Since 1957 a vote of the people has decided who would be the Huntington Beach City Attorney. Since 1978 no incumbent holding that office has lost an election. Gail Hutton, who defeated incumbent city attorney Don Bonfa in the city election that year, easily remained in office until her retirement 24 years later in 2002.

Her replacement, Jennifer McGrath, was elected to the office next with 48.2 percent of the vote in a race against three opponents, but she ran unopposed in her 2006 reelection campaign.

Next November she will have one opponent listed on the ballot, T. Gabe Houston, who officially signed his candidate’s papers at the City Clerk’s office on Aug. 6, the last day to file.

Like other City Attorney challengers, Houston may also end up as election fodder. But his late entry reveals a serious flaw in the Huntington Beach City Charter—despite nine months of work by the City’s Charter Review Commission that recommend reforms—and exposes the hidden attempts (and not so hidden attempts) by various  members of the Huntington Beach City Council to gain political power by manipulating the reform process for better or worse.

Previously, the Voice showed how the council’s backroom political dramas have come to center stage at city council meetings. But recent e-mails obtained by the Voice give a sharper picture of the passion and acrimony flowing through the political veins of the city.

Some of the conflict centers on the office of City Attorney. One side wants the city attorney to be elected by vote of the people; the other side thinks that he or she should be appointed by the council or the City Administrator.

Related to that debate is the larger issue of how best to control the city’s budget when residents face severe cuts in essential services; specifically, how to take care of the city’s infrastructure shortfall and deal with public employee union pension costs that the city is obligated by contract to pay.

Houston’s last minute appearance at City Hall might have gone barely noticed if it had not followed a recent wave of discontent against McGrath stirred up by Chip Hanlon, publisher of Red County, the popular Republican blog, and city councilmember Devin Dwyer, over McGrath’s interpretation of Section 617 of the City Charter.

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Realizing that Coyote was sly and clever, the monster thought of a new plan. It would befriend Coyote by inviting him into its home. But first, Coyote asked if he could enter the monster’s stomach to see his friends. The monster allowed this, but Coyote cut out its heart and set fire to its insides. His friends were freed. From the monster’s body parts Coyote made the indigenous nations and they flourished. —Adapted from on a summary of the Nez Perce tale of Coyote, the Creator, written by Terri J. Andrew. Turquoise Butterfly Press.

By John Earl
Surf City Voice

In March, Huntington Beach residents living on the edges of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and the Naval Weapons Station packed a study session held by the city council and Chief of Police Kenneth Small, joined by state Fish & Game and Orange County Animal Control officials.

The citizens were snarling mad. Coyotes were invading their neighborhoods and city officials hadn’t done enough to stop them, they said. The citizens made it clear they weren’t going to take it anymore.

The emotionally charged meeting was a skirmish in the proverbial land war that has dominated the history of the American west since its first European explorers and would-be conquerors set foot on its soil centuries ago.

Until recently, there was no doubt about who was winning that war. But now, the coyotes are fighting back and seem to bes winning.

Lisa Comacho, who lives near the weapon station’s wide open fields, sounded desperate and angry as she described to the officials a homeland under siege.

Seven pets and been killed on her street in the past week, she claimed. The coyotes are more aggressive than ever and they no longer fear people. Instead, they growl at them and stalk them when they walk their dogs, she said.

“The other day they ripped into a friend’s rabbit cage….They’re killing dogs and cats,” she complained.

Comacho expressed her ultimate fear, the same fear held by others at the meeting. “All I know is that we bought homes to live comfortably and safely and we can’t let our children out. Babies can’t go in the back yard….What we’re looking at is someday a child getting hurt or killed.”

One young mother said that her cat had been killed by a coyote and that a coyote had torn a dog on her street into three pieces. Sobbing, she pleaded for her daughter’s safety. “Is it going to take my daughter to get attacked in order for you guys to do something?”

Then she issued a threat: “I can tell you—if I lose my daughter or my daughter gets harmed for this, there’s going to be a price to pay.”

A licensed day care provider said that her back yard was “social worker approved,” but that she can’t have children there anymore because of the coyotes—one killed her dog early one morning and a nearby school was put on lockdown when the predator came onto the playground, she claimed.

A roller and additional chicken wire atop a fence at Golden View park in Huntington Beach helps protect the livestock and small animals housed inside. Photo: Surf City Voice

She admitted that people cause the coyote problem by leaving food out for their pets and other small wildlife, such as possums and raccoons, which attracts the coyotes. But “eliminate” the problem coyotes, she advised, and educate the public.

“When I walk to the park with my day care kids, I carry a hockey stick, a baseball bat and an air horn,” she complained, describing the situation as “ridiculous.”

“Basically, I wonder if the city is insured for the risk of personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits. If the city does not take action, it will be a willful disregard of public safety,” she warned.

Some Friends
Despite the dramatic denunciations, Surf City’s Wiley Coyotes did have a few reliable friends on hand.

Julie Bixby, who lives with her husband Mark near the edge of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, cautioned that getting rid of coyotes could lead to a rabies outbreak, citing Central Park in New York City has one place where that happened.

Quoting from the book “Rewilding the World,” by Caroline Frazier, Bixby gave a more dire warning of her own: “Lose the animals, lose the ecosystems. Lose the ecosystems and the game is over.”

People, not coyotes, are the problem, she said.

“Coyotes would focus on their natural prey if people didn’t leave out tempting treats, like their trash, dog food and their cats,” she noted, adding that because of the presence of coyotes her cat is not allowed out at night.

