Commission Impossible

« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 31, 2006

The Numbers Game

With 8 days until the election there's still no indication of who's winning the City Council contest. Mary Flynn seems to have a solid crew of letter writers, and has done an admirable job of raising funds. But the pounding she took in the ER endorsement editorial was one for the record books. Otherwise the Sorensen, Herbert, and Dailey slate have caught up to the progressives (Gruendl, Flynn, and Nickell) in fundraising, and with the exeption of Flynn have probably surpassed them. The three PACs (Chamber, Hooker Oak Alliance, North State Business) supporting Bertagna, Sorensen, Herbert, and Dailey have activated a previously silent business community, and drawn together addtional threads of discontent. The Esplanande League and Chico Conservation Voters have been pushing the "developer slate" concept in their mailers, and the Chico Beat showed that they aren't "dicking around" when they interview candidates. The Butte Republicans have even begun populating their 72 hour push. They've even taken the unique step of endorsing City Council candidates due to the deceptive mailer sent out by progressives implying Scott Gruendl was a republican favorite. It looks like nobody is sitting out this election, and both sides are geared up for the last week. To make the contest even more "razor's edge" the gap between democrat and republican registered voters has dropped to about 1000. The increase in registered Republicans is probably due to annexations in the last few years. Minor parties probably break evenly across the party lines (Greens = minor party conservatives). Registered Democrats 15,325 (previously 15,148) Registered Republicans 14,324 (previously 13,396) Decline to State 8,163 (previously 8,162) 1/3 of Chico voters are permanent-absentee-voters, so it is possible that 30% of the people that will vote have already done so. The election will depend on two things. Get out the vote efforts by the political parties, and the direction the "decline to states" take in this referendum. I won't be foolish enough to suggest winners. But I will say that none of the 6 candidates are out of the race, and I don't believe either incumbent is safe.

Posted by Lon at 08:48 AM | Comments (1)

October 30, 2006

The ER Endorses Herbert, Sorensen, Dailey

After seeing the number of visits Dan's blog gets in today's ER article on blogs, I've talked with my marketing consultant on how to enhance my posts. We've decided to go with the traditional method of beefing up popularity. S-E-X. So here is my post referencing the ER endorsement of Herbert, Sorensen, and Dailey. I have personally interviewed all of the candidates for City Council and Supervisor. They are all nice people with different perspectives and different priorities. It's interesting that the Chico News and Review expressed concern over a lopsided liberal majority when they endorsed Sorensen over Nickell. The ER has expressed concern over the decisions of the existing liberal majority. More importantly, they pointed out a lack of understanding of the city mechanics on the part of Nickell and Flynn. I saw that as well. Watch/listen to the ER video/audio interviews with the candidates (North State Votes). It takes a little time, but they're worth more than an infinite number of political ads.

Posted by Lon at 08:39 AM

October 29, 2006

The Scoop!

The Enterprise Record is working on a story on political blogs in Chico. I was interviewed by Sarah Kingsbury over the phone last weekend, and today (Sunday) Ty Barbour came by my house to take a photo. The story is supposed to run on Monday. I'm actually writing this blog as I'm waiting for Ty to show, and the picture I'll be posting will be (is) of Ty taking the photo of me for the print edition. As far as I know Alan (Dog's Breakfast) and Dan (Bullfight) were also interviewed. I assume some others have been talked to as well. The main thrust of the interview was "do local blogs mirror the national political blog scene as far as ranting and raving goes". So here's my prequel to the ER story on the blogs. And my take on the stuff I said during the interview. In other words I'm scooping the ER. Are Norcal Blogs Influential? I think Norcal blogs are read by a subset of people that read the letters-to-the-editor. These are people that follow local issues, and are sometimes decision makers. I'm pretty sure all candidates check them from time-to-time. I really have no idea how many people read them regularly. What Kind of Political Blog Generates Interest? Local controversies are the topics that generate responses, and since we're in the election season taking a side is likely to create the most interest. See Dan's "developer slate", or my "conservation voters" as examples of posts that generate responses. Standing smack dab in the middle of an election (ideologically speaking) is not an interesting place for readers. Do Local Political Blogs Mirror the National Scene, or Talk Radio? I don't think so. But I don't read national blogs, or listen to talk radio. In fact I only check the national news once or twice a week. National politics used to be very interesting to me, but now it bores me. I think local blogs just take the opinions of a few people that might be interested in speaking out on local issues and amplifys them. The fact that we can post what we want, when we want, gives us a leg up on the "official" press. Will Local Blogs Influence the Election? The vast majority of people pay no attention to politics or specific items of debate. They just go vote the party line. Local blogs may influence some attention given to certain topics. I can't imagine that local blogs do anything more than provide a little "color commentary" on the local goings-on. Sometimes we break a little news, other times we add opinion to what's already being discussed. But in the end we're just a bunch of dorks on our computers. The important people will be listed on the ballots on November 7th. If you want to use your computer to learn about them go to North State Votes and listen to the people that are running for office. Oh...one last thing, vote for Bertagna, Dailey, Herbert, and Sorensen on November 7th.

