Letters to the Editor

Don't send the same letter to this site that you've sent elsewhere, it's no fun to read the same thing in more than one place. I won't be able to print them all and will probably edit them if necessary.

Note: these letters are displayed with (roughly) the newest one on top, so if you want to read them in order you'll need to start at the bottom.

email: bruce@brattononline.com,

or write: Bratton Online
82 Blackburn St Suite 216,
Santa Cruz, California 95060

Current Letters:

City Planning Director told me in person that Starbucks had purchased the property, although they'd been hoping a local business would do so. This was a while back... but a purchase isn't the kind of commitment you walk away from on a whim.

I've noticed that the property is being more actively maintained and cleaned up in recent weeks (it was getting to be enough of an attractive nuisance that I was planning to complain to the city), which suggests that *someone* is actively responsible for it.

Thomas

To: bruce@brattononline.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: A couple o' things...well maybe three

The hookah lounges...weird. I see the one next to Sylvan Music practically every day, and here's the thing...wouldn't you love to see the business plan? There's practically no way that I can see even one hookah lounge surviving in business here, much less three, unless the college kids are just so desperate for to be in the latest "hip" crowd and unless so many of them have slow suicide wishes that they will part with enough of dad and mom's cash to support these stupid ventures.

Do we have closet smokers on the planning commission here? Was the real purpose of these joints truly and fully disclosed to the planners, or was there nudging of the truth? Are the planners at all in touch with reality?

What is presented as a traditional cultural ritual...in this case, smoking a hookah...may be something that should be stopped cold. Female genital mutilation is a traditional ritual in some cultures. Do we have any clitorectomy parlors being opened up here?

Ultimately I hope that the simple "laws of commerce" will prevail, and one by one, these establishments will close due to lack of customers. I hope that more of what goes up in smoke is the investors money.

'Nother thing...

I know this is old, but Mission St. Really now. Widen, repave beautifully, and then a year later tear it up to put the utilities underground. Yeah, I've heard the "explanations"...the money was in this bucket and not that one, and if we didn't spend it, it would evaporate. What bullshit. It's like building a beautiful custom house and deciding not to put plumbing or electrical lines inside the walls because the money wasn't there this year. Then you go back in a year, and tear off half the sheetrock, totally fuck up the nicely finished hardwood floors...and yes, you have to tear them up a lot too...and then you put in the wires and plumbing. Is that any way to build a house? Is this any way to run a town?

One last note:

I've returned recently from a trip to Hobart, Tasmania where my girlfriend lives (yeah, long story). She has an EnviroCycle sewage treatment system that completely takes care of everything that goes down the drain...gray water, black water, water from the washing machine, etc. Every now and then when the last tank of now clean water is full, a pump automatically goes on, and her lawn and garden (not veggies) gets irrigated. No connection to central sewer, no leach field required, she's never had to have it pumped. Four times a year they check for e-coli, etc., and there's never been a blip.

http://www.envirocycle.com.au

It has worked flawlessly for her for 18 years. I could hardly believe how simple it was, and how well it works. OK, it's not as simple as composting toilets (which I also saw and used there further out in the countryside), but it would work for a huge number of houses here in SC County. It would also work nicely off the grid with a good solar power system.

These things should be mandated on all new construction in Santa Cruz County, and the University should start putting in the larger versions of this system. It's a win-win solution to "where does the shit go" and to water use.

Rick Turner
Guitar maker on the West Side...
Pal of Paul Hostetter...

http://www.renaissanceguitars.com/interview.html
www.renaissanceguitars.com
www.d-tar.com

My take on FCC United Church of Christ

Dear Bruce,

As a current member of First Congregational - United Church of Christ (UCC), I feel called to respond to the recent letter from Dian Corneliussen-James.

It is clear that Ms. Corneliussen-James has a strong attachment to the physical church structure on High Street and to those who were instrumental in its construction. As she points out, the First Congregational-UCC church campus has hosted many wonderful events over the years -- and continues to do so. Having occasionally served as substitute custodian, I've witnessed first-hand the numerous individuals and groups from within the church and the greater Santa Cruz community who utilize the church grounds.

However, I must counter Ms. Corneliussen-James' dire assessment that our church is being "dismantled." She makes specific mention of the removal of pews and the historic prayer tower. I would imagine for someone particularly attached to the pews, their removal from the sanctuary could evoke a deep sense of loss. However, rather than "virtually all" the pews, in reality less than 1/3 of them were removed and replaced with comfortable and attractive apolstered wooden chairs -- each complete with its own built-in bible/hymnal storage. This decision was to help create a sanctuary space that was responsive to the diverse worship needs of our community.

In regard to the prayer tower, after much conversation, prayer and discernment -- which included the concerns of structural safety, refurbishing and maintenance costs, along with the symbolic role this steel tower has played for our community -- the collective membership made the decision to remove it from the property. We have decided precious resources are better spent in doing the work of the church (e.g., discipleship, service) than the on-going care and maintenance for a physical structure.

I agree with both of these decisions as they prioritize the importance of faithfully responding to the call of the Gospel -- to love God and neighbor in thought, word and deed. We are blessed to have facilities that host so many opportunities for this to happen: two different "sanctuarys" to hold services allowing us to worship either with organ & choir or jazz & gospel; quiet spaces for prayer, meditation and small discussion groups; and large rooms for hosting community housing forums and special events. As people of faith, it is our responsibility to fulfill this call rather than preserve a building -- no matter how beautiful or symbolic that building might be.

This reflection of our priorities -- of people over physical space -- is one reason why our church is growing in both membership and commitment. On any given Sunday, you will find people of all different ages, sexual orientations, abilities, racial and ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions. In the United Church of Christ, we are called to come together with all our diversity to fulfill Jesus' prayer "that they may all be one" (John 17:21) and First Congregational - UCC creates a vibrant community for which that to happen.

Sincerely,

Laura Engelken

HISTORIC SANTA CRUZ CHURCH EXPERIENCING EXCITING RENEWAL!
Dave Grishaw-Jones, Senior Pastor
First Congregational Church, Santa Cruz

Dear Bruce,

I was disappointed to read Dian Corneliussen-James' largely inaccurate letter regarding the recent history and evolution of First Congregational Church in Santa Cruz. While I'm sensitive to her family's anger and grief, I'm less understanding when it comes to misinformation and character assassination.

It is indeed true that First Congregational Church exists today because of the faithful and courageous vision of generations. Dian's father, Bernie, was one of those faithful souls; and we continue to give thanks for his amazing creativity and courage. In October, the congregation will celebrate 150 years of service here in Santa Cruz. Across that century and a half, countless women and men have given their time, their resources and their spiritual energies to the church and the wider community as well.

It is also true that in the late 1950s, the congregation took on a bold and daring relocation project, imagining and then building a remarkably beautiful and contemporary facility on High Street. For five decades now, the wider community has enjoyed that facility for concerts, public lectures, dances and many other events. It's become a community resource. And the congregation continues to generously and gratefully share it.

Since the 1950s, the religious landscape - particularly the Protestant landscape - has shifted and changed dramatically. Santa Cruz has evolved as well, welcoming a world-class university and emerging as a center of progressive thought and action. With these changes, First Congregational Church has bravely discerned a changing role.

I'd like to make two observations about our life together now, in 2007. The first relates to the renewal and excitement we experience together on High Street. The second relates to the matter of buildings, structures and change.

First, First Congregational Church is a remarkably energetic and diverse community of faith, experiencing a resurgence of mission, friendship and ministry. You really have to see it to believe it: but I can offer some thoughts.

Ours is a lively center of mission and outreach. We visit the county jail three times each week, ministering to women and men in their need and anxiety, extending the grace and encouragement of God. We've developed a challenging partnership with Christians in Nicaragua, and we annually visit these partners to have our own faith expanded and deepened. Locally, we are a leader in COPA - Communities Organized for Power in Action. With 27 other Central Coast institutions, we're making a difference in critical areas like affordable housing, health care, safe neighborhoods and immigrant rights.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. First Congregational Church is a dynamic partner in shaping the common good - in Santa Cruz, on the Central Coast and around the world. While Dian's letter laments a 'dismantling,' nothing could be further from the truth. We are building a progressive Christian community for the 21st century. And we're very excited about the future of this congregation.

Let me add this: We have led the way, of late, in urging Christian congregations to embrace the ministries and gifts of gay, lesbian and bisexual friends. In 2004, we hosted a celebration for more than 40 gay and lesbian couples joined in marriage in San Francisco earlier that year. It was a stunning reminder of all the church can be - as older couples rejoiced in a community's love, as families with children felt the blessing of a Holy Spirit, as all God's people gathered in love. Since then, the church has grown to include and value and celebrate the gifts of a large number of gay and lesbian members. This is not a matter of charity: they are gifted, they are called, and they are sisters and brothers.

This is just a guess on my part, but I wonder if some of the harsh criticism we get (and I get) these days has more to do with our politics of inclusion than our decision-making around pews and roofs and towers. Some would prefer we cling fast to the church of the 1950s, ignoring the opportunities and challenges of progressive Christian ministry in 2007. Some would prefer we re-create the seemingly safe and unchanging church of their youth. We can't do that, obviously. And God invites us to a more daring and faithful expression of church life.

So, about the buildings...

