Some politicos just won't fade away gracefully.

Case in point: former Assemblyman and state Parks Director Rusty Areias.

Rusty was chased from Los Banos after losing to Jeff Denham in a brutal general election battle for a targeted state Senate seat.  Now, comfortably in Walnut Grove and making the big bucks in the private sector as a non-registered lobbyist with ex-Governor Pete Wilson’s Chief of Staff, he lives in a mansion on the water, where neighbors say he lives the high life entertaining friends from Sacramento. It was at a Rusty shindig in July 2005 where the weird idea of running Gray Davis against Arnold Schwarzenegger was born. Go figure.

It seems Rusty and partner in crime Leslie Medina (herself an ex-staffer of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown) who purportedly want to turn his neighborhood in Walnut Grove into an official historic district complete with a multitude of rules, regulations and various other encroachments on homeowners' property rights. Long-time neighbors and residents are sagely opposed to an historic district being imposed on them -- not that Rusty cares.

It's a classic example of do what I say, not what I do. In my book no one is above the law – Rusty or his neighbors. 

Rusty has been practicing at being an obnoxious historic district resident by harassing his neighbors over property lines, rules and regulations in order to wear them out and wear them down -- softening them up for the big push for a federal historic district and then it's bye-bye! property rights!

Dare I saw that it's...what's the word?...hypocritical for Rusty Areias of all people to harass anyone about alleged failure to follow the rules. This is a guy whose middle name should be "Tax Lien." Click here for an example of how much Mr. Areias cares for following the rules -- at least when it applies to him -- and take a gander at this official complaint
filed by Areias neighbor Steve Finn:
 

In Rusty's case, strong fences don't make good neighbors. I'm sure we'll hear more about this story in the weeks and months to come…

 I think it was Victor Hugo who said there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. If that's so, there must be a corollary to the effect there's nothing so pernicious as a bad idea that won't go away.

The Modesto Bee reported last week that Denny Jackman, the unlamented former Modesto councilman whom the voters overwhelmingly ousted last year after a single term in office, continues his eternal quest to enact anti-property rights no-growth initiative. Jackman, may also wear another hat - Green Party sympathizer. 

You can read the text of the proposed initiative here.

Interestingly, I also got an email from one of my readers about an electronic phone call she received that she says went something like this, “I’m calling to let you know that a group of Bay Area outsiders are putting together a political campaign that would be a disaster for public safety here in Stanislaus.  They are circulating a petition that is deceptive and misleading. They won’t tell you this, but they want to limit our ability to provide police and fire protection throughout the county.   Don’t let them do it.  I strongly urge you to read the fine print before you sign any petition.” Sounds like public safety officials might be behind them.

Jackman first unveiled his Farm Stabilization Initiative in January of 1999, and failed in an effort to qualify it for the November 1999 ballot. In November 2002, after he'd been elected to the Modesto City Council, he failed to persuade his colleagues to place his initiative on the next citywide ballot.

But a truly bad idea can have an amazingly long half-life, especially when it involves an assault on property rights here in California.  But it can help to give an old bad idea a new name, and Jackman has re-christened the Farm Stabilization Initiative as the Stamp Out Sprawl Initiative -- which has the added advantage of a catchy acronym: SOS.

"This is literally a change in the law and the blueprint by which county supervisors operate," said Denny Jackman, a spokesman for the SOS Initiative Committee.

He and Modesto City Councilman Garrad Marsh said the group includes people from all areas of the county.

Opponents have yet to emerge, though county Supervisor Jeff Grover has called the SOS initiative "divisive" and "poorly thought out." He and mayors are developing a countywide growth management plan which envisions gathering input at town hall-type meetings.

Other opponents could include developers and people favoring cityhood for Salida.

The group will put paid and volunteer signature gatherers to work as soon as county election officials give the word, perhaps next week, Jackman and Marsh said. The election office is waiting for an impartial analysis from the county counsel's office, which people can read before signing petitions.

SOS members hope to gather at least 10,000 signatures, which would qualify the initiative for the November ballot. The number represents about 10 percent of the county's registered voters.

The group expects to review its progress toward the end of June and decide whether to aim for the November ballot — it would have to beat an August deadline to qualify — or keep going for a future election.

Jackman's track record points to the latter being a distinct possibility. Still, it bears keeping a vigilant because this initiative is such a bad idea.

Let's get to the heart of the matter: Jackman's SOS Initiative is an attack on property rights, regardless of whether he dresses it up as a measure to save farmland or stop "sprawl." He's pitched it as the latter to because people like the farms (or at least the idea of farms), and oppose sprawl because it sounds awful (never mind that most of the people who say they're against sprawl actual live in "sprawl" communities).

