I never received any bail-outs for my poor judgement.

I believe there are many others, who would rather the City of HMB own up to the situation and deal with it, than be allowed this “legislative relief,” but we would like direction from this forum, rather than continued volleying between the opposing sides.

An old construction superintendent once clued me into a saying:
“Never wrestle with a pig - you’ll both get dirty, and the pig will love it.”

Anneliese,

Below are some things you can and should do if you oppose AB 1991. Encourage your friends to do the same.

(Please note of course, that the high-priced, so-called “grass roots” campaign being run by ex-Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis is doing this and more—including paying people to write letters for willing locals.)

1. Write, fax, or call Assemblyman Gene Mullin and ask him to withdraw AB 1991. The bill will be heard by the full assembly during the week of May 26th, perhaps as early as May 27th so this is urgent.

Mullin’s website contains contact info:
  http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a19/

2. Provide a comment on AB 1991 directly via the internet. Type “AB 1991” in the place for “Bill Number” at website below, which will take you to a comment page.
      http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

3. Fax a letter of thank you to the Democrats who voted against AB 1991 and a letter expressing your displeasure with the Democrats who voted for it. For Democrats who abstained, FAX a letter urging them to vote no.

(Republicans are a lost cause on AB 1991, so don’t waste your time. But that should tell you something about the people supporting AB 1991)

Democrats Voting Against AB 1991:
Mark Leno- 916-319-2113 (FAX)
Pedro Nava- 916-319-2135 (FAX)
Patty Berg- 916-319-2101 (FAX)
Mark DeSaulnier- 916-319-2111 (FAX)
Jarred Huffman- 916-319-2106 (FAX)

Democrats Voting For AB 1991:
Ted Lieu- 916-319-2153 (FAX)
Fiona Ma- 916-319-2112 (FAX)
Jose Solorio- 916-319-2169 (FAX)
Anna Caballero- 916-319-2128 (FAX)

Democrats Abstaining
Paul Krekorian 916-319-2143 (FAX)
Mike Eng 916-319-2149 (FAX)

4. Finally, email the Half Moon Bay City Council at the addresses shown below and let them know that you do not want them to spend our money lobbying for bill that will trample over every state environmental law on the books.

Bonnie McClung: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
John Muller: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Naomi Patridge: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Jim Grady: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Marina Fraser: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

This “grass roots local realtor” and 25 year resident sent in a letter of support.  I wasn’t inspired ( or contacted) by the slick lawyering of Lanny Davis. It was Kevin’s earlier post that motivated me to action.

Considering this is turning into such a circus,  maybe we should sent our letters to the other Leno.

Comment 12 by Anneliese Ågren  on  May 24  at  10:26am  •  All my comments • 

Kevin,
Thank you so much for taking the time to post this info.  :)  This weekend I will make use of all the contact avenues.

Comment 13 by Jonathan Lundell  on  May 24  at  10:38am  •  All my comments • 

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. —Upton Sinclair

Comment 14 by Kevin Barron  on  May 24  at  2:53pm  •  All my comments • 

Well put Johnathan Lundell.. perhaps you could forward that to all the “academics studying and denying man’s actual affect on climate change, nee global warming”. Touche.

Comment 15 by Jonathan Lundell  on  May 24  at  4:10pm  •  All my comments • 

Actually, Kevin Baron, I don’t know many academics “denying man’s actual effect on climate change,” so I probably won’t forward it. Nor do I know any academics whose job depends on their views on climate change, one way or the other.

Most of the best California conservation groups I know are not coastal. They deal in such issues as forest, water, ag land, and desert conservation, overpopulation, park preservation, etc. They have probably not even heard of AB 1991 and its implications for them. So I’m contacting a variety, asking them to join in opposition to AB 1991 because of the model for wholesale overthrow of regulations that are not confined to Coastal Zone concerns.

I’m asking that they do two things:
1. Join the list of groups against the bill.
2. Contact all the Assembly members they regularly deal with, requesting a “no” vote from these members.

I’m also not avoiding Republican Assembly districts. There are lots of interacting political games going on in Sacramento, and you never know where you might dig up a pissed-off Repub looking to stick it to Mullin for some reason or wishing to appear a little better on the environment in a contested district before the next election on a matter that will cost them nothing politically. (Some voters do pay attention to those League of Conservation Voter ratings.)

