Residents, especially in Big Sur, have noticed just how few firefighters there seem to be for this blaze, as compared to previous fires in the area. As conservative demands for low taxes and budget cuts have helped slash available fire protection, residents in Big Sur increasingly feel they are on their own, though they appreciate the fire protection they have received.

The legacy of Hurricane Katrina – when nobody came to help New Orleans – has led some residents to refuse to evacuate out of a belief, evidenced by the facts on the ground, that if they don't protect their homes, nobody will.

This frustrating and chaotic situation is the direct product of conservative attacks on basic government services – they want people to fend for themselves.

One of the most high profile Big Sur residents who has stayed behind to protect his property is Kirk Gafill, whose family opened the famous Nepenthe restaurant in 1949.

As he and his employees stayed behind to put out burning embers themselves, he explained to a reporter why he stayed (from an AP report dated July 4): "We know fire officials don't have the manpower to secure our properties," Gafill said. "There are a lot of people in this community not following evacuation orders. Based on what we saw during Katrina and other disasters, we know we can only rely on ourselves and our neighbors."

Such do-it-yourself firefighting led one Big Sur resident to be arrested for setting his own backfires.

Another resident defended that person's actions on the Ventana Wilderness Society's forums, one of the main sources of community information on the fire: ''We have been working on defending Apple Pie from this fire day and night since it started. We watched it grow over the coast ridge, down to the Big Sur River and up over Post Summit. The gov was not going to help defend the ranch even when our homes were about to burn. We didn't think they would either. But they didn't have any problem sending someone to arrest us. Our community just can't accept actions like this. If we didn't do what we did the ranch would be nothing but ashes. I say thank you to everyone who helped us and a thank you for all the firefighters, and pilots who TRIED to stop it from crossing the firebreaks to our homes."

Setting one's own backfires is a desperate and even reckless act – but those who do not believe their government will or wants to help them are likely to resort to desperate measures.

Meanwhile California does not have enough money saved for firefighting efforts. During the last decade, in every year but one, California has had to dip into reserves to pay for firefighting, but this year the SF Chronicle reports the gap is much wider.

"But in the just-completed fiscal year, there was a big gap between the actual cost of firefighting and the budgeted amount. The state had set aside just $82 million for such emergencies, forcing it to spend more than $310 million from the state's general fund cash reserves of $858 million. California will have to continue dipping into its reserves until the Legislature and the governor approve a new budget for the fiscal year that began Tuesday ..."

California has come full circle. Hurricane Katrina became such a human catastrophe because conservative budget and spending cuts left New Orleans residents without adequate protection and aid. Californians in places like Big Sur, mindful of that experience and aware that firefighting is currently understaffed, are making increasingly risky efforts to try and protect themselves. Efforts to provide funding for adequate fire protection are opposed by conservatives who prioritize tax cuts over fire protection and who think schools and hospitals should be closed instead to pay for it.

California firefighting has already been badly neglected by decades of conservatism. It's time we rebuilt our public services so that individuals do not feel the need to risk their lives to defend their property.

Or this is our future as Californians?

The cult-like behavior of the tax-cutting members of the yacht-owning Republican Party and their holy relic of "I've got mine" Reaganism, an unreformed and badly outdated Proposition 13, are holding Californians hostage.

How much longer will Californians allow these radical conservatives to assault our public services and dismantle social protection from risk?

How much longer will we give the No. 1 job of government – protecting the people – to those who don't even believe in government?

I am sick of those who enable these selfish zealots as our state burns.

Becky Curry lives in Kelseyville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

We need two solutions and we need them fast: a short-term solution that lowers the price of oil and a long-term solution that reduces our dependence on oil. However, we must be very wary of solutions that are nothing more than choreographed political stunts designed to win elections rather than bring Americans relief. If we’re not careful, we’ll end up with more of the same – no energy policy.

Also, we need to beware of quick-fix proposals being sold by some people who think all we need to do is drill. If drilling operations were expanded into new areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska or off our California coast, any oil found would not reach consumers for eight to ten years. And according to the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, the impact on gas prices would be negligible, less than a nickel a gallon. Moreover, given the thirst of new oil consumers in China and India, there’s no guarantee Americans would see the additional oil.

