[CRNMC] What Ben Price of CELDF said about the supes not endoding Measure S

[Baile Oakes]

There is a community meeting room in that building.  Might be a good place to meet.


On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:07 PM, agnes at mcn.org wrote:

> We could meet at the forum near the Raw Food Store in what was formerly
> Daley Complex in F.B.
> What do you think?
> 
> Love,
> Agnes
> 
>> Can we consider meeting in Fort Bragg ?
>> 
>> Mendocino is a long way from Westport.
>> 
>> Though, I also believe it is best to meet in a location that will produce
>> the lowest combined carbon footprint.
>> 
>> hmmm ?
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Carrie Durkee wrote:
>> 
>>> So..
>>> Regarding the enactment committee..
>>> I recall that there are a few of us interested and we are close to
>>> setting a meeting
>>> Monday, Jan 12th in Mendocino… say 1:00…?
>>> Could be at the GoodLife Cafe..
>>> Those who had previously expressed interest:
>>> 
>>> Agnes
>>> Ed O.
>>> Kelly
>>> Carrie
>>> 
>>> Seems like these are the folks who responded previously. Please correct
>>> me if I am wrong.
>>> Who else wants to join???
>>> My thought is to have a few minds making strategic decisions after doing
>>> some fact finding.
>>> We also would be our responsibility to stay in touch with the group via
>>> CRNMC list serve.
>>> 
>>> Please respond with improvements or suggestions for a better process.
>>> Carrie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 7:02 PM, Baile Oakes wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Agnes et al
>>>> 
>>>> There has been more than one person speaking from the CRNMC that we
>>>> need to consider establishing a committee to represent our sentiments
>>>> to the legal channels in the county.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe we need to respect and explore this possibility if we wish to
>>>> speak from the CRNMC.
>>>> 
>>>> That other matter is to establish whether our group is comfortable with
>>>> individuals within our group making clear that they are not
>>>> representing the CRNMC while sharing their views with county officials.
>>>> 
>>>> Something to consider.
>>>> 
>>>> with love
>>>> 
>>>> always
>>>> 
>>>> baile
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 28, 2014, at 3:41 PM, agnes at mcn.org wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ed and Baile,
>>>>>  Should we send Ben's response to Dan Hamburg?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Agnes
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sounds like it is getting back to my original email regarding Norman
>>>>>> de
>>>>>> Vall's recomendation that we need to be proactive to assure the
>>>>>> codification of Measure "S" into county law.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Norman was a supervisor for a long time and I figured there was
>>>>>> justification to his concern.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> with love
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> baile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:53 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> edward Oberweiser <edoberweiser at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dec 24 (2 days ago)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here is what one of our County Board of Supervisors is telling us.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ed Oberweiser
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Agnes,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I didn't mean to imply that three votes will lead to codifying
>>>>>>> Measure
>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>> What I was saying was that three votes could codify a ban on
>>>>>>> fracking in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> County.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't believe the broader proscriptions described in "S" can be
>>>>>>> codified
>>>>>>> since they run so directly against state and federal law.  There is
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> issue of an initiative addressing more than single subject (which is
>>>>>>> apparently a flaw in the drafting of "S").
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Prior to the November election, Sups. McCowen and Brown wanted to
>>>>>>> send
>>>>>>> "S"
>>>>>>> to the Superior Court to determine its constitutionality; however, a
>>>>>>> Board
>>>>>>> majority voted to allow it to go to the ballot regardless of the
>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>> for a state and/or federal constitutional challenge.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now that "S" has passed overwhelmingly, I would like to see the
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>> anti-fracking measure come back to the Board.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will talk with County Counsel to make sure I'm right about these
>>>>>>> matters.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ben Price
>>>>>>> to Shannon, me
>>>>>>> Ed,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think you need to arrange a conference call with Shannon Biggs -
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I'll join in if it helps --  to discuss why the Supervisors don't
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> a legal option to pick and choose what they enter into the code. If
>>>>>>> they or another party want to challenge the legality of the
>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>> bill of rights, or any part of it, there are legal avenues to do so.
>>>>>>> They may not assume the authority of a judge and jury and in their
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> judgement chop up the CBoR to suit their own taste.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> crn mailing list
>>>>>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> crn mailing list
>>>>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> crn mailing list
>>>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> crn mailing list
>>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> crn mailing list
>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn