Why the Placer Land Trust Is A Disaster And Why The PCCP Can Not Go Forward (yet)
Posted by: Aaron Park | 09/23/2008 7:30 AM
PCCP = Placer County Conservation Plan. This is a good idea on paper - Liberal Republican Supervisor Robert Weygandt has spent the better part of the last four years on this thing.
Why is there a need for such a plan? Because the extreme enviros have gotten bills past that require one acre to be frozen out for every acre developed. Remember that over 50% of California's land is owned by governments - actually it is like 60%. National Parks / Forests / State Parks / Preserves etc etc etc...
Weygandt put this plan together as a way to preemptively take care of a lot of the eco-nazi restrictions against development. I get it...
What I don't get is that the 1040 parcels Bruce is sounding the alarm about and many more in the other supervisor districts would be encumbered by the plan. Then, they would be managed by the Placer Land Trust.
CONNECTIONS TO MONTGOMERY CAMP?
Have a look at their list of advisory members and then compare them to Montgomery's endorsement list. LINK Notice how our favorite "Republican" Joanne Neft is on the list amongst others.
A look at the list of Board Members shows none other than Doug Houston, Bob Houston's son. Doug was terminated from a contract by Bruce Kranz due to ethical conflicts. LINK
This just does not look good...
LAND MANAGEMENT?
Are you kidding me? How many of you saw the news about the Gladding Fire?
The dirty little secret is that it started on Land 'managed' by the Placer Land Trust. The problem with the placer land trust is summed up by an angry resident:
...I'll just repeat the concern that I and others have about the increasingly 'unmanaged' land in the county.
The fire north of Lincoln started on the old Hofman land that Westpark gave up as mitigation for its development in west Roseville. As I understand it, the land is "managed" by the Placer Land Trust. I believe they refer to it as the Doty Preserve.
If you look around the county at land grazed by the owners - people trying to live off the land - the fuel load is negligible. A legitimate argument can be made for saving some feed for fall before the grass comes in. In the case of the 'Doty Preserve' the vegetation is heavily made up of tar weed and Medusa head - very unpalatable under the best of circumstances, but with hungry enough cattle and enough rain on it - some might get eaten. IF a rancher wanted to save feed for the fall, that feed would have a value that he would want to protect. A person protecting his assets would disc, or at least mow, a fire break around the land - - - especially if it fronted Gladding Rd. where cigarette fires are common. Earlier this summer there was a small fire just a few hundred feet north of the recent burn. If you don't owe it to yourself, you owe it to your neighbors.
Instead of acting like a reasonable and prudent person who lived on the land, or even a good neighbor, the Placer Land Trust has focused on putting in expensive metal fence posts and signs... The houses and outbuildings and riparian areas on both appear to have been totally destroyed, along with some neighbors.
My hat is off to CalFire for containing as well as they did the wall of flame that must have come off of those properties.
We need to do something to ensure that the ever increasing acreage of "habitat" land does not become a threat to those of us who live in the rural areas. The environmental community likes the word "working landscape." Landscapes that are being worked, in my humble opinion, seem to have less of a fuel load threatening the neighbors.
Again - the Placer Land Trust would be in charge of managing that land given up to the PCCP. They seem to be following the same pattern that precipitated the horrendous wildfires that ripped California.
The "hands off" policy of the Eco-Left has come right home to Placer County. These are the folks lining up behind Jennifer Montgomery. People lost their homes needlessly because of their decision to do nothing in the name of environmental protection.
My Message to the Placer Land Trust - get out of the business of politics and start clearing that land. Then and maybe then will people start to coalesce behind the PCCP.
POINT OF CLARIFICATION - The land the Placer Land Trust gets would still be owned by the people giving it up. The problem is that it would be encumbered and un-developable making it worthless.
Women's right to vote didn't exist until they fought for it. Blacks rights for equality didn't happen until...
There is no question that the PCCP will trample our property rights. As someone whose property has been placed in the "purple", I am very concerned with my property value falling because there will be restrictions on how I can use my land.... in my mind Placer County will owe me a lot of money because of the restricted use of my property due to the PCCP.
