DAIRY FARMERS: TELL YOUR STORY!

A recent story in The Modesto Bee reported California dairy farmers’ concerns that they are being targeted by the U.S. Humane Society and other “advocates.” They are correct to have that fear. Just look at the 2008 election and the targeting of egg ranchers. And, it worked! Why? Because "city folks" have become so removed from their food supply that they will believe anything. Happy chickens? Happy cows?

No doubt dairy farmers' reflex response is to recoil and hide. Keep people out. Don't attract any attention. Great, but that allows others -- including the U.S. Humane Society -- to establish the industry's "image."

California dairy farmers have now joined together in a statewide program to promote good animal care practices as well as evaluate dairy farms and verify that they are performing up to state and national standards. FARM (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) has a five-point strategy that plans to:

 Adopt National Dairy Farm standards.

 Hold workshops and provide educational materials to orient dairy farmers to the standards.

 Hold on-farm evaluations of dairies and provide a benchmark to measure improvement.

 Support and assist animal care improvements.

 Provide third-party independent verification of farm practices.

Michael Boccadoro, executive director of Dairy Cares, a statewide coalition supporting animal care and economic and environmental sustainability in the dairy industry, reports that about 80 percent of the state's dairy farmers have signed on to the program. Dairies and dairy products are the top agricultural industry in nearly every California county.

This program’s purposes are to educate and bring dairy farmers up to standard, and to reassure the public that someone is verifying what dairies are doing.

But this isn’t going to be good enough for some. Kristina Addington, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, told The Merced Sun Star that the dairy industry is rife with animal abuses. "I think it's an initiative to create a false appearance that they care about the welfare of cows and that's a priority when clearly it's just a smokescreen for cruelty.”.

FARM is a good step. But it’s not enough. What the industry needs to do is open its doors. Invite the public in. Let "city folks" see what a modern dairy looks like and how they make cows "happy" -- or at least healthy and highly productive. How can you tell if a cow is "happy?" Some would like to ascribe human emotions, such as happiness, to cows.

Check out the video about Fair Oaks Farm in Indiana. http://tinyurl.com/FairOaksFarmIndiana

This "factory farm" has more than thrown open its doors. It created an educational/information center that has become a tourist attraction.

Rather than hide and hope no one notices you -- yeah, right, a big, sometimes smelly dairy on the outskirts of town -- California dairy farmers need to pull together to create a center along the line of Fair Oaks'.

Of course, I think that center should be in Bakersfield, where some of the state's newest and innovative dairies are located, and close to a huge urban center -- Southern California.

John Hardisty
Bakersfield, California
http://www.svs2help.com/

INSTALL YOUR OWN 'SMART METER'

Recently I attended a local energy/economic summit where the representative of a national homebuilding/development company revealed he had installed his own meter in his home to monitor his electrical use. The one he installed was called TED. If you go to Amazon.Com, you will find a wide range of alternatives, with a wide range of prices. The homebuilder explained that his meter – as opposed to P.G. & E.’s “smart meter” – can better pinpoint usage and allow him to cut back if necessary. Likely it could also help him check the accuracy of the utility company’s controversial “smart meters.”

After some foot-dragging, the California Public Utilities Commission said it would soon select a contractor to test the accuracy of P.G. & E.’s “smart meters,” which have sent some customers’ energy bills soaring. Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has been hammering away at the CPUC to get an audit going. He also wants a moratorium on installing “smart meters” until the audit is completed.

Customer outrage over this remote monitoring of energy bills is spreading, with utility companies nationwide watching with great concern the “Bakersfield Problem” – so named because the rollout of “smart meters” was spearheaded in blazing hot Bakersfield. Early complaints seemed to be “dismissed” until customers in the Bay Area experienced similar spikes in their energy bills after “smart meters” were installed.

Not all of us can afford to have an electrician come out and install a TED monitor in our homes. But there are cheaper alternatives. And some of us might be using other methods to check up on the accuracy of the “smart meter” attached to their homes, or to curb their energy use.

What are you doing? Post your suggestions here, or e-mail John Hardisty (Jack) at planningbeat@yahoo.com.

MEDIATE: AVOID COURT BATTLE

Lee Jay Berman, a mediator, president of the American Institute of Mediation and host of the syndicated weekly radio talk show “Talk It Over,” will be the keynote speaker at a daylong conference in Bakersfield that will highlight the benefits of mediation.

The conference, which will be held on Wednesday, March 17, in the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Building, is being presented by the Kern County Superior Court and Kern County Bar Association, in conjunction with the American Institute of Mediation.

