The Bottle Bill in Amador County

The California Redemption Value (CRV) deposit has been a part of life in California since Assembly Bill AB 2020 was implemented in September of 1987. There are two separate CRV deposits- distributors pay into a state fund for covered containers. Deposit amounts are five cents (under 24 oz.) and ten cents (over 24 oz.). Consumers pay the same deposit at the store, which can be recovered by returning them to certified recyclers. The “bottle bill” was enacted to encourage recycling and reduce litter, and had a program goal of an 80% recycling rate.

According to the Bottle Bill Resource Guide:

“Since implementation of the deposit program, California's beverage container recycling rates have increased significantly, from an overall 52% in 1988 to 85% in 2013. In the eight years from 2006 to 2013 alone, the program has increased recycling from 13 billion containers per year to more than 18.2 billion containers per year. Because California is so large, that increase of 5.2 billion containers has an impact on the nation’s beverage container recycling rate as well. The 18.2 billion containers recycled in California are nearly 21% of the 88.2 billion containers that are recycled nationally each year. 1 out of 5 beverage containers recycled in the USA are recycled in California.”

As residents of Amador County were notified by KVGC radio and Capitol Public Radio on February 8, five rePlanet centers have recently closed, citing a decline in the commodity prices of aluminum and plastic, reduced state payments, increased costs for health insurance, and a higher minimum wage. People that live in Jackson, Pioneer, Pine Grove, Plymouth, and Ione are left with one remaining center in Sutter Hill. I wonder if that location will be able to remain open for the same reasons. Or if it does, if it will be able to handle the additional traffic. One might also wonder that if rePlanet’s costs have become so onerous, how are they able to keep their remaining 350 centers open?

What is meant by “reduced state payments” are processing payments. Again from the Bottle Bill Resource Guide:

“Processing payments are paid to all redemption centers and to curbside programs to help cover the costs of recycling materials with a low scrap value. Processing payment amounts vary by container type and are determined annually, based on audited data and scrap market prices. Part of the processing payments are supplied by distributors' processing fees, but the majority of processing payments come from unredeemed deposits. Unredeemed deposits are also used to administer the system and fund education programs.”

According to an article in the Environmental Leader:

“Prior to shuttering the recycling centers, rePlanet said it had several meetings with CalRecycle to resolve issues surrounding the state’s beverage container recycling fund, which is “critical” to rePlanet’s recycling program success.

“The recycling fund collects deposits paid for bottles and other covered containers and then pays out when bottles get redeemed. But it relies on bottles not being redeemed because the surplus funds pay for statewide recycling programs, among other initiatives. Because bottles are recycled at such a high rate, recycling programs are paying out more redemption money and thus keeping less of this money from the fund to support their operations.”

From the same article, CalRecycle spokesman Mark Oldfield explains:

“We’re staring at a structural deficit in the program, with more money going out than coming in,” he explains. “We have to look at reforming the program and that would include processing payments but it has to be looked at holistically.

“Clearly the closure of a large number of recycling centers all at once has a very negative affect on consumers in those areas and we’ve been working with industry stakeholders to come up with solutions to this.

“While falling commodity prices plays a major role, and CalRecycle can’t control commodity prices, that state agency can work with organizations that want to open new recycling centers and help speed up that process. CalRecycle also recently held a workshop to look at where recycling centers can realize cost savings and how the industry can better weather the ups and downs of commodity prices. The agency will continue to hold these discussions about how to make the recycling industry more sustainable”.

Part of the reason for the structural deficit is fraud, involving out-of-state “entrepreneurs” bringing in large quantities of bottles and cans from states such as Nevada and Arizona. The impact was estimated to be as much as $40 million in 2012. Recycling centers are supposed to restrict redemptions to no more than 500 lbs. of aluminum and 2,500 lbs. of glass from any one one person in any given day.

Of note is a recent article in the Orange County Register, that would seem to offer a different take on the issue of the profitability of the recycling industry in California. It relates to a case of wage and hour violations being investigated by the U.S. Labor Department:

“The Orange County crackdown is part of a statewide campaign aimed at what officials say are widespread labor law violations at California’s 1,837 recycling centers.

