How to resolve AdBlock issue? ELECTION 2012: Battle over Proposition 37 continues into final days of fall campaign
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – If you’re a California voter, chances are you’ve seen more ads about Proposition 37 than for most initiatives in recent memory.
Proposition 37 also is known as the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.
It would require the labeling of genetically engineered or genetically modified food sold at retail. It would not ban the sales of foods containing GMOs.
Supporters say it’s necessary to protect the health and safety of consumers.
“It’s only fair that we know what we’re eating and the products we’re using, and where they come from,” said California State Grange Master Bob McFarland, whose organization helped gather the signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Opponents say It will harm California’s farmers and burden the state’s residents with extra costs, as well as open the door to lawsuits over noncompliance.
“It’s bad legislation,” with potential impacts for everyone – from families to grocery stores – said Lake County Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Melissa Fulton.
According to a summary by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, under current law, California agencies are not specifically required to regulate GE foods, although the California Department of Public Health is responsible for regulating the safety and labeling of most foods.
Proposition 37 would change that, and would require that most GE foods that are sold be labeled, require the Department of Health to regulate the labeling of those foods and allow individuals to sue food manufacturers who violate the measure’s labeling provisions.
It also would prohibit any GE foods or other processed food from being labeled as “natural.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said that the measure exempts from labeling foods that are “certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.”
Retailers, including grocery stores, “would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled,” the analysis said.
The new requirements to regulate GE food labeling will cost the state between a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million on an annual basis, according to the analysis.
There also are potential – “but likely not significant’ – costs to state and local governments due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the requirements of this measure. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said some of these costs would be supported by court filing fees that the parties involved in each legal case would be required to pay under existing law.
The full language of the initiative can be read at http://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative .
Over the past month and a half statewide polling has shown that Proposition 37’s support amongst voters has plummeted as its been hammered by a multimillion dollars ad campaign fueled by agrochemical and corporate giants.
“We’re up against very, very powerful opponents,” who are fighting to hide information from U.S. consumers, said organic farmer Thurston Williams, who along with fellow Upper Lake resident Haji Warf has been coordinating the Yes on 37 Lake County Committee’s local campaign.
Grassroots effort leads to Proposition 37
Supporters of Proposition 37 say it was born of grassroots Northern California activism, and that it’s in a pitched battle with corporate agriculture.
Pamm Larry, a Chico resident, spearheaded the movement to label GMOs in California. In March 2011 Larry – a California State Grange member – launched her effort, and the California State Grange subsequently became a major supporter of Proposition 37.
“The Grange, in terms of agriculture, wants a level playing field between American and California farmers and foreign farmers,” McFarland told Lake County News.
At its annual meeting in Palermo last October, delegates of the California State Grange adopted resolution 11-051 “supporting initiatives that would enact state law requiring the labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food.”
The California State Grange – which has 10,000 members in 185 communities – helped collect the nearly one million signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, McFarland said.
McFarland said the Grange is not making judgments about whether GMOs are good or bad. “We’re simply supporting the consumer’s right to know when a product is genetically altered.”
The California State Grange doesn’t believe Proposition 37 will hurt California’s farmers. “Being an organization focused on agriculture, we would never want to do anything to hurt farming,” McFarland said.
On the other side is the California Farm Bureau, which argues that that Proposition 37 will hurt farming. The organization said the measure is poorly written and has “serious implications for family farmers and ranchers,” which led it to formally oppose the initiative.
“Proposition 37 wouldn’t do anything to make food safer or more affordable. It would just make California farmers and food businesses less competitive,” California Farm Bureau President Paul Wenger said in a written statement. “Proposition 37 could force even farmers who don’t grow biotech crops to keep extensive records just in case they were sued by a bounty-hunting attorney.”
Wenger said the labeling as outlined in Proposition 37 implies a warning and would give people the impression something is wrong with foods made with biotech ingredients.
“Many years of studies have shown that foods made with genetic engineering are safe,” he said. “It’s irresponsible and confusing to people to require what is essentially a warning label on products that are safe.”
Local activism plays a part
On the local level, groups are taking a stand on Proposition 37.
The Yes on 37 Lake County Committee is one of five committees that formed statewide to support the proposition.