A naturalist from the Bosla Chica Conservancy pointed out that coyotes are opportunistic predators that will eat anything. “If you put the pizza in your trash can you are ringing the dinner bell and they will come answer it,” she explained.

“You are ultimately responsible for the protection of your children and your pets. If you don’t want the animals in your back yard, don’t invite them in,” she advised.

Jamie Pavlat, representing the Wetlands Wildlife Care Center and Amigos de Bolsa Chica, was succinct: “The reality in 2010,” she said, “is that we have to learn to co-exist with wildlife. That’s just the situation we are in.”

Reconquista
Pavlat may be correct, but looking at history, co-existence is not the way it was supposed to be.

The descendants of the first European invaders of what is today Orange County long ago destroyed much of its natural habitat and pushed aside most of its indigenous occupants, both human and animal.  Where natural enclaves remain, like the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the invasion continues full force in the form of suburban sprawl.

But instead of dying off to suburban utopia, coyotes were fruitful and multiplied, feeding off the monster that stole their traditional homelands.

Call it the Reconquista, if you will, but studies show that coyote populations are getting stronger, ignoring the usual borders between humans and wildlife and are recapturing  ground throughout the west, especially in Southern California, while capturing new ground in the east, including in urban areas like Chicago.

A 2004 UC Davis study that cites an increase in coyote attacks  (Coyote Attacks: An Increasing Suburban Problem) compiled data from government agencies and other sources going back over 50 years and concluded that education, environmental and behavioral modification (in humans and coyotes)—and sometimes eradication of problem coyotes—are needed to prevent coyote attacks on people.

The study cited 89 documented coyote attacks in California since 1988 on children and adults, or on pets standing close to their owners, with most of the incidents occurring in Southern California. It also noted 77 other cases where “coyotes stalked children, chased individuals, or aggressively threatened adults.” In 35 cases, the study said, there was a likely possibility of serious or fatal injury to small children if they had not been rescued by adults.

City dwelling coyotes present a different kind of health problem as well. Although coyotes help to prevent rabies outbreaks by keeping skunk populations down, the UC Davis study points out that they can also bring rabies, a dog tapeworm that transfers to people, and other diseases to dog populations.

But the study also reveals that coyote populations thrive where affluent suburban neighborhoods touch upon natural landscapes that contain lush vegetation and provide an ample food source and breeding ground for rodents like gophers, moles and voles.

The rodents, in turn, attract coyotes, which are also drawn by a variety of other human provided food sources including pet food and kitchen leftovers in trash cans, as well as various fruits and vegetables found in many home gardens.

A different study in 2001 found that about 24 percent of the diet of tested suburban coyotes came from human activities, but other studies indicate that the percentage of human food could be much less, suggesting the plentiful availability of other food sources for coyotes.

A favorite food item for suburban coyotes is cats, according to the UC Davis study. In two other studies that examined scat remains from coyotes in Claremont and Malibu, up to 13.6 percent of their diet was from cats.

Suburban coyotes also survive on a steady supply of water runoff from lawns watering and outdoor water dishes for pets. People, who deliberately feed coyotes or other wild animals, which is illegal in the state of California, exacerbate the problem by making life in residential areas more coyote friendly.

In the end, coyote populations expand or contract according to their food supplies: more food, more puppies; less food, fewer puppies.

The well supplied refuge that residential neighborhoods provide for coyotes greatly increases their population density, the UC Davis study points out.

A male coyote living in natural setting, for example, lives in a range of between 8-16 square miles with a general density of about 1.5 coyotes maximum per square mile or—sometimes—up to 10 coyotes per square mile in wild areas in the western United States.

But Southern California’s suburban coyotes were found living in areas between one-quarter square mile and one-half square mile range.  And it was reported that 55 coyotes were killed within one-half mile of where a three-year-old girl was killed by a coyote in Glendale in 1981, the only incident on record of a human killed by a coyote in the United States.

“This suggests that suburban environments are extraordinarily rich in resources for coyotes, leading to high densities,” the study concluded.

A 2007 study of urban coyotes (Ecology of Coyotes in Urban Landscapes, Stanley D. Gehrt), i.e., coyotes living in city areas not adjacent to natural landscapes, came to similar conclusions.

Based on information taken from electronic tracking devices placed on 150 coyotes, the ongoing study concluded that there are from 200 – 2,000 coyotes living in urban Chicago, far from natural wildlife habitats and that coyotes living in metropolitan environments live longer than coyotes living strictly in the wild.

Escalating Conflict
The growing coyote populations in residential areas will inevitably conflict with people in a characteristic progression of seven identified steps as they gradually lose their fear of people. Starting with increased coyote sightings at night turning to daylight sightings of coyotes involved in various activities, such as going after pets, approaching child play areas and acting aggressive toward adults.

Coyotes attack people, especially children, because they consider them to be prey, and such attacks are more likely when coyotes are raising their young in the spring and summer months. But coyotes don’t necessarily attack out of hunger. Coyotes are also stimulated by “escape behaviors” and may take chase after people they believe are running from them.

Coyote densities in Huntington Beach haven’t been mentioned, but Chief Small reported that complaints about coyotes in the city have gone from 34 in 2006 and 54 in 2008 up to 80 in 2009. After two incidents of coyotes entering back yards during the day and killing dogs in front of their owners, he hired a private trapper to take out the offending coyote/s, but the effort failed to catch any coyotes.

While emphasizing their empathy for the angry and frightened residents, Fish & Game officials gave an informed presentation on coyote behavior and proposed a plan that seeks a balance between public safety and the need to coexist with wildlife, including coyotes.