“‘This is an industry that doesn’t seem to be following the law,’ said Rodolfo Cortez, director of the department’s wage and hour district office. ‘It employs a large number of vulnerable workers who are afraid to speak up and don’t know their rights.’

“Californians redeem $900 million worth of beverage containers each year. Most of the recycled material is exported to Asia where it is reprocessed to manufacture new products. ‘Tax records show many recycling companies are highly profitable’, Cortez said, adding, ‘The annual dollar value is in the millions.’

“Besides Los Angeles and Orange counties, the federal probe is targeting recycling companies in San Diego, Fresno and Sacramento counties. ‘We find the exact same issues everywhere,’ Cortez said. ‘The underground economy is a big problem in California. We are trying to clean it up.’”

Last year, various companies including rePlanet closed 200 redemption centers throughout the state. Now the largest recycler has closed 191 more. Reducing the number of conveniently located recycling centers would seem to run counter to the aims of the program. Residents of Grass Valley find that their only recourse now is about a ten mile drive away. But that is nothing compared to those would-be recyclers in Needles. Now they have to make a 96 mile drive to Blythe.

What will happen to the consumers here in Amador County, regarding their ability to recoup the redemption deposits they have paid when purchasing their beverages? If the Sutter Hill location were to close (which I am not suggesting will happen), it appears that one of the next closest locations would be in Valley Springs. People in Murphys, Angels Camp, and San Andreas were left with that option last month.

The tagline on rePlanet’s website reads “We’re creating real value for people, humanity and the planet”. Clicking over to their jobs section, it shows that many of their openings are in Southern California and look to be mostly part-time. Perhaps these latest closures, including our five, happened because they couldn’t figure out a way to staff them with part-timers. The PG site I frequented had one full-time attendant- I don’t know about the others. One might conclude that they are really closing locations to protest reforms in health insurance and the minimum wage.

D. Norman

Undoing the Plastic Bag Ban

The statewide plastic bag ban, SB-270, was passed in the California legislature in August, 2014 and signed into law by Governor Brown on September 30, 2014. It was to have taken effect on July 1 of last year, after which specified stores such as large grocery chains and pharmacies could no longer provide single-use plastic carryout bags. It would have been extended to convenience and liquor stores on July 1 of this year. The law includes $2 million in loans to plastic bag manufacturers for retooling to switch to production of reusable bags that are certified and designed for at least 125 uses.

Not covered are those bags used by pharmacies for prescriptions, bags used for produce, fruit, and other unwrapped bulk foods, and bags designed to be placed over clothing on a hanger.

But as is readily evident, July 1, 2015 came and went, and grocery stores are still distributing single use bags. The roadsides, waterways, and oceans are still being littered. The ink was barely dry on the Governor’s signing of SB-270 when the plastic bag manufacturers went to work to stop its implementation. On the very same day of the signing, the American Progressive Bag Alliance filed a request for title and summary for a referendum, and soon began collecting signatures. The required number of signatures were obtained to qualify it as a veto referendum on the November 6 ballot. According to Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the industry will generate $138 million in revenues by delaying the ban until November.

As of February 12, a second initiative from the group, characterized as a bid that could divide supporters of the statewide ban, had collected 25% of the needed signatures. The deadline for filing with county election officials is April 26.

According to Cal Recycle, as of January 1 there are already ten counties and 104 cities with ordinances that ban the bags, meaning that nearly half of California residents live in affected jurisdictions. SB-270 was intended to replace these varying ordinances with a single statewide standard. Overturning it will not affect them.

The plastics industry and dissenting politicians and media outlets have made a number of claims in opposition. The interested reader can fact check the issues here.

It is estimated that the state spends as much as $107 million per year managing plastic bag litter. San Jose estimates that it costs them $1 million per year in plastic bag-related repairs to their recycling facilities. A recycling facility in Sacramento has stated that they have to shut down at least six times a day to remove plastic bags from their machines.

The plastic bag industry plan to spend $50+ million in their 2016 campaign to overturn SB-270. Be prepared for a flood of commercials hitting your TV screen soon.

