Next came the claim that Tom McClintock so doubted his chances of winning one of the most Republican congressional seats in the country that he had filed committees to run for Lt. Governor and State Board of Equalization in 2010. One problem: McClintock never opened a 2010 committee for Lt. Governor (he was a candidate in 2006) and the Board of Equalization committee was an exploratory committee opened in 2006.

Was Charlie Brown was an intelligence officer during the Carter administration? That would explain a lot.

Meantime – despite record low Insurance rates – my brother and I have to get back to making illicit profits off of all these excessively large homes and SUV’s in Placer County.

To those that call questioning the homosexual lifestyle “fear-mongering” and to those fixated on who makes more public appearances and to those fixated on two old candidate committees and to those that call Charlie’s big government solutions leadership – This Jug’s for you!

Blogger’s note – can’t wait to see the 6/30 report.

A quick browse of Montgomery’s campaign finances shows a ton of donors from the Bay Area. We also see several known Placer Democrats doing their part will small donations – the way it is supposed to work, right?

Rob Haswell – former candidate for the 4th AD is running the campaign and the Placer Dems have decided that Bruce Kranz is their best shot for a take-down.

On Page 12 of the report the first “Donor of Interest” appears – Paul McCloskey, Jr. – When he was in Congress, people called him Pete McCloskey. As a RINO Congressman, his greatest contribution to America was the endangered species act – whose tenants have been used by the Sierra Club for years to sue to stop development and forest management.

McCloskey’s recent contribution to local politics was leading a group who recruited primary opponents to Richard Pombo and John Doolittle to soften them up for their Dem Opponents in 2006. After taking Pombo down, McCloskey re-registered Dem and has been out campaigning with Charlie Brown, nice.

Peter V. Cornell – A millionaire businessman from Los Altos who dumped some $31,000 into the campaign. Others with the same last name from the same zip code have contributed loads of money as well. Their names showed up as Clinton donors on related searches.

Auburn Area Democratic Club – no surprise there.

Placer County Dem Central Committee – $3500 no surprise there.

Tahoe Truckee Democratic Club – see the above.

VOICE (San Francisco Address) – searches reveal a Gay Rights / networking website. It’s features include “queermail”. Maybe we should ask Montgomery about Prop 8, I think it is a great question as Montgomery and her husband of nearly 20 years have different last names as well. Knowing how Montgomery views marriage would be a good window into how she is going to make decisions as a supervisor (morays).

And, finally, the Coup ‘d Etat – William A Newsom… father of Gavin Newsom. Gavin is literally the catalyst for why Prop 8 is on the ballot.

The donors confirm that Montgomery’s past writings were no fluke. The extreme left has unified behind her campaign. It is time for the rest of the county, including those withholding their support to choose sides.

There could not be a starker contrast.

P.S. Today – a week later than other media outlets, the AJ published Bruce Kranz’ response to the barrage of letters against him over the 4 lane highway in King’s Beach. The AJ of course made sure Montgomery got equal space even though they spiked letters in support of Bruce.

Blogger’s Note – This is important as this addresses the slew of commenters who have been vocal about opposition to the 4-lane expansion of Hwy 28 in Kings Beach.

Get real! Wisdom has prevailed…

As reported in the Sierra Sun – July 15, 2008

In your recent editorial calling for the examination of “TRPA’s decision making process must be examined” (Sierra Sun June 30) there is an underlying assumption to your criticism of the board’s vote on the Kings Beach Core Improvement Project.

The assumption is that only the proponents of the lane reduction with roundabouts represent the true interests of the community at large. This could not be further from the truth. Your paper continues to be the pawn of a few key staff leaders of Placer County and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that control information released to the Sierra Sun, rather than doing your own research of the environmental documents (EIS/EIR).

The Sierra Sun is perpetuating the biggest propaganda campaign ever directed against the citizens of any Lake Tahoe community. You condemn the TRPA Board for not voting to degrade the environment and then question their representation of the “public will.” You take Tim Leslie’s valid comments out of their original context, and then generalize and judge what you see as an unfavorable decision, but only for the lane reduction proponents.

