Day laborers prepare to march to city hall to announce their lawsuit on Feb. 2, 2010. Photo: Arturo Tolenttino

Day laborers in Costa Mesa are suing the city to repeal its anti-solicitation ordinance because they say it is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For years day laborers in the city have alleged that police have harassed them as they looked for work on public sidewalks, falsely telling them that they had no right to be there. The city’s ordinance does not ban looking for work on public sidewalks, but places tight restrictions on solicitations for work, business or charity that even the city acknowledges it would not apply to protesters. Police records and interviews by the OC Voice reveal that besides the questionable constitutionality of the ordinance, the city has enforced the ordinance unequally, applying it almost exclusively to day laborers while ignoring violations by numerous other workers who twirl signs and make other motions on city sidewalks in order to attract customers to local businesses. The OC Voice was the first to break the story of alleged police harassment under the ordinance and the possibility that a lawsuit would be filed by the ACLU on behalf of the day laborers in October, 2007. This is the second of five parts in video,  and the third  part of a three-part interview with Chief of Police Christopher Shawkey.

By Vern Nelson
OC Voice Columnist

“We think our healthcare system is actually pretty good right now.”-State Senator Tom Harman, Sept. 2006.

At the time the senator uttered this astonishing remark to Laguna Beach’s Coastline Pilot, the U.S. was spending nearly twice as much per capita on health care as other developed countries, while rating 37^th on most measures of quality of care, and it’s worse now.

Nearly 2 million Americans are driven into bankruptcy each year due to illness, and three-quarters of them had insurance when they got sick. Meanwhile, 22,000 Americans die every year from lack of medical service due to being uninsured-up from 18,000 at the time of Harman’s remark-equivalent to a Sept. 11 attack every 51 days.

Meanwhile, all efforts at meaningful reform have been met with cries of “socialism” and fables of the failures of other nations’ single-payer health care systems, and focus-group-tested lies about loss of “choice” spewed forth by astroturf (phony grassroots) groups funded by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

It seems change may be in the air though: polls show that 95 percent of Americans believe that “America’s healthcare system needs fundamental change or to be completely rebuilt,” and that 70 percent “would be willing to pay more [taxes] for a health plan that covered everyone, had no co-pays or deductibles, wasn’t attached to one’s job, and guaranteed choice of doctor or hospital.”

Even 60 percent of doctors-a generally conservative group of people who have historically resisted government interference in their work-now “support government legislation to establish National Health Insurance.”

Californians have for several years been trying to implement Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s “single-payer” legislation, SB 840, which, according to the highly respected, nonpartisan Lewin Group, would save Californians $8 billion a year by eliminating the for-profit insurers and covering us all through one nonprofit agency, by using the state’s bulk purchasing power to bargain down pharmaceutical prices, and by a new emphasis on preventive care for all Californians.

SB 840 passed in the California legislature in 2006 (with only Democratic votes) only to be vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. The Governor and some legislators went on to cobble together a crazy-quilt faux-reform which would have required all Californians to buy “junk insurance” from the usual profiteers, would have created huge government bureaucracies and really would have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

That bill thankfully failed under the weight of its costs and contradictions, and SB 840 is back in the assembly, having passed the senate a second time. But even if the governor can be prevailed on to sign the bill, it will still be a phantom bill without funding unless a few Republican senators and assemblymen can be convinced to support it.

There’s no good reason Republicans shouldn’t support the bill-apart from health insurance companies, it would be good for businesses in their districts. It would save money for most big employers that already insure their employees and make them more competitive with companies from countries that do have universal healthcare.

There are a few changes that could be made in SB 840 to make it more enticing to businesses and Republican voters, changes that would still create a universal, comprehensive single-payer system that will save billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

First, the new system would be administered not by a new government agency but by a nonprofit corporation like the one now administering California’s stem-cell research program. This corporation should be run by an elected board, with one-third of its members elected by doctors, one-third by nurses, and one-third by patients.

Also, the medical component of worker’s comp expenses that employers have to pay could be removed, making the bill a good deal for small employers who don’t currently insure their employees. The support we would then receive from chambers of commerce would more than balance off the concerns of unions and trial lawyers who want to keep worker’s comp the way it is.

So last year we were looking for a few honest, caring Republicans to suggest these ideas to, and being from Orange County we thought of alleged moderate Tom Harman as well as his close friend, “business Democrat” Lou Correa (the only Democrat to vote against SB 840) as a likely pair to pull off this historic compromise and bring universal healthcare to California. So we were full of high hopes when he called one of us in mid-2007 and invited us to meet with him to discuss our ideas.

Find out what happened in next month’s chilling episode of The Descent of Tom Harman!

Vern Nelson is a Huntington Beach musician and blogger who plays Friday and Saturday nights at HB’s Baci Italian Restaurant and writes regularly at www.orangejuiceblog.com. His next piano concert will be Sunday July 13, 6PM, at the Huntington Central Library.

Increased deportation raids conducted at gun point by “La Mirgra” in work places and homes across America are terrorizing documented and undocumented immigrants alike.

Multinational corporations operating under the banner of “free trade,” and xenophobic hate groups like the Minuteman Project, are the main beneficiaries of what a recent article in Nation magazine calls the emergence of Juan Crow, a reference to “Jim Crow,” the past practice of institutionalized racism used against African Americans.

Against that background, “Terror in the Barrio: The Rise of the New Right in Local Government,” a new book written by former Daily Pilot columnist Humberto Caspa, is both an informative and flawed history of Costa Mesa’s slide toward fascism.

Oddly, although “Terror” is part of the book’s title, there isn’t a single personal case history of that terror present in its pages. This could lead the reader to wonder why, since examples have been plentiful for the past several years in Costa Mesa (see “Chilling Effect,” OC Voice, Oct. 2007).