D. Norman

Pine Grove Shopping Center- An Update

The corner of Hwy 88 and Ridge Rd. has long been a question mark. Del Rapini Construction once had a sign there advertising a planned shopping center. It was an ambitious plan, featuring a three-story motel with 75 rooms. A fast-food establishment in the center area, with another restaurant further to the rear. A mini-mart with gas station situated in the corner next to Hwy 88. There was more room for R&D firms at the back part of the site.

For many years the site was undeveloped. It had been re-zoned commercial back in 1984 with an administrative permit, meaning that public hearings would not have to be part of the early process of any development. Only approved building permits would be required.

As memory serves, grading work on the site was started around 2010. It looked like the shopping center was soon to be built, but after some work was done it came to a halt. False alarm.

Then in 2014 the news surfaced that a Dollar General would be built, in the center area where the fast food establishment had been planned under the original Rapini concept. As I wrote in July of last year, after much controversy and attempts to prevent construction, the store is a reality.

Now that the Dollar General is built, would other businesses be attracted to the site? I checked in with Del Rapini by phone on Friday, 2/5, to get an update. He explained that he has been trying hard for a long time to get businesses to locate there. There have been a number of enquiries, and he is presently in preliminary talks with an interested party to build a convenience store and possibly a gas station.

He stressed that the main gating factors to moving forward with the shopping center are sewer hookups and traffic limitations. As the developer, he has needed to deal with the Amador Water Agency and CalTrans over these issues, necessitating a substantial dollar investment so far.

He went on to say that a motel had shown some interest, but due to the limited sewer system capacity it wasn’t possible to move forward. As for traffic impact, the site is approved for 1,550 daily “trips”. The Dollar General store accounts for around 400, so there are only enough left for possibly two more users. Should a prospective business require more, fees would be involved.

In summary, the Pine Grove Shopping Center could have another tenant in its future. Filling out the complete site appears to be a slim prospect as it stands now. But any addition would be welcome. In my view, the plain-looking Dollar General would benefit from some surrounding buildings and landscaping.

D. Norman

The Importance of Perspective and Context

Perspective and context are important when reading articles in websites and blogs, or when watching cable channels such as Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN. Activist groups are extensively covered by many of these outlets. These groups tend to be on the fringe, and are not representative of the larger population. Often their methods are abhorrent and extreme. The middle-east crisis engenders strong feelings on both sides, pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.

Once again, I feel compelled to respond to Mark Bennett’s newest commentary. I take issue with the unsupported statements regarding the left and liberals: “…the left has control of our universities, they have suspended democratic process and substituted physical violence.” And: “The Muslims have moved in and trained the left to their techniques. So-called liberal professors now cover up for misogyny.” These are opinions, not statements of facts. Fringe groups are not representative of the college community as a whole and certainly do not define it.

As support for these opinions we are offered articles published in FrontPage magazine. As someone with the curiosity to learn more about the things I read, I undertook a quick Wikipedia check. There are those who like to disparage Wikipedia, but its postings include linked references that can be verified. And I was especially curious after noting this on the FrontPage banner: “INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT”. A website with that expressed point of view demands further investigation. And let’s be real- a totalitarian is defined as a person advocating a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. I know a lot of liberals, and that is the last thing on their minds.

The Wikipedia posting regarding the commentary’s source offers some revealing perspective. For instance, I learned that FrontPage magazine (FPM) is an online conservative political website. Contributors to the site, besides Phyllis Chesler- the writer of the articles mentioned in your commentary- include Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, and Charles Krauthammer. in the past the magazine has honored the following as “FPM Man of the Year”:

2003: Allen West

2004: John O’Neill, head of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

2006: Convicted U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compeon

2009: Glenn Beck

2010: The Tea Party Movement

I learned that FPM is one of many enterprises contained within the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Center is funded by a number of Foundations that support conservative organizations. Along with FPM, some others of these enterprises are:

* Discover the Networks, “a database of alleged left-wing agendas, activists and groups.”

