Saturday, August 29, 2015

Trump on China

My Journey from Tyranny to Liberty


I am an Chinese immigrant who come to America to seek freedom from the Communist China. I was born right before China’s Cultural Revolution and grew up in Chengdu, Capitol of Sichuan province, China. As you know, in China there is only one party that is truly in power: The Communist Party. The government, which is the Communist Party, controls everything: Factories, schools, the press, hospitals, land, and universities. Growing up there, I never heard of such a thing as a “private company." There were no choices of any sort. We were all poor. We had no gas or stove, no TV, no phones, no refrigerators, and no washing machines. In the cities, electricity was rationed. In the countryside, there was no electricity.

Our family of five had to live on the very low wages my parents earned. The local government issued coupons for people to buy everything from pork to rice, sugar, and flour and there was never enough. We got to buy only 2.2 pounds of pork per month for our family of five. We lived in a two room 'apartment', without heat in the winter and no indoor plumbing. I got impetigo every winter from the cold damp winter weather, which was common for kids to get. Eight families lived in our complex, and we had to share bathrooms (holes in the ground outside), one for all males, and one for all females. When the lights were out, no one would replace the bulb for a while so it would be totally dark to go to the bathroom. It became a quite scary adventure at night for us to go there. We had only government run hospitals which were filthy. I was afraid of going to a hospital because I might get diseases. The last two years before I left for college, we moved into a three-room apartment provided by my dad's work-unit. It had concrete walls and a concrete floor, a water faucet and sink, but no heat. It had a shared public restroom without a shower or bathtub - but, it was infinitely better than what we had before.

I was eager to go to school when I turned 6 years old. My parents did not let me to go to school because they needed me to babysit my younger brother who was one year old. They could not afford his child care. I cried for a long time that night. My parents felt so guilty so they bought me a movie ticket next day. Finally, I went to school at age of 7. I was so happy and motivated to be a top student. As a child, we were brainwashed in public school every day. We were taught that two-thirds of the world population were suffering and living in hunger and our socialist country was the best. We didn't think that maybe China should be counted as part of the two thirds of suffering humanity! We believed whatever the government told us because we did not know anything else. I thought the other countries must be hellish if they were worse than we were. Anyway, we chanted daily: “Long Live Chairman Mao, Long Live the Communist Party. I love Chairman Mao." I was so brainwashed as a small child that I could see Chairman Mao in the clouds or the cooking fire. He was like a god to me. We were required to read all of Mao’s Red books, wear Mao’s buttons, write journals, and confess any bad thoughts to Mao.

We were required to conform, not stand out as an individual. I was held back to join the Young Pioneers because I was not humble enough (I told my classmates I should be in the first batch to join due to my 100% grade on every subject and they reported on me). The big powerful state from top to bottom was always watching us very closely: from Beijing’s central government to our neighborhood block committees and police stations. We had no rights, even though our constitution said we did. It was very scary that local police could stop by our home to pound on the doors at night for any reason. The government told us how to dress (Mao’s suit), what to buy and eat (coupons), where to live (household registration system) and what to read (government newspapers). The land belonged to the people (the government actually) and citizens were not allowed to have any weapons or off to prison they would go. Things have changed a lot in China since the open door policy of Deng Xiaoping really got going in the early 1980s; people have more freedom than ever before to start businesses, get jobs in another city, travel overseas, etc, but the political system is still fundamentally the same one party rule.

My favorite teacher in high school told me that he was sent to a Re-education Labor Camp because the Communist Party punished those who criticized the party even though the party was asking for feedback. His health was ruined during those years. He said “China is not a country of laws." I was determined to study law in college. After three whole days, eight hours of testing each day, I scored very high and was admitted by Fudan University (one of the top five universities) in Shanghai law school. I became the first one in my entire extended family ever to go to college. When there I was depressed to find out that what we learned in school and what was reality were totally different things. The society was not ruled by law but ruled by men. After I became a law school faculty member at Fudan University in Shanghai, I had to be careful about what to say in the classroom or during the party political study and self-criticism meetings. My leaders in law school even intruded into my private life telling me, for example, that I received too many letters (I was too social), or I should not go to my boyfriend’s parents’ house for dinner and spend a night. I was a law school faculty member and yet I was still being treated as a child!