The specific proposals that marked the city’s right-wing turn, presided over by former mayor, Allan Mansoor (a member of the Minuteman Project), former Pro-tem Eric Bever (they have since switched roles) and former Councilmember Gary Monahan included disbanding the city’s Human Relations Commission, closing the Job Center after 17 years and using the police to enforce federal immigration laws on the slightest pretense.

Profiling
The book starts off on shaky ground when Caspa lumps a broad spectrum of Mexican, Central and South American immigrants into two groups: Latino, for those who are here either legally or illegally, but were born in Latin America and retain their original nationality; and, U.S. Latino, who are U.S. citizens but have Latino ancestry.

Not everyone who fits under Caspa’s “Latin” label accepts this identity, but Caspa promotes it nevertheless and criticizes others who disagree (they are “anachronistic,” “radical,” “useless,” etc.), not even acknowledging that this question is part of an ongoing internal dialogue occurring within the many groups Caspa lumps together.

“Terror” tries but fails to prove that local citizen-activist, Martin Millard, whose bizarre essays on annihilation of the white “race” by miscegenation, both biological and social, can be sampled on a well known neo-Nazi web site, masterminded and drove the city council’s recent hard-right turn toward fascism.

Indeed, Millard is no ordinary man, Caspa tells us. People sleeping at city council meetings “jump off their seats after Millard’s megaphonic voice hits their eardrums,” and “Poor spiders hanging on the ceiling get knocked down to the floor.”

Caspa offers Millard’s association with Citizens for the Improvement of Costa Mesa (CICM) as proof of his puppetmaster status. Millard was not a member of that group, but had “considerable clout among members,” including Mansoor prior to his joining the city council, largely by posting “well-developed radical proposals” on the group’s web site, Caspa explains.

But Costa Mesa’s recent wave of hostility toward immigrants followed a statewide trend since the 1980s, predating the appearance of Millard, as Caspa himself reveals. A pre-CICM citizen group was already working hard then to hold back an increasing population of immigrants, laying the basis for Costa Mesa’s present day anti-immigrant pogrom.

“Terror” introduces its readers to most of the city’s political players both for and against the crackdown on immigrants. Sadly, however, these profiles are marred by hyperbole as well as personal bias and factual errors or omissions, too many to mention here in full.

Example: “Just as Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Fidel Castro of Cuba or any Mexican president of the PRI era, he [Mansoor] ruled Costa Mesa with an iron hand,” Caspa claims; in the Minuteman mayor’s dreams, perhaps, but there’s no need to drag the Santa Ana River for bodies yet.

On Gary Monahan: “Monahan is about five feet tall, weighs around 155 pounds, has Jack Nicholson’s smile and is as wicked as the devil himself.”

Caspa is also very critical of the Tonantzin Collective (an organization which rejects the term “Latino”), which played a role in organizing against the city council’s anti-immigrant policies. Caspa claims, incorrectly, that the Collective was founded by a group of Orange Coast College students in the Fall of 2005. In fact, it started in July 2004 in Santa Ana and it still works as an independent organization in Orange County.

Personal Attack
Caspa’s analysis of the Collective is essentially a personal attack against Coyotl Tezcatlipoca (Benito Acosta), whom the author mistakenly identifies as the leader of the Collective, while snidely describing him as “moderately intelligent.”

Caspa apparently does not understand how a typical collective organization works. There is no “leader” who gives orders to obedient followers. Whereas Caspa wants to slightly reform an authoritarian system like the one he says exists in Costa Mesa, the Collective works on the principle of participatory democracy using consensus and other egalitarian principles as an inherent part of a movement towards a society which holds these values at heart.

Caspa asserts that “Coyotl and his followers failed to fully understand the reality of Latinos and U.S.-Latinos in [Costa Mesa].” Caspa, of course, understands this reality and vainly attempted to show “Coyotl and his people” the light. “I thought I could use my experience and knowledge to persuade the [Tonantzin Collective] to minimize its radical stand,” he laments.

The author apparently assumed that an established organization, or as he inaccurately puts it, “[a group]…too entrenched in its own ideologies to even be open to the possibility of any community healing or reconciliation,” would suddenly abandon its principles and yield to his leadership.

Caspa sums up the protests, community forums, film screenings, etc, of the Collective as ineffective, since the city’s anti-immigrant policies ultimately continued unabated. But Freud had a term for that kind of poppycock: projection, the act of transposing one’s own faults onto another person as a means of denying one’s own faults.

After all, it was not the Collective, but “Citizens for Constitutional Rights,” a group Caspa belonged to, led by Nativo Lopez and others, which marched into town as a junta of self-appointed liberators (most of them from outside the city) to declare a boycott of businesses and police without consulting the people they supposedly represented.

That example of Caspa’s more “moderate” action through the established channels was arrogant and manipulative, which is why the “radical” Collective opposed it and probably why it flopped.

Caspa’s misunderstanding of the Collective could have been avoided if he had bothered to interview even a single “member” or reviewed any of its writings for this book, but he didn’t. As a social science professor and journalist, Caspa knows better.

Reform
Caspa suggests that a few changes in local offices and ordinances will end the “terror in the Latino barrio” and bring back a “moderate” state of affairs, but he doesn’t consider the lessons of the past.

One, less “radical,” example of effective organizing given by Caspa is Nativo López’ help in electing Congresswoman Loretta Sánchez to the 46^th Congressional District. However, Caspa does not mention Sánchez’ role in stationing an immigration officer in the Anaheim Police Station in 1996 as a pilot program. This is the same arrangement currently in effect in Costa Mesa, which Caspa so vehemently opposes.

Besides politicians and moderate activists, Caspa looks hopefully to the corporate media to discredit the right-wing extremists and stop the terror. The media “have helped uncover the nature of their divisive agenda,” Caspa says, adding, “The future doesn’t look too bright for them anymore.”

Maybe Caspa hasn’t heard about the increase in deportation raids because he doesn’t watch enough CNN (Lou Dobbs) or FOX News, but don’t wait for the political establishment and its media to save us from the terror. Change comes from the ground up.