• NewsRealBlog, “a team blog of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Its focus is to analyze and critique cable shows, newspapers, magazines, and the blogosphere to reveal the political Left's methods and agendas.

The author of the articles cited in Mr. Bennett’s commentary is a much-respected scholar and author. But she has garnered notice in the past with her polemical writing style. I learned in a Wikipedia posting about her that Publishers Weekly was critical of her 2003 book, The New Anti-Semitism. Their review noted that it “too often undercuts itself when its author intends to be provocative", citing lines such as ‘African-Americans (not Jews) are the Jews in America but Jews are the world’s ni**ers’ [asterisks mine], and concluded that ‘Chesler's tone and lack of intellectual rigor will not help her ideas to be heard by those who do not already agree with her’.”

I could go on, but anyone with a computer could do the same. No doubt the events described in Ms. Chesler’s article happened, and in no way am I implying that since they are written about in a conservative-leaning website they have been distorted. But knowing more now about FrontPage, I will endeavor to investigate the events surrounding the incident, and gain more understanding and perspective about them. I would encourage others to do the same. I refuse to believe that they are indicative of the left seizing control of our universities and promoting physical violence.

D. Norman

Dollar General On the Move

The Dollar General store in Pine Grove is open! The Grand Opening was held, and flyers are showing up in our mailboxes.

The parking lot has a few cars in it. Probably not many belong to employees- they don’t hire many, and I have concern for the health and well-being of the “manager”. Dollar General has had difficulties over the years which hasn’t helped their reputation.

It’s not another Dollar Tree. A lot of what they sell is more than a dollar. Seeing the prices will put one in a mindset right away to start making comparisons to regular stores. In my walking around, I overheard comments that the prices weren’t that great, and people were walking out empty-handed. But convenience will be a factor, and the store will no doubt do ok.

Across the street is the Pine Grove Market, an institution in the area for years. It used to be Claypool’s Market, and it has gone through a few changes in recent years. Its parking lot appears to have more cars than the Dollar General store. People are used to it, and it has a deli. And a great selection of beer. But to be fair, the DG hasn’t been open that long yet. And people heading up 88 from Jackson can see the PG market, and it’s easy to pull into the parking lot from the highway. They can’t see the new store on the left- perhaps a large sign on the highway is in the works. I don’t know about that. But if they want to put one in, my guess is it will happen. For all I know, it’s already in place.

Dollar General has an aggressive expansion plan. I don’t have any specifics regarding future stores in Amador County. I’ve heard a rumor that Plymouth is in their sights. But Joshua Simon’s company isn’t standing still in its efforts to search out locations.

I heard a rumor that Fred Claypool is opening a market in Moke Hill on the corner of 49 and 26. I wonder if Dollar General would see that location as being worthwhile, too. Maybe once the market is open, they will want to build close by. You know- in the interests of healthy competition.

When you type “planned Dollar General stores” into the Google, you see a lot of articles about town meetings and enraged citizens and petition drives. Their stores don’t seem to be very popular, for the same reasons our local citizens have expressed. Driving by 88 and Ridge, I can readily see their point. The building is stunningly nondescript. When citizens were afforded enough time, though, some efforts have borne fruit.

I’m no architect, but my sensibilities are offended. And I know- the view across the street isn’t great. But somebody could always tear down the gas station. Not a lot of effort was put in to have the DG store blend in to the rustic character of the area. The Dollar General is done, and we’ll have to look at it for a long time.

The planned store in Pioneer appears to be inevitable. There may still be time to influence the design, though. It’s up to the local citizens to continue to apply pressure.

D. Norman

Entitlements - a Complicated Campaign Issue

With the 2016 General Election looming, entitlements and their impact on the economy are proving to be a much-discussed campaign topic. What I find troubling is that the term seems to have taken on a negative connotation, i.e. - tax money going to the undeserving, with the economy suffering as a result. There are politicians that are fond of claiming that the U.S. is, or is becoming, a “welfare state”, pointing to entitlements as proof. I submit that the Preamble to our Constitution makes clear that the document recognizes its charge to “promote the general Welfare”. Our country owes its greatness to the application of that principle.

