Badlands Journal

To put the story below in layman’s terms, Pombo, knowing in September he would have a tough race for reelection, still put $25,000 from his RichPAC into the prodevelopment Tracy mayoral candidate, Vice Mayor Brent Ives, running against Celeste Garamendi, the slow-growth candidate, who is John Garamendi’s sister. John, now state insurance commissioner, is running for lieutenant governor.

Maybe separate appearances by both the President and his wife trump a slow-growth Garamendi in the district. Maybe Mrs. Bush will provide a bumpito to get Pombo back even with the Democrat, McNerney, a man whose name people have spelling correctly.

Pombo’s supporters include the Tsakapoulos family, who have development interests in Tracy that include Tracy Hills, the proposed project on Corral Hollow Road that will adjoin UC Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s proposed level 4 biowarfare laboratory. Many Democrats backing Phil Angelides, Angelo Tsakapoulos’ protégée, believe that publicity during the Primary about the millions Tsakapoulos dumped into Angelides’ campaign got him the nomination and destroyed his chance for election.

Badlands has consistently held that Pombo is a straight shooter who acts forthrightly on his fundamental political belief: that whatever is good for the Pombo Family real estate interests is good for America and the World. In this contribution to the Tracy mayoral campaign, Pombo was being absolutely consistent. The Number One American value in Pombo’s political philosophy is promoting growth that increases property values of land around Tracy that is owned by the Pombo Family. Some may find this a narrow political philosophy, but it has always been evident that RichPAC himself has held it deeply and sincerely and is even willing to sacrifice campaign cash to protect Pombo Family real estate interests.

Maybe, Mrs. Bush's appearance will make up the difference. Anyway, if an incumbent in San Joaquin County can’t find a way to steal at least two percent of the vote, he does not deserve to be an incumbent in San Joaquin County.
--------------------

Oct. 31, 2006
Modesto Bee
Cash for ads to beat Tracy mayor hopeful
http://www.modbee.com/2006/election/story/12957342p
Robin Hindery (AP)
TRACY — Rep. Richard Pombo has contributed $25,000 from his campaign fund to defeat a Tracy mayoral candidate who favors a slower approach to development. Pombo, who has extensive land holdings in the area, is a longtime proponent of development there. The seven-term Republican's donation is part of a larger effort by prodevelopment groups to protect their interests in the rapidly growing city. Tracy's population has more than doubled since 1990. The city emerged from its agricultural past to become a haven for Bay Area transplants searching for affordable housing. Pombo's donation came from his Washington, D.C.-based political action committee, Rich PAC. On Sept. 25, he transferred $25,000 to the independent Hat PAC of Sacramento to help fund television and radio advertising against Democratic mayoral candidate Celeste Garamendi. Garamendi is an outspoken champion of slow growth in Tracy who helped lead a successful fight in 2000 to pass a law that slashed planned residential development by half. Her family's connection to Pombo stretches back to 1992, when he narrowly defeated her sister-in-law, Patti Garamendi, in his first bid for Congress. Pombo's campaign did not return calls Monday. Garamendi's opponent, Vice Mayor Brent Ives, has pushed for a deal to let two development companies skirt the slow-growth law in exchange for at least $40 million for new public sports facilities. The companies would be allowed to build as many as 9,700homes, starting in 2012 when Tracy's cap on new building ends. One of the developers, AKT Development, is owned by the influential Tsakopoulos family, whose members also have donated a few thousand dollars to Pombo's re-election campaign this year. Garamendi said the unprecedented $25,000 donation is allowing special-interest groups to sway the election. "The PACs are laundering money in order to provide a shield to development interests," she said. "This is a new low, bringing the corruption of Washington to our small community of Tracy." She said she pledged not to accept any money from political action committees. Hat PAC's contributors include Manteca-based AKF Development and Northern California grocery store operator PAQ Inc. Those groups have helped Hat PAC spend nearly $58,000 on anti-Garamendi advertising over a one-week period starting Oct. 11, according to the committee's campaign finance records.

Most people have some trouble developing a critical point of view on an issue without a little help from critics. As it stands in the southern tier of the Pomboza (that part of the district controlled by Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Polar Bear/Shrimp Slayer-Merced) biofuel is the hottest technology since the six-foot, deep-ripping chisel, built to tear up seasonal grasslands for temporary orchards and vineyards that will become subdivisions. And we won’t get no help from the newspaper.

Now, Merced dairymen working out their Midwest corn budgets for next year, will complain to each other and their bankers about a price hike, which they are told is the result of competition with biofuel. But farmers are price takers. They are used to it and accept it and don’t try to think about it too much, particularly when milk prices are down below breakeven.

The article below is a good rundown on criticisms of the latest “ecological” fad, biofuels, and should help restore our sane view that Cardoza is the same-old, same-old, ignorant hustler he always has been despite his latest reinvention of himself as a post-Pombo environmentalist with solar panels on his roof.

Bill Hatch

Running on Hype
The Real Scoop on Biofuels
By BRIAN TOKAR
Counterpunch.com – Nov. 1, 2006

You can hardly open up a major newspaper or national magazine these days without encountering the latest hype about biofuels, and how they're going to save oil, reduce pollution and prevent climate change. Bill Gates, Sun Microsystems' Vinod Khosla, and other major venture capitalists are investing millions in new biofuel production, whether in the form of ethanol, mainly derived from corn in the US today, or biodiesel, mainly from soybeans and canola seed. It's literally a "modern day gold rush," as described by the New York Times, paraphrasing the chief executive of Cargill, one of the main benefactors of increased subsidies to agribusiness and tax credits to refiners for the purpose of encouraging biofuel production.

The Times reported earlier this year that some 40 new ethanol plants are currently under construction in the US, aiming toward a 30 percent increase in domestic production. Archer Daniels Midland, the company that first sold the idea of corn-derived ethanol as an auto fuel to Congress in the late 1970s, has doubled its stock price and profits over the last two years. ADM currently controls a quarter of US ethanol fuel production, and recently hired a former Chevron executive as its CEO.

Several well-respected analysts have raised serious concerns about this rapid diversion of food crops toward the production of fuel for automobiles. WorldWatch Institute founder Lester Brown, long concerned about the sustainability of world food supplies, says that fuel producers are already competing with food processors in the world's grain markets. "Cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in grain production this year," reports Brown, a serious concern in a world where the grain required to make enough ethanol to fill an SUV tank is enough to feed a person for a whole year. Others have dismissed the ethanol gold rush as nothing more than the subsidized burning of food to run automobiles.

The biofuel rush is having a significant impact worldwide as well. Brazil, often touted as the the most impressive biofuel success story, is using half its annual sugarcane crop to provide 40 percent of its auto fuel, while increasing deforestation to grow more sugarcane and soybeans. Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests are being bulldozed for oil palm plantations-threatening endangered orangutans, rhinos, tigers and countless other species-in order to serve at the booming European market for biodiesel.

Are these reasonable tradeoffs for a troubled planet, or merely another corporate push for profits? Two new studies, both released this past summer, aim to document the full consequences of the new biofuel economy and realistically assess its impact on fuel use, greenhouse gases and agricultural lands. One study, originating from the University of Minnesota, is moderately hopeful in the first two areas, but offers a strong caution about land use. The other, from Cornell University and UC Berkeley, concludes that every domestic biofuel source ­ the ones currently in use as well as those under development ­ produces less energy than is consumed in growing and processing the crops.

The Minnesota researchers attempted a full lifecycle analysis of the production of ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soy. They documented the energy costs of fuel production, pesticide use, transportation, and other key factors, and also accounted for the energy equivalent of soy and corn byproducts that remain for other uses after the fuel is extracted. Their paper, published in the July 25th edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that ethanol production offers a modest net energy gain of 25%, resulting in 12% less greenhouse gases than an equivalent amount of gasoline. The numbers for biodiesel are more promising, with a 93% net energy gain and a 41% reduction in greenhouse gases.

The researchers cautioned, however, that these figures do not account for the significant environmental damage from increased acreages of these crops, including the impacts of pesticides, nitrate runoff into water supplies, nor the increased demand on water, as "energy crops" like corn and soy begin to displace more drought tolerant crops such as wheat in several Midwestern states.

The most serious impact, though, is on land use. The Minnesota paper reports that in 2005, 14% of the US corn harvest was used to produce some 6 million gallons of ethanol, equivalent to 1.7% of current gasoline usage. About 1 1/2 percent of the soy harvest produced 120 million gallons of biodiesel, equivalent to less than one tenth of one percent of gas usage. This means that if all of the country's corn harvest was used to make ethanol, it would displace 12% of our gas; all of our soybeans would displace about 6% of the gas. But if the energy used in producing these biofuels is taken into account ­ the fact that 80% of the energy goes into production in the case of corn ethanol, and almost 50% in the case of soy biodiesel, the entire soy and corn crops combined would only satisfy 5.3% of current fuel needs. This is where the serious strain on food supplies and prices originates.

The Cornell study is even more skeptical. Released in July, it was the product of an ongoing collaboration between Cornell agriculturalist David Pimentel, environmental engineer Ted Patzek, and their colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley, and was published in the journal Natural Resources Research. This study found that, in balance, making ethanol from corn requires 29% more fossil fuel than the net energy produced and biodisel from soy results in a net energy loss of 27%. Other crops, touted as solutions to the apparent diseconomy of current methods, offer even worse results.

Switchgrass, for example, can grow on marginal land and presumably won't compete with food production (you may recall George Bush's mumbling about switchgrass in his 2006 State of the Union speech), but it requires 45% more energy to harvest and process than the energy value of the fuel that is produced. Wood biomass requires 57% more energy than it produces, and sunflowers require more than twice as much energy than is available in the fuel that is produced. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," said David Pimentel in a Cornell press statement this past July. "These strategies are not sustainable." In a recent article, Harvard environmental scientist Michael McElroy concurred: "[U]nfortunately the promised benefits [of ethanol] prove upon analysis to be largely ephemeral."