“Abuelita,” the eager grom asked his gray-haired grandmother as they saw around the campfire at San Mateo Campground after a long day surfing a late-season southern hemi at Uppers. “Tell me again about how you saved Trestles. Tell me about Big Wednesday.”

The abuelita smiled. She could still see the thousands of people at Wyland Hall. Still feel the tug of the hand of her youngest daughter as they watched the crowd with awe. She could still hear the excited voices and screams of joy as the Coastal Commissioners overwhelmingly voted to protect San Onofre State Beach Park and Trestles. It was one of the best days of her long and joy-filled life.

In the annals of surfing history, there has never been another day quite like Feb. 6, 2008. That is the day when more than 3,000 surfing pioneers, media celebrities, politicians, bureaucrats, biologists, bird-lovers, Native Americans, surf-moms, grommets, pro-surfers, surf industry CEOs and abuelitas from East L.A. Came together at Wyland Hall at the Del Mar Fairgrounds to stop what Mark Massara, the Sierra Club’s Coastal Program Director, calls “the devil child of all coastal development projects.”

Massara was referring to the plan by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) to build a toll road that he said, “would have destroyed San Onofre State Park, Trestles, Native American sacred sites, a public campground, a wildlife conservation refuge, an entire watershed, creek, wetlands and a dozen endangered species.”

The decisive rejection on Feb. 6 by the California Coastal Commission (8-2) of the proposed 241 toll road was one of the most significant events in the history of the California environmental movement.  The more than 3,000 people who assembled to defend Trestles made up the largest crowd in the history of Coastal Commission hearings.

During what the media called the “Woodstock of the surf movement,” you could feel, “the energy in the air-a booming resonance of civic duty,” said Stefanie Sekich, Surfrieder’s Save Trestles Campaign Coordinator. “Seeing thousands of people come together in an orderly, positive fashion made me feel hopeful for the future.”

At 11:20 p.m., when the Costal Commissioners voted to stop the toll road, it was “a cathartic moment of validation,” wrote Surfrider’s Matt McCain.

Although the Save Trestles battle is not over, it’s critical to learn from the victory in Del Mar to help preserve other endangered waves in California and throughout the world.

Surfers Can’t Fight Alone

While the Surfrider Foundation did a brilliant job of mobilizing the masses and creating the coolest marketing campaign in the history of the environmental movement (kudos to Surfrider’s CEO Jim Moriarty, and to Matt McClain, its marketing and communications director), the Save Trestles coalition included the best and the brightest of California’s environmental community-most of whom can’t tell a left from a right, a mushburger from a barrel, or a beachbreak from a reef.

The Sierra Club, through the Friends of the Foothills alliance, used the best tactics of grassroots organizing and direct mail to get the public to take action and organize key advocacy trips to Sacramento for grassroots campaigners (including myself). The Natural Resources Defense Council, Endangered Habitats League, San Onofre Foundation, WILDCOAST, California Coastal Protection Network, California State Parks Foundation, The City Project and a host of other organizations and consultants also provided the political, legal and organizing savvy to help convince the Coastal Commission to derail the toll road. This was as sophisticated environmental coalition and campaign I have seen.

The biggest lesson from Del Mar is that surfers cannot fight coastal battles on their own. To save other endangered waves we have to build strong teams that include birdwatchers, biologists and lawyers. We have to connect endangered waves to the communities who cherish the watersheds that gave them life. Most importantly, we have to do what Surfrider’s McClain calls “building our army one person at a time.”

Pro Surfing is About Leadership

With the exception of mountain climbing and river kayaking, there is no other professional sport as dependent on natural ecosystems as surfing. No reef, no Pipe. No shoreline, no J-Bay. No watershed, no Trestles. Which means that more than any other groups of professional athletes, surfers have an obligation to defend the surf breaks that make their livelihoods possible from being destroyed.

During the Save Trestles Campaign, a large groups of surfing professionals for the first time in such a big way, stepped up to the plate and defended a surf spot from development. Pat O’Connell was the first on board from the beginning, lending his time and cheerful personality to the cause. Taylor Knox also helped Surfrider lobby hard for Trestles in the early going.

As I walked into the Del Mar “pit” just outside Wyland Hall on Big Wednesday, I felt like I was at the ASR or the Waterman’s Ball. Greg and Rusty Long walked up with their dad Steve, the San Onofre State Park Superintendent and founder of the San Onofre Foundation. The Hobgood brothers signed autographs for eager groms. P.T. Wandered in and out of the crowd. Evan Slater surveyed the scene. Surfing pioneers Mickey Munoz and Woody Eckstrom wandered around greeting longtime friends and fans alike. Inside the arena, surfing statesmen Shaun Thompson planted himself directly in front of the Commission it did the right thing.

While the graceful athletic surfing of Rusty, Greg, Damien, C.J. Pat, Taylor, Shaun and their colleagues inspires me, I am even more thrilled by their noble act of leadership. With more groms than ever dreaming of  life in the pro surfing fast lane, those in the WCT and those retired from it need to mentor future pros in the art of giving back to our sport.

Localism is Dead

I was a little worried when I was first invited to be part of the Save Trestles Coalition. I imagined that the hard core Uppers and Lowers crews might not be too happy about an I.B. Local speaking out publicly about preserving their treasured spot. Instead the opposite was true.

The toll road threat created a steadfast community of longtime locals and California surfers alike who recognize what a special place Trestles is whether they surf it everyday or just a few times a year like I do. More important, when I walk down that trail with my two groms during what for them are epic surf pilgrimages (my youngest son Daniel celebrated his tenth birthday this past January with a trip to Uppers with his older brother and two best friends), I see more smiles, talk more story and watch more wildlife than at any other spot I surf in Southern California.