The dedicated group – which includes local organic farmers – collected signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, and since then have written letters, carried signs, purchased and provided campaign signage, and handed out shopping guides to inform the public about food labeling.
Williams, along with wife Annelle Durham, has worked tirelessly to educate the community about the measure. Durham and other group members, including Roberta Actor-Thomas, have written numerous letters and commentaries explaining what the initiative is meant to do and working to dismiss what they say are distortions fed to voters by the initiative’s opponents.
Williams said the attacks on Proposition 37 haven’t focused on truth. “This is not about truth or debate, it’s about how much money you can throw and how many lies you can tell.”
One of the key fallacies, according to Williams, is that Proposition 37 will raise food costs; it hasn’t in other countries where the practice is required.
Williams added that the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn’t have GMO food labeling laws. He said he believed the United States’ citizens should have the same rights as those of other countries, and pointed out that polling indicates support among U.S. consumers for labeling.
The measure, he said, is easily explained and debated. To him, it’s founded on a very basic right to know for consumers.
The millions donated by agribusiness giants like Monsanto are “chump change for them,” said Williams.
The big corporations spending so much money to fight the proposition don’t deserve consumers’ trust, said Williams.
On the other side locally is the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, which is urging a no vote on Proposition 37.
Fulton said the chamber researched the proposition but, admittedly, did not speak with the local Yes on 37 committee. She said they never thought about doing so.
The involvement of corporations like Monsanto wasn’t part of the decision making process, said Fulton. Rather, they focused on the legislation.
While they agree that everyone has the right to know what’s in their food, Fulton said the chamber does not believe Proposition 37 is the way to do it.
“There are better ways to go about determining what is in the food we eat,” said Fulton, including labeling all foods that don’t contain GMOs.
Another concern for the chamber is the legislation’s author, attorney Jim Wheaton, who also helped write Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
The No on 37 campaign also has pointed to Wheaton’s involvement, reporting that his law firm has profited more than $3 million from suing California businesses in the last decade under the provisions of Proposition 65.
“This isn’t his first rodeo,” said Fulton.
The Yes on 37 Lake County Committee went to the Clearlake City Council last month to ask for a statement of support.
However, the council ultimately deadlocked and the motion to support it failed.
Big spending, deep pockets
Recent campaign finance filings from the California Secretary of State show that the No on 37 campaign has raised more than $35 million in its campaign against the initiative, the supporters of which had raised only about one seventh of that amount.
Top contributors supporting the effort to defeat the initiative include Monsanto – who has given the most, more than $7.1 million – Dupont, BASF, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer Cropscience, Syngenta Corp., Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Nestle and ConAgra Foods.
Those millions are fueling the aggressive anti-Proposition 37 campaign, which over the last few months has flooded the airwaves and mailboxes with attack ads.
Those ads appear to be working. On Tuesday, the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University School of Public Policy released the latest results of their bimonthly initiative survey series.
The surveys show Proposition 37 dropping another nine points in the polls, with voters in favor at 39.1 percent and those against it, 50.5 percent.
“It seems voters have been influenced by both the no campaign and a barrage of negative editorials,” said California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley.
The last survey, released Oct. 11, had shown a 19-percent drop in support for Proposition 37.
Proposition 37 supporters say the initiatives opponents who are generating those ads use dirty campaign tactics and outright lies about the measure.
Early in October, the No on 37 campaign was forced to pull ads that represented Henry Miller as a doctor at Stanford University. In reality, Miller is a researcher at the Hoover Institution, an organization that largely is funded by right-wing foundations and corporate donors.
Also in October, the Yes on 37 campaign reported the No on 37 campaign to the U.S. Department of Justice for affixing the official Food and Drug Administration Seal to their campaign materials and attributing a fabricated quote to FDA in order to make it appear that the FDA has taken a position against Proposition 37, which the agency is prohibited from doing.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also reported that No on 37 “misled” the public in its ballot argument printed in the Secretary of State’s Official California Voter Information Guide, inaccurately stating that the academy “has concluded that biotech foods are safe.”
Williams called No on 37’s tactics a “shock and awe media assault on the California electorate,” adding, “Why bother to engage when you can just outspend.”
However, Williams said, “We’re going to make them spend a lot for every no vote, adding, “We’re hopeful that the electorate will see this for what it is” – a huge play by corporations to keep hidden what they’re doing.