Right now, oil companies aren’t utilizing the vast majority of the nearly 90 million acres of federal land they’ve already leased. Nearly 70 million acres have not been touched, despite estimates that they contain 80 percent of oil and gas reserves on federal lands. As energy prices continue to climb, these companies are leaving recoverable oil and gas in the ground so they will appreciate in value.

Oil companies are also not making enough of an investment to build the infrastructure needed to increase the domestic oil supply. Last year, the five largest integrated oil companies used their record-breaking profits to buy back $50 billion in stock rather than investing in infrastructure improvements that would reduce supply disruptions that cause prices to rise.

We also have to deal with oil speculation, which experts estimate is inflating prices by anywhere from $20 to $60 per barrel of oil.

We need both long and short-term energy plans that will put downward pressure on gas prices, start us on a course toward clean renewable energy and sever the strangle-hold that foreign oil-producing countries have on us.

We need to turn down the volume of rhetoric and roll up our sleeves to address this problem. In the short run, we need to:

– Release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) into the market. Currently, the SPR is at 97-percent capacity. Drawing down the reserve to 90-percent of capacity would add 50 million barrels of oil to the market and would send a strong message to speculators. This would undoubtedly help ease the significant premium that speculation has added to the price of fuel.

– Crack down on unregulated oil speculation. We need to increase regulation over speculators to prevent market manipulation and ensure no one speculator is allowed to hold enough futures contracts to be able to manipulate prices. We can also increase the amount of money speculators are required to put down on futures and only allow speculators who can actually take delivery of the product in which they are investing. (When companies such as Morgan Stanley own huge quantities of oil, you know there’s trouble.)

– Tell oil companies, “use it or lose it.” Oil companies need to use or lose the land they have already leased for drilling.

And to ensure a sensible energy policy for the future, we should:

– Extend tax incentives for renewable energy technology, such as solar, wind, biomass and cellulosic biofuels;

– Put the development of other energy technologies on the table;

– Encourage the development of more fuel efficient cars and continuing tax credits for individuals who purchase hybrid cars;

– Incentivize the development of filling station infrastructure to support hydrogen fueled vehicles;

– Increase our investments in public transportation to allow for further conservation of fuel; and

– Invest in expanding current refining capacity and requiring diligent development of existing leases that have already been permitted by the federal government for oil drilling.

We have the ingenuity and resourcefulness to achieve these goals. The solutions we reach must be based on what’s best for the next generation, not the next election.

The people of our great country need reasonably-priced energy to grow our food, drive to work, heat and cool our homes and live a productive life. But we must also remember the importance of a healthy environment, particularly in an area like ours that relies on tourism, agriculture, coastal resources and the fishing industry.

Congressman Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) represents Lake County in the House of Representatives.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

After several conversations with John Stoddard and others, I became aware that there are many laws being broken by members of the current board. Both developed and undeveloped property owners are being held hostage by these tyrannical individuals, who prey on the elderly and absentee landowners, illegally imposing fines and restrictions and forcing compliance by processing liens against them. There is no democracy here.

My property was transferred to me in 1979 and I have not developed it. Plans were submitted and approved, but with the economy being what it was (through the 1980s and 1990s), and next to zero growth in the Riviera over the last 20-plus years, I couldn’t afford to build on it.

After the debacle with Mt. Konocti Water Co., it even left a bigger sour taste in the mouths of property owners. The only people who prospered from that endeavor were the attorneys.

There was a glimmer of hope. Younger families began migrating into Kelseyville, and it seemed that there was some positive movement towards cleaning up old dumpy properties and chasing out the less-than-desirable characters that inhabited Kelseyville proper. A new grammar school was built two blocks below my property, and I saw hope. The property values jumped exponentially and it was time to build.

Then came the crash. Sept. 11, 2001. Within one year, the market began to decline and the insurgence of new blood all but dried up. Property vales began to stagnate, and sales and purchases began a steady decline.

Two years ago, my little chunk of land in the Riviera was fetching a price over $60,000. Yet now I can’t even hope to list it for more than $25,000 – and then there’s the lien, which prevents me from being able to sell anything.