We were told this year that saving and repairing a failing tower would cost upwards of $100,000. Engineers express concern that the tower is not safe at present and must be addressed. After examining that information carefully and talking to a wide array of church members, the congregation decided (unanimously, by the way) to remove the tower for $4,000. Quite simply, the congregation felt there were more exciting and faithful ways to use our resources. It's our hope, in the near future, that donors may step forward allowing us to re-build from the stone base and create something beautiful where the tower has been. But $100,000 seemed a high price to pay for the original metal structure.

Over the years, other choices have been made. Again, religious communities across the board are making hard decisions and faithful decisions about future programming and worship. Here, we decided to remove the first seven rows of pews in our sanctuary. In opening up that space, we made possible the kind of worship that reaches new generations of seekers and believers. Congregants now look at one another. Weddings are held in the round. I'd suggest this is not the kind of malicious activity suggested by Dian's letter, but rather the hopeful experimentation of good people leaning into the future.

Come to First Congregational Church in 2007 and you'll find great Bach anthems and dynamic Ellington swing tunes, old organ standards and contemporary gospel choirs. Come to First Congregational Church in 2007 and you'll find a straight senior minister working side by side with two dynamic and gifted lesbian ministers (who happen to be married). Come to First Congregational Church in 2007 and you'll find a community engaged in conversation about affordable housing, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and immigrant families. It's a church in the midst of an exciting renewal. I only wish Dian Corneliussen-James and her father could be around to see it!

Many thanks, Bruce, for printing this response.

Dave Grishaw-Jones
Senior Minister
First Congregational Church

Dave Grishaw-Jones
Senior Minister
First Congregational Church (UCC)
Santa Cruz, California
www.fccsantacruz.org

Historical Church in Santa Cruz Being Slowly Dismantled

Bruce,

I am hoping you might do an article to make Santa Cruzans aware of the slow dismantling of one of our most prominent and acclaimed structures in Santa Cruz and certainly the most beautiful of all the churches in the area ... namely, the First Congregational Church aka United Church of Christ at 900 High Street.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

COWELL CONNECTION: The very first benefaction of the newly formed (at the time) S.H. Cowell Foundation was a gift of $415,000 (initially set at $300,000, but later increased) to build the new First Congregational Church at 900 High. The Cowells were long-time members and ardent supports of the First Congregational Church in Santa Cruz. The benefaction was specifically given to build the Sanctuary and the towering cross behind the Sanctuary building (the "Prayer Tower") and to fund the purchase of the Aeolian-Skinner organ, the pews (specifically designed for the church by the forward-looking architects Leslie I. Nichols and Bates Elliott -- the latter also redesigned the original Cowell cookhouse for UCSC), office furniture and equipment. At the time, the benefaction was the largest grant to a local religious organization in the history of the county as far as was known. (Sentinel News May 7, 1956). Many leading members of the greater Santa Cruz community were members and supporters of the church, and they paid off the entire remaining debt (the church cost in excess of $900,000) nine and one-half years after the building was completed.

A TRUE PART OF THE COMMUNITY: At the time of its dedication, the church was hailed as a stunningly beautiful, architectural landmark. During its construction and at the completion it appeared prominently in the Santa Cruz Sentinel-News (Nov 26, 1956, Sep 15, 1957, Oct 4, 1957 Sep 15, 1957, May 11, 1958, May 18, 1958, May 19, 1958 Sep 16, 1958 to mention just a few). Built for its superb acoustics, the Santa Cruz Symphony as well as the Cabrillo College Choir performed in the sanctuary. Local limestone, much of it from the Cowell quarry, and redwood were used throughout the design. The huge cross in the sanctuary came from a more than 2,000 year old tree, the wood having been rescued by church members when a old bridge was being replaced; and the cross was set into a massive, 8-ton limestone rock from the Cowell quarry. People came from far and wide to study the tasteful and subtle symbology placed throughout the buildings, from the fish door handles in the sanctuary building to the contemporary "wheat and chaff" design on the screen shielding the organ pipes. The church hosted the University of California search committee when it was looking for an additional location to expand and as the committee departed its meeting rooms in the church, the outdoor carillons played "The Blue and the Gold". Several committee members later stated that this action swayed the vote, which was reportedly going another direction, in favor of building in Santa Cruz. UCSC surveyors used the church's Prayer Tower as the sighting for all the original UCSC campus buildings, and the church was a favorite place of worship for UCSC professors. These are just a few items that make the church of keen local interest.

900 HIGH: For almost 30 years, the church's 500-seat capacity was often filled on Sundays and there was standing room only on many occasions. The other buildings were used by numerous local organizations throughout the week such scouts, AA, the Red Cross, educational groups, and the YWCA. All this has now drastically changed and the church is in danger of being literally dismantled.

MORE RECENTLY

IN THE INTERIM: Since the late 1980s, through poor choice of pastors, exclusionary practices, strong arm tactics, and dishonest actions, the UCC Church has alienated the majority of those who have been long-time members and supporters; and has had trouble attracting new members. Rather than carefully put their limited funds where most needed, the church has taken unfathomable actions that degraded the church AND cost them money, such as hiring a team of three pastors to do the job of one (which given the limited congregation is still more than is needed) and removing virtually all the designer-created pews (paying for their removal and storage) in favor of purchasing folding chairs. The latter removed a safe and comfortable place to place babies and toddlers, eliminated hearing aid connections for the elderly, and took away hymnal/Bible storage (on the backs of pews). Further, the folding chairs are noisy and disruptive and aesthetically completely undesirable.

LAST STRAW: The latest is a decision to remove the Prayer Tower, the towering cross thrust heavenward through its bolted metal foundation that sits on the hill behind the sanctuary. The cross has been a landmark in Santa Cruz since the church was built and, as mentioned above, was used by surveyors to sight the original buildings at UCSC. The Prayer Tower was a gift from the S.H. Cowell Foundation, further adding to its historical value. It was designed to symbolize praying hands, with the tower and cross emerging from the center of the hands. Surrounding the hands is the garden of peace which is set into the limestone base that signifies the rock is our foundation.

I shudder to think what will go next.

NEWSWORTHY?

I hope you see a story here ... should a community stand by and watch the dismantling of landmark buildings as a result of mismanagement or neglect; should anyone have the right to destroy or remove items (i.e. pews and Prayer Tower) that were specifically given as gifts from the Cowell Foundation; should congregations that fail take their structures with them in their downfall if they are worth saving, or should instead significant structures such as this be sold to a group or person that would preserve them? Perhaps an article on whether the downfall of many churches these days is the direct result of a large number of narrow-minded ordained pastors not having the skills to bring people of all walks of life together to form a large, well-functioning congregation. Small congregations can only sustain small churches, which this is not. The current pastor at 900 High has sent out letters and bulletins stating the church is an albatross around his neck. Many of the former life-long parishioners have been pushed out, or fled, to the Soquel Congregational Church, which is flourishing with its now expanded congregation of dedicated worshipper under the excellent leadership of Pastor Mark Fountain. Perhaps the two congregations should swap churches facilities ... then each would have a property it could sustain. Perhaps 900 High should be sold to UCSC as a center for religious studies? .... or perhaps UCSC would want the sanctuary as a concert hall due to its tremendous acoustics and extensive seating (if the pews could be retrieved).

I am sorry this is so long and perhaps a bit rambling ... I shall blame it on chemo brain, and also on my passionate interest in the issue. I am hoping you might take some approach and write on this issue. If you wish to contact me for any reason, I am Dian Corneliussen-James, the daughter of J. Bernard Corneliussen, who was largely responsible for the original plans and very successfully ran the church until he began suffering from Alzheimer's Disease in the 1980s. I have incurable cancer and limit my foci, but saving this beautiful structure from ruin is an extremely important issue to me and I had to write. A Santa Cruzan gave me your name as a good contact.

Signed
Dian

The Pastors for Peace Caravanistas are back from Cuba!!!

This summer nine Santa Cruzans challenged the U.S. blockade of Cuba - putting themselves on the line to protest what they believe is a "bad-neighbor policy." On August 24th help welcome them home and share in their experiences.

Hear about the long trek to Cuba through deserts and rain storms, their observations of the Cuban medical system, their meeting with the first U.S. graduates of the Latin American School of Medicine, the "Hiphop Without Borders project, and much more. If you've ever thought about joining the caravan, this is the time to learn more about it.

As an added bonus see ˇSalud!, an inspiring documentary about Cuba’s commitment to extending medical care to other countries – a philosophy that holds health care as a human right and sharing one’s wealth (doctors in the case of Cuba) as a governing value and a strategic foreign policy.

The film follows Cuban doctors in Honduras, Venezuela, Gambia, Haiti as they shore up the failed health care systems of Latin American and African countries. Understand why Dr Paul Farmer (subject of Tracy Kidder’s Mountains Beyond Mountains, and universally renowned for his medical work in Haiti) says, “The most important contribution Cuba has made to global health is its example – that you can introduce the notion of a right to health care and wipe out the diseases of poverty.”

That’s 6:30 pm Friday, August 24th at the Vets Hall - 846 Front Street in Santa Cruz.

Admission is free! Call 465-8272 for information

Sponsored by Cuba Study Group of Santa Cruz County.

