The seems more appropriate than ever.  I cut the last verse, but you can find the full lyrics, or click the YouTube video above to watch the original if you’ve never heard of this or need a refresher. Here’s a lousy pirated copy of the brilliant Simpsons parody. Songwriter Dave Frishberg is a genius who also wrote a lot of wonderful tunes for grown-ups.

Boy: Woof! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?

I’m just a bill.
Yes, I’m only a bill.
And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it’s a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It’s a long, long wait
While I’m sitting in committee,
But I know I’ll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.

Bill: Well I got this far. When I started, I wasn’t even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman and he said, "You’re right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I’ll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.

I’m just a bill
Yes I’m only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I’m stuck in committee
And I’ll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?

Bill: Yeah, I’m one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.

Boy: Die?

Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I’m gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.

Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?

Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.

Boy: Oh no!

Bill: Oh yes!

If a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, how cynical do you have to be to think Half Moon Bay’s settlement is a good deal for the community? How cynical do you have to be to think it’s a good deal for California?

You can’t put a price on creating the precedent of bypassing environmental laws in exchange for cash.

You can’t put a price on ignoring decades of state protection of the coast, environmental quality, wetlands, and endangered species habitat.

You can’t put a price on turning the clock back 20 years for one developer, to a time before Half Moon Bay’s citizens overwhelmingly approved growth limits, and before the developer himself allowed wetlands to develop in holes and clogged drains on his own property.

You can’t put a price on simply ignoring your own laws, after they were vindicated by the state supreme court, just to negotiate a cheaper deal.

The Half Moon Bay City Council is willing to do all that and more for about fifty cents on the dollar.

And they’re also willing to put Senator Leland Yee in an untenable position. Why else would they try to get him to commit to their secret settlement one day before he got a look at it? Why would they threaten him with a city bankruptcy that they knew was already off the table when they asked him to put his name on the bill?  Yee made a mistake signing on to this deal before he knew what it was, but at least he had the courage to take his name off it until he understood the stakes.

Once the legislature gets this thing out into the open air, we may discover that the city has committed to developing state- and federally-protected land. And that the city’s ultimate exposure—if it were to take ownership of Beachwood and develop it to the standard mandated by the city’s own laws—is a lot less than $18 million. And far short of bankruptcy. Especially if, as suggested by the Coastal Commission’s executive director, there is is a way to mitigate development of some of the wetlands.

Half Moon Bay’s City Council structured this settlement so that they would have no choice but to pay up if the state chooses to enforce its own laws. And now they’re telling us "Now is not the time to ask what might have been".  Citizens who don’t want to put a price on the protection of the law shouldn’t have to pay for Half Moon Bay’s cynical settlement.

There’s a nice use of quotes in Julia Scott’s lead for today’s story about AB1991 in the County Times.

Lawyers for the city unleashed a public relations campaign Tuesday aimed at "educating" environmental groups about the merits of the Beachwood settlement legislation, attempting to dispel their "misconceptions" about how the bill might set legal precedent for future developments in California.

The story also quoted Coastal Commission Executive Direct Peter Douglas as offering some creative suggestions for compromise.  However, it’s not clear that this is possible any longer, now that the city has give up their right to appeal and guaranteed Chop Keenan $18 million if he doesn’t get everything they promised.

No one from the Coastal Commission was available for comment Tuesday afternoon. On Monday, however, Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said his staff hoped that some compromise could be achieved if the parties were willing to rewrite the bill without setting aside the possibility of any environmental review.

The Coastal Commission approved 19 homes on the Beachwood property in 2001, whittling the original project down considerably because of the presence of coastal wetlands.

"It may be possible that a higher number of homes could be approved there," Douglas said, suggesting a hypothetical situation where the developer could offer to create a series of wetlands elsewhere in Half Moon Bay to account for the ones he would fill in during construction. "That’s a matter of compromise. But that’s not what they’re asking for. They’re asking for a complete exemption."

We just received the following statement from Half Moon Bay’s attorneys via email. My initial reaction is in the comments. Let’s hear yours.

Statement by Half Moon Bay

The City of Half Moon Bay is faced with two options, and only two options - either AB 1991 passes or the City must pay Mr. Keenan $18 million, a cost which will seriously burden the City and its citizens.  Although people may disagree with the specific terms of the settlement, it was the best the City was able to negotiate. Now is not the time to ask what might have been.  The combination of specific facts of the Beachwood litigation are unique and, as a result, AB 1991, the legislation approving development on Beachwood and Glencree, would not set a precedent for any future exceptions to California environmental regulations because:

1.  The wetland conditions on the Beachwood property are the man-made result of a half-completed grading and drainage improvements undertaken by the City of Half Moon Bay (Exhibit I); and

2.  Development on the Beachwood property was always part of the City of Half Moon Bay’s growth plan and vesting tentative maps were approved in 1990 after an environmental review by the City that found no significant impact on the environment (development of the pre-existing natural wetlands in the southeast corner of Beachwood was prevented, as it is under this agreement), before delays caused wetland conditions to develop (Exhibit II); and

3.  The City of Half Moon Bay faced a $41.1 million judgment concerning Beachwood that could have bankrupted the city and forced cutbacks in vital city services (Exhibit III).