The plan will be a team effort with participation from residents and the government agencies present at the study session, as well as the United States Dept. of Agriculture and officials from the Naval Weapons Station, and it will require education and discipline for people and coyotes alike.

That  approach, based on decades of research, was at least cautiously accepted by most of the city council members, but seemed to be lost on member Devin Dwyer, who hastily lapsed into his usual `government can’t do anything right’ monologues.

Dwyer arrived at the meeting late, after all the concerned residents—whose problems were the reason for the meeting in the first place—had told their stories. Obviously agitated, he took a pot shot at Fish & Game officials and offered his own off the cuff solution.

“To me, I just heard a lot of government rhetoric, to tell you the truth, with no answer,” he scolded. “Farmers don’t have problems with coyotes. Farmers don’t have problems with raccoons. I know how they solve their situations. This is a bit ridiculous.”

Councilmember Devin Dwyer: "This is a bit ridiculous." Photo: Surf City Voice

Police are authorized by law to kill coyotes they deem to be a threat to public safety—any coyotes that have to be trapped will be shot on the spot either by police or Fish & Game officials, although their mass execution is not an option for obvious environmental and political reasons.

Past experience indicates the Fish & Game plan can work, but it will require, above all, behavioral changes by people who may not be persuaded by education alone to sufficiently change a lifestyle that that attracted the coyotes into their neighborhoods in the first place.

In a sincere but muddleheaded effort to deal head-on with the human causes, Councilmember Joe Carchio proposed a city ordinance to ban feeding coyotes or other wild animals in the city. Good idea, but there is already a state law covering that and the HB police can enforce it anytime they want, or any time the city council wants.

Still, an ordinance would have the advantage of allowing the city attorney to prosecute violators directly, instead of handing cases over to the district attorney, and could send a message to irresponsible wild animal feeders—who, studies show, are always associated with coyote infiltration problems—that the city is serious about solving the problem.

Forget that, however, because Carchio withdrew his proposal from the city council agenda fearing that it would have no council support after a handful of critics trashed it and him on a local e-mail discussion board. An even smaller group expressed favorable views, but Carchio may have had flashbacks to the angry mobs that appeared at city council meetings 2 ½ years ago when Keith Bohr tried to pass a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance, another idea that if implemented would probably help keep coyotes out of peoples’ yards and away from their children.

“I guess no good deed goes unpunished,” Carchio lamented during the April 5 city council meeting as he withdrew the item from the agenda. “I did make the point that you’re not to feed the animals, especially coyotes in this case, “and we’re not going to kill them either.”

Carchio’s claim that coyotes won’t be killed will probably turn out to be incorrect in short order. But, so far, no more trapping attempts have been made, according to Lt. Russell Reinhart. Nor have police issued any citations to residents for feeding wild animals.

Meanwhile, the battle between Monster and Coyote continues with no end in sight.

Riding a bicycle can be fantastic in Huntington Beach. The city has all the right ingredients for a pleasant ride….lovely weather, wide roads, and almost exclusively flat terrain.  Plus the recent economic downturn has illustrated the advantages of changing to a means of local transportation that is convenient, healthy, and low-cost, in other words, cycling.

Dave Kuelen demonstrates the fun of bike riding in Surfcity.

Of course, there’s just one problem, namely the mega-ton four-wheeled vehicles that also course over the same roads that lead to the beach, the store , the schools. Virtually everyone who has ridden a bicycle anywhere other than on the beach bike paths has experienced a potentially life-threatening near-miss with a car. As an experienced bike rider, unfortunately one begins to take this for granted and hopefully learns to be extra cautious, learning to anticipate dangerous situations in advance in order to avoid a collision that will inevitably injury the bike rider more than the driver of the car.

But it doesn’t have to be so dangerous. All across the United States numerous cities have begun to see the value of bicycling for both transportation and recreation, and have incorporated cycling access, parking, and education into their municipal infrastructure. These aren’t bicycling fanatics, but are city planners and transportation engineers involved with issues such as public safety.  And, of course, it is a public safety issue, not a private safety issue that can be solved by wearing a helmet , a reflective vest, and using a special kind of bicycle. If the city environment is engineered with cycling as a defined part of the transportation package, it becomes safer and more viable.

As I mentioned, cities across the United States now compete to be designated as cycling-friendly communities, with designations such as bronze, silver, gold and platinum. These designations are based primarily on the amount of designated bicycle paths and lanes available, but also include other issues such as bicycle safety courses in the school, parking for bicycles , and incorporating bicycle use into other public transit systems, i.e. bike racks on buses. As of April 2009 more than 90 U.S. communities were designated as being bicycle friendly. Those who are interested in more detail should refer to The League of American Cyclists, www.bikeleague.org, which is the oldest cycling advocacy group in the United States.

So where do we start in Huntington Beach, Surf City, USA? (The other Surf City, by the way, is a silver-rated bicycle friendly city.) First of all, RIDE YOUR BIKE! That’s the only way you are going to know what’s good and what is bad. Then go to City Hall, by bicycle if possible, and ask for the Bicycle Plan of Huntington Beach. There is one, actually, and it is part of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. If you ride about the city, you will notice that Huntington Beach actually does have a number of bike lanes, including some Class 1 trails, which are off-road by definition. These are primarily the beach bike trail and the trails along the Santa Ana River drainage channel. Many of the on-road bike lanes are quite wide and run for blocks, such as the bike lanes on Newland Ave. This lane could be almost perfect, since there is no parking allowed for blocks, except for one thing: there are no barriers between the car lane and the bike lane. The lack of this very simple thing is what makes all the difference in the world for safety and security. A simple low plastic curbing between the bicycle lane and the car lane is often all it takes to keep a cell-phone talking driver (or cyclist for that matter) from wandering out of their lane into a potentially lethal collision. This very low-cost engineering measure would instantly create miles of safer bicycle lanes in Huntington Beach on existing bike lanes.