Add in Allied Trust, and the tyrannical Riviera Association.

Right around the time the Riviera began to see some positive growth, the board saw fit to start charging folks late fees and assessments and aggressively pursuing homeowners for ridiculous demands such as the removal of a carport (that was part of the permanent structure) to the clearing of properties. In my opinion, this was done to do nothing more than fatten the board members' coffers, and the community as a whole saw no benefit.

Without proper notices on property “assessments” from the Riviera Association, I received a threatening collection notice from Allied Trust for more than $3,000 for past due Riviera fees and of course a 50 percent-plus collection fee attached. Like a fool, I settled the matter. I had to borrow money to bail my property out of a lien status, and it took the agency months and me constantly requesting them to produce the completed filing, to actually acquire the recorded lien release.

In short, I allowed the Riviera to bully me out of fear. They won, and I’m out thousands.

Then the real problems began.

I began receiving notices from the Riviera Associatioin that all lots had to be “cleared to a park-like setting” and they provided a list of “recommended contractors” who would clear properties for astronomical prices. I smelled a rat. This was the first. I checked it out, and called several of the “approved” vendors, and was amazingly quoted very similar price structures from each. I began to think that they had a deal with the board, and kickbacks were being given to listed vendors. Although I cannot substantiate the claims, there was talk that this had in fact occurred.

I, at one point, found an independent vendor (out of town) who said they would gladly do it for approximately $500 less than the quoted prices for approved vendors. He, too, also believed that the landowners we being bamboozled by the board.

As if this wasn’t enough, I started receiving notices from the Riviera board that noncompliance of lot clearing would result in a fine of $125. I contacted the Riviera Association and began asking questions. They were many times downright rude and abrasive, and refused to answer questions. I tired to negotiate with them. I took several days off of work to personally meet the members of the board and review activity within the Riviera, and somehow, the office was always closed, or they were unavailable.

The minute I began to question the ethics of the board, their attitude changed and they became more aggressive and threatening. They told me my property was now designated a “fire hazard,” and shortly thereafter that I began receiving notices in the mail, that I was being fined $125 for the “fire hazard,” and if I cleared the lot, and until I cleared the lot, I would continue to be fined. They said I could attend a hearing, which meant taking more time off work, to deal with these felonious charges. I chose to address the board in a letter. Their response was to send me a letter that stated the fines would not be lifted, and increased to $250. Clearly, this was purely retaliatory in nature, and meant as an in-your-face tactic to bully me.

At this point, I began to demand accountability. One, to produce a signed copy of the CCRs and bylaws, and two, to prove to me that all members of the Riviera had similar fines. They refused on both parts, and continued to send me fines. Every attempt I made to resolve the issue was met with resistance and more fines. They have now employed the use of Allied Trust to further harass me.

I contacted the California Department of Forestry, which I believe is the governing body for the Kelseyville area, to ascertain if, in fact, my property had been deemed a “fire hazard.” The chief I spoke with said that there had not been a fire, and no properties within the Clear Lake Riviera had been tagged for fire hazard. I questioned further if the Riviera Association had the authority to designate a property “fire hazard.” “No,” they do not. Further, there haven’t been any significant fires in the Riviera, period.

As my property, and a majority of the hillside has been undeveloped for over 25 years, it seems to me that we would be destroying the natural habitat, and it seemed senseless to change the trail of the deers, quails, etc., for no reason. There is, I believe, a green belt directly behind the end of Bel Air East/West, in which everything remains in it’s natural state. As an environmentally aware person, it seemed senseless to destroy the natural surroundings, and if and when I was to build, great care would be taken to make sure that the natural wildlife would not come to any harm, and be disturbed as little as possible.

In short, I started doing research on the Web, and discovered there may be many more people, many of which are retired seniors, who are in a similar boat as I.

John Stoddard, and his colleagues belong to We the People, which I understand is an organization established to represent the owners of the Riviera properties. I gladly lend my voice to them, as we cannot fight the tyrannical association and its cronies without help.

I would encourage all residents and owners of the Clear Lake Riviera to band together and stand up to the egregious claims and fines levied by the current board.