Regarding the inclusion of the 12-acre Glencree parcel that is adjacent to Beachwood, the developer required the inclusion of that parcel in the settlement agreement.  In addition, it should be noted that Glencree also had been previously approved for development, at approximately the same time as Beachwood with no adverse environmental impact.  From current observations, there appear to be wetland conditions on Glencree that one can reasonably assume developed after the construction activities by the City in the 1980s.  (See also Sierra Club statement that "even Judge Walker acknowledges the Glencree wetlands!")

All three facts must be present for the California Legislature to ever use this legislation as precedent for permitting development on wetlands, whether naturally-occurring or manmade.  Only having one or two of the criteria present would not be sufficient.

For example, if a wetland is manmade but the other two facts are not present, it would not meet the requirement for legislative action.  If a city has a vesting tentative map that is approved for a property and wetlands later occur on that property, that would not meet the requirement for state legislation permitting the development if the city does not also face a court judgment that would result in the city’s bankruptcy.  If a court enters a judgment for an amount that forces a city into bankruptcy because of manmade wetlands created by actions taken by a city, such a situation would not meet the requirement for legislation if a vesting tentative map for the property was never issued.

In order for this legislation to be a precedent, all three specific facts would have to be present.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Contacts: Lanny J. Davis 301-928-7532 and Josh Galper 202-744-4047

Capitol Weekly, which covers state goverment, has an article on AB1991 and the Beachwood settlement. It includes some interesting quotes from Leland Yee and Gene Mullin:

Yee said earlier that he agreed to be a co-author of AB 1991 before the settlement was finalized. But he has since witdrawn support, citing two "surprise" clauses in the agreement. The first calls for the city to pay developer Keenan $18 million even if the bill fails, scuttling the settlement. The second is a part of the agreement that lets Keenan build 46 homes on an adjacent piece of property that wasn’t part of the original lawsuit.

"It seems as if this ended up as a Christmas tree with all sorts of goodies under it," Yee said. "If it becomes a developers’ paradise, I’m not interested."

The main author of AB 1991 is Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco. He said that he will continue to push the bill, adding that he offered the bill to help to city avoid bankruptcy; his office did not participate in the settlement talks.

"We volunteered to them that if they engaged in settlement talks and needed a bill, I would have a spot bill available for them," Mullin said. He added: "They could have gone forward with an appeal. They chose to settle…We will fulfill our commit to carry the bill and work as hard as we can to make sure they don’t have to pay $18 million."
...
Environmentalists say Mullin has some alleged ties to the pro-development old guard, but Mullin dismisses these claims. In the early-to-mid 1970s, Mullin said, his divorced father married Dolores Mullin, a longtime Half Moon Bay city councilwoman and one-time mayor. But Mullin notes that he was already in his late 30s at the time, so Dolores Mullin was never really his stepmother or godmother, as some have stated. Mullin’s father died in the 1980, and he said he had little contact with Dolores Mullin after that.

"She was a conservative Republican and I’m a liberal democrat," Mullin said. "We didn’t have a lot of interaction, to say the least."

The County Times also has a very good story on AB1991, which includes these details:

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, also agreed to co-sponsor the bill in response to a request Mullin’s office sent to the entire Bay Area delegation in February, according to Mullin. Her name is not attached to the "placeholder" bill Mullin submitted at the time, but will appear in the final, amended language that includes the details of the settlement.

That language is being analyzed by a slate of legislative attorneys, according to Mullin. It will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Local Government on April 30 before coming to a vote on the Assembly floor.
...
The city’s Architectural Review Committee will, in fact, consider the proposed design of Keenan’s homes — but will only be able to apply the standards in effect when the city fist approved a building permit for Beachwood back in 1990.

I didn’t learn much in business school, but I did learn that if an employee is not behaving in the best interests of the organization, it’s a pretty good bet his compensation program is structured to encourage it.

When you look at MCTV’s budget, you can begin to see why they don’t talk to the community or even listen. MCTV’s not returning my messages, so this is my personal analysis of their tax returns.

Three quarters of MCTV’s income comes from grants from the city of Half Moon Bay and from San Mateo County. The city and county get the money from cable franchise fees and pass it on to MCTV.  Coastsiders pay the franchise fee as a separate line item on their Comcast bills. But it’s not earmarked for MCTV. The city and county could choose to keep the money, or give it to someone else. With the City Council and Board of Supervisors providing three-quarters of MCTV’s revenue, MCTV’s existence depends on keeping them happy.