Carl May

Got to admit.  You guys are the masters of speaking of out of both sides of your mouth.

Kevin blasts local for supporting the City and Carl calls us shills.

But its OK to have obscure groups that don’t even know where HMB is or heard of AB 1991 to come out against it.  Talk about SHILLS.  What do you think these guys are???

Your moves are so fake and transparent.  That’s why your efforts will fail.  And this isn’t lost on Slick Willie’s lawyer.  He’s used to Dem BS.

Comment 18 by Jonathan Lundell  on  May 25  at  11:29am  •  All my comments • 

I don’t think that knowing where Half Moon Bay is need be a prerequisite for caring about the undermining of the Coastal Act.

Maybe so but these people are the real bogus grass root supporters and shills that Kevin and Carl object to.

I guess they only want to slam people who don’t see it their way. Luckily, HMB’s slick lawyer anticipated these transparent moves and has neutralized them.

There are many things that cause most coastside real estate professionals to be called shills for overdevelopment. They are consistently for development that cannot be supported by coastside natural resources and infrastructure; they consistently support government subsidies for private development; they are consistently ignorant of the natural sciences that underpin concerns about the environment; they consistently demean that of which they are ignorant as if their ignorance is deserving of as much respect as facts and knowledge; they never saw an opportunity to make a commission that they did not like no matter what the negative consequences for the community; they are consistently supportive of turning ag land and open space into developed areas and planting the final crop; they don’t know the meaning or consequences of overpopulation.

In the case of AB 1991, they jump at the chance to weaken environmental regulations locally, are unconcerned (and seemingly obstinately ignorant of) of the potential far-reaching consequences for the entire state of wholesale exemption from environmental responsibility and regulations, are angling (in the case of Mr. Hyman) to privatize government property and thus have more local properties subject to those commission-producing turnovers, and are planting local seeds of intimidation against upholding environmental regulations in the future lest the appeal-shy city find itself at the mercy of another activist judge.

It is no surprise that Mr. Hyman cannot cop to the negative statewide model for avoidance of laws that AB 1991 creates. It only adds to the honor of any called out by him for not being entirely parochial in outlook and not being lackeys of wealthy, destructive development interests.

Comments in previous message are mine, not Kay’s.

Carl May

Carl,

You really need to look in the mirror. Its you who’s begging all your green buddies at the 4 corners of the state to bail you out from the mess you made for HMB.  That makes you the shill, lakey, flunky or whatever.

I sense the desperation in your writing.  If AB 1991 is passed (which is looking better by the week),  its you and your obstructionist cohorts who will be blamed for the consequences.  All your eco friends may not want you at their wetland parties.  They may even be so angry at you that they’ll take away your green card.  Then were will you play.

You overplayed your hand so deal with it and stop your whining.

All I seem to hear from you is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

You seem to be suffering from a misconception of history, Steve. Judge Walker did not, indeed could not, find that the 2000 Council (Patridge, Donovan, Taylor, Ruddock, and Coleman) misapplied the law regarding wetlands. Instead, he rather insidiously found that the 1984 City government created the wetlands by botching a drainage project.

And whose gang was in charge in 1984, Steve?

What would I be shilling for? There will always be those wrapped up in their little local mercenary concerns and unable or unwilling to see the broader negative consequences of their actions. To oppose their self-centered actions doesn’t mean someone is trying to sell something of one’s own. It’s sort of sad to run into those with a world view in which everyone is vying exclusively for their own economic interests.

Some may recall my cautionary statement of a couple of weeks ago, suggesting those who oppose AB 1991 should not count their chickens before they are hatched just because the bill is so over-reaching and contrary to the body of environmental regulation in California. State government in Sacramento often operates in a politically-driven world unconnected with reality elsewhere.  Split the Democrats, add the Republicans to your side, and you have a win. Sick, but that is how it is looking for AB 1991.

In the next day or two, I hope others will be getting in touch with acquaintances and in contact with organizations elsewhere who will be negatively affected by the model for evading virtually all state environmental regulations that AB 1991 represents. The bill is being fast-tracked before the word on it is out to all reaches of the state that would be affected and before the full weight of opposition can be mobilized against it.