Posted by Lon at 05:04 PM | Comments (0)

October 28, 2006

Take a Closer Look

In Saturday's ER article on the WPCP Solar Array (water pollution plant) it is stated that the city could hire 3 police officers with the money saved on power bills. I wouldn't want to refute the possible savings from using solar power for this project, but I would like to point out a simple calculation. Power Plant Cost - PG&E Grant = Remaining Debt $7.3million - $3.8million = $3.5million City Council minutes from 2005 mention the city considered borrowing from itself (at ~3%) to fund the solar array. The WPCP solar array (Project 15026) in the Major Project Details document (page 67) shows a cost of about $3.9million. The project shows that it was funded by Fund 850 Sewer Service Fees. From chapter 15 of the municpal code this looks like about $150 per household per year goes into this fund. Section 15.36.022 (Disposition of unappropriated sewer fee revenues) of the municpal code says that extra money in Fund 850 needs to be used for sewer infrastructure Whew! What was all that about? These major projects don't just pop into existance. They cost money, and that comes from somewhere. Whether the solar array cost $3.5million or $3.9million is not really material. But any savings need to be balanced against those costs. The $150K savings mentioned in the article won't be going to police officers. It will be going to pay back the cost of the solar array project itself. Not including interest it would take 23 years to pay off a $3.5million dollar debt at $150K per year. The life of the solar power equipment may not exceed the time required for the savings to pay back the cost. All-in-all I think solar power is a great solution where it fits. And it'll probably fit in more places as time goes by. But the capital cost to switch over will not result in huge increases in cash for the city. It would create additional debt that would need to be serviced with the proceeds from any reduction in energy costs. Finally, at the end of the article there's a reference to the solar array saving 135 acres of trees. I'm not sure where that comes from. Did the solar array replace an array of wood stoves?

Posted by Lon at 09:14 PM | Comments (10)

October 27, 2006

Getting Ready for Fright Night in Chico

Some friends had a bunch of us over for "pumpkin carving". As you can see there we're not a lot of pumpkin carving experts in the group. And all of the young kids spent time chasing each other around while the parents had to do the dirty work. But it was fun and triggered the whole "Halloween" feeling for me. Back in college it was all about costume parties and heading downtown to see the outfits and meet friends. Those were pretty fun times. But now Halloween in Chico is a lot more laid back. Here are some things to do that Chicoans might want to check out. If you have a different tradition that's fun post it here. Pumpkin Patches Take a trip to one of the local pumpkin patches. Buying pumpkins grown locally will help keep this tradition around. One thing to remember is many of the good pumpkins are picked by the pumpkin patch operators and brought in near the register. You can always go out and find a single pumpkin in the patch, and buy a couple of the good ones on your way out. That kind of hedges your bet on getting good produce and still having the "patch" experience. Booke Family Farms: Lots of stuff, horse-rides, maze, scarecrows, but costs to enter ($4). Off of highway 99 towards Oroville. TJ Farms: Not as much to do, but no entrance fee and a nice place to visit. Much closer to town. Events: CARD Haunted Swamp : 10/27 and 10/28 6PM - Haunted Swamp local pool turned into a haunted house (although I hear this year they may not be using the pool), food vendors, carnival games, and a bounce house as well. This family event is a great way to get in the Halloween spirit. Location:Pleasant Valley Swimming Pool & Recreation Center (which oddly enough is at Bidwell Junior High) DCBA Treat Street: 10/31 2PM. The Downtown Chico Business Association gets a bunch of businesses together and they hand out little sugary morsals to kids. This is really a good event for very young children that may not be ready to walk door-to-door at night. Not a lot of fun for the older kids though. Dress Up: If you have time "dress up" with your kids. It's a fun way to stay in touch with your own childhood. Here's my son and I in 2004. If you can't tell he's the "batman".