For more information on the pro- and anti-Proposition 37 viewpoints, visit www.carighttoknow.org and www.noprop37.com .
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
‘Welcome to Marymount College’: Marymount College, county celebrate education partnership
LUCERNE, Calif. – History, fate and misfortune had kept the grand old Lucerne Hotel waiting for more than 80 years, but its glory finally returned Tuesday.
Dr. Michael Brophy, president of Marymount College, stood before more than 100 community members in the lobby of the building, and said, “Good evening, and welcome to Marymount College … and The Castle,” receiving an enthusiastic round of applause.
On Tuesday evening Marymount College and the county of Lake hosted a celebration of the signing of the 15-year lease for the building, unanimously approved by both the Board of Supervisors and the college’s board of trustees.
The lease’s signing formalizes the partnership between the college and county that has been more than a year in the making, following the county’s 2010 purchase of the building from a church group that owned it.
The words “unique,” “historic” and “transformational” would be used throughout the evening by a number of county and college officials, but as Board of Supervisors Chair Rob Brown pointed out, those sentiments can’t be overused when it comes to the importance of Marymount’s arrival.
The building may not have had much of a future had it not been for the college. “To be able to save this building and use it for this purpose is an amazing commitment by our county,” said Brown.
The evening also would highlight the vision of the two men who made the partnership possible – Brophy and retired County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox.
Both Cox and Brophy were hailed for seeing an opportunity to educate, inspire and help others.
Cox and his staff – including Matt Perry, Eric Seely, Alan Flora and Debra Sommerfield – conducted outreach, made trips and oversaw the building’s restoration, and worked alongside the Marymount College team to bring the vision to life.
The Lucerne Hotel and the seven acres it sits on in the heart of the lakeside town will be Marymount’s third campus.
At 75,000 square feet, it is one of the county’s largest buildings. Its seven story tower also gives it the distinction of being Lake County’s tallest building, according to Seely, a county deputy administrative officer for special projects, with one of those projects being The Castle. As a result, he’s become an expert on the building and its fascinating history.
The building’s grandeur has been restored thanks to the county’s painstaking restorations, from new roofing to new stucco, paint and the extensive interior renovations.
“Isn’t this just an awesome building?” asked Perry, Cox’s successor as county administrative officer, who opened the Tuesday evening ceremony.
A new purpose
The Lucerne Hotel has had a history filled with interrupted promise.
The construction of the building began in 1927, as the optimistic and ebullient 1920s neared their end.
Just weeks before the stock market crash in October 1929, the Hotel Lucerne Corp. secured a $25,000 mortgage to continue work on the property, but only two $1,000 payments were made, according to a history compiled by the county.
The Great Depression hit the hotel and its owners hard, and by January 1931 the Hotel Lucerne Corp. had defaulted on its loans. That May the property was in foreclosure and ordered to be sold to cover the nearly $61,000 that was owed.
Two months later, Louis Becker, one of Lucerne’s founders, was killed in a plane crash at the town airport in July 1931.
The building would repeatedly change hands over the decades to come. For the 20 years before its sale to the county it was owned by Castlepoint Ministries, which used it mostly for religious gatherings, retreats and camps.
In December 2008 Castlepoint Ministries put the hotel up for sale in the midst of uncertain financial times, with the Board of Supervisors voting a year and a half later to buy the building for $1.35 million.
Its newest, and perhaps greatest, incarnation is as a college campus. Transforming it into such a facility was a process that required hard work and vision.
Brophy, who has been Marymount College’s president since 2006, knows about transformations.
In his time with Marymount, he’s taken the Catholic liberal arts institution from a two-year, single-campus college to three campuses and four-year accreditation. Master’s degrees are now being added, and he led a $15 million campus investment project.
As he stood before the group on Tuesday, he noted, “We all feel so at home.”
Fifteen months ago a request for proposals from the county of Lake landed on Brophy’s desk. The county was seeking educational institutions interested in utilizing the hotel as a campus.
Brophy credited Cox with writing an RFP that was both inspiring and compelling.
He also recognized Perry, Brown and board colleague Denise Rushing, who traveled to Rancho Palos Verdes, Marymount’s base, to meet with college officials and make the case for the college to the community there.
“All of us are celebrating this opportunity,” said Brophy.
