28 responses to “Agenda21 – Exhibit A on display locally (updated 7oct12)”

1. 

   Russ Steele

   06 October 2012

   George,
   I have posted on this issue here: http://wp.me/s1NUuI-4223 and linked back to RR.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   06 October 2012

   Thanks Russ, have put the link in the post above.

   LikeLike

3. 

   TomKenworth

   06 October 2012

   Counties should be remapped, to reflect our understanding of watersheds and ecology. As it is, two counties share common water sheds, with the boundaries 19th century conveniently drawn along the river bottoms. That way local control would be much more effective control. Won’t never happen, unless an invading power takes over.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Steven Frisch

   06 October 2012

   I just read the agenda item on this action and I am really trying to figure out how this MOA or signing it would have anything to do with A21. Agreeing to talk to the USFS seems like a pretty far cry from what Russ calls “shifting through the ashes of what was once the Free west.”
   http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/bos/cob/docs/Board%20of%20Supervisors%20Agendas/2012%20BOS%20Meeting%20Agenda%20Documents/10-09-2012%20BOS%20Agenda.pdf
   You guys just look silly when you pass along this sort of nonsense…but please, go to the Supervisors and make a scene! I am sure they will appreciate it.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Scott Obermuller

   06 October 2012

   I read the MOA and find the whole thing to be absurd. The Feds are bound by nothing in this agreement. If the Feds don’t want to act decently and communicate and cooperate with local officials, then they won’t. And the Feds have shown by their actions to not give a fig what the locals want. If the Nevada County BOS want to have a rational and adult relationship with the Feds then they should engage the Feds in that regard. If the Feds tell them to take a flying leap, then they will and this scrap of paper does absolutely nothing to change that. In the mean time, I’m sure it will get the bureaucrats all a-twitter with their new toy.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Steven Frisch

   07 October 2012

   I am re-reading this and thinking about how absolutely ludicrous these statements by George and Russ are. The idea that any organization that engages in regional activity or advocacy is a stealth A 21 organization, flies in the face of how we organize our activities in a free society.
   Don’t we plan transportation regionally because it is more efficient than each jurisdiction doing its own thing and finding out that their road networks don’t line up? As a matter of fact we do this on a lot of infrastructure, because we support more efficient government–and Russ Steele has served on the boards of organizations, like the Nevada County Regional Transportation Commission that participate in just such activities. Is Russ a secret promoter of A21? He must be since he served on a ‘regionalist’ organization. Russ is also part of the regional broadband consortium effort, implemented by a regional organization, the Sierra Economic Development District, with funding from a state agency, the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by a surcharge on your phone bills. Is Russ feeding at the public trough, a charge he is quick to throw at other people in Nevada County, but which as a consultant to the effort, he is by his definition engaged in as well. Is broadband a commie A21 plot? It must be, because it is regional!
   This agenda item is about streamlining communications with the USFS in order to make planning by local governments and the USFS more efficient. The activities of the designated county individual is overseen by the individual counties. No sovereignty of the county is lost. In fact IT INCREASES LOCAL INPUT in federal agency planning…..a process which is already governed by law…and creates an additional point of contact early in the process to try to avoid conflict between local jurisdictions and federal agencies.
   I am at a loss to figure out exactly what you guys really want, other than picking a fight with Nate Beason because he is not ideologically pure enough for the fringe you inhabit. On one hand you say you support the ability of business groups to band together as protected speech; but you oppose a group of largely conservative rural governments banding together and advocating for their interests as a commie plot.
   The bottom line is that on this one, like many others, your tin foil is showing. I think what you really want is just to obstruct the operations of government in a self fulfilling effort to claim it is inefficient. You guys are just obstructionists–and Chuck Shea and CABPRO are right there with you– you will actually CREATE the inefficiency then use it as an excuse to ‘drown it in the bathtub”.
   I have siad it before and I say it again–you want nothing short of the destruction of our system of governance in the false belief that some libertarian utopian state will be created from the ashes.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Steven Frisch

   07 October 2012

   Correction, the above should read “Sierra Economic Development Corporation”.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Steven Frisch