Posted by Lon at 01:41 PM

October 23, 2006

A Matter of Trust

Scott Gruendl's campaign, or a supportive PAC, paid for him to be listed as a recommended republican candidate in the California Voter Guide mailer. Folks following the recommendations in this flyer will be pulling the lever (or touching the screen) for hardcore GOP icons like Aanestad, Keene, and Gruendl. These slate mailers are "for pay", and not at all based on party affiliation. They are designed to be deceptive to the uninformed. That being said, having yourself listed in a mailer like this is pretty silly, and somewhat unbecoming a candidate whose slogan is "a man you can trust". But this is the reality of politics in Chico. It's too bad people can't just be who they are. I wonder if we'll see any more of this in the next 3 weeks. Note: As pointed out in the comments section Rees, Kaiser, and Lerner-Thompson were probably included in this mailer in a deceptive manner along with Gruendl. I don't believe they self-identify as republican or even independant.

Posted by Lon at 07:26 PM | Comments (4)

Road Rules

The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) is responsible for creating traffic and growth planning estimates for Butte County (among a host of other things). It is currently working on the 2007 RTP, or in non-gov terms the Regional Transportation Plan. I recently looked for the plan update in an effort to find out how seriously they were proposing "round-abouts" for highway 32. But the plan was not ready for public consumption. Instead, I ran across a short report on growth estimates for Butte County. These estimates are based on developments in progress and discussions with various city planners. The estimates cover 2006-2030. Here are some of the stats. Biggs - 775 new homes Gridley - 2,699 new homes Chico - 19,996 new homes Oroville - 6,418 new homes Paradise - 3,427 new homes Its time to start addressing traffic capacity problems in Chico. As the employment center of Butte County we will (do) have many people working in Chico and living outside of the city. The traffic capacity of our road system must be planned to meet the needs of our community as a transportation and economic hub.

Posted by Lon at 08:39 AM

October 21, 2006

Those Crazy Conservation Voters

The Chico Conservation Voters sent out a post card accusing Michael Dailey, Dan Herbert, Mark Sorensen, and Steve Bertagna of snacking on infants while dressed in suits made of clubbed seal pelts. Well, maybe not that bad but still ridiculous. The exact accusations were that they don't support funding neighborhood parks, desire lots of density, prefer the joys of traffic, and of course want skyscrapers in Bidwell Ranch. I really like the job titles they gave each candidate that they support. "Mary Flynn - Teacher, Tom Nickell - CHP, Scott and Maureen, uh, what do they do? I forget, isn't Gruendl the mayor or something? Yeah, yeah, and Maureen she's a supervisor right? Sure put that down, nobody reads these things anyway." They could have put "employed in government bureaucracy", and would have been 75% correct. Which is a much higher percentage than the rest of the "facts" presented.

Posted by Lon at 05:43 PM | Comments (15)

October 19, 2006

Is Chico Going Broke?