The event is part of Mediation Week, which was established by the California Judicial Council to be held annually the third week of March.

“Mediation programs offer the public an important alternative to resolving disputes outside the traditional adjudication system,” explained Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chairman of the Judicial Council, when the observation was established last year. “Mediation Week is an opportune occasion to educate the public about the availability and benefits of mediation programs, and to recognize the people who make those programs successful.”

California courts operate and collaborate with mediation programs to help resolve many types of cases, including family law, juvenile dependency and delinquency, criminal, and small claims and general civil cases.

The cost of attending the seminar is free, with the exception of attorneys, who are requesting educational credits. The charge for credit attendees is $35.

The program will begin with Berman’s discussion of the role and benefits of mediation at 9 a.m. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa will speak at lunch about the myths and misconceptions about court annexed mediation programs. Judge Ochoa has been acclaimed for his use of alternative dispute resolution in the courts.

Panel discussions will include:

What’s going on in with mediation in Kern County – William Palmer, Kern County Superior Court judge; Kelly Lazerson, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) administrator, Kern County Superior Court; attorney Richard Owen; and Liz Gavin, director, Better Business Bureau.

Update on the Kern County Bar Association ADR Section – mediator Joe Ferra, section president, and attorney Ken Byrum, past president.

Selecting the right mediator – attorneys Jack Draper, Steven Porter and Susan Salvucci.

Non-monetary solutions – attorneys Brent Rosenbaum and Robert Fairman, and mediator Laurelyn Irving.

Mediator secrets, tips and closing the deal – attorneys Ken Byrum, Alan Saler and Craig McCollum.

The daylong seminar will conclude with a panel discussion led by attorney Douglas E. Noll on the topics of confidentiality and ethics in mediation. Noll is a full-time peacemaker and mediator, who specializes in difficult, complex and intractable conflicts. He is a recognized author and has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America since 2005 by bestlawyers.com. He will be joined on the panel by local mediators Joe Ferra, Jeannie Gillen and John “Jack” Hardisty.

To register for the seminar, e-mail cwilson@kernbar.org.

Kelly Lazerson is the author of this article and Kern County Superior Court coordinator for alternative dispute resolution. She can be reached for general information about the seminar at Kelly.Lazerson@Kern.Courts.CA.gov or call 868-4940.

HIGH SPEED RAIL NEEDS CREDIBILITY

California’s high speed rail system will either be an amazing success, or an amazing failure. Dueling ridership predictions revealed this month paint both pictures. In early February, some transportation analysts predicted relatively few people will ride the high speed train, making the system a money loser. But later in the month, Bay Area handwringers, armed with another consultant’s study, predicted high speed rail would be so popular it would pull 6 million passengers a year away from their local airports.


The bottom line: No one knows for sure how many people will ride the high speed rail system if California can get it built. It all depends. On what? On such factors as the cost of a ticket, on where people want to go, on alternative transportation. We are talking 20 or 30 years into the future. You can guess. But no one knows for sure.

And that’s what transportation modeling is all about. That’s why communities can have plans for projects, such as subdivisions, and studies that predict their impacts, such as traffic studies. But when the project is built and occupied, the impacts may be better or worse than predicted.

Modeling is just a structured way of guessing how people might behave under specified conditions. Factors and assumptions are placed in these models by fallible human beings, who may be influenced by their preferences. Since most of us are not experts in modeling, we usually look at the predicted results through our own lenses and decide if they make sense. That often depends on what we would like to believe. We might even look deeper into the assumptions knowing that those who are making the models control the outcome.

To have credibility, those making the models that predict ridership on a future California high speed rail system must clearly lay out for a skeptical public the assumptions and methods they are using.

Why does this matter? Because the $10 billion voters approved in 2008 to help build the system and the $2.6 billion in federal stimulus money that now has been provided by the Obama administration is just a fraction of what it will cost to build the $42 billion-plus San Francisco to Los Angeles route. Taxpayers and private investors still must be convinced to keep investing in the system. That’s going to require a whole lot of credibility and honesty from the California High Speed Rail Authority.

Written by John Hardisty, Bakersfield  http://www.svs2help.com/

DIGITAL SIGNS: BLIGHT, OR BEAUTY

Are they blight, or beauty? Are they hazardous, or no big deal?