   07 October 2012

   George: You are simply being disingenuous to the public here. The MOA does the following:
   1. Creates a process whereby rural local governments can have MORE input into federal decision-making about public lands.
   2. Commits the county to a shared exchange of information with federal land managers.
   3. Commits the county to outlining what its specific issues with federal land management policies may be and provides for early understanding of what those issues are.
   4. Commits the federal agencies to additional coordination above and beyond the standards, as they are commonly understood in the Federal Land Management Planning Act.
   5. Does not pre-empt ANY county rights
   6. Does not establish any standing committees or pre-empt any current responsibilities of federal agencies to notify and confer with appropriate county departments.
   7. Does not limit the county from taking any actions currently allowed under federal or state law.
   You state above: “My own position on regionalism is to consider all parts of such consolidations as not being of equal worth nor packaged in one basket.” The net effect of that statement is that regionalism that you like is OK but regionalism that others engage in is evil. Nice way to absolve Russ of any responsibility for engaging in regional transportation planning or regional broadband planning. What a completely hypocritical position. And I notice you completely ignored the point that Russ is being paid by specifically such a regional organization, paid for by the taxpayers, from the same pot of funding that you oppose others tapping to bring local benefit from fees paid. But I would not expect you to oppose a double standard!
   You further state: “The current MOA with the BLM and the USFS does nothing to simplify any function of government. But it does further diminish our county’s ability to determine areas and conditions of use and access to these federal lands.”
   But the MOA and the staff report specifically state that no such thing would occur; it specific states that ALL existing county authorities would be maintained.
   The onus is on you, and Mr. Shea to show how this MOA would diminish county authorities. The paper submitted by CABPRO does not such thing. I would implore the readers to read the background documents. This is an expansion of county authority and increases opportunities to coordinate with federal agencies, and thus is the best possible thing that could be happening right now.
   Here is what Mr. Shea’s submittal says:
   “Under the MOA, the natural resource planning for all participating counties approving the MOA will be consolidated into one super NGO. Two NGOs working with the federal government agencies are attempting to create a third NGO from the counties that serves the interests of the federal government. Each participating county will be represented by a single person, through whom all future federal government communications will go instead of through the county superintendents, sheriffs, fire departments, and other elected officials.”
   There are so many falsehoods in this statement that it is almost laughable. First, the MOA does not establish a new NGO. Second, are you seriously contending that California Counties, and Rural Counties have no interest in banding together to advocate their positions through CSAC and RCRC? These organizations have been in existence in the case of CSAC for 100 years, and RCRC more than 40 years. No “super NGO” is being created; the work is being conducted under their auspices, which are exclusively ELECTED COUNTY SUPERVISORS. Finally, the MOA explicitly states that all authorities held by the Counties remain in place. The staff report and the MOA explicitly state that all notifications to both local elected officials and agencies remain in place.
   In short, this is more right wing, fantasy, conspiracy theory laden, and fear-mongering nonsense. Leading me to believe that what you actually want to do is spread fear and take advantage of that fear to freeze the ability of our local governments to work effectively with federal and managers.
   This MOA was born of a legitimate desire on the part of Sierra Nevada local governments and federal land management to improve relations, deal with issues earlier in the process to avoid conflict, and ensure more public input in federal land management planning. When you oppose such actions so disingenuously you simply increase tension and lack of coordination possible to local governments.
   Talk about speeding the decline of western civilization—you guys take the frigging cake.

   LikeLike

9. 

   George Rebane

   07 October 2012

   SteveF 327pm – Your ‘all or nothing’ view of regionalism is an archetypical argument of those fostering centralized big government. The only thing that we really agree on is that the reader read the MOA. After which one can ask why such an agreement is even needed if it doesn’t reduce government functions, instead increases costs, and portends more transfer of power from local to higher levels of bureaucracy. And why does this document have to be rushed through without herald or preamble to the community? If all it’s going to result in is more progressive happy dancing in the streets, couldn’t we just pause to consider it before strapping on our dancing shoes?
   The “double standard” you claim is another one of your own construction, and does serve to smoke up the arguments here. Russ Steele’s role as a contractor providing needed services to an NGO is neither hypocracy nor implementing a double standard; as I said at the start, most of us can view regionalism in a more nuanced manner than take it all or leave it all.
   But, I do very much appreciate your summaries which compete in length with the MOA. What I miss in your heartfelt apologetic is any mention of our county’s ability to just say NO to new strictures on access to and use of OUR lands. And your claim that the MOA “is an expansion of county authority” is specious, there is not even a hint of that in the document. Nevertheless, you’re right about my being suspicious of government. Per our Founders’ exhortations, I too hold government guilty until proven innocent.
   In sum, there is nothing that this MOA provides the county that cannot be provided by the feds acting in good faith under current laws and agreements, and there is nothing that this MOA empowers the county to do other than having to spend more tax monies in its implementation, especially if the feds act in bad faith.
   (For the distant reader, Mr Steven Frisch is president of the Sierra Business Council, an often government funded NGO active in the promotion and facilitation of progressive public policies in the Sierra, and an organization whose potential benefit, if any, in the passage of this MOA would have already been pointed out in a timely manner in this exchange.)