I realized I could not really have the personal freedom I dreamed to have if I stayed in China, so I decided to re-enter school in the USA. It was a long and stressful process for me to step down from my position and leave China. I went to the local security office to apply for my passport seven times and was treated as a deserter with papers literally thrown at my face. My law school made me sign a paper saying that I must return to my job in Shanghai after two years of graduate study, or they will eliminate my position and send my personnel file (everyone has one in China which follows you from birth to death) to my hometown in Chengdu, which would be a death sentence for my law teaching career. However, I was determined to leave and did not care about what I had to sign.

I arrived in America in 1988 with $100 in my pocket. The first ten years when I was in the U.S, I still had nightmares about being trapped in China by the government and having to dig a big hole in the ground, into the blue Pacific Ocean, so I could escape, jump into the Ocean, and swim to the United States. Even when I went back to China later to visit with my American husband in 1991, my fears would return. For example, staying at a friend’s apartment in Beijing, one night the police came to pound on the door and wanted to check our papers. Someone must have reported to them that that there was a foreigner in the neighborhood. I was pregnant with our first son at that time, and we were in deep sleep after midnight when the police’s door-pounding scared the heck out of me and brought all the childhood bad memories back. Fortunately, they only wanted to check our papers, or maybe just let us know who was in charge. Another time I was in China during June 4th (Tian An Men crackdown) anniversary for a business trip, I was in a business-friend’s car, when we were randomly pulled over by the local police to check out our IDs and search our car. They did not have to show any search warrant. I used to also travel often to Guangdong Province for business when I worked in Hong Kong. I remember the taxi drivers called the local police “mafia” because of their brutality and corruption.

I did not hesitate to become an American citizen in 1995. Here I could speak freely and have my rights protected. I do not take my new freedom for granted. I vote in every election. As a U.S. citizen, I have worked for private companies in Hong Kong and Denver. Later, I started my own business and worked hard to grow my business. For the past 15 years, my husband and I have raised three children in Parker, Colorado, enjoying a middle class life: kids, a house, a dog, and 2 cars. From the $100 I brought over from China to having my own businesses and properties, I know I am living the American Dream. All the immigrants I know who come to this country do so because they believe America is a land of opportunity and freedom. We know that if you are smart, work very hard, and save your money, you will be successful and make a nice living here. I love this country. I want my children to continue to enjoy the freedom that brought me here. I want my children to have the same opportunity I had to succeed.

By telling my own story, I wanted to share my message with you: big governments do not work; big governments are very dangerous because they eventually use force. Big government attracts people who love power and control. Big government seems to want to distract you and direct your choices to unimportant social conventions yet limit your choices on really important things like speech, self-defense, and property rights. The freedom we have in this country is precious. The governments in the US are essentially pretty good. However, we are losing more and more liberty every day. The two major parties of this country have always expanded the government (federal or state), even when they say they are shrinking them. Whoever is in power always wants to 'do' something, to 'solve' some problem. It never really works because government must use force to solve whatever problem of the day arises. Now the federal government is $17 trillion in debt from all the problems it has 'solved'; we are losing our freedom to choose in many aspects of our life: health care, education, speech, privacy, what we want to buy to protect our families, how much money we want to keep after our hard work, etc., and even in New York drink sizes! Big government is like a cancer; it will grow and spread and keep growing if we don’t stop it. Do not believe things will always get better. I know that people are born the same everywhere, yet their cultures and systems of government can be vastly different. Our culture, our people, and our increasing reliance on more government are, I think, a very dangerous trend.

The country has been on the wrong path for too long, all our governments have been growing bigger for too long. What kind of country is this if we have to work over a half of the year to pay all the taxes and fees: federal, state, city, county; including payroll, phone, gas, car license, eating out, hotel stays, air travel, licenses, tariffs, etc. We are taxed to death for many things we don't want and the country is broke. This is astounding to me. What kind of country is this if the government uses force to take your money and spend the way they see fit and still tell you it is good for you? Are you its servant or master? Do you own yourself or not? What kind of country is this if the government takes away your choice of marrying anyone who makes you happy? Are you a consenting adult or not? What kind of country is this if the government can put you into a prison for what you are consuming? What kind of country is this if we become like a China Socialist Iron Rice Bowl, where people are treated the same everywhere; where it does not matter whether you work hard or not, that you are told "If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." and where you must redistribute what you produce. What kind of country is this where the government monitors our private email and phone calls? What kind of country is this if the IRS can target you based on your political affiliation? Why have we Americans become so unsure of ourselves that we want to be like other countries and to think like them instead of wanting them to be like us? When did this change happen? Where is the America I dreamed of - full of strong men and women without fear of acting on their own behalf?