Which brings me to my point of concern: when SCN started up, it was very clear to me that this portended a sea change in the city's politics - and I think you saw this as well (based on your comments in the column). Lynn Robinson's election was only the beginning: there are now over 40 of these groups, according to this missive, and more every month. SCN meets monthly, and thus has an opportunity to put its agenda (and the names of leading participants) before the public on an ongoing basis. The city's "progressive" institutions have no equivalent; certainly none with this broad a reach. The result is that the terrain upon which campaigns for City Council are fought will have been shifted - in 2008 and beyond, progressives will be running, in essence, on the "home turf" of reactionary candidates. Not good.

Further, these neighborhood organizations constitute a very broad organizational base from which to draw not only election time support, but equally importantly, develop and train credible candidates by providing them with practical organizing experience and a relatively high profile in the community (as well as a "resume" of activism to present to the voters come election time). The same people who so generously funded Lynn Robinson's campaign, will have a bevy of potential candidates to select from in 2008 - and those candidates will have no trouble raising all the money they need to get elected - or getting their messages out, since they will already have been firmly implanted in the minds of local opinion leaders by years of exposure. Similarly, although I doubt these organizations are going to be doing "endorsements", when a candidate coming out of this arena speaks, their words will have much more weight and credibility, backed up as they will be by the historical agenda of forty plus local neighborhood organizations that can authentically be said to speak for the concerns and priorities of a vast portion of the city's population, however narrowly framed.

Contrawise: Last time around, Bruce Van Allen was forced to run a solo campaign, and despite having years of organizational experience and vast credibility within the city's progressive establishment, had limited success raising funds and generating grassroots support. The resulting campaign barely registered with the voting public, garnering less than 7,000 votes (admittedly there were other reasons for this as well), barely 1.4-1.6 times the vote of the two "fringe" candidates with vastly less funding and resources, Simba Kenyatta (who earned almost 5,000 votes) and Chris Cobb. As an intermittent participant in the Progressive Coalition through my Green Party and GLBT Alliance activities, the challenges facing the city's progressive community, particularly around organizational infrastructure and financing, are very apparent. The city's "progressive" institutions, outside of the labor unions, SCAN, PDC, Green Party, etc. are relatively small in membership and limited in capacity and resources (especially financially). Their ability to influence the course of an election is very limited. People should not be fooled by what happened with the Coast Hotel, although they should be inspired by it... winning coalitions can be built, especially when the opposition is stupid enough to stir up the hornet's nest.

What this means to me is that, absent some monumental stupidity on the part of the city's "conservative" institutions, we are likely to see a very different city council, with a very different set of political and social priorities, than we've seen in many years. To cite what this might be like, I suggest that long time activists imagine a City Council where John G. Mahaney and Louis E. Rittenhouse formed a majority (these folks were before my time, but I've seen and heard enough historical material to know that their approach was very different from the then governing majority). Not a very pleasant thought, is it?

Do the city's progressive political institutions, and the leadership of such, have an effective answer to the emergence of SCN? If so, it isn't apparent, and it isn't being acted upon today - even though we are well into the start of the next election cycle (as evidenced by the fund raising efforts of all the provisional candidates for State Assembly); which means that it is probably too late to have a major impact on the 2008 election campaign.

I have some thoughts on this, myself, but I'd be interested to hear what others have to say.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

P.S. Lynn Robinson's campaign web site, www.electlynnrobinson.com, is no longer available... thus, I lack a handy dandy reference to who endorsed her, but I do recall thinking that the list encompassed a lot of familiar names from non-progressive sectors of the community's establishment.

Good afternoon. My name is Sherry Conable and I am one of the many people who have been outside participating in the Peace Rally. As you probably are well aware, this is the fourth Rally we have had here in the last two years, and today some of us decided we wanted to come in and speak to you directly! We brought written statements with us today, so that we would be sure to remember to say what we really wanted to say!

We have brought with us a bowl of fresh, organic strawberries, grown and harvested in Santa Cruz County, for all of us to share. They are, in many ways, like the young who come here to consider enlistment. They are planted, grown, and lovingly tended here, on this soil. They are a unique and beautiful work of Creation. Each are one of a kind, no two exactly alike! And they are greatly loved and desired by those of us lucky enough to have them in our lives! All of this can be said of our cherished young people as well.

We know that the sons and daughters of Santa Cruz County currently serving in Iraq are not able to have this delicious delight in their lives right now. And we remember with great respect the 6 of this county who died in Iraq and will never know the wonder of strawberries again.

So, with strawberries to share, we'd like to talk about the war in Iraq, and our part in that, both ours and yours.

First, we want to acknowledge that ALL of us are here today wishing the very best for our country. We sincerely recognize and respect the choice you have made to serve your country as feels right to you, and we know that you take very seriously your oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to conduct your work according to the Military Code of Ethics that you are sworn to.

Most of us here today are long time peace activists who also care deeply about the principles this country was founded on, about the Constitution, and about a moral code of ethics that seeks peace, justice, freedom, and self-determination for all people of the world, whether of this country or of another. Many of us have lived in this County for decades. And this is a community that we love and cherish deeply.

This is a group of folks ranging from ages 16-92, and in various ways, each of us has been very active in opposing this war in Iraq! We have conducted rallies, vigils, protests, candlelight services, and memorial walks. We have written to, phoned, petitioned, and met with our Congressional Representatives and Senators. We have also written to and petitioned the President and his Cabinet Members directly, as well as many other key members of Congress who serve on Committees that have a direct impact on this war.

We have successfully encouraged our local and state governments to take outspoken positions about this war and its conduct, about the crimes of the Bush Administration, and about the soldier-resisters who have chosen to refuse to serve in this war.

In short, we spend LOTS of our time working to end this war and occupation in Iraq, and to bring our troops back home to their families and loved ones, where we believe they belong!

We are here today to ask you to help us in that task! As representatives of the United States Armed Services, we are asking you today, as recruiters, to refuse to continue to enlist the young people of Santa Cruz County to serve in this mistaken and illegal war.

It is now widely accepted knowledge that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was premised on lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction! Saddam Hussein was not working with or supporting the goals of Al Qaeda! Neither the government nor the people of Iraq attacked the United States, nor did they have any plans or intention to do so!

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Cabinet Members Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice knew this. They knew the truth. But they lied. They lied to the United Nations. They lied to the American People. They lied to Congress. And they lied to the World.

These leaders planned and executed the preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation in direct violation of the United Nations Charter. They blatantly ignored and sidestepped a legal United Nations weapons inspection process. And they acted without United Nations authorization. In fact, we know now, from the Downing Street Memos, that they were, as early as the summer of 2002, "fixing the intelligence around the policy" - that is, they were manipulating and misrepresenting the intelligence findings in order to support a decision they had already made to invade and occupy the country of Iraq.

So, because this is now, and always has been, an illegal war, we believe the order to recruit people to serve in it is an illegal order. Soldiers, yourselves, have the right of conscience, like anyone else, and the right, in fact the duty, to refuse to follow an illegal order.

Therefore we are requesting that you refuse to continue recruiting the young of our community unless you can absolutely guarantee them that they will not be sent to Iraq or to any location that directly aids that war.

Let's talk for a moment about the effects of this war.

David and his 16 year son Trevor have already talked to you about their deep distress over an unsolicited brochure, sent to Trevor by the United States Army, suggesting that war is just like a video game. But war is NOT a video game. War is real. THIS WAR is real. It has very real and horrible consequences. You know that. We know that many recruiters have had first hand experience of that reality. You have been in Iraq.

What has happened to our American youth, and our National Guardsmen and Reserve Units, who volunteered to serve in the military with so much promise, strength, intelligence, and commitment?

Over 3,500 of them have died, and over 35,000 have been maimed and wounded, many with wounds that will leave them disabled for life. These losses and lifelong wounds deeply scar and devastate their families and children left behind as well.

One in three Iraq war veterans suffer from mental and emotional problems because of their experiences in war. They experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, increased drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, higher rates of child abuse and elevated rates of suicide.

How many of this wounded generation of soldiers will end up homeless, on the streets, in damaged families and relationships, addicted, jobless, and tormented emotionally by the experience of war? Already hundreds of them are showing up in homeless shelters across this country.

How many more American families will have to suffer the loss of a loved one, or the lifelong effects of their grievous physical and psychological wounds? How many more families can we ask to live with the gnawing, daily anxiety of having a loved one in harm's way for a war based on lies?

The Pentagon has warned us to expect a "very bloody summer in Iraq", with even higher casualty rates than before, and the troop escalation numbers have doubled. Whose blood is it that we are willing and ready to spill?

And what about the Iraqis?

This war has completely devastated the lives and culture of the Iraqi people. They live in a constant state of fear and danger. Life as they knew it has been ripped asunder!

Since the invasion in March 2003, 2.6 million Iraqis have been wounded. If that many residents of the United States had been wounded, it would equal 30 million people! Each one of these suffers pain, lack of medical treatment, and disability, and their families suffer with them.

Over 3.7 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. Right now, over 40,000 are leaving the country every single month! In the US that would be 42 million people living in refugee camps or out of the country. Every child and family displaced is without a place to call home. Everyday life is gone.

Over 655,000 deaths of the people of Iraq have been attributed to this war, and 300,000 of those are said to have been children. If the same percentage of America's population had died, that would equal 7.6 million people and 3.5 million of them would have ben kid. The loved ones of the dead of Iraq mourn each of these deaths as intensely, as deeply, and for just as long a time as we here in this country mourn ours.

