“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” -Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night

By Vern Nelson
OC Voice Columnist

Huntington Beach environmentalists who remember the 1990’s and the struggle to protect Bolsa Chica Wetlands, who still refer to State Senator Tom Harman as “Tommy,” express puzzlement and dismay over what became of the genial councilman who once seemed to care about his district’s natural resources.

The “moderate” Assemblyman who was such a valuable ally to local greens as recently as 2005, helping bring the wetlands under public ownership, has, since ascending to the state Senate in 2006, become one of the most malign Sacramento politicians on environmental issues, earning a 19 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters this past year.

Too many voters remember Harman as the Sierra Club’s 2^nd best-rated Republican assemblyman for his advocacy of the wetlands, for which he secured state funding, and his widely hailed coastal protection bill banning the import, sale and possession of Killer Algae.

During Harman’s first term, when he was still willing to work with the Democratic majority, he obtained $5 million for the Orange County Water District for a desperately needed Groundwater Replenishment System Project. As recently as Feb. 2006, receiving a Legacy Award from the California State Parks Foundation for his “tremendous ongoing commitment to the environment,” he proclaimed, “I remain committed to doing all I can to preserve and protect the natural resources of California.”

With the support of many Democrats and independents, including many south county environmentalists who applauded him for his opposition to extending Highway 241 through San Onofre Park, he barely squeaked past harsh hard-right harpy Diane Harkey in 2006’s special election, despite her labeling him “the most liberal Republican in the assembly.”

But his conversion from environmental friend to foe upon ascending into the Senate was sudden and drastic. Last November he announced that he had “re-thought his position and endorsed completing the toll road,” as reported gleefully by right-wing Republican operative Matt “Jubal” Cunningham on his Red County/OC Blog.

Jubal went on to exult, “Kudos to Sen. Harman for joining the side of the angels on this issue. Needless to say, gaining the support of someone with Harman’s strong green credentials is a coup for toll road proponents and a PR defeat for 241 opponents. Hopefully, Sen. Harman can impress upon the Governor there is no contradiction between supporting the 241’s completion and being a good steward of the environment.”

Here we see how valuable the other side finds a traitor. (Of course the senator was on the losing side in this tussle, as he almost always is lately, but he did build up anti-environmental cred for his re-election.)

Harman’s woeful 19 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters is based on his votes this year against well over a dozen bills that this moderate organization deemed important to California’s environment. Among them were such wild-eyed liberal brainchildren as SB1002 for Delta Projects, SB17 for Condor Protection, AB1032 against Dredge Mining, SB17 for Flood Protection, SB411 for Renewable Energy, and AB888 & 1058 for Green Buildings.

One bill in particular, which Harman voted against, should concern Voice readers: Senator Alan Lowenthal’s SB974 for Clean Ports.

We’re close enough to the Port of Long Beach to be affected by the heavy diesel pollution in the area. SB974 (which passed the Senate but is currently being held up in the Assembly) will levy a $30 fee on each shipping container passing through California’s ports, with half of the fee going toward reducing air pollution and half to improving the efficiency of cargo movement (by among other things improving the rail system). This bill would have had at least as much as a positive impact on the Orange Coast’s quality of life as Harman’s work on Bolsa Chica, but he voted against it and shored up his right-wing credentials.

Harman’s jumping through anti-environmental hoops for his taskmasters has not been limited to cranky minority “no” votes. He actually introduced legislation last year to make it easier to build in undeveloped urban areas. As reported in the Voice (”Harman: Shorten EIR,” May, 2007) his SB427 would have drastically shortened the Environmental Impact Report developers would have to file for new urban projects.

Harman boasted to us that the California Building Industry Association had chosen him to be the bill’s sponsor specifically because of his “good environmental credentials” at the time. The bill’s status, thankfully, is “inactive”; but Harman was so proud of his attempt that he requested permission to make 200 copies of our article, apparently to show around Sacramento that he had indeed changed his tree-hugging ways.

Some of Harman’s old Bolsa Chica allies charitably suggest he’s just misreading the values of the new parts of the 35^th Senate District, which includes Newport Beach, Irvine, and other conservative south county towns that were not in his assembly district. But this is what we learn from reading the right-wing blogs:

Harman was terrified by his 2006 nailbiter of a victory over Harkey, and was threatened with a primary from reliable right-wing Assemblyman Chuck Devore unless he proved his “conservative” bona fides to the Orange County Republican leadership. Which he immediately did, by firing and replacing his old staff with reactionary true believers, voting against everything he had previously held dear, and forsaking his environmental concerns for strident anti-immigrant rhetoric-a brand-new obsession he’s taken to with a vengeance. More on that in the next Tipping Point.

By John Earl and Lisa Wells
OC Voice

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama accuse each other of bowing to “big oil,” and Huntington Beach mayor, environmentalist and Democratic candidate for congress, Debbie Cook, has taken hits in the local media for having large investments in oil corporations that many people blame for the global energy crisis that she has warned the public about for years.

Cook’s corporate investment records have always been on file at City Hall and open to the public, as required by law, but they have gained attention lately due to her desire to be the opponent of incumbent Dana Rohrabacher, and be elected in November to represent the 46^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Cook’s fossil fuel related investments, including natural gas, totaled between $72,000 and $710,000 from March 2007 through March 2008.

As an investor, she probably made the right choices: ExxonMobil, which made a record $40.7 billion last year; BP, the world’s 2^nd largest oil producer; and, CanArgo Energy Corp, Chevron, El Paso Corp, Schlumberger Ltd Netherlands, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and the Brompton Oil and Gas Income mutual fund.

But Cook’s alleged hypocrisy was the main topic of analysis in news accounts and editorials by the Orange County Register and the Huntington Beach Independent.

The Independent excoriated Cook for investing in oil companies that harm the environment-instead of companies that “make money off of environmentally friendly technologies.”

And Register opinion editor Steve Greenhut wrote in his blog that “It’s just funny when environmental advocates preach one thing, then do another with their own dollars.”

Editorial cartoons in both papers showed Cook greedily awash in oil stocks while advocating energy conservation.

But both papers overlooked Cook’s other provocative, non-oil, investments, including General Electric, which has a “a lengthy record of criminal, civil, political and ethical transgressions, some of them shocking in disregard for the integrity of human beings,” according to Corpwatch.org, and the Walt Disney Company, which has a record of severe labor rights violations in China and other developing countries.

Also of interest are up to $100,000 of now disposed of stocks that Cook held in Archer Daniels Midlan, “Supermarket to the World,” in 2006. The company is the largest American producer of corn derived ethanol fuel, which creates its own harmful pollution and raises food prices, thus contributing to a worldwide food shortage for people living in poverty.

Wise Investments?
Cook, clearly frustrated by the attention to her portfolio, told the Voice she is “a bit amused by the media [and] how it labels us and then wants us to defend those labels.”

It’s simply about creating a financially secure retirement for her and her husband, Cook has said.

“I don’t have any other way to invest my money so that I can have a retirement,” she argues. “There’s no way. Probably the least risk is energy investment. If someone can figure out a way to invest money profitably [and ethically]” she would like to know.

Cook’s Record
Despite her conflicting investments, Cook’s environmental record is impressive. She played a leading role in passing Measure C, which protects the city’s parks from arbitrary development, and successfully sued the Coastal Commission to stop development in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.

She is also widely respected as a knowledgeable and passionate advocate for energy conservation in response to “peak oil” and serves as chairperson of the Environment Committee for the Southern California Association of Governments.

One of her greatest accomplishments was a resolution passed by the city council that signs Huntington Beach on to the U.S. Mayor’s Agreement on Global Warming.

On a personal level, Cook often rides her electric bike or uses public transportation to get around. Her yard grows native plants instead of a water guzzling lawn. She is a vegetarian. She lives in a luxurious Sea Cliff home, but pays $0.00 in electric bills because of a state of state of the art solar panels installed on the roof.

Conflict of Interest?
Cook’s investments have not been related to her local city council votes, but as a congressperson she would certainly be voting on important oil related issues with national and worldwide implications.

In February, the Democratic Party controlled House approved legislation to end tax breaks for oil companies and use the saved revenue to develop renewable energy sources and encourage conservation.