Big government people have always been attracted to power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
Judy Arnold aka. "Captain Ahab", Marin Supervisor, narrowly won re-election by a few hundred votes June 2014.
She claims it was a plot by the Invisible Tea Party of Marin to end her political career
and vows to find every last one of them.

Steve "I am the King" Kinsey, Marin Supervisor, is pushing for urbanization initiatives
OUTSIDE his district while preserving his backyard in Woodacre.


Susan "Build, baby, Build!" Adams, Marin Supervisor works tireless to
 build government subsidized apartment buildings in her district.
Defeated by a landslide election in June 2014.

Kate "No Ears" Sears, Marin Supervisor, delayed discussion of the Strawberry Priority Development area, forcing one determined resident to appear before the board thirteen times to ask it be placed on the agenda.  This earned her the nickname Kate "No Ears" Sears.


Katie "Little Bo Peep" Rice, Marin Supervisor watches passively while the county of her birth
 gets turned in a dense, urban landscape by a juggernaut of special interest groups, developers, and her fellow supervisors.

In an act of supreme political arrogance, the Marin County Board of Supervisors are implementing a strategy to urbanize Marin. According to polls, voters are 70% opposed.
---------------

Big government people are perpetually alarmed busybodies who fearfully want to insert themselves into everybody's business here and abroad, telling them what to do or not do. That is why I felt I had to become an advocate for liberty. Let us stop these people now. Wake up and stand up. Remember how this country was founded and what our constitution really protects - Individual Liberty! Vote for liberty, vote for small, effective, and limited government.

Smart Growth: Why It's Not Working in the Bay Area

 
New: Smart Growth: Why It's Not Working in the Bay Area (Public Comment)

James Shinn
Tuesday August 11, 2015 - 10:23:00 PM
Bookmark and Share
Smart growth is simply not working in highly attractive urban settings such as San Francisco. The reason is that smart growth in these areas has a paradoxical effect. The reasons are as follows: 

From a climatological and topographical standpoint, San Francisco has always been a desirable place to live. There has never been a time when people didn’t want to live there. On the other hand, something very strange has happened in the last 10-15 years. The city has vaulted dramatically to the top in our country to become the most expensive major urban city in the USA for rentals, and the second most gridlocked city in the nation. Why has this happened at the same time that smart growth policies became fully imbedded in local urban planning decisions!? We are getting the exact opposite of what smart growth policy promises should happen! High rise residential structures have exploded all over San Francisco, but the gridlock and prices just seem to be getting worse and worse.  
The reason is two-fold. The Bay Area happens to be the cradle for one of the greatest economic revolutions in human history—the high-tech revolution. But this revolution was born in the Santa Clara valley, which does not have the topographical and climatological assets that are characteristic of the North Bay. For a considerable period of time, this did not make much difference in habitation patterns. The techies involved in the industry remained in the valley close to their companies. Being well-paid, they bid up residential prices in the area to quite high levels. Then came the smart phone app application revolution, combined with the move of financial firms to San Francisco, and the concomitant decisions by city planners to start driving the city skyward. San Francisco suddenly became THE place to live if you wanted to show you had “made it”, and all these techies decided they wanted to live in this new “Manhattan”. High rise buildings are part of this “vibe”. As one Bay Area city planner told me when I objected to skyscrapers for Berkeley, “Americans love skyscrapers!”. For awhile, techies started moving to San Francisco and taking corporate buses back to the Valley for their jobs each day. This still goes on. But, increasingly, they now have such high salaries that they can actually buy a condo in the city—and that is the key variable driving the current price explosion.  
The other key variable is the fact that, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, about 20% of SF residential purchases are by foreign buyers, primarily from China, as investment vehicles for getting assets offshore. And, frequently, these foreign purchases are empty most of the year. Everybody wants to be part of the new “Gotham by the Bay”. This is why, the more you build, the more they will keep coming—with the disastrous environmental effects of gridlock that we are now seeing. The smart growth theory is that this high-rise density actually can be used to force people out of their cars. Some of the more cynical smart growth advocates actually say that, eventually, the gridlock will get so destructive that people will have no other choice but to virtually abandon the automobile. This mantra is particularly prevalent among young techies. But, sadly, this is the fallacy of hope over experience. It simply is not happening in any urban area that has very limited land availability(SF), high topological/climatological desirability(SF), and high disposable income among the professional class(once again, SF).  
To date, Berkeley has not yet become totally infected with this virus—but we are on the cusp. This drive by techies, and out of country buyers, to live in SF at all costs can not be realized by all. Some just don’t have quite enough money to realize the dream. What to do? Move across the bay to the next best alternative—Oakland and Berkeley, commute to our jobs in SF and hope that the “Manhattanization” of Berkeley(for example) moves ahead fast enough so that it can be seen as an “acceptable life-style” type of place to live. The sad fact is that, then,what has happened to SF is going to happen to Berkeley—and fast! We are already starting to see the first wave of this impact. Gridlock is growing, prices are going up steadily, lower income residents are being pushed out. And we are rapidly losing the particular aesthetic, architectural, and livable character of this low-rise city. And the city planners plan for even more of this by urging the construction of high rises because this, allegedly, will provide more housing, at more affordable rates, for all. Unfortunately, this won’t happen.  
What we will get instead is "Manhattan by the East Bay”, ever more unaffordable as it becomes a perhaps equally “acceptable" place to live as SF. The bottom line is that, for high desirability, land deficit, urban areas, the high rise codicil to smart growth philosophy simply doesn’t work. The problem is that urban planners simply are refusing to believe that “the emperor has no clothes”. In the face of reality staring them in the face they simply can’t admit what is happening before their very eyes—and ears and noses! When the Downtown Plan was passed several years ago, the people of Berkeley had not come to realize this either. But in the meantime, this revolution in urban development has exploded with exponential force. More and more of the public is beginning to come to terms with what urban planning, by “the best and the brightest” hath wrought—and they don’t like it. This is why Harold Way must be stopped at all costs, Once the people of Berkeley allow city development to cross this high-rise Rubicon, and set a true high-rise precedent in our fair city, there is no turning back. The die will have been cast. 
And finally, what happens if this current tech bubble bursts—as it has before—and many are predicting that it will soon—and real estate prices begin to tumble rapidly—as they did so recently. Then we will have a downtown stuck with high-rise structures that don’t appear to be such good investments, and tax reservoirs, after all. In fact, they will be white elephants. This is why true, “smart growth” for Berkeley is to proceed with mid-rise, 4-6 story infill development along the lines of what is presently going on. After all, this has been good enough for Paris, why should it not be good enough for us! There is plenty of opportunity for this to be done—despite what some city planners say. One can argue about the aesthetics and neighborhood impact of these structures, and this is the proper purview of the Design Review Committee, but this more cautious approach to downtown development provides far more protection against the inevitable real estate bust that is coming. 

Friday, August 28, 2015

Will Marinwood Pool have a Solar carport like this?

Redwood high school solar carport - Spherical Image - RICOH THETA

Marinwood CSD is considering installing a customized version of a carport in the pool area. We support the use of renewable energy sources where ever practical and cost effective.  we think this industrial project is not right for our resort like pool area that boasts a beautiful natural setting, wildlife and abundant places to enjoy the outdoors.  This structure can be found in the Redwood High School parking lot in Larkspur.  This huge structure is 40 feet wide (about the wide of the pool) just like the ones proposed .  Unfortunately, due to its location,  a fully custom engineered structure will be needed which will greatly add to the expense.  The energy/ cost savings do not justify it.  By keeping the project on the main community center roof we will have a far more cost effective project. A must less costly solar hot water heater as proposed by Marin County Sustainable Team leader, Dana Armanino.

Tell the Marinwood CSD to say "No" to the solar carport project.