The property owners are all very angry and it wasn't until about a year ago they even tried to notify us to inform us our property was placed in the "purple" meaning the county was going to restrict how we can use our property. Some of my neighbors still don't know what the county is about to do to us. The most amazing thing that we have all found out at the property owners meeting is that the PCCP just will not work.... that was clear to everyone at those property owners meeting. During the one of the meetings I raised my hand to ask the question and point out how they should change it to make it work, and make it voluntary. They told me that my idea would not work because it would involve too many property owners who would be angry... the implication was that they could run this down the throat of the current property owners because there wasn't enough of them to stop it.
So Aaron, today the Placer County Supervisors will vote on the PCCP. I am betting that Kirk Uhler and Rocky Rockholm both side with Montgomery (opposing Bruce Kranz) and vote to trample on private property rights by voting "yes" on PCCP. When that happens, and I believe it will, it will be interesting to see what you say about the Uhler-Rockholm-Montgomery-Sierra Club team. If my hunch is correct you will have to admit Weygandt and Uhler are joined at the hips and difficult to tell apart.
Ken - here's your problem. What do Uhler, Rockholm, Weygandt and Kranz have in common? You have attacked them all consistently and publicly for a long time.
At least I can admit when they are right.
IN your zeal to attack Kirk Uhler through me, you missed the entire point of the post. I was slamming the Placer Land Trust and telling Mr. Weygandt to take the PCCP back to the drawing board.
You oughta be livid with the land trust, part of your own land burnt or was at least threatened by that dammed fire!
NEWS FLASH...
Today, the Placer County Board of Supervisors unanimously (Ken, that means all five of us) approved moving the plan forward, with strong support from business, agriculture and private property owners. Now, if we can just convince the Sierra Club, the federal agencies and Ken Campbell...
You are right, I, along with most property owners placed in the "purple" are livid. And yes, about 100 acres of my property burned, which was winter pasture, along with fences and a barn being burned. My only point, PCCP is bad news and it tramples on everyone’s property rights.... but I will bet you four of the supervisors vote to trample property rights by voting "yes" on the PCCP-- and Bruce Kranz will be thrown under the bus.
I am not attacking anyone Aaron, property owners have been following this very closely for many years and we are all very sure how this whole thing will end up... we have counted heads. But we cannot predict the future with certainly, so we will wait and see how it turns out... and I truly hope we are wrong such that our property rights don't get trampled and I truly hope Bruce does not get thrown under the bus.
Hey Ken,
Next time either read before posting or type faster. For your benefit, I reprint the above post here...
NEWS FLASH...
Today, the Placer County Board of Supervisors unanimously (Ken, that means all five of us) approved moving the plan forward, with strong support from business, agriculture and private property owners. Now, if we can just convince the Sierra Club, the federal agencies and Ken Campbell...
Well Aaron, there you have it. Uhler and Wegandt together at the hips, indistinguishable... what do you have to say now???
Property owners saw it coming, we got screwed, and there was nothing we could do.
This plan is completely unworkable. In order for this conservation plan to work, the majority of the property owners placed in the "purple" need to sell their property to the county or sell a conservation easement. Robert is the only one that had property placed in the "purple" and the rest of them don't have any property, they don't interact with the property owners (other than to ram these ideas down our throats).. so they don't understand the dynamics out here. Property owners are not going to sell..... it is our property, we live here, why should we be forced out???
Here is what happened. Kirk's biggest goal in live is to be a state assemblyman/politician. Kirk believes he can reach that goal through being a supervisor, and after redistricting; the seat he seeks will cover Place County (and it will). But Kirk's problem was that Robert Weygandt was not going to vote to have Kirk fill the final two years of Ted Gaines's seat-- Jim Holmes would follow Robert. So Kirk cut a deal with Robert, checked any convictions he might have had, and promised Robert he would vote to support PCCP. Principles sold for personal ambition.
Now another interesting component of this whole thing-- when the 5 maps were presented to property owners, interesting enough the staff drew the maps such that the Greek's property was in the "purple". This caught everyone's attention because the Greek's had just launched a full-scale assault on Robert and we wanted to see what Robert would do. Robert volunteered to redraw the map and Kirk immediately jumped in to help. Well amazingly enough when the final map came back, the Greek's property was no longer in the "purple". It became very apparent that some property owners received preferential treatment.... everyone has been wondering what it took to get that preferential treatment.