And like the last time, it appears that Bay Area and Sacramento based groups like the Planning and Conservation League and the Berkeley, California based Preservation Institute; and the folks that brought the FOOD slow growth measures to the Central Valley may be involved again.  Look at the game plan they used last time, particularly page 83 of this document.

 

If the past is prelude you can expect the same law firm to be behind the effort (see January 5, 1999 MB article) …Although the election is 11 months away, the process is well under way. The Sacramento law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moore is preparing the measures for free. "Pro bono work is a big part of our practice. We have a real interest in protecting farmland and we are really impressed by Denny and his group," said Whit Manley, a firm attorney. The firm isn't keeping track of hours, but Manley estimated that its work probably is worth $35,000.

 

This element is very interesting, since it appears that they may not reporting their work as a political contribution if they are behind this and their law firm specializes in using the CEQA process – used as a sledge hammer by environmental groups to stop growth -- to benefit their clients which are an unusual mix of development, municipal and environmental interests.

But this is still a country in which government is supposed to protect you're right to own property, so trying to get votes by calling SOS what it is -- the You Can't Exercise Your Property Rights Initiative -- isn't going to fly.

But that's what SOS is -- it  makes every Stanislaus County resident a planning commissioner. Now that may sound democratic when the land belongs to a big bad developer, but imagine that you own a farm and decide one day to take advantage of rising land values by developing it as homes, or selling it to a developer. Under SOS, you can't. Once land is agricultural, it stays agricultural. And if nobody wants to buy your farm, then you’rE stuck.

The arguments will rage back and forth should SOS qualify for the ballot. It's proponents will make appeals to sentiment, nostalgia and idealized Nature, while assuring us (falsely) it will somehow have no negative economic impact. Opponents will employ an array of arguments against it, ranging from it's certain negative economic and housing impacts to lame process-oriented arguments.

I hope property rights will be at center stage in this debate and not shoved off to the wings, as is too often the case in these sort of campaigns. I hope opponents of SOS will not shy from occupying the moral high ground as defenders of property rights. Too often, those who should be property rights' most vocal defenders seem embarrassed to utter the term -- whether for fear of seeming archaic or because they benefit economically from the protection of that right. Whatever the reason, defending property rights is a noble endeavor, because that right protect the single-family homeowner as much as it does the wealthy owner of thousands of acres. As John F. Kennedy said at the Berlin Wall in 1962, "Freedom is indivisible." When one person's property rights are abridged, then everyone's property rights are at risk. Because it is a principle being violated, the damage cannot be contained to single class of Americans.

I don't believe Denny Jackman is ill-intentioned or that his SOS initiative is malicious. I just don't think property rights factors into his thinking. For people like Jackman, only the property has rights: the "right" to be left as open space, agriculture or whatever other use suits their world view. Environmentalist/no-groWHters either don't think in terms of property rights, or take a hostile view of the right to hold and use private property.

Which is all the more reason to engage Jackman and SOS advocates on the property rights front. The Kelo decision and ensuing firestorm over eminent domain have Americans thinking and talking about property rights again. By all means, SOS should be attacked as a retardant to economic growth, jobs and sufficient affordable housing. But the more the battle over SOS is fought on the field of property rights, the more Stanislaus County residents will see how the interests and goals of Stamp Out Sprawl's backers diverge from their own.

More to come.

STOCKTON - San Joaquin County officials want state and federal lawmakers to focus in the coming year on improving the Delta's aging levees to prevent potential flooding. The county Board of Supervisors approved a list of legislative priorities Tuesday that also asks for increased funding for public hospitals, buildings and roads, development at Stockton Metropolitan Airport, and better management of water from the Mokelumne River.   more »

Lets see, a story on THE major water project impacting the Valley with quotes from on-again, off-again (on-again??) Congressional candidate Machado and that uses the always incendiary phrase "environmental justice." Can anyone say "campaign issue?"   more »

On Tuesday, Tracy voted to impose a developer's fee to help pay for new transportation projects. With the amount of growth the Valley is experiencing, I'd suspect we'll see more of these type of votes. Also I know that our current Washington reps like Pombo get how important the transportation issue is. Question is where are the plans from his challengers? Oh, I'm sure they'll get around to letting us know...someday.   more »

LODI -- Cottage Bakery has abandoned plans to expand in Lodi, citing a changing customer base and the increasing cost of doing business there. Bakery President Terry Knutson said that 30 percent of the bakery's customer base is now in the East and that land, permit, building, wastewater, worker's compensation and other insurance costs have risen so much that expanding in California no longer makes financial sense.   more »

LODI -- Lodi once used low electric rates, offered by the city's municipal utility, to lure businesses such as Apache Plastics. Because plastics companies use large amounts of power, city officials hoped cheap electric rates would establish Lodi has a center for plastics manufacturing. And other companies followed Apache, which moved to Lodi from Stockton in 1997.   more »

SJ Blog is a generally conservative blog, and as such those of us posting here are inclined to side with property owners against government. That isn’t surprising since disputes between landowners and government usually consist of government predations against landowners.

