[CRNMC] A Precautionary Principle Law?

[Kelly Larson]

I also agree that we need to find a democratic way to proceed and not
simply jump onto another issue.  CRNMC is a broad-based group, and I don't
think we ought to narrow that focus.  It would be most strategic for the
next issue(s) to be equally or more appealing to as many of the county as
possible, to unite the citizens for action on our mutual benefit.  Exactly
what issue(s) should be decided by more than a few energized folks.

Blessings,
Kelly

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Charles Cresson Wood <ccwood at ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> Hello community rights friends,
>
> I am concerned that CRNMC is going to be, any day now, merged into the
> public banking effort, because both organizations are interested in
> obtaining a home rule charter for Mendocino County. As you may have learned
> from my prior posts, I too think that Mendocino County could significantly
> benefit from a home rule charter. But that doesn’t mean that I support the
> specific home rule charter that the public banking working group has
> developed.
>
> In the spirit of broad-based multi-constituency expansion of Mendocino
> County community rights, and the wish to employ democratic non-hierarchical
> political processes, I believe that the charter should be the result of the
> collective will of the residents of this fine county. A new county charter
> is a very big deal, like a new constitution for the county, and it needs to
> be something that a very large number of people agree upon. If the
> residents of the county think that this charter is the result of a small
> group of people (such as the public banking working group), with a
> particular objective in mind, then they are likely to reject the effort. Or
> if the people in the county do at some point in the future adopt a
> narrowly-focused charter, which is intended primarily to get a public bank
> in place, then many other important objectives that could have been
> achieved via a charter are likely to be missed. For example, a public bank
> oriented charter may not allow the county to set up its own money system,
> but in the future that is likely to be necessary, as the existing financial
> system collapses from fraud, theft, corruption, and excessive debt.
>
> While the prospect of a home rule charter for Mendocino County can be
> exciting for those of us who have researched it a bit, it is important that
> we not skip steps. This new charter must be the result of a broad-based
> democratic process. A charter committee must be formed, and many
> constituencies must be represented on that committee. The committee must
> have the carte blanche right to write the charter any way they want -- not
> be expected to tweak and endorse the charter that has already been prepared
> by the public banking group. That new home rule charter must then be put to
> a public vote. There are other possible steps, such as going through the
> Board of Supervisors, but a ballot measure is a more legally resilient way
> to proceed.
>
> There have been a significant number of recent posts on this listserv
> about home rule charters, and that is good. But have we (CRNMC) seriously
> considered other options that could be pursued by the CRNMC as our next
> steps? Or have we just jumped aboard this bandwagon of the home rule
> charter? I do hope we keep our options open a bit longer, and seriously
> consider what is best for this County now, and how CRNMC could help the
> County manifest that -- whatever it may be.
>
> There are many other interesting options. For example, perhaps we should
> have a ballot measure that enshrines the “Precautionary Principle” in law,
> in the context of local food sovereignty. The hot-button issue that could
> resonate with the public could be the right to know what’s in the food we
> eat (GMO contamination, full disclosure of all ingredients, etc.). A truth
> in labeling law like this could support the application of the
> Precautionary Principle, since the Principle cannot be employed in a court
> of law unless all the relevant facts are known.
>
> While the Board of Supervisors did pass a resolution about the
> Precautionary Principle some time back, I don’t believe it had the force of
> law, and that resolution has also been ignored and largely forgotten. As a
> reminder, the Precautionary Principle is a risk management approach that
> says: “in the absence of scientific consensus that an action (such as
> fracking) is safe, and it will not substantially harm the public or the
> environment, it must not be allowed.” If the Precautionary Principle was
> established law in Mendocino County, and it were used by the Planning &
> Building Department when creating zoning regulations, there may have been
> no need for Measure S and the prohibition against fracking. Such a
> Precautionary Principle law may prohibit a whole slew of future corporate
> pollution dumping actions and damaging resource extraction actions.
>
> A Precautionary Principle ballot measure could also shift the burden of
> proof so that it is very much more difficult for corporations or their PACs
> to sue the County and win. As a law school student, this angle has been
> particularly fascinating to me, but it is not my idea -- it is proposed by
> Paul Cienfuegos in his talks about dismantling corporate rule. This
> approach could change the “legal burden of proof” in court, so that for
> example corporations have to show with a very high standard, such as “clear
> and convincing evidence,” that some technology like fracking is safe,
> before they can be allowed to use it in Mendocino County. Any challenge to
> Measure S or other laws of Mendocino County can also be required to meet a
> very high legal proof standard before they will be sustained by the legal
> system. Not only could this type of law make it much more expensive for the
> corporations to sue us, but it also would discourage them from suing us in
> the first place. There are other ways to locally reengineer the legal
> system to protect ourselves from corporate lawsuits challenging what we are
> doing in the community rights area. Perhaps a law enshrining the
> Precautionary Principle is a more appropriate next step for the CRNMC to
> take, rather than pursuing a home rule charter? Maybe we should pursue
> both? I am not necessarily advocating this Precautionary Principle law as
> the direction we should go now -- only laying out another alternative --
> and inviting your comments.
>
> I think it's too early in the game for us to say that CRNMC will or should
> pursue a home rule charter. So far as I know, we have not yet seriously and
> methodically considered what is needed now by our county, what our best
> options are, and what is possible at this stage of the game. Just because
> the public bank group is further ahead on the charter effort doesn't mean
> that CRNMC should support their charter, or even combine forces to work
> with them in creating another charter. While I have great respect for their
> passion and all the work they have done so far, the public banking group is
> very narrowly focused on a public bank, and CRNMC is not. While I think a
> public bank would probably be good for the county, CRNMC has a much more
> broadly defined mandate (promoting and expanding community rights and
> dismantling corporate rule). So I sincerely hope that those of us in CRNMC
> do not simply jump on this bandwagon of a home rule charter, and skip the
> important process of making a good long-run choice about the next
> appropriate effort for the CRNMC.
>
> /s/ Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20141130/3feaf8b6/attachment.html