Bill from Stockton reoprts on the Nichols-Steinberg appearance in StocktonI don't have time to do this stuff- but I made time to go to the meeting and heard the consultants and experts talk about transit , moving jobs to where people live, increasing housing density to 7.7 per acre...Mary Nichols talked about how the pollution around the Socal ports was so bad that people nearby were fighting expansion. And without a
trace of irony she talked about using natural gas to accomplish it...
...and they let people speak...
'another blamed Sacramento for the state's slumping economy and high unemployment rate." (see article below)
That would be ME. I think it's the 1st time I've spoken in public. The gist of what I said:
Having a forum on "Smart Growth" was a little odd - Stockton's problem is trying to have smart contraction.
The thing that was impacting housing density was ... teardowns.
Told Stienberg I was a mostly Dem voter ... but I'd come to regard Sacramento as an economic wrecking ball.
And CARB was a Mt. Everest of bad and fraudulent science. That if we judged by CARB's past initiatives
we should be wary of "smart growth".
Launched into the laundry list :
AB32 didn't make sense when we're downwind of China, and they're building 3 coal-fired power plants a week.
Quoted Prof. Ramanathan(?) of UC San Diego / Scripps Institute that 7x % of soot in our air came from Asia.
So the DPF law didn't make a lot of sense.
Enhanced vapor recovery (3%) put people(i know one) out of business for no good reason, and the deadline
came during a credit crunch.
Well I rambled on... and they took the mic before I got to the big finish - Hien Tran.
That ethanol was boosting feed prices and killing our #1 product in San Joaquin County : dairy.
There was another speaker talking about natural gas.
After the meeting several people came up and said I had made a lot of sense. I handed out my
"call your congressman about HR1380" biz cards.
Steinberg of course was unaffected, he spoke and sort of acknowledged the factors external to CA. The key thing
he said that was important was "if you want change you have to show up". Our side needs to do more/show up more,
i.e. to get HR1380 passed.
As Stienberg was leaving I ran after him and said we should get rid of ethanol in favor of natural gas. His reply: "That''s
a federal matter". I was left wondering why we can tell Washington to take a hike on the subject of smoking dope, but on
on ethanol we need to be in lock-step? Then I began to wonder if the Capitol Building in Sacramento is downwind of too
many medical marijuana places. It would explain a lot... like why so many legislators seem to forget to represent their citizens.