The bill is far from becoming law, but Democrat Edward Markey, chairman of the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, challenged the oil industry to give up $18 billion in tax breaks and pledge 10 percent of all profits toward renewable energy.

Executives of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Conoco Phillips declined the offer.

Cook said that the “rational for providing subsidies to oil companies no longer exists” and that “The private sector and the national labs need to be able to count on a continuing commitment to funding no matter which party is in power.”

Conflict of interest won’t be a problem if she is elected to Congress, Cook promises, claiming that she is no more conflicted than government employees, including teachers, who “are heavily invested in the energy sector.”

“Had I known I would be running for office,” she reflected, “I would have placed all of our holdings in a blind trust. If I am fortunate enough to be elected, I will do just that.”

Defending Corporations
Although some of Cook’s strongest supporters were angered when they read about her oil investments, she has been consistent over the years. Despite her past clashes with local developers, Cook is no Ralph Nader; like the anti-corporate populist, she advocates individual responsibility, but unlike him she has carefully avoided criticizing the corporate power structure, especially “big oil.”

In a Voice interview in March, Cook acknowledged that the Iraq war, which she opposed, was about oil, but said she doesn’t blame corporations because “…we have only ourselves to blame,” referring to Americans’ insatiable desire for oil.

“Industry isn’t irresponsible, people are,” she says.

Oil companies are scapegoats for the gas guzzling public and are living up to their obligation to look for energy alternatives, Cook told the Register.

That claim might hold true with Chevron, which claims to invest over $300 million yearly in developing alternative energy sources, especially geothermal; believing that by 2050 oil may not be its main source of income.

But ExxonMobil makes no such pretense, preferring a more tried and true road to profitability over investment in alternative or renewable energy technologies that, like Cook, it considers less economically viable.

‘Greenwashing’ & Oil Crimes
Other big oil companies have been accused of “greenwashing,” the practice of putting up a false pro-environment front for the public in order to boost sales and profits for their brand.

Shell, for example, promotes its green credentials through its “Profits or Principles” marketing campaign, but spends only between 0.6 and 1.1 percent of its annual investments on renewable energy, according to environmental and corporate watchdog groups.

BP, the world’s second largest oil producer, renamed from “British Petroleum” to “Beyond Petroleum” as part of a public relations campaign to remake its image as a leader in green energy, bought Solarex, a large solar energy corporation, for $45 million, but spent over $2 billion exploring for oil in Alaska in 2006.

Accusations of corporate crime, gross damage to natural resources and human rights violations in other countries also impugn the reputations of some of the oil companies Cook has investments in, including ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP.

ExxonMobil, for instance, still hasn’t paid the $2.5 billion it owes to 33,000 fishermen and other business owners whose careers were ruined by the massive oil spill that occurred when a company tanker crashed off the coast of Valdez, Alaska in 1989.

Until recently, the company provided millions of dollars to fund the Global Climate Coalition and similar groups that debunk global warming.

And, according to human rights groups, ExxonMobil provided funding to the Indonesian military which engaged in massive human rights violations against protesters, including torture, rape and murder.

Similar allegations have been made against Chevron in Nigeria, a country with a huge wealth in oil supplies, but whose people live in abject poverty and are allegedly denied jobs by the company that is exploiting their natural resources. A lawsuit charges Chevron with collaborating with the Nigerian military to kill local activists and burn their village in retaliation for protests.

Media Hypocrites
Cook’s response: Other industries commit environmental and social crimes too.

“What about all the ‘silent’ killers in the paper industry, agribusiness industry, meat production industry,” she asked.

“One of the MOST polluting industries in the world is the PRINTING industry,” Cook claims, implying that the media is overlooking its own complicity in abusing natural resources for personal profit. “Oh well, I guess even YOU have to compromise your principles,” she concluded.

By John Earl
OC Voice Editor

An environmental scientist for the California Coastal Commission says that the cost of water to be produced by a desalination plant approved by the city of Huntington Beach has been greatly underestimated by the developer and that proposed mitigation measures for its impact on ocean marine life are inadequate.

The project was approved by the H.B. City Council (including current councilmembers Don Hansen, Keith Bohr, Cathy Green and Gil Coerper) in Feb. 2006.

The remarks were part of a letter to Poseidon Resources Inc., the multi-national corporate water corporation that will oversee construction of the plant that would suck in 100 million gallons of ocean water every day and convert it into 50 million gallons of drinking water. Poseidon plans to co-locate with the AES power generating plant on Newland Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway to take cost-saving advantage of the plant’s “once-through cooling” system to gather the ocean water it needs for conversion.

Once-through cooling systems are also used by 20 other antiquated power plants along the California coast and suck in 17 billion gallons of seawater each year, killing virtually all the marine organisms passing through their membranes, a significant contributor to the 60 percent decline in marine species, according to a 2005 report by the California Energy Commission.

A recent court ruling, as well as legislative trends and a resolution by the California State Lands Commission, are bringing once-through cooling to a close, sooner or later. “It’s the end of once-through cooling systems in the U.S.”, Surfrider Foundation desalination expert Joe Geever told the Voice in September, adding, “AES is fighting the changes tooth and nail.”

Incomplete Application & Promises

The 7-page-letter, dated June 27, 2007, was a “Notice of Incomplete Application” for a Coastal Development permit and cited numerous instances where Poseidon had given incomplete information or made dubious claims about permits, environmental effects, environmentally friendly alternatives and costs related to the project in response to a similar request for information a year earlier. Nearly 2-years later, the information is still not forthcoming, according to the CCC’s Environmental Scientist, Tom Luster, who wrote the letter.

Poseidon’s desalination plant would take publicly owned ocean water, convert it to tap water, and sell it back to the public for a profit. Organized opponents to the project criticized the company for ignoring key environmental impact issues and questioned whether the plant would ever be built, considering rising costs of fossil fuel and electricity needed to operate it, and a lack of buyers for the expensive water-as high as $2,000 per acre-foot-it would produce.

Poseidon told the city of Huntington Beach that the project would cost (Poseidon) about $150 million in capital to build and promised it would produce water for sale at around $800 per acre-foot, but that amount was based on government subsidies that might not materialize.

Since then, Poseidon has claimed a cost of $355 million and water at $950 per acre-foot. But Luster’s letter challenges those estimates, stating they are much lower than estimated costs at other proposed and co-located facilities, and that “Poseidon’s response does not provide an adequate basis for these substantially lower costs.”

Luster told the Voice that $1,400 - $1,500 per acre foot is “what we are expecting for that project,” about 4 or 5 times the cost of local well water used in Huntington Beach and 3 times the cost of recycled drinking water that will be produced by the Orange County Sanitation District.

The letter attributes Poseidon’s lower cost estimate in part to its claim that it will pay $0.07 per kilowatt-hour for electricity needed to run the facility. “This appears to be a much lower rate than is available for the proposed project,” it says. The cost would actually increase about $50 per acre-foot for each $0.01 per kilowatt-hour, “so the published rates would increase your proposed water costs by at least several hundred dollars per acre-foot,” the letter states.

Luster asked Poseidon to supply a copy of its contract with AES, which it had refused to do in the when asked by the city of Huntington Beach, along with a sample electrical bill to help clarify how it arrived at its unlikely cost estimate.

The letter also challenges Poseidon’s assertion that mitigation for environmental damage already taken by the AES power plant is sufficient, since the desalination plant would be using the same water intake system and in theory would not create addition environmental stress.

The AES mitigation was limited, however, to a smaller amount of water flow coming from two of the plant’s four generating units, while the desalination plant would add significantly more water flow than previously studied, the letter says. Besides, it states, the Coastal Commission did not approve the AES mitigation, which does not generally meet its standards.

Other points made in the letter:

Poseidon’s own research shows that a subsurface ocean water intake system, favored by environmentalists, would be economically feasible, while creating “fewer adverse environmental impacts” than the company’s proposal.

Poseidon has not provided sufficient information describing or providing “feasible mitigation measures” for the desalination plant’s future effects on coastal resources from the estimated 200 - 250 million pounds of carbon dioxide it will emit into the air.

Nor has Poseidon provided permits to create a 12-mile-long pipeline needed to transport the desalinated water it produces through Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa.