Displacement Blues

Stop planning to cram our neighborhoods with new housing

(editors note: Cramming more housing into single family neighborhoods is the next phase of urbanization of Marin.  Smart growth forces the "densification" of our neighborhoods)

Proctor, North End Tacoma residents tell city: Stop planning to cram our neighborhoods with new housing


The crowd was standing-room-only Wednesday at a hearing of Tacoma’s Planning Commission. People filled two overflow rooms as well as the commission took comments on proposed changes that would allow different kinds of housing across the city. Kathleen Cooper Staff writer


BY KATHLEEN COOPER


Several hundred people packed a Tacoma meeting room Wednesday, and for more than four hours told the city Planning Commission in no uncertain terms that its ideas for building more types of housing were bad.

Person after person lined up to demand a change to the law that allows six-story buildings in neighborhood business districts. In about equal number, people protested the idea ofallowing single-family homes to be turned into duplexes and triplexes, particularly in historic neighborhoods.

The speakers against proposals that would allow more “in-fill development” cited Proctor Station, a six-story retail and apartment complex, as the prime example of what must be avoided.

“I don’t want to see what’s happened to the Proctor District,” said Steve Kamieniecki, a North End resident who opposes other changes, “with a six-story monstrosity that has destroyed the character of that part of town.”

The ear-splitting applause and cheering that followed set the tone for the evening.

The Planning Commission, a group of volunteers appointed by the City Council, has been working on several new proposals that are part of a larger slate of annual amendments tothe comprehensive plan, the document that acts as the city’s blueprint for development. The hearing Wednesday was the public’s opportunity to formally comment on those ideas.

It was the most well-attended Planning Commission meeting in decades, city staff said. Outside of City Council Chambers, where the meeting occurred, two overflow rooms were set up. Almost 100 written comments were in hand before the meeting began.

Residents of Tacoma’s Proctor neighborhood have been organizing for months to pressure the city to reduce the maximum height allowed for new construction in their business district. The impetus was the prospect of a second apartment and retail building across from Metropolitan Market, to be built by the same developers as Proctor Station a few blocks away.

A neighborhood group, 4Proctor, has led the charge for a reduction in height limits. It delivered a petition with more than 1,500 signatures to the commission calling for the change.

Wednesday, speakers raised concerns about increasing traffic and the danger it poses to pedestrians, especially children attending Washington Elementary and Mason Middle schools.

“We moved here to raise our children,” said Callie Stoker-Graham, who was close to tears as she described all the children who walk to school. “Please help us maintain the safety and walk-ability of our neighborhood.”

Speakers also rejected the idea that more density in housing won’t create traffic problems because it gets people to abandon their cars.

“Quite frankly, and I hate to be rude, but that’s pie in the sky,” said Alice McComb, a Proctor resident since the 1990s. “Mass transit was curtailed years ago.”

Another set of recommendations Wednesday dealt with adding to the number of allowed types of housing in single-family neighborhoods. Among the most contentious recommendations:

▪ Making it easier to build, or convert existing homes into, duplexes and triplexes in traditionally single-family neighborhoods.

▪ Allowing duplexes on corner lots in residential zones that only allow one single-family home per lot.

▪ Allowing what is called a “detached accessory dwelling unit,” commonly called a mother-in-law apartment, in all single-family zones. Such mother-in-law apartments are already allowed in Tacoma as long as they are attached to the home and they pass a special review process.

Historic Tacoma raised an alarm earlier this month over the prospect of homes in conservation districts being converted into duplexes or triplexes. On Wednesday, dozens of homeowners as well as members of the North Slope Historic District gave voice to their objections. It delivered a petition with 600 signatures.

Change for the sake of change isn’t required, said Deborah Cade, co-chairperson of the North Slope district.

“That’s what historic preservation is for: it’s to counter those pressures,” she said.

A deep vein of skepticism about the need for more housing density ran through the crowd. One woman called mixed-use buildings “stack ’em and pack ’em housing.”

If Tacoma needs more housing, a man said, annex some land south of town.

“Why do we have to plan for growth?” another man asked. “If an area is built out, people can live elsewhere.”