On any given day in San Onofre State Beach Park you can talk quad design with Chinese-American surfers from Irvine, admire the grace of local multi-cultural cross-country high school running teams traversing the park’s trails, marvel at the prowess of some of the world’s best Chicano surfers, and listen to conversations “in about four different languages” according to pat Zabrocki.

At the commission hearing, Los Angeles civil rights and environmental attorney Robert Garcia and Acjachemen activist Rebecca Robles and other Native American leaders provided a moving and passionate defense of San Onofre as a critical site for providing access to open space and recreational resources for underserved communities. The San Mateo Creek watershed is actually Panhe, a key Acjachemen religious, historical and ceremonial site.

The involvement of Chicano, African American, Asian-Pacific Islander and Native American organizations in the Save Trestles movement only underscores the need for the surf industry and surfers to expand our efforts to reach out to underserved communities and people of color. This is not just an issue of tactics and strategy, but a moral and ethical imperative that will help us reclaim the heart and soul of surfing.

The Surfing Industry-Presente!

The multi-billion dollar surf industry is relatively young and just starting to flex its political muscles (please note that WILDCOAST receives financial support from a number of companies and the SIMA Environmental Fund). The surf industry was an active participant in the Save Trestles campaign and was out in full-force in Del Mar.

The surf industry made its presence well known throughout Big Wednesday, from the morning arrival of the logoed-busses and vans, to Rusty and Firewire throwing in product for the lunchtime rally. During the midday break, I greeted a lunch table of surf industry veterans-Paul Naude of Billabong, Sean Smith of SIMA, Dick Baker of OP, Gary Ward of Ocean Minded and Bob Mignogna, a SIMA Environmental Fund board member. Later in the afternoon, Baker spoke to the Commission about the economic value of Trestles and the surfing industry to the economy of California.

The surf media also played a critical role in building up the Save Trestles Movement and keeping people informed about latest developments. Just before the commission hearing, Surfrider posted before-and-after Toll Road images on Surfline and Surffermag.com. They hit the surfing world like a bomb. The visual impact of these devastating photos helped convince the surf community what was at stake and the need to attend the meeting.

Surf industry and media involvement in the Save Trestles campaign is a very positive and welcome sign for the future of the coastal protection movement in California and worldwide.

“The whole Trestles event and hearing made it very clear that the industry as a whole realizes environmental battles are not just about writing a check or getting others involved-although we and others still need to do this. This is a collective effort and everyone needs to get and stay involved,” said SUM Executive Director Sean Smith. “That day was not just about an individual brand or company. We were all there to make sure that Trestles didn’t get plowed over by a toll road.”

Real Surfers Can be Politicians Too

During the afternoon of Big Wednesday, meeting attendees were treated to a political spectacle as hypocritical and fake as an oil lobbyist telling you that electric cars are worth buying.

“The TCA loaded the dais with various Orange County city councilmen and women, most of whom conveniently sit on the TCA board,” said Matt McClaim in a Surfline article. “In a mind-numbing marathon-like drone that could only be compared to a congressional filibuster, the officials spoke…and spoke…and spoke, repeating one another’s tired party line ad nausea. Sitting in the crowd, you could literally see the commissioners’ eyes glazing over.”

Our communities can no longer afford to be represented by blow-dried kooks who call themselves surfers to just impress a few members of the Anaheim Lions Club or Vista Chamber of Commerce. We need real surfers-men and women who live and breathe for the taste of saltwater and the thrill of a new double-overheard northwest swell-to run for office. But they have to be the kind of individuals who understand that being a surfer is first and foremost always about riding and preserving waves.

My first choice for a surfer who needs to run for office is Surfrider activist Brian Alper, the John “die Hard” McClane of the Save Trestles campaign. Brian is a feisty, non-stop, and articulate Trestles defender and ambassador. Unless real surfers like Brian get involved in politics, we’ll continue to risk having poseurs represent us as they do now. Did anyone else notice that south San Diego County Congressperson Susan Davis, a non surfer, heroically defended Trestles, but north San Diego Congressperson Brian Bilbray, a self proclaimed surfer, was a no-show? Being a real surfer means defending your spot against development and ruination-whatever the cost.

Surf free or die.

Serge Dedina is Executive Director of WOLDCOAST at www.wildcoast.net. This article was origially published in Surfshot magazine.

Amid the controversial problem of global warming and its potential impact on human health, there is a rush to fix the blame-either on human activities or natural weather cycles. But the issue is too important for that. We must develop rational strategies to fix the problem rather than fixing the blame.

Over  600 international scientists conclude that human activities that create carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and chlorofluorocarbons-known as greenhouse gasses-are likely to cause an atypical increase in Earth’s temperature, which, in turn, creates a sequence of ecological changes that are harmful to human health and wellbeing.

A scientific study by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased beyond normal range since1861.

While the exact impact of global warming is uncertain, scientists agree that it will vary according to the severity of the environmental changes it causes and the vulnerability of a certain populations, based on age, nutritional status, health standards, economic development and their use of technology.

As global warming causes air temperatures to rise, it also brings changes in precipitation, increased saturation of moisture by the soil, melting of ice caps and a rise in sea level. Concurrent heat waves, changes in air and water quality, droughts, storms and floods with their resulting displacement of populations, raise the potential for adverse effects on public health.

Health Effects

While the health effects of global warming would vary by region, scientists predict that there will be a net increase in human fatalities.

The health consequences of rising temperatures were well documented during the heat wave that affected Europe, particularly France, in August, 2003, causing the estimated death of 30,000 people. In North America, the heat wave that affected Chicago in 1995 resulted in approximately 500 deaths.

The elderly who suffer from reduced capacity of thermoregulation, persons with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases, individuals serving in heat stressed occupations and those living in congested urban areas are more vulnerable to extreme heat waves than others.

Higher temperatures mean more secondary air pollutants released into the air, which harms human respiratory and cardiovascular systems.