The TRPA Governing Board public hearing on June 25 at 10 a.m. was attended by many more supporters of the four-lane improvement alternative. Some had to leave by noon to go back to work since the actual public comments did not begin until about 12:30 p.m. There have always been many more citizens in favor of retaining the four-lane capacity (consistent with the Kings Beach Community Plan), keeping on-street parking for local businesses, installing wide sidewalks and pedestrian safe signalized intersections, without any degradation to the surrounding community. For responsible reduction of the roadway capacity to be feasible would require traffic volumes to actually decrease significantly. The general welfare of the broad community and the environment of Lake Tahoe were both protected by the TRPA board decision in a display of democracy and clear reasoning.

The environmental benefits were avoidance of degradation due to increased traffic congestion, state highway traffic diverted through residential neighborhoods, and reduced levels of service for mass transit. These negative impacts are clearly stated in the EIS, and only occur due to reducing the lanes from four to two through Kings Beach. This position was clearly and publicly stated by Tim Leslie (Sierra Sun July 2) and Bruce Kranz (Reno Gazette Journal July 10). Mike Weber included the rationale that the decision to reduce the lanes is irreversible at Tahoe leaving no room for error.

The Placer County and TRPA staff leadership has been orchestrating this lane reduction campaign for at least the last five years. They have falsely claimed that this lane reduction is a prerequisite for economic revitalization of Kings Beach and is the only way to slow the traffic through the town. Every justification for the lane reduction compares its benefits to the existing undeveloped highway and ignores the four-lane improvement alternative that achieves the benefits without environmental degradation.

The “public process” that needs examination is how the Placer County staff leadership, using public funds, conducted an elaborate propaganda campaign to “sell” their predetermined lane reduction idea. The usual tools were employed including half truths, exaggeration of benefits, ignoring negative consequences, misapplying general planning theories, and “pounding reiteration” of their slogans (traffic always flows in roundabouts, the four lanes is responsible for Kings Beach’s current economic condition, we want traffic to go to Kings Beach instead of through it, etc.). Facts were constantly spun to make lane reduction appear to be workable and absolutely the only option. Control of the media, the Sierra Sun in particular, was necessary to influence what is read and debated in the community.

The charade is over. The special interests and narrow self interests of a few activists and property speculators have failed to override the facts of environmental impacts and persuade the ultimate decision makers responsible for the general welfare of the community at large. Common sense and wisdom has prevailed.

Now the Placer County staff has been directed to detail the four-lane alternative and move ahead with this much-needed and long-awaited improvement to the Kings Beach community. Whether the staff will truly be public servants and judiciously use public funds to produce the best improvements to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility, beautify the commercial core, slow traffic, and install water quality improvements in a timely manner remains to be seen.

Richard Leon is a board member of the Kings Beach Business and Citizens Alliance and a NTFPD commissioner for 12 years.

Dear Mr Kranz,

Thank you so very much for opposing the 3 lane Highway project in KB, CA.

We are for the 4 lanes and belileve it will save our businesses. Three lanes would be a total disaster for the North Shore.

We are business owners in KB and we need a tough stance against the 3-lane proposal. Stand firm and don’t let slander or pressure cause you to change your position. Thank you and it was an honor to vote for you.

Sincerely,
Pastor Marty Chamberlain
Christ Life Church
Kings Beach, CA

Dear Bruce,

I just wanted to express my appreication for your decision to direct County staff to the four lane with all the enhancements. The fall out was predictable as the 3 lane proponents had waged this campaign for about 4 years. They had decided what they wanted and then used every technique available to convince others their choice was the right choice. They shut us out using much of the same language they are using to blast you.

We are the strong and usually silent majority but this has gone too far and we will continue to defend this redirection because nobody has to lose. There does not have to be degradations suffered by anyone to achieve a great Core Improvement project. Thanks for being strong about the convictions of your own conscience.

Dave McClure

I am a business owner and have lived in Kings Beach and Tahoe Vista and drive through Kings Beach almost daily and usually several times. I am AGAINST the 3 lane option and
completely agree with the recent decision to be open to the 4 lanes. I don’t care for more street lights, however
they are better than round-abouts.

Many of the photos taken on the YouTube showed people crossing illegally and not at crosswalks. If they cross illegally with roundabouts or not at a street light, the same result will occur. Also,are we basing a huge change on the busiest 4 day weekend of the year? If we had street lights these pictures would be irrelevant as the cars would be stopped at the light for the people to cross.

I did not see any filming of people being in danger crossing at Coon street with the traffic light and
crosswalk.