Talk to any real estate agent in the surrounding area. Property values in the Riviera have plummeted, and lots are just not selling.

The current board has done nothing for the Riviera community to improve this situation. All they have done is generate false charges, harass senior citizens and landowners, and cast a disparaging light on the future of the community as a whole. I once thought this would be a great place to retire. I’ve changed my mind.

I suggest we contact the plaintiff’s attorney in the Mt. Konocti Water Co. debacle, and see if they would represent the Riviera landowners in a class action lawsuit. I know personally that I can’t afford to hire an attorney, and I doubt many senior citizens are in any better shape. We need help. The Riviera community needs the help of someone greater.

Barbara Betz lives in San Jose.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

These programs are referred to as the California High-Cost A-Fund and the California High-Cost B-Fund. Their existence helps compel the PUC to meet its stated goal of universal telephone service to all Californians, along with competition in the residential telephone service arena.

The A-Fund provides a source of supplemental revenues to 17 small, rural local telephone companies. Up until 2007, the A-Fund provided them with approximately $37 million in annual subsidies through a 0.21 percent surcharge on telephone bills; that surcharge was reduced to 0.13 percent on Jan. 1. In any case, the subsidy is used to cap residential telephone rates for these companies at not more than 150 percent of the rate charged to residential customers in urban areas.

The B-Fund provides subsidies to telephone carriers of last resort for providing basic local service to residential customers in high-cost areas that are currently served by larger companies (Pacific Bell, Verizon California Inc., Citizens Telecommunications of California and Surewest).

A “carrier of last resort” is obligated to serve customers within its service area – even those in very high-cost areas. The purpose of the subsidies, among other reasons, is to keep basic telephone service affordable in rural and high cost areas and to encourage competition. In 2007, this subsidy provided these companies with approximately $434 million funded by a 2.7 percent surcharge on telephone bills (this surcharge was also reduced, to 0.25 percent, effective Jan. 1 of this year).

The whole of Humboldt, Lake and Mendocino Counties are considered B-Fund areas, as are parts of Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

The problem is that both of the high-cost funds are set to expire on January 1, 2009. If they do, many Californians are likely to experience extreme increases in their residential telephone rates.

In fact, people across the North Coast shouldn’t be surprised if their bill for basic phone service doubles or triples after Jan. 1, 2009, when the telecommunications industry is deregulated. For example, according to the PUC, a resident of Humboldt County’s basic phone service costs $68.64 per month, but the customer only pays a rate of $11 a month. The B-Fund pays the rest of the cost of service.

Without an extension of the B-Fund, customers can expect to pay the entire $68.64 on their own. The amount could be higher, depending how much AT&T or Verizon choose to charge for basic phone service next January. And services that customers used to receive for free, such as free incoming calls, free calls to 800 numbers and free access to call 911, could all become things that they are charged for – at a cost that is unregulated.

That’s because in August 2006, the PUC decided that there should be no regulation of rates for telephone services, no examination of costs of service, and no profit regulation on previously-regulated phone companies. In essence, the commission deregulated all telephone rates, allowing rural prices to change independently of urban rates. However, the deregulation of basic service was delayed until 2009, pending an examination (by the PUC) of the high cost fund programs. All other services were deregulated in 2007. If the excessive increases in these services are any indication of what’s to come, folks in rural areas where there is no competition for basic services should be prepared for the worst.

Since 2007, caller ID rates have increased 62 percent, call waiting rates have increased 86 percent, unlisted numbers rates have increased 346 percent, and directory assistance has increased 226 percent.

I introduced Senate Bill 780 to ensure that rural/high cost residents in my Senate district would not be subjected to exorbitant residential telephone rates. SB 780 will extend the A & B funds, and will require the PUC to conduct an affordability study of basic phone rates and factors affecting affordability.

The PUC continues to report statistics about subscribership and universal service, but has not undertaken any analysis, since 2004, of the factors which cause service to become unaffordable for customers. My bill requires the PUC to report the findings of its affordability study to the Legislature by July 1, 2010. And it will enable the Legislature to examine the cost/rates of basic phone service and determine if the rates are affordable or excessive and take the appropriate action.