The acute air pollution episodes that happened in London, England in 1952 claimed the lives of 4000 to 8000 people. In the United States, Donora, Pennsylvania was also subject to a disastrous wave of air pollution in 1948 when industrial effluent trapped in an inversion layer killed 68 people and damaged the hearts and lungs of hundreds more.

Global warming may affect the status of marine ecology by stimulating the growth of algae that produce toxins that can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of shellfish.

The increase in sea level caused by melting ice caps could lead to intrusion of seawater into fresh water supplies available to humans, plants and animals and exacerbate flooding brought about by increased precipitation.

Floods triggered by global warming induced climate change could have devastating health effects. The 1993 Mississippi River Flood displaced over 50,000 people, which increased their exposure to additional injury and disease.  The US National Center for Disease Control and Prevention noted an increase in mosquito and rat reports in Iowa as a result of that flood.

Flooding increases agricultural and urban runoff, which can lead to greater human exposure to toxic chemicals. Floods also interfere with delivery of medical and other public safety services. The catastrophic flooding and health problems caused by Hurricane Katrina illustrated this fact.

The spread of diseases is another reason to be concerned about global warming. Seasonal patterns of communicable diseases may change, and the humid habitat in which mosquitoes flourish may increase. Populations of people that were once relatively unaffected by those problems would be at greater risk of becoming seriously ill.

According to one simulation model, climate change from global warming may add millions of cases of malaria per year in certain parts of the world. There are indications that a severe influenza-like disease known as Dengue has spread to higher elevations in Mexico, areas that have not previously reported Dengue cases. American health officials are concerned about the implication of that change on people living in southern regions of the United States.

There are predictions that climate change will affect food production in certain parts of the world. Rising malnutrition will threaten the health of people living in areas where drought is likely to occur.

The images of hunger in Africa due to recent drought episodes are still vivid in our memory. We are seeing the social effects, including riots, of higher food prices and food shortages in a number of developing countries. Social instability combined with what seems to be the end of cheap food have worrisome implications worldwide.

Mitigating Global Warming

Some of the public health effects of climate change can be mitigated. Air conditioning can be used to reduce the impact of rising temperature. Pesticides can be used to control disease-carrying insects and desalination plants can be used to replace lost fresh water due to drought or salt water intrusion.

But an increase in use of air conditioning will increase consumption of energy and create more greenhouse gases. And air conditioning is not always available; especially to the poor, who are the ones most affected by global warming and increased energy costs.

The improper use of pesticides may also expose humans to additional health risks and impact sensitive populations, as experience shows.

Desalinization plants consume energy, impact marine ecology and their product is not truly equivalent to natural fresh water.

Increased flooding and drought have no real countermeasures except to reverse the environmental changes that caused them. As in traditional medicine, the old wisdom applies,  ”An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.”

Prevention Works Best

Perhaps, the best public health approach is to apply preventive measures, even in the absence of clear evidence today that some of these predicted adverse conditions of climate change may not actually occur tomorrow.

Let’s learn from our past mistakes. Those who advocated waiting until the depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer is a clearly proven fact, before taking action, inflicted great damage upon humanity in the form of an increased rate of skin cancer and related economic costs that resulted from society’s failure to act.

At the academic level, we must reach out to policy makers in a positive manner based on interdisciplinary cooperation to help them enact wise policy decisions that will affect public health.

But a science based approach  alone is not enough to turn facts into effective public policy. In fact, the decisions made by policy makers that result in international treaties will help curtail global warming and its effects.

Our response to global warming must come from personal responsibility as well as public policy, however. We each have a moral obligation to humanity to preserve Earth’s ecological systems and conserve its natural resources

Finally, what would we lose if we reduced personal and societal pollution, regardless of the cause of global warming? Most likely, we will lose some of the negative health impacts of pollution and the huge medical cost they entail.

Wouldn’t that be a good enough reason to start cooperating with each other to achieve a cleaner environment and to safeguard our world for future generations?

Possibly, we will have the courage to act wisely in the face of our global challenge. That will be a lasting gain for  all humanity.#

Named by the Journal of Environmental Health as one of 15 Leaders of Environmental Health, Dr. Amer El-Ahraf is a Professor of Health Sciences and Vice President Emeritus at California State University, Dominguez Hills.  Dr. El-Ahraf has a multifaceted interest in environmental and public health that covers scientific, historical and ethical considerations. He is also the recipient of the prestigious Mangold Award for Excellence in Environmental Health. He lives in Huntington Beach.

In the first Naked Gun film, Lieutenant Frank Drebin, while impersonating an umpire in a major league baseball game in order to prevent an assassination, finds himself at a loss what to do when the batter swings and misses. After a long, uncomfortable silence, feeling a thousand expectant eyes fixed upon him, he finally stammers, hesitantly, “…Strike one?” And the crowd erupts into cheers.

Immediately Drebin is transformed by the crowd’s approval into a super-umpire. Inspired, he begins shouting and singing out calls with dance moves and acrobatics, driving the delighted fans crazy:

“STEERIIIIKE TWOOO!!!” There is no middle ground or gradual change as there would be for you or I; the public’s roaring approbation transfigures him instantaneously from mute uncertainty to no-hold-barred showmanship, wallowing in the fans’ adulation for the rest of the game.

It was just like that for Senator Tom Harman when he first discovered the awesome crowd-pleasing power of anti-immigrant rhetoric in mid-2006: the assemblyman known most for his solid environmental record, who had never before been noticed to mention immigration, transformed himself overnight into Orange County’s foremost defender of Anglo-Americans from the encroaching brown hordes. “It is the single most hot-button issue in the district!” he enthused to Laguna Beach’s Coastline Pilot.

California Coalition for Immigration Reform president Barbara Coe, whom I met at a small Mayday Minuteman rally in Santa Ana, tells me, “Tom is the greatest! He not only says the right thing, he gets out there and does it.” Pooh-poohing the appearance of insincerity in his suddenly discovering this issue in the heat of a nailbiter primary against wingnut Diane Harkey, she attributes his metamorphosis to a “very convincing presentation” her group gave him at a meeting around that time.

