Amador County Business Council has new executive director

Today, I learned that the Amador County Business Council has a new executive director, Kevin Walker. Until recently, Walker worked for subdivision developer JTS. He may still be working for them.

I have asked an ACBC officer where Walker lives and whether he still works for JTS. No reply yet (the former ACBC ED was from Stockton).

JTS owns the Castle Oaks Golf Course subdivision in Ione, and its principal has been sued by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court trustee in relation to a huge Ponzi scheme that defrauded a number of investors. JTS is also developing the old Greilich Ranch outside Plymouth into a wedding venue with exclusive vineyard homesites, called Rancho Victoria. It's near the intersection of Highways 49 and 16. Walker has been the project manager.

In 2014, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board ordered JTS to perform a technical report for Rancho Victoria. Neighbors and a state investigation had earlier reported and documented sediment from the project flowing into and polluting local streams and creeks. The developers had  mass-graded large hillsides in the summer and fall with few provisions for erosion control from the winter rains.

 Here's page one of that letter.

As I have said for years, the ACBC is a "pay to play" organization that's largely a front for the construction and development industry. And now they're being led by a guy who's directly from that industry.

That's not all, though. Back in the summer, the "Friends of Agribusiness" set up a political action committee to help re-elect incumbent county supervisors. Walker was one of the largest donors, making a $2,000 donation to pay for polls and mailers for incumbent supervisors Richard Forster and Louis Boitano.  Here's what radio station KVGC had to say about that. 

If you don't think big-money developers are attempting to shape our county's future, I would urge you to stop and think again.

And then there's the recently released special grand jury investigation report, which makes three of our sitting supervisors appear to be either incompetent or corrupt. Perhaps I'll find time to write about that soon, too.

Who says life in Amador County is dull?

Items of interest

A couple of things have come up in the last few days that may be worth following ...

First, there's the departure of Larry Peterson as head of the Amador County Department of Public Works. Larry brought real professionalism and a true public service ethic to the county. Now he's gone, and no one's saying just why.

And this coming Tuesday, the Alpine County Board of Supervisors is going to hear a presentation from the county's District Attorney Will Richmond and a representative of the Department of Fish and Game regarding civil penalties collected from Kirkwood Mountain Resort to resolve "criminal action" against the resort.

It'll be really interesting to learn what that's all about. A few years ago Kirkwood was responsible for a great deal of silt flowing into streams feeding Kirkwood Creek, so that may be the issue.

So Jack Mitchell's going to run after all...not

Update February 22, 2008: In today's paper, Jack Mitchell declared that he's not going to run for supervisor. Apparently, he's had a change of heart.

+++++++++

A while back, Amador Ledger Dispatch publisher Jack Mitchell moved to Sutter Creek from the Pine Grove area. Word was he was planning to run for county supervisor against incumbent Louis Boitano. An article in yesterday's paper shows that rumor to be well founded.

In the story, Mitchell said, "If there's a viable second candidate, I will back out." Sure he will. I think he's been running for at least the last two years. If you don't believe me, re-read his editorials on the Ledger website with that in mind.

Tuesday's article on the various supervisor candidates may foreshadow things to come. Mitchell got nearly twice as much copy in the story as Boitano.

Who's being "responsible"?

There's a new group in the county, the "Amador Citizens for Responsible Government." Sounds good, right? Who's opposed to responsible government?

But like many things, what sounds good may not hold up to closer scrutiny. This particular group's thoughts on what constitutes responsible government are pretty questionable.

The group opposes efforts to combat global warming, which it calls a "scientifically-discredited theory." They recently convinced the Amador County Board of Supervisors not to sign on to a national "Cool County" resolution pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Apparently, these "responsible" guys (19 of their 20 "Executive Council" members are guys) think they know more about climate science than the the Nobel Peace Prize committee and major world scientific institutions.

They've shown up at recent meetings of the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee to oppose consideration of global warming in the update of the county general plan -- even after the county's consultant described how the state is suing counties that fail to take global warming into account.

Is that responsible? I don't think so. Failing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions could result in serious consequences for this and future generations. That doesn't sound responsible to me. It sounds selfish and short-sighted, especially when common sense solutions exist.

If our county disregards global warming-related state law, it leaves itself open to lawsuits. Is that responsible? Last time I checked, our county didn't have money to waste on lawsuits that can easily be avoided. I know I don't want my tax dollars spent that way.

This group also opposes smart growth planning principles, which center around building denser, walkable communities where services and infrastructure are available -- much like the small towns we love in our county now.

Providing government services and infrastructure to compact development is much cheaper than serving homes spread all over the rural countryside. It is easier to protect homes from wildland fire. It costs less to maintain roads.

Compact development reduces the need for new school construction, school buses, new roads, new sewer facilities, water lines, fire stations, and more. It ensures that natural areas will continue to provide "ecological services" such as clean water and clean air. It supports our tourism economy by keeping the county beautiful and rural. It keeps our working landscapes contributing to the local culture and economy.

