CLEARLAKE, Calif. – Among the propositions and sales tax measures Clearlake residents will consider on the November ballot is one geared specifically to help the city improve its roads and overall appearance, and address blight.

Measure G, placed on the ballot by the Clearlake City Council in August, is a one-cent sales tax meant to improve roads and restore the city’s code enforcement department, a victim of deep cuts that city officials have had to implement over the last few years.

According to the original report on the measure City Manager Joan Phillipe gave the Clearlake City Council this past summer, the measure would raise approximately $1.4 million annually.

Of that, 75 percent – or $1,050,000 – would go to road improvements and 25 percent, or $350,000, to go to code enforcement. Phillipe told the council that the code enforcement services the measure would fund would include animal control, another area of city service that has seen severe cutbacks.

Clearlake’s current sales tax is 7.75 percent, the same as Lakeport’s, while the county of Lake’s sales tax is 7.25 percent, according to the Board of Equalization.

Measure G would increase Clearlake’s sales tax a full percentage point, to 8.75 percent.

While the measure will put a significant amount of money toward roads, it will not result in the repaving of the entire city, according to the literature from the campaign committee. Instead, it will allow for grinding and patching on paved roads and for unpaved roads to be graded.

During a July meeting when the Clearlake City Council held a discussion of the proposed measure, Mayor Joey Luiz said the measure would triple the city’s current road-related spending.

“You’re going to see a difference. I’m optimistic. It’s going to happen,” Luiz said at the time.

Community member Carl Webb, one of the members of the committee supporting Measure G, said the measure must pass by a super majority, or 66 percent, vote. If it does, that will ensure that the funds raised from the measure can’t be used for other purposes.

Webb said help is “desperately” needed for the city’s roads and code enforcement efforts.

He said there is no sunset clause on Measure G. “The needs are so bad on our roads that I think the city council felt a sunset clause wouldn't provide the assistance that we really need.”

The funds raised by Measure G also can be used to leverage grants, and increase the money available to improve city streets, Webb explained.

Having such a measure in place will make Clearlake a “self-help” city, Webb said.

While it’s not clear how many such cities there are in the state, according to the Self-Help Counties Coalition, there are 19 local county transportation agencies with such super majority, voter-approved measures in place.

Webb said being a self-help city will give Clearlake a better position in competing for grant funding.

The city inherited many dirt roads from the county when it took over after the city’s incorporation more than 30 years ago, said Webb. In addition, Clearlake must maintain arterial and collateral roads.

The sales tax measure’s benefits, said Webb, include that it’s paid for not just by residents but also by visitors.

Clearlake’s measure will appear on the ballot as the same time as Measure E, the half-cent lake sales tax the Board of Supervisors put on the ballot in August, which also must pass by a super majority.

The Clearlake City Council gave its support to the county measure, which members didn’t feel would directly compete for voters’ approval.

Before launching the Measure G effort, supporters tried to gauge community support, said Webb.

“We did a survey to start with, which gave us an idea that there’s a possibility that this will pass, even with a super majority,” Webb said.

While city residents initially seemed most interested in upgrading city streets, Webb said voters’ attention increasingly is shifting to code enforcement needs.

He said that, between roads and code enforcement, he hopes there will be enough interest to get the measure through.

“The feedback that we’re getting seems to be very positive but there’s no way to really know until the votes are counted as to how it’s going to turn out,” he said.

However, he added, “We’re very encouraged at this point.”

A small organizing group has been active in running the campaign, said Webb. They’ve since put up signs and sent out mailers to bring attention to the measure.

“We think this is one of the most important things the city could vote on right now,” he said.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The family that sold the county 1,500 acres on top of Mt. Konocti has filed suit over a pilot bus program meant to offer a limited number of trips to the top of the mountain for those who otherwise couldn’t make the trip.

Mike Fowler and his wife, Emily Ford, had the county of Lake and Lake Transit Authority served on Tuesday with the lawsuit, which also includes 100 as-yet unnamed defendents.

Their attorney, Thomas Brigham of Ukiah, did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The Fowlers sold the county the 1,520-acre property for $3.6 million in 2009. As part of the agreement, they retained a 159-acre property in the middle of the park where they continue to reside.