But “usually” is not the same as “always,” and here in San Joaquin County we have what appears to be a genuine case of what liberals castigate as “corporate greed.”

It involves Trimark Communities, LLC, who many readers probably know as the master developer of the Mountain House community – the largest development project ever approved in San Joaquin County. Trimark is the lead player in a drama of a property owner’s predations against local government.
              
A little background on the players in this drama.  Trimark. It is an affiliate of SunChase Holdings, which is owned by three gentlemen by the names of Chee Yah, Arte Moreno and Bill Pope.  Chee Yah is a billionaire Taiwainese businessman.  Bill Pope is a real estate and land-developer from Phoenix, Arizona.  Arte Moreno is also a Phoenix developer and – as sports fans know – the owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim major league baseball team.

SunChase, in turn, uses Sterling Pacific Management to manage the Mountain House project.  Duane Grimsman of Sterling Pacific and Eric Teed-Bose of Trimark represent Trimark’s interests to the denizens of SJ County.
              
Messers, Yah, Moreno and Pope have made more than a billion dollars on Mountain Home. It is undoubtedly the most lucrative development project ever undertaken in San Joaquin County.

And good for them. This is America, and landowners ought to be able to earn wealth from their property.
              
This is where the “greed” part comes in. This massive financial return is apparently not enough for Yah, Moreno and Pope. They continue to pressure Mountain House landowners (Trimark is the master developer, as opposed to the home builder) – for more money.

Furthermore, Trimark, is seeking to escape its contractual obligations to San Joaqin County – a contract it entered into freely – to the detriment of local residents. If successful, Trimakr’s maneuverings will further delay the long-awaited Delta College campus.

Early in the process of developing Mountain House, Trimark negotiated several ordinances with San Joaquin County and the Mountain House Community Services District (CSD) – the legal/financial mechanism for funding the infrastructure improvements that accompany the project.

The CSD is ultimately financed by the people who buy homes in Mountain House. A CSD is the mechanism by which developers recoup their infrastructure investment.

Now, the above-mentioned ordinances require the other Mountain House landowners and merchant builders to pay fees and dedicate lands to the County, and they require the County to use such fees and land dedications to reimburse Trimark.  Thus far, everyone has complied with these ordinances.

Now, the greed part.

After having negotiated the terms of its reimbursements, Trimark has decided it wants to change the rules of the game in order to get its money back more quickly.

Trimark wants to bypass the CSD altogether. Instead of having the fees paid to the CSD, Trimark wants to be paid directly, the law be damned.

Naturally, the County and the Mountain House CSD exhibit reluctance to surrender to Trimakrs demands. After all, the original agreement is the standard mechanism for infrastructure all over the state.

Instead of explaining why they should be the exception to the rule, Trimark is threatening to sue the County and the other landowners if they do not acquiesce to Trimark's demands.
              
That’s not the end of it.

Trimark also wants Delta College to pay for infrastructure – even though there is no such requirement for Delta to do so.

The billionaire principals of Trimark want the taxpayers of San Joaquin County to hand over 4.95 acres of land, $10 million in infrastructure cost payments; and $127 thousand in Plan preparation fees.

And Trimark is threatening to sue if it doesn’t get it’s way.

In fact, the ordinances originally negotiated by Trimark state specifically that public entities – i.e. Delta College -- are not required to pay certain fees and/or make land dedications. 

On top of that, California Constitution prohibits community colleges from diverting funds from their educational mission to pay for broader community infrastructure. 

In other words, Trimark wants Delta College to disregard local ordinances and the state constitution so that Trimakr can incrementally increase their already massive financial returns from the Mountain House project.

Trimark is behaving more like a racketeer than a reputable landowner. It’s demands are tantamount to extortion. For those of us who defend the rights of property owners to develop their land in the face of bully tactics from NIMBYs, environmentalists and local government greed, Trimark’s behavior is embarrassing and shameful.

I’ve posted some links that include references to Trimark’s principals and their agents in this drama, specifically the Yah family, Bill Pope, SunChase Holdings and Sterling Pacific, relating to other investments.

http://members.cruzio.com/~bluejay/main.html http://members.cruzio.com/~bluejay/main.html  http://members.cruzio.com/~bluejay/main.html

And here’s a link to the December 3, 2005 Stockton Record story on this sad tale in which the clichéd villain of the greedy developer is, to my chagrin, is a reality rather than the product of liberal imaginations.