The next step is in the planning commission tomorrow (Wednesday) where the Greek's Regional University Specific Plan gets approved. The Greeks have wanted all along to use ground water... it is cheaper. Plus, when by the time the ground water table drops to the point where it causes all of Placer County a problem, the development is in and it becomes everyone's problem... and we all get tax to fix the problem.
The RUSP will not say they are using ground water; they will say they are using "conjunctive water use". Basically that is, start the project with ground water, sink the wells, and when you get to it use surface water. PCWA has a great plan for utilizing the abundant surface water, and for that project a canal would come from the Sacramento River. But again, that would cost the Greeks money, so it is much easer to put it off so it becomes the problem of Placer taxpayers.
Our property has been put in the "purple", and now our wells will be going dry (due to a drop in the water table) as in Palm Springs and recently in the San Gabriel Valley, and with out water our property is worthless.
We all can count heads and we know who has been bought off. Bruce was in a very tuff situation, as you pointed out Aaron, he was against the whole PCCP (he stood for property rights)... however he is in a tuff race and he needed to go along to get along.... he needed to do that.
Well the good thing about this whole thing is, it is not over until it is over and we all are willing to fight for our water and property rights. The Board may very well now approve the RUSP using ground water, oh excuse me, conjunctive water use... all of which would violate policy here in Placer... but a judge has already ruled in a Rancho Cordova/ Folsom development that "conjunctive water use” is a nonstarter.
Right now it looks like if you have enough money and you buy enough people, you win... but it is not over, and we are fighting for our property, water and livelihood... they are only fighting for their political ambition.
So Aaron,
When are we going to hear from you on this??
You correctly blogged on "Bruce Kranz notifies owners of 1040 parcels that their land could be seized". You blogged about "Liberal Republican Supervisor Robert Weygandt", "Joanne Neft", "Bob Huston", "Jennifer Mongomery" and the "Eco-Left" and how they pushed the PCCP. You correctly blogged about the Placer Land Trust and how they will not manage the land, and how fires like the Gladding fire will happen again... but now your pals Uhler and Rockholm endorsed all that and just fell into place. When are you going to tell us what happened???
And by the way, I don't hold Bruce's vote against him. I don't know what happened, District 5 could have been taken out or Bruce just had to vote for it because of his tuff election. If he would have voted "no" there would have been mailers going out pointing out how the other 4 stupidvisors voted for the PCCP while Bruce was out of touch, doesn't care about the environment, and voted against PCCP. Uhler and Rockholm threw Bruce under the bus.
But this was not the first time Uhler and Rockholm threw Bruce under the bus.. they did so the way they handled the Oller-Burris incident. They spent at least $35,000 of taxpayer's money on hiring a special lawyer and when the report came back the county council sent it to the DA... but he admitted there was probably not going to be an indictment. But, despite the fact there is no indictment, the Board is taking it to civil court to recoup costs from criminal activity. But they admit there is no criminal activity. Instead of the Board putting an end to this nonsense, they have allowed it to continue and Jennifer Montgomery uses it as a hammer to hit Bruce over the head.... Bruce thrown under the bus.
I am really interested to see if Uhler gives you talking points so you take a 180 in your position and contradict everything you have blogged on.
Ken,
If ignorance truly were bliss, you would be the happiest little camper at the jamboree.
The rambling paranoia that runs through your posts has me wondering what size foil hat you wear. You make assertions about mine and others' actions that aren't even based in third-hand knowledge, let alone second or first. And what you know of the PCCP could fill a thimble with room left over for my thumb.
Now, if you would like to take a few deep breathes and try again to establish a coherent thought on a single topic, I would be more than happy to address it.
As for your comments about me "throwing Bruce under the bus", I was one of the first people to endorse him for re-election and I have written $2,000.00 worth of checks to his campaign. What have you done?
Kirk
P.S. Man-up and address me directly. Quit hiding your attacks on me as posts addressed to Aaron.