In fact, the Voice has learned, Poseidon is currently negotiating franchise agreements with Mesa Consolidated Water and the city of Huntington Beach. Former Costa Mesa mayor Peter Buffa is Poseidon’s negotiator and is briefing city council members on a proposed plan to replace a water line in return for permission to use the new one for transporting its water.

H.B City Administrator Paul Emery told the Voice that the city is negotiating with Poseidon but that any proposal for the City Council’s consideration was “not eminent.”

Multiple attempts by the Voice to get a response from Poseidon were no more successful than the Coastal Commission’s efforts.

In an e-mail address to other Poseidon CEOs and obtained by the Voice, Senior Vice President Nikolay Voutchkov, wrote, in response to written questions from the Voice: “Let me know if you need any support in responding on these questions. We have already addressed them in our last response to the CCC. This guy has an outdated info.”

But in an e-mail that followed, Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Kingman, replied: “no reply necessary, John Earl is not a friend and we won’t get anywhere with him.”

By John Earl
OC Voice Editor

Dan Kalmick of Seal Beach is the other Democratic Party Primary candidate seeking to unseat Republican Dana Rohrabacher and represent the 46^th Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Kalmick is a technology consultant for small and medium size businesses in Orange County and a member of the Orange County Fire Authority. At 25-years-old, he is relatively young for politics, and with little funding or name recognition outside of his home town he seems an unlikely victor. But he sees himself as the more moderate candidate who appeals to voters across the political spectrum by offering real solutions to the problems they care most about. He was interviewed in downtown Huntington Beach recently by the OC Voice. The following questions and answers are excerpts from that interview. For more information about Dan Kalmick go to his web site: www.kalmick2008.com.

The other two Democratic Primary candidates withdrew and supported you and you all said that Debbie Cook would be too liberal and to divisive [to win].

Right.

How are you less divisive than her?

Debbie Cook has a history of environmental activism. I don’t think Republicans and moderate decline-to-states are going to vote for her. She has a history of [putting] the environment over people. And in this district, 20,000 Republicans have to step across and vote for a Democrat [to win].

How are you different from Cook on the environment?

She was quoted in 2006 as saying that she thinks that low gas prices are bad. She’s saying that [with] high gas prices of $5 a gallon the people in the United States are going to converge and say ‘OK, we need to change our bad ways.’ I just don’t think that’s going to happen.

She’s saying that lower prices aren’t going to happen, anyway.

I disagree with that.

How are you going to keep those prices down short of nationalizing the oil companies, like in Venezuela?

I’m a big person for incentives. Basically, what they have now is that they are selling oil at the worldwide market price…If you’re going to pump oil domestically, you’re going to need to be able to sell it at a price that is not set by a cartel of people..

What’s wrong with higher prices if the profit from that, instead of going to the oil companies, goes to making alternative energy and it discourages people from creating more global warming?

I understand your point. If you look at Europe, if you take out all the taxes it’s roughly what we pay for oil. They have a $3 tax on every gallon of gas. It goes to public transportation infrastructure and goes for other things… Public transportation infrastructure in Southern California-it doesn’t work.

We don’t fund it properly.

Exactly. If you bring gas to $6 a gallon it’s not going to hurt anyone in this district. It’s only going to hurt a very small number. They will be able to absorb the costs [and still drive]. Gas has gotten to almost $4 a gallon and people are still driving big trucks in this district….It affects poor people. That’s the whole concept that I am trying to get across, that $5 a gallon isn’t going to affect the average person in Huntington Beach or the average person in Newport. It’s going to affect the person in Middle America.

Why not take the tax out of that $6 and apply it for public transportation that the poor can use?

Right, but that’s a 20-year-plan. You can’t just say we want public transportation now. But you’re going to have to look at it as a longer stretch. We need to do something in order to bring gas prices back down, but at the same time work at it at the national level and start working on alternative fuel.

Do you think that gas is going to get cheap again?

There’s ways to do it….

How cheap do you think it will get?

We’re going to need someone in the federal government to stand up and say ‘We’ve got something wrong going on here’ in order for gas to get cheap again. I can’t predict how chap it will get, but–

But that’s hype…for the most part. It’s not the solution.

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that housing prices and energy prices are starting to go up and there’s a direct multiplier on our food and our other supplies that have nothing to do with gasoline because they have to be shipped locally…We need federal incentives for companies to really start investing in alternative fuels and alternative energy.

Global warming aside, what makes you think that the environment isn’t an important issue for people in Huntington Beach across the political spectrum?

I think that it is, but I don’t think that it is the number one issue. I think a lot of the people in this district are concerned about the economy and immigration. A lot of my clients are Republicans and small business owners. They care about the environment. A lot of them are in Westminster, Costa Mesa, Long Beach, Seal Beach…Fountain Valley and Westminster-I mean, she talks a lot about coastal issues…So, Westminster, that’s not talking to them. They want to hear, ‘How am I going to get more money back from my profit, how is business going to succeed and what is going on with immigration?’ That’s where I really haven’t seen any solutions to any issues that she’s [Cook's] got up.

You said that you wanted to answer some of the questions that she didn’t answer in her interview with the Voice. So, what are those questions and what are your answers?

You asked her about impeachment and about Haliburton and she didn’t know about that. If you are running for federal office, you should absolutely know what the Bush administration and Haliburton are doing..Publicly traded corporations in this country are broken…Look at Wal-Mart, low prices and low morals. They strategically set it up so that they get as many tax breaks as possible and in the long run they are hurting their employees. They have been successfully sued by their employees for poor labor practices. And they’re screwing up the environment too…

So you think you have a more pro-labor stance than Cook?

Absolutely.

Would you vote for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act?

(Long silence) Are you going to give me a little more information on the Taft-Hartley Act?

If you’re pro-labor you ought to know that. The Taft-Hartley Act is the cornerstone of the decline of the American labor movement. It passed in around 1950 and cut union strength by putting forth regulations about who can be in a union and a lot of other amendments to it. Ralph Nader says that he would vote to end Taft-Hartley. No Democrat when he’s been in the presidency, even when the Democrats controlled the House, has ever tried to repeal Taft-Hartley. So, how can a candidate be pro-union if–

Absolutely. I would absolutely evaluate repealing Taft-Hartley.

What about impeachment (of Bush and Cheney)?

I absolutely support impeachment. I supported Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment that he introduced.

Immigration reform?

We are looking at this completely wrong. The war on drugs ties into a lot of why people are coming to this country from Mexico. Because we’re propping up these governments that are corrupt and they’re not monitoring property rights. Peoples’ homes are taken by larger groups by eminent domain down there. And the drug running is making it unsafe. You can’t start a business down there because you have to pay drug protection money. Look what happened in Tijuana a month ago…So if you have a country that is stable and can perform its own jobs, they’re not going to come here to look for jobs. It’s an economic issue too. People are not going to here to do work if there are no jobs.

What about the effect of NAFTA on immigration?

NAFTA stopped working when China jumped into the mix. NAFTA completely lost all its effectiveness. It worked for the first couple of years when we were building factories down there. Andthen China came along and said we will make it for 10 percent of what Mexico is going to do it for and all the jobs went over to China. And the problem is that we have no leverage in China because they own all of our debt.

What about the theory that our corporate imperialism in Mexico has caused the immigration flow in the United States? And that is has increased with NAFTA?

I agree…we got all the people to move up to the boarder. They started working in these manufacturing jobs we were creating and then we bail out. There are empty factories all along the border on the south side. We need to work with Mexico so that they can get their economy stabilized, not just throw $1.4 billion dollars at them like we did last month in the war on drugs, because that goes to the corrupt politicians down there and the drug runners pay them off too. So they’re just getting richer and the people there are suffering. We don’t need to alienate these people. We don’t need to spend a fortune building a wall down there. The terrorists came in through Canada.

Do you see any need to change our absolute support for whatever the state of Israel does in the occupied territories?

The state of Israel is one of the few democracies [in the region]. Israel is working very hard with Palestine to stop the terrorism there, to form a separate country for them. When they formed Israel they didn’t kick everyone out. It’s a 2,000 year old struggle going on that George Bush thinks he can solve in the last year.

But by giving our absolute support to Israel aren’t we contributing to the problem? It is an apartheid state there, with the wall. People are starving. Eighty-three percent have to get aide from the United Nations or they starve. Israel keeps taking more territory and violating treaties.