There are countless other means of engineering traffic lanes to make them safer for cycling. Interested cyclists are encouraged to visit 2^nd Street in Belmont Shores, which as just created green, share-the-road lanes in the crowded downtown area that spans a few blocks. Here cyclists are designated by very visible signage to have the right to use the right lane in both directions, instead of feeling forced to ride the gauntlet between the parked cars and the traffic lane.

As mentioned before, these measures aren’t expensive, the costs being quite modest, compared with the cost of a lawsuit against the city. The main issue is one of education and having the political will to treat cycling for transportation on par with driving as transportation. More than once I have been cycling along a designated bicycle path to suddenly be stopped dead by a road maintenance sign completely blocking the bicycle lane. If someone completely blocked a car traffic lane it would not be tolerated, but the transportation department needs to be educated as well.

So pump up those tires and start riding, then start talking to your city council, fire department, police department and traffic safety department to let them know that you use a bicycle for transportation and expect the city to provide you and your family and friends with  safely-engineered streets. Who knows, maybe Surf City, USA could also become a  bicycle friendly community. Come on, if San Jose can do it, I think we could as well.

David J Keulen is an MD who resides in Huntington Beach.

Joe Shaw announced his candidacy for the Huntington Beach City Council on Oct. 24, 2009 at the home of former mayor and city council member Debbie Cook.  The OC Voice was there to record the event, joining a house full of supporters, including another former mayor/council member, Connie Boardman, League of Conservation Voters representative, Gus Ayer, HB city planning commissioner Blair Farley, who is also running for city council (with Shaw’s endorsement, and others. Shaw has lived in the city a relatively short time but wasted no time in getting involved in the thick of the city’s most important issues, starting as  a founding member of the Downtown Business District and providing the initial idea and inspiration for Surf City Nights, a Tuesday event (4-9 p.m.) that closes off downtown to auto traffic and offers a farmers market and a wide variety of street entertainers, a welcome change for HB residents who have avoided the beer mall atmosphere, complete with bull-riding, barfing drunks, brawling drunks, urinating drunks, and drunks who drive recklessly at high speeds through nearby residential areas (including, in full disclosure, right outside of this writer’s home on many occasions) that occurs generally after 9 p.m. every night, especially on weekends and during the summer. Shaw has also been an on (when not campaigning) and off-again columnist for the OC Voice. He also served as a city planning commissioner and currently serves on the city’s charter review committee. More information is available on his campaign website at: http://joeshawforhb.com/joeshawforhb/Issues.html

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

###

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama accuse each other of bowing to “big oil,” and Huntington Beach mayor, environmentalist and Democratic candidate for congress, Debbie Cook, has taken hits in the local media for having large investments in oil corporations that many people blame for the global energy crisis that she has warned the public about for years.

Cook’s corporate investment records have always been on file at City Hall and open to the public, as required by law, but they have gained attention lately due to her desire to be the opponent of incumbent Dana Rohrabacher, and be elected in November to represent the 46^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Cook’s fossil fuel related investments, including natural gas, totaled between $72,000 and $710,000 from March 2007 through March 2008.

As an investor, she probably made the right choices: ExxonMobil, which made a record $40.7 billion last year; BP, the world’s 2^nd largest oil producer; and, CanArgo Energy Corp, Chevron, El Paso Corp, Schlumberger Ltd Netherlands, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and the Brompton Oil and Gas Income mutual fund.

But Cook’s alleged hypocrisy was the main topic of analysis in news accounts and editorials by the Orange County Register and the Huntington Beach Independent.

The Independent excoriated Cook for investing in oil companies that harm the environment-instead of companies that “make money off of environmentally friendly technologies.”

And Register opinion editor Steve Greenhut wrote in his blog that “It’s just funny when environmental advocates preach one thing, then do another with their own dollars.”

Editorial cartoons in both papers showed Cook greedily awash in oil stocks while advocating energy conservation.

But both papers overlooked Cook’s other provocative, non-oil, investments, including General Electric, which has a “a lengthy record of criminal, civil, political and ethical transgressions, some of them shocking in disregard for the integrity of human beings,” according to Corpwatch.org, and the Walt Disney Company, which has a record of severe labor rights violations in China and other developing countries.

Also of interest are up to $100,000 of now disposed of stocks that Cook held in Archer Daniels Midlan, “Supermarket to the World,” in 2006. The company is the largest American producer of corn derived ethanol fuel, which creates its own harmful pollution and raises food prices, thus contributing to a worldwide food shortage for people living in poverty.

Wise Investments?
Cook, clearly frustrated by the attention to her portfolio, told the Voice she is “a bit amused by the media [and] how it labels us and then wants us to defend those labels.”

It’s simply about creating a financially secure retirement for her and her husband, Cook has said.

“I don’t have any other way to invest my money so that I can have a retirement,” she argues. “There’s no way. Probably the least risk is energy investment. If someone can figure out a way to invest money profitably [and ethically]” she would like to know.

Cook’s Record
Despite her conflicting investments, Cook’s environmental record is impressive. She played a leading role in passing Measure C, which protects the city’s parks from arbitrary development, and successfully sued the Coastal Commission to stop development in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.

