THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA - This site is dedicated to exposing the continuing Marxist Revolution in California and the all around massive stupidity of Socialists, Luddites, Communists, Fellow Travelers and of Liberalism in all of its ugly forms.

"It was a splendid population - for all the slow, sleepy, sluggish-brained sloths stayed at home - you never find that sort of people among pioneers - you cannot build pioneers out of that sort of material. It was that population that gave to California a name for getting up astounding enterprises and rushing them through with a magnificent dash and daring and a recklessness of cost or consequences, which she bears unto this day - and when she projects a new surprise the grave world smiles as usual and says, "Well, that is California all over."

- - - - Mark Twain (Roughing It)

Sunday, August 30, 2015

5 million people left California in the last decade

Leaving the once Golden State

  • California would be shrinking if it was not for legal and illegal immigration from foreign nations.
  • A shrinking population is more than fine with me.  Call me a "crazy" Luddite, but adding millions new drivers to California's already bumper-to-bumper freeways does not improve anyone's quality of life.

(Sacramento Bee)  -  An unprecedented number of Californians left for other states during the last decade, according to new tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.
About 5 million Californians left between 2004 and 2013. Roughly 3.9 million people came here from other states during that period, for a net population loss of more than 1 million people.
The trend resulted in a net loss of about $26 billion in annual income.
About 600,000 California residents left for Texas, which drew more Californians than any other state. Roughly 350,000 people came from California to Texas.

The recession and housing bust, which hit California harder than most states, likely played a role in the trend. Conservative analyst and Hoover Institute Fellow Carson Bruno also blames the state's high cost of living and tax structure.
Based on tax returns, the IRS migration data is considered the gold standard for measuring population shifts, though it lags two to three years behind the current date. The latest, separate estimates from the state Department of Finance showed net domestic migration losses slowing, but not abating, in 2014.
Despite the loss of residents to other states, California continued to grow during the last decade because of natural increase - more births than deaths - and foreign migration.
This graphic shows the number of people who came to and left California from each state during the last decade.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article32679753.html#storylink=cpy
Read More . . . .

"Goodbye California" - Jana Kramer

Leaving California
The winning states are:
592,802 Californians moved to Texas.
461,601 Californians moved to Arizona
407,532 Californians moved to Nevada
339,113 Californians moved to Washington
262,096 Californians moved to Oregon
220,937 Californians moved to Florida
202,488 Californians moved to Colorado

Friday, August 28, 2015

Jerry Brown's Rape of the Sacramento Delta Moves Forward

The Sacramento Delta in a Jerry Brown wet-dream.

The Gang Rape of the Delta
"I'm not willing to sacrifice my land for somebody 
growing cotton in the desert."   
Chuck Baker, Delta Farmer

(San Luis Obispo Tribune)  -  Federal and California agencies have filed some of the first permit applications for a proposed project involving the construction of twin 30-mile tunnels to help carry water from the northern to southern and central regions of the state, officials said Thursday.
As part of the project promoted by Gov. Jerry Brown, the state Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation want approval to build three giant water intakes, each longer than three football fields, to draw water from the Sacramento River to feed through the tunnels.
The state Water Resources Control Board, which must approve or reject the request, expects to complete its review within two years, barring unforeseen developments, agency spokesman Timothy Moran said.
Brown and his administration have pushed for construction of the tunnels, which the state estimates will cost $17 billion, saying the current systems that carry water from the delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers are inefficient, outdated and vulnerable to earthquakes.
Southern California water agencies, which hope to obtain more water through the tunnels, have supported the project but not yet publicly submitted a financing plan.
State and federal authorities said they submitted the application to start the process but will expect an answer only after a final assessment of the project's impact on the delta, its habitats and wildlife.
Gov. Jerry Brown
(AP File Photo)
"The petition to the state water board begins a long process that includes public input," Nancy Vogel, spokeswoman for the state Department of Water Resources, said in an email.
Delta farmers, fishing groups and some environmental organizations have opposed the tunnels. They say removing water from the delta for the tunnels would destroy farms, wildlife and habitat that depend on the delta, one of the West Coast's largest estuaries.
The project currently is under public and federal review of its environmental impact.
Tunnel opponents say the state should wait for assessment of the environmental impact on the delta, and federal environmental approval of the overall project, before moving ahead.
Last week, tunnel opponents released an August 2014 plan by the state's contractor outlining plans to use eminent domain, if needed, to acquire land from delta farms for the project.
The land-acquisition plan and permit application "show these agencies consider the democratic process is just a side-show" when it comes to building the tunnels, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, head of the group Restore the Delta, which opposes the project, said in a statement.
Vogel, the state Department of Water Resources spokeswoman, said the permit application and the environmental report submitted earlier this year involve different issues and public processes.
"It's typical on all construction projects to start seeking permits from multiple agencies in parallel with the environmental review and its public comment process," she said in the email.