He said Marymount College will be able to help Lake County move from a kindergarten through grade 14 community to one that has offerings from kindergarten through a full four years of college.
In the fall of 2013, the first students will arrive in Lucerne, coming for research and internships. The following fall, undergraduate programs will be offered at the hotel, he said. Locally, degree programs initially will be offered in business and psychology, complementing the offerings at the local community colleges.
The college’s mission, he said, is to serve others so that all may have life.
Also speaking on Tuesday was Burt Arnold, Marymount College’s Board of Trustees chair.
Arnold has a connection to Lake County – his grandparents had a vacation trailer in Clearlake Oaks, and brought him to the county for summer vacations when he was a child. He caught his first fish in Clear Lake, and recalled looking for Lake County diamonds and finding obsidian arrowheads.
He said it was great to be back. “I eagerly anticipated this day,” said Arnold. “It’s a historic moment for all of us today.”
Arnold said he brought with him the trustees’ greetings and wholehearted support.
Marymount College’s mission, he said, is to serve the underserved. “And that’s what we’re going to do.”
Arnold said he was impressed by The Castle’s beauty and history, noting it had been restored to a “brilliance that is unsurpassed.”
Following Arnold, Supervisor Brown said that while the Board of Supervisors is a very diverse group, there was not a moment when it was not unanimous on the building’s possibilities.
The project was moving at “lightning speed” considering the bureaucracy involved, with Brown joking that he was glad it was happening while they were all still in office. He said he was happy to be part of it.
Rushing said the project started with a dream. “The dream was for all people to be able to step into the economy” and help turn it around.
To do that, she said the veil of darkness obscuring the lives of many had to be removed. In Rushing’s experience, that can happen either through art or education.
“I believe the work has just begun,” she said.
Dreams for The Castle
Cox, who had worked for the county for 32 years, said that for decades he had longed for The Castle to be publicly available.
He recalled driving with Seely to meet Castlepoint Ministries after the group decided to sell the building. Very quickly opportunities began to fall into place.
However, he said the support wasn’t unanimous. Cox heard from some community members who thought the proposal to purchase the building was a poor idea.
When he received Brophy’s proposal for the building, Cox was delighted. He noted that, from day one, Marymount College and its staff made clear their desire to help Lake County.
Cox called Brophy a visionary leader, with whom the county can be proud to be associated.
Brophy’s vision and the resulting agreement is the beginning of something big for Lake County, said Cox, who acknowledged the courage of the Board of Supervisors in purchasing the building. It had likewise required courage to purchase the land on Mt. Konocti, he said.
On Cox’s last day with the county in June, he said the Board of Supervisors approved the memorandum of understanding with Marymount College. After three decades with the county, Cox said it was one of the very best things that could have happened.
With Marymount’s connection to faith-based communities, the evening also included blessings by Father Ron Serban and Thomas Leon Brown, a member of the Pomo community.
Serban thanked those who built The Castle decades ago and those who continued to work on it. He also asked for blessings for those who are yet to come through its doors – students, staff and faculty.
Before the gathering, Thomas Brown said he had blessed the building’s grounds. As he stood before the group, he sang a song of blessing, his voice lifting through the hall, the timbers of which had been harvested from the hills above the town and handhewn by laborers eight decades ago.
“Bless this house and the land,” he said.
The last remarks of the evening were offered by Lake County Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Melissa Fulton, who said that the hotel was not just going to be a college. “It is an opportunity in many forms for all of us.”
She said no one can know just how far reaching the new campus’ impacts will be for Lake County.
The new opportunities are manifesting in a unique place. As Fulton pointed out, where else can you find a county that bought both a mountain and a castle?
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Clearlake City Council deadlocks over supporting Proposition 37
CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council on Thursday night split over a proposal to endorse a statewide proposition on labeling food that contains genetically engineered products.
With Councilman Curt Giambruno absent, the council deadlocked 2-2 on supporting Proposition 37, “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”
David Goolsbee, a member of the Yes on 37 Lake County Committee, asked the council for its support of the measure, which is facing serious opposition from big agrochemical companies like Monsanto and DuPont.
He said the measure is essentially about mothers and fathers wanting to know what they are feeding their children.
He said Proposition 37’s opponents are afraid that if it becomes law in California that it will spread across the country.