She is also widely respected as a knowledgeable and passionate advocate for energy conservation in response to “peak oil” and serves as chairperson of the Environment Committee for the Southern California Association of Governments.

One of her greatest accomplishments was a resolution passed by the city council that signs Huntington Beach on to the U.S. Mayor’s Agreement on Global Warming.

On a personal level, Cook often rides her electric bike or uses public transportation to get around. Her yard grows native plants instead of a water guzzling lawn. She is a vegetarian. She lives in a luxurious Sea Cliff home, but pays $0.00 in electric bills because of a state of state of the art solar panels installed on the roof.

Conflict of Interest?
Cook’s investments have not been related to her local city council votes, but as a congressperson she would certainly be voting on important oil related issues with national and worldwide implications.

In February, the Democratic Party controlled House approved legislation to end tax breaks for oil companies and use the saved revenue to develop renewable energy sources and encourage conservation.

The bill is far from becoming law, but Democrat Edward Markey, chairman of the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, challenged the oil industry to give up $18 billion in tax breaks and pledge 10 percent of all profits toward renewable energy.

Executives of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Conoco Phillips declined the offer.

Cook said that the “rational for providing subsidies to oil companies no longer exists” and that “The private sector and the national labs need to be able to count on a continuing commitment to funding no matter which party is in power.”

Conflict of interest won’t be a problem if she is elected to Congress, Cook promises, claiming that she is no more conflicted than government employees, including teachers, who “are heavily invested in the energy sector.”

“Had I known I would be running for office,” she reflected, “I would have placed all of our holdings in a blind trust. If I am fortunate enough to be elected, I will do just that.”

Defending Corporations
Although some of Cook’s strongest supporters were angered when they read about her oil investments, she has been consistent over the years. Despite her past clashes with local developers, Cook is no Ralph Nader; like the anti-corporate populist, she advocates individual responsibility, but unlike him she has carefully avoided criticizing the corporate power structure, especially “big oil.”

In a Voice interview in March, Cook acknowledged that the Iraq war, which she opposed, was about oil, but said she doesn’t blame corporations because “…we have only ourselves to blame,” referring to Americans’ insatiable desire for oil.

“Industry isn’t irresponsible, people are,” she says.

Oil companies are scapegoats for the gas guzzling public and are living up to their obligation to look for energy alternatives, Cook told the Register.

That claim might hold true with Chevron, which claims to invest over $300 million yearly in developing alternative energy sources, especially geothermal; believing that by 2050 oil may not be its main source of income.

But ExxonMobil makes no such pretense, preferring a more tried and true road to profitability over investment in alternative or renewable energy technologies that, like Cook, it considers less economically viable.

‘Greenwashing’ & Oil Crimes
Other big oil companies have been accused of “greenwashing,” the practice of putting up a false pro-environment front for the public in order to boost sales and profits for their brand.

Shell, for example, promotes its green credentials through its “Profits or Principles” marketing campaign, but spends only between 0.6 and 1.1 percent of its annual investments on renewable energy, according to environmental and corporate watchdog groups.

BP, the world’s second largest oil producer, renamed from “British Petroleum” to “Beyond Petroleum” as part of a public relations campaign to remake its image as a leader in green energy, bought Solarex, a large solar energy corporation, for $45 million, but spent over $2 billion exploring for oil in Alaska in 2006.

Accusations of corporate crime, gross damage to natural resources and human rights violations in other countries also impugn the reputations of some of the oil companies Cook has investments in, including ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP.

ExxonMobil, for instance, still hasn’t paid the $2.5 billion it owes to 33,000 fishermen and other business owners whose careers were ruined by the massive oil spill that occurred when a company tanker crashed off the coast of Valdez, Alaska in 1989.

Until recently, the company provided millions of dollars to fund the Global Climate Coalition and similar groups that debunk global warming.

And, according to human rights groups, ExxonMobil provided funding to the Indonesian military which engaged in massive human rights violations against protesters, including torture, rape and murder.

Similar allegations have been made against Chevron in Nigeria, a country with a huge wealth in oil supplies, but whose people live in abject poverty and are allegedly denied jobs by the company that is exploiting their natural resources. A lawsuit charges Chevron with collaborating with the Nigerian military to kill local activists and burn their village in retaliation for protests.

Media Hypocrites
Cook’s response: Other industries commit environmental and social crimes too.

“What about all the ‘silent’ killers in the paper industry, agribusiness industry, meat production industry,” she asked.

“One of the MOST polluting industries in the world is the PRINTING industry,” Cook claims, implying that the media is overlooking its own complicity in abusing natural resources for personal profit. “Oh well, I guess even YOU have to compromise your principles,” she concluded.

An environmental scientist for the California Coastal Commission says that the cost of water to be produced by a desalination plant approved by the city of Huntington Beach has been greatly underestimated by the developer and that proposed mitigation measures for its impact on ocean marine life are inadequate.

The project was approved by the H.B. City Council (including current councilmembers Don Hansen, Keith Bohr, Cathy Green and Gil Coerper) in Feb. 2006.

The remarks were part of a letter to Poseidon Resources Inc., the multi-national corporate water corporation that will oversee construction of the plant that would suck in 100 million gallons of ocean water every day and convert it into 50 million gallons of drinking water. Poseidon plans to co-locate with the AES power generating plant on Newland Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway to take cost-saving advantage of the plant’s “once-through cooling” system to gather the ocean water it needs for conversion.

Once-through cooling systems are also used by 20 other antiquated power plants along the California coast and suck in 17 billion gallons of seawater each year, killing virtually all the marine organisms passing through their membranes, a significant contributor to the 60 percent decline in marine species, according to a 2005 report by the California Energy Commission.

A recent court ruling, as well as legislative trends and a resolution by the California State Lands Commission, are bringing once-through cooling to a close, sooner or later. “It’s the end of once-through cooling systems in the U.S.”, Surfrider Foundation desalination expert Joe Geever told the Voice in September, adding, “AES is fighting the changes tooth and nail.”

Incomplete Application & Promises

The 7-page-letter, dated June 27, 2007, was a “Notice of Incomplete Application” for a Coastal Development permit and cited numerous instances where Poseidon had given incomplete information or made dubious claims about permits, environmental effects, environmentally friendly alternatives and costs related to the project in response to a similar request for information a year earlier. Nearly 2-years later, the information is still not forthcoming, according to the CCC’s Environmental Scientist, Tom Luster, who wrote the letter.

Poseidon’s desalination plant would take publicly owned ocean water, convert it to tap water, and sell it back to the public for a profit. Organized opponents to the project criticized the company for ignoring key environmental impact issues and questioned whether the plant would ever be built, considering rising costs of fossil fuel and electricity needed to operate it, and a lack of buyers for the expensive water-as high as $2,000 per acre-foot-it would produce.

Poseidon told the city of Huntington Beach that the project would cost (Poseidon) about $150 million in capital to build and promised it would produce water for sale at around $800 per acre-foot, but that amount was based on government subsidies that might not materialize.

Since then, Poseidon has claimed a cost of $355 million and water at $950 per acre-foot. But Luster’s letter challenges those estimates, stating they are much lower than estimated costs at other proposed and co-located facilities, and that “Poseidon’s response does not provide an adequate basis for these substantially lower costs.”

Luster told the Voice that $1,400 – $1,500 per acre foot is “what we are expecting for that project,” about 4 or 5 times the cost of local well water used in Huntington Beach and 3 times the cost of recycled drinking water that will be produced by the Orange County Sanitation District.

The letter attributes Poseidon’s lower cost estimate in part to its claim that it will pay $0.07 per kilowatt-hour for electricity needed to run the facility. “This appears to be a much lower rate than is available for the proposed project,” it says. The cost would actually increase about $50 per acre-foot for each $0.01 per kilowatt-hour, “so the published rates would increase your proposed water costs by at least several hundred dollars per acre-foot,” the letter states.

Luster asked Poseidon to supply a copy of its contract with AES, which it had refused to do in the when asked by the city of Huntington Beach, along with a sample electrical bill to help clarify how it arrived at its unlikely cost estimate.

The letter also challenges Poseidon’s assertion that mitigation for environmental damage already taken by the AES power plant is sufficient, since the desalination plant would be using the same water intake system and in theory would not create addition environmental stress.

The AES mitigation was limited, however, to a smaller amount of water flow coming from two of the plant’s four generating units, while the desalination plant would add significantly more water flow than previously studied, the letter says. Besides, it states, the Coastal Commission did not approve the AES mitigation, which does not generally meet its standards.

Other points made in the letter:

Poseidon’s own research shows that a subsurface ocean water intake system, favored by environmentalists, would be economically feasible, while creating “fewer adverse environmental impacts” than the company’s proposal.

Poseidon has not provided sufficient information describing or providing “feasible mitigation measures” for the desalination plant’s future effects on coastal resources from the estimated 200 – 250 million pounds of carbon dioxide it will emit into the air.

Nor has Poseidon provided permits to create a 12-mile-long pipeline needed to transport the desalinated water it produces through Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa.

In fact, the Voice has learned, Poseidon is currently negotiating franchise agreements with Mesa Consolidated Water and the city of Huntington Beach. Former Costa Mesa mayor Peter Buffa is Poseidon’s negotiator and is briefing city council members on a proposed plan to replace a water line in return for permission to use the new one for transporting its water.

H.B City Administrator Paul Emery told the Voice that the city is negotiating with Poseidon but that any proposal for the City Council’s consideration was “not eminent.”

Multiple attempts by the Voice to get a response from Poseidon were no more successful than the Coastal Commission’s efforts.

In an e-mail address to other Poseidon CEOs and obtained by the Voice, Senior Vice President Nikolay Voutchkov, wrote, in response to written questions from the Voice: “Let me know if you need any support in responding on these questions. We have already addressed them in our last response to the CCC. This guy has an outdated info.”

But in an e-mail that followed, Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Kingman, replied: “no reply necessary, John Earl is not a friend and we won’t get anywhere with him.”

By John Earl
OC Voice Editor

“Yes! Yes! Yes! Congratulations, you guys down there,” Bakersfield City Councilmember, Jacquie Sullivan, said over the phone when reached by the OC Voice.

She must have been smiling from ear to ear, just like Jan Crouch on Trinity Broadcasting Network, when she rejoiced, in her bouncy Bakersfield country-style voice, “I just heard about it, that’s very exciting news.”

Sullivan is the founder of In God We Trust – America Inc., a non profit 503c3 organization formed in 2002 “To promote patriotism by encouraging elected city officials to display our national motto ‘In God We Trust’ in every city hall in America.”

She was talking about the April 7 vote by the Huntington Beach City Council to make “In God We Trust” the city’s new motto to be hung in the council chambers.

The council debate preceding the vote was a sectarian skirmish, ill-timed for Mayor Debbie Cook, a democrat, who wants to replace republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher next November to represent the 46^th Congressional District,* where God and country are a normal part of political discourse and decision making.