They allege that by running the bus tours the county is violating the terms of use for an easement that they granted through their remaining property.

The Fowlers are seeking declaratory and injunctive in an unlimited civil action. They also want a judgment quieting title against the county’s claim that it has a right to use the road easement for the bus tours and, in addition, are seeking attorney’s fees and court costs.

County Counsel Anita Grant said the county’s interpretation of the agreements with Fowler and Ford is that anyone the county authorizes can carry out operations on the county’s property and use the easement in doing so.

Grant said the county’s goal was to provide access – in a limited fashion, and in the least intrusive way possible – to people with physical limitations who otherwise would be precluded from visiting the mountaintop park.

Public Services Director Caroline Chavez said Lake Transit has done four tour dates so far, at two tours each day, with 85 to 90 percent of those taking part being age 65 or older.

“That was exactly the demographic we were trying to achieve,” she said, noting the wonder people expressed while visiting the mountain.

Board approves pilot program

This past spring, the Board of Supervisors moved forward with the pilot program in which Lake Transit would offer six docent-led bus tours during the fall to the top of Mount Konocti County Park.

The county said the goal was to provide access and minimize individual vehicle usage.

At the May 22 meeting during which the board approved the program, Chavez said she had been getting requests to visit the park from people who otherwise couldn’t get up to the mountaintop, including seniors and those with physical limitations.

Tom Nixon, a retired Clear Lake State Park ranger, worked with a group to put together the docent-led program. A ticket on the three-hour tours costs $16.

Fowler and Ford voiced their objections at that time, stating that they had not been included in the discussions about the program and that the plans didn’t address their privacy concerns.

Fowler said he didn’t want the buses up there, telling the board that throughout negotiations with the county the emphasis had always been on preserving and protecting the property, with provisions for nonmotorized access.

He said it smacked of a commercial enterprise, with Board Chair Rob Brown replying that it was being done through public transit.

The board and county staff felt that allowing people up in a bus was less intrusive than letting in numerous vehicles. At that time, it was reported that Chavez was trying to make accommodations by simply giving people access to drive up to the park.

Then-County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox told the board at that meeting that the property was purchased with public tax dollars. “We have taxpayers who are demanding for us to give them access to that mountain.”

Deputy Administrative Officer Alan Flora said that the proposal came out of the county’s efforts to offer access in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. “This seemed the best way to provide that.”

Arguments over road easement central to case

The option agreement for the Mt. Konocti property that the county and Fowler signed on Aug. 5, 2008, states that the use of the property by the public will be regulated by the county to ensure the protection of natural resources; minimize risk of fire and erosion; protect cultural resources, wildlife and wildland habitat; encourage appreciation of the property’s natural characteristics; prevent use of roads and trails by motorized off-highway vehicles; promote nonmotorized use of roads to the extent feasible; prevent hunting or shooting, and trash and vandalism; and protect the Fowler’s privacy and enjoyment of his property.

Commercial uses of the property, the document stated, were to be limited to operating the communications facilities as well as to objectives set forth in the above list of goals and protections.

Fowler and Ford’s suit states that they granted three road easements to the county between October 2009 and September 2011. The first two were for construction, use, maintenance and repair of the communications towers and other facilities, the suit explained.

The last negotiated easement, in September 2011 for a different area than the first two easements, was for maintenance vehicles, the county’s licensees and other persons authorized by the county, according to the suit.

The suit argues that since the tours began on Sept. 15, the county and Lake Transit’s joint venture “has overburdened and exceed the scope of the easement rights of the County. The Plaintiffs have demanded that the County and LTA not use the Easement Road for the bus tour purpose but said defendants have ignored Plaintiffs’ demand.

Fowler and Ford say that the easement does not authorize the county to conduct commercial bus tours or any other kind of bus tours, and does not confer to the county the power to give anyone else the right to run such tours. As such, they’re asking for a judicial determination of their rights.

Chavez said two tours are still scheduled to take place.

Grant said the filing of the complaint alone doesn’t mean the county has to stop the tours.

That decision, she said, will be up to the Board of Supervisors, unless the Fowlers file for a temporary restraining order, which they didn’t do on Tuesday.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

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 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.