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/08/27/3780711/california-us-seek-permits-for.html#storylink=cpyRead More . . . . 

Save The Delta

A rally at the State Capitol to oppose Governor Brown's proposal to build peripheral tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to pump south.

Kill the Canal

Drain the Delta Dry
With one hand the liar political hacks claim they want to "save" the Sacramento Delta.  Then with the other hand they plan to send the Delta's water south to use on Southern California front lawns, crops and golf courses.

See one our many articles:
Jerry Brown wants to destroy the Sacramento Delta

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

California's Rigged Elections - 2 Ways California Could Expand Voter Choice in Elections

"Corruptus in Extremis"

  • Welcome to the one-party authoritarian state of the People's Republic of California where your vote has no meaning and those "elected" to office are the bought and paid for tools of Sacramento special interest groups.
  • The corrupt Democrats and Republicans have effectively banned all four opposition parties from the general election.  
  • The California Libertarian Party, the California Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the American Independent Party are no longer on the November ballot for voters to choose from.

Editor of Ballot Access News

California’s existing election system for Congress and state office could be improved with the following ideas.
The problem with the status quo is that ever since it went into effect in 2011, there has been very limited choice on the November ballot. So far, no independent or minor party candidate has appeared on the November ballot for statewide office. Each statewide office in November has been between one Democrat and one Republican, with no write-in space.
In November 2014, California voters were the only voters in the nation who had to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican for statewide office, or they couldn’t vote at all. The only minor party candidates that have qualified for the November ballot under the top-two system were three in 2012 and three in 2014, all in legislative or U.S. House races in which only one major party member was running, so that it was impossible for the minor party member not to place second and thereby qualify for the general election.
On the other hand, the existing system lets any voter vote for any candidate in June.
There are several ways to improve the system, to keep the freedom of choice in the primary and yet expand choice in the general election.
Banned in California
ONE: abolish primaries, as Louisiana has done. Louisiana only has a general election, and all candidates run in that general election. 85% of the time, someone gets 50% or more in November and is elected. But when no one gets 50%, Louisiana holds a runoff in December. Louisiana uses instant runoff voting for overseas absentee ballots, which makes it possible to hold the two elections that close together.
That system keeps everybody happy. No one is excluded from campaigning and running in the general election season when voters are most engaged.
During the last few years in Louisiana, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party has elected some local office candidates. Libertarian registration has been growing fast in Louisiana and is now above 10,000. The Green Party and the Reform Party are also ballot-qualified and their members can run for anything in the fall campaign season, just by paying a modest filing fee.
California could improve on the Louisiana system by providing instant runoff voting, or approval voting, for all voters, so that no December runoff would be needed.
TWO: restore the blanket primary. California used a blanket primary in 1998 and 2000, and also California used a blanket primary for all special congressional and legislative elections from 1967 through 2010.
A blanket primary has a single primary ballot, and all candidates appear on the ballot. The top vote-getter from each party automatically goes on the November ballot. Independent candidates can be handled in various ways.
Banned in California
The Democrats and Republicans have rigged California's elections so only
their parties appear on the general election ballot.  All independent
candidates and smaller opposition political parties are effectively banned
from the November ballot.
 Other nations where parties are banned: Communist
China, Communist Vietnam and Communist North Korea. 