Iraq, prior to our invasion, was respected as one of the most advanced countries of the Mideast, with free education for all children through college, childhood diseases eradicated, women fully integrated into the highest professions with equal pay, and almost full employment throughout the country. All this now lies in ruins.

And then there are the effects BOTH peoples share of the chemical poisoning left behind. Thousands of American soldiers are coming back poisoned from Depleted Uranium, or other chemicals they were exposed to in this war. Already scores of birth deformities of American infants can be attributed to DU poisoning in their soldier parents returning from this war.

Likewise, in Iraq, hundreds of babies have already been born deformed. Cancers are sharply on the rise. And the very soil of Iraq itself will remain contaminated for thousands of years to come from the Depleted Uranium this country is leaving behind.

We leave behind land mines and cluster bombs as well. The lives and limbs of Iraqis, many of them children, will be sacrificed to these horrors for decades to come, as is still happening in Southeast Asia today from a war that ended 30 years ago.

We could go on and on with the awful effects of this illegal war, but let us stop here. This violence and devastation harms us all. What happens to one part of the web of life happens to the whole. More violence, bombs, and weapons cannot and will not bring peace. Only respect, justice, and diplomacy can do that.

All of us must do our part to stop this war! Each of us is responsible for our own actions and our own choices.

This war is real. Your part in it is real. And our part in it is real. WE are morally obligated to take non-violent direct action to oppose this war. And we believe that YOU are morally obligated to reject illegal orders to recruit for this war.

In the best of all possible worlds, no more sons and daughters from Santa Cruz County would be recruited for this war! No more sons and daughters from any county, in any state of this nation, would be recruited for this war!

So we ask that you stand with us, so that we can stand with you. Walk away from your part in this war. Use your courage to confront this illegal and unjust war! Refuse to recruit for this immoral cause! Refuse to continue to take in the precious young who you know will almost certainly be sent into the jaws of this awful war. Stop recruiting for this war! Stop now!!

You will not be alone. Many other soldiers have already made a similar moral choice to no longer participate in this illegal slaughter and devastation. They are being helped and supported by friends, family, clergy, counselors, peers, and the peace movement*. And their conscience is clear.

Please Join With Us to Stop this War Now!

Peace!

*see www.couragetoresist.org

This story has been reported in the SC Sentinel, most recently in an article by Genevieve Bookwalter on May 31st, but has perhaps gone unnoticed by many.

HEADLINE: pesticide-based agriculture poisons organic agriculture.

Jacobs Farms, run by pioneering organic farmer Larry Jacobs, discovered recently that the crops he grows on land leased at Wilder Ranch State Park, have been poisoned by vaporized pesticides (chlorpyrifos and diazinon) drifting in droplets via coastal fog from North Coast Brussels sprout fields. These poisons are first and second cousins of nerve gas. Sprout growers say they can't grow their crops without using these sophisticated pesticides.

Why is this significant? Our community trusts that buying local is the way to go. But what if conventional, pesticide-based growers are contaminating near-by organic fields? And perhaps poisoning not only organic farming crops, but gardens and people on the westside of Santa Cruz?

Despite the fact that pesticide residue tests run by Jacobs Farms were all positive, the SC County Ag Commissioner found no violation by the sprout farmer. (Jacobs stopped harvesting everything once he discovered that his crops were contaminated.) A law suit is in process: Jacobs Farms going up against huge conglomerate, Agrium.

Contrary to supremely ignorant assertions by CCOF (the organic farmer organization) director Jake Lewin and County Agricultural Commissioner Ken Corbishley, that fog-carried pesticide drift is "unknown" in our county, there is ample evidence for this phenomenon in Monterey County.

Our agricultural county's bureaucrats are pro-pesticide. Recall the battle a decade ago over drifting methyl bromide in the strawberry fields in South County. We and our organic food are exposed to these poisons on a regular basis. Jacobs is petitioning our legislators to recognize and regulate fog-borne pesticide drift.

The agricultural apparatchiks' message is that everything is totally OK. Don't worry; be happy. Keep the natives quiet. Breathe easy in beautific Santa Cruz.

Contact our supervisors and state legislators. When you go to your weekly farmers' market you can't trust that what you're putting in your basket is uncontaminated.

Randall

I want to chime in as a faithful reader of your column who disagrees with you. I shop at Whole Foods when I am elsewhere, and have greatly appreciated what they offer. When I am over-the-hill, I usually stop in at the Campbell store....and when I need something in Monterey, I stop at the store there.

If they do indeed open a store in SCruz, I doubt that I will ever shop there, because I do most of my shopping at New Leaf and Staff....and they will have a hard time competing with their prices.

I'm not sure why you rail against them; I was in the first Whole Foods back in Austin, in 1979, and was very impressed with the set-up. It was called "Saferway" back then....and Mackey's initiative included opening up new stores after he was sued by Safeway. At that time, communities only offered small health food stores, with small inventories and high prices. Whole Foods began an important movement to spread the word about more healthful options, operating with a business model that could sustain itself in a highly competitive world.

Now perhaps Whole Foods is growing too large; but why not rail against Safeway for that matter? It is certainly a better option for those shoppers, and I know many who have been converted (virtually all of my older relatives), who would never have visited Staff or New Leaf. It is important to keep perspective, my friend.

Those of us who prefer Staff or New Leaf will always choose such before going into WF. And, don't forget, the people who frequent Food Bin and Aptos Natural were opposed to New Leaf, afraid for their existence....yet many of us still choose to shop there.

What is really happening is that healthier foods are becoming more mainstream....and that's a good thing, don't you think?!?

And I still argue with you about the widening of hwy 1.....there was not a vote against it, there was a vote against a sales tax to fund it. And many of us who live outside of the city, but in the county, were not permitted to weigh in. Please know that you have intelligent, informed readers who find the simplistic arguments against widening not only unconvincing, but almost insulting in their logic. However, I still find you to be the absolute best at movie reviews =-O !

Warm regards,

Rainbow, who thought you might like to know that you have committed readers who respectfully disagree with you!

An occasional column by David McReynolds

Before I sleep tonight I must put aside the bills to pay, the chaos of my small lower east side studio apartment, and take some brief time dealing with page 16 of the New York Sunday Times of March 18.

Most of that page is taken up with charts and graphs. They reveal a chilling truth, one which almost all of us have known, but which the Administration has been denying, as it, on the one hand, tells us the "surge" is showing signs of success, and on the other hand, asking for still more troops.

Bush and his supporters are right about one thing - many of us hope for the failure of the "surge" because we hope for the failure of the entire dreadful US project in Iraq. We opposed it before it began, and we have fought against it every step of the way. It was a project based on imperial ambition, rooted in the desire to control the oil of that region, with no regard for international law, for the people of Iraq, or for our own troops. We have paid a terrible price already, in the slow bleeding of our image around the world, in the draining of funds needed here for housing, medical care, and education. We have become a nation known for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, not for the Statue of Liberty or the Bill of Rights. The nation of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, has become a nation led by thugs.

So yes, we were not hoping for the success of the "surge", not hoping that the vast new Embassy being built would survive, not hoping that the Green Zone would remain secure. We hoped for the defeat of the US military, even as we did not agree with the hideous culture of violence of the Sunni and Shiite forces which have killed more Iraqi civilians than American troops.

Put another way, we were on the side of the troops in our army, on the side of the civilians in Iraq, and against the current US government, whose leader has the support of less than a third of the American people.

But whichever side you are on, the charts, as we end four years of conflict, tell the story.

As of this past November the United Nations estimates that one and a half million Iraqis have fled Iraq for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran,or Syria. For the most part, these are the educated Iraqi middle class which makes it possible for the society to function - doctors, teachers, professionals. In addition it is estimated that more than that number are "internally displaced" - fleeing their homes in one part of Iraq for shelter elsewhere in the country.

American military deaths were 580 in 2003, 938 in 2004, 793 in 2005, and 885 last year. So things were not only much worse in 2006 than in 2003, when Bush told us the war was over, they are much worse in 2006 than the year before.

Terrorist bombings in 2003 are few in number, mostly in Baghdad. But the same maps show that in each year, 2004, 2005, and 2006, the areas of terrorist bombings have increased to such an extent that what seemed in 2003 like mere pin pricks on the map, looked last year like expanding ink blots engulfing the country.

Much more serious, the number of attacks on civilians, Iraqi security forces, and the occupation army saw a steady increase from March of 2005 to the last date for which we have data. In short, the US has been losing steadily for the last two years. We approach a point of no-return, where the Embassy staff will need to be lifted out of the Green Zone by helicopter.

Sectarian violence and killing increased sharply in the past year.

The violence, the deterioration of the situation, has no relationship to the great triumphs of which Bush has boasted - the interim government, the elections, the new constitution, the new government. There is no hopeful equation between these vaunted political achievements and the horrors on the ground. The war has been lost.

The "surge" is a waste of young lives - ours and theirs. It isn't even a risky gamble. It is a bet lost.