Updates to the comprehensive plan are required by the state’s Growth Management Act. The Planning Commission will take written comments until Sept. 11, though they will begin reviewing them Sept. 2 and discussing possible changes at a meeting then and on Sept. 16.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article31600907.html#storylink=cpy

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Coming Storm Over 'Stingray' Surveillance by Police

The Coming Storm Over 'Stingray' Surveillance by Police

The technology is being deployed in secret by departments across the country, according to a recent investigative report.

Image AP Photo/U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
This undated handout photo shows the StingRay II, a cellular site simulator used for surveillance purposes. (AP Photo/U.S. Patent and Trademark Office)

The storm trooper-level police response to protests in Ferguson last summer shocked many observers, and put a federal program that distributes surplus military weapons and equipment to local law enforcement under heavy scrutiny. But the creep of War on Terror technology into domestic policesurveillance tactics, and the Orwellian legal bases upon which it stands, has been more subtle.
One little understood tool is known as "stingray," a device that can locate a phone's location by posing as a cell tower. The system is good at tracking down criminal suspects but also intercepts the location of people who happen to be in the area.


In Baltimore, police are secretly employing the devices with great frequency to track down not only suspected murderers but small-time crooks, according to an important USA Today investigation published Monday. The upshot is that police nationwide have "quietly transformed a form of surveillance billed as a tool to hunt terrorists and kidnappers into a staple of everyday policing."
“The problem is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it be some super-secret national security terrorist finder and then use it to solve petty crimes,” Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Hanni Fakhoury told the paper.
Dozens of police departments own such devices, according to USA Today,which it has reported were first created for military and spy agencies. But "when and how the police have used those devices is mostly a mystery, in part because the FBI swore them to secrecy," according to the paper. In Baltimore, investigative reporter Brad Heath compared a police surveillance log he obtained to court files, and found that police often "hid or obscured that surveillance once suspects got to court and that many of those they arrested were never prosecuted."
That secrecy has contributed to a disturbing lack of judicial review of stingray. In many cases, police are not securing search warrants before deploying the technology, and they don't even reveal that they have used it in court, depriving defense lawyers of their ability to argue that evidence was illegally obtained—a key Fourth Amendment safeguard.
Spy first, ask judges later.
“We can’t challenge it if we don’t know about it, that’s sort of the horror of it,” Baltimore public defender David Walsh-Little told USA Today.
Ironically, the secrecy is also causing cases to be tossed. Prosecutors, citing the non-disclosure agreement, have agreed to forgo evidence so as to avoid being forced to reveal that stingray was involved. The FBI has claimed that disclosing information on stingray could allow suspects to evade the technology—without explaining why stingray's very use must be hidden from judges and defendants in court.  
So far, there has been little legal scrutiny and, given the judiciary's light-touch approach to the national security state, it's easy to be pessimistic. But the U.S. Supreme Court has evidenced an inclination toward reining in law enforcement's opportunistic use of surveillance made possible by the widespread adoption of mobile digital technology—at least when it comes to exclusively domestic policing.
In 2012, the court ruled in United States v. Jones that placing a GPS device on a suspect's car, and then using that device to track the subject, did indeed constitute a search—but stopped short of clarifying whether such a search required a warrant and whether, independently, either the placing of the device or the ensuing tracking are warrant-necessitating searchesIn a 2014 case, the court ruled that police must almost always obtain a warrant before searching an arrestee's cell phone, and that its locational data was one reason why.
"Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been," the court ruled in Riley v. California. "Historic location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone's specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building."
Key to determining stingray's legal future will be the Supreme Court's interpretation of the "third-party doctrine." That doctrine holds that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy over information voluntarily disclosed to a third party, and it has been used to uphold NSA dragnetmetadata collection, as this 2014 Ars Technica piece explains.
The handful of federal court rulings on stingray have not "really tackled the constitutionality of them or the legal standards that apply to using them," emails

The Onion gets it right. Propaganda about Light Rail is getting Ridiculous.


Advice on being an Environmental Activist.