Our big issue, I think, is in Saudi Arabia. The whole anti-Zionist idea, I think, is ploy in some sense…I think it’s really about the oil and our idea about Mecca and Medina. I absolutely support Israel and what they’re trying to accomplish.

What about the rights of the Palestinians, who because of that wall are starving, the land that they’ve lost and treaty after treaty that’s been violated by Israel?

The United States needs to work with Israel and pressure it to come to a reasonable solution.

How would you pressure Israel? Doing so is the death nail of most Democratic Party candidates.

It’s a very complex issue. It’s been going on for 2,000 years, so we need to get the parties talking again…And we need to get the balance….Israel really needs to focus-they’ve decided that they’re going to do a two state–

But how are you going to get Israel to do that? Would you say to it what we say to other countries, that we’re going to cut off aide?

I don’t think it works. Because the whole idea of cutting off aide is to have the people rise up and overthrow the government that’s oppressing them and I think that–

Let’s say some aide.

I don’t think that’s the way to do it. If people are starving that makes them more–

The Israelis aren’t starving. The Palestinians are. So how do we pressure the Israelis to live up to their treaties?

We have to talk to them and say look it’s better for everyone. They understand this, but they’re getting attacked and bombed at the same time…We need to get the president to really start pressuring Israel, but at the same time we’ve got far greater issues of national security. Israel I don’t think Israel is the cause of a lot of those national security issues. I think that the cause is in the Gulf and allying ourselves with certain powers that fundamentalist Jihadists are disagreeing with and are saying ‘that’s why we don’t like you.’ It would behoove us to start listening to why we do we need more bases in Saudi Arabia.

How are you going to run this campaign? Cook says she’s going to raise $1 million for the race. What’s your game plan?

Our game plan is extremely grass roots. We’re going door to door.

Cook has the support of the Party hierarchy, Loretta Sanchez. Funding will come to her.

That’s still in the air.

If she gets the nomination, right, but she’s got the support.

She’s got the support of about 50 people in the Democratic Party [hierarchy] in Orange County.

I’m sure she’s assuming the primary will be a wash.

We don’t think that she’s going to be able to beat Dana Rohrabacher in November because we don’t think she can pull enough voters. We’re really going after the Independents and the Democrats who don’t know who she is, because the district is so long and large that-their claim is that the Democratic Party likes her because she is an elected official and that she has some name recognition. I disagree with the name recognition.

She’s a lot better known than you are anywhere in the district.

Absolutely.

I never heard of you until this election.

I have strong recognition in Seal Beach which makes up 33,000 residents of the district. I’m saying I’m not an environmental activist. I haven’t said that low oil prices would be a bad thing. We support small business heavily because I started several small business as start ups, I worked with small business throughout all Orange County and I see that they’re really hurting. And we’re talking small business owners a lot of who are Republicans and we’re discussing, even with the Independents. With the Democrats I’m a fresh face in the Party. I’m not beholden to anyone. I don’t have 8 years with people who I have to do favors for, the people who supported me.

You can’t get elected without being beholden, can you?

We’ll be beholden to people who support issues that I support. I’m fine with that because I’m not beholden to them because I already agree with them…We have solutions to problems that Republicans like, we have solutions to problems that Independents like, we have solutions to problems that the Democrats like. And I haven’t seen solutions from Debbie Cook, explicit ideas and ways to solve issues in health care. She’s for single-payer, but how are you going to do that?

Are you against single-payer health care?

I’m absolutely for single-payer, but I’ve looked into it and I’ve figured out how we can actually do that.

How about State Sen. Sheila Kuel’s bill?

I really model our plan on France’s. Are you talking about SB840? I like it…but I really support the way France runs their system.

Why have you chosen congress instead of city council? It seems like you would be a good candidate for Seal Beach City Council as a first step, and then on from there.

My background is in technology. I grew up with it. I’m educated in it. I started my first technology business when I was 11-years-old, and a lot of those technology issues are handled on a national level…

Did any of Cook’s supporters call you and ask you to drop out?

No one has asked me to drop out…The reasons I stayed in the race as well is that I don’t think anyone should ever run unopposed. I really want to raise issues.

If you don’t win, what are your future plans for politics?

We’ll cross that bridge in June when we come to it. We’re optimistic.

Or Joe & Cathy’s Ungodly Patriotism

By John Earl
OC Voice Editor

“Yes! Yes! Yes! Congratulations, you guys down there,” Bakersfield City Councilmember, Jacquie Sullivan, said over the phone when reached by the OC Voice.

She must have been smiling from ear to ear, just like Jan Crouch on Trinity Broadcasting Network, when she rejoiced, in her bouncy Bakersfield country-style voice, “I just heard about it, that’s very exciting news.”

Sullivan is the founder of In God We Trust - America Inc., a non profit 503c3 organization formed in 2002 “To promote patriotism by encouraging elected city officials to display our national motto ‘In God We Trust’ in every city hall in America.”

She was talking about the April 7 vote by the Huntington Beach City Council to make “In God We Trust” the city’s new motto to be hung in the council chambers.

The council debate preceding the vote was a sectarian skirmish, ill-timed for Mayor Debbie Cook, a democrat, who wants to replace republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher next November to represent the 46^th Congressional District,* where God and country are a normal part of political discourse and decision making.

In 2002, during her first one-year term as mayor (councilmembers rotate yearly to fill the position), Cook respected God and Country by keeping the two separate, as many believe that America’s most authoritative guide to law and order-the U.S. Constitution-requires elected officials to do-by not holding city sanctioned invocations.

Since starting her current term as mayor, however, Cook has followed tradition and the invocation is part of the city council’s official routine.

Cook, who told the Voice in a March interview that “I don’t talk about religion,” bristled when asked then if her change of heart had anything to do with her campaign for congress. “No! The Constitution has a prohibition against religious tests…So what was the next question you’re asking me,” she snapped.

But when questioning your opponent’s Christian and patriotic credentials might be a better way of defeating her in the election than filing frivolous lawsuits against her (for calling herself the mayor on the election ballot, as Rohrabacher’s friend, Mike Schroeder, did) or talking about your own record of service to your constituents, the God questions tend not to go away.

Just ask Rohrabacher, who knows how easily God and Country can keep you in office in the 46^th if you use it to justify an illegal war, torturing prisoners and eliminating habeas corpus, all while evoking the “rule of law” to deport “illegal” immigrants and demanding amnesty for vigilante border patrol agents convicted and jailed for wrongfully shooting them.

Conflict of Interest
Besides penalizing vigilantes, the rule of law also prohibits non-profit groups like In God We Trust from mixing charitable and political goals. Curiously, however, the group’s web site cautions donors to follow rules based on language that closely follows federal campaign financing law.

“To comply with Federal law, we must use best efforts to obtain, maintain, and submit the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle,” the web site cautions.

That looks suspicious to H.B. resident Mark Bixby, the citizen watchdog who discovered the peculiarity. “[I]t’s clear to me that this organization also has a political agenda,” Bixby wrote in a mass e-mail, “Which also raises questions about their 501(c)(3) status.”

When asked why a charitable organization would cite federal election law, Sullivan said that she would “have to look at that,” adding that the group’s web site in continually being updated and improved.

Even more curious is the presence of Mark Abernathy on the In God We Trust executive board as its secretary. Abernathy happens to be the founder and president of Western Pacific Research Inc. (WPR), another Bakersfield based organization, which is “dedicated to electing Republicans to Federal, State and local areas of government,” according to one WPR web site, and “is involved with multiple organizations effectively promoting the beliefs of the Republican Party.”

WPR boasts of its involvement in all aspects of campaign organization, including campaign strategy, marketing and fundraising. “We identify opponent strengths and weaknesses, and create profiles of voter groups and undecided voters who can be targeted with specific messages,” it states on the group’s other web site.

WPR claims it played a pivotal role in the political success of many Republicans, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that it advises Sullivan and manages In God We Trust.

Abernathy did not respond to a Voice inquiry, but Sullivan, after acknowledging that “We’re kind of political, I guess, but we’re…just patriotic Americans,” denied that Abernathy was active with In God We Trust or that his involvement in it created any conflict of interest with the group’s non-profit status.