The mass demonstrations in Washington DC today - and across the country - and particularly the arrest of over 200 religious folks taking part in civil disobedience in front of the White House, means that the nation is not willing to accept the difficulty Congress has in finding a way to end the war. There is no more patience, there is no more time. There is a "surge" needed, alright, but it is a "surge" in opposition, in sit-ins at Congressional offices, a jamming of the machinery of the government until at last our troops are brought home from their dreadful tasks, and the bleeding nation of Iraq can try to begin to sort itself out. That will be a long, haunting task - but not one to which the US government can make any contribution, beyond the earliest possible and most complete withdrawal, leaving Bush's vast Baghdad Embassy unbuilt, as it leaves his reputation in ruins, and as some of us begin to demand an international tribunal for those responsible for the destruction of a nation.

(David McReynolds was a long time staff member at War Resisters League, and past Chair of the War Resisters International. He was the Socialist Party candidate for President in 1980 and 2000).
EdgeLeft can be used without permission

Subject: Take it away, Bruce!

Media Reform in Memphis, January 12-14, 2007

Amy Goodman's daily "Democracy Now" hour-long independent news program gets more replays (Mon-Fri) here in Santa Cruz than anywhere else in the country.

As many of you know, it is broadcast regularly in NYC at Pacifica's WBAI radio at 9 a.m. EST, after being televised live on New York City's local community TV at 8 a.m. Here in Santa Cruz, both Community TV and Free Radio rebroadcast the program -- each twice -- during the day. And in addition, KUSP rebroadcasts the radio version at 9 a.m. local time.

This is part of Amy's network of more than 500 stations which now carry her program, described on the "Democracy Now" web page as "the largest community media collaboration in the United States." It's also furnished in streaming video and audio, and podcast continually, all over the globe.

So it is no longer a small pebble dropped into our multi-channel daily menu of so-called news offerings when Amy devotes her entire program to just one subject of interest. She has done just that this week, beginning with Monday's recap of newly elected Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders major talk, and long-time (57-year) veteran White House Correspondent Helen Thomas's opinions, both delivered at the third national Media Reform conference earlier this month in Memphis, Tennessee.

Three of us from Santa Cruz participated in a gigantic jamboree of panels, symposia, plenary sessions, talks, entertainment, and conversation at the city's convention center, where some 3,500 registrants from all over North America expressed their concern with the inadequate handling of news and journalism we all have to put up with today. It was great to feel the diversity and variety and keen intelligence of thousands of Americans many of whom were humming inside their heads the sentiments and feelings of Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger singing "This Land Is Your Land, This land is My Land."

Among the luminaries and entertainment stars who glittered during the three days of sessions were FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps, TV broadcasters Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio, a platoon of Congresspeople: Steve Cohen (TN), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Ed Markey (MA), Dennis Kucinovich (OH), and such well known figures as Geena Davis, Danny Glover, Jane Fonda, Phil Donahue, Laura Flanders, Robert Greenwald, Jesse Jackson, Chellie Pingree, Norman Solomon, John Stauber, and of course Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, as well as dozens of other editors, publishers, authors, academics, critics, pundits, and even some know-nothings. Some who were scheduled to be there, like journalism legend Ben Bagdikian, had to cancel on account of illness.

It was of course impossible to absorb everything. In addition to all these busybodies there were some five dozen exhibit booths, representing just about every cause you could think of -- including not only church and denominational interests but even the Communist Party. For example, during "concurrent" work shops on just about every related topic under the sun, it was just impossible to attend a dozen fascinating sessions at once.

We had huge name badges and even some "mainstream" media coverage. I spied a woman from ABC News and a variety of local (Memphis) media representatives. So the movement is on the verge of being recognized by the so-called mainstream press.

I did not see a hateful, vicious right-wing self-appointed censor, Cliff Kincaid from the so-called "Accuracy in Media" hate sheet, who has spent the past week since the close of the conference peddling on his weblog the notion that we were a cabal of "communist" plotters out to attack the glorious flag-waving corporate media system that provides for us all the freedom and patriotism we'll ever need. Look up AIM to get the full flavor. It is perhaps a mark of the movement's progress that it is now being attacked big-time by the dark forces of prejudice who are defenders of "free speech" only for the rich and powerful.

And while you're at it, look up Media Reform, and the organization that made all the arrangements, Free Press, based in Northampton, Massachusetts. You can get most of the major addresses on streaming video from their web pages.

One major wellspring of this now robust Media Reform movement are the team of John Nichols and Bob McChesney, a professor of journalism and communication at the University of Illinois. John is a bright and experienced political reporter, based in Wisconsin, who has the twin responsibility of being national political correspondent for the "Nation" magazine, and the editorial page editor of the Madison, Wisconsin "Capital Times."

John teamed up with his friend Bob McChesney to start the "Free Press" organization, and to attempt to get like-minded people together at the first Media Reform conference in Madison some three years ago. They were expecting a couple of hundred attendees and nearly 1,700 showed up. I was there and caught the full flavor of the keen interest of participants from all over the U.S.A. in doing SOMETHING to stop the blatant commercialization and commoditization of news, the censorship of diverse opinions, and the difficulty of giving the American public the basic information necessary in a democracy to make informed judgments and decisions. Many learned for the first time the blunt fact that the airwaves, the radio waves, the TV waves, and the internet waves do not belong to the corporations but to all of us -- the public.

In May, 2005, Nichols and McChesney decided to try again, with a lot of help from everywhere, and the 2nd national Media Reform conference was held in St. Louis, with an attendance of (some 2,700) about 1,000 more than in Madison. I went to that one too.

Now the third -- with yet another 1,000 more -- has made history in Memphis.

It was timed to coincide with MLK Day (January 15) and Amy Goodman stayed an extra day to devote her January 15 program to the status of the civil rights struggle, and its historical roots in Memphis. She has become a stalwart proponent of the proposals McChesney and Nichols have put forward, and for those of us who believe in the critical need of unbiased and complete information for our society, the Media Reform movement is fast becoming the civil rights struggle of our time.

Just saw your quote from Chris Cobb, and his comment about Cynthia Mathews echoes my own experience. She has never once said a word to me when I've met her in person at any point since my campaign for City Council, not "hello", not anything - in contrast to Tim F. and Mike R., with whom I've had actual conversations. I'm not sure what is up with this, or if this treatment is confined to (ex-) City Council candidates... I was really surprised when she responded (first time ever) to the email I sent all the candidates asking why their opposition to Prop. 90 (the "takings" initiative) hadn't been higher profile. I wonder if it will take Chris Cobb another four years to get an acknowledgment of his existence from Cynthia? :)

Thomas Leavitt

P.S. I voted for Chris Cobb myself. I agree with him on the lawn signs issue... it is a basic viability signal, and when Bruce Van Allen didn't have them up in a timely fashion, I certainly was left wondering, and as a result, I wasn't particularly caught off guard by the ultimate outcome. But, the real issue is $ - raising significant amounts, and early. Want a level playing field? Try public financing (aka "clean money") - but don't ask this City Council about it, given that most of them voted to de-fund the major benefit associated with complying with the weak campaign finance limitation ordinance: the free mailing to every household in the city.

This statement below from Paul Elerick's comments that were part of your recent newsletter is inaccurate, I believe. Don Perata was not President of the California State Senate at the time of reapportionment. It is my recollection that former Senator John Burton of San Francisco held that position and was the person responsible for Santa Cruz being cut up and left without the direct representation we once enjoyed.

"another state government "mandate" being pushed by the California Home Builders Association and their allies, along with our friend State Senator Don Perata. Remember him? He led the way to reapportion the 11th State Senate District to make sure the Central Coast (i.e. Santa Cruz) didn't get a chance to be represented by one of us in the State Senate."

Ted Burke
Shadowbrook Restaurant

I am raining on the PRT parade. Have been, privately, for some time. It's time to go public. "Why?" one might ask. Glad you asked. Here's my why: PRT is not an answer to livable communities. It will only be part of the problem and it will never replace the automobile, the bicycle or feet. As with every other technological new system, the PRT infrastructure will be in addition to, not instead of, the already heavy hand of roadways that define this community's landscape. It will be a visual blight; it is a development of City landscape and airshed that is not necessary. In other words, it is a public works project that we are expected to support, like biodiesel, because it has a green label attached to it.

On top of everything else, you stated that one of its benefits was that it "means huge tourist dollars" and that "it would also mean a link for the 3.5 million tourists that visit the Boardwalk each year to go downtown to shop."

Are we seriously thinking of building another recreational ride from the Boardwalk to downtown?

Pardon me, why on earth do Boardwalk visitors need a PRT to walk the one half mile from the wharf to the Pacific Garden Mall?! If the City required the clean up of Pacific Ave. from Depot Park to Laurel St. and planted some trees along the route, tourists even might find the walk enjoyable.

As long as I am being grumpy on this, I'll add that I remember when downtown was a place that residents could meet, shop and do business. Why do we keep harping on getting more and more tourists downtown? Where are all the familiar faces I used to see walking up and down the Mall? Gone. Nowadays, the place is packed, cheek to jowl, with tourists and those "other" tourists, the transient UCSC students. Only Tom Scribner remains; maybe that's what the rest of us will become: statues to remind tourists that once upon a time downtown was a part of the community rather than a painted whore to lure tourist dollars.

One parting shot at PRT. Why the push for rapid? Why do we have to provide speed for everyone, everywhere, all the time? What the heck's the dang hurry?

I regret not making it to the PRT conference last weekend. I'll contact Ed Porter (my absolute favorite & respected City Councilmember, by the way)
and see how I can share my thoughts in a productive, rather than naysaying way. Promise.

Jean Brocklebank

Thanks to all who supported my campaign and to the Santa Cruzans who voted for me. Special thanks to my treasurer, Kate Gilligan, and my graphic artist, Lisa Hochstein.

I'm very disappointed with this outcome. Here are some thoughts as I try to understand the results and learn for the future.

Of course, I have to note that when defeated candidates talk about campaign tactics they are seen as denying the political significance of their losses; conversely, when they talk about political trends they are suspected of hiding their campaign mistakes. So I will cover both: the political direction of the City and campaign mistakes and successes.

• We don't yet have the final vote counts, so I haven't done any precinct analysis. Of the returns so far, I have noticed that a substantial number did not vote for three candidates.
• This election strengthened business politics. Was that what the voters thought they were getting? This will be tested in the coming months, as development projects move through the system and budget priorities are set.
• Lynn Robinson, in particular, will be on the spot as soon as there is a conflict between some neighborhood interest and the expectations of her business backers. Does she have economic as well as political conflicts of interest, say in the beach area?
• Mike and Cynthia expressed their previous commitments to neighborhoods and the environment, but their emphasis is now on economic development as the answer to the City's fiscal needs.
• The City leadership has had some success arguing that the scope of City government that we expect can only be sustained through new revenue-generating development (providing sales or hotel room tax, or parking fees). It will be important to make sure this business-booster logic isn't used to justify sacrificing environment and neighborhood quality.
• The dominant themes in active neighborhood politics today are safety and City services that enhance property values. This yields a much more conservative outlook than most neighborhood organizing here over the past thirty years.
• Business owners, who have often despaired of electing strong business advocates in Santa Cruz, had extra motivation to get organized because of feeling under direct attack by Measure G. The Locally Owned Business Alliance (LOBA) now has a campaign victory to notch next to its seated Council endorsements.
• I think Santa Cruz voters still expect high social service levels and protection from over-development, but the most motivated sectors of the community in this election were more attuned to the themes of Measure H: roads, parks, & public safety.
• My campaign started late, because I only got the idea to run in late June. The biggest consequence was that I didn't have someone lined up to coordinate my campaign, and when I still hadn't found someone by the time the work accelerated, I just hunkered down and worked harder myself. Not having a coordinator was a serious mistake that prevented my campaign from absorbing help from others in the later stages of the election.
• I found a strong positive response from all audiences to my suggestion that major development proposals should be planned by the community before the specific projects are designed.
• Lynn ran an effective, long-term campaign, using techniques mastered locally by progressives. She received extensive publicity over the past 2 years as spokesperson for SC Neighbors. She warmed up helping Neal Coonerty's campaign in the Spring elections. Emulating her, a candidate for the 2008 election would be already be preparing.
• Years ago we observed that no candidate could get elected here without saying they were for the environment. Something similar seems to have happened with the term "progressive." In a previous campaign season the who's-the-true-progressive game was played from the left. This election, Lynn played it from the right in her slick brochure...
• While the ascendant business forces are smart and organized, there is no guarantee that they will continue to rise in Santa Cruz politics. They may stumble over their tendency to see growth as inherently a good thing, which blinds them to growth's costs as well as to the recognition that many people here disagree with them.
• 2008? Contact me if you have ideas.

Best,

- Bruce

Bruce,
I know that you're busy writing about the election stuff, rightly so. But I've just arrived in Kassel, Germany for a two month run at a Varieté theater here and I'm jetlagging so ... I'm web surfing (hey, maybe Santa Cruz could be the official Web Surf City USA) and I came upon a story that I think you'd find interesting ... So, I'll tell you about it.

I don't know how you felt about that SciFi film, Serenity, that came and went last year. It was an extension of a tale told through a short lived television series called Firefly.

The TV show had a fan base but Fox showed the episodes out of order, bumped some for sports, and insisted that the writer happy up the characters. Whatever ...

But when it was canceled, the fans did like those Trekkies long ago and wrote letters and organized campaigns online to support the series. The result was a huge response when the series shows were sold on DVD and that helped to persuade Universal Studios to make the film.

Universal, following the lead of the writer, encouraged the fan base to promote the film through various means ... viral video campaigns, posters, and other original fan art. Universal even maintained a website wherein fans were allowed to list sales of their film-inspired art work on T-shirts, coffee mugs, fridge magnets ... all for the sake of promotion of the film.

Actually, critics loved the film but ticket sales were so-so. Then again, the DVD came out and fan promotion helped it not only go to the top of Amazon's sales charts but it brought the TV series DVD up to #2 on the same chart at the same time.

Okay ... so what ... SciFi sales and online geeks.

But now it's a year later and this week Universal's lawyers are sending out letters calling on the same fans to cease and desist. No more sales, even if the items don't actually depict characters or scenes from the films or series. Bummer for the "Browncoats" (this is the name that the fans took from the rebel characters that the film depicts for themselves). But while the first of these letters went out to a woman known as 11th Hour and she scrambled to bring her items for sale into compliance with the C&D order, they sent a second letter demanding about $9000 from her. A retroactive invoice for sales of items that they say violated their property rights.

Naturally, the online Browncoat community went electric. Mostly they are still in love with the film and still hope to persuade Universal to do a sequel. The talk in their forums is mostly that of young people who don't have any legal knowledge offering legal advice to each other ... but my favorite response is that these fans who worked tirelessly to market and promote this product for free ... have now produced timesheets and a retroactive invoice to Universal ... at the moment the bill has reached $1,682,325

If you saw the film, you'll know that one of the catch phrases is "Never give up" and another is "Can't stop the signal" and they have a ton of those sorts of expressions to fuel themselves.

They don't really want to fight the corporate power ... but I like seeing it myself.

Tom Noddy
PS Of course I voted before I left home.

Oh yeah ... and watch for the Worker Bee who will be downtown on Halloween night handing out Yes on G fliers. She isn't part of the official campaign, just her idea of how to spend Halloween

SANTA CRUZ – In anticipation of the November 7th General Election, Community Television will air a series of election forums covering the local issues and candidates on the ballot this fall. Coverage began in early October and will run through Election Day. Included in this year’s coverage are forums for all the local City Council races (Watsonville, Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley), selected education and special district races, Pajaro Valley Unified School District and several forums on the Santa Cruz City minimum wage ordinance.

As part of the election coverage, CTSCC has produced a program on the education and special district races. Candidates running for local school boards, water districts, and the Santa Cruz Port District were invited into CTSCC’s studio to give a three-minute presentation on their platform. School districts represented include PVUSD, Santa Cruz City Schools, Scotts Valley Unified School District, Live Oak Elementary School District, and Loma Prieta Elementary School District. Special districts represented include Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency and the Santa Cruz Port District.

The PVUSD Forum covers number of issues and races of interest to the Watsonville Community. In addition to the PVUSD election, this forum covers races for the 28th Assembly District, County Superintendent, and Watsonville City Council. Also covered are Measure L (1/4 cent sales tax) and Measure M (cap on retirement tax).

All programs will air on Comcast Channels 25 & 26 and Charter Channels 71 & 72. A full schedule of play times is available on the web at www.communitytv.org/schedules. Viewers should use the keyword “forum” to search for programs. Viewers can also get scheduled times by calling CTSCC at 831-425-8848.

Santa Cruz City Council Candidate’s Forum Live
Oct. 25th, 7 pm, Channels25/71

PVUSD Trustee’s Forum
10/22 8 pm, channels 26/72
10/23 6 pm, channels 26/72

Education and Special Districts Candidates Forum
10/17 9 am, channels 25/71
10/18 5 am, channels 25/71
10/19 1 am, channels 25/71
10/23 12:30 pm channels 25/71
10/24 1 pm, channels 25/71

Capitola City Council Candidate’s Forum
10/17 10 am, channels 25/71
10/18  3 am, channels 25/71
10/18  9 am, channesl 25/71
10/19 2 am, channels 25/71
10/28 4 pm, channels 25/71

Minimum Wage Ordinance Forum
10/17 2 am, channels 25/71
10/17 4 pm, channels 25/71
10/19 4 am, channels 25/71
10/19 10 pm, channels 26/72
10/20 12 pm, channels 25/71
10/22 1 pm, channels 25/71
10/27 12 pm, channels 25/71

SC City Council Candidate Forum (additional one)
10/18 2 am, channels 25/71
10/19 6 am, channels 25/71
10/27 3:30 pm, channels 25/71

Watsonville Candidate Endorsement Forum
 (Pajaro Valley Cesar Chavez Democratic Club)
10/17 2:30 pm, channels 25/71
10/18 12:30 am, channels 25/71
10/19 7 pm, channels 25/71
10/22  7 pm, channels 25/71
10/23  10 pm, channels 26/72
10/26 10:24 pm, channels 26/71

PUBLIC LOSS, PRIVATE GAIN

Last Thursday, the Planning Commission heard a proposal to build 16 units, totaling 32 bedrooms, on the strip of land adjacent to Frederick Street Park. This site, formerly occupied by a small Kingdom Hall and owned by Jehovah's Witnesses, has been sold to people who have submitted plans to build 4-2bdrm units w/ 544 sq. ft. garages, 5-3 bedrm units of 2873 sq. ft. w/ 427 ft. garages, 1-3 bdrm unit of 3282 sq. ft. w/ a 427 sq. ft. garage and 6-1 bdrm units (ADUs) of 423 sq. ft. each on the R-1-5 site. The building height is proposed to be 3 stories (30 ft.); in order to accomodate the buildings, access road, and parking, 2 heritage trees would have to be felled.

