More Superior Leadership From the Bridge of District One?

This letter in The Union by Paul Sieving, BOS chair’s rebuttal lacks any supporting data, reminded my of a similar dismissal in 2006, when the Board of Supervisors dismissed the Sierra Economic and Science Foundation’s study of unfunded liabilities and the long term impact on the County budget. The SESF Study was dismissed with the wave of a hand, “we have it covered”, Nate Beason said.

Paul Sieving writes:

On several occasions in the recent past and finally at the Aug. 12 Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting, Chair Nate Beason has made public comments in an attempt to discredit the economic impact estimate prepared through the dedicated work of a dozen or more Nevada City Chamber of Commerce members affected by the recently passed Outdoor Events Ordinance.

o o o

The nature of Chair Beason’s rebuttal was nothing less than dismissive, with no publication of supporting data at all, and an allegation that the Chamber has been disrespectful in presenting factual information. Nothing but hand-waving, pencil-pointing and pooh, poohs.

It’s a poor form attempt to discredit the hard work and diligent research of a number of people dedicated to the economic vitality of our County.

The SESF Board felt the same way, Board members had invested their time and effort to study and highlight an important economic issue in 2006. Now that issue has emerged to cause some economic pain at the Rood Center. According to a recent communications about the impact of AB-32 fuel price increases on the County Budget, Nate Beason wrote: “The fuel cost increase over the years is marginal compared to the increase in public safety salary and Pers costs over the same period.”

Paul Sieving concludes:

A correct rebuttal would at least include a competing written economic analysis of some kind. The fact is that the available data and supporting information has already been shared, and no other is available to our knowledge, . . .

The BOS are often uncomfortable with the facts when they do not support their preconceived solutions. They refused to support Prop 23, the Suspend AB-32 Initiative, buying into the anthropogenic global warming mantra of the Sierra Business Council. They supported the SBC inventory of County CO2 emissions, when there is no scientific connection to those emissions and the claimed climate change.  This support of the AGW religion is going to have some long term economic consequences for the County, that have been dismissed by the BOS.

The BOS attitude is do not tell us what we do not want to know.  Having the facts may force them to provide some real leadership.

[Full disclosure, I am the SESF Executive Director]

Advertisements

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in AB-32, Analysis, California, Climate Change, Economics, Jobs and Economy, Local. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to More Superior Leadership From the Bridge of District One?

  1. gjrebane says:

    I am the second author of the SESF unfunded liabilities study and have shared the experiences described by Messrs Sieving and Steele. Sadly I must concur with their conclusions.

    [Full disclosure, Dr George J Rebane, PhD, Director of Research, SESF]

    Like

Comments are closed.