Yes, the BOS Meeting was Bizarre and Illogical

[gjr - Lauren Lund submitted this piece in response to my report on yesterday's BoS meeting.  While I constrained my remarks to process and format, Lauren expands her scope to also include the content of the newly adopted Safety Element of county's General Plan.]

Lauren Lund

George, you are not alone in thinking the 9/9/08 Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting was bizarre.  It was more than bizarre.  CABPRO plus others thought it illogical, maybe even a flip-flop in attitude by the BOS.

Bizarre:  1- Extreme confusion of language throughout the updated Safety Element (SE) was left as is with only a glossary suggested as a remedy. 

2- The BOS approving the SE, which is a recognized policy document, but allowing it to remain loaded with wording like “guidelines” and “recommendations” for extreme environmentalist elements that they formerly said should be removed to an educational document. 

3- Also bizarre, how our "conservative" BOS would default to attitudes such as "this is the best we can expect for now," or "let’s just get on with this," and therein approve a document that any liberal environmentalist would be pleased to set their name to.

Illogical:  1- The BOS were on record at two different BOS meetings in the Spring of 2008, saying they wanted clarity between what are mandated/regulatory fire safety standards versus what are environmentalist recommendations.  Then, illogically, they chose to breeze past the fact that no such clarifications were made or documented in the updated SE. Was there some flip-flop? 

2- Illogically, one Supervisor tried to spin the clarification issue as a matter of property rights versus following mandated clearing regulations. Huh?  What did that have to do with anything?  Nobody at this meeting was quibbling over known state and county mandates.  Of course we care about fire safety and obeying safety laws that are truly laws. 

3- However, one County staff person did offer a minimal table separating County mandates from State mandates, but illogically, this table still did not provide the repeatedly requested clarification between mandates and recommendations. 

4- Also, illogically, the BOS determined that staff's table of County versus State mandated regulations should go into the yet unwritten educational document, but not into the SE policy document.  And thanks George. I am aware that your own excellent work of clarifying the mandated regulations from environmentalist recommendations in your professionally done, clearly labeled, and easily understood table, helped the BOS and staff to finally included something along this line.  Now, if they would only put your table in the policy document, then citizens and staff looking for policy would find these distinctions clearly spelled out.

A flip-flop in attitude by the BOS?  1- The murky mixture of mandated policies and environmentalist recommendations that characterized the problematic 12/21/07 Fire Plan was, in effect, simply transferred into the General Plan Safety Element (GPSE), thereby elevating the whole mixture into a policy document, listing much of it under policy action headings. And the BOS approved it. 

2- As if property owners are not ham-strung and hog-tied, taxed and fee-d enough already, here is a very small sample of prohibitive instructions taken directly from the now approved SE, that property owners may look forward to.  From: https://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dsweb/Get/Document-525634/SafetyElement_wtrackedchanges-080108.pdf

Chapter 10: Safety – Draft August 1, 2008
Nevada County General Plan Volume 1 – page 157-8
Small excerpt from: Action Policies FP-10.11.1

Dead or dying oaks or conifers should be removed, along with suppressed conifer species.
Individual trees or groups of trees can be retained, based on species, size, and slope conditions, with the following conditions:
(a) Heritage oak trees and landmark oak groves should be retained;
(b) Trees should be healthy and generally free of dead branches and leaves;
(c) Trees should be horizontally separated a distance of 10 to 30 feet between trunk of trees; and
(d) The lower canopy of trees should be vertically separated from the understory, with limbing or pruning to a height of 8 feet in order to prevent canopy fires.
(4) Dead and down woody vegetation: Dead and down woody vegetation that is 8 or fewer inches in diameter and 2 or more feet in length… etc.

3- Indeed, if these kinds of statements are intended as only guidelines or  recommendations, then they don’t belong in the GPSE under "Action Policies."  This kind of content should be placed instead in the educational document. This was suggested to the BOS, but still they left it all as part of the GPSE where statements often evolve into ordinances and ordinances eventually give birth to a rash of new permits, inspections, and fees.  4-  If this is not concern enough, the approved SE also includes Directive Policy FP-10.11.2.1 “Support the Nevada County Wildland Stewardship Program," a recognized extreme environmentalist program, that unquestionably should go to the educational document, but not be included in the policy document.  However, it too was left in place and approved by the BOS as part of the SE.

Extreme environmentalists may be cheering  now, while the more moderate environmentalists, conservatives, and property owners among us are surprised, to say the very least. With all due respect, we want to have confidence in our Supervisors, however various of their comments, their seeming shift in attitude from earlier this year, and their ultimate decision to approve the problematic updated Safety Element, just as it is, gives rise to more concern.