Even Brazilian sugarcane, touted as the world's model for conversion from fossil fuels to sustainable "green energy," has its downside. The energy yield appears beyond question: it is claimed that ethanol from sugarcane may produce as much as 8 times as much energy as it takes to grow and process. But a recent World Wildlife Fund report for the International Energy Agency raises serious questions about this approach to future energy independence. It turns out that 80% of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions come not from cars, but from deforestation-the loss of embedded carbon dioxide when forests are cut down and burned. A hectare of land may save 13 tons of carbon dioxide if it is used to grow sugarcane, but the same hectare can absorb 20 tons of CO2 if it remains forested. If sugarcane and soy plantations continue to encourage deforestation, both in the Amazon and in Brazil's Atlantic coastal forests, any climate advantage is more than outweighed by the loss of the forest.

Genetic engineering, which has utterly failed to produce healthier or more sustainable food-and also failed to create a reliable source of biopharmaceuticals without threatening the safety of our food supply-is now being touted as the answer to sustainable biofuel production. Biofuels were all the buzz at the biotech industry's most recent biotech mega-convention (April 2006), and biotech companies are all competing to cash in on the biofuel bonanza. Syngenta (the world's largest herbicide manufacturer and number three, after Monsanto and DuPont, in seeds) is developing a GE corn variety that contains one of the enzymes needed to convert corn starch into sugar before it can be fermented into ethanol. Companies are vying to increase total starch content, reduce lignin (necessary for the structural integrity of plants but a nuisance for chemical processors), and increase crop yields. Others are proposing huge plantations of fast-growing genetically engineered low-lignin trees to temporarily sequester carbon and ultimately be harvested for ethanol.

However, the utility of incorporating the amylase enzyme into crops is questionable (it's also a potential allergen), gains in starch production are marginal, and the use of genetic engineering to increase crop yields has never proved reliable. Other, more complex traits, such as drought and salt tolerance (to grow energy crops on land unsuited to food production), have been aggressively pursued by geneticists for more than twenty years with scarcely a glimmer of success. Genetically engineered trees, with their long life-cycle, as well as seeds and pollen capable of spreading hundreds of miles in the wild, are potentially a far greater environmental threat than engineered varieties of annual crops. Even Monsanto, always the most aggressive promoter of genetic engineering, has opted to rely on conventional plant breeding for its biofuel research, according to the New York Times. Like "feeding the world" and biopharmaceutical production before it, genetic engineering for biofuels mainly benefits the biotech industry's public relations image.

Biofuels may still prove advantageous in some local applications, such as farmers using crop wastes to fuel their farms, and running cars from waste oil that is otherwise thrown away by restaurants. But as a solution to long-term energy needs on a national or international scale, the costs appear to far outweigh the benefits. The solution lies in technologies and lifestyle changes that can significantly reduce energy use and consumption, something energy analysts like Amory Lovins have been advocating for some thirty years. From the 1970s through the '90s, the US economy significantly decreased its energy intensity, steadily lowering the amount of energy required to produce a typical dollar of GDP. Other industrial countries have gone far beyond us in this respect. But no one has figured out how to make a fortune on conservation and efficiency. The latest biofuel hype once again affirms that the needs of the planet, and of a genuinely sustainable society, are in fundamental conflict with the demands of wealth and profit.

Brian Tokar directs the Biotechnology Project at Vermont's Institute for Social Ecology (social-ecology.org), and has edited two books on the science and politics of genetic engineering, Redesigning Life? (Zed Books, 2001) and Gene Traders: Biotechnology, World Trade and the Globalization of Hunger (Toward Freedom, 2004).

Butte Environmental Council * California Native Plant Society Defenders of Wildlife * San Joaquin Raptor and Wildlife Rescue Center

For Immediate Release
November 3, 2006
Contact:
Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife, (916) 201-8277
Barbara Vlamis, Butte Environmental Council, (530) 891-6424
Carol Witham, Calif. Native Plant Society, (916) 452-5440

Court Invalidates U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Exclusion of Nearly 900,000 Acres of Vernal Pool Critical Habitat

Developers Efforts to Strip Protections Rejected

Sacramento, CA -- Yesterday, Federal District Court Judge William B. Shubb issued a major ruling overturning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) decision to omit 900,000 acres in 11 counties from its 2005 final rule designating critical habitat for 15 imperiled vernal pool plants and animals. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands found throughout California. Judge Shubb also rejected industry’s attempt to overturn the protections for more than 800,000 acres that FWS did protect as critical habitat.

The court agreed with the six conservation organizations involved in the case that FWS failed to look at whether its decision to eliminate critical habitat protections for vernal pool grasslands in Butte, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, and Tehama counties affected the future recovery of the vernal pool species.

In sending FWS back to the drawing board, Judge Shubb accepted the central argument of the conservation organizations that in excluding vernal pool critical habitat within 11 California counties, FWS continued its long history of failing to consider the essential importance of such designation to the ultimate recovery of the vernal pool species. With more than 90 percent of California’s vernal pool wetlands already destroyed, meaningful habitat protection is essential to ensuring that the species not only avoid extinction, but recover to the point where they can be taken off the endangered species list. FWS has 120 days to issue a new critical habitat rule.

“This is a big victory in the longstanding effort to protect and recover vernal pool grasslands,” stated Kim Delfino, California program director of Defenders of Wildlife. “This decision makes it clear that Fish and Wildlife Service cannot ignore the recovery needs of species when designating critical habitat.”

The court also rejected almost every single argument by the building industry’s challenge to FWS’s decision to designate more than 858,846 acres of vernal pool grasslands as critical habitat. Ironically, the court did agree with the builders that FWS failed to explain adequately why it excluded UC Merced and a Highway 99 project in Tehama County from critical habitat—both of which were 11th hour exclusions directed by Department of Interior political appointee, Julie Macdonald. Macdonald—a civil engineer by training—was recently the subject of a major expose in the Washington Post for her consistent rejection of staff scientists’ recommendations to protect imperiled wildlife. Macdonald has a history of improper meddling in vernal pool issues, and a previous critical habitat rule had to be redone after she inserted economic analysis that vastly exaggerated the potential costs of designation.

“We are elated that the court rejected the challenge to FWS’s decision to designate more than 800,000 acres of vernal pool grasslands as critical habitat,” stated Barbara Vlamis, executive director of the Butte Environmental Council. “At least for those grasslands, the developers will have to ensure that their projects will not undermine the future recovery of these 15 imperiled plants and animals.”

This recent decision is only the latest in a decade long effort to protect vernal pool grasslands under the Endangered Species Act. In August 2003, the Bush Administration issued a final critical habitat rule for vernal pools in which it excluded more than one million acres and six counties on economic grounds. In January 2004, the conservation groups successfully challenging the 2003 rule resulting in the court ordering FWS to reconsider its exclusions. In August 2005, FWS issued its new final rule excluding nearly 900,000 acres of grasslands. In December 2005, the conservation organizations filed suit challenging FWS’s exclusion of the five counties.

“As vernal pool grasslands are ripped up, they are replaced by sprawl,” stated Carol Witham of the California Native Plant Society. “Designating vernal pool grasslands as critical habitat will not stop sprawl, but it will make developers and local governments think hard about how their land use decisions impact the future recovery of these unique 15 imperiled plants and animals.”

The court ordered FWS to reconsider its decision to exclude the nearly 900,000 acres and eleven counties and issue a new critical habitat rule in 120 days. The current critical habitat designation of more than 800,000 acres of vernal pool grasslands remains intact.

“Now that FWS must consider the benefits to the recovery of the 15 vernal pool plants and animals from designating critical habitat, we believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service will no longer be able to justify its decision to exclude half the vernal pool critical habitat acreage,” stated Lydia Miller of the San Joaquin Raptor and Wildlife Rescue Center.

Protein-rich invertebrates and crustaceans, as well as the roots and leaves of vernal pool plants provide an important seasonal food source for waterfowl as well as other non-migratory bird species. According to the California Academy of Sciences, Pacific Flyway migratory birds and 19 percent of all wintering waterfowl in the continental United States take respite in vernal pools.

Members of the public concerned that Merced County and Merced County Association of Governments immediately recycled Measure A as Measure G after the Primary Election defeat of Measure A, tried repeated times, via California Public Records Act requests, to obtain accurate, complete information about Measure G. Errors and inconsistencies appeared in both the County sample ballot and Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet.

Without the opportunity to view the documents before they were published, the public was unable to spot the errors and advise the County of them. Although officials made themselves available, they did not make most of the requested material available, critics of Measure G said Saturday.

The Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet, for example, calls the measure a "1/2-cent" tax on one page and a "1/2-percent" tax on another. Which is it: a half-cent sales tax per transaction or a half-percent per dollar sales tax on all transactions? local activists asked.

This is misleading "information." If it was not deliberately misleading, the public might have provided a helpful review of this propaganda-as-information before it was sent to every registered voter in the county between Oct. 10 and Oct. 16.

The publicly funded Measure G "information" pamphlet, printed to look exactly like a sample ballot pamphlet, also informs the public that the tax will start on "Oct. 1, 2006." If Merced County retailers, going into the Christmas season, had been allowed to review this document, they would probably have objected to this retroactive, probably illegal tax, critics of Measure G noted.

Members of the public also expressed concern about the accounting of campaign
contributions for measures A and G, which appear to commingle funds from both campaigns. Measure A failed in the Primary. Measure G is a different campaign by a different name in the General Election. Yet, local researchers found, the County recorded contributions to both campaigns as one campaign fund. This may be yet another irregularity in Merced County elections administration.

Another irregularity critics point out is that MCAG or the County or both of them have appointed a citizens oversight committee to monitor the spending of Measure G funds before the citizens have even voted on Measure G, which may or may not be the same as Measure A, but no one is quite sure because neither the County or MCAG have released the actual text of Measure G to the public for review. By the way, neither proponents nor opponents of Measure G, whose comments are printed in the sample ballot, were allowed to see the official text of Measure G, on which they commented.

