Freedom comment-16528 2009-10-28T03:17:14Z 2009-10-28T03:17:14Z This may come as a surprise to some but I fully support an environmental impact report on the bottled water project in Orland, but rather than these lenghty mostly boiler plate documents ,compiled by highly paid out of town firms I suggest a simpler form of which an example follows. First the impact of bottled water compared to other beverages. Alcoholic beverages of any kind. Impact: Vehicle accidents, domestic violence, liver disease and other ailments,trash along the roadways. Impact on jobs: More judges, more law enforcement, more ambulance personnel, more emergency room personnel. Sweetened beverages of any kind. Impact: Heart disease, obesity, diabetes and strokes, trash along the roadways. Impact on jobs: More doctors ,nurses, medical personnel. medical office jobs, medical equipment manufacturers and vendors of same. Bottled water of any kind. Impact: Trash along the roadways. So you can see in the jobs category bottled water is a clear loser. At this time a new drugstore is being built in Orland without any controversy or any clamoring for an environmental impact report. Again I will give my version of an impact report on this third drugstore in Orland. Impact: Easier access to prescription drugs and the abuse thereof. Easier access to ingredients for meth in a bottle. Less reason for personal responsibility in health matters to control ailments by diet and excercise. Impact on jobs: Increased work for coroner, doctors, nurses medical personnel. Freedom 2009-10-28T03:17:14Z Pinelli comment-16511 2009-10-27T23:05:44Z 2009-10-27T23:05:44Z "mmahood" you are not fooling anyone--you are a shill. Nestle invests money but the profits all go to the corporation, and the plant will employ about 25 people or less when operational. The point is that bottled water is energy wasteful, environmentally deleterious, and we could put those people to work building low-income housing, new schools, or simply helping others, rather than working for a massive and crooked corporation. The most disturbing part is the nefarious nature of the inception of this venture--the water is not owned by the business OR the city, it is owned by the people of California. Pinelli 2009-10-27T23:05:44Z John Schmidt comment-16499 2009-10-27T21:40:17Z 2009-10-27T21:40:17Z fargo: My point was that Nestle isn't being given any limits or restrictions in the amount of water they buy. Yes, I know they have a projected water budget for themselves, but frankly, who cares? It is just bad policy for any local government (our public servants) not to put some restrictions on a business who will use one of our public resources as their for-profit end product. I completely agree with your other points. Fantastic comments! John Schmidt 2009-10-27T21:40:17Z John Schmidt comment-16498 2009-10-27T21:28:59Z 2009-10-27T21:28:59Z Matt: Yes, but it has to be "fair" to everyone, not just to businesses. The promises of jobs and investment should not be substitutes for an open, fair, public review. Who decided that it was "good policy" for Nestle to come to Sacramento and bottle public water? The mayor? The Chamber? The City Development Department? We don't really know, and that is one of the problems in this case. Who decided that it was "bad policy" to put a pause on the project and discuss it? Apparently you did. "Political whim?" Really? From what little information has come out, it would appear the City Council was all too willing to completely ignore this project, even after having been informed about it. The only reason this has been agendized for a Council meeting is because a bewildered and agitated public has demanded input. Would this situation be better if the project had been subject to Council (public) review from the start instead of in midstream? Of course. I don't want to see businesses promised one thing only to have the rug pulled out from under them any more than you do. But this is the situation we find ourselves in. No one wants to hang a "closed sign" over Sacramento. But Sacramento residents are not going to be told to "take our 40 jobs and shut up" either. John Schmidt 2009-10-27T21:28:59Z Matthew Mahood comment-16490 2009-10-27T19:15:25Z 2009-10-27T19:15:25Z In choosing Sacramento, Nestle followed all the rules for the permits and utilities needed, and leased existing space from a local property owner. Nestle has received more than 2,200 job applications in just in just two months. The company has already hired 11 people and has a local contractor and their crew of 80 people, now standing idle. Nestle has already invested more than $3 million, with another $11 million to follow. If the city council stops this project due to nothing more than political whim, council