In 2002, during her first one-year term as mayor (councilmembers rotate yearly to fill the position), Cook respected God and Country by keeping the two separate, as many believe that America’s most authoritative guide to law and order-the U.S. Constitution-requires elected officials to do-by not holding city sanctioned invocations.

Since starting her current term as mayor, however, Cook has followed tradition and the invocation is part of the city council’s official routine.

Cook, who told the Voice in a March interview that “I don’t talk about religion,” bristled when asked then if her change of heart had anything to do with her campaign for congress. “No! The Constitution has a prohibition against religious tests…So what was the next question you’re asking me,” she snapped.

But when questioning your opponent’s Christian and patriotic credentials might be a better way of defeating her in the election than filing frivolous lawsuits against her (for calling herself the mayor on the election ballot, as Rohrabacher’s friend, Mike Schroeder, did) or talking about your own record of service to your constituents, the God questions tend not to go away.

Just ask Rohrabacher, who knows how easily God and Country can keep you in office in the 46^th if you use it to justify an illegal war, torturing prisoners and eliminating habeas corpus, all while evoking the “rule of law” to deport “illegal” immigrants and demanding amnesty for vigilante border patrol agents convicted and jailed for wrongfully shooting them.

Conflict of Interest
Besides penalizing vigilantes, the rule of law also prohibits non-profit groups like In God We Trust from mixing charitable and political goals. Curiously, however, the group’s web site cautions donors to follow rules based on language that closely follows federal campaign financing law.

“To comply with Federal law, we must use best efforts to obtain, maintain, and submit the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle,” the web site cautions.

That looks suspicious to H.B. resident Mark Bixby, the citizen watchdog who discovered the peculiarity. “[I]t’s clear to me that this organization also has a political agenda,” Bixby wrote in a mass e-mail, “Which also raises questions about their 501(c)(3) status.”

When asked why a charitable organization would cite federal election law, Sullivan said that she would “have to look at that,” adding that the group’s web site in continually being updated and improved.

Even more curious is the presence of Mark Abernathy on the In God We Trust executive board as its secretary. Abernathy happens to be the founder and president of Western Pacific Research Inc. (WPR), another Bakersfield based organization, which is “dedicated to electing Republicans to Federal, State and local areas of government,” according to one WPR web site, and “is involved with multiple organizations effectively promoting the beliefs of the Republican Party.”

WPR boasts of its involvement in all aspects of campaign organization, including campaign strategy, marketing and fundraising. “We identify opponent strengths and weaknesses, and create profiles of voter groups and undecided voters who can be targeted with specific messages,” it states on the group’s other web site.

WPR claims it played a pivotal role in the political success of many Republicans, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that it advises Sullivan and manages In God We Trust.

Abernathy did not respond to a Voice inquiry, but Sullivan, after acknowledging that “We’re kind of political, I guess, but we’re…just patriotic Americans,” denied that Abernathy was active with In God We Trust or that his involvement in it created any conflict of interest with the group’s non-profit status.

“Absolutely not at all…Mark happens to be one of the ones who helped me originally get the organization going. But… he’s not actively involved,” Sullivan insisted, adding that her group’s mission is solely to “promote patriotism by training elected officials to display the motto, In God We Trust.”

That goal has been realized in 31 California cities so far, including three now in Orange County. Starting March 8, Sullivan says, “Over a two week period I e-mailed our information to every city in Orange County,” for distribution to city councilmembers.

That information also cites court rulings that say the motto has become nothing more than “ceremonial deism” over time and does not violate the concept of separation of church and state embedded in the First Amendment.

American History
Sullivan’s view is that “In both war and peace, these words have been a profound source of strength and guidance to many generations of Americans,” and that there’s nothing religious about the motto.

But the full history of America’s official motto goes back to 1776 when Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by the Continental Congress to a committee charged with designing the Great Seal of the United States. Franklin’s suggested motto for the seal, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” was rejected for “e pluribus unum,” Latin for “”One from many parts,” referring to the melding of the colonies into a single nation.

From that point on, any attempt to use God as a national motto had clear religious and political motivations. In 1864, In God We Trust appeared on coins intended to show that God was on the Union’s side in the Civil War.

In 1956 during the Cold War between “Atheistic Communism” and the “Christian Capitalism,” President Eisenhower signed a bill that officially adopted the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto. The action was part of a nationwide movement, previously featuring the political witch hunts of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, to stifle leftists and liberals by labeling them as subversives.

But fellow republicans and Rohrabacher allies Cathy Green and Joe Carchio, who put the motto proposal on the city council agenda at Sullivan’s behest, claim child-like ignorance of McCarthyism-”I was too little,” Green told the Voice-or of how the word God could possibly have anything to do with religion, or be used as a political ploy to damage Cook’s campaign.

“I don’t know why all the sudden this has become political,” Green told her council colleagues, “When invocation was removed, I didn’t attribute it to politics. When I brought it back (during her term as mayor), I didn’t attribute it to politics.”

Carchio, who is a Catholic but “not a real religious person,” told the Voice that, “It has nothing to do with religion.” As for using religion to hurt Cook’s campaign, “I never thought of it that way,” he said.

Patriotic Memories
“It’s all about remembering,” Carchio said, awkwardly reading a prepared speech from the city council dais. “We have stop signs, street signs, speed signs. What does that remind us of?..It reminds me of the freedoms we have as Americans.”

For Councilmember Jill Hardy, who considers herself “very faithful,” it is impossible to equate the motto with patriotism or believe that God has nothing to do with religion. “I don’t think of America when I hear the words In God We Trust…If we want to be patriotic, why don’t we post ‘Proud to be American’ in our council chambers?”