A comprehensive definition of entitlements from Wikipedia:

“An entitlement is a government program guaranteeing access to some benefit by members of a specific group and based on established rights or by legislation. The term may also reflect a pejorative connotation, as in a ‘sense of entitlement’. A ‘right’ is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an ‘entitlement’ is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.”

Dr. Paul Johnson of Auburn University describes entitlements this way in his Glossary of Political Economy Terms: “The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.”

As described in the National Priorities Project website, “The U.S. Treasury divides all spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt.

“Mandatory spending is largely made up of earned-benefit or entitlement programs, and the spending for those programs is determined by eligibility rules rather than the appropriations process. For example, Congress decides to create a program like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program. The amount of money spent on SNAP each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits.

“Congress therefore does not decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for SNAP. Instead, it periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people, and therefore change the amount spent on the program.

“Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that goes through the annual appropriations process each year. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on discretionary programs. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.”

Mandatory spending includes Medicare & Health, Social Security, Unemployment & Labor, VA benefits, Agriculture, and Transportation. Discretionary spending includes Military, Education, Housing, Energy & Environment, and Transportation.

Of the $2.56 Trillion mandatory spending budget for 2015, $1.12 Trillion comes from Trust Funds tax revenue. Social Security and Medicare Taxes account for $1.02 Trillion. The balance comes from Federal Funds tax revenue and borrowing. It should be noted that tax breaks are expected to cost the federal government $1.24 trillion in 2015. As explained in the NPP website: “…tax breaks are officially called tax expenditures within the federal government because, from the perspective of the government, they are no different from spending on any other government program.”

Food purchasing benefits have become a major lightning rod in the entitlements discussion. Originally started in the early ‘40s, then revived in the early ‘60s, the food stamp program has gone through numerous iterations and changes. Renamed the SNAP program in the 2008 Farm Bill, it has become a significant part of the U.S. economy. In 2014, approximately 46.5 million Americans received benefits. Walmart has acknowledged that approximately $18 billion in SNAP benefits are spent in their stores.

Ironically, SNAP recipients provide substantial revenues to a big-box retailer, some of whose employees are means-tested and eligible for SNAP benefits themselves. As a 2014 Forbes story recounts, “Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing…”.

The website Good Jobs First tracks the subsidies Walmart receives around the country: “A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country.” It seems that entitlements indeed take many forms.

Corporations such as Kraft and Coca-Cola have lobbied against cuts in the SNAP program. Many local economies have come to depend heavily on it. In March 2013, the Washington Post reported that “one-third of Woonsocket, Rhode Island’s population used food stamps, putting local merchants on a ‘boom or bust’ cycle each month when EBT payments were deposited. A federal program that began as a last resort for a few million hungry people has grown into an economic lifeline for entire towns. And this growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust.”

Dr. Johnson’s glossary includes farm support programs in the list of entitlements. From an article in the Economist in 2008 titled “A Harvest of Disgrace” about the 2008 Farm Bill: “The five-year $307 billion bill, through a complicated system of government programs, lavishes cash on upper-income farm households. The major beneficiaries of U.S. agricultural programs, commercial farmers, will have an average income of some $230,000 in 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The main restriction on these subsidies is a means test that applies to couples making more than $1.5 million per year.

”Farmers of all kinds get a slice of the action. American sugar producers, for example, are guaranteed 85% of the domestic sugar market, according to the bill. This measure will drain $1.3 billion over ten years from federal coffers, and will force consumers to pay an extra $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices.”

An August 2013 article in The Week wrote, in answer to the question: why is the farm bill so controversial?: ”Critics contend that the subsidies it hands out are wasteful, illogical, and counterproductive- a welfare program for millionaires and giant agribusinesses. Over the last decade, the farm bill has cost taxpayers more than $168 billion. In theory, the program uses loans, price supports, and payments to protect family farmers from the fickle fluctuations of weather, price, and economic conditions, so that their businesses remain stable and Americans are ensured a steady supply of affordable food. In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, including Riceland Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp., and Archer Daniels Midland.