members better be ready to take responsibility for hanging that “closed” sign on the Tower Bridge. World-class cities bring businesses to town in a fair manner, they dont scare them away with bad policies made after the fact. Matthew Mahood 2009-10-27T19:15:25Z fargopentameter comment-16484 2009-10-27T18:47:53Z 2009-10-27T18:47:53Z As I said, I agree that the plant is a bad idea. And I never tried to defend the process as "fair." Nestle does, in fact, have a budget of sorts-- it projects using 150 acre-feet annually of water. It could go higher, but there are limits on the amount of water they can pull through existing connections. My point is that a single water bottling plant will NEVER, even under the worst-case scenario, come close to the volume of water used by residents of Sacramento to water lawns, wash cars, and fill the gutters. And while I agree that the Nestle plant is a bad idea, I would love to see people (and the City Council) get equally angry about this much more significant source of waste. I appreciate Council Member McCarty's interest in the City's stewardship of its water. I would like to see a similar statement from him in support of the City's aggressive enforcement of the conservation policy-- a policy that exists, I believe, because of an ordinance he voted for. As part of its fight "to protect the Lower American River from upstream diversions," the City made commitments in the Water Forum Agreement to get serious about conservation and waste reduction. Conservation is never popular, but we need our leaders to stand up for good policy even when it's unpopular-- not make backhanded slaps at the city for "busting" people for flooding the sidewalks. fargopentameter 2009-10-27T18:47:53Z fargopentameter comment-16487 2009-10-27T18:39:13Z 2009-10-27T18:39:13Z Paul, I for one don't know offhand how much residential water is used consumptively. It's true that a good portion of it comes to the river through the sanitary sewers and storm sewers, but treating that water is not cheap. And downstream water users are continually beating up on the Sacramento region to do a more thorough (and costly) job of treating wastewater. Leaving the water in the river in the first place, when possible, is better for the environment, better for downstream water users, and less expensive for Sacramento. fargopentameter 2009-10-27T18:39:13Z Paul Cox comment-16483 2009-10-27T18:14:27Z 2009-10-27T18:14:27Z I think there is also something to be said about how much water used returns to the area in which it was originally consumed. Are there any % estimates on how much that is? The 150 acre-feet of water for Nestle leaves and doesn't come back. Whereas the 1 acre-foot per family does come back in the form of drainage from watering, as well as down the sink and down the toilet. Paul Cox 2009-10-27T18:14:27Z John Schmidt comment-16479 2009-10-27T17:40:10Z 2009-10-27T17:40:10Z I hope that EVERY one of you, regardless of your opinion on this issue, will come to the City Council meeting tonight. We the people finally have a chance to get this out in the open and discuss it with the policymakers. The fact that this project went ahead with no public input at all is at the crux of our concerns. It was never about "NIMBY" or simply a "knee-jerk" reaction as some here have claimed. John Schmidt 2009-10-27T17:40:10Z John Schmidt comment-16478 2009-10-27T17:35:10Z 2009-10-27T17:35:10Z fargopentameter wrote: "Even moderate reductions in per-household water use in Sacramento residences can add up to water savings that will dwarf the Nestle plant's entire water budget." But Nestle doesn't have a "water budget." THAT'S THE POINT. John Schmidt 2009-10-27T17:35:10Z Marion Millin comment-16464 2009-10-27T05:54:56Z 2009-10-27T05:54:56Z "Fair"? "Fair" like the mayor's team inviting Nestle -- with no legal or public review -- to set up a plant to bottle American River water -- with no set limit on how much they may take -- and sell it back to a public that is subject to restricted usage? A public that has fought long and hard to protect the Lower American River from upstream diversions? Marion Millin 2009-10-27T05:54:56Z fargopentameter comment-16418 2009-10-27T05:32:42Z 2009-10-27T05:32:42Z I agree that it's stupid to place a water bottling plant in a city that stands at the epicenter of a water supply crisis of epic proportions. But please, a little perspective. Nestle plans to use about 150 acre-feet of water per year. Compare that to the water that will be used by some residential developments in the region-- like, for example, the 3,500-unit Greenbriar development approved by the City recently. For comparison, you can roughly estimate residential water use by allotting 1 acre-foot per year for each family of 4. If each