Wednesday, April 23, 2014

‘Slow-growth’ advocates battling EDH projects

From page A1 | June 26, 2013 | 49 Comments

Bill Center and Jim Moore became household names in El Dorado County politics during the decade straddling the millennium, shaping public opinion and policy with a growth-inhibiting ballot initiative, lawsuits both real and threatened, all executed with deft and sometimes ruthless political moxie.

Recently the former El Dorado County supervisor (Center) and a Democratic pollster (Moore) have resurfaced, coming out in opposition to the Marble Valley and Lime Rock projects in the western end of the county between El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park.

Their re-engagement followed a 2012 study by UC Davis scholars Craig Beebe and Stephen Wheeler that argued that exurban development in El Dorado County has “fragmented the county’s landscapes, with detrimental effects on ecosystems, community cohesion and aesthetic character.”

Beebe and Wheeler tell the story from a historical and socio-political perspective in “Gold County: the politics of landscape in exurban El Dorado County,” published in the Journal of Political Ecology. The study traces the politics of land-use from the “extraction activities,” mining, timber and agriculture that dominated the local economy from the gold rush through the pear psylla that decimated orchards in the 1960s. They also examine the present-day ex-urbanites, who extract the amenities of a rural lifestyle while earning a living elsewhere.

Long-standing ranch families struggling with low beef prices and dying orchards, many with children disinclined to the rigors of the ranch lifestyle, began reconsidering their commitment to the land in the 1960s. The work was hard, the water scarce and the profits lean. Many sold to developers or attempted to subdivide the land themselves.

The county population increased 49 percent between 1960 and 1970 and another 96 percent the following 10 years, according to Beebe and Wheeler.

They also found that county staff approved “600-700 parcel map subdivisions each year throughout the late 1970s, many with no restrictions whatsoever,” the result of a “pro-development, landowner rights-based Board of Supervisors.”

Growth explosion

El Dorado Hills led the growth explosion in the 1990s. Tony Manour’s El Dorado Hills Specific Plan was approved in 1987, creating parcels for roughly 4,800 dwellings in what became Serrano, and laying the foundation for Town Center. The Northwest El Dorado Hills Specific Plan was approved the same year for 2,200 dwellings north of Green Valley Road. Another 7,000 dwellings in four more large El Dorado Hills specific plans were approved in the 1990s, prior to the 1996 General Plan.

The number of homes in El Dorado Hills doubled between 1999 and 2007 to 14,048 dwellings, according to the El Dorado Hills Fire District’s annual reports.

Rural areas also grew. Scenic micro-locales, often tucked off private roads, became scattered rural subdivisions, consisting of quality homes on big lots at prices well below the overheated coastal housing markets.

The county’s rural arteries suddenly had commute traffic.

El Dorado Irrigation District, flush with hookup fees, supplied piped water to many parcels; others are still on wells.

Almost all are on septic systems, and many maintain their own roadways. Fire suppression on the narrow, overgrown roads common to such areas remains a challenge, as is ambulance service for the aging population.

County residents of every ilk became increasingly concerned about congestion. Recent arrivals saw their idyllic exurban lifestyle threatened by the urban problems they fled, according to the UC Davis study.
The phenomenon continued until the housing bubble burst, but is now showing signs of recovery. Center and Moore have returned at a time when the rolling boil that got their Measure Y approved seems about to boil over.

The next chapter plays out in the Board of Supervisors’ chambers this Thursday, June 27, when opponents of the San Stino project will hear the fate of their request to be removed from the Shingle Springs Community Region. A related presentation from the Community Economic Development Advisory Committee is also on the agenda.

To business leaders, property rights advocates, developers, builders and pro-growth elected officials in the 1990a and early 2000s, Center and Moore were villains on the scale of Voldemort or Vader, using the dark art of political persuasion coupled with the force of referendum and litigation to force constraints on development at a time when development was becoming the county’s primary industry.
Others saw the pair as visionary protectors of the county’s natural resources and rural character, paladins of the populace who, like Skywalker and Potter, claimed victory over entrenched, outsized opponents.

Lacking lightsabers or potions, their weapons of choice were California’s far-reaching Environmental Quality Act and the state’s mighty initiative process, bolstered by campaign-strategist Moore’s ability to measure and influence public opinion.