The public is also concerned about the accounting of campaign contributions for
measures A and G. These funds appear to be commingled. It is understandable that if a candidate wins a primary election or gets enough votes to gain a runoff, campaign finance accounting could roll over the amounts into the general election period.

However, critics are concerned that, since Measure A was defeated in the primary election, accounting that presents cumulative contribution amounts in Measure G accounts that include Measure A contributions is irregular.

Critics of the county planning process are also concerned about a transportation plan promoted by the Merced County Association of Governments that is separate and unrelated to the proposed update to the county General Plan and numerous city and community plan updates now in progress. It looks like whenever lawful planning processes threaten, developers in Merced just pile on another layer of plans and more taxes on the people.

On Friday, the federal court ruled to bar certification of the elections in four Merced cities due to violations of the Voting Rights Act. County elections irregularities appear to be multiplying. Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Cardoza sits on the third floor of the Merced County Administration building, presumably mulling his economic options as the County administration crumbles beneath his feet, noted one critic of government in Merced County.

Critics of Measure G speculated that the campaign for Measure G might achieve $1 million in campaign funding. However, the public will not know until the last campaign finance period is reported, well after the General Election.

Measure G remains a regressive tax: an increase on sales tax that will fall hardest on the poorest for the benefit of the richest.

Bill Hatch

A federal district court has ordered Merced County and four cities not to certify all local elections held on Nov. 7 until a motion for preliminary injunction arguing violations of the Voting Rights Act is heard on Nov. 21. One election that won't be affected is for the 18th Congressional District. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, whose offices are on the third floor of the Merced County Administrative Building, fount of the "alleged" violations of the act.

Under the temporary restraining order written by Judge Oliver Wanger on Friday, one county-wide measure, Measure G, cannot be certified until the next hearing on the voting rights violations. The list of discrepancies and potential irregularities in this measure is growing by the day.

Local government is in a bad way when the most burning public issue is whether officials are corrupt or incompetent.

Bill Hatch
--------------------------------

Nov. 4, 2006
Merced Sun-StarVoting lawsuit may delay local results...John Ellis, Fresno Bee
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12973317p-13624767c.html
FRESNO -- Certification of Tuesday's elections in four Merced County cities could be delayed by a lawsuit that claims the cities violated the Voting Rights Act by annexing land without federal government approval. In a worst-case scenario for Atwater, Gustine, Livingston and Los Banos, mayors and council members elected Tuesday could be delayed from taking office until the matter is resolved. During a hearing Friday before U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger in Fresno, the cities agreed not to certify their elections until the Justice Department grants the approvals. "That was a major accomplishment," said Joaquin Avila, an attorney and Seattle University law professor who filed the suit on behalf of Los Banos residents Felix Lopez and Elizabeth Ruiz. If that doesn't happen by Nov. 21, a three-judge panel that day will hear a request by the two plaintiffs for an injunction that, if granted, would prohibit the elections from being certified until the Justice Department approves the annexations. If the case does move forward past Nov. 21, the four cities previewed their defense Friday. That defense: They are not subject to the Voting Rights Act.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FELIX M. LOPEZ and ELIZABETH RUIZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMMISION OF MERCED COUNTY (“LAFCO”), CALIFORNIA; CITY OF ATWATER, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF DOS PALOS, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF GUSTINE, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LIVINGSTON, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA; BALLICO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; DELHI COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; EAST MERCED RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; HILMAR COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; LE GRAND COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; LOS BANOS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; MERQUIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; MIDWAY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; PLANADA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; SANTA NELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; SNELLING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; SOUTH DOS PALOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; VOLTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA; WINTON WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
1:06-cv-1526 OWW DLB
THREE JUDGE COURT
ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs, Felix M. Lopez’s and Elizabeth Ruiz’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order came on for hearing on November 3, 2006, in Courtroom 3 of the above-captioned Court, Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge, presiding. Plaintiffs were represented by their counsel Joaquin G. Avila, Esq. and Brian Sutherland, Esq. Merced County was represented by its attorneys James N. Fincher, Esq., County Counsel Designee and Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor LLP by Christopher E.
Skinnell, Esq. and Marguerite Mary Leoni, Esq. The Local Area Formation Commission of Merced County (“LAFCO”) was represented by its counsel Best, Best & Krieger by Gene Tanaka, Esq.
Defendant City of Atwater was represented by its attorneys Allen, Proietti & Fagalde LLP by Salvador V. Navarrete, Esq. The City of Dos Palos did not appear. Winton Water and Sanitary District appeared by its attorney Craig Mortensen, Esq. The City of Gustine appeared by its attorneys Berliner Cohen by Thomas E. Ebersole, Esq. The City of Livingston appeared by Burke, Williamson & Sorensen LLP by Sarah Peters Gorman, Esq. The City of Los Banos appeared by its attorney Abbott & Kindermann LLP, by Joel Ellinwood, Esq. There was no appearance for the following Defendant Districts: Ballico Community Services District,
California; Central California Irrigation District, California; Delhi County Water District, California; City of Dos Palos, California; East Merced Resource Conservation District, California; Franklin County Water District, California; Hilmar County Water District, California; Le Grand Community Service District, California; Los Banos Resource Conservation District,California; Merquin County Water District, California; Midway Community Services District, California; Planada Community Services District, California; Santa Nella County Water District, California; Snelling Community Services District, California; South Dos Palos County Water District, California; Turlock Irrigation District, California; and Volta Community Services District, California.

After considering the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, supporting declarations and legal authorities and the opposition legal authorities, declarations and oral arguments of all counsel, the following order is entered with the agreement of the parties.

IT IS ORDERED:
Certification Of Election Results
The County of Merced, City of Atwater, City of Gustine, City of Livingston, and City of Los Banos agree not to certify the results of County or City elections before the hearing of and decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. If the City of Dos Palos is holding elections it shall not certify the result of its City elections before said hearing.

Exception

1. All City Defendants may certify the results of the
November 7, 2006, state-wide and federal elections, but not local elections. The County agrees not to certify any election results before hearing of and decision on the Preliminary Injunction.

2. Plaintiffs agree that if any Defendant receives
allegedly required DOJ pre-clearance or approval of all boundary change actions or other voting changes that are the subject of Plaintiffs’ Complaint prior to date of the hearing of the Preliminary Injunction, as to that Defendant, the Motion for Injunctive Relief is withdrawn and that Defendant shall be free to certify all its election results.

3. As to the non-County and non-City District Defendants
and LAFCO, no present injunctive relief is required as none of those Defendant Districts are holding elections November 7, 2006.

Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction

All Defendants, and those acting for, under or in concert
with them, shall show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined from finalizing or certifying the November 7,2006, election results until there is full compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

The following schedule shall govern further briefing and hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction:

a. Plaintiffs’ supplemental authorities and/or other
submissions shall be filed by midnight, November 8, 2006;

b. All Defendants’ oppositions to Plaintiffs’ motion for
Preliminary Injunction shall be filed by midnight, November 17,2006;

c. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction shall be held November 21, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 3, Seventh Floor of the above-captioned Court at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, before United States Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, United States District Judge Oliver W. Wanger, and United States District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, sitting as a three-judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2284.
No Testimony To Be Presented
After inquiry of each appearing party, no party intends to
present testimony at the OSC hearing.
DATED: November 3, 2006, at Fresno, California.
SO ORDERED
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
OLIVER W. WANGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Central Valley Safe Environment Network urges you to vote NO on Measure G.

A flyer against the Merced County Transportation Tax Measure G appeared in the Merced Sun-Star Monday morning. We have included it below and attached it to this message.

We have also attached a letter from an attorney representing CVSEN and others demanding compliance with several state Public Record Act requests to Merced County and Merced County Association of Governments that were made since the Primary Election on Measure G. We have also attached the last weeks’ letters and articles about Measure G. These attachments are printed out below for Badlands readers.

We urge you to read and share these flyers with Merced County residents before the Election on Tuesday, November 7.

The enclosed flyer explains why: this measure is the same old Measure M and Measure A you have already voted down. Merced County, one of the state's poorest counties, does not support a sales tax increase that would fall heaviest on the poorest members of our community, to pay for the developer special interests who refuse to pay for the impacts of their project.

Far from protecting the community from this exploitation of land, air quality and water, local government is its most enthusiastic supporter. But this gang can't shoot straight and a growing list of irregularities in public process surround Measure G:

It is misnamed "Measure A" in campaign literature;
It's collection is retroactive, beginning a month before the measure is voted on;
Financial contributions are comminged between measures A and G;
Procedural problems have plagued Measure G ever since you voted down Measure A in June of this year.

We ask you to read the attachment and realize how important it is for you to vote NO Measure G on Tuesday.

Sincerely,

Central Valley Safe Environment Network

Opponents of Measure's M and A encourage your 'No" Vote on Measure G
1-2-3: Defeat Measures M,A, and G!
-------------------
VOTE NO ON MEASURE G FLYER

Well, here we are again, folks, another election, another sales tax hike to pay for more roads to stimulate more growth, traffic and air pollution in Merced County. Measure G would also do its little bit to heat up the planet, while giving UC Merced that nice new Parkway so its folks can get out of Merced and find some real fun. The Measure G supporters have the same arguments; you and we have our same arguments. Nothing has changed. If Measure G fails, look for identical measures, X,Y and Z on the next three ballots. The politicians and their contributors want growth. Their growth doesn’t help us.

But, what kind of tax hike? Is it a half-cent or a half-percent? Can you tell from reading the County Measure G Information Guide? Does the car dealer collect a half-cent more tax or a half-percent more sales tax on the sale of a car? Does whoever wrote the measure know the difference between a half-cent and a half-percent?

Retailers! Check it out! According to Measure G, you’re going into your Christmas season obligated to start paying additional sales taxes from Oct. 1, 2006? Is that fair? Is it even legal?

And what measure are we voting on? In the information guide it is also called Measure A. Should officials this sloppy at writing laws be trusted with more pots of public funds?