In California special elections, all independent candidates ran in the primary, but they all were automatically put on the runoff ballot as well. In regularly scheduled elections, California independent candidates did not appear on the primary ballot, but petitioned onto the November ballot. The advantage of that is it permits a candidate to enter the race as late as August of an election year.
It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated California’s blanket primary in 2000, in California Democratic Party v Jones. However, the blanket primary can be made constitutional if it is voluntary. The law could provide that parties either nominate with a blanket primary, or else they are free to nominate candidates by convention at their own expense.
All Republican Party attempts to invalidate open primaries in Montana, Utah, South Carolina, and Virginia have failed, so far, because the law in those states lets the Republican Party nominate by convention at its own expense if it doesn’t like the primary system (although, for Montana, that is only true for party office, not public office).
The blanket primary was very popular in California. The initiative for a blanket primary, Prop. 198, passed with 59% in 1996. It passed in every county.
Turnout in both primaries and general elections during the blanket primary years was fairly high: In November 1998, turnout was 57.6% of registered voters; in November 2000, 70.9% of registered voters. In the 1998 primary, 42.5%; in the 2000 primary, 53.9%.
In the top-two years, the general election turnout (percentage of registered voters) was 72.4% in 2012, and 42.2% in 2014. In top-two years, primary turnout was 31.1% in 2012 and 25.2% in 2014. Turnout between November 2010 and November 2014 declined more in California than any other state.
Whereas in November 2010 California voters had six parties to choose from on their statewide ballot, in November 2014, they only had two, and that clearly motivated some people not to vote in November. Californians want lots of choices in both the primary and the general election.
Read More . . . .

What a Free Election Looks Like

America is the only democratic nation on earth where voter choices are restricted and elections basically rigged by the same two parties that "magically" win 100% of all elections.

In the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg the voters had seven political parties to choose from and four parties elected to office.

That is called freedom.

Seven parties on the German ballot and four
parties winning office.
Maybe California should try something "radical"
like election freedom.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Democrats push new taxes on gasoline, health care and tobacco

Taxes, Taxes and More Taxes

  • Leftist tax increasing Democrats are on the march and some worthless "Conservative" Republicans are already going into hiding.

(San Jose Mercury News)  -  State lawmakers on Wednesday took the first steps toward raising taxes and fees on motorists and further restricting Californians' tobacco use as the Legislature convened special sessions aimed at solving the state's transportation and health care funding crises.
Members of a Senate committee tackling a huge backlog of roadway maintenance endorsed legislation that would generate $4 billion annually for repairs by increasing the gas tax 12 cents a gallon and boosting annual vehicle registration fees $35 for most cars. Fees for all-electric vehicles would go up $100.

Another panel approved bills to hike the legal smoking age to 21, regulate e-cigarettes and allow counties to place local tobacco taxes on the ballot.

While significant, the party-line votes taken by the committees were merely an opening salvo in a battle between Democrats and Republicans that will play out over the next few weeks about the fairness of fixing California's crumbling roads and improving health care for the poor by imposing new taxes.
"We don't want to dump the cost of our horribly maintained infrastructure on the next generation -- it will be too late to solve the problem if we delay," said Sen. Jim Beall, D-Campbell, whose transportation tax bill passed the committee 9-2, with all the yes votes coming from Democrats. The two no votes came from Republicans; two other Republicans abstained.