In columns he regularly generates for the other local papers, Harman regurgitates the usual, easily-debunked canards on immigration familiar from such firebrands as Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh.

He repeats the common claim that undocumented immigrants cost taxpayers $10 billion a year, but in fact they pay-not just sales taxes, income taxes, and property taxes (through their rent), but also $8.5 billion a year to Social Security and payroll taxes (from immigrants with false SS cards, who will never receive the benefits.) Most Americans don’t realize that the undocumented aren’t eligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps or state health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office concluded last year that the taxes undocumented immigrants pay easily exceeds the cost of services they use.

Then there’s the old imaginary immigrant crime wave: In fact, studies have shown clearly that immigrants commit less crimes than native-born citizens; and Justice Department statistics show that noncitizens account for only 6.4 percent of the incarcerated-far from the one-third Harman claims.

Harman boasts now that he has “penned more bills against illegal immigration” than anyone in the legislature, and this is probably true. He hit the ground running this legislative season with his Senate Bill 3; an amazingly radical and fascistic bill, it fortunately has no chance of passing.

SB3 would make any undocumented immigrant in California, whether on “public or private property,” guilty of trespassing and subject to large fines and lengthy imprisonment. This would transform all state and local police into immigration agents and is more radical than anything that Minutemen leaders like Jim Gilchrist have proposed, placing Harman on the fringes of the debate; and his other bills are no better.

Although figures like the new Harman insist their opposition is only to illegal immigration, it’s easy to see that he really is, as moderate Republican Congressional candidate Ron St. John observes of his immigrant-bashing opponent Dana Rohrabacher, an “opponent to any immigration, who’s in the ‘enforcement-only’ camp, treating the 12 million undocumented workers here as an invading army and offering a militaristic solution that would depopulate the country.”

As Harman 2.0 continues to fantasize out loud about “sealing the borders using technology like laser beams, drones or sound detectors, and then dealing with the twelve million currently here,” hate crimes against Latinos skyrocket, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids of the type welcomed by Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor grow in their frequency and cruelty across the nation, incarcerating hundreds of Latino immigrants for lengthy terms just for trying to feed their families.

Harman’s newfound passion may win him votes among the hardcore Orange County Republican faithful, but he’s incontestably contributing to the climate of hate and fear that is making millions of lives miserable and solving no real problems. Heck of a job, Tommy!

Next installment: On healthcare? Useless as a stick in the mud!

Vern Nelson is a pianist and composer who plays Friday and Saturday nights at Baci Italian Restaurant in Huntington Beach.

Concerned Native Americans, the California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust have all signed on to the attached letter to the Coastal Commission requesting a revocation hearing on the archeological issues surrounding the Brighwater development project at Bolsa Chica Mesa.

June 2, 2008

California Coastal Commission
Teresa Henry, District Manager
200 Oceangate, 10^th floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4416

RE: Brightwater / Bolsa Chica Permit 5-05-020

Dear Ms. Henry:

We, the undersigned ( petitioners) along with over 500 interested citizens who have submitted signatures, request an immediate investigation by the California Coastal Commission with respect to Permit 5-05-020 Brightwater , approved April 14, 2005

( Condition of Approval 23 attached as Exhibit A).

If any of the following allegations are discovered to be true we request that the Commission immediately revoke or suspend this permit.

The petitioners want to preface the above request by noting that over decades the petitioners have come to believe that the Bolsa Chica sacred site is being systematically destroyed or, at a minimum, placed in grave peril. The petitioners do not fault the Coastal Commission or any other public agency for this state of affairs. However, we believe the following presents such a clear case of improper action relative to the Bolsa Chica sacred site that specific action must be taken immediately.

Revocation of Permits

Section 13105 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations provides as follows:

Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be:

1. Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application, where the commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application;

In accordance with Title 14 CCR Section 13053.5 c, an application is to include a dated signature by or on behalf of each of the applicants, attesting to the truth, completeness and accuracy of the contents of the application. We are concerned that the Commission may have been provided with less than complete information regarding the cultural resources on the Brightwater site, resources of which the applicant may have been aware.

Page 2

The following are staff report sections and correspondence from applicant:

July 27, 1992 letter from attorney for Hearthside, Susan Hori to Cindi Alvitre (Exhibit B)

“As you know, other sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have already been fully excavated and mitigated ( ORA 289, ORA 78 and ORA 85). No human remains were found during the course of any of the excavations. All of the material which was recovered, i.e. shells, beads, etc are in the possession of the landowner or the archeological consultant.”

(Emphasis supplied)

April 14, 2005

Coastal Commission staff report: Revised Findings 10/13/2005 (ExhibitC )

Page 97 of revised findings

“The applicant contends that the Brightwater development project will not adversely impact either of the two on-site identified archeological sites due to the fact that a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of future development have been implemented completely in the case of ORA 85, and at the time of the October 2004 hearing, 97% complete in the case of ORA 83 as approved by the County of Orange, and the Coastal Commission.” (Emphasis supplied)

Page 101 of revised findings ORA 85 “No evidence of ceremonial or other structures were found. Other than four quartz crystals, which may be evidence of ceremonial utensil manufacture, no obvious objects associated with religious ceremonies were recovered. Finally, no evidence of human remains in the form of burials or cremations was found.” (Emphasis supplied)

Page 101 of revised findings “According to the applicant’s archeological consultant, the site was 97% recovered at the time of the application submittal for the October 2004 hearing. Based on staff observations in November of 2004 the site (ORA 83) appears to be virtually 100% recovered.” (Emphasis supplied)

Page 98 from revised findings for 5-05-020 ( Brightwater)

“Although the Commission approved the full recovery of ORA 83 as proposed by the applicant in the previous permits listed below, the Commission finds no evidence in the record of those permits at the time of their approvals that the “semi subterranean house pits” were know or expected to exist, beneath the shell midden.”