The Stockton City Council won't meet tonight.   more »

Because there are 92,000 veterans in this coverage area, and because 48 percent of them live in San Joaquin County, the county wants to put the clinic in French Camp next to San Joaquin General Hospital, County Supervisor Leroy Ornellas and County Administrator Manuel Lopez said Tuesday.   more »

The Times is correct that Pombo is pure in his ideology and tough in combat. Conservatism is his strength, and his colleagues praise his work ethic. The Conference Steering Committee of 10 Republicans that appointed him Resources Committee chairman in 2003 recognized this....   more »

Here is an excellent letter to the editor from today's Lodi News-Sentinel, correctly diagnosing wjhat is afflicting those whiny Lodi car dealers: a severe allergic reaction to competition:

Limiting competition is harmful to free enterprise

Pat Patrick's comments at the Sept. 7 council meeting should be of great interest to the Lodi business community.

Mr. Patrick wants to protect the big car dealerships in town by preventing a business from outside the community from doing business in Lodi a few times per year.

Last year, Mr. Patrick spoke in favor of a business from outside the community that would directly compete with local businesses on a permanent basis.

The auto tent sales do provide benefits to our community and its local businesses. They bring sales tax revenues, they bring customers to our local restaurants and specialty stores, and they bring affordable car prices to citizens.

If this sounds familiar, it should. These are the same arguments that were used by Mr. Patrick in support of the other outside business.

The big difference here is that a few weekend sales events won't close the big car dealerships or even the small used car dealerships. In fact, they may help those businesses by bringing people to our city who are looking to buy a car.

If they don't find what they want at the sale, maybe they might find it at one of Lodi's car dealerships, big or small.

To take Mr. Patrick's comments even further, maybe we need to stop having the Lodi Street Faire that brings in "unneeded outside business," and competes with the downtown antique stores and specialty shops. And don't forget the Farmers Market, as that competes with the grocers in town.

It's all about free enterprise. It's not about limiting competition, as Mr. Patrick's comments suggest.

As you indicated last year, Mr. Patrick, competition is a good thing for the citizens of Lodi, and people need choices, more than Geweke, Plummer and Sanborn.

It is Mr. Patrick's job to support local businesses, but he should not be selective as to those that he supports.

Treacy Elliott
Lodi

A favorite environmentalist cliche is "think globally, act locally."

Lodi cars dealers are now putting their own spin on that annoying and hackneyed phrase. The Lodi News-Sentinel reported on Sept. 9 that Lodi car dealers and their Lodi Chamber of Commerce are up in arms because the city granted a permit to a Folsom car dealership to hold a three-day tent sale in Lodi.


Pardon me for being insensitive, but "Boo hoo." Since when is it local government's responsibility to determine what business aren't doing anything for the city and which ones are? Do these dealership really want local governments to grant or withold permits based an an entirely arbitrary or self-interested criteria. Such a standard could just as easily be used as a weapon against their businesses.


Try being honest with us and yourself, Mr. Patrick: restraint of trade is precisely what you are advocating -- a strange position coming from the president of an organization ostensibly dedicated to the free enterprise system.

The bad guy in the Lodi car dealers tale of woe is Folsom Lake Dodge owner Carlos Hidalgo, had this to say:


That is Mr. Cartlton right to stay put. It is unfortunate he is unwilling to face the sometime stiff wind of competiton and acknowledge Mr. Hidalgo's right to sell cars outside the boundaries of his dealership.

The City of Lodi's response is to make matter worse:


Let me get this straight. A group of Lodi car dealers want to restrict the freedom of out-of-town businesses. The city's response may be a measure that restricts the property rights of every property owner in Lodi -- including the Lodi car dealers.

And just how does that help Lodi residents?

Established businesses banding together to use political influence to insulate themselves from competition is nothing new. And that is exactly what these Lodi car dealers -- abetted by the Chamber president -- are trying to do.

The least they could do is be honest about it rather than camouflaging their purpose with a lot of high-minded rhetoric about "doing something for the city."

Hopefully, the Lodi City Council will stand with prinicple over political expediency.

Tracy’s congressman declared Thursday that the U.S. Constitution is under attack and unless property owners fight back they could see developers and local governments, with the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court, start taking homes, shops, farms and ranches.   more »

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the abysmal Kelo decision, some pundits speculated it might spark a grass-roots, pro-property rights backlash.

It's still premature to say if that will come to pass, but there are folks trying to light such a fire here in the San Joaquin Valley tomorrow when the San Joaquin County Citizens Land Alliance holds a property rights rally and cook-out with Congressman Richard Pombo and Sen. Tom McClintock.

The rally and cook-out takes place from 5:00 -- 8:00 p.m. at Dayak Ranch, 16175 Bethany Road in Tracy.

You can RSVP to Nanette Martin at (209) 835-6467. Tickets are $25.