Public and private developers want your government to persuade you to pay for their growth impacts on your community:

UC Merced is trying to weasel out of $200 million in traffic, police and fire impacts to the Merced community:

“In the CEQA process for the campus …local jurisdictions indentified approximately $200 million in improvements to local roads, parks and schools that they claimed would be made necessary by the new campus development, and argued that UC was obligated to pay for those improvements under CEQA. UC rejected those demands … in light of its exemption under the California Constitution.”

(UC General Counsel James Holst amicus letter to California Supreme Court re. City of Marina et al, Sept. 12, 2003

John Condren, CEO of Riverside Motorsports Park, claimed to his investors he wired local government:

“Although it’s too early to start planning a ground-breaking party, we can report that RMP has won the support of 4 of the 5 members of the Merced County Board of Supervisors … and we may succeed in securing the unanimous support of the Board once the EIR is released. In addition, RMP has secured the approval and support of State Senator Jeff Denham, US Congressman Dennis Cardoza, 5 Chambers of Commerce within Merced County, the City Councils of Atwater and Merced, and RMP has the support of the California Builders Industry Association. Added to this list are over 1,500 local Merced County citizens who have signed to be on our project update mailing/e-mail list”

(Riverside Motorsports Park, 1 January 2005 “To all our valued investors and supporters, Happy New Year!”)

Ranchwood Homes owner cozies up to a supervisor while digging a mile-long, 42-inch, illegal sewer line in county jurisdiction outside of Livingston:

“Mrs. Crookham, this is Greg Hostetler calling. My cell number actually is 704-13** if you need to call me. I’m on a cell phone cause my other battery I’m trying to save that, preserve it you know. I’m into preserving things too from time to time, but anyway, uhm, I’m just calling you, uh, to let you know that…ah if you don’t already know… that we’ve had a lot of drama and trouble in the county … everywhere I do business [inaudible] apparently I guess because of Mrs. uh…Mrs. Deirdre Kelsey ah… thinks staff may need some help, because she’s climbing all over them… using [inaudible] staff for her personal pit bulls…trying to bite our people, and our staff — this is my opinion — causing a lot of drama in Livingston, for the City of Livingston and we’re trying to uh in the progress of uh in the process of installing a sewer line over there. If you haven’t talked to Dee Tatum, he could fill you in on what’s going on over there. But uh this probably will not end any time soon. So, I just wanted to give you the update, and if you could give staff any help I’d appreciate it… Thank you!”

(Badlandsjournal.com, March 10, 2006)

1-2-3: Defeat Measures M, A, and G!

Citizens Against Measure G
VOTE NO ON MEASURE G

Here is a partial list of residential developments ALREADY planned for Merced County.

This represents 81,000 new homes for our county.

Atwater - 1,584 units, Atwater Ranch, Florsheim Homes, 400 acres
2,522-3,403 units, Willow Creek, Pacific Union Homes, 662 acres

Delhi - 1,100 units, Matthews Homes

Fox Hills - 907 units, Fox Hills Estates, north expansion
337 units, Fox Hills Estates, central expansion
1,256 units, Fox Hills Estates, south expansion

Hilmar-3,700 units, JKB Homes

Livingston - 1,200 units, Ranchwood Homes

Los Banos, 3 developments covering 932 acres, Ranchwood Homes 635 units, Woodside Homes 15.000 homes, Villages of Laguna San Luis, by Los Banos, 3,600 acres

City of Merced - 11,000 units, Merced University Community Plan, 7,000 units, Bellevue RanchM 7,800 units, Ranchwood Homes
442 units, Vista Del Lago, 920 units, Fahrens Creek II, 1,282 units, Fahrens Creek North. 1,093 units, Hunt Family Annexation, 4,576 units Mission Lakes, Ranchwood Homes

Other smaller projects totaling over 2,000 additional units in the works

Planada- 4,400 units, Village of Geneva at Planada
San Luis Creek 629 units, F & S Investments
San Luis Ranch - 544 units
Santa Nella - 8,250 units by 2012 (Gustine City Council minutes)
Stevinson - 3,500 units, Stevinson Ranch/Gallo Lakes Development

1-2-3: Defeat Measures M, A, and G!
Citizens Against Measure G

VOTE NO ON MEASURE G

Developers want to have you pay for growth impacts instead of paying for their impacts themselves.

Measure G Contributions
Reporting from Committee for Measure G

Alice Gilbertson Atwater $100.00
Gray-Bowen & Company Walnut Creek $250.00
Bender Rosenthal Inc. Sacramento $250.00
Jones & Stokes Ass. Sacramento $250.00
Bandoni, INC Merced $250.00
Parikh Consultants Milpitas $300.00
Cornerstone Structural Fresno $500.00
Roger Wood Atwater $500.00
Maxwell Construction Merced $500.00
Terry Allen Merced $500.00
Central Valley Housing Solutions Merced $750.00
Building Industry Ass of Central CA Modesto $1,000.00
Engeo Incorporated San Ramon $1,000.00
Moreno Trenching Inc Rio Vista $1,000.00
Stevinson Ranch-Savannah G.P. Stevinson $1,000.00
Merced Booster Club Merced $1,000.00
Delhi Properties Modesto $1,000.00
Kleinfelder San Diego $1,000.00
Circle Point San Francisco $1,500.00
Diepenbrock Harrison, A Prof. Corp Sacramento $1,500.00
Dowling Associates, Inc. Oakland $1,500.00
Wreco Walnut Creek $1,500.00
Fremming, Parson & Pecchenino Merced $1,500.00
Coldwell Banker Gonella Realty Merced $1,600.00
Mill Creek Development Alamo $2,000.00
Northern California District of Laborers Sacramento $ 2,500.00
Omni-Means, Engineers & Planners Roseville $2,500.00
Werner Co Merced $2,500.00
P G & E Corporation San Francisco $2,500.00
Jesse Brown Merced $2,698.89
Delhi LLC Pleasanton $3,000.00
Home Builders Stockton $3,000.00
Pristine Home Corporation Stockton $3,000.00
Maxwell Construction Merced $ 3,100.00
Robert T Haden Professional Corp Merced $3,200.00
Charles Lyons Modesto $3,333.32
Edward Lyons Modesto $3,333.32
Louise Bogetti Modesto $3,333.32
Lynne Bogetti Modesto $3,333.32
Jane Conover Modesto $3,333.36
William Lyons Modesto $3,333.36
Alia Corporation Merced $4,750.00
Lyons Land and Cattle Co Modesto $5,000.00
Dole Packaged Foods Thousand Oaks $5,000.00
Golden Valley Eng & Survey Inc Merced $5,200.00
Sierra Beverage Company Merced $5,500.00
Mark Thomas & Company San Jose $6,000.00
John Sessions Seattle $7,500.00
Jaxon Enterprises Redding $10,000.00
Robert Alkema/Malibu Merced $10,000.00
Team 31, Inc. Morgan Hill $10,000.00
Wellington Corp of Northern CA Morgan Hill $10,000.00
Anderson Homes Lodi $10,000.00
Calaveras Materials Fresno $10,000.00
Basic Resources, Inc. Modesto $10,000.00
Lakemont LWH LLC Roseville $10,000.00
3rd Millennium Investment Fresno $15,000.00
Ferrari Investments Ballico $15,000.00
Foster Poultry Farms Livingston $15,000.00
JBK Homes Turlock $15,000.00
E&J Gallo Winery Modesto $17,500.00
K Hovanian Forecast Homes Sacramento $20,000.00
Atwater East Investors Danville $25,000.00
Ranchwood Homes Corp Merced $25,150.00
A Teichert & Son Sacramento $27,500.00
Crosswinds Development Novi, MI $30,000.00
Antioch Aviation Ass. Sacramento $40,000.00
Brookfield Castle Del Mar $43,000.00

CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORK
MISSION STATEMENT
Central Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of "Eco-Justice" -- the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political, and religious groups, and other stakeholders
P.O. Box 64, Merced, CA 95341
---------------------

Marsha A. Burch
Attorney at Law
131 South Auburn Street
Grass Valley CA 95945

November 6, 2006

Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail

M. Stephen Jones
Auditor-Controller-Registrar of Voters
Merced County
2222 M. St.
Merced CA 95340

Jesse Brown
Executive Director
Merced County Association of Governments
369 W. 18th St.
Merced CA 95340

Re: Public Records Act Requests Regarding Measure G

Dear Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown:

This office, in conjunction with the Law Office of Donald B. Mooney, represents the Central Valley Safe Environment Network, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, Protect Our Water and Lydia Miller. This letter serves to notify you that our clients have repeatedly attempted, via California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) Requests, over the past three months to obtain information regarding Measure G. These efforts have resulted in very little documentation, and this letter serves as a demand for compliance with the CPRA, and to notify you that there may be inconsistencies in the information provided to voters regarding Measure G. For example, our clients have not received the full text of Measure G, but have only been provided with summaries of the Measure. At this point, a day before the General Election, the public has reason to doubt that there is a full text of Measure G. Also, none of the correspondence, meeting agendas or minutes, or any other documents related to the development of Measure G have been provided. Our clients have not received any of the requested documentation or correspondence relating to One Voice, California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint, Great Valley Center or any other state or federal agencies and their communications regarding Measure G. Further, our clients have not received documents relating to the Merced County Transportation Alliance’s activities relating to Measures A and G.

It is not possible to confirm the nature and scope of any errors in the sample ballot or voter pamphlet information, as we have not had an opportunity to review relevant documentation. For example, the Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet contains a confusing description of the Measure G tax as a “1/2-cent” tax (pp. 24G1-24G2), and elsewhere as a “1/2-percent tax.” We have not been able to obtain and review the full and final text of Measure G, and so it is unclear whether this inconsistency is significant.

With respect to the effective date of the new tax (p. 24G5), the pamphlet says, “It will begin on Oct. 1, 2006.” It appears that the County seeks voter approval of a retroactive sales tax, but without access to relevant information, we have been unable to confirm that this is the case.