“In November 2004, Commission staff accompanied the applicant and their consulting team on the project site to revisit a number of issues that had been raised at the October 2004 Commission meeting. At that time staff verified that the house pits had all been excavated and backfilled.”

From the NAHC memo dated April 4, 2008

The NAHC staff noted that the archeologist stated that “Cogged stones as associated grave goods Dr Wiley confirmed that the 22 cogged stones found at the house pit of an apparent Shaman or tribal leader are clearly associate grave goods”

The question here is when was this house pit destroyed?

Page 3

The following are what we believe to be the facts which support this revocation request:

1. Photos taken September 14, 2006 at the area of ORA 85. This is not archeological grading but rather construction grading. Since it is unclear when human remains were found, and that if they are found during grading that the Special Condition #23 must be followed we have included these photos. ( exhibit D)

2. In a November 2007 memo (exhibit E ) from the developer’s archeologist to Ed Mountford et al in which it was disclosed that the following had been recovered at the Brightwater site. The following is stated:

• There are 87 human remains that need to be reburied
• There are 83 prehistoric features that were uncovered with the burials
• There are 4,217 artifacts that were found during grading monitoring on ORA 83
• There are 1,622 artifacts that were found during the grading monitoring ORA 85
• There are approximately 2,000 boxes of materials
• There are over 100,000 artifacts that have been collected.

2. April 2008, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust filed a public records request from the Coroner of Orange County to determine how many reports to the Coroner of human remains had been made as a result of the archeological work at Brightwater. The request was for any findings from 1990 until present. The Land Trust was provided with records for only 6 cases since 1990 to present relative to ORA 83 and 85: (Exhibit F )

• 9/30/93 Case # 93-5868-LL reported 11/3/93
• 8/3/99 case # 99-05178me additional human remains found 11/29/99
• 11/4/99 Case # 99-07108-LL reported 11/5/99
• 3/30/00 Case # 00-02277-RO reported 4/4/00
• 4/27/00 Case # 00-02791-LY reported 4/27/00
• 6/12/02 Case # 02-03972-GA reported 6/14/02

3. May 22, 2008 letter to Rebecca Robles, Acjachemen Nation, from NAHC staff refers to the following Coroner reports (Exhibit G):

• April 19, 2008 “concerning sets” of Native American human remains that were originally reported to NAHC December 17, 2007 as 87 sets of burials of Native American human remains. When were these remains found??
• August 19, 2006
• June 22, 2003 date Most likely descendant contacted June 22, 2006
• September 6, 2001
• January 16, 2001
• May 2000
• May 2000

These Coroner reports were not included in response to the request of the Land Trust.

Page 4

4. In an April 4, 2008 letter to Anthony Morales from staff at NAHC (Exhibit H), the following concerns are raised;

1. • The issue of reburial of the remains and all associated grave good is to occur after documentation is complete.
   • ORA 83 is a sacred cemetery- “In the project archaeologist’s memorandum to the company, dated January 17, 2007, it refers to a February 3, 2007 ceremony and assumed reburial ( see Exhibit E) this action would be after AB2641 extending the definition of a cemetery and a place with “multiple burials” to private land.” “Therefore, considering the 87 burials from ORA -83, whose chronology is unknown or certainly unclear, and given the number of burials at this project site, how can one say that it is not a cemetery?”
   • The developer has stated since 1992 that there were no human remains found on ORA 85. Yet in a memo from Nancy Wiley to Ed Mountford, Ms. Wiley states “Ted and I will wrap each burial with its grave goods…. Each individual will be wrapped again in colored burlap coded to male (blue), female (red) and unknown (beige). Children will additionally have a color separation or other designator.”

1. • In an email message of 12/6/07 the developer’s archeologist (Nancy Wiley), when asked by the NAHC staff when the human remains were found, told the staffer that “Ed Mountford has said that I cannot prepare a chronology for you until he talks to his lawyer- Susan Hori.”( Exhibit H )

1. • ” While the NAHC and her archeologist peers may disagree with the manner in which Dr. Wiley and SRS have managed this project, the NAHC and others would not have the hard facts of the 174 burials discovered; 87 still to be re-buried; the number of cogged stones (over 400), the 100,000 artifacts and thousands of archeological features of

significance, had not Dr. Wiley provided the information to the NAHC.” (Emphasis supplied)
5. In an April 8, 2008 letter to the Commission, Larry Myers from the NAHC (Exhibit I) states the following:

• “The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates, locations and details of burial discoveries. At this point based on information available and the large number of burials recovered and associated items, it appears that the whole area may be a burial ground. Southern California Indians created and used discrete areas as cemeteries. The NAHC understands that the Coastal Commission will be reviewing its permit for the Brightwater Project. The NAHC suggests that the Coastal Commission consider requiring some sort of guarantee or performance bond in order to assure that all required

Page 5

reports are provided on a timely basis and that documentation is completed and reburials of remains and artifacts occur as agreed.” (Emphasis supplied)
In addition, even if the Commission had received all information known to exist by the developer and developer’s consultants, Commission review of Permit 5-05-020 would still be in order in accordance with Special Condition #23, adopted by the Commission on October 13, 2005 as outlined below:

1. In accordance with 23.A.3, artifacts were to be tested. The time frames are unclear. The Executive Director is to determine if the resources are significant. This implies that the Executive Director would be informed immediately. We do not believe that the Executive Director was informed as the project progressed.

1. In accordance with 23.A.4, construction is to cease if artifacts or human remains are found during construction, until allowed to proceed by the Executive Director per Condition 23.C. We do not believe that the Executive Director was informed of the excavation of human remains during grading.

1. Per condition 23C, work may recommence after reporting the find to the Executive Director, and approval of a significance testing plan by the Executive Director. We are not aware of such a plan being approved.

1. Per Condition 23C, if the Executive Director determines that the measures recommended in the testing plan require more than minimal changes from previously approved plans, the Commission must approve the changes.