The motto is either religious and not suited for a public building or political, she said. “And if it’s a political motivation, to me it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain and I absolutely oppose that.”

Mayor Pro-tem Keith Bohr objected to the divisiveness of the proposal. Most of the people who spoke during public comments and who wrote to the city council were opposed to it, although occasional rounds of applause from the audience seemed to favor the motto-helping to prove Bohr’s point.

Cook slammed the proposal. A motivating factor for the “first Americans to come over here,” she recalled from American history, was their rejection of the divine right of kings. “I think that Americans also reject the divine right of governments,” she said.

Why not unite people by citing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address, Emancipation Proclamation or the Federalist Papers, Cook asked. “There are so many wonderful words that our early Americans put on paper and any of those would be much more patriotic than this.”

The motto was constitutional, she agreed, “but that doesn’t make it a wise idea. It’s a cheapening of religious faith,” and “absolutely being done for political reasons.”

Councilmember Gil Coerper reasoned that the motto would bring people together because he saw it in the Supreme Court. “Now, is that political,” he asked. “I think not,” he said, answering himself.

Then Coerper argued for more than 5 minutes in favor of a non-existent proposal to put the matter to an ad hoc committee, in the same way that Councilmembers Hansen and Green recently guided through a proposal for unlimited campaign contribution limits for city council candidates.

Cook made a substitute motion to turn the question over to the city’s Human Relations Task Force “in order to weigh exactly which patriotic message they would like to present to the people of Huntington Beach.”

Still confused, Coerper then tried to make his own substitute motion, but it was out of order because he mistakenly thought that Green’s original motion to adopt the motto had been defeated and that Cook’s motion was now the original.

Cook kindly explained that she had made her substitute motion so the matter is “not subject to political whims.”

Suddenly refocused, Coerper quickly assumed the mayor’s role that he once held prior to Cook’s current turn, saying, “Please vote,” to his colleagues.

After they did, Cook’s motion failed 4-3 and Green’s original motion passed 4-2-1 with Bohr abstaining.

*The 46^th includes all of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Avalon, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and parts of Long Beach, Westminster, Santa Ana and San Pedro.

By Keith Bohr
Mayor Pro-Tem, Huntington Beach, California

I have had a few former elected officials over the past few months advise me that one should not meddle when it comes to people’s children or their animals. Definitely information I could have used a year or more ago!

So why did I propose the City of Huntington Beach adopt a “Mandatory Spay Neuter Chip” Ordinance?

A quick look at the numbers:

Six million cats and dogs in the United States are euthanized each year. In California approximately 800,000 dogs and cats end up in taxpayer-funded shelters every year and more than half are euthanized at a cost of more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

Orange County Animal Care Services, contracting with 21 cities, including Huntington Beach, picked up 29,690 stray animals in 2006. Despite commendable efforts by the county to reunite these animals with their owners, or to adopt them out to new owners, the county still had to euthanize more that 12,000 dogs and cats that year. Huntington Beach, which pays the County approximately $400,000 annually for animal control, accounted for more than 1,500 dogs and cats that were picked up, and 40 percent of those were euthanized.

We are killing too many of our pets!

Most of the opponents of “Mandatory Spay and Neuter” (MSN) are from the “breeder” community. They are unrelenting and usually less than honest in their stated rationale against such a proposal. They implore the “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing anything and everything up against the wall, hoping something will stick. The bottom-line is, although most of them agree we do kill too many of our pets, they argue against any form of a MSN ordinance and are content with the status quo.

Their “kitchen sink” approach goes something like this:

• MSN is a bad policy because it is unenforceable and irresponsible owners will continue to be irresponsible (unless you make it illegal to be irresponsible);
• service dogs, police dogs and show dogs will vanish (completely false since they are all legally exempt from MSN);
• the only dogs in shelters are old dogs turned in by their owners and the rest are pit bulls (currently there are 50 dogs at the County’s shelter of which 27 are two years old or younger and only 11 are pit bull or pit bull mix);
• this is just more “nanny government” proposal (we are a community of laws for the better good);
• and “My pet is my property, nobody should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property.” (Hello Mr. Vick?).

Other potential solutions? Huntington Beach and other cities could build their own “no kill” shelters. But analysis indicates that to serve a population of approximately 200,000 people, 3.5 – 4.5 acres of land would be required. Studies state that the net cost to operate such a facility would be in the range of $7.00 per capita or $1.4 million paid by the city’s 200,000 residents.

The study I read did not address the cost of construction of the shelter itself. I estimate that for a 10,000 square foot facility at $200 per square foot it would cost at least $2 million.

In addition to building and operating costs, we need to address the cost of purchaseing the land for a city owned shelter, which at market rate would be in the range of $6-8 million.

All said and done the City of Huntington Beach would need approximately $8-10 million to build a new facility and another $1.4 million annually to operate it. That makes the $400,000 Huntington Beach pays the county each year seem like a bargain in comparison.

One enthusiastic proponent of having Huntington Beach build and operate its own local shelter suggested that we could get the land for free! Huh? Sure, just use some of the land the city owns in Central Park. Say what?!? Did you not see what we all suffered through in order to narrowly get voter approval for building a new senior center in an undeveloped portion of Central Park? No thank you!

As usual with complicated issues there are no easy solutions, only difficult and expensive ones.

In any case, please seriously consider spaying or neutering as well as micro chipping your pets. And if you want to add a pet to your family, please visit one of the many local shelters and/or rescue groups before considering making a purchase from a pet store or breeder. Go to www.ocpetinfo.com for more information.