   LikeLike

10. 

    Steven Frisch

    07 October 2012

    There is absolutely no “transfer of power from local to higher levels of bureaucracy” in this MOA. It is not being “rushed through” it has been debated and vetted at the state level through CSAC and RCRC, and you can request that the County not take action on it Tuesday in order to discuss it more. That is your right.
    The double standard actually is an issue. Your suspicion of government when you don’t like what they do, coupled with your embrace of government when you do like what they do, is very much at issue here. You like the military industrial complex very much; you spent your entire career benefiting from it, and earning money from government contracts, as Russ is benefiting from contracts from public funds. Yet when others do so you object as if you are somehow different. That is a double standard.
    You have yet to state what specifically within this MOA “transfers power” to federal agencies. You have yet to show what in this MOA has any connect to A 21.
    And If your readers are incapable of reading from source material that is no skin off my nose.
    Finally, to state the our founders found the government ‘guilty until proven innocent” is perhaps the most un-nuanced argument of all that you are making here. The Constitutional smoke screen that Mr. Shea is throwing up here is absolute nonsense. We elect representatives (Supervisors) to act on our behalf; that is part of what a Republic is. You regularly disdain direct democracy, yet protest representative democracy when it does not fit your views. What is it exactly that you want?
    All this MOA does is respond to the local communities request that relations between federal land managers and local governments be improved, by improving communications. To see a conspiracy in that is
    It is all of OUR land; not the Counties land, or the residents land, or the people of Nevada County’s land, or the people of the State of California’s land. It is owned by the people of the United States of America; and a resident of new York has as much interest in what happens on it as a resident of Cement Hill. You seem to forget that in all of this hatred and suspicion of the federal government. We all own the land and it is held in the public trust.
    I suggest you show up on Tuesday with your clique of cranks and protest. You and your clique are becoming a joke to our elected officials. Even your allies on the Board cringe when you guys get up, because they know you are going to just make fools of yourselves. I pity our poor Supervisors having to put up with this obstructionist, ill-informed, fear based crap every week.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Steven Frisch

    07 October 2012

    By the way, I, or SBC, have absolutely no “potential benefit” from the passage of this MOA. The benefit to me personally is a better relationship between local and federal government; a relationship you guys would clearly prefer deteriorate into armed conflict. Your “Great Divide” is a prescription for a second Civil War, or as you would say the “War for Southern Independence”.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Walt

    07 October 2012

    It looks like Chavez is losing the election according to exit polls.
    Down there, funny things happen in the dead of night.
    There is no way Chavez is going to go quietly, let alone turn loose of power.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    07 October 2012

    SteveF 441pm et seq – Again thank you for the elaboration and response. I do indeed pick and choose what I like and don’t like – apparently shame on me. For example, I count on the folks in upper New York to take a greater interest in their local control of the public lands in the Adirondacks than we in Nevada County.
    To make citizen interest in public lands across this great country independent of local residents is naive, and yet very socialistic in the worst way. Yes, indeed we have a greater interest in the Sierra, and therefore should have a greater say in the disposition of public lands that are a stone’s throw from our residences. And so should everyone in their respective jurisdictions across the country. I submit that to argue otherwise is to succumb to a brand of collectivism that is directly in accord with Agenda21 precepts, and also with the historical apologetics of great land managers of history like the USSR. It should be obvious to the most dense that the ‘public trust’ aspect of our public lands management has been eroded to insignificance since Lyndon launched the Great Society.
    And of course I pick and choose what I do and don’t like in what government does, what idiot would buy or reject the whole bureaucratic package? And you and yours call that hypocrisy and a double standard??!! So be it. And if that embarrasses our current electeds, let’s see what we can do to get a new bunch into the Rood Center.
    “You and your clique …” gives me too much credit. I have and promote my own considered ideas about governance and the social weal. Those who choose to fly nearby do so at their own volition, and with no loyalty or fealty required to me or the others in such a formation. We are all free minds.
    No, you again misunderstand (perhaps too cleverly) – the Great Divide is a notion for a TBD partition that is intended to exactly avoid a civil war. To be sure, the GD is a sad solution, but the only solution for retaining a semblance of the United States, given the path that our collectivist and redistributionist brethren have embarked us on.

    LikeLike

14. 

    THEMIKEYMCD

    07 October 2012

    I thought this was a non-event until it garnered so many comments/column inches from Frisch. Now I think that there is more there, there.
    At the end of the day governance = what can I do with ‘my’ property (income, livelihood, land, home, free time)… and what am I FORCED to do by the heavy hand of the collective?