1. Per Condition 23.A.6, Hearthside is to comply with all applicable state and federal laws. Based on a review of the coroner reports and the NAHC letter of May 22, it appears that there was a three year time lag (2003-2006) in reporting in at least one case (p.13 of pdf file). Other sheets do not provide complete data as to date of find and date of report.

1. In accordance with 23.B, construction is to cease if artifacts or human remains are found during “the course of the project”, and a fifty foot wide buffer is to be provided. Construction may only recommence if approved by the Executive Director. (Condition 23.D).

1. Per condition 23D, work may recommence after reporting the find to the Executive Director, and approval of a Supplementary Archaeological Plan by the Executive Director. We are not aware of any such Supplementary Plan.

The issue comes down to “what did they know and when did they know it”? Based on dates of 2003, 2001, etc as to the date of find on materials cited above, it appears that at least some of the finds were known to the applicant. Unfortunately, not all of the forms are completely filled out with dates.

Page 6

We request the Commission to investigate whether or not complete information was provided with the Brightwater application. We request that the Commission review and determine if any testing plan or supplementary plans were prepared in accordance with Condition 23C and 23D as discussed above. Further, according to Special Condition #23 subsection D and E, the NAHC is to be given the opportunity to review and comment on all plans required to be submitted pursuant to this special condition. We are not aware that such plans exist or were reviewed.

The information referred to above became known to the undersigned in February of 2008. We have been researching the facts about the above project since that date and believe that we have exercised due diligence.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Alfred G. Cruz, Jr. Juaneno Band Mission Indians

Rommel Cruz, Juaneno Band Mission Indians

Richard Silva, Juaneno

Miles Harry, Paiute/ Lakota

Rhonda Robles, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation

Louis Robles, Jr. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation

Alfred G. Cruz, Sr. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians

Lloyd Valenzuela Acjachemen

Susan Diaz, Chumash/O’odham

Christopher Diaz, Chumash/ O’odham

Raymond Diaz, O’odham/ Mayo

Lenore Vega, Chumash/ O’odham

Angel Diaz, Chumash/O’odham/Taiwanese

John Moreno, Chumash/Tohono/Akimel O’odham

Ted Vega, Chumash/ Taino

Georgiana Sanchez, Chumash/ O’odham

Roger Leon, Chumash

Cindi Alvitre/ Tongva

Susana Salas, Yaqui

Paul Moreno,MicMac Nation

28872 Escalona Drive, Mission Viejo, CA 92692

Professor Patricia Martz, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance

Box 54132 Irvine, CA. 92619-4132

Gerald Chapman, Bolsa Chica Land Trust

5200 Warner Ave, #108, Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Over 500 signatures on petitions attached exhibit J

Attached exhibits

A. Condition #23

B. July 27, 1992 Paone Callahan Mcholm and Winton letter

C. Revised Findings 10/13/05

D. Photos of grading 9/14/06

E. November 5, memo

F. Coroner reports

G. May 22, 2008 NAHC memo

H. April 4, 2008 NAHC letter

I. April 8, 2008 NAHC letter

J. Petitions signatures

Media Contact: Barbara McMurray

McMurray Marketing Communications

949-494-5388 office

949-233-9548 mobile

mcmurray@mac.com

Sponsorships Available for

2008 Huntington Beach 4^th of July

Parade & Pier Festival

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif., April 28, 2008 – The Fourth of July Executive Board for the City of Huntington Beach has announced that it is offering eight levels of sponsorship to fund the city’s largest annual celebration, now in its 104^th year. Individuals and businesses can choose the right package to fit their budgets, from $100 to $75,000, with customized packages available.

“Anyone who sponsors our July 4^th events is not only helping us — they are making a shrewd marketing investment that will place their name and logo in front of three-quarters of a million people,” said Pat Stier, executive board chair for the events. “The parade is the largest 4^th of July parade west of the Mississippi. It is seen by 250,000 people along the route, with hundreds of thousands more nationwide who see it telecast public television via KOCE, one of our sponsors. Then the weekend-long Pier Festival attracts at least 300,000.”

Each year, the Fourth of July Executive Board’s Sponsorship Committee is charged with raising the money to produce the 4th of July Parade & Pier Festival. The volunteer committee works year round to meet the ever-rising costs of presenting the event.

Stier added, “But our attendance and the number of activities and events grow every year, too, so it’s an excellent deal for sponsors who want to reach a desirable consumer demographic. People know and love this event, and they return year after year, bringing their families and friends. It’s a patriotic-themed weekend of family-oriented events in one of Southern California’s loveliest ocean communities. Sponsors will definitely get a lot of bang for their buck.”

For sponsorship information call Pat Stier at 714-968-0321 or e-mail pstier@socal.rr.com. Preview all sponsorship levels and benefits by visiting the official 4^th of July website at www.hb4thofjuly.org; click on “Sponsor Info.”

The Board meets year-round to plan the annual event that includes the Surf City 5K Run, Pancake Breakfast, the parade, the weekend-long Pier Festival at Pier Plaza and the 4th of July Fireworks Show.

The three-day slice of hometown-flavored Americana includes fireworks set off from the municipal pier at 9 p.m. — simulcast to stirring music by K-EARTH 101 Radio — a Pancake Breakfast from 6:30 to 10 a.m. at Lake Park hosted by the Kiwanis of Huntington Beach, and a 5K Run & Fitness Expo from 6 a.m. to noon at Worthy Park. The parade starts at 10:00 a.m.  The accompanying Pier Festival runs through Sunday at 6 p.m. and offers live daily entertainment, a 28-foot-high climbing wall, food vendors and dozens of unique exhibitors. Started in 1904, the Huntington Beach 4^th of July Parade & Pier Festival is the city’s longest-held community tradition. www.hb4thofjuly.org

###

By Vern Nelson
OC Voice Columnist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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