A series of CRPA requests (August, 17, August 25, September 8 ) submitted to both Merced County and Merced County Area Governments were shuffled back and forth between the two agencies and much of the information requested was not given by either agency. On August 18, 2006, both MCAG and the county Elections Office replied. Our clients received a response on September 12, 2006 from MCAG. On September 11, 2006, the County Elections Office provided a response. On September 18, 2006, our clients received a response from County Counsel. On October 5th, 26th and 27th, our clients went to the county Elections Office to view documents. Although officials made themselves available, they did not make most of the requested material available.

It appears that the Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlets contain confusing information regarding Measure G. This is of great concern to our clients, who have been working since August in an attempt to understand Measure G through review of relevant documents and records. Because of their inability to gain access to the relevant records, our client remain concerned, but do not have sufficient information to come to any specific conclusions regarding the voter information.

Our clients are also concerned about the accounting of campaign contributions for Measures A and G. These funds appear to be commingled. It is understandable that if a candidate wins a primary election or gets enough votes to gain a runoff, campaign finance accounting could roll over the amounts into the general election period. However, we are concerned that, since Measure A was defeated in the primary election, accounting that presents cumulative contribution amounts in Measure G accounts that include Measure A contributions is irregular.

With respect to these accounting issues, however, our clients have not received documents related to the accounting for campaign contributions from the County and the Cities for Measures A and G in response to the CPRA requests, and so have not been able to review and assess the accounting documents.

We urge you to provide the information without further delay. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Marsha A. Burch
Attorney

cc: Central Valley Safe Environment Network
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
Protect Our Water
Lydia Miller
Donald B. Mooney, Esq.
James Fincher, Merced County Counsel (Via Facsimile)
-------------------------------

Comments on Measure G
November 4th, 2006
BadlandsJournal.com
by Bill Hatch
Members of the public concerned that Merced County and Merced County Association of Governments immediately recycled Measure A as Measure G after the Primary Election defeat of Measure A, tried repeated times, via California Public Records Act requests, to obtain accurate, complete information about Measure G. Errors and inconsistencies appeared in both the County sample ballot and Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet.

Without the opportunity to view the documents before they were published, the public was unable to spot the errors and advise the County of them. Although officials made themselves available, they did not make most of the requested material available, critics of Measure G said Saturday.

The Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet, for example, calls the measure a “1/2-cent” tax on one page and a “1/2-percent” tax on another. Which is it: a half-cent sales tax per transaction or a half-percent per dollar sales tax on all transactions? local activists asked.

This is misleading “information.” If it was not deliberately misleading, the public might have provided a helpful review of this propaganda-as-information before it was sent to every registered voter in the county between Oct. 10 and Oct. 16.
The publicly funded Measure G “information” pamphlet, printed to look exactly like a sample ballot pamphlet, also informs the public that the tax will start on “Oct. 1, 2006.” If Merced County retailers, going into the Christmas season, had been allowed to review this document, they would probably have objected to this retroactive, probably illegal tax, critics of Measure G noted.

Members of the public also expressed concern about the accounting of campaign
contributions for measures A and G, which appear to commingle funds from both campaigns. Measure A failed in the Primary. Measure G is a different campaign by a different name in the General Election. Yet, local researchers found, the County recorded contributions to both campaigns as one campaign fund. This may be yet another irregularity in Merced County elections administration.

Another irregularity critics point out is that MCAG or the County or both of them have appointed a citizens oversight committee to monitor the spending of Measure G funds before the citizens have even voted on Measure G, which may or may not be the same as Measure A, but no one is quite sure because neither the County or MCAG have released the actual text of Measure G to the public for review. By the way, neither proponents nor opponents of Measure G, whose comments are printed in the sample ballot, were allowed to see the official text of Measure G, on which they commented.

The public is also concerned about the accounting of campaign contributions for
measures A and G. These funds appear to be commingled. It is understandable that if a candidate wins a primary election or gets enough votes to gain a runoff, campaign finance accounting could roll over the amounts into the general election period.

However, critics are concerned that, since Measure A was defeated in the primary election, accounting that presents cumulative contribution amounts in Measure G accounts that include Measure A contributions is irregular.

Critics of the county planning process are also concerned about a transportation plan promoted by the Merced County Association of Governments that is separate and unrelated to the proposed update to the county General Plan and numerous city and community plan updates now in progress. It looks like whenever lawful planning processes threaten, developers in Merced just pile on another layer of plans and more taxes on the people.

On Friday, the federal court ruled to bar certification of the elections in four Merced cities due to violations of the Voting Rights Act. County elections irregularities appear to be multiplying. Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Cardoza sits on the third floor of the Merced County Administration building, presumably mulling his economic options as the County administration crumbles beneath his feet, noted one critic of government in Merced County.

Critics of Measure G speculated that the campaign for Measure G might achieve $1 million in campaign funding. However, the public will not know until the last campaign finance period is reported, well after the General Election.
Measure G remains a regressive tax: an increase on sales tax that will fall hardest on the poorest for the benefit of the richest.
---------------------------

ARTICLES AND LETTERS IN THE PRESS THAT RAISE CRITICAL PROBLEMS WITH MEASURE G

Nov. 6, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
Attachments: (2, 4 pages)
Opponents of Measure's M and A encourage you "No Vote on Measure G...Paid for By The Citizens Against Measure G
Well, here we are again, folks, another election, another sales tax hike to pay for more roads to stimulate more growth, traffic and air pollution in Merced County. Measure G would also do its little bit to heat up the planet, while giving UC Merced that nice new Parkway so its folks can get out of Merced and find some real fun. The Measure G supporters have the same arguments; you and we have our same arguments. Nothing has changed. If Measure G fails, look for identical measures, X,Y and Z on the next three ballots. The politicians and their contributors want growth. Their growth doesn’t help us.
But, what kind of tax hike? Is it a half-cent or a half-percent?
UC Merced is trying to weasel out of $200 million in traffic, police and fire impacts to the Merced community: “In the CEQA process for the campus …local jurisdictions indentified approximately $200 million in improvements to local roads, parks and schools that they claimed would be made necessary by the new campus development, and argued that UC was obligated to pay for those improvements under CEQA. UC rejected those demands … in light of its exemption under the California Constitution.” (UC General Counsel James Holst amicus letter to California Supreme Court re. City of Marina et al, Sept. 12, 2003

Nov. 5, 2006

Attachment:
BadlandsJournal.com
Comments on Measure G...Bill Hatch...11-4-06
Members of the public concerned that Merced County and Merced County Association of Governments immediately recycled Measure A as Measure G after the Primary Election defeat of Measure A, tried repeated times, via California Public Records Act requests, to obtain accurate, complete information about Measure G. Errors and inconsistencies appeared in both the County sample ballot and Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet.
Without the opportunity to view the documents before they were published, the public was unable to spot the errors and advise the County of them. Although officials made themselves available, they did not make most of the requested material available, critics of Measure G said Saturday.
The Measure G Voter Information Pamphlet, for example, calls the measure a “1/2-cent” tax on one page and a “1/2-percent” tax on another. Which is it: a half-cent sales tax per transaction or a half-percent per dollar sales tax on all transactions? local activists asked.
This is misleading “information.” If it was not deliberately misleading...
Members of the public also expressed concern about the accounting of campaign contributions for measures A and G, which appear to commingle funds from both campaigns. Measure A failed in the Primary. Measure G is a different campaign by a different name in the General Election. Yet, local researchers found, the County recorded contributions to both campaigns as one campaign fund.

Nov. 4, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
Citizens group to monitor spending....Leslie Albrecht
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12973310p-13624687c.html
Opponents of Measure G say they don't trust local officials to spend their tax money wisely. Supporters of the half-cent sales tax say a citizens advisory committee will serve as watchdogs, keeping close tabs on the $446 million the tax would raise for transportation projects around the county. Who are these watchdogs? The same people who helped decide which transportation projects Measure G would fund. No new committee will be formed to monitor Measure G spending; instead, the citizens group that already advises the Merced County Association of Governments will take on the responsibility of monitoring the money. MCAG's citizens advisory committee has been in place for about 17 years, said Jesse Brown, executive director of MCAG. It's made up of 17 people who represent different regions of the county and different interests such as agriculture, water and real estate. Members are approved by the MCAG governing board, which consists of all five county supervisors and one elected official from each of the six incorporated cities in the county. They serve four-year terms, and can't serve more than two terms.

Think Valley...Regional partnership offers great promise for the future...Editorial
http://www.fresnobee.com/274/v-printerfriendly/story/11179.html
The eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley share persistent problems: lower levels of education and income, higher crime rates and poor air quality. For the past year, 26 elected and community leaders from throughout the Valley have met to identify ways to make things better. This group, the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, was created in 2005 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a state leader who finally recognized the Valley's problems and potential. Schwarzenegger assigned his top Cabinet people to give the partnership a high priority. Schwarzenegger visited the Valley again as the partnership approved its strategic action proposal. In Fresno, the governor praised the work of the partnership and said it is laying the foundation for improving the region's economy. The five state bond proposals — Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 84 — represent a long-term investment in economic prosperity and in safety. Especially important for the Valley is Proposition 1B, which contains $1 billion to improve Highway 99. The partnership is advancing plans to make the Valley better. There's a sense of momentum; this is no time for us to lose it.

Nov. 3, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
County certain vote will be fair...Corinne Reilly
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12968316p-13620844c.html
Merced County officials said Thursday they're committed to upholding the rights of all local voters, and are working to ensure next week's election moves forward unhindered. The assurances follow the filing of a lawsuit earlier this week in U.S. District Court in Fresno that could halt the certification of Tuesday's election results in Atwater, Livingston, Dos Palos, Gustine and Los Banos until the cities receive a required federal approval that they've apparently failed to obtain. The suit alleges that the cities -- as well as 17 other irrigation, water, resource conservation and community service districts -- have violated the federal Voting Rights Act by failing to obtain approval from the U.S. Justice Department for more than 200 annexations and other land use changes in the county that could affect local election results.