Those flashy digital outdoor advertising billboards are triggering political and legal battles throughout the nation. The most recent battlefield is in Denver, Colo., where the city’s zoning committee is asking the city council to impose a moratorium until the safety and appearance of the signs can be given more study. A hearing on the proposed moratorium is expected to be held next month.

In Los Angeles, a battle between outdoor advertisers, city officials, highway beautification activists and city residents has spilled over into the state Legislature and state courts. A proposal last year by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, for a two-year statewide moratorium on converting existing billboards to digital, and erecting new ones has stalled. But that hasn’t doused the fire burning in Los Angeles over a deal the city council struck in 2002 with selected billboard companies to convert existing billboards to digital in return for removing others altogether.

Residents of some Los Angeles neighborhoods now are in a roar over the conversions. Where once they had static, fairly non-intrusive signs near their homes, residents now complain they have flashing lights from “giant outdoor television sets” illuminating their homes and ruining their views.

The Federal Highway Administration has launched an extensive study, which is expected to be completed this year, to determine if these signs distract drivers and cause accidents.

What do you think about the digital outdoor advertising signs that have sprouted around your community?

Tell me about the best and the worst you have seen. As a driver, do they distract you? Or do they look a heck of a lot better than some of the tattered old billboards that have been left out in the sun way too long?

Post your responses here, or send me an e-mail (John Hardisty (Jack) planningbeat@yahoo.com) Thanks. I will be writing about this in the coming weeks.

The photo posted here is of a digital sign at L and 24st streets in downtown Bakersfield, Calif. While you order coffee in the Starbucks drive-thru, you can watch the sign flip through various advertising scenes on an electronic board that looms over the Chevron station.

VALLEY CITIES COMPETE FOR RAIL PRIZE

A recent Fresno Bee editorial demanded leaders in its city get their “act together.” The same goes for their counterparts in Kern County as the scramble for federal stimulus funds to build a high speed rail system shifts into high gear.


President Obama last week announced that California will receive $2.3 billion, the largest share of an $8 billion allocation to build high speed rail systems in 13 of the nation’s transportation corridors.

Californians are a long way from buying a ticket to ride a high-speed train in this state. A debate still rages over the system’s $42.6 billion construction price tag, ongoing operating costs and its disputed business plan.

But with voters approving $9 billion in bonds in 2008 to help finance the system and now with $2.3 billion in federal job-creation funds promised, it appears some aspects of the project will become a reality.

The big “prize” for the Central Valley is the construction of a test track and heavy maintenance facility.

Fresno leaders want the facility, which will employ 1,500 people, including train operators, engineers and rolling stock maintenance staff, built in Fresno. Kern County leaders want it built on one of two local sites – one in Shafter, the other in Wasco.

By the Jan. 15 deadline, the California High Speed Rail Authority had received 15 “expressions of interest” from valley communities, including Fresno’s and Kern’s.

The Fresno Bee called the heavy maintenance facility “the most important economic development project that Fresno County could hope to lure to our community. … That’s why the competition will be stiff, and Fresno County must have a first-class proposal every step of the way. No internal bickering. No local turf battles. We don’t need a repeat of Merced getting the University of California campus because Fresno did not have its act together.”

Funny thing: In news reports coming out of Merced are chest-thumping vows to “do it again” to Fresno and the rest of the valley. Merced community leaders are dragging out the game plan they used to snatch the UC campus away from competitors years ago. Now they are promoting the former Castle Air Force Base for a heavy maintenance facility.

The Central Valley is critical to high speed rail’s development. The valley’s flat, open and rural stretches allow the 220 mph trains to be tested and certified for use in other parts of the United States. The test track will become part of California’s high speed rail system that will take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

To be in the running, a site must meet minimum criteria, including being near a proposed HSR route; having a parcel shaped and sized to accommodate the facility; and having other transportation linkages, access to utilities, appropriate zoning and an available labor force. The site also should not be encumbered with environmental problems.

Kern’s Shafter site is 640 acres located on the east side of existing railroad tracks, north of 7th Standard Road, adjacent to the International Trade and Transportation Center, and near Kern County’s Meadows Field Airport.

The Wasco site is 421 acres located south of Highway 46, near J Street, in an undeveloped industrial area, with existing railroad tracks nearby.

A final selection, which will be made by HSRA directors in about 15 months, will be based on more than basic criteria, and environmental and economic considerations. It also will be based on politics and salesmanship.

Fresno already is guaranteeing it will “sweeten” the deal by scraping together $25 million to buy and donate the land. Clearly all the competitors will have to come up with “sweeteners,” requiring contributions from private investors and local public agencies.