Smart growth can be cheaper for builders, too, because they don't need to provide the infrastructure to sprawling homes.

So it's hard to see how opposing smart growth constitutes "responsible government."

The group is also opposed to the new Amador Regional Planning Committee -- a group formed to help ensure better coordination of land use planning among our five cities and the county. The committee has no regulatory authority. Absolutely none.

But this new group somehow sees it as a threat, and therefore supports continuing our current system, where coordination of planning efforts is spotty, at best -- with the obvious consequences we're seeing in our county today.

Responsible? I think not.

So what is this group for? They say they're for "limited government." But best I can tell, they're really for unfettered growth of the type that threatens our natural environment and quality of life -- the kind of growth we've seen turn much of rural California into sprawling, undifferentiated suburbs. They want that sort of growth here, too, regardless of the cost.

And if you ask me, that is anything but responsible.

What are "deciders" for?

After a long hard work week, the last thing I expected to be doing Friday night was writing a blogpost. But after reading the latest articles in the Amador Ledger Dispatch about wastewater and traffic, I just couldn't help myself. So I started this one.

Right now, the available excess wastewater treatment and disposal capacity in our county is quickly disappearing. Solving that problem will take millions of dollars, and it won't happen overnight.

Our roads are becoming increasingly jammed and there is no solution in sight -- especially considering local voters' distaste for taxes and the constraints imposed by our topography.

Meanwhile, the cities of Jackson and Sutter Creek, and the county itself are considering major development projects: Wicklow Way, Gold Rush, and Jackson Hills. And with the sale of the Howard Ranch to developers, Ione may see a major project in its future before too long. These subdivisions proposals are often written and talked about as if they're a done deal. But are they?

Subdivisions must be approved by a city council or board of supervisors, or in some cases, a planning commission. Developers do not have a right to convert a cattle pasture into houses just because they spend a lot of money on plans and studies. They must gain the approval of the local government first.

The local government must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to disclose the environmental impacts of the project. The project must be consistent with the local general plan and zoning code -- including the sections that address roads and other infrastructure. Ultimately, local officials must approve or reject the project in a discretionary vote.

And you know what? They can say no. They truly can. If they couldn't, the matter would never come to them for a decision, would it? Developers would just walk up to the permit counter, pay their fees, and start up the bulldozers.

In some cases, including situations where a project is inconsistent with a general plan, state law even requires the local council or supervisors to say no.

Here's what a League of California Cities publication on California's land use planning framework has to say about subdivision review, "After a public hearing, the local agency may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the map after making specific findings."

Of course, all of this is subject to myriad statutes and case law. But sometimes I wonder if our local media, local planners, and even our elected "deciders" understand that decisionmakers have any discretion at all. A plan is not a project. A proposal is not a subdivision. And when a community has limited wastewater and road capacity, it may not be prudent to approve large projects that would use up all that capacity, and more.

Communities, like families, ultimately have to live within their means -- whether those means are water, wastewater, schools, fire protection, roads, or child care facilities. If they don't, the consequences can be pretty dire.

Our deciders need to make decisions that are in the public interest. It's not an easy job. They are put under tremendous pressure by all of the competing interests in the community and California's post-Prop 13 funding realities. And they have to sort out myths from the facts: what is a "property right"? What does the law really require?

Still, the decisions are theirs to make. And that's what we elect them to do.

Articles on Amador wastewater and traffic.

California land use basics

California Goverment Code on subdivision approval

Planning for youth

In his recent editorial, Amador Ledger Dispatch Editor Raheem Hosseini pointed out that Amador County communities have largely done a poor job of engaging youth and providing things for them to do.

Maybe that’s due in part to our county’s agricultural roots. On farms and ranches, kids don’t need youth or recreation centers, sports fields, or other urban-suburban amenities to keep them occupied. They have chores to do, greater responsibilities to assume as they mature, 4-H and Future Farmers of America to teach them social and leadership skills, and plenty of places to get outside and have fun. Who needs a skateboard when you can indulge a need for speed on horseback?

Leaders who grew up in a rural, agricultural setting may have difficulty understanding why some people think Amador County needs more facilities and opportunities for youth. It’s not that they’ve been sticking their heads in the sand, but rather that the concept is simply outside their experience.

But the fact is, most local kids don’t live on farms and ranches anymore, and paying more attention to their needs is long overdue.

I’ve always been amazed that there are youth centers in Calaveras County’s small communities, including West Point and Mountain Ranch. If they can do it, certainly we can, too. And we should.

What’s happening with that empty Safeway building in Jackson, anyway? Seems ideal: a big building, right in town, with a large parking lot for a skate park. All it needs is a champion and some visionary leadership.

If we can have a Senior Foundation, why not a Youth Foundation?

Maybe Raheem could serve on the board.