The purpose of these projects, it is stated, is to pursue environmental projects that are job intensive. The article fails to report that the funding for these projects comes primarily from state grants. So, what we have here is similar to Depression Era WPA make work projects. Which did not end the Depression then and even if it has a short-term impact on our local economy, the long-term impacts will be negative. A sugar high if you will.
I have a more generous interpretation than JR Michael Redding. And, actually, the funding would come from an _existing_ tax on lumber (via the Timber Regulation and Restoration Fund) that is already used to fund a number of existing government functions. If this is to be viewed as a “grant” then so is the current funding model, which is to liquidate trees (a state/public asset) and deposit those revenues in the Forest Resources Improvement Fund which today pays the Demonstration State Forest expenses. The difference is that the proposed business model represents a far more efficient way to create jobs (3-5x more per $ spent in managing the forest). Current practice is rooted in the view of the world as of 1947 when the state bought Jackson.
In any case, I don’t read the legislation as representing a “make-work” policy. Indeed the main argument against the Bill is that it will automagically _reduce_ jobs (no data or evidence given, as usual) and the lack of insight from most Supervisors at the recent BoS discussion about this did not reflect any awareness on their part that more jobs would be created despite having been sent my report prior to the meeting. That analysis, however, came out well after the Bill was authored.
Forest restoration (and enhanced recreation and new research initiatives) happen to create more jobs per $ invested than using heavy equipment and relatively few people to log, transport, and mill timber, i.e. it’s more efficient job creation than at present. And the existing workforce is perfectly equipped to do these tasks, plus it is more shielded from wild fluctuations in work availability resulting from suppressed timber prices, recessions, pandemics, protests, forest closures due to fire, etc. It’s a double-dividend (more & more secure jobs, healthier forest). The present approach, removing 5,600 logging trucks per year from the 14 State Forests (not to mention all the road-building, etc.) to meet a small $10M budget – much of which is re-spent to facilitate the removal of more trees – is not an optimal use of public resources.
Mr. Mills provides useful information and I appreciate his viewpoint. Nonetheless, these programs are financed primarily by a 1% assessment on lumber and engineered wood products sold at the retail level in California. A tax always suppresses economic activity which in this case are those involved in selling lumber products. It needs reminding that they hire people too and in a more productive way.
I learned today that revenues from this assessment go into a fund that supports state agency staffing, permitting, oversight, enforcement, and environmental protection. Is it not time to acknowledge that state agencies and their far-reaching regulations are stifling non-government businesses? As it is government is the leading employer in Mendocino County.
We seem to agree that Cal Fire is stifling and underachieving the potential of Jackson and the other Demonstration State Forests. AB 2494 aims to vaslly increase the role of restoration-focused businesses in these forests -- and the number of non-govermental employees who can earn a living -- which is something we might also both agree is a good thing.
To some extent. However, just because they are not permanent employees of the government doesn't mean they are not employed by the government. It is more appropriate to call them temporary government employees, not non-government employees. Money is so tight in this County that it cannot afford to maintain roads properly or balance its budget. A new mindset is needed that does not involve government spending.
Those and some earlier points are red herrings and veer away from the facts.
1. The “government” jobs serving Jackson (now or proposed) are not County jobs.
2. This Legislation is not asking the County to put $ into Jackson.
3. There are far more non-government jobs serving the Demonstration State Forests than gov’t ones, and that ratio would only grow under the Legislation, which seems to be what you want.
4. Revenues from the biomass removed for restoration could cover the entire budget, and could even grow the budget without relying on the lumber sales tax, so the concern about even a 1% tax is a tempest in a teapot.
5. I doubt that private timber workers (still needed), hotel owners, or mountain bike guides would appreciate being referred to as “temporary government employees”.
Perhaps you can distinguish yourself from the opponents of this legislation by proposing something concrete and constructive that will achieve the goals and objectives (better forest health and biodiversity, good research, enhanced recreation, reduced fire risk, more durable carbon storage, native co-management) without government mismanagement. The last time this forest was managed exclusively by the private sector, the results ran entirely contrary to the current goals. It was even worse than government management, if you can imagine that!
Well, you certainly have become testy. Some responses.
1. The jobs are paid for with state government funds, derived mostly from the GHG fund which is money extracted from productive businesses. This contributes to CA's wretched economy which in turn effects Mendocino's economy. But you don't seem to mind so long as it goes toward your favorite projects.
2. If our economy was better, the County would be in a better position to maintain roads. My comment was about the 1% sales tax increase to pay for the roads, not timber tax that you sniffed at as being inconsequential.
3. I recall that biofuels were tried before but ended in failure, especially in terms of generating electricity.
Since we are now trading barbs, perhaps you can distinguish yourself from other environmental elites by seeing these issues through the eyes of blue-collar workers and propose something that doesn't make the state and the County less affordable by sucking tax dollars out of the hands of productive businesses. The world doesn't end at the boundaries of the JDF.
California has the 4th largest economy in the world, thus the state should look for better ways to grow local economies, and this bill is a start. This bill does not create a new tax; it simply changes the way forests are funded. I think JR is confusing "biomass" removal with "biofuels". I believe Evan is referring to the removal of crowded, small diameter trees and invasive shrubs left from legacy industrial logging, which are creating a fire hazard.
Beautiful job elise. Really lovely writing. This deserves a broader audience.