“Absolutely not at all…Mark happens to be one of the ones who helped me originally get the organization going. But… he’s not actively involved,” Sullivan insisted, adding that her group’s mission is solely to “promote patriotism by training elected officials to display the motto, In God We Trust.”

That goal has been realized in 31 California cities so far, including three now in Orange County. Starting March 8, Sullivan says, “Over a two week period I e-mailed our information to every city in Orange County,” for distribution to city councilmembers.

That information also cites court rulings that say the motto has become nothing more than “ceremonial deism” over time and does not violate the concept of separation of church and state embedded in the First Amendment.

American History
Sullivan’s view is that “In both war and peace, these words have been a profound source of strength and guidance to many generations of Americans,” and that there’s nothing religious about the motto.

But the full history of America’s official motto goes back to 1776 when Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by the Continental Congress to a committee charged with designing the Great Seal of the United States. Franklin’s suggested motto for the seal, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” was rejected for “e pluribus unum,” Latin for “”One from many parts,” referring to the melding of the colonies into a single nation.

From that point on, any attempt to use God as a national motto had clear religious and political motivations. In 1864, In God We Trust appeared on coins intended to show that God was on the Union’s side in the Civil War.

In 1956 during the Cold War between “Atheistic Communism” and the “Christian Capitalism,” President Eisenhower signed a bill that officially adopted the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto. The action was part of a nationwide movement, previously featuring the political witch hunts of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, to stifle leftists and liberals by labeling them as subversives.

But fellow republicans and Rohrabacher allies Cathy Green and Joe Carchio, who put the motto proposal on the city council agenda at Sullivan’s behest, claim child-like ignorance of McCarthyism-”I was too little,” Green told the Voice-or of how the word God could possibly have anything to do with religion, or be used as a political ploy to damage Cook’s campaign.

“I don’t know why all the sudden this has become political,” Green told her council colleagues, “When invocation was removed, I didn’t attribute it to politics. When I brought it back (during her term as mayor), I didn’t attribute it to politics.”

Carchio, who is a Catholic but “not a real religious person,” told the Voice that, “It has nothing to do with religion.” As for using religion to hurt Cook’s campaign, “I never thought of it that way,” he said.

Patriotic Memories
“It’s all about remembering,” Carchio said, awkwardly reading a prepared speech from the city council dais. “We have stop signs, street signs, speed signs. What does that remind us of?..It reminds me of the freedoms we have as Americans.”

For Councilmember Jill Hardy, who considers herself “very faithful,” it is impossible to equate the motto with patriotism or believe that God has nothing to do with religion. “I don’t think of America when I hear the words In God We Trust…If we want to be patriotic, why don’t we post ‘Proud to be American’ in our council chambers?”

The motto is either religious and not suited for a public building or political, she said. “And if it’s a political motivation, to me it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain and I absolutely oppose that.”

Mayor Pro-tem Keith Bohr objected to the divisiveness of the proposal. Most of the people who spoke during public comments and who wrote to the city council were opposed to it, although occasional rounds of applause from the audience seemed to favor the motto-helping to prove Bohr’s point.

Cook slammed the proposal. A motivating factor for the “first Americans to come over here,” she recalled from American history, was their rejection of the divine right of kings. “I think that Americans also reject the divine right of governments,” she said.

Why not unite people by citing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address, Emancipation Proclamation or the Federalist Papers, Cook asked. “There are so many wonderful words that our early Americans put on paper and any of those would be much more patriotic than this.”

The motto was constitutional, she agreed, “but that doesn’t make it a wise idea. It’s a cheapening of religious faith,” and “absolutely being done for political reasons.”

Councilmember Gil Coerper reasoned that the motto would bring people together because he saw it in the Supreme Court. “Now, is that political,” he asked. “I think not,” he said, answering himself.

Then Coerper argued for more than 5 minutes in favor of a non-existent proposal to put the matter to an ad hoc committee, in the same way that Councilmembers Hansen and Green recently guided through a proposal for unlimited campaign contribution limits for city council candidates.

Cook made a substitute motion to turn the question over to the city’s Human Relations Task Force “in order to weigh exactly which patriotic message they would like to present to the people of Huntington Beach.”

Still confused, Coerper then tried to make his own substitute motion, but it was out of order because he mistakenly thought that Green’s original motion to adopt the motto had been defeated and that Cook’s motion was now the original.

Cook kindly explained that she had made her substitute motion so the matter is “not subject to political whims.”

Suddenly refocused, Coerper quickly assumed the mayor’s role that he once held prior to Cook’s current turn, saying, “Please vote,” to his colleagues.

After they did, Cook’s motion failed 4-3 and Green’s original motion passed 4-2-1 with Bohr abstaining.

*The 46^th includes all of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Avalon, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and parts of Long Beach, Westminster, Santa Ana and San Pedro.

Why I Proposed a Spay and Neuter Ordinance

By Keith Bohr
Mayor Pro-Tem, Huntington Beach, California

I have had a few former elected officials over the past few months advise me that one should not meddle when it comes to people’s children or their animals. Definitely information I could have used a year or more ago!

So why did I propose the City of Huntington Beach adopt a “Mandatory Spay Neuter Chip” Ordinance?

A quick look at the numbers:

Six million cats and dogs in the United States are euthanized each year. In California approximately 800,000 dogs and cats end up in taxpayer-funded shelters every year and more than half are euthanized at a cost of more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

Orange County Animal Care Services, contracting with 21 cities, including Huntington Beach, picked up 29,690 stray animals in 2006. Despite commendable efforts by the county to reunite these animals with their owners, or to adopt them out to new owners, the county still had to euthanize more that 12,000 dogs and cats that year. Huntington Beach, which pays the County approximately $400,000 annually for animal control, accounted for more than 1,500 dogs and cats that were picked up, and 40 percent of those were euthanized.

We are killing too many of our pets!

Most of the opponents of “Mandatory Spay and Neuter” (MSN) are from the “breeder” community. They are unrelenting and usually less than honest in their stated rationale against such a proposal. They implore the “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing anything and everything up against the wall, hoping something will stick. The bottom-line is, although most of them agree we do kill too many of our pets, they argue against any form of a MSN ordinance and are content with the status quo.

Their “kitchen sink” approach goes something like this:

• MSN is a bad policy because it is unenforceable and irresponsible owners will continue to be irresponsible (unless you make it illegal to be irresponsible);
• service dogs, police dogs and show dogs will vanish (completely false since they are all legally exempt from MSN);
• the only dogs in shelters are old dogs turned in by their owners and the rest are pit bulls (currently there are 50 dogs at the County’s shelter of which 27 are two years old or younger and only 11 are pit bull or pit bull mix);
• this is just more “nanny government” proposal (we are a community of laws for the better good);
• and “My pet is my property, nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property.” (Hello Mr. Vick?).

Other potential solutions? Huntington Beach and other cities could build their own “no kill” shelters. But analysis indicates that to serve a population of approximately 200,000 people, 3.5 - 4.5 acres of land would be required. Studies state that the net cost to operate such a facility would be in the range of $7.00 per capita or $1.4 million paid by the city’s 200,000 residents.

The study I read did not address the cost of construction of the shelter itself. I estimate that for a 10,000 square foot facility at $200 per square foot it would cost at least $2 million.

In addition to building and operating costs, we need to address the cost of purchaseing the land for a city owned shelter, which at market rate would be in the range of $6-8 million.

All said and done the City of Huntington Beach would need approximately $8-10 million to build a new facility and another $1.4 million annually to operate it. That makes the $400,000 Huntington Beach pays the county each year seem like a bargain in comparison.

One enthusiastic proponent of having Huntington Beach build and operate its own local shelter suggested that we could get the land for free! Huh? Sure, just use some of the land the city owns in Central Park. Say what?!? Did you not see what we all suffered through in order to narrowly get voter approval for building a new senior center in an undeveloped portion of Central Park? No thank you!

As usual with complicated issues there are no easy solutions, only difficult and expensive ones.

In any case, please seriously consider spaying or neutering as well as micro chipping your pets. And if you want to add a pet to your family, please visit one of the many local shelters and/or rescue groups before considering making a purchase from a pet store or breeder. Go to www.ocpetinfo.com for more information.

