by : lacylit10 Politics

With Wind Energy and Endangered Species…

…the Greater Good Sure Is Subjective

By its scheduled completion in December, the Strauss Wind Energy Project near Lompoc is expected to produce enough electricity to power 45,000 houses.

Considering Santa Barbara County set the ambitious goal of reaching 100% renewable electricity by 2030, this project will be substantially helpful in attaining that goal.

Except the wind energy being produced will not stay in Santa Barbara County. The electricity will be exported to the San Francisco Bay Area.

In March, Strauss Wind Energy and BayWa r.e. filed for a federal take permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for any incidental deaths of golden eagles and other endangered species.

Since these permits can take years to secure, Strauss and BayWa requested permission from the county Planning Commission to begin operation without the permit.

Originally, county staff recommended the commissioners deny the request, but the commissioners recommended staff return with findings to approve it.

The decision was ultimately approved, as three of our local planning commissioners believe that immediately profiting by powering the Bay Area is more important than waiting the lengthy time frame for legally obtaining permission to kill endangered species.

It is for the “greater good,” they said. 

The greater good is such an interesting argument to me, because it is not based on logic. It is based on what you believe to be more important.

The greater good is subjective based on what you personally believe should take priority.

As taxpayers, we must decide what is more important to us:

  • Support the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to begin operation without the federal take permit, and accept that the county can be held liable (fined) for any endangered species deaths.
  • Oppose the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to operate without the federal take permit and accept that the county will not see immediate profits from exporting the electricity to the Bay Area.

The county is absolutely rigid in compliance enforcement when an individual or private company wants to do a project, and the county has no problem making the permit process as painful as possible while it drains local pocketbooks with associated fees.

In this situation, however, the county is willing to turn a blind eye to federal compliance for the wind farm, so it can generate profits off of exporting the electricity of a multibillion-dollar company.

Seemingly, laws and regulations are only relevant to enforce when the county believes it won’t make substantial money.

Choosing to make an exception for a project where it will largely profit sets a dangerous precedent. I can almost guarantee the county will not make an exception for your project when it does not generate that kind of revenue.

So who, exactly, do the Santa Barbara County planning commissioners consider the “greater good” in this situation? The county itself, local constituents, or residents of the Bay Area?

I actually do believe that sometimes rules need to be bent or broken for the greater good, if you are willing to suffer the consequences.

But I am not willing to accept the consequences of county decision makers who put profits over people (and the lives of endangered animals).

If the county is not willing to make compliance exceptions for local businesses when they will not see a multimillion-dollar profit, then it should not make the exception for a multinational corporation where it will.

I understand the taxes generated from the project will be significant. But the county will probably use those profits to hire more staff in the climate department to create more regulations requiring locals to replace their own nonrenewable energy sources, creating a slow, inconvenient and costly process as we carry the financial burden of chipping away at the county’s unrealistic climate goals.

If the planning commissioners were truly concerned with the greater good of our community, they would keep the wind-generated electricity within our county to help them reach their own ambitious climate goals.

And if the county was truly concerned with the greater good, it would adhere to the laws it enforces for others. 

Originally posted on Noozhawk.

by : lacylit10 Politics

Murky Circumstances…

… of Santa Barbara County’s New Ambulance Contract Should Raise Alarms.

If you haven’t been paying attention to the decisions the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is making regarding the county’s ambulance contract, I suggest you start looking into it and making your voices heard.

I, for one, do not want to get caught in a situation in which my emergency medical care is hindered because the county Fire Department and American Medical Response are confused by their roles and responsibilities with the new permit system.

Nor do I want to become a victim in the process of learning that the new permit system is ineffective.

Regardless of how the new permit system will work, the power the Board of Supervisors has given itself here baffles me.

The five supervisors have taken the decision of who determines who receives the ambulance contract out of the hands of experts and have given it to themselves — increasing their power over subject matter in which none of them is formally educated or has professional working experience.

What makes them think they know what is best when it comes to our emergency medical care?

When you apply for a job at the most senior level of an organization, there is usually a requirement of an advanced degree and at least 10 years of professional experience.

These are the minimum basic requirements that most companies consider someone to be qualified to make impactful business decisions.

Why would our supervisors take the decision away from people who have these necessary qualifications in health care and emergency services and give it to themselves?

Cottage Health, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, Marian Regional Medical Center and the contract review panel — consisting of a board-certified emergency physician, a hospital executive, a retired metropolitan fire chief, the current public utility ambulance system administrator and a community — member all favored AMR over county fire and expressed concern about the permit system.

Why would the supervisors go against the recommendation of many qualified experts?

There are only two reasons I can think of: power and money.

The vote to take the decision away from experts gives more unjustified (in my opinion) authority to our elected officials. Giving the contract to county fire gives those elected officials more opportunities to divert money away from other necessary resources and reasons to raise taxes.

Do you think raises won’t be given out to everyone in the county who has to take on more work to make the county ambulance system work?

Due to lack of transparency on the issue, I’m inclined to believe there is something to hide.

Andy Caldwell, executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business, has provided the supervisors with opportunities to defend their decision, in which they have deflected his questioning.

The county buried Caldwell with paperwork to distract him from the fact they did not provide what he asked for under the California Public Records Act in the timeframe it was required, and the more he inquired, the more the players seemingly got defensive.

Whether you agree with Caldwell’s political views or not, these are all suspicious reactive behaviors.

Admittedly, I could be way off base. But perception is reality, and the supervisors are choosing to remain quiet rather than educate us on the reasons for their decisions.

Given the circumstances, if you’ve been paying attention, what else are we supposed to believe? We’re only getting part of the story.

I encourage county fire, county staff or the Board of Supervisors to offer justification for their reasoning. I, and many other concerned health-care consumers throughout the county, are ready and willing to listen.

**Originally published in Noozhawk.