Comments

[Mikey McD]

I am pleased to be given “guidelines” and “recommendations” rather than laws. Could it be that the BOS was acting in a manner that salvaged whatever liberties the State and Feds have not already revoked.

[Jeff Pelline]

The difference between bloggers and journalists? I was curious how the link to KNCO appeared at the top of the list on this Web site. Why? Journalists would merely list the links in alpabetical order or something more "nonpartisan." I figure it stems from Nevada City Rotary Club connections, as well as some publicized appearances on KNCO. That's fine, but perhaps it's time for another "full disclosure" statement. Honesty is always the best policy. — Jiminy Cricket

[George Rebane]

For all the Jiminies out there, KNCO appears where it does on the list because that's the way TypePad in its wisdom puts the last link added. I guess there may be a way to change it, but I haven't looked into it. And yes, I was invited to be a guest commentator on KNCO as I pointed out in a previous post. Listeners will note that KNCO has no problem with my mentioning Ruminations on my editorials. In the interval I still languish among the banished from our noble non-partisan flagship. The old "full disclosure" statement still holds, and I am happy, especially in this election season, not to be mistaken for a journalist.

[Mikey McD]

"Government lies, and journalists lie, but in a democracy they are different lies." -anonymous

[Jeff Pelline]

“'When all else fails… blog' —some guy who wishes he was famous"

(source: http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/10/31/quotes-for-bloggers/)

George, as previously stated, you are welcome to mention Ruminations in your editorials. Just no "naked links" (to use your words). That's not what Emily Post of the Internet would say too. You know that. Cheers.

[Russell Steele]

George,

Why blog at the Union? You present a level of analysis that is missing at The Union. Plus, your search engine rank is equal to that of The Union. Keep up the good work, linking and cross linking and you will soon have an higher ranking. The Union does not seem to understand that it is the network, not the individual newspaper cul de sacs that are important. The power of the Internet is the collective knowledge of ALL the participants on the network. Cross linking spreads that knowledge.

[Jeff Pelline]

Gang,
Cross linking spreads knowledge. Naked linking stems from a much different motivation — a desperate desire to piggyback on someone else's success to grow your own traffic. Also, you might want to revisit the so-called "search engine ranks." Russ, I hope your analysis is more thorough and accurate as an appointed member to the Transportation Commission. When is that post up for re-appointment anyway? Nate? Sally? I think it's time to dig deeper on this issue.

[George Rebane]

Jeff, I agreed months ago to your criticism about naked linking and stopped it immediately. I also apologized to you in writing through our email exchanges and on my blog. Additionally, I apologized to JeffA during a coffee break we had together earlier this year. But every time I checked until a couple of months ago, I found myself still banished. During all this time I have continued to link to Union content and have maintained a permanent link on my blog to your website. Motivated by your comment above, I went to check tonight, and it looks like my account is alive again. Thank you. And as always, Ruminations' readers remain interested in your comments.

[Russell Steele]

Jeff,

My NCTC term is up in January 2010 and I have already told the commission it is time for new blood, and that I will not be interested in another term on the commission. I will post up my link analysis process at NC Media Watch so that every one with the Google Tool bar can do their own analysis. They can use the back link feature and see who links to the Union. They can compare the page ranks for themselves, they will not have to take my word for it. If you have problem with the facts I suggest you contact Google not the BOS, as the link analysis data is provided by Google.

[Russell Steele]

Update on pervious posts. The Union's Page Rank has jumped two increments this morning, the Union now has a higher rank than RR and NCMW. They have added some more links. More analysis of those new links at NC Media Watch this week end.

[George Rebane]

[gjr - Lauren emailed the following and asked me to post it as a comment.]

RESPONSE TO MIKEY MCD on FIRE PLAN DECISION

Mikey, Despite my concerns, I believe our BOS did what they felt would be best for Nevada County. If they were also hoping to salvage some liberties, that would be wonderful. However, concerns remain. Certain guidelines/recommendations included in the Safety Element support burdensome extreme environmentalist ideas that, if anything, have tended to undermine liberties. And positioned as they are in the General Plan under various policy headings, departmental staff and future leaders may interpret and implement them as rules.

If at least County staff's table highlighting County and State regulations had been included in the General Plan Safety Element, this would have provided more clear distinction of actual regulations/laws in that policy document. George's table distinguishing state and county regulations versus recommendations was especially helpful to this end. I hope George will make it widely available.

I agree with you Mikey, I am pleased to be given guidelines and recommendations as well. And even though various guidelines and recommendations should have been removed to the promised educational document, I anticipate applying them to my own property, as appropriate. The distance between some Heritage Oaks may not be far enough, and there is some dead wood on the ground that is not the right size.

Lauren M. Lund