Isn’t $250,000 Enough?

By John Earl
OC Voice Editor

As a candidate for governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed “I don’t need to take any [campaign contribution] money from anybody else; I have plenty of money myself.”

And he warned that, “Any of those kinds of real, big, powerful special interests, if you take money from them, you owe them something.”

Five years later, Governor Schwarzenegger has collected over $124 million in campaign contributions from special interest groups, the largest chunk, over $20 million, coming from real estate, development and construction concerns, according to ArnoldWatch.org. And critics say he has served the needs of corporations over the needs of the people.

While cynics, who lament the loss of “one person one vote” to “one dollar one vote,” created by corporate donors and PACS, and call for public financing of campaigns as a solution, Huntington Beach Councilmember Don Hansen and some of his colleague’s think they have a better idea: allow unlimited individual campaign contributions to city council candidates.

Last August, Hansen proposed increasing the current $300 limit to $500 retroactively, but removed the latter when skeptics objected that past limit violations could be covered up. A subcommittee was then formed to study the overall issue of campaign regulation reform and to make recommendations to the city council at a later date, which it did at a March 17 study session.

Hansen chaired the committee and councilmembers Cathy Green and Jill Hardy joined him along with several H.B. residents. The committee met 5 times and reviewed campaign regulations for 7 other Orange County cities and the State.

Two main issues remain unsettled: spending limits and whether to redact personal address information from electronic (Internet) filings of candidates’ financial contribution updates.

How Much Money is Enough?

Several proposals for campaign contributions are on the table: keep the current $300 individual limit, raise it to $420, or to the approximate $3,000 limit, linked to the Consumer Price Index, that applies to state wide political races or remove all limits.

Hansen criticized “third party independent money” that he said “has completely taken over the process,” but his voice trembled with resentment toward labor unions, “who rely on votes of this council to get their pay raises,” although he received an endorsement and a $300 contribution from the city’s police union in the 2004 election.

Speaking from direct experience, Hansen complained that, “It’s hard to come back when you are hamstrung with a $300 limit and the other side can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars unrestrained.”

But Mayor Pro-tem Keith Bohr doesn’t feel so hamstrung and wants to keep the $300 limit. Mayor Debbie Cook said she preferred a $100 limit.

“I stand unconvinced,” Bohr said, pointing out that $250,000, not including self-loans, was raised by 6 current council members in the past two city council elections (2004 and 2006). The lowest amount raised by a candidate was $17,000, the highest $49,000 (Councilmember Cathy Green), for a $36,000 average, he claimed.

“For a local non-partisan race, I think there is plenty of money there,” he said. “I don’t think anybody here is going to be influenced by a couple of $300 checks, but…for a couple of $3,000 checks they can have a lot of influence.”

Councilmember Green doubted that many contributors would increase their check amounts even if allowed to. “I can’t imagine anybody giving $3,000 to a lot of people…If you look at ours, there is less than 100 $300 checks anyhow” going to city council candidates.

Green’s own campaign report for just one 6 month period from July through December in the 2006 city council election shows that 55 percent of a total of 106 contributions received were for $300, for a total of $18,600. That amount accounts for 36 percent of a total of $49,532 raised by her campaign to that date.

The importance of even multiple smaller contributions seems clear from Green’s own report, but if those contributions come in amounts of $3,000 or larger, the effect is even more pronounced.

Green, who voted for the Poseidon Inc. desalination plant approved for construction next to the AES electrical power plant in southeast Huntington Beach, received 16 real estate industry related contributions of $300 from July through December 2006 alone for a total of $4,500.

One of her contributors was a real estate PAC associated with the California Association of Realtors that also gave over $83,000 to state senators, usually in chunks of $3,000 but two at over $5,000 and one at $10,000, to support Senate Bill 318 that requires an Urban Water Management Plan to promote desalinated water as a long-term water supply. Tens of thousands of dollars were also contributed from other real estate sources to state senators who voted on the bill, which became law in 2002. In 2003 the passage of Proposition 34 implemented a $3,000 limit, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index, for state legislative campaigns.

During the short time from Oct. 17, 2004 through the end of Dec. 2004, Hansen received 11 contributions of $300 each from real estate interests, including 2 PACS, for a total of $3,300. Another $600 came from a local auto dealer and an Orange County auto dealer PAC. Poseidon Inc. executives contributed $700 to Hansen during the same period. On other occasions Hansen received money from the H.B. Fire Fighters Association and a PAC for mobile home park owners.

Under Hansen’s proposal for no monetary limits, Green and other council members might have collected tens of thousands of dollars more from powerful real estate interests, an amount that local environmentalists could probably never hope to counter balance.

But Green remains unconcerned. “I don’t care about the amount of the money as long as we’re consistent,” she said.

Hardy favored an increase to a $420 limit as a compromise related to increased postal costs. Councilmember Joe Carchio agreed with Hansen and Councilmember Gil Coerper leaned in favor of no limits

Outside Special Interests

During public comments, H.B. resident Larry Gallup objected to city council candidates receiving money from outside the city. Again, Green was unconcerned. “Generally it’s not from outside of the city. A lot of times it’s from our parents and brothers and sisters and friends. So, I’m not going to get rid of that,” she said.

But 45 percent of Green’s 106 contributions for the 6 month period were from outside of the city, including Utah, Connecticut and D.C. and 64 percent of the $300 contributions she received were from outsiders. Only one, a “Green” listed on Florida Street looked like a possible relative.

Outside donors were a big issue for opponents of Measure E, which was soundly defeated in 2004. Measure E was the brainstorm of Orange County Republican Party operative Scott Baugh, backed by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, to rid the council of “environmental extremists,” as he put it to the Los Angeles Times at the time.

Measure E would have eliminated the city’s at-large elections for city council by cutting the number of council members to five, each representing a separate district. Hansen, who lives in southeast Huntington Beach, would have been a shoe-in city council candidate for the district planned for that area.

The Times reported that 25 percent of the $143,000 raised by Measure E proponents came from outside of the city, with huge donations of up to $10,000 coming Baugh’s business clients or friends.

But the largest cash contributions came from the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association, which gave $30,000 for “public safety,” and the AES Corp, which runs the antiquated electrical generating plant at Newland and Pacific Coast Highway, and whose owners were upset over failed city council attempts to force the company to pay property taxes on the facility.

But Measure E opponents, who raised only about $30,000 but created a broad-based grass-roots coalition, prevailed by a landslide with over 63 percent of the vote.

Hit Pieces and Stalkers

The study committee also took up the issue of how to handle political hit pieces traditionally sent out just before election day. Current rules require anybody passing out such fliers to leave ten copies of each with the city clerk. Councilmember Jill Hardy favored reducing the number of copies to 1 and otherwise keeping the requirement.

One such hit piece sent out by mobile home park owners in the 2006 election endorsed candidates Green and councilmembers Joe Carchio and Gil Coerper as protectors against a city council that had tried to take away the property rights of Main Street residents. The leader of the group that produced the filer was Vicky Tally, a mobile home park owner who sued over a city ordinance that protects the rights of mobile home park residents.

Finally, fear of dangerous stalkers persuaded all councilmembers except Hansen to redact the personal information of campaign reports made available to the public online. “I’ve been to meetings where somebody put bullets on the table,” Cook asserted, “I think that kooks should have to jump through extra hoops by coming to city hall.”

But Hansen favored full disclosure as did H.B. activist and computer technician Mark Bixby, who needs the addresses for “geo-spatial analysis” of campaign contributors. He pointed out that he already provides unredacted electronic campaign reports online to over 150 people. He added that the city clerk can’t ask for I.D. from people requesting the documents in person and that it would be easier to track a stalker from the Internet.

The city attorney will prepare a report on all the options discussed by the committee and bring it back to the city council for a vote by the city council at a future meeting.

Native Americans Lose Sacred Site to Developer
‘What are you suggesting we do,’ CEO asks

By John Earl, Scott Sink and Rashi Kesarwani
OC Voice

Hearthside Homes CEO Edward Mountford angrily denied reports that the company had uncovered 87 ancient Native American burial remains since breaking ground in June of 2006 on its planned 356 unit Brightwater housing project or had failed to report them the Orange County Coroner’s office in a manner required by California law.

