Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (6051)	8/27/2003 9:54:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793672

VIRGINIA POSTREL BLOG: THE CALIFORNIA DISEASE Here's an example of the sort of policy that has made California a place where it's hard to do business and even harder to buy a house. There's a reason Arnold keeps talking about regulation, even though regulation would seem to have no direct effect on the state budget crisis. People are leaving the state because it's too expensive and too hard climb the economic ladder. And by "people" I don't just mean native-born people. I keep meeting immigrants--the incredibly ambitious (and so far quite successful) Vietnamese guy who owns my nail salon, the Mexican guy who sold me my new cell phone--who left Southern California for Dallas because it's easier to live and do business in Texas. ---------------------------------------------------- Secret regulation Sacred sites bill could create a monster August 26, 2003 Amid the chaos of the budget crisis and the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis, the Legislature is about to set up a powerful new regulatory agency in an effort to protect Indian sacred sites. While the sacred places of Native Americans should be protected, the imperious method chosen by lawmakers and the haste with which this new bureaucracy is being formed would scare Californians ? if they knew about it. By rushing the sacred sites bill through in the last days of the legislative session, lawmakers are severely restricting public debate on the measure. The law of unintended consequences is sure to broadside the people of California shortly after the bill goes into effect. Senate Bill 18 would empower the Native American Heritage Commission to regulate development on any land that includes or is close to an Indian sacred site. This would add a new, lengthy and costly regulatory process onto the already complex California Environmental Quality Act. There's no distance limit between a project and a sacred site, so the Native American Heritage Commission could have power over projects that are quite removed from the sacred site itself. What's more, the bill includes very questionable secrecy provisions. It would make it a crime for anybody engaged in identifying a sacred site and gauging its importance to divulge any information about it to the public. The Native American Heritage Commission could conduct its proceedings on sites, including proposed mitigation measures required of developers, in secret. This would violate the public's right to know about the process of government. And it could prevent property owners from learning if there are sacred sites on or near their land until the commission acted against a project on that property. Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a very similar bill last year but supports this year's effort. The current bill is co-authored by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego. There's so much about this new regulatory process that hasn't even been considered by the governor and lawmakers. For example, who is going to pay for it? Complying with new sacred sites regulations on top of environmental regulations would add costs for both property owners and public agencies planning development and construction. Not only would building a new house possibly become more expensive, but so would building a new school or road. When revising a general plan for a region or specific plan for a development, cities and counties would have to consult with the commission first. Who will pay those public costs? And just how far will the new commission expand its reach? Will it insinuate itself far afield from proposed developments, if it could argue that the developments would affect sacred sites? It certainly could. There's a much better way to proceed. Instead of this heavy-handed approach, funding could be established, using tribal and public resources, to protect sacred sites identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. These sites could be set aside as preserves, administered by the commission. The answer to protecting sacred sites need not be a powerful new state regulatory commission whose costs will be borne by property owners and local governments. Find this article at: signonsandiego.com