Because tax and fee increases require the support of two-thirds of lawmakers in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats seeking to raise taxes will need help from their GOP colleagues, some of whom have indicated they're open to hiking the gas tax for the first time in more than two decades -- as long as the money is restricted to transportation improvements.
Current revenue from California's 42.35-cent gas tax covers only a fraction of the state's annual highway repair needs.
Last week, business organizations such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group said any deal should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually by raising gas and diesel taxes and increasing vehicle registration and license fees.
Republicans, he said, must be willing to make the leap for new tax revenue, and Democrats must be willing to make the leap for administrative reforms.
Brown will also be instrumental in lining up Republican votes for a new tax on managed health care plans as well as a $2-per-pack cigarette tax, which has been floated but not yet formally introduced by Democrats.
In a health-care financing committee hearing Wednesday afternoon, lawmakers approved a package of bills that aim to reduce the state's health care costs by reducing Californians' use of tobacco products.
The bill that regulates e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes, sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, had stalled in an Assembly committee whose members had accepted more than $170,000 in campaign contributions from the nation's two largest tobacco companies.
"We should be alarmed and infuriated that one of the fastest-growing segments of e-cigarette users is middle- and high-school students," Leno said. "This is about protecting children and saving lives."

Friday, August 21, 2015

Ventura, Calif. - The Best Place in America to Live

California has the top ten counties in the United States to live

  • Ventura County, Humboldt, Santa Barbara, Mendocino and Del Norte are the top five counties in the United States.  Followed by 6 to 10:  San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Monterey and Orange Counties.
  • These studies are always subjective.  For example, beautiful San Luis Obispo County only ranks #21 while super, overpopulated Los Angeles ranks #7.  Still just about any California county rightly ranks higher than most of the rest of the U.S.

By Christopher Ingraham

(Washington Post)  -  Ventura County, Calif., is the absolute most desirable place to live in America.
I know this because in the late 1990s the federal government devised a measure of the best and worst places to live in America, from the standpoint of scenery and climate. The "natural amenities index" is intended as "a measure of the physical characteristics of a county area that enhance the location as a place to live."
The index combines "six measures of climate, topography, and water area that reflect environmental qualities most people prefer." Those qualities, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, include mild, sunny winters, temperate summers, low humidity, topographic variation, and access to a body of water.
These "natural aspects of attractiveness," as the USDA describes them, are intended to be constant and relatively immutable. They're not expected to change much over time, so the USDA hasn't updated its data beyond the initial 1999 scoring. "Natural amenities pertain to the physical rather than the social or economic environment," the USDA writes. Things like plants, animals or the human environment are excluded by definition. "We can measure the basic ingredients, not how these ingredients have been shaped by nature and man." I stumbled on these numbers after reading about a recent study linking natural amenities to religiosity. (U.S. counties with nicer weather and surroundings tend to have less religious residents.)
I've mapped all the counties above according to where they rank on the natural amenities index -- mouse over to check out how desirable (or not) your own county is. You'll see that Sun Belt counties fare pretty well -- especially ones in California and Colorado. In fact, every single one of the 10 highest-ranked counties is located in California. After Ventura County, Humboldt, Santa Barbara, Mendocino and Del Norte counties round out the top five.
Ranking of counties in America based on the quality of life.
High quality is in blue.

By contrast, the Great Lakes region fares poorly, with most of the lowest rankings clustered around the Minnesota/North Dakota border region -- hey there, Fargo! The absolute worst place to live in America is (drumroll please) ... Red Lake County, Minn. (claim to fame: "It is the only landlocked county in the United States that is surrounded by just two neighboring counties," according to the county Web site).
Now, if you spend even a few minutes with the map above you can probably find a few things to quibble with in the methodology. If you hate summer, like me, it may seem that there's an inordinate emphasis on warm weather and ample sunshine. How else to explain that Inyo County, Calif. -- home to Death Valley, a place so inhospitable to human life that it literally has death in its name -- ranks so much higher than, say, the bucolic rolling hillsides of New England?
Or that Maricopa County, Ariz. -- home to Phoenix, a place that feels like the inside of a hot car for half the year -- ranks higher than Iowa's stunningly beautiful and criminally underappreciated Loess Hills region? Or that Washington D.C. -- home of sweltering summers, miserable winters, swampy humidity and little natural beauty to speak of -- ranks higher than any place at all?
On the other hand, it turns out that this index correlates well with a lot of human behaviors that researchers and politicians are constantly trying to understand better. For instance, the USDA's original report on the natural amenities index found that these measures "drive rural population change." The USDA found that rural areas with a lot of natural amenities saw the greatest population change between 1970 and 1996.
"The relationship is quite strong," the study found. "Counties with extremely low scores on the scale tended to lose population over the 1970-96 period, while counties with extremely high scores tended to double their populations over the period."
Read More . . . . .