Their ultimate weapon, litigation, was a poison pill that ultimately blocked a general plan, froze building permits for five years and forced no less an adversary than Mansour — who’d already sold one of his prize projects, later called Serrano, to Bill Parker — to sell his also-prize Valley View project to rival Angelo Tsakopoulos, who was willing to pay road fees Mansour could not.

Center and Moore were at the heart of a group that fought growth-friendly provisions in the county’s 1996 and 2004 General Plans, and opposed numerous specific projects they felt were not paying for their road impacts.

As core members of the Taxpayers for Quality Growth, they teamed up with the Sierra Club and an assortment of citizen coalitions and sued the county for failing to adequately analyze traffic impacts in the 1996 General Plan.

A Sacramento Superior Court agreed in 1999, rejecting the plan’s Environmental Impact Report and prohibiting any new projects until a new EIR and plan were complete.

The resulting building permit moratorium lasted five-years. Prior approvals were unaffected. Sales at Serrano and Promontory in El Dorado Hills soared.

Initiatives to constrain growth based on water availability, population and total freeway capacity all failed between 1996 and 1998, before Center and Moore discovered the Holy Grail of growth issues: gridlock.

Their coalition was an unusual mix of environmentalists and slow-growthers from around the region, long-time residents concerned with congestion and recently arrived ex-urbanites concerned that their rural paradise might become the urban sprawl they fled.

Measure Y, the landmark 1998 anti-gridlock initiative that forced developers to pay for their road impacts, passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The message was clear, they said. Voters wanted managed growth, open roads, quality neighborhoods and traffic relief, which became the title of the 2004 General Plan that included Measure Y’s provisions.

Following the passage of the 2004 General Plan (by a mere 51 percent) and work on the follow-on Oak Woodlands Ordinance and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, they largely dropped out of the public eye … until now.

Anti-growth attitudes nothing new

Raft resort owner Center blames El Dorado County’s exurban sprawl on 40 years on pro-growth supervisors and weak planning. He points to the 1996 General Plan as an example.

“Right in the preamble … it said that gridlock traffic was an acceptable tradeoff for economic growth,” he said, shaking his head.

The UC Davis study examines the factors in play, and found that shortly before the 1996 plan’s approval, more than 10,000 acres in rural areas were shifted from agriculture to residential designations with few public meetings and little fanfare.

Much of that land remains undeveloped, and is now constrained by subdivision rules that require expensive infrastructure: water, sewer and wide roads with multiple access points, all vastly stricter than when the property was designated residential, according to Principal Planner Shawna Purvines.

The 2004 El Dorado County General Plan was based on its predecessor, but included a more detailed environmental impact report and also integrated traffic control measures enacted as Measure Y in 1998.

Beebe and Wheeler condemned the 2004 plan for doing “little to develop any positive vision for future county growth,” and making more “low-density, high-impact, disbursed subdivisions” possible.
Center and Moore, who lives in Camino, agree, and contend that anti-growth sentiments are stronger than ever.

“Public opinion has hit critical mass,” said Moore, whose polling shows between two-thirds and three-quarters of people generally oppose growth in their community, but in El Dorado County the number is 85 to 90 percent.

Center added, “They didn’t like (big projects) when I was on the board, but today they hate them,” he said. “There’s a big disconnect between the people … in charge and the people who live here.”

Beebe and Wheeler found that recent arrivals often become the most fervent anti-growthers, “asserting their right to protect the landscape by whatever means they see fit, including litigation and angry outbursts in public meetings.”

The academics cite recent campaign slogans that seem to imply the rural lifestyle is something that belongs solely to the existing residents: “Keep us rural,” and “Preserve our rural heritage.” They trace this “defensive nativism” to “feelings of loss, threat and fear,” in ex-urbanites, fear of traffic, fear of growth and fear of other people. They repeatedly note the lack of racial diversity in the county.

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors doesn’t have the luxury of just saying no like the public, according to former Supervisor Jack Sweeney, who termed out in 2012.

“The Board of Supervisors is charged by law in California with planning for growth of the community, and with administering to applications tendered by land owners,” he said. “You can’t deny them due process.”

“Good land use planning starts with knowing the facts, and that’s what the process provides,” he added.