“People want to know that their food is safe,” Goolsbee said.
Vice Mayor Jeri Spittler said that if you start reading about GMOs and food, GMOs are in almost everything that is processed.
She thanked the Yes on 37 Lake County Committee for its work, including providing shopping guides to show how to rearrange what people are eating to avoid GMOs in their diet.
Spittler’s husband is in remission after battling advanced cancer, and she said they read all of their food labels. She said she supported the measure.
Community member Elizabeth Weiss asked the council to endorse it
Weiss said it’s not a ban on GMOs, “just a little bit of ink” to help give consumers a choice.
Leslie Sheridan told the council that the opponents to Proposition 37 are the same companies that covered up for cigarettes, DDT and Agent Orange. “Why would we trust them?”
Sheridan said GMO labeling is done in other countries, and she questioned why the Food and Drug Administration is not protecting citizens, then pointed out that there is a “revolving door” between the FDA and many of the companies opposing the measure. She said the fox is guarding the hen house.
Haji Warf of Upper Lake, a committee member, said grocery bills won’t go up if the initiative passes. That’s a fallacy she said resulted from a study done by consultants hired by Proposition 37’s opponents.
She said the suggestion that grocery bills would rise dramatically was based on a faulty assumption – that all farmers would switch to organic.
“That’s not even remotely realistic,” said Warf, adding that labeling has been done in more than 60 countries.
Council member Judy Thein said she personally supported Proposition 37, but added that the council hadn’t heard from the other side.
Thein said she didn’t support the council giving the statewide measure an official enforcement, a stance with which Council member Joyce Overton agreed.
Spittler said she’s studied both sides of the issue and wanted to support the proposition.
Mayor Joey Luiz said he also supported Proposition 37 and wanted to give it a statement of support.
But with Giambruno absent, the motion to support the proposition came down to a 2-2 vote – Luiz and Spittler for, Overton and Thein against – and the motion died.
In other business, the council voted 4-0 to accept an ordinance that will regulate taxi cabs and for-hire vehicles in the city.
The ordinance requires operator permitting, vehicle registration and safety inspections, increased insurance requirements, standards for operation and driver conduct, and maximum rates per mile and per minute of waiting time.
City Manager Joan Phillipe said city staff will be contacting taxi operators in the city and assisting them with going through the process to be in compliance.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Cal Water officials meet with unhappy Lucerne residents over proposed 77-percent rate hike
LUCERNE, Calif. – California Water Service Co. representatives faced a group of unhappy and sometimes angry Lucerne residents at a Wednesday night meeting on the company’s proposal to raise water rates 77 percent.
More than 30 people attended the meeting, which ran just under an hour and a half at Lucerne Elementary School’s multipurpose room.
Ratepayers complained about already struggling to pay their water bills after several large increases in the decade Cal Water has run the system.
Tom Smegal, Cal Water’s vice president for regulatory matters and corporate relations, led the meeting.
He found himself frequently interrupted by questions and comments, and at one point told the group, “If I can’t answer the questions, I’ll just stop,” leave and return to San Jose.
Also in attendance were representatives from the California Public Utility Commission’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates, County Deputy Administrative Officer Alan Flora and Jeff Tyrell of state Sen. Noreen Evans’ office.
Cal Water is asking for a 77-percent increase over three years, beginning in 2014. The corporation submitted the generate rate case application for the increases in July, as Lake County News has reported.
Community members at the Wednesday night meeting were told that it will take the CPUC about 18 months to make a final decision, and to expect a decision in January 2014.
Lucerne is part of Cal Water’s Redwood Valley District, which has 1,900 connections and serves a total of 3,600 people in Lucerne and parts of Duncans Mills, Guerneville, Dillon Beach, Noel Heights and Santa Rosa.
Smegal said the corporation has seen a 25-percent increase in costs and a 32-percent decrease in water sales.
Community members pointed out to Smegal during the meeting that one of the reasons water sales were down was because people couldn’t afford their rates and were moving away.
Smegal said the Division of Ratepayer Advocates is “continuing to investigate” Cal Water’s rate hike request.
“Do they drink the water?” one woman asked from the audience.
As the result of the application process, Smegal said the commission will determine the costs to operate the water system and set rates accordingly. He said the CPUC likely will set a rate lower than Cal Water requested.