San Francisco ranks #6 in the U.S.

San Diego ranks at #8 in the U.S.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Desalination for a Drought-Plagued California

San Diego County Carlsbad Desalination Project

Does anyone think in Sacramento?

  • Democrats love to spend money but not on anything useful.  They are spending billions on a bullet train that few will ride and next to nothing on desalination plants for a thirsty state.
  • Call me a "crazy" Blogger, but why can't we build desalination plants in the San Francisco Bay area and run pipes of fresh water right into the California aqueduct system?  You could even pump the fresh water under the sinking San Joaquin Valley to refill the drained aquifer.

By Peter Neill
Director, World Ocean Observatory
Huffington Post

The present drought in California is a highly visible realization of our lack of water awareness and its destructive undermining of the financial structure and social organization we have built in that most progressive state in that most successful global economy. If we fail in California, how can we succeed anywhere else?
At the most reductive level, the traditional water supply system in California has been overwhelmed by climate, industrial agriculture, and water-rich consumption that has been the envy of the world but can survive no longer without revolutionary change. If there is not enough water on the mountaintops to feed the watersheds, rivers, and reservoirs, then where will the requisite water come from?
In 2012, the San Diego County Water Authority signed an agreement to build the largest desalination plant in the United States. The process is not new; it is applied today in some 21,000 desalination plants in over 120 countries, including Italy, Australia, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Japan, China, India, United Arab Emirates, Malta, Cape Verde, and Cyprus, producing more than 3.5 billion gallons of potable water per day. Saudi Arabia leads the world, meeting 70% of the daily needs of its population.

The San Diego project is proposed to come on line in 2015 and to provide 7% of the Authority's demand by 2020. The plant is to be built and operated by Poseidon Water, a private investor-owned company that develops water and wastewater infrastructure. The contract is for 30 years, after which the Authority can purchase the plant for $1. The company is also building a 10-mile pipeline to deliver treated water inland to the Authority's aqueduct system where it can augment existing collected or natural supply to serve the needs of the 24 regional member water agencies serving 3.1 million people.
The Carlsbad Desalination Plant occupies 6 acres of the 388 acre ocean-front site of the Encina Power Station that for 50 years has run on oil and natural gas, releasing emissions, and requiring a large dredged lagoon to hold sea water for cooling and to receive plant effluent - a stagnant, stinking reminder of an old technology. The adjacent desalination plant will use a reverse osmosis process with its source water coming from the generating plant cooling supply, treated and pumped under pressure through membranes to remove salt and other microscopic impurities.
Delay After Delay
A desalination plant in Hunting Beach (Orange County) has been talked
about since 1998.  But even with the drought the proposed project
drags on and on and on never to be built.  (OC Register)