The City Staff mailer ($15,000 by the way) is mailing out today. In it, it describes the $1.5 million dollar shortfall in net income for the budget year 2006-2007. The projected budget shortfall is $40 million-$50 million over the next decade. My understanding is that this is the projected cumulative shortfall for operating the City on a day-to-day basis. Or an average shortfall of $4-$5 million annually. On the "big" projects front the redevelopment agency (RDA) is a major source of funding for large projects in Chico. Earlier this year the RDA estimated that it could spend $45 million to $65 million of its remaining bond. A safe bet would be $45 million since the City of Chico hasn't even performed a publicly accessible cash-flow analysis of the income source to the RDA bond. If you add the proposed Police Station to the existing RDA expenditures the total RDA money needed is about $80 million. $15 million short of the highest estimate of what money would be available. The general funds and RDA are two different buckets of money. Typically they are used for two very different needs. Regardless of which bucket you peer into it looks like Chico is going broke.

Here are the revenue and expenses pie charts from the soon to be mailed Staff mailer.

Posted by Lon at 01:58 PM | Comments (4)

October 18, 2006

Campaign Lies?

If the recent ER editorial considers references to the "developer slate" as campaign misinformation, then the Mayor is guilty as well the Esplanade League. His radio commercials are petty, and make use of hyperbole far beyond anything sent in the mail. Dan Nguyen-Tan, over at Bullfight has been throwing out names and accusations about the Hooker Oak Alliance and candidates Herbert, Sorensen, and Dailey for a few months now. This has been part of a campaign used by Scott Gruendl in his fundraising letters (near the bottom), and Tom Gasgoyne in his media coverage, and the Esplanade League in political mailers. It's nothing new. If you question the "progressives" and their policies you get smeared as a developer. When the ER recently pointed out that the Hooker Oak Alliance and more importantly the three candidates running as a slate (Herbert, Sorensen, and Dailey) were not "developers" they were correct.

The ER was correct in stating that the shadowy Esplanade League was pushing the boundaries of reasonable political dialogue when they said the "developer slate" would sell Bidwell Ranch. The Esplanade League has a secret membership, supports only liberal candidates, and consists of many of our Board and Commission members appointed by the "progressives". Calling Herbert, Sorensen, and Dailey "developers" because some home builders contributed to a supportive PAC or their campaign is silly. It's like saying Kirk, Gruendl, and Flynn don't support shorter helicopter flights for 82 year olds because Planning Commissioner Jon Luvaas contributed to their campaigns. I wouldn't make the connection that Luvaas is evil because he said something regrettable, and I won't attribute Luvaas' actions or words to candidates because he gave them money. Unfortunately the progressives and their supporters are not bound by those restrictions.

Posted by Lon at 08:13 AM | Comments (4)

October 16, 2006

Only "Progressives" Voted to Break The Greenline

The "progressive" City Council and 3rd District Supervisor candidates are making some pretty grand statements about saving the Chico greenline. They’ve decided that scaring an uninformed constituency is a higher calling than discussing real issues facing our community. Since this election season began there has been no candidate that has stated that the greenline is not an important component of land-use decisions related to Chico’s growth. I haven't seen any difference in candidate stances on the greenline. There is only one instance that I’m aware of that the Chico City Council voted in support of moving the greenline. The vote was in 2004 and it fell along ideological lines. But if you are paying attention to today’s election you might be surprised by which side voted to move the greenline. The "progressives" including Kirk and Gruendl began the process of moving the greenline. Candidates should not obscure their voting records, or accuse others of threatening to do things that they themselves have already done. This is from the Council minutes for the vote, the resolution is listed in its entirety below. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Jarvis and seconded by Councilmember Gruendl to direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment, EIR and Sphere of Influence amendment for Area 1 and to designate Area 2 as an urban reserve, with additional staff direction to communicate with LAFCo and the County about amending the greenline, and to LAFCo on a sphere of influence amendment on Areas 1 and 2. The greenline would be moved out to Mud Creek to include Bell-Muir on the urban side. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Gruendl, Jarvis, Nguyen-Tan, Kirk NOES: Bertagna, Herbert, Wahl