Brightwater is on 105.3 acres of land on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa in Huntington Beach.

“It was all reported on time, according to the regulations,” Mountford told the Voice.

Mountford’s denial came despite a leaked company memo showing that 87 “human bone concentrations” along with 4,217 artifacts, some of which were directly associated with the burials, were uncovered “during the grading monitoring” on a 11.8 acre section of the Hearthside property known as ORA-83.

The memo was first revealed by Flossie Horgan, Executive Director of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, a locally based group dedicated to restoring the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Even with the memo, however, it is still not clear if the remains were reported to the coroner or not; presumably, the coroner may have had the information but failed to report it to the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours as required by law.

Ancient History

Artifacts associated with the burials included cog stones, small circular shaped stones with notches or cogs carved around the parameter that served a religious purpose. Over 400 cog stones have been discovered at ORA-83.

Dating back 8,500 years, ORA-83 was part of a village that once straddled the Santa Ana River when it flowed through the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas. The descendents of these coastal people are the Tongva and the Acjachemen, also known by their mission-era designations of Gabrieleño and Juaneño, respectively.

Anthony Morales, Tribal Chairperson of the Tongva Tribe of San Gabriel and the present Native American monitor or “Most Likely Descendant” (MLD) for ORA-83 said, “That whole area was a major village, [with] a high concentration of everyday life activity.” The Tongva consider their site “very spiritual, very significant and very sacred,” he said.

According to Professor of Anthropology Pat Martz, the distinctive cog stones, which

archaeologists believe were distributed throughout coastal California, “probably originated at this site. Most of the cog stones are found along the [Santa Ana] River and as far as Nevada.”

Martz sasys that ORA-83 is the only site-worldwide-that has produced so many cog stones. “It was a ritual site of an unknown religion that we don’t know anything about,” she says.

“Some Native American people say [these stones] were probably placed on the site as a star map,” said Martz. “The site may have astronomical significance as well,” she adds.

An Oct. 2005 Coastal Commission Report points out that some scientists and Native Americans, including archeologists, the director of the Griffith Observatory and the International Indian Treaty Council cited ORA-83’s potential archaeoastronomical significance in joining the Smithsonian Museum and Congressperson Loretta Sanchez in calling for ORA-83 to be listed in the Federal Register as a National Historical Site and preserved.

Mountford denies the astronomical importance of the site, but he acknowledges its overall archeological importance, something that proponents say is now more evident than ever, but that he says is nothing new. “It’s an important archeological site that’s been known for 25 years,” he said.

He refers to Horgan and others as Johnny-come-latelys. “We got our first permit to do excavation back in 83 and 84. So this is not news. This is Flossie trying to get her name in the paper again.”

The State Historical Resources Commission nominated ORA-83 as a National Historical Site, which is optional for private landowners, but Mountford said he didn’t remember why Hearthside refused it. “Well, it was optional and we just decided that it wasn’t appropriate at this time,” he recalled.

Corporate Revolt

But federal recognition of the site probably would have added momentum to efforts to stop development at a time when Hearthside’s parent company, California Coastal Communities, needed to get homes online for sale as soon as possible to please rebellious stockholders and beat a declining housing market.

In a 2006 interview, company president Raymond J. Pacini called the Brightwater community “43 percent of our assets from a book value standpoint.”

Last year, the company cleared $47 million in revenues, a $48.7 million decrease from 2006, primarily due to a decrease in the number of new homes built, according to bussinessweek.com.

As for the Brightwater development, Reuters reported that the first nine of the 356-home complex generated $11 million dollars at the end of last year.

Despite its successes, the company has endured charges of self-interested greed from some of its shareholders. In a 2006 letter from a Connecticut company owning 7.8 percent of California Coastal’s stock, shareholders wrote that management put “self-interest and personal desire” ahead of stockholder interests by awarding themselves “an expanded stock-options program and by paying million-dollar bonuses to executives.”

Stockholders representing a hedge fund wanted to get Brightwater on line faster and pressured Pacini to either share the project or sell the entire company. But in a subsequent board of directors election their faction won only 18 percent of the vote.

Pacini told the interviewer that he placated the rest of the shareholders by taking out a $125 million loan in order to pay a special stock dividend of $12.50 a share and minimize the company’s debt.

When reached by phone for comment, Pacini answered, “Put us on your do-not-call list” and hung up.

Cover up?

The OC Register (Feb. 26) also quoted an official MLD occasionally appointed to Brightwater who acknowledged that the 87 bones of contention were excavated within the previous 18 months.

The California Health and Safety Code says that the discovery of human remains in any location other than a cemetery requires “no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains” until the coroner determines the burial is not part of a criminal investigation.

When asked if the decline in the home sale market in 2006 had created pressure for Hearthside to speed up construction, Mountford answered, “No, because…all the [excavation] work was done prior to the grading” in 2006 and that no remains were found afterward.

But Horgan alleges that she knows that significant human remains were found at the site in May of 2007, although she won’t cite a source for that assertion.

If the coroner finds the presence of Native American human remains, he is required by law, in turn, to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours But David Singleton, program analyst for the state agency, says that never happened in this case.

Singleton says that the NAHC first learned of the findings in a Dec. 17 e-mail update, which contained the Nov. 5 memo, apparently from Hearthside archeologist Nancy Wiley, who is president of Scientific Resources Surveys, a private archaeology firm.

That information didn’t include a detailed chronology of when the human findings occured. Only the memo’s hard to notice reference linking those remains to the “ground monitoring” that started in June of 2006 establishes a general time frame.

But without a documented disclosure of archaeological records by the developer, it remains difficult, if not impossible, to establish whether the findings were properly reported or not.

Singleton asked Wiley for a chronology of the site findings. “[S]he said that she would need to check back with the company,” but still hasn’t provided the information, he said. Wiley also failed to respond to e-mail and telephone inquires from the Voice.

Horgan says that she inquired to the Orange County Coroner’s office for documentation of all human remains taken from Bolsa Chica from 1991 to the present “and they gave me back, I think, 6 or 7 cases, and the latest was for 2002.”

When applying to the Coastal Commission for a permit in October of 2004, Hearthside reported that 97 percent of the ORA-83 site was excavated. Commission staff reviewed the site a month later in Oct. 2005 and concluded that it “appears to be virtually 100 percent recovered.”

Horgan says that there’s a contradiction between that staff report said and the SRS memo. “So what we have here is a discrepancy between what the Coastal Commission understood and what the memo says, and what the coroner said, and what we received from the coroner’s office, because there’s no way in the world that these remains were found in 2002.”

Singleton says that in other cases of discovered human remains the coroner’s office has reported back immediately to the NAHC. He blames Hearthside for the delay. “This is an exceptional practice carried out by this company and their archeologist,” he said. But the coroner still hasn’t reported the findings listed in the memo to him to this day, he adds.

Mountford says that Wiley reported the ORA-83 human remains to the coroner as required, adding that the Native American monitors that the company pays are responsible for keeping the NAHC informed. “We always have them on site whenever we’re doing excavations or in any areas where there’s undisturbed earth,” he said.

The MLDs who quietly handled the remains, David Belardes and Joyce Perry, did not respond to repeated phone calls from the Voice by press time.

Rebbeca Robles, from the Acjachemen Nation and the chairperson of the local Sierra Club’s Sacred Site Task Force is not satisfied with the current laws intended to protect indigenous cemeteries and sacred sites.

“The system actually seems to prevent the protection of these sites,” she told the Voice.

Martz agrees. “Developers hire an MLD,…and he gets paid to rebury [the remains] somewhere,” she said.

Horgan called the developer’s actions a “conspiracy of silence.” She contends that “Certain developers refuse to follow the law,” adding that profit is their primary motive.

“It reminds us of the destruction of other sites, despite our best efforts,” said Robles. For example, according to the Tongva Tribal Concil web site, “Over 600 Tongva/Acjachemen Ancestors were secretly removed [in 1998] by the Irvine Company to build the Harbor Cove housing tract of condos in the Back Bay. These remains were over 9,000-years-old, already ancient when the pyramids of Egypt were built.”

Robles called the Harbor Cove development a “similar situation. There wasn’t any disclosure.”