I was on a view deck for the 3rd of July fireworks. Afterwards, the 4 lanes were packed with cars and then one of the West bound lanes cleared up first, thankfully, as the sherrifs, fire truck and emergency vehicles had to get around. If there were 3 lanes, one in each direction,
the traffic would have been backed up even longer and I could not imagine how the Emergency vehicles would have gotten through.

Why was there not any filming of this scene that night? It clearly showed how negative a 3 lane situation would have been. The group for the 3 lanes make it sound like it is the huge majority. They are more vocal. The majority
of people on the deck that night and many of the business owners in Kings Beach are for 4 lanes.

It really depends on who you talk to as I would say that the majority of people here are for 4 lanes.

We do see how 3 lanes has harmed Tahoe City and its’ businesses. We want our businesses in KB to succeed.

We do need an improved Kings Beach and I am looking forward to this moving forward soon. I hope that your majority vote for 4 lanes continues the same and a 4 lane plan gets passed through quickly.

Thank you all for your time and consideration,

Pat Evans

Resident of Kings Beach and Tahoe Vista and business owner since 1996

In a retort to Deric Rothe – Bruce Kranz forwarded several emails he received from supporters of the 4 lane highway alternative for Kings Beach. He also forwarded a letter to the editor that the AJ didn’t print (imagine that).

Sierra Sun – July 10, 2008
Readers Write: Sensible Move

I want to give Mr. Bruce Kranz and the TRPA a big thank you. Thanks for making a sensible decision based on the needs of a peaceful community and not caving in to private interests. I don’t know how anyone can claim that the majority of the community wants three lanes, since no one bothered to ask me and my neighbors how we feel. If these people had the courtesy to ask, I would have laughed. And I think the “majority” of residents in Kings Beach would not choose a plan that endangers their children. I also don’t think they would support a plan that congests the Tahoe Basin. Traffic jams are why I don’t make it out of Tahoe often. Some of us don’t want to see Tahoe turn into a mini-Bay Area.
Ken Feely
Kings Beach

Dear Supervisor Kranz,

Thank you for taking the time to study the documents and the tremendous list of pros and cons for the Kings Beach plan. I studied the project late in the game, and although I wanted to go along with those who had been devoting time and energy to the process, I found the traffic issue a tremendous concern. I understand that many Kings Beach residents are not concerned as the opinion is that only a few days in peak season will cause a problem. I find the traffic on those peak days already a problem, and have had to turn back on several occasions to wait until the traffic flow improves. I cannot imagine the wait on those high peak days, and I anticipate a good long wait throughout the summer worsening annually. It feels irresponsible to knowingly create a situation that will negatively impact traffic flow now and in the future.

As for safety, I foresee people taking risks as they pass to skirt traffic making an unstable situation at best. I have seen several of the letters sent to you by angry residents who have worked hard on this plan, and I understand their disappointment. However, I am relieved that the Hybrid plan is not a done deal. I also worry about the challenge of evacuation in case of fire as Hwy 237 would be difficult to access. The roundabouts also create a concern as many of the large boats will be unable to navigate the turn to the boat ramp and will have to seek alternate ramps out of Kings Beach.

Thank you for standing for your constituents. I attended the meeting in Kings Beach last week and felt that most of the speakers were part of a well organized group whose goal was to speak as a vocal majority. In the crowd, there were many who opposed the plan but were reluctant to speak against those who were obviously working together to present a unified front. I was one who did not have the nerve to stand and speak. Thanks again for looking
carefully at the plan and deciding on its merits rather than allowing your vote to be swayed by a vocal group.

Regards,
Elyse Pasha

With all due respect to my friends Mark and others – any idea I may have had about Council Change was lost with this article in the Sacramento Bee and how it correlates to a column written in the Auburn Sentinel by one of their leaders Duane Wilson: LINK

In Duane’s article – he enumerates that his primary issue with the Rocklin City Council is their planning which is Wilson’s Words – “This despite recommendations by the Sacramento Area Council on Governments (SACOG) urging local communities to incorporate planning that emphasizes clustering places where people live close to businesses where they can work and stores were they can shop.”

SACOG’s recommendations are eerily similar to the big
government measure by soon-to-be Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, SB 375. Basically, SB 375 would create a California Coastal Commission like board to throttle development in the Sacramento Area – giving them dictatorial powers to rip funding away from municipalities that aren’t green enough.