This resolution can be found on page 21(of 250) of the 2004 City Council minutes (pdf) at the city web site January 27, 2004 Page 10 of 13 CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THREE POTENTIAL URBAN GROWTH AREAS CURRENTLY LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY’S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ON THE AGRICULTURAL SIDE OF THE GREENLINE By memorandum dated 1/20/04, the Planning Director and Senior Planner Hayes forwarded the Growth Area Feasibility Study for Council review and further direction. The Study assessed the feasibility of extending City services and facilities to the following potential growth areas: (1) Area 1 (Mud Creek), consisting of approximately 490 acres located on the City’s northwest side between Mud Creek and the Bell-Muir area, and extending westward to the U.P.R.R.; (2) Area 2 (MacIntosh/Estes), consisting of approximately 155 acres located east of Dayton Road on both sides of the U.P.R.R. tracks; and (3) Area 3 (Midway/Southgate), consisting of approximately 800 acres located on the City’s south side between the U.P.R.R. tracks and Highway 99, on both sides of the Midway. Staff identified several options for Council consideration. The Planning Director recommended that the Council direct staff to return with a more specific proposal for the planned annexation and urban development of Area 1. Addressing the City Council on this subject were David Palmerlee, Juanita Sumner, and George Nicolas. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Jarvis and seconded by Councilmember Gruendl to direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment, EIR and Sphere of Influence amendment for Area 1 and to designate Area 2 as an urban reserve, with additional staff direction to communicate with LAFCo and the County about amending the greenline, and to LAFCo on a sphere of influence amendment on Areas 1 and 2. The greenline would be moved out to Mud Creek to include Bell-Muir on the urban side. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Gruendl, Jarvis, Nguyen-Tan, Kirk NOES: Bertagna, Herbert, Wahl ABSENT: None DISQUAL: None

Posted by Lon at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2006

Mudflinging Begins With Gruendl

Scott Gruendl, Mary Flynn, Tom Nickell, and their surrogates have decided that calling names is an acceptable tactic in the City Council election. They've spent thousands of dollars portraying long time Chicoans as developers, instead of discussing real issues facing the community. This is too bad, but should be expected. It's easy to recall Scott Gruendl's own words from his fundraising letter. "The November election will be the nastiest election in recent memory" - Scott Gruendl Since "progressives" have been using the "developer slate" scare tactic to describe Sorensen, Herbert, and Dailey, I thought I'd identify some possible monikers for the "progressive" council slate .

Nickell, Gruendl, Flynn The "I'm A Public Employee So I Know How To Spend Taxpayer Money" Slate The "It's Only a "Projected" $40million Deficit" Slate The "Where's the Nearest Union Rally?" Slate The "How Many Times Can I Say Green In One Sentence" Slate The "I Don't Support The Parking Structure, I Do Support A Parking Structure" Slate The "I Hate Wal-Mart But I Love Trader Joe's" Slate The "High Density Infill is Bad, We need High Density Infill" Slate

In my opinion the biggest issue facing Chico is the $40million projected deficit in General Funds (the lack of RDA money for major capital projects is just about as bad). The "progressives" discount this problem in a number of ways. 1. It's only projected Projected or not this should be the primary item under discussion in this election cycle. The progressives quote a number of items including "preserving open space", and "cleaning up the burn-dump" as accomplishments. Those things are good, but good government would seek to balance ideology with common sense. Common sense means spending public money with an eye on the future. That hasn't happened under our "progessive majority". If it had we would see projected surpluses. 2. The entire council voted for it The "progressives" can't take credit for just the things they want to take credit for when discussing their leadership in Chico. The liberal majority is responsible for the state of the budget, they have been in charge. People should also know that if a council member votes against something they disagree with, they cannot bring it forward again at a later date. This is a procedural reality of local government. Because of this you will often see unanimous votes on issues where the minority cannot win. 3. Let's ask the community how they want to have a tax increase This is Scott Gruendl's big idea, but new taxes were also trumpeted by Nickell early on. Scott wants to have a survey to see how people are willing to increase their own taxes. He's mentioned a sales tax and cell phone tax as possibilities. When the voters say NO I wonder what the next solution will be. Let me make a recommendation. SPEND LESS MONEY!!!! Here's what I'm talking about. If we hadn't purchased Commanche Creek ($1.6million) and small lots in the Humboldt road area (Chico can't afford to maintain any of these), and if we kept the downtown plaza to the budget of $2million versus $4.5million+, we could have funded about 25% of the first phase of the new police station.