Discussion | 49 comments

  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 2:20 pm

    If EID customers think that water costs too much now just wait. The no growth crowd is likely to win the day. But EID is committed by NEED to spend several hundred million dollars for a third transmission line to deliver SMUD water from the White Rock Penstock to Bray Reservoir and then to points west. There are three choices. 1) EID can leave Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills exposed to the inevitable perfect storm of pump/line/plant failure. 2) Allow growth to produce hook-up fees to mitigate rate increases. 3) Freeze growth and pay astronomical water rates. No growth comes with a price.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 25, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    Phil -- Who is calling for "No Growth"? If no growth has costs, what is the dollar benefit of growth? You make claims, but don't back them up with numbers. Will I save 1 penny on my monthly bill for every new ratepayer? What you fail or refuse to acknowledge is that excessive growth has costs, too.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJune 25, 2013 - 3:25 pm


    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 3:50 pm

    In our back-and-forth last night, Kirk, I was trying to post a link to EID's documents. For some strange this forum's software was blocking EID links. I've been in communication with MD and the problem now seems fixed. Here is a reply to you from last night that was nuked. ========================= Cute, Kirk. You know that I cannot speak with such specificity. Your bill will be HIGHER without development. LINK - Here is EID's 2013 Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Take a gander at thumbnail 179 & 249

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 25, 2013 - 4:04 pm

    Phil -- yes, my bill will be higher without growth. So will my time spent in traffic with growth. So are the burdens on the rest of our infrastructure. How much higher? If we can't measure it we can't make rational decisions. And, again, it is not a question of growth vs no growth, it is a question of what kind of growth we want. San Stino is not the kind of growth I want.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 4:28 pm

    Kirk, the onus is on you to place quantitative values on the things you enumerate. I have given you some useful GENERAL information that seems counterintuitive to most. Ignore it. Use it. Your call. Perhaps EID could model the problem. I suspect that regardless of the quantitative answer your answer is NO SAN STINO - NO MARBLE VALLEY - NO PARKER DEVELOPMENTS - NO DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT GREEK GUY WHAT'S-HIS-NAME. Your pet is San Stino. They are ALL TARGETED by the "I've got mine and to hell with the rest of you seeking refuge" crowd.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 4:30 pm

    sorry - bold off

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 25, 2013 - 6:37 pm

    Phil -- Placing quantitative values on the costs of growth is only fair since you are on the hook for placing a quantitative value on the cost of no growth. Collaboration between us is probably the most productive approach...we wouldn't want each other to go off on tangents based on unacceptable assumptions. All those developments are targeted by people seeking reasonable growth. A massive project violating the spirit of the general plan that creates unacceptable burdens on infrastructure and lifestyle is not reasonable growth. Why do you support such things? Do you have a financial interest?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 6:55 pm

    Yes, Kirk. I do have a financial interest. I do not want to pay the higher water rates attendant to EID's REQUIRED NEW infrastructure (even without the new big developments) that is not defrayed by . . . say . . . 4000 hook-up fees that do not materialize . . . 4,000 times 20,000 equals $80,000,000 . . . divided by existing customer base equals what, Kirk? My financial interest is eighty million dollars divided by EID's EXISTING customer base.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 25, 2013 - 7:24 pm

    Phil -- We both know that most of those hookup fees are going to go to actual hook ups and not infrastructure. "EID’s REQUIRED NEW infrastructure (even without the new big developments)" current residents demanded that infrastructure and now you don't want to pay for it...doesn't that make you one of those something for nothing takers? Regardless, would you accept 4000 new ratepayers introduced via development that doesn't require massive rezoning? In other words, do you have a financial interest in one or more of these developments? Not an indirect interest in diluted infrastructure costs.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 7:47 pm

    Kirk, not that it's relevant or any of your f^*@ing business, but no. I have no financial interest in San Stino, Marble . . . any developments . . . zip zero . . . nada. Your question is offensive and typical of those on this forum who assume venal motives behind positions with which they disagree. I have an intimate knowledge of EID's distribution system. I am EID's Senior Distribution Operator, retired. I am also painfully torn from rural El Dorado County. You don't know rural, Kirk. You have no inkling of the pain of having to abandonRURAL,/b> to this 1/4 acre of former rural Diamond Springs. Things change. Puppies grow up. Kittens grow up. Children grow up. Nostalgia cuts sweetly. Kirk, while you are stuck in traffic compose a letter to the FED postulating how the nation benefits from Kirk's theories on growth and economics.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 7:47 pm