City is growing too fast...RONALD ROACH ...Merced...6th letter...I have watched the population go from 10,000 people to around 71,000 now. I was one of the people dead set against UC Merced being built here. The infrastructure of roads in this town is the same as it has been for 44 years that I know of. I have watched my city services go from $46.56 Oct. 2002 to $71.56 Oct. 2006. Then also now there are articles stating the sewer plant is going to be expanded, at a cost of several million dollars more, which will double our sewer rates. have watched three school bond measures pass and are now on my property tax bill, and now talk of another one to pay for another new high school. In 2005 I witnessed the passage of a half-cent sales tax to pay for emergency services. Merced does not need more money, it needs better money management and to be held accountable for the constant waste in all departments.

Wary of Measure G ads...OTTO RIGAN...Atwater...7th letter...I just saw a portable electric blinking sign in Merced that said vote yes on Measure G. I have never been swamped by so much mail, news ads and lawn signs telling me to vote yes on Measure G. All these ads are done first class. I'm apprehensive of so much money being spent to convince me. It seems that there is more to this than fixing roads. People don't sponsor with so much money and not hope to get something in return. They aren't doing it only for a half-cent tax increase. I think there is more to this than we are told.

Nov. 2, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
Lawsuit targets political jurisdictions...John Ellis, Fresno Bee
http://dwb.fresnobee.com/local/story/12964194p-13617260c.html
Two Merced County residents have filed a lawsuit that claims multiple political jurisdictions in the county have undertaken more than 200 annexations and other related changes without federal approval, violating the Voting Rights Act...federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fresno, names Merced County, the Local Agency Formation Commission, the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston and Los Banos, as well as 17 other irrigation, water, resource conservation and community service districts throughout the county. "This is the most massive example of noncompliance that I have ever seen," said Joaquin Avila, an attorney and Seattle University law professor who filed the suit on behalf of Felix Lopez and Elizabeth Ruiz. The suit doesn't seek to stop next week's election in the affected jurisdictions, but instead asks that certification of the results be delayed until approval for the changes is given by federal authorities, Avila said...also seeks class-action status for U.S. citizens of Spanish heritage who are registered to vote and are affected by the changes. A hearing has been scheduled Friday before U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger in which the plaintiffs will seek a temporary restraining order that could delay certification of Tuesday's election in the affected Merced County jurisdictions. Normally, obtaining Justice Department approval - known as a "preclearance" - is a formality. It happens more than 99% of the time, said Loyola Law School professor Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law... "the failure to get preclearance is a problem in a lot of jurisdictions that are subject to the federal rules." According to the lawsuit, either the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia must determine that any changes that affect voting "do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. "First approved in 1965, the Voting Rights Act targeted Southern states that had long used poll taxes and literacy tests to impede minority voting. In the 1970s, four California counties - Kings, Merced, Monterey and Yuba - were added. Under the act, the California counties must get federal permission for every change that affects voting. Examples include changes as small as moving a polling location or redrawing voting precincts, or as large as altering county supervisorial districts. A similar Monterey County case made news a month before the state's 2003 gubernatorial recall election...Justice Department quickly authorized the county's proposal... The latest Merced County lawsuit claims its Local Agency Formation Commission and the named jurisdictions have approved 172 annexations, 35 detachments, four formations and one consolidation without federal approval since Nov. 1, 1972, when Merced became a Voting Rights Act county...lawsuit claims Merced County's LAFCO has approved 10 Gustine annexations since November 1972 without getting the required federal approval...21 LAFCO-approved annexations for the Hilmar County Water District, 26 annexations for Los Banos and 39 annexations for Atwater - all lacking federal approval under the Voting Rights Act. Others, such as Dos Palos and Atwater, had not been served but had been alerted to the lawsuit via e-mail.

Nov. 1, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
We don't need Measure G...Donald G. Bunch...Letters to the editor
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/12960698p-13614021c.html
Measure G is totally unneeded because Proposition1A and 1B will solve the problem with our roads. If the measure was for city and county streets and roads only, then I might support it. A preponderance of the money in Measure G is dedicated to state highways that I pay for each time I buy gasoline. Who benefits from this sales tax measure? Follow the money to builders and developers.

Oct. 30, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
No new taxes...Randy Henkle, Mariposa...Letters to the editor
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/12954098p-13607996c.html
Less than 20 cents on the dollar reaches a child in school; the other 80 percent goes for administration costs...40 percent of what you make goes for taxes...Exxon-Mobil just ripped you for $10 billion this last quarter...in Merced, to be paying for 25 years for school bonds.
California rakes in about $5 billion a day in fuel tax...we are told in order to fix our roads we need another tax. Fresno...city has some extra money...trying to figure out how to spend it; get the picture? ...they hire a bunch of people to waste that money on administration costs...they will have figured out a new angle to tax you from a new direction... it is time to make our elected officials accountable to us.

Oct. 28, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
More taxes means more power for politicians...Jim Cardoza
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/12948144p-13602157c.html
Long before bilingual forms and cell phones, services like police, firemen and road maintenance were local government's top priorities. But now, no matter how fast the tax base grows, politicians routinely tell us we must pay more to sustain those vital functions...how can elected officials justify spending a dime on perks, charities and other nonessential expenditures? Pleading with overburdened taxpayers to raise their allowance would be straightforward, but not likely to bear fruit...instead, they choose to wring their hands in seemingly reflective and insightful public concern as they peddle a perception of impending crisis, such as too few cops or otherwise unfixable roadways. When voters bite the hook, the old money is then freed for use throwing around political weight. That political shell game often triumphs because it takes advantage of the widely believed fallacy that taxes are the result of need. The truth is, tax hikes are almost always about beliefs. Just five decades ago, a middle-class American family of four paid about 6 percent of their annual income in taxes of all types. Today, such a family pays well over 40 percent. This state of affairs has resulted from a combination of factors...: the politicians' desire for power, which is the ability to control money; the wasteful nature of bureaucracy, which shares the cancer cell's mission of growth for the sake of growth; and the massive power wielded by public employees unions, of which the California Legislature has long been an identifiable subsidiary. More taxes only encourage politicians to conjure new ways of expanding government. Stripped of sugarcoating, taxes are simply instruments of force used by the state to seize your money... Even less defensible is the enormous amount of resources government fritters away mindlessly within tail-chasing bureaucracies. Whereas private industry looks to streamline costs, bureaucracy's goal is to vaporize every cent in their budgets as a means of getting more next year. Presiding over such a world of waste, it is little wonder politicians view the perks and privileges they shuffle to each other as chump change. More taxes only encourage politicians to conjure new ways of expanding government. Why not insist their focus be limited to providing uncompromised essential services...

And now, folks, the UC Merced "professional economist" bobcatflak on Measure G.

It's clear we have a desperate state institution just north of Merced, its fraudulent mitigation strategy ($15 million in public funds) in tatters for lack of proper permits and incompetently or corruptly written easements. UC Merced is a political railroad running off its tracks, now reduced to seeking the legitimacy only a glittering new expressway, UC Merced Parkway, to its campus (wherever it ends up) might provide. The Parkway will be at once a visible status symbol of UC political clout and also give faculty, staff and students easier access to the highway leading to Fresno malls. The Parkway is the top priority expenditure for Measure G.

Therefore, on Election Day, UC deployed one of its faculty, a "professional economist" who opined that the Merced Sun-Star editorial policy is just dandy, to argue that Measure G is "voter driven." Only a UC Merced professional economist who claims to study the relationship between growth and politics could possibly be that stupid if, of course, the economist didn't just sign off on a letter composed by UC Merced Bobcatflak Central. This organ of tax-paid propaganda insists on believing that the general public is as dumb as a bunch of UC professors.

As for the Sun-Star, it was long ago correctly identified in these pages as the
"UC Merced Daily Bobcat." It is a deeply corrupt newspaper and you should read it with great care and curiosity on any public issue. That care will be rewarded because, without any great analytical strain, you quickly will be able to discern what special interest the Sun-Star is representing in its editorials on any given day. Sun-Star editorial policy reminds the careful reader of a red snooker ball lost in the middle of a game in which all the players are real drunk. In this case, the intoxicant is money and the energy is pure greed. If the public is not careful, it will end up in the corner pocket.

It is truly marvelous how the "professional economist" invokes the Great Depression for his argument. How elegant, how learned! By pure happenstance, a blameless scholar's particular academic interest coincides with the political reality in the neighboring "town," and the "gown" reaches down to offer guidance. Yet, it makes sense in a way. For the first time since the Depression, Americans are spending more than they save or make.

Secondly, there is the Parkway itself, so like typical Third World raod projects that extend grandly beyond the urban centers ... to nowhere. A university is not made by roads or by simpering hacks like this "professional economist."

"A university," as a refugee from Argentina once said, "is easy to destroy but very hard to build."

The community ought to be outraged at this blatant attempt by academic authority to meddle in local politics. Universities are made, slowly, by teaching and research, not as this atrocious boondoggle land deal has been fabricated, by political railroad. The Merced public knows much more about the graft behind this development project known as UC Merced than this insoucant academic seems to know.

In a flyer inserted in the Sun-Star Monday, a grassroots group quoted a letter from UC General Counsel James Holst, to the state Supreme Court, in support of the argument that state agencies should be exempt from traffic, police and fire impacts to communities beyond their property boundaries.

“In the CEQA process for the campus …local jurisdictions indentified approximately $200 million in improvements to local roads, parks and schools that they claimed would be made necessary by the new campus development, and argued that UC was obligated to pay for those improvements under CEQA. UC rejected those demands … in light of its exemption under the California Constitution.” (UC General Counsel James Holst amicus letter to California Supreme Court re. City of Marina et al, Sept. 12, 2003)

The state Supreme Court disagreed with UC.

The Sun-Star insisted the little flyer, on a piece of yellow typing paper, include a
statement that it was "paid political advertising." Check your pro-Measure G material -- we are sure you have some lying around you haven't yet thrown out -- and see if you can find any statements on it that it is "paid political advertising." It is just one more in a long list of cheating that surrounds the Measure G campaign.

To repeat: the Merced public knows a lot more about political graft than our PhD author knows.