Posted by Lon at 05:46 AM | Comments (1)

October 13, 2006

Rate the Debate

The League of Women Voters debate was tonight and it covered both the City Council candidates and the 3rd District Supervisors (two separate debates). This photo was taken at the end of the night. The blur in the foreground is Dan Herbert who was smiling as he walked past this long exposure shot. I could go into detail over who won the debate, who was weak or lacked substance, who seemed confident, etc. But I think those things can be very subjective. I thought the candidates that I support did very well. This debate probably won't change anyones mind, and very few Chicoans saw the debate. The way the debate is described in the paper will be pretty vanilla, so unless there's a scorcher of an editorial it will cause a tiny ripple in the campaign. So instead of hashing out the debate I’ll spend some time discussing the low-lights and high-lights of the night.

$180million In Legal Fees: Dan Herbert misstated the cost of legal fees caused by the Fogarty law suit as $180million (he then caught himself and restated $180K). Next Michael Dailey made a joke referencing the new $180million deficit that was just uncovered. But he was so dead-pan most of the audience didn’t get it right away. I thought it was funny. Tom Nickell on Things Green: Tom likes “green urbanization”, “green buildings”, “green technology”, “green beans”, “Greenpeace”, “Green Day”, and the “Green Bay Packers”. He’s pretty green for Chico City Council. Chico City Council Saves World Under Gruendl: At the end of the night Scott Gruendl was covering a litany of things the City of Chico has accomplished with him as mayor. One of the last things he mentioned was that under his leadership Chico had “slowed global warming”. I AM NOT KIDDING! Pumping Poop: Mark Sorensen said one area Chico could grow could be where the Blakely (sp?) property is (south of Chico, West of 99). Gruendl said it would be too expensive to pump poop over the ridge, and Paradise was expecting to grow there. I’m still trying to figure out which ridge the poop would have to be pumped over. Egg-head Brigade: Mary Flynn said she was proud to have only 1 out of 250 donations coming from a business. All the rest are just regular Joes. But if you look through her campaign filings you’ll see a slew of self employed people (which are pretty much businesses). But more interesting is that 45% of her donations come from people employed by public agencies, mostly professors and teachers. A good number of those are CSU Chico professors. Supervisor Debate Ends Badly: Steve Bertagna and Maureen Kirk had a few heated exchanges. I thought Bertagna did a better job. He did call the Greenline Coalition a sham which is very “current event” in relation to this blog. At the end Maureen Kirk pleaded to be given an extra minute to make her prepared closing statement. When they bent the rules to allow it, she fired off a number mean-spirited salvos at Bertagna. It was really bad form. She had actually prepared a bunch of accusations to throw at her opponent.

Posted by Lon at 12:08 AM | Comments (4)

October 07, 2006

Greenline Coalition Just Part of Kirk Campaign

ER reporter Roger Aylworth filed this story on the Chico Greenline Coalition recently. In the story he interviewed Tovey Giezentanner, a political consultant, who funded this extension of Maureen Kirk's campaign. He had this comment in the story... " Local bloggers and others have characterized Giezentanner as an outside political "gunslinger," being brought in to create a nonexistent coalition and jump-start Kirk's campaign, a charge he unhesitatingly denies." Aylworth failed to interview local bloggers, and others, who have been inquisitive about the purpose and funding of the Chico Greenline Coalition. He also failed to review and question comments by Giezentanner in previous publications of the ER that appear somewhat disingenuous. And finally, he didn't interview Maureen Kirk who received 25% of her campaign contributions apparently from a child's college fund (read ER article). Ouch!!! Maureen should give that money back. I received an email from Juanita Sumner (very courteous, thank you Juanita) that mirrored comments printed in Andy Bruckman's letter to the editor. They both point out connections between Giezentanner and "state-level" Republican political consultant players, described at www.sourcewatch.org.

