Persistence

I have learned recently that there are different kinds of persistence; some good and some not so good. It is good when that trait is used for righting a wrong, but for the life of me I am highly suspicious of our board of supervisors having on their agenda the very same topic that the planning commission did not pass, twice.

I am referring to the effort to change how our county government deals with general plan amendments and/or rezones in the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan area. Apparently in 2005, the board of supervisors changed the way things were done so that if a community plan were in the works, so to speak, all applications invoking some rezone or general plan amendment issue would be suspended until the plan was adopted. I guess the idea was that applications would conform to the newest thinking on what the plan was. That seems to make sense to me on the surface. Upon further reflection, it has occurred to me that the Santa Ynez plan has had a very long (seven years), very checkered history to date.

 

There has been more than one version of the vision for the Santa Ynez Valley, and apparently a new version, including new language on archeological issues, is being prepared. It is not clear to me how much of “which” public is going to be reflected in the Draft Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, which is slated to appear in June. Presumably, after public comment, the draft will be presented to the board of supervisors for adoption in November. Any delays and it will mean another year before we have any idea of what has been crafted now.

I am very concerned about why this process is taking so long. The public hearings were closed in June 2006; what has been happening since then? Are there now too many pot-stirrers making up this stew? Are some groups getting a chance to revamp the plan to their satisfaction and not others? Who has access to the planners outside of the public arena? Are we going to look at the draft when it finally is released and recognize it from the hundreds of hours we spent trying to give input that will work for us?

 

I also have concern for those who have submitted plans only to have them held for ransom by this unnaturally long process. I am concerned because if they are legitimate projects and owners who just happened to get caught in bad timing, I think they should have a fair hearing and not wait. On the other hand, if this is a unique opportunity to push through projects without proper scrutiny by the public, a violation of the Brown Act may be happening. As I have said before, I do not have much faith in our legislators to truly represent our wishes and I am concerned that projects that I know about will suddenly get the stamp of approval and be deemed “for public benefit” despite obvious issues to the contrary.

So what are these projects that require immediate attention that have “public benefit” attached to them and why haven’t we heard about them? If they are truly for the benefit of the public, why was the planning commission reluctant to pass this procedure? You will have an opportunity on Jan. 22 to participate in a hearing on this topic. If you have questions, the planner is still Derek Johnson, deputy director, Office of Long Range Planning. His number is 568-2072. I know I have a question: How, when the Plan is not completed, can they possibly know whether the proposed project conforms or not?

 

Ownership

We already have several reports of interference in projects by outside persons who neither own the land involved nor have any financial interest in the project; some where the interference has been based on a single word, “artifact.”  The thought comes to mind of what exactly is meant by “ownership,” particularly when it refers to land. I have attended too many hearings in recent years where people with a particular philosophical bent have managed to persuade lawmakers that they, as opposed to the landowner, have the right to determine what is best for the property. It really makes me see red, as these folks have no investment to lose in forcing their opinions on others.

Very often these are people who take all of their cues from local professional environmentalists who have been sent a blast e-mail telling them to attend a particular hearing, prepared to identify themselves as against whatever the project is. Because of this mentality, which has become all too pervasive in our society, we now are forced to buy oil primarily from people who want to kill us because we don’t believe as they do, and we have run out of adequate electricity and water because we can’t build new plants.

 

These same people constantly push for alternative power, which is a nice idea, but technology at present cannot fill the bill. On the other hand, these same people protest wind power because of the birds that get killed flying into the big wind turbine blades. They also don’t want them in front of their homes, although it may be the ideal place to put it. We have not yet developed the ability to put wind where we want it. We are still at the mercy of Mother Nature. Now, for the first time in our history, we have become a food-importer nation, no longer able to feed ourselves. Why is this when not so long ago we were feeding the world?

So far the professional environmental community, or its leaders, have managed to persuade most government agencies that they alone know the future and they can only predict dire consequences if we continue on the same path. The recent furor over “global warming” is a great example of this behavior. I don’t think many people actually claim that this is not happening, but what the argument seems to be is whether mankind had a hand in producing what some are predicting to be catastrophic occurrences.

 

For those who read about such phenomena, it is commonly accepted that the earth goes through cycles of temperatures such that Greenland, which we all think of as being covered with ice all of the time, once was green, not white. Also during a warming time grapes were grown in England, so it is not necessarily a bad thing to have warming. In fact, it has been in the news that oceans up near the Arctic Circle, which in recent history has been inaccessible to ships due to the ice, may now allow for exploration of a huge oil field. Shipping will become much cheaper as a shorter route will perhaps be developed.