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 25, 2013 - 8:44 pm

    Phil -- I was probing for why you so aggressively support destroying the lifestyle of I know.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 9:29 pm

    Kirk asserts that I, " aggressively support destroying the lifestyle of others". Supply the text, Kirk. Or confess to the lie. I am supplying counterintuitive information that may be useful to some. The prevailing wisdom is that growth in west EDC causes higher EID water rates. The opposite is true. I aggressively support sharing the cost of the third transmission line to west EDC with new housing in San Stino et al. Antebellum Kirk - keeping "those people" out.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 25, 2013 - 9:47 pm

    Phil -- you supplied the text yourself. I have no problem with growth, as long as it is consistent with the general plan and measure Y and existing zoning. San Stino will plop a large high density suburban development into a low density community. We can get growth without that.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 9:56 pm

    Kirk writes, "Phil — We both know that most of those hookup fees are going to go to actual hook ups and not infrastructure." No, Kirk. Of the two of us which one of us has actually done a "hook-up"? That would be me, Kirk. Nowadays a "hook-up" consists of connecting a water meter and a pressure reducer to a curb stop already installed by the developer's contractor. The Meter box is already there. The pressure reducer/gate valve box may also be there. My labor, the meter, pressure reducer and miscellaneous small parts - a few hundred dollars. I have personally done 20 - 30 hook-ups in a day. The actual cost to EID of a hook-up is a few hundred dollars.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 10:06 pm

    Kirk writes, "Phil — you supplied the text yourself. Again, Kirk. Quote my text or supply a link. Or confess your lie. Was it here: The date/time under a commenter's name is a link - i.e. June 25, 2013 at 2:20 pm under a commenter name can be linked to. Post the link or admit to your lie, Kirk.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 10:29 pm

    I'm mooning you, Kirk - - - I'm now a published photographer - so there! QED

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 25, 2013 - 10:47 pm

    Water delivery forecast through summer of 2014 - - - emergency for EDH 50% likely due to pump/plant/line failure. Absent the construction of a third east to west transmission line - - - 99% - - - - even without one additional element of demand . . . count on it. . . . if distribution can collapse it WILL collapse. The weakest link is the raw water pump station at Folsom Lake.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 26, 2013 - 6:31 am

    Phil -- San Stino would destroy the lifestyle of those in the neighborhood. Your lament about "formerly rural Diamond Springs", etc, supports that. And you actively participated in that destruction throughout your career. You aggressively support San Stino, et al. And, as "EID’s Senior Distribution Operator", don't you bear some responsibility for the massive under investment in infrastructure that leaves EDH in such a precarious position? Speaking of doing "20-30 hookups in a day", was that "few hundred dollars" at today's prices? Regardless, I stand corrected as to my assertion that most of the hookup fees go to actual hookups. I forget how blatantly dishonest quasi-public "service" providers can be. So we subtract several hundred to a thousand dollars from that $20k hookup fee for actual hookups -- immediately putting the lie to your claim of $80M to defray costs to existing customers. Now, of the remainder, how much goes to other areas (eg pensions) besides future infrastructure?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 26, 2013 - 8:43 am

    Kirk muses, " don’t you bear some responsibility for the massive under investment in infrastructure that leaves EDH in such a precarious position?" My career at EID spanned a period when all water agencies were being overwhelmed by unfunded mandates to upgrade infrastructure. The clean water act came with no funds. Tanks and covers were built for all open reservoirs. EID was in foul odor with the state with multiple non compliance issues. Project 184 was being acquired. The Trailer Brothers crooked tunnel was being litigated. Ane Deister and board passed a multi hundred million dollar bond issue. Wages and benefits soared. And, yes, hook-up fees were going toward PERS. The Pleasant Oak Main's Techite pipe kept blowing up The Pleasant Oak was replaced. The Cost of Services Study identified the problem of misallocation of hook-up fees. EID's present manager and board assert this will not happen again It was in the course of those POM Techite failures that I created an innovative work-around that safely allowed us to temporarily operate above design spec. Upper management knew. The board knew. The priorities were not for the third line. But now the time has come for the third line. And nobody in formerly rural Diamond Springs sits in their warm cozy home in a dark and stormy night lamenting the loss of rural.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65June 26, 2013 - 9:45 am