Kirk,
I will address a question directly to you: Is it better for land to be owned by private citizens or the government?
JOhn
John,
Private citizens... which is what the PCCP does.
Next question?
Kirk
Kirk,
We are half way there I think: Who best decides what can and cannot be done with such private land: The owner or the government?
John
John,
Any property owner is and should be free to do anything they want with their property that is consistent with the property zoning... which is exactly what the PCCP allows.
Next question?
Kirk
Thank you Kirk, I will use this opportunity to ask you a question... and since my knowledge "could fill a thimble with room left over for my thumb", I am sure you can immediately answer this question.
The Michelle Ollar-Burris (former Place County Planning Commissioner) saga has been used as a hammer by Bruce Kranz's opponents to hit Bruce over the head. The original Sacramento Bee article came out on May 27, 2007, and shortly after the supervisors removed her as a Planning Commissioner. The supervisors hired, for at least $30,000 of Place taxpayer's money, Richard Crabtree to investigate. Crabtree spent 6 months (May to November 2007) to investigate Ollar-Burris and he filed a report.
What was alleged was violation of the State Subdivision Map Act, which carries serious penalties of up to a year in jail and $10,000 in fines. The way the Sacramento Bee described it Ollar-Burris was guilty and it was a slam-dunk.
However, when the report came back, Place County Counsel Tony LaBouff told the Sierra Sun, "The report has been filed with the Placer County District Attorney but criminal charges are not expected to be filed against Ollar-Burris." O.K. so LaBouff doesn't see any criminal activity.
Funny, when Fred Yeager retired in August 2005, he also gave information to the Placer DA. Then again different group delivered another packet of information, concerning Ollar-Burris's land deals, to the Placer DA in 2006. The Placer DA could not find any problem and has not acted on either of these reports. The Placer DA also can find no criminal activity in the Crabtree report. I asked a Placer County Superior Court Judge what he thought was going on and he said, "Oh, Oller-Burris just pissed someone off in the County and they are trying to get even... no charges will be filed."
Not to be deterred, the Placer Board of Supervisors has filed a civil suit to recoup damages from any Ollar-Burris criminal activity. But if the Placer DA cannot find any criminal activity and has not filed any criminal charges in the last few years, how can the BOS file in civil court to recoup damages from criminal activity?
Add to that the perception that Place County just bumbles along with no oversight or approval of parcel splits, but Placer County's current planning director, Michael Johnson said Ollar-Burris' activities have raised no red flags for him since he took the job in October 2005, "We check all the parcel maps that come in for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. The department checks to make sure the same person is not subdividing a parcel more than once, and looks for patterns involving the same person."
So to summarize, the County checks all parcel maps for compliance with the Map Act. The Placer DA had all the Oller-Burris information in 2005, 2006 and again in 2007... and they have not filed criminal charges... because there is NO criminal wrongdoing. But yet the BOS files in the civil court to recoup damages from criminal activity... So Kirk, by any chance do you see any problem here??
The worst part of all this the BOS has kept this alive so Montgomery can use this as a campaign issue.... you guys threw Bruce Kranz under the bus.
Of course my knowledge "could fill a thimble with room left over for my thumb" compared to you... but it looks to me the BOS is doing a CYA... trying to find some reason for all the taxpayer's money they have wasted on this... and the BOS have nothing to show for all the taxpayer's money they spent.
Kirk, please enlighten me and tell me all I have missed.
Ken,
My reference to your lack of knowledge was clearly in the context of the PCCP. That you chose to completely dodge the PCCP issue in your response only confirms my assertion.
As to the issue of Ms. Burris, surely even you are smart enough to know that I can't address a matter involving litigation with the County. At least I hope you are.
Kirk
Kirk,
OK your exception for "zoning" requires another question: Is it right for government to change the allowable use of property AFTER it has been purchased under an existing zoning plan?
John
John,
Only if the subsequent change is less restrictive for the land owner. Restricting uses that someone has purchased is wrong, would not be supported, and is not what the PCCP does.
Next question?
Kirk
Kirk,
If PCCP does not violate the principles you have affirmed then in layman's terms why the notices for possible seizure?