of the 3,500 units in Greenbriar will house a family of 4 (admittedly a liberal estimate), that would mean that Greenbriar will consume 3,500 acre feet annually-- more than 20 times the water used by the Nestle plant. And that's only a single proposed development project. Council Member McCarty, if we're concerned about water use in Sacramento, then the focus must continue to be on residential use. Even moderate reductions in per-household water use in Sacramento residences can add up to water savings that will dwarf the Nestle plant's entire water budget. It's not fair to use the Nestle plant as an excuse to beat up on the City for enforcing reasonable conservation measures, like limits on lawn watering and prohibitions on wasteful irrigation runoff. fargopentameter 2009-10-27T05:32:42Z savemidtown comment-16445 2009-10-27T02:26:03Z 2009-10-27T02:26:03Z Thank you Councilmember McCarty. savemidtown 2009-10-27T02:26:03Z Marion Millin comment-16414 2009-10-26T22:52:03Z 2009-10-26T22:52:03Z Thank you, Councilmember McCarty, for speaking out about this issue. "Nestle would make extreme profits with Sacramento water at a time when we are trying to preserve it." This community has also fought many extended battles to protect the American River from upstream diversions. For the mayor's team to invite Nestle to divert water without any environmental, public or council review is unacceptable. Marion Millin 2009-10-26T22:52:03Z davidpentoney comment-7665 2009-05-15T05:21:27Z 2009-05-15T05:21:27Z Mr. McCarty is taking a losing position here, which in the long run will not help his political ambitions. His statement about ammunition being easier to get than cold medicine is ludicrous, and what he says about keeping ammunition out of the hands of children makes no sense. Virtually all crimes are committed with handguns, and pistol ammunition sales have been restricted to adults for a long while. Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms implies access to ammunition. Restricting local access will just dry up a certain amount of sales tax revenue. Gun owners will buy elsewhere, or buy on the internet and have it delivered via UPS to their homes. Crimes are committed by a very small percentage of the population. Statistically, virtually all ammunition sales are made to law abiding citizens who do not commit crimes, but McCarty is fine with interfering with and impinging on the rights of these law-abiding ammunition purchasers. davidpentoney 2009-05-15T05:21:27Z SunnySideUp comment-7424 2009-05-11T03:49:47Z 2009-05-11T03:49:47Z the world is what it is, there is no changing that. law or no law. SunnySideUp 2009-05-11T03:49:47Z Scott Holbrook comment-7417 2009-05-10T17:17:19Z 2009-05-10T17:17:19Z In a few minutes I will be stopping by Big 5 to get a couple boxes of #8 12 guage shells as my boys and I head out to the Auburn Trap Club for a little fun & resposible recreation, this is a spur of the moment decision, I would hate to not be able to go due to someones idea of how best to protect me. Somehow the concept that the individual is responsible to society got flip flopped. BTW when will politicians start writing a bill that will ban pencils and other writing devices that allow for spelling errors. More legislation, more money, more loss of rights. Individual responsibility & common sense needs to find a place, next thing I know we will be shutting down bridges due to suicides. Scott Holbrook 2009-05-10T17:17:19Z The Parrhesiac comment-7414 2009-05-10T15:48:40Z 2009-05-10T15:48:40Z Most reasonable gun rights advocates have no problem with background checks to purchase a firearm, that only comes from some of the extremist. I for one don't mind that the government makes sure firearms aren't sold to convicted felons or the mentally ill. The problem is, since the anti gunners continually lose court battles in their attempts at banning private ownership of firearms, they get creative and try other avenues to restrict gun ownership. Right now the battle will be for ammunition. They are going to try to restrict ownership of ammunition dramatically nationwide. They are going to restrict sales and tax the hell out of it...they just don't understand that this will never work. I for one will continue to just reload my own ammo. The Parrhesiac 2009-05-10T15:48:40Z Geoff Samek comment-7412 2009-05-10T05:37:03Z 2009-05-10T05:37:03Z Very interesting. As for the Sacramento statistics perhaps you can try Police Department PIO Sgt. Norm Leong, he may have a comment on this. Certainly would make for an interesting counter argument. Geoff Samek 2009-05-10T05:37:03Z Jeff McCrory comment-7410 2009-05-10T02:53:41Z 2009-05-10T02:53:41Z I used to be staunchly pro gun control, and while I'm still in favor of most of the regulations