A campaign to promote the Shafter and Wasco sites to HSRA directors, private investors and local taxpayers is needed.

Ray Watson, chairman of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and a Kern Economic Development Corp. director, has wisely called for the creation of a blue ribbon committee to get our community’s “act together.”

The “prize” Kern County, Shafter, Wasco and all of metropolitan Bakersfield stands to win: 1,500 high-paying permanent jobs, many more construction jobs, increased tax revenues to support public services, and increased business for support services and related industries.

This is a multi-million dollar prize worth fighting for.

This article by John Hardisty (Jack) appeared first in The Bakersfield Californian on Feb. 3, 2010. Hardisty is a Bakersfield, Calif., mediator and land-use planning consultant. He can be contacted through his Website www.svs2help.com/

HIGH SPEED RAIL 'PRIZE' AWAITS

A recent Fresno Bee editorial demanded leaders in its city get their “act together.” The same goes for their counterparts in Kern County as the scramble for federal stimulus funds to build a high speed rail system shifts into high gear.

President Obama last week announced that California will receive $2.3 billion, the largest share of an $8 billion allocation to build high speed rail systems in 13 of the nation’s transportation corridors.

Californians are a long way from buying a ticket to ride a high-speed train in this state. A debate still rages over the system’s $42.6 billion construction price tag, ongoing operating costs and its disputed business plan.

But with voters approving $9 billion in bonds in 2008 to help finance the system and now with $2.3 billion in federal job-creation funds promised, it appears some aspects of the project will become a reality.

The big “prize” for the Central Valley is the construction of a test track and heavy maintenance facility.

Fresno leaders want the facility, which will employ 1,500 people, including train operators, engineers and rolling stock maintenance staff, built in Fresno. Kern County leaders want it built on one of two local sites – one in Shafter, the other in Wasco.

By the Jan. 15 deadline, the California High Speed Rail Authority had received 15 “expressions of interest” from valley communities, including Fresno’s and Kern’s.

The Fresno Bee called the heavy maintenance facility “the most important economic development project that Fresno County could hope to lure to our community. … That’s why the competition will be stiff, and Fresno County must have a first-class proposal every step of the way. No internal bickering. No local turf battles. We don’t need a repeat of Merced getting the University of California campus because Fresno did not have its act together.”

Funny thing: In news reports coming out of Merced are chest-thumping vows to “do it again” to Fresno and the rest of the valley. Merced community leaders are dragging out the game plan they used to snatch the UC campus away from competitors years ago. Now they are promoting the former Castle Air Force Base for a heavy maintenance facility.

The Central Valley is critical to high speed rail’s development. The valley’s flat, open and rural stretches allow the 220 mph trains to be tested and certified for use in other parts of the United States. The test track will become part of California’s high speed rail system that will take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

To be in the running, a site must meet minimum criteria, including being near a proposed HSR route; having a parcel shaped and sized to accommodate the facility; and having other transportation linkages, access to utilities, appropriate zoning and an available labor force. The site also should not be encumbered with environmental problems.

Kern’s Shafter site is 640 acres located on the east side of existing railroad tracks, north of 7th Standard Road, adjacent to the International Trade and Transportation Center, and near Kern County’s Meadows Field Airport.

The Wasco site is 421 acres located south of Highway 46, near J Street, in an undeveloped industrial area, with existing railroad tracks nearby.

A final selection, which will be made by HSRA directors in about 15 months, will be based on more than basic criteria, and environmental and economic considerations. It also will be based on politics and salesmanship.

Fresno already is guaranteeing it will “sweeten” the deal by scraping together $25 million to buy and donate the land. Clearly all the competitors will have to come up with “sweeteners,” requiring contributions from private investors and local public agencies.

A campaign to promote the Shafter and Wasco sites to HSRA directors, private investors and local taxpayers is needed.

Ray Watson, chairman of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and a Kern Economic Development Corp. director, has wisely called for the creation of a blue ribbon committee to get our community’s “act together.”

The “prize” Kern County, Shafter, Wasco and all of metropolitan Bakersfield stands to win: 1,500 high-paying permanent jobs, many more construction jobs, increased tax revenues to support public services, and increased business for support services and related industries.

This is a multi-million dollar prize worth fighting for.

John Hardisty (Jack) of Bakersfield is a mediator and land-use planning consultant. He can be contacted through his Website www.svs2help.com/

This article appeared first in The Bakersfield Californian on Feb. 3, 2010.