Join us in the Great Measure G Guessing Game. The reader who comes closest to guessing the amount of money contributed to the Measure G campaign will win fleeting fame for being a better political economist than the UC hack whose propaganda appears below. The range for guessing should be somewhere between the half-million now reported, and whatever developers threw at the end (not reported until after the election) to produce yet more campaign material -- all gloss and no substance.

Vote NO on Measure G
-----------------------------

Nov. 11, 2006
Merced Sun-Star
http://www.mercedsun-star.com/opinion/story/12981553p-13632563c.html
Letters to the editor:
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/12981553p-13632563c.html
We can help ourselves...SHAWN KANTOR, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, UC Merced...1st letter...As a professional economist who conducts research on how politics affects economic growth, I must admit to being fairly skeptical of politicians' claims that higher taxes are the answer to our fiscal challenges. Yet, in spite of this inherent skepticism, I strongly support Measure G...without becoming a so-called "self-help" county, we will not be eligible for matching state and federal money to improve our local infrastructure...also find appealing about Measure G is that it is voter driven. I was grateful to read Joe Kieta's Nov. 4 opinion column chiding Cathleen Galgiani and Jeff Denham for their categorical opposition to Measure G simply because it represents a tax increase. What makes Measures G, C (in Fresno), T (in Madera), K (in Stanislaus), and K (in San Joaquin) different is that they are citizen-initiated taxes, not taxes imposed on us against our will. Mr. Kieta has it exactly right, "Jeff Denham and Cathleen Galgiani need to start telling us the truth." Without becoming a self-help county and, thus, raising local funds, forget about trying to beat out the heavily populated areas of the state that have already elected to be "self-help." State and federal transportation money will continue to go there, not Merced County, if we fail to pass Measure G. I hope Merced County voters realize this simple reality and vote "yes" on Measure G and cast a vote in favor of the prosperous economic future of our county.

Informed Comment
by Juan Cole
http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/is-bush-unhinged-calling-hannah-arendt.html#comments

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Is Bush Unhinged?
Calling Hannah Arendt

Journalist Bill Gallagher of Detroit's Channel 2 News joins Andrew Sullivan in asking the increasingly unavoidable question: Is George W. Bush Criminally Insane? Gallagher writes:

' Bush's fantasies are even disturbing his fans. In a sit-down with wire-service reporters, Bush assured them that Rumsfeld, the most incompetent man on earth, would keep his job for two more years. Maybe in the last days of the Republican-dominated Congress, Bush can get him declared Defense Secretary for Life, sort of an American Raul Castro.

Gushing over Rummy and Dick Cheney, the two principal thugs who lied to get us into Iraq and designed the disaster, Bush claimed they "are doing a fantastic job and I strongly support them."

The remark prompted conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan to raise the question of Bush's mental fitness. Sullivan told CNN Bush is so delusional, "this is not an election anymore, it's an intervention."

Sullivan, long a cheerleader for the war in Iraq, said Bush is "so in denial" he simply can't come to grips with his failure: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that is has been done well. It's a disaster."

Sullivan added, "For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it. I'm sorry, there is no other way to say it."

The president's nanny corps -- his mother, his wife, State Department hands Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes -- know he's unhinged, but are too loyal to share that disturbing truth with the world. Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner tried to shift responsibility for the Iraq disaster away from Rumsfeld. Boehner quickly filled the disgraced Tom DeLay's shoes as the most loathsome member of Congress.

Boehner told CNN, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld. But the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president." '

My own answer: Bush is not insane, he is just not very good at putting policy into effect. That is, he is a mediocre leader who has to cover up his horrible mistakes with optimistic slogans because his lack of leadership skills leaves him with no practical alternative. Give me an example of any positive and successful accomplishment of his presidency, unmarred by substantial failures. Afghanistan? Israel-Palestine? Lebanon? Iraq? Al-Qaeda? Domestically, he has, by cutting taxes on billionaires, run up the national debt by trillions, and boasts in that insane yet just mediocre way of his that the deficit is "coming down." He put the expense of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars off-budget, and somehow the business page journalists haven't managed to notice that the deficit is not actually less than $300 billion if you count the wars. Nor is adding even $290 billion a year to the national debt a positive accomplishment. We pay interest on that debt, folks.

posted by Juan @ 11/07/2006 06:34:00 AM

If, as is widely prophesized, the Democrats take control at least of the House of Representatives, even without a policy on the war, out of sheer partisan vindictiveness, they will remove odious Republican committee chairmen like Rep. RichPAC Pombo, Crook-CA, and James Sensenbrenner, Numbnut Knucklehead-WI, reduce the power of lunatics like Rep. Tom Tancredo, Racist-CO, and put congressmen like Rep. Dennis Cardoza -- "I never heard of Pombo," Merced, in their appropriate political broom closets. They will also replace Rep. Dennis Hastert, Graft-IL as speaker.

In the nation we live in, these are positive gains. While they will not in themselves restore democracy, they are a step toward restoring a republic.

Meanwhile, of course, the debate on the sanity of the president will rage on, begging the question of trying to establish dynastic succession in the American system of government.

Bill Hatch

Upon receiving the terrible news of the defeat of Rep. RichPAC Pombo, not-yet-indicted-Tracy, developers were alarmed at the possible loss of the Pomboza, that giant wannabe Endangered Species Act Slayer that stalked the north San Joaquin Valley casting its dark and menacing shadow over every square foot of remaining open space and wildlife habitat.

Rumor has it the Pomboza lives on, if only in mutation.

At a recent fundraiser, Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Gofer-Merced, reportedly roasted a staffer in front of a large crowd for about a half an hour. Robin Adam, the victim, had either left Cardoza of his own accord or with an assist, to join the staff of Assemblywoman-elect Cathleen Galgiani, Blonde-Stockton. People who attended the fundraiser found the roasting distasteful in view of the fact that Adam had served Cardoza loyally since their days as lady-mudwrestling impresarios at the Cardoza family bowling alley.

This morning we may have found out why Cardoza had made room in his staff. The hush-hush inside skinny that his next chief of staff could be Pombo.

According to the unverified rumor, the developer directorate that arranged Cardoza would run essentially unopposed in this election will rename the Pomboza as they renamed Measure A of the Primary Election Measure G of the General Election.

Enter Cardombo the Gofer.
-----------------

Nov. 8, 2006

Merced Sun-Star
Thanks to voters, Cardoza cruises back into Washington...Corinne Reilly
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12984801p-13635531c.html
California's 18th Congressional District wasn't whether Dennis Cardoza would win, but rather by how much. By a landslide. "It's a great night for America, it's a great night for California and it's a great night for Merced," Cardoza said Tuesday night, speaking before a crowd of about 100 people at a victory party at the Branding Iron restaurant in Merced. "We have a great margin of victory and I couldn't be more pleased."... said he looks forward to serving another term in a now Democratic House, a shift that he said will mean a more fiscally responsible and productive Congress. As a popular incumbent in a Democratic leaning district who outspent his opponent by more than six times... He names his ongoing efforts to overhaul the national Farm Bill as a top local priority for his next term. 18th Congressional District includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Fresno counties.

Modesto Bee
Democrat McNerney unlikely winner over GOP Rep. Pombo...Erica Werner, AP
http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/12984781p-13635497c.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Jerry McNerney was an unlikely candidate to take down a powerful GOP committee chairman. McNerney did not even have the support of Democratic Party leaders in the primary, and he lost badly two years ago to the man he soundly defeated Tuesday: House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Tracy. He beat Pombo 53 percent to 47 percent. The unconventional resume didn't matter as national environmental groups made the race a referendum on Pombo, angry over the incumbent's support for energy and gas drilling, privatizing public lands and rewriting the Endangered Species Act to add protections for landowners. The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and other groups spent more than $1 million to defeat Pombo and declared victory when they succeeded. After Tuesday's victory was secured, McNerney got a congratulatory call from former President Bill Clinton. His son, Michael, also spoke briefly with Clinton.

Sacramento Bee
Pombo loses his bid for eight term...Herbert A. Sample, Bee San Francisco Bureau
http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/73511.html
With nearly all of the vote counted, Democrat Jerry McNerney held a 53 percent to 47 percent lead in California's 11th Congressional District, which includes much of San Joaquin County and portions of Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Though political observers rated the contest a toss-up before Election Day, a McNerney victory came as a surprise because Republican voters constitute a plurality in the 11th Congressional District. Pombo...has contended that whatever difficulties his re-election drive encountered had little to do with Iraq or Abramoff, and more to do with concerted efforts of environmental groups and other critics who targeted his race.

Challenge to habitat rejected...Denny Walsh
http://www.sacbee.com/378/v-print/story/72586.html
U.S. agency correctly designated vernal pools, judge says. The home-building industry had challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's designation... U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb in Sacramento ruled that the agency's work passed muster on every point except when it did not designate as critical habitat two tracts involving ongoing public projects.