we impose on the selling of guns I don't lose any sleep when the NRA wins a legal battle. Having watched the 4th Amendment get curtailed and "worked around" by Executive fiat while the leaders in the Democratic party -- my party -- collaborated with the NSA on warrantless wiretapping, I have to say that I have begun to sympathize with pro gun people who get spooked whenever anyone wants to monkey around with their 2nd Amendment rights. More to the issue of the article, I appreciate that many people would like to see background checks and waiting periods done away with, but assuming that those laws are going to remain in place for the time being, will fingerprinting and logging the purchase of ammo really affect law-abiding gun owners that much? I understand the principled argument against it: get off gun-owners backs! But are there practical consequences that I, as some one who has never bought a gun, am missing? Jeff McCrory 2009-05-10T02:53:41Z William Burg comment-7408 2009-05-09T23:13:14Z 2009-05-09T23:13:14Z Geoff: Here is a chart from the Center for Disease Control, indicating suicide accounts for an average of about 46% of firearms deaths from 1989-1998: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/American_Indian_Injury_Atlas/11c-Allmaps-firearm.htm Here's a page from "Washington Ceasefire," an anti-gun group: http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics Their statistics from 2004, also derived from CDC statistics, claim suicide accounts for 57%. Here is a US Bureau of Justice web page with statistics for total firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm Note that suicides go from 48% to 57% of that total. Also note the total drop in firearms deaths, by about 25%, during that period--indicating that total firearms-related homicides have been dropping very dramatically during that period (by about one-third!) while firearm-related suicides are on a generally downward trend. Here is an article on worldwide homicide and suicide rates, from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Note that the United States is far from the nation with the highest homicide or suicide rates: http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/stolinsky.html By focusing on "gun violence," anti-gunners place all emphasis on the guns, and not on violence. By attacking a perceived symptom, they fail to address the real causes. Firearms deaths in the United States have been dropping for decades; the facts bear this out. Afraid I don't have numbers for the Sacramento area, but it would be interesting to see. William Burg 2009-05-09T23:13:14Z Zemog Gomez comment-7407 2009-05-09T21:58:32Z 2009-05-09T21:58:32Z agreed - somewhat. Myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun. Fact: The Supreme Court has always interpreted this as a state's militia's right, not an individual's. Good synthesis of 2nd Amendment, The Congress and US Supreme Court... http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-secondamendment.htm Zemog Gomez 2009-05-09T21:58:32Z The Parrhesiac comment-7406 2009-05-09T20:52:11Z 2009-05-09T20:52:11Z Hey John what slippery slope? You missed the point of the case obviously...It is an individual right to possess firearms not a collective right. and that case makes no difference for true defenders of the 2nd Amendment, guns will NEVER be taken away from them. Molon Labe The Parrhesiac 2009-05-09T20:52:11Z Geoff Samek comment-7404 2009-05-09T20:33:14Z 2009-05-09T20:33:14Z Mr. Burg I recall you mentioning suicide related firearm deaths before and how they are lumped in with general firearm related deaths. What is your source for this information? I think it would bring a lot to this debate. Especially if you were able to find the relevant numbers for the Sacramento area. Geoff Samek 2009-05-09T20:33:14Z William Burg comment-7403 2009-05-09T18:01:25Z 2009-05-09T18:01:25Z John Gomez: You believe incorrectly; the United States established its first standing army during the same period it adopted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It was smaller, but we were a smaller country. The job of a firearm in the city is home defense and self-defense, which are legitimate and protected uses for firearms. Hunting, on the other hand, isn't constitutionally protected. And no shooter I know keeps their rifles and shotguns "in the cabin," but then, no shooter I know has enough money to own a separate cabin in the woods. Firearms ownership shouldn't be the exclusive province of the wealthy and powerful. I have great respect for Councilmember McCarty, but I disagree with him on this issue and urge him to reconsider. As to "my party," I don't belong to a political party but I'm not a Republican and wouldn't make a very good conservative. I