In the past, the primary objections to desalination have been salt residue, corrosion, habitat destruction, and cost. The Poseidon plant has undergone comprehensive review by the local, state, and federal agencies, each determined to protect its constituents and the environment. For every two gallons treated, one will be quality drinking water and the other diluted salt content for return to the ocean. The plant will run on Encina electricity to power high-speed pumps at market rates built into the contract. The approvals indicate that there will be no noise, no odor, and no environmental impact. Remarkably, the surrounding land has already been renewed by the prospect of the new plant and has been re-developed by the Authority to transform the embayment into a viable environment for marine life and community activities.
The San Diego region has been a center for the development of international desalination technology. The reverse osmosis process was born from a local company in the 1960s. There are some 35 related companies in the area employing 2,200 people and generating over $200 million in annual revenue. According to the Authority, the Poseidon Project "will have significant economic benefit for the region, including $350 million in spending during construction, 2,400 construction-related jobs, and $50 million in annual spending throughout the region once the desalination plant is operational. For the region, the facility will create jobs, generate tax revenue, improve water quality and enhance water reliability with a new drought-proof supply."
These hopeful numbers and language are the typical political arguments that have been used to justify new technology for a long time. The financial estimates may or may not be predicable or accurate, but the ultimate return is inevitable when there is suddenly no more water available, we need the salt water turned fresh, and the cost is priceless.

Monday, August 17, 2015

California Farmers Market Sells Marijuana

Step Right Up
And get your celery, pot, beets and arugula.

(Mother Jones)  -  In the fruit and veggie cornucopia that is California, local farmers markets sell everything from brandywine tomatoes and lemon cucumbers to hedgehog mushrooms and fresh medjool dates. But no farmers market can match the selection of the one in the Mendocino County town of Laytonville, which offers, among other things, an ample supply of heirloom cannabis.
Admittedly, this is not a typical farmers market. It takes place just once a year, at a hippie enclave replete with UFO murals and Ganesh shrines, and only certified medical marijuana patients may enter (though there's a doctor on site to help with that). But it does offer the spectacle of actual farmers selling their own produce and pot side by side.
Emily Hobelmann of the Lost Coast Outpost visited last year and was wowed by the selection:
All told, I saw squash and apples and pears and peppers and world-class cannabis flowers. I saw leeks and tomatoes, peaches and dab rigs. I saw picked beans and marijuana clones, carrots and cold water hash.
If you happen to be up that way, you can stop by between 11 a.m. and 4:20 p.m. next Saturday.
Read More . . . .

Mendocino County

Thursday, August 13, 2015

The State of Jefferson is Back - Move for a 51st State

California is Too Damn Big

New state would be made up of 

the 20 northernmost counties

PLACERVILLE, Calif. (KCRA) —They came by the dozens, then hundreds.

Fueled by frustrations over a perceived unequal representation in state government, supporters of creating a new state in Northern California packed the El Dorado County supervisor's chambers in an effort to win their support.

The state of Jefferson would be made up of California's 20 northernmost counties with a population of approximately 1.7 million people, similar to the number of people living in Idaho.

"We just hope that the Board of Supervisors will actually see for themselves how much enthusiasm there is for people in El Dorado County, that want more representation," state of Jefferson organizer Mike Thomas said.

Should Northern California Secede and
Become the State of Jefferson?

Under the current vision, each of the 20 counties would have one state senator, while the 60 assemblymen would represent districts based on population size.
Currently the region in question is represented by just six lawmakers in Sacramento. The rest of California has 114.
"We have 11 counties up here with one state senator, L.A. County has 11 senators so you can see the mismatch," Thomas said. "Our founding fathers never envisioned that a state would actually do that."
Jefferson supporters presented before the supervisors and standing-room only crowd for about 45 minutes, hoping to convince them to issue a declaration saying the county intends to join the new state.
Eight Northern California counties have already thrown support for the new state. They include Modoc, Siskyou, Glenn, Tehama, Yuba, Sutter, Lake and Lassen counties.
In order for it to become a state, Jefferson would need a majority of votes in both houses of the California Legislature and Congress.
New states have been formed this way, but it hasn't happened for a long time. Maine was the last state to do it when it split from Massachusetts -- in 1820.
One of many proposed maps of a 51st state.
State of Jefferson supporters.