    LikeLike

15. 

    Dixon Cruickshank

    07 October 2012

    I have learned in my long life, as a top salesman, that if someone needs to take 5 posts and god only knows how many words of horse shit – none of which I read – to try and convince me of something – probably not a good idea.
    I have developed a rather novel idea of what to support in these Gov issues that do what Frisch does – see who supports and see who opposes – kinda cuts to the chase quicker, just trying to help my fellow man.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Dixon Cruickshank

    07 October 2012

    This is especially true when they trying to convince me something doesn’t really matter, so don’t worry it will be alright. RUN FOREST RUN,

    LikeLike

17. 

    Steven Frisch

    08 October 2012

    Hey Dixon, you don’t have to read anything…..including the actual source material…to have an opinion. Talk about horse shit.

    LikeLike

18. 

    George Rebane

    08 October 2012

    Administrivia – Apparently Gallup’s only post-debate survey was conducted during 4-6 October. It showed that Romney and Obama were tied at 47% each. If RussS and SteveF permit, I will use that to adjudicate our prognostication competition invited here –
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/09/prognosticators-an-invitation-to-the-dance.html
    Please let me know.

    LikeLike

19. 

    TomKenworth

    08 October 2012

    Speaking of “local” control, the new “local” global. Don’t let the back door hit you on the way out: China is making an awful lot of the routers and switches used in the USA internet. This represents a security threat to the USA. A simple piece of code hidden in some totally obscure section of the device could capture data and send it overseas, unseen, or could completely disable the device remotely. Tom’s fantasy? I don’t think so. I got it from here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-usa-china-huawei-zte-idUSBRE8960NH20121008

    LikeLike

20. 

    TomKenworth

    08 October 2012

    Not hard to do, I predict the Bain/Ryna fight will be the more exciting, by a long shot. Romney’s switcheroo on positions held all season will be a tactic that no longer surprises.
    Negative ads dominate the voting scene, I don’t have stats on who does the most, but this is no way to run a democractic republic.

    LikeLike

21. 

    George Rebane

    08 October 2012

    TomK 919am – The security threat is real, as is Reuters’ belated discovery of it (by almost ten years).

    LikeLike

22. 

    billy T

    08 October 2012

    Dr. Rebane: concerning the gallop poll, here is some information. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/08/obama-loses-five-point-edge-in-gallup-poll/
    A bit off topic, but happy European Arrival Day! Or, Happy Pocahontas Day. I will celebrate by driving the ole Chief Grand Cherokee.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Russ Steele

    08 October 2012

    George08:41
    OK with Me.

    LikeLike

24. 

    Russ Steele

    08 October 2012

    TK@09:19
    I heard about this technique in late the 1990s and it has been exploited by both sides. I once had an engineer tell me, nothing in the intelligence world is what it appears to be, never trust and electron to be your friend.
    As for communication equipment, the ARRA Broadband Stimulus had a buy America clause, which was soon withdrawn when it was pointed out that none of the key wireless components were made in the US. Our communication infrastructure is totally dependent on foreign manufactures, as is our power grid. Those big transformers at power station are not longer manufactured in the US. If we get an EMP event, nuclear or solar, we are screwed. It will take years to get the needed repair parts. As our leaders are focused on saving the plane from CO2 emissions a greater danger lurks under Mother Natures skirt.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Steven Frisch

    08 October 2012

    George08:41
    OK with Me.
    Who do I write my check to? SESF?

    LikeLike

26. 

    Ryan Mount

    08 October 2012

    So do I owe money, booze or both? Typically it’s both.

    LikeLike

27. 

    George Rebane

    08 October 2012

    SteveF 1145am – have posted the scores here
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/09/prognosticators-an-invitation-to-the-dance.html
    Since Russ and I tied, I think we’ll both agree that all should send their checks to SESF with the annotated memo that the funds should be used for ‘TechTest2013 Scholarship’. Hopefully Russ will post the appropriate tax ID number and address in the comments here. Anyone else wishing to support TechTest is also invited to contribute.
    RyanM, it’s your call. We await your pleasure.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Russ Steele

    09 October 2012

    Chuck Shea writes following the BOS meeting today”
    Just a quick note to let you know that the Supervisors elected to withdraw the MOA after the strong attendance we had stand and speak at the BOS today.
    It was a good presentation and after the Supervisors agreed that the MOA was not in the best interests of the People of Nevada County..
    To all of you that attended….. THANKS!!!!!
    Congratulations to all those who attended. Ellen and I had to be in Sacramento during the meeting. This is a clear indication that “we the people” can still be in charge of our destiny if we choose to do so.

    LikeLike