I'll discuss my opinion of those connections below. But my big problem with the Chico Greenline Coalition is that it appears to have falsely represented itself as a local grass roots group. It seems more like one individual, with a history as a political operator, dumping money into our local election. That in itself would not bother me had it been honestly presented. Heather Hacking wrote in the ER... "Tovey Giezentanner, a leader of the Greenline Coalition, said his group is working to make people aware of possible future changes to the green line, which protects agriculture from development. Giezentanner said the group's mailing list has about 175 names and there is a group of people who live near the green line who are leading the effort." If the group of people leading the effort consists of the generous supporters of the Chico Greenline Coalition then it includes Tovey ($12,000 donated) and retiring Supervisor Mary Anne Houx ($100). Apparently all other "leaders" are doing so with their wallet closed. Real committment. I was also told by Maureen Kirk that the group has a large membership (during a brief conversation at a Farmer's Market). Two Letters-to-the-editor supporting the Greenline Coalition were signed by Susan Mason (Friends of Bidwell Park), Mary Anne Houx, Jim Morgan, and Tod Kimmelshue (Farm Bureau), all Kirk campaign insiders. In one letter Houx, Morgan, and Kimmelshue said they were members. In the ER article it was stated that the money for the Coalition came from a child's college fund. If I was a member of the Greenline Coalition, or a part of Kirk's campaign, that would bother me. More from the Aylworth article.. "If I was just a hack, a political hack, a hired gun, I might be willing to spend 12 grand" on Kirk's campaign, began Giezentanner, but then he interrupted himself and said, "No I wouldn't do that. That $12,000 came out of my kid's college fund." and... "If it took me 12 grand to raise awareness, and get people on the same page, and begin a dialogue on these issues, then it is worth it," Giezentanner said. Unfortunately, the Chico greenline was never an election issue until it was manufactured as one through spending by the Chico Greenline Coalition. And when it became an issue, it immediately became a non-issue since no candidates endorse abandoning it. What a waste of money.

Primarily Formed Recipient Committee: The Chico Greenline Coalition is an extension of the Kirk campaign, and can work in concert with her. As a political entity it was formed specifically to support Kirk's election. It does not exist as anything else at this time. This is different than an Independent Expenditure Committee like the Hooker Oak Alliance or Esplanade League that are typically not allowed to coordinate certain political efforts with candidates. The Connection to State-Level Republicans: I don't believe that the Greenline Coalition connections to Sacramento based PR and legal firms represent a conspiracy of any type. I think they exist because of Giezentanner's contacts with these groups as a political consultant. The most nefarious connection I can see is that by filing FPPC forms at the state level, The Chico Greenline Coalition makes it more difficult for local Chico people to see where they receive and spend their money to influence our local elections. This reinforces my belief that the Chico Greenline Coalition was formed as a campaign stunt.

Posted by Lon at 11:41 AM | Comments (26)

October 03, 2006

Make a Difference Day, October 28th

Chico Noon Rotary has taken on a number of community projects as part of the lead up to national "Make a Difference Day" (October 28th). A project I've been involved in is the sanding, prepping, and painting of "the Big Cheese" and "Humpty's Sandbox" in Caper Acres. Several months ago Mr. Dumpty was vandalized, and in cleaning up the spray-paint his face was partially removed. Humpty was also suffering from some masonry problems. A dozen Rotarians got together and did the fixes and applied the coats of paint to both structures. Then artist Gregg Payne came in to paint Humpty. As of now Humpty has had a nice facelift, and the remaining detail work was competed to make the wall appear as stone blocks. Humpty is old, and will probably need more than cosmetic fixes in the coming years. But shining up this Chico landmark was fun and a lot less work than one would expect. With the Park Department's new volunteer coordinator, Lise Smith-Peters, in place it's a lot easier to get the support necessary to make small projects happen. There's still time to get together with your friends and family to do something nice in our park system for "Make a Difference Day", so please look into volunteer opportunities at the link above.

Posted by Lon at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)

Water Fight!