While "infill" is a worthy concept, all those attending the General Plan Update Workshop at Gault School on Saturday, September 16th emphasized that such projects should be located on major transit corridors. Lower Frederick Street has no public transit options; Route 68 bus runs only 1x/hr and travels east only to Seabright before turning toward the ocean; the project site is 1/4 mile below the transit corridor on Soquel Avenue.

The entire city was deficient in park space even before the approval of all the housing units at the Tannery, at the George Wilson site, on the Lau property, on the Lutheran church site on Soquel, on the N. Pacific site formerly occupied by the Crepe Place, and on the significant number of sites throughout the eastside where R-1-5 properties are now being converted to such dense "planned developments". Are there going to be protective use limitations built into the next General Plan so that this zoning cannot be subverted this way?

ADUs are a PERMITTED use on R-1-5 lots, not a required one and the 5000 sq. ft. size is a MINIMUM. All the proposed lots are substandard for the proposed uses.

In the mid-1970s when lower Frederick St. was proposed for condo development, 2 visionary City Councilwomen, Carol De Palma and Sally Di Girolamo, fought for park space against a city administration whose attitude was that "no park was needed because, after all, we have the beach." This park is used all day every day of the year by residents throughout the city, many of whom testified against the proposed project last week, citing the high level of existing traffic on the constrained street. One of the ephemeral assets of this park is sense of space, of light and air that is provided by the viewshed through to the harbor and across to 7th Avenue. This would be totally lost by being hemmed in by this development and would subvert the public spaces into the "front yards" of these buildings.

There is no precedent for such a project in the city; in Palo Alto, such a project would have been required to do a full EIR. The previous attempt to develop a project that required such a barrelful of variances was the Manson project at High & Cardiff, a project that resulted in a lawsuit filed by Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. on behalf of neighbors on the upper Westside. The city lost that lawsuit.

Here is the city's only foreseeable chance to help reduce the city's park space deficit - the only real choice for this parcel is acquisition by the city and its addition to Frederick St. Park.

However, the 5 sitting Planning Commissioners did not deny the application but suggested changes that "might reduce the public opposition" and scheduled the project for another public hearing on October 5.

So. Now is the time for the gathering of signatures on petitions calling for the city to trade this property for a site suitable for one on a transit corridor, one suitable for high-density development or to purchase it outright w/ CIP and/or trust and/or redevelopment funds.

I jumped head first back into my work at UCSC, especially after having been behind in many areas because of the supervisor election. I was visiting student intern sites during July in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. (All folks in Iraq have to do is look at what has happened in Nicaragua since the US-supported Contras basically scared off folks from voting for the Sandinistas in 1990. The Reagan-led US govt. left Nicaragua in a shambles after the 1990 election.) Hunger, not known widely in the 80's is readily apparent in 2006. I am heartened though by the UCSC students who work on coffee cooperatives (a creation during the Sandinistas which are still going strong). Santa Cruz students work alongside small coffee farmers and then help market the coffee once they come home. For example, all the UCSC dining halls serve organic, fair trade coffee.

Also been spending a lot of time with my kids. Because of campaign they too did not see me very much. I was back east visiting friends and relatives in August (NYC)...got to Memphis (conference) and New Orleans too...Still strikes me as strange to see very large (15 feet high) statues of Jefferson Davis, Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, and Robert E. Lee in places like Memphis and New Orleans, both cities are now majority African American and so is the political culture and political power centers. Lot to learn there for me. And you know what...I flew in and out of Jackson, Miss. and the airport has been renamed, Jackson-Evers Int. Airport, after civil rights icon Medger Evers!

It is truly a crime what has been allowed to go though on in the Crescent City though--by this administration yes, and by historical statewide Louisiana political power pockets...New Orleans has suffered vast destruction on a scale I have never seen (I was in Mexico City in '85 (8.9 quake), I reported on the '86 Salvadoran earthquake for City on a Hill, arrived back soon after the SC quake in '89, and found myself in the middle of the Oakland Hills fire of '91. Guess what? They all pale in comparison to what New Orleans is like today...unbelievable! And this is a year later. Bush ought to be impeached for losing what for me has always been one of the GREAT American cities--jazz being perhaps the greatest American contribution to American music...W. should have/could have (now that I think about it) moved his Texas vacation to New Orleans and worked (a la Jimmy Carter) on cheerleading and rebuilding. What a statement that would have been!

ISRAEL MAKES SOME AMERICAN JEWS IRRATIONAL

Like other progressive Jewish friends, a retired psychology professor justified the invasion of Gaza and then Lebanon. "Israel fights terrorism to meet its legitimate security needs," she stated -- a simple fact. This sadly included routine attacks against civilians in Lebanon and even depriving the Palestinians in Gaza of food and water. "They had to do it. How do you fight fanatics?" she said, sadly but firmly.

She used "fanatics" as code for members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, "should be killed so that Israel could enjoy some peace. Look at how many good Jewish people have died," she said, referring to Israeli civilians and soldiers -- some were Israeli Arabs -- who perished during the war against Lebanon.

In the 1960s and 70s, this woman marched for civil rights and protested against the Vietnam War. She still thinks of Cuba as a progressive place and opposed Bush's Iraq War. But on Israel, she applies different criteria. "Why should Israelis suffer because of extremists, like Hezbollah and Hamas?" And the suffering Israel imposed on Palestinians? I asked. Each month residents of Gaza die from Israeli violence at the rate Israelis die from opposing force every two decades. "Too bad they have to suffer. They refused good chances repeatedly. Look how they rejected peace at Camp David, referring to the "generous" offer by Ehud Barak in July 2000."

In several versions of events at that summit, presided over by Bill Clinton, all agree that Israeli and American negotiators offered Arafat a Palestinian state based on Israel turning over more than 90% of West Bank land to the Palestinians along with Gaza and a land passage between the two. Israel would have pulled out of 63 settlements. The agreement allegedly called for Arab East Jerusalem to become the new capital. Refugees would have the right of return to Palestine, and would receive reparations from a large international fund. Arafat would concede Israeli sovereignty over the religiously important parts of the Western Wall.

Arafat refused the offer, but had no counterproposal. Clinton pushed, indicating that Arafat's silence indicated "you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions." Rob Malley, Clinton's adviser who attended the meeting, claimed "Barak was eager for a deal, wanted it achieved during Clinton's term in office, and had surrounded himself with some of Israel's most peace-minded politicians." Clinton blamed Arafat for the summit's failure. A subsequent non-written Clinton plan, to which Barak agreed, fell apart just before Clinton left office in January 2001 when Arafat objected to Israeli control of parts of the Western Wall. Soon after, Sharon replaced Barak as Prime Minister. Arafat gave the nod to violence as a Palestinian strategy, thus freezing negotiations. Three days before Clinton left office, Arafat supposedly said "you are a great man." "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one." (Ma'ariv, April 6, 2001)

Arafat's failures as a leader do not explain why Israelis think that violence will prevail after decades of failing to win peace and security through that tactic. Why would Palestinians in Hamas and Lebanese in Hezbollah change their minds because Israel bombs them? After all, from 1948 on Israelis drove Palestinians from their homes and destroyed their villages. Now, their angry kids and grandkids, whose numbers have multiplied, confront Israel. "Israel," my professor friend averred, "is a democracy. That separates it from those other regimes." She, like Progressive Zionists in Israel and the United States, believe that Israel must survive both as a "Jewish state" and as a democracy. Zionism as an ideology brought Jews back into the mainstream of world history. Ironically, many of the leaders of the movement to create a Jewish state were also atheists, who did not think initially that orthodox Jews, whom they sneered at socially, would play a heavy role in determining the contours of the Jewish state. Some Israeli founders, socialists and humanists believed that Jews and Palestinians could live together in a Jewish state. But if the one person one vote rule applies, the future of a Jewish state will face the fact that Arabs outnumber Jews.

Israel has responded to the growing Arab birth rate by luring Jews -- including lots of Russians, whose "Jewishness" appeared somewhat dubious. They tried to "settle" them in the occupied territories. Some Orthodox rabbis even sanctioned the recruitment and conversion of descendents of Peruvian Incas who were transported to the West Bank and recruited into the IDF. Some of this "settling" followed the Oslo Accords of the mid 1990s, which at least in spirit vitiated against such encroachments on Palestinian land.

This expansion process led to an increased role for the military -- to protect the new enclaves. More Palestinians had to move, and more holes grew in the shrinking and non-contiguous Palestinian territory. Militant and ultra right sects, frustrated over Israel's inability to force the remaining Palestinians out, became violent. In 2004, a group of the late Rabbi Meyer Kahane's followers, linked to the Jewish Defense League in the United States, assaulted Arabs trying to harvest their olive crops. When John Ross and others volunteered as peaceful witnesses to try to deter the attacks, a gang of thugs wearing skull caps descended on him and beat him so badly he had to go to the hospital for a week. Ross protested at them "beating an old Jewish man." They called him "traitor" as they brought their baseball bats down on his body.

