S.B. 767, Giving away Carnegie, (kinda) Again - THE BILL WILL RISE!!!!

Butch

poseur
Staff member
I just sent...
Please oppose this bill that promotes selling our public park property to an unaccountable private entity influenced by local ranchers and developers.
This is public land. We want to keep it public.
 

ThumperX

Well-known member
I also sent a letter to our governor with the bumlletpoints asking him to become familiar with the issue.
 

budman

General Menace
Staff member
Way to go guys.. message sent to the emails Thumper listed and the AMA thing as well.

My own Senator and Legislator next.

Please do it.
 

ThumperX

Well-known member
AB 1086 originally didn’t suck the way it does now in its amended version.
It’s tume to print letters and buy stamps again.
 

Butch

poseur
Staff member
CORVA alert, hot off the presses...

California Legislative Alert

AB 1086 (Bauer-Kahan) Off-highway vehicular recreation: Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area: Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area
(As Amended September 6, 2019)

It’s time to ask the Governor Newsom to intervene in this gut-and-amend process and proceed to request his Department of Parks and Recreations to make recommendations toward a resolution of this issue. This is not a win or lose proposition, but rather it’s pursuing a resolution that would make ALL parties whole. Disenfranchising stakeholders by taking away recreation areas in this end run and tying this matter up in the courts is not the way to go!

The Governor’s Department of Finance got this right. Their analysis of SB 767 (Glazer), the basis of this current bill, opposes the bill because:

It may result in a significant loss to the state through the sale of property at less than fair market value
It is not consistent with the approved plan for this Recreation Area as developed by State Parks
Parks received ongoing resources beginning with the Budget Act of 2018 to implement environmental standards in OHV recreation areas and minimize the environmental impact of off-highway recreation.
Please contact Governor Newsom NOW and urge his intervention by requesting State Parks to develop a plan to resolve this issue:

Mailing address:
Governor Gavin Newsom
1303 10th Street, Ste. 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-445-2841
FAX: 916-558-3160
E-Mail: https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/
 
Bastards!

Emails sent to AMA, legislators and The Gov.

edit...
sent another letter to the Gov pointing out his Dept of Finance is against thi.
 
Last edited:

Butch

poseur
Staff member
I'm sending this to the Gov:

This current bill, AB1086 (and SB787, and SB1318 last year), promotes taking public land from the state park system and putting it in the hands of a special interest group with no oversight of what their motives actually are.

Furthermore, the State park plans are already for this area to largely be a nature preserve, which is what the special interest group purports their mission to be. What they actually do is beyond our control. This benefits Celeste Garamendi and her friends, not the public.

Further still, the Carnegie SVRA is in a unique location in that it is easily accessible to the bay area population, yet is remote enough not to impact residential populations.

And more again, this is just the continuing creation of roadblocks created by Garamendi and her friends, which is wasting hundreds of thousand of dollars. Garamendi and her friends seem to have limitless financial resources to create obstacles. The state and the OHV community do not.

Two years ago, the legislature widely supported and passed SB 249 (Allen, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2017), which created a series of environmental responsibilities including monitoring and review for all land overseen by State Parks and managed by the Off Highway Motorized Recreation Division. The environmental responsibilities in SB 249 go far beyond what any local county, city or non-profit is mandated to do or can afford to provide.

Please veto this bill.
 

ThumperX

Well-known member
Dear Governor Newsom,

Although Bill AB=1086 has not currently crossed your desk I beg of you to familiarize yourself with the ongoing issue with respect to Carnegie State Park Expansion and urge your veto in the event of its passage..

Once again OHV recreation is being threatened by privileged land owners using OHV funds for their own personal gains.

I have outlined some of the key issues as to why we need your opposition to AB 1086 and attention to future land grabs of OHV assets.

Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area that enhances opportunities for ALL California residents – AB 1086 ignores this inclusiveness.

AB 1086 proposes the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area should be under the control of the privileged instead of the proven stewardship of State Parks which would also serve to eliminate the security of state law insuring inclusiveness and access for all Californians.

Two years ago, the legislature widely supported and passed SB 249 (Allen, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2017), which created a series of environmental responsibilities including monitoring and review for all land overseen by State Parks and managed by the Off Highway Motorized Recreation Division.

The environmental responsibilities in SB 249 go far beyond what any local county, city or non-profit is mandated to do or can afford to provide. Thus, this Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area should be left in the control of State Parks and thereby benefit from its expertise.

AB 1086 would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging local landowners who object to the location of any state park, preserve or beach to push legislation to privatize that specific location.
This action would support privatization of public land and hurt many Californians looking forward to enjoying experiences the Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area will have to offer upon completion.

Thank you for your time and thank you in advance for your familiarization and attention to this reoccuring crisis within the State Park System.
 

Butch

poseur
Staff member
I’m gonna use this portal for the Guv...
https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/

Edit: you have to pick a subject.
My final draft:
This has not reached your desk yet, but, this current bill, AB1086 (and SB787, and SB1318 last year), promotes taking public land from the state park system and putting it in the hands of a special interest group with no oversight of what their motives actually are.

Furthermore, the State park plans are already for this area to largely be a nature preserve, which is what the special interest group purports their mission to be. What they actually do is beyond our control. This benefits Celeste Garamendi and her friends, not the public.

Further still, the Carnegie SVRA is in a unique location in that it is easily accessible to the bay area population, yet is remote enough not to impact residential populations.

And more again, this is just the continuing creation of roadblocks created by Garamendi and her friends, which is wasting hundreds of thousand of dollars. Garamendi and her friends seem to have limitless financial resources to create obstacles. The state and the OHV community do not.

Two years ago, the legislature widely supported and passed SB 249 (Allen, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2017), which created a series of environmental responsibilities including monitoring and review for all land overseen by State Parks and managed by the Off Highway Motorized Recreation Division. The environmental responsibilities in SB 249 go far beyond what any local county, city or non-profit is mandated to do or can afford to provide.

Finally, it is an insult to our State Park system.
Please veto this bill.
 
Last edited:

ThumperX

Well-known member
It passed and is headed for review :cry!!!!

Look how few of our reps were even on hand to vote :mad




Oct. 13 Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 13 and in the Governor's possession after Sept. 13 (Art. IV, Sec. 10(b)(1)).
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-09-12 at 9.52.37 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2019-09-12 at 9.52.37 AM.jpg
    68.3 KB · Views: 63

ThumperX

Well-known member
So as I understand it the bill was passed in May and amended then sent to committee? I don't get our system. So a few get to change something that our reps agreed upon one way or does this bill now get referred down a different path?
 

Butch

poseur
Staff member
So as I understand it the bill was passed in May and amended then sent to committee? I don't get our system. So a few get to change something that our reps agreed upon one way or does this bill now get referred down a different path?

Thus is exactly the kind of question we should be asking our representatives. With some pestering, they will answer. Perhaps with the truth.
 
Top