    Phil, "And, yes, hook-up fees were going toward PERS." As in public employees retirement system? Whowoodathunkit? If the taxpayers only knew. Prop 30 goes to pensions, auto registration increases go to pensions, every new fee goes to pensions. And more and more municipalities are facing bankruptcy over it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Fran DuChampJune 26, 2013 - 9:52 am

    Project 184. Phil, I understand your family helped along side many others to help create our little league field...I thank everyone who was involved. Ms. Santiago just said the field was "safe." Many people are excited to help freshen it up for the next 50 yrs. There is nothing better than watching children rake and clean,while laughing (it is truly their field.)--to end with a great bar-b-que of hot dogs and chips. To all branches of your family and the families of all that helped...salute to the next fifty years (I hope.) okay enough of the mushy stuff--lets go back to...lolol (side note: squirrels will take on snakes--just saying.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65June 26, 2013 - 9:55 am

    OK Phil, I have a conspiracy theory for you and I am the only one I have ever heard suggest it. Many people who are much smarter than me are puzzled by the fact that the FED keeps pumping printed money into the market. Everyone with a brain knows it is only causing a bubble that will eventually devastate the economy the same way the leftists "fair housing" did. So why are they doing it? Public sector pensions. Pension funds are heavily invested in the market and most states and municipalities are restricted within their budgets to meet pension obligations. If the market were not being artificially propped up even more services would need to be cut and the secret about public sector pensions would get out to an already fed up taxpaying populace.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 26, 2013 - 10:08 am

    Cookie, yes. There are multiple harsh financial realities that suggest "keep it rural", though emotionally attractive, is in reality a catch phrase of developer manipulation. I posit that Bill Center and Jim Moore are in the back pockets of Parker, the Greek and the Marble valley guys. They will "sacrifice" the San Stino developer and augment the "bigger fish's pond". Bill Center is the absolute epitome of opportunistic, hypocritical, double-dealing, self-aggrandizing SOBs. Bill Center et al bastardize environmentalism to redirect profits.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 26, 2013 - 10:23 am

    Cookie - I have a conspiracy theory for you . . . Bernanke's exit strategy is retirement. Between his QE#? and China's deflation we are in for one hellofa ride. Hold on . . . and keep contributing to my SS and PERS . . . thanks guys & gals!!! :)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65June 26, 2013 - 10:52 am

    Phil, the leftists get a lot of taxpayer money thru public sector union dues so keeping their retirements propped up is vital to keep the laundered money flowing. When it does catch up with us the dems will blame the repubs for it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 26, 2013 - 11:04 am

    Agreed. As Rush puts it, the libs launder tax payer money through PERS, fed pensions, unions et al to Democrat candidates who cater to PERS, fed pensions, unions et al Fifteen years ago I was a frequent contributor to There was another contributor back then who always ended his posts with, "The Democrat party is a criminal organization."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 26, 2013 - 10:54 am

    Thank you, Fran, for the tip of the hat toward those in my family who have contributed toward the "good of the order."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.June 26, 2013 - 11:17 am

    Cookie, my song was "I'll be seeing you in all those old familiar places." Appears to have fallen off the bottom of the comments list.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.June 26, 2013 - 11:18 am

    Actually, quite a nice song -- better than today's rap.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65June 26, 2013 - 11:49 am

    That is a great song James. Todays rap is a huge contributor to the destruction of society. Speaking of that you by now are aware of the SCOTUS ruling. Remember when I told you the underlying motive of the radical gay agenda was to have alternative lifestyles taught to first graders? Here you go James...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 26, 2013 - 12:00 pm

    James, Cookie . . . Within our lifetimes NAMBLA's agenda will catch with LGTB's. Normalizing the extremes is just one element of "progressives". One day the Rockies, the Sierras, Death Valley . . . . . will all be "normalized" and we will have one huge fair equal Bonneville Salt flat with no energy to race. There will be zero energy potential. The battery will be dead.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollJune 26, 2013 - 7:13 pm

    they need to raise the fees to pay for their own infrastructure.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJune 26, 2013 - 7:51 pm