Carl May

Comment 25 by Kevin Barron  on  May 27  at  4:49pm  •  All my comments • 

This is so not over….

On a primary level, this is a good step for this particular cause. Again, this does not prove any slipper slope is in effect, and AGAIN, this is not a 250-unit condo complex sitting atop the Fitz’ Reserve. Secondarily, this would be good precedence to weaken an already overzealous stronghold that the environmental groups have throughout the state. Yes, there are morals at stake, but many see this sort of precedence as a threat to their existence.
Typical, to see all/every environmental group (even though most have no “moral jurisdiction” in this case) dogpiling a la “I got your back”.  Environmental protectionism is fine, but this carte blanche attitude needs a reality check. Big time.

Secondly, and not to digress the thread:

“Jonathan Lundell : Nor do I know any academics whose job depends on their views on climate change, one way or the other. “

Wow… step one: lift head out of sand. The funding is ROLLING in three, four and five fold in these areas of research. Al Gore’s personal wealth has gone up almost 10-fold. Are you kidding me?!
Yeah, because the funding would just ROLL IN, if research and publications said all was actually not so bad. There’s no turning back on the hysteria. You can’t be that niave. PM me offline, and I can provide a myriad of factual proof rather than digress herein.

$.03

Because one has no background in applicable natural sciences or applied sciences and can only bring in the comments of additional oddballs to support their off-the-wall statements does not mean there are not real issues. Because one has fallen for the attempt to claim AB 1991 only applies to one property in HMB does not mean the unprecedented method for creating environmental exemptions embodied in the bill will not affect all of California.

This kind of issue is why the people of the state voted overwhelmingly for Prop 20, which was already in the process of being weakened when the Legislature created the California Coastal Act of 1976. AB 1991 represents the biggest single weakening of the intent of the Coastal Act, as embodied in its first Chapter, ever because of the removal of the property from all coastyal zone regulations and all requirements of the Coastal Act.

If it becomes law, AB 1991 will be the environmental legacy of Mullin and Ma, both inappropriately, we now recognize, in the Legislature’s Environmental Caucus. But I doubt they will exhibit the least shame or remorse.

We need to redouble efforts to defeat the bill. I have pulled in two more small, affected environmental groups for the list against just in the last two days, with several more looking into it. If all will do this with their own contacts and keep sending those personal e-mails to Assembly members—and State Senators if the bill passes the Assembly—the bill will have less of a chance than if we all do what I usually do. Which is throw up my hands in disgust over the prospect of dealing with an over-politicized, corrupt state government.

Carl May

Comment 27 by Kevin Barron  on  May 27  at  8:20pm  •  All my comments • 

>Because one has no background in applicable natural sciences or applied sciences and can only bring in the comments of additional oddballs to support their off-the-wall statements does not mean there are not real issues. Because one has fallen for the attempt to claim AB 1991 only applies to one property in HMB does not mean the unprecedented method for creating environmental exemptions embodied in the bill will not affect all of California.

Great rhetoric… but just folly.

History (world, US, California, local) is filled with exceptions, and correctiveness. I look at some of the staunch environmental laws like anti-gay marriage legislation (or lack thereof). There’s ALWAYS room for exception, especially when their is an ongoing hystercial mass of environmental witch hunt. Again, the passing of 1991 does not equate to a free pass for a 250 unit condo complex on Fitz’ Reserve, replete with “above surf” parking. *sigh*

/desperately seeking some REASONABLE sense of mediation.

1991 is a step in the right direction.

“Great rhetoric… but just folly.”

Is it crowded in that pickle barrel for the doggedly ignorant and naive?

Carl May

I’m still kind of interested in hearing how Kevin Barron can reconcile his support for AB 1991 (a bill that grants amnesty for a subdivision that would otherwise break the law) with his previous comments on this website where he said:

“...how about just enforcing the LAW that is ALREADY in place?”
      http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/un_dia_sin_immigrantes_a_day_without_immigrants/#1477

Comment 30 by Barry Parr  on  May 28  at  12:13am  •  All my comments • 

Please refrain from name-calling. It’s not helpful and it can only escalate.