2nd District: John McCowen campaigns on his record

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Independent? McCowen operates from group-think good old boyism on every issue.

Second District Voter wrote:

<quoted text>
If McCowen is such a good old boy, then why are the good old boys like Selzer, Mayfield, Mulheren, and Graff all backing his opponent?
The truth is McCowen has been a leader in opposing the disatrous projects they support.
Your opposition, "little truth seeker", is because McCowen tried to do something about the out of control marijuana cultivation which you personally profit from, right? You have already been id'd as Tom Davenport, a commercial grower and mouthpiece for No on B.

Second District Voter wrote:

<quoted text>
And it is the ethical and independent part that really bothers the Employer Council types like Selzer and Mayfield. They are very wealthy men who are use to getting their way. McCowen has stood up to them for years and has put the public interest first. He has listened to the community and he knows we do not want to lose our small town character. They support the strip mall at Masonite. They know he will stop it if he gets in.

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoever "ID'ed" me as "Tom Davenport" is a moron.
I doubt if there's any voter in this county who opposes the eradication of illegal commercial grows. Certainly not me, but this thread isn't about marijuana. It's about whether or not John MCowen is running on his REAL record in this county, i.e. his 7 years on the planning commission. The record shows John McCowen NEVER met a environmentally disastrous project he didn't like or couldn't approve without an EIR, no matter how many people raised a "fair argument" against the project. McCowen's REAL record is he does NOT listen to anyone in the community opposed to his opinions, he ignores CEQA, he ignores the Brown Act, and he uses good old boyism to bully his agendas through with county employees and the BOS. That's John McCowen's REAL record per the administrative records of various projects and the 1st District Appellate Court's UNANIMOUS decision to reverse the BOS's approval of the aforementioned project.
Read the REAL record and educate yourself.

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
McCowen uses good old boyism to bully his agendas through with county employees and the BOS. That's John McCowen's REAL record per the administrative records of various projects and the 1st District Appellate Court's UNANIMOUS decision to reverse the BOS's approval of the aforementioned project.

Don Lipmanson wrote:

As someone who served on the county planning commission with John McCowen for more than six years, I concur with the description of him as independent. So independent that he seems to listen to few people besides himself, as I saw when he tried to shut up and cut off public comment at a couple commission meetings on the coast where the great majority of speakers opposed cell tower construction. It took major confrontation to get him to back down and let most everyone be heard.

I respect John's history of public service and share many of his views about protecting the environment, but his self-certainty and his dictatorial attitude - that people should defer to and not question his wisdom or good intentions - make me wonder about electing him supervisor.

county employee wrote:

You must have gone to different meetings. When McCowen was chair he let members of the public speak for 20 minutes or more if they were on topic and not repeating themsleves. Everyone else uses the 3 minute rule. He worked hard to get all the information on the table, then have the discussion. He was respectful of staff and the public, not like the clown show we see now at the BOS. We need John on the Board.
PS: Don Lipmanson is a convicted marijuana grower and marijana defense attorney. Is there a common thread here?

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
What a concept! McCowen lets members of the public speak at public meetings. What a guy!
The question is does McCowen LISTEN to members of the public. According to the impartial UNANIMOUS decision of the judges at the 1st District Appellate Court, the answer to that question is NO. McCowen does not LISTEN to members of the public.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search ...
If McCowen had listened to members of the public and their legal and environmental experts instead of snarking them in illegal confidential memos to the BOS, McCowen would have saved Mendocino County millions of dollars in legal fees and environmental damage.
Expect more of the same if he gets elected.

county employee wrote:

<quoted text>
"Little truth seeker," your many lies on behalf of the commercial marijuana growers have been well documented and this is more of the same.
Care to provide documentation for your improbable claims that McCowen cost the county "millions in legal fees and environmental damage"? Oh, you have no documentation?
That is the beauty of this anonymours forum. You have the freedom to stand truth on its head. But here is the real truth: you don't live in the second district, you know nothing about McCowen's record, you are only interested in protecting your illegal cash crop.
PS: Your link goes nowhere for me. Why not do us all a service and print the part where the Apellate Court finds McCowen guilty of all the things you claim? Or would that be a problem because maybe his name never appears in the court decision you cite or any other?
Here is one for you. My friend who works in Redwood Valley and is on the volunteer fire department says they voted Clifton out of the fire department after her probationary period becasue she was lazy and not a team player. She was into bsing with the guys, but not pulling her share. I think a lot of her other resume is equally thin when you start looking at it. She needs to get some life experience. She will be in way over her head at the BOS.

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are really a "county employee", you already have easy access to all the documents, including tape recordings of planning commission meetings, I have referenced. Read the documents, listen to the tapes, educate yourself instead of lashing out and viciously libeling anyone who doesn't agree with your obviously uninformed and ignorant opinions.

county employee wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you know all about it why not just provide the info? Now you want me to listen to eight or ten years of planning commission tapes? Just maybe the facts are not as you say.

Rocker Chick wrote:

Three women on the BOS would be great. It would be fun to watch John Pinches navigate that one.

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
The link has already been posted on the previous page of this thread along with the names and resumes of the legal and environmental experts McCowen smeared in his letter to the BOS. Keep up.

Ukiah shopper wrote:

<quoted text>
A link that does not back up your wild claims of costing the County "millions" for legal fees and environmental damage.
If you have the info why not just paste it right in here for all to see? I think we all want to read the apellate court decision with McCowen's name in it. Don't you want us to see it? In other words, put up or shut up.
Kind of funny when you conisder McCowen gets hit by the rabid right for being an environmental extremist and he gets hit by the loony left for not being enviro enought.

Ukiah shopper wrote:

<quoted text>
I think we all want to read the apellate court decision with McCowen's name in it.

truth_seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Good! You can read the lawsuit, the Administrative Record with John McCowen's name, reports, comments, and his letters to the BOS in it, the Appellate Court's decision, and the Writ of Mandate issued by Ukiah Superior Court available at the Ukiah courthouse anytime you want M-F between 8 am and 4 pm.
NcCowen was aware of the landmark CEQA case, Sundstrom v Mendocino County in which the court ruled: "the agency should not be allowed to hide behind its failure to gather relevant data," because "CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than on the public." Where the agency has failed to produce crucial information, deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a plausibility to a wider range of inferences."
(Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 202 Cal.App.3d 296).
McCowen was also aware of another landmark CEQA case, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, in which the court ruled: "... if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect."
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68).
McCowen knew what the law was and arrogantly disregarded the law. The reason being he thought he could get away with it. He characterized the opposition as "two people and a dog" and bet that the "two people and a dog" would just fade away. He was wrong.
This case merely illustrate the way John MCowen thinks and operates. He knows what the state and federal laws are but he is willing to disregard and ignore the law IF, in his mind, the opposition appears to be someone insignificant and without resources. Is that the kind of man Mendocino County wants or needs making decisions on its Board of Supervisors?