John
John,
In layman's terms, consider the source. There is not one person that has actually read the plan that is making the claims. In fact, the one person with a dog in the fight that spoke against the direction that the Board is headed was Terry Davis of the Sierra Club. Don't take my word for it, the entire hearing is available online at the Placer County website.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss it in detail, as I have with dozens of property owners.
Kirk
Kirk,
So are you saying there were no notices sent???
John
No John,
I'm saying there is no seizure.
Kirk
Kirk,
So why were the notices sent???
John
John,
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a notice along the lines you are describing, I would love to see it. Perhaps you could link to it here for all to see.
Thanks,
Kirk
Kirk,
I am just a confused layman here: I thought this whole discussion started when notices were sent to property owners in Kranz's area???
John
BTW,
I am REALLY glad we got a good discussion of property rights going because debating veteran's issues with Bod was getting very boring!
John
John,
Bruce chose to use some campaign funds to send a mail piece to some folks in his district. No county notices were sent.
Once again I'll extend an invitation to sit down and explain the PCCP to you. I'll even buy lunch.
Kirk
Kirk,
I asked that question because I just really hope that at some point a light might go off with someone on the BOS and they might say, "Dah, what are we doing here spending close to $250,000 of taxpayer’s hard-earned money to sue, in civil court, to recoup costs for criminal activity-- when, up to now, there is no criminal activity." Someone has got to have an "Ah Ha moment.
Fred Yeager gave the material to the Placer DA in 2005 and the DA has not filed any criminal charges.... that was over 3 years ago. How many years do you need??
And instead of someone having the courage and integrity to say, "Wait a minute, something is not right here, the BOS makes the genius move to continue to spend hard-earned tax money, in civil court, to recoup costs of criminal activity... never mind there was NO criminal activity.
Truth be told, Ollar Burris asked too many questions as Planning Commissioner, she knew too much and she was too honest to play the game... therefore she needed to be silenced any way possible.
The question that most people would have asked was to former Planning Director Fred Yeager, "If you thought Ollar-Burris violated the Map Act, why did you approve the split?? Isn't your job to check all parcel maps for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act? Your job is to check to make sure the same person is not subdividing a parcel and to look for patterns involving the same person... were you sleeping???"
Kirk,
So was Bruce lying in those mailers??
John
No John,
Bruce's mailer didn't say what you are asserting. Again, if you have the mailer that is driving your questions post it. If not, quit posting out of ignorance. For the third time, I would be more than happy to meet and explain it to you.
Kirk
Kirk,
I have not seen the mailer and am responding to the discussion. Sorry if I look ignorant, but on this one I really am!
John
John,
That is why I have offered (and implored) that you sit down with me and talk about it. As one of the best defenders of the conservative movement on this site, it does neither of us any good to have you looking ignorant in your posts on this topic.
The offer of lunch still stands.
Kirk
Kirk,
I never turn down a free lunch! We have a harvest festival, a presbytery and an election in the next few weeks so I think early November is the best I can do if the offer still stands.
John
John,
Since we've know each other for more than a decade and a half, I'm sure I can wait a few more weeks. But beware, my dad's good friend, the late, great Milton Freidman would remind you that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Kirk
Kirk, Kranz only voted for that piece of !$%#@ because threat was the only way he could get District 5 residents out of the PCCP. You are being misleading here. You know darn well he didn't support it!
If the PCCP keeps me from using my land as I can now, then they have diminished its value.
Kirk, Kranz only voted for that piece of !$%#@ because threat was the only way he could get District 5 residents out of the PCCP. You are being misleading here. You know darn well he didn't support it!
If the PCCP keeps me from using my land as I can now, then they have diminished its value.
Scott,
You and Ken are way out of line! How dare you challenge his majesty, the great freedom-slaying tax-raising Supervisor (future State Legislator) Uhler.
Scott,
You are entirely correct when you post, "If the PCCP keeps me from using my land as I can now, then they have diminished its value," which is precisely why I am correct in telling John that there is no diminution of property value because there is no prohibition to use your land as you are now. If you know otherwise, you are the first and I would love to see your evidence.
As to Bruce's support for the PCCP, I take him at his vote.
Kirk