We didn’t learn from the days of Jerry Brown – who is the architect of our current traffic problems. In the 1970’s he deep-sixed freeway construction and now improvements are costing as much as $1 Billion per mile to our freeways.

Am I taking a reach? Look at this Sacramento Bee Article

The primary quote in this article has very similar roots to what Duane Wilson wrote:Describing SB 375 as controversial would be the understatement of the year. By directing the state Transportation Commission to use billions of dollars in transportation funds to change land use patterns throughout the state, moving toward a “sustainable communities strategy … designed to achieve certain goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” the measure touches some very sensitive political nerves.

Let me quote Tom McClintock later in the article:

Finally, there are a lot of folks who simply don’t like the notion of having land use policy dictated from Sacramento, as Republican Sen. Tom McClintock told Steinberg when the bill was on the Senate floor last year.

McClintock accused Steinberg, in a series of questions beginning with “who the hell are you to … ,” of wanting to dictate how Californians lead their lives. That criticism mirrors the decades-long angst engendered by two state-created bodies that already wield tight land use controls, the state Coastal Commission and the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission.

If this is not enough of a reason to dismiss the Rocklin Citizens for Council Change over their NIMBY, Anti-Growth motives… take a look at the end of the Bee’s Article -

Steinberg, not surprisingly, enjoys universal support from environmental groups. More than likely he can move his bill to Schwarzenegger’s desk. But whether the governor will sign it, his oft-stated passion for curbing global warming notwithstanding, is uncertain.

While Schwarzenegger touts reducing greenhouse gases on one hand, he also crows about spending billions of dollars to expand the state’s highway network to reduce congestion – exactly the opposite of the mass transit-oriented scenario the Steinberg bill envisions.

The message from Rocklin Citizens for Council Change is clear – get out of your cars, and we are going to fight measure H (and anything else resembling growth) all over again.

Please re-elect Storey, Magnusen and Hill – good Lord, the whole thing has gone berzerk!

Blogger’s Note: The following is an email exchange between Bruce Kranz and Deric Rothe – the Rampaging Editor of the Auburn Journal.

I am really starting to wonder if Deric Rothe’s rage against anything Republican is too simple an explanation for why he is after Bruce Kranz. We all know that Rothe was long time friends with Kevin Ramirez, the fueled his angst against the Sierra College Board Members…

Kranz was ex-law enforcement is it that? Kranz never served in the military, so it can’t be that… Kranz never had business dealings with Rothe, I don’t think either of them knew each other before Rothe took over at the AJ in the early 2000’s.

At least I am honest about my bias!

Bruce Starts:

I’ve yet to hear back from you (Deric) regarding my request that the Auburn Journal run my Kings Beach editorial. The Reno Gazette-Journal and now the Sierra Sun have both run my editorial and, apparently the Auburn Journal believes it isn’t news worthy in Auburn. I find this hard to believe
considering you have allowed 4 very caustic “letters to the editor” (see below) to be printed on this very subject. Is allowing only one side of the story to be heard good journalism in your book?

I am, once again, asking that you play fair and allow me to present my side of this issue. Since I’m leaving on vacation tomorrow morning (July 12th) I’m hoping you’ll run my editorial without further communication.

I look forward to your response.

Rothe Replies:

Bruce, we publish the letters to the editor that we receive, if they meet our criteria. We have not received any letters supportive of your position on the Kings Beach roundabouts. We have received many letters that are critical of your vote. If we give you a guest column, we will give Jennifer Montgomery a guest column as well at the same time. She is your opponent in a run-off election. I will contact her today and see if she is interested in
writing about TRPA and the Kings Beach issue. If so, I will publish your column as is. If not, we will consider other alternatives to ensure you are treated fairly. I am sorry I did not get back to you immediately yesterday. We had a busy day with our Best of the Best party at the Fairgrounds
yesterday afternoon, fire and smoke coverage, accidents on Interstate 80 … My best to you and yours. Have a nice vacation. —Deric

Blogger’s Note: this smells – 50% of my letters don’t make the cut and those that do get chopped to pieces. Basically, Rothe is telling Bruce to pound sand. Based on my own experience, 50% or more of the pro-Bruce letters we could send in will get axed. Please also further note that the AJ letter Writers, the Sierra Sun letter Writers and the Montgomery Commenters on this blog are the same people.