Water in Butte County is an important issue moving into the next few decades. Our county's largest industry is agriculture. If farmers come to the conclusion that selling their water rights is of higher value than continuing to farm then you can expect those rights to be sold. The impact this will have on our region as it continues to grow can not be readily determined. A meeting will be held tonight to discuss the possibility of the water rights being transferred to powers outside of the North State. I'm not entirely up-to-speed on this issue, but it is important enough for the entire community to get involved in the discussion. Tonight may be one of the only opportunity provided for that to happen. This summary of the public meeting in Durham comes from www.buttegroundwater.org. "The meeting will be held at the Durham Public Library on Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2006 from 6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Northern California Water Association is holding their only scheduled public meeting in Butte County to discuss the final draft of their Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The plan involves pumping Lower Tuscan Groundwater to meet promises made by NCWA's membership to give up water to meet Delta water flow requirements." The Northern California Water Association makes its case for the IRWMP at this web link, http://www.norcalwater.org/int_program/ Pay attention to these discussions. Water may be the "oil" of our future generations.

Posted by Lon at 09:02 AM | Comments (3)

October 02, 2006

CSU Chico - Growth Nobody is Talking About

How large of an effect does the University's (CSU Chico) growth have on the City of Chico? The university finished a Master Plan taking it out to 2015, and it looks like expansion is the primary focus. We saw how expansion of Enloe Hospital caused ripples through the community. Planning Commissioner John Luvaas got in hot water over some ill-advised and televised comments. The Mayor, Scott Gruendl, took time out of his schedule to lead anti-"Enloe management" union rallies at a contentious point in the Enloe dialogue. And local neighbors of Enloe demanded, and got, special treatment for their neighborhood gaining the lions share of $14million set aside for neighborhood improvements. Looking back at Enloe I have to wonder what the plans to expand the university will do to Chico. I also wonder why it seems like only Michael Dailey is talking about it. Dailey had quoted some figures from the CSU Chico master plan, so I went looking for it. Here is the plan, and it has a smorgasbord of suggestions and info that Chico blog readers should peruse.

Here are some interesting components of the University Master Plan (to me anyway). The university plans to add 1800 FTE (full-time-enrollments), increasing their capacity by about 14% to 15800 FTE. FTE's are not students, but represent the capacity for bodies in the classroom. For example, two part-time students might equal one FTE. So additional enrollment impact on Chico's population could add 3,000-4,000 new people. This could include full-time students, part time students, family members, etc. The majority of those students would require housing in and around the University, which will cause additional conversion of older neighborhoods into rental space. These are also the homes most affordable to young working families. A few thousand new neighbors will also be competing for jobs, which can be scarce in Chico. They will be driving to those jobs. In addition, some older neighborhoods are identified as expansion areas. Some suggestions in the Master Plan include absorbing Rio Chico neighborhood (between 1st Street and Big Chico Creek west of Warner) and the College Park area (west of Warner, adjacent to Nettleton stadium. Whitney and Taylor Halls may be demolished and replaced with buildings requiring less maintenance. The Master Plan also shows that the most popular mode of transportation to school is the car. About 5200 students drive alone or carpool to school, 4400 ride bikes, and 4100 walk. Roughly 900 use public transportation or carpool (I'm not sure why carpooling shows up twice in this table??). Parking structures are discussed in the plan, although not in context of how limited parking effects the rest of Chico, or how additional traffic effects our roads leading to downtown. Just a back of the napkin calculation would see a need for 500 or so new rental homes, and about a 1000 new parking spaces in the next 10 years. I haven't looked yet, but I suspect Butte College is looking to increase enrollment during this time frame as well. This Master Plan represents the largest infill development facing Chico. It displaces existing housing and creates traffic and parking impacts that will dramatically impact downtown commerce. Our local leaders should be talking about this (Michael Dailey deserves credit for doing so) and our local citizens should take the time to review the CSU Chico Master Plan. Below is a series of images from the plan that display growth of the university since its inception.

Posted by Lon at 07:26 AM | Comments (2)