He said if community members did not like the process, they should tell that to the CPUC.
“A regulated utility only has its customers as a source of revenue,” Smegal said.
When asked why Lucerne can’t get help from the rest of the system, Smegal said the community already is being subsidized by other ratepayers to the tune of $24 a month.
A woman asked why water ratepayers across the state weren’t all paying the same rates. Smegal said water is set on local costs, and state rules have always set that rule for water, while for electricity customers all pay the same rates.
One woman told Smegal that she lives by herself and can barely afford to do one load of laundry a week or to shower regularly. She said she paid more for water than for her medical bills, asking if that was right.
Smegal said he didn’t know if it was right. “You know it’s not,” said a man from the audience.
As he continued to be interrupted, Smegal responded, “You want to hear from me or do you want to bicker?”
When asked why other local water districts had lower rates, Smegal said county-owned districts were subsidized and added, “Water systems are all different.”
Another audience member asked Smegal at what point the system would become so unprofitable that Cal Water would be interested in selling it.
“I really can’t answer that question,” replied Smegal.
Asked about the potential impact on water rates when Marymount College completes the process of opening its new campus at the Lucerne Hotel, Smegal said it could have positive impacts on rates, adding that the college’s presence wasn’t included in the corporation’s general rate case predictions.
Smegal told the group, “I don’t like asking for rate increases,” and doesn’t like to have to defend his company.
Other questions for Smegal included how much of the town’s 17-mile system of pipes had been replaced in the 12 years Cal Water has run the system. The answer: about two miles.
Smegal said the company wanted to replace all of the aging pipe but it’s very expensive.
Cal Water’s representatives were told that it was starting to feel like they had no plan for upgrading the system, with repairs largely being “knee jerk.”
Smegal also couldn’t provide a bottom line number on what was needed to fully upgrade the system’s infrastructure, explaining that in the past the CPUC has told them to not pursue some projects in order to keep rates down.
A struggling community
Lucerne resident Frank Hodges told Cal Water’s staff that the community was in bad shape.
“We’re hurting. Period. That’s all there is to it,” Hodges said.
Smegal said Cal Water had no power to set the water rates.
“Oh, give me a break,” said Hodges.
Cal Water’s presentation included a slide showing where ratepayers’ payments go.
Six percent covers water supply; the largest amount, 35 percent, goes to capital improvement; 1 percent goes to conservation; 28 percent to district payroll and benefits; 16 percent, other district expenses; and 14 percent, capitalized services, including water quality, engineering and administration.
County Supervisor Denise Rushing could not attend the meeting, so Flora attended in her stead.
“She is doing a lot of work behind the scenes right now,” including working with state representatives, Flora told the group.
Flora thanked Smegal for coming to Lucerne and facing the barrage. “This is a very sensitive issue for some very legitimate reasons.”
Flora read from a letter the Board of Supervisors sent to the CPUC this summer, which stated that since January 2009, 92 homes in Lucerne had been lost to foreclosure, and Cal Water’s estimate of average bills – about $62 per month – didn’t tell the whole story.
The letter said the community had a 25-percent vacancy rate, and even vacant properties the county owned showed monthly bills of between $80 and $90.
The board suggested Cal Water was using “creative math” to show a lower average water rate.
Altogether, the board’s letter said that water users can expect to pay at least $735 more a year.
“The entire ratemaking process does not take into effect this destructive cycle,” said the letter, which asked if there were only two residences, would they share the water system’s entire cost?
The board said both Cal Water and the CPUC had a responsibility to address the inequality in ratemaking.
“We are skeptical of the motivation behind the rate increase,” the board’s letter said, pointing out that it included $108,000 for salary increases and additional funds to cover a remodel at the corporation’s San Jose office.
The board asked the CPUC to deny the rate increase in Lucerne, which pays the second-highest rates in Cal Water’s 34-district system.
Flora also told the group that Rushing was set to attend a meeting with CPUC representatives next week.
Tyrell told the group that Evans, along with Assemblyman Wes Chesbro and Assembly member Mariko Yamada – whose redrawn district includes Lake County – has been following the rate proposal. Community members thanked him for coming and gave him a round of applause.
Smegal encouraged community members to sign up for Cal Water’s Low-Income Rate Assistance program, http://www.calwater.com/your_account/lira.php .