One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am - a reluctant enthusiast....a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the otherhalf of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it’s still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, the lovely, mysterious, and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much; I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men and women with their hearts in a safe deposit box, and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this; You will outlive the bastards.”
-- Edward Abbey (on being an environmental activist)

Bahamas, "WAVES" from Tyler Manson on Vimeo.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Marinwood Plaza Toxic Waste explained by Bill McNicholas ( 9 minutes)



Bill McNicholas, a 44 year Marinwood resident and engineer explains the Toxic Waste problem for Marinwood and Silveira ranch.  (9 minutes)

Clean up efforts stopped in 2011 while more testing was done.  It has been FOUR YEARS and testing has proven the migration of the plume extends underneath Highway 101 and threatens Silveira ranch and elevated soil vapors are a mere 100 feet from residences.  We need to protect our public health and environment NOW.

  Please sign the petition to resume CLEAN UP now!  HERE


Blues of the People

Even the French Publication LE MONDE wants to call us NIMBYS thanks to the George Lucas PR Team.



George Lucas has hired his Hollywood PR machine to paint Marinwood/Lucas Valley as NIMBYS.
Recently,  I was contacted by a writer of the prestigious Le Monde about questions concerning Grady Ranch.  He totally mashed my points to portray us as wealthy NIMBYS and apparently was in league with the George Lucas PR hit team who wants to further its agenda in our working class district.


Here is how I responded to his request for clarification of my position on Grady Ranch:
=============
Hello Elvire,

Happy to answer questions to correct the record on Housing in Marinwood/Lucas Valley.   Everyone seems to be chasing the "George Lucas vs. the Wealthy Neighbors" story that his Hollywood PR team has put out.   There is much more to the story and the press has not kind.

We have written extensively about George Lucas on www.savemarinwood.org and youtube and posts to various blogs.

Here are some pertinent facts.

1.)  Grady Ranch is located 4 1/2 miles up a country road.  It has no water, sewer or other utilities.  It is isolated and lacks public transportation.  It will be run by a non profit and therefore contribute little if anything to community costs of the development.  The surrounding community will be on the hook for paying infrastructure, new schools, police and fire service.  

2.) Marinwood-Lucas Valley is a middle class neighborhood with moderate incomes. We have lots of retirees on fixed income.  Many would qualify for subsidized housing based on their income.  This is far from the picture painted in the press as "Millionaire Neighbors".  In fact this is one of the biggest lies being perpetuated by the press as most locals will tell you.  We are not southern Marin. Our neighborhood was one of the original working class neighborhood of Marin.  It still serves that purpose for families who have been priced out of San Francisco.  WE ARE THE ONES BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING while the housing advocates like Supervisor Steve Kinsey and Housing groups live like kings in San Geronimo Valley.  They are the real NIMBYS of Marin.

3.) George Lucas is reportedly willing to invest up to 300 million dollars for 224 apartments.  It is a very generous gift to all of the people of Marin.  Affordable Housing is needed but for that kind of money he could build THREE to FOUR times the amount of housing where the tenants would have access to shopping and essential services.  In fact he could BUY 450 HOMES in Marinwood at CURRENT MARKET PRICES and GIVE them to needy families. They would get a 3 bedroom, 2 bath home with a private backyard and no sensitive habitat will be destroyed. Why is George fixed on developing Grady Ranch.?

4.) Our community of 5.6 square miles is being burdened with 80% of all affordable housing not including Oakview Development and other locations currently seeking approvals.  We think that the distribution of housing should occur EVERYWHERE in Marin and not be concentrated in a politically weak community far from the elites in Marin.

5.) We support affordable housing (especially for seniors) like the Rotary Village Senior Center in Lucas Valley which is well located, fits within existing densities of the community, is environmentally safe and financially responsible.. 

Stephen Nestel

=====================
Here is what he wrote  (translation provided by a George Lucas's PR Firm website. link to original article below:  



George Lucas's Plans to Build Workforce & Senior Housing


Le Monde
August 8, 2015
By Elvire Camus

George Lucas's Plans to Build Workforce & Senior Housing
Grady Ranch
(photo caption)
The current entrance to Grady Ranch. On a total area of 1037 acres, over 800 are open to the public for hiking. The development that George Lucas wants to build will be 50 acres.
Imagine: A vegetable garden, an orchard, a small farm, a swimming pool, lawns, a community center and some 224 units of senior and workforce housing, all nestled in the heart of one of California's most bucolic valleys. When George Lucas announced his intention to convert a small portion of land he owns in Marin County, north of