Stockton Record
McNerney topples Pombo in close House race...Hank Shaw and Zachary K. Johnson
http://recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061108/A_NEWS/611080361
Rep. Richard Pombo met his electoral end at The Waterloo on Tuesday night to a little-known wind energy consultant from Pleasanton. Jerry McNerney declared victory at 12:15 a.m. today, leading 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent with 90 percent of the precincts reporting, including 100 percent from San Joaquin County. For the first time in 14 years, Pombo had met an opponent able to match him ad for ad, volunteer for volunteer, issue for issue. Pombo was supposed to roll over McNerney a second time. The 11th District leans Republican; Pombo is a seven-term incumbent with a huge money advantage and an opponent considered too liberal even by the national Democratic Party. McNerney never quit. He mortgaged his house, dropped everything and set his career on hold for two years to campaign for Pombo's seat.He hired a staff skilled in running grass-roots, ground-level campaigns and tapped progressives from Manteca to Maine for more than $1 million in small checks - enough to offset Pombo's advantage with Washington, D.C.-based political action committees. And McNerney was not without friends. A slew of environmental groups, led by Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, kept up a constant attack on Pombo's environmental record for more than a year.
EDITOR'S NOTE: In the final edition of Wednesday's printed version of The Record, we made an error. We had Jerry McNerney's first name incorrect. It happened as we rushed to get the final results into the paper at about 1 a.m. While we did not catch the mistake until after the newspaper had been printed, we have corrected the story on our Web site. We apologize for the error. Mike Klocke, editor
Reader Reaction
NavyVet...November 08, 2006 11:42 AM
The election results are disappointing to me, but not necessarily surprising. Now we'll just have to wait and see if the democrats can actually put a plan in place to fix some of these problems, or if all of the political hype and rhetoric was just that. Was I the only one who found it odd that the democratic party wouldn't take any steps to make "improvements" before the election? That shows that the country and it's best iterests play second fiddle to politics and power grabs.
eyewhitie...November 08, 2006 11:34 AM
Well, richie rich pobomb, your family is going to have to find another job, unless you're allowed to funnel leftover campaign funds to them. When the Dems take the Senate, the Grand Jury will want to be talking to you soon. Your family can always go back to stealing more land in Tracy.
mike_coleman...November 08, 2006 11:30 AM
I am a life long Republican and voted for Richard Pombo many times, but not this time. Mr. Pombo forgot why we sent him there. He became more concerned with things that were important to him and his land rich family than to the people he represented. But Mr. McNerney should take note. Remember who sent you to Washington and why. Be true to the environment and to the people of this district and bring our soldiers home or suffer Mr. Pombo's fate.
chink...November 08, 2006 11:12 AM
THIS MAKE DAY GOOD. EAT SWEET CAKE NOW. EVEN RAINY DAY NOT GET ME DOWN.

Tracy Press
Pombo defeated...John Upton, Danielle MacMurchy, Phil Hayworth
http://tracypress.com/content/view/5501/2/
In a night that saw Democrats sweep to power in the House of Representatives, little-known challenger Jerry McNerney unseated Tracy's Rep. Richard Pombo from his perch as one of Congress' more powerful chairmen. In a stinging defeat, voters dumped Tracy’s 14-year congressman, Rep. Richard Pombo, from power Tuesday... Robert Benedetti, University of the Pacific government and politics professor, said the campaign was fought on national issues instead of local issues. He said Pombo’s agricultural base has been eroded as more people moved from cities into the district, and said McNerney had limited involvement in local politics to tout. Pombo encouraged the formation of a coalition that’s never worked together before,” said Defenders of Wildlife President Roger Schlickeisen. “It was really Pombo that drew us into this.”

San Francisco Chronicle
Challenger defeats Pombo in a stunner...Rachel Gordon
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/08/MNG9LM8JDV4.DTL&type=printable
Pombo-McNerney matchup got the most attention, due to Pombo's high-profile as chairman of the powerful House Resources Committee. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups targeted him as an "eco-thug" who once proposed selling off some national parks, led the drive to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, wants to let states drill for oil and gas off their coasts, and has pushed to revamp the Endangered Species Act to provide more rights for property owners. "We're thrilled," said Roger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, which made Pombo its top target in the congressional races. "Not only was he a vote against the environment, but as committee chair he could push his agenda.''

Inside Bay Area
Pombo's defeat recharges environmental movement...Douglas Fisher
http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=4624962&siteId=181
Finally the environment has a voice in Congress. Activists, emboldened by Democratic gains across the nation Tuesday, savored what Carl Pope of the Sierra Club called "the most successful mid-term election for the environmental movement" since at least 1974. And the "sweetest victory of the night" was the toppling of Republican Rep. Richard Pombo by wind-energy consultant Jerry McNerney. McNerney captured "Pombo country"...Pombo, a once-and-future rancher and real estate developer, chairman of House Resources Committee and easily Public Enemy No. 1 of Sierra Club & Co., goes home after 14 years in Congress. Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director..."This sends a clear message to those who might share (Pombo's) ideology: When it comes to elections, the environment is a giant killer." And not just in California. Environmental groups targeted more than 30 "top of the ticket" elections across the nation and came up winners in almost all cases...

Contra Costa Times
In huge upset, voters oust Pombo...Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Thomas Peele and Ryan Huff
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/15955890.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, once thought invincible in a safe GOP seat, has been turned out by voters in the Democratic storm that roared across the country Tuesday. With all the precincts tallied, Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton held a solid lead of 6 percentage points and more than 10,000 votes. The race will go down in California history as a massive upset in a district... Pombo aides said they would wait until all votes had been counted. Pombo is expected to hold a press conference sometime Wednesday. But it was a bitter loss for the proud incumbent who had easily won re-election six times and rose to become the chairman of the powerful House Resources Committee, where his conservative policies made him a prime target of environmentalists.

Mercury News
Pombo defeated by challenger McNerney in House fight...Barbara Feder Ostrov
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15955541.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
With more than 99 percent of precincts reporting at 2:30 a.m. today, seven-term Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Stockton, faced defeat by Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney..t. Political observers predicted that Pombo could be swept from office by a national tide of anti-Republican sentiment. Washington Post ranked Pombo's campaign among the 10 worst-run incumbent campaigns in the country, and the Tracy rancher faced a last-minute onslaught of campaigning by well-financed environmental groups supporting McNerney. The race looked like many across the country, with an upstart Democrat becoming a serious challenger in what previously had been considered a safe Republican district. National politicians on both sides of the aisle considered it a high-stakes battle, with former President Bill Clinton stumping for McNerney and both President Bush and first lady Laura Bush rallying the party faithful on Pombo's behalf in the campaign's final stretch. As recently as three months ago, McNerney, a left-leaning wind energy consultant, was an underdog not even supported by his own party. But more recent polls showed McNerney gaining as Pombo faced anger from voters over his stay-the-course stance on Iraq and links to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The race was an expensive one, with campaign contributions of more than $2.5 million pouring in on both sides.

Los Angeles Times
Feinstein wins 4th term, Pombo defeated...Rone Tempest and Dan Morain
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-110806calcong,1,2830985,print.story
In the most competitive of California's 53 congressional contests, seven-term incumbent Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy) was defeated by Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney to represent what had been a comfortably Republican district stretching from Stockton to the Bay Area's eastern suburbs. With 99% of the votes counted, Pombo trailed his challenger by 47% to 53%. Pombo angered environmentalists last year when his committee staff proposed selling off 15 national park sites, including more than 15 million pristine acres in Alaska...also urged more offshore oil drilling, a step that incurred Feinstein's wrath...his effort to weaken the Endangered Species Act went "to the core of what we fight for," said Mark Longabaugh, political director of Defenders of Wildlife, which joined with Americans for Conservation to spend more than $1 million to oust Pombo. Texas financier David Bonderman, a business associate of Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, gave at least $375,000 to the groups. Getty heiress Anne Earhart of Corona del Mar gave $100,000, and Julie Packard of Soquel, Calif., gave $50,000. Pombo and his supporters gathered Tuesday night at the Waterloo restaurant outside Stockton and acknowledged that the race was tight. "I wouldn't change a thing," he said, referring to his political stands. He also took a swipe at Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), probably the next speaker of the House, saying: "I hope she does a better job as speaker than she did as minority leader." According to pollster Ben Tulchin of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research...Pombo's stands on the environment were to the right of most voters in his district, one that has become less conservative as the suburban population has grown east of the Oakland hills in Pleasanton, Danville and Livermore. "The reality is that Pombo gave all the environmental groups a lot of things to work with," said Tulchin, retained by Defenders of Wildlife to survey the district.

The Badlands Journal editorial staff has few opportunities to defend the honor of the Merced Sun-Star. But, fair is fair. A working girl's got rights, too. On Primary Election night, the Sun-Star committed an act of photojournalism. It took a picture of Jesse "The Crestfallen" Brown, director of Merced County Association of Governments and manager of the failed Measure A campaign. Brown's face expressed bewilderment and despair in a painful moment of political defeat. But the special interests behind the measure to raise sales taxes to pay for the UC Loop Road, maybe the Los Banos By-Pass, and at least for the potholes in front of Brown's office, plunged fiercely forward with a new campaign in the General -- Measure G. As predicted by the campaign's own polling, Measure G also failed. The Sun-Star worked as diligently for both measures as an escort service in duck season. But, it's not good form to invite the party girl to the funeral.

From the Sun-Star's blog, "Sunspot":http://sunspot.mercedsunstar.com/

Nov. 7, 2006
Speaking of Measure G ...
Submitted by Joseph Kieta, Merced Sun-Star editor

Each election night, Sun-Star reporters and photographers patrol various political parties to get photos and talk with the winners and losers. Just about every newspaper does this ... they're not the most exciting photos and the comments can be predictable, but sometimes we get something surprising and interesting for you, our readers.

Don't expect to see a photo out of the Measure G party. Jennifer West, the Measure G campaign manager, said the gathering of supporters will be held at a private home (we hear it's her house) and a Sun-Star reporter and a photographer are only welcome if Measure G wins.
------------

Nov. 9, 2006
Measure G not likely to come back soon...Leslie Albrecht
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/12988694p-13639087c.html
If Merced County votes on a transportation tax measure again, it probably won't happen until the country selects its next president...2008 is the earliest. Measure G, which failed Tuesday, was the third version of a transportation tax that voters have decided on in the past four years... earned 60.66 percent of the vote, falling short of the "super majority," or 66.7 percent, approval it needed to pass. "I think obviously we need to do a better job of education," Spriggs said. "We need to do a better job in the next couple of years of educating folks." Whether voters will see the measure again is up to the Merced County Association of Governments governing board... All five county supervisors and one elected official from each of the county's six incorporated cities serve on the board. But the public will have a chance to weigh in too, said Jesse Brown, executive director of MCAG. Starting early next year, MCAG will hold a series of public workshops to update the transportation expenditure plan, the document that lists the county's top transportation priorities. During the transportation plan's 2001 update, public input drove the decision to pursue a transportation tax ballot measure and the long list of projects the tax would fund, Brown said. Now the public will be asked to help form a new plan that doesn't include the sales tax as a funding source, Brown said.