MCTV’s only other significant source of revenue is what they call "government grants". This appears to be the fees that local boards pay MCTV for taping and cablecasting their meetings. But it’s unclear why MCTV is unwilling to run tapes of meetings they didn’t produce, since the income from taping doesn’t appear to be much more than the expense of volunteers, staff time, and materials. Running these tapes might free up staff time and equipment for something more interesting.

What MCTV calls "direct public support" appears to be what you and I would call advertising revenue.  And MCTV made about $4,000 on advertising in fiscal 2005.

Most startling is that less than 1% of MCTV’s revenue comes from membership dues. If MCTV had to go to the community every year meet its budget, the way that KQED must for example, you could expect them to be a lot more responsive.

[CORRECTION: MCTV’s board is elected by its members.]

Hello Friends and Fellow Obama Supporters:

As many of you may know, I have been extremely active with Barack Obama’s presidential campaign for well over a year now. I have traveled as an unpaid volunteer to Nevada three times and to Texas once to phone bank, canvass door to door and assist during the caucuses. I am the Team Coordinator for Congressional District 12, which includes Montara and Moss Beach, and I managed our South San Francisco Obama HQT earlier this year. The more I learn about Barack Obama, the more convinced I am that he will be a truly exceptional president. Our country needs him—now. We need his leadership, his integrity and his wisdom.

But in order for this to happen, he needs to win the nomination. In August, the Democratic National Convention will take place in Denver, Colorado. The delegates to this convention will choose the nominee of the Democratic Party. With your help, I can be one of those delegates, steadfastly representing you and all of the Obama Democrats in Congressional District 12. Details below.

Caucus meetings will be held throughout California, in each Congressional District, on Sunday, April 13, to elect delegates to the Convention. Based on the vote totals in our February 5 primary, Barack Obama will be awarded three delegates from Congressional District 12, two women and one man. I want to be one of those women.

Any registered Democrat who lives in CD 12 is eligible to attend the caucus and vote for three candidates. Anyone eligible to vote can register for the first time as a Democrat, or members of other political parties can re-register as Democrats at the caucus, allowing them to vote for delegates that day.

The doors open at 2:00 pm and you must arrive before 3:00 pm, as the doors will be locked at that time. You can sign in, vote and leave prior to 3:00 pm if you wish. For those wanting to stay, candidates will give one-minute campaign speeches, starting shortly after 3:00 pm. To date, 41 people are running so this will be a very competitive race. Estimated duration for the entire caucus process is about 3 hours, but again, you can sign in, vote and leave.

Half Moon Bay’s city employees’ union is circulating a letter for its members to sign and send to assemblyman Gene Mullin and other key legislators.  The key paragraph reads:

We strongly urge the legislature to approve AB 1991, which would allow for development infill on land approved for development approximately 17 years ago, while at the same time allowing the City and our members to provide essential City services without interruption.

Click to read the full letter

State Senator Leland Yee has withdrawn as a co-author of the AB1991, the bill to guarantee Half Moon Bay’s settlement with Chop Keenan by expediting development of Beachwood and Glencree. When the settlement was announced at Tuesday’s city council meeting, Yee was listed as a "sponsor" of the bill (he actually agreed to be a co-author).

Yee says he will not support the bill until he has had more opportunity to study the settlement and its consequences for the property, the city, and state law. He says he could wait until after hearings on the bill, but that he is still concerned about the possibility that the city could bankrupted.

The settlement and Senator Yee’s sponsorship were announced on Tuesday evening at the Half Moon Bay City Council meeting.

I spoke with Senator Yee on Wednesday evening.  He told me that he didn’t know the details of the agreement until he saw the city’s press release on Wednesday. He had already heard from constituents about their unhappiness with his name being on the bill.

Yee acknowledged that he had not seen the settlement before he agreed to sponsor the bill, saying he had been "privy to the essence of the settlement" and had been very concerned that the city avoid bankruptcy.  He did not know that the city had promised Keenan $18 million if AB1991 did not pass or that the settlement included permission to develop the Glencree property.

AB 1991 would allow the development of Glencree (as well as Beachwood) without review by the Coastal Commission, the state Department of Fish and Game, or other state and local environmental and planning agencies.

On Wednesday, Yee described the city’s $18 million guarantee to me as a "fallback plan", saying "there seems to be another alternative" to bankruptcy or the passage of AB1991.

Half Moon Bay mayor Bonnie McClung declined to comment for this story.

If you do nothing else, watch the lawyer’s announcement and imagine yourself in the audience.

We’ve broken out the city council’s discussion as well as the oral communications so you can watch individual presentations. We will post the rest of the city council meeting when it is ready.

• City’s attorney describes settlement [10 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Distribution of settlement to the public [2 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• City council discussion [11 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Sam (unintelligible last name) [6 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Brian Ginna [2 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: George Muteff [3 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Dale Dunham [2 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Jerry Steinberg [1 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Dennis Paull [3 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Mike Ferreira [4 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Conclusion [1 min] | Quicktime | Flash |