A group called Keep it California also presented before the supervisors.
Organizer Jamie Beutler acknowledged representation is an issue, but said Jefferson isn't the solution.
"It's much easier to work with what we have and solve our problems, which we believe can be solved, than to form an entire new state, and start all over again with all of the unknowns that there are," Beutler said.
Many said they were drawn to the idea of Jefferson, but remained skeptical.
Maggie Cogburn came here with her husband and wanted to learn how the logistics would work.
"It's pretty much in line with what I've already known, I'd like to hear more details on how are they going to do a lot of things," Maggie Cogburn said.
For others, the small government low taxes message struck a chord.
"Southern California and Central California has been dictating to the rural counties, and overriding our votes," said Terry Willhoit. "We're having to live to their standards in the metropolitan big cities, and we're not big city people up here, we are hometown people."
The supervisors did not vote on the state of Jefferson but promised to look into it more closely.
Read More . . . .

State of Jefferson petition goes to El Dorado Co. board

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Jerry Brown Signs Bills Removing "Alien" From Labor Law

I'm not an "Alien"
I'm a "Foreign National"

(International Business Times)  -  California Gov. Jerry Brown signed several bills Monday changing immigration policy in the state. One of the three bills Brown signed removed the word "alien" from the state's labor code, an attempt to remove what some view as an offensive descriptor for people who aren't fully naturalized citizens.
Aside from the "alien" bill, Brown signed legislation that allows high school students who are legal permanent residents to sign up to work at polling sites to help Spanish speaking voters on election days. Brown also signed a bill that bans the consideration of a child's immigration status during civil liability cases.
"Alien is now commonly considered a derogatory term for a foreign-born person and has very negative connotations,” state Sen. Tony Mendoza, the Democrat who sponsored the bill, told the Los Angeles Times. “The word 'alien,' and any law prescribing an order for the issuance of employment to 'aliens,' has no place in the laws of our state and more importantly, should never be the basis for any employment hiring.”
The bills are the latest in a push for expanded immigration rights in the state. Those efforts have been gaining steam, including a push to bypass federal law and give work permits to undocumented immigrants to work on farms, expand health care coverage for undocumented children in the state and give residency permits to undocumented immigrants in California.
Read More . . . .

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Supreme Court may have blocked Bullet Train

Environmental Laws May Block Train

  • There is too much raw cash out there to truly stop the train. The corrupt special interests will keep trying to get around any barriers.

(Breitbart News)  -  The California Supreme Court threw a giant obstacle on the California bullet train’s track, ruling that the state agencies cannot escape the state’s environmental laws by claiming federal laws supersede them.

The case from which the argument against the California High Speed Rail Authority derives, City of San Diego vs. Board of Trustees of the California State University, revolved around the board wanting to expand the campus of San Diego State University (SDSU) to accommodate more than 10,000 additional students in the next few years. The board argued that CSU “may not lawfully pay to mitigate the off-campus environmental effects of its projects unless the Legislature makes an appropriation for that specific purpose.”
As explained by The National Law Review:
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) mandates that, before approving a project, a public agency must first identify the project’s significant adverse environmental impacts, and then mitigate those impacts by adopting feasible, enforceable mitigation measures or selecting feasible alternatives that avoid the impacts. If mitigation is infeasible, the agency may approve the project despite adverse impacts only by finding that unmitigated effects are outweighed by the project’s benefits.
The board attempted to use City of Marina v. Board of Trustees (2009) to buttress its argument, as the court had ruled, “[A] state agency’s power to mitigate its project’s effects through voluntary mitigation payments is ultimately subject to legislative control; if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist.” The board argued that the court’s statement prohibited it from funding off-site mitigation without express appropriation by the Legislature.
But the court called the Marina language overstated, and ruled against CSU, stating, “In mitigating the effects of its projects, a public agency has access to all of its discretionary powers and not just the power to spend appropriations.” The court added:
CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project’s benefits, unless the measures to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible. Such a rule, even were it not wholly inconsistent with the relevant statute would tend to displace the fundamental obligation of ̳[e]ach public agency [to] mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.

Read More . . . .