An important benefit of food assistance and nutrition programs is improved health and reduced Medicaid costs. Another program known as WIC, The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, has been funded through the appropriations process since 1997 on a bipartisan basis. It has a budget of $7 billion, and provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating, breastfeeding support, and health care referrals to more than 8 million low-income women, infants, and children at nutritional risk. A study published in the Atlantic Economic Journal in 2012 found that rather than affecting average outcomes, WIC was more effective in reducing the probability of high-risk births, for example, very premature and low-birthweight babies. The potential benefits of the WIC Program can be realized by enhancing its focus on more disadvantaged mothers.

Preterm births cost the U.S. over $26 billion a year. Studies conducted by the USDA show that every $1 in WIC spending results in health care savings of between $1.77 and $3.13 within the first 60 days after birth.

Another important consideration that is often overlooked is the fiscal multiplier effect. From Wikipedia: “In 2011, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gave a statement regarding SNAP benefits: ‘Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity.’  Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that ‘ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments) of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100,’ or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.

“A 2013 report by the USDA gave another estimate …finding that ‘an increase of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion.’”  In contrast to SNAP’s economic multiplier of approximately 1.8, defense spending results in a multiplier of between .6 and 1.2, according to Dr. Valerie Ramey, UC San Diego professor of economics.

The budgets of Social Security and Medicare are nine to ten times larger than Food Assistance. The health of these earned-benefit programs deserves a separate discussion. Claims have been made regarding the long-term solvency of Social Security that seem to be aimed at furthering the confusion about the issue. And recent reductions in overall health care costs has begun to cast Medicare and Medicaid solvency, though grim, in a more positive light.

In summary, campaign bombast deriding entitlements is partisan and not constructive. As I have tried to show, the subject is too complex with no simple solutions. Entitlements take many forms. The recipients of entitlements (or welfare) are varied- from the food-challenged to the largest retailer in the world. The antidote for political rhetoric and hyperbole is complete and factual information.

D. Norman

Newman Ridge - A Lesson in Transparency

A regular reader of the Sacramento Business Journal would have seen two articles in 2006 relating to Amador County real estate development.

In June 2006, one had the headline “Developers Swarm Amador”, with the sub header “Ranch sale may open door to foothill county”. Excerpts from the article:

“Developers are reportedly looking at buying all or part of the 23,000-acre Howard Ranch in Amador County, about 20 miles east of fast-growing Elk Grove and one of the largest undeveloped parcels in the region. Western Amador County, with its gently rolling hills, is attracting developers looking for the next frontier in the increasingly built-out Sacramento area, industry leaders say.

“Several buyers have looked into purchasing at least some of Howard Ranch, including Angelo K. Tsakopoulos, Steve Gidaro and Jack Sweigart of JTS Communities, insiders say. JTS Communities, Reynen & Bardis and other well-known land developers are already in the county.

“Now, Bill Bunce and a partner are looking at the property, said Chris Wright, executive director of the Foothill Conservancy. Wright said that Bunce has told conservancy officials that he is part of a group of buyers considering the purchase of at least some of the property.

“'I'm not at liberty to discuss Howard Ranch at this time,’ Bunce said this week. ‘I'd be happy to discuss it at a time when there is something to discuss.’ Bunce and John Telischak, a Corte Madera-based developer and investor, are partners in Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort, a 945-acre development proposed for adjoining Sutter Creek. That development would include 1,634 homes, a golf course and resort hotel.”

A second SBJ article in December 2006 had the headline “Investors Corral Large Amador Ranch”, with the sub header “Development likely; local input sought”. From the article:

“A group of investors has purchased 16,100 acres of Howard Ranch in Amador County, the largest land deal this year in the Sacramento region, according to real estate experts. Bill Bunce, one of the buyers, said the long-term plans for the property west of Ione will include some development. But he and his partners intend to meet with community leaders and nearby residents before deciding on a course of action.

“The buyers include Bunce of El Dorado Hills, his development partner John Telischak of Corte Madera, and Farallon Capital Management of San Francisco, which manages equity assets for institutions and wealthy clients.”