    Robert -- The real problem -- as Phil points out -- is the infrastructure needed for El Dorado Hills. They paid their fees, but the money was spent on everything but infrastructure. It is wrong to make new development pay the tab for that mess.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jay BeeJune 26, 2013 - 9:58 pm

    Last Settler's Syndrome. Look it up

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollJune 27, 2013 - 5:37 am

    it's not just new infrastructure the builders don't pay for, there's also maintenance on the existing, water,power,streets,lighting,parks,police,fire.etc.Bureaucrats always say we need a bigger tax base and the builders always make promises they never keep

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65June 27, 2013 - 6:18 am

    Robert, are you saying the builders are breaking contractual agreements? And while you are at it please explain for us why it is the responsibility of any builder to pay for the maintenance of existing infrastructure. I can imagine how well obama's "you didn't built that" worked on you. The typical housing development is paid for entirely by the developer including roads, bridges, water, utility and the tax base the development creates is what pays for the schools, fire, law enforcement, and lots of taxpayer burden public sector positions. Like Phil and Kirk have tried to explain to you, the money that has been collected for years has not gone to maintenance, it has gone to pensions, healthcare and tons of other public sector costs. I have made this exact point for years and been called names for it. California has the 3rd highest gas tax in the nation, more cars than most other states combined yet we have the worst roads in the country. Do you know WHY/???? Because by the time they are done paying for wages, pensions and healthcare there is only pennies on the dollar left over for the roads. We have reached the cornice where all the money is now chasing after runaway pensions and healthcare of public sector retirees. It is the same with welfare, by the time all the government agencies take their cut there are only pennies left over for the obama voters who turn around and blame the rich for not paying their fair share.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollJune 27, 2013 - 6:28 am

    and then there's unfunded animal control

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65June 27, 2013 - 8:48 am

    Robert, are you thinking of Stockton, Detroit or the community agitator's old neighborhood?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sue TaylorJune 28, 2013 - 3:39 pm

    Phil, you should be careful ripping on Jim Moore, he did help with your cousin Brian's campaign. I heard Jim and Bill state at a public meeting that since Brian was more in tune with their ideals they decided to help his campaign.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 28, 2013 - 5:48 pm

    Sue, when Ronald Reagan was taken to task for receiving the endorsement of David Duke he had no trouble at all in immediately identifying and articulating the logical fallacy. Reagan correctly pointed out that a person's support of his ideals and agendas did not require his support of theirs. Bill Center remains a double dealing opportunistic hypocrite who took Coloma's "rural" and transferred it to his portfolio. Moore is the typical bastardizer of environmentalism, goring one mans ox while feeding another's in the name of warm, fuzzy, feel good environmental hogwash. They'll keep it rural in the "right places" for the "right prices" Good luck, Brian.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 28, 2013 - 5:51 pm

    Sue, I would have thought bill and jim would have had a stronger affinity for you. What happened?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.June 28, 2013 - 5:52 pm

    Phil, no need to sugarcoat.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJune 28, 2013 - 5:54 pm

    Fire at will!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sue TaylorJune 28, 2013 - 6:54 pm

    Phil, That shows you how little you know about me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • SherryJuly 05, 2013 - 5:11 pm

    phil Veercamp, you forgot to mention your family owns veercamp construction. So while you may try to scare folks into high water prices, really its about keeping the family in business. We dont buy it for a second. Your family made millions off el dorado county projects.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJuly 05, 2013 - 5:59 pm

    Sherry, my second cousin, Doug and his wife, Lori own Doug Veerkamp General Engineering,Inc. Doug is one of the hardest working, most above board, most ethical members and contributors of El Dorado County. I recall Doug appearing before the EID board during a regular meeting. He returned to EID unspent funds from a contracted project. I wish he had given the unspent money to me, but Doug is rather "funny" about not sharing his hard earned money with his dozens and dozens and dozens of relatives. Sherry, whoever planted the notion in your brain that the Veerkamps were any more a business unit than the Smiths, Browns or Jones'? Shame on you, Sherry!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJuly 08, 2013 - 5:51 pm


    Reply | Report abusive comment


More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 72 Comments | Gallery

Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3



My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 23 Comments

Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4




By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 2 Comments

‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 20 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 4 Comments



Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7



4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5



Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2



Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2


Real Estate




By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8