The Irvine Co. was never found guilty of breaking any laws in their Harbor Cove project, and Hearthside hasn’t been charged with violating any laws either, but the coroner’s office admits that enforcement of the rules is lacking.

Assistant Chief Deputy Coroner, Bruce Lyle, told the Voice that his office has to balance its scarce public resources with its inventory process. He says the coroner’s database isn’t systematically organized to enable easy access to the records of Native American remains once they are examined. Referring to the information his office faxed to Horgan, however, he said, “I have a pretty good feeling that they’re all there” and that the 174 sets of remains are accounted for.

But Lyle added that “We wouldn’t wag the finger” at the developer even if it hadn’t reported human remains on time.

Bury My Heart at Brightwater

This isn’t the first time that Hearthside was suspected of not reporting human remains. In 1994 the Huntington Beach City Council asked the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director to determine if the company’s permits for excavation should be revoked, asking, among other questions, if important information about human remains had intentionally been withheld and why those remains were not reported to the coroner for over a year.

The Exectutive Directo took no action, saying that the issues raised were beyond the commission’s purview and that the applicant had complied with permit terms.

The taking of land from Native Americans for the profit of others is nothing new, and the corporate taking of one the last open coastal areas in Orange County is arguably part of the final conquest over the original occupiers of the land.

Unlike CEO Raymond Pacini, who benefited from a $600,000 salary with $6.5 million in exercised stock options, Orange County’s descendants of the Acjachemen Nation struggle against great odds to preserve the human remains of their ancestors, if not their land, and to maintain their dignity as a people.

At the Bolsa Chica site at Hearthside, two information kiosks near Warner Avenue and Brightwater Drive commemorate indigenous history. But many Native Americans, archaeologists and environmentalists feel that the monument is insufficient.

“It’s a matter of environmental justice. If that had been an Anglo cemetery, there would have been some way to preserve it,” said Martz.

Brightwater also means that history that could benefit us all will be lost, says Singleton, who also acknowledges the pain Native Americans feel for the loss of their sacred land. “It’s disgusting,” he complains.

“[W]hat native people have said about the site, it is very heartfelt,” he says. “People have called in tears expressing their outrage…It’s hard for non Native Americans to appreciate the different view that Native people have toward burial grounds and ancestors.”

Mountford maintains that Native Americans are also benefiting from the Brightwater housing development due to the extensive excavation of artifacts on the site. “They’re getting a wealth of information,” he says.

But he doesn’t worry about whose land Brightwater belonged to hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Pointing out that virtually all of Orange County’s most desirable costal and inland living places were once the homeland of Native Americans, he says, “They haven’t occupied the [Brightwater] site in a long, long time, right? I mean, what are you suggesting we do?”

By Rashi Kesarwani
OC Voice Staff Writer

The Huntington Beach City Council was greeted by dozens of residents at its Feb. 4 meeting, as it considered an appeal of the Planning Commissions previous approval of a $22 million senior center to be built on a 5-acre expanse of Central Park, across from the Huntington Beach Central Library.

Proponents claim that the new facility is needed to replace the aging Rodger’s Senior Center, located at 17th and Orange streets, and to meet the needs of a growing senior population.

Opponents say they support a new senior center, but they are concerned about its location and environmental impact, as well as its “hidden costs” and how to prioritize use of badly needed but limited park funds.

Ultimately, the council voted to move forward with the project in a 5-2 vote. Councilmember Jill Hardy and Mayor Debbie Cook voted no.

Although Huntington Beach voters initially green lighted the project in an “advisory” ballot initiative known as Measure T in Nov. 2006, opponents of the plan argue voters were not aware of the environmental impact or costs of a state-of-the-art facility in Central Park.

City Attorney Jennifer McGrath said that no legal requirement exists to disclose environmental impacts or estimated costs of a project when it appears on the ballot for approval. Indeed, Measure T only stipulated the square footage and maximum acreage of the proposed center. It passed by a narrow margin, 51 percent to 49 percent.

Project planner Jennifer Villasenor said the new facility would operate much like the existing Rodgers Senior Center. Although programming would be geared to the interests of seniors, all city residents would be welcome to use the facility.

Heated Debate

In an e-mail to the Voice, Save Our Parks spokesperson Mindy White said that the city’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) notes that because the project’s impact on park aesthetics and views cannot be mitigated, the city is legally required to write a Statement of Overriding Consideration “indicating that the building of the senior center is worth the loss of the aesthetics of Central Park.”

White notes that the final section of the city’s EIR states that the “environmentally superior alternative” is to halt plans to construct a new senior center in the park.
Speaking at the city council meeting, H.B. resident Kristin Stilton cited the city’s “Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study of 2001” to argue that the project reflected misplaced priorities. According to the study, residents ranked upgrades to the skate park as a higher priority than a new senior center.

Stilton also called Rodgers Senior Center, the current facility, “underutilized or at least not maximally programmed.”

Another city resident offered an alternative to costly new construction: Kettler Elementary School, located near a large contingency of senior citizens living in the city’s southeast section., near Edison Park. “It seems like a good fit,” the speaker said.

About a dozen Golden West College students asked the city council to preserve the park by finding a different site for the project.

But proponents of the senior center in Central Park ultimately prevailed, stating that other locations were unsuitable or unavailable.

Public speaker and former H.B. mayor Norma Gibbs referred to the proposed site as “that eyesore of dirt on Goldenwest” and urged councilmembers to allocate space for the senior center, as past councils had done for horse lovers and Frisbee players when Central Park was first designed and created.

Councilmember Gil Coerper said, “My main thing is, have a great facility for our seniors. I don’t want a mediocre one, I want the best.”

Skirting the issue of location, Councilmember Joe Carchio said, “It makes us look better and more compassionate” to have a new senior center.

In its approval last December, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission voted to require that the new senior center meet at least a lower level of “green” design standards through the Leader in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program (The commission’s decision was appealed on other grounds).

But the city council watered down the commission’s language to “strive” to meet LEED certification, after a long discussion.

Councilmember Keith Bohr proposed the revision, saying, “When I see…the dollar amount of 80-some-thousand dollars for independent certification…. Maybe that’s something we could do ourselves without having LEED certify it.”

Hardy asked, rhetorically, “You’re gonna spend millions of dollars on paving parkland and then nickel and dime on making it somewhat environmentally friendly?”

Mayor Cook suggested further discussion of LEED standards at a later date.

Legal Concerns

Legal questions linger over funding for the facility. Proponents of the senior center expect funding to come from “in-lieu” fees paid by Makar Properties, developer of the Pacific City condominium complex. Under the Quimby Act, developers are required to set aside park land or pay an “in-lieu” fee earmarked either for park land or recreational facilities that bear a “reasonable relationship” to residents’ general benefit.

Makar hopes to pay for that fee under the Mello Roos Act by imposing a special tax on the future residents of Pacific City. But Mello Roos prevents cities from using taxes to finance pre-existing needs or facilities that do not reasonably benefit the residents of the taxed subdivision.

Opponents say that amounts to a government handout to Makar and forces a small group of homeowners to pay for a facility that under the law will not reasonably relate to their housing tract.

In any case, the senior center is an already identified need that may not qualify for Quimby or Mello Roos funds, argued a Parks Legal Defense lawyer during the public hearing.

But the city attorney has approved the funding scheme and project proponents say that as Pacific City’s residents grow older they will have a need for a new state of the art facility 2 miles to the north.

By Rashi Kesarwani
OC Voice Staff Writer

At a ribbon-cutting ceremony last month, the city of Huntington Beach honored the opening of the Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, a sleek new grocery store described as a cross between 7-11 and Trader Joe’s, on 16672 Beach Boulevard at Terry Drive.

Fresh & Easy’s U.K. based parent company, Tesco, markets itself as a socially responsible, green and healthy, alternative to established grocery chains. Its smaller Fresh and Easy stores offer a variety of prepared foods that are billed as fresh and healthy.

And the local media has celebrated the chain’s Huntington Beach opening without challenging that image. One review in the Huntington Beach Independent gushed about the “successful overseas reputation that Tesco has established,” and that, “The meat, fish and produce were actually fun to look at.”

But other media reports from abroad indicate that Tesco’s track record has been anything but “fun to look at.”

After grocery workers from across