“The Howard Ranch property - also known as Rancho Arroyo Seco - was a sprawling ranch looking upon the foothills. The original land grant likely dates before the United States took possession of California. Charles Howard, an auto sales magnate and owner of the legendary racehorse Seabiscuit, eventually bought the property.

“In 1999, The Nature Conservancy purchased about 12,300 acres of the ranch in Sacramento County for $13.6 million and placed a permanent conservation easement on the property to preserve it. The Nature Conservancy then sold the land as ranch land. With the recent sale of the 16,100 acres, about 3,700 acres remain with Charles Howard's heirs, Bunce said. We just acquired the property,’ Bunce said of the deal completed Nov. 28. ‘We intend to begin the process of collaborating with the local community and talking about good uses for it'".

In the intervening years, Amador County residents have begun to witness the unfolding of the first of these “good uses”- the Newman Ridge Quarry Project. They have read and heard much discussion, pro and con. The Ione Valley Land Air and Water Defense Alliance has advanced the most vigorous opposition. A visit to their website will provide a list of issues and objections.

An “open letter” was recently published in the Amador Community News, paid for by Amador Ranch Associates, LLC, a corporation based in Corte Madera, California. According to CorporationWiki it has one member, Bt Amador LLC, also based in Corte Madera. 

Bt Amador has two members, the aforementioned John Telischak and William Bunce. Mr. Telischak has interests in other corporate entities including Wp Realty & Management Co., Wp Construction, Inc., and nineteen more corporations.  He is President of Deep Cliff Associates, LP, a golf course management company. He is also one of two members of Oakland Golf LLC, a golf course management company.

The open letter in support of the Newman Ridge project makes a number of claims, most notably that railways will transport 95% of the mining products and only 19 trucks per day will pass through Ione. Ione Valley LAWDA, on the other hand, points out in their website that the County Supervisor’s plan allows for the number to be up to 1,380 trucks per day. 

The open letter makes no mention of the substantial water requirements of the project, and the resulting impact to the surrounding farming and ranching. It provides no substantiation that rail operators would be willing to upgrade to handle the traffic from the quarry and asphalt plant.

Going back to the June 2006 Sacramento Business Journal article:

“‘Any development of Howard Ranch could be limited by the lack of water supply and the need for a wastewater treatment plant’, said George Lambert, interim city administrator of Ione. The small city is on the edge of Howard Ranch and would likely annex any nearby development.

“Some of the ranch is being mined for aggregate and it may need an environmental cleanup. Other parts of the ranch are home to valuable plant species that will need to be protected, environmentalists say. But even if one-fifth of the ranch is developed and turned into 20,000 homes, the land developers could enjoy a multibillion-dollar payday, said Greg Paquin, owner of The Gregory Group, a firm that studies the new-home market.

“And Ione could claim municipal control of the ranch during the next few years. The city is starting a "visioning process" to prepare for an update of its general plan, said Sharon Long, chairwoman of the visioning committee.

“Land use will likely be a major issue in drafting the plan, since many developers are interested in the area, she said. JTS Communities and Ryland Homes are already building in town. “Howard Ranch almost surrounds the city and could become the next phase of development, Long added. ‘One common theme we're hearing from people is we don't want to be Elk Grove’, she said.”

Could it be that home building was never the aim of Amador Ranch Associates, LLC, at least in the relatively short term? Why would home developers purchase such a large tract of land, knowing the pitfalls that existed such as lack of water? Did they see the actual value of the purchase to be the extracting of needed building materials for development projects elsewhere in the State? Why couldn’t they give that business to the other quarries in the area? 

As anyone with a little time can discover, the buyers of the Howard Ranch are from outside the area. The principle investor is from Marin County. Many of the corporate entities he is involved with were formed in 2006, and based in Corte Madera. 

The citizens of Amador County deserve transparency. Reading or hearing about the land purchase back in 2006, they could have reasonably assumed that homes, not a quarry/asphalt plant, would be in their future. And an open letter directed to the opponents of the Newman Ridge project, paid for by the developer using a locally-sounding name, does nothing to promote transparency.

D. Norman