The purpose of these projects, it is stated, is to pursue environmental projects that are job intensive. The article fails to report that the funding for these projects comes primarily from state grants. So, what we have here is similar to Depression Era WPA make work projects. Which did not end the Depression then and even if it has a short-term impact on our local economy, the long-term impacts will be negative. A sugar high if you will.
I have a more generous interpretation than JR Michael Redding. And, actually, the funding would come from an _existing_ tax on lumber (via the Timber Regulation and Restoration Fund) that is already used to fund a number of existing government functions. If this is to be viewed as a “grant” then so is the current funding model, which is to liquidate trees (a state/public asset) and deposit those revenues in the Forest Resources Improvement Fund which today pays the Demonstration State Forest expenses. The difference is that the proposed business model represents a far more efficient way to create jobs (3-5x more per $ spent in managing the forest). Current practice is rooted in the view of the world as of 1947 when the state bought Jackson.
In any case, I don’t read the legislation as representing a “make-work” policy. Indeed the main argument against the Bill is that it will automagically _reduce_ jobs (no data or evidence given, as usual) and the lack of insight from most Supervisors at the recent BoS discussion about this did not reflect any awareness on their part that more jobs would be created despite having been sent my report prior to the meeting. That analysis, however, came out well after the Bill was authored.
Forest restoration (and enhanced recreation and new research initiatives) happen to create more jobs per $ invested than using heavy equipment and relatively few people to log, transport, and mill timber, i.e. it’s more efficient job creation than at present. And the existing workforce is perfectly equipped to do these tasks, plus it is more shielded from wild fluctuations in work availability resulting from suppressed timber prices, recessions, pandemics, protests, forest closures due to fire, etc. It’s a double-dividend (more & more secure jobs, healthier forest). The present approach, removing 5,600 logging trucks per year from the 14 State Forests (not to mention all the road-building, etc.) to meet a small $10M budget – much of which is re-spent to facilitate the removal of more trees – is not an optimal use of public resources.
Mr. Mills provides useful information and I appreciate his viewpoint. Nonetheless, these programs are financed primarily by a 1% assessment on lumber and engineered wood products sold at the retail level in California. A tax always suppresses economic activity which in this case are those involved in selling lumber products. It needs reminding that they hire people too and in a more productive way.
I learned today that revenues from this assessment go into a fund that supports state agency staffing, permitting, oversight, enforcement, and environmental protection. Is it not time to acknowledge that state agencies and their far-reaching regulations are stifling non-government businesses? As it is government is the leading employer in Mendocino County.
We seem to agree that Cal Fire is stifling and underachieving the potential of Jackson and the other Demonstration State Forests. AB 2494 aims to vaslly increase the role of restoration-focused businesses in these forests -- and the number of non-govermental employees who can earn a living -- which is something we might also both agree is a good thing.
To some extent. However, just because they are not permanent employees of the government doesn't mean they are not employed by the government. It is more appropriate to call them temporary government employees, not non-government employees. Money is so tight in this County that it cannot afford to maintain roads properly or balance its budget. A new mindset is needed that does not involve government spending.
Those and some earlier points are red herrings and veer away from the facts.
1. The “government” jobs serving Jackson (now or proposed) are not County jobs.
2. This Legislation is not asking the County to put $ into Jackson.
3. There are far more non-government jobs serving the Demonstration State Forests than gov’t ones, and that ratio would only grow under the Legislation, which seems to be what you want.
4. Revenues from the biomass removed for restoration could cover the entire budget, and could even grow the budget without relying on the lumber sales tax, so the concern about even a 1% tax is a tempest in a teapot.
5. I doubt that private timber workers (still needed), hotel owners, or mountain bike guides would appreciate being referred to as “temporary government employees”.
Perhaps you can distinguish yourself from the opponents of this legislation by proposing something concrete and constructive that will achieve the goals and objectives (better forest health and biodiversity, good research, enhanced recreation, reduced fire risk, more durable carbon storage, native co-management) without government mismanagement. The last time this forest was managed exclusively by the private sector, the results ran entirely contrary to the current goals. It was even worse than government management, if you can imagine that!
Well, you certainly have become testy. Some responses.
1. The jobs are paid for with state government funds, derived mostly from the GHG fund which is money extracted from productive businesses. This contributes to CA's wretched economy which in turn effects Mendocino's economy. But you don't seem to mind so long as it goes toward your favorite projects.
2. If our economy was better, the County would be in a better position to maintain roads. My comment was about the 1% sales tax increase to pay for the roads, not timber tax that you sniffed at as being inconsequential.
3. I recall that biofuels were tried before but ended in failure, especially in terms of generating electricity.
Since we are now trading barbs, perhaps you can distinguish yourself from other environmental elites by seeing these issues through the eyes of blue-collar workers and propose something that doesn't make the state and the County less affordable by sucking tax dollars out of the hands of productive businesses. The world doesn't end at the boundaries of the JDF.
California has the 4th largest economy in the world, thus the state should look for better ways to grow local economies, and this bill is a start. This bill does not create a new tax; it simply changes the way forests are funded. I think JR is confusing "biomass" removal with "biofuels". I believe Evan is referring to the removal of crowded, small diameter trees and invasive shrubs left from legacy industrial logging, which are creating a fire hazard.
Thanks exactly correct.
Great Job Elise.
In depth reporting, while presenting both sides.
Respect!!