In 1984, the "scholarly" equivalent of such thuggery emerged in Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine. Palestinians never existed, she asserted. Those who call themselves by that name are recent immigrants, she argued. The book became a big seller and received rave reviews from the New York Times and Washington Post and from noted authors like Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman and Elie Wiesel.

Noam Chomsky concluded that the Peters book justified Israel eliminating Palestinians from the area because it would raise "no moral issue, because they're just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country." (Understanding Power, 2002) Norman Finkelstein, then a graduate student at Princeton, read the book, checked Peters' sources and then accused her of perpetrating a fraud. In Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995), Finkelstein used Peters' own sources to show how she had fabricated and distorted the evidence.

In England, Paul Blair (April 20, 2002) also refuted the Peters thesis, "that the land was empty when the Jews arrived and that the Palestinians are recent arrivals." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2135. Blair called From Time Immemorial a "work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries ... distortion and fabrication... She cribs uncritically from partisan works. She conceals crucial calculations, and draws hard conclusions from tenuous evidence. She speculates wildly and without ground. She exaggerates figures and selects numbers to suit her thesis. She adduces evidence that in no way supports her claims, sometimes even omitting "inconvenient" portions of the citation... She "forgets" undesirable numbers in her calculations. She ignores sources that cast doubt on her conclusions, even when she herself uses those sources for other purposes." Most scholars now accept the fallacies of Peters' thesis of non-existent Palestinians. But the fear many liberal American Jews share for Israel's future is expressed by condoning behavior they have rejected from their own country. My professor friend, for example, felt that Israel was justified in kidnapping elected Hamas Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Al Shaer from his West Bank home on August 19. "How else do you fight terrorists?" she replied. Israeli heroes like Itzhak Shamir and Menachem Began once earned the terrorist label. In 1946, they helped blow up the King David Hotel and dispatched scores of civilians. They sent letter bombs to British officials. The label also applied to one of her heroes, Nelson Mandela. I watched her squirm as I reminded her that in 1976 three Israeli heads of state Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin hosted apartheid South Africa's Prime Minister John Vorster during his visit to Jerusalem.

"I guess," she said, "that survival can force people to associate with the Devil." On August 19, Israeli survival called for a raid on Lebanon, violating the UN backed truce that ended the five week war. "The secretary-general," the newspaper story said, "is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701." On August 21, Israelis again crossed the border to kill supposed Hezbollah "terrorists." One Israeli solder died. On August 23 Amnesty International accused Israel of committing war crimes against civilians. When Jews die in conflicts tinged with anti-Semitism, I share my fellow progressives' concern. But the number of Lebanese and Palestinian civilian dead and wounded far surpasses that of Israel. Do progressives actually believe that continued bombings will turn Palestinians and Lebanese into obedient neighbors, free of anger and hatred toward those who took their land? Landau's new book, A Bush and Botox World can be ordered through Counterpunch.

From the Desk of Neal Coonerty, Third District Supervisor-Elect

510 King Street, Santa Cruz CA 95060
831-818-2325
For Immediate Release
August 21, 2006

Neal Coonerty designates aides for Third District Office

Third District Supervisor-Elect, Neal Coonerty, announced today that he has designated three aides to staff his County Government Center office. Linda Wilshusen, former Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, Rachel Dann, political consultant and former staff to Congress member Sam Farr, and Andrew Schiffrin, current staff to Third District Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt, will be appointed as aides to Supervisor-Elect Coonerty when he takes office January 8th 2007. Rachel Dann will serve as a full time aide while Linda Wilshusen and Andy Schiffrin will each work half time.

“I am gratified to be able to have such an experienced team with me when I take office in January”, said Coonerty. “There are many serious issues facing this county and I know that Linda, Rachel and Andy will help address those issues in a positive and effective way. I have no doubt that with this team I’ll be in an excellent position to hit the ground running.”

Wilshusen retired from her job of 19 years as Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission at the end of 2004. She has been active in community service activities including chairing the Mental Health Client Action Network’s Building Toward Wellness Capital Campaign as well as working with Live Oak Neighbors and the Cultural Council. “I’m happy to temporarily come out of retirement during the next year to help out our new 3rd District Supervisor” remarked Wilshusen.

Dann, who most recently worked for Coonerty as campaign manager during his Supervisorial campaign, previously worked as a Field Representative for U.S. Rep. Sam Farr in Farr’s Santa Cruz District Office. Dann moved to Santa Cruz ten years ago to earn her M.A. in History at UCSC. She has served on the Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee and is active in local Democratic clubs.

Schiffrin has had a distinguished career serving as an aide to County Supervisors Gary Patton and Mardi Wormhoudt. He has a degree in Urban and Regional Planning from MIT and a BA from UCLA. He has served on several Santa Cruz City Commissions and been involved with many community groups.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (831) 786-9225
Website: sv.ca.lwvnet.org
MaryEllen Dick, President
League of Women Voters

Women’s Equality in Political Life Still Unrealized After 86 Years

League of Women Voters Marks Anniversary of the 19th Amendment with Pride and Concern

Salinas, California – August 26th marks the 86th anniversary of the day that the U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. Today, American women now comprise more than half of our nation’s voting age population, but according to the League of Women Voters, the struggle to become full participants in the political life of the country has yet to be fully realized.

“The anniversary of the 19th amendment, Women’s Equality Day, provides us with an opportunity to reflect with pride on the progress made on voting rights in the past 86 years, including our very recent success in renewing the Voting Rights Act,” said LWV of Salinas Valley President MaryEllen Dick.

“But, it is also a time to acknowledge the work that still needs to be done,” said Mary- Ellen Dick. “Our democracy is at risk. Partisan gerrymandering, special interest money, and government corruption have shaken Americans’ faith in government. Citizen participation in government has faltered when it is more critical to safeguarding our democracy than ever before.”

Re-energizing civic engagement was the charge given to newly elected national League President Mary G. Wilson by the League’s grassroots membership at the LWVUS Convention in June. “The League is a unique organization because every day, we do the hands-on work that democracy requires. Our members educate new citizens and first-time voters about their rights and responsibilities, we monitor our system of checks and balances, and we help protect our natural resources. Our network of energetic and engaged members in communities across the nation is dedicated to making an impact - from their own communities to Washington, D.C. We need more of this kind of participation,” said Wilson.

In 1919, as the struggle to have the states ratify the 19th amendment began, the League’s founder Carrie Chapman Catt said that the watchword was 'Eyes front'. Wilson echoed this sentiment, “Today is a time to reflect on this important achievement in history, but it is also a time to look to what comes next – what still needs to be done to make democracy work for all in our country. We know that the first step is broader participation and as it has for more than 86 years, the League of Women Voters will continue to serve as the place where leaders across the country and in Salinas, California can volunteer to effect change and make democracy work.”

###

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages the informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. Membership in the League is open to men and women of all ages. With more than 86 years of experience and 850 local and state affiliates, the League is one of America’s most trusted grassroots organizations.

For Immediate Release
Contact: Vince Cheap
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Santa Cruz Chapter
(831) 477-1660, e-mail: vince@sasquatch.com
http://www.cruzcnps.org/

CNPS and Friends of Arana Gulch File a Lawsuit Against the City of Santa Cruz

(August 11, 2006) Santa Cruz, CA – California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and Friends of Arana Gulch (FOAG) filed a lawsuit Thursday against the City of Santa Cruz challenging the Arana Gulch Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At issue is the project's potential to adversely affect a genetically significant population of Santa Cruz tarplant. The tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) is listed as "endangered" by the State of California, and "threatened" by the federal government. The project would build a 340 foot long bridge over Hagemann Gulch, a ramp spanning Arana Creek, and two 8-11 foot wide paved bicycle routes through tarplant critical habitat.

The Arana Gulch Master Plan also violates the California Coastal Act, which prohibits development in environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). The City admits that the project will create a "significant and unavoidable impact" to the tarplant and ESHA, yet approved the project despite these impacts.

The City's EIR failed to consider alternative bike routes that do not cross the ESHA of Arana Gulch Greenbelt. There are many bicyclists who do not support the paved bike route across Arana Gulch Greenbelt because of the Project's impacts on endangered species. Bicyclist Don Fong, a westside resident and project opponent said, "It's a sad day for bicyclists when the City uses bicycling as an excuse to pave over the critical habitat of an endangered species. I'm proud to stand with the growing number of bicyclists who are saying, 'Not in our name!' "

The Arana Gulch Greenbelt is a 67.7-acre parcel of land located approximately 1.5 miles east of downtown Santa Cruz. It was acquired after voters passed Measures O and I which called for the preservation of greenbelt land. It was purchased by the City of Santa Cruz in 1994. In October 2002, the US Department of Fish and Wildlife Services designated Arana Gulch as "critical habitat" for the Endangered Santa Cruz tarplant.

The City Council approved the Arana Gulch Master Plan EIR on July 11, 2006, despite the fact that most people are opposed to building a bike route through Arana Gulch Greenbelt. For over 10 years, members of the community have spoken against this project. They refuse to sit silently by and let this project pave over tarplant habitat. CNPS and FOAG are standing up to protect critical habitat for endangered species along the California Coast.

Additional press contacts:
Jean Brocklebank, FOAG (831) 462-4919 jeanbean@baymoon.com
Patti Jazanoski, FOAG (831) 471-0615 paj999@yahoo.com http://members.cruzio.com/~arana