He also said community members need to get involved if they want the CPUC to set lower rates.
Community members can band together and petition for party status with the CPUC by contacting the CPUC Public Advisor’s Office, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102; email,
Smegal said community members should expect to receive a notice for a CPUC meeting on the proposed rates that will take place next January of February in Lucerne.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Marymount College: ‘Eager to begin partnership’ with Lake County for new campus
LUCERNE, Calif. – Following Tuesday’s action by the Board of Supervisors to finalize the lease with Marymount College for the Lucerne Hotel, college officials said they are looking forward to beginning their work to bring a four-year college to Lake County.
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday morning to approve the 15-year lease for the historic 75,000 square foot building, which sits on seven acres in the heart of Lucerne.
Marymount College, based in Southern California, intends to use the 1920s-era building for its third campus.
Officials said the lease’s approval opens the door for educational opportunities for the residents of Lake County and provides the college the opportunity for expansion into what it consider to be “an idyllic rural community.”
Beginning fall 2014, the college will offer four-year degree completion courses to transfer students, pending the approval of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Professional and community educational programs will begin in the fall 2013.
College President Michael Brophy and the college’s board of trustees approved the agreement at their Oct. 13 board meeting in Rancho Palos Verdes, where the college’s main campus is located.
The college also operates a campus in San Pedro’s waterfront district in Los Angeles County.
With the establishment of a college in Lake County, Marymount students may move between campuses and attend classes, participate in service learning, complete internships and do research in both urban and rural settings.
“After working together for more than a year, we are excited to be able to formalize the details of the partnership,” said Board of Supervisors Chair Rob Brown. “The presence of a four-year college will benefit students in Lake County and in surrounding counties.”
“We are eager to begin our partnership,” said Dr. Brophy. “We will be developing curriculum and programs that serve the needs of students and the community in Lake County. After meeting with many in the community we know we can serve many of the area’s higher education needs.”
Invited by the county of Lake in June 2011 to prepare a proposal to develop an educational institution on the county-owned property, Marymount College submitted its proposal for consideration and was selected by the county of Lake from a field of applicants.
After multiple visits and discussions between county leaders and the college’s administration, a mutually beneficial agreement was prepared and served as the framework for the college to be located at the Lucerne Hotel.
“This is a perfect example of what a public-private partnership looks like,” said Lake County District Three Supervisor Denise Rushing, in whose district the college campus will operate.
Rushing said the many benefits of the partnership also will include the preservation and reuse of a historic resort property and the positive impacts to the local economy.
Throughout the renovation of the facility, the county has made “buying local” a priority: 32 of the 35 contractors working on the project have been local contractors.
A historic property that opened in 1928, the Lucerne Hotel is a 50,000-square-foot-structure on seven acres that will provide ample space for the college to grow over time, including space for classrooms and conference rooms, student dormitories, faculty housing, food service facilities, outdoor recreation and gardens.
In preparing for the future college in Lake County, the college’s planning team met with leaders representing government, business, non-profit organizations, education and special-need populations.
Following those meetings, the Lake County Advisory Council was formed to represent key segments of the local community.
Council members represent local leadership in education, business, health, agriculture, faith, nonprofit and the veterans, Hispanic and Native American populations and will meet together several times a year.
The members of the advisory council provide their knowledge and insight to the leadership team of the college. Their counsel and ambassadorship in the community is expected to be instrumental in the college’s success as a provider of higher education and as an integral community partner.
The members of the Marymount College Advisory Council include Kelly Cox, Greg Giusti, Wally Holbrook, Matt Perry, Melissa Fulton, Wilda Shock, Debra Sommerfield, Mike Brown, Thomas Leon Brown, Victoria Brandon, Jim Brown, Voris Brumfield, Laurie Daly, Dennis Darling, Ilene Dumont, Gloria Flaherty, Annette Hopkins, Paul Joens-Poulton, Bill Kearney, Tom Lincoln, Roberta Lyons, Sue Samota, Michelle Scully, Fr. Ron Serban and Paul Zellman.
“We are so grateful to the many individuals who have encouraged and guided the college over the past year,” said President Brophy. “The higher education needs of the community and the mission of the college are perfectly aligned.”
Chairman Brown said, “We believe the long-term impact of this partnership will be transformational for our community.”
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News reports