Kranz Replied to Rothe:

What an answer! You’ll let anyone say what they want to criticize an individual without allowing a response. You’ve proven, once again how politically prejudiced you actually are. I’m sure you realize the politics behind these letters. I hope Jennifer appreciates all the support you continue to provide…

One question Deric – If you have to get Jennifer’s side of the story in order to run my response to blatant attacks, why were you so open to allowing Rob Haswell to attack me before contacting me for my response? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Tony – Why do you allow this kind of behavior? Two legitimate newspapers realize that it’s only fair to allow equal time. I guess the only way to respond to this kind of attack in your newspaper is to buy the space – if you even allow that.

Blogger’s Note: This is why I am all over the Auburn Journal. They have gone into berzerk mode. Bloggers are competing with the Liberal establishment.

Come get some of this blog and tell me why the incumbents deserve to be overthrown.

I saw the column in the Auburn Sentinel by my fellow Republican Duane Wilson. Link Here

Four years ago a group of local citizens organized and ran a slate of candidates for city council who supported “smart growth.” The incumbents, riding a flood of developer money, narrowly defeated the locally supported candidates. The result was more sprawl in housing, a continued emphasis on automobile travel and numerous strip malls (most are more than half empty – make your own tally of the vacancies in Rocklin’s retail centers to verify). This despite recommendations by the Sacramento Area Council on Governments (SACOG) urging local communities to incorporate planning that emphasizes clustering places where people live close to businesses where they can work and stores were they can shop. The information was there but it required leadership, commitment and action by local government – features sorely lacking in Rocklin. Today, we still have a barren city core, as well as a glut of for sale and bank-owned suburban homes.

1. Everytime I see “Smart Growth”, I think No Growth – that has been the NIMBY buzzword for years.

2. The Incumbents were re-elected by a margin that was more than narrow. Their opponents included Democrat activists and the Placer CRA mailed on behalf of the incumbents.

3.Emphasis on Automible travel – this is consistent with California Culture. People in California hate public transit, which is a money-loser most everywhere it is forced on people.

4. Yes, SACOG advocated social engineering in planning communities – God bless the Rocklin Council for advocating self-determination.

5. Blaming the Council for the Greed of lenders, politically correct loans forced by congress and the economy is absurd.

Duane – the overriding theme of your posting is that the town of Rocklin is based on the Automobile. IT SHOULD BE – ROCKLIN is a SUBURB OF SACRAMENTO. I have tons of friends that work in the capitol!

What is the plan of Citizens for Council Change!? The August issue of Family Circle magazine rated Rocklin the 5th best place to raise a family in America! AND THEY ARE VERY GREEN – obviously, they did not have a problem with Rocklin’s emphasis on the evil SUV!?

Help me out here – enlighten me. What did they do wrong, other than hold office for a combined 70 years (Yuill excluded)?

How do you respond to my opinion that you are anti-growth? It seems like we are fighting Measure H all over again – make ‘em live somewhere else, we have ours!

The Nevada County Union Column is linked here

While touting how he will miss Sue Horne – the author writes in the middle of his column, the following:

Last month, supervisors approved increases in some county fees – including double-digit ones – for the building, environmental health and planning departments, among others.

Last year, they approved pay raises for county employees, including a double-digit increase for the county executive officer.

Note how the author of the column deleted one key fact – Horne voted yes.

He also wrote about the nasty campaign between Horne and Logue, carefully omitting reference to the lie-infested hit piece over the Levees and eminent domain. The choice jewel is excerpted here:

During the state Assembly race, it was disturbing to hear Horne’s critics claim she somehow didn’t have the chops to be a state legislator. “She cried in public,” one said.

Ummm – Mr. Author, Horne did break down several times before important votes. I never blogged about that because there was so much else to talk about regarding Horne.

In the course of defending Horne, the Author wrote the above excerpted lines about all the taxes, fees and salaries she voted to increase.

We need politicians who can reach across the aisle and strike a compromise, not just pound sand. We also need politicians who understand what seems to be a mounting chorus of discontent with status-quo government. I suspect Horne will run again for public office, and her own timing will be better next time.

The Author’s idea of reaching across the aisle is exactly what has Republicans ready to vote for brown and obambi. Selling our values out makes voters just vote for the real thing.

However, this was an opinion piece from someone obviously upset that Horne lost. God forbid he think about why Horne lost…

What should I expect from a paper that never allowed this blogger to respond to attacks against my integrity from the Horne camp?