Of course, there is also the report, which you won’t see anywhere else, wondering why the ice shelf is currently getting thicker. Gee, is this the beginning of the New Ice Age that was predicted back in the ’70s? Wringing of one’s hands over the supposed extinction of creatures that is, first of all, not verified, and second usually either preceded or followed shortly by the discovery of new species heretofore unknown. Change is part of life; something that the professional environmental community is not willing to accept yet.

 

I read, with a groan, a report that the Center For Biological Diversity, a radical professional environmental group, that Santa Barbara County relies on heavily for data, is suing some governmental agency for not including some million-plus acres as “critical habitat” for red-legged frogs in California, even though I know for a fact that these areas are not ground-truthed. This means that someone has actually observed the named creatures where they claim they are, not just a supposition from an air photo which is how most of these designations are formed. It is pure speculation that the creature actually exists there.

The public has been fooled for years into thinking that there is real data to support these pronouncements although all they really are is “a location where these species could exist” . . . nothing more. I know because of four surveys that were required to be needlessly done on a portion of my ranch because of one of these phony maps, two daytime, two nighttime, which found no frogs or any evidence of them ever having existed there. Twenty years ago California Fish and Game stated that there were no red-legged frogs there, perhaps because of the preponderance of bull frogs that are natural predators.

 

So what does all of this have to do with the idea of ownership or artifacts? It is clear to me as an embattled landowner who has been the “beneficiary” of numerous pieces of legislation purporting to “save” or “enhance” the environment. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. As I told an audience of WE Watcher’s (Women’s Environmental Watch) several years ago, I will not ever fence off the creeks on my ranch from cattle because that also fences out many diverse types of wildlife who depend on that access to water to live. I also mentioned that we keep all of our water troughs full all year round even when cattle are not present so that when the creeks stop flowing, which they do every year, the wildlife still have water and don’t have to risk crossing Highway 154 to the river, which also might be dry. When I had explained this, the members present agreed that fencing off creeks, etc., might not be the smartest idea.

And artifacts, what do they have to do with ownership? It’s quite simple, so simple that I’m surprised no one has thought of it before. This term refers to items of people who existed in this area at least 50 years ago that are now considered “historic.” This can include almost anything that the powers that be deem important to the culture. Naturally, evidence of local residents hundreds and thousands of years ago would be rightly considered historic. One would hope that all people would be included and that any such evidence be properly preserved for the interest of all of today’s residents and those in the future. Unfortunately, we are beginning to hear and see efforts of certain members of this community abusing this issue and claiming, with no evidence, that there are hundreds of thousands of sites containing artifacts of various sorts.

 

What this amounts to is land control over all private property throughout this county and several other counties as well. That our current and possibly future legislators would allow such abuse to even gain a toehold is tantamount to stealing our property rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Don’t think that just the large ranches will be the only ones hurt by this as smaller properties owned by people who have dared to question the status quo already have been repeatedly refused a lot line adjustment because of an unsubstantiated claim that artifacts may be impacted. So how does a line on a piece of paper impact something which may or may not be located in the ground that no one intends to dig in?

Ownership as defined by Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language is the “state or fact of being an owner, legal right of possession.” It also means that the local governing body, in this case the County of Santa Barbara, may tax the owner for such property and will describe the property to be taxed as to its legal description, applicable zoning restrictions and assign it a number to define it, called an Assessors Parcel Number.

All properties have this but that, until recently, is all there was to it. One happily could work the land or build upon it given the local restrictions.

 

Nowhere did it say that some person can declare something endangered or that their ancestors may have lived there hundreds or thousands of years before and make you unable to use your land. This is what is happening these days with professional environmentalists taking control of our land without paying a dime for it. 

The only reason this is going on is because our legislators are allowing it. Either their guilt feelings over how segments of the population were abused generations ago or something even more sinister is making them feel it is all right to rob today’s landowners without so much as a thank you. This is referred to in legalese as “condemnation without compensation” and it is against the law. Perhaps the time has come to put it to the legal test?

If you are not a property owner, perhaps you view this discussion differently, but just be aware that the landscape around you is changing as we speak and it will not be to your liking. The real environmentalists are those who for generations have taken care of the vistas around you that you cherish and have been feeding and clothing you and your family for just as many years and are prepared to continue to do so if they are allowed to. It’s your choice.