SB 780 expresses my desire that the high-cost programs be extended, and that they address the continued need for affordable basic telephone service in rural and high-cost areas of the state, particularly where telecommunications competition is limited, and without diminishing the key components of what customers expect as ‘basic telephone service.’

Patricia Wiggins represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

The fantasy of “royalty” is built into European mythology. Becoming a prince, princess, king or queen dominated the fairy tales and early cinematic cartoons of our era; however its roots were firmly entrenched from the beginning. New World Europeans, long under the boot of aristocracies, cherished the “freedom” to own their own property and lands, and create whatever personal “castles” they could with as much of a buffer between themselves and their neighbors as they could afford. In fact, this has been the standard for determining one's status of wealth in the Americas. The more square footage; the more acreage; the more isolation one can achieve is a direct measurement of financial achievement. Today's monoculture still exhorts the rags-to-riches mythology – a procreation of the desire to become royalty.

This desire translated geopolitically as new immigrants automatically looked to creating their own kingdom – which was eventually watered down to houses in the hills, Beverly, or otherwise. The American dream encompassed a desire to, in some small way, achieve the goal of becoming a king or queen of one's domain – the essence of the philosophy of private property. If an individual can autonomously control the right to affect one's property and lands with impunity – one has, in some small measure, achieved royalty.

Some people claim that I am misguided, and that this tendency toward wanting one's own is inherent in the human psyche and can be evidenced in the behavior of children. Unfortunately, it is they who are misguided. The type of selfish behavior our children often display relating to toys and possessions is primarily a First World trait. You do not find that behavior evidenced in communally oriented communities, certainly never in indigenous communities. It's like the myth that all teenagers are rebellious. It simply isn't true anywhere but in the fat First World. Teenagers the world over in Third World countries suffer no such alienation and social repugnance. It wasn't even common in America until around the aftermath of the Second World War, when James Dean and Marlon Brando gave the myth of rebellious teens its face.

The Provinsalia project proposed for Clearlake is a classic example of “sprawl.” It contains all the elements that have contributed to the creation of the word in the first place. What are those elements?

First is the desire to escape urbanity, with all its attendant poverty, slums, lows property values and feeling of closeness as opposed to space. Of course urban areas were constructed that way, even though space could have been incorporated if it had been deemed important. But rural planners and developers have responded to areas of poverty in the same way. Their answer is to ignore or isolate them and then relocate or develop in other areas. Redevelopment is always a last option when there are new and more pristine areas to conquer!

Second is the desire to create “upscale development – supposing that bringing in wealthier people will somehow “trickle-down” wealth to the general populace and improve values. Of course, there’s no evidence that this has ever happened. The presence of wealth has never elevated the poor ... The poor areas remain poor – the wealthier people just move further away so they aren't offended by the needy. It’s the same mentality that created landfills and Indian reservations.

Third is just plain old selfishness. Upscale people want their gated community in a safe and beautiful location. However developers and proponents never admit that, sooner or later, other development will follow. A gas station convenience store here, a mini-mall strip there ... the simple drive to bring necessities closer (even if it’s only a five minute drive to town) will cause that development to ultimately take place. After all, it makes good business sense. If you have a community of 500 families and can build a business that provides services they need closer to them than other competitors – whom do you suppose they will go to? Sooner or later – the new development is consolidated into the old town and you have “sprawl.” Yes, it could take a generation, even two or three, but it will happen. That's the model of American development we must break.

In the modern world, short of an unlikely total philosophical reversal, the issue of private land ownership rights cannot be altered, but reasonable provisions must be added that recognize the new/old understanding that we share this world – and what we do with it, both individually and communally, will have a lot to do with whether or not we survive as a species. A communal sense of responsibility for the land and its resources must come into play, even while recognizing a right to private ownership.

The concept of individual authority, cherished as the basis of the private property paradigm, has heretofore freed property owners from any community responsibility, giving them carte-blanc on their own lands. Unfortunately, no matter how entrenched this philosophy has become in the American psyche, it has become obsolete and must needs be discarded for Americans to embrace the changes that must be made.

James BlueWolf lives is an artist and writer. He lives in Nice.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}