tend to get along better with Democrats but disagree with their general opinion on this issue (although there are plenty of Dems who support the 2nd Amendment.) The right to keep and bear arms isn't a liberal/conservative issue: just ask the Pink Pistols, a national collection of gay & lesbian firearms enthusiasts and activists. Personally I think that there are smarter ways to address the issues behind the violence. Suicides make up a very significant number of firearms deaths: a better public mental health system could reduce their occurrence, regardless of method (because there are many other methods to suicide, even if guns are not available.) Reduce inner-city poverty and hopelessness through public works and better education. Legalize or decriminalize at least some drugs to eliminate the profit margin that fuels violent gang wars. Teach tolerance and appreciation of diversity to reduce violence based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. To me, these are ways to discourage violence without having to sacrifice rights. Maybe they're a tall order, but I think they would make for a better world. William Burg 2009-05-09T18:01:25Z Zemog Gomez comment-7401 2009-05-09T15:17:40Z 2009-05-09T15:17:40Z It was a 5-4 ruling - far from unanimous and with Obama getting an slot to fill - looks like you're hanging in there on a prayer. After Heller, The Gun Lobby's "Slippery Slope" Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead by Paul Helmke While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District's ban on handguns, they also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms. As Justice Scalia said, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." When the dust settles, most Americans -- and I believe even most in the gun violence prevention movement -- will come to see that there are some positives in this decision. Elected officials will no longer be able to use a mistaken, absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence in our country. Politicians can't hide behind the Second Amendment anymore. Zemog Gomez 2009-05-09T15:17:40Z Zemog Gomez comment-7377 2009-05-09T15:08:03Z 2009-05-09T15:08:03Z I support gun control, and I suppose I'm a riffle shooting liberal, but the shotgun and rifles stays in the cabin - not at home in the city. I believe the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution was proscribed as we had NO STANDING ARMY. I don't see how Keven's attempt to regulate ammunition sales impedes law abiding citizens from buying ammo. As for Gadfly and William Burg - your disrespectful tones are the problem with Conservatives and why your party was booted out of every major political institution from the White House to the State Capitol Keep on rockin' in the free world. Zemog Gomez 2009-05-09T15:08:03Z The Parrhesiac comment-7378 2009-05-09T14:52:18Z 2009-05-09T14:52:18Z Dude..uh...the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Oh and RIFLE has ONE EFFFF The Parrhesiac 2009-05-09T14:52:18Z Adam Webb comment-7370 2009-05-09T00:48:45Z 2009-05-09T00:48:45Z There is nothing wrong with being ambitious, but local politicians trying to contend with the US Constitution is laughable, at the very best. I can name at least one local politician who just lost any chance at ever receiving my vote. Adam Webb 2009-05-09T00:48:45Z William Burg comment-7369 2009-05-08T23:33:00Z 2009-05-08T23:33:00Z One of the few lessons Democrats have learned lately, at least on the national level, is to leave gun control the hell alone. Don't forget that lesson, lest you receive a stern reminder of why that is the case. There are apparently enough gun-toting liberals out there to make the difference in a tight race--it isn't just conservatives who respect the right to keep and bear arms. Want a way to curb violence? Implement a citywide concealed-carry permit program. Make life riskier for criminals, and violent crime drops--36 states have implemented such programs, and saw their violent crime rates drop. There is a state bill, AB 357, to make California a shall-issue state, but its passage is unlikely. A city-based program could make the difference by setting an example. William Burg 2009-05-08T23:33:00Z The Parrhesiac comment-7368 2009-05-08T22:48:36Z 2009-05-08T22:48:36Z McCarty is a crackpot if he really believes that outlawing something will keep criminals from violating that law. All this law will do is increase ammunition sales in Nevada and increase black market sales by those who are willing to drive out of state. Did prohibition stop alcohol consumption? Do drug laws prevent drugs from pouring onto our country? Criminals will continue to be criminals Mr. McCarty. And BTW you will lose